Steps out of Lockdown: What Next for Safety in the Outdoors?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

Slim chance of accident but I'm solo, far from help, so how wise will serious hillwalking look as we return to the outdoors?

As we contemplate a gradual return to the outdoors, there seem to be more questions than answers. Chief among them are two: virus safety; and the complex issue of rescue. Here we look at a new staged plan from the BMC; an alternative proposal based on the impact of our choices on rescue teams; and the thoughts of Mountain Rescue themselves. 


Read more

13
 olliee 07 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

The BMC document seems pretty good on the whole, although I would have thought a ‘less is more’ approach may have been better, sub-dividing the various climbing disciplines up and presenting them as a scale low to high risk continues to enforce the idea that there could be an element of unjustifiable risk in climbing.  But we are where we are.

The following is a little alarming:  

 ‘If walkers and climbers don't come up with plausible solutions to the problems of rescue during the pandemic, there is a danger that we will have a solution imposed on us. Already, the spectre of licensing or competency certificates issued by the authorities has been mooted.’

Is climbing becoming ‘licensed’ something that could happen?  First I have heard of it.  Anyone know what has lead to this?

In reply to olliee:

I too am very uneasy about NGB's grading risk of an activity ie scrambling in Skye = Bouldering, and Trad is riskier than Sport. Seems to be opening pandoras box if this is quoted by insurance companies and landowners. Seems odd 

1
 Si dH 08 May 2020
In reply to Duncan McCallum:

Insurance companies already do this in a ham fisted way. If you get a life insurance policy to include rock climbing the cost depends on where you do it, whether you do trad or not, and to what grade. They also ask about alpine and high altitude stuff as you'd expect.

When I got a new policy recently, getting it cover any trad above HVS tripled the monthly cost. I only climb trad rarely now so have just got coverage up to that grade.

Bit off topic.

Post edited at 09:12
 kaiser 08 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I see that it's reported that Govt are planning to let professional football take place without spectators.

If a contact sport involving 22 people from different households, half of them travelling long distances, is allowed then it's not credible for hill walking and climbing to be restricted.

Credibility is important (never a strong point of this Govt).  If arbitrary things happen like allowing golf and tennis then people don't respect that and won't comply.

Post edited at 09:13
 kwoods 08 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

"Already, the spectre of licensing or competency certificates issued by the authorities has been mooted."

What is the source of this? If this is the trend going ahead (I can't even see the benefit of an insurance-based system), surely the worst thing you can do as a climbing community is publicise graded 'returns' trying to quantify risk in headers. 

Post edited at 09:43
 Martin Hore 08 May 2020
In reply to Si dH:

> When I got a new policy recently, getting it cover any trad above HVS tripled the monthly cost. I only climb trad rarely now so have just got coverage up to that grade.

What a strange approach for the insurance company to take. (I appreciate the decisions of insurance companies are always pretty unfathomable when it comes to adventure activities - many seem to believe that climbing with ropes is more dangerous than climbing without ropes).

Are there any statistics comparing the incidence of accidents in the E grades with accidents at HVS and below? I would doubt they support this decision.

Martin

In reply to olliee:

It's an anonymous source reporting conversations that have taken place at a local level in a popular mountain area. Hence me trying to keep it vague.

We see talk of competency certificates in the media every few years, usually after there's been a spate of accidents in the public eye, so it's not unprecedented. But I think we here can all agree it's a non-starter

8
 Ronbo 08 May 2020

I've read the guidance and the risk profiling for rescue is fundamentally flawed.

The risk is a function of severity and probability.

Lets consider the likelyhood of an accident occuring "summer hillwalking" (not scrambling) - relatively unlikely I would suggest, whilst there are accidents many more hours are spent undertaking the activity.  Injuries are likely to be less severe, broken ankle, exhaustion, lost, cold et cetera and require fewer MR resources being in close proximity.

  • How many accidents requiring MR do we have per 10,000 hours undertaking the activity?
  • What are the resources required to extracate a casualty?  A helicopter or MR team?  Extracting someone lost, tired and cold is much much easier and may not involve team members being in close proximity.

Lets compare this to climbing.

Personally I know many people that have had climbing accidents - broken pelvis et cetera, do we have stats on the number of accidents per 10,000 hours of the activity?  Injuries are typically more severe climbing.

Rescue is complex at the bottom (or worse half way up) a crag.

Scrambling is also a higher risk.

Does anyone have statistics so a quantitve analysis can be undertaken?

1
 configureeight 08 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Woodhouse Scar

So climbing trad at Woodhouse Scar 5 mins walk across the park in Halifax town centre would be “deemed” to be less safe than Mountain Biking in the all the nearby woods...

....can of worms+tin opener=?

 james mann 08 May 2020
In reply to Ronbo:

The bmc document contains data about MR call outs. Hillwalking is the greatest cause of callouts. 52 rock climbing incidents and 559 Hillwalking. There is also a comparison with other sports; football and horse riding are more dangerous.

James

 Paul Sagar 08 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I'm sorry but the BMC document makes the classic mistake of writing the document the BMC wants to read, not one that Government will be most responsive to. 

Think about how many hundreds of sporting activities take place in the UK, each with their own sub-categories and disciplines (wind surfing, kayaking, kite surfing, angling - to name but 4 that immediately came to mind). Each will be lobbying and want special clarification. How can anyone at the BMC think that government - overwhelmed and harassed as it now must be - will have time to take note of 'phase 1-3' let alone the distinction between sport and trad climbing etc. 

What this document should have done is made the case for a safe return to the outdoors, urging government to see that letting people use outdoor spaces is low risk in terms of virus transmission, good for people's well-being and mental health, has some economic benefits - and then left the risk of whether to do bouldering, sport or trad where it belongs: in the judgement of the individuals choosing what to do.

I commend the BMC for trying, but as somebody above said - less is more.

Post edited at 10:29
1
 kwoods 08 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Seems there are two issues going on. There's conversation about phased returning. I can see the logic; sport to winter is quite clear-cut in risk, but lumping bouldering and scrambling together is absurd; this analysis is bound to become abstract beyond a point. I have a mental image of everybody standing under the Dumbarton 7bs because they-said-it-was-OK. For the benefit of social distancing, what if folk just travelled to the secluded corners of their guidebook, climbing with folk they are close to anyway? 

But there's the real issue of MRT extraction. We're seeing attempts to dissect risk into headers. It feels to me like the relevant bodies (UKC/BMC? etc) feel they have to voice a way out of the climbing ceasefire having got themselves into it. At best it seems (just drudge, why? and) not necessarily the most lucid message. But sure, encourage conservative decision making. At worst it would be a way for the authorities to jump on the (non)issue. That is also subtly raised in the article, although as usual these things in practice are dropped because they are entirely unworkable.

When the time comes I'll take my cue from the rescue teams and quietly go about my outdoor business again. Appreciate in England and Wales there is access to contend with, and I remain grateful that in Scotland this is not nearly the same barrier.

 Gawyllie 08 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Looking at this from the NE of Scotland it doesn't really make much sense. Understand most of it is BMC but guessing MS could follow in a similar vein.

I understand what the rescue resource approach is trying to do but really dont agree with it.

Sport climbing under 6b pretty much means 'Kirrie Hill which is busy at the best of times. 

Much of the seacliff climbing here is accessible and short and the climbers that climb on them tend to have knowledge of tides and conditions hence there being few, if any incidents. Don't see how this should be classed as further up a scale than Mountain trad. 

The below is 2018 Scottish MRT data. in the whole year there were 6 call outs for rock climbing. There were 158 for summer hillwalking and then next closest would be winter hillwalking with 75. these two account for 94% of all call outs in both 2017 and 2018.

I appreciate more people will go hillwalking and that will account for some of the higher numbers but at the same time that is huge proportion of the callouts. Looking at this I don't see how you could justify saying hillwalking (let alone scarmbling) is fine but cragging is not.

https://d1ssu070pg2v9i.cloudfront.net/pex/scottishmountainrescue/2019/09/25...

another approach could be to focus more on behaviour rather than activity? perhaps clear guidance along the lines of XX miles from home, don't take unnecessary risks, no Mountain trad, no overnight trips.

Could be an opportunity to push people to take more responsibility for what they are doing and build up skills that would reduce the chance of call outs. The 2nd and 3rd highest cause of callout was 'Nav Error' and 'Lost'.

Post edited at 11:22
 Luke90 08 May 2020
In reply to Gawyllie:

> The 2nd and 3rd highest cause of callout was 'Nav Error' and 'Lost'.

Hard to see how those are distinct entries!

1
 mountfenton 08 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I think we are getting this wrong if we try to categorise climbing activities - we use a language understood by few. Why not simply have a simple approach of access time - Phase one - Guide book access time less than 15 min, Phase 2 Guidebook access time less than 30 min, Phase 3 all crags. Then have guidelines for Coronavirus best practice per activity. The whole 'lock down' have been based on travel time from home, use that as a universally understood concept - not the activity. How could bouldering at Cloggy not appear more of a risk, than sports climbing at Castle Inn in terms of the lay person.

2
 Mr Lopez 08 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

If as it seems MR callouts are a bit of a point of contention, with MR concerned about being called in and our activity or lack-of being shaped and restrcited around the possibilities of MR being needed and MR in a way dictating how and when we can climb, then maybe we could operate in a way that we minimise the need for them?

So for example, we could have the climbing/walking community taking reponsibility of assisting our own, with members of the community volunteering to help other climbers or hill walkers when needed, encouraging people to get versed in first aid and extraction techniques so that we can respond ourselves to any incidents in our area without having to call in the uniformed emergency services. We could have donation systems set up so we get some equipment and possibly some more specialised/qualified training for some. We could hence be self-reliant and be able to do our activities freely looking after our own.

We could even give it a nice sounding name. Hill Rescue? Climber Rescue? Something like that but relating to mountains? Can't think of a catchy name right now...

1
 jethro kiernan 08 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I’m hoping a that a return to the MRT original guidelines will be on the horizon, bearing in mind a significant number of MRT volunteers are directly (self)employed or indirectly involved in the outdoor industry.

once we start coming out of the lockdown bubble and seeing the community wide financial wasteland that places like Llanberis will be facing,  a managed return to some outdoor activity will become a necessity for at least some members of MRT and the wider community. 

 Dax H 08 May 2020
In reply to kaiser:

> I see that it's reported that Govt are planning to let professional football take place without spectators.

> If a contact sport involving 22 people from different households, half of them travelling long distances, is allowed then it's not credible for hill walking and climbing to be restricted.

We (I don't include myself in this) are a nation of football lovers. Millions of people watch the games and support the teams. Getting them playing again will help the mental welfare of far more people than "opening the hills" and though the game involves close contact between 22 people plus support staff and traveling they will I have no doubt all be tested so the transmission risk will be far lower than x thousand people who head out to stanage crag. 

5
 aostaman 08 May 2020
In reply to kaiser:

> I see that it's reported that Govt are planning to let professional football take place without spectators.

> If a contact sport involving 22 people from different households, half of them travelling long distances, is allowed then it's not credible for hill walking and climbing to be restricted.

> Credibility is important (never a strong point of this Govt).  If arbitrary things happen like allowing golf and tennis then people don't respect that and won't comply.

Everyone wants to quote 'professional football' and then plonk their own sport as a comparison and justify their own viewpoint. The truth is it simply isn't relevant. It's not all 'professional football'. The only league in Britain where it will be possible is the Premier League. This is because they effectively have unlimited amounts of money to test and re-test up to 300 people (players, doctors, trainers, physios, security, bus drivers etc) per game (it's nowhere near 22). The proposals (as I understand) are for all teams and staffs to be effectively quarantined in locked down hotels for the period of the 9 games that each would play at a limited number of neutral venues with no spectators. All this is funded by global broadcast contracts. No-one else could do that, not Wimbledon, not golf or cricket (sadly for me).

Golf I can't stand, but whether we like it or not, it is one sport that it is completely possible to do while distancing, outdoor tennis, maybe. I play badminton, football and I climb (Cornwall, so it's trad) . I'm stuffed, and maybe grumpy about it, but comparing it to the Premier League is pointless.

Will I climb soon. Cornwall will remain quiet (I suspect) for a while but Bosi, Sennen, Chair Ladder, Trewavas are trad and always busy (virus transmission) and many other crags are remote and rescue is always going to involve a lot of people and probably helicopters. 

It's tough but climbing has to work out its own code and avoid honey potting or avoid climbing for a while yet. I really believe that if there are photos of Stanage looking like Snowdon pre lockdown, blocking roads and 3 MRT call outs in the press, local pressures will grow to control access.

2
Removed User 08 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

A few years back a Dr Bob Sharp was commissioned (by the MC of S as I recall) to carry out a rigorous statistical analysis of mountain rescue incidents in Scotland. His conclusion was that the average Scottish hillgoer would have to go on the hill every day of the week 52 weeks of the year for over a hundred years before becoming a rescue statistic of any kind let alone a fatality. 

1
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

"Consistent messaging across the UK will be required, they suggest, since many walkers and climbers travel across country borders to carry out their activities."

"A united approach across all four home nations is essential to ensure that as people are allowed to travel once again, there is a clear and unambiguous set of measures in place that applies across the UK."

They should take these sentences out.  It's political, none of the BMC's business as an England and Wales organisation and not appropriate in a document addressed at the UK government.

Scotland has different geography, different access rules  and is at a different stage in the epidemic.  It is up to the Scottish Government when and how it lifts restrictions and it is not 'essential' that it follows whatever Boris decides.  

5
 C Witter 08 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

The "risk resources scale" at the end is utterly demented, and the conversations going on about licensing (in Wales, I imagine) are beyond contempt.

 Little Rascal 08 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

The concept of personal competence and ability seems to have been missed out completely.  Bouldering, which by definition means pushing your physical limit (and also means highballing for many) can't really be safer than a trad bimble well below your grade can it? So in Phase 1, I can go and try Big Air but have to wait until Phase 3 before I can stroll up Heaven Crack...?

In conversation with members of Ogwen Valley team last year, when we assisted with a rescue, they said they vary rarely get called out to anyone climbing hard trad these days. Vast majority were hillwalkers.

It makes sense to highlight areas of 'normal' behaviour that might cause transmission eg sharing belays, but surely education on this and encouraging personal responsibility - and perhaps general climbing caution for a period - is better than micro management and attempts to define risk - which is virtually impossible considering the complexity involved.

2
 Misha 08 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Talking of rescues... this is the kind of stuff which I imagine takes up a lot of Coastguard and MRT time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-52588352

I got cut off by the tide at the Diamond on Little Orme with a few friends once. We tried to escape another way but decided it was too dicey (that’s why we got cut off - we had assumed it would be feasible going that way). So we just waited a few hours till the tide went back out sufficiently. By then it was dark but we had head torches so it was no bother but for Joe Bloggs it would have been a Coastguard call out, albeit Joe Bloggs won’t have been able to get there in the first place as the approach involves an abseil and a via ferrata. 

1
 Oceanrower 08 May 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I think lockdown is getting to me. I've just found myself agreeing with tom_in_edinburgh...

 PPP 08 May 2020
In reply to Paul Sagar:

That, and accident comparison between football and mountain activities is a bit of a moot point. How many people does it take to rescue a person from a football accident? I've been to A&E few times because of football, usually needs at most one person (driver) to get back to safety. Being injured on the hills? A dozen of MRT members from different neighbourhoods. 

That, and I dread an option where hillwalking becomes one of the few activities people can do. It's great the weather has been warm and nice, but it's a huge risk to allow people heading outdoors who don't do that regularly.

My quality of life is mostly affected by having to exercise in the urban jungle, but I disagree with BMC in this case - it doesn't affect me as much since it excludes Scotland. 

 kwoods 08 May 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> If as it seems MR callouts are a bit of a point of contention, with MR concerned about being called in and our activity or lack-of being shaped and restrcited around the possibilities of MR being needed and MR in a way dictating how and when we can climb, then maybe we could operate in a way that we minimise the need for them?

Relating to your point, one thing I have wondered on occasion is when does MR decide when it is acceptable to go back to the hills? It seems, a bit like UKCs logbook ban, that lifting it would be an awkward step change that they'd have to play carefully. Do they open themsevles up when the Government opens travelling? Maybe we are looking at a change in procedures and attitudes on all sides? Doesn't feel as though Covid isn't going anywhere any time soon.

Thinking critically about your point - imagine somebody got into a right state on the hill, and things took a turn for the worse. I'd guess that rescue teams would rather they'd been called out in the first place. After all, the original spirit of the rescue team was kind of as you describe anyway; members of the climbing/walking community assisting their own, using specialised skills and equipment and run by donations. That said, if the post-Covid world becomes an explosive atmosphere of implied selfishness on the part of the climber (backed up by social media accusation - and we were there already before Covid!), then I wouldn't be surprised that people try for self-rescue instead. Maybe that isn't a bad thing.

 mgce25c 08 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

This is a really tricky thing to get balanced. The vast majority of MR are climbers and walkers first and MR second. On an individual basis, these people want to get out as much as anyone else and are fully behind anybody else’s desire to do the same. 
 

The main reason that I joined a MR team was a desire to do my bit and help like minded people. It was also to get some credit in, just in case I ever had an accident.!

I have pride in the dedication and ability that my team shows and this is where it starts to get tricky. 


I know that we are down on numbers, and are more likely to take a long time to rescue someone, and may have to ask some to self rescue. I also that there is an additional risk to the team, not fully understood yet.  Having the above pride, this really hurts - knowing that we might not be able to help, at least not as well as we might have done previously. I think this is where some are finding it hard to get the right balance, in what is the reality of what comes next?

 OnlineClimber 08 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Good start but think this process should have been started earlier, not so people could be doing these activities sooner but so more widespread feedback could be gathered and possibly side effects discussed.  For instance is see this approach meaning larger numbers of people participating in particular forms of activities that they are unfamiliar with at a smaller number of venues than spreading out doing activities that they are familiar and are used to the risks of. 

 Trevers 08 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

For myself (and I would imagine a large fraction of climbers in the UK), sport climbing is best enjoyed when pushing my grade, whereas trad is much more satisfying in general.

While I would agree that the risk of death/serious injury in sport climbing is less at the sharp end (and also sport climbing tends to have more accessible approaches in the UK than trad), the idea that in the present climate sport is somehow obviously an objectively safer option than trad, when the risk we're trying to minimise is of small injuries requiring any hospital treatment, seems pretty ridiculous.

Post edited at 18:45
1
 Ramon Marin 08 May 2020
In reply to Paul Sagar:

Really well put, totally agree

 Misha 08 May 2020
In reply to Trevers:

Just to clarify, are you suggesting that pushing the grade on sport is more dangerous than keeping within your grade on trad? I would disagree. Provided a clipstick is used for the first couple of bolts, a helmet is worn and a knot is tied at the dead end of the rope (which is all best practice at the best of times), sport climbing would result in hardly any serious injuries and very few injuries generally. A few sprained ankles perhaps but this is rarely an issue with good (dynamic) belaying. The fact that people regularly fall off sport climbing doesn't mean they get injured, otherwise there would be an ambulance parked at Malham etc every weekend.

Whereas with trad there's always going to be more of a risk even on relatively safe routes, particularly if people aren't experienced at placing gear. A careless slip sport climbing is going to be far less of an issue than a careless slip on trad. You've also got to factor in that descents from trad routes tend to me more risky (often scrambles or abseils), so there's an element of risk there as well. Of course the risks with trad can be managed down to an insignificant level but it's always going to be more risky than sport.

5
 Dave the Rave 08 May 2020
In reply to olliee:

I’m not in mountain rescue but work frontline and see  Covid patients daily and also have colleagues who have tested positive.

Personally, and I accept others views, especially those of MRT’s, I would have no problem if I was a rescuer being called to a casualty not knowing if they had Covid or not. 

1
 Misha 08 May 2020
In reply to Paul Sagar:

The reality is that climbing and to a lesser extent hill walking are seen as 'dangerous' by the general public and probably by the powers that be. There is also a strong 'countryside' lobby which is not keen on 'urbanites' coming to the countryside right now (in fact some farmers in particular are not keen on countryside rights of way at the best of time). So I think the BMC is right to break things down in terms of risk of injury and contagion in an attempt to get the powers that be to agree that at least some activities can resume. If the BMC just said 'could you please give us the go ahead for all forms of hill walking and climbing', I imagine that would get fairly short shrift.

2
 M H Charlton 08 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Good to see some sensible thought and constructive suggestions, if at times a little over-engineered.   

My key concern - as a resident of rural Wales - is the zeitgeist of paranoia that currently prevails over anyone coming into the area from afar.  The website of Pembs National Park website, for example, has a shameful message from its president asking people to stay away (unnecessary because they can't travel here anyway) because their 'priority' is to protect the health of the people of Pembrokeshire!  It's worth just thinking about that a moment - surely their responsibility is to ALL people and the reason to stay at home is that ANY PERSONS gathering in numbers might spread the virus to others.  The national park is for all the people of Wales and the UK not just for locals and the Park Authority surely has a responsibility to everyone, not a special one for residents of Pembrokeshire - just as the National Stadium is not owned by or especially for the use of the residents of Cardiff where it is situated.

 This might seem like word-smithing  -  but words are important - and the current ones encourage an undercurrent of 'keep the infected invaders out and at bay!'  We who are lucky enough to live in rural areas would do well to remember all those 'others' and 'outsiders' who every day supply us with goods and services on which our rural communities depend - those people are not prioritising their health by not coming to support us! 

The tone of the communication from the Park is also conspicuous in its lack of any sense of regret.  Nowhere can I see on their website any mention of sorrow.  Compare their social media message at Easter  - "there's never been a worse time to visit Pembrokeshire'. with Ramblers Cymru message that 'with great sadness, we announce that all events are cancelled..'  Interesting how the use of that simple word 'sadness' makes all the difference.  Within minutes of my home are official signs confirming closure of the Coast Path - not on any of them is an equivalent expression of regret - would that have been so difficult to include? Instead, we have additional signs from fearful locals urging Stay Away - Go Home - and other neo-tribal slogans.

Apologies for the ramble and rant at the National Park - I guess my key point is that we need somehow to get over this over-inflated fear of honeypots and gatherings at beauty spots - which has led to huge areas of the countryside being closed.  There's a world of difference between partying at Tenby Beach and walking at Strumble Head - the same for walking the tourist track up Pen y Fan vs backpacking in the Grwyne Fawr - and yet, as things stand, we have the entire Coast Path closed for fear of a few beaches and the whole of the Beacons off-limits because of concerns over two or three popular peaks. While we are in lockdown that is just about acceptable - but as we emerge we need a more sophisticated and intelligent approach.

Post edited at 20:08
1
 Paul Sagar 08 May 2020

can I just remind everybody that right now avoiding visits to A&E is no more of a priority than this time last year

8 weeks ago, avoiding hospitals was necessary because hospitals were about to be flooded with Covid19 cases. But right now hospitals are not at that point because the peak has passed. (If anything, an increasing major concern is people with serious medical issues not going to hospital soon enough because they are scared of Coronavirus and so fatalities are higher on that side than they should be.)

So the conversation about climbing right now should explicitly be about virus transmission - not whether or not you might get injured below the level of needing MR assistance.

 JHiley 08 May 2020
In reply to Dax H:

> We (I don't include myself in this) are a nation of football lovers. Millions of people watch the games and support the teams. Getting them playing again will help the mental welfare of far more people than "opening the hills" and though the game involves close contact between 22 people plus support staff and traveling they will I have no doubt all be tested so the transmission risk will be far lower than x thousand people who head out to stanage crag. 

I'd dispute the idea that watching football has a positive effect on mental welfare. If anything it seems to promote an angry, factional mentality along with alcoholism, gambling addiction, domestic abuse and homophobia. Allowing elite professional football but no five asides in the park for ordinary people is nothing more than 'one rule for us, another for the super rich'.

2
 OnlineClimber 08 May 2020

Expanding on my point above: Let's leave a side the risks of accidents of trad Vs sport for a moment and consider the following:

A large proportion of trad takes place at sub HVS, of which there are thousands of routes and venues suitable to go to with good routes and solid rock. Take the equivalent grade in sport and there are alot less locations and number of routes with some geographic areas having very few venues at all. So to suggest sport is ok when trad isn't and isn't of a significantly greater infection risk could actually increase the overall infection rate as all the lower grade trad climbers fight over a limited amount of routes. In the peak for example where large numbers of people could access the crags without traveling far this could mean large numbers of climbers trying to compete for space at horseshit quarry, harpur hill and intake quarry rather than spread out across the many eastern and western grit crags doing traditional climbing. You are also directing people to do stuff they may not be familiar with such as lowering safely off a sport route rather than walking round the end of stanage. 

 Little Rascal 08 May 2020
In reply to OnlineClimber:

Adding to that the fact that apparently 60% of climbers only climb indoors and the climbing  climbing walls will be last to open. A lot of people will be tempted to try new things and the effects of the true situation on the ground needs to be carefully thought through.

The same has happened with cycling on country roads during lockdown. Road cycling deaths are double the expected average apparently and it's frankly dangerous trying to avoid people when I've had to travel myself (for essential trips.)

FWIW I'm happily training at home and in no hurry to go out climbing until it is safe to do so, as I live with vulnerable family and take that responsibility very seriously.  And of course I respect the opinions of the MR teams. But there does seem to be a fair amount of scope for getting back to mentally rewarding climbing that is still safe from a viral transmission point of view. It's just that careful thought is needed to avoid any unintended consequences.

Post edited at 22:07
 Misha 08 May 2020
In reply to Paul Sagar:

> can I just remind everybody that right now avoiding visits to A&E is no more of a priority than this time last year

Indeed - and it is a top priority at the best of times!

I'm genuinely surprised by how risk averse some people on UKC seem to have become. As I've said elsewhere, people who are competent can generally manage rock climbing risks down to a negligible level, especially when it comes to sport climbing.

As a friend of mine has remarked, it's amazing how anti-climbing the online climbing community is currently.

That said, there are some good reasons for not climbing at the moment - upsetting locals and landowners is the main one (plus for people who don't live with a climber it's against the rules anyway - hopefully that will change soon).

 Misha 08 May 2020
In reply to OnlineClimber:

This is true but there's a limit to the number of people at Horseshit etc due to limited parking. Also if the message from the BMC / MRTs is that sport is ok but not trad, I suspect in practice a lot of lower grade trad climbers won't bother. I may be wrong. 

 Paul Sagar 08 May 2020
In reply to Misha:

Yup, agree with that

 jt232 08 May 2020
In reply to Luke90:

> > The 2nd and 3rd highest cause of callout was 'Nav Error' and 'Lost'.

> Hard to see how those are distinct entries!

Nav error- 'I'm meant to be on top of Snowdon but I think I'm at the top of Scarfell Pike!'

Lost 'I think I'm in Snowdonia but I don't know where!'

 Luke90 09 May 2020
In reply to jt232:

> Nav error- 'I'm meant to be on top of Snowdon but I think I'm at the top of Scarfell Pike!'

You may know where you are now but I reckon you were certainly lost along the way.

> Lost 'I think I'm in Snowdonia but I don't know where!'

Which is surely also a navigation error!

In any case, I wasn't really trying to make a serious point. Just amused by the categorisation.

 Trevers 09 May 2020
In reply to Misha:

> Just to clarify, are you suggesting that pushing the grade on sport is more dangerous than keeping within your grade on trad?

Not quite, I'm suggesting that trad is not obviously more risky than sport at the moment, given how the current situation is likely to temper people's attitude to trad climbing vs sport. Admittedly I'm write this in the context of having great access to lots of awesome trad, but all the sport climbing locally is fairly uninspiring, and polished to buggery at the low standard to which I climb.

The BMC advice seems to be lacking the context of how people will behave in the current situation. Recommending scrambling as the lowest risk activity is insane given that people generally travel to approximately 3 specific mountains in England and Wales to do it.

 Misha 09 May 2020
In reply to Trevers:

I guess if people dial down their ambitions on trad and are generally competent then as you say it won’t be much more risky than sport.

Lots of scrambling around but in some ways it’s riskier than ropes climbing!

 Coel Hellier 09 May 2020
In reply to Misha:

> As a friend of mine has remarked, it's amazing how anti-climbing the online climbing community is currently.

Agreed, though perhaps this is partly that the puritans are more likely to speak up.

 Coel Hellier 09 May 2020
In reply to Misha:

> If the BMC just said 'could you please give us the go ahead for all forms of hill walking and climbing', I imagine that would get fairly short shrift.

All that the BMC needs is that there be no specific ban on climbing and hill walking. 

I do think that the BMC is not adopting the best tactics in grading different types of climbing in terms of risk.  They should, instead, just be emphasizing that all forms of climbing are actually low risk -- in comparison with other activities.  So there's no need for special rules about climbing. 

As others have said, the BMC's categories are not that sensible (I'm willing to bet that "scrambling" accounts for many more MRT callouts than single-pitch top-roping). 

I'd suggest that the BMC should stick to advising:

-- try to keep travel down.
-- keep socially distanced in everything.
-- be sensible and keep within your capabilities.

... but then not get more specific than that. 

 mrphilipoldham 09 May 2020
In reply to JHiley:

99.99% of football fans manage to go to the game, often with their family, enjoy the show and return home without so much as a beer being downed, money lost or a punch thrown. I find your assumption somewhat insulting.

7
 seanhendo123 09 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Probably repeating much of what has been said above but.....

I don’t like the risk grading of bouldering vs sport vs trad. Personally on local crags i’d Be more likely to suffer injury while bouldering or sport climbing as a twisted/broken ankle etc is far more likely than while trad climbing. Risk is all about what specific hazards there are and then the likelihood of these hazards being realised. In the case of easily accessible locations on small (single pitch or non highball) bouldering and sport would be higher risk. 

Any climbing in the mountains is going to result in more of a transmission hazard if an accident was to occur as the likelihood of needing assistance is greater plus the number of responders is also likely to be higher ....however people are likely to climb more within there limits, bringing the risk level down.

In the end I think it is more about competence in each discipline and blanket risk levels do not work. People will need to take responsibility for their own actions and safety (most already do) as each individuals level of risk will be different.

 rogerwebb 09 May 2020
In reply to Removed Userrabthecairnterrier:

> A few years back a Dr Bob Sharp was commissioned (by the MC of S as I recall) to carry out a rigorous statistical analysis of mountain rescue incidents in Scotland. His conclusion was that the average Scottish hillgoer would have to go on the hill every day of the week 52 weeks of the year for over a hundred years before becoming a rescue statistic of any kind let alone a fatality. 

A statistic that justifies my love of solo hill walking but,

That works out as approximately 1 accident per 40000 or so person hill days.

How many people go hillwalking in Scotland? Probably several thousand at least.  Those 40000 hill days are going to come around quite quickly. 

 Tom Valentine 09 May 2020
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

i assume your statistic is a figure of speech, otherwise it would mean that only one fan at my local ground had taken drink or got into a scuffle.  Which would be ideal, obviously.

 mrphilipoldham 09 May 2020
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Yes of course. The drink will obviously be far less as many fans will responsibly enjoy a pint, which wasn't morally wicked that last time I checked. I walk past the police post at Old Trafford when I work there, and occasionally they might have one or two miscreants detained - quite often none at all. Out of 75,000 that's not a bad ratio given football is allegedly a hotbed of vice and crime  

 Howard J 09 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

None of this adds up.  Why should trad climbing on a Diff, well within my capability, be seen as more risky than an unroped scramble which may be not far off a similar level of difficulty?  If I am on a scramble and decide to rope up as a precaution, would that then break the rules?  Conversely, if I solo an easy climb, is that 'scrambling'?  How safe can bouldering be, if spotting cannot be allowed for social distancing reasons?  Is someone taking regular falls when sport climbing really less likely to have an accident than someone on a well-protected trad climb with a "don't fall" attitude?

The return to the outdoors will have to be based on an assessment of how it can be carried out within government guidelines, particularly those on travel and meeting in groups.  Trying to distinguish between different forms of climbing, or indeed other forms of exercise, is futile.  Either we will be allowed to return to these places, or we won't.  Of course we will be expected to meet social distancing requirements, and managing hygiene will be an issue just as it is when we go to the shops, but what form of climbing we then undertake shouldn't play a part.  

Some practices and behaviours may have to be modified, and the BMC can offer guidance there.  I'm not sure about its reliance on hand gel, as I haven't seen any on sale since I started looking back in February, when this was all still a cloud on the horizon.

 Alex1 09 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

We seem to have lost the plot here.  The relevant sentence in the BMC report is:

'The key aspect during the current crisis is the risk of transmission to others, however there is currently no evidence that rock climbing or hill walking carry a greater risk of transmission of C-19 than walking or cycling.'

As both walking and cycling are allowed then climbing should be to - I can't see any risk based argument for creating further groups and the BMC provide no statistics to support this. There is clearly a need to manage the honey pot element but any London park will be far worse on a nice day and London is by far the highest risk area due to population density. 

We need to reduce the risk of transmission - the more low transmission risk activities we can allow people to do the more likely they are to obey other important rules and tolerate restrictions.

Post edited at 15:30
 kaiser 09 May 2020
In reply to Alex1:

> We seem to have lost the plot here.  The relevant sentence in the BMC report is:

> 'The key aspect during the current crisis is the risk of transmission to others, however there is currently no evidence that rock climbing or hill walking carry a greater risk of transmission of C-19 than walking or cycling.'

They should have stopped there...  When you've got one strong point to make, the more you waffle on after you've made it, the more your dilute your position

1
 Lord_ash2000 10 May 2020
In reply to kaiser:

You're right, it's the same point I've argued since day one, I'm glad someone has finally pulled up some data to prove it. 

Provided you keep socially distanced and be sensible, the risk of injury or infection transmission presented by climbing is minimal and below the threshold set by cycling etc. No further argument required. 

 JHiley 10 May 2020
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> 99.99% of football fans manage to go to the game, often with their family, enjoy the show and return home without so much as a beer being downed, money lost or a punch thrown. I find your assumption somewhat insulting.

It wasn't an assumption. Though you seem to have made one about my background. I like watching a game of football with a corona... I'm just not naïve enough to imagine it's contributing to some sort of general wellbeing in society and so should be exempt from the rules applied to the rest of us. Its also laughable to imagine that the fans won't turn on the players/ managers if they perceive their behaviour as hypocritical. Love turns to hate in an instant in football.

Post edited at 12:04
 JHiley 10 May 2020
In reply to Alex1:

While I agree with your post in general the reason walking and cycling are currently allowed is that both can be modes of transport for shopping, for commuting by essential workers or essential exercise required to stay healthy. However much we like climbing nobody is seriously going to pretend it is essential to staying healthy. We're not currently supposed to be taking part in any recreational outdoor activity.

8
 Oceanrower 10 May 2020
In reply to JHiley:

> We're not currently supposed to be taking part in any recreational outdoor activity.

Really? You're bonkers!

 JHiley 10 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

I'm not saying I agree with it. Them's the rules though...

They seem like the sort of rules created by people who assume everyone lives in a village with a big garden. Can't imagine why that might be...

5
 Oceanrower 10 May 2020
In reply to JHiley:

I'm sorry. Them is NOT the rules. Can you show me one bit of legislation that says that? 

Hint. No you can't...

To make it easy for you, the regulations are here. Paragraph and number please.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/contents/made

 mrphilipoldham 10 May 2020
In reply to JHiley:

I didn't make a single comment with regards your background or anything about you, everything in my post spoke of only football. 

 olliee 10 May 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Agree with all this and IIRC this is essentially what the initial message was from the BMC.

Tbh I thought the initial message (pre-lockdown) was spot on and, I know that this has been an unpopular opinion (particularly on UKC) but I do think that ‘banning’ climbing has caused more issues than it has solved.

The advice and statements to date have done nothing to disuade landowners or anyone else reading it (even climbers it seems!) that climbing is fraught with unjustifiable risk and that the only way climbing is justifiable is if there is sufficient capacity in MRT and A&E to deal with the oncoming wave of broken legs and twisted ankles.  

This latest message from the BMC, whilst welcome because they are finally supporting members right to access the countryside and climb, is really just an attempt to unpick the problems caused by their own advice to date.  Sorry if that all sounds very cynical...

In my opinion, a message which strongly discouraged climbers from travelling beyond local spots, avoiding anywhere with remotely sensitive access and staying well within your limits and most crucially, obeying the law, is all that was really necessary.  It would have pushed responsibility for actions onto individuals, which would mean that anyone who did manage to gigantically f*ck up and need rescue would have been made to feel very foolish - in much the same way as everyone gets excited about people spending too long on a park bench or running within a 5 metre radius of others.   It would have also cut down on people endlessly debating whether bouldering above a mat on a boulder was unsafe, but for some reason building 45 degree board and chucking around on holds made of scrap wood, above the same mat, was riskier...

Post edited at 12:28
 JHiley 10 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

I suppose it comes down to interpretation of section 6 "no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse." The excuses are listed below that and don't include any recreational activity. Exercise is mentioned so I guess you can argue with "off duty" when he shows up with his truncheon.

The guidance on 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-y...

Suggests you should only be exercising though. Not even sitting down is allowed unless it's for 'health reasons'. So I think arguing that climbing is currently permitted is a bit of a stretch. It comes down to interpretation of some pretty badly worded legislation and guidance.

I'm not trying to interpret it harshly. I got a bit of flak on here for interpreting the pre-23 March guidance as allowing climbing even though it clearly did and even though I had no plans to actually go.

4
 JHiley 10 May 2020
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Fair enough. I read more into your comment that my views were an 'assumption' when in reality they come from growing up surrounded by football culture.

Post edited at 13:03
 Oceanrower 10 May 2020
In reply to JHiley:

Each to their own. I would say that (depending how you do it, obviously) exercise IS a recreational activity. People cycle, walk etc. for recreation.

Also, it's a non-exhaustive list. It doesn't mean you can ONLY cycle, walk or run. I'd argue that,  for example, slack-lining would be ok. It certainly wears me out after a while...

 JHiley 10 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

>  slack-lining would be ok. It certainly wears me out after a while...

Whereas I just end up on my face...

 Alex1 10 May 2020
In reply to JHiley:

The BMC post is about what to do when restrictions are lowered. There is nothing virtuous in arbitrarily selecting which activities should be allowed to go ahead based on ‘perception’ or other similar concepts. Everything should be made on a risk basis and the BMC should be making it very clear that outdoor climbing and hill walking is no more dangerous than other forms of exercise. Unfortunately this isn’t going to go away if we all just stay home - that will take a vaccine which we many not get. 


 

Post edited at 14:54
In reply to olliee:

I agree with you, but in the BMC's defence they're not the ones with the power to ban climbing. In Wales the government banned all "risky" forms of exercise, and used the example of swimming in rivers and lakes to illustrate what they meant. Obviously there is a tiny amount of risk (high consequence but low likelihood) attached to those activities, as there is to climbing of any sort. They also criminalised access to our local hills.
 

As a member of the BMC I expect them to fight for our access to these places to be restored and to work on educating those in power about how safe climbing and hillwalking actually are, since it appears necessary if we're to get out at all this year. I think they're stuck in a tricky position of being an advocate for outdoors activities whilst also trying to use their influence to regulate our activities.

 JHiley 10 May 2020
In reply to Alex1:

I agree with that and have made the same point on these forums. I was just pointing out there are some non-arbitrary reasons why walking and cycling are treated differently to climbing.

2
 StuDoig 11 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

On the whole I think the BMC document works well, but could do with some tweaking.  In particular I think breaking down into subset sports doesn't work as there's no evidence base for it and so many variables in each subset listed (e.g. bouldering solo vs with spotter, trad or sport on your own rack vs shared gear etc, etc, etc) that can't really be quantified.  I also can't see it standing for long - when people are bouldering beneath a crag, with walkers walking along the base and top, are people really going to believe that C19 transmission risk is too high to climb on the same crag and stay away?  I suspect not.

It's also not policable in that respect and would rely on peer/social pressure - and I don't think it's healthy to ask the outdoor community to police this kind of non-evidence based phased approach.

I think a more robust approach is to drop the activity based phasing (which seems to be more about perceived than actual risk) and adopt an risk management approach, which in fairness the rest of the document is all about.  i.e. staying local (arbitrary distance as per France for example) and day trips only, household only or "bubbles" as it develops.

There are also all of the unintended consequences that would result from phased activities.  Normally quiet bouldering venues becoming busy, additional pressure on carparking and other identified "pinch points" as later phase venues are restricted.  It's fine to say avoid the honeypots, but how many will?  How many folk actually know the areas well enough to know alternatives?

The BMC and MS and NI equivalent (sorry don't know the Acronym) developing new guidelines / recommendations for the various activities targeting the hazards and reduce the risk to manageable levels, or highlight where that's not possible.  The SAIS BAA system is an excellent base - a tool not about stopping you heading out, but prompting you to make good decisions about what you choose to do based on ground conditions, weather, group composition etc

The plan doesn't address the other hazards aspect of a return to the hills / crags - increasing load on emergency services.  I don't know about the discussion so much in England and Wales, but in Scotland that has been more of a focus for why we've accepted the lockdown restrictions.  Clearly from the numbers in the BMC plan the highest additional load comes from Hillwalking - so from that perspective it would be more sensible to open up other activities first......

Clearly though that doesn't work well in the bigger picture and wouldn't really be practicable as walking is the most accessible and popular activity and back to my example above, if it's OK to walk into the crag to climb or boulder when why isn't it OK to just walk round the top and back to the car.

So summary, generally a good plan with clearly a lot of thought and effort put into it, but the application of phasing is where I believe that it strays into non-practicable and away from being risk based and into perception based.  It'll all be a learning curve as ultimately we'll need to see what happens when we start opening up access and adapt / adjust our approach accordingly.

Cheers!

Stu

In reply to olliee:

> Is climbing becoming ‘licensed’ something that could happen?  First I have heard of it.  Anyone know what has lead to this?

Who on earth would ever enforce that. We shouldn't be scared of such things, because you can just safely ignore them even if they come into force. 

 Iamgregp 11 May 2020
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

"Upon arrival back at home, decontamination should take place by washing hands and quarantining any equipment that has contacted other people or surfaces, for as long as possible outside or in a dedicated area inside."

So if I go climbing I have to disinfect my rope, QD's, bag, gear, any clothes I took off, shoes...   basically more or less everything apart from my underwear.  The leave it outside or in a dedicated area of my house for as long as possible.

Yeah that's just not gonna happen....

1
 deacondeacon 11 May 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Yeah that's just not gonna happen....

Agreed, going to Asda puts me at much more risk than going climbing, and I don't take all those steps for that. 

1
 Iamgregp 11 May 2020
In reply to deacondeacon:

You know that's exactly what I thought!  Couldn't agree more!

 slab_happy 11 May 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> "Upon arrival back at home, decontamination should take place by washing hands and quarantining any equipment that has contacted other people or surfaces, for as long as possible outside or in a dedicated area inside."

> So if I go climbing I have to disinfect my rope, QD's, bag, gear, any clothes I took off, shoes...   basically more or less everything apart from my underwear.  The leave it outside or in a dedicated area of my house for as long as possible.

> Yeah that's just not gonna happen....

The phrasing is unclear, but it doesn't seem to require "decontamination" in the sense of disinfecting equipment, but "decontamination"  by means of washing hands and quarantining gear, which is not that hard -- presumably you store your gear somewhere.

Clothing isn't mentioned; no idea if that counts as "equipment" or not but I wouldn't assume so (and if social distancing is maintained, your clothing won't have come near other people anyway).

 Iamgregp 11 May 2020
In reply to slab_happy:

Ah yes, your're quite right it does mean that decontamination by means of washing your hands (which I would do anyway) and putting your gear back in the cupboard (likewise).  That's slightly more plausible.

I'd guess it would be a good idea to wash all your clothes and shoes too, as they will have come into contact with surfaces (the ground, the rock etc).  Again that's plausible, could give my shoes a wipe, probably wouldn't bother if I'm honest with you though.  

 slab_happy 11 May 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

Glad I could help clarify!

> I'd guess it would be a good idea to wash all your clothes and shoes too, as they will have come into contact with surfaces (the ground, the rock etc).  Again that's plausible, could give my shoes a wipe, probably wouldn't bother if I'm honest with you though.  

Could take off outdoor shoes just inside the front door (or outdoors if you have a porch)  and leave them there, which might reduce the risk to other members of your household.

I know many people who have to work in high-risk environments are trying to decontaminate by stripping off all their exterior clothes as soon as they get home, dumping their clothes into the washing machine and themselves into the shower.

With appropriate social distancing, I'd think climbing shouldn't be even vaguely near that sort of risk level anyway, but it's an option if you want to try to lower the risk even more.

(Or if, like me, you can't go climbing outdoors without coming home covered in mud, blood and sweat anyway, the penalty for being clumsy and fond of grovelling.)

 Iamgregp 11 May 2020
In reply to slab_happy:

As it happens we do have a porch where we keep all of our shoes and a cupboard where we keep all of our gear too so I think I'm all set to follow the BMC's guidelines?!

Absolutely if I worked in a hospital, or even somewhere where I cam into contact with a lot of people I'd do the same and wash everything on arrival.

Bit of climbing outdoors with just my partner?  Like you say, pretty low risk, I'll probably just do what I normally do - like you I always come back covered in crap anyway so everthings going in the machine anyway!


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...