UKC

Following on from and reacting to the Millstone thread now closed I think it is pretty evident that this type of thread does more bad than good.

Threads take on a life of their own and this type of thread which which was advertised for is inevitably going to attract unseemly rubbernecking, pontification and tut-tutting, assinine comments, speculation and counterspeculation and less inevitably immoderate moderation. All easily and piously defended of course under the guise of accident preventation somewhat like one in a million child snatching incident statistically distorting the minds of 999,999 parents to have a disproportionate fear of snatchers behind every bush and tree - as for those effected - they are remoulded as an ephemeral media plaything to be discarded when the interest moves on - but its all for the public good innit

In reply to Simon Lee:
I agree. I don't see there's anything that can be learnt from such reporting that couldn't instead be learnt from a general article that isn't based upon a specific accident.

In reply to Simon Lee:

The point made on the thread about taking steps to preserve anonymity, leaving some distance in time from the event itself, coupled with close moderation to take out sniping and criticism was a good one. Something approaching the best of both worlds then, hopefully.

In reply to Simon Lee:
I think reporting accidents is a good idea--the problem comes from the discussion afterwards, does it not?

On the other hand it does seem a bit authoritarian to say people aren't allowed to discuss accident reports once they have been posted...

In reply to gingerkate: Written be whom and based on what?

In reply to Richard Bradley:

Presumably like the staying safe in winter articles on AndyK's site and the BMC DVD thing? Not based on any one error, but reminds people what to look out for.


An article about the dangers of fixed gear would be relevant, as would articles about any common mistakes. It's not necessary to relate them directly to one person's misfortune.

In reply to Richard Bradley:
Written by someone with plenty of experience of whatever the subject is, same as any other article. Well-researched, ideally with quotes/information from others about their experiences too.

In reply to gingerkate:

Myself and Jack are writing such an article. Plus people have submitted specific Accident Reports.

They will be published periodically and open to discussion.

They highlight all kinds of accidents and how to avoid them.

In reply to gingerkate: Based on what? If no one reports individual accidents?

In reply to Simon Lee:
as i mentioned in 'that' thread i like the idea of peers reviewing accident reports. heavy editing is necessary by mick, jack and alan to ensure that all the chaff is removed. there are serious issues at the heart of some accidents that people can learn from. identity security is paramount. I'm glad that I don't know the names of the bods who fell at millstone and at horse shoe. I'd have preferred it if franco, ian and dave's escapades had remained anonymous too...

In reply to Richard Bradley:
Ok, take a specific scenario to make clear what I mean. Suppose you want to highlight the dangers of belayer standing too far out from the crag. Do you need to wait till some poor soul is in hospital, and publish every detail of their accident? No, you can write that article right now. Because there's a wealth of personal experience out there, it's easy to tap into (using these forums) and, crucially, most mistakes do not lead to severe injury. Most of the time, most of us, get away with it.

So, suppose I'm Jack and I want to write an article as I said, on the dangers of standing too far out. Jack's an experienced climber, he'll know people who've had near misses like that, that shook them up and taught them a lesson ... and are happy to be quoted. If he doesn't, all he has to do is start a thread, asking people to email with their stories, explaining what it's for. He'd get more than he'd ever need.

In reply to Dom Whillans:

My view is that in this case the chap knew what he was doing and took a calculated risk to avoid faffing. Is'nt that what climbing (and life) is about .. calculated risks? Not much to learn, IMHO, from this particular accident .. (or from many) .. much of accident reporting and comment strikes me as rubbernecking!

In reply to gingerkate:
ok, but you can't write articles in advance on all possible risks, can you kate. there is such info out there.... in books. this is a different kind of learning, building on the mistakes and misfortunes of others; just as valid and just as important.

In reply to Simon Lee:


I don't agree. I think post-accident debriefing is a vital part of raising awareness of what really goes wrong, goes wrong in practice not just in theory.

If I died in an accident (and I nearly did in April) I would want others to learn from my experience and know how to avoid whatever it was that killed me.

Of course it's guaranteed that some people will make idiotic, pompous, ill informed comments. Especially on UKC <eyeroll>. But surely we can see past that?

In reply to Dom Whillans:

I thought they were anonymous in that article, but they admitted it was them in the ensuing discussion.

In reply to Richard Bradley:
ps Just seen lowersharpnose's thread. See what I mean? Would be easy enough to write an article using those people's willingly offered experiences.

In reply to JimR:
ay, not much to learn for you (judging by your profile), or for me, but don't underestimate the lack of experience in other people, particularly the wallrats starting to climb outside.

In reply to Dom Whillans:
Yep, but you could have one article a fortnight or something, couldn't you? Why not? It still builds on other people's mistakes, just with their permission.

In reply to gingerkate:

I think that understanding what happens in an accident is an invaluable way of remembering what to do and not do, and also a reminder to be flexible and adapt to situations.

I thought you even said in the Millstone thread that it had reinforced your opinion and educated you further in the use of fixed gear on british crags?

I think that I am of the opinion that an accident report really hits home the point, with the added caveat that it should be fair, unbiased, fact-based and non-judgemental.

In reply to Monk:
I did Monk, I did say just that and meant it. But I'm upset that we (collectively) have upset the people involved. You only need to read the thread to see that that has happened. That's wrong. I don't want to see that happening every time someone's been hurt. We have to find a way of using the information without making things worse for people at a bad time.

Heck, maybe all it needs is a decent gap of time. I don't know.

In reply to Tim Chappell: I don't agree. I think post-accident debriefing is a vital part of raising awareness of what really goes wrong, goes wrong in practice not just in theory.


I dont disagree. But we are not talking about a professional post accident de-briefing we are talking about the on-the-hoof, heat of the moment sensational news reporting of a just happened accident which whilst it might raise awareness because its news but practically it will also lead to all the other unsavoury things that I referred to in the original post.

In reply to Simon Lee:



Which subjects should we not ban?

In reply to JimR:

Yes, it seems unlikely that someone taking on an E5 was unaware of the risks of fixed gear.

It would be weird for accidents to be kept quiet though so I think some reporting and comment is inevitable.

People praise boldness when it comes off and damning people when it doesn't.

In reply to Simon Lee: I personally think that describing near misses and close shaves as evidence of how poor practice can go wrong would be counter productive. People sit up and think more when someone dies/gets badly hurt.

That said I do think it needs to be approached sensitvely

In reply to gingerkate:


You could be right there. I guess an element of having the people involved in the accident commenting would be good too (as someone bravely did in response to Twid's article).

The thing is, that it is human nature to hear about/witness an accident and want to know what has happened. Maybe it is ghoulish, but I prefer to think that it is so that we can understand and take steps to avoid a repetition. The trouble comes when we have an instant and widespread rumour mill here on UKC, with people not thinking before posting to condemn.

In reply to Simon Lee:

I find individual accident reports very reassuring. We achieve things that non-climbers would see as mental. The more out in the open the comparatively small number of incidents are the better. If there is any sense of embarrassment you tend to think problems are worse than they are and people are trying to hide them.

In reply to Monk:

When/if an accident is reported it may be difficult to effectively disguise the timeline and therefore the anonymity of the location and by extension/implication the people involved.

As a separate but obviously connected issue, illustrating the usual generic advice/caveats/cautionary tales with pertinent photos and the immediacy of reality (and its consequences) does prevent complacency or apathy from diluting the impact of any "lessons learnt"

Therefore I think the accident reports are worthwhile, on balance.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Actually reporting *real* accidents, and not the threat of them, personalises the risk and makes people realise that things do go wrong for normal climbers like you, me and the bloke around the corner climbing a Diff.

Some (many?) of us are unfortunate enough to have been involved in, or know people who have been involved in, accidents of various degrees of severity. However, not everyone has and I'll wager that these are the people that a more humanised direct approach would work well with.

In reply to James Gordon:
I'm not sure. If the most recent one were to be published as an article talking about an experienced climber on a steep quarried thin crackline in the Peak, clipping an elderly peg at third height, then, OK, you could probably work it out if you were that way inclined, but if the resulting thread was modded to stop any amateur detective work and guessing (links to news coverage, for example), then most people won't know who it is.

The precise location and route name are pretty irrelevant to the message about gear in this instance.

If people posting reports or articles make the effort to contact the injured person to get their version, and warn them they are going to post something, perhaps even including some comments from them, then it's a far happier situation, all round.

In reply to Swig:

Small point here. In the US, where around 1,600 climbers have died since 1951 (that is accidents reported only) - the majority happened to climbers with over 3 years experience.

Don't read too much into that though -

In reply to Simon Lee:

Thanks...well said.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Accident reporting, ie, the statement of fact, is needed. It enables UKC users to educate themselves in order to perhaps prevent a repeat incident.

However, in my opinion, threads need to be moderated to remove insensitive commentary from those unqualified users who like to pretend they're A&E consultants, MR team members or some other 'expert' on the subject and thus entitled to in some way critisise the actions of those who were present at the actual incident, perhaps having to make difficult descisions under pressure.
People need constructive critisism, not unqualified sniping.
With the benefit of hindsight we'd all be millionaires...

In reply to Caralynr:

>> It's not necessary to relate them directly to one person's misfortune.

I think this is one of the most effective parts of the accident reporting. Because then it is not a " this has been known to happen" abstraction it becomes a "this happened last month to a 25 year old man" reality which is a much more effective way of focusing people on the genuine dangers involved in climbing. Keep the individuals anonymous maybe but i do think relating directly to one person in recent history is a useful eye opener.

In reply to several people:

I take people's points that a direct story of an actual accident has much more impact than a general article, (and that tales of near misses could even be counterproductive).

In reply to Swig:
Probably so and as Jim climbing is a calculated or informed risk and experienced climbers know that, no harm though in reminding them. Those who have most to learn are the less experienced; perhaps more so because of the way many modern climbers come into the game without peers to explain these things to them. The fact that an experienced climber can have a serious accident on a well known, supposedly well protected, route helps drive home the point as does the relevatively short time post incident that the discussion occurred.

It is a pity that such discussions can't be conducted in an adult manner and usually degenerate.

In reply to JimR:

I would initially have agreed, but, as Horse pointed out on the other thread, comments such as "If can't fall on in-situ gear why is it there", make it clear that for some people there are things to learn.

In reply to various:

A good comment, however one that I think hides a major issue. There is NOT a comparatively small number of accidents. Over the last 2-3 years I have taken an increasing interesting in trying to quantify the risks involved in climbing, have actively talked to an increasing number of other climbers and have generally been more aware of the issues. I firmly believe that there is a WORRYINGLY HIGH NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS.

Mick's stats for the USA are a sobering thought. Even more worrying for me is that no-one has a clue about how many climbers are killed or injured in the UK!

Given that we all want there to be fewer accidents in the future, we as a climbing community MUST try to understand the common threads in current accidents. If there are common factors then that knowledge is a powerful weapon in trying to effectively manage risk in our sport.

In the absence of systemic accident reporting and analysis, the dissemination of even fragmentary accident information on UKC is information that I WANT. I very keenly want to know why other people end up dead or injured so that I can avoid that fate.

Until we get to the stage where Diving in the UK is at, where a FULL and PROFESSIONAL annual report on all accidents and incident is published [see http://www.bsac.org/page/1062/incident-report-2007.htm - well worth a read to see how other sports deal with this issue PROPERLY!] I fully support discussion of accidents on these forums.

Quite frankly I don't give a damn if people who have accidents are slagged off by a minority of posters - I'm more interesting in trying to understand what the biggest risk are to me as climber (and those aspiring climbers I instruct) and trying to change (or re-enforce) my and others behavior so that we are still climbing, next week, next month, next year...

The steps that Mick and Jack seem to be taking are certainly a move in the right direction, but I think that the BMC needs to have a very close look at how other sports (i.e. diving, see above) do things and work out what should be done longer term. The situation both pre-UKC and currently is clearly not acceptable in what is now a mature and mainstream activity.

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

I would be against such moves. THe increasing interference of the nanny state into society on H&S grounds will be a short step away from regulation.
Safety in climbing its not terribly complex, if you fall off and hit something the chances are that you'll get hurt. Anybody that does'nt realise that not only should'nt be climbing but should also be locked up for their own safety.

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

I had a look at the BSAC reports. That's exactly the kind of format I'd like to see as well. While the motivation is right, perhaps the attempt to dress it all up as "news" and include it in the interactive content of the site is where the problems start.

In reply to Mark Stevenson:



I believe it should be a top priority at the BMC.

British climbing is in dire need of a yearly book, Accidents in North American Mountaineering and an associated website, yes run by a professional.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with a 'nanny sate' or 'rubber-necking'.

It's about the education of climbers and safety.

It's about self-reliance on the crags and mountains - do we want to encourage self-reliance and a high skill set, of course we do.

Information is power.

Less of the macho bullshit, the neurotic finger pointing, the holier than thou attitudes and name calling - you should have seen some of the shite I had to pull on that other thread.

Jeez.

Mick

In reply to Horse:

"It is a pity that such discussions can't be conducted in an adult manner and usually degenerate." On an open forum with too many uninformed people who post before they think and dealing with a heated subject area I'd say its inevitable. Hence, the benefits of full information, distance and anonymity. UKC should wait a while, get permission from the climbers involved and put things on as features.

The Yosemite guide shows just how such tragedy can be used to educate in a sensitive, intelligent way. This includes silly mistakes that get made by good experienced climbers, some fatal: for instance slipping when unprotected on easy terain. In contrast the UKC 'informed' Rocktalk version.... parading an incorrectly researched story with the moral not to trust your life to rusty old pegs is about as insulting to most climbers as it gets; detatched from reality, lacking in context and with inproper risk assessment. As for the potential insult to the climber involved (especially as it relates to speculation and misinformation): don't people care about the consequencies of such gossip (let alone libel) for people recently involved in accidents ?

I feel strongly about this as I've seen the effects on relatives at first hand. In one case with idiots on here pontificating about 'facts' they had discovered using their 'Clusteau like' web investigative powers, that they stated demonstrated incompetance; which in fact were demonstrably untrue. All at a time when 'the accused' was in critical condition. UKC are good in removing such idiocy, but sometimes too late to stop more damage being done.

In reply to Simon Lee:

I think the analogy with children and snatchers is very poor here. Firstly, the '1 in a million' stat is not what we are talking about. This was a bad accident from a simple action that most climbers will have done at some stage. The odds you present are bad odds to have in your head if you set off climbing - it is dangerous and bad stuff can happen a lot more often than every millionth climb you do.
Secondly, the solutions proposed by most in the thread of non-specific post-event analysis articles would do nothing to counter the cotton-wool mentality you elude to in your OP.

I also think your attempt to portray UKC as near-tabloid style reporting in this case is wrong. We discussed this long and hard before reporting it. We are a Climbing News site and like it or not, it is news - other news sites have reported it and if we hadn't it would have appeared on the forums fairly quickly anyway. It has been done responsibly and accurately with as much sensitivity towards the injured party as is possible.

Whilst I can see Kate's point of trying to divorce the accidents from the incidents to protect the injured parties by doing these no-specific reports, I don't think they would have the same impact, nor would they be able to cover all eventualities. The focus that is achieved by a real incident is something which can't be denied and brings to the fore the whole idea of not trusting a single piece of fixed gear where you can avoid it. If this was just part of a long list of 'tips to stay safe' then I doubt if many would remember it at that crucial moment.

For the future we will take on board the way this particular reporting has developed and consider it next time there is an incident, but we will keep producing accident reports where appropriate, albeit with maximum sensitivity to the injured parties. We will also do some articles as mentioned by Mick.

Best wishes to the climber who fell, I hope you make a speedy and full recovery.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

My OP was I thought very obviously a gut response to evoke a sentiment which you are taking at face value ie not in its own terms - I am sorry if my choice of analogy was poor. I am sure tabloid editors consider stuff long and hard as well - but it is the perception of the reader who is the judge of what is tabloid like and what isnt. I have uploaded an article which presents a more considered view of what I suspect is a contrary personal view of risk and why accident reporting in general is in my view not useful for decision making in climbing although I think that this type of 'news' accident reporting is even worse.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

What about the odds for say an attempt on K2, cf a good climber tacking something hard they'd done before on grit with marginal pro. You know motivations and judgement in hard and high risk climbing are complex so please continue to treat them that way (as nearly all UKC staff originated stuff does). Report the story by all means but please take care with potential judgemental attitudes and oversimplification.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: you should have seen some of the shite I had to pull on that other thread.


Thanks for the compliment

In reply to gingerkate:

Wiht the other thread my friend was at Horsehoe shortly afterwards and he didn't think any chain snapped, just a case of user error.

Anyway in general people who were there might want to know how they were getting on though, and it give them chance to thank those who helped. I foudn it quite therapeutic in fact after one I was involved with. But of course I didn't use UKC for this (though the `victim' did), wouldn't have dreampt of it!

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

UKC does a wonderful job of giving a feel for what is going on in the lives of the people that post.
To read of accidents that happened to, or were observed by, names you have seen posting before, does give you some idea of the scale of accidents / days spent climbing. I'm not sure that a formalized reporting system would do that. It is very difficult to get a perspective of pages of anonymous accident reports verses a huge number of climbing days taking place.
I'm in complete agreement with you and think that both are required.

In reply to David Riley:

I look at it like this.

Accidents are avoided everyday by safe practice (and sometimes luck).

How do we learn safe practice in climbing?

By reading, looking/watching, listening, discussing, and doing; putting into practice what we have learnt and making risk assessments.

We don't learn by one method and we all learn differently. Some read a book then practice. Some may learn by being told about something then putting that into practice. Some a mixture.

We also need to concentrate on safe practice and pay attention when we have the opportunity to learn.

This is how we reach the holy grail of self-reliance in climbing.

The climbing media have their role to play in all this be it scholarly articles, news reports, leaflets, signage and discussions.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Always makes me smirk this, as by their nature accidents can't be avoided.

However, I know what you're getting at, just being pedantic.

In reply to Martin79:

Ditto skydiving reporting:
e.g. http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I'd also add its very important to remember we ALL put ourseleves at risk by climbing in the first place and the range of climbing has a continuum of risk: sometimes the best risk reduction still leaves huge levels of risk.

In reply to Scranner:

Good link. I especially liked the media advice (for media and skydivers). It would be good to see something similar for advising our media on reporting climbing accidents.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Some stuff from RoSPA: Sports accident victims running at 5million/year. Over a 1 million/year in hobby or leisure activities. Those involving steps or stairs indoors at over 1/4 million/year.

In reply to All:

Great stuff and keep it coming.

Talking to the BMC about ACCIDENT REPORTS.

This is all new to the UK and developing as we go along.

It now seems to be high on the agenda.

Hopefully the BMC and all the climbing media will get on board.

Cheers,

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Here is an interesting analysis of climbing accidents in Yosemite

www.nps.gov/archive/yose/sar/climbsafe.htm

I find these detailed analyses very useful as they tend to give a much better idea of potential risk than intuition alone. Several of the points within this analysis vary from what we as climbers might expect to be the case.

In reply to Scranner:


I think it's more that you are concentrating on accidental accidents too much.

In reply to JimR:

Did you actually read the BASC Annual Incident Report before commenting? They have been doing it since 1964 so it certainly does not correlate with the increasingly interfering 'nanny state' as you put it.

That fact that both diving and parachuting undertake such an activity points to it being considered very valuable to other pursuits that also put great store on self-reliance.

In reply to Everyone:
There have been very similar discussions in the past on UKC (IIRC I linked to the 2005 BSAC report previously!) but I'm very pleased to see that the issue has now moved up the agenda and something positive may happen.

In reply to Mark Stevenson:
And here in Germany we have the excellent Accident Statistics Report every year, usually a couple behind. As with all of this kind of statistic gathering there are gaps such as boulderers hobble off to the pub while the same accident in the mountains would require helicopter rescue and would then appear. As long as you know where the gaps are we have a useful tool to identify areas where improvements in safety can be made.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:
Thanks for that, I have already found two things out reading that.

One is something 'obvious' which if it had killed me tomorrow would've doubtless produced dozens of replies of the 'how stupid of her not to know that' variety.

The other is something more subtle ... it's extremely stressing reading that, isn't it? It ups your fear levels big time. I reckon that's why we haven't already got a similar system in the UK. We just don't want to think about it. Time that we did.

In reply to Simon Lee:

I completely disagree with your opening statement. I thought the Millstone thread started as an extremely well-intentioned, responsible post, averting a new generation of climbers to the danger of using a 'clip-up' approach to climbs with one or two in-situ pegs.

I'm sorry it's been taken down, and don't understand why.

Those affected by the accident may feel in danger of being exposed, but we're in a walled garden here. There is no way that climbers' names are going to be 'outed'. What I took away from this as a UKC member was a directly transferable piece of awareness.

In reply to Anonymous:
It's not been taken down. It's here:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=304422

In reply to Anonymous:

It hasn't been taken down - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=304422

Can you log on if you want to continue taking part in this thread please. No more anonymous.

Alan

In reply to Anonymous:

Hi Anonymous,

It hasn't been taken down. I simply stopped the replies.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=304422

And it is still on the news page

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/older.html?month=6&year=2008#n44631

Reason.

Some people just can't stop themselves from judging others and even worse name calling: and from people who should know better. We expected that of course and it is part of the risk you run running stuff like this; worth the risk I say.

We had all kinds of silly comments, many I deleted.

Phil Robins did a great job in his initial post. Thank you Phil.

The message is very clear and that message will spread and be taken on board by many I do not doubt.

We are very much committed to running accident reports and we are developing guidelines to do this.

We have to try stuff like this.

As I've said before, this is new to the UK. But we have had a lot of support and some great reports.

Different opinions are expected and respected.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

My industry, and my late fathers industry, which both feature heavily on accident prevention, investigate accident individually, and both set much higher standards than us climbers. To do this they issue specific reports of each accident both locally or nationally. Generalisations miss the point. Whats more generalisations by so called authorities might be wrong.

So I see no harm in people posting inccident reports themselves, though I agree that subsequent sarcastic and unhelpful criticism of the injured is neither helpful nor morally laudible.

In reply to gingerkate:

You have to keep it in the perspective of the huge volumes of climbers who climb in Yosemite and the fact that they are often climbing very long (frequently multi-day) routes.

The point is that with a better understanding of the risks there are a multitude of actions that we can take to reduce them.

I like the statement “good judgment comes from bad experience”

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

As you say there are diferent opionions. I think Phil did a very mixed job with good bits but bad bits which detract very much from the message. I completely fail to see the relevence of all the clip stick stuff and Phil should have clearly emphasised (that presumably) he just witnessed the fall and he didn't know the full details of the ascent. In normal climbing terms the climber's judgement could have been perfectly sound, Phil's post implies the opposite. Worse, it could even be read that he'd been utterly foolish. Phil could also have stated in-situ grit pegs don't get replaced (more useful public information).

I also hope very much from a policy point of view UKC don't post such implied critisism following future accidents unless its with the permission of the climbers concerned.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:


That is indeed a very good phrase.

In reply to Offwidth:


The message is clear.

"I have described this incident not to be ghoulish, but to emphasise, especially to inexperienced climbers, the utter folly of relying totally on insitu fixed kit. Pegs in particular are rarely replaced these days, the one in London Wall could eaisly have be 40 years old! Ok occasionally you may have to rely on a single piece of equipment, but its good practice wherever possible to back things up. I do hope the injured party makes a good recovery, and apologies for using his accident to highlight an important issue without being able to consult him first!"

In reply to Offwidth:

He described what happened. You're miles off the mark. He commented on the "the utter folly of relying totally on insitu fixed kit", which in view of what happened could hardly be argued with. He wasn't remotely unpleasant about the climber concerned. He clearly made the post in a state of concern about the accident and the chances of similar things happening.

In reply to gingerkate: If you aggree with the opening op, then why do you contribute to threads re accidents?

In reply to icnoble:
I keep changing my mind, icnoble. I can see the arguments both ways.

In reply to gingerkate: Good reply, my feeling on the subject that it is good to have accident reporting, if only as a warning that climbing does come with risks. If I had an accident I would be quite happy to have it reported.

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

hmm. Big difference is that in both diving and parachuting safety is absolutely dependent on the use and maintenance of complex equipment and technological lnowledge.

Rockclimbing safety is dependent on simple equipment and commonsense.

Virtually all the accidents that have happened to people I've known were due to momentary stupidity or factors completely out their control. So consequently I'm not sure there's a lot to learn but a database will be provided to arm the proponents of regulation in order to stop the idiots harming themselves.... and lets face it we're all idiots occasionally!

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

I think this is absolutely right. I read the OP as an objective account of what happened. The clip-stick detail clearly wasn't meant to embarrass the climber (nobody is trying to 'expose' the identity of the climber, after all) but it does tell us that 'tactics' were being used - energy-saving tactics, if you like, that on the face of it, seem very beguiling. I can see others trying similar tactics.

And I have certainly heard someone tell me with great confidence that in his mind, a trad climb with a couple of in-situ pegs is 'just like a sport climb.' Well, it clearly isn't.

In reply to JimR:



Absolute bullshit.

In reply to Offwidth:

After effects of accident involving indoor steps: Broken ankle
After effects of accident whislt climbing: Broken head

In reply to Simon Lee:

One of the major problems I see is the effect accident reporting has on the individuals involved and their families, even where anonymity is maintained (because most will recognise their own circumstances).

An awful lot of the decision making process during an incident doesn't always make immediate sense when described out of context.

As an example, a decision not to administer CPR might make perfect sense to the individuals involved in the incident at the time but not to the family of the victim or to readers of the report and this might lead to unnecessary speculation, finger pointing and blame.

Some confusion can arrise where there is incomplete detail in order to protect the victim himself from critisism or the family from the full grizzly description.

In reply to JimR: Rockclimbing safety is dependent on simple equipment and commonsense. Virtually all the accidents that have happened to people I've known were due to momentary stupidity or factors completely out their control. So consequently I'm not sure there's a lot to learn but a database will be provided to arm the proponents of regulation in order to stop the idiots harming themselves.... and lets face it we're all idiots occasionally!


Bang on

In reply to Offwidth:

I think Phil got the balance about right. I read it and didn't think there was any criticism of the climber(s), implicit or explicit.

In reply to Simon Lee:

I'd be inclined to agree with your OP. I can see the theory behind the idea ,not entirely sure if I agree with it or not, but don't think it works regardless. On top of the reasons you already stated (unless it's what you means by inevitably immoderate moderation, you lost me with all the long words ), the mods have to watch the thread closely and (IMO) end up deleting stuff that would go through on a normal thread, which is a bit harsh on the posters, and a bit constrictive on the whole freedom of speech idea (which contasts with Alan saying they try to find a balance).

In reply to Simon Lee and JimR:

I think Mick was spot on when he said this:
It's about self-reliance on the crags and mountains - do we want to encourage self-reliance and a high skill set, of course we do.

Whilst I have huge sympathy for the thoughts Offwidth has posted, about how horrible it feels to be on the receiving end of speculation, I'm not keen on the line you are espousing here of 'it's common sense' and 'I'm not sure there's a lot to learn'. There's lots to learn. Maybe you two know it all, but where do you get the idea that everyone else does too? People don't pop out of their mother's wombs, declaring to the world 'old pegs are not to be trusted'... they learn this stuff. I was climbing at Foredale the other day, and my partner did a route with a height of 30m. And I knew to tie a knot in the end of the rope so that I couldn't carelessly belay him off the end ... that's the first time I've been in a situation where tying that knot really mattered ... and I knew that's what you do, because I've picked it up along the way (from posters here, most likely, people like Mark Stevenson and Horse to mention just two of the many who're always ready to share their knowledge and whose posts I read avidly). We learn this stuff from other climbers, and from places like UKC, it may be simple, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need learning. I want to know about other people's mistakes, so I can make less of my own. I don't want them upset in the process, but I do want to learn.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

care to expand and justify your statement?

In reply to JimR:

I'm sure Mick will be back to defend his corner, but I agree with his sentiments if not his eloquence. The comment of yours he was replying to brings to mind a quote from another well known UKC poster which holds true whether we are talking about rock climbing or any other pursuit:

'COMMON SENSE IS REMARKABLY UNCOMMON'

In reply to JimR:

The use of climbing equipment is learned skill. The application of climbing equipment in any climbing situation is also learned.

The more we learn the more skillful we get and the application of these skills in real life situations means that we have become more self-reliant.

Climbers are not all on the same page as regards knowledge and skills.

It's a mistake to think or say, "but everyone knows that." They don't.

It is also is a mistake to think that because someone doesn't know something that they are an 'idiot'.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Absolutely and that sctually is precisely what I said ..as "common sense" is skill gained through useage, not through reading a book or a database. Lets not kid ourselves, the basics of rope safety can be learnt in an hour or so, its not rocket science, although you can spend a lifetime learning to climb with your hands and feet. Analysing and logging accidents will add nothing to the required knowledge apart from telling people what they knew anyway... and to be absolutely honest, accidents are inevitable in a risk sport.

Another sport I participate in, sailing, conducts in depth analysis of accidents and incidents through the MAIB, and I have read and analysed many of their reports. My conclusion there, like climbing, is that accidents are either caused by user error (or often sequences of user error, none of which individually would be consequential) or acts of god. Rarely does anthything emerge to change behaviour. In fact, the thought one is often left with is "there but for the grace of god ..."

So in conclusion, log it if you want but you'll basically be counting things because for the sake of it. All the information for safe rope management is already in the public domain, its simple. People who ignore that will ignore a database anyway, so its pointless. However landowners may find the information, get concerned about idiots behaving lemming like on their land and seek to restrict access. There I cannot see any pros but I can see cons.

In reply to JimR:

I disagree Jim. Yes some accidents are caused by "the grace of god" we are all treated equally when it comes to gravity and falling rocks do not distinguish between the experienced and the inexperienced...... but wearing a helmet 'might' save you!

But the higher skill set you have the safer you will be: those skills can be learnt in many different ways; by direct experience and learning from others as you say, but also from books, news reports, courses, pamphlets, videos, instructors, discussions. People do pay attention to different methods and we all learn in different ways.


I'll use a different expletive this time. Bollox.

How do you know what people learn from accident reports?

You don't.

In reply to JimR:

I do think that in this instance that you could not be more wrong.

A marked and generally accepted trait in human behaviour is that of poor risk evaluation and very warped risk perception. Classic examples of this are things such as peoples overestimation of the risks and accompanying fear associated with terrorist acts and their similar underestimation of risks such as crossing the road or driving a car.

Similarly in climbing, few of us when starting climbing consider that one of the most dangerous things we do will be abseiling. But this is most definitely the case, and we know it as a result of accident reporting. It eventually gets stated so frequently that it becomes common and accepted knowledge. People new to climbing won't know that this is the case and accident reporting and discussion is an effective mechanism for passing on that knowledge.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:



Ok then, give me an example of something that you personally have learnt from an accident report that's changed your behaviour

In reply to JimR:

See my last post.

Abseiling is one of the most dangerous things we do.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


Oh ...please enlighten me on what I should have learnt from accident reports to avoid the sailing accident I have'nt had?

In reply to Hugh Cottam:


... and presumably your behaviour change is not to abseil any more?

In reply to JimR:

Also in the Yosemite SAR report that I posted a link to earlier, it points out that many of the most serious injuries were due to short sideways falls. These cause more serious injuries due to where you tend to get impact on the body rather than the degree of force. This is not particularly obvious or intuitive but has changed my view of risk when doing traverses and the manner in which I approach them.

In reply to JimR:

Now you are talking.

Tie in short when jumaring. I read a report of a woman on Tangerine Trip in Yosemite who fell to her death (I also know the people who recovered her body) when her jumars came off the rope whilst jugging diagonally.

She would have lived had she had been tied into her rope.

Another: this reinforces behaviour at the top of the climb. Reinforcement is good. Climber gets to the top of a climb, shouts safe and his belayer takes him off. He trips, falls the full height of the crag. Luckily he survives. Always make sure you have built the belay and are attached to it before shouting safe. Sometimes we need reminding of good practice and understand the potential consequences of bad practice.

Just off the top of my head.

In reply to JimR:

No it means I'm very careful about checking the abseil anchors, the manner in which I'm clipped in, having a prusik on the rope, rigging the abseil to be wary of the ropes bringing any loose rock down on me, and tieing knots in the end of my ropes.

I could go on and probably will...

In reply to Hugh Cottam:


Perhaps £5 for a book on an Introduction to climbing might be a worthwhile investment for you

In reply to Simon Lee:

My view (as yours) prompted this thread not so long ago:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=254522&v=1#x3750959

J

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Numerous examples of that on El Cap, Mick. Read the YOSAR report. A significant number of El Cap fatalities are for this reason alone. It's not obvious that jumars can come off the rope or slip.

In reply to JimR:

Yes and in that book would contain knowledge that has been compiled as a result of accident reporting and analysis.

In reply to JimR:

Not at all. You make sure you know what you are doing and what potentially could go wrong. You can learn how to a basic abseil, but understanding what can go wrong can help you learn new skills and behaviour that could save your life.

Back up prusik whilst abseiling. Check your anchors especially if insitu slings. Shout rope below before you throw the rope down.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

Yip, I did.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

From Russ "The Fish" Walling.

"the Trip has also been a place of disaster. The most famous one being Chris Robbins, who got the chop while jugging fixed lines on an early ascent. Numerous people have had a major fray problem while jugging fixed lines on this route. The downward sloping roof of pitch #4 has claimed its victim also, not the leader, but the follower. The angle of the rope on this pitch just makes Jumars and the like pop clean off the rope, and that's what happened to Carol. Had she been tied in to the end of the rope, maybe she would be around to tell you about her epic....but she wasn't tied in, and subsequently went straight to the deck. "

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

The statistical reporting of aid/big walling accidents has more relevance in the US as we dont do it in the UK. It is a far more equipment dependent activity where you are continually weighting gear and ropes and consequently the mechanical techniques and back-up systems abnd lessons to be learnt are far more advanced than trad lead climbing.

Even then, after the event illustration is going to be more considered and rational.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

I was very pleased to find The Yosemite report when I first climbed there. It wasn't so much surprising as providing evidence (data and analysis) on suspitions I'd had for years about relative risks. In my opinion its not common sense at all: its almost the opposite, a complex mix of many things including probablity, physics, anatomy and psychology.

Because many climbers clearly don't assess risk very well (worrying about trivia whilst ignoring much more risky behaviour) I've supported the Yosemite kind of accident analysis for years and would be greatful if UKC or some other UK based organisation did something similar (and as Lynn pointed out to me this morning, post accident/ incident response in general is a well understood and researched area). However, if you get it wrong you can send out confusing messages and even reinforce attitudes that led to unneccesary risk taking in the first place. Also if you do it too quickly or with mistakes, you risk great hurt to friends and relatives at a traumatic time.

Oh and for James. I couldn't find the fatality info on the RoSPA site but I'll give you odds of 100 to 1 that there are more fatalities in the UK from stairs and steps (indoors) than from climbing. Stairs and steps turn out to be far more dangerous places than perhaps they should be, being just exposed walks (a lot of people get hurt through not concentrating fully?). Trad leading has arguably the opposite accident rate, unexpectedly low (even if it couldn't be lower).

In reply to Offwidth:

Talked to Dan Middleton - the BMC's Technical Officer last night, and UKClimbing.com and the BMC will hopefully be collaborating on accident reports to be published at UKClimbing.com.

I'll keep you posted.

Mick

In reply to JimR:

Accident report Hugh has linked to above. Dangers of loose rock. Despite being quite low on experience of loose rock (ie half a dozen trips to crags where it's a noted problem) I thought I was reasonably knowledgeable about it ... I knew some 'obvious' things, like warning my belayer when I'm around loose rock, and I wear a helmet if I'm anywhere with loose rock. But something that hadn't occurred to me: when you pull your rope down it could flick against the rock and bring loose bits down. I've been standing out of the way of my rope, but in distinctively 'indoor climber' fashion. It's obvious isn't it, that a rope could bring loose rock down with it, but it hadn't occurred to me.

And yes, of course I do know that loose rock could get me anyway, and it's not a risk that can be eliminated ... all the same, I'd rather cut unnecessary and joyless risks ... as people have pointed out there's plenty of risk in climbing that's intrinsic, and part of the joy ... getting hit by a rock you've inadvertently brought down with your rope is at least partially avoidable.

In reply to Offwidth:

As I remember, it's about 600 deaths a year from stairs. However, bear in mind the reason for this: going up and down stairs is a slightly risky thing that almost everyone does almost every day. You inevitably get more deaths from that sort of activity than from a minority activity like climbing. That doesn't actually tell you much about the risks associated with climbing.

In reply to JimR:

Another example is that when caught out by bad light or bad weather, analysis of the case histories shows strong evidence that those who stay put and sit it out survive and those who don't are more likely not to.

There are obviously exceptions to this, but generally speaking it's a pretty good rule of thumb. It is also one that has most definitely influenced my own behaviour. Indeed, it convinced me that sitting out a storm on top of a mountain for 3 days was the best course of action as opposed to trying to get down.

My comments are not just based upon gut feel or opinion. Some years back I spent 18 months doing analysis of SAR incidents for the SAR headquarters at Pitreavie. I would agree that we have to be careful about how conclusions are drawn and how information about accidents is used and reported. However, the notion that there is no point in doing any accident analysis or reporting, is as Mick puts it "Bollox".

In reply to Offwidth: ..as providing evidence (data and analysis) on suspitions I'd had for years about relative risks. In my opinion its not common sense at all: its almost the opposite, a complex mix of many things including probablity, physics, anatomy and psychology.


I totally agree. A truer appreciation/feel for risk is all that stuff that sounds airy fairy and nonsensical and wilts in the face of HARD facts and REPORTED INCIDENTS. I had a crack at an article on this but it is going to sound so new age that it leaves itself open to easy ridicule.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Excellent. that's more like it.

In reply to gingerkate:

message I'm getting here is not the need for more accident reports, but the need for raising awareness of the presence of risk and its calculation and management.

The implicit argument here is that reporting of accidents and their causes through a logging system creates that awareness.

I'm not sure that is the case.

What perhaps would be more effective is needed is a periodical synopsis based on existing data sources published in a readable headline grabbing fashion to highlight common issues.

To reiterate, all the facts and information is already in the public domain, if the objective is to raise awareness then logging data will not achieve that ...the UKC equivalent of tabloid journalism may

In reply to JimR:
>...the UKC equivalent of tabloid journalism may

Hi Jim,

I'm afraid we don't report on the sex lives of celebrity climbers ; o )

In reply to Simon Lee:

Accident :- An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm

Is something an accident when the whole world can see it was going to happen but you still thought it was unexpected.

Read into that comment what you will .....

In reply to JimR:

"existing data sources"

"all the facts and information is already in the public domain"


I don't believe that there are existing extensive and detailed data sources that relate to British climbing accidents.

With regard to the second point, it doesn't exist and it most certainly isn't in the public domain.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:


If you read what I've written, I have'nt qestioned the value of the existing analysis and reporting. I have questioned the value of putting online an accident logging system if the objective is to raise awareness of risk and its management.

In reply to JimR:
But what about Hugh's comment that sitting tight and waiting out bad weather and darkness tends to give better survival rates? That's not obvious, and in fact perhaps there are specific situations where it's wrong (??? ie I don't know, but it's obviously possible that best tactic in one environment isn't best tactic in another). How does that sort of fact ever show up if accidents aren't logged and chewed over?

There's probably... no, certainly... needs for different sorts of data presentation depending on who it's aimed at. But if accident data is gathered, then it can be looked at and lessons learned.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:


http://www.mrcofs.org/media/download_gallery/Incident%20Report.pdf

In reply to dunc56: Is something an accident when the whole world can see it was going to happen but you still thought it was unexpected.


Nothing is inevitable although after-the-event it sometimes appears so. Also the whole world/accepted wisdom isnt always right ie some widely held views of 20 years ago are not widely held now.

In reply to JimR:

So your comment

"Analysing and logging accidents will add nothing to the required knowledge apart from telling people what they knew anyway... and to be absolutely honest, accidents are inevitable in a risk sport."


Are you coming around to everybody elses point of view?

In reply to JimR:

Yes but the incident report data isn't in the public domain. I quote:

"The data was extracted from the incident reports which are completed by
mountain rescue or police personnel at the time of the incident. These reports are not (at the time of writing) publicly accessible"

In reply to gingerkate: There's probably... no, certainly... needs for different sorts of data presentation depending on who it's aimed at. But if accident data is gathered, then it can be looked at and lessons learned.


Hindsight bias, the general mis-reading of statistics and misundersatding of causality means that what will be commonly extrapolated from these after the event facts will have little validity and will be misused in summary in the same way that facts are taken out of context and any grain of truth tortured beyond recognition by the media - not just the tabloid media either

In reply to Hugh Cottam:
I think it's great when a tentative consensus starts to emerge... generally a result of everyone properly and openly listening to what others say, not trying to shoot them down to score points, but trying to see where they're coming from at the same time as explaining their own attitudes.

In reply to Simon Lee:
Will mull that over as I hobble up plastic with my damaged toe.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

No, merely pointing out putting online an accident logging sytem to rubberneck at, adds nothing to what already exists and if the objective is to raise awareness of risk and its management then it won't achieve that but it may provide readily accessible information to landowners who wish to restrict access

In reply to JimR: accessible information to landowners who wish to restrict access

It is alll too easy to throw in impressive statistics to support arguments - we see politicians do it all the time - who cares that they haved no validity

"Ban climbing their own statistics show that 93% of accidents were caused by their own reckless behaviour and they are a drain on the emergency services..etc etc"

In reply to JimR:

I didn't get the impression that this was what was being suggested.

You appeared to be arguing against the general principal of accident analysis, and that's what I disagree with. The exact details of its execution and presentation is another matter.

The report you linked to makes interesting reading but it isn't at the level of describing or classifying climbing incidents in a manner that we as climbers can learn a great deal from. The YOSAR report is at that level as it focuses purely on climbing incidents (and their details) as opposed to walking/scrambling.

In reply to gingerkate:

So why in Yosemite are there so many more accidents than you would expect on easy terrain compared to on difficult terrain? Risk is complex and clearly very much affected by behaviour modification due to perceived risk. I think the stairs point is linked.

In reply to Offwidth:

Absolutely, how many people do you know that have killed themselves on the crux of a route? .. compare that to the number of people who have fallen off a belay ledge or the top of a cliff.

In reply to Offwidth:

It's to do with risk perception which is inevitably relative. People on long and multi-day routes have continually been in high stress and high perceived risk situations. When they get to easier ground they relax and are off their guard. They are also often very tired at these points.

A very common result is people having accidents when they were very nearly back down.

In reply to Simon Lee:
I say, keep em coming. Far from being voyeuristic, I find them valuable becuase these are real life situations which serve to illustrate how easy it is to get something wrong, for something to fail, and has its own inherent credibilty as opposed to a hypothetical situation, and they mean that one can learn from other people's experiences- even if you think you already know. Such reports act as a useful heads up.

I don't however go looking for specific articles- but if something pops up on here (the forums), I'm likely to read it (and learn or be reminded from it).

The discussion is often as if not more illuminating that the bare bones of an accident report, too. I would like to think that whatever the trigger, we can all swap stories, experience and opinions and have a healthy debate.

Sxx

In reply to Sarah G: I don't however go looking for specific articles- but if something pops up on here (the forums), I'm likely to read it (and learn or be reminded from it).


Your convenience does not take precedence over the impact on the concerned

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
>Reinforcement is good. Climber gets to the top of a climb, shouts safe and his belayer takes him off. He trips, falls the full height of the crag. Luckily he survives. Always make sure you have built the belay and are attached to it before shouting safe.
Thank you for saying that Mick. Myself and my regular climbing partner are the only climbers I know (from 20- odd years of climbing ) who do that. Being at the top of the crag does not mean you are safe. I remember topping out at Limekilns and glancing down to see my belayer taking me off as I made the last few moves. I never climbed with him again.

In reply to Offwidth:
Yes, I take your point about stairs being comparable to relaxed attitudes on easy ground.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:


Which come to think of it has the driving parallel of most accidents happening within two miles of home.

In reply to Simon Lee:

But, is it an accident to climb above a piece of old tat using a crack, without putting any gear in ? How many people would have watched and sucked in air through their teeth ? Sorry to refer back to the removed thread !

In reply to dunc56:

It hasn't been removed;

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=304422

And it is still linked to the News item:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/older.html?month=06&year=2008#n44631

In reply to dunc56:

Is it an 'accident' in your sense to fall off (as it turns out) effectively soloing part of a protected route? Depends. I certainly take that type of risk quite often and I'm only a bumbly. Is it an accident to have an accident? Yes. Is it an acceptable risk he took? That depends on information about the climber and the circumstances of the ascent none of us know. Is it acceptable to publicly imply incompetance of someone who's just had an accident when we dont know the full facts? No.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

So why not have accident reporting with no ability for comment? It achieves your aims of public information and raising awareness without the possibility of mud slinging, finger pointing etc.

The debate (if there is one to be had ) could be at the wall or in the pub or at the crag with your peers, not in a public forum.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Mind you, the disadvantage to pulling comments like that is that noone else gets to see what a tosspot the poster is...

In reply to Offwidth: I never intended to imply incompetence. I've used the argument before with non-climbers that I will not fall on a solo because I have the ability to do the climb.

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

I am now going to live in a bubble and I then can't have an accident or make any fatal judgement calls.

Hope he/she is ok.

In reply to dunc56:
But, is it an accident to climb above a piece of old tat using a crack, without putting any gear in ?

No it is a risk and judgements of risk vary - they are subjective and not absolute so what you and your imaginary onlookers judge as risky is not necessarily shared with the outcome not as inevitable as 20:20 hindsight always suggests.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Have we any lawyers out there who could say whether this situation would be classed as negligence though ?

Would BMC climbing insurance fork out for it ?

In reply to Removed User:


Try all of them, eh? That is what has happened here. Phil posted a a report. We posted a news report. There is now discussion at the pub, the crag, at a public forum...all with your peers.



People will learn. It'll take a while, but they will.

One of the greatest advances in media in recent times has been the ability for people to comment be that keeping gear reviews honest, journalists honest, news report comment, article comment -

One of the greatest advances over print.

In reply to dunc56:

Your line of questioning is a good illustration of how the news-of-an-accident-discussion-thread inevitably turns sour

In reply to Simon Lee:

Agree. There's nothing the Brits like better than to gossip about other people and these threads are just another continuation of that imho.

In my time I've had a few near misses, including having a rope dropped down to me whilst I was soloing after getting gripped. Would these have become 'news' in this internet age? It's not as if I hadn't already realised the errors of my way post event without being reminded in public...

I have to admit I used to be of the opinion that reporting accidents and discussing 'what went wrong' could be beneficial. However, having had a friend involved in an accident and then reading peoples' comments concerning said accident, with these comments being made without people having full knowledge of the event, I don't think I fully appreciated how generally pointless, even counterproductive discussions about accidents can be. I'd also question the need to have a news item on it, a general article on the subject of accidents seems more appropriate, as many others have pointed out above.

In reply to Simon Lee:

True - but we live in a wider context. Our actions have consequences and a cost.

God I sound like a capitalist !

Ban climbing !

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

But the medium of the public forum is more permanent, opens up the debate to extremes and places these views in a written, documented form.

It sounds to me like your agenda is greater use of UKC rather than education.

In reply to Simon Lee:

I couldn't agree with you more, especially considering dunc56's comments on the other thread.

In reply to Removed User:


Both.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


Well, when you end up on the wrong end of a 'debate' as a result of armchair climbers feeling the need to voice an uneducated opinion regarding an action you took in the heat of an accident, let me know how you feel.

In reply to Removed User:

We are all climbers here Bob.

In fact I'm just off out myself as are thousands of others who read and post at UKClimbing.com.

Have a great weekend whatever you do.

Above all be safe.

Mick

In reply to Simon Lee:
that's a pretty offensive thing to say.

Take it back.

Sxx

In reply to SARS:

Well, if you had fallen after someone threw a rope onto you whilst you were soloing, an accident report might remind others to be more careful, maybe even shout "Below!" before they chucked a rope over the edge at a popular climbing location.

It would certainly spark numerous virtiolic tirades against top-ropers, a fierce discussion about whether the accident was the top-roper's fault for throwing the rope down or yours for climbing without protection, and a long, drawn-out, tiresome discussion about whether we should allow accident reports.

In reply to JPG:

You've completely missed the point.

In reply to Sarah G: Take it back.


"Your convenience does not take precedence over the impact on the concerned"

If I took the 'not' out does that make it less offensive ?

In reply to Simon Lee:
It was pretty snotty Simon. What Sarah said was perfectly reasonable, even if you disagree with it, and to imply that she thinks her convenience does take precedence over the impact on those involved... well, that's snotty because she never said anything like that. She said she finds accident reports useful ... lots of people have said the same. I think it helps if we all try and treat each other with respect ... every viewpoint expressed here seems to me to have some validity .... no one is talking piffle, they're all just coming at it from different angles ... you don't have to agree with someone to treat them with respect.

In reply to Simon Lee:

This whole episode is bizarre. Why is everyone treading on eggshells?

If I'd have fallen off something below my limit and injured myself whilst doing a photo shoot, I'd be the source of a major piss take for the rest of my climbing days. At least from the circle of friends I climb with.
It wouldn't bother me in the slightest what anyone on a forum said either.

This is all very strange to me.

The Ent

In reply to gingerkate:

Guess what just led to a trip to A&E for my climbing partner this evening...

In reply to Mark Stevenson:
Oh no, I hope they are ok?

In reply to gingerkate:

I'm fine thank you My head has been glued back together and the only other injury is some nasty bruising to my shoulder.

Mark on the other hand is dead to the world after sitting up most of the night, waking me up every hour or so. The doctor told him to Panda to me (which made him laugh) and bring me breakfast in bed but I can't wake him up!

This is the first time in years that I haven't worn a helmet when belaying and should be a reminder to others that it's a really good idea to ALWAYS wear one.

I'm lucky, the fist sized bit of rock glanced my head rather than hitting it full on, but I've still got the mother of all headaches and am going to be off work for a few days next week.

Panda

In reply to gingerkate:

Oh, as an aside nobody that we saw at Portland last night was wearing a helmet.

In reply to Panda :
Glad to hear you're ok! Saw a friend nearly get hit by a rock someone had kicked down the other day, missed his head by inches ... scary stuff.
I hope you're completely better very soon, and thanks for the reminder about helmets.

In reply to Sarah G:

I think you may be being a little over-sensitive; I can't see anything overtly offensive about Simon's point, which is a valid one IMHO.

In reply to Simon Lee:
The thing that worries me about reporting accidents is how long is it before the health and safety bregade gets a hold of climbing and ruins it like many other activities