This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Following on from his popular editorial Chance, Risk and Accidents, Simon Lee delves in to the murky waters of Risk - exploring terminology, and the elusive concept of risk itself.
Meet Mr Risk... http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1237
Meet Mr Risk... http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1237
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Then there's always the risk that you'll write an article claiming that it was Pete Biven rather than Frank Cannings whose rescue helicopter crashed on the way back from Lundy.
In reply to Simon Lee's 'Known knowns':
Refering to your 2 falls known known, I beg to differ. It is unlikely your falls were of the rated type i.e. load and factor over a prescribed anchor. Therefore, at the least you have a known unknown and if the rope were internally damaged by some process, you would not have the remaining 4 ‘falls’ left anyway. Definitely an unknown unknown if you don't feel your ropes regularly. Sleep well!
Refering to your 2 falls known known, I beg to differ. It is unlikely your falls were of the rated type i.e. load and factor over a prescribed anchor. Therefore, at the least you have a known unknown and if the rope were internally damaged by some process, you would not have the remaining 4 ‘falls’ left anyway. Definitely an unknown unknown if you don't feel your ropes regularly. Sleep well!
In reply to Dark Peak Paul: Likewise I have to take issue with the known known of falls. The fall rating of ropes applies to a very specific set of all conditions only. To count off falls rather misses the point.
I think (hope) Simon knew this and was being simplistic for the purpose of brevity. (If not I may be forced to subject the poor fellow to a lengthy tutorial.)
Iain
I think (hope) Simon knew this and was being simplistic for the purpose of brevity. (If not I may be forced to subject the poor fellow to a lengthy tutorial.)
Iain
In reply to IainWhitehouse/Dark Peak Paul/John2:
I wondered whether there was a risk of the factual minutae of the footnote overshadowing the substance of the article which is where I hoped the thread discussion would focus. Sorry about the inaccuracies but they were casual refrences/examples just for illustration.
The known/knowns etc stuff is in my view a limited concept which is why I made it a footnote - but it is quite enticing as it is a more black/white construct and it is a diverting parlour game to argue about those definitions till the cows come home. Fall ratings etc are not that important compared to the other risks in climbing.
I wondered whether there was a risk of the factual minutae of the footnote overshadowing the substance of the article which is where I hoped the thread discussion would focus. Sorry about the inaccuracies but they were casual refrences/examples just for illustration.
The known/knowns etc stuff is in my view a limited concept which is why I made it a footnote - but it is quite enticing as it is a more black/white construct and it is a diverting parlour game to argue about those definitions till the cows come home. Fall ratings etc are not that important compared to the other risks in climbing.
In reply to Simon Lee:
This is UKC Simon, what did you expect?
Nice article, I like the way you structured it. The one subject it avoids is the concept of "acceptable risk".
A facile approach to this is to say that the level of risk each person is willing to accomodate is 'personal'; but that's a selfish argument that ignores the inconvience for other people that any accident (that involves you) would have. Such inconvenience ranges from your mate driving you to hospital with a broken ankle after you fell badly while bouldering, you calling the mountain rescue out because you risked going out the mountain with a bad forecast, to the major disruption your death would cause to the lives of your family and friends.
On a separate point, I agree with you when it comes to alpinism, but I can imagine many people not doing the same!
> I wondered whether there was a risk of the factual minutae of the footnote overshadowing the substance of the article which is where I hoped the thread discussion would focus
This is UKC Simon, what did you expect?
Nice article, I like the way you structured it. The one subject it avoids is the concept of "acceptable risk".
A facile approach to this is to say that the level of risk each person is willing to accomodate is 'personal'; but that's a selfish argument that ignores the inconvience for other people that any accident (that involves you) would have. Such inconvenience ranges from your mate driving you to hospital with a broken ankle after you fell badly while bouldering, you calling the mountain rescue out because you risked going out the mountain with a bad forecast, to the major disruption your death would cause to the lives of your family and friends.
On a separate point, I agree with you when it comes to alpinism, but I can imagine many people not doing the same!
In reply to Alun:
A little apology to Simon - you did mention the what I allude to in a sentence which I must have missed: Another 'stake' to think about is how important is it for you that you stay alive. As a middle-aged man with a growing family the stakes are now far higher for me now than when I was a student with no responsibilities who having read too many existentialist novels took higher risks on my current existence than I now find acceptable – the git.
I find myself thinking about more and more about this these days - and realising that I probably should have thought about it more when I was younger. It goes beyond mums and dads driving kids to the A&E with a broken arm from falling out of trees; it's the friends who have stayed with me all night in hospital when I've taken one risk too many; it's the fear that my poor Mum lives with when I tell her I'm off to the mountains for a few days; it's the knowledge that my death will hurt people in a way that I will never experience.
I think that very few people really acknowledge this aspect to risk. Perhaps I am personally happy to risk breaking a bone when I jump off a cliff on my bike or snowboard - but what of the hassle it will cause those around me - both immediately and for the next 6 weeks?
Also, looking at risk this way gives you a handy excuse: "yeah, I would give that E9 a go, but my Mum would kill me if died"!
A little apology to Simon - you did mention the what I allude to in a sentence which I must have missed: Another 'stake' to think about is how important is it for you that you stay alive. As a middle-aged man with a growing family the stakes are now far higher for me now than when I was a student with no responsibilities who having read too many existentialist novels took higher risks on my current existence than I now find acceptable – the git.
I find myself thinking about more and more about this these days - and realising that I probably should have thought about it more when I was younger. It goes beyond mums and dads driving kids to the A&E with a broken arm from falling out of trees; it's the friends who have stayed with me all night in hospital when I've taken one risk too many; it's the fear that my poor Mum lives with when I tell her I'm off to the mountains for a few days; it's the knowledge that my death will hurt people in a way that I will never experience.
I think that very few people really acknowledge this aspect to risk. Perhaps I am personally happy to risk breaking a bone when I jump off a cliff on my bike or snowboard - but what of the hassle it will cause those around me - both immediately and for the next 6 weeks?
Also, looking at risk this way gives you a handy excuse: "yeah, I would give that E9 a go, but my Mum would kill me if died"!
In reply to Simon Lee:
Your article - specifically the bit about beginners and more experienced - reminded of some sail training I did. The bloke teaching us used the following terms to describe the learning of a new skill (in that case it was sailing a big boat, but climbing, driving etc all fit the same model):
unconciously incompetent - consciously incompetent - consciously competent and then unconsciously competent.
Once experienced, the trick for staying safest (he argued) is to pull yourself back to consciously competent rather than slipping into autopilot.
Your article - specifically the bit about beginners and more experienced - reminded of some sail training I did. The bloke teaching us used the following terms to describe the learning of a new skill (in that case it was sailing a big boat, but climbing, driving etc all fit the same model):
unconciously incompetent - consciously incompetent - consciously competent and then unconsciously competent.
Once experienced, the trick for staying safest (he argued) is to pull yourself back to consciously competent rather than slipping into autopilot.
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
I did like the compare and contrast of risk awareness with taught and self taught climbers.
I did like the compare and contrast of risk awareness with taught and self taught climbers.
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
John2 is right: It was not Peter Biven who was rescued on Lundy then crashed in the helicopter - it was me - Frank Cannings. My good friend Peter Biven was there and helped with the rescue (Peter was killed in the Avon Gorge) so was Alison Chadwick (who died in Himalaya) - [see Alison Chadwick Memorial Fund). Others who were present and contributed to the sucessful rescue included top photographer John Cleare, Mountain pundit Ken Wilson, and Norwegian ace recently back from Everest International - Odd Eliasson.
Chance, Risk and Accidents? I've been climbing now for 48 years and 55 of my pals have died in that period - from Mountaineering/climbing accidents/circumstance or from Cancer/other medical or by Suicide. Which are chance, which are risk and which are accident?
John2 is right: It was not Peter Biven who was rescued on Lundy then crashed in the helicopter - it was me - Frank Cannings. My good friend Peter Biven was there and helped with the rescue (Peter was killed in the Avon Gorge) so was Alison Chadwick (who died in Himalaya) - [see Alison Chadwick Memorial Fund). Others who were present and contributed to the sucessful rescue included top photographer John Cleare, Mountain pundit Ken Wilson, and Norwegian ace recently back from Everest International - Odd Eliasson.
Chance, Risk and Accidents? I've been climbing now for 48 years and 55 of my pals have died in that period - from Mountaineering/climbing accidents/circumstance or from Cancer/other medical or by Suicide. Which are chance, which are risk and which are accident?
In reply to GrahamD:
You won't get it Graham.
This is one of the flaws of Simon article. He presumes, quite wrongly in my opinion, that Mountain Guides and Instructors don't teach and more importantly promote self-reliance. In my opinion they do. You can learn a hell of a lot from an instructor or a course and they always stress that you may have learnt the basics....BUT... now the real challenge of surviving is up to you and when you really start to learn...through your own experience
He should really have talked to some to some in the know.
It is a peculiar UK trait, and usually shouted about by old timers, that the only way to learn about climbing and risk, is without expert instruction.
> (In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC)
>
> I did like the compare and contrast of risk awareness with taught and self taught climbers.
>
> I did like the compare and contrast of risk awareness with taught and self taught climbers.
You won't get it Graham.
This is one of the flaws of Simon article. He presumes, quite wrongly in my opinion, that Mountain Guides and Instructors don't teach and more importantly promote self-reliance. In my opinion they do. You can learn a hell of a lot from an instructor or a course and they always stress that you may have learnt the basics....BUT... now the real challenge of surviving is up to you and when you really start to learn...through your own experience
He should really have talked to some to some in the know.
It is a peculiar UK trait, and usually shouted about by old timers, that the only way to learn about climbing and risk, is without expert instruction.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Although I am an old-timer, I went on a 4-day Mountaineering Association beginner's course when I was 17. Basically it was all about learning belaying and ropework, and was really excellent. At the end of it our instructor said, OK, you know what to do now, and it's down to you. It's still potentially very dangerous, but you know the basics. Just get on with the adventure now. (Can't remember his exact words, but they were words to that effect.)
Although I am an old-timer, I went on a 4-day Mountaineering Association beginner's course when I was 17. Basically it was all about learning belaying and ropework, and was really excellent. At the end of it our instructor said, OK, you know what to do now, and it's down to you. It's still potentially very dangerous, but you know the basics. Just get on with the adventure now. (Can't remember his exact words, but they were words to that effect.)
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Simon should have stressed that Gordon I think.
Without skirting on a climbing proficiency test for all I would recommend that most who climb would benefit from a day out with an instructor - not just beginners.
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> Although I am an old-timer, I went on a 4-day Mountaineering Association beginner's course when I was 17. Basically it was all about learning belaying and ropework, and was really excellent. At the end of it our instructor said, OK, you know what to do now, and it's down to you. It's still potentially very dangerous, but you know the basics. Just get on with the adventure now. (Can't remember his exact words, but they were words to that effect.)
>
> Although I am an old-timer, I went on a 4-day Mountaineering Association beginner's course when I was 17. Basically it was all about learning belaying and ropework, and was really excellent. At the end of it our instructor said, OK, you know what to do now, and it's down to you. It's still potentially very dangerous, but you know the basics. Just get on with the adventure now. (Can't remember his exact words, but they were words to that effect.)
Simon should have stressed that Gordon I think.
Without skirting on a climbing proficiency test for all I would recommend that most who climb would benefit from a day out with an instructor - not just beginners.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Simon should have stressed that Gordon I think
Mick
I did not 'shout' and was quite equivocal if you re-read what I said ("In truth I dont know what the best answer to education is")and made it quite clear that I was self-taught - so how can I stress what I don't know ? You were formerly a teacher I think and I expect have clear views in defence of this area. I am very conscious that the whole scope of the article was quite ambitious and ideally should be covered by someone who is very knowledgable in education and a range of other diverse fields including behavioural psychology, statistics, maths, casaulity and god knows what else but in the absence of anyone else stepping up to the plate to have a go at pulling it together in a cohesive way I have given it my best shot. I hope this attempt will provoke a dialogue that leads to new insights but that begins with not misrepresenting what I have written. As for a day out with an instructor - I had one only two years ago with Andy Fitzpatrick lest you mistakenly think I am banging an anti-instructor drum.
Mick
I did not 'shout' and was quite equivocal if you re-read what I said ("In truth I dont know what the best answer to education is")and made it quite clear that I was self-taught - so how can I stress what I don't know ? You were formerly a teacher I think and I expect have clear views in defence of this area. I am very conscious that the whole scope of the article was quite ambitious and ideally should be covered by someone who is very knowledgable in education and a range of other diverse fields including behavioural psychology, statistics, maths, casaulity and god knows what else but in the absence of anyone else stepping up to the plate to have a go at pulling it together in a cohesive way I have given it my best shot. I hope this attempt will provoke a dialogue that leads to new insights but that begins with not misrepresenting what I have written. As for a day out with an instructor - I had one only two years ago with Andy Fitzpatrick lest you mistakenly think I am banging an anti-instructor drum.
In reply to Simon Lee:
Just cooking Simon. Don't get me wrong, I've learnt a lot from reading your words and thoughts.
Just cooking Simon. Don't get me wrong, I've learnt a lot from reading your words and thoughts.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Many would agree with you on that, but technical proficiency is only part of your ability to deal with risk and danger. Simon's point is that that ability can only be formed by experience - which has the added benefit of improving your technique.
i.e.
Tuition = gain proficiency quickly, but appreciation of risk hadly ever.
Experience = gain proficiency steadily, appreciation of risk steadily.
As ever, a balance is best!
> most who climb would benefit from a day out with an instructor - not just beginners
Many would agree with you on that, but technical proficiency is only part of your ability to deal with risk and danger. Simon's point is that that ability can only be formed by experience - which has the added benefit of improving your technique.
i.e.
Tuition = gain proficiency quickly, but appreciation of risk hadly ever.
Experience = gain proficiency steadily, appreciation of risk steadily.
As ever, a balance is best!
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
That is a very black and white picture you paint. I don't think it is that clear cut. Different people respond to different learning regimes and there is no right way. Simon is right to point out that being taught is no guarantee of eliminating risk and that people who tend to learn by numbers can easily fool themselves as to the risks involved in what they are doing.
> It is a peculiar UK trait, and usually shouted about by old timers, that the only way to learn about climbing and risk, is without expert instruction.
That is a very black and white picture you paint. I don't think it is that clear cut. Different people respond to different learning regimes and there is no right way. Simon is right to point out that being taught is no guarantee of eliminating risk and that people who tend to learn by numbers can easily fool themselves as to the risks involved in what they are doing.
In reply to GrahamD: Over the years a number of people whom I have know have died climbing. Some two thirds of them were in their first year of climbing - the situation is very similar in motor cycling where if you survive your first year you stand a far better statistical chance of surviving the subsequent years.
I not certain what the cause and effect process is here, though. Perhaps some people are incapable of evaluating risk well in the first place, so that they are caught out early on. Or perhaps every climber is equally vulnerable during their first year and the experience gained during that
year serves them well in subsequent years.
Observation of people leads me to suspect that the first of those explanations is the correct one, but I don't know how you could prove it.
I not certain what the cause and effect process is here, though. Perhaps some people are incapable of evaluating risk well in the first place, so that they are caught out early on. Or perhaps every climber is equally vulnerable during their first year and the experience gained during that
year serves them well in subsequent years.
Observation of people leads me to suspect that the first of those explanations is the correct one, but I don't know how you could prove it.
In reply to John2:
That certainly rings true in my experience as by far the largest number of close shaves I had were in the first couple of years which I put down to a cocktail of natural youthful recklessness, carefree enthusiasm and some technical mistakes and sloppiness.
Regarding motorcyles there was an observed trend of a high death rate a few years ago of "born-again bikers" who had biked as youngsters and then given up on it to return to the sport in affluent middle-age. The superbikes they bought were far more powerful than those they rode as youngsters and their riding skills were rusty.
That certainly rings true in my experience as by far the largest number of close shaves I had were in the first couple of years which I put down to a cocktail of natural youthful recklessness, carefree enthusiasm and some technical mistakes and sloppiness.
Regarding motorcyles there was an observed trend of a high death rate a few years ago of "born-again bikers" who had biked as youngsters and then given up on it to return to the sport in affluent middle-age. The superbikes they bought were far more powerful than those they rode as youngsters and their riding skills were rusty.
In reply to John2:
To take the analogy further, the fact that young drivers have had lessons does not make them immune from making bad risk calls.
To take the analogy further, the fact that young drivers have had lessons does not make them immune from making bad risk calls.
In reply to Simon Lee:
Whereas statistics in the US state that most accidents happen to 'experienced' climbers.
> (In reply to John2)
>
> That certainly rings true in my experience as by far the largest number of close shaves I had were in the first couple of years which I put down to a cocktail of natural youthful recklessness, carefree enthusiasm and some technical mistakes and sloppiness.
>
> That certainly rings true in my experience as by far the largest number of close shaves I had were in the first couple of years which I put down to a cocktail of natural youthful recklessness, carefree enthusiasm and some technical mistakes and sloppiness.
Whereas statistics in the US state that most accidents happen to 'experienced' climbers.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Mick, I suspect you are trying to read too much from too little data. You can only meaningfully make the inference from this that experienced climbers are at higher risk if the statistics give you information about the amount of time victims spend on the rock.
It is a point that Simon makes that total risk is a time-dependent quantity. Experienced climbers are presumably at a lower risk unit time but by spending a lot of time climbing the total risk may rise again.
Iain
> (In reply to Simon Lee)
> [...]
>
> Whereas statistics in the US state that most accidents happen to 'experienced' climbers.
> [...]
>
> Whereas statistics in the US state that most accidents happen to 'experienced' climbers.
Mick, I suspect you are trying to read too much from too little data. You can only meaningfully make the inference from this that experienced climbers are at higher risk if the statistics give you information about the amount of time victims spend on the rock.
It is a point that Simon makes that total risk is a time-dependent quantity. Experienced climbers are presumably at a lower risk unit time but by spending a lot of time climbing the total risk may rise again.
Iain
In reply to IainWhitehouse:
I'm not presuming or trying to 'read too much' into anything. You are inferring that I am.
Accidents in North American Mountaineering simply state that most accidents happen to experienced climbers.
As for the reasons for this, it may well be due to time spent, type of routes attempted etc
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
> [...]
>
> Mick, I suspect you are trying to read too much from too little data. Y
> [...]
>
> Mick, I suspect you are trying to read too much from too little data. Y
I'm not presuming or trying to 'read too much' into anything. You are inferring that I am.
Accidents in North American Mountaineering simply state that most accidents happen to experienced climbers.
As for the reasons for this, it may well be due to time spent, type of routes attempted etc
In reply to Instructor Nay sayers: I taught myself to climb and learnt from reading books and then going out and working out what worked best. I have had some close shaves and some very close shaves, andI have finally arrived at a situation where I feel that 90% of the time I can assess the risks correctly, quickly and accurately, atleast the KK and KU's. Having also started upon my MIA I have now been taught by other instructors about risk ina more stuctured manner and I'd say that although I though I had it pretty nailed before I went on the training, I have come to realise that there is still a long way to go in that respect. What I'm really saying is that the instuctors were able to open my eyes to whole area's or risk which I'd never really given much thought. Yes they did not go through a list of risks that I may encounter - how could you ever complete such a list. But what it did do is increase my awareness to a much higher level and I feel good instructors can do that for anybody.
I think it unusual for a student to come away from a training course and feel that they are invincible, rather the opposite usually, feeling they have a lot more to learn, and its rather patronising of our more experinced sports particpants to think that "bumblies" will not pick up on this feeling from an instructor - they are not daft and instructors by and large encourage clients to assess the risks by themselves - e.g. "we're coming up to a cliff - please put on your helmets asap as there maybe objects falling, especially as thisis a busy part of the crag and there could be not only falling debris but also equipment dropped by leaders in extremis!" From then on a client unless they really are thickskinned will always think about that possabilty. What I would say is that the selftaught approach advocated by so many has a longerlearnign curve, particularly where risk is concerned because you have to experience the consequnce, hopefully indirectly for you to become aware of the danger. For example when I was younger I never wore a helmet until I went and climber Kilnsey Main overhang and pulled off 50kg ofrock on my head and had to drive home with a mild concussion. I now make a very concious desision whether or not to wear a helmet, but it was only though a tough lesson that I really became aware of my own fragility and the danger that was present. I could easily have been a bystander at the bottom of the crag and been hit by the falling rock, and been killed.
So in conclusion whilstan instrcutor is not going to give you an omnipresent and immediate ability to assess risk, he IS going to make a client far more alert to the danger, unlike if you potter along selfteaching... I know people will argue that you still need a close call to understand the risk fully but surely a heightened awareness is better than none?
I think it unusual for a student to come away from a training course and feel that they are invincible, rather the opposite usually, feeling they have a lot more to learn, and its rather patronising of our more experinced sports particpants to think that "bumblies" will not pick up on this feeling from an instructor - they are not daft and instructors by and large encourage clients to assess the risks by themselves - e.g. "we're coming up to a cliff - please put on your helmets asap as there maybe objects falling, especially as thisis a busy part of the crag and there could be not only falling debris but also equipment dropped by leaders in extremis!" From then on a client unless they really are thickskinned will always think about that possabilty. What I would say is that the selftaught approach advocated by so many has a longerlearnign curve, particularly where risk is concerned because you have to experience the consequnce, hopefully indirectly for you to become aware of the danger. For example when I was younger I never wore a helmet until I went and climber Kilnsey Main overhang and pulled off 50kg ofrock on my head and had to drive home with a mild concussion. I now make a very concious desision whether or not to wear a helmet, but it was only though a tough lesson that I really became aware of my own fragility and the danger that was present. I could easily have been a bystander at the bottom of the crag and been hit by the falling rock, and been killed.
So in conclusion whilstan instrcutor is not going to give you an omnipresent and immediate ability to assess risk, he IS going to make a client far more alert to the danger, unlike if you potter along selfteaching... I know people will argue that you still need a close call to understand the risk fully but surely a heightened awareness is better than none?
In reply to GrahamD: And do you think a young driver who has had no lessons would be able to make a better assessment of the risks, and if notthen why do Joyrides usually end in a crash?
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: UKClimbing.com: Accidents in North American Mountaineering simply state that most accidents happen to experienced climbers.As for the reasons for this, it may well be due to time spent, type of routes attempted etc
Can you qoute a bit more info on this. If the data is to do with Mountaineering accidents (as opposed to crag accidents)this will be a further potential reason as they have 'proper' mountains in North America were generally only experienced climbers would get involved.
If it is to do with all climbing related accidents does it not offer some explanations ?.
Can you qoute a bit more info on this. If the data is to do with Mountaineering accidents (as opposed to crag accidents)this will be a further potential reason as they have 'proper' mountains in North America were generally only experienced climbers would get involved.
If it is to do with all climbing related accidents does it not offer some explanations ?.
In reply to Simon Lee:
Haven't got a copy handy.
You can learn more here: http://www.americanalpineclub.org/pages/page/72
Both crag and mountains.
The US's mountains, Rockies, Sierra Nevada, Palisades etc are frequented by all sorts of climbers/mountaineers/walkers.
Haven't got a copy handy.
You can learn more here: http://www.americanalpineclub.org/pages/page/72
> If the data is to do with Mountaineering accidents (as opposed to crag accidents)this will be a further potential reason as they have 'proper' mountains in North America were generally only experienced climbers would get involved.
Both crag and mountains.
The US's mountains, Rockies, Sierra Nevada, Palisades etc are frequented by all sorts of climbers/mountaineers/walkers.
In reply to mike kann:
Absolutely not. But then I'm not arguing that climbing lessons are bad either (even though I've never stumped out the money to have any). I was just saying that lessons are not a panecea. Done well they can increase risk awareness but not done well it can reduce self reliance (learning climbing by rote).
Absolutely not. But then I'm not arguing that climbing lessons are bad either (even though I've never stumped out the money to have any). I was just saying that lessons are not a panecea. Done well they can increase risk awareness but not done well it can reduce self reliance (learning climbing by rote).
In reply to Simon Lee:
No, it is a very common attitude in the UK.
Same here. I'd recommend a mix.
> As for 'Instruction naysayers' (on this so far thread at least) that is a figment of Mick's rhetoric that you have bought into .
No, it is a very common attitude in the UK.
> There are advantages to being professionally taught and advantages to being self taught and I don't have a fixed view about the best answer despite being in the self-taught camp.
Same here. I'd recommend a mix.
In reply to GrahamD:
No one in their right mind would say that.
Increasing self reliance is the purpose of most courses and instruction days.
> (In reply to mike kann)
>
> I was just saying that lessons are not a panecea.
>
> I was just saying that lessons are not a panecea.
No one in their right mind would say that.
> Done well they can increase risk awareness but not done well it can reduce self reliance (learning climbing by rote).
Increasing self reliance is the purpose of most courses and instruction days.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Hmmm. I've seen plenty of folk being dragged up single pitch crags on top ropes looking anything but self reliant but I bow to your greater experience.
> Increasing self reliance is the purpose of most courses and instruction days.
Hmmm. I've seen plenty of folk being dragged up single pitch crags on top ropes looking anything but self reliant but I bow to your greater experience.
In reply to mike kann: For example when I was younger I never wore a helmet until I went and climber Kilnsey Main overhang and pulled off 50kg ofrock on my head and had to drive home with a mild concussion. I now make a very concious desision whether or not to wear a helmet, but it was only though a tough lesson that I really became aware of my own fragility and the danger that was present. I could easily have been a bystander at the bottom of the crag and been hit by the falling rock, and been killed.
Can I pick up on a small point here. The chances of you pulling a lump of rock onto your own head are very much higher than the same piece of rock hitting a randomly placed bystander although balanced against this lower probability is the higher probability of death. The less randomly placed belayer is more at danger if belaying at a vertical crag than an overhanging one, such as Kilnsey. As you say the danger element for you was probably driving with mild concussion. To digress further at Gordale someone shouted 'Rock' spotting it fall from the top of the crag (dislodged by a sheep maybe) - I instinctively ran away from the base of the crag heading towards its path instead of logically running towards the base of the crag which would be sheltered. The rock shattered behind me.
As for 'Instruction naysayers' (on this so far thread at least) that is a figment of Mick's rhetoric that you have bought into . There are advantages to being professionally taught and advantages to being self taught and I don't have a fixed view about the best answer despite being in the self-taught camp. Thanks for sharing your changed views from your MIA training.
Can I pick up on a small point here. The chances of you pulling a lump of rock onto your own head are very much higher than the same piece of rock hitting a randomly placed bystander although balanced against this lower probability is the higher probability of death. The less randomly placed belayer is more at danger if belaying at a vertical crag than an overhanging one, such as Kilnsey. As you say the danger element for you was probably driving with mild concussion. To digress further at Gordale someone shouted 'Rock' spotting it fall from the top of the crag (dislodged by a sheep maybe) - I instinctively ran away from the base of the crag heading towards its path instead of logically running towards the base of the crag which would be sheltered. The rock shattered behind me.
As for 'Instruction naysayers' (on this so far thread at least) that is a figment of Mick's rhetoric that you have bought into . There are advantages to being professionally taught and advantages to being self taught and I don't have a fixed view about the best answer despite being in the self-taught camp. Thanks for sharing your changed views from your MIA training.
In reply to GrahamD:
Thanks Graham, appreciated.
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
>
> [...]
>
> Hmmm. I've seen plenty of folk being dragged up single pitch crags on top ropes looking anything but self reliant but I bow to your greater experience.
>
>
> [...]
>
> Hmmm. I've seen plenty of folk being dragged up single pitch crags on top ropes looking anything but self reliant but I bow to your greater experience.
Thanks Graham, appreciated.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Indeed I am, but a comment from which we are not invited to draw any inference is surely superfluous.
You're many things Mick, but you are rarely guilty of adding wholly superfluous comment. So I assumed you were inviting us to draw the obvious, but miss-guided, conclusion that experienced climbers were at a higher risk.
> (In reply to IainWhitehouse)
> [...]
>
> I'm not presuming or trying to 'read too much' into anything. You are inferring that I am.
> [...]
>
> I'm not presuming or trying to 'read too much' into anything. You are inferring that I am.
Indeed I am, but a comment from which we are not invited to draw any inference is surely superfluous.
You're many things Mick, but you are rarely guilty of adding wholly superfluous comment. So I assumed you were inviting us to draw the obvious, but miss-guided, conclusion that experienced climbers were at a higher risk.
In reply to Simon Lee:
I bought into this "rehtoric" long before I even knew who Mick Ryan was. Of course there advatages to either method. However I think where some others are profoundly mistaken is the belief that being taught by others means that the client stops learning as soon as they walk away from the instructor. The whole point of an instructor IMHO is similar to that of doing a lecturer at university - its not to learn every single issue that you can possibly ever come across, but to initiate a process of learning which will continued throughout a climbers life, and to give the client the tools withwhich to facilitate that learning. I know I've not stopped learning despite having been self taught, guided, and instructed at various points of my climbing career, and I think its daft to presume that even a minority other than the extremely foolhardy would not also believe this.
> As for 'Instruction naysayers' (on this so far thread at least) that is a figment of Mick's rhetoric that you have bought into . There are advantages to being professionally taught and advantages to being self taught and I don't have a fixed view about the best answer despite being in the self-taught camp. Thanks for sharing your changed views from your MIA training.
I bought into this "rehtoric" long before I even knew who Mick Ryan was. Of course there advatages to either method. However I think where some others are profoundly mistaken is the belief that being taught by others means that the client stops learning as soon as they walk away from the instructor. The whole point of an instructor IMHO is similar to that of doing a lecturer at university - its not to learn every single issue that you can possibly ever come across, but to initiate a process of learning which will continued throughout a climbers life, and to give the client the tools withwhich to facilitate that learning. I know I've not stopped learning despite having been self taught, guided, and instructed at various points of my climbing career, and I think its daft to presume that even a minority other than the extremely foolhardy would not also believe this.
In reply to GrahamD: Just like any walk of life there are poeple who are good at their job and also bad...
In reply to IainWhitehouse:
Most of this thread is based purely on people's personal experience and opinions, that their way of doing things is the right way. Arguments and data is used to fit those opinions.
If you were giving advice to a new climber about how to start climbing and become self-reliant on crags and mountains, what would you recommend Iain?
I don't know about you, but I would recommend a big mix of experience, instruction, reading and observation, with emphasis on being outside with friends climbing in a variety of situations. And yes it would include a course of instruction. This isn't just my opinion but also of the BMC and most mountain/climbing education specialists.
There is an attitude in some quarters to shun paying for instruction and just to get out there and learn from experience and other people. To a new climber I wouldn't recommend this, it is one way, and has produced great and safe climbers. But far too many climbers, with lots of years climbing, have a narrow skill set and also get complacent.
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
> [...]
>
> Indeed I am, but a comment from which we are not invited to draw any inference is surely superfluous.
> [...]
>
> Indeed I am, but a comment from which we are not invited to draw any inference is surely superfluous.
Most of this thread is based purely on people's personal experience and opinions, that their way of doing things is the right way. Arguments and data is used to fit those opinions.
If you were giving advice to a new climber about how to start climbing and become self-reliant on crags and mountains, what would you recommend Iain?
I don't know about you, but I would recommend a big mix of experience, instruction, reading and observation, with emphasis on being outside with friends climbing in a variety of situations. And yes it would include a course of instruction. This isn't just my opinion but also of the BMC and most mountain/climbing education specialists.
There is an attitude in some quarters to shun paying for instruction and just to get out there and learn from experience and other people. To a new climber I wouldn't recommend this, it is one way, and has produced great and safe climbers. But far too many climbers, with lots of years climbing, have a narrow skill set and also get complacent.
In reply to Simon Lee:
I don't think the term [i]Risk[/i] need be an 'elusive concept' or as murky and vague as Simon and this thread suggests. In every line of work nowadays we are expected to carry out risk assessments and there is a lot of guidance available on the subject. Surprisingly enough this appears to have been ignored, and risk used as a vague term covering putting oneself in a potentially dangerous situation.
The first point is to seperate the Hazard itself, that is the physical danger, from the risk which is defined as the likelihood of that danger becoming an issue. So in climbing we could define hazards such as rockfall, holds breaking, gear failing etc. Depending on where we are climbing, and in what style the list of hazards may grow or shrink, whilst the risks for each may increase or decrease based on the weather, our competence or the presence of others.
A typical method for a written industrial risk assessment is to rate hazards and risks from 1-5, ie hazard level 1= cuts/ bruises, 5= death, risk level 1= one in a million, 5=impossible to avoid. Multiplying the tow together for each hazard gives a figure between 1 and 25, typically it is not acceptable to work at levels above 12. For example lighting would be typically H5xR1=5 - acceptable, however on a mountaintop with a fast approaching storm the risk would rapidly increase to 3 or 4!
This may seem rather tedious and longwinded for climbing but it is a very useful approach and not at all vague. The modern approach to avalanche assessments are done precisely on these lines.
I'll not go into too much depth, try searching hse.gov.uk for '5 steps to risk assessment'.
I don't think the term [i]Risk[/i] need be an 'elusive concept' or as murky and vague as Simon and this thread suggests. In every line of work nowadays we are expected to carry out risk assessments and there is a lot of guidance available on the subject. Surprisingly enough this appears to have been ignored, and risk used as a vague term covering putting oneself in a potentially dangerous situation.
The first point is to seperate the Hazard itself, that is the physical danger, from the risk which is defined as the likelihood of that danger becoming an issue. So in climbing we could define hazards such as rockfall, holds breaking, gear failing etc. Depending on where we are climbing, and in what style the list of hazards may grow or shrink, whilst the risks for each may increase or decrease based on the weather, our competence or the presence of others.
A typical method for a written industrial risk assessment is to rate hazards and risks from 1-5, ie hazard level 1= cuts/ bruises, 5= death, risk level 1= one in a million, 5=impossible to avoid. Multiplying the tow together for each hazard gives a figure between 1 and 25, typically it is not acceptable to work at levels above 12. For example lighting would be typically H5xR1=5 - acceptable, however on a mountaintop with a fast approaching storm the risk would rapidly increase to 3 or 4!
This may seem rather tedious and longwinded for climbing but it is a very useful approach and not at all vague. The modern approach to avalanche assessments are done precisely on these lines.
I'll not go into too much depth, try searching hse.gov.uk for '5 steps to risk assessment'.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Amen to that. The number of friends who I could really really rely on in an emergency, who would be able to sort it out quickly and efficiently is pretty limited and I have some very experienced friends... I certainly used to belong to this set...
> But far too many climbers, with lots of years climbing, have a narrow skill set and also get complacent.
Amen to that. The number of friends who I could really really rely on in an emergency, who would be able to sort it out quickly and efficiently is pretty limited and I have some very experienced friends... I certainly used to belong to this set...
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Most of this thread is based purely on people's personal experience and opinions, that their way of doing things is the right way. Arguments and data is used to fit those opinions.
You are skirting what Iain says and I profoundly disagree. There is an inter-relationship between the two. Disembodied data means nothing - it is just information noise. Arguments and data illustrate rather than 'fit' opinion - if the data is tortured, unbalanced or whatever it gets tested accordingly. Inductive reasoning/logic per se doesnt require facts (ie data selected because it is taken as meaningful/signal)to be valid but it is useful to use the facts to illustrate what you are saying.
You are skirting what Iain says and I profoundly disagree. There is an inter-relationship between the two. Disembodied data means nothing - it is just information noise. Arguments and data illustrate rather than 'fit' opinion - if the data is tortured, unbalanced or whatever it gets tested accordingly. Inductive reasoning/logic per se doesnt require facts (ie data selected because it is taken as meaningful/signal)to be valid but it is useful to use the facts to illustrate what you are saying.
In reply to Adam L: I agree, but would make one suggestion based on my won line of work.
We seperate the probability of occurrence (you call risk) and the consequence/hazard.
So the risk is the probability multiplied by the consequence. This can of course be interpreted several ways by HS regulations but I believe it makes the whole concept of risk clearer, as risk is not simply the chance something will happen. There are several methods of implementing it, one of which you describe in your previous message.
We seperate the probability of occurrence (you call risk) and the consequence/hazard.
So the risk is the probability multiplied by the consequence. This can of course be interpreted several ways by HS regulations but I believe it makes the whole concept of risk clearer, as risk is not simply the chance something will happen. There are several methods of implementing it, one of which you describe in your previous message.
In reply to Adam L:
I have recognised that another way I could have approached the article could have been to start with 'obvious' risks (ie pushing yourself on a hard lead) which I believe represents the tip of the proverbial iceberg as to what is likely to kill you when engaged in climbing then gone onto to what I did cover which was the less obvious. Risk assessment is quantifying the in the box stuff and is still dependent on inferences. There is a lot of stuff outside the box. Approaching things indivividualistically I am concerned with what is likely to harm me rather than the general poulation statistically - figures which are often misleading anyway. We all have to use judgements and assess things to weight Risk in our favour but whilst using fishbone diagrams has the appearance of non-vagueness does it wholly encapsulate, quantify and disect the overall risk ? My wife is project manager and she attempts to practice PRINCE which is Project Management In a Controlled Environment. The key problem is the 'Controlled Environment' bit.
I have recognised that another way I could have approached the article could have been to start with 'obvious' risks (ie pushing yourself on a hard lead) which I believe represents the tip of the proverbial iceberg as to what is likely to kill you when engaged in climbing then gone onto to what I did cover which was the less obvious. Risk assessment is quantifying the in the box stuff and is still dependent on inferences. There is a lot of stuff outside the box. Approaching things indivividualistically I am concerned with what is likely to harm me rather than the general poulation statistically - figures which are often misleading anyway. We all have to use judgements and assess things to weight Risk in our favour but whilst using fishbone diagrams has the appearance of non-vagueness does it wholly encapsulate, quantify and disect the overall risk ? My wife is project manager and she attempts to practice PRINCE which is Project Management In a Controlled Environment. The key problem is the 'Controlled Environment' bit.
In reply to Simon Lee:
I wasn't suggesting that. The main initial thrust of your article is that risk is vague and unquantifiable. It isn't. I apply these principles whether managing a rope access team, soloing alone or climbing multi-pitch extremes. They work.
>>Risk assessment is quantifying the in the box stuff and is still dependent on inferences. There is a lot of stuff outside the box. Approaching things indivividualistically I am concerned with what is likely to harm me rather than the general poulation statistically - figures which are often misleading anyway.
I don't agree; you misunderstand it. Yes, office based risk assessments contain lots of routine irrelevancies that most would file under common sense. However you are free to leave these at work, and simply apply the relevant principles when at play.
>>We all have to use judgements and assess things to weight Risk in our favour but whilst using fishbone diagrams has the appearance of non-vagueness does it wholly encapsulate, quantify and disect the overall risk ?
Never heard of a fishbone diagram. The only approach to understanding danger is to break it into constituents. No one is suggesting this can cover everything. You seem to be the one determined to keep it as a diaphonous 'overall' which you can then dismiss as vague.
>>My wife is project manager and she attempts to practice PRINCE which is Project Management In a Controlled Environment. The key problem is the 'Controlled Environment' bit.
As I said, the principles apply. Mountains are not a controlled environment, too uncontolled for you in fact, and yet these principles are used worldwide to assess avalanche risks.
I think you're missing a big opportunity to 'stand on the shoulders of giants' here. Lots of work has been done on this subject and its application has shown to be very powerful whatever the environment.
I want to be 'an individual' as much as you, and I like to think of climbing as something 'different', but I'm not going to let that make me blind to understanding risk.
> (In reply to Adam L)
>
> >I have recognised that another way I could have approached the article could have been to start with 'obvious' risks (ie pushing yourself on a hard lead) which I believe represents the tip of the proverbial iceberg as to what is likely to kill you when engaged in climbing then gone onto to what I did cover which was the less obvious.
>
> >I have recognised that another way I could have approached the article could have been to start with 'obvious' risks (ie pushing yourself on a hard lead) which I believe represents the tip of the proverbial iceberg as to what is likely to kill you when engaged in climbing then gone onto to what I did cover which was the less obvious.
I wasn't suggesting that. The main initial thrust of your article is that risk is vague and unquantifiable. It isn't. I apply these principles whether managing a rope access team, soloing alone or climbing multi-pitch extremes. They work.
>>Risk assessment is quantifying the in the box stuff and is still dependent on inferences. There is a lot of stuff outside the box. Approaching things indivividualistically I am concerned with what is likely to harm me rather than the general poulation statistically - figures which are often misleading anyway.
I don't agree; you misunderstand it. Yes, office based risk assessments contain lots of routine irrelevancies that most would file under common sense. However you are free to leave these at work, and simply apply the relevant principles when at play.
>>We all have to use judgements and assess things to weight Risk in our favour but whilst using fishbone diagrams has the appearance of non-vagueness does it wholly encapsulate, quantify and disect the overall risk ?
Never heard of a fishbone diagram. The only approach to understanding danger is to break it into constituents. No one is suggesting this can cover everything. You seem to be the one determined to keep it as a diaphonous 'overall' which you can then dismiss as vague.
>>My wife is project manager and she attempts to practice PRINCE which is Project Management In a Controlled Environment. The key problem is the 'Controlled Environment' bit.
As I said, the principles apply. Mountains are not a controlled environment, too uncontolled for you in fact, and yet these principles are used worldwide to assess avalanche risks.
I think you're missing a big opportunity to 'stand on the shoulders of giants' here. Lots of work has been done on this subject and its application has shown to be very powerful whatever the environment.
I want to be 'an individual' as much as you, and I like to think of climbing as something 'different', but I'm not going to let that make me blind to understanding risk.
In reply to Adam L: think you're missing a big opportunity to 'stand on the shoulders of giants' here.Lots of work has been done on this subject and its application has shown to be very powerful whatever the environment.
This clearly your area of knowledge and the opportunity is more yours than mine. I have never filled in a Risk Assessment in my life so anything I wrote would be ill educated. I have got the ball rolling - how about an article from you ?
This clearly your area of knowledge and the opportunity is more yours than mine. I have never filled in a Risk Assessment in my life so anything I wrote would be ill educated. I have got the ball rolling - how about an article from you ?
In reply to Adam L:
>The only approach to understanding danger is to break it into constituents.
I agree with Adam. This year my big lesson in climbing has been to become aware of the danger of cumulative risks. When all the constituent risks add up to a tipping point where there is no margin for error, then you have crossed too far over the line.
We can evaluate the constituent risks. Professional instruction can make us aware of other risks that we are not already aware of or don't know how to evaluate, and teach us tried and tested ways to safeguard ourselves.
No big mystery.
As for Rumsfeld and all that known unknown bullshit. They were unbelievably arrogant and foolish, took too many risks, didn't have enough safety measures in place, and got burned. The Americans weren't hit by a comet or some unpredictable act of god. They failed in due diligence.
>The only approach to understanding danger is to break it into constituents.
I agree with Adam. This year my big lesson in climbing has been to become aware of the danger of cumulative risks. When all the constituent risks add up to a tipping point where there is no margin for error, then you have crossed too far over the line.
We can evaluate the constituent risks. Professional instruction can make us aware of other risks that we are not already aware of or don't know how to evaluate, and teach us tried and tested ways to safeguard ourselves.
No big mystery.
As for Rumsfeld and all that known unknown bullshit. They were unbelievably arrogant and foolish, took too many risks, didn't have enough safety measures in place, and got burned. The Americans weren't hit by a comet or some unpredictable act of god. They failed in due diligence.
In reply to Simon Lee:
This is where I disagree with you Simon, or at least I disagree with the sentiment.
I agree that disembodied data means nothing, but when gathered and interpreted correctly it is of infinite more value than anecdotes told by individuals. To think otherwise is to fall into the trap of homeopathy! Anyway that is for another thread.
On topic: Adam your comments regarding professional risk analysis were very interesting. I particularly like the whole 1-5 x 1-5 scale.
> Disembodied data means nothing - it is just information noise.
This is where I disagree with you Simon, or at least I disagree with the sentiment.
I agree that disembodied data means nothing, but when gathered and interpreted correctly it is of infinite more value than anecdotes told by individuals. To think otherwise is to fall into the trap of homeopathy! Anyway that is for another thread.
On topic: Adam your comments regarding professional risk analysis were very interesting. I particularly like the whole 1-5 x 1-5 scale.
In reply to Alun:
We are not disagreeing but you have misrepresented what I said, perhaps by 'illustrate' you assumed I meant 'prove' - there is a huge diffrence. When I used anecdotes or stories in the article I offer them to 'illustrate' what I am saying not 'prove' them. Stories and anecdotes are useful in teaching because we are conditioned to gain understandings from narratives. The trouble is the power of narrative and our thirst for explanations means that casaul links are established that dont exist where events may be down to chance - in this area journalism ni general is one of the worst offenders although I would rate Mick as a bigger offender than Jack on UKC judged in this respect !
Going back yes there is a hiearchy here something like this:
-Top of the list, logic can determine truths without evidence
-Collection of data can lead us to isolate certain data that we decide is important (ie imbue with meaning) and call facts
-Anecdotes can support or prompt a way of truthful thinking even they dont constitute proof
We are not disagreeing but you have misrepresented what I said, perhaps by 'illustrate' you assumed I meant 'prove' - there is a huge diffrence. When I used anecdotes or stories in the article I offer them to 'illustrate' what I am saying not 'prove' them. Stories and anecdotes are useful in teaching because we are conditioned to gain understandings from narratives. The trouble is the power of narrative and our thirst for explanations means that casaul links are established that dont exist where events may be down to chance - in this area journalism ni general is one of the worst offenders although I would rate Mick as a bigger offender than Jack on UKC judged in this respect !
Going back yes there is a hiearchy here something like this:
-Top of the list, logic can determine truths without evidence
-Collection of data can lead us to isolate certain data that we decide is important (ie imbue with meaning) and call facts
-Anecdotes can support or prompt a way of truthful thinking even they dont constitute proof
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
Further reading:
Philosophy, Risk and Adventure Sports.
Ed: Mike J McNamee
Pub: Rouledge
ISBN: 978-0-415-35185-0
I've just read an excellent paper that Mike sent me "Sport, Nature and Worldmaking" but thats another story.
Further reading:
Philosophy, Risk and Adventure Sports.
Ed: Mike J McNamee
Pub: Rouledge
ISBN: 978-0-415-35185-0
I've just read an excellent paper that Mike sent me "Sport, Nature and Worldmaking" but thats another story.
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
Simon did you consider the risks to your personal safety when you went against general consensus and removed the stone from right eliminate.....?
Simon did you consider the risks to your personal safety when you went against general consensus and removed the stone from right eliminate.....?
In reply to bomb: I didn't like the section alpinism. I my opinion it is all to do with using your experience and knowledge of the route history to reduce the objective risks to an acceptable level, much like everytime you get into a car. Also suggesting that the odds are only marginally extended with experience is rubbish and the idea of taking short cuts to increase speed is crap. I admit that when I first started I mistook moving fast for rushing however with more experience I realised that you can move fast without comprimising your safety. I think the author should have done some more research on this area of climbing before writing that section.
In reply to bomb:
You mean "restored right eliminate to its first ascent condition"? A few thousand posts into the controversy it was revealed that Joe Brown didn't place the chockstone and that it post-dated his FA.
> removed the stone from right eliminate.....?
You mean "restored right eliminate to its first ascent condition"? A few thousand posts into the controversy it was revealed that Joe Brown didn't place the chockstone and that it post-dated his FA.
In reply to Simon Lee:
Simon can you please explain to me what your point in the article is? It's just a little bit, well abstract. It seems to start off considering risk, and then concludes by telling us we don't need to worry about it. Well thanks.
You just seem to have missed so much - for instance trading off the probability of falling off against what damage limitation measures you've taken in case you do fall off (and considering the the probability of these working, yet how spending a long time on these can affect (i.e. increase) the probability of falling off - by tiring you out or plugging a crucial hold (sometimes I'd say it's correct to make a move harder and stay safer and others (I'd say it's better to go for more spaced gear that's good enough and save your strength for the climbing)) is central to trad.
Simon can you please explain to me what your point in the article is? It's just a little bit, well abstract. It seems to start off considering risk, and then concludes by telling us we don't need to worry about it. Well thanks.
You just seem to have missed so much - for instance trading off the probability of falling off against what damage limitation measures you've taken in case you do fall off (and considering the the probability of these working, yet how spending a long time on these can affect (i.e. increase) the probability of falling off - by tiring you out or plugging a crucial hold (sometimes I'd say it's correct to make a move harder and stay safer and others (I'd say it's better to go for more spaced gear that's good enough and save your strength for the climbing)) is central to trad.
In reply to Paz:
The point was to try and reflect about risk in a bigger picture way and on those risks that are less in your face - so yes it is abstract. But because it is abstact it doesnt make it nonsense or without potential impact IMO - (just ask an unemployed Risk Manager at Lehman's). Personally I think these inobvious/abstract considerations are important. Others disagree. However, it does reflect how I personally have come to think about risk. Quite evidently that outlook isnt universally shared. Whether you/they just don't get it or I have disappeared up my own fundament is of course a debatable point.
As for specific and more apparent risks and their trade-offs such as those you mention - they are the route-by-route tactical/micro decisions you make. It is something that I didnt cover rather than missed - they are already well covered aspects of risk because they are of the sort that is more apparent and obvious.
The point was to try and reflect about risk in a bigger picture way and on those risks that are less in your face - so yes it is abstract. But because it is abstact it doesnt make it nonsense or without potential impact IMO - (just ask an unemployed Risk Manager at Lehman's). Personally I think these inobvious/abstract considerations are important. Others disagree. However, it does reflect how I personally have come to think about risk. Quite evidently that outlook isnt universally shared. Whether you/they just don't get it or I have disappeared up my own fundament is of course a debatable point.
As for specific and more apparent risks and their trade-offs such as those you mention - they are the route-by-route tactical/micro decisions you make. It is something that I didnt cover rather than missed - they are already well covered aspects of risk because they are of the sort that is more apparent and obvious.
In reply to Simon Lee:
Fair enough, I didn't realise there was a need to consider risks in the bigger picture. Maybe it's preaching to the converted with me a bit, because I'm already only bothered about the ones I can do something about, and take it for granted. Possibly because on the contrary I would say the maths is actually very useful to think about risk, and everything you've discussed can be phrased in terms of a simple question of probability, and once you look at it in this framework you could actually take it a lot further. And I try to consciously make the decision `right, this is serious. Yes I'm OK about that'.
Fair enough, I didn't realise there was a need to consider risks in the bigger picture. Maybe it's preaching to the converted with me a bit, because I'm already only bothered about the ones I can do something about, and take it for granted. Possibly because on the contrary I would say the maths is actually very useful to think about risk, and everything you've discussed can be phrased in terms of a simple question of probability, and once you look at it in this framework you could actually take it a lot further. And I try to consciously make the decision `right, this is serious. Yes I'm OK about that'.
In reply to Paz: In reply to Paz: I didn't realise there was a need to consider risks in the bigger picture
The bigger picture aspects or perhaps I should call them themes were:
- behavoural risks when you are experienced, inexperienced or young,
- comparative risks of soloing vs leading vs bouldering
- choosing to go alpine climbing
- the risks you cant see vs the ones you can
- how much you are prepared to risk vs what you get out of the sport
I thought these things were worth considering as an individual or should I say I think they are worth considering.
As for your faith in maths I am sceptical that it can be used as extensively as you suggest.
The bigger picture aspects or perhaps I should call them themes were:
- behavoural risks when you are experienced, inexperienced or young,
- comparative risks of soloing vs leading vs bouldering
- choosing to go alpine climbing
- the risks you cant see vs the ones you can
- how much you are prepared to risk vs what you get out of the sport
I thought these things were worth considering as an individual or should I say I think they are worth considering.
As for your faith in maths I am sceptical that it can be used as extensively as you suggest.
In reply to Simon Lee:
It can be used to phrase guess work formally and precisely, and then tell you what your guesses imply. And be used to intepret data (which we don't have half as much of as we do anecdotes), I'll print your article out and knock out something and we'll see shan't we.
It can be used to phrase guess work formally and precisely, and then tell you what your guesses imply. And be used to intepret data (which we don't have half as much of as we do anecdotes), I'll print your article out and knock out something and we'll see shan't we.
In reply to Paz: I'll print your article out and knock out something and we'll see shan't we.
Excellent - now we're getting somewhere.
For balance we could do with a Safety Engineering, Education and Behavioural Psychology guru to offer their revisionist view as well. Perhaps a philosopher as well for good measure.
BTW as I have already said the anecdotes in the article are used to illustrate the themes I am not under the illusion they prove them.
Excellent - now we're getting somewhere.
For balance we could do with a Safety Engineering, Education and Behavioural Psychology guru to offer their revisionist view as well. Perhaps a philosopher as well for good measure.
BTW as I have already said the anecdotes in the article are used to illustrate the themes I am not under the illusion they prove them.
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
I would add squirels to the list of Hazards having had one launch itself at my face whilst soloing at Stanington Ruffs. Somthing I now consider along with birds when raising my head above the edges of ledges.
I would add squirels to the list of Hazards having had one launch itself at my face whilst soloing at Stanington Ruffs. Somthing I now consider along with birds when raising my head above the edges of ledges.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...