UKC

First of all, I would like to convey my deepest condolences to the family and friends of the man who was killed on the Clachaig Gully path down from the Aonach Eagach this week. Although I was not on site at the time, several of my friends were and by all accounts it was a harrowing experience for all involved.

With no disrespect whatsoever intended to the victim of this tragedy, I am led to wonder how many callouts to this accident blackspot it will take before a warning sign is put up somewhere (perhaps the car park beneath Am Bodach). To my knowledge, this is the second death on the path in the last few months, and also the second callout in a single week.

We are already considering putting some warning signs up next to the weather reports in the Clachaig, although we are debating exactly how these should be phrased. I have spoken to many walkers about to attempt the Aonach Eagach and it seems to be a commonly held view that the Clachaig Gully path is the safest way off the hill!

In reply to Only a hill:

Bad news. There was another fatality here a few years ago when I was at the Clachaig. And a large number of incidents on the pinnacled section.

My time in the Glen showed that a large number of people are unsure about what the ridge involves; the nature of the terrain means that when they find out they are committed.

I agree with your signage contention and would suggest that as the choke point through which wirtually every traversee passes the Am Bodach car park is the best place for it. It should probably state unambiguously that:

1. The main ridge section is inescapable and requires confidence with exposure and moving on steep rock.
2. The Clachaig Gully descent is dangerous and not reccommended. Instead suggest going due South from last Munro or continuing to Pap of Glencoe col.

This may get derided as nannying, but if a sign in a car park saves one life it is worth it. Less sure about the board in the hotel though.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

We were thinking about a sign in the bar as a temporary measure until something more permanent is put up, as many walkers pass through the Clachaig before doing the ridge. The jury's still out on this one though and we may decide not to put one up.

Nobody I have spoken to has anything to say against putting a permanent sign up at the Am Bodach car park, although I'm sure someone will oppose it on 'nanny state' grounds! As you say though, if it saves a life it is worth doing.

There have been suggestions to put a sign up directly at the top of the descent path but I don't think that's the right way to go about it.

In reply to Only a hill:
Does anyone know who would be the best people to write to in order to suggest a warning sign? The SMC? Northern Constabulary? Not sure who was responsible for the one at the bottom of the pony track on the Ben.

In reply to Only a hill: Maybe I'm getting confused with somewhere else, but I'm sure there used to be a sign at the Am Bodach carpark warning that the ridge was a serious undertaking. It looked old when I first saw it towards the end of the 1970s

Anyone else remember such a sign ? or has old age started to get me

In reply to Only a hill: John Grieve is the leader of Glencoe Mountain Rescue, perhaps he and the police (or roads authority) should be liaised with. I'm also (ultra!) anti nani-state, but would be sympathetic in a case such as this. In the long run, a simple sign at the starting parking area in the Coe WILL save lives.

In reply to Doug: I agree, but it was a while ago.

In reply to Doug: I remember this sign too. I am sure it was there when I did the ridge in March 1983. I also remember warning tales from Hamish MacInnes about people attempting to descend from the ridge too soon.

In reply to Doug:

There's a photo in Poucher's 'Scottish Peaks', and the sign says:

'Do NOT attempt to descend from the AONACH EAGACH RIDGE until you reach the last peak SGOR NAM FIANNAIDH'

Which unfortunately isn't actually enough on its own to keep folk from the Clachaig Gully path.

In reply to Only a hill:

I see they have put up a sign in Glen Nevis - on the path up to Steall after the drownings over the past couple of years.

Also at the Linn of Dee

In reply to Mark Phillips:

Cheers, looks like the Glencoe MR will be good people to contact as well then. I'm sure they're already thinking about options along similar lines but I reckon that the more of us made our opinions heard, the more likely it is that something will happen.

FFS mountains are dangerous. People are stupid. Accept the risks or stay home. What next? Signs at the foot of every route? Path? Buttress? River crossing? Tea Room?

Next you'll be wanting abseil poles into Coire Leis and marker posts on the summit plateau of the Ben.

In reply to unclesamsauntibess:

So you think people should be allowed to die, just because of some vague notion of an encroaching nanny state?

In reply to Only a hill:
I hope this thread doesn't descend into a slanging match, as you are making a reasonable suggestion in the circumstances. But the argument that 'if it saves one life, it is worth it' is not valid in itself. Closing the Ben or the M6 would do that.
Personally I would rather see clear warnings in guide books (and maybe on pub noticeboards - good idea) than on the path itself, otherwise such signs could multiply quite rapidly. But I could be persuaded otherwise.

In reply to unclesamsauntibess:

So you've just replied to this thread with 'FFS mountains are dangerous' and another with 'FFS get real'...

Do you really need to yell 'FFS' at strangers to make your points?

In reply to Only a hill:

Copy this or do something like it to stick in the bar, showing the safer way off the ridge;
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/idld.srf?X=212655&Y=759030&A=Y&Z=120...

In reply to unclesamsauntibess:

There's more to it than just people being left to do stupid things. Every time someone goes down that path and has an accident Glencoe MRT are out dealing with it. There have been 4 call-outs (that I have seen) in as many weeks on this area, including 2 fatalities. Whilst you may think that people should be allowed to fall off things if they aren't clued-up enough to find a safe way down, you can surely see the point of saving the MRT, the police, and others who get caught up in helping with the situation from the unpleasant experience of dealing with death or serious injury from other people's misjudgement?

In reply to Only a hill:

When was this, Alex? (I was on the ridge on Wednesday, but haven't heard/seen any reference elsewhere to another accident since the one in June.)

In reply to Only a hill: I wonder whether the guide books have a role to play in this? I would suspect (hope?) that not that many people would head off along the Aonach Eagach without having done some research on to what they might expect to find. I have six guide books which cover the Aonach Eagach and while most of them make it fairly clear that there is no escape from the ridge between Am Bodach and Stob Coire Leith, there seems to be a fair bit of variation in the advice about descent once you have reached Sgorr nam Fiannnaidh - if not in factual terms, then at least in tone and emphasis.

The 1999 edition of the SMC Munros book, for the descent at the west end of the ridge it says:

The most direct descent from this peak to Glen Coe is due south down a continuously steep slope of boulders and stones near the top, and grass lower down. Care is needed not to dislodge stones which might roll a long way down to the hazard of anyone below, but otherwise the route is not difficult. In winter it and the whole traverse of the Aonach Eagach is very different; a serious mountaineering expedition that may be difficult and time-consuming.

For those who seek a less continuously steep descent, the best alternative is to go 3/4km west from Sgorr nam Fiannaidh, then 1km north-north-west down to the col below the Pap of Glencoe. From there descend south-west by a path to the road between Glencoe village and Clachaig Hotel. Do not descend south from this col as that leads down across the grazing land above Leacantuim farm, which should be avoided.

There is an obvious path on the west side of Clachaig Gully immediately north of Clachaig Hotel, but it should be avoided as a route of descent or ascent as it is badly eroded with a lot of loose stones and rock which, if dislodged, can be hazard to climbers in the gully. This route is not recommended.

About the above advice I would observe that:
1) The specific recommendation against using the Clachaig Gully path is left until last;
2) The justification for that recommendation seems to be based on the possible risk to others, not to the descending party;
3) The description of the descent directly south in to Glen Coe looks to me as if it could be confused with the Clachaig Gully descent, if the whole passage were not read and followed sufficiently carefully - especially so if the Clachaig Gully path is supposedly so obvious;
4) At no point is there any mention of the fact that there is no escape route off the ridge. That seems a bit odd for a book which is by definition targeted at walkers rather than climbers, which latter might be expected to be better able to recognise and avoid dangerous ground.

Conversely, the current edition of the SMC Glen Coe guide book for climbers does state that there are no safe descent routes between Am Bodach and Stob Coire Leith. It says that the descent via the col below the Pap is "by far the safest", and also says: Although the lure of a well earned drink in the Clachaig Inn may be particularly tempting, a descent by the west bank of Clachaig Gully is not recommended as it requires careful map work or prior knowledge if it is to be identified from above. [which statement seems to be at odds with the "obvious path" mentioned in the Munros book.] Furthermore the path is loose, steep and badly eroded and there is a danger of dislodging stones onto climbers in the gully. Again, the emphasis seems to be on risk to others rather than risk to oneself.

Andrew Dempster's "Classic Mountain Scrambles in Scotland" book states: Those making a direct descent to the Clachaig Hotel should continue on past [the summit of Sgorr nam Fiannaidh] and veer off to the left as if heading out on to a prominent shoulder. Just beyond this shoulder the enormous cleft of the Clachaig Gully drops 915m to the glen. Pass the lip of this gully and pick up a scree path which leads steeply down the shoulder on the far side of the gully. Note that this descent is very loose, steep and brutally unrelenting. Tiredness at the end of a day combined with such a descent can be lethal. Alternatively, descend due south from the Summit of Sgorr nam Fiannaidh into a scree hollow, followed by steep grass. This leads directly to Loch Achtriochtan. At least there is a warning of the difficulty of the Clachaig Gully descent, but it does nonetheless recommend that route, and there's no mention of the much easier route via the col below the Pap.

Ralph Storer's "100 Best Routes on Scottish Mountains" says: Unfortunately, there are no pleasant ways back down to the glen from the summit of Sgorr nam Fiannaidh. Unless continuing to the Pap of Glencoe, the safest way is to continue westwards along the ridge for a short distance, then descend south-eastwards into a small corrie and continue down steep, rough quartzite slopes to reach the roadside near Loch Achtriochtan. ... NB: a direct descent to the Clachaig Inn, using the steep, loose path beside Clachaig Gully, is not recommended. So at least the Clachaig Gully descent is advised against, but again there's no recommendation in favour of the easy way down.

Cameron McNeish's popular (perhaps because no-one ever seems to sell it at the supposed recommended retail price) Munros book says: Descend due south [of the summit of Sgorr nam Fiannaidh] picking your way with care through some rocky outcrops and down for a well-earned pint in the Clachaig Inn. From the bearing given, that sounds like the direct descent to Loch Achtriochtan; however, the reference to the Clachaig Inn suggests that he might be referring to the Clachaig Gully path. His next paragraph would seem to support that: The path, on the west side of the Clachaig Gully has a lot of loose stones and rock on it and there is a danger of knocking scree into the gully, putting other climbers at risk. There is also the danger of actually falling in to the gully; there have been several fatalities at this point in recent years. Again, a clear enough warning, but no mention of other routes, and there seems to be some confusion in the text between the slightly safer route down to Loch Achtriochtan and the Clachaig Gully route. I wonder whether the comma after "The path" is misleading; without it you would tend to read the second paragraph as being about a different path. With the comma there, it looks as if he's talking about the same path as in the preceding paragraph - which might indeed have been his intention, although the Clachaig Gully path does not go due south from the summit of Sgorr nam Fiannaidh.

The safest advice seems to be this from Dan Bailey's recent "Scotland's Mountain Ridges": From Am Bodach westwards there is NO safe way down into Glen Coe for several kilometres. If you're caught on the pinnacles at nightfall, keep going. This can't be over-emphasised. The direct descent S from Sgorr nam Fiannaidh and the eroded 'path' on the W bank of Clachaig Gully have both been recommended by guidebooks over the years, but both are potentially dangerous, particularly in poor visibility. Research for this book has imprinted this fact indelibly on my mind. He then goes on to give an accurate and concise description of the descent via the col below the Pap. I can't help wondering, though, what particular experience he had which so impressed him against using the other two routes...

In reply to petestack:

Wednesday night, I believe MR were called sometime between 10 and 11 pm and eventually left the Clachaig at about 6.45am.

In reply to Only a hill:
"so you think people should be allowed to die, just because of some vague notion of an encroaching nanny state?"
thoroughly stupid statement. they kill themselves via their own actions.

whilst another sign would not big a real issue given the mess our hills are in it is yet another concession to the current idea that we cannot think for ourselves and that some one else is always to blame foe our own actions

In reply to isi_o:

In reply to isi_o:
I don't think you should second guess the feelings of Glencoe MRT members and claim that it's unfair on them. Members of any MRT provide the service due to their love of the hills and wanting to help fellow hill goers. I hate seeing people with no involvement use this excuse over and over again.

On the sign issue i'm against signs in the hills. The outdoors is one of the last places we can make our own decissions rely on our judgment. Lets face it, you could get youself killed on any hill / outcrop in the UK. Are you going to put signs on them all?

In reply to KMC:

I don't see anything wrong with a sign in a pub or on a car park, if you don't want its advice you can always ignore it.

In this case isn't it the state of the path that causes the danger, something that you can't discern from looking at the map?

In reply to KMC:

And I don't think either of Isi's posts to this thread second guess their feelings or claim that it's unfair on them. Unless you're suggesting that they enjoy 'dealing with death or serious injury from other people's misjudgement'?

In reply to KMC:

Fair point, I don't mean to second guess their feelings. I still don't think it's unreasonable to assume that people would rather not have a fatality to deal with if it were preventable without compromising the experiences people are able to have in the mountains. I guess this one just feels a bit raw as it's close by and several friends and colleagues got caught up in the event this week (due to keeping the hotel open for people to get coffees etc, not trying to interfere, I hasten to add) which is something they couldn't conscience not doing, but aren't used to dealing with. Certainly not advocating putting signs all over the place.

In reply to petestack:

No i'm not suggesting that for one moment, My reason for the comment is that this argument is often used to justify Hill insurance, Signposts, competency requirements to go into the hills, and everything else which errods our freedom to make personal choices in the outdoors.

In reply to KMC:

Ah, OK. In which case competency requirements and/or compulsory insurance for hill going make no more sense to me than they would for walking down the street or through the park (so where do you draw the line and what happens when you overstep it?), but I might concede a role for the *very* occasional sign as suggested here.

In reply to Only a hill:
The reality is that the Aonach Eagach is not a difficult dayout but unfortunately accidents happen and people get injured or die as a result. The warning sign at the head of the Glen Nevis borders on the ridiculous and more warnings whether at the bottom or top of the hills will fail to prevent accidents. We have to take responsibility for our own actions and stop looking to lay blame on others. The Scottish hills can be dangerous and the Ridge will always hold an element of danger ever for the experienced. Thats why we go there.

In reply to Only a hill:

well i don't know any of the details regarding this most recent fatality but the guy who died there last month was said to be experienced...

is it actually inexperienced and foolhardy visitors unaware of the risks that are ending up getting hurt on the eagach? or is it folk, as per the guy in june, who know the risks but choose to descend via the clachaig and get unlucky.
(personally i opted for the pap descent when i was last there but i had time to kill and a beautiful day so was happy to take a longer descent route)

if it's the experienced who are getting hurt then surely signs aimed at tourists will have no impact on the fatality rate.

so, anyone any idea wether it's mostly hill walkers underestimating the route and getting into difficulties or is it more experienced folk just choosing to take their chances on the clachaig descent?

In reply to bivy spirit:

I remember racing a mate down the path at the side of the Clachaig gully.

IIRC, some of the sharp turns on it are very close to the gully, easy to overshoot.

Are there also some places where hands are needed?

lsn

In reply to bivy spirit:

I would think it is a combination of people thinking they can take a short cut through not reading the guide and experienced people who are tired slipping and falling, very easy to do. The first time I did it we went down the slope to Achtriochan and even in nailed boots we were slipping on the steep slope due to tiredness and landing on our backsides more than we liked.

Going down towards the Pap and down the path is a lot easier, and probably quicker than straight down and picking your way.

In reply to Only a hill:

When I did the Aonach Eagach I was lucky enough to receive advice from a friend to descend the long way via the Pap of Glencoce col. I don't see anything wrong with a sign for people who aren't lucky enough to have a friend to tell them.

I remember the old don't descend too early sign too, I think it was put up as a response to a number of accidents caused by people quitting the ridge from around the half way point. So the wording of any sign should probably warn against that too.

In reply to Oceanic:

... but i suppose that's the point really- surely folk should be researching a route like this before heading out and shouldn't be relying on luck/friends to get them across it.

especially given that the route is legendary and the risks of the clachaig descent are very well documented (for all that as per a previous comment above- the info regarding choices of descent and their pros and cons do seem a little baffling) it seems that there should be little reason for folk to be waltzing down the gully blissfully ignorant of the risks involved...

In reply to bivy spirit:

FWIW, the path towards the Pap splits west of Sgorr nam Fiannaidh summit at a substantial cairn and the more tempting, better-defined southern fork is the one you really don't want...

In reply to Only a hill:

I really don't have any problems with giving people information about the hazzards on a route that might be encountered. Like most people I use guide books about routes etc. and decsent routes - however local up to date knowledge is always really helpful, so I have no problems with a sign. If it stops someone from making a decsent on a route that is locally known to have developed a reputation for accidents, why not.

In reply to Only a hill:

REad "The Scottish Peaks" by Poucher. He has a picture of a sign that used to be on the ridge itself I think.

There is no problem with a sign. Just put one up.

In reply to Donald M:

No, it was just above the car park, start of the path up am Bodach.

In reply to streapadair: wasn't it a few metres from the start of the path, and visible from the car park ?

In reply to Doug:

Yep, immediately above the cp, right a bit.

In reply to Donald M:

Yep get one up.

There are webcams here showing road conditions people will use, white lines alongside the road to help you in poor weather and nobody complains about them
http://www.trafficscotland.org/lev/?mi=4

In reply to Only a hill:

I'd say all that's needed is the solution in the Cicerone guide "Hillwalkers Guide to Mountaineering". They have the gully path marked with a skull and crossbones and "no descent" on the topo, so not even an option. If all guidebooks did this (and also, yes, maybe sthg in the Clachaig or on a signpost as part of a general route info board), then people wouldn't even consider that descent.
I think we went sort of SW from the last Munro on a vague track. Vague because I do remember climbing through undergrowth and over a fence to get back onto the road!

In reply to Caralynr: I think that's part of it. I'm not sure the sign is the solution. It is quite baron up there, I wonder how many actively select the gully as a descent option or stumble around a bit, find a path and follow it down. Maybe a better, though rather drastic option, would be to cairn a route off the summit to a safe descent?

It's 10 years + since I did the ridge so I cannot remember if a route is cairned, but I remember just heading down towards the pap then left, following a path only later on. I can't remember an obvious descent. Obviously if you can use a compass it's straight forwards but I think the ridge attracts many with little knowledge of the hill or navigational skills.

In reply to IainRUK: A thought about the topic generally - the mountains are for people who can look after themselves in the mountains. If they misead a map or disregard advice or over-estimate their abilities then that's their lookout. No notices please. I go up the hills to escape the nanny state not to have it plaster well-meaning notices in front of me.
Chris.

In reply to Chris_Mellor: I see your point. I just disagree. I believe the mountains are for everyone. A balance has to be struck between safety and nanny state, but I can see the logic in actions which mitigate the risks at a few key danger spots such as the Aonach Eagach ridge and Crib Goch.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

I'm also totally against notices on the hill. However, an info board (include some natural history stuff if you like, to make it more general) at a car park seems a good idea. Many areas have these, and once you've left the car park, there's nothing else to intrude on whatever experience you wish to have in the hills.

In reply to IainRUK:

See my reply of 22:58 Sat, Iain.

In reply to Only a hill:

Perhaps another option is to have an article in the walking mags highlighting the danger and suggesting alternative routes off? Maybe making the potential danger more widely known amongst the general hillgoing community.

At the end of the day folk have to make their own choices based on what ever info they have available but as has been pointed out above some of that info is perhaps misleading or just out of date.

In reply to Only a hill: Condolences to the friends and and family! It hurts me everytime I read something like this.

Why not a signpost at Am Bodach and above Clachaig Gully? Furher, if there was a chain across Clachaig Gully, then that would be a positive action by the scrambler to specifically ingnore such advice.
Would be a buit ironic though if the sign or chain caused such an accident.

In reply to Only a hill:

i am very sad to hear of another fatality. i hadnt picked up on it. i posted on this issue the last time there was a death there.

i think there should be a sign at the top of the clachaig gully path telling people who may be about to use it that it is very dangerous and there should be a sign at the start of the descent west from am bodach giving a general warning about the danger of the ridge.

people to consult on it - the landowner, who i think is the NTS; glen coe MRT and the police; and the MC of S.

there are many pro's and cons and i understand the points made in the thread. these are only my opinions, but i would sum them up by saying that people die too often on this ridge for no action to be taken.

ahunter

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

there used to be a sign in the car park years ago.

In reply to Davy Virdee: Surely a car park sign is viable but anything on the ridge itself should be out of the question?

In reply to Caralynr:

The SMC Munros book also warns against it and doesn't mark it on their map as a route, though to avoid knocking rocks on climbers in the gully rather than explicitly because of the risk of accidents.

But the path is there, and despite well publicised warnings in guidebooks - and signs or noticeboards if they are erected - experienced people will still take the decision to descend by the Clachaig gully, knowing the risks, and judging that they can counter them... I did the second time I did the ridge, and it's an option I certainly won't take again. But others will, and while I support more effort to warn people off it, I still think we'll see a similar accident rate in the future.

In reply to Doug:

See page 192 for a picture of the sign that used to be in the car park

http://books.google.no/books?id=We3aWqPA6v0C&pg=PA192&dq=Aonach+Eag...

In reply to Slugain Howff:
That picture is in my Poucher book, bought in 1974.

Plate 59, there was a sign there in the late 50s advising it was not safe to descend till the end of the traverse so been signs for over 50 years in places.

In reply to johnSD:
"... and despite well publicised warnings in guidebooks - experienced people will still take the decision to descend by the Clachaig gully, knowing the risks..."

aye that's exactly what i was suggesting in my earlier comment: after all, the guy who died in june was said to be experienced so it seems he'd made an informed choice to risk it.
which is why i was posing the question on the experience levels of those who've died over the years on the eagach- is it maybe the case that it's experienced folk that are taking that descent route rather than out of their depth hillwalkers? in which case signs would be of little consequence.

however i still haven't spotted much in the way of details regarding this particular incident in the press ( i was only alerted to the fatality by this thread at the weekend) so i've no idea wether this was an experienced person making an informed choice or not. anybody heard much about it in this respect?

what's been going through my mind on this one is wether it's not so much a case of deaths due to a lack of awareness or folk going for it while underestimating the dangers, but more a case of folk knowing the risks but insisting on taking the clachaig or scree descent routes. i'm not sure it attracts as many naive fools as we might think...

does anybody have an overview of which type it is? because it seems to me:

if folk are dying here from ignorance then aye- sign post it.

if it's actually more experienced hill people deciding to take a risk...
...well i'm tempted to say leave them to it.

In reply to Wotcha:

But it's not quite like that, and 'descending by Clachaig Gully' doesn't mean quite what you seem to think...

In reply to bivy spirit:

The relatives requested personal details to be kept private, and as such the name of the walker and other particulars have not been reported upon; BBC News did not cover it, for example. However, Grough.co.uk have now written a fairly sensitive and sensible article on the subject.

In reply to Only a hill:

First of all, I am really sad to hear about this, my condolences to the friend and family of the person involved, and to anyone at the Clachaig, or indeed anywhere else who had to deal with the fallout from this accident.

Along with several other people on here, I am firmly against signs actually in the hills. That way leads to paths marked with pretty coloured arrows.

TBH I am not sure that a sign in the carpark will really do any good. The tourists who come through on the buses read the signs. Walkers don't. Walkers and climbers get out of their car, put their boots on, pick up their sacs and go. In addition to that, often when walkers or climbers do come across a sign in this type of location there is a tendency to think "oh, that's not aimed at me, that's just to discourage the tourists". In short, I don't think a sign in the car park is actually going to hit the right demograph to do any good.

I do agree that the information should be available, but it should be in the places where walkers and climbers do their research. That is online and in guide books primarily. I agree that the information available is a little confused at the moment, however the same is true as the information that is available for many other routes...part of gaining experience is learning to read between the lines and the information is already out there for those who care to look for it and heed it.

As for a sign in the Clachaig, I don't think that's a bad plan. Walkers and climbers might not read the tourist noticeboards in the carparks, but they do look at the MWIS reports posted in the pub. I see nothing wrong with having a sign there. However, remember that it will be ignored by the majority of the people who see it...that's just the way people are.

Lastly, the Anoch Eagach is reknowned as a good day out. It is relatively easy to get to Glencoe and the ridge starts right off the road and finishes in the pub. Consequently, it is probably one of the best travelled ridges in Scotland....and it gets a lot of people who are new to the game on it. Sadly, because of that, people will get out of their depth, have accidents and die on it whatever information is available. That doesn't mean the information shouldn't be available, just that unfortunately deaths will happen anyway. I don't mean to sound callous, but I think it is true.

I also think that freedom to make your own (informed) decisions and the ability to take responsibility for your own actions is an important part of mountaineering. By all means supply information but don't prohibit people from doing things.

I think what I am trying to say in amongst all that is by all means supply the information, but don't be too disappointed when people don't listen....

In reply to kathrync:
I wouldn't be so sure about this. I'll usually read notices in car parks if I'm somewhere unfamiliar. I don't think having a sign would do any harm, and might get a few people to rethink their plans.

Information is guidebooks isn't going to be much use if people are using old guidebooks - I had a copy of the Poucher book until a few years back, and it uses the Clachaig Gully as a descent route (albeit one to be used with caution).

No one single action is going to do the job. Spreading the net as widely as possible would seem to be the most likely way of reducing casualties.

In reply to Only a hill:

cheers for that. well it says he was experienced, which was the bit that i was interested in as far as relevance to this thread goes...

on a broader note: always sad to hear.

d.

In reply to Slugain Howff:

I recall seeing that sign when I first did the ridge in october 1991 (GUMC fesher's meet/see how many we can drop off the ridge and keep the numbers down).

Mountain Safety - the bigger picture.

For information for the discussion. We have a Scottish Mountain Safety Forum who meet on a bi-annual basis, we also have a Mountain Safety Committee which meets quarterly and a Mountain Safety Advisor (Heather Morning) based at Glenmore Lodge who is employed by the Moutaineering Council of Scotland with a remit of education and training in all things connected to mountain safety.
I have been reading with interest all the discussions regarding this very sad incident and am very receptive to instigating the practical implementation of ideas which will work to minimise fatalities/accidents in the hills.

The discussions seem to centre around whether we should be 'wrapping folk up in cotton wool' and warning them of the inherent dangers involved with specific geographical locations on our hills, or whether we should be happy to allow folk to make their own judgements and take their own calculated risks and suffer the concequences. (With of course the implication for others affected when things go wrong.)

Questions for discussion - If signeage was produced and located say at the Am Bodach roadside carpark (assuming the landowner NTS would allow this) would folk read it and act upon it? Would a series of 'posters' in and around Glencoe target the audience we need? There seems to be a huge amount of guide book literature out there warning of the dangers (not necessarily to yourself, but to others). Do we need to see a change in emphasis in future guide books?

One idea I am bouncing around with in my head at present is setting up an 'Accident Blackspot Blog' on the MC of S web site which can be reviewed regularly - several other locations spring to mind immediately requiring similar publicity - Goat Track, Coire an Tulloch, Five Finger Gully to name a few. In our day of modern technology, is the internet the way ahead to get the message across?

I look forward to all your comments. Please get in touch on msa_mcofs@hotmail.co.uk or give me a call on 01479 861241

I am heading out next thurs for a site visit to the Aonach Eagach with one of the Glencoe team to see exactly where these incidents are occuring. Mountain Safety - the bigger picture.

In reply to Mountain Safety Advisor:

>
One idea I am bouncing around with in my head at present is setting up an 'Accident Blackspot Blog' on the MC of S web site which can be reviewed regularly - several other locations spring to mind immediately requiring similar publicity - Goat Track, Coire an Tulloch, Five Finger Gully to name a few. In our day of modern technology, is the internet the way ahead to get the message across?

Bounce it onto here and Trail and Mountain Magic so people who may not see your site get the messages.

In reply to Mountain Safety Advisor: I'd seriously look at the path. As Pete said the path draws people into it. In clag people follow paths. It takes a hell of a lot for people lost to strike off away from the path.

In reply to sutty: will do when I get things set up H

In reply to Only a hill:
I'm not particularly against signs at car parks, but I doubt whether they would achieve anything in this case.

People descend the Clachaig Gully path because it's convenient, it's obvious, and it goes straight to the pub. Nobody decides to go down it thinking they're going to die - and, happily, the vast majority of people don't die on it. People are making an informed decision - they've already successfully negotiated some serious scrambling where a slip was likely to kill them, and they aren't terrified of a wee bit more risk.
If you stick up a sign making people aware of alternative descents, they're probably still going to head straight down the Clachaig Gully path to get a pint to celebrate a good day out - or just so that they don't have as far to walk back to their car.

Granted, it may be useful to remind people that the most dangerous terrain on the hills is slippy ground above drops, on wet grass, slimy slabs or loose gravel, rather than sharp arêtes on sound rock, but I'm not sure how well a sign can get this message across.

In reply to Mountain Safety Advisor:

Is that you Heather?

Something on the MCofS website is fine but I doubt that it'll be read that often.

I don't have a problem with an advisory sign at the bottom of Am Bodach.

Regarding the others, a bit more difficult. Possibly the best thing to do about Five finger gully would be to put a plaque on the Observatory with a list of bearings and distances that would get you to the top of the tourist path. Most people who end up in it have probably been at tyhe summit an hour or two earlier. That said I'm not sure that I entirely agree with the concept of putting up signs in a "wilderness". Apart from everything else people will start to expect to come across signs warning them about every danger on the hill, i.e. "I thought it was OK becasue there wasn't a sign there to warn me."

In reply to Mountain Safety Advisor:
Brilliant, glad that the issue is being taken seriously by those with influence and that things are starting to move.

Also glad that a debate on UKC has (for once!) proven to be productive.

In reply to Mountain Safety Advisor:

I don't think I've ever looked at the MCofS website before I've gone out walking. The blackspot blog wouldn't do any harm, but I'd be surprised if it catches many walkers. If you're keen to use the internet, it might be worth trawling all the various websites that offer route information and asking that they highlight the dangers of certain locations.

In reply to Removed User:

Be interesting to know how many folk who end up in Five Finger Gully were following a bearing or indeed had a compass on them before commmitting to something like that.

I still have some of the old laminated cards with a topo and bearings of the summit plateau on them. I seem to remember them appearing after a spate of deaths on the Ben to raise awareness of the dangers.

In reply to Mountain Safety Advisor:

a sign at the top of the clachaig path would be best, before people start descending it. folk going up the clachaig area do get into bother, i know, but its the descent thats the issue. something on am bodach too. how to make them see-able in deep snow is an issue, albeit it this topic is largely summer related.

i am very much for greater education about blackspots in british mountains. its difficult to know how its effectively done though. look at how other 'key' messages have been successfully/unsuccessfully dissemintated in society and learn. the winter safety article on the lochaber focus on landward (?) earlier in the year was a start.

i think that all hillwalkers and climbers ought to take responsibility for passing on the message of a careful and realistic assessment of any route before going out and if they know about dangers to mention them. no one likes to be seen as a killjoy but better that than giving someone a false idea on a route.

for example, its easy, if asked, to firstly emphasise the pleasure and thrills of a day on aonach eagach, but first and foremost anyone discussing it should stress its seriousness. same about getting off the ben in bad weather; about the goat track in winter; about the avalanche risk in coire na tulaich or on curved ridge - and so on.

i dont want a 'nanny state' approach to mountaineering (numerous signs; licenses; heavy handed articles and guide books; etc etc) but some promotion on tv, in all the mags, on all the websites and so on would be relatively easy and would help. include in them all one link to one dedicated blog e.g. by broadening the SAIS remit to being the 'Mountain Safety Service'. petition the scottish executive for some money for that.

it won't stop deaths or injuries, i know, but we owe it to those who have lost their lives, to their families and friends and to those who risk their lives and risk the personal trauma in going to rescue them to learn from them and to try our reasonable best to protect lives in the future. where you have a repeating problem you have to look at doing something to stop it.

i'm sorry if i sound preachy, i dont mean to.

ahunter

In reply to Only a hill: hello my dear.may you send for me your picture. thank you.

In reply to andy hunter: Too much opposition I'm sure for a signpost at the top of the gully path. Much better to site one in the Am Bodach car park, or just above at the start of the path. I have witnessed many rescues from the gully whilst working at the Clachaig, and having been up the path (definitely not down it) purely out of curiosity, I can see how easy it is to lose one's footing on steep gravel by the side of the gully.
On the boundaries of some of the wild parts of Scotland, signs warn of the remote nature of the land and the need to be well-equipped and self-sufficient. I have no problem with these signs. I know what they say, but I still read them everytime I pass one, and even do a quick mental check on the contents of my pack. I would think a sign at the foot of the Aonach Eagach would be read by all who pass, but I would site it just up from the car park 50 metres or so, as there is already a sign in the car park (litter if i remember rightly?) A notice in the Clachaig at reception would be good, as well as one in the main bar.

Definitely a good idea and it WILL make a difference

In reply to Jamie Hageman:
What makes you so sure? Are you aware of any similar cases where it has?
Do you really think people that are on a high from negotiating an exposed, knife-edge ridge are going to be deterred from the convenient descent path just because a sign tells them it's a bit risky?
The only suggestion I've seen on this thread that I think would actually help would be improving the path itself, and directing it away from the edge of the gully.
People do not think they personally are going to get hurt or die descending the path, and a sign isn't likely to change this. The path is convenient, direct, and obvious - that's why people use it.

In reply to skog:

trying to improve the path sounds reasonable but having not been up it i cannot comment on whether its feasible.

i wouldnt describe a path that is regularly the site of people dying as 'convenient' though. that is a description that anyone should avoid, i think.

ahunter

In reply to andy hunter:
I don't understand what you mean. It's convenient as it's right there and goes where people want to go; I can't see what this has to do with the riskiness of using it. The A82 is a convenient route for most people to get there from the South. If it turned out that the A85 and A828 was safer, and you put a sign to this effect at Tyndrum, people would still use the A82.
People are inclined to take what they perceive to be small risks when it makes things more convenient, such as descending the Clachaig Gully path rather than walking a bit further for a safer one. And, to be fair, for any given person, the risks are small - there are quite a few accidents there, but they represent a tiny fraction of the number of people using that route. And these are people that have just done something a wee bit risky anyway, for fun.

In reply to Only a hill:
I've been down that path, after we'd climbed the gully, and given its reputation were surprised to find no problems. Is the dangerous bit higher up than the top of route? Or is it just the fact that it goes close to the edge in a number of places so there's no margin for error?

In reply to skog:

FWIW, I do. Maybe not everyone, but some. Think it's more than 20 years since I last descended that way, despite having used most of the alternatives (south to Loch Actriochtan, west then north-west towards the Pap, and north towards Caolasnacon) over the same period. And why? Because I've become aware through *various* sources that what was already a tricky descent has become looser and more dangerous over the years. So a sign might be just one source of information among many (printed guides, web, news reports etc.), but it all adds up when trying to raise awareness and, yes, some folk will be deterred.

In reply to petestack:
OK. It's a fair point of view. I think it unlikely that people that have just traversed the Aonach Eagach would be deterred so easily from a handy path that happens to be beside a potentially dangerous cliff.

There's a good picture of the offending path here, by the way, for those who can't quite remember / visualise it:

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1343511

I've been down it twice, but have used the South flanks of Sgorr nam Fiannaidh for subsequent descents and ascents at that end.
I remember finding a couple of the corners of the Clachaig Gully path, where it's just above the gully, to be a bit worrying due to the gravelly ground underfoot; I do think it's worth using an alternative route.

In reply to Toreador:

The Yosemite accident analysis (thread link below) shows a worrying tendancy for people to over relax and have accidents when on 'easy ground'. I suspect this path has a similar problem alongside being close to the pub so attracting tourist numpties. You are right that the path in itself is no problem at all if you take care. It is however difficult to avoid knocking the occasional rock into the gully and should be avoided in summer for that reason alone as you could kill a climber below.

Certainly I don't think signs should be placed on the hill but I've no objection to signs at parking places.

http://www.friendsofyosar.org/safety/climbingSafety.html

In reply to andy hunter: Sorry Andy but you are promoting a nanny point of view. Please leave people to get their own information and assess their own risks, then take a course of action and endure the consequences. I enjoy the responsibility of this and don't want interference from others, whether it's well-meaning or otherwise. If I want advice I'll ask for it. If I don't I won't and bear the consequences. I really, really, do not want to see the heights and slopes of the Aonoach Egach bespoiled by notices. That's not what I go there for. Let people make mistakes and survive, get injured or die. It's their lookout and, I'm afraid, not yours.
Chris.

In reply to Chris_Mellor: Should we disband MRT's then?
Or are you saying reactive measures are OK, just not proactive measures?

In reply to Only a hill: The original sign at the foot of the ridge was removed by the NTS, partly because of the conditions under which the glen was given to the Trust, namely "nothing shall be done to make access to the hills safer" or words to that effect, and partly because of the general feeling of the mountaineering community.

In more general terms, why pick on the Clachaig path? There have been at least three fatalities on the Lost Valley path, lots of fatalities on he Buachaille, lots on Bidean. Where do you stop? And, of course, when the Aonach Eagach warning sign was there it made no difference whatsoever.

In reply to PW:

I would agree with this. FWIW, I descended via the Clachaig Gully path about two weeks ago (yes, I was aware of the path's reputation). It wasn't exactly pleasant, but it was no worse than various other routes I have taken in Scotland. I don't think the path out from Stob Coire nan Lochan is much better at the very top section for example, and the Great Stone Chute on Skye is pretty awkward too, especially now that most of the scree has been pushed out of the gully. Plus the examples given above.

I think the reason this particular path is so bad is that it is so close to the pub. You can see the pub tantalisingly close all the way down and it's really easy to relax and forget that there are still difficulties to be overcome.

If the Clachaig want to put up a sign, then that's up to them, and if magazines or online sites want to run articles or something then that's great (I believe something similar was done a couple of years ago on how to navigate off Ben Nevis after several people wandered into Five Fingers Gully), but I think if you start putting signs out there will be no end to it and that's not something I want to see in the hills.

In reply to skog:

i think its wrong to call it convenient when its danger is the more obvious and compelling aspect of it. i know you said more than 'convenient' in your post, so i'm not having a go.

if people take informed decisions, fine, i cant challenge that. but with the knowledge we have, we have to inform them of the real risk first.

ahunter

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

i respect and understand your point of view but dont agree. i dont want notices etc either, i've said that above, but too many deaths have happened on it for me since i've been mountaineering not to say something about the way the dangers are portrayed.

ahunter

to the OP

i usually get lost/get bored/am in a hurry towards the end of the aonach eahgach and turn left down the side of the hill never seemed to be a problem must get you to hold my hand next time and take me down the proper way

i really doubt the sign would work but appreciate the trauma of people dying near your place of work!

In reply to kathrync:

Five Finger is a different and more serious story. It is far too common to see people finishing off winter routes on the Ben and wandering down without paying proper attention to where they are and whats going on, suddenly to find themselves in clouds and in trouble (often the safest thing to do is to return to the top and start again follow the descent bearings).

In reply to andy hunter:
The point I was trying to make, in my usual clumsy style, is that it is the convenience that is the most compelling aspect of it to most people arriving at that end of the ridge. I think that's why people use that path; I know it's why I have. This is why I don't think a sign is likely to work.

In principle, I agree. Where do you stop informing "them" (us), though? There's risk nearly everywhere you turn in the hills. A sign at a car park by an accident spot like this seems fair enough to me (even if I don't think it'll work). One on the hill seems like a dreadful idea.

In reply to Offwidth:


Yes, I am aware of this. I was just commenting that the methods used to make the general public aware of the difficulties of navigation off the Ben could also be used in this instance as the campaign at the time was quite effective and didn't involve the placement of signs in the hills (actually I think there might be one in the north face carpark? Can't remember...haven't felt the need to look as I am aware of the problems and correct bearings anyway due to the aforementioned campaign!)

In reply to alasdair19:

Now, you'd have to be totally incompetent to do that!


For you, maybe not. For others, definitely yes.


And you think that's a helpful response?

In reply to PW:

Since the NTS broke the Unna rules many years ago when they built the footbridges over the River Coe, it would be difficult to use that as a justification for removing the sign.

In reply to kathrync:

My point is almost the opposite: knowing about the location and danger of Five Finger Gully all too often isn't the issue. Plenty of people stray into trouble there who should know better. The education I'd like to see more of is to get people to see that being a 'good climber' can clearly make you dangerously blase about the occasionally very serious risks when on 'easy' ground. Again I'd recommend the Yosemite analysis.

In reply to Offwidth:

Ok, I see what you mean. But I still think that a generalised risk of taking "easy" ground too lightly is better dealt with using media that hill-goers read than by one sign on one path...afterall the risk you describe (and I agree, it is a real problem) extends far beyond the Clachaig Gully path.

In reply to kathrync:

I guess we agree the sign isn't going to help much

I have quite a few photos taken next to signs proclaiming injury, death and all sorts of nastiness for doing precisely what I was doing. Climbers eh.. they will go around taking unnecessary risks.

In reply to Offwidth:


In my original reply to this thread (quite a way up), I wrote something about how walkers and climbers have a tendency to read these signs and think "that doesn't apply to me, that's just to warn the tourists off". I know that is a sweeping generalisation, but your comment above illustrates that quite well

In reply to Only a hill:
For my 2p worth, a can see no harm in having a sign at the carpark advising people of alternatives to the Clachaig Gully path, afterall I see few winter climbers etc complaining about SAIS notices at car parks for access to the Ben or the Norries (I certainly don't!). A wee map showing the alternative paths as well (similar to the one up Glen Tilt where it shows you that alternative route over the tops from Forest Lodge to the Tarf Hotel during stalking season maybe) - I suspect a visual que like that would stick in the mind better than text.

I'd be absolutely against signs anywhere other than the car park though, thats a step too far for me.

Having come down the path a couple of times, I don't think its any more dangerous that a lot of other descents around - just more people passing through so more accidents perhaps? If people are serious about detering folk from descending then the best way would be obliterate the path at the top for 100m or so say and build an obvious one that takes you beyond the gully path descent - i'll bet that the bulk of people aren't thinking "Ooo the gully path, I fancy that!", but folowing the obvious trail that leads down.

I seriously doubt the most people consider it the "safest" way of the hill, thats patently wrong to anyone who can look at a map, i'd believe that most people believe that its "safe" though considering the ridge they've just come along. I don't neccesarily think they are wrong either - if you are paying attention and taking care it isn't all that dangerous, certainly no more so that a lot of other common descents (Great Stone Shoot has already been mentioned for example).

"Look well to each step" etc.....

Cheers!

Stuart

In reply to alasdair19:

I think you lack a grasp of the issues involved here. The fact is that people come to grief on this descent on a regular basis, so there is clearly a problem somewhere. The focus of this debate has been what to do about this problem (if anything).


It's not just my place of work, but also my home. I have lost count of the number of times either myself or one of my friends has been on 'epic watch', keeping an eye on stray headtorches and having to make the decision over when to call mountain rescue. Every time it happens we can't help fearing that it might be another fatality.

Even disregarding the actual callouts for a moment, there have been many many incidents of people going astray and getting benighted on the path (visible due to their head-torches). On most of these occasions, they get down without help before we decide to call Mountain Rescue, but every now and again they are not so lucky.

In reply to andy hunter:

"but with the knowledge we have, we have to inform them of the real risk first"

Oh we do? Since when? What next? A patrol of UKC vigilantes checkin the contents of rucksacks for proper equipment? Putting signs up everywhere theres an element of risk? Get a grip of yourself. Ill prepared walkers/climbers can and will come to grief, its the way its always been. Its called being responsible for yer own actions. Neither you or anyone else will alter that. Regarding the path in question, having used it on numerous occasions, theres worse descents in Scotland.

Cheers

In reply to Only a hill:

A bit of proportion is neccessary here; we have had a statistical "blip" with two fatalities in a month on the descent. Historicaly far more people have lost their lives on the ridge proper. A couple of years ago there was a similarly flukey sequence of deaths in Coire an T'Sneachda, which led many to see the Corrie as uniquely dangerous in winter mountaineering; it isnt and neither is this descent.

Why do the headtorches come bobbing down the hill? Usually because people have started too late or misjudged the difficulty of the pinnacles; their choice of descent route compounds rather than causes their difficulties. There is a great deal of ambiguity about what "The Ridge" actually is; at the Clachaig and to this day I have spoken to many who clearly had no conception of the difficulties. To me this is what any signage should seek to address.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
Cheers Jamie, a sensible reply and a perspective I had perhaps not appreciated. Statistics have a way of clouding the truth, particularly when events are close to home and you are not necessarily able to appreciate the bigger picture.

In reply to Only a hill:

I've been up and down the path a few times (some time ago), once with a non-climber who didn't appear to have much trouble, along with descents of the other routes. I would agree that perhaps trying to make the path safer at some of the danger spots might be more beneficial but then this might also make it more popular. It seems no amount of warning signs will stop those who are prone to making mistakes from endangering their lives whether it is out walking, climbing or in any other activity. Our concentration should only waver when sat in the pub.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

Agree with you but seeing head torches coming down a hill at night time doesnt mean anything has necessarily gone wrong, I am sure you have done it many times and I know I have. In fact I've been twice on the Aonach Eagach at night on purpose spurred on by Donald Bennet's writings.

BTW Coire an t-Sneachda, never with the apostrophe.

In reply to Donald M:


No, but in the case of the Clachaig descent it almost invariably means a team has started late and/or been unexpectedly slowed by the pinnacles, and have used precious daylight finding the top of the gully path (or not) when it would have been more prudent to descend direct from Sgurr nan Fiannaidh (sp?).

I witnessed this frequently in my Clachaig days and occasionally went up to help people, and the inescapable conclusion was that the choice of descent was simply the last in a series of poor decisions. Underpinning virtually all mishaps was a fundamental lack of appreciation for the overall commitment factor.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:



Clachaig Path + Head Torches = Cry For Help.....surely not

Now we really are on straying on to some dodgy ground!!!

Slugain

In reply to petestack: There were at least three bridges over the Coe before the Trust took over the glen.

In reply to IainRUK: No Iain, I'm saying I don't warning signposts at the top of Clachaig Gully, for anti-nanny and enjoy the hills without signpost nlight reasons.
Chris.

In reply to Donald M:

True, but I was referring to the occasions when the headtorches would stop moving for up to an hour at a time, often an obvious distance away from the actual path and on craggy ground.

In reply to Only a hill: From exactly where do you personally get the right to assume "epic watch" and consequently the temerity to make the decision to call out mountain rescue? Simply seeing torchlight doesn't mean anything and NOTHING can be assumed from that. NOTHING. Do you know the international rescue signal with a torch? If you do then act when you see it. If you don't I suggest you learn it and stop interfering with what could be an innocuous situation, and stop proceeding with your self acclaimed authority to call out Mountain Rescue.

There clearly is a problem here as you say but I would beg to suggest it's with incompetent mountaineers rather then the path itself.

And "before we decide to call MR" - again who makes you judge and jury?

You actually come across as an interfering busybody and not as a proper mountaineer. Why not just sit in the pub, mind your own business, and get pissed like a real climber?

In reply to unclesamsauntibess:


Do the people on the hillside know it? Should we wait until they have worked it out if they are immobile on dangerous ground?

In reply to Slugain Howff: Belter!

In reply to unclesamsauntibess:

If everyone shared your opinion, it's quite likely nobody would ever call Mountain Rescue in circumstances that warranted it, and therefore lives would be lost.

The fact is that we are on site and are generally watching the hillside a lot of the time, particularly when people have been reported late (which happens more often than you might think--again, often all is well, but not always). It's not that we have 'appointed ourselves' as some kind of 'authority', it's simply because we are in the right place at the right time, and often if we do not act, it's possible nobody might.

For the record, I am not talking about myself personally but the entire staff of the Clachaig who all pay close attention to what is going on on the Clachaig Gully path. I have not personally called MR myself as it is assumed to be the responsibility of whoever is in charge of the shift at the time to make that decision.

We do not aim to interfere and nine times out of ten no action is necessary as we are well aware that people get late for all kinds of reasons that do not warrant concern. Are you accusing the entire staff of the Clachaig of being incompetent mountaineers? A lot of us climb, or have climbed extensively in the past, and I would like to think we all have the judgement to know when action needs to be taken.

In reply to Only a hill:

Okay, so that did sound a little busybody-like... (to Unclesamsauntibess - he's not like that in real life, most of the time anyways! )
It sounds like the Clachaig are on constant hill alert watching for imminent disaster! They aren't, believe me. I think it fair to say that none of us would want someone to get into trouble, be flashing their torch to try and get attention and be ignored though. So yes, we do keep an eye if we spot something, more so if there is particular reason for concern such as someone leaving a route card and not having shown up back yet. A lot of the time this is initiated by customers who think they can see something on the hill that worries them, and mostly they turn out to be mistaken upon closer inspection... I don't think that's an overbearing approach. I do think some of the above posts could have been interpreted as that though.

In reply to Only a hill:

I am sure your intentions are honourable and this is certainly a worthwhile debate but your tone can *sometimes* be patronising and gives the impression that you see yourself as an authority on mountaineering in Glen Coe. Sometimes it seems that you spit the dummy if people disagree. Purely feedback for you that's all and I agree with a lot of what you say. This isnt a competition about mountaineering and it's pointless entering into that.

Back to topic, it appears that consensus is emerging on UKC (remember UKC represents no-one and I dont think even comes close to representing general opinion on mountaineering in Scotland) that some kind of sign is required, probably at the car park below Am Bodach.

This seems fairly reasonable to me and I am relaxed about it. If a sign does go up obviously the MRT and MCofS should be involved and it should be multi-lingual.

In reply to Donald M:
Clearly.
Anything to reduce the number of head-on collisions with those oncoming Frenchmen, scrambling on the wrong side of the pinnacles.

In reply to skog:

Exactly, multi-lingual signs cause accidents as we all know, not!

In reply to Donald M:

uh-oh! You've done it now... I think you meant to say "the UKC Forums"... Mick can be expected shortly to correct you.... Remember, the views expressed on the forums do not represent UKC...

In reply to johnSD:

Not to mention that somebody will be along shortly to define 'consensus' and prove that it never applies to anything!

In reply to Only a hill:

So how should the sign be worded? Something like:

This path leads to the Aonach Eagach: a long exposed rock ridge scramble. The direct descent to the Clachaig Inn from the Western end is very steep and dangerous. To descend safely, head for the Pap of Glencoe from the last Munro.

Not sure about the actual descent description - not easy to word well.

Rather than a sign, maybe the Ordnance Survey and Harveys could be approached, to include a marked trail on their maps, and maybe a 'dangerous path' warning by the Clachaig gully. Surely most folk are carrying a map with them.

In reply to Jamie Hageman:

I think you're right, the mapping authorities need to be involved. Most people gathering information about the AE do so from maps, guidebooks, magazine articles, and word of mouth ... a sign in the carpark can only be a good thing but I think the root of the problem needs to be addressed as well.

I think an article in TRAIL and TGO could potentially target a lot of walkers considering doing the ridge.

In reply to Jamie Hageman:

I think much more simple like:

Do not descend the path above Clachaig Gully - it is loose and dangerous and has seen fatalities in the past. Continue past Sgòrr nam Fiannaidh and descend before the Pap of Glencoe

There is no need to tell people that the path at Am Bodach leads to the ridge or the nature of that ridge.

In reply to Jamie Hageman: Why not keep things in proportion. There have been as many people killed on the Coire Gabhail (Lost Valley)path as on the Clachaig path, there have been more killed on the Coire na Tulaich path. And then there's the Buachaille, and Bidean. You'll need to put up an awful lot of notices!

In reply to Only a hill:
I've just had a look at my OS maps of the area, and there doesn't seem to be a path down the gully marked on either the 50k or 25k maps. Granted, these are old ones, so I'll be happy to be corrected if there is a path marked on newer editions. Equally, there are no paths shown descending from the ridge further to the west along to the Pap. No idea about the Harvey's map.

Something else that came up when I looked at the maps - the NTS own the land to the east of the gully, but it looks like the boundary of their land is formed by the burn in the gully. The path is down the west side, so strictly speaking, the NTS wouldn't have anything to do with the path.


I'd agree with that.

In reply to Only a hill:

No they don't. Maps are there to provide objective information. There is a hill here: how high is it. There is a road: it is single track. There is a path here: it is significant enough to be marked. They can choose to ignore the path on maps (lots of hill paths in Scotland aren't mapped), but they can't do anything beyond that. This is an issue of individual responsibility and tragic accidents. Warnings are for guidebooks, etc. but not for general purpose maps.

In reply to Donald M:


If you didn't exist we'd have to invent you !!

In reply to PW:
While we're at it, I'd be grateful if somebody could nip up Ben Nevis and stick a couple of these on Tower Ridge:
http://www.dreamsofmountains.co.uk/scrapbook/mtg.pdf

In reply to PW: Very true. Ok, forget the sign. But I can't see why path/warning additions to maps couldn't be made. Yes the maps are general purpose, but nothing wrong with having the gully path marked as 'very difficult' or 'dangerous path'. Look at a lot of European maps, and their paths are graded, right up to include easy climbing/via ferrata, so you know what to expect.

In reply to Jamie Hageman: Many foreigners buy the local OS maps and then ask me where all the trails are. They expect to see graded walks outlined on the map. It would make sense to have more of this information on our maps and may even lead to fewer people getting into difficulties.

In reply to Jamie Hageman:

In France these sorts of guides are often put out by local tourist offices. Sometimes by private authors in areas where there are enough hikers to make it worthwhile. Something similar for Glencoe might find a market, or could be done by the tourist centre (if it's still open?) but I doubt that it would prevent accidents.. It might have the opposite effect if it encouraged more walkers.

In reply to all:

Leave well alone please. Theres NO need for a sign, info on maps or anything of the kind. Stop pandering to this crap. If its not the recent surge of bolting to make things safer its putting up signs for safety reasons. Wheres it gonna end?

Cheers

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

There are lots of guides for Glen Coe, from the very small to the quite large (and yes, the visitor centre is open, albeit in a different place to where it might have been last time you visited).

A couple of the older books - Irvine Butterfield's Munros book and the old edition of Cameron McNeish's Munros book - do suggest using the Clachaig Gully path (McNeish's later edition may have different advice), but the more recent SMC book says that the CG descent is not recommended.

Noel Williams 'Scrambles in Lochaber' recommends the descent from further west along the ridge, which I think is generally recognised as the safest option.

Ralph Storer's '100 best routes on Scottish mountains' also says the CG descent is not recommended, as does Chris Townsend's guide to Ben Nevis and Glen Coe.

So, there are a few option which are already in print, with different messages. I don' think we can assume that all guidebook writers will take the same view on this one - the route is clearly not impossible or inevitably dangerous in every case.

I haven't been up or down the CG for about 30 years, so I don't know what sort of state it's in now, but it's fairly clear from wiser voices than mine that it's a bit scruffy and may be best avoided.

In reply to Only a hill:

"However, here's a little taster of what the glen has to offer.......

.....And of course, not forgetting Clachaig Gully, our very own route from the doorstep. However, the gully is rarely climbed these days. Maybe the idea of wet slimy vegetation covered walls and the occasional rockfall don't have the appeal they once used to! Or maybe folk are just soft these days!"

That's from your own (pub) website. Some people could interpret the first bit as a suggestion/reccomendation, and the last sentence as a challenge.

In reply to buffetslayer:

Clachaig Gully is the gully, the path beside it is the path - it's the path being discussed here, and the gully being talked about there...

In reply to buffetslayer:

Fair enough.

In reply to buffetslayer:

You may have been slapped down but as a 1960's ascentionist I find that quite interesting.

In reply to tony:

I must confess I haven't actually been on the Clachaig Gully path either, but it's visible as a blatant scar and appears to be badly eroded. A friend of mine who went up that way the other week said it was in an awful state.

In reply to Chris McDaid:

Not very helpful. Someone has died, a family are grieving, and I believe that a simple letter to Ordnance Survey/Harveys with the suggestion of a 'red route' or 'not recommended' for the Clachaig Gully path might actually do some good. It is an avoidable path, if people know about safer alternatives (which I Imagine they do not in most cases), then there will be fewer accidents.

In reply to Jamie Hageman:


However, plenty of other European visitors understand that it is incumbent on them to find their own way here, and welcome this contrast with their own tabulated and commodified trails. We should celebrate the greater commitment factor of our hills; others do...

In reply to Jamie Hageman:
That just isn't what the OS do, though. It's not up to them to make route recommendations, and I can't imagine them wanting to open that particular can of worms.
And, when it comes to it, it isn't even that bad a path. Someone who's paying attention properly is unlikely to come to any grief on it, it's lapses of attention and end-of-the-day complacency that are likely to be the problems. The Glencoe map would have 'Not Recommended' plastered all over it if this approach was taken and applied evenly.
Should the OS mark the South flank of the ridge as a danger zone too? Lots of accidents happen there, with people trying to escape the ridge when they could generally just amble off the North side if they weren't so worried about a longish walk back to their cars.

In reply to skog:
You make a fair and well-argued point. On the maps issue I think my opinions are divided. On the one hand I agree with Jamie in principle, whilst on the other I think you're right that it would be impossible to apply evenly and therefore might not be of much use.

In reply to Only a hill: The gully path is avoidable unlike other blackspots in the glen. Just a case of making people aware of the alternative safer routes off the mountain. I thought my map idea was rather good

In reply to Jamie Hageman:
The South flank of the Aonach Eagach, the Lost Valley path, Coire na Tulaich on the Buachaille and the slopes at the back of the Lost Valley below the col between Bidean and Stob Coire Sgreamhach are all perfectly avoidable, though!

In reply to Jamie Hageman:

People who go on the ridge should make it their business to find out descent routes, and escape routes in case of difficulty, bad weather etc. Its not your job, or the OS's job to point out the blatantly obvious. Prepare properly or accept the consequences before setting out on the ridge, its as simple as that.

Cheers

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

Are you thinking about anyone in particular?

Vaguely related to the OP. I've been back to my wee valley for about 4 weeks now. Just under 5 deaths in that meantime: Interestingly not many people talk about them, want to change paths, put signs up... We simply don't care and are openly not caring.
I love coming back, here it seems Pcness is not arrived. As for the soflty softly approach... well I let you guess

In reply to French Erick: Really? Warning signs in the alps are pretty common...

In reply to Only a hill:



Many debates are very constructive and productive at UKClimbing.com. Best not too focus on the fluff.

This topic is just one of many safety issues that has been discussed and often reported at UKC that have had far reaching effects and have initiated action over the years.

Best regards,

Mick Ryan
Senior Editor
UKClimbing.com

In reply to Only a hill:

Came straight down from SNF yesterday - pretty easy until you hit the end of the scree then grassy/tussocky. At least one walking pole makes it a lot easier as very steep. Didn't see much of a path from the bottom of the scree to the road (most of it) - is there one? We had a pint in the Clachaig and drove down to collect rest of the party who came down by the Pap.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Correct, some good debates have taken place on this and quite a few other sites. Likewise many debates with equal importance have taken place away from this site.

Horses for courses.

In reply to Humphrey Jungle:

Here are the pics from Saturday and folks can judge for themselves whether to tackle the ridge in the first place, and then read the above and think about how to get off.
(ps Humphrey Jungle is the ugly one )

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22776031@N05/sets/72157621708368567/

In reply to IainRUK:
As per usual when you mean the Alps, you really mean the Alps the Brits know!!! Tends to be the super busy areas! Come to my place and you'll rarely signs

In reply to Only a hill: Am I missing something? Im sure I came down this way when I did the ridge and I didn't die. As I started at the top end of the Glen and came down this way, a sign in the carpark would have made no difference to me. As already said, mountains are dangerous and can kill you. We all know that. We don't need signs all over areas of our natural beauty pointing this out to us, like we are idiots. I for one, go to the mountains to get away from this kind on nanny state shite. put your signs up in the pub, hostel, bunkhouse, but dont clutter up our outdoors. Guidebooks and crap mags like trail need to make it clear that this route is dangerous. As mentioned before you don't get this in the Alps, so why do we think we need it here. Leave me alone, I can make up my own mind thank you.

In reply to Humphrey Jungle:

Sgorr nam Fiannaidh to Loch Achtriochtan is a good way down, and possibly the only unmistakable one because you simply turn south at the summit and follow your nose. Whereas descending by the bealach before the Pap first requires you to find the bealach, which means resisting all temptation to take the most obvious path or keep heading W (rather than NW) too long in poor visibility. It's counter-intuitive unless you're studying your map and compass carefully (which, before someone jumps on me, of course you should be doing if you can't see where to go).

Having followed this thread with interest, however, I'm finding myself sceptical about the value of (or justification for) signage, map notes etc. in this case when there are many others to which the same could be applied or absence from could be taken as a 'green light' if this kind of thing starts taking hold. So I'm thinking leave it to the guidebooks, magazines (so transient!), internet/other media, word of mouth, pre-trip research and common sense. But, since it's perfectly possible to make this case without swearing, telling others to get a grip or suggesting it's OK for a few folk to die, I'd also like to see the debate conducted with decorum and respect by all participants.

In reply to petestack: Oops sorry. forgot myself for a moment there

In reply to petestack:

Yeah I too am becoming more sceptical about signs but I dont see the harm one would do at the carpark.

In reply to Donald M: Yes, I realise that now too. Just wanted to try to help in some way, but now having doubts around the whole issue, or how to go about it.

Some of the popular holds on the 'crazy pinnacles' are becoming wobbly and will come out sometime. Another potential hazzard, but again, one that is a part of mountain walking and climbing, just a case of being cautious and not taking unneccessary risks.

In reply to French Erick: Which part? I've ran through quite a bit of the alps seen signs all over. I was in a fairly remote part of Austria and saw paint on rock, huts, tracks..

But even so, how is Glencoe different? It's very similar to Chamonix in a way, a road side venue, easy access, tourist trap, so if signs are acceptable there, why not here?

The problem is the more obvious path is the dangerous one. Deaths do occue by people following it down when there are safer options. The LV path is also dangerous but there are limited options there because to get out you have to go via the gorge.

Just a few stones placed across the path and a warning sign would save people.

In reply to IainRUK: Glencoe is different because its not in the Alps. Lots of things are 'acceptable' in other places. That doesn't mean they should be acceptable on this island.

e.g.

Bolted crags as the norm.
Sharia Law.

In reply to Removed User: Read the thread, FE was comparing Uk with the Alps, I was pointing out things aren't that different.

Of course warning signs are acceptable on this island. Have you ever been in Snowdonia? We have a few signs. They don't detract from the experience at all.

Look at the signs warning about the lack of cafe, the lack of shelter, the junction with Crib Goch. We are not talking about setting a precedent here.

Most of the people who use that 'we have no signs' argument just do not get out on the hills that much.

Cairned routes are common, why not re cairn a safe route down? At the moment the most obvious path is the dangerous path. If a path led into 5 finger gully, what would happen?

In reply to IainRUK:

Mount Snowdon has a long history of man made structures on it has it not? I think a few signs is fairly irrelevant when there is a whopping great railway up it.

Signs are not the norm however are they? Certainly not in the Lakes, Highlands and the majority of Snowdonia.

Cherry picking Snowdon as an example of the current trends in the hills of the British Isles is nonsensical and ridiculous.

In reply to IainRUK:


Only up to "hut-level". Above that you are on your own. I don't think notices on British mountain is the way forward. Perhaps something at key car-parks and similar. As soon as one notice appears there will be appeals for dozens of others. Same argument as bolts in mountains.

In reply to Removed User: I suggest you get out more. I can name 100 peaks with man made structures on them..

And yes there are signs at car parks throughout Snowdonia. There are cairns marking safe routes throughout Snowdonia, the Lakes and the Highlands. There are shelter cairns and rescue shelters on 100's of summits throughout the UK. Your knowledge of the UK mountains is poor. I suggest you log some ours in the hills then come back with some experience rather than what you read on the web..

In reply to MG:

That's a bit nonsensical. 'Hut level' is what? 2000m, 3000m? But anyway I'm just saying that the alps are not the pristine wilderness people paint them to be. Their paths are generally far more defined and easier to follow than those in the UK.

I'm generally not a huge fan of signs but like at Crib Goch there are a few sections of path which arguably warrant warning signs. re this path, maybe not a sign but in bad weather people DO follow paths, if that path leads to dangerous terrain then I think that needs looking at.

Just because one can pass that terrain in safety does not mean it is a safe option for everyone.

In reply to MG:


And painted routes on rocks are evident at all levels. I followed a painted trail to near the summit of a 2500m peak in the Ratikan alps recently.

In reply to IainRUK:

You could be talking cairns for 1500m to do that unequivocally, Iain. While it's obvious as far as the fork at the cairn just before the W top of Sgorr nam Fiannaidh, it's not after that. There's another path cutting westwards off the ridge to join the main Pap path lower down, but it's easily lost and still quite rough going. Or there's the ridge itself (heading NW after that), which is easier going but quite broad and indistinct. So you're talking a lot of cairns, and some folk don't like cairns...

In reply to IainRUK:

Well yes about 2500m. There is a good network of marked paths up to a certain level but not to the main peaks. I can't think of any 4000m peak with paint marks or carins or a (permanent) path to the top and most peaks at 3500-4000m have a more remote feel still.

In reply to IainRUK:

re this path, maybe not a sign but in bad weather people DO follow paths, if that path leads to dangerous terrain then I think that needs looking at.


I think it should be a much more general message - "Hills and mountains can be dangerous - if you don't accept this don't go to them." sort of thing.

In reply to Only a hill:

Advovcate of signage from the Herald...

http://tinyurl.com/lqoxwu

In reply to petestack: No I just think it might be worth discussing just a few hundred yards to clear the path junction.

I just find in clag people follow paths. I've seen walkers on Snowdon in some very perilous situations blindly following a path which is in fact a sheep trod across very steep terrain.

The fact is the ridge is a tourist trap, it does attract novices. I don't think a sign or a few cairns will detract from the day. I know people will now state that I'm asking for Via ferrata on the bloody ridge...

As usual with UKC it's black or white, you either have to have wilderness or concrete and anything new is 'thin end of the wedge' argument..

In reply to Only a hill: Avalanche warnings and unfavourable weather reports dont stop people heading up into the scottish hills in winter so i dont see how a sign in a carpark is going to stop someone who has already travelled all the way there with their objective in mind.Do you honestly think that someone with their boots and pack on is going to stop and give up their days plan at a sign ?

It is more about the attitudes to the hills and lack of respect for the associated dangers they contain and peoples knowledge of their own limitations. Mountins arent safe, acidents happen and people need to be prepaired.

In reply to MG:

I'm not sure.

There's a much wider debate to be had here about encouraging safe access which the link posted above is perfectly addressing..

I hate when people use NZ as an example of a fit active community, yet also want unrouched wilderness. Anyone who has been out there knows the path/hut network encourages access at all levels - signs, good paths, huts are installed throughout their parks and summits

There are multi day walks options to suit everyone from novices to experienced alpinists. I don't think we have that range of paths in the UK mountains which allows people to slowly build experience on their own. You can say the lowland areas are the training grounds but obviously people want to walk in the mountains.

Anyway this is now off the topic but it is relevant.

I'm not arguing for paths all over but I do want to see a more active population, this is how NZ has managed it. Access for all, accessible by all..

In reply to IainRUK:


Doesn't this emphasise the point that signs at a handful of locations will do little good (but make the hills feel less wild) while better general education about the possible risks of walking and climbing will help people make better decisions overall?

In reply to muppetfilter:

I think we are soon entering a key phase with regards to UK mountains. At the moment there is a minimilist, leave at all cost view, but why does the view of the experienced mountaineer count for more than the family from Oldham who rarely get out who want to follow a path to a summit. The success of long distance footpaths like the WHW and new ones appearing all the time suggests we'll see more in our National parks too. I think there is one discussed for Snowdonia.

I also think by encouraging access we encourage respect, again I'd cite the NZ example. It is a different country, different demographics, but I think we have much to learn. If we are to encourage respect for the environment, nature and be an active population I think the mountains have a bigger role to play in years to come.

In reply to IainRUK: I'm talking about SIGNS you arrogant fckuwit. Furthermore I have already stated on this thread that signs in car parks are probably reasonable.

In reply to MG:

For a start I don't buy that they make the hills less wild. As I said we already have a network of paths and shelters and cairns.

I think better education plays a massive part. I think map reading should be part of the school curriculum, orieteering part of PE, it's so easy to teach other subjects through the outdoors (geography, geology, biology) yet sadly that has fallen away.

I guess I just dislike the insults which come in for anyone who dares suggest a cairn, new path, bolt etc.

In reply to Removed User:

Brilliant. One of lifes arses, you never fail to dissapoint..

In reply to IainRUK:

True but don't you find these have a similar effect? I certainly make some effort to avoid "normal" routes when walking. A unmarked ridge is somehow much more enjoyable than a cairned path. The trend in some areas is to remove cairns and shelters and so on for this reason. eg the summit of Ben Nevis.



Agreed

In reply to IainRUK: Arrogant, superior, serious and aloof? Classic traits of the academic establishment maybe?

You clearly twisted my words and tagged on an arrogant statement about 'getting out more'. I may be an arse at times but your an arse by the backdoor.

In reply to IainRUK:

And somewhere in the middle is the appropriate way ahead - the family from Oldham won't get a fully signposted route from car to summit and back again, and the experienced mountaineer won't get the raw untouched-by-human-hand-or-foot hill they may think they wish for.

One thing that does bother me about the minimalist approach you talk about is that it seems okay to use features and paths that are already there - who hasn't used stalkers' paths or the occasional wire bridge while they've been out? It's not clear to me why some man-made interventions are okay as long as they predate some undetermined time.

The ways we use and enjoy the hills evolve, and I think the way we equip them must evolve - for stalkers paths built in the 19th century, think about some of the other paths that have been built more recently, which have done much to repair the damage of thousands of unconstrained pairs of feet.

In reply to Removed User:

Also if god forbid, you did spend a few hours in the hills, you will see warning signs on remote hills. At the weekend I was running over Carnedd Cribau, Cerrig Cochion, Moel Mierch, Ysgafell Wen, Moel Druman, Allt Fawr, Foel Ddu and Moel Yr Hydd. Hardly well known peaks, yet within Snowdonia, yet I seriously doubt you've ever set foot on them, and saw a few warning signs there too.

In reply to Removed User: You are talking from a position of evidently little experience. It's hard not sounding superior when communicating with someone with so little experience. I'm trying, trust me..

In reply to MG:

I'd agree, but you and I probably have quite a lot of experience in finding our way around. The AE ridge is well past the time when it was an unspoiled natural ridge with no signs of life. There are some places where some intervention may be suitable, and there are other places where it's clearly not.

In reply to tony:

I can see intervention for prevention of erosion or environmental reasons may be necessary. Even intervention for convenience such as bridges. However I don't see that specific intervention to say "this might be dangerous" is really justified.

In reply to IainRUK:
and saw a few warning signs there too.

Off what kind, out of interest?

In reply to tony: Totally agree with all that. I don't think it's for me to decide. I just think a wider debate would be useful. As I said I think the mountains have a role to play in education and lifestyle. How that can work in the UK I don't know. Clearly the NZ situation isn't directly applicable here but it may be worth a trial in some areas.

I do think we could end up seeing commercial walking tours on some estates in the highlands pretty soon. Private commercial trails have already opened in NZ.

In fact the toilets at bothies, improved paths etc does suggest we are seeing a change.

I just like seeing people in the hills.

In reply to IainRUK:


I have to disagree here. 16 years ago i was at colledge with a part time ranger from Edale, he told a story of a walker lost on Kinder with the AA 1:350,000 road atlas as he didnt see the point of buying those costly "fiddly maps". How many carry a map-compass-whistle and know how to use them. There are it seems plenty who do know how to use a mobile.
I would be interested to get a response from the retail world wether they feel any necessity to pass on information ? After all they make a large amount of money from the walking market, just look at any catologue and the imagery they promote. I know tiso did run a fantastic series of courses.And of course many serious shops do have excellent boards and staff.

In reply to all:
I am seriously baffled why this debate has to continue with harsh words exchanged. Everyone has a valid opinion after all and deserves to say their piece ... what is the point in showering abuse on others who don't share your views?

Nobody is 'in the wrong' (as I see it) due to the fact that arguing out the points can only help to reach a consensus and to explore all sides of the issue. Childish bickering doesn't really help!

In reply to MG: Generally we have signs around any old quarry workings, levels, mine shafts, mine entrances, old quarry buildings, deep water etc.

I'm trying to think how many I saw (5-10?), but most mine entrances I sore were gated and signed and these were hardly road side mines, up at nearly 2000ft. All they say is beware big drops type stuff, all quite obvious. But I don't think they detract from the beauty of the moelwynion. All the workings were marked on the map yet signs were still considered necessary.

If I was going to get wound up about anything in that area it would be trial bike erosion and discarded roles of fencing.

In reply to IainRUK: How many are SIGNS pointing to safe descents. How many of those SIGNS have you seen in the Lakes and Highlands?

As it is evident you have run up them all powered no doubt only by your moral and ethical superiority I expect a definitive answer.

The fact is the hills are NOT littered by SIGNS. No precedent for placing SIGNS has been made.

In reply to muppetfilter: Generally map and compass skills are very low. Even in fell runners I reckon a good 10-20% of most fields couldn't calculate a bearing.

In reply to Removed User:


Stop being an idiot.

In reply to MG: I'm an idiot because I'm taking issue with my words being twisted?

In reply to Removed User:


Brilliant. There are and were signs warning of unsafe terrain. Hence a precendent has been set. That is an unarguable fact, even for you.

We have signs warning of steep drops, remote terrain, deep water, gorges, rail ways, mines, quarries. They may not be littered but they do exist on the hills at the moment. A sign would not be some huge step. It would just be an action taken at that location which would have little if any significance to the rest of the highlands.

In reply to IainRUK:

Are they not all (or almost all) signs about man-made hazards that would genuinely be unexpected? Signing "steep path" is a rather different thing. Why the CG path but not the Aonach Eagach itself, which is much more exposed? Do the endless sign on, for example, trains about not sticking you head out of the window really make things safer?

In reply to MG:
I know what point you're making, but (to be pedantic) it's arguable that the CG path is a man-made hazard also, as its extreme state of erosion is a direct consequence of the many descents that have been made this way.

FWIW, my views are that signposts actually on the hills should not be erected in Britain, although I acknowledge the fact that a precedent of sorts has already been set.

I still think that a sign in the Am Bodach car park, coupled with increased coverage of the CG path descent in guidebooks, magazines and prominent websites, is the best way.

In reply to IainRUK:

I think virtually everyone in the Highlands would have no issue at all with a sign. It's the people living hundreds of miles away that seem to be getting the most angry by this.

This thread has now passed it's useful stage and has gone circular with people just arguing.

In reply to muppetfilter:

I'm not sure. That's a big step. Many offer courses (a good step) but that's about as far as I think they should go.

One thing I'm not impressed with is the level of nav skills for many DoE kids. We see quite a lot out and most have little or no taught skills. I know we weren't shown anything, at the moment it seems that's a real opportunity missed. Some schools are different. I worked with one school and there nav work was spot on, they were even finding contour features.

One thing that is evident is how bad navigation becomes when people are tired at the end of a day. We see it on courses, but I reckon that explains a lot of accidents that occur late on. It's something we try to bring up on courses to show them how poor they get when tired and to concentrate all the time.

Bringing that up now, because it's relevant in finding descents like the one discussed late in the day.

In reply to Only a hill:

What a silly post. You promote a blanket approach to different areas of the UK with different legal structures, different mountain cultures and different histories and ignore the fact that organisations such as Scotways already have signs in remote areas. This should be thought of in a Scottish context as it is the NTS, MCofS, SNH, Scottish Legal System and SMC as well as other clubs.

Have you bothered to ascertain the opinion of non-climbing hill users.

Booh, bad post from you poorly thought out and coming from a standpoint miles away.

In reply to Donald M:


So why are these same locals choosing to remove signs, markers and cairns from Ben Nevis? And in any case, so what. Most users of the highlands aren't locals.

In reply to Donald M:


As I understand it, he is about 100 yards from the path in question actually!

In reply to Only a hill:

Do most car parks in popular mountain areas in Scotland not already have information boards?

I'm thinking of the ones which have information on flora and fauna, geology,etc etc.....as well as warnings such as stalking restrictions, lambing and dogs, ground nesting birds and dogs, the need to carry map and compass, axe and crampons etc.

So what's the problem? The precedent has already been set up here.

Slugain

In reply to Donald M: There's only one person getting angry..

In reply to Donald M:

Not sure how you have managed to ascertain this from my post, but you couldn't be more wrong! I do not agree with a blanket approach in the slightest and did not intend to convey this opinion.


To an extent yes, from speaking to many many mountain walkers in the pub who are not climbers.


I have lived in Glen Coe for almost a year.

In reply to Slugain Howff:


Agreed, there is no problem--this is the precedent I was referring to earlier.

In reply to MG:

Yes and does that mean that he is suddenly able to comment on general issue of signage across the UK with a complete understanding - no.

You know what I meant so dont be so pedantic.

In reply to Donald M:

No more than others are, no, but I fail to see why my views are somehow invalid? I can't see how my post contained anything unreasonable that anyone could object to!

In reply to Donald M:

He has as much if not more knowledge than anyone else here I would think



Not really, unless you are saying anyone born outside the highlands should not comment.

Do you support signs at "dangerous" places on British mountains?

In reply to Only a hill:

Then why did you write this "my views are that signposts actually on the hills should not be erected in Britain" which is a blanket approach.

You illustrate my point very well and fail to notice that there are many more people other than walkers and climber involved in the Scottish Hills. If someone landed from Mars and went to UKC they could easily think that all people want a wilderness with no signs of man at all. The demographic of UKC is mainly male, middle-class, English and living in England. Most of that is due to simple population issues.

To explain, I work with many people who have an intimage knowledge of the land but not through mountaineering in the recreational sense such as on UKC. Their thoughts are just as valuable and no-one should ever think this thread or site are representative of anything other than the individuals who post on it.

Anyway, I think most people would probably agree with you about one sign in Glen Coe.

You must be an expert then. I mean that sarcastically

The point I make is that climbers and walkers dont have any unique right or access to information more than anyone else

In reply to Only a hill:

"Sorry lads .. back in the car, there appears to be a sign in the carpark, lets drive back to london"

This conversation is as likely to be held as likely as a sign in the carpark is to prevent one single accident.

You were given two ears and one mouth by the lord, please use them in proportion (as well as brain)

In reply to MG:
No I am not saying that, see above.


No, I think they should be are the starting points such as the Am Bodach Carpark.

In reply to Donald M:


We are talking about signs at key points on paths, in particular the CG path. 99.5% of users of this path will be walkers or climbers so it is reasonable that their views determine what is done to it.

In reply to Only a hill:

Your views are not invalid, who said they were or are you just trying to assume that someone has said this in order to justify the feelings you have? Your views are as valid as anyone elses.

In reply to Donald M:


Good. We agree.

In reply to MG:

No that is not reasonable. Does this mean that the 99% of people accessing the Hills above the Lecht, mainly by ski should have sway over it.

And it is also not reasonable if you think it might establish a precedent as many on here think it might. No, it's not reasonable.

What is reasonable is that people are consulted and that means goig away from the cosy wee world of UKC, scary thought for some!

In reply to Donald M:

Donald, has it ever occurred to you that your style of posting can be very antagonistic?

In reply to Donald M:
When I say "I have lived in Glen Coe for almost a year" I am not trying to make it sound as if I'm some kind of expert--I know fully well that I am not, and that many others have more knowledge and insight than me--I say it simply as a statement of fact, as you seemed to be under the impression that I lived elsewhere.

Living at the foot of Clachaig Gully for nearly a year does give you a certain insight, though, into the comings and goings of walkers over the Aonach Eagach throughout different seasons.

I think you are inventing a problem with my post which does not exist. I think most mountain users agree that excessive signage actually in the hills is not a desirable thing. Whilst acknowledging the points you make, I also believe that walkers and climbers have a more significant view when signage is concerned, as any warning signs are aimed at them and them alone.

It is only walkers and climbers who are at risk from the CG descent (plus, indirectly, services such as Mountain Rescue, the police, medical services etc.). This is a fact. Therefore I think that these groups should have a more significant say on the issue. Of course other groups have an interest in and knowledge of the land, but the issue does not impact upon them in such a direct way.

In reply to Donald M:

If skiers suddenly want snow with ruts in, yes, that is a matter for them. If they want new pistes, no, that would affect many others and there should be wider consultation. Signs on paths do not affect anyone who does not use the path so climbers and walkers should have the overwhelming voice in determining whether they are present. An example of local politics, which I thought you favoured.

In reply to Donald M:
it.

Donald - the precedent has been set. Carparks in popular mountain areas in Scotland already have signs.

In reply to tony:

Yes, because I am willing to explain and refute points that are plainly rubbish. I expect anyone who wants to take part in such discussions to be big enougth not to spit the dummy when someone else disagrees with them.

I think the reaction of many on this site (by this I mean getting completely outraged at the slightest thing) comes from the culture of UKC Forums which is one of self-importance and warm feelings from the sight of one's own utterances.

So yes, I do understand that it can be antagonistic but the danger is that this site is taken to represent the opinion of hill users, and people with an interest who only look at the hills, and what is written here is taken as generally held opinion.

In reply to Slugain Howff:

I know and I have no problem with this, apart from a few on here I dont see many other people protesting so why does the OP not contact the MCofS and NTS and get the ball rolling. Then a decision can be made either way.

In reply to Donald M:

Fair enough, if you've thought about it. It's just that it does mean that you come across as a bit of an arrogant tosser at times.

In reply to Only a hill:
Good, then we all agree but as Isi pointed out above your posting style does give that impression.

Good and a lot better than I do I am sure, but does that local knowledge automatically mean it can then be applied to make judgements about the whole of Scotland or the UK? No.

No, you did post that you wanted a blanket approach to mountain signage in the UK, if you are now saying something else then spell it out. There is no problem with excessive signage on mountains in the UK so why are we talking about it?


Correct, but since many other have raised concerns about proliferation of signs, including yourself, it is appropriate that other user groups are considered.

Are you going to contact the MCofS or NTS?

In reply to tony:

Fair enough, so do many people on this site but out of the ones I have met and thought that they are arseholes beforehand they rarely turn out to be. Like I say, UKC is completely unrepresentative.

In reply to Donald M:

It also seems you miss the point. Ah well, as you were ...

In reply to Donald M:



So there continues to be no problem. So if changes are needed the best approach can be taken. So if changes occur the arguments have been heard. Because we are a little bored.

In reply to tony:

So what is the point then?

In reply to Only a hill: Everybody seems to be getting very excited and forgetting the main point: The Clachaig gully path is no more dangerous, in terms of fatalities, than other paths in the glen. It's no more dangerous than a lot of places in the Highlands. If you put a notice here, you'll need to put up an awful lot of notices.

Maybe you could just put a row of notices along the Highland Boundary fault saying "Hills are dangerous"

In reply to MG:

Totally agree, so to move tis forward I think it best that someone contacts the MCofS and NTS. I am presuming that someone from the MCofS still following the thread. If they are could they clarify what the next stage might be, if there is one, or if a sign idea is rejected.

Ultimately I think it is a decision for the NTS. As you know there are SAIS signs at certain points in Glen Coe and elsewhere so I see no problem with a sign at Am Bodach, in fact it could be one with SAIS info and general info about the descent.

In reply to Donald M:

There's the question of what you say, and the question of the way you say it. It's perfectly possible to be robust in your views without quite so dismissive and disparaging simply because someone happens to have an opinion you don't like. You often seem to put a stronger emphasis on putting people down, rather than making a positive case for your own views.

In reply to PW:

I'm not sure it's so simple. Hard to explain this one, but there are places which are inherently dangerous and the danger is part of the challenge, and there are places which are dangerous which needn't be part of the itinary - and I think 5 finger and CG descent come into this latter group. If that makes sense.

Our closest comparison is Crib Goch, we have clear signage there, not so much to say how dangerous it is more to prevent people ending up on the ridge who are trying to do the PyG Track and somehow just wander up by mistake.

In reply to tony:

I am not putting people down, just refuting their points. Overall I think most seem in agreement. My point is that not only recreational users of the hills should have final say. These recreational users, myself included, are usually called walkers, climbers, mountaineers, skiers etc. There are other people though and they should have a say too. If people think ONLY "mountaineers" or "walkers" or "climbers" should have their opinions listened to then I do dismiss that, completely.

Can you meant by me missing the point.

In reply to IainRUK: Maybe Crib Goch is a good idicator that signage wont make one jot of difference? As you still get complete biffs wandering up crib goch regardless of the signs.

In reply to IainRUK:

Ironically, the AE ridge itself (or parts of it) is one such place where the danger is part of the challenge (particularly for walkers who may not experience similar exposure very often), and it's the descent after what many would consider to be the main event which is the subject of discussion.

I guess one of the issues at stake here, as you suggest, is the question of options - there's obviously no option to the ridge itself, but there are options for the descent, some of which are 'better' than others. I suppose what we're wondering is how best to alert people to the options and what degree of warning to give about the relative safety of those options.

In reply to drunken monkey: I think it does. Yes people still attempt it, but they attempt it knowing what they are doing, knowing they are encountering dangerous terrain. It's reputation, proximity to Snowdon, ease of access means it will always be popular.

For me I think the main problem is people having a go in poor weather.

In reply to Donald M:

That's not the way it came across.

eh?

In reply to Donald M:
Yes, I am going to contact the MCofS, the NTS, and I am also going to write to TRAIL and TGO. I was going to wait to see how this debate panned out, but I think it has now run its course and a consensus has been reached so I think now is the time to write to these bodies.

In reply to IainRUK: Yeah your probably right Iain, was just playing devils advocate really.
I dont buy into the arguement that by putting signs at the car park below Am Bodach, should mean that signs have to appear all over our hills.

As Slugain already has stated, the precedent has already been set - There already a multitude of information signs at the starting points of quite a few of the popular routes.

In reply to Donald M:

A genuine question Donald before I get shot down in flames too.
Who other than "recreational users" will actually have an opinion?

In reply to drunken monkey:


I don't think anyone objected to this idea. Just signs actually high on the hills themselves - there is a clear difference.

In reply to Slugain Howff:

People who own the place, local authorities, shepherds, farmers, writers, photographers, crofters, stalkers. Yes I know, not all of them applies to Glen Coe. SNH, the NTS, Wild Land Groups, Sport Scotland, John Muir Trust etc.

Has anyone asked one Seumas MacAonghais? Or should I use his correct title Sionnach a' Ghlinne?

In reply to MG: I dont see a need for signs high on the hills. Does anyone?

In reply to drunken monkey:

See IainRUK higher up. He was least suggesting the idea.

In reply to MG: No Need. IMO of course.

In reply to Donald M:

People who own the place - they are more interested in where their next bulldozed track will go.

In reply to drunken monkey:

Very few people I'd say. The only ones I know about are piste signs in ski areas which are a unique situation.

In reply to Slugain Howff:

No point in telling me, tell the NTS, they might refute your ascertion.

In reply to Slugain Howff:

Or, in the case of NTS, when they are going bust. I doubt they will be keen on spending money on signs (or anything) just now.

In reply to MG:

Yeah I'm more suggesting the option that it's discussed. It's an option. I just don't buy the precedent arguments.

But I also agree with Donald about the range of stakeholders involved.

In reply to Only a hill: I worked for the NT in Cumbria. Whilst there we purchased a new area of land, Holme Park Fell, or Farleton Knott as some know it (some excellent overlooked climbing). As usual, being health and saftey mental the NT in it wisdom decided to put up danger cliff signs. Now I can see that the horizon does not match my foot steps so I wouldn't step off a cliff. Any how, the H&S officer decided that the signs admitted liability for the cliff, so we took them down again! Simple answer, dont bother.

In reply to MG:

To illustrate the point I make about knowledge of the hill and why other groups/individuals/hill users should be concerned please see youtube.com/watch?v=KQV_Z7ZxQU8&

There used to be a sign.

Proof here...50 seconds in...

youtube.com/watch?v=-aE4Z3_Q0N0&

In reply to Humphrey Jungle:

Actually think I'll watch the whole thing.

With the sound down.

And the colour off.

In reply to Only a hill:

This is worth a read:

http://www.mcofs.org.uk/news.asp?s=2&id=MCS-N10291&nc=MCofS%20Updat...