UKC

With regard to the excellent article by Patrick Roman I got thinking about the stance taken by UKClimbing on climbing solo.

"UKClimbing recognises that solo climbing is a dangerous activity. Both on UKClimbing.com and in Rockfax guidebooks, we have a general policy of not overtly crediting solo ascents except where appropriate (eg. deep water soloing). This article has been published because it is an interesting account of the approach of the soloist but in general we do not advocate this approach to climbing and mountaineering. "

In my opinion soloing is a perfectly acceptable facet of climbing and I don't understand why UKC has taken this stand. Perhaps someone can explain the reasoning behind it.

We all solo. We all walk up steep slopes to the start of a route, solo the first couple of easy bits to a good ledge or head out alone on easier grades when we can't find a partner. The level at which we solo is very different between different people and this is where personal choice, assessment and acceptance of risk all play a part. These things are fundamental to all aspects of climbing though, not just soloing.

So why is soloing not an acceptable part of climbing in the eyes of UKC?

I've no axe to grind here. It was AIH who mentioned it to me today and it got me thinking.

Mike

In reply to Mike Pescod:

good question, looking forward to an answer.
it must be recognised to some extend since it is an option in the logbook
and since where on it would it be possible to add roped-solo to style of ascent in the logbooks
(sorry din't mean to hijack the thread)

In reply to Mike Pescod:

Obviously any responsible acknowledged body cannot be in a position to seen to offer full support to soloing on a par with other forms of climbing. Obviously, it carries a higher risk level. That said, as a style in itself it is also obviously acknowledged. It is, and should remain, a very personal choice rather than an institutionalised method of climbing/grading etc.

In reply to Mike Pescod:

We live in a society which is becoming increasingly litigious. If I were running this website I'd encase anything about soloing in warnings of this type to make it absolutely plain that this site does not encourage you to do this and if you do yourself a mischief having tried it, if you think you've got a case to sue our ass, we'll (metaphorically, of course) kick yours.



We all have the right to choose to do so if we wish. This site would, I think, like to make it plain that any decision you might make to do so has nothing to do with them, in fact at every opportunity they told you it was a bad idea and if you fall off and break both your legs you shouldn't come running to them.

Modern society, eh? It's a great shame that you have to protect yourself from the wilfully stupid when they have recourse to the law.

T.

T.

In reply to gribble:

The route grade is the route grade, irrespective if a person solo's it, climbs it roped, or top ropes it.

Solo climbing is just another style of climbing - they are all climbing so no better or worse han any other facet of our sport

It's all about getting out there and doing it afterall.

In reply to gribble: The only obvious thing to me is that all mountaineering involves risk. I don't see why soloing needs to be singled out as different.

We all make risk assessments with all of our climbing, soloing is no different. I would have thought that a responsible aknowledged body could use the topic of soloing to promote this fact.

Soloing does not necessarily carry a higher risk level. The outcome of a fall is obviously more serious but if the chance of a fall is sufficiently low the overall risk is no greater than in roped climbing.

Risk = likelihood of occurance multiplied by severity of outcome

Mike

In reply to Pids:

True. Wasn't sure where I was going with the grading thing, it is Friday eveing after all. I think it might be along the lines of how grade chasing can get competetive, which is a scary aspect in soloing. I (almost) always drop by a grade or two when soloing, and maybe a bit more when soloing by headtorch.

In reply to Mike Pescod:


Yup, that's what I'm talking about!

In reply to Mike Pescod:

Read down the thread which accompanied that article. This is what I wrote:

The disclaimer is to stop the backlash on the forums from people who think that it is irresponsible to publish accounts like this - it has no other purpose. Unfortunately it seems to have prompted a reverse anti-backlash. I guess we can't win on this one.

Please don't read too much into it other than, "we like to read this sort of stuff, we want to publish this sort of stuff, but don't all go rushing out and trying to do this sort of stuff just so that we can publish it".

Alan

In reply to Pursued by a bear: Why is this different to any other form of climbing? If, after looking at this site, people are inspired to climb a route with ropes and hurt themselves, why would they feel or act differently about taking action against UKC?

I think positions like this encourage the litigious appetite of society by restricting what is acceptible instead of letting us decide for ourselves.

Mike

In reply to Alan James - UKC: Sounds fair enough! End of thread!

Mike

In reply to Mike Pescod:

seconded!

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Well I think that's a fair enough answer, and their would have been problably the expected backlash without the disclaimer.

(still could we get ropes-solo in the logbooks?)

In reply to Mike Pescod: Hi Mike, met your pal Donald Kings uncle recently, so I know you guys are real now and not internet products.. to me the real hard routes in scotland are solo journeys (for the leaders and seconds) so dont go on your high horse, safe technical tespieces with high grades are not on a par.

viva la journey!