UKC

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
So who placed the bolts, are they answerable to anyone?
If you do not know who bolted a route should you climb it?
I would expect people to come along screaming risk averse litiigaous society, but when I would not trust a lot of people I see to put a shelf up, bolting climbs is way beyond a lot of people.
Cheers Beds

In reply to J1234:

That is all answered here:
http://www.onsight.com.au/news-blog/articles/37/report-follow-up

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Terible news!!

Hopefully we will find out who it was but it will proberbly end up like the tree at Raven Tor.

Dan

In reply to dan lane:

If you read the whole of the link it is all in there.


Chris

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Herein lies a problem for bolted routes. I don't think you should hold anyone responsible for a bolt failure. The responsibility lies with the climber to ensure that the bolts are sound as it does with anyone placing protection say on a trad' route. It is probably reasonable to assume that a bolt is secure and just clip it but obviously you are placing your trust in the hands of someone you have never met, and so the risk is yours.

In reply to redsulike:

Too true blue... This was discussed a few days ago. It illustrates the whole problem with "equipped" routes as the French say... If you get half way up and the equipment is duff, you can cry to mummy and look for someone to blame, but it's basically entirely your own fault. We all (I'm as guilty as any) head off up 1000 foot routes in the mountains with just quickdraws and slings... not even pegs and a hammer generally, all on the assumption that all the gear is there and in good nick.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

That is truly terrifying.

In reply to redsulike:
A responsible way of approaching this would be.
Find out who bolted it.
When was it bolted.
Are the bolts and fixings suitable for the rock.

I don't think you should hold anyone responsible for a bolt failure.
Why not?

The responsibility lies with the climber to ensure that the bolts are sound as it does with anyone placing protection say on a trad' route.
I think in this situation, the bolter takes on some responsibility?

In reply to onsight:

Simon, at the end of the video, you show an 8.5, then 9mm bit being pushed into the hole. Is this due to the softness of the sandstone or have the holes actually been drilled that size. Surely a double expansion bolt - even 8mm shouldn't pull that easily unless the rock was VERY soft. Have you tried any of the bolts you pulled in harder rock? What make are the bolts? Is it possible that they inadvertently drilled with imperial size bits (though, of course, I don't know where they'd find them)

In reply to redsulike:

Ultimately, what you say is true, but unless the bolts are as truly awful as these, which could be pulled out by hand (40kg load or less), it's very hard to assess which ones will pull or break following a leader fall.

In reply to J1234:

If a hanger breaks or a chain snaps, then clearly the manufacturer is to blame. If all the bolts on a route can be pulled out by hand (remember the pull out strength is normally about 1.5 - 2 tonnes depending on the rock and size and type of bolt) then clearly the equipper has done something wrong.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

This is in fact a question I'm trying to get answered at the moment. Not for crags in the valley - écoles, but fully equipped routes in a mountain setting - that fall awkwardly some where between crags and terrain d'aventure. J-M Troussier at the FFME says for these type of routes there has never been a claim against a commune, maire or an equipper (read into that what you will) as it is deemed, as you say, that the climber is responsible for his actions (ie that the equipment was placed for the FA and it is up to you if you want to do the route and clip the gear). I wonder what the stance would be if you came along and had an accident by trying the route bolt free? I feel like you if there is insitu gear, that I should be able to trust it. This is obviously only France's take on it. It would be interesting to find the official line elsewhere.

In reply to jon:

Why is the person who originally put the bolts in to blame? He (or she) did it, used them and didn't take them out after... From then on it's still the responsibility of all of us to check out a route before repeating it, from guide books or talking to people, to find out what the gear is like.

Going down the blame road would be very dangerous for all of us as once started there is no limit. Why not hold a person responsible for an accident of someone who tries a route that someone had put up (without bolts) and published the description of? If it was harder than he said, or the description was poor or had an error?

In the French Alps, the attitude of the gendarmerie is that in climbing accidents we are all responsible for ourselves, it's a dangerous activity. There have been brinks in this rule lately concerning errors made by a guide who was held responsible for his clients (even though he had gone off to help someone in difficulty and told them to wait for him where they were... they didn't wait and had an accident) but until now it hasn't been extended to non-guided situation (AFAIK)... I certainly hope it never does, as the result would inevitably be restrictions on access to the mountains.

PS. I find the headline itself rather scandalous, but out of respect for the deceased I won't suggest a more pertinent alternative.

In reply to jon:

Sorry, our posts crossed.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

How scary and sad is that? Just goes to show that even sport climbs can be dangerous, especially if bolted with inappropriate gear or worse still home made gear which has never been tested.

Not all bolts are equal.

Rich

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Sorry I have to disagree with you, if you go around putting bolts, you take on a responsibility. Really a stamped metal tag should be affixed to the foot of a sports route, say bolt through tag and hanger, who bolted it and when.

In reply to J1234:

Then nobody would bolt any routes

In reply to J1234:

Clearly noboby would be interested in equipping routes on that basis. There is a moral responsibility on whoever equips a route to ensure fixed gear is as safe as possible. The overall responsibility has to remain with the climber every time they go climbing. Otherwise you simply couldn't have bolts at all as they could never be guaranteed to be 100% safe. If you don't like that then stay on the climbing wall.

In reply to J1234:
Sure you have a moral responsability but, as has been said, if you go down the blame road you'll be heading for no more sports routes. Or is this what you want - I notice from your profile you haven't done any...?

In reply to teddy:

No, I know who bolted Robin Proctors and I would imagine a lot of the routes in yorkshire are not anonymously bolted. A week after they are bolted you can give no g/tees, however as it is you could have a psycho murderer going around bolting. To be honest this is one of the reasons I prefer trad, my gear, my responsibility.
IMHO if your not prepared to even take a moral responsbility for your workmanship you should not place bolts. The tag would mean the person who placed it believed at the time of placement the bolts where structurally safe, if you cannot say at least that, you should not leave them in position.

In reply to jon:
If you look in my photo gallery you will find I have

In reply to J1234:

It would make life a bit stressful for a bolter... he'd never know if he wasn't on someone's hit list if one of his bolts failed!

In reply to J1234:

Oh no, you haven't gone and bolted Mohammed the Mad Monk from the Moorside Home for Mental Misfits, have you?

In reply to J1234:

I follow your reasoning; however, I think it is a sad day when we even have to consider these questions in light of tragic accidents such as these. I think on balance, putting the bolter's name on a tag is a step too far; just because no such details are given does not mean the bolter doesn't accept moral responsiblity for any accidents that happen.

In reply to teddy:
I object to the blame culture as much as anyone, but a tag would focus peoples minds.
Trip on a step, step in dog shit, you should look where your going.
A bolt a week old ripping on a route?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

One of the reasons I have reservations about 'modern' alpine rock. They seem like an unhappy medium - the gear and bolts means they're not properly adventurous, but then they're not usually hard or safe enough to be 'sport'. Give me one or the other!

Very sad the hear about this accident. I also feel for whoever did the bolting, who will most likely be feeling devastated, regardless of negligence/culpability issues.

In reply to teddy:

surely a fringe benefit.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Ironic isn't that the rope getting cut probably saved a second life...

In reply to J1234:

Why not insist on stamping the name of all those who made engine components on car engines in case they blow up and cause the car to crash. then you could track down the people who may have bodged the engine and sue them for negligence. This is simply not practical.

With bolts, the duty of pre-inspection on the user militates against the imposition of blame on the bolter. This is why I cannot agree with you on the issue of naming the bolter in a tag.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Because they knew that people would rely on the bolts and that if they weren't in properly this would cause injury/death. More, they knew that the bolts were dangerous but didn't bother to tell anybody.


Because it's entirely different. One's just a description, one's placing safety gear.

In reply to teddy:
Interesting, the climbers Mantra is responsibility for your own actions, yet you seem to say that Bolters have no responsibility for what they do.

In reply to thomasadixon:

The point everyone is missing is that in equipping a new route the equipper does it to the best of their ability, knowing that other people will rely 100% on them - especially abseil stations. No one just bangs the bolts in any old how because they just don't give a toss. (though sadly maybe this might be an example) If I get a bolt in the wrong place I go back and chop it and replace it. Likewise if it spins - sometimes bolts just won't tighten for some reason and they're buggers to break off or even to get the hangers off, but will normally give up eventually. Sometimes hangers come loose. This can be due to people hanging and swinging on them, but can also be because they've been placed too far to the left of the line (this has an L ward twisting effect on the hanger and encourages the nut to unscrew, and probably needs moving, or recessing into the rock to resist the unscrewing tendance) There's a lot more to it than most people think.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Would I be correct in thinking that if the climber had been using double ropes the accident would have been avoided?

One other observation about one sentence in the report: "However we also have a duty to ensure that any fixed equipment we do install is adequate for the job." I would have added the word "moral" in front of "duty".

In reply to jon:

Precisely

In reply to J1234:

Not at all, the climbers' responsibility is to check the bolts before use. I think this is the most important thing and is the bottom line in these situations. It is very difficult to apportion responsibility between different parties; best to not even try to do this in my view other than acknowledge that a moral responsibility exists (on the part of the bolters) in order to ensure that people are not put off from bolting. A bolter is afterall not a climber when bolting, he or she is just a 'bolter'.

Anyway, this is the last I will say on the subject, I think this is a can of worms and its a real shame that we are having to discuss such issues in light of such a tragic accident.

In reply to thomasadixon:


That's your way of looking at things, it's not a universal truth. I don't know in the UK as I have never been involved in an accident there, but in France the onus is still firmly on the responsibility of the individual climber to be careful... and if in doubt retreat.

I suspect that's the rub, most people brought up on bolts find this hard to imagine... they see things in a climbing wall fashion, and would push on regardless. As I've said already, it's easy to get into this way of thinking and have acted myself on the presumption that the route was all set up for me, but it's still fast food climbing and, as this accident shows, potentially dangerous.

On commercially prepared ski runs it's reasonable to assume that behind the bump there is not a 100 metre cliff, off piste it isn't. Outdoor climbing is the same, "user beware" just has to be the rule.

In reply to jon:

I've seen bolts placed which were of an improvised design which could have been become lethal after checking. They were placed on a couple of crags by an enthusiastic amateur who obviously didn't understand much about mechanics.

They were all removed.

In reply to redsulike:


You also place your trust in the hands of people you've never met when you drive a car, sit in a train, use a chainsaw or eat in a restaurant. If somebody's stupidity or recklessness caused a catatrophic outcome in these contexts, that person/organisation would be held to account.

I appreciate that climbing is different; you have not paid anybody any money to ensure a level of provision/safety. But do you really think that the vast majority who go clipping at Portland or the Costas are testing every bolt? I think you're looking at quite a commodity-minded demographic at these venues; by definition not natural risk-takers or assesors.

The Blue Mountains look to be somewhat different; a bit more of an adventure bolting ethic.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead: "I think you're looking at quite a commodity-minded demographic at these venues; by definition not natural risk-takers or assesors."

Can you be anymore condescending..

In reply to J1234: To hold the person who placed the bolt responsible is wrong. There are routes that use old pitons and if one were to fail the person who placed it would not be responsible for the person who fell on it.If you choose to use a piece of ab' tat left by someone else its your call. What should happen is that everyone should place their own bolts, but obviously that is totally impractical. If therefore you choose to use those bolts someone else left then again, its your call. The bolts got the original climber/bolter up the route and in that sense they did the job they were intended for. I can only think that bolts should be relied upon as guaranteed secure in a commercial sense where you pay for the route that has been bolted for you.

In reply to teddy:


That is actually a terrible example.

These bolts are the equivalent of taking delivery of a new car where the wheel nuts aren't tightened properly. Then 200 yards down the road your wheel comes off and you cause an accident.

Is that the drivers responsibility because they should have checked every wheel nut before they drove the car away, or is it negligence on behalf of the person who put the wheels on?

I believe that the expectation is that when you buy a new car the wheels are properly attached. Similarly I expect that a route which is freshly bolted should be trustworthy.

Also the equipper would (or certainly should) have known that his work was unsafe due to the fact the it was possible to further tighten some of the nuts by hand. In my book that is negligence, and although I am not a fan of the excessive blame culture we live in there are times when blame and some form of action are appropriate.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead: Yes , well in a commercial sense I agree as you are paying for that security and should expect a degree of minimum standards. Similarly, if a piece of trad' pro' fails mechanically you have a claim as it was bought with certain guarantees. But if you use 'my' pro' and it pops out, that's not my responsibility as it got me up the route and was not intended to save 'your' life.

In reply to redsulike: I don't see how this is so black and white. One or the other. I think both are responsible. I agree with Eric about 'moral' responsibility. I'd feel as guilty as hell myself.

In reply to chris_j_s:
I think it is actually quite a good example. If you think it is bad, what is a better example to use in your opinion?

The key issue here is that the motorist pays for the engine, the climber who follows the bolter does not pay anything.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Where the onus is (I do agree with you on that) and what people are actually expected to do are entirely different things. Do YOU think that people climbing bolted routes rely on the bolts?


So you rely on bolts yourself. Day dreaming about how people ought to act (but don't) is fairly pointless.


Realism has to be the rule. Trad cliffs are your responsibility, bolted routes are seen as being safe.

In reply to chris_j_s:

You don't have a contract (at least, not the same kind of contract) with a bolter of a route like you do with a supplier of a car. Not really comparable situations.

In reply to chris_j_s: Well if you steal a car and the wheel comes off I wouldn't be surprised if 'Injury Scheisters for U' made a claim aginst the owner on your behalf as it would be reasonable to expect that the car was mechanically sound when you stole it. This is what has become fundamentally wrong with the legal system and you are part of that culture whether you say otherwise or not if you believe as you do. You are looking for someone to blame as 'somebody MUST be to blame surely?'
The bolts were not placed for anyone other than the original climber and could not be expected to hold anything other than them. If someone who follows chooses to use them then it should be in the knowledge that there is no guarantee they will hold a their fall, they were not designed to do so. When you MOT your car there is no guarantee that it is roadworthy five minutes after it leaves the garage, it is your responsibility to make sure it is.

In reply to IainRUK:

Apologies IainRUK, this isn't a reply to you, just an observation, but imagine an outsider (non climber) looking at UKC. In one thread someone is praised for leading a hard route protected by a doorhandle and a nail, and then they find this, criticising the use of expansion bolts!

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Reading the article it seems both parties acted irresponsabley. The bolters for a horrific bolting job. I know nothing about bolting routes and for that reason wouldn't attempt to. If I did, I'd make sure that I knew what I was doing and that it was appropriate for the rock type and properly test the bolts I'd place. Reading the two reports it would appear that they knew little about the rock type before climbing, let alone bolting and noted while putting the bolts in that they were far from safe, and yet they left them, knowing that other people would use them.
But it is unfair to put all the blame on the bolters. The climbers went on a long route and went off that route because they didn't take any guide books or topo with them. If you don't know the route surely common sense dictates you take topo with you, even if it it is some scribbled notes. The report also suggests they had concerns about the bolts but continued to climb.

In reply to teddy:

The example that I gave!

It's a bad example (IMO of course) because you can't obviously look at most engine components and, even if you could, most drivers wouldn't be able to identify whether one of them had been manufactured/fitted badly anyway.

In the example I gave it focuses on something which most people should be able to identify as badly fitted, but that they wouldn't normally expect to check when the car is new.

In reply to Removed User:

interesting comment. I'd say "could have been", both ropes could have been cut or the other bolts could have popped with the belayer attached...

but yes, this makes me a bit less happy of climbing big walls with a single rope, at least where you are likely to take big falls and the rock is sharp.

In reply to thomasadixon: I think again your post has highlighted an issue with bolted or sport routes. Climbers assume the route is safe and you are suggesting that because everyone assumes them to be safe then a responsibility to make sure they are comes into effect. I think it is an issue with sport climbing that as climbers progress from the indoor wall to outdoor routes they assume the same standards are in force... and they are not. When you are outside on a rock route for which you have not paid then you are responsible for your own actions. Trad' climbers recognise this but it seems from some of the posts here that climbers on bolted routes expect that someone has taken on that personal responsibility by the act of placing bolts on the route.

In reply to redsulike:

I disagree the bolts were only placed for the original climber. They named and reported the route and sent topo to a guidebook editor. IMO as soon as you report a route you are accepting and encouraging other people to climb it. I agree that you still climb it at your own risk but surely by reporting the route you are accepting a moral responsability to properly place the bolts.

In reply to Jimmy D:

You are absolutely right of course.

I was trying to compare something which most people could very easily identify as faulty, but that you wouldn't normally expect to have to check when it is new.

In reply to redsulike:

But if you use 'my' pro' and it pops out, that's not my responsibility as it got me up the route and was not intended to save 'your' life.

If everyone had that attitude then imagine how many bolts there would be in routes. I think if you bolt a route then you should accept responsibility to make them safe, not just for you, but other who may come after.

In reply to Duncan_S:

The nail has been hit on the head. There are no norms. No one body dictates the spacing of bolts. So it can't be black or white. The size of the bolts is obviously another matter.

In reply to IainRUK:


Or indeed, (let's be honest) any more right.

jcm

Surely the 'bolter' owes a duty of care to future uses since he knows they will rely on his workmanship when they try the route. Thus any bolts placed must be done so to a reasonable standard (open to interpretation depending on rocktype etc). Therefore if a 'bolter' places bolts that fall below that reasonable standard he is negligent and potentially liable?

In reply to redsulike:

Where does stealing come into it?

The climber who died wasn't climbing on these bolts illegally so I struggle to see your point.

I am most certainly not part of the culture as you suggest. If I had an accident due to the failure of fixed equipment I would take full personal responsibility as I rightly should. In this case there was no 'failure' of equipment - it was blatantly never attached to the rock properly but looked new enough to convince people that it was trustworthy.



Two points here:

1) Fixed bolts are most certainly not just placed for the original climber. If that was the case I would expect, similar to a trad route, that the gear be stripped afterwards.

2) Actually if I took my car to the garage and they refitted a part so badly that it failed almost immediately, it would most certainly be the responsibility of the garage. However, as mentioned by someone earlier this is a slightly different scenario because by paying for this service I have entered into a contract, whereas no such contract exists between climber and equipper.

In reply to redsulike:

Pretty good way of putting it.


That's the thing though - they generally *are*. People climbing on sport routes don't have an expectation that's bizarre, they have an expectation that's normal and generally correct.

In reply to redsulike:

The problem is that the whole point of sport climbing is to push your limits in a safeish (compared to trad) environment. When sport climbing you expect to take falls. That is part of the point of it. Hence, there is a reasonable duty of care when placing bolts and reporting a new route. Of course, the climber has a responsibility to themselves to check the bolts they are trusting, and that comes from seeing rust, looseness etc, but often you would then climb past, knowing not to fall hoping the next bolt was solid. Therefore I can easily see how these two guys got into bother. They were getting committed to using these dangerous bolts as a belay. What should they have done differently? My belief is that the bolters of this route, knowing that the bolts were dodgy should have gone back and sorted something out, or at least made it known that they were dangerous.

In reply to chris_j_s:

Does this even matter? If the driver can't identify it then his lawyer could.

Its basically the same example. You took my example and added a little bit to it calling it your own, therefore you can't say mine was 'bad'.

In reply to redsulike:
I hope you're high on crack. I'm not quite sure why else you'd think trad climbers got on sport routes thinking 'i wonder if these bolts will hold, there's loads of screw ups out there bolting routes horrendously so i'd better go testing each bolt rigorously with my handy kit and top rope before continuing'.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

In their shoes how many of us would have stopped in time? SERIOUSLY.

A bad bolt. Next one looks alright. As does the next, all brand new. No you decide you're not happy. Clip one that looks O.K to lower and pop. You're dead and the only thing that saves your 2nd is the ropes being cut..

If I drove down the road and spilled diesel all over it, didn't bother to clean it up and caused a terrible crash could I get away with saying "well they should all have been driving slower and with more care".

If this went to a law court I think the bolter would be done as it's all to do with what is reasonable to expect and so on.

A very sad tale.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to teddy:

Fair enough - I didn't mean to antagonise you.

If you prefer, I took your automotive theme and used it to highlight a different situation because I thought it was a better comparison.

Your example wasn't actually 'bad' but I felt it was less relevant because of the level of expertise that would be required to ascertain what had gone wrong. It would only have taken a relative layman on toprope with a crude test to identify the problem with these bolts though.

This is why I believe that the original equipper has to take the majority of the blame here. It was left in a very obviously dangerous state but no effort was made to communicate this.

In reply to teddy: Thats almost right, however its not the name that should be stamped. Its the testing of the bolts several weeks after placement and a tick to say that they have withstood test falls along with the date.

This mandatory step I posit would be genuinely useful and acceptable by bolters and climbers. Mr Thomas Dixon, any legal advice on this? So far climbing has been viewed as an outsider thing so its regarded as outside of rules though not for equipment. Why should bolting be outside of law?

Tom, a dissertation in the making?

In reply to chris_j_s:
Isn`t this route 270m, that`s a bloody long top rope.

In reply to raphael:
Who will do this and who will pay them to do it?

In reply to J1234:

I feel you may have missed my point.

This is precisely why those climbers could not have been expected to check out the gear before they started climbing.

But for the people who came to investigate afterwards (on abseil, I expect) the problems were immediately apparent using a simple pull test. Hence, this problem should also have been apparent to however placed them.

In reply to thomasadixon:

A climber attempts a long route of which he has little knowledge and does not take a topo. He goes off route onto ground that is too hard for him to climb. He bellays of a single piece of pro and clipps a piece of insitu gear which rips, his rope cuts and he tradgically dies.
If this had been trad we would be calling this guy a muppet.

Obviously it is very sad that he has died and this was not trad.

If you climb a hard aid route you often find insitue gear. Why: because if the first ascentionist took out his mashie and then every subsequant climber placed one the route would be ruined(same with bolts). When you climb these routes you use this protection because you have no alternative. But you don't trust it blindly.
If you clipped a piece of trad gear that a guy who climbed a route had left behind you wouldn't even consider blaming him if it ripped.

So what is the difference with bolts?
Although some climbers see bolts for what they are many see them as a 100% safe infalable solution. You should check bolts!!!!

If you can turn the nut then don't even bother clipping it unless you are treating it as aid gear.
If you can move the hanger then you should at least half the rating on it.
If large portions of the hanger dont touch the rock then it could be dodgy.
If the arrow on the hanger does not point at the ground(direction it will be loaded) then it could be dodgy.
If the bolt is near a crack or the rock around it is unstabel don't trust it.
If they are home made forget it. (ie no markings on the hanger or look like bent aluminium).
If they are rusty, especialy on sea cliffs then be very careful.
Try giving them a bash with a gate, they should not move!
Personaly I'm not a fan of 8mm bolts at all, but if placed properly they do the job.

These things in themselfes may not indicate that the bolt won't hold but it tells you something about the abilities and knowledge of the people who placed them.


This blame issue is a bit irrelevant realy. This is all part of a denial of personal responsability. Parent kills child: state should have done more. Loose my job: banks fault(possibly true). Kids are fat: states fault. Hurt myself: not my fault, sue. If I loose stuff I'm insured. At some point you have to take responsability.

The reason people like sport climbing is they don't want the responsability of placing protection which they must rely on. They feel that by using protection placed by someone else this person takes responsability for they're safety and so its less stressful for them.

Wrong! I'v bolted routes and if someone died on them due to bad bolting I would feel absolutly terrible and I would probably feel somewhat 'responsible' but when I bolt a route I don't blindly trust a bolt even if I have placed it.
Bolting a long mountain rout could take weeks/months and costs a fortune(potentialy) and lets face it you are providing a service so that others can climb it without having these issues and if you do this to the best of you abilities and knowldge even if its badly done I don't think you can be blamed

The people who bolted this were clearly morons, they new the bolts were extremely poor and told no one. They were even asked by locals not to bolt. But the guys climbing it made no effort to check the bolts and even noticed they were poor and continued. I'm guilty of having climbed on the odd bolt that I suspected was crap but not a whole pitch worth and then bellay of one of them!

sorry I went on a bit there....

In reply to hal:

just realised some of my spelling is atrocious!

In reply to raphael: agreed. there should be a standard testing of the bolts to a certain level of safety a few weeks after the route has been put up and a tag attached to the route in some form (may just be in the guidebook) as to the quality of the bolts.

this test could be repeated every so often by the local climbers who frequently visit the area.

In reply to chris_j_s:

Sounds like it was:

"Their report on the climb on a Croatian web site mentioned problems with the rock and bolts. I had part of this translated as saying:

“This kind of rock, sandstone, turns into a featureless mass of mud, sand, lichens and human sweat when the rain falls. It is impossible to climb on it as there is no friction (very different from limestone which is climbable when wet). Also the wet sandstone is prone to breaking. During our ascent some parts of route looked like we were climbing on a pile of ceramic tiles. You carefully grab a horizontal tile like hold (harder layers in sandwich between softer sand base) sticking out of a rock, you move up and when you step on it, it brakes, but you are already holding a next hold.”

“Grade of the route tells nothing about its complexity. We started climbing early in the morning after a few days of rain. Everything was slippery, breakable and full of mud. The worst thing is that the bolts are not holding in this soft rock. You place the bolt, apply the weight and it’s already turning. Some of them we could take out with a bare hand!”
"

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

I looked into how to place bolts recently, and when I found out just how tricky it was to make absolutley sure they were bomber, I backed off, precisely for the fear of another climber coming along and pulling out a novice-placed bolt. The fear of being responsible for someone else's death was just too much.

Thanks to the likes of Gary Gibson and Gordon Jenkin who have given of their time, money and expertise, we have got some cracking sports routes in the Bristol/Wye/Cheddar area that have fairly recently been re-equipped and I can put a lot more trust in them than other areas. Nevertheless, I am still the person responsible for my actions, and it a bolt were to fail, it would be my fault for climbing up a cliff in the first place. If there was a legal duty of care put on the bolter, guidebooks would be two thirds the thickness, and only half of those climbs listed would ever be climbed.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
That's scary.
James

In reply to james oswald:


Take note James.

Whilst bolts are usually OK at established sport crags and are often looked after by locals. When you get out in the wild and on multi-pitch routes always check the integrity of the bolts, back up with hand placed gear if possible, even take some pegs/a bolt kit with you.

Mick

In reply to Legendary Stu:

Come off it! Who the hell is going to pay for that testing? And who the hell is voluntarily going to check routes every few weeks. Most crags have upwards of 50 routes on them. That is a pretty major undertaking. I lived about 10 minutes from Rivelin for 10 years, I certainly didn't climb many routes multiple times as there are so many other routes to climb!

The original bolter should ensure that they place solid bolts in the knowledge that following climbers will expect them to be safe, but equally, climbers must take responsibility for observing the bolts they are clipping and deciding whether or not to trust them.

The only slight improvement that could be made might be a central resource where dodgy bolts could be reported (maybe with the local boltfund so donations are easy to make too) and can be acted upon whenever someone feels so inclined.

The outdoors is not a climbing wall, although we all have responsibilities.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Hardly makes it easy to "onsight" that sport route at your limit though does it.....
Interesting.
James

In reply to james oswald:

Climbing can be dangerous, you may die climbing.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Isn't that what Ian McNaught Davies said (hundreds of) years ago "...climbing's about dying? If you're not prepared to die, you shouldn't go climbing." That probably coincided with the birth of sport climbing.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

I think we are missing a legal point here: if you buy a new car or have work done on your car, then surely that´s a professional relationship. You would have a guarantee for that work and expect that work to be carried out to a safe standard. The garage will have insurance and you´d be protected by law at least in the UK.

What some people seem to be suggesting is that a similar relationship should exist between people who equip routes and every climber there after. This is not a professional relationship, and I don´t think ever could be.

People who equip lower offs and routes etc do have a moral responsibility to ensure that what they do is safe and in line with best practice at the time.

Jack G. - Would I have tired to test the bolts shown on that video, they all looked very good if a little too small. I suspect unless something alerted me, I may well have trusted these bolts, and I´m paranoid about my safety.

In reply to Rich Mayfield:

Legally I think bolts are classed as abandoned property - that was a professional opinion in the early 90's I believe.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

That´s interesting. Was that in a case of some kind?

In reply to Rich Mayfield:

Actually Rich, they are all in very soft sandstone. The testers on the video state that many of the bolts were loose to the touch with loose nuts etc. The bolts are different to all the other bolts used in the area as there is a known problem.

I would always be dubious about compression bolts placed in sandstone.

In reply to Rich Mayfield:

You may be surprised to learn that in France the FFME have equippers who are paid for doing just that. Surely in those circumstances someone can be 'responsible'!

In reply to Rich Mayfield:

Could have been 80's Rich when a lot of bolts were going in in the UK.

Alex... jeez whatisname did some research for the BMC as they were concerned about liability.

Memories fuzzy. Don't take that as gospel please.

Where's John Cox? He may know.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

Well in which case don´t think I would have gotten on the route in the first place.

Just out of interest what is the norm on those cliffs,any one know?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: I think the 'abandoned property' designation of bolts applies under American law, not UK law - seach for 'abandoned property' in this link for instance http://www.safeclimbing.org/about_overview.htm .

There is certainly no parallel between placing a bolt and repairing a car because once you pay money to a company the law of contract and the Sale of Goods Act come into play. I'm no lawyer but I'd be very surprised to learn that any form of implied contract existed between an unpaid bolter and a climber.

In reply to Rich Mayfield:

Simon Carter does go into it in some detail in the articles. They seem to be some form of long resin bolt. This has the benefit of glueing everything together if the sandstone disintegrates to powder beneath the surface.

In reply to jon:

I wonder who funds that? It may be something other EU countries should be considering like Spain. But the FFME (the testers) would be responsible if they passed a route safe and something happened.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

There's probably a lot to be said to leaving bolting to the locals in a particular climbing area. They will have built some experience up from the history of placing fixed protection in that area, and will have learned something about the characteristics of the rock. Similar to the experience developed in placing bolts at Pen Trwyn and also in Thailand.

I've read the whole thread and can't believe no one has picked up on this

The bolts were 8mm, after a bolt was pulled a 8.5 mm drill bit was placed in the hole, followed by a 9mm bit, ergo the bolters clearly used the wrong drill bit! No matterwhat bit you use, if it's oversize then the bolt will not tighten, period!

I've used hundreds of thru-bolts in construction and never had one fail yet, i've even re-bolted routes and i'm 100% confident that the bolts i placed will perform to their given lifespan.

imho the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the bolters.


ps the bolts also looked way too short!

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

This is going to be interesting to follow. Not best or recognised practice then, is there going to be any police involvment?

How experienced are the climbers who had the accident, cos if inexperienced and unable to make the judgment call then perhaps crimal charges could be brought?

Got friends in Oz I´ll email them and get a local take on things.

In reply to Rich Mayfield:

The FFME is the national body for climbing. One of its functions is to supply bolts, for instance communes who have crags that they'd like to see developed. A convention is then signed between the commune and the FFME which protects the commune and the equipper (who may or may not be paid by the Federation) Here we are talking one pitch crags that can almost be classified alongside climbing walls - ie no objective dangers such as rockfall, for instance that you'd get in the mountains. They must be funded by their member associations and I'd guess by the government. I suppose a Gallic BMC? If there are any factual errors there I apologise...

In reply to Rich Mayfield:

Simon Carter who posted earlier on this thread and whose site is linked to in the article will be the point of contact. It doesn't sound like there's any intention of pursuing things legally. The bolters were visiting Croatian climbers and have been contacted (see the article).

In reply to the inspiral carpet:

The bolt had just been pulled out and I suspect this would have damaged the rock inside the hole making it slightly larger due to it being weak sandstone. Hence using glue in as the norm.

I thought 75mm from the vid, that´s too short even for limestone!

In reply to the inspiral carpet:

Just because the holes are larger doesn't mean that the wrong size bit was used. Ever tried drilling into shit plaster where it turns to powder and you can end up with a larger hole (I think I spend too much time puuting shelves up).

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

Makes me nervous of climbing in Croatian if they´re using short thru bolts as the norm.

In reply to the inspiral carpet:
>

I did ages ago and it wasn't picked up on then. I wonder if the holes were drilled that size or if the sandstone was so soft that it didn't resist. My own feeling is that if the holes were oversize in the first place, you wouldn't be able to tighten the bolt to the stage where it looked good or resisted even 40kg

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

There's alot of treading on eggshells going on here. The lads who placed, then left the bolts, in that state should be hung from Sydney Harbour Bridge.

There's simply no excuse. Is it just me thinking like this?
I've placed bolts on lots of types rock for both climbing and in work situations. There's no problem with expansion bolts in sandstone if they are done right. Use the correct kit. In fact I've placed them in red sandstone on Ormskirk hospital to ab over the edge of a tower. No problem.

You shouldn't need to check / test shiny new bolts on a sport climb before climbing - end of.

The Ent

In reply to Enty:

Are you suggesting they should be put to death Ents?

This is a very tragic accident. Best if the whole global climbing community learns from this and Simon has done an excellent job of getting the word out across the globe.

In reply to Enty:

Expansion bolts in sandstone depends massively upon the consistency of the sandstone. And that can vary to a huge level, which may not be obvious from the surface texture.

In reply to Enty:


Agreed. But this is hardly a sport climbing cliff. Multi-pitch climbing on chossy rock. Nick Kaczorowski's rope was cut by the rock and he fell to his death.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:


yes, i'm a joiner so i use different types of fixings all the time, the 'plaster' you describe could have been 'clinker' block, very hard to fix to without the correct fixings.

In Reply To Rich Mayfield:

It's quite clear that a 9mm bit was used, the fit was too perfect for anything else to have been used, another clue was when he pulled out the 9mm bit was the colour of the dust, it was white, had the bolt made the hole larger the dust would have been a different colour.

In Reply To Enty:

agreed apart from death! :0)

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

Sandstone in all it's guises that is able to be climbed on is more dense that many construction blocks that are about, still i've never had a problem fixing to blockwork.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Although I wouldn't agree with blaming the Croatian climbers concerned, there is little doubt that they did not consult local climbers enough and did not warn people about the state of the bolts. They reported problems with the bolts on a Croatian website yet didn't say anything to the Ozzies despite having submitted a new route toppo to Simon Carter.

In reply to the inspiral carpet

Climb extensively in Jordan and you'll change your mind about the consistency of Sandstone.

In reply to Hugh Cottam: there are fixings and drillbits that suit eachother and they together suit different substrates, use the correct materials and and knowledge of how to use them and the job will be done correctly...

In reply to the inspiral carpet:

Not much good if the whole rock just disintegrates to dust though is it.

In reply to Hugh Cottam: then if bolts were to be used a longer resin anchor should be used, there are fixings for everything these days, even soft stuff.

what i'm saying is the bolts used were not suitable for the application, and the drill bit wasn't suitable for the bolts..

In reply to the inspiral carpet:

I think the local consensus is that only long resin bolts are really suitable.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

That's when you use your nowse and don't place them.
Nowse - something these chaps didn't have.

The Ent

In reply to raphael:

Certainly an interesting thing to be looking at imo he'd have a negligence claim on his hands in the UK and the bolter would lose. Hopefully it won't happen!

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Well this will make me check bolts as i clip into them....

In reply to thomasadixon:


Therein lies the error, you sum it up nicely, but I draw a different conclusion. I conclude that doing this is foolhardy and that it is our fault if we use a bolt which is obviously poor... it's not that hard to see if they look rock solid or a bit iffy after all. In this case they were, apparently, so poor as to move when tugged and yet they still did a long run out on one. It seems callous to say but I don't think it's the fault of the bolter.

I would never dream of blaming someone else for my own risk taking, and I was more mea-culpaing on the fact that although I take a few nuts on bolted routes just in case but on long (>10 pitch) routes I think I should really take a hammer and a few pegs in case I ever had to abb off and couldn't find the descent abb pints, got lost or something... I can't be bothered to carry the weight and it's 99% sure that it won't be needed, but it's for me to assume my risk.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

If I went to Malham, climbed a sport route, clipped in at the top and decked because 10mm bolts were put into 11mm holes - If I survived I'd go and find the culprit.

The Ent

In reply to Enty:

Ditto Ent, i don't think some people clearly understand the mechanics of expansion bolts!

In reply to Duncan_S: I think you misunderstand, its not an 'attitude' and no-one is going to start bolting trad routes. But on a trad route, 'my' gear is for 'me', 'I' place it to safeguard 'my' life. Someone else could not use it and expect me to have any responsibility for its effectiveness. Of course your second cleans the route but the principle is sound.

In reply to chris_j_s:

Not what I said though is it. At an MOT nothing is fitted. You have parts replaced after an MOT to get it through- and the parts and labour have a guarantee.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Jack

You might want to name check whoever (Adam Lincoln?) brought this to attention here first.

J

In reply to abarro81: No not high on crack just talking sense, even if you don't like it.

Sport climbers might not want to go through the rigmarole of testing each and every bolt before they clip into it...and I agree it would be too ridiculous to contemplate. So, you take it at face value with a simple tug and accept the risk. But the argument here is that you don't accept the risk and that someone else has mitigated that risk to an acceptable level of safety for you.
To argue that first ascentionists are bolting routes with some kind of philanthropic agenda to bolt routes so that others might follow in their footsteps is unfathomable. If your argument is accepted- because of the risk of litigation- it is more likely that bolts will be cut from an abseil after the first ascent. Anyone wanting to repeat the route will have to re-bolt it themselves and then remove them once they have completed the route. In other words cleaning a route as a trad climber might. Actually what is more likely to happen is that as a climb is completed the report will contain a disclaimer about not guaranteeing the integrity of any bolts and any climbers using them do so at their own risk. Which puts us back to square one.

In reply to Enty: Are you in your post accepting responsibility for the integrity of the bolts you placed, (because you know that they were placed properly)?
That's fine if you want to, but how long are you prepared to guarantee them for? It seems to me that if you accept responsibility now you do so in the future also -in the absence of any written agreement. You might find that you will have to check and replace them at regular intervals acting in the role of a H&S officer in order to protect yourself from action should one fail due to corrosion.
You might not agree but I think acting to accept responsibility puts us on the slippery slope of policies and best practice, litigation and organisation and guidelines, which is the antithesis of the climbing ethic.

In reply to redsulike:

In the case of stainless glue-ins, provide they are properly placed ie recessed into the rock to resist turning, and that the resin went off in the first place, then they will last until you are dead and buried. Humid salty air does seem to be an exception though...
SS expansion bolts are are less long lived but still pretty tough things, so I have pretty much 100% confidence in those I've placed. Of course they can come unscrewed, but this is just about the only way that someone can check each bolt as they climb. A loose hanger will theoretically weaken the bolt, but not catastrophically, and even finger tight it will easily hold a fall or at least let you back off from it. If it's fallen off then that's altogether different!

In reply to jon:

a bolt tightened properly then the thread hit with a hammer and cold chisel stops the bolt unscrewing, but if for any given reason it did come loose it can still be tightened.

oh, i too have 100% confidence in the bolts i place, on rock or at work.

In reply to redsulike:

I have 100% confidence in the bolts I've placed in Yorkshire. The stainless glue-ins have a life span - after that it's up to you. Common sense.

I've also hung heavy objects from bolts in public places as part of work I used to do. If something came down and landed in a pram - i'd expect a knock on the door.

The Ent

In reply to Enty:


I've occasionally fallen on mine, too!

In reply to Enty:

No hassle... if you were daft enough to clip into a 10mm bolt slopping about in an 11mm hole then there's little chance you would find them

Sorry.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Excellent Bruce, I feel I know you...

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Some of you people have amazingly little idea about the law. And why not, I suppose?

First of all, the question of whether there is a contract is neither here nor there. A contract is an agreement, There is an entire field of law, called tort, connected with the duties people owe to other people they don't have contracts with.

For example, I have no contract with other drivers, but if I kill them by my inattention when out driving, I am liable. This is called the tort of negligence.

The circumstances in which the law imposes tortious liability are many and various, and determined essentially by judges on a case-by-case basis, although obviously certain principles arise. They also all depend upon their individual facts: two outwardly similar cases may on inspection produce different results.

Since there has not yet been a case where a climber has been sued for placing bad bolts, we don't know even the general approach a court is likely to take.

However, when a climber is placing bolts on a sport climb (or probably any climb; I strongly doubt that the courts are going to differentiate), he knows beyond doubt that other climbers are going to rely on them without question and that if the bolt fails another climber may be killed.

I would be very surprised indeed if the law did not consider that such a climber had a duty to take at least some care in the placement of those bolts. It is true that those other climbers assume the risk that even a well-placed bolt might fail, but I doubt whether they assume the risk that a series of bolts may be placed in such a wholesale inadequate way as seems to have happened here.

In this particular case the perpetrators are in a different jurisdiction (and likely to remain so if they're wise, I would suggest), and doubtless uninsured, so we are most unlikely to find out, but if the circumstances recorded by Simon Carter are true I would be amazed if a claim didn't succeed, at least in a jurisdiction where the common law is similar to ours.

In fact, if I were these two I'd stay well out of Australia. Obviously I know nothing about the criminal law there, but it wouldn't surprise me either if there were jurisdictions where they could be imprisoned for causing death with such recklessness. And frankly they should be if some of the facts alleged are proved.

I don't know who owns bolts, I'm afraid. My guess would be the landowner, but there's a lot I don't know.

jcm

In reply to dhwsa:


He's not doing it professionally for goodness sakes! It's nothing like the examples of new cars going wrong either... If someone asked if he could abb down your rope after you had gone down, you said yes, then as he was coming down the abb point gave and he fell to his death, would you say you were responsible? Don't forget you'd gone down yourself, and in the case I'm thinking of so had the partner and no one knows if the loop lifted off or wore through.

For information the police concerned considered it was a climbing accident and took no proceedings. Reading this thread it sounds like a lot of you consider they should have!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


That's rubbish Bruce. As you saw in the video clip, 8mm bolts were put in 9mm holes and some were still fairly tight. Enough for you to think they are ok but obviously not.

The Ent

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I think they should. Idiots like that need removing from the climbing scene.

The Ent

In reply to Enty:

How do you propose to do that Ents?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

A high-profile prosecution for manslaughter would go a long way to achieving it, as indeed would a civil suit.

The latter would have interesting consequences for sports climbing in general.

jcm

In reply to Enty:

Who was the idiot, the one who placed the abseil used it safely followed by his partner or the third man who couldn't be bothered to place an ab himself and then had the accident, presumably because he lifted the loop off the spike as he started or because he didn't check the state of the loop?

My view is that climbing is dangerous so we should all be careful... in the abseil case as in this accident.

One point no one has clarified is whether the climb was in a guide book, and if it was whether the editor should have checked the state of the gear or if this was not possible have mention any doubts. There is a mention of a text translated from Croatian but it's not clear if this was in the guide book/topo?

The way this is turning people will just be obliged to keep their climbs secret to avoid being put in clink when someone comes along afterwards and gets killed!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

This isn't sport climbing John, it's multi-pitch climbing in a wild area. So find a different whipping post.

Also consider the 100's if not 1,000's of routes both single pitch and multi-pitch around the world that have dodgy bolts many placed on the lead.

Time bombs?

Mick

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



That is another question. One Simon Carter answers in his blog.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Sounds to me like no one was, that was just an accident. Entirely different to this scenario and not relevant.


Personally I don't think this is relevant if it's on a crag with sports climbs.


No, it's not. What it would mean is that people placing bolts have to place them properly. Doesn't sound bad to me.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Sent this to my sister as she is studying law, her answer seems like a reasonable point of view for a rational law system to adopt, but am sure she would welcome critique from more qualified observers. (NB: I am not comfortable with these duel threads encompassing an actual accident and a more general discussion that is highly relevant to the climbing community, think UKC should seperate specific accidents from disussion of important safety issues) :-

There is generally no law for a failure to act, eg a failure to prevent harm, unless the involved parties have a special relationship or a contractual duty, so for example if a person agrees to take care of their elderly aunt they will have presumed a duty of care. similarly if a railway worker fails to check the line is clear they may be liable due to the contractual relationship they have with the rail company.

However the climbers failure to prevent an accident by ensuring the gear were fitting sufficiently does not amount to an ommision which could be legally liable. There is however the question of the neighbour test, which is involved in the area of negligence, which suggests you should take action to prevent those closely and directly affected by your actions from suffering as a result.

The neighbour test is quite limited however as it would be unfair for one individual to be responsible for the safety of many others, and would open the floodgates to many claims. i believe it would be unlikely for the climber to be liable for these reasons, unless of course it could be proved that he intentionally or maliciously badly placed the gear with either the intention to kill or commit gbh, if the mens rea (guilty mind) is lacking , then the actus reus (guilty act) appears unsubstantial.

In reply to thomasadixon:


It wasn't.


I don't see why you think that people doing new routes do it for you? There is no real justification to think this.

I blame climbing walls.

In reply to Sankey:

Nice Latin

In reply to Bruce Hooker: The report on onsite explicitly says that the bolters named and reported the new route (along with a topo) to the local guidebook guy. It also explicitly states that they did not mention the quality of the bolts in this report.

The translated piece was written by the bolters on their home forum and it explicitly states that they felt the bolts were a pile of crap.

Whilst I totally understand British bolters being concerned with the talk of liability, it seems that the bolters in question did absolutely everything wrong.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Got to blame someone Bruce eh?

Might as well make it an inanimate object.

Didn't the French invent the panel and bolt-on-hold system? Pyramid wasn't it?

Maybe get a lawyer knocking on their door.

Mick

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I take it you haven't read the report?


Don't twist my words, I don't. I do think that people placing bolts know they will be relied upon by others.

In reply to Sankey:

This isn't an omission, it's the act of placing the bolts that's at issue. If she's talking about the neighbour principle in Donoghue & Stevenson then she seems to have misunderstood it completely...

JCM is a lawyer I understand and has explained negligence above.

In reply to thomasadixon:

>


Ah, bless her, I shouldn't have edited the first part of her mail as I did:

"i believe that omissions might be relevant here..."

In reply to thomasadixon:


Yes it is an ommission. It is an ommission to place the bolts correctly - I'm a lawyer too. For me, there isn't a clear LEGAL duty of care between the bolter and the climber relying on the bolts, as much as it is heinous that the bolts were not placed properly and that it seems morally wrong.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Nick was a good friend to many of us. In view of the circumstances I think that getting done by the cops would be the least of these guys worries if they set foot in Blackheath again.

In reply to teddy:

Could you explain how/why you'd consider placing the bolts incorrectly an omission rather than an act?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

You lot all seem a bit humouristically challenged... I wasn't blaming guide book writers if that's what's upset you. The point I've been trying to make (but failed) is that we shouldn't blame anyone in such cases... except ourselves. I just watched the film and it seems to show that the bolts were all half loose, and yet they kept climbing up using them.

I have used bolts in parts of France, there's no much choice as it's all bolted, which were tattier than these... some were just ring-screws into wooden pegs bashed into the holes, or bent bits of rusty iron... but only where I was reasonably sure I wasn't going to fall off.

These wouldn't be really considered to be "sports routes", I imagine, but I doubt that anyone would think of taking legal action against the pioneers... It's considered to be for the climber to make his own judgement... sometimes following guide book warnings such as the famous "most of the essential gear is usually in place", or something similar. Anyone reading that knows what to expect.

In reply to Sankey:

Perhaps I just can't understand what she's written!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Due to the burden of proof (if this had been here) I think a criminal case would fail but a civil one would succeed. But God help us when we invite the lawyers into the sport.

In reply to thomasadixon:


I just did, and another a few days ago... it was a 270 metre crumbling sandstone wall with loads of sharp edges... If that's your idea of a sports venue than you go up in my opinion

In reply to thomasadixon:

Its a glass half full or half empty question. Sure, they acted to place the bolts but in my view they ommitted to put them in the correctly sized hole. Just like the railway worker ommitted to put the nuts on the points that caused the train derailment. You could say that the railway worker was acting in maintaining the points but in reality, he also ommitted to do something crucial, ie. put the nuts back.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Hmmm. Clear and sensible.

Thank you.

J

In reply to teddy:

Say I agree with that - they made the hole for the bits they were putting in in the first place, so they've still acted in making the wrong size hole into which they then put their equipment. The railway worker has not done something (I'd agree it's a crucial thing!), I don't see how the two are similar.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

An interesting sports venue then...I didn't actually say a sports venue anyway I said a venue with sports routes. This from the (first) blog - "They were all intending to climb Bunny Bucket Buttress (270 metres, grade 18, protected entirely by carrot bolts)"

In reply to thomasadixon:

i wonder if action could be taken against the bolters for not removing the bolts knowing them to be dangerous?

In reply to thomasadixon:

You'd better explain it to the judge then! I am no tort lawyer, just trying to remember my textbooks from years ago. Its all about the floodgates. You have to draw a line somewhere on these claims.

Recently, a ridiculuous finding of a duty of care was between a homeowner who put barbed wire on the wall of his garden and the burglar of his house! Apparently, the homeowner owed the burglar a duty of care for his safety whilst on his property and should have put up a sign saying 'danger, barbed wire!' You couldn't make it up.

In reply to teddy:

>You couldn't make it up.

I think you will find that someone did.

I might be wrong, but I'm guessing from your posts above you're not a litigation lawyer!

jcm

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

>This isn't sport climbing John, it's multi-pitch climbing in a wild area.

I appreciate that, but my point was that any prosecution for placing bolts negligently would have consequences for sport climbing. Which it most certainly would, as I think on reflection you'd probably agree.

As I said, circumstances alter cases. I think the law would take a different view of bolts placed on the lead, when clearly the bolter can't be expected to take the same care and might have to go with what he's got. Even then, if you disseminate a description of your route locally without saying the bolts are rubbish, and then go back home and publish statements saying you know they are in fact deathtraps, I think you're going to find yourself very poorly placed in any court case.

jcm

In reply to Sankey:

Would I be right in thinking that your sister is studying for O-levels? Without wishing to be unkind, she seems to be at something of a beginner stage.

There is plenty of law about failure to act. For example, a landowner who finds that a naturally occurring feature of his land is causing a nuisance to others has s duty to others to do something about it (eg National Trust -v- Leakey, riparian owners failing to maintain rivers to prevent blockages and flooding).

Deliberately placing duff bolts is not in any event an 'omission'. Nor is publicising the route without mentioning the fact the bolts are in unsafe. In any case the entire omission/action distinction is pointless. Negligence may just as easily involve failure to act as action.

The neighbour test is not the opposite of having a duty. It is what causes a duty to arise.

It is right that the courts will bear in mind that making one individual responsible for the safety of an indeterminate class of others is a Bad Thing and will lean against it, but it can happen quite easily, for example a landowner who knows that a dangerous mineshaft exists on his land has a duty to put up appropriate warning notices.

The last two lines seem to confuse civil and criminal liability. Intent has nothing to do with civil oliability for negligence, and everything to do with murder or other criminal charges.

Actually thinking about it, I reckon publishing the route without a warning is really the most heinous aspect of all. Although in fact that didn't here cause the damage, since as far as one can tell the injured party wasn't deliberately following the actual badly bolted route.

jcm

In reply to noxious:

>Due to the burden of proof (if this had been here) I think a criminal case would fail but a civil one would succeed

I don't know about the burden of proof, but yes, intuitively I don't think a manslaughter charge would succeed here, although really I know nothing about the criminal law. But what I said was that I could easily imagine jurisdictions where a criminal offence was being committed. For example I believe the US has an offence of 'reckless endangerment'. I don't know what the ingredients of that are, but one can readily imagine them being present here.

jcm

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: All very emotional/ emotive . You cant legislate in this life for someone less informed than yourself fuking up your day / life . You take account for your own actions and judgement . Climbing is dangerous i would say now more than ever . Sport climbing removes alot of the skills of crag awareness etc that you learned as a trad climber if you were lucky enough . A bolt in theory should not fail but they occasionally do . In this case i would say nothing is cut and dried . Yes you should not take it upon yourself to equip a route if you're not sure how but this boils down to intelligence / common sense , however take it from me if you go climbing you might get hurt or worse, thats a fact . Dont blame anyone else if it happens it wont make it better .

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Google had something interesting to say on Australian criminal law here. Apparently section 35 of the Crimes Act 1990 (for New South Wales, as far as I can tell), making it an offence to 'recklessly cause grievous bodily harm to any person', was amended in 2007 to remove the word 'malicious' from the definition of the offence. If this Act is in the right jurisdiction, that'd tip things a bit towards the prosecution, if this were to ever end up in a criminal case.

In reply to mick o the north: Sorry should add that my heart goes out to everyone associated with this tragic incident .

In reply to mick o the north:

It would be interesting to know the Croatian viewpoint. Having spent some time with Romanian climbers who thought nothing of climbing 8a on home-made pegs ten metres apart, I have an idea the Eastern European mentality might be different from ours. As indeed this case rather demonstrates.

Alicia - "cause". Hmm. Am I right that the US has this reckless endangerment offence? What's that about?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Maybe it is, but this Oz. The local ethic here is well known and there is wealth of information on the correct bolting procedure for the 'soft' Blueys sandstone. But this is beside the point, what stinks is that these guys were told not to use the bolts by a local climber and went ahead regardless. Its much more effort to equip a route with the proper glue-in staples and they were either in too much of a rush (no excuse) to do this or simply didn't give a f*ck.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
So from what I gather from the majority of UKC users it is the climber's fault, as it is up to the climber to assess fixed equipment. Seems fair for dodgy ab tat etc, but...
So he rocks up to the crag, tugs on a nice shiny bolt and has somehow 'taken responsibility'. Except that as a skinny young man his 'checking tug' wont be anywhere near his bodyweight, let alone his bodyweight on a decent fall.
It is basically impossible to tell if a bolt is any good or not from the ground. And while I am very anti the whole litigation society thing, if you choose to bolt you need to do it properly, because you'd be an idiot to assume nobody else would turn up and try your line that somebody else clearly did on fixed equipment.
Personally, if I was going for the onsight (apparently it is very important these days?) the only bolt available for this 'responsibility checking' is the first one, if that is even reachable from the ground (normally it is not), and tugging carefully on every single bolt on a massive multipitch is simply not an option, because you either a) will come off by losing balance or even even worse b) will lose the precious onsight because you are basically aiding because your weight came for a millisecond onto said equipment.
What I am trying to say is normally you see a bolt, you desperately clip it.

8mm bolts are not designed for climbing on any rock, and it has been said that for this tragic example it is not the best rock for bolting anyway. Even the Avon(!) guidebook warns the reader specifically about every route with 8mm bolts (to quote Martin Crocker, in his understated style: "...the bolts are original 8mm bolts and should be treated accordingly") I don't blame the bolter, but it is probably just somebody who didnt know precisely what theyre doing, putting badly-sized bolts (badly) in poor rock, who just wanted to encourage climbing in their local area, like we all do.
Tragic accident, nobody to blame as such, but I just don't like the whole 'climber is to blame' suggestion. With trad, and mixed ethic trad (i.e. dodgy pegs) most climbers are at least aware of the risk. When a climber sees a nice bolted sport line, they will probably think that bolts can at least hold 30kg!
Not to say it is exclusively the bolters fault, but it is such a f*cking shame that he clearly didn't know what he was doing. The way I see it is, I personally have no idea how to bolt, as a result I wouldn't get a Hilti out and go for it, until I had been taught properly and maybe tested the results. Not one to preach, but I would not morally be able to bolt until I was certain my bolting was up to scratch; in the same way I wouldn't go make a top-rope anchor off anything that isn't 100% bomber and then leave it there for other people to use. While it is a bit absurd to suggest the bolter should have checked every bolt, if I was putting in a belay I would get advice from someone more experienced and definitely test every belay. If the belays in this case could be lifted out by tugging, that strikes me as pure and simple negligence. You should never permanently install something that you know will be used as an anchor and not be certain through experience and a little testing that it won't fail.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
What is the legal status with Via Ferrata, similair thing to a bolted route, with an assumed safety. They must cost a shedload and are perceived as "safe". I was walking along a track above Garda and found one that was not in the guide book, quite hard but not exposed, all shiny bolts and I just went up it. Was I supposed to ab down it, check it and then do it? I imagine clubs must put them up and if one rips down after a couple of months, I doubt they can say "nowt to do with me Guv".
Cheers Beds

In reply to J1234:

In many places via ferrata are put up by local councils (or by people working for them) so I would imagine they could be held responsible... They are seen as money spinners for mountain areas, especially as the snowline heads higher (usually!) and a lot have lost revenue from skiing. They are turning towards summer activities - mountain bikes, climbing etc.

On the other hand, usually you would go to the local tourist office and get the documentation before heading off up a line of gear... it may not be finished or known to be in bad condition... you often come accross random bolts on little crags in the pre-Alps, perhaps some local playing, it's foolish to assume that because there are a few bolts they lead anywhere or are correctly done.

As said above many French low altitude cliffs are "equipped" under contract arrangements between the land owner, the council and a climbing club. This covers the land owner if some one dies and he hasn't physically put up fences to save us all from ourselves! Whether this does imply a legal responsibility of the club, "equippers" or council though I don't know.

I think it's sad and symptomatic of a rather sordid turn that climbing seems to be taking that the question arises... to hear climbers calling for other climbers to be prosecuted is rather nauseating (literally it gives me a queasy feeling in the stomach) to me. Climbing walls, bolted climbs, fast food climbing... stop the world, it's time to get off!

PS. I forgeot to mention chalk

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Aaaaarrrrrgggghhhh!!

THEY PUT 8MM BOLTS IN 9MM HOLES - THEY SHOULD BE SHOT!

The Ent

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Thank God no! I don't think anybody can say with certainty how this would be viewed in court so it is pointless talking as if we know how this would pan out - the truth is we don't.

In reply to J1234: Is it not a bit sad that we now live in an age where via ferrata has to have a legal status. Sure someone put it in, but you choose to use it.

In reply to Enty:

I watched the film and this isn't certain, it looks like they used 8mm drills but as the stone is so soft they opened up a bit more. The 8.5mm drill could be pushed in (unusual size?) but the 9mm had to be forced. Obviously the job was badly done, but years ago everyone from E Europe you met in Chamonix, for example, had pretty home made gear, they went round the campsites trying to flog titanium stuff, so maybe it's still hard to get the right stuff and they are used to "making do"?

The suggestion that they should have used resin glued bolts when they were bolting as they lead the route is amusing too! It would have been a long ascent.

Whatever, you won't convince me that the poor man who died was victim of anything else but his own poor judgement... Hard to say (or hear, I apologise for any who are offended) but when the wolves are baying for blood and looking for someone to lynch - one poster suggest physical violence if they come back to Oz - then perhaps it needs to be said.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You've never placed a Rawl bolt have you?

A 12mm bolt needs to be tapped into a 12mm hole.

A 10mm bolt needs to be tapped into a 10mm hole.

A 8mm bolt needs to be tapped into a 8mm hole.

The collar at the end of the bolt is slightly larger than the bolt diameter. This bit grips as the bolt is pulled out.

Even if the rock is soft.

Ciao

The Ent

In reply to Jon Dittman:

Maybe, maybe not. Your grieving widow and children may not share your ethical stance on negligent/incompetent Via Ferrati installation.

Bouldering and Soloing pure own responsibility,
Trad, natural thing pretty much all your own responsibility but you and your partner are responsible for each other to varying extents.
Sport, now somebody, like it or not, is taking "some" of your responsibility away from you because it is in many cases impossible for you to make an assesment of a bolt on the lead, and it would be reasonable for a complete novice to set off up a sport route.
Via Ferratta, I would make an assumption that the gear on this is very safe, to the extent I would take a child up it.
Cheers Beds

In reply to Enty:


I have actually, quite a few, but not when climbing - I am against the use of bolts when climbing... they are just raping the cliff rather than persuading it to yield by caress. This thread doesn't exactly make me change my mind! Clearly the widespread use of bolts has lead to a very dangerous attitude amongst many climbers.

If you look at the film, as I suggested above, it really doesn't look like the holes were made with a 9mm bit... which is what I just said. You seem to take this very personally... is it because you are a keen bolter yourself?

In reply to J1234:


Don't go to the dolomites then. Via ferrata are in a mountain environment, subject to damage every winter from freeze thaw and from stonefall all the time. They are mountain routes that happen to have metal work on them. Some of them are very old. Some of them are newer. They are not childrens playgrounds, they are routes up very steep mountains. Your assumption is wrong. You should always approach a via ferrata knowing that you could face damaged sections.

The case in france is different where the routes are newer and normally funded by the local municipality. Equally, french routes are more dependant on the metal rather than the rock.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I know at least some states do, e.g. in New York, there was a 2003 case in which a man disabled the pilot light of his oven, turned on the gas and took some tranquilizers in an attempt to commit suicide. This was, I believe, in an apartment building. The suicide attempt didn't work, and a spark ignited the gas, causing an explosion. He was charged with reckless endangerment. I believe the relevant element is "evincing a depraved indifference to human life."

In reply to Tdubs:

Totally agree with what you've said here. This case is definitely tragic and I think it's very harsh to be in any way "blaming" the climber - how many people check every shiny new bolt as they climb (or even old crappy looking ones), I reckon about 0% of climbers do. That may say something about the dangers of sport climbing but I don't think it says anything much about the climber concerned (who I think was very experienced).

In reply to J1234:


But sometimes they wouldn't be grieving if people were more careful. It's not a question of ethics but a result of a change in attitudes which tends to mean that many people now take fixed protection for granted... and some even go as far as to say it is the duty of previous parties to make sure that any gear they leave in place is safe. If applied this completely reverses the until now accepted climbing code that each individual is responsible for his own safety.

A dangerous trend in my opinion, which seems to have contributed to this tragic accident. I say contribute as the breaking of the rope seems to be getting little attention... yet this is very rare. Would using double ropes have helped? Was retreat not attempted as this was impossible with only one rope? The bolts aren't the only issue.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It's my inability to suffer fools Bruce which is on a par with JCM.

The Ent

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

As they were looking to find, bolt & climb a new route on every continent, would it not be prudent to find out what possible damage they have done elsewhere?

Bill

In reply to Enty:

Which rather makes you look like one.

Look at the film, there's no way the hole they showed was made with a 9mm bit. You didn't answer as to whether you have a vested interest in the mass destruction of French cliffs with bolts... ashamed?

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Im absolutely appalled by the ignorance of the people who originally bolted that route, whats even more alarming is that bolts are supplied to people that are so alarmingly weak. I'm an Engineer by trade and i would never trust a bolt that small to climb on what ever the rock type.

Watching that video it was shocking to see how little force was needed to pull those bolts out of the rock, as climbers we are responsible for our own safety and when i was first shown how to climb i was told NEVER trust someone else rigging, always check it for yourself before you rely on it. Common sense really. Im pretty sure there are allot of people who rely blindly on preplaced pro and as such it will be your own ignorance that will get you injured if you do this.

In reply to koopa:

So if you went to a new area, shiny new bolts, you'd serilusly test every bolt you clipped into? If leading it would be pretty hard to give it that much of test while climbing through.

In reply to koopa:

Have you ever been sport climbing?


Chris

In reply to IainRUK:

Quite, and moreover what would happen if you did test it and it failed, exactly? I'm not sure I see how that would have made you safer.

jcm

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

A real shame to hear about this, and a pretty shocking video. Can we take the ethical argument about bolts etc to another thread, out of respect for Nick?

Sport climbing can still be dangerous. Even though we may rely on equipment left by others, the maxim of personal responsibility still holds true.

For advice on how to come to informed decisions about using bolts, the following web feature might be useful:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Feature.aspx?id=2412

Any feedback on the feature would be appreciated.

In reply to teddy:

Not certainty, no, but after all it's my job to tell clients how they're going to get on in court. And at the very least we can avoid stuff 'there's no contract, so they're not liable'.

After all these people have:

Used bolts which the manufacturer says are unfit for climbing.

Been warned by local climbers (echoing the local guidebook) that not only are these bolts unsuitable, but so are the methods they propose to use to install them.

Found out for themselves that this is true when bolting the lower pitches.

Gone ahead and equipped the whole route in this style anyway, possibly in addition using the wrong size drill for the bolts in question.

Sent a description to the local guidebook producer which makes no mention of dangerous bolts.

Gone home, leaving in situ what appear to be a line of shiny new bolts with a description of a nice well-protected route in the guidebook, and boasted on their own website about how dangerous the route was because inter alia the bolts wouldn't stick.


Frankly I'm surprised that any lawyer could consider that those circumstances weren't pretty likely to breach the lowest duty of care one can readily imagine.

jcm

In reply to Dan Middleton, BMC:

Good call Dan

In reply to the inspiral carpet:

Ahh....Hatfield rail crash, anyone?

Sxx

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


You have not mentioned the climbers' duty of inspection. This is not a climbing wall.

In reply to the mob:

It's time to put the machetes, hanging ropes, six shooters away and quell that lynch mob, its evident that circumstances conspired and mistakes where made by both parties.

You simply can not hold two Croatian climbers directly responsible for this death, however difficult it may be to swallow, the fact is that route finding is your own responsibility as well as your choice of rope(s).

However, FAs have a moral responsibility to ensure that when they visit another patch to tick some multi-continental project that they observe local ethics and place the correct type of bolts in the correct type of rock in a safe manner, if at all.

From Carter's research we can assume that negligent bolting skills were at work here.

Tako je.

In reply to teddy: This would not prevent the duty arising or whether or not it was breached. For what its worth I agree with JCM's analysis in that respect. It would only be relevant in relation to the question of contributory negligence.

Hi Everyone, Simon Carter here, I wrote the original reports. Just quickly checking in to see if anything needs clarifying and saw a question about the bolts:

As mentioned in my first blog report, they are 8×78mm Italian made Raumer brand bolts. Their website recommends them as suitable for caving and canyoning but climbing is not indicated as a suitable category: http://www.raumerclimbing.com/eng/prodotti_dettaglio.asp?prod=hang_fix_inox...

I'll check back tomorrow. Cheers.

PS. Eight pitches up a nine pitch route... two meters of blank rock to get past then the difficulties are obviously over... It's easy to be smug, sure the climber (Nick) probably made some mistakes, but I really wonder how many of us would have done anything differently?

PPS. Personally I'd be surprised if there were any legal action resulting from this. The police say they got all the info they needed about the climb by talking to the other climbers on the day of the accident. They are preparing a report for the coroner who, however, can decide anything.

In reply to Dan Middleton, BMC:

Your feature on bolts seems fine... but will people apply it?

From what I read on this thread many won't and don't see why they should.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You need to get up to speed Bruce.

The BMC and Dan in particular run bolting workshops: they have an integrated approach to bolt education which goes beyond the article.

Most areas in the UK now have equippers who know what they are doing and use good materials.

Much has changed since the 80's when bolters were self-taught.

I don't normally write on forums but I found some posts on this thread, particularly Bruce Hooker's, to be offensive.

In the case described it is inane to suggest that 'it is the climbers own responsibility to test....'

How should the climber test the anchors in this case if sitting on them to is enough to pull them out and result in death? It seems from the video that tugging at them isn’t enough to move them.

I am pretty confident that 99.9999...% of climbers would not rigorously test a line of shiny new bolts. The same logic that applies to a rusty bolt in an alpine setting obviously does apply to a newly bolted sports route for very practical reasons (e.g. no-one has the time to test all bolts on a sport’s route). In this situation therefore there is more onus on the bolter to ensure that the bolts are correctly placed considering the rock type etc...And I refuse to agree that in this case that the bolter is free of responsibility.

Bruce, you should save your ‘high-horsed’ posturing for the non-serious threads.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Isn't that what I said? I said the feature "seemed fine"... what I liked was the way he insists that bolts shouldn't be taken for granted any more than any other bit of in place gear and it was each climbers individual responsibility to check the bolts before relying on them. That's what I've been arguing on this thread. Others have said this is not realistic, ie. they don't accept the point of view expressed by Dan Middleton in his feature.

Your knee seems to be a bit jerky.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Jody's post is an example

To Jody: I don't think it's a high horse, just plain common sense. In a well used area of low sports cliffs you can be pretty confident of bolts, or someone will tell you if there's a bad one... on high (270 metres of vertical choss according to the articles) routes it's crazy to take them for granted.

Anyway in this case there is the complication of them getting off route and perhaps they got to the point of no return, especially with only one rope to play with. You shouldn't take it to badly, this thread was posted to cause debate and with a pretty provocative header "Dangerous Bolting Leads to Climber's Death"... which is pretty close to calling for a lynch mob. The OP must have expected strong reaction...

Why not though? It might save someone else's life.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Yes, you agree with that, I agree with that, and countless other climbers.

You don't have a monopoly on that view Bruce.

Yes you said the feature was fine but you also said that


Seeing as you are over the water there Bruce and I politely pointed out that the BMC are doing sterling practical work as regards fixed gear in the UK in the form of workshops and gear, as are many area bolt funds.

On your next trip sport climbing at Cheddar, Giggleswick, Portland, Malham or the Peaks, you can breath easy that those bolts you clip are top notch.

Still, be careful though Bruce.

Cheers,

Mick

In reply to IainRUK:

would you just grab hold of a loose flake without testing it first? same applies...

In reply to Chris Craggs:

What does that have to do with anything?

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

This is a difficult ethical question.

Three years ago I equipped a route in a sandstone/magnesium limestone quarry in Yorkshire using 12 mm expansion bolts. Not ideal I know but they were what I happened to have at home at the time.

I pull tested one using a force meter and it started to pull out of the rock at 2.5 kN about the same as the ratings of small RPs. (no catastrophic failure just a movement of a couple of mm)

I considered climbing the route using the gear as physiological protection backed up with some other rubbish but did not feel I could ethically leave something which looked like a sports route laying around the countryside when it was in fact still a really scary snappy chop route.

I still do not feel I would be culpable had anyone hurt themselves but I might have lost sleep over in none the less. Half the route was made of mud so it clearly was never going to be safe but there are some stupid people out there..

Personally I think this was a tragic accident which "could" have been avoid but unfortunately wasn't.

From the Croatians stand point: You're travelling round the world climbing routes the same way you did in your country using bolts the same as those you've fallen on hundreds of times. You climb a route in Australia and find it one of the scariest things you've done because your bolts don't hold like you expect. - coming home you post a report of this on a local site (maybe similar for them to this one) to warn others of the nature of the route and send your description into the guidebook writer. later someone dies on the route you put up.

Personally I'd feel dreadful.

From the locals stand point: you set off up a climb you know you can manage - clearly thinking there's no routes near this one I'll just follow the bolts (or something similar) so don't bother with a topo. unfortunately it turns out harder and the bolts seam dodgy but your not far from the top so think you can make it. Unfortunately as your resting on a bolt it blows and you fall.

It's obvious that neither party expected this to happen. As for who's responsible - both groups made judgements as we all would. the locals could have backed off at the first sign of bad bolts and the Croatians could have made more efforts to let the locals know about the state of the bolts.

I'd say a tragic accident that could have happened to anyone - condolences to friends and family.

Legally I expect the Croatians would be to blame but personally would hate to see this happen as it takes away those judgements made by each party and to be able to make our own judgements about what's safe is one of the many parts of our sport - even if those judgements are wrong sometimes.

In reply to J1234:

It may be useful to clarify what’s the “legal status” of Vie Ferrate and bolted routes in Italy (may partially apply to France). In short:

Vie Ferrate come in basically two flavours: “traditional” (i.e. “Dolomitic”) type, and “sport” (i.e. “French” type). The former are the big, traditional equipped trails derived from military use on WWI. Most of the new ferrate are of the second type – shorter, more aerial and strenuous, with Tibetan bridges etc.

As written by someone else, 99% of the ferrate opened in Italy in the last 10 years have been sponsored/paid by local councils or “comunità montane” (a term including group of mountain administrative units that “bond” together to manage fundings etc). To build a via ferrata under this type of sponsorship, a construction project is prepared (almost invariably under the direction of a guide) and signed by a civil engineer. The ferrata is then put in place by guides (or private companies hiring guides), and is subject to a test phase and a maintenance/overhaul plan, with mandatory retirement of the equipment after a certain date. If anything happens there because of protection/cables/step etc failure, the legal responsibility falls on the project sponsor (normally, the local council). The same process applies to:

1) older vie ferrate who have been restored/re-equipped
and
2) bolted crags whose equipment (or re-equipment) has been paid using the above mentioned process (again, to be built their subject to the production of a formal construction plan etc)

Anything else (abandoned equipped trails, routes bolted by clubs or individual, whatever) falling outside the above mentioned cases has no real “legal status”, and if you kill yourself clipping the wrong bolt there, there’s no legal liability on anyone. This includes of course the majority of multipitch bolted mountain routes (particularly those advertised as “plaisir” routes) which are often paid by the local hut warden / bar owner etc, to increase frequentation. As a side note, I’m a strong believer that ALL bolted routes that falls outside the “certified” example above should be advertised as potentially lethal (and not nonsensical labels like “plaisir”), as there’s absolutely no guarantee with the state of their in situ gear.

It should be noted that given the current costs of material, almost all "private" crags are now equipped by guides under some form of sponsorship (private or public). Even in the case of private money paying for it, it’s unlikely that a guide would do a sloppy job there, because of the image problem an accident would create.

This kind of system gives some strong bonus in terms of safety Of the in situ gear, but has some otherwise definite downside. The first is that it encourages indiscriminate frequentation of ferrate/ sport crags, something that, for a simple law of statistic, increases exponentially the probability of accident due to inexperience/stupidity/bad luck etc. Second, it’s good business, which means ferrate/crags are often created even if there’s absolutely no need for them. A lot of idiotic retrobolting of otherwise perfectly fine trad routes was done by people looking for some revenue at expenses of those gullible enough to believe that (for instance) a route with ONE pitch of IV is safer if has ALL the belays bolted.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I don't think anyone is suggesting that looking at a bolt is too much to ask. Earlier you've been speaking of "testing" bolts - it is testing them in any meaningful way that is impossible for a leader to do during a climb.

Assessing the quality of a bolt visually is an entirely reasonable thing to do, but the problem with an incompetently placed, brand new shiny bolt is that it is worthless but looks bombproof.

Of course a climber has to take responsibility for evaluating, as far as possible, the reliability of fixed gear - but that in no way absolves the responsibility of a person placing permanent fixed gear to make sure they know what they're doing first. We're not discussing Donald Rumsfeld's 'unknown unknowns' here - if someone is competent to place bolts they know it.

In reply to Luca Signorelli:

Thank you Luca for a very interesting and informative post. It would seem that there is significantly more regulated bolting going on in Italy than in the UK.

In reply to teddy:

It's not exactly "regulated". If you want to bolt a line on your own, you're free to do it (some people does it quite often). But there's far more - how can I call it - "public bolting". Sport crags and ferrate are seen as turism resources in many areas, particularly in the north, so local administrations are quite often keen to sponsor them. But to do that, some kind of regulation was needed. Actually, there's a strong polemic going on in Italy between guides and "indipendent" equippers in relation to the facto monopoly of the trade by guides. And of course there's the eternal question (that was raided again in occasion of the Aiguille du Midi tragedy last month) of the "certification" of routes, a dangerous nonsense that surface from time to time.

In reply to onsight:

I've read the thread. The only thing I can add is that whilst Aussie climbers may have cleaned up their act up more recently lest we forget they are the inventors of the dreaded carrot bolt and originators of other mixed sport/trad abonimations. In general they are, or should be, more wary than we are of bolts. I forget where I read or heard but Dave Jones was clipped into a single bolt with no backup high on a belay on Taipan Wall. After setting the ab the bolt fell into his lap. I mention this just to add some additional context to those who have pointed this wasnt a pure sport climb at a sport climbing crag - but somewhat more adventuresome.

In reply to 31770:



Ignorance cannot be used as a defence here. Like I said before, its not that simple. One of these guys was told by a local not use the bolts as they were unsafe but they chose to do so anyway.

In reply to Carnage:

I wasn't going to post again, but just one remark: they did whatever job they did, but they also used the gear to do the route themselves, so they must have thought it was good enough... and they did assume their acts.

In reply to Luca Signorelli:

In France local councils finance via ferrata for the same reasons. Otherwise bolting of crags is often done in a three way deal between land owner, council (possibly the same) and a local climbing club usually with non-profit association (loi 1901 status). You are expected to buy the topo to help finance the bolts.

The result is often very bolted crags, if you like that sort of thing. I don't personally... I couldn't believe my eyes the first time I saw it as I had a 20 year lay-off from climbing and when I next looked all the cliffs were covered in shiny chains The horror!

Finished!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
but they also used the gear to do the route themselves, so they must have thought it was good enough

I know that. The tragedy is that someone else died as a result of the bolters stupidity.

They were aware that the bolts weren't safe in that rock but were reckless enough to do the route anyway. Fine. But why didn't they tell Simon that the bolts weren't good when they sent him the route info? They had this information. I won't put down here what I think of them.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:


Haven't read through all the thread but in my view you take on a responsibility when you bolt a route.
For me it is digraceful to put a bolt in a dangerous position(when there is no need), eg the second in a position where you could hit the ground.
I often come across very badly bolted routes and don't understand how people can do this.
I am not directing these comments at whoever bolted the route in question, but would like people to think a bit more when bolting, it does not take a genius to put the bolts in the right place on the vast majority of routes.

Ask yourselves this?

Do you think the climber who lost his life wants people arguing over who is to blame? To be honest both parties are to be held responsible in some sort of way BUT nothing can be done about it now except for the rest of us to learn a lesson from this tragedy :-

1) Check bolts before you use them, thats YOUR resposibility and to report them if they are not safe.
2) If you are a bolter, ensure bolts that are left up are safe for others to use, to report any problems and to do research on what bolts to use for the rock you are planning on climbing.

My comment isnt here to offend anyone, so im sorry if it does, its just to keep the respect for the climber who has died.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

I'm amazed, but I suppose not surprised, by the naivety of those who seem to think that the law doesn't apply to climbing.

If you were assaulted in the mountains, you'd expect the law to apply. If your gear were to be nicked from the foot of a crag, you'd expect the law to apply. So why do you think you shouldn't be held responsible for your actions, if you do something which causes injury to someone else?

Let's just remind ourselves - these guys went out with the intention of putting up a new route, which they named and sent to the guidebook editor. They clearly expected others to try to climb it. They therefore had a moral, and almost certainly a legal, obligation when equipping the route to ensure it was done to a reasonable standard of competence, because they could reasonably expect that other people would rely on the gear. Instead, they used bolts which weren't rated for climbing, weren't suitable for the rock type, and possibly weren't fixed properly anyway. They knew the bolts were dodgy, but still didn't mention this when they sent the details to the guidebook.

They're culpable. Throw the book at them.

In reply to Howard J:

The law will apply, but are you sure you know the law? What boxers do during a fight would send them both to prison in the street, motor sports don't respect the normal rules of the road.... many activities take you outside the normal rules of society, by your own free choice, and this is recognised by most legal systems.

And so it should be, or in no time most dangerous hobbies would become illegal, or so severely regulated that they would lose most of their interest... To give another example from climbing... a leader who falls, either by mishap or because he pushed it too far, and in the ensuing fall causes his second to be injured, or killed, but survives himself...not an entirely unknown case, would he be liable? Could he be sued by the family of the deceased if it was clear that he had been careless? Or if you accidentally knock a rock down which lands on someone... are you liable?

Until now we have all accepted the rule that climbing is a dangerous activity and all those who do it accept the risks... you would never dream of blaming anyone else when things went wrong. This corresponds to the attitude of police forces, in the cases I've been involved in and as far as I know elsewhere. Not because climbers are above the law but because any other attitude would mean the end of the sport and also, perhaps more so, climbing is an activity based on individual responsibility and assuming ones risks and life... which is, for many, one of the principal attractions in a world where this is becoming more and more rare.

A lot of you are opening Pandora's box here.

In reply to Luca Signorelli:
Thanks for that. .

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



I think the answer to your question is 'potentially, yes'. This is already an issue and why the BMC provides liability insurance as part of it's membership. I don't know if it has ever happened but the risk of litigation is certainly there and has been for as long as I remember (fortunately not that long).

In reply to Monk:

It may be different in France then, as here the only possible responsibility concerns guides - there was a recent test case of this which caused a bit of a controversy - but otherwise the gendarmes consider climbing accidents to be just that, accidents, considering that when freely choosing to take part in a dangerous past time you accept the risks.

This despite France having a law which is absent in the British system about "non-assistance to persons in danger".. You can be prosecuted if you don't take reasonable action to help someone at risk, at the scene of a car accident, for example. The limit being what is meant by "reasonable", I suppose.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: 'It may be different in France then, as here the only possible responsibility concerns guides'

Is that so? I remember the mayor of Chamonix positioning gendarmes next to the Grand Couloir a few years ago with instructions to turn away anyone wanting to cross it. I thought his reason was that he feared prosecution for allowing alpinists to cross it when it was exposed to unusually dangerous stonefall.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
The law (and juries) deal with the word reasonable all the time.
I assume it's about what is a reasonable expectation for a participant in the sport.
Is it reasonable for a boxer to punch his opponent?
Is it reasonable for a boxer to use an ice axe in the ring?
Is it reasonable if a bolted route on natural rock has the potential for the odd dodgy bolt?
Is it reasonable if a route is made up entirely of dodgy bolts?

The bolting example might not be criminally liable "beyond reasonable double" but civil liability is only "balance of probabilities".

Rockfall - climbing puts me in a position where I know the potential to dislodge a rock onto some climber or non-climbing member of the public walking past. I really should join the BMC to get some third party insurance.

Again nonsense:

"Dangerous Bolting Leads to Climber's Death"... which is pretty close to calling for a lynch mob

The title is simply stating the specific case in which "Dangerous Bolting Leads to (A) Climber's Death"

It does not state that "All bolters are liable for climbing accidents" which would the only title that would possibly justify your reactionary, and extreme stance.

No matter how you weasel around the fact, using a thread that refers to a specific case (and death) to promote your ill thought out, parroted, sanctimonious, generic arguments on climber liability is sickening to me.

If that makes me sanctimonious, then so be it. I have bolted a number of new routes and I know that if it was me that had bolted that line I would not sleep easy ever again. For me that is enough proof of bolter liability.

In reply to John2:

It wouldn't have been the mayor of Chamonix, but St Gervais les Bains, there's an ongoing fuss about numbers on Mont Blanc with the Mayor of St Gervais calling for restrictions and such like, the Mayor of Chamonix doesn't agree. Many say that behind it all there's a money question as Chamonix profits a lot more from Mont Blanc but the access to the normal route is by the commune of St Gervais.

People being turned away may have been those without hut reservations as there is a bye-law prohibiting camping on the top of the Aiguille de Gouter just above the hut... they want you to camp lower down next to the Tete Rousse hut where they have flown in "portaloos" specially by helicopter.

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been just stone fall danger, but I think gendarmes do have the power to tell you to turn back if conditions are really deadly... I've never heard of them doing it though elsewhere.

In reply to Jody:

OK, so you're a bolter, you feel the need to justify your actions. I'm against all bolts as I think they spoil climbing, bring the climb down to the climber rather than the other way around, but both opinions are valid.

What is less valid is your language, and also the title - it's simply not true that bad "bolting caused the accident", what caused it was these climbers starting the climb, getting lost (they had no topo or sufficient information), continuing to climb on what they could see were dodgy bolts (even using a single poor bolt as a belay at the time of the accident), the climber falling, and then the single rope cutting because of possibly poor rope management.

Sorry to be so brutal, but these are the facts, and hiding them will just encourage others to kill themselves in the future. Every time there is an accident this happens and a useful, calm, objective debate about the casuses of the accident and how to avoid it get squashed in a sea of sentimentalism.

The best way of showing respect for those who die is to try and make sure that it doesn't happen again (even though we all know it will) and the only rule to reduce accidents is not gear but attitude and knowing when to turn back... individual judgement. Apply this rule to any of the accidents on these threads, from Scottish winter climber freezing a few yards from the road to the endless deaths in the Alps each summer (and winter nowadays) and there would be a lot fewer grieving families.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


you mean like people who want to bolt something learning how to do it properly?

I'm not a massive fan of bolts, I only sport climb a little, but this is so obviously a case where bad bolting turned a fall into an accident. If the bolts had done what they are meant to do the rope never would have got cut. That much is simple, even if the legal and moral dimension aren't.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

>To give another example from climbing... a leader who falls, either by mishap or because he pushed it too far, and in the ensuing fall causes his second to be injured, or killed, but survives himself...not an entirely unknown case, would he be liable?

Not unknown at all - surely everyone knows of the Smiler Cuthbertson case, where exactly this did happen and the climber was liable. Admittedly there were differences - he was a guide, and the argument was mainly about the belay, but it wasn't so very far away from this hypothetical.

jcm

In reply to TobyA:

>but this is so obviously a case where bad bolting turned a fall into an accident

Without the bad bolting there wouldn't have been a fall at all.

Causation's a tricky subject and Bruce's absurd observations aren't doing him much credit. You can always say this and that caused an accident, but the truth is that lots of factors come together and without each one of them there wouldn't have been an accident - after all in some trivial sense the decision to go climbing instead of stay on the sofa 'causes' an accident. It is more instructive to ask which of those factors is outside ordinary expectations.

jcm

In reply to TobyA:


Yes, it would be better, although it would be nice to have their view before stringing them up!

The problem seems to be that they wanted to lead a new climb before going home, they had the bolts on them they were used to using and they wanted to bolt it on the lead (in itself a worthy thing)... They may have been warned that the rock was not suitable but did they understand? Did they know sandstone and think they were Ok? We don't know any of this. All we know is they did the route without mishap and went home happy.

They sent the description in, apparently without commenting on the rock and the bolts (if this is true it seems to me to be their main fault).. but once home put detailed reports on the danger of the climb on internet.

Not perfect but still one sided as we haven't heard anything in their defence... but these are things that happen, which brings me back to my point, we are all ultimately responsible fro what we do, in climbing this can have more drastic consequences than elsewhere, so we should be doubly careful... and not presume anything, especially when setting out on a fairly major undertaking in an area with notoriously poor rock.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


That's a pretty major difference! Guides are legally responsible for the safety of their clients (in France anyway) otherwise they'd lose half their reason for existing.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


You could say it to me directly... what is absurd about saying a climber is individually and entirely responsible for his own safety? It's the basic rule of climbing, as many others have pointed out on this thread... Are they all "absurd" too?

Pragmatically there is simply no other practical solution... apart from limiting us all to climbing walls or guided climbing... and beware, the latter solution has already been proposed on the continent.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Not that it should make any difference (yet it does in your narrow mind), I have put up far more trad routes than sports routes mainly because bolting a line properly takes a great more effort than just cleaning one.
However, now knowing your distain for sports routes I will endeavor to put them up where ever possible.

The offensive of my language can never get close to the offensive of your non-arguments.

Quite frankly in my opinion you represent everything that is bad about internet forums, and I find it ironic that an old man like yourself is one of the main reasons I am turned away from such a relatively new media

In reply to Jody:

Insulting people is not the best way of improving a media... and I'm not old, by the way, I'm only 59.

Why would it matter if I were?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

>what is absurd about saying a climber is individually and entirely responsible for his own safety?

The fact that he's patently not. For example he has a partner holding his rope, who is also responsible for his safety.

But anyway it was your comments on causation that were so stupid and offensive. You continue to suggest that this climber was largely responsible for his own death by what you rather bizarrely perceive as his various inadequacies, which is offensive, and to support your desire to prove that you mangle the concept of causation ("it wasn't x that caused the accident it was y", when the fact is, as I pointed out above, that it was both and lots of other things too), which is stupid and offensive.

jcm

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Bruce, you know absolutely nothing about the law. Guides are legally responsible for taking reasonable care in the circumstances to protect their client, which is not the same as 'responsible for their safety', and indeed clients also owe a duty to their guides to take such care for their safety as is reasonable in all the circumstances.

jcm

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Your mind is already in the grave. Instead of delivering the wisdom and intelligence your years would suggest you are spouting an old and tired dogma with the sole purpose of promoting your standing in ‘internet land’.

Traditionally you would be mumbling your nonsense in a tired old village pub where you sit 7 days a week drinking from a personalised mug. However, in this age you are spouting on-line under the illusion that there is 'no consequences to what I write'.

I am not under the illusion that what I write is not attributable directly to me. If one the consequences is that I offend your sensibilities then so be it, because I am quite frankly tired of reading an important and informative issue turned into a chest thumping session for the narrow minded.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

There are indeed multiple parties that can held liable in the event of an accident.

My brother (another heinous lawyer type) once represented a prisoner who was seriously injured whilst being transferred in a car by 2 prison officers. The car crashed in to a lorry that was attempting to make a u-turn on a dual carriageway. Both prison officers were killed.

So who's liable:

1. The lorry driver.

2. The estate of the dead prison officer who was driving.

3. The highways authority for the design of the road.



Actually my brother successfully sued all three.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

There was a recent case in France concerning a guide... I don't know if UK law is the same.

What I find offensive is the cyber-lynching of two Croatians, without even trying to find out their side of the story.

As for the death, sad to say, like most deaths in climbing it is ultimately our own fault... there was even a thread recently arguing that it was the risk of death that made climbing attractive (started by a young climber before more "ageist" accusations fly). I don't agree with this at all, but I don't see how you can deny that putting yourself high up on a 1000 foot wall of crumbly sandstone, or any other climbing situation outside bouldering or training climbs, is anything but a self inflicted and totally futile danger.

We do it because we want to, so it is ultimately and absolutely our responsibility... it's nothing to do with laws, or understanding them... thank goodness, it's just you and the mountain (and your partner if you want to be pedantic, but even then you chose who you climb with).

I don't have any problem with that.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Straw man. This thread may have contained a couple of ill-advised comments like that, but the people you're discussing it with now are talking about where the responsibility, legal, or moral, lies for the safety of bolted routes.

Stick to that.

In reply to Jody:

Would you like to say something on the subject rather than just strings of bile? It's hard to see what your point is except that you don't like me saying that bolts are bad... if it's something else why not try explaining it? If you try exchanging arguments instead of insults you may realise that forums are really quite useful.

As you seem obsessed my my age is it that you have a problem with your own father and are using me as a punchbag?

In reply to Martin76:

How can you dissociate the two?

My point is that looking for someone to blame is, or should, not be applicable in climbing situations... unless there is a professional relationship possibly, but even then I'd be against.

This from both pragmatic and moral points of view.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Bruce, normally you save this rather obvious tactic of pretending people wrote something they didn't for your political discussions (X - "I think Hamas seem like dogmatic zealots"; Bruce - "you Mossad zionist stooge! I know you want to drink the blood of Arab babies!"). Is it really necessary to drag it into a bolting discussion.

From what I remember of reading all the above - one friend of the victim of the accident basically offered them a fist fight. Perhaps we can forgive his anger as he has lost a mate.

No one has tried to hang them. I'm sure they feel pretty terrible about the whole thing just as imagine any climber would, and of course worried that there may be legal ramifications for them.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Bruce that is exceptionally rude and unnecessary.

You should apologise.

In reply to chris_j_s:

its attention seeking behaviour, and you're feeding it!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

"Would you like to say something on the subject..."

Not really, I don't think it should be necessary to add to my previous points or to the well constructed answers on this topic. You seem incapable of assimilating any useful points of view.

"using me as a punchbag?"

Hhhhmmmm....my dislike of your on-line points of view don't extend that far. Unfortunately, the issue cannot be as simple as your age or even your age of mind. It seems appropriate that you try to tie your narrow mindiness or need for simple manipulations to a single, easily identifiable criteria. Fortunately, there are an uncountable number of 'old' people in the world with far better grasp of common sense and integrity than you; my Father being just one.

In reply to TobyA:

I don't see your point... You of all people usually insist on seeing the other point of view, I'm the one who says (sometimes) there's no point as it's obvious where the right is. There were some pretty hard words used above. Some said they had used the wrong sized drill bits, and the nuts weren't even tight, and yet they did the climb themselves using this gear! Seems odd... we don't know if they had used bolts before, or if this was their first try... again it seems a funny place to learn.

Concerning bolts, I am just agreeing with the BMC guidelines as set out in an article linked above by Dan Middleton, and which concludes:

"9) Never assume a bolt is safe to use, whoever has placed it. YOU are responsible for deciding whether or not to use it. Whenever possible avoid relying on a single bolt for safety."

Apparently this is out of the question for some... That's their problem, I suppose finally.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Despite saying that you try to blame the climber entirely.

Your repetitive opinionated posts are offensive. Please, give it a rest.

In reply to chris_j_s:

I'm rude! Did you read what he said?

I'm sorry but I don't see that making remarks about age, normally on ukc its against young people (Cookson & co), sometimes against older, is reasonable. In neither case is it anything we can do anything about and the intention is always to hurt. I don't feel old, but I don't particularly like being reminded that I'm only a dozen or so years from death (on average) and I don't see how it can bring anything into the debate... which isn't the intention clearly... just simple spite.

As for my remark... there must be some reason for his nasty reactions... this just seemed one possibility... It's often the explanation for unusual behaviour, relations with parents, but it's not something to take out on others.

In reply to onsight:

I haven't said I blame the climber, I have said we are all responsible for being careful and objected to the lynch mob reaction of many against those who did the first ascension.

I've just noticed who you are... could you answer the questions I posed about the climbers accused of causing this accident,

- Was it their first bolting experience?

- Had they been clearly told that their bolts were not safe on this rock,?

- Didn't they mention that the climb was dangerous when they gave the info for the guide book?

- Are there any explanations for the rope breaking so easily?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Have you even read the report? It answers all of those questions.

1. No (although it could have been their first on crumbly sandstone)
2. Allegedly yes
3. No
4. Yes; factor two over a sharp edge

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

There is no lynch mob reaction. Its just clear to most climbers that if you bolt a cliff and then leave the bolts there afterwards, its your responsibility to make sure they are within reason safe.

BTW the idea that the rock is particularly crumbly or something is as far as I can see, not the case. One of my climbing partners has bolted many routes in the Blue Mountains and is a big fan of both the sport and trad climbing there. He says that well placed glued-in bolts are just as good there as they are anywhere else.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Bruce, I think people are overreacting to you. But you've written a huge amount on this thread and you clearly haven't even read the article and reports that were the start of it. No wonder people get wound up.

In reply to TobyA:


from the report

"There are good reasons that the Blue Mountains guidebook says:

If you are intending to put up new routes, ask a local how. The rock is very soft here so normal bolting methods don’t work."

In reply to JimR: Exactly - which is why I guess they have to use well place glue ins rather than expansion bolts.

In reply to TobyA:

How do you do this on a long route that you have bolted while climbing? It's a precedent though that new routers must think of those who will follow... what if they had a bit of a struggle too? Have you never left a peg in when you backed off something? Are you supposed to get a helicopter to take you back up to remove it in case of an accident? (and yes, it is an extreme example, the helicopter, that is, but it has happened to all of us to leave gear in after a forced retreat).


I was going by what was said on the blog linked to the article... they said that the area where the route went was an area of poor rock... see, I did read the reports, although they didn't answer all the questions, nor give any reply from the "accused"... at least I didn't see it.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

I read the article and the blog some of it after another thread on the same subject... it didn't answer all the questions. I couldn't read the original in Croatian though.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

>nor give any reply from the "accused"... at least I didn't see it.

These gentlemen maintain a blog, so presumably they have internet access, and they're aware from Simon Carter of what happened. If they want to comment they've got plenty of opportunity, assuming they speak English. If they don't then I don't see how anyone here is supposed to communicate with them.

jcm

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Then why ask 4 questions that are answered directly in the article and blogs that you claim to have read. Not meaning to be rude Bruce, but go back and read them again.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

The law will depend on what country you're in - I know nothing about Australian law. I do know a little about English law, although I'm not a lawyer.

The comparison with boxing is misleading. A boxer, by getting into the ring, consents to being hit. He willingly accepts the risk. However if his opponent has a horseshoe in his glove, or hits him with a chair, or deliberately hits him after the bell when his guard is down, that is outside the normal parameters of the sport. His opponent could then be held liable for his injuries, and could also be assault.

A climber willingly accepts certain risks, and the law will recognise that. However that does not mean that other parties can act recklessly or negligently without regard to the consequences. The law recognises that accidents can happen, and also that the injured party may have contributed to the situation. But don't imagine you can get away with acting recklessly or negligently in the mountains any more than you would anywhere else.

If a climber falls and injures his second, he may indeed be liable, especially if his actions were not what should be expected from a climber of his experience and ability.

To go back to the case under discussion, the guys who bolted the route failed on several counts to do a proper job, when they could reasonably expect that others would rely on their bolts and to whom they therefore owed a duty of care. They were probably negligent, but that would be for an Australian court to decide. The climber who was killed may or may not have contributed to the accident, these things are never black and white, but it doesn't absolve the bolters from responsibility.

Wishing the law won't get involved won't make it so. It's not up to us. It's not just the police (these are usually civil rather than criminal matters), it's the injured parties, their next of kin or their insurance companies who will want to seek redress, through the courts if necessary.

In reply to Howard J:

Good grief, intelligent, reasoned and correct comment about the law from someone who actually understands it.

Just go away, will you? We don't want your kind here....

jcm

In reply to Howard J:


So a better comparison I guess would be a footballer punching an opponent. Just because they are in a competitive game against each other, it doesn't mean assault is allowed?

In reply to steve456:

Were you out there when it happened... your profile says you live in Sheffield. If so a little more detail is what I would be interested in... your replies say no more than the article.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Theres is nothing more to add to the article as Simon has done all the research and tells it how it is.

In reply to Howard J:


If applied, goodbye climbing... think about it a bit.


Again, who would lead a new route and leave fixed gear if this were to be applied? You'd have to be nuts to take the risk.

Would this be extended to giving concise route descriptions of new routes (by concise I mean not absolutely detailed and with numerous warnings of risks and possible dangers)? Even without such an extension it would turn accepted practices of climbing on their heads... and it would also have the effect, again if applied, of making private route bolting a very risky business indeed... which wouldn't worry me as if there was never another bolt drilled on a cliff or mountain in the world I think this would be a good thing, but it might not suit some of the more virulent posters here.

And all because maintaining as a principal the climbing is a risky hobby and each of us is a responsible individual who assumes his life and the risks he chooses to take no longer suits climbers brought up on climbing walls, bouldering and sports cragging?

I really can't believe that this is what the majority of climbers want... I could be wrong though, alas.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It's not about what climbers want Bruce. We don't exist in a bubble that is independent of the law. You can't really put it any better than Howard J has.
It's about what is reasonable to expect of your activity and the other people who partake in it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Of course I wasn't out when it happened or I wouldn't have repeatedly suggested you read the article (and I see I'm not the only person to do so). Your questions asked of nothing that wasn't in the article or the original blog.

You've opened an ugly can of worms with your absolute anti-liability sentiments (mixed in with some anti-bolting) and it looks like you're on your own.

Anyway, I'm off to pack my bags to go climbing (sans-bolts).

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

One of the guys in questin has written the climbing guide for his country. Going by what i have read he's very experienced, so why bolt a line in a country with a rock type you are unfamiliar with (Croatia is mainly Limestone) and place expansion bolts into sandstone? It baffles me.

Nick was a very good mate of mine, i had known him for nearly 5 years, climbed regularly with him and drank many beers with him.

A good friend has gone.

Chris

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

Of course it's what we want... If no one sues or makes complaints then most of the time the courts will not become involved. Up until now such things were rare, I hope they stay that way, but when people go on like on this thread, one even suggested that any climber needs third party liability insurance! Others call rabidly to "Throw the book at them" and so on.

There's also the BMC (who seem to have a responsible attitude on this subject, some posters here could do worse than read their guidelines about bolts) and many ways of making opinions known if necessary, petitions (like the one to outlaw bolts in the UK mentioned on another thread). Laws are made to serve people, not the other way around.

In reply to TobyA:

Or indeed illegal tackles. Players (or more to the point their clubs' insurers) have paid out a lot of money for those too. Iain's example about serving time is criminal liability, which is a bit different, but basically it's the same thing.

jcm

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

That's thinking in a dream world. It's rarely the climbers themselves who take things to court. It's usually the dead climbers family. Naturally they are grieving and searching for answers. Wishing the modern world would go away won't make it so.

You have to look at what the climbers who bolted the route have done in terms of their actions. It's hard not to at least consider that their actions in this instance were extremely negligent. Personally I've removed rotten fixed gear on occasion when I've found it as I'd struggle to live with my conscience on considering the potential consequences of leaving it in-situ. Same goes goes for loose rock. When you see an accident waiting to happen you don't do nothing. This surely must be doubly so when you're the actual architect.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

They put the gear in and used it. Not as if they bolted the route and then left...

Maybe people shouldn't leave gear in at all, that way the problem couldn't arise again? Here it was a bolt, it could have been a piton, so we shouldn't leave them either as there's no way they can be guaranteed safe. Even if ok when put in. As soon as you demand safety from others at an indeterminate time later I can't see any other solution. Madness.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: I just don't get you here at all. Of course there is a responsibility. If your offspring were killed crossing a river on an unsafe bridge which collapsed would you blame your offspring for not testing the bridge? or the designer or builder whose faulty work caused the failure and the death of a member of your family?

In reply to Rich Mayfield:
>


Trust me, Nick was very experienced, climbed 5.12b sport and 5.12a trad. He had many FA's around NSW, both glue in and expansion bolts, he knew how to place bolts, and mentioned to his partner that the bolts the were on were suspect. Why didn't he back off, well we were not there, do not know the circumstances. My opinionim (knowing him well) is he probably saw this one blank section then easier ground to the next belay, then 1 more pitch to the top and thought it was easier than rapping. After all, they did not know they were off route.

Nick's gone, it was a bad state of circumstances. There's a lot of anger in oz at the moment. it's all over the news, not fair on the Kaz family, their son has gone and this is not going to help them.

In reply to chris fox:

>Why didn't he back off?

I imagine it never occurred to him that the bolts could be THAT bad.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

My point exactly JCM.

Here is a Google translate of the bolter's point of view. If somebody knows Croatian they can probably clarify it a bit more.

Quoted from http://209.85.135.101/translate_c?hl=fi&sl=hr&tl=en&u=http://ww...

While I was considering whether to write ovoi on the forum considering that the assembly or meeting the right and the official place for it obviously is still necessary for those who are interested to write. Those who have built their position anyway, and it will continue to have. This shall be the end of the story:
Decree on the mistakes of Australian naveze:

1 fulali their direction, and instead, like all exit left by police turned in their direction right, unknown, and thus retrieve the possible risk.

2 but at high gredini to see what is krakter rocks (full horizontal scales, which could rupture - a potentially dangerous for the rope). In mountaineering, I preuzimaš risk when you come to a rock. Potentially dangerous places for a rope and how much will Paklenica btw.

3 pass one light weight, come to the police with two Split (evident stand) and continue on. Since there is no more rope stand the midst of a length on one Spitu. Following is continuing, can not pass the most difficult position, trying to engage his staff certain Spit (probably at the HOPS by Spitu - in such a way to understand sometimes in spite izletiti limestone). Spit It turns out from soft sandstone, and the decline SHOT cords (the main cause of death). That you have already entered in an unknown direction on the right štandali anchored the rope line would probably be different and may be despite STAROM rope avoid pogbija.

Cujic - Matkovic:

We went to the proviso that ispenjemo primary direction. We were not doing sports direction, or we have it reported as such but simply the direction of using material that allows the rocks. Where are the footsteps of friend we would put them, not where we went with the spite. As the soft rock 2-3 were izvrtila were held (at least then). What made atmospheric later the question is. We ispenjali in the lead and the most difficult long - no problem with breaking meðuosiguranjima except those scales - it is a rock, so is her character, which we then accept - shell and shoot at Klek in the Alps-waste and whole sections of walls with spits ....

About how we wrote to all our reports (Portals - Book Great rocks the world).

Only ten days after returning, I sent a mail Simonu Carter with sketches and a description of the direction and character descriptions and information about the material we used to be that I stand at your disposal for further clarification (Btw spite climb before we showed because we were the guests-even the president their federation and several climbers - no one has said that will not roll). Carter is a given but not published. Before a couple of days after the halabuka I sent him today with my ancient copypastiranim mail and additional explanations. I got his apology! Why is it now on their forums, no longer occurs? Maybe that he dropped it responsible for what he had information and they announced that people know what kind of kind of the work.

It was built around the so-called chase. ignoring the local scene and who is actually ignored the publication of the obtained data?

In short:
I'm sorry of course for the accident, but can for her we wrong. We send the data, describe the direction of what is. We are not, nor okarakterizirali as a sport (as if I tužim a man for directions to El capu who ispenjao only on the hook without spite, and I can then break up in it-not a problem in the author already in me) but as a direction to not be satisfactory stone with insurance what are (at risk then we were ourselves). And at the end of the rope puklo - whether it should sue the manufacturer? Today the ropes tested at very sharp edges! Or is it very old?
End!
Cuja

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

"If applied, goodbye climbing... think about it a bit."

You could say the same thing about driving a car.

The law will accept that accidents happen. If there's an accident but you've follow recognised good climbing practice, you should be OK. You're only going to be held liable if you've been negligent or not followed recognised practice.

"Again, who would lead a new route and leave fixed gear if this were to be applied? You'd have to be nuts to take the risk."

If you're competent and you've fixed the gear properly, in accordance with good practice and the bolt manufacturer's instructions, you should be OK. But you'd be wise to have insurance.

It's no good sticking your head in the sand and hoping the law will go away - it won't. People get hurt doing all sorts of activities, not just climbing (I play in a band and we have to have insurance), and sometimes it's someone else's fault. If they're left unable to work again, or need constant medical care, then their dependents or their insurance company will seek damages to help pay for this, just as they would if the person was injured in a car accident. That's why you should have third party insurance.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


One thing that veryone overlooks is, in this particular case, you would have to get the "offenders" out of their own country and back to Australia to face trial .. I suspect that might prove problematic

In reply to Howard J:

It's probably time to end this thread, as it seem to upset people but the world you paint, which in my opinion is not yet the world that exists, sounds a pretty dismal place. And a pretty difficult one too, as if, as you suggest, families will (or do... Are you sure?) sue the partners involved in an accident, or those who they feel responsible... the climber who left a peg or sling for abbing which gave way, ok at the time but not necessarily a while later, the club which organised a meet to Glencoe, on which a party is lost, someone who accidentally knocks a stone down on someone else (was he negligent or not?) then the only way to discover if the person is "guilty" or not would be court action... Interesting for lawyers (some of whom may see their interest!) but not for anyone else.

As far as I know, which you may not think is very far, most climbers are happy with the existing consensus, ie. shit happens, that's the risk of the game, and do not resort to legal action, or witch hunts, except in extreme, and very clear, cases. But what is an extreme case and clear case? I don't think this one is, you do, apparently... but no amount of legal action ever brought anyone back, alas.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Just to take a step back a bit. What is the purpose of legislation?
1) Is it to solve a problem? eg.Stop injury caused by negligent bolting
or 2) Provide a system of providing damages to the injured party
or 3) Give justice to the injured party.

I would suggest 1 & 3 probably involves criminal law requiring a higher standard of proof and culpability than 2 which would probably be a civil action. In England ,at the moment given British parties, (JCM knows a lot better than me) in this case, a decent lawyer could probably make a good fist of bringing and winning a case. However, unless the perpetuators, were very rich it would probably cost a lot more to bring the action than it would return.
A criminal case would stand absolutely no chance of success.

You all keep talking as if climbing is in some way special. It's not (OK, it is to us, but that's not what I'm talking about).

People do get hurt. Accidents happen - it's in the nature of the sport, although it's not the only one where people can get hurt or even killed. When we're talking about the law being involved it's because someone has been hurt because someone else has f*****d up. Some people apparently think that's OK, even if it leaves someone living on benefits because they cannot work again, or because their partner has been killed.

It's not a question of whether or not we want the law to apply. It does - that's indisputable. That doesn't mean that people can no longer climb, or equip routes. It does mean that they have a responsibility to the people around them - which should be obvious without needing to bring in the law. Why do you think that climbers should be somehow exempt from the obligations expected of the rest of society (which, let's not forget, we're all part of when we come down from the mountains)?

Every day, people do far more dangerous things than climbing. Surgeons operate on patients, electricians wire houses, mechanics mend cars. If they make a mistake, people may die. It doesn't stop them doing these things. It does mean that they must do them to a properly competent standard, or they may be held liable. Why shouldn't we expect the same of climbers?

In reply to Howard J: hear hear! well said!

In reply to Howard J:


That's an opinion, and not a very realistic one, take a look at the Unions thread, loads of laws exist but aren't applied. Also it's the interpretation of the law and the degree to which a sub group of the population try to make laws apply that changes everything. Ask any artisan, if he applied all the laws and regulations as the bureaucrats and the parasitic law vultures would have it they would all be out of business.

Reality check please... and beware, activities like climbing could well become outlawed if we follow your logic, they are inevitably dangerous, unless limited to the castrated versions such as indoor walls and sports climbing... and even they can be dangerous. Apply the nanny state logic and there would be no more climbing, or even hill walking probably

They are not like repairing a car or wiring a house, climbing can never be 100% safe.

In reply to JimR:

To be fair, I did say that in my very first post.

jcm

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Your artisan would be out of business a lot sooner if he failed to apply the most fundamental 'laws and regulations' - the ones that say causing death and injury through negligence and/or incompetence is not ok.


Having checked in with reality (reality says 'Hi' by the way Bruce, misses you, hasn't seen or heard from you in ages apparently) - I realise you're not going to stop being so boorish any time soon. But really, do you *have* to be so wilfully obtuse, its extraordinarily tiresome.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


It's not an opinion, its a statement of the bleedin' obvious. Go and shoot someone and find out if laws apply or not. You might see that law is not just someone's opinion after all.

The year I went to uni the club had to fight a case brought by the parents of a girl seriously hurt in hillwalking slip on the freshers meet. That's 17 years ago. Chouinard went bankrupt because of a legal action brought against it. A British mountain guide sued by the family of his client killed in an accident on the Tour Ronde. I'm sure others can come up with plenty of other examples of situations where it has been only too apparent that climbers are subject to the same laws as everyone else.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Sorry, John, missed that one ..

In reply to deepsoup:

I suggest you have a chat with an electrician in the uk, or a gas fitter. Climbing up a step ladder to change a light fitting is not really life threatening if you are on your own, but it is against the regulations... ask any one of them, they'll be far more "boorish" than me about what they are supposed to put up with.

In reply to TobyA:

I started a long post about this, and the Tour Ronde, an oft chosen place for young Brits to kill themselves (4 were killed there just before my first visit to the Alps in 1969) but finally I couldn't see what point you were trying to make.

"Death by misadventure" exists... in the French Alps it's the usual conclusion of the Gendarmes concerning climbing accidents, 60 odd a year on average. Climbers are not outside the law but the law, in France at least, recognises the right for all of us as free individuals to risk out lives, and in doing risk those of those we climb with... You are not suggesting they should change their attitude are you?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

We're not talking about the criminal law here (although in extreme cases it could apply) but about the civil law of tort. I suggest you go and look at a law textbook, it might open your eyes.

What you seem to be saying is that because we as free individuals choose to engage in a dangerous activity then climbers should be free to behave however they wish without thought to the consequences.

Here's a couple of scenarios:

1) Climbers A and B are climbing together. A's leading and B's belaying. They're doing everything in accordance with good climbing practice. A slips, the gear rips, he's injured. Typical climbing accident, nobody's fault, certainly not B's, whose belaying was meticulous. A bit rough on A, since he's permanently disabled and unable to work, but hey that's what we sign up to isn't it? Let's hope he had insurance.

2) This time B isn't belaying by the book. He's dicking about, chatting with his mates and watching the girls. When he bends down to get some chocolate from his sack, he tugs the rope and pulls A off. Since B is standing too far from the bottom, the gear unzips and A decks.

So there's A, disabled and unable to work, and facing a life of financial hardship because B f****d up. It's not unreasonable for him to expect B to do something about it. A sues B, who's found to be negligent and has to pay A damages. You seem to want A to turn the other cheek, which is very Christian but hardly realistic in the circumstances.

Apart from anything else, it may not be up to A, because he did have insurance. He claims, the insurance company pays out, A's financial problems are solved. Now the insurance company looks to see who's fault it was and they sue B.

This is no different from what would happen with a car accident or an accident at work.

Let's be clear, a simple accident where nobody's to blame isn't going to bring down the law. It's situations where somebody has been negligent, resulting in injury to someone else.

It's like the boxing analogy you raised some time back. A boxer consents to being hit, so he can't sue his opponent for ordinary boxing injuries, only if his opponent steps outside what is correct behaviour in the ring. A climber consents to a level of risk, but he is entitled to expect that the people he climbs are competent and will not put him at risk. If they fail in that, then they will be liable for the consequences.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Most people don't care if an electrician uses a stepladder in their home. But they really do care if the electrician makes a hash of the wiring, uses the wrong sized fuse and burns the house down. The latter is a better analogy for placing a shiny new lethally sub-standard bolt.

Besides which, your example is factually just plain wrong. There are no regulations that prohibit using a stepladder at work - its a myth.

In reply to Howard J:

>bedspring wrote “I would expect people to come along screaming risk averse litiigaous society, but when I would not trust a lot of people I see to put a shelf up

>Howard J wrote " Let's be clear, a simple accident where nobody's to blame isn't going to bring down the law. It's situations where somebody has been negligent, resulting in injury to someone else."

Indeed we expect to take risks and we expect to be able to mitigate these risks, so there is a valid point about the law still applying in the crags, as uncomfortable as it may be for some it's not a lawless frontier. It is perfectly reasonable for a climber to expect a new set of bolts to be of an accepted standard, if however they aren't to this standard and fail their intended purpose with ease, I believe this is classed legally as an action which occurs outside the rules of expected conduct. Which means there could be a case for legal negligence as it was foreseeable that other climbers would rely on these bolts after the route setter had finished with them.

The problem with negligence is that its never exclusive, many other factors can and do contribute to an accident or fatality. Once these are taken into consideration all you are left is a case of contributory negligence. So with regards to any legal redress with any bad bolting, there would be a basis for a civil claim but a court would only be able to attribute a certain level of responsibility, due to the contributory negligence factor, it seems the burden of proof is a balance of probabilities.

If we had the situation where route setters and FA’s could be summoned to court as and when an accident occurred. How would this help climbing as a sport? Any increase in the threat of litigation would be bad for climbing, as happens to activities that fall foul of risk assessment, becoming discouraged and restricted. If you alter the perception of ‘ the risk’ with regards to insurer's cover you risk increased premiums or the withdrawal of cover for instructors, guides, groups or schools. So too councils and landowners willingness to allow crag access due to this increased perception of risk.

Our unprecedented and fortunate access to information about climbing incidents is rather regrettably our best way to insure ourselves against the worst, better that we respect a life lost by making sure the lessons are learnt for all.

In reply to Howard J:


No I'm not but never mind.

At least your examples demonstrate the negative role on insurance in all this. They also demonstrate why A and B need to choose their partners carefully... the example you gave showed that A was daft to climb with B, who was clearly a poor climber. "A" made the choice though, even if your bending down for chocolate and pulling the leader off is a bit contrived and trivial.

Roll on Brave New World!

In reply to deepsoup:


Apparently you didn't notice the words "if you are on your own,". Ask an artisan. My cousin John, who has an electrical installation company told me this one, another cousin, Pete, has the same sorts of problems in the electroplating company where he has worked for years... get them together and they'll happily rant on about the subject for hours.

I often wonder in which party of Wonderland many ukc posters live... they don't seem to have much contact with everyday life in the real world... there's thread called "What's the point of unions?" running at present which gives the same impression.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/april.htm