This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
A few weeks ago, while at a wall, on the route next to me a ‘competent’ climber was about to start climbing with a newbie, and having seen that I was doing likewise, asked the following: “I am a competent climber, but haven’t climbed in a while, could you remind me how to thread my belay plate?”
After helping them out, obviously I checked that they were in fact a competent climber, and kept an eye and ear on them until I was satisfied that I didn’t need to have a word with wall staff.
Anyway this got thinking about responsibilities and duty of care etc.
At this particular wall, the competent climber will have agreed to “provide tuition in the basic safety procedures and supervision throughout the session, and be responsible for their guests' safety and safe behaviour”. So for this particular instance, I’d only question the ‘competent climber’s’ judgement in agreeing to this when they were obviously rusty. The wall don’t give said newbie carte blanche to come climbing by themselves.
At one of my more regular climbing venues however, I’m slightly more concerned at the sign in procedure for newbies (and have just emailed them with my concerns):
The competent climber signs to say “I will take full responsibility for said newbie, and I am competent to do so.” Having signed this statement a number of times over the years, I have started to wonder is it really worth the paper it’s printed on?
Out of all my ‘newbie-sign-ins’ I’ve only ever been questioned twice by staff (the usual what knot, where should your hands be etc etc.) so I do wonder what the point of the sign in is.
Where do wall owners’ feel their duty of care ends and my responsibility begins?
-I’ve not said I’ll train my newbie to be safe.
-I’ve not signed to say I’m competent to train them, only to be ‘responsible’ for them.
-Said newbie automatically becomes a member on entry. (as I did) so my membership form still says I require tuition to belay/tie in/tie shoe laces etc.
Case in point, despite 4-5 times more tuition than a newbie usually needs on how to belay, one of my recent ‘sign-ins’ is still somewhere between poor, and just plain dangerous when it comes to belaying a climber. Despite having dropped me three times in the last session alone (while lowering me off, they panic, and let go of brake rope), they are now consider competent by the wall to be responsible for other newbies.
It does make me think the wall “driving licence” suggested a few weeks back isn’t such a bad idea.
After helping them out, obviously I checked that they were in fact a competent climber, and kept an eye and ear on them until I was satisfied that I didn’t need to have a word with wall staff.
Anyway this got thinking about responsibilities and duty of care etc.
At this particular wall, the competent climber will have agreed to “provide tuition in the basic safety procedures and supervision throughout the session, and be responsible for their guests' safety and safe behaviour”. So for this particular instance, I’d only question the ‘competent climber’s’ judgement in agreeing to this when they were obviously rusty. The wall don’t give said newbie carte blanche to come climbing by themselves.
At one of my more regular climbing venues however, I’m slightly more concerned at the sign in procedure for newbies (and have just emailed them with my concerns):
The competent climber signs to say “I will take full responsibility for said newbie, and I am competent to do so.” Having signed this statement a number of times over the years, I have started to wonder is it really worth the paper it’s printed on?
Out of all my ‘newbie-sign-ins’ I’ve only ever been questioned twice by staff (the usual what knot, where should your hands be etc etc.) so I do wonder what the point of the sign in is.
Where do wall owners’ feel their duty of care ends and my responsibility begins?
-I’ve not said I’ll train my newbie to be safe.
-I’ve not signed to say I’m competent to train them, only to be ‘responsible’ for them.
-Said newbie automatically becomes a member on entry. (as I did) so my membership form still says I require tuition to belay/tie in/tie shoe laces etc.
Case in point, despite 4-5 times more tuition than a newbie usually needs on how to belay, one of my recent ‘sign-ins’ is still somewhere between poor, and just plain dangerous when it comes to belaying a climber. Despite having dropped me three times in the last session alone (while lowering me off, they panic, and let go of brake rope), they are now consider competent by the wall to be responsible for other newbies.
It does make me think the wall “driving licence” suggested a few weeks back isn’t such a bad idea.
In reply to mmmhumous:
Despite having dropped me three times in the last session alone
And you still climbed with them?
Despite having dropped me three times in the last session alone
And you still climbed with them?
In reply to mmmhumous:
At all the walls I've climbed at in the USA I've been required to take a short belay and lead assessment to show I'm competent, they then give you a little tag to hang from your harness. If you fail the assessment you can't re-take it within 24 hours.
It's a bit of a pain in the arse but it is reassuring.
At all the walls I've climbed at in the USA I've been required to take a short belay and lead assessment to show I'm competent, they then give you a little tag to hang from your harness. If you fail the assessment you can't re-take it within 24 hours.
It's a bit of a pain in the arse but it is reassuring.
In reply to mmmhumous: I think it's widly accepted that disclaimers mean nothing where negligence is concerned and if it can be shown that the wall behaved negligently by letting an incompetant climber 'show' a novice how to climb when they didn't know how to thread a belay device, then that peice of paper and ink counts for nothing.
The problem is proof!
The problem is proof!
In reply to mmmhumous:
I always took the sign in forms to mean that I may belay a novice and keep them safe. If I have two novices I will teach them to belay each other. I would only EVER leave the ground if I had another competent climber with me to supervise the belaying.
As far as I am aware anyone who has not yet passed whatever belay test the wall administer is not allowed to belay without the rope being tailed, so there is no way that they can become a 'competent member' automaticaly after any set number of sessions.
If you don't think your partner is yet competent to belay you, then why are you climbing and leaving them to belay you?
I always took the sign in forms to mean that I may belay a novice and keep them safe. If I have two novices I will teach them to belay each other. I would only EVER leave the ground if I had another competent climber with me to supervise the belaying.
As far as I am aware anyone who has not yet passed whatever belay test the wall administer is not allowed to belay without the rope being tailed, so there is no way that they can become a 'competent member' automaticaly after any set number of sessions.
If you don't think your partner is yet competent to belay you, then why are you climbing and leaving them to belay you?
In reply to mmmhumous:
I think if they drop you another three times have a quiet word with them about their technique.
I think if they drop you another three times have a quiet word with them about their technique.
In reply to nikinko: i agree 100%, the closest i've come when on my own with a novice is having them lower a ruck sack or one of the ballasts after i've hoisted it up to get them used to taking the weight through the tail of the rope. no way i'd let a novice belay me without supervision, no matter how desperate i was to climb
In reply to TheIrv:
A lot of walls ban those who have been "signed in" from belaying without someone competent tailing the rope. This seems reasonable to me, and is the only way I've ever taught anyone.
No need for the "driving licence", just for walls to show a modicum of sense when people sign in for the first time.
Neil
A lot of walls ban those who have been "signed in" from belaying without someone competent tailing the rope. This seems reasonable to me, and is the only way I've ever taught anyone.
No need for the "driving licence", just for walls to show a modicum of sense when people sign in for the first time.
Neil
In reply to mmmhumous:
Essentially what I'm getting at.... the wall are (not) meeting their duty of care by allowing full membership to a novice because a 'competent' climber intends to be responsible for them for their first session.
The other wall's disclaimer is far more meaningful: being responsible for the novice' actions/behaviour and giving them tuition, rather than taking blanket responsibilty.
As for my 'belayer' words have obviously been had (hence substantially increased amount of tuition). Their "general technique" is fine, their issue is not panicing when they get moved/the rope is weighted where the problem lies. They know they are not a competent belayer yet, and know where their issue lies.
Luckily, as I'm a heavier climber, this issue was highlighted very early on, while they were lowering me off, rather weeks/months down the line when someone took took their first (and last) big fall on them.
P.S. There's no mention in my orginal post that I wasn't safe when they dropped me.
> walls to show a modicum of sense when people sign in for the first time.
>
> Neil
>
> Neil
Essentially what I'm getting at.... the wall are (not) meeting their duty of care by allowing full membership to a novice because a 'competent' climber intends to be responsible for them for their first session.
The other wall's disclaimer is far more meaningful: being responsible for the novice' actions/behaviour and giving them tuition, rather than taking blanket responsibilty.
As for my 'belayer' words have obviously been had (hence substantially increased amount of tuition). Their "general technique" is fine, their issue is not panicing when they get moved/the rope is weighted where the problem lies. They know they are not a competent belayer yet, and know where their issue lies.
Luckily, as I'm a heavier climber, this issue was highlighted very early on, while they were lowering me off, rather weeks/months down the line when someone took took their first (and last) big fall on them.
P.S. There's no mention in my orginal post that I wasn't safe when they dropped me.
In reply to mmmhumous:
"Essentially what I'm getting at.... the wall are (not) meeting their duty of care by allowing full membership to a novice because a 'competent' climber intends to be responsible for them for their first session."
If what you have posted here is correct, it would seem that they are perhaps rather more lax than most other walls, where having been "signed in" you have to once competent "change over" to being a full member.
But a "driving licence" would not in any way affect walls acting in a lax manner, unless required by law.
"Luckily, as I'm a heavier climber, this issue was highlighted very early on, while they were lowering me off, rather weeks/months down the line when someone took took their first (and last) big fall on them."
Or to look at it differently, I would (assuming I could) usually teach someone with a lighter climber - particularly teaching lead belaying - and explain that it's harder with someone heavier and why, then progress onto me (17.5st) jumping off on them
"P.S. There's no mention in my orginal post that I wasn't safe when they dropped me."
Fair enough, I guess you mean you were practicing low down the wall?
Neil
"Essentially what I'm getting at.... the wall are (not) meeting their duty of care by allowing full membership to a novice because a 'competent' climber intends to be responsible for them for their first session."
If what you have posted here is correct, it would seem that they are perhaps rather more lax than most other walls, where having been "signed in" you have to once competent "change over" to being a full member.
But a "driving licence" would not in any way affect walls acting in a lax manner, unless required by law.
"Luckily, as I'm a heavier climber, this issue was highlighted very early on, while they were lowering me off, rather weeks/months down the line when someone took took their first (and last) big fall on them."
Or to look at it differently, I would (assuming I could) usually teach someone with a lighter climber - particularly teaching lead belaying - and explain that it's harder with someone heavier and why, then progress onto me (17.5st) jumping off on them
"P.S. There's no mention in my orginal post that I wasn't safe when they dropped me."
Fair enough, I guess you mean you were practicing low down the wall?
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
Yep which is my concern… it’s the only registration form for a wall that I’ve seen which combines the membership and need for supervision. Also, the only “assessment” on the form is a “have you asked a sample question” tick box. (Which on my form should still be blank) as I was first signed in as a novice.
True, but it is a more thorough way of them demonstrating their duty of care… e.g. Jeff has demonstrated that he is a competent climber/belayer by presenting his driving licence/SPA/MLA/climbing course pass certificate etc etc. so we've made him a member, whereas Dave hasn’t so he'll have to be supervised as a guest, or be assessed.
Which is what happened. Their issue is “losing control when panicked” which is only going to happen when either belaying a heavier climber, or when a lighter climber taking a big fall. Again this particular wall, the belay competency question is “can you belay using a belay device?” rather than the more explicit “Can you use a belay device to secure a falling climber and lower a climber from the wall” which I’ve seen elsewhere.
Cheers
Adam
>
> If what you have posted here is correct, it would seem that they are perhaps rather more lax than most other walls, where having been "signed in" you have to once competent "change over" to being a full member.
> If what you have posted here is correct, it would seem that they are perhaps rather more lax than most other walls, where having been "signed in" you have to once competent "change over" to being a full member.
Yep which is my concern… it’s the only registration form for a wall that I’ve seen which combines the membership and need for supervision. Also, the only “assessment” on the form is a “have you asked a sample question” tick box. (Which on my form should still be blank) as I was first signed in as a novice.
>
> But a "driving licence" would not in any way affect walls acting in a lax manner, unless required by law.
> But a "driving licence" would not in any way affect walls acting in a lax manner, unless required by law.
True, but it is a more thorough way of them demonstrating their duty of care… e.g. Jeff has demonstrated that he is a competent climber/belayer by presenting his driving licence/SPA/MLA/climbing course pass certificate etc etc. so we've made him a member, whereas Dave hasn’t so he'll have to be supervised as a guest, or be assessed.
>
>
> Or to look at it differently, I would (assuming I could) usually teach someone with a lighter climber - particularly teaching lead belaying - and explain that it's harder with someone heavier and why, then progress onto me (17.5st) jumping off on them
>
> Or to look at it differently, I would (assuming I could) usually teach someone with a lighter climber - particularly teaching lead belaying - and explain that it's harder with someone heavier and why, then progress onto me (17.5st) jumping off on them
Which is what happened. Their issue is “losing control when panicked” which is only going to happen when either belaying a heavier climber, or when a lighter climber taking a big fall. Again this particular wall, the belay competency question is “can you belay using a belay device?” rather than the more explicit “Can you use a belay device to secure a falling climber and lower a climber from the wall” which I’ve seen elsewhere.
>
> Fair enough, I guess you mean you were practicing low down the wall?
>
Low down on the wall, and / or down-climbing to take some weight off the rope, with and without sand bags, and/ or having them belay wedged against the wall, with and without a competent second climber body belaying the brake rope (and coaching them). As optimistic as I am, I don’t’ think belaying is for them. > Fair enough, I guess you mean you were practicing low down the wall?
>
Cheers
Adam
In reply to mmmhumous: If you were in a car with a learner and they plowed down a bus stop full of nuns ... surely its not the Highways agencys fault because they own the road. They merely provide a facility, it is for the individuals taking on the duty of care to make sure they look after the novice and others that could get hurt.
In reply to mmmhumous:
The trouble with a "driving license" approach is that the wall (or instructor that assessed the climber's competence) then assumes a much higher level of liability for that climber. They're basically saying that someone is safe, so when that person has an accident they can go back to the wall and claim that they shouldn't have been given a license. That's a good basis for a charge of negligence, no matter how competent they appeared to be.
Let's not forget that accidents happen to experienced climbers too, just before xmas I was dropped by a long-term climbing partner with several years of climbing and instructing experience. Could I have sued the wall for letting him belay me? Obviously not, but I imagine there's a couple of no-win-no-remorse ambulance-chasers out there that would have a go.
A couple of successful law suits down the line and the walls will have to shell out substantially more in insurance, for which we will all foot the bill...
The trouble with a "driving license" approach is that the wall (or instructor that assessed the climber's competence) then assumes a much higher level of liability for that climber. They're basically saying that someone is safe, so when that person has an accident they can go back to the wall and claim that they shouldn't have been given a license. That's a good basis for a charge of negligence, no matter how competent they appeared to be.
Let's not forget that accidents happen to experienced climbers too, just before xmas I was dropped by a long-term climbing partner with several years of climbing and instructing experience. Could I have sued the wall for letting him belay me? Obviously not, but I imagine there's a couple of no-win-no-remorse ambulance-chasers out there that would have a go.
A couple of successful law suits down the line and the walls will have to shell out substantially more in insurance, for which we will all foot the bill...
In reply to mmmhumous:
You should have passed them on to a member of staff when they asked, as they were not a 'competent climber'.
> A few weeks ago, while at a wall, on the route next to me a ‘competent’ climber was about to start climbing with a newbie, and having seen that I was doing likewise, asked the following: “I am a competent climber, but haven’t climbed in a while, could you remind me how to thread my belay plate?”
>
> After helping them out, obviously I checked that they were in fact a
> competent climber, and kept an eye and ear on them until I was satisfied
> that I didn’t need to have a word with wall staff.
>
> After helping them out, obviously I checked that they were in fact a
> competent climber, and kept an eye and ear on them until I was satisfied
> that I didn’t need to have a word with wall staff.
You should have passed them on to a member of staff when they asked, as they were not a 'competent climber'.
In reply to Scott_vzr:
"You should have passed them on to a member of staff when they asked, as they were not a 'competent climber'."
Quite. Being able to put on a harness, tie in correctly, thread a belay plate and top-rope belay would seem to be the minimum definition of "competent climber", even if all you're doing is running up and down 2s and 3s on the kids' training wall.
How good you are at *actual climbing* has rather less to do with it (which is why I don't at all like the US approach of saying you have to be able to climb a certain grade before starting leading) - and such requirements are something I'd fear about a "driving licence".
Neil
"You should have passed them on to a member of staff when they asked, as they were not a 'competent climber'."
Quite. Being able to put on a harness, tie in correctly, thread a belay plate and top-rope belay would seem to be the minimum definition of "competent climber", even if all you're doing is running up and down 2s and 3s on the kids' training wall.
How good you are at *actual climbing* has rather less to do with it (which is why I don't at all like the US approach of saying you have to be able to climb a certain grade before starting leading) - and such requirements are something I'd fear about a "driving licence".
Neil
In reply to mmmhumous:
I found your OP a little strange.
I wonder how you, personally, define competence. Despite someone not knowing how to thread a belay plate, you watch them for a relatively brief period and decide they are competent. Er, in what way are they competent? Have you assessed them over a period of time, judging whether they can do all the things you need to be able to do to use the wall facilties safely?
And, anyway, who are you to decide if they are competent? I don't mean that quite as rudely as it might at first seem. What if they had then had an accident? How would you feel and what would "your" responsibilities be? Have you just held yourself out as, in effect, an instructor or at least a competent person who they have asked the advice of and relied upon - and placed yourself in the position of having a duty of care? Perhaps there really wasn't much interaction between you and maybe in reality I would have done little different in your position, but I think I would have at least either mentioned it to the wall staff (who could then monitor them) or suggested they should take the advice of the wall staff (to at least demonstrate that you aren't taking responsibility).
There was also your rather odd statement about allowing a belayer to drop you several times. On 1st reading this rather questioned your experience (and competence) in teaching and considering a back up (eg. 3rd person) until your belayer is in fact able to belay properly. However, I think your subsequent posts sort of clear that up.
Sorry if that all sounds a little harsh but I think you could do with examining your actions as much as those of the wall.
Climbing walls are in a very difficult position. As you may have noticed from other posts, a lot of climbers have a problem with strict control at walls. Maybe it's the older ones who remember the days (not that long ago) when we didn't have the 'belay police' and it was all about personal responsibility for own actions (which is a lot of the attraction of climbing full stop). On the other hand, as soon as you go down the line of monitoring/policing the wall, the wall management start to take on some responsibility - so how far do they go? And of course some walls don't merely want to offer a wall for you to use on your own; as part of their business model, and social side, they may want to run tuition courses (inside and out) etc.
It's not as simple as the wording/meaning of the piece of paper you sign on entering or joining the wall. It's possibly more about what they hold themselves out to do and whether they do in fact do it.
I found your OP a little strange.
I wonder how you, personally, define competence. Despite someone not knowing how to thread a belay plate, you watch them for a relatively brief period and decide they are competent. Er, in what way are they competent? Have you assessed them over a period of time, judging whether they can do all the things you need to be able to do to use the wall facilties safely?
And, anyway, who are you to decide if they are competent? I don't mean that quite as rudely as it might at first seem. What if they had then had an accident? How would you feel and what would "your" responsibilities be? Have you just held yourself out as, in effect, an instructor or at least a competent person who they have asked the advice of and relied upon - and placed yourself in the position of having a duty of care? Perhaps there really wasn't much interaction between you and maybe in reality I would have done little different in your position, but I think I would have at least either mentioned it to the wall staff (who could then monitor them) or suggested they should take the advice of the wall staff (to at least demonstrate that you aren't taking responsibility).
There was also your rather odd statement about allowing a belayer to drop you several times. On 1st reading this rather questioned your experience (and competence) in teaching and considering a back up (eg. 3rd person) until your belayer is in fact able to belay properly. However, I think your subsequent posts sort of clear that up.
Sorry if that all sounds a little harsh but I think you could do with examining your actions as much as those of the wall.
Climbing walls are in a very difficult position. As you may have noticed from other posts, a lot of climbers have a problem with strict control at walls. Maybe it's the older ones who remember the days (not that long ago) when we didn't have the 'belay police' and it was all about personal responsibility for own actions (which is a lot of the attraction of climbing full stop). On the other hand, as soon as you go down the line of monitoring/policing the wall, the wall management start to take on some responsibility - so how far do they go? And of course some walls don't merely want to offer a wall for you to use on your own; as part of their business model, and social side, they may want to run tuition courses (inside and out) etc.
It's not as simple as the wording/meaning of the piece of paper you sign on entering or joining the wall. It's possibly more about what they hold themselves out to do and whether they do in fact do it.
In reply to muppetfilter:
True, but the DVLA don't grant a full driving licence to an unqualified driver based on a competent driver turning up with you any signing to say you'll be responsible for them.
> (In reply to mmmhumous) If you were in a car with a learner and they plowed down a bus stop full of nuns ... surely its not the Highways agencys fault because they own the road. They merely provide a facility, it is for the individuals taking on the duty of care to make sure they look after the novice and others that could get hurt.
True, but the DVLA don't grant a full driving licence to an unqualified driver based on a competent driver turning up with you any signing to say you'll be responsible for them.
In reply to mmmhumous: But you can drive a car with passengers, being responsible for them, with a full license. The DVLA test on the day says you were competent !
In reply to mmmhumous: But you can drive a car with passengers, being responsible for them, with a full license. The DVLA test on the day says you were competent !
In reply to JonC:
Having not signed anything nor agreed to take responsibility for them, I’m neither setting myself up as an “instructor” nor putting myself in a position of legal responsibility. In terms of moral responsibility however, I stuck around and listened ( to the instruction they were giving their guest) until I was happy they knew what they were doing, and forgetting how to thread their plate was just mental block/need for reassurance from another climber.. I did suggest they talked to the staff if they was still unsure of anything. ( but that’s not really relevant to this thread).
I disagree, the membership form/terms of use for the wall constitute part of their hierarchy of controls which underpins their risk assessment (and insurance) and are designed to keep the punters safe and the owners out of jail. Now that I’ve highlighted a potential deficiency in said control measure, the owners have a duty to ensure they at least review it. (Hopefully then update it, but more likely tell me to piss off and mind my own business). If these forms don’t really matter, then why not just ditch the “I can safely tie in” sign offs, and let us pay our money, and take our chances.
> (In reply to mmmhumous)
>
> I found your OP a little strange.
>
> I wonder how you, personally, define competence. Despite someone not knowing how to thread a belay plate, you watch them for a relatively brief period and decide they are competent. Er, in what way are they competent? Have you assessed them over a period of time, judging whether they can do all the things you need to be able to do to use the wall facilties safely?
>
> And, anyway, who are you to decide if they are competent? I don't mean that quite as rudely as it might at first seem. What if they had then had an accident? How would you feel and what would "your" responsibilities be? Have you just held yourself out as, in effect, an instructor or at least a competent person who they have asked the advice of and relied upon - and placed yourself in the position of having a duty of care? Perhaps there really wasn't much interaction between you and maybe in reality I would have done little different in your position, but I think I would have at least either mentioned it to the wall staff (who could then monitor them) or suggested they should take the advice of the wall staff (to at least demonstrate that you aren't taking responsibility).
>
>
> I found your OP a little strange.
>
> I wonder how you, personally, define competence. Despite someone not knowing how to thread a belay plate, you watch them for a relatively brief period and decide they are competent. Er, in what way are they competent? Have you assessed them over a period of time, judging whether they can do all the things you need to be able to do to use the wall facilties safely?
>
> And, anyway, who are you to decide if they are competent? I don't mean that quite as rudely as it might at first seem. What if they had then had an accident? How would you feel and what would "your" responsibilities be? Have you just held yourself out as, in effect, an instructor or at least a competent person who they have asked the advice of and relied upon - and placed yourself in the position of having a duty of care? Perhaps there really wasn't much interaction between you and maybe in reality I would have done little different in your position, but I think I would have at least either mentioned it to the wall staff (who could then monitor them) or suggested they should take the advice of the wall staff (to at least demonstrate that you aren't taking responsibility).
>
Having not signed anything nor agreed to take responsibility for them, I’m neither setting myself up as an “instructor” nor putting myself in a position of legal responsibility. In terms of moral responsibility however, I stuck around and listened ( to the instruction they were giving their guest) until I was happy they knew what they were doing, and forgetting how to thread their plate was just mental block/need for reassurance from another climber.. I did suggest they talked to the staff if they was still unsure of anything. ( but that’s not really relevant to this thread).
> There was also your rather odd statement about allowing a belayer to drop you several times. On 1st reading this rather questioned your experience (and competence) in teaching and considering a back up (eg. 3rd person) until your belayer is in fact able to belay properly. However, I think your subsequent posts sort of clear that up.
>
Again the details of the ‘drops’ aren’t really relevant to this post , hence the lack of detail in the OP. The example merely illustrates the pointlessness of the sign in form at the wall in question, as this particular novice could now, not only sign themselves in an climb with people who aren’t aware of this issue (and wouldn’t be until it was too late) but also sign in two novices despite not being able to catch a fall nor safely lover (a heavier) climber.>
> Sorry if that all sounds a little harsh but I think you could do with examining your actions as much as those of the wall.
>
No worries. I have no qualms about my actions, and the only issue I have with the wall is their membership form (they’re pretty good on safety etc). The details around the examples/my actions were left deliberately woolly as I had hope to spark more discussion along the lines of your comments below. Rather than the usual UK-C Flame-de-jour of “do / don’t tell staff / run away / beat them to death with their own chalk bag.”>
> Climbing walls are in a very difficult position. As you may have noticed from other posts, a lot of climbers have a problem with strict control at walls. Maybe it's the older ones who remember the days (not that long ago) when we didn't have the 'belay police' and it was all about personal responsibility for own actions (which is a lot of the attraction of climbing full stop). On the other hand, as soon as you go down the line of monitoring/policing the wall, the wall management start to take on some responsibility - so how far do they go? And of course some walls don't merely want to offer a wall for you to use on your own; as part of their business model, and social side, they may want to run tuition courses (inside and out) etc.
>
Absolutely, there is a delicate balance to be struck between meeting their duty of care, and banning conkers in schools "due to health and safety reasons". I just feel that new climbers should have to demonstrate they are competent rather than just sign to say they are. Whether that demonstration is providing proof of suitable climbing qualification/assessment, or a suitable check prior to their first unsupervised visit.>
> It's not as simple as the wording/meaning of the piece of paper you sign on entering or joining the wall. It's possibly more about what they hold themselves out to do and whether they do in fact do it.
I disagree, the membership form/terms of use for the wall constitute part of their hierarchy of controls which underpins their risk assessment (and insurance) and are designed to keep the punters safe and the owners out of jail. Now that I’ve highlighted a potential deficiency in said control measure, the owners have a duty to ensure they at least review it. (Hopefully then update it, but more likely tell me to piss off and mind my own business). If these forms don’t really matter, then why not just ditch the “I can safely tie in” sign offs, and let us pay our money, and take our chances.
In reply to mmmhumous: I'm a big advocate of S#|+ happens, and Believe we are all responsible for our own actions and situations. Henceforth the newbie is trusting his friend to belay him so it's his fault for trusting his friend, and the competent "friend" is trusting himself to teach. so in the case of user error the responsibility falls to them both the result is the belayer risks destroying his friendship and the noob loses his life, or maybe just ankles.
I'm sure when I sign up to most climbing wall I accept the risk to self and those around me. If i Inform staff I cant tie a figure 8 and yet still try to do so without asking for help, the staff shouldn't be responsible. My self pride insisting i try anyway + not asking for assistance = My s#|t knot = my fault.
I'm sure when I sign up to most climbing wall I accept the risk to self and those around me. If i Inform staff I cant tie a figure 8 and yet still try to do so without asking for help, the staff shouldn't be responsible. My self pride insisting i try anyway + not asking for assistance = My s#|t knot = my fault.
In reply to mmmhumous: p.s "Wall Driving Licence" is a ridiculous idea imagine having to produce Rock Competency Identification for buying climbing shoes or climbing at stanage! I hear of more injuries happening in a gym due to negligence and thats taking into consideration that a normal gym Insurance requires them to put you through an induction.
Imagine having to book an induction at The Foundry in Sheffield when you only visited due to getting rained off at Burbage. If your concerned about Liability then get some insurance or join the BMC.
Can we not just keep this rock climbing thing out there for a little bit longer without covering it in red tape and safety liability contracts etc etc.
Imagine having to book an induction at The Foundry in Sheffield when you only visited due to getting rained off at Burbage. If your concerned about Liability then get some insurance or join the BMC.
Can we not just keep this rock climbing thing out there for a little bit longer without covering it in red tape and safety liability contracts etc etc.
"Wall Driving Licence" is a ridiculous idea imagine having to produce Rock Competency Identification for buying climbing shoes
Now who's being ridiculous.
>I hear of more injuries happening in a gym due to negligence and thats taking into consideration that a normal gym Insurance requires them to put you through an induction.
I'm not worried (more than I should be) about the risks inherrent in rock climbing, the BMC sums that up pretty nicely with it's participation statement. What I am pondering is the climbing wall's duty of care to customers (and staff) given they offer a service for which they charge for, and profit from.
Now who's being ridiculous.
>I hear of more injuries happening in a gym due to negligence and thats taking into consideration that a normal gym Insurance requires them to put you through an induction.
>
And Climbing walls sit somewhere between stannage and a gym on that continuum(I hear the American's even refer to them as climbing gyms).> Imagine having to book an induction at The Foundry in Sheffield when you only visited due to getting rained off at Burbage. If your concerned about Liability then get some insurance or join the BMC.
>
The flipside is image not being stuck behind someone signing up when rain dirupts plae because they've just had to flash their ID ad pay. I'm not concerned about my liability, but do have life insurance which covers me for climbing and am a BMC member with the PLI which that provides.>
> Can we not just keep this rock climbing thing out there for a little bit longer without covering it in red tape and safety liability contracts etc etc.
I'm not worried (more than I should be) about the risks inherrent in rock climbing, the BMC sums that up pretty nicely with it's participation statement. What I am pondering is the climbing wall's duty of care to customers (and staff) given they offer a service for which they charge for, and profit from.
In reply to mmmhumous: Do you work for health and safety ? if so , Get Lost, your not welcome here ! My local wall has not change'd in the last 5 year's yet the price has gone from £4.50 up to £8.00 !!!! When i ask'd them why- they said insurance has gone up due to people MOANING about SAFETY ! Insurance company's search the internet for story's about climbing accident's e,c,t then get twitchy thinking everyone's going to jump on the no win no fee band wagon !
First it's climbing licence's then Helmet's indoor's ! who know's where it will end ? Climbing involve's DANGER that's why i like it , If you want to join the tiddly wink's whilst wearing safety goggle's crew that's fine just stay away from the wall's !
First it's climbing licence's then Helmet's indoor's ! who know's where it will end ? Climbing involve's DANGER that's why i like it , If you want to join the tiddly wink's whilst wearing safety goggle's crew that's fine just stay away from the wall's !
In reply to ste53:
Anything other than an impled facepalm would a waste of my time:
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0912/implied-face...
Anything other than an impled facepalm would a waste of my time:
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0912/implied-face...
In reply to mmmhumous: Sound's like going the climbing GYM with YOU for the first time is a total waste of anyone's time !
In reply to mmmhumous:
But you are able to legally take a learner driver out on the road before their test and help them learn the skills that lead them to become experienced, you take responsibility for them..... In exactly the same way an experienced climber takes responsibility for the safety of a novice at the wall.
(please dont argue the semantics of learning to drive)
>
> True, but the DVLA don't grant a full driving licence to an unqualified driver based on a competent driver turning up with you any signing to say you'll be responsible for them.
> True, but the DVLA don't grant a full driving licence to an unqualified driver based on a competent driver turning up with you any signing to say you'll be responsible for them.
But you are able to legally take a learner driver out on the road before their test and help them learn the skills that lead them to become experienced, you take responsibility for them..... In exactly the same way an experienced climber takes responsibility for the safety of a novice at the wall.
(please dont argue the semantics of learning to drive)
In reply to mmmhumous:
I didn't say the paperwork was an irrelevance. I said that I thought the really important part was what they hold themselves to do and whether they in fact do it. I agree, the paperwork is part of that. However, more important, to my mind, is what the staff say and do, what signs they have up in the wall itself to highlight issues (or not), whether they commonly have floor walkers (or not).
One approach is for you to sign an indemnity about usage of the wall and for them not to take any further responsibility. I think many climbers would be quite happy with that. I suppose that due to legal advice and even decided cases, most walls opt to check that you know the basics - but is it sufficient to ask the question or actually check you know the correct knot (for example) and, if so, which knot is the right one....? And if they are taking that much interest in your competence, should they watch you, ask you to take a test etc etc?
Most climbing walls I have been to do try to strick a sort of sensible happy medium where people like me don't get too hacked off and, hopefully, they avoid getting successfully litigated against if it really isn't their fault. I suspect they do more or less get it right.
Unless I am misunderstanding your position, you seem to be at one end of the spectrum, and towards something which many climbers are uncomfortable with. I'm happy to sign a disclaimer and even answer a queston or two but, other than that, I think it's nanny state stuff and the antithesis of what climbing means to me and many others.
I didn't say the paperwork was an irrelevance. I said that I thought the really important part was what they hold themselves to do and whether they in fact do it. I agree, the paperwork is part of that. However, more important, to my mind, is what the staff say and do, what signs they have up in the wall itself to highlight issues (or not), whether they commonly have floor walkers (or not).
One approach is for you to sign an indemnity about usage of the wall and for them not to take any further responsibility. I think many climbers would be quite happy with that. I suppose that due to legal advice and even decided cases, most walls opt to check that you know the basics - but is it sufficient to ask the question or actually check you know the correct knot (for example) and, if so, which knot is the right one....? And if they are taking that much interest in your competence, should they watch you, ask you to take a test etc etc?
Most climbing walls I have been to do try to strick a sort of sensible happy medium where people like me don't get too hacked off and, hopefully, they avoid getting successfully litigated against if it really isn't their fault. I suspect they do more or less get it right.
Unless I am misunderstanding your position, you seem to be at one end of the spectrum, and towards something which many climbers are uncomfortable with. I'm happy to sign a disclaimer and even answer a queston or two but, other than that, I think it's nanny state stuff and the antithesis of what climbing means to me and many others.
> Unless I am misunderstanding your position, you seem to be at one end of the spectrum, and towards something which many climbers are uncomfortable with. I'm happy to sign a disclaimer and even answer a queston or two but, other than that, I think it's nanny state stuff and the antithesis of what climbing means to me and many others.
Yep you are, I'd quite happily sign a disclaimer.
In reply to DuckingFesperate:
indeed, which I guess is why even the SPA (and I assume the other MLTE awards also) certificate/log book has a disclaimer which pretty says 'The candidate was judged competent at the specific date, place and time of their assessment but may not actually be' (that's how I read it anyway).
> (In reply to mmmhumous)
>
> The trouble with a "driving license" approach is that the wall (or instructor that assessed the climber's competence) then assumes a much higher level of liability for that climber. They're basically saying that someone is safe, so when that person has an accident they can go back to the wall and claim that they shouldn't have been given a license. That's a good basis for a charge of negligence, no matter how competent they appeared to be.
>
> The trouble with a "driving license" approach is that the wall (or instructor that assessed the climber's competence) then assumes a much higher level of liability for that climber. They're basically saying that someone is safe, so when that person has an accident they can go back to the wall and claim that they shouldn't have been given a license. That's a good basis for a charge of negligence, no matter how competent they appeared to be.
indeed, which I guess is why even the SPA (and I assume the other MLTE awards also) certificate/log book has a disclaimer which pretty says 'The candidate was judged competent at the specific date, place and time of their assessment but may not actually be' (that's how I read it anyway).
In reply to mmmhumous:
The problem is you've moved from one very specific perceived issue onto what should take place in every situation.
It doesn't add anything to the previous thread on the licence approach.
Separately, I wonder why on earth you would put it in an email rather than simply mention it your next session at the wall? If you discussed it at the wall it might have saved you a lot of bother.
> (In reply to JonC)
>
> I just feel that new climbers should have to demonstrate they are competent rather than just sign to say they are. Whether that demonstration is providing proof of suitable climbing qualification/assessment, or a suitable check prior to their first unsupervised visit.
>
> I just feel that new climbers should have to demonstrate they are competent rather than just sign to say they are. Whether that demonstration is providing proof of suitable climbing qualification/assessment, or a suitable check prior to their first unsupervised visit.
> I disagree, the membership form/terms of use for the wall constitute part of their hierarchy of controls which underpins their risk assessment (and insurance) and are designed to keep the punters safe and the owners out of jail. Now that I’ve highlighted a potential deficiency in said control measure, the owners have a duty to ensure they at least review it. (Hopefully then update it, but more likely tell me to piss off and mind my own business). If these forms don’t really matter, then why not just ditch the “I can safely tie in” sign offs, and let us pay our money, and take our chances.
The problem is you've moved from one very specific perceived issue onto what should take place in every situation.
It doesn't add anything to the previous thread on the licence approach.
Separately, I wonder why on earth you would put it in an email rather than simply mention it your next session at the wall? If you discussed it at the wall it might have saved you a lot of bother.
In reply to mmmhumous:
Well in that case I don't really get the point of your post.
As said, surely better to speak to the wall in question.
By posting this sort of stuff you are appearing to be part of the problem, not the solution.
> Yep you are, I'd quite happily sign a disclaimer.
Well in that case I don't really get the point of your post.
As said, surely better to speak to the wall in question.
By posting this sort of stuff you are appearing to be part of the problem, not the solution.
In reply to mmmhumous:
"And Climbing walls sit somewhere between stannage and a gym on that continuum(I hear the American's even refer to them as climbing gyms)."
My gym (one of the low-cost sign-yourself-in type ones) doesn't do inductions. The only impact that had on them in insurance terms was that they can't allow under 18s.
That was actually one reason I chose them over the similarly cheap Council gyms that do only with advance booking etc. That's a faff; I know full well how to use gym equipment. But then unlike crappy belaying, if I use it wrongly I'm rather unlikely to kill anyone, nor injure anyone other than myself.
Neil
"And Climbing walls sit somewhere between stannage and a gym on that continuum(I hear the American's even refer to them as climbing gyms)."
My gym (one of the low-cost sign-yourself-in type ones) doesn't do inductions. The only impact that had on them in insurance terms was that they can't allow under 18s.
That was actually one reason I chose them over the similarly cheap Council gyms that do only with advance booking etc. That's a faff; I know full well how to use gym equipment. But then unlike crappy belaying, if I use it wrongly I'm rather unlikely to kill anyone, nor injure anyone other than myself.
Neil
In reply to JonC:
The point:
How so? By contacting the wall in question (which hasn't been nemed on here incidentally): It gives them the chance to review their sign in procedure > update it/ignore me as they see fit > potentially saving them a court case where they MAY be held negligent > preventing their insurance premium going up > ultimately resulting in the numpties on here having to whine about someting else.
> (In reply to mmmhumous)
>
> [...]
>
> Well in that case I don't really get the point of your post.
>
> [...]
>
> Well in that case I don't really get the point of your post.
The point:
> Where do wall owners’ feel their duty of care ends and my responsibility begins?
>
> As said, surely better to speak to the wall in question.
>
Read the OP more carefully.> As said, surely better to speak to the wall in question.
>
> By posting this sort of stuff you are appearing to be part of the problem, not the solution.
How so? By contacting the wall in question (which hasn't been nemed on here incidentally): It gives them the chance to review their sign in procedure > update it/ignore me as they see fit > potentially saving them a court case where they MAY be held negligent > preventing their insurance premium going up > ultimately resulting in the numpties on here having to whine about someting else.
Climbing gyms sure are interesting places. Sometimes trying to do the right thing just gets you malice in return (why should a father climbing with his daughter suffer the indignity of me suggesting they do up the screw gates keeping her safe?).
Fortunately it seems the padding on the floor and whatever inherent friction there is in the system works quite well at my gym, as the people I've talked to who have been dropped sustained no significant injury.
Fortunately it seems the padding on the floor and whatever inherent friction there is in the system works quite well at my gym, as the people I've talked to who have been dropped sustained no significant injury.
In reply to mmmhumous:
Nothing whatsoever in the OP about why you didn't just talk to the wall about their signing in procedure.
> (In reply to JonC)
>
> [As said, surely better to speak to the wall in question.]
> Read the OP more carefully.
>
> [As said, surely better to speak to the wall in question.]
> Read the OP more carefully.
Nothing whatsoever in the OP about why you didn't just talk to the wall about their signing in procedure.
In reply to winhill:
"At one of my more regular climbing venues however, I’m slightly more concerned at the sign in procedure for newbies (and have just emailed them with my concerns):"
> (In reply to mmmhumous)
> [...]
>
> Nothing whatsoever in the OP about why you didn't just talk to the wall about their signing in procedure.
> [...]
>
> Nothing whatsoever in the OP about why you didn't just talk to the wall about their signing in procedure.
"At one of my more regular climbing venues however, I’m slightly more concerned at the sign in procedure for newbies (and have just emailed them with my concerns):"
In reply to mmmhumous:
Why exactly did you post on here if you aren't willing to listen to other views and instead seem just intent on defending your starting position. You ain't exactly encouraging debate...
Why exactly did you post on here if you aren't willing to listen to other views and instead seem just intent on defending your starting position. You ain't exactly encouraging debate...
In reply to mmmhumous:
You're familiar with the difference between the spoken and the written word?
> (In reply to winhill)
> [Nothing whatsoever in the OP about why you didn't just talk to the wall about their signing in procedure.]
>
> "At one of my more regular climbing venues however, I’m slightly more concerned at the sign in procedure for newbies (and have just emailed them with my concerns):"
> [Nothing whatsoever in the OP about why you didn't just talk to the wall about their signing in procedure.]
>
> "At one of my more regular climbing venues however, I’m slightly more concerned at the sign in procedure for newbies (and have just emailed them with my concerns):"
You're familiar with the difference between the spoken and the written word?
In reply to winhill:
Not really, please explain it in as a pedantic and patronising way as possible please.
Not really, please explain it in as a pedantic and patronising way as possible please.
In reply to mmmhumous:
I have seen a number of climbers who have bought in newbies with them to belay, and when I have expressed my concern about their belayer's ability, some have actually appeared a bit miffed that I have made them climb down for this information and come up with some sort of excuse that it's fine ( I usually then pass this onto the wall staff).
I am astounded by this response!! I don't care how well I think I can climb, I understand that holds can spin and other things beyond my control can happen, and I want to damn well know that the person holding the end of my rope is not going to let me plummet to the floor because they have no concept of what they are doing. Why do these others not see this??
I will say, that not all climbers with poor belayers have had this response, but a few that have made me think about the situation.
I have seen a number of climbers who have bought in newbies with them to belay, and when I have expressed my concern about their belayer's ability, some have actually appeared a bit miffed that I have made them climb down for this information and come up with some sort of excuse that it's fine ( I usually then pass this onto the wall staff).
I am astounded by this response!! I don't care how well I think I can climb, I understand that holds can spin and other things beyond my control can happen, and I want to damn well know that the person holding the end of my rope is not going to let me plummet to the floor because they have no concept of what they are doing. Why do these others not see this??
I will say, that not all climbers with poor belayers have had this response, but a few that have made me think about the situation.
In reply to mmmhumous:
I am really struggling to keep up with this thread. Are you saying that walls should have less trust in peoples abilities to keep themselves safe by not letting them do stupid things.
When I say stupid things I mean taking a novice in, getting them to lie to the wall staff about how competent they are then letting them belay know that they can't?
I am really struggling to keep up with this thread. Are you saying that walls should have less trust in peoples abilities to keep themselves safe by not letting them do stupid things.
When I say stupid things I mean taking a novice in, getting them to lie to the wall staff about how competent they are then letting them belay know that they can't?
In reply to JonC:
Given that the majority of the comments on the thread are either questioning my actions (and rightly so) or at best just plan rude or at worst offensive, is it any wonder that my responses are coming across as defensive? Surely if I wasn’t prepared to defend my position, it wouldn’t be much of a debate!
Anyway… in the spirit of clarifying my position (and the point of my OP):
-When signing in guests/newbies at a wall I am more than happy to accept the newbie’s responsibilities during that session.
-What I have an issue with is: Said newbie being issued with membership without some level of assessment being performed (or documented) by the wall staff.
For instance:
If my incompetent belayer went to the wall with someone else and them dropped them on a third party and injured both their climber and the third person. Then the wall could be viewed as (and sued for) being negligent. Obviously the majority of the blame lies with the belayer (having read and signed to say they accept and understood the rules of use for the wall), but as the wall haven’t in any way assessed that my belayer knew how to belay, put on a harness or tie in, some of responsibility sits with them.
Now obviously this isn’t an issue for Ste53 as getting a climber dropped on their head is a cheeky bonus of some free ‘danger’ during a session at the wall For me however, given that climbing walls can be very busy, and I’ve paid an entry fee, I feel that the wall in question haven’t properly thought through their membership process.
Put simply, the point of the thread is:
-What would you expect unsupervised climbers at the wall to be able to do safely?
-How do you think walls should meet their duty of care, and/or your expectations?
> (In reply to mmmhumous)
>
> Why exactly did you post on here if you aren't willing to listen to other views and instead seem just intent on defending your starting position. You ain't exactly encouraging debate...
>
> Why exactly did you post on here if you aren't willing to listen to other views and instead seem just intent on defending your starting position. You ain't exactly encouraging debate...
Given that the majority of the comments on the thread are either questioning my actions (and rightly so) or at best just plan rude or at worst offensive, is it any wonder that my responses are coming across as defensive? Surely if I wasn’t prepared to defend my position, it wouldn’t be much of a debate!
Anyway… in the spirit of clarifying my position (and the point of my OP):
-When signing in guests/newbies at a wall I am more than happy to accept the newbie’s responsibilities during that session.
-What I have an issue with is: Said newbie being issued with membership without some level of assessment being performed (or documented) by the wall staff.
For instance:
If my incompetent belayer went to the wall with someone else and them dropped them on a third party and injured both their climber and the third person. Then the wall could be viewed as (and sued for) being negligent. Obviously the majority of the blame lies with the belayer (having read and signed to say they accept and understood the rules of use for the wall), but as the wall haven’t in any way assessed that my belayer knew how to belay, put on a harness or tie in, some of responsibility sits with them.
Now obviously this isn’t an issue for Ste53 as getting a climber dropped on their head is a cheeky bonus of some free ‘danger’ during a session at the wall For me however, given that climbing walls can be very busy, and I’ve paid an entry fee, I feel that the wall in question haven’t properly thought through their membership process.
Put simply, the point of the thread is:
-What would you expect unsupervised climbers at the wall to be able to do safely?
-How do you think walls should meet their duty of care, and/or your expectations?
In reply to mmmhumous:
Okay I think I am starting to see it now. So you go to a wall with a novice, and you sign them in that day. Then they go say a week later, and are already on the system so the wall thinks they are experienced enough to belay?
In the wall I work at when someone is signed in as a novice their details are put into the computer (along with everyone else that comes for the first time). When they next turn up they are flagged up as a novice, and we talk to them about it, ask if they know how to belay. If they decide to lie to us and say yes, and then fill out the membership form again saying they can do so why should we think otherwise?
It sounds like the only way this can go wrong is if the belayer abuses the trust of the climbing wall staff, and the person they are climbing with. Then it is there own fault if they drop someone.
Okay I think I am starting to see it now. So you go to a wall with a novice, and you sign them in that day. Then they go say a week later, and are already on the system so the wall thinks they are experienced enough to belay?
In the wall I work at when someone is signed in as a novice their details are put into the computer (along with everyone else that comes for the first time). When they next turn up they are flagged up as a novice, and we talk to them about it, ask if they know how to belay. If they decide to lie to us and say yes, and then fill out the membership form again saying they can do so why should we think otherwise?
It sounds like the only way this can go wrong is if the belayer abuses the trust of the climbing wall staff, and the person they are climbing with. Then it is there own fault if they drop someone.
In reply to JoshOvki:
At the wall in question, the problem is the novice doesn't have to lie....
They've said they're incompetent on the form, I've said I take responsibilty for them for the session, but they've already been given full membership (before I have even shown them how to tie in etc etc....).
Given they already have a membership card, they could come back next day by themselves and sign in two guests.
Now hopefully that wouldn't happen given that they've read and signed the walls T.C. But on the other hand, the wall hasn't put anything in place to stop it from happening. (e.g. competcy question for them at the end of their first session/ not issuing a memership card utill they can demonstrate competency).
> When I say stupid things I mean taking a novice in, getting them to lie to the wall staff about how competent they are then letting them belay know that they can't?
At the wall in question, the problem is the novice doesn't have to lie....
They've said they're incompetent on the form, I've said I take responsibilty for them for the session, but they've already been given full membership (before I have even shown them how to tie in etc etc....).
Given they already have a membership card, they could come back next day by themselves and sign in two guests.
Now hopefully that wouldn't happen given that they've read and signed the walls T.C. But on the other hand, the wall hasn't put anything in place to stop it from happening. (e.g. competcy question for them at the end of their first session/ not issuing a memership card utill they can demonstrate competency).
In reply to JoshOvki:
>
> In the wall I work at when someone is signed in as a novice their details are put into the computer (along with everyone else that comes for the first time). When they next turn up they are flagged up as a novice, and we talk to them about it, ask if they know how to belay. If they decide to lie to us and say yes, and then fill out the membership form again saying they can do so why should we think otherwise?
>
This is what I had assumed happend, but it I've asked a couple of the people I've been responsible for at the wall recently, and out the 6 or 7 I've signed in since Christmas, none of them were asked any questions. (Hence my concern at their membership procedure).> In the wall I work at when someone is signed in as a novice their details are put into the computer (along with everyone else that comes for the first time). When they next turn up they are flagged up as a novice, and we talk to them about it, ask if they know how to belay. If they decide to lie to us and say yes, and then fill out the membership form again saying they can do so why should we think otherwise?
>
In reply to mmmhumous:
I think part of the problem here is that it is difficult to understand where you are coming from, and I still don't totally get it after your 'clarification'.
You mean you are happy to take responsibilty for a novice climber. Funnily, I actually think that this is one of the bigegr risk areas. I see lots of so called experienced climbers who have clearly signed in a novice and the experienced climbers are often a liability to the person in their charge and themselves. Unless the experienced climber is genuinely only going to belay, there should always be a 3rd person. That would be one improvement many walls could make imho. That is really my only suggestion as it would protect novices with idiot 'experienced' mates.
You see, this is probably where we differ and something I alluded to in one of my earlier posts. I think the wall has a duty to ask whether new members are experienced/competent, but if they are told that they are, I think the wall is entitled to trust what it is told. I don't actually believe there should be any checks. Which goes back to my opening post, I do believe that the wall should make clear it's stance and then stick to it. If, on being questioned, you answer that you are competent to climb and belay, the wall should believe you. It's responsibilty ends there (other than to provide safe equipment/facilities). If you lie, it's your responsibility if you kill yourself.
As above.
I don't think a half arsed attempt to monitor/assess climbers in the signing in process does much good. The wall should simply ask the question and expect a truthful response and make it clear that your safety relies upon the truth of your statement and your subsequent actions.
The issue of the floorwalkers (aka belay police) is a rather different one. In my exeprience, it operates almost like random checks. I have no great objections as clearly some people do lie and are liabilities to themselves and even experienced climbers can become quite lax and a gentle reminder is perhaps no bad thing, if done in the right way.
I think part of the problem here is that it is difficult to understand where you are coming from, and I still don't totally get it after your 'clarification'.
> -When signing in guests/newbies at a wall I am more than happy to accept the newbie’s responsibilities during that session.
You mean you are happy to take responsibilty for a novice climber. Funnily, I actually think that this is one of the bigegr risk areas. I see lots of so called experienced climbers who have clearly signed in a novice and the experienced climbers are often a liability to the person in their charge and themselves. Unless the experienced climber is genuinely only going to belay, there should always be a 3rd person. That would be one improvement many walls could make imho. That is really my only suggestion as it would protect novices with idiot 'experienced' mates.
> -What I have an issue with is: Said newbie being issued with membership without some level of assessment being performed (or documented) by the wall staff.
You see, this is probably where we differ and something I alluded to in one of my earlier posts. I think the wall has a duty to ask whether new members are experienced/competent, but if they are told that they are, I think the wall is entitled to trust what it is told. I don't actually believe there should be any checks. Which goes back to my opening post, I do believe that the wall should make clear it's stance and then stick to it. If, on being questioned, you answer that you are competent to climb and belay, the wall should believe you. It's responsibilty ends there (other than to provide safe equipment/facilities). If you lie, it's your responsibility if you kill yourself.
> -How do you think walls should meet their duty of care, and/or your expectations?
As above.
I don't think a half arsed attempt to monitor/assess climbers in the signing in process does much good. The wall should simply ask the question and expect a truthful response and make it clear that your safety relies upon the truth of your statement and your subsequent actions.
The issue of the floorwalkers (aka belay police) is a rather different one. In my exeprience, it operates almost like random checks. I have no great objections as clearly some people do lie and are liabilities to themselves and even experienced climbers can become quite lax and a gentle reminder is perhaps no bad thing, if done in the right way.
In reply to staceyjg:
It does make you wonder about people's attitudes sometimes.
> I will say, that not all climbers with poor belayers have had this response, but a few that have made me think about the situation.
It does make you wonder about people's attitudes sometimes.
In reply to mmmhumous:
Well why didn't you just say that in the 1st place?
Josh and I have hacve just given near identical answers - but neither of us had been able to comprehend your point.
I agree that the system you describe above is not safe/sensible or whatever you want to call it and is clearly open to abuse and might even give the novice the impression it's ok to come back next time and jump in at the deep end. I think you've probably done the right thing raising it with the wall in question. However, this sounds like a very isolated incident and I'm not sure what the rest of your post was all about really.
> At the wall in question, the problem is the novice doesn't have to lie....
> They've said they're incompetent on the form, I've said I take responsibilty for them for the session, but they've already been given full membership (before I have even shown them how to tie in etc etc....).
>
> Given they already have a membership card, they could come back next day by themselves and sign in two guests.
> They've said they're incompetent on the form, I've said I take responsibilty for them for the session, but they've already been given full membership (before I have even shown them how to tie in etc etc....).
>
> Given they already have a membership card, they could come back next day by themselves and sign in two guests.
Well why didn't you just say that in the 1st place?
Josh and I have hacve just given near identical answers - but neither of us had been able to comprehend your point.
I agree that the system you describe above is not safe/sensible or whatever you want to call it and is clearly open to abuse and might even give the novice the impression it's ok to come back next time and jump in at the deep end. I think you've probably done the right thing raising it with the wall in question. However, this sounds like a very isolated incident and I'm not sure what the rest of your post was all about really.
In reply to Neil Williams:
>I don't at all like the US approach of saying you have to be able to climb a certain grade before starting leading
I was surprised to learn they do this, so I googled a couple of gyms. One required that anyone taking their leading course should be able to climb 5.9, which seems to translate to around HVS 5a, or 5+. So after nearly 40 years climbing, and having safely led hundreds of routes up to VS I am apparently too much of a bumbly for them.
>I don't at all like the US approach of saying you have to be able to climb a certain grade before starting leading
I was surprised to learn they do this, so I googled a couple of gyms. One required that anyone taking their leading course should be able to climb 5.9, which seems to translate to around HVS 5a, or 5+. So after nearly 40 years climbing, and having safely led hundreds of routes up to VS I am apparently too much of a bumbly for them.
In reply to staceyjg:
Ah, but you see it gets annoying when someone not really v experienced starts acting like some official belay police. I've seen this happen on numerous occasions over the years. I know we go to the same wall occationally and there was one staff member who I've seen (among other things) ticking people off for not using locking krabs on a tether. For heavens sake, be thankful people do think to use them if they feel they need them! Of course, many climbers of unequal weights quite rightly decide not to use a tether for one reason or another - but funnily I've never seem them corrected for not having done so....
However, if as you say someone is very clearly belaying incorrectly then that should be pointed out to them in as nice a way as possible. As you say, don't necessarily expect a good reaction though. Often it is just embarassment and ego which creates an angry reaction.
Ah, but you see it gets annoying when someone not really v experienced starts acting like some official belay police. I've seen this happen on numerous occasions over the years. I know we go to the same wall occationally and there was one staff member who I've seen (among other things) ticking people off for not using locking krabs on a tether. For heavens sake, be thankful people do think to use them if they feel they need them! Of course, many climbers of unequal weights quite rightly decide not to use a tether for one reason or another - but funnily I've never seem them corrected for not having done so....
However, if as you say someone is very clearly belaying incorrectly then that should be pointed out to them in as nice a way as possible. As you say, don't necessarily expect a good reaction though. Often it is just embarassment and ego which creates an angry reaction.
In reply to mmmhumous:
You don't currently know the full procedure at the wall, perhaps the floor walkers upgraded your membership after seeing you in action a few times, your incompetent members may well be prevented from taking in newbies, the wall may be a bit slack in it's procedures. I wouldn't join in some condemnation of wall practices on your stories alone, it doesn't add anything to the driving licence debate before nor provide useful evidence that every visitor/newbie should be assessed formally by the wall beyond competency questions.
You could easily question the wall (and so understand their procedures) while you're there but instead choose to formally email and pompously discuss their duty of care, their duty to address the issue and claim to be aiding them to avoid possible legal consequences, when all along you seem to be avoiding just taking part in a simple 30 second conversation with them.
Perhaps you feel it will be an awkward conversation and prefer to do it remotely, who knows, perhaps you prefer the pomposity or perhaps it's just a bit gutless, whatever, it just doesn't contribute anything in itself (beyond expressing your feeling that everyone should undergo assessment, which may be nice for you but doesn't do much for anyone else).
> (In reply to winhill)
> [You're familiar with the difference between the spoken and the written word? ]
> [You're familiar with the difference between the spoken and the written word? ]
> Not really, please explain it in as a pedantic and patronising way as possible please.
You don't currently know the full procedure at the wall, perhaps the floor walkers upgraded your membership after seeing you in action a few times, your incompetent members may well be prevented from taking in newbies, the wall may be a bit slack in it's procedures. I wouldn't join in some condemnation of wall practices on your stories alone, it doesn't add anything to the driving licence debate before nor provide useful evidence that every visitor/newbie should be assessed formally by the wall beyond competency questions.
You could easily question the wall (and so understand their procedures) while you're there but instead choose to formally email and pompously discuss their duty of care, their duty to address the issue and claim to be aiding them to avoid possible legal consequences, when all along you seem to be avoiding just taking part in a simple 30 second conversation with them.
Perhaps you feel it will be an awkward conversation and prefer to do it remotely, who knows, perhaps you prefer the pomposity or perhaps it's just a bit gutless, whatever, it just doesn't contribute anything in itself (beyond expressing your feeling that everyone should undergo assessment, which may be nice for you but doesn't do much for anyone else).
In reply to mmmhumous:
"Given they already have a membership card, they could come back next day by themselves and sign in two guests."
Do we know that this is the case, i.e. could their membership number lead to a record in a database saying they are not competent?
Big Rock (and presumably Beacon and Rochdale, as they use the same system) operate two levels of membership - bouldering only and full. So far as I know the membership cards (which I don't carry anyway as I know my number, it's a nice easy one as I joined on day one) both look the same. The computer tells the staff which you are when you sign in.
Neil
"Given they already have a membership card, they could come back next day by themselves and sign in two guests."
Do we know that this is the case, i.e. could their membership number lead to a record in a database saying they are not competent?
Big Rock (and presumably Beacon and Rochdale, as they use the same system) operate two levels of membership - bouldering only and full. So far as I know the membership cards (which I don't carry anyway as I know my number, it's a nice easy one as I joined on day one) both look the same. The computer tells the staff which you are when you sign in.
Neil
In reply to Howard J:
Quite. I learnt to lead when I couldn't do any better than a 4. I remember the sense of achievement when I lead the blue 4 on the back wall at Northampton, which at the time freaked me out even on top-rope because it involved stepping out into space rather than the vertical walls/slabs most climbs of that grade tend to be on.
I'm sure I recalled reading that at least one that specified 5.10, which I think equates to 6a. I can't lead every 6a now (it took me a very long time to break into 6a from 5+), but I think leading added another dimension to my climbing that made me enjoy it all the more while getting there.
In the US you also tend not to be able to teach people to lead yourself. Which is a shame, as I vastly preferred to learn from a friend than to do a course.
Neil
Quite. I learnt to lead when I couldn't do any better than a 4. I remember the sense of achievement when I lead the blue 4 on the back wall at Northampton, which at the time freaked me out even on top-rope because it involved stepping out into space rather than the vertical walls/slabs most climbs of that grade tend to be on.
I'm sure I recalled reading that at least one that specified 5.10, which I think equates to 6a. I can't lead every 6a now (it took me a very long time to break into 6a from 5+), but I think leading added another dimension to my climbing that made me enjoy it all the more while getting there.
In the US you also tend not to be able to teach people to lead yourself. Which is a shame, as I vastly preferred to learn from a friend than to do a course.
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
I signed in my wife without having been asked a question etc. (albeit a few years ago)but, none of my recent sign-ins where asked any questions by the wall staff.
>
> Do we know that this is the case, i.e. could their membership number lead to a record in a database saying they are not competent?
> Do we know that this is the case, i.e. could their membership number lead to a record in a database saying they are not competent?
I signed in my wife without having been asked a question etc. (albeit a few years ago)but, none of my recent sign-ins where asked any questions by the wall staff.
In reply to winhill:
If I happy to post on UKC about a subject, why would I feel awkward about disuccing it rationally with someone. I emailed them because it's the owners'/managers' call, and they weren't on the desk.
>
> Perhaps you feel it will be an awkward conversation and prefer to do it remotely, who knows, perhaps you prefer the pomposity or perhaps it's just a bit gutless, whatever, it just doesn't contribute anything in itself (beyond expressing your feeling that everyone should undergo assessment, which may be nice for you but doesn't do much for anyone else).
> Perhaps you feel it will be an awkward conversation and prefer to do it remotely, who knows, perhaps you prefer the pomposity or perhaps it's just a bit gutless, whatever, it just doesn't contribute anything in itself (beyond expressing your feeling that everyone should undergo assessment, which may be nice for you but doesn't do much for anyone else).
If I happy to post on UKC about a subject, why would I feel awkward about disuccing it rationally with someone. I emailed them because it's the owners'/managers' call, and they weren't on the desk.
In reply to mmmhumous:
When you sign someone in, it's implicit that they aren't competent, otherwise they would sign themselves in.
Neil
When you sign someone in, it's implicit that they aren't competent, otherwise they would sign themselves in.
Neil
In reply to JonC:
I agree, and I will continue to say something either to the people in question or to the wall staff.... at the end of the day, they might not might be dropped to their death/paralysis, but I DO mind bearing witness to it!!
> (In reply to staceyjg)
>
>
>
> However, if as you say someone is very clearly belaying incorrectly then that should be pointed out to them in as nice a way as possible. As you say, don't necessarily expect a good reaction though. Often it is just embarassment and ego which creates an angry reaction.
> However, if as you say someone is very clearly belaying incorrectly then that should be pointed out to them in as nice a way as possible. As you say, don't necessarily expect a good reaction though. Often it is just embarassment and ego which creates an angry reaction.
I agree, and I will continue to say something either to the people in question or to the wall staff.... at the end of the day, they might not might be dropped to their death/paralysis, but I DO mind bearing witness to it!!
In reply to mmmhumous:
I travel all around the UK for my work so get to visit many different walls and see different practices.
Most walls now, if I turn up as a potential new member, ask me to demonstrate how I tie on, how I belay with my belay device and, increasingly, will weight the rope so I can demonstrate how I hold a fall. This sometimes feels onerous but I think it is entirely justifiable. Once I have 'passed' this basic test I can then become a 'full' member and climb independently including with up to two novices. If climbing with novices they are signed in, I take responsibility but those novices are not allowed to belay others unless supervised by a 'full' member on the ground with them and the novices would have to pass their own 'skills test' before they can climb independently or supervise novices themselves.
Sometimes I have seen wall staff who have not been entirely satisfied with someone's skills ( for exampe belaying / holding a fall ) so they then accompany them to the actual wall and watch / assess them. Again, this seems reasonable to me.
Last week it was politely and appropriately pointed out by a wall staff member that my hand was a little slack whilst belaying a leader. I felt angry and annoyed wth myself and felt defensive initially but the staff member was right - I was just being a bit too casual. It is their wall and I have signed that I agree to follow their guidelines.
To assess whether a person is 'competent' to teach novices to use the wall is a whole different ball game. This would be the realm of national qualifications, training and assessment. Hence, as amateurs I suggest we only have to take 'responsibility' for the novice rather than prove we are 'competent' to teach the novice. There is nothing to stop us from gaining such training, experience and skills leading to a qualification if we wish, even if we didn't intend teaching novices in return for money.
Having said that, I have noticed at one wall I go to regularly when a full member brings a novice for the first couple of times the staff will discretely watch for a while and make their own judgement despite the full member already having signed that they take full responsibility for the novice. This seems reasonable to me, although I don't know what would happen if they decided the member wasn't competent to oversee a novice?
With regards to the 'competent' climber asking how to use their belay plate I think, if in that situation, I would have referred them straight to wall staff. IMHO they were not demonstrating an appropriate level of competence.Once again, as above they should have demonstrated to the wall staff that they were competent, not just ticked or signed a sheet to say they were competent. I feel I would owe a moral duty of care to the novice that person was teaching - and I don't want them landing on my head!?!
Climbing wall owners and staff want us to use their wall, have fun and keep oursleves and other users safe as far as practical. They take risks in allowing us to use their facility which they attempt to minimise whilst trying to maintain what for some is the essence of climbing; freedom of choice, independence, assessing and facing risk etc. Not all walls succeed as well as others and practice is evolving. As wall users we should be prepared to talk to and discuss any issues with wall owners and staff, as well as in public forums, in a constructive and appropriate way.
Don't know about you, but I'm off to the wall now!
I travel all around the UK for my work so get to visit many different walls and see different practices.
Most walls now, if I turn up as a potential new member, ask me to demonstrate how I tie on, how I belay with my belay device and, increasingly, will weight the rope so I can demonstrate how I hold a fall. This sometimes feels onerous but I think it is entirely justifiable. Once I have 'passed' this basic test I can then become a 'full' member and climb independently including with up to two novices. If climbing with novices they are signed in, I take responsibility but those novices are not allowed to belay others unless supervised by a 'full' member on the ground with them and the novices would have to pass their own 'skills test' before they can climb independently or supervise novices themselves.
Sometimes I have seen wall staff who have not been entirely satisfied with someone's skills ( for exampe belaying / holding a fall ) so they then accompany them to the actual wall and watch / assess them. Again, this seems reasonable to me.
Last week it was politely and appropriately pointed out by a wall staff member that my hand was a little slack whilst belaying a leader. I felt angry and annoyed wth myself and felt defensive initially but the staff member was right - I was just being a bit too casual. It is their wall and I have signed that I agree to follow their guidelines.
To assess whether a person is 'competent' to teach novices to use the wall is a whole different ball game. This would be the realm of national qualifications, training and assessment. Hence, as amateurs I suggest we only have to take 'responsibility' for the novice rather than prove we are 'competent' to teach the novice. There is nothing to stop us from gaining such training, experience and skills leading to a qualification if we wish, even if we didn't intend teaching novices in return for money.
Having said that, I have noticed at one wall I go to regularly when a full member brings a novice for the first couple of times the staff will discretely watch for a while and make their own judgement despite the full member already having signed that they take full responsibility for the novice. This seems reasonable to me, although I don't know what would happen if they decided the member wasn't competent to oversee a novice?
With regards to the 'competent' climber asking how to use their belay plate I think, if in that situation, I would have referred them straight to wall staff. IMHO they were not demonstrating an appropriate level of competence.Once again, as above they should have demonstrated to the wall staff that they were competent, not just ticked or signed a sheet to say they were competent. I feel I would owe a moral duty of care to the novice that person was teaching - and I don't want them landing on my head!?!
Climbing wall owners and staff want us to use their wall, have fun and keep oursleves and other users safe as far as practical. They take risks in allowing us to use their facility which they attempt to minimise whilst trying to maintain what for some is the essence of climbing; freedom of choice, independence, assessing and facing risk etc. Not all walls succeed as well as others and practice is evolving. As wall users we should be prepared to talk to and discuss any issues with wall owners and staff, as well as in public forums, in a constructive and appropriate way.
Don't know about you, but I'm off to the wall now!
In reply to Neil Williams:
The American wall I visited had minimum grades for leading because they required you to take a deliberate fall from above the draw before being allowed to lead, so they got you to climb something steepish where you wouldnt hit anything on the way down and sue them for ten squillion dollars, etc, etc. I agree, it is a shame.
The American wall I visited had minimum grades for leading because they required you to take a deliberate fall from above the draw before being allowed to lead, so they got you to climb something steepish where you wouldnt hit anything on the way down and sue them for ten squillion dollars, etc, etc. I agree, it is a shame.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...