This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
In early February I dislocated my ankle climbing at the Arch Bouldering gym at the biscuit factory. I fell from near the top of a slab route near the entrance to the gym, striking a volume feature on the way down and fracturing both my fibular and tibia. I'm now off work for 3 months.
Just a reminder that even gym climbing can be dangerous and not to assume that all gym routes have safe falls!
Just a reminder that even gym climbing can be dangerous and not to assume that all gym routes have safe falls!
16
5
8
In reply to hikingoz:
Best wishes. These volume features always strike me as stupid and dangerous for this very reason.
jcm
Best wishes. These volume features always strike me as stupid and dangerous for this very reason.
jcm
15
17
6
24
In reply to maybe_si:
Since the volumes were there and presumably visible it sounds like poor judgement to me.
Since the volumes were there and presumably visible it sounds like poor judgement to me.
41
10
In reply to hikingoz:
Indoor slabs always struck me as accidents waiting to happen. You fall off some tiny marginal holds on something tricky only to hit the jugs of some easier route on the way down.
Hope you heal up quick!
Indoor slabs always struck me as accidents waiting to happen. You fall off some tiny marginal holds on something tricky only to hit the jugs of some easier route on the way down.
Hope you heal up quick!
16
2
In reply to johnl:
Poor judgement comes into it, however bouldering centres in particular have a duty of care when it comes to setting. There are some things that you just shouldn't do in a commercial centre. Big volumes/enormous feature holds placed near the bottom of slabs/vertical walls are a big no no! Competition setting is a bit different due to the nature/ability of the competitors and also the fact that there is usually only one problem per panel, unfortunately a lot of setters try to emulate the comp problems that they see in the world cups etc. When this is done in a busy wall with many other problems set around the place, it's calling out for accidents.
Oh and just for the record, I think volumes are awesome, give setters a huge amount of freedom to create different moves and problems. They just need to be used with a bit more thought.
Poor judgement comes into it, however bouldering centres in particular have a duty of care when it comes to setting. There are some things that you just shouldn't do in a commercial centre. Big volumes/enormous feature holds placed near the bottom of slabs/vertical walls are a big no no! Competition setting is a bit different due to the nature/ability of the competitors and also the fact that there is usually only one problem per panel, unfortunately a lot of setters try to emulate the comp problems that they see in the world cups etc. When this is done in a busy wall with many other problems set around the place, it's calling out for accidents.
Oh and just for the record, I think volumes are awesome, give setters a huge amount of freedom to create different moves and problems. They just need to be used with a bit more thought.
Post edited at 08:54
20
3
In reply to hikingoz:
I'm always terrified by those awful, pointy, triangular volumes that are inevitably aimed at one's crotch. Bouldering is fun but I am not going to risk painful castration just to climb some plastic.
I'm always terrified by those awful, pointy, triangular volumes that are inevitably aimed at one's crotch. Bouldering is fun but I am not going to risk painful castration just to climb some plastic.
21
1
In reply to MeMeMe:
That's exactly what happened to me! Unfortunately foot caught in one of the jugs on the way down. Result was a year off from climbing while I recovered from reconstructive surgery on my cruciate ligament amongst the other damage I did while trying to dislocate my knee I can safely say... Those bones where not ment to move in that direction! Eugh!!
That's exactly what happened to me! Unfortunately foot caught in one of the jugs on the way down. Result was a year off from climbing while I recovered from reconstructive surgery on my cruciate ligament amongst the other damage I did while trying to dislocate my knee I can safely say... Those bones where not ment to move in that direction! Eugh!!
2
In reply to Xharlie:
I used to think that but now I've got two children, it'd probably just save me some money......
I used to think that but now I've got two children, it'd probably just save me some money......
7
In reply to Xharlie:
Maybe a cricket box is the answer.
> I'm always terrified by those awful, pointy, triangular volumes that are inevitably aimed at one's crotch. Bouldering is fun but I am not going to risk painful castration just to climb some plastic.
Maybe a cricket box is the answer.
4
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Must admit I'm often a bit concerned about smacking myself on big holds when falling off tricky slabby or vertical routes. I've bashed knees and elbows a few times, normally on the jugs of some f4 much to my frustration. Yet to have the full on slide down the panel and smashing my crotch or chin onto something yet as you normal come away form the wall, but it's still very possible.
It's often a problem of setting one route over the top of others. For example, one route setter sets a hard problem with small holds and all is well. Then the week later they re-set the easy circuit and chuck a load of jugs on without any regard for how it effects the moves on the existing problems. Sticking a large jug just below a small crimp for example. It's very annoying too when it would make no difference to the easy route if the hold was just moved slightly.
Must admit I'm often a bit concerned about smacking myself on big holds when falling off tricky slabby or vertical routes. I've bashed knees and elbows a few times, normally on the jugs of some f4 much to my frustration. Yet to have the full on slide down the panel and smashing my crotch or chin onto something yet as you normal come away form the wall, but it's still very possible.
It's often a problem of setting one route over the top of others. For example, one route setter sets a hard problem with small holds and all is well. Then the week later they re-set the easy circuit and chuck a load of jugs on without any regard for how it effects the moves on the existing problems. Sticking a large jug just below a small crimp for example. It's very annoying too when it would make no difference to the easy route if the hold was just moved slightly.
10
In reply to maybe_si:
Even ignoring any duty of care, indoor boulder problems where you stand a good chance of injuring yourself if you come off in the wrong place still aren't ideal. Most of the interest in indoor bouldering - for me at least - is in working the moves, trying different things and falling off a lot until you figure out what works. If falling off would send you smacking into a volume then that's not really going to happen.
This isn't just a slab thing, either - you sometimes get problems on steeper walls where the high crux involves an awkward body position that's going to be hard to fall safely from if you come off...
> Poor judgement comes into it, however bouldering centres in particular have a duty of care when it comes to setting.
Even ignoring any duty of care, indoor boulder problems where you stand a good chance of injuring yourself if you come off in the wrong place still aren't ideal. Most of the interest in indoor bouldering - for me at least - is in working the moves, trying different things and falling off a lot until you figure out what works. If falling off would send you smacking into a volume then that's not really going to happen.
This isn't just a slab thing, either - you sometimes get problems on steeper walls where the high crux involves an awkward body position that's going to be hard to fall safely from if you come off...
Post edited at 13:25
7
In reply to maybe_si:
Nobody is forcing anybody to climb anything. If you don't think you can do it, and you think falling off will hurt/cause damage, don't climb it. Or take the risk if you prefer, but if you get hurt it's your decision that got you hurt.
Nobody is forcing anybody to climb anything. If you don't think you can do it, and you think falling off will hurt/cause damage, don't climb it. Or take the risk if you prefer, but if you get hurt it's your decision that got you hurt.
Post edited at 14:24
14
8
In reply to Neil Williams:
Of course you are not being forced to climb, however this is where the duty of care comes in. Is it reasonable to predict that someone could fall off and smack themselves on a big volume that you chose to put there.... You have to remember that this is an indoor bouldering centre we are talking about, a busy one in central London where a large majority of customers are beginners and predominantly indoor climbers. You would never put a big wooden box on the floor below a boulder problem, so why put one near the bottom of the wall which is still in the landing zone.
Likewise putting high volume holds on the same slabby/vert panel as a bunch of thin techy problems. This is simply poor setting. It is easy enough to find decent juggy holds for an easy problem that are low volume (don't stick out much).
It won't be long before a successful law suit is filed against a bouldering centre regarding the above.
Of course you are not being forced to climb, however this is where the duty of care comes in. Is it reasonable to predict that someone could fall off and smack themselves on a big volume that you chose to put there.... You have to remember that this is an indoor bouldering centre we are talking about, a busy one in central London where a large majority of customers are beginners and predominantly indoor climbers. You would never put a big wooden box on the floor below a boulder problem, so why put one near the bottom of the wall which is still in the landing zone.
Likewise putting high volume holds on the same slabby/vert panel as a bunch of thin techy problems. This is simply poor setting. It is easy enough to find decent juggy holds for an easy problem that are low volume (don't stick out much).
It won't be long before a successful law suit is filed against a bouldering centre regarding the above.
11
6
In reply to maybe_si:
When you register you have to sign a thingy saying you've read this:
which is as it should be.
When you register you have to sign a thingy saying you've read this:
> THE SOFT FLOORING DOES NOT MAKE THE CLIMBING ANY SAFER! Broken and sprained limbs are common on this type of climbing wall despite the soft landing. Uncontrolled falls are likely to result in injuries to yourself or others. Climbing beyond your capabilities on any wall is likely to result in a fall. Any fall may result in an injury despite the safety systems in place to avoid it. You must make your own assessments of the risks whenever you climb.
which is as it should be.
15
1
In reply to climbwhenready:
Quite so.
I used to climb at The Arch - I still think their route setting was some of the best I've personally enjoyed, particularly because they didn't leave their circuits up for years and years. I know the slab the OP fell off, too. I often missed the routes on there when I wasn't feeling super solid.
Personally, I wonder how ski resort sit-lift operators get away with operating what has the be the single most dangerous mode of transport UP a mountain, ever, without making you sign a disclaimer like the one you posted. I don't think I've been on a skiing trip without bailing off a sit-lift at least once during the excursion - either because I ballsed up or someone else did, directly in front of me. Nevertheless, I accept the risk just like I accept the risk when I go bouldering.
Quite so.
I used to climb at The Arch - I still think their route setting was some of the best I've personally enjoyed, particularly because they didn't leave their circuits up for years and years. I know the slab the OP fell off, too. I often missed the routes on there when I wasn't feeling super solid.
Personally, I wonder how ski resort sit-lift operators get away with operating what has the be the single most dangerous mode of transport UP a mountain, ever, without making you sign a disclaimer like the one you posted. I don't think I've been on a skiing trip without bailing off a sit-lift at least once during the excursion - either because I ballsed up or someone else did, directly in front of me. Nevertheless, I accept the risk just like I accept the risk when I go bouldering.
2
In reply to Xharlie:
A disclaimer is pretty worthless in legal terms as the climber is acting Volenti Non Fit Injuria (ie. a willing person cannot be injured in law) and the wall has a duty of care irrespective; its more like a reminder or notification as so many wall users are ignorant of risk and law. Climbing is a dangerous activity and everyone needs to apply judgement but in the end the climber who chooses to undertake a risky activity normally has the main responsibility.
I would (and have) warned setters a combination of problems has unusual risk levels attached.
A few helpful links:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=306025
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/how-liable-are-you
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/coaching-instructing-and-the-law
A disclaimer is pretty worthless in legal terms as the climber is acting Volenti Non Fit Injuria (ie. a willing person cannot be injured in law) and the wall has a duty of care irrespective; its more like a reminder or notification as so many wall users are ignorant of risk and law. Climbing is a dangerous activity and everyone needs to apply judgement but in the end the climber who chooses to undertake a risky activity normally has the main responsibility.
I would (and have) warned setters a combination of problems has unusual risk levels attached.
A few helpful links:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=306025
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/how-liable-are-you
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/coaching-instructing-and-the-law
7
In reply to maybe_si:
But the risk is absolutely obvious even to the layman, and one cannot accidentally find themselves injured by the risk - it requires a positive decision to climb that problem. Therefore I don't see why the individual's duty of care should not preside.
If you don't like a wall's setting, go to another one, and tell them why they have lost their custom. If enough people do, it'll soon change. They are by and large small businesses to which that kind of thing matter, and if it doesn't they'll find they don't stay in business long.
I do hope not; it would cripple the ability of indoor walls to set interesting problems/routes as they would forever be worried about being sued, and insurance costs and therefore admission fees would rocket.
> Of course you are not being forced to climb, however this is where the duty of care comes in. Is it reasonable to predict that someone could fall off and smack themselves on a big volume that you chose to put there.... You have to remember that this is an indoor bouldering centre we are talking about, a busy one in central London where a large majority of customers are beginners and predominantly indoor climbers. You would never put a big wooden box on the floor below a boulder problem, so why put one near the bottom of the wall which is still in the landing zone.
But the risk is absolutely obvious even to the layman, and one cannot accidentally find themselves injured by the risk - it requires a positive decision to climb that problem. Therefore I don't see why the individual's duty of care should not preside.
> Likewise putting high volume holds on the same slabby/vert panel as a bunch of thin techy problems. This is simply poor setting. It is easy enough to find decent juggy holds for an easy problem that are low volume (don't stick out much).
If you don't like a wall's setting, go to another one, and tell them why they have lost their custom. If enough people do, it'll soon change. They are by and large small businesses to which that kind of thing matter, and if it doesn't they'll find they don't stay in business long.
> It won't be long before a successful law suit is filed against a bouldering centre regarding the above.
I do hope not; it would cripple the ability of indoor walls to set interesting problems/routes as they would forever be worried about being sued, and insurance costs and therefore admission fees would rocket.
Post edited at 16:12
6
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
If a wall was repeated warned about an unusual hazzard, did nothing and an accident subsequently occurred I'm not so sure you are right. The case in the UKC thread I linked was originally judged partly the wall's liability. Duty of Care always remains an issue.
If a wall was repeated warned about an unusual hazzard, did nothing and an accident subsequently occurred I'm not so sure you are right. The case in the UKC thread I linked was originally judged partly the wall's liability. Duty of Care always remains an issue.
6
In reply to hikingoz:
Most of falling on slabs is to do with technique. Whether bouldering or leading when I climb slabs indoors I always make sure to push away from the wall as best I can when I begin to fall. It sounds obvious but the number of people I see that just slip down the slab just goes to show that not many people to do it.
I do think that having huge jugs or volume features in the lower half of a bouldering slab isn't the best idea though. I think it's 50/50 routesetting and the climber taking note of hazards like that and deciding if they want to 'go for it'
Most of falling on slabs is to do with technique. Whether bouldering or leading when I climb slabs indoors I always make sure to push away from the wall as best I can when I begin to fall. It sounds obvious but the number of people I see that just slip down the slab just goes to show that not many people to do it.
I do think that having huge jugs or volume features in the lower half of a bouldering slab isn't the best idea though. I think it's 50/50 routesetting and the climber taking note of hazards like that and deciding if they want to 'go for it'
1
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
There are plenty of outdoor boulders with an element of danger. This was in an indoor gym, and I would presume most people don't top out routes on the first shot.
There are plenty of outdoor boulders with an element of danger. This was in an indoor gym, and I would presume most people don't top out routes on the first shot.
Post edited at 20:52
1
In reply to hikingoz:
Indeed not, but before starting something I have a look at it. I have on a number of occasions decided not to try a particular move because I didn't like the potential fall.
I would not like to see a loss of slabby problems/routes at artificial walls because of a misguided legal case by someone who didn't look at a climb and assess personal risk (and decide on what level of risk they would accept on that occasion) before deciding to climb it. Admittedly this is personal preference as I'm hopeless at overhangs, but still, walls need to have something for everyone.
Your reminder is very welcome, of course - bouldering results in far more injuries than roped indoor climbing, albeit mostly minor ones, despite the soft mats giving the impression of it being safe. And I hope you recover soon.
Indeed not, but before starting something I have a look at it. I have on a number of occasions decided not to try a particular move because I didn't like the potential fall.
I would not like to see a loss of slabby problems/routes at artificial walls because of a misguided legal case by someone who didn't look at a climb and assess personal risk (and decide on what level of risk they would accept on that occasion) before deciding to climb it. Admittedly this is personal preference as I'm hopeless at overhangs, but still, walls need to have something for everyone.
Your reminder is very welcome, of course - bouldering results in far more injuries than roped indoor climbing, albeit mostly minor ones, despite the soft mats giving the impression of it being safe. And I hope you recover soon.
Post edited at 23:27
5
1
In reply to hikingoz:
I take zero risk with these indoors, any remote danger and I have no interest
Totally stupid and pointless setting is my opinion
I take zero risk with these indoors, any remote danger and I have no interest
Totally stupid and pointless setting is my opinion
2
3
In reply to ashtond6:
Which is a valid opinion, but if you think that, don't climb the problem, and if you wish complain to the wall about it.
If you do climb the problem, you choose to take a risk that is obvious even to a layman.
> Totally stupid and pointless setting is my opinion
Which is a valid opinion, but if you think that, don't climb the problem, and if you wish complain to the wall about it.
If you do climb the problem, you choose to take a risk that is obvious even to a layman.
Post edited at 23:29
4
2
In reply to Neil Williams:
I think the problem is that especially to a layman that risk is not very obvious. And since climbing gyms largely depend on beginner climbers I think it is very wise not to set any potentially dangerous problems.
I think the problem is that especially to a layman that risk is not very obvious. And since climbing gyms largely depend on beginner climbers I think it is very wise not to set any potentially dangerous problems.
4
4
In reply to maybe_si:
Speaking as someone who's also been injured falling down a slab in very much the sort of way being discussed here (foot popped on a techy problem, skidded down the wall, smashed the arch of my foot on another hold on the way down and got a delightful break/dislocation thing called a Lisfranc injury, commiserations and fistbumps of solidarity to my fellow injurees on this thread) --
I think it's far from "easy enough" to make those risks disappear in the manner you assume, at least not without removing a wide range of creative possibilities from route-setting.
Which I for one would miss (as if the user-name wasn't enough of a giveaway ...).
For reference, the hold that meant I couldn't climb (or walk without crutches) for months was rather small -- certainly not a jug. And even a small hold that catches someone's foot can tip them backwards and make a fall unpleasant at least.
And in this case, based on my memory of recent slab sets at the Arch, the issue isn't finding big juggy holds for easy problems, it's volumes used so that harder problems with sketchy smearing on them can be set.
Unless you're going to say that a slab should only have a very few well-spaced problems with no other holds underneath them at any point (which would make slabs a very unproductive use of space for most wall managers), I think the risk of skidding down the slab and hitting other things on the way down is always going to be there to some degree.
And if you're going to use volumes at all in a problem, unless it's pretty much the last hold or the problem travels diagonally, you're going to have the risk of falling from above the volume and hitting the volume on the way down.
And some of us are going to take the risk and get unlucky.
If someone put a big wooden box on the floor below a boulder problem, then I imagine that it'd be fairly obvious even to newbies that, if you climb directly above the big wooden box, you run the risk of falling onto the big wooden box.
Yeah, I've absolutely seen route-setting which has struck me as stupid or annoying in terms of how problems interact, or as making something pointlessly risky.
But saying that it's the wall's responsibility not to set things in such a way that you might conceivably hit something if you fall off on a slab -- I think I would find that saddening in terms of the interesting indoor problems it would eliminate, and I also think it would set a dangerous precedent in terms of the responsibility it imposes on the wall managers and route-setters (should they also be obliged to avoid any overhanging problems where you might swing off and land at an odd angle, or any problems with heel-hooks because you might land on your back, or any with low cruxes because you might hit the mat before getting your feet under you evenly and roll an ankle, or any of the other possibilities?).
It's good to have the reminder that indoor falls can be dangerous in a variety of ways, and that bouldering walls aren't actually bouncy castles just because they look like it. Hopefully hikingoz's post will be a useful reminder for people who may need to hear it.
But I don't think the answer is to put the onus on route-setters to eliminate risk altogether (not least because that's not remotely possible). And if you establish as a principle that it's their responsibility to do that, it would seem to make them more liable to be sued, not less.
Speaking as someone who's also been injured falling down a slab in very much the sort of way being discussed here (foot popped on a techy problem, skidded down the wall, smashed the arch of my foot on another hold on the way down and got a delightful break/dislocation thing called a Lisfranc injury, commiserations and fistbumps of solidarity to my fellow injurees on this thread) --
I think it's far from "easy enough" to make those risks disappear in the manner you assume, at least not without removing a wide range of creative possibilities from route-setting.
Which I for one would miss (as if the user-name wasn't enough of a giveaway ...).
> It is easy enough to find decent juggy holds for an easy problem that are low volume (don't stick out much).
For reference, the hold that meant I couldn't climb (or walk without crutches) for months was rather small -- certainly not a jug. And even a small hold that catches someone's foot can tip them backwards and make a fall unpleasant at least.
And in this case, based on my memory of recent slab sets at the Arch, the issue isn't finding big juggy holds for easy problems, it's volumes used so that harder problems with sketchy smearing on them can be set.
Unless you're going to say that a slab should only have a very few well-spaced problems with no other holds underneath them at any point (which would make slabs a very unproductive use of space for most wall managers), I think the risk of skidding down the slab and hitting other things on the way down is always going to be there to some degree.
And if you're going to use volumes at all in a problem, unless it's pretty much the last hold or the problem travels diagonally, you're going to have the risk of falling from above the volume and hitting the volume on the way down.
And some of us are going to take the risk and get unlucky.
> You would never put a big wooden box on the floor below a boulder problem, so why put one near the bottom of the wall which is still in the landing zone.
If someone put a big wooden box on the floor below a boulder problem, then I imagine that it'd be fairly obvious even to newbies that, if you climb directly above the big wooden box, you run the risk of falling onto the big wooden box.
Yeah, I've absolutely seen route-setting which has struck me as stupid or annoying in terms of how problems interact, or as making something pointlessly risky.
But saying that it's the wall's responsibility not to set things in such a way that you might conceivably hit something if you fall off on a slab -- I think I would find that saddening in terms of the interesting indoor problems it would eliminate, and I also think it would set a dangerous precedent in terms of the responsibility it imposes on the wall managers and route-setters (should they also be obliged to avoid any overhanging problems where you might swing off and land at an odd angle, or any problems with heel-hooks because you might land on your back, or any with low cruxes because you might hit the mat before getting your feet under you evenly and roll an ankle, or any of the other possibilities?).
It's good to have the reminder that indoor falls can be dangerous in a variety of ways, and that bouldering walls aren't actually bouncy castles just because they look like it. Hopefully hikingoz's post will be a useful reminder for people who may need to hear it.
But I don't think the answer is to put the onus on route-setters to eliminate risk altogether (not least because that's not remotely possible). And if you establish as a principle that it's their responsibility to do that, it would seem to make them more liable to be sued, not less.
21
In reply to jsmcfarland:
That's the ideal, but if your foot "pops" suddenly and unexpectedly on a small/dubious hold (as holds on slabs often are), you may be skidding down the slab before you have a chance to do anything about it.
I agree that the onus is on the climber to consider the risks and decide whether they want to go for a particular move. But being aware that some kinds of falls can be harder to control than others is part of that process.
> Whether bouldering or leading when I climb slabs indoors I always make sure to push away from the wall as best I can when I begin to fall.
That's the ideal, but if your foot "pops" suddenly and unexpectedly on a small/dubious hold (as holds on slabs often are), you may be skidding down the slab before you have a chance to do anything about it.
I agree that the onus is on the climber to consider the risks and decide whether they want to go for a particular move. But being aware that some kinds of falls can be harder to control than others is part of that process.
7
In reply to douwe:
It is pretty obvious that if you fall onto something hard it will hurt. And walls are not shy of pointing out the risks of bouldering.
Near enough all slabby problems are potentially dangerous to some extent. If you suggest removing all slabs from bouldering areas, I can't agree.
It is pretty obvious that if you fall onto something hard it will hurt. And walls are not shy of pointing out the risks of bouldering.
Near enough all slabby problems are potentially dangerous to some extent. If you suggest removing all slabs from bouldering areas, I can't agree.
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
Ofcourse I'm not suggesting removing all slabs from bouldering areas, don't be absurd.
I'm just saying that good setting can make the difference between ' potentially dangerous to some extent' which I agree is acceptable, and 'if you slip on that crux move you will probably hit that huge hold on your way down' or 'that heel-toe cam will surely send you flying upside down from high up on the overhang if you screw up'.
Ofcourse I'm not suggesting removing all slabs from bouldering areas, don't be absurd.
I'm just saying that good setting can make the difference between ' potentially dangerous to some extent' which I agree is acceptable, and 'if you slip on that crux move you will probably hit that huge hold on your way down' or 'that heel-toe cam will surely send you flying upside down from high up on the overhang if you screw up'.
3
In reply to hikingoz:
I think people can often 'feel' safer on slabs when the reality is quite the opposite. Slabs in bouldering areas offer a means to practice balance and footwork as well as implausible looking routes! I think there can be a tendency to have some larger holds nearer the bottom for balance based moves many people would not engage with higher on the wall.
Ultimately I think it needs to rest with the actual climber or it'll get silly and we'll lose much more than can be gained but perhaps staff floor walking or inducting and when we when any of us start off our own friends, maybe we need to stress the issues in regard to slabs.
Awareness of what's beneath matters so much, whether it avoids getting nadged on a pointy or squishing some irresponsible adult's offspring.
My worst slab fall was after a hair raising but successful problem. Descending I was exhilarated and relieved, bimbling down on jugs without a care - missed my footing and was at a lazy odd angle, I clouted everything on the very clattery way down but got lucky. Once I dug my ego out the matting I was good to go!
I think people can often 'feel' safer on slabs when the reality is quite the opposite. Slabs in bouldering areas offer a means to practice balance and footwork as well as implausible looking routes! I think there can be a tendency to have some larger holds nearer the bottom for balance based moves many people would not engage with higher on the wall.
Ultimately I think it needs to rest with the actual climber or it'll get silly and we'll lose much more than can be gained but perhaps staff floor walking or inducting and when we when any of us start off our own friends, maybe we need to stress the issues in regard to slabs.
Awareness of what's beneath matters so much, whether it avoids getting nadged on a pointy or squishing some irresponsible adult's offspring.
My worst slab fall was after a hair raising but successful problem. Descending I was exhilarated and relieved, bimbling down on jugs without a care - missed my footing and was at a lazy odd angle, I clouted everything on the very clattery way down but got lucky. Once I dug my ego out the matting I was good to go!
2
In reply to maybe_si:
I really hope that we won't see this. We'll all be poorer off if any climber is ever greedy and selfish enough to sue over something as silly as this ;(
> It won't be long before a successful law suit is filed against a bouldering centre regarding the above.
I really hope that we won't see this. We'll all be poorer off if any climber is ever greedy and selfish enough to sue over something as silly as this ;(
5
In reply to douwe:
How dim does a climber have to be in order to fail to appreciate that they are likely to hit things that are beneath them if they fall!
> I think the problem is that especially to a layman that risk is not very obvious. And since climbing gyms largely depend on beginner climbers I think it is very wise not to set any potentially dangerous problems.
How dim does a climber have to be in order to fail to appreciate that they are likely to hit things that are beneath them if they fall!
4
2
In reply to timjones:
I don't think reality is that simplistic.
Many harder boulder problems offer ways of falling off you would not have imagined.
And especially newcomers should be protected against their own shortcomings in spatial insight in my opinion.
I don't think reality is that simplistic.
Many harder boulder problems offer ways of falling off you would not have imagined.
And especially newcomers should be protected against their own shortcomings in spatial insight in my opinion.
Post edited at 13:04
1
2
In reply to douwe:
That is why you need to remain aware of the hazards as you climb. Risk awareness is a large part of climbing.
I hope that those struggle to keep track of the location of a large, stationary, brightly coloured climbing hold never attempt anything as complex as driving on a busy road
> I don't think reality is that simplistic.
> Many harder boulder problems offer ways of falling off you would not have imagined.
> And especially newcomers should be protected against their own shortcomings in spatial insight in my opinion.
That is why you need to remain aware of the hazards as you climb. Risk awareness is a large part of climbing.
I hope that those struggle to keep track of the location of a large, stationary, brightly coloured climbing hold never attempt anything as complex as driving on a busy road
3
1
In reply to douwe:
If an object is below where you are climbing, you could fall and hit it. It really is as simple as that.
If someone can't handle that basic concept, they need more instruction before they climb alone. They will otherwise be the muppets who go wandering under people at bouldering walls.
> I don't think reality is that simplistic.
>> Many harder boulder problems offer ways of falling off you would not have imagined.
If an object is below where you are climbing, you could fall and hit it. It really is as simple as that.
> And especially newcomers should be protected against their own shortcomings in spatial insight in my opinion.
If someone can't handle that basic concept, they need more instruction before they climb alone. They will otherwise be the muppets who go wandering under people at bouldering walls.
1
1
In reply to douwe:
It should be the responsibility of the wall to point out these risks when the climber joins the wall, or at least make sure that the climber has enough experience to understand these risks themselves. Most walls have an induction for new climbers, there's no reason the risks of hitting holds on the way down is not explained to them, for all I know it already is.
After that it should be both the responsibility of the climber to judge risks for themselves, and of the wall to take some care in setting problems so they are not needlessly or recklessly dangerous. I'm sure all good setters already take into account safety when setting problems.
It should be the responsibility of the wall to point out these risks when the climber joins the wall, or at least make sure that the climber has enough experience to understand these risks themselves. Most walls have an induction for new climbers, there's no reason the risks of hitting holds on the way down is not explained to them, for all I know it already is.
After that it should be both the responsibility of the climber to judge risks for themselves, and of the wall to take some care in setting problems so they are not needlessly or recklessly dangerous. I'm sure all good setters already take into account safety when setting problems.
2
1
1
In reply to douwe:
That assumes that it's possible to set indoor bouldering problems which don't have any potential danger ...
I definitely agree that it's a problem if new indoor boulderers (or experienced indoor boulderers who've got blase about it all) get the impression that everything's 100% safe and you can just throw yourself at anything and expect to bounce, without ever having to think "what might happen if I fall off here/in this position?"
And there are clearly plenty of people who do end up with that impression, disclaimers notwithstanding.
(In some ways, I think the disclaimers that run along the lines of "THE MATS DO NOTHING" don't help, because as soon as people realize that the mats *do* make a difference, some of them assume it's just legal-ese and that it's actually all safe.)
But I feel the the solution should be making people more aware of the actual risks, rather than going "well, some of them behave as if there are no possible risks, therefore we should try to make that the case."
I've absolutely seen things (like, say, a big juggy hold a short distance underneath a tiny crappy foothold which feet are very liable to pop off) which make me shake my head and sometimes choose not to do that problem. It's not that there can't be stuff which is just (IMHO) stupid setting.
But I don't feel that (for example) having volumes on slabs is inherently bad setting just because it creates a certain risk.
(I also think it's perfectly reasonable if someone looks at a slab full of volumes and decides that for them, the risk isn't worth it.)
> I think it is very wise not to set any potentially dangerous problems.
That assumes that it's possible to set indoor bouldering problems which don't have any potential danger ...
I definitely agree that it's a problem if new indoor boulderers (or experienced indoor boulderers who've got blase about it all) get the impression that everything's 100% safe and you can just throw yourself at anything and expect to bounce, without ever having to think "what might happen if I fall off here/in this position?"
And there are clearly plenty of people who do end up with that impression, disclaimers notwithstanding.
(In some ways, I think the disclaimers that run along the lines of "THE MATS DO NOTHING" don't help, because as soon as people realize that the mats *do* make a difference, some of them assume it's just legal-ese and that it's actually all safe.)
But I feel the the solution should be making people more aware of the actual risks, rather than going "well, some of them behave as if there are no possible risks, therefore we should try to make that the case."
I've absolutely seen things (like, say, a big juggy hold a short distance underneath a tiny crappy foothold which feet are very liable to pop off) which make me shake my head and sometimes choose not to do that problem. It's not that there can't be stuff which is just (IMHO) stupid setting.
But I don't feel that (for example) having volumes on slabs is inherently bad setting just because it creates a certain risk.
(I also think it's perfectly reasonable if someone looks at a slab full of volumes and decides that for them, the risk isn't worth it.)
1
In reply to MeMeMe:
That's what I think. I don't encounter dangerous setting in the gym's I frequent, and I think it's not that hard to avoid setting dangerously either.
> I'm sure all good setters already take into account safety when setting problems.
That's what I think. I don't encounter dangerous setting in the gym's I frequent, and I think it's not that hard to avoid setting dangerously either.
Post edited at 13:40
In reply to Neil Williams:
I see what you mean but there are also problems where you won't hit anything falling off yet there is a good chance of you hurting yourself because you'll land awkwardly. Some of these are obvious, like a high heel hook where you'll land on your head/neck, but something it can be something steep where when you fall off it's not easy to orientate yourself for a safe landing and that's not obvious until you actually come off.
It's not so useful for slabs but for these steeper problems good spotters are really important and really reduce the risk considerably.
> If an object is below where you are climbing, you could fall and hit it. It really is as simple as that.
I see what you mean but there are also problems where you won't hit anything falling off yet there is a good chance of you hurting yourself because you'll land awkwardly. Some of these are obvious, like a high heel hook where you'll land on your head/neck, but something it can be something steep where when you fall off it's not easy to orientate yourself for a safe landing and that's not obvious until you actually come off.
It's not so useful for slabs but for these steeper problems good spotters are really important and really reduce the risk considerably.
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
No it's not. Toe hooks or dynamic moves to bad holds can make it hard to judge where one would land. Also some problems can be hard to read from the start, thus difficult to assess risky moves.
> If an object is below where you are climbing, you could fall and hit it. It really is as simple as that.
No it's not. Toe hooks or dynamic moves to bad holds can make it hard to judge where one would land. Also some problems can be hard to read from the start, thus difficult to assess risky moves.
In reply to douwe:
I don't think reality is that simplistic in a different way: when people turn to ambulance chasers in search of some compo after genuinely having hurt themselves (as opposed to pretend whiplash and the like), it is probably unfair to attribute that merely to selfishness and greed. A serious injury can leave a person in pretty desperate financial straits.
However, an attempt to sue a bouldering wall having hurt yourself falling off a boulder problem is extremely unlikely to succeed regardless how the problem was set, and rightly so.
Not in my experience. Climbing trees, playing outside and generally dicking about during a fairly normal childhood more than adequately prepared me, as a novice adult climber, to anticipate the various ways falling off was likely to hurt.
Particularly regarding slabby boulder problems, the idea that if you fall off while climbing unroped you will hit the ground (and furthermore that if you are above something you are likely to hit that thing) really doesn't require a lot of insight, even from a very new climber. Especially one who's just been through an induction at a bouldering wall where the risks associated with uncontrolled falling should have been pointed out quite emphatically.
I'm occasionally irritated by thoughtless setting, for example when an existing problem is made more awkward or dangerous by the addition of a new one. But having decided to try to climb a problem, just like in real life, the choice to accept the risk was mine and mine alone.
> I don't think reality is that simplistic.
I don't think reality is that simplistic in a different way: when people turn to ambulance chasers in search of some compo after genuinely having hurt themselves (as opposed to pretend whiplash and the like), it is probably unfair to attribute that merely to selfishness and greed. A serious injury can leave a person in pretty desperate financial straits.
However, an attempt to sue a bouldering wall having hurt yourself falling off a boulder problem is extremely unlikely to succeed regardless how the problem was set, and rightly so.
> Many harder boulder problems offer ways of falling off you would not have imagined.
Not in my experience. Climbing trees, playing outside and generally dicking about during a fairly normal childhood more than adequately prepared me, as a novice adult climber, to anticipate the various ways falling off was likely to hurt.
Particularly regarding slabby boulder problems, the idea that if you fall off while climbing unroped you will hit the ground (and furthermore that if you are above something you are likely to hit that thing) really doesn't require a lot of insight, even from a very new climber. Especially one who's just been through an induction at a bouldering wall where the risks associated with uncontrolled falling should have been pointed out quite emphatically.
I'm occasionally irritated by thoughtless setting, for example when an existing problem is made more awkward or dangerous by the addition of a new one. But having decided to try to climb a problem, just like in real life, the choice to accept the risk was mine and mine alone.
1
In reply to douwe:
Then you take a wider view of what might pose a risk. But which beginners are doing "toe hooks or dynamic moves"? Not many of them.
> No it's not. Toe hooks or dynamic moves to bad holds can make it hard to judge where one would land. Also some problems can be hard to read from the start, thus difficult to assess risky moves.
Then you take a wider view of what might pose a risk. But which beginners are doing "toe hooks or dynamic moves"? Not many of them.
In reply to Neil Williams:
Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's more like "if you lose your grip at exactly this moment in the move, you'll swing off at a weird angle and bounce off that object to the side", for example.
I'd far rather see promotion of better risk awareness than people trying to make all indoor problems safe. But I don't think it helps to treat it as if it was just "duh, don't be stupid".
> If an object is below where you are climbing, you could fall and hit it. It really is as simple as that.
Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's more like "if you lose your grip at exactly this moment in the move, you'll swing off at a weird angle and bounce off that object to the side", for example.
I'd far rather see promotion of better risk awareness than people trying to make all indoor problems safe. But I don't think it helps to treat it as if it was just "duh, don't be stupid".
6
In reply to douwe:
On an indoor bouldering wall you are never irreversibly committed to the move. No need to see it from the start, if it feels dodgy when you're about to do it that is soon enough to downclimb or jump off. I regularly chicken out of a dodgy feeling move that I might be physically able to do and so, to a greater or lesser extent, does everyone I climb with.
> Also some problems can be hard to read from the start, thus difficult to assess risky moves.
On an indoor bouldering wall you are never irreversibly committed to the move. No need to see it from the start, if it feels dodgy when you're about to do it that is soon enough to downclimb or jump off. I regularly chicken out of a dodgy feeling move that I might be physically able to do and so, to a greater or lesser extent, does everyone I climb with.
In reply to douwe:
Setter can avoid anything really unnecessarily risky (tenuous slabs with drop onto big volumes say), but there's always going to be some risk, it's part of the game (and life).
Also there's a whole range of variables that make up the risk, it's not just the setting, probably the largest influence is the climber themselves, their judgement, skill and experience.
It might be appropriate to have more difficult problems which are more 'risky' because the climbers on them are better able to both judge that risk and mitigate it. Again that doesn't mean the setting should be needlessly reckless but setters might put in moves that would be inappropriately risky for beginners (but that's okay because beginners won't be able to get to that move).
> That's what I think. I don't encounter dangerous setting in the gym's I frequent, and I think it's not that hard to avoid setting dangerously either.
Setter can avoid anything really unnecessarily risky (tenuous slabs with drop onto big volumes say), but there's always going to be some risk, it's part of the game (and life).
Also there's a whole range of variables that make up the risk, it's not just the setting, probably the largest influence is the climber themselves, their judgement, skill and experience.
It might be appropriate to have more difficult problems which are more 'risky' because the climbers on them are better able to both judge that risk and mitigate it. Again that doesn't mean the setting should be needlessly reckless but setters might put in moves that would be inappropriately risky for beginners (but that's okay because beginners won't be able to get to that move).
1
In reply to douwe:
But what's "dangerous setting"? Is having volumes on a slab "dangerous setting"? Is any problem someone could hurt themselves on "dangerous setting"?
When I'd been bouldering for a few months, I sprained my ankle because I jumped off from an awkward position with one foot high up (because I'd got too pumped to down-climb into a better position and panicked).
Was that "dangerous setting" just because I managed to hurt myself on it?
I think there are a lot of factors that can contribute to risk on an indoor bouldering problem, and it's *never* going to be 100% safe; freak accidents can and do happen. Different people are going to have different perceptions of what's an acceptable risk for them personally.
So I don't think you can draw some sort of objective line and say "this is dangerous setting" and "that is safe setting".
But what's "dangerous setting"? Is having volumes on a slab "dangerous setting"? Is any problem someone could hurt themselves on "dangerous setting"?
When I'd been bouldering for a few months, I sprained my ankle because I jumped off from an awkward position with one foot high up (because I'd got too pumped to down-climb into a better position and panicked).
Was that "dangerous setting" just because I managed to hurt myself on it?
I think there are a lot of factors that can contribute to risk on an indoor bouldering problem, and it's *never* going to be 100% safe; freak accidents can and do happen. Different people are going to have different perceptions of what's an acceptable risk for them personally.
So I don't think you can draw some sort of objective line and say "this is dangerous setting" and "that is safe setting".
2
In reply to deepsoup:
I agree but that doesn't mean setters shouldn't take into account safety when setting problems for other reasons, not least that's it's not so nice when somebody falls off your problem and breaks their ankle.
Surely there must be some setters reading? Do you take into account safety when setting?
Well I've fallen off loads of times unexpectedly or landed unexpected awkwardly many times over the years and I don't think my experience is unique (I don't mean to sound like I am always falling off awkwardly I'm really not but it does happen!).
> I don't think reality is that simplistic in a different way: when people turn to ambulance chasers in search of some compo after genuinely having hurt themselves (as opposed to pretend whiplash and the like), it is probably unfair to attribute that merely to selfishness and greed. A serious injury can leave a person in pretty desperate financial straits.
> However, an attempt to sue a bouldering wall having hurt yourself falling off a boulder problem is extremely unlikely to succeed regardless how the problem was set, and rightly so.
> However, an attempt to sue a bouldering wall having hurt yourself falling off a boulder problem is extremely unlikely to succeed regardless how the problem was set, and rightly so.
I agree but that doesn't mean setters shouldn't take into account safety when setting problems for other reasons, not least that's it's not so nice when somebody falls off your problem and breaks their ankle.
Surely there must be some setters reading? Do you take into account safety when setting?
> Not in my experience. Climbing trees, playing outside and generally dicking about during a fairly normal childhood more than adequately prepared me, as a novice adult climber, to anticipate the various ways falling off was likely to hurt.
Well I've fallen off loads of times unexpectedly or landed unexpected awkwardly many times over the years and I don't think my experience is unique (I don't mean to sound like I am always falling off awkwardly I'm really not but it does happen!).
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
I never implied that beginners would use toe hooks. I said that hard boulder problems sometimes offer ways of falling off you would not have imagined. Which can be the case when toe hooking or making a dynamic move even on a slab.
I never implied that beginners would use toe hooks. I said that hard boulder problems sometimes offer ways of falling off you would not have imagined. Which can be the case when toe hooking or making a dynamic move even on a slab.
In reply to slab_happy:
No. Anybody could hurt themselves on any problem ofcourse.
To me unnecessary dangerous setting would be a heel toe cam high on an overhanging problem. Or setting jugs underneath a hard sequence with marginal feet. Dyno with a bad landing if you don't stick it.
> But what's "dangerous setting"? Is having volumes on a slab "dangerous setting"? Is any problem someone could hurt themselves on "dangerous setting"?
No. Anybody could hurt themselves on any problem ofcourse.
To me unnecessary dangerous setting would be a heel toe cam high on an overhanging problem. Or setting jugs underneath a hard sequence with marginal feet. Dyno with a bad landing if you don't stick it.
In reply to MeMeMe:
Me too. Well, maybe not *loads* of times, but often enough!
Of course falling awkwardly is always a possibility, if you spend any time hanging around bouldering walls injuries are common enough that you can't help noticing that. A proper induction for a novice at a bouldering wall involves emphasising pretty strongly that falling off is *never* safe.
I'm not suggesting you should be able to predict the unpredictable, just to broadly appreciate the risks you're taking and how some moves might carry a bigger risk of an awkward landing than others.
> Well I've fallen off loads of times unexpectedly or landed unexpected awkwardly many times over the years and I don't think my experience is unique (I don't mean to sound like I am always falling off awkwardly I'm really not but it does happen!).
Me too. Well, maybe not *loads* of times, but often enough!
Of course falling awkwardly is always a possibility, if you spend any time hanging around bouldering walls injuries are common enough that you can't help noticing that. A proper induction for a novice at a bouldering wall involves emphasising pretty strongly that falling off is *never* safe.
I'm not suggesting you should be able to predict the unpredictable, just to broadly appreciate the risks you're taking and how some moves might carry a bigger risk of an awkward landing than others.
In reply to douwe:
All good examples, I agree.
But this doesn't really contradict slab_happy's statement that:
The fact that some setting is clearly over the line doesn't really help to define exactly where the line is. And regarding what you said above about harder problems having ways of falling off that you would not have imagined - the risks associated with those examples really aren't at all difficult to imagine, even for an inexperienced climber.
> To me unnecessary dangerous setting would be a heel toe cam high on an overhanging problem. Or setting jugs underneath a hard sequence with marginal feet. Dyno with a bad landing if you don't stick it.
All good examples, I agree.
But this doesn't really contradict slab_happy's statement that:
> I don't think you can draw some sort of objective line and say "this is dangerous setting" and "that is safe setting"
The fact that some setting is clearly over the line doesn't really help to define exactly where the line is. And regarding what you said above about harder problems having ways of falling off that you would not have imagined - the risks associated with those examples really aren't at all difficult to imagine, even for an inexperienced climber.
In reply to deepsoup:
Does there need to be an exactly defined line? (I've sort of lost track of the original context...) Or would it just be good if "what could go wrong if someone fluffed this move" was further forward in (some) routesetters' minds?
> The fact that some setting is clearly over the line doesn't really help to define exactly where the line is.
Does there need to be an exactly defined line? (I've sort of lost track of the original context...) Or would it just be good if "what could go wrong if someone fluffed this move" was further forward in (some) routesetters' minds?
In reply to deepsoup:
I just find it unnecessary to defend introducing risks in an indoor bouldering environment which can be easily avoided by thoughtfully setting problems on the wall.
As I have already stated before in practice I seldom see dangerously set problems at my local walls so my local setters must agree, or maybe I am just too inexperienced a climber to recognize risk appropriately.
> But this doesn't really contradict slab_happy's statement that:
I'm not trying to contradict that statement. Nor am I trying to define rules for safe setting.I just find it unnecessary to defend introducing risks in an indoor bouldering environment which can be easily avoided by thoughtfully setting problems on the wall.
As I have already stated before in practice I seldom see dangerously set problems at my local walls so my local setters must agree, or maybe I am just too inexperienced a climber to recognize risk appropriately.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
I would say no there doesn't, which is just as well because it really isn't possible.
I was looking at the 14:47 post that says: "It won't be long before a successful law suit is filed against a bouldering centre regarding the above." If he were right* then there would need to be some negligence, just such a line would clearly need to have been crossed.
(* - I don't think he is, fortunately.)
Having said that, as climbers we should always be defining 'the line' between acceptable and unacceptable risk for ourselves at any given time. We may not express it in those terms, but it is an essential part of the activity of climbing, ropes or no, indoors or out.
Me too a bit.
Possibly. I've never been to The Arch, but the setters where I climb seem to me to have it about right already. There are moves in there I don't fancy trying - given that I am not the least risk averse climber in there (and certainly not one of the more talented) there should be.
> Does there need to be an exactly defined line?
I would say no there doesn't, which is just as well because it really isn't possible.
I was looking at the 14:47 post that says: "It won't be long before a successful law suit is filed against a bouldering centre regarding the above." If he were right* then there would need to be some negligence, just such a line would clearly need to have been crossed.
(* - I don't think he is, fortunately.)
Having said that, as climbers we should always be defining 'the line' between acceptable and unacceptable risk for ourselves at any given time. We may not express it in those terms, but it is an essential part of the activity of climbing, ropes or no, indoors or out.
> (I've sort of lost track of the original context...)
Me too a bit.
> Or would it just be good if "what could go wrong if someone fluffed this move" was further forward in (some) routesetters' minds?
Possibly. I've never been to The Arch, but the setters where I climb seem to me to have it about right already. There are moves in there I don't fancy trying - given that I am not the least risk averse climber in there (and certainly not one of the more talented) there should be.
In reply to douwe:
I think that's a bit of a strawman argument tbh, I don't think anyone has suggested they're in favour of introducing easily avoided risks either. Certainly not me. Of course in the context of any one given problem we may not agree on precisely what "easily avoided" means.
That's kind of what I was driving at earlier - beyond a very basic level, I don't think experience as a climber is really required to recognise risk appropriately. I think a bit of experience of physical play in the real world, a bit of spatial awareness and a reasonably vivid imagination are quite sufficient.
> I just find it unnecessary to defend introducing risks in an indoor bouldering environment which can be easily avoided by thoughtfully setting problems on the wall.
I think that's a bit of a strawman argument tbh, I don't think anyone has suggested they're in favour of introducing easily avoided risks either. Certainly not me. Of course in the context of any one given problem we may not agree on precisely what "easily avoided" means.
> maybe I am just too inexperienced a climber to recognize risk appropriately.
That's kind of what I was driving at earlier - beyond a very basic level, I don't think experience as a climber is really required to recognise risk appropriately. I think a bit of experience of physical play in the real world, a bit of spatial awareness and a reasonably vivid imagination are quite sufficient.
In reply to deepsoup:
Are you serious? Your reply is a joke right? Or maybe I am just too inexperienced a forum member too recognize your ironic undertones.
Are you serious? Your reply is a joke right? Or maybe I am just too inexperienced a forum member too recognize your ironic undertones.
Post edited at 16:23
In reply to douwe:
I think the risk is obvious to anyone of normal faculties over the age of about 6.
To suggest that climbing walls could be sued for an injury sustained by someone falling and hitting a hold below is just ridiculous.
> I think the problem is that especially to a layman that risk is not very obvious. And since climbing gyms largely depend on beginner climbers I think it is very wise not to set any potentially dangerous problems.
I think the risk is obvious to anyone of normal faculties over the age of about 6.
To suggest that climbing walls could be sued for an injury sustained by someone falling and hitting a hold below is just ridiculous.
1
In reply to douwe:
It's never going to be totally safe therefore risk awareness must be part of it.
> I don't think risk awareness should be a large part of indoor bouldering.
It's never going to be totally safe therefore risk awareness must be part of it.
2
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
> To suggest that climbing walls could be sued for an injury sustained by someone falling and hitting a hold below is just ridiculous.
Who on earth suggested that?In reply to timjones:
Well please enjoy your bouldering session largely consisting of risk awareness. Be sure to bring a camelbag of water in case you get dehydrated, freeze-dried food in case you get hungry and a emergency blanket in case you get benighted in the bouldering facility.
Well please enjoy your bouldering session largely consisting of risk awareness. Be sure to bring a camelbag of water in case you get dehydrated, freeze-dried food in case you get hungry and a emergency blanket in case you get benighted in the bouldering facility.
2
In reply to douwe:
maybe_si did, at 14.47 on Wed:
> Who on earth suggested that?
maybe_si did, at 14.47 on Wed:
> Likewise putting high volume holds on the same slabby/vert panel as a bunch of thin techy problems. This is simply poor setting. It is easy enough to find decent juggy holds for an easy problem that are low volume (don't stick out much).
> It won't be long before a successful law suit is filed against a bouldering centre regarding the above.
In reply to slab_happy:
Just to clarify, I certainly hope nobody goes suing anyone, like pretty much everyone else I think that people should be responsible for their own actions.
However if daft route setters go placing LARGE volumes at the bottom of vertical/steep slabs without thought for safety and if the wall management don't do something about it when the extra risk has been pointed out to them.... It only takes 1 inexperienced London boulderer with a keen eye for the law to think they could make some money.
Slightly off topic but the same goes for loose holds... with modern route setting practises there really is pretty much no excuse not to pin holds when setting. I know most walls will have signage talking about loose holds but all a judge will say is...
"Is there anything the wall could reasonably do to prevent the hold from spinning"
Now bearing in mind that most modern holds actually have screw holes in them for this very purpose and those that don't have screw holds can easily be pinned with 2 screws....
Basically I just think that there are a lot of slightly dubious setting practices out there, a huge amount of inexperienced wall staff setting problems and I think that wall management need to keep a very close eye on things.
Just to clarify, I certainly hope nobody goes suing anyone, like pretty much everyone else I think that people should be responsible for their own actions.
However if daft route setters go placing LARGE volumes at the bottom of vertical/steep slabs without thought for safety and if the wall management don't do something about it when the extra risk has been pointed out to them.... It only takes 1 inexperienced London boulderer with a keen eye for the law to think they could make some money.
Slightly off topic but the same goes for loose holds... with modern route setting practises there really is pretty much no excuse not to pin holds when setting. I know most walls will have signage talking about loose holds but all a judge will say is...
"Is there anything the wall could reasonably do to prevent the hold from spinning"
Now bearing in mind that most modern holds actually have screw holes in them for this very purpose and those that don't have screw holds can easily be pinned with 2 screws....
Basically I just think that there are a lot of slightly dubious setting practices out there, a huge amount of inexperienced wall staff setting problems and I think that wall management need to keep a very close eye on things.
1
In reply to douwe:
Wow you must have a huge.bouldering wall you jammy beggar
> Well please enjoy your bouldering session largely consisting of risk awareness. Be sure to bring a camelbag of water in case you get dehydrated, freeze-dried food in case you get hungry and a emergency blanket in case you get benighted in the bouldering facility.
Wow you must have a huge.bouldering wall you jammy beggar
In reply to douwe:
> Are you serious?
Er.. yes, pretty much. About as serious as I get on UCK anyway. Which bit did you think was a joke? In reply to maybe_si:
I'm not a lawyer, but I really don't think they'd be in with a serious chance even so. Volenti non fit injuria and all that.
I'm sure you are right about this - *slightly* dubious. I think it's all too common for wall managements not to sufficiently value good setting. Falls well short of the sort of negligence that might give rise to a claim though I feel. (Again, as a non-lawyer.)
> However if daft route setters go placing LARGE volumes at the bottom of vertical/steep slabs without thought for safety and if the wall management don't do something about it when the extra risk has been pointed out to them.... It only takes 1 inexperienced London boulderer with a keen eye for the law to think they could make some money.
I'm not a lawyer, but I really don't think they'd be in with a serious chance even so. Volenti non fit injuria and all that.
> Basically I just think that there are a lot of slightly dubious setting practices out there, a huge amount of inexperienced wall staff setting problems and I think that wall management need to keep a very close eye on things.
I'm sure you are right about this - *slightly* dubious. I think it's all too common for wall managements not to sufficiently value good setting. Falls well short of the sort of negligence that might give rise to a claim though I feel. (Again, as a non-lawyer.)
In reply to maybe_si:
When someone hurts themselves badly and claims against an insurance policy there will probably be a boilerplate clause in the insurance policy saying they need to help the insurance company recover its costs from whoever was responsible for the accident.
> Just to clarify, I certainly hope nobody goes suing anyone, like pretty much everyone else I think that people should be responsible for their own actions.
When someone hurts themselves badly and claims against an insurance policy there will probably be a boilerplate clause in the insurance policy saying they need to help the insurance company recover its costs from whoever was responsible for the accident.
It's becoming a very hypothetical discussion so I've put up a couple of pictures with an approximate diagram. One of the pics is a screen grab from another time. Please don't judge my paint skills.
https://goo.gl/photos/xtDtF976DD1yFM969
https://goo.gl/photos/xtDtF976DD1yFM969
1
In reply to hikingoz:
Out of interest (and I know that you that these things happen fast and you can't always remember the details...), were you aware of the volume before you fell? And if so, were you expecting to hit it but not to break your ankle? Or not expecting to hit it? Or aware of the risk but not expecting to fall?
Out of interest (and I know that you that these things happen fast and you can't always remember the details...), were you aware of the volume before you fell? And if so, were you expecting to hit it but not to break your ankle? Or not expecting to hit it? Or aware of the risk but not expecting to fall?
Post edited at 22:44
In reply to maybe_si:
Totally agree innit. Dats why ive started chippin holdz off @ crags 4 dis exact reason. Climbin iz dangerous we need 2 make it safer.
Im off 2 da slate quarry soon after dat artical n will be deployin da hammer n chizzel on anyting suspect.
Totally agree innit. Dats why ive started chippin holdz off @ crags 4 dis exact reason. Climbin iz dangerous we need 2 make it safer.
Im off 2 da slate quarry soon after dat artical n will be deployin da hammer n chizzel on anyting suspect.
4
1
In reply to deepsoup:
I think it's already happened hasn't it?
> I'm not a lawyer, but I really don't think they'd be in with a serious chance even so. Volenti non fit injuria and all that.
I think it's already happened hasn't it?
In reply to hikingoz:
I have a friend who used to climb at the Arch a lot but went elsewhere when the route setting went downhill around a year or so ago. It's definitely true that not all setters are equal and some do a much better job than others.
Putting large volumes down low is obviously less work than placing them up high. But then there is also a trend in modern bouldering for multi dynamic problems that involve running across big volumes too.
Might be worth reviewing some world cups to see the setting on those. I don't recall anything thing that could be called hazardous setting and I imagine the last thing a setter would want would be for a top climber to be injured in front of thousands due to their setting.
I have a friend who used to climb at the Arch a lot but went elsewhere when the route setting went downhill around a year or so ago. It's definitely true that not all setters are equal and some do a much better job than others.
Putting large volumes down low is obviously less work than placing them up high. But then there is also a trend in modern bouldering for multi dynamic problems that involve running across big volumes too.
Might be worth reviewing some world cups to see the setting on those. I don't recall anything thing that could be called hazardous setting and I imagine the last thing a setter would want would be for a top climber to be injured in front of thousands due to their setting.
In reply to hikingoz:
Just an FYI, in case you hadn't noticed -- I think the scan has your name on it. You might want to blur that out if you'd rather keep your identity private?
(It might not bother you at all, but I grew up in the era of "don't tell anyone your real name on the internet!!!", so I have those kneejerk responses.)
Also, ouch. *winces* I hope your recovery is as speedy and un-complicated as possible.
Just an FYI, in case you hadn't noticed -- I think the scan has your name on it. You might want to blur that out if you'd rather keep your identity private?
(It might not bother you at all, but I grew up in the era of "don't tell anyone your real name on the internet!!!", so I have those kneejerk responses.)
Also, ouch. *winces* I hope your recovery is as speedy and un-complicated as possible.
In reply to Willi Crater:
I've heard of a case relating to spinning holds (which caused most walls to be fussy about spinning holds for a short period), but not relating to route setting.
I've heard of a case relating to spinning holds (which caused most walls to be fussy about spinning holds for a short period), but not relating to route setting.
In reply to maybe_si:
Given the trouble the OP is going to, registering with a forum just to make the point that climbing has risks and the evidence they've produced so far, which looks very much like the beginning of an insurance claim for negligence, I suspect the OP may well be using your input to say that some 'experts' agree with him that the wall is at fault via it's route setters.
If I was your insurance company I'd be worried that you'd roll over in the face of any claim.
> Just to clarify, I certainly hope nobody goes suing anyone,
Given the trouble the OP is going to, registering with a forum just to make the point that climbing has risks and the evidence they've produced so far, which looks very much like the beginning of an insurance claim for negligence, I suspect the OP may well be using your input to say that some 'experts' agree with him that the wall is at fault via it's route setters.
If I was your insurance company I'd be worried that you'd roll over in the face of any claim.
2
2
In reply to maybe_si:
I know there's been some discussion in the thread about how it can be tricky to foresee all the consequences of a possible fall and it can sometimes require some experience, spatial imagination, etc. etc..
But you seem to be back to discussing climbing above a large wooden box. That's a situation where the risk couldn't be more obvious.
I am not a lawyer, but if you look at the case you cited, Poppleton v. Portsmouth, Poppleton got the initial judgement that the wall was 25% liable (which was then reversed!) on the basis that he wasn't adequately warned of the "hidden risk" comprised by the mats not providing complete protection against injury.
But it was made very clear even in the first judgement that you couldn't hold facilities liable for "inherent and obvious" risk, and in the Court of Appeal ruling it was specifically stated that "The risk of probably severe injury from an awkward fall was obvious".
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=306025 (the report you linked to)
http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/falling-line-law
I have much sympathy for hikingoz, especially having been injured under somewhat similar circumstances. Being responsible for one's own risk assessment doesn't make injuries hurt less, or the long slow process of recovery any less grim. And as far as I can see, hikingoz isn't the one suggesting the wall is or should be liable.
But legally, there seems to be very clear precedent saying that walls aren't liable for risks that are "inherent and obvious".
> However if daft route setters go placing LARGE volumes at the bottom of vertical/steep slabs without thought for safety
I know there's been some discussion in the thread about how it can be tricky to foresee all the consequences of a possible fall and it can sometimes require some experience, spatial imagination, etc. etc..
But you seem to be back to discussing climbing above a large wooden box. That's a situation where the risk couldn't be more obvious.
I am not a lawyer, but if you look at the case you cited, Poppleton v. Portsmouth, Poppleton got the initial judgement that the wall was 25% liable (which was then reversed!) on the basis that he wasn't adequately warned of the "hidden risk" comprised by the mats not providing complete protection against injury.
But it was made very clear even in the first judgement that you couldn't hold facilities liable for "inherent and obvious" risk, and in the Court of Appeal ruling it was specifically stated that "The risk of probably severe injury from an awkward fall was obvious".
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=306025 (the report you linked to)
http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/falling-line-law
I have much sympathy for hikingoz, especially having been injured under somewhat similar circumstances. Being responsible for one's own risk assessment doesn't make injuries hurt less, or the long slow process of recovery any less grim. And as far as I can see, hikingoz isn't the one suggesting the wall is or should be liable.
But legally, there seems to be very clear precedent saying that walls aren't liable for risks that are "inherent and obvious".
In reply to Willi Crater:
I could well be wrong, but don't think so, no. Maybe someone knows better?
> I think it's already happened hasn't it?
I could well be wrong, but don't think so, no. Maybe someone knows better?
In reply to hikingoz:
The wall my daughter climbs at has some brilliant route setters. I once asked them why they didnt have any of them pointy triangular volumes like the ones my daughter had to climb in the last competition elsewhere.
The answer was simple and for someone like me with little knowledge of climbing made a lot of sense. Its difficult to make a safe route in a clibing centre that involves these volumes. Not only do you have the fall risk on the route but it also effects the other routes nearby. Just not worth it other than for comps. Made complete sense etc.
Now that people have mentioned the fall risk on slabs etc. i must admit it hadnt registered that much with me either. I think most are taught to jump backwards away from the wall to avoid holds but it is a little more dangerous than other falls.
At the end of the day we are there climbing, if we cant accept our own reponsibility then dont go. Part of our own responsibility is choosing a wall that caters for idiots like me who cant always see the risk.
The wall my daughter climbs at has some brilliant route setters. I once asked them why they didnt have any of them pointy triangular volumes like the ones my daughter had to climb in the last competition elsewhere.
The answer was simple and for someone like me with little knowledge of climbing made a lot of sense. Its difficult to make a safe route in a clibing centre that involves these volumes. Not only do you have the fall risk on the route but it also effects the other routes nearby. Just not worth it other than for comps. Made complete sense etc.
Now that people have mentioned the fall risk on slabs etc. i must admit it hadnt registered that much with me either. I think most are taught to jump backwards away from the wall to avoid holds but it is a little more dangerous than other falls.
At the end of the day we are there climbing, if we cant accept our own reponsibility then dont go. Part of our own responsibility is choosing a wall that caters for idiots like me who cant always see the risk.
3
In reply to deepsoup:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9146616/The-5ft-leap-a...
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=498594&v=1#x6805921
> I could well be wrong, but don't think so, no. Maybe someone knows better?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9146616/The-5ft-leap-a...
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=498594&v=1#x6805921
Post edited at 18:17
In reply to Willi Crater:
I had heard about that one, but her successful claim was on the grounds that the person instructing her (as part of a group of novices) was negligent. It was nothing to do with the wall or the setting, and she wasn't a climber climbing unsupervised.
I was surprised and disappointed that she won her case, really shouldn't have imo, but even so on the whole I would say no - that case is not an example of "it's already happened" in the context of this thread.
I had heard about that one, but her successful claim was on the grounds that the person instructing her (as part of a group of novices) was negligent. It was nothing to do with the wall or the setting, and she wasn't a climber climbing unsupervised.
I was surprised and disappointed that she won her case, really shouldn't have imo, but even so on the whole I would say no - that case is not an example of "it's already happened" in the context of this thread.
In reply to winhill:
Blimey, that's a bit dark.
Don't you think it's more likely the OP just suddenly finds himself stuck indoors with a bit of time on his hands?
What with just having broken a leg and all..
Blimey, that's a bit dark.
Don't you think it's more likely the OP just suddenly finds himself stuck indoors with a bit of time on his hands?
What with just having broken a leg and all..
In reply to Willi Crater:
But that seems to have been decided on the basis of hidden risk again -- that she didn't receive any briefing on how to jump down safely, and wasn't warned that there was any possible risk of jumping even a short distance onto the mats (though the Craggy instructors claimed otherwise).
She was there a part of some godawful corporate bonding exercise, so it's possible that she didn't get the standard "the mats don't make everything safe" spiel (or the court didn't believe she did, or didn't deem it adequate). She saw other people jumping down and being fine, so she jumped down a very short distance. And, by the sounds of it, landed badly and had a really horrible freak accident.
But that seems to have been decided on the basis of hidden risk again -- that she didn't receive any briefing on how to jump down safely, and wasn't warned that there was any possible risk of jumping even a short distance onto the mats (though the Craggy instructors claimed otherwise).
She was there a part of some godawful corporate bonding exercise, so it's possible that she didn't get the standard "the mats don't make everything safe" spiel (or the court didn't believe she did, or didn't deem it adequate). She saw other people jumping down and being fine, so she jumped down a very short distance. And, by the sounds of it, landed badly and had a really horrible freak accident.
In reply to timjones:
Benighted in the bouldering facility -- I should be so lucky ...
(Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any good hiding places, otherwise I'd already have tried tucking myself away somewhere until after they lock up. With a headtorch, a flask of coffee and a supply of snacks.)
Benighted in the bouldering facility -- I should be so lucky ...
(Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any good hiding places, otherwise I'd already have tried tucking myself away somewhere until after they lock up. With a headtorch, a flask of coffee and a supply of snacks.)
In reply to deepsoup:
In the context of the posts I was responding to I would disagree.
> ... on the whole I would say no - that case is not an example of "it's already happened" in the context of this thread.
In the context of the posts I was responding to I would disagree.
In reply to hikingoz:
A quick question re injuries at climbing gyms. Does anyone know if gyms are required to report/investigate them etc?
Someone I know broke a vertebra in his thoracic spine at the new Arch place in North London just before New Year. He has not informed the management there. I've told him he should etc just so that they can look into it and (from what I know of Fred who used to run that place - does he still?) I'm sure he'd want to know.
A quick question re injuries at climbing gyms. Does anyone know if gyms are required to report/investigate them etc?
Someone I know broke a vertebra in his thoracic spine at the new Arch place in North London just before New Year. He has not informed the management there. I've told him he should etc just so that they can look into it and (from what I know of Fred who used to run that place - does he still?) I'm sure he'd want to know.
In reply to BGG:
I wouldn't be RIDDOR reportable but most places have a policy of reporting injuries and near misses as part of their Risk Assessment recess
I wouldn't be RIDDOR reportable but most places have a policy of reporting injuries and near misses as part of their Risk Assessment recess
In reply to timjones:
Also every climbing wall i've ever been to make members and guests sign a wavier stating that they accept the risks involved too.
Two of those risks being falling, and protruding holds/features.
So I'd argue that if you were in a wall to injure yourself, you've agreed to the conditions on the wavier. So no leg to stand on (excuse the pun) with regards to legal action.
> It's never going to be totally safe therefore risk awareness must be part of it.
Also every climbing wall i've ever been to make members and guests sign a wavier stating that they accept the risks involved too.
Two of those risks being falling, and protruding holds/features.
So I'd argue that if you were in a wall to injure yourself, you've agreed to the conditions on the wavier. So no leg to stand on (excuse the pun) with regards to legal action.
2
In reply to BGG:
If he went from the scene of the accident to hospital for treatment, then it's reportable under RIDDOR.
If he went from the scene of the accident to hospital for treatment, then it's reportable under RIDDOR.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...