UKC

What a royal pain that thing is.. just had to ‘renew’ mine again today (3 memberships, 3 walls, no centralised system). Latest wall has gone from renewing every 3 years to every year due to ‘insurance’. They won’t even load across your personal details so you have to type in a ton of ridiculous information again and watch a 6 minute video about how to boulder at a wall you go to every few weeks..

How does any of this make anything safer (or make me more liable that just having a sign up saying it’s my responibility).

Rant over

In reply to minimike:

Its how it is.
At midnight last night I was called out but before starting the job I had to watch a 20 minute safety video because my current induction ran out 3 days ago.

In reply to minimike:

Begs me to ask the question. Does this shit only happen in the UK?

In reply to minimike:

I suspect from your post title that you are American. In the UK there is no such thing as a 'waiver'. You cannot sign away your right to sue. The registration process / document is proof that the Wall clearly advised you of the risks inherent when using a climbing wall. They will want to keep this information up to date, as it may be an important document in the event of a claim.

In reply to Removed User:
Good to know. However, in the ski centre yesterday prior to being let on the slope, I had to work through on their pad something titled a "waiver". This was in Gloucester.

In reply to Removed User:


This is exactly right.
A number of years ago I worked weekends on a paintball site, whilst marshaling a tournament of some of the top teams and players in the UK a guy broke his leg. It was a bad break, his foot was next to his knee with bone sticking out of the skin.
Despite the wavier, morning brief and over 10 years experience playing paintball at competition level the judge ruled in his favour and he got paid out.
Apparently you should not be able to trip over a tree stump in a forest.

OK so that's a slight exaggeration, he was sliding in to a barricade when his leading foot hit a tree stump and stopped but his body didn't.


Recently a clay shooting ground that I go to was sued by an experienced shooter who was struck on the head by a bit of broken clay. Anyone who has ever shot a clay knows that sometimes the broken bits can be unpredictable hence this site having a poster up where you pay advising the use of glasses, a hat and ear plugs.
The guy only got a little ding on the head buy he got a payout.

I don't blame anywhere for not protecting because that is impossible but at least mitigating their liability in the event on an injury in an inherently dangerous activity.

In reply to Dax H:
The level of payout will be reduced depending on what warnings were given.

Presumably the stump was left when the owners cleared the area. That could be seen as not clearing the area properly. If they had not cleared the area and he had hit a naturally occurring obstacle, the claim would probably have been reduced further. Eg Did their risk assessment and briefing include a passage that there could be partially covered cut off stumps?

These things are never black and white.

Safety briefings have to be done on a regular basis as people become complacent and forget things. They’re human.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

That is exactly what the court came up with.
It should have been forseen that players would be entering and exiting the area of the barricades fast and so should have been clear.
But in the real world the entire field has people running across it avoiding being shot so should the whole area be cleared of stumps, rabbit holes, roots, leaves, stones, small bushes?, the entire place is also uneven ground so should it be flattened out too?

Sprinting full speed through the woods has an inherent risk, that risk goes up when you are concentrating more on not being shot than the running.

H&S is something I am very keen on with an impeccable record at work but there has to be a level of personal responsibility too.

In reply to Dax H:

Always infuriating seeing the payouts awarded for idiots ignoring advice and injuring themselves

Would there be any legal problem with creating a register of claimants in various 'at your own risk' services. If there was one would you be allowed to ban them or increase supervision/limit access?

In reply to Removed User:


I assume he is referring to the Rock Gym Pro software which several UK walls use to manage membership. It uses the US terminology and is by all accounts an absolutely terrible attempt at a piece of software (but is low-cost, hence its use).