Interesting points of view from both sides and I've come down on the pro-reporting (Mark's) side. In my industry (oil and gas), a similar system to the one mentioned by Mark in the aviation industry is used after any major accident. In addition, not just on safety issues but even just on analysing how projects have gone, there's lessons learned. Not every accident can be eliminated, but accidents aren't unique. If there are common causes (and you'll never know without some collation of reports) they can be identified.

Both well-written. Simon's point about none of us fully understanding the risks we face at any moment, on a climb, or anywhere else, is well made, but doesn't actually make a coherent anti-argument about the provision of accident reporting. It's a little like saying that, standing at the side of the road, the existence of the Green Cross Code does not have an overall positive effect on your chances of making it to the other side. Of course, the Black Swan - a pissed-up Formula 1 driver coming at 180mph - may still happen, but knowing to look left and right still offers protection. Likewise, in climbing, the benefit of the poor experiences of others may guide you away from a riskier course of action, and as long as it doesn't guide you into an even riskier course of action, then it is worthwhile. Example - man falls off, relies entirely on ancient fixed gear, fixed gear breaks, groundfall. As long as the message is - 'clip old fixed gear by all means, but be aware that its failure is likely', as opposed to 'don't clip old fixed gear', then there is a benefit, as this is a reproduceable scenario for many of us, even though the London Wall peg is now gone. The whole of mountaineering is a curious set of risk/benefit balances - do I go light and fast? Do I push on when pumped? Do I back up this abseil? Simon is right that you cannot put forward set template for every situation, but I believe that learning to apply those balances yourself sometimes relies on hearing about the bad experiences of others. As always though, timing is all, and the rush to judgement and reporting is not necessarily healthy, or necessary, when a more restrained, and anonymised approach, could be taken. Reports should be written, where possible, with the input of the people involved, as their decision making process can be revealing.

I might be wrong, but was Simon's objection not more to the reporting of accidents in a specific and contemporary way, rather than data gathering per se? jcm

Thank you.