Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

R.I.P Burnley 20-Feb-2003 At 10:17:20 AM Tel

Message

Well I was hoping not to be the first as I am worry whether I am out of line in saying anything. Mind you anything I say is also recalling what I can remember and may not be how others recall the meeting. So here goes.........
After overcoming the stares of ' who the hell is this guy' I listened to what was being said. It appears, and what is uppermost in my memory that Transurban primary concern is injury liability. Transurban, from the letter read also has stated that they are willing to look at the situation and hear possilble solutions. Transurban also wish to try and keep this quite low profile and away from the media, was also what I had gathered. Now it was also expressed at the meeting that it would be best at this stage for the climbing community to indeed keep the media out as it would more than likely do more harm than good. There was more but for myself they were the main areas of concern.

Now touching on those areas and expressing personal opinion.
Transurban willingness to listen to possible solutions I find a little concerning. I wonder whether they are sincere or just wanting to appear so. By allowing discussion they avoid public backlash and avoid the media. Also that gives them time to drag out the affair so that in the event of saying no, the media are no longer interested as it is old news.
Backstepping just a tad ....there was also a committee, if you will, formed at the meeting to follow up and table propositions to Transurban. So maybe that could be one of the points to enquire about , whether Transurban are sincere or just hedging.

Keeping away the media and other peoples such as engineers etc appeared to be a valid point and it was expressed by one person there in relation to a site in Brisbane ( I cannot remeber the chaps name.. sorry ). The general gist was once there was hard fact on paper you will have buckleys reverting any decisions. So as mentioned above the general feeling was to try and avoid a media frac'as.

Liability.. what a word, and what kind of world would we be living in if we couldn't sue someone. That appears to be the trickiest part for this situation, who is responsible?
I am no genious so I cannot offer a solution, though I do have a question.
When climbing at say ...Camels Hump, who is responsible if you injure yourself?
Given that the land is contolled by Parks Victoria are climbers able to hold them liable. Or, is it in the end Government land and hence the State Government is liable. Or (sorry about saying, or, again), is it on your own onus if you get injured. I heard a whisper that there is an act or something of the kind which negates any responsibility to personal injury. If there is such an act or similar, is it then possible to apply the same to the Burnley Wall.
Well thats about it from me , if I have missed points from the meeting which others felt were more important I apologise. Also the opinions expressed are my own and not those of the people in attendance at the meeting. So yell at me for any inconsistencies .

Tel