Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - Accidents & Injuries

Report Accidents and Injuries

Author

Accident at Arapiles: November 9th

Wendy

24-Nov-2010
12:22:28 PM

On 24/11/2010 One Day Hero wrote:
>On 24/11/2010 gordoste wrote:
>>That's absolute BS. Have a think about the fatalities over the years
>at
>>Araps and you'll realise it's spread across all skill levels. There are
>>many more bumblies but they spend much less time on rock.
>
>Reeeeally? Has anyone who could climb 28 been killed at araps?

maybe not, but there is always Todd Skinner, Dan Osman, Derek Hersey, John Bachar ...

widewetandslippery

24-Nov-2010
12:26:43 PM

Interesting that the helmet nazis are also anti soloing.

I rarely solo things (due to lack of physical, mental and emotional strength) but soloing has to be the best style of climbing. Anything else is a backwards comprimise.


ajfclark

24-Nov-2010
12:28:07 PM

On 24/11/2010 One Day Hero wrote:
>Someone riding without a helmet is causing no harm to you or anyone else

Unless they have an accident and end up in hospital. If your injuries are more severe because you weren't wearing a helmet then your choice to not wear a helmet has had an impact on the rest of us.


shiltz

24-Nov-2010
12:47:43 PM

Easy routes are frequently more dangerous that hard routes in my opinion. Most commonly because there are more ledges to hit than on the typically steeper and more sustained hard routes. Also, a much higher proportion of routes in the 25+ range are bolted, particularly at Araps and around the Gramps.
Personally, I wear a helmet where I think there is a risk of rockfall due to poor quality rock or where there are lots of other people moving around the crag. The rest of the time I tend to wear a hat or beanie depending on the season.
I wouldn't ever criticize someone else for choosing to wear or not wear a helmet. I would encourage any beginner to get one and wear it. I know how many mistakes I made in my early years climbing, and I know I'm not the only one.

As an aside: apart from protecting you from rockfall modern helmets can protect your head during a fall. The chance of getting any benefit in an 8m+ ground fall seems unlikely but a helmet could make all the difference in a shorter fall. With this in mind - has anyone ever witnessed someone bouldering in a helmet?


rodw

24-Nov-2010
12:53:42 PM

On 24/11/2010 widewetandslippery wrote:
>Interesting that the helmet nazis are also anti soloing.

Hey im not anti soloing....have no problems other people doing it but prefer its done when Im not around :)...my weekends are to short to waste calling in a chopper for a body evac :)

pcb

24-Nov-2010
12:59:07 PM

Apparently John Sherman boulders in a helmet.

http://www.deadpointmag.com/blogs/entries/blog-1-1

On 24/11/2010 shiltz wrote:
>As an aside: apart from protecting you from rockfall modern helmets can
>protect your head during a fall. The chance of getting any benefit in
>an 8m+ ground fall seems unlikely but a helmet could make all the difference
>in a shorter fall. With this in mind - has anyone ever witnessed someone
>bouldering in a helmet?


tnd

24-Nov-2010
1:03:05 PM

On 24/11/2010 One Day Hero wrote:
>On 24/11/2010 Wollemi wrote:
>>
>>Waddya reckon ODH about the policies of Sydney Rockies
>
>I reckon the Sydney Rockies are a bunch of under-skilled, over-regimented
>kooks with whom I would never want to share a crag. How anyone can consider
>the Rockies brand of climbing to be a good time is beyond my comprehension.......why
>do you ask?

Ok you fcuking ignoramus, now you really need telling. The Sydney Rockies, like any group of 120 people, consist of a wide range of individuals of all levels of skill, strength, ability and experience. The SRC itself mandates helmets only on organised trips - it has no policy on helmets on any other occasion. Helmets are required on official trips because legal advice stated that in any situation where a duty of care might be inferred, a reasonable outsider would consider the wearing of a helmet to be a sensible precaution. In other words, if someone on a trip bangs their head without a helmet and sues the SRC, a judge or jury could say the club should have insisted they wear one. Very small chance of that happening but it's just easier to follow the advice.

And if you want to directly insult people ("under-skilled, over-regimented kooks") try fronting them and saying it to their face rather than hide behind the internet.

widewetandslippery

24-Nov-2010
1:09:35 PM

On 24/11/2010 rodw wrote:
>On 24/11/2010 widewetandslippery wrote:
>>Interesting that the helmet nazis are also anti soloing.
>
>Hey im not anti soloing....have no problems other people doing it but
>prefer its done when Im not around :)...my weekends are to short to waste
>calling in a chopper for a body evac :)

And you're not a helmet nazi, I've seen that baby sit on the ground at the crag before;)

Whats this with having to help people? When in the highlands get a Millat to dig a shallow grave. There everywhere down there.


shiltz

24-Nov-2010
1:12:14 PM

Got to agree ODH, I'd hate to see climbing regulated by economics. Imagine a world where the local climbing official had to check your helmet, rack, rope, rope log book, climbing licence, blood alchohol content... or where climbs deemed unsafe (e.g. Take Five) were closed to public.
I can only think of a few cases where I would push someone to wear a helmet:
- kids in my care who are in a dangerous situation (exposed to rockfall, learning to lead, etc)
- my climbing partner in a situation of high rock fall danger or a very remote area (in this case because its in both partners interest not to have to perform a difficult rescue that could have been avoided)

Of course clubs might need to enforce certain rules in order to maintain their insurance, no problem there - no-one forcing you to be a member. Likewise, commercial groups will always have to meet standards as part of their duty of care.


shiltz

24-Nov-2010
1:19:22 PM

On 24/11/2010 p wrote:
>Apparently John Sherman boulders in a helmet.
>

Thanks for the link, I can't recall ever seeing photographic evidence of helmeted bouldering before. Interesting to see he has chosen a skateboard helmet - makes sense I'd say.
Can't remember seeing anyone wearing one around the boulders in Australia.


ajfclark

24-Nov-2010
1:43:56 PM

On 24/11/2010 One Day Hero wrote:
>By that logic, I should get stuck into everyone I see having a smoke, [etc]

I was just pointing out that your choices could in fact have an impact on other people ODH. I wasn't taking sides one way or the other.

widewetandslippery

24-Nov-2010
1:54:46 PM

Hows the fella who bounced going?

egosan

24-Nov-2010
2:25:57 PM

It is interesting to me that many people focus on the consequences of a bad fall when discussing helmet use. Personally it is the whistling passage of a widow maker that keeps me in a helmet.


Eduardo Slabofvic

24-Nov-2010
2:55:41 PM

Someone else spudded in on Monday. What happened to them? Were they wearing clean underpants? Did they have a hankie? Did they have 20 cents for phone call? Did they have an apple? Did they remember their homework? Did they wash their hands? Did they call their mum? Did they brush their teeth?


gordoste

24-Nov-2010
3:32:04 PM

All this has nothing to do with taking away your freedom so please refrain from deliberately inflammatory language like "helmet Nazi". I don't care if you wear a helmet or not when you're climbing somewhere else. I just think that if you're around me and there is loose rock or people walking around the top of the cliff, or it's a runout climb with ledges and chickenheads, you might want to consider what impact that has on people nearby and modify your behaviour. Of course, you're still free to be an asshole.


gordoste

24-Nov-2010
3:34:40 PM

On 24/11/2010 One Day Hero wrote:
>On 24/11/2010 ajfclark wrote:
>>
>>Unless they have an accident and end up in hospital. If your injuries
>>are more severe because you weren't wearing a helmet then your choice
>to
>>not wear a helmet has had an impact on the rest of us.
>
>You gotta be kidding? By that logic, I should get stuck into everyone
>I see having a smoke, every fat dude eating a lot-burger, every kid not
>studying hard (cause he might end up on the dole), every teenage chick
>getting knocked up, everyone who is using a wobbly ladder to clean their
>gutters...........it goes on and on. Do you really want to live in a society
>where you get every single action scrutinised on the basis of how it has
>potential to economically affect everyone else?

BTW in case it's not clear - my objection is not to the economic cost of possible injuries. It's to the lack of consideration you show others by choosing to take deliberate risks when you're near them.


gordoste

24-Nov-2010
4:29:16 PM

I agree - helmets are definitely only one aspect of risk.

The question is not whether you're more or less risky than someone else, it's whether the people around you are OK with your risk-taking, considering they could be involved in picking up the pieces. Climbing partners accept it by agreeing to climb with you in the first place. Onlookers have the choice of walking away. If you're climbing next to a stranger who can't walk away due to being on belay, then they have no choice and that's where I think some consideration needs to be shown.


shiltz

24-Nov-2010
4:35:44 PM

I recall Todd Skinner died in an abseiling accident, could have been wearing a helmet but I think his fall was due to harness failure not falling rock and he fell a bloody long way. Dan Osman was rope jumping, probably without a helmet I would assume - not that it would have helped when the system failed anyway.
Hersey and Bachar both died soloing - maybe they fell after being hit by falling rock in which case a helmet could have helped. Hersey fell several hundred feet so a helmet wouldn't have helped when he landed. I'm not sure how far Bachar fell, I don't think anyone was there when it happened and most of the posts at the time were pure speculation.

Wendy

24-Nov-2010
4:52:41 PM

On 24/11/2010 shiltz wrote:
>I recall Todd Skinner died in an abseiling accident, could have been wearing
>a helmet but I think his fall was due to harness failure not falling rock
>and he fell a bloody long way. Dan Osman was rope jumping, probably without
>a helmet I would assume - not that it would have helped when the system
>failed anyway.
>Hersey and Bachar both died soloing - maybe they fell after being hit
>by falling rock in which case a helmet could have helped. Hersey fell
>several hundred feet so a helmet wouldn't have helped when he landed.
>I'm not sure how far Bachar fell, I don't think anyone was there when it
>happened and most of the posts at the time were pure speculation.

I wasn't refering to helmet wearing, I was responding the assertion (or at least a roudabout kind of assertion) that hard climbers don't die climbing. I guess they died pretty much from the poor judgement bit - regarding the condition of their gear, their capabilities, the conditions. But climbing accidents and fatalities are not exclusively the realm of beginners, even though they are overrepresented

Wendy

24-Nov-2010
4:56:23 PM

On 24/11/2010 shiltz wrote:
>Easy routes are frequently more dangerous that hard routes in my opinion.
> Most commonly because there are more ledges to hit than on the typically
>steeper and more sustained hard routes. Also, a much higher proportion
>of routes in the 25+ range are bolted, particularly at Araps and around
>the Gramps

Here we go again ... where does this assertion that bolts make climbing safer come from??? A bolt flew out of You're Terminated in the wind years ago. gfdonc posted about one unclipping itself. They can be in shitty places leaving you with bad falls, run outs, desperate clips and how the hell do bolts affect helmet wearing anyway?

There are 105 messages in this topic.