Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
FREIGHT FREE
in Australia

Scarpa: Scarpa "Mystic GTX" Approach Shoe. Premium model. Gortex lined. Vibram Sole. Climbing toe... Size 43 Eur. (10 USm)  $149.00
50% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - Accidents & Injuries

Report Accidents and Injuries

 Page 4 of 6. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120
Author
Accident at Arapiles: November 9th
widewetandslippery
24/11/2010
11:14:34 AM
If you start thinking about things in terms of fairness you are on the downward spiral towards sillyness where you will be talking about equality and rights next.
One Day Hero
24/11/2010
11:48:09 AM
On 24/11/2010 gordoste wrote:
>because climbing low grades is not inherently dangerous.
>
What farkin brand of crack are you smoking? This is exactly the attitude which shits me to tears......the idea that when you strap a numpty-lid on your noggin you are suddenly "safe"!

Climbing is dangerous! Easy climbing is dangerous! Safe, easy climbing is dangerous!

I never said that wearing a helmet wasn't likely to be safer than not wearing one.....but what percentage of the existing danger do you think it really removes?
Wendy
24/11/2010
12:00:36 PM
On 24/11/2010 gordoste wrote:

>I keep hearing that freedom of choice is so valuable when it comes to deciding not to wear >a helmet ... does it mean that a helmet-wearing climber is free to choose not to help you >when you smash your head open? Or is freedom of choice only important when it works in >your favour?
>BTW personally I would help anyway, it's a hypothetical question designed to expose flaws >in your position

In reality, anyone is free to choose to help someone or not. Vast numbers of people ignore others in need of help on a regular basis. It may not be considerate or morally preferable, but people are selfish little twats quite a lot of the time. I don't see people getting sued for declining to help people who have climbing accidents, car accidents, heart attacks, are getting beaten up, locked up for expressing their opinions, tortured etc etc.

>
>Another way of posing the question: Imagine you're busy belaying someone
>on a pleasant well-protected climb. Somebody arrives and starts soloing
>a hard testpiece next to you. They start sketching out while about 15m
>up and you are expecting any moment to have them land next to you while
>you're still busy belaying your partner. Is it fair for them to put you
>in that situation?

I don't like soloing at anytime. If someone's soloing something and sketching out, I'll think they are a dīckhead to have started it (see my multitude of previous comments about how poor judgement is a major contributor to accidents). I'd be furious that they were being a dīckhead in front of me such that I was stressing about the outcome and maybe having to clean up the mess, but I'm not one of those people who ignore people in need even if they are dīckheads.

There are times for offering suggestions to improve people's long term chances of survival and a blanket statement of you are an idiot to not wear a helmet doesn't help anyone. If you see someone in a situation where a helmet is substantially likely to help their continued survival (ie at a majorly loose crag with rock raining down around them or taking repeated awkward falls off a poorly protected route) it might be an idea to discuss why you choose to wear a helmet in these situations and spread the wisdom. If you see someone avoid disaster by the hair on their ārse as a result of poor judgement, crap gear placement skills, misplaced confidence or poor routereading, you may have some tactful advice on things they should think about learning that might resonate with them at that moment. Continued idiodicy in these situations may just mean they are darwin award candidates, but most people are a lot more responsive to timely and sensitive instruction.
One Day Hero
24/11/2010
12:04:58 PM
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?

>You blow your own violent trumpet, in the face of the law - yet you remind
>me of of telling youths to settle down on Sydney trains, only to be threatened
>with assault; would you do the same if I, or your victim at the pedestrian
>crossing was dressed in a uniform of blue?

A very good question. A cop is paid and sworn to uphold the law, they are not paid to think. Some laws are good, some are stupid, I do not bear grudges against cops for doing their job.

Non-cops who wish to spit orders at strangers are busybody fukwits who need to be put in their place. Someone riding without a helmet is causing no harm to you or anyone else, so try to evolve to a state where their personal choice no longer bothers you............in the meantime, keep your mouth shut.
One Day Hero
24/11/2010
12:14:23 PM
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.

Reeeeally? Has anyone who could climb 28 been killed at araps?

gordoste
24/11/2010
12:17:10 PM
Yes of course I agree that all climbing is more dangerous than "normal" life. What I meant is that climbing low grades is not more dangerous than climbing a higher grade that is otherwise exactly the same (same pro, same runouts, same equipment etc.).
Wendy
24/11/2010
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
24/11/2010
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
24/11/2010
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
24/11/2010
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
24/11/2010
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 :)
One Day Hero
24/11/2010
12:54:17 PM
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?
pcb
24/11/2010
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
24/11/2010
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
24/11/2010
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
24/11/2010
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
24/11/2010
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.
One Day Hero
24/11/2010
1:26:22 PM
On 24/11/2010 tnd wrote:
>The SRC itself mandates
>helmets only on organised trips - it has no policy on helmets on any other
>occasion.

Really? You don't wear lids at the christmas party? How can you tell who's who?

>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.

So, you've allowed a bunch of non-climbers to make the decision on whether or not to wear helmets while climbing........I realise that you had no choice, but that sucks, don't you think?
>
>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.
>
Where would I go to front them? The Dam Cliffs? Berowra? Sorry, I don't climb at shitty club crags.
One Day Hero
24/11/2010
1:42:58 PM
On 24/11/2010 Wendy wrote:
>maybe not, but there is always Todd Skinner, Dan Osman, Derek Hersey,
>John Bachar ...

Interesting.

I don't know if any of them were wearing helmets at the time of their demise. It doesn't sound like a lid would've done much good, given the heights from which these guys bombed in..........maybe Bachar would've benefitted, was he soloing a single pitch thing?

ajfclark
24/11/2010
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.

 Page 4 of 6. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120
There are 120 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints