Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
Chockstone Photography
Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 2 of 2. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 38
Author
Extreme sports and kids...
patto
22-May-2015
11:07:13 AM
That is alot of text Wendy. It has little to do with the actual law.

A person can be held liable for their negligence towards others. They don't need to be licensed, they don't need to be paid, they don't need to be a professional. If you are overtly negligent in a recreational activity and cause harm to others then you can be held liable.

On 22/05/2015 Wendy wrote:
> When I get on the horse,
>it should be pretty obvious I could be thrown off the horse. But what if
>it is a particularly volatile horse? How am I supposed to know that? Should
>I have asked? Is there a duty of care to tell me this is a jumpy horse?
>I mean, I would, as a sensible person, tell someone that sort of thing.
>But is it legally necessary?
YES. If the owner/trainer/stablehand is awe that the horse is a "jumpy horse" but fails to inform you then they may be held liable. Many owners and trainers have been sued for such things.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-24/newcastle-stable-hand-awarded-damages-payout-over-horse-fall/6419190
Wendy
22-May-2015
11:42:36 AM
My concern is that these things end us rapidly in really questionable places. What is the definition of a dodgy horse? What I consider a dodgy horse (anything bigger than a pony that does more than trot!) is different to others. What people consider a safe climb is different to others. One of the many great points of disagreement I have with Simey is whether Camalot and Trapeze are good beginner leads. I say no. Simey says yes. Say Simey puts a new leader on Trapeze, they fall and hurt themselves. Is he negligent putting them on that climb? How do we define "overtly negligent" in such unregulated industries and do we want such regulation in recreational climbing anyway? SCUBA here we come ... I am all for having standards for professional climbing instruction.I am all for them being held accountable to working in accordance with those standards. But do we expect all recreational climbers to have that level of skill? Given that clearly, most don't, I have also been a strong advocate of beginners seeking professional instruction.

I guess there is also a lot of non-intentional ignorance out there, ie people don't realise that they are not doing something very safely. Which raises questions about both -

what is "what a reasonable climber with average skills" might do - ie what is the base line that any potentially negligent climber will be compare against given that lots of climbers skillset, experience and judgement is limited.

where does someone stand when they don't realise they are doing something stupid? can they be negligent when they are in fact ignorant?

Snacks
22-May-2015
11:49:51 AM
On 22/05/2015 Wendy wrote:
>My concern is that these things end us rapidly in really questionable places.
>What is the definition of a dodgy horse? What I consider a dodgy horse
>(anything bigger than a pony that does more than trot!) is different to
>others. What people consider a safe climb is different to others. One of
>the many great points of disagreement I have with Simey is whether Camalot
>and Trapeze are good beginner leads. I say no. Simey says yes. Say Simey
>puts a new leader on Trapeze, they fall and hurt themselves. Is he negligent
>putting them on that climb? How do we define "overtly negligent" in such
>unregulated industries and do we want such regulation in recreational climbing
>anyway? SCUBA here we come ... I am all for having standards for professional
>climbing instruction.I am all for them being held accountable to working
>in accordance with those standards. But do we expect all recreational
>climbers to have that level of skill? Given that clearly, most don't, I
>have also been a strong advocate of beginners seeking professional instruction.
>
>I guess there is also a lot of non-intentional ignorance out there, ie
>people don't realise that they are not doing something very safely. Which
>raises questions about both -
>
>what is "what a reasonable climber with average skills" might do - ie
>what is the base line that any potentially negligent climber will be compare
>against given that lots of climbers skillset, experience and judgement
>is limited.
>
>where does someone stand when they don't realise they are doing something
>stupid? can they be negligent when they are in fact ignorant?

Yikes... you sound very anxious about all this... do you have some as yet identified climbing beginners lying at the base of a climb somewhere or something? ...

If you instructed someone to unclip their safety without them having another point of attachment and they fell and hurt themselves in a teacher/learner situation then yes, you'd be negligent...

The prosecution can have an ugly time of demonstrating what is best practice within a given recreational community but for a particular act once this is established from testimonies/manuals etc. then the instructor's advice would be compared against this. The above example I gave is fairly clear cut.

It is partially comforting that people can be held accountable for demonstrated negligence. I understand that it is equally distressing, but I guess that is kind of the point? Yes?
Wendy
22-May-2015
12:36:22 PM
On 22/05/2015 Snacks wrote:

>
>Yikes... you sound very anxious about all this... do you have some as
>yet identified climbing beginners lying at the base of a climb somewhere
>or something? ...
>
>If you instructed someone to unclip their safety without them having another
>point of attachment and they fell and hurt themselves in a teacher/learner
>situation then yes, you'd be negligent...
>
>The prosecution can have an ugly time of demonstrating what is best practice
>within a given recreational community but for a particular act once this
>is established from testimonies/manuals etc. then the instructor's advice
>would be compared against this. The above example I gave is fairly clear
>cut.
>
>It is partially comforting that people can be held accountable for demonstrated
>negligence. I understand that it is equally distressing, but I guess that
>is kind of the point? Yes?

You seem to have missed the bit where I said I was all for instructors being accountable? And I spent many years being a very thorough and cautious instructor.

Even you example is not so clear cut. Take soloing down Ali's. I don't do it with beginners at all, I don't think anyone should do it whilst guiding and plenty of rec climbers probably shouldn't either. but the guidebook suggests you just down climb it. You see people do it all the time. Say some recreational climber sends their friend off down Ali's as many people have already done that day. Friend slip and fall. Negligent? Is the guide book author negligent for suggesting soloing it?

Lets try another situation I saw the other day. Guy leads group up Diapason. Firstly, he made the strange decision to go up the squeezy chimney finish when I would always go the face finish, it's way easier for new climbers. By the time I saw the group, his last climber was struggling in the squeeze chimney. The next piece of gear was out left of her on the face. So if she fell out of the chimney (aside from being inflicted with the unnecessary terror of facing a swing should she fall) she could have swung into the wall, broken her arm and would this person be negligent? Or are they just demonstrating a very common practice of not protecting well for seconds? As I think the person was a trainee guide, I think it's especially poor practice - and I would say that if they were a fully trained guide, this would be a mistake that a reasonably skilled guide should not make. As a recreational climber, it's still poor, but it's also bloody common. What happens most of the time, is the poor seconder gets scared but doesn't fall off. Occasionally the get scared, fall off, have an exciting swing and don't get hurt. Once in a while, they do get hurt. Is it really a legal problem in recreational climbing? Is rec climbing improved or made safer by it being a legal problem? I don't think so. I think it is a general skill problem, and we need to address the general skill problem.

Snacks
22-May-2015
1:18:59 PM
On 22/05/2015 Wendy wrote:
>Even you example is not so clear cut. Take soloing down Ali's. I don't
>do it with beginners at all, I don't think anyone should do it whilst guiding
>and plenty of rec climbers probably shouldn't either. but the guidebook
>suggests you just down climb it. You see people do it all the time. Say
>some recreational climber sends their friend off down Ali's as many people
>have already done that day. Friend slip and fall. Negligent? Is the guide
>book author negligent for suggesting soloing it?

Ok, more clear cut is if you actually take the safety off the person yourself as the trusted instructor who knows what you're doing.

At Point Perp recently I had to tie off a belay that the belayer had left with a climber dangling off a grigri in a braked position and gone to talk to their pal. The handle could potentially have been locked open if the climber moved around and managed to twist the rope etc...

In this case had the person died from the grigri locking open then the belayer would potentially be up for 'involuntary manslaughter' (the dangerous act type?)... IF the belayer was inexperienced and instructed to do that then the instructor could in turn could be up for involuntary manslaughter (the criminal negligence type?)

These legalities haven't just suddenly started in climbing... they've always been there in the background.

Without them you're saying you'd rather accidents resulting from negligence just going into the 'Oopsie daisey better learn better for next time' basket for recreational climbers?


Snacks
22-May-2015
2:12:48 PM
On 21/05/2015 Wendy wrote:
>On 21/05/2015 patto wrote:
>>On 21/05/2015 One Day Hero wrote:
>>>Really? Has this been tested?
>>One
>>case was settled before trial
>
>That being an american case though

That being an American case?

It's a fair representation of what could happen here. It would get to a stage where they realise it is far simpler and cheaper for all concerned to settle out of court... And if not, the likely to lose party rolls the dice on an even heftier sum to pay.

But I'd recommend perusing that recreational law site that the link takes you to. It may clear up a lot of your concerns and probably more trustworthy than a random chockstone stranger like myself.
Wendy
22-May-2015
3:44:56 PM
On 22/05/2015 Snacks wrote:

>
>Ok, more clear cut is if you actually take the safety off the person yourself
>as the trusted instructor who knows what you're doing.
>
>At Point Perp recently I had to tie off a belay that the belayer had left
>with a climber dangling off a grigri in a braked position and gone to talk
>to their pal. The handle could potentially have been locked open if the
>climber moved around and managed to twist the rope etc...
>
>In this case had the person died from the grigri locking open then the
>belayer would potentially be up for 'involuntary manslaughter' (the dangerous
>act type?)... IF the belayer was inexperienced and instructed to do that
>then the instructor could in turn could be up for involuntary manslaughter
>(the criminal negligence type?)
>
>These legalities haven't just suddenly started in climbing... they've
>always been there in the background.
>
>Without them you're saying you'd rather accidents resulting from negligence
>just going into the 'Oopsie daisey better learn better for next time' basket
>for recreational climbers?
>
>
And just how useful have they been sitting in the background? Have they stopped anyone doing stupid shit?

I'm sure that person wasn't thinking, gee, there's no way I could be sued for negligence so I'll just leave this guy hanging and bugger off, it won't matter if he falls and I don't really care if he dies. He's thinking that it's perfectly fine to do so, otherwise, he would think, f--- I could kill my friend if I did this and that would be bad. Negligence laws are completely irrelevant to this sort of behaviour. He doesn't need law explained to him, he needs to hear that a grigri could be weighted in away that moves the locking mechanism by movement of the rope and he can back it up very simply with a knot. And maybe not to go very far ...

What I think people are talking about as negligence here is actually incompetence. Is there a law about incompetence? Negligence law is useful when somebody knows better but does something anyway that results in something rather bad happening. Like knowing that lowering through slings will melt through the slings, but telling your mate to do so and lowering them off anyway. You just wouldn't do it. People only do it when they don't know that it's dumb.

Hence my point that the problem isn't with negligence, it's with lack of general skills.

Snacks
22-May-2015
4:11:37 PM
"And just how useful have they been sitting in the background? Have they stopped anyone doing stupid shit?"

Yes. All the time... they're a formal way of 'enforcing' and promoting the common sense you speak of.

The example Patto provided demonstrates that if someone misrepresents themselves as an experienced person and this goes bad then it can have follow on consequences for that person... which I personally think is reasonable, and you do not, but if that's your unrelenting opinion then fair enough.

...

"I'm sure that person wasn't thinking, gee, there's no way I could be sued for negligence so I'll just leave this guy hanging and bugger off, it won't matter if he falls and I don't really care if he dies. He's thinking that it's perfectly fine to do so, otherwise, he would think, f**k I could kill my friend if I did this and that would be bad."

Yes. That is also a good reason for the person to pay attention... as is an actual consequence that affects them from doing something careless...

But take the Perp story to the extreme and consider someone who DELIBERATELY left his friend hanging there with the partial intent of him falling...

You're saying that he could just claim it was an accident and the charge of involuntary manslaughter could be easily dodged by simply claiming "Oh sorry, I'm a recreational climber and I'm exempt from such laws."

The next Ivan Milat would be queuing up at Point Perp to offer everyone top belays if you had it your way...

Trying to explain a different way Wendy without a ludicrous Milat example...

Situations where it is ambiguous as to whether a situation was accidental/deliberate and it has resulted in a fatality or some other major outcome will be scrutinized heavily... And I really don't see the problem with that.


As far as educating people goes on how to climb properly... no. These cases and their outcomes just raise awareness. It's a sad reality that it often takes a death with punishment laid for preventative action to be taken seriously. As it is and has been in many workplace industries...


EDIT: A while ago I was curious about this stuff and asked a couple of mates that are NSW Prosecutors and they explained some of the above to me and yeah, it may seem ridiculous and overkill... but when it is your relative that has died from someone else's screw up then you'd like to think the law will do something to balance the scales...
Wendy
23-May-2015
8:44:51 AM
On 22/05/2015 Snacks wrote:
>"And just how useful have they been sitting in the background? Have they
>stopped anyone doing stupid shit?"
>
>Yes. All the time... they're a formal way of 'enforcing' and promoting
>the common sense you speak of.
>
>The example Patto provided demonstrates that if someone misrepresents
>themselves as an experienced person and this goes bad then it can have
>follow on consequences for that person... which I personally think is reasonable,
>and you do not, but if that's your unrelenting opinion then fair enough.

I don't think negligence laws are what leads people to be safe and reasonable, no. I'm probably cynical, but I suspect the guy in that case still thinks he didn't do anything wrong and it was just an unfortunate accident and he feel really hard done by.
>

>
>But take the Perp story to the extreme and consider someone who DELIBERATELY
>left his friend hanging there with the partial intent of him falling...
>
>You're saying that he could just claim it was an accident and the charge
>of involuntary manslaughter could be easily dodged by simply claiming "Oh
>sorry, I'm a recreational climber and I'm exempt from such laws."
>
>The next Ivan Milat would be queuing up at Point Perp to offer everyone
>top belays if you had it your way...

Now you are trying to say that criminal acts should be covered by negligence law? ...
>
>Trying to explain a different way Wendy without a ludicrous Milat example...
>
>Situations where it is ambiguous as to whether a situation was accidental/deliberate
>and it has resulted in a fatality or some other major outcome will be scrutinized
>heavily... And I really don't see the problem with that.

Well, all deaths will be scrutinised heavily by the coroner's court anyway.

>
>As far as educating people goes on how to climb properly... no. These
>cases and their outcomes just raise awareness. It's a sad reality that
>it often takes a death with punishment laid for preventative action to
>be taken seriously. As it is and has been in many workplace industries...
>
>
>EDIT: A while ago I was curious about this stuff and asked a couple of
>mates that are NSW Prosecutors and they explained some of the above to
>me and yeah, it may seem ridiculous and overkill... but when it is your
>relative that has died from someone else's screw up then you'd like to
>think the law will do something to balance the scales...

It's all very social worker of me, but I don't actually believe that punishment and fines change people's behaviour much. Instead, I believe in rehabilitation, reconciliation and reparation. I don't understand when people get all up in arms for example about how this person deserves a death sentence to make me feel better about my own loved one's death. Because it won't change the death, it won't bring them back, it doesn't prevent further deaths ... and that's even when we are talking about deliberate criminal acts.

With acts that are basically ignorance, locking the person up or fining them isn't going to change their ignorance. It's probably going to make them resentful and angry about the whole system. Especially when you have someone who is genuinely sorrowful about the outcome of their mistakes and ready for intervention that prevents further mistakes.

But as a whole, unless you think there are a whole bunch of people being wilfully hazardous to others out there in the climbing world, I still reckon we have an education and skill base problem. And we have a culture that kinda perpetuates that. Remember the many discussions on here that go along the lines of "I did all this stupid things/ had all these near misses when I was learning and it was all good adventure and I turned out OK and everyone should do it"? or "Sandbagging is a classic Australian passtime" (do sandbaggers ever think of negligence law? I doubt it).

Snacks
24-May-2015
2:06:02 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3084679/My-agony-let-rope-sent-friend-death-Climber-tells-decision-saved-life-haunt-forever.html

Sad story. But it covers alot of what we've discussed in a way.

Good on the acquitted guy for being open about it and making an effort to move on though.

skegly
24-May-2015
10:10:14 PM
Had the now usual Sunday kid sports day pulling my 4 & 8 yr olds up some rock. Nice walks ,nice places , safety training and some good dad time. I know its not team Australia but those contact sports seem full on compared to climbing and sk8n.

tnd
25-May-2015
11:07:10 AM
There is a defence of "an obviously dangerous activity". A recent case in NSW concerned a man who was taking flying lessons. During a lesson the aircraft's engine was intermittently misfiring and the instructor made a couple of questionable decisions to continue flying and delay returning to the airfield. The engine failed and the student was badly injured in the resulting forced landing. His attempt to sue the instructor in court failed, the judgment being that he was participiting in an activity with obvious risks.

That decision would appear to me to have direct application to rock climbing.
widewetandslippery
25-May-2015
1:02:51 PM
I have started packrafting and as a middle aged bumbly I'm aware of the dumb shit i do (like drowning) and phuch its awesome. Being out of the comfort zone and totaly unaware you are until that lungful is tops. That the helmet doesnt protect the eye socket. I never realised how dangerous the climbing I did as a kid was.
surfziggy
28-May-2015
10:52:02 AM
Basically the kids are your responsibility and the onus is on you to ensure they are safe.

I've been taking my kids climbing since the youngest one was 4. If the rock is good, and they're top roping then I don't see what the issue is. We never rap in anywhere, and we don't go to any crags with ledges that they could fall off. Both my girls have learnt a lot from the experience I reckon, determination, perseverance, importance of safety procedures, team work etc.

We also take them snowboarding , surfing and skateboarding. It's inevitable at some point they will of course get some minor injuries, but to me the benefits outweigh the risks. I also think that it's more a case of perceived risk over actual risk. Riding your pushie, or driving a car is for sure more dangerous.

IdratherbeclimbingM9
31-May-2015
6:25:46 PM
On 25/05/2015 widewetandslippery wrote:
>I have started packrafting and as a middle aged bumbly I'm aware of the
>dumb shit i do (like drowning) and phuch its awesome. Being out of the
>comfort zone and totaly unaware you are until that lungful is tops. That
>the helmet doesnt protect the eye socket. I never realised how dangerous
>the climbing I did as a kid was.

But that was back when you used to climb out of the cot and land with a splat without a helmet!

Yep +1 to water can be unforgiving...
martym
23-Jun-2015
12:00:47 AM
So, we shaped our (rainy) Sunday around going with my 3 year old daughter to Climbfit gym St Leonards, after a brutal shopping trip to the Macquarie Centre (seems the whole of the hills was there). She was psyched to go climbing again - she generally climbs about 3m & jumps off to go swinging.
We were told by a teenage girl at the counter their insurance only covers 4 years & above.
We've taken her to St Peters Indoor many times (they charge $6 for under 6y) and completed their waiver form for her (she didn't get a card though).

So what's the deal? Anyone else know of gyms you can take toddlers to? It won't be long before my younger daughter will be ready to climb... Do we really have to cross the bridge every time we have a wet weekend?

rodw
23-Jun-2015
7:36:13 AM
I would says it not their fault, just a shity insurance policy for them...St Leonards is weird in that they technically do not allow under 16 at all in the bouldering area as well...which i thought was to keeps kids jumping and mucking about on the mats (which should be more a parenting issue than a ban IMHO) but actually might be part of an insurance policy requirement as well?

Note though I've been taking my daughter bouldering there since she was around 8, she was just very short for a 16 yo :)
martym
23-Jun-2015
4:37:29 PM
On 23/06/2015 rodw wrote:
>I would says it not their fault, just a shity insurance policy for them...St
>Leonards is weird in that they technically do not allow under 16 at all
>in the bouldering area as well...which i thought was to keeps kids jumping
>and mucking about on the mats (which should be more a parenting issue
>than a ban IMHO) but actually might be part of an insurance policy requirement
>as well?
There's a sign saying Under 16s aren't allowed in the gym upstairs; so maybe they just haven't got the stairs insured?


>Note though I've been taking my daughter bouldering there since she was
>around 8, she was just very short for a 16 yo :)

Yeah as my mate put it "you'll know how old she is next time".

 Page 2 of 2. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 38
There are 38 messages in this topic.

 

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

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 | High Country Mountain Huts | 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