|
|
|
|
drivel
Jul 2, 2011, 2:06 PM
Post #76 of 134
(13248 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
healyje] wrote: drivel wrote: ...and to everyone screaming redundancy: I'd rap off of a length of brand new webbing tied around a good tree. come on, you wouldn't? A piece of brand new webbing with tape on it?
did I fucking say that? No. of course not.
I think the tape inspection bit is it's own ball of worms, but people in this thread have also suggested that the concept of rapping from a single piece of webbing around a tree is ridiculous and fatal on it's face. Just pointing out that I think that's some self-righteous bullshit from people who want to assure themselves that they would NEVER be dumb enough to have an accident like that. I, and I think, most climber's who've been at it for a while, totally would and totally have rapped off of a single piece of new webbing off of a good tree.
And no, I do not routinely set up non-redundant gear anchors, and you can pray for my soul if you'd like, but I have no intention of giving up climbing.
edited to fix my cheesetiterry of the quote tags.
(This post was edited by drivel on Jul 2, 2011, 2:08 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Jul 2, 2011, 2:07 PM
Post #77 of 134
(13246 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
jt512 wrote: Does anybody know what one of these tape splices looks like? Does it completely hide the fact that the webbing is not continuous? Jay
Jay, the pdf I posted in my first comment has a photo of the webbing splice that separated in an accident at Happy Hour Crag in 2000. At least in that case, it would be impossible to know the webbing was spliced without removing the tape.
http://www.rockymountainrescue.org/...alysisHappyHour1.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Jul 2, 2011, 2:28 PM
Post #78 of 134
(13240 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
healyje wrote: drivel wrote: ...the fact that you consider your gear breaking to be a personal fuckup is pretty much the definition of machismo. The fact that you don't simply says you're not getting it, and not getting it at your peril.
Oh, and also this: Yes, I trust my gear to function as it's rated, and I won't count it as a personal failing if it breaks under normal use, no. Much like I won't consider it a personal failing if I get hit by a car on my bike.
In fact, lets run with that analogy. Let's say somebody bought a road bike. They'd rented a bike on vacation a few times, and were really enjoying it, so they decided to buy one (but didn't really know anything about bikes. They have some friends who are going to help out for the first couple rides in case of flats, ect). They go to the bike store, and ride some around, pick one out, and go home. Unknown to the purchaser, but known to the store employee, the front wheel wasn't on the bike all the way. It was cinched just tight enough to keep it on while being displayed in the store, but it wasn't tightened down. The employee never mentions this, just says have fun with your new bike!
Now, if the purchaser goes out and rides the bike and the wheel comes off and tosses her into traffic and she gets a serious head injury even though she had a helmet on... was the store negligent for selling her an apparently functional but not fully assembled bike? She would have noticed something was wrong if she'd inspected the wheel, but she didn't even know that wheels went on that way, so she had no reason to think she *should* inspect it. She rode it around in the store and it was fine.
The relevant facts, as I see them, for the lawsuit* are: the spool had a warning on it. Assuming that warning was not transmitted to the customer, I think the store was negligent. The store can not assume, because it takes no pains to verify, any level of experience from people who buy webbing.
*for climbing in general, there are philosophical and best-practices debates to be had, but I think the questions in the lawsuit are narrower than that.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 2, 2011, 4:40 PM
Post #79 of 134
(13222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
markc wrote: jt512 wrote: Does anybody know what one of these tape splices looks like? Does it completely hide the fact that the webbing is not continuous? Jay Jay, the pdf I posted in my first comment has a photo of the webbing splice that separated in an accident at Happy Hour Crag in 2000. At least in that case, it would be impossible to know the webbing was spliced without removing the tape. http://www.rockymountainrescue.org/...alysisHappyHour1.pdf
Thanks. I think that that could easily fool a beginning climber, and maybe even a non-so-beginner climber.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
onrockandice
Jul 2, 2011, 5:41 PM
Post #80 of 134
(13216 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2009
Posts: 355
|
I'd reply but I need to go throw-up first.
...
...
...
Everyone else has said it but...
I've bought several hundred feet of webbing. Am I just a dork that when I get home I flake it twice trying to find flaws or defects?
I dind't learn from a guide. JT512 has not been there at every step to laugh and smirk to give me a firm clue that I was about to do something really stupid. Cracklover wasn't there to compensate for JT512 smirking by drawing JT512 into a full on discussion on the merits of safe practices in climbing.
Sh!t I don't think anybody was there to warn me or to second guess my shortcomings. I bought something I needed to make my dangerous habit safer. To that affect I inspect every single bit of it before I head out to rock with it. I take a 10 foot gym drop on a new harness from about 15' up before I ever go out on it. I don't double back the buckle and I sit and bounce it until I can open the buckle. My Metolius super-safe holds 10Kn if I forget to double it back over (I never have.).
I look in mirror every day and in the mirror I see a climber who accepts the risks and then does everything he possibly can to minimize them. I've been mocked by JT and instructed by Cracklover and all is still well with me. I spend about a 400:1 ratio here reading over writing.
As one recent ... troll put it. "This website is here to make climbing safer for future generations aspiring to climb." --- Umm no, not really.
However this website is like the warning lable on the spool. Anybody *can* read it. Smart people will ask to read it. This website is the same way. In the end though knowledge doesn't get counted as wisdom until you've accepted the risks, tested what knowledge you've discovered and become fluent in everything that knowledge didn't convey as wisdom.
I'm not a lawyer, hell I'm not even qualified to have any type of peer discussion here with JT or cracklover.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jul 2, 2011, 5:52 PM
Post #81 of 134
(13208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
jt512 wrote: markc wrote: jt512 wrote: Does anybody know what one of these tape splices looks like? Does it completely hide the fact that the webbing is not continuous? Jay Jay, the pdf I posted in my first comment has a photo of the webbing splice that separated in an accident at Happy Hour Crag in 2000. At least in that case, it would be impossible to know the webbing was spliced without removing the tape. http://www.rockymountainrescue.org/...alysisHappyHour1.pdfThanks. I think that that could easily fool a beginning climber, and maybe even a non-so-beginner climber. Jay
If there was a piece of tape on your rope, would you investigate that? "Fool"? There is no 'fooling'; common sense should tell you tape is inappropriate on a piece of webbing or rope by nature of what tape is for.
If half of this discussion is an indication of the degree climbing is crossing over into [consumer] entertainment with all it's implied warranties then to me it's yet a further sign that climbing is being promoted and sold to people who have no business being tied into a rope.
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Jul 2, 2011, 7:05 PM
Post #82 of 134
(13197 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
I'm beginning to understand why you do so much solo climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 2, 2011, 9:24 PM
Post #83 of 134
(13175 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
I hate lawyers, law suits and BS that more and more removes personal responsibility and instead places duty of care on everyone else.
Drivel makes an excellent argument. Like him I would happily rap off a single piece of webbing, redundancy is smart climbing but it isn't for every situation.
In this situation there is CLEARLY a failing by the retailer. (And in my opinion possibly the webbing manufacturers, as splicing IS a accident waiting to happen.)
I work in a retail store a couple times once a month. To be honest this hasn't occurred to me as a something i need to look out for. That said I expect I would spot it as I cut out the length.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jul 2, 2011, 10:05 PM
Post #84 of 134
(13164 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
patto wrote: Drivel makes an excellent argument. Like him I would happily rap off a single piece of webbing, redundancy is smart climbing but it isn't for every situation. In this situation there is CLEARLY a failing by the retailer. (And in my opinion possibly the webbing manufacturers, as splicing IS a accident waiting to happen.)
Drivel does not make an excellent argument; any argument that attempts to place the blame for this accident anywhere but on the climbers is grossly misguided and simply contributes to more of these accidents occurring.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Jul 2, 2011, 10:41 PM
Post #85 of 134
(13156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
drivel wrote: healyje] wrote: drivel wrote: ...and to everyone screaming redundancy: I'd rap off of a length of brand new webbing tied around a good tree. come on, you wouldn't? A piece of brand new webbing with tape on it? did I fucking say that? No. of course not. I think the tape inspection bit is it's own ball of worms, but people in this thread have also suggested that the concept of rapping from a single piece of webbing around a tree is ridiculous and fatal on it's face. Just pointing out that I think that's some self-righteous bullshit from people who want to assure themselves that they would NEVER be dumb enough to have an accident like that. I, and I think, most climber's who've been at it for a while, totally would and totally have rapped off of a single piece of new webbing off of a good tree. And no, I do not routinely set up non-redundant gear anchors, and you can pray for my soul if you'd like, but I have no intention of giving up climbing. edited to fix my cheesetiterry of the quote tags.
Sure I've rapped off a single piece of webbing around a bomber tree. That and much worse. Everytime I do though, I inspect the anchor and evaluate it's adequacy for my intended use and decide whether it meets my own personal minimum requirements for acceptable risk. At which point I have assumed all responsibility for my fate. Why is the lady with the spliced webbing any less accountable? It's not like it was a poorly brazed head on a cam requiring special equipment or training to detect. This was a complete break in the webbing.
What if she had replaced an existing tat anchor with that webbing and then walked off after bringing up her partner? What if someone else lowered or rapped from the anchor without inspecting it and decked? Who is liable then? If I asked who was "responsible", would that change your answer?
I must admit that your 'incompletely assembled bike tire' analogy is an interesting one though and I am inclined to say the retailer is at least partially responsible, for a number of reasons. Somehow I hate to admit it though. I know it's illogical, but I suppose I'm just afraid of the mythical slippery slope on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jul 2, 2011, 11:32 PM
Post #86 of 134
(13144 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
drivel wrote: In fact, lets run with that analogy. Let's say somebody bought a road bike. They'd rented a bike on vacation a few times, and were really enjoying it, so they decided to buy one (but didn't really know anything about bikes. They have some friends who are going to help out for the first couple rides in case of flats, ect). They go to the bike store, and ride some around, pick one out, and go home. Unknown to the purchaser, but known to the store employee, the front wheel wasn't on the bike all the way. It was cinched just tight enough to keep it on while being displayed in the store, but it wasn't tightened down. The employee never mentions this, just says have fun with your new bike!
So, you're saying the climbing store employee did this deliberately?
(This post was edited by j_ung on Jul 2, 2011, 11:39 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jul 2, 2011, 11:39 PM
Post #87 of 134
(13141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
notapplicable wrote: drivel wrote: healyje] wrote: drivel wrote: ...and to everyone screaming redundancy: I'd rap off of a length of brand new webbing tied around a good tree. come on, you wouldn't? A piece of brand new webbing with tape on it? did I fucking say that? No. of course not. I think the tape inspection bit is it's own ball of worms, but people in this thread have also suggested that the concept of rapping from a single piece of webbing around a tree is ridiculous and fatal on it's face. Just pointing out that I think that's some self-righteous bullshit from people who want to assure themselves that they would NEVER be dumb enough to have an accident like that. I, and I think, most climber's who've been at it for a while, totally would and totally have rapped off of a single piece of new webbing off of a good tree. And no, I do not routinely set up non-redundant gear anchors, and you can pray for my soul if you'd like, but I have no intention of giving up climbing. edited to fix my cheesetiterry of the quote tags. Sure I've rapped off a single piece of webbing around a bomber tree. That and much worse. Everytime I do though, I inspect the anchor and evaluate it's adequacy for my intended use and decide whether it meets my own personal minimum requirements for acceptable risk. At which point I have assumed all responsibility for my fate. Why is the lady with the spliced webbing any less accountable? It's not like it was a poorly brazed head on a cam requiring special equipment or training to detect. This was a complete break in the webbing. What if she had replaced an existing tat anchor with that webbing and then walked off after bringing up her partner? What if someone else lowered or rapped from the anchor without inspecting it and decked? Who is liable then? If I asked who was "responsible", would that change your answer? I must admit that your 'incompletely assembled bike tire' analogy is an interesting one though and I am inclined to say the retailer is at least partially responsible, for a number of reasons. Somehow I hate to admit it though. I know it's illogical, but I suppose I'm just afraid of the mythical slippery slope on this one.
I don't think it's slippery at all. I think it's a straw man, though I don't think drivel put it that way on purpose.
I've also rapped off a single piece of webbing. And every single time I did it, I knew the risk involved and accepted it.
I have seen tape splices on multiple occasions, by the way. The very first time I saw one, I took the tape off to see what was going on. It's not even slightly strong, and a simple snapping of the webbing between your hands will break it. It's very similar to masking tape.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jul 2, 2011, 11:45 PM
Post #88 of 134
(13135 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
jt512 wrote: markc wrote: jt512 wrote: Does anybody know what one of these tape splices looks like? Does it completely hide the fact that the webbing is not continuous? Jay Jay, the pdf I posted in my first comment has a photo of the webbing splice that separated in an accident at Happy Hour Crag in 2000. At least in that case, it would be impossible to know the webbing was spliced without removing the tape. http://www.rockymountainrescue.org/...alysisHappyHour1.pdfThanks. I think that that could easily fool a beginning climber, and maybe even a non-so-beginner climber. Jay
I don't disagree with you very often, and when I do, it's usually not vehemently. But this time is different. The very first moment I saw one of those things, I thought, WTF, why is there tape on this webbing?
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jul 2, 2011, 11:51 PM
Post #89 of 134
(13133 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
drivel wrote: The relevant facts, as I see them, for the lawsuit* are: the spool had a warning on it. Assuming that warning was not transmitted to the customer, I think the store was negligent. The store can not assume, because it takes no pains to verify, any level of experience from people who buy webbing. *for climbing in general, there are philosophical and best-practices debates to be had, but I think the questions in the lawsuit are narrower than that.
*You're probably right about that.
I have no argument against the point that the store employee fucked up. But likewise, you have no argument against the point that the climber also fucked up.
|
|
|
|
|
ianmeister89
Jul 3, 2011, 2:05 AM
Post #90 of 134
(13114 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2009
Posts: 140
|
I used to work in a climbing shop, selling Sterling rope's cordage and webbing by the foot. If a spool contained a splice in it, there was a BIG orange tag attached to the side of the spool clearly stating that the spool contained a splice(s). Where there was a splice, there was a brightly colored Orange and metallic gold tag that says splice in big alerting letters. Really, to climb on something with a splice in it, (at least from what I've seen) would be very hard to do without noticing.
-Ian
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 3, 2011, 2:18 AM
Post #91 of 134
(13111 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
healyje wrote: jt512 wrote: markc wrote: jt512 wrote: Does anybody know what one of these tape splices looks like? Does it completely hide the fact that the webbing is not continuous? Jay Jay, the pdf I posted in my first comment has a photo of the webbing splice that separated in an accident at Happy Hour Crag in 2000. At least in that case, it would be impossible to know the webbing was spliced without removing the tape. http://www.rockymountainrescue.org/...alysisHappyHour1.pdfThanks. I think that that could easily fool a beginning climber, and maybe even a non-so-beginner climber. Jay If there was a piece of tape on your rope, would you investigate that? "Fool"? There is no 'fooling'; common sense should tell you tape is inappropriate on a piece of webbing or rope by nature of what tape is for.
Would I now? Sure. But I've been exposed to these splice horror stories for a couple of decades. Would I have questioned it if it was my very first purchase of webbing ever? I honestly don't know.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 3, 2011, 2:22 AM
Post #92 of 134
(13110 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
j_ung wrote: jt512 wrote: markc wrote: jt512 wrote: Does anybody know what one of these tape splices looks like? Does it completely hide the fact that the webbing is not continuous? Jay Jay, the pdf I posted in my first comment has a photo of the webbing splice that separated in an accident at Happy Hour Crag in 2000. At least in that case, it would be impossible to know the webbing was spliced without removing the tape. http://www.rockymountainrescue.org/...alysisHappyHour1.pdfThanks. I think that that could easily fool a beginning climber, and maybe even a non-so-beginner climber. Jay I don't disagree with you very often, and when I do, it's usually not vehemently. But this time is different. The very first moment I saw one of those things, I thought, WTF, why is there tape on this webbing?
Maybe I would have too. I've never seen one.
I'll tell you one thing: there's no fucking excuse for webbing manufacturers to use these splices.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
MS1
Jul 3, 2011, 4:10 AM
Post #93 of 134
(13089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2009
Posts: 560
|
drector wrote: MS1 wrote: So I think a warranty theory would be just as hard to pursue as a tort theory. In either case, you would have to convince a judge or jury that it is reasonable for a climber to trust their lives to a single, non-redundant strand of uninspected webbing. Most climbers would find such an idea ridiculous (at least where the defect was easily noticeable), but as others have noted, the chances of a climber being on the jury are negligible. Yet every day, people trust their lives to uninspected car brakes and uninspected car airbags. I don't know what is right in this case but the difference between rock climbing and stepping into an elevator is likely to be the most important issue related to this case. This seems to be the situation with every equipment related lawsuit in the climbing and recreation industry. When does a person have an expectation that someone else is overseeing their safety and when do they have that responsibility themselves? Where is a list that tells me things in life fall into each category? Dave
I think you are offering a bad analogy.
Faulty brakes or airbags are hard-to-spot defects; the climbing analogy there might be a faulty cam with a head that pops off under normal climbing loads, or a rope with a weakened core but a normal looking sheath. In both cases, full liability to the manufacturer for the product defect seems pretty obvious.
Here, we have a visible defect and a product used in a manner that few would recommend. A better car analogy would be taking a car that was missing a brake pedal entirely and driving on the interstate with it. I doubt any jury in the country would find that a reasonable use of the product, and so it would be very hard to get damages out of the automaker even though a car without brakes is dangerous and defective. The only reason this case will come out differently is that jurors are familiar with how reasonable drivers behave, but have no ability to distinguish between safe and unsafe climbing practices.
|
|
|
|
|
MS1
Jul 3, 2011, 4:29 AM
Post #94 of 134
(13082 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2009
Posts: 560
|
jt512 wrote: healyje wrote: jt512 wrote: markc wrote: jt512 wrote: Does anybody know what one of these tape splices looks like? Does it completely hide the fact that the webbing is not continuous? Jay Jay, the pdf I posted in my first comment has a photo of the webbing splice that separated in an accident at Happy Hour Crag in 2000. At least in that case, it would be impossible to know the webbing was spliced without removing the tape. http://www.rockymountainrescue.org/...alysisHappyHour1.pdfThanks. I think that that could easily fool a beginning climber, and maybe even a non-so-beginner climber. Jay If there was a piece of tape on your rope, would you investigate that? "Fool"? There is no 'fooling'; common sense should tell you tape is inappropriate on a piece of webbing or rope by nature of what tape is for. Would I now? Sure. But I've been exposed to these splice horror stories for a couple of decades. Would I have questioned it if it was my very first purchase of webbing ever? I honestly don't know. Jay
The fact that a beginner might not know what to do doesn't cut clearly one way or the other. On the one hand, if it was apparent to the store employees it makes their negligence more egregious. On the other, an inexperienced person has even more reason to be cautious when engaged in obviously dangerous activities.
|
|
|
|
|
onrockandice
Jul 3, 2011, 4:38 AM
Post #95 of 134
(13077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2009
Posts: 355
|
Sure there is. Because hardly ever does someone by a full spool.
I do think the store is responsible for not conveying the splice to the buyer. When I ask for 100' of milspec webbing I want 100, one-hundred, ONEHUNDRED, a 1 and 2 full zeros of continuous webbing. So I agree with you that someone besides the climber holds some liability and I believe it's the salesperson who pulled the cord and sold it as one full piece not explaining at all that it was a spliced together length. Or we at least assume they didn't. If they did then all bets are off and the climber is 100% liable.
Anyhow I think it's a split decision or should I say a spliced decision on this subject here in this thread. The climber in the end should have inspected their stuff. I never climb my rope without flaking it twice feeling for burrs, flatspots, defects, etc.... Every time I get it out at the crag I flake left, flake right then I tie in to belay or climb.
Go figure I read that here one day and thought it was a good idea. Who knew...
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Jul 3, 2011, 4:53 AM
Post #96 of 134
(13071 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
j_ung wrote: drivel wrote: The relevant facts, as I see them, for the lawsuit* are: the spool had a warning on it. Assuming that warning was not transmitted to the customer, I think the store was negligent. The store can not assume, because it takes no pains to verify, any level of experience from people who buy webbing. *for climbing in general, there are philosophical and best-practices debates to be had, but I think the questions in the lawsuit are narrower than that. *You're probably right about that. I have no argument against the point that the store employee fucked up. But likewise, you have no argument against the point that the climber also fucked up.
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 3, 2011, 5:01 AM
Post #97 of 134
(13069 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
MS1 wrote: jt512 wrote: healyje wrote: jt512 wrote: markc wrote: jt512 wrote: Does anybody know what one of these tape splices looks like? Does it completely hide the fact that the webbing is not continuous? Jay Jay, the pdf I posted in my first comment has a photo of the webbing splice that separated in an accident at Happy Hour Crag in 2000. At least in that case, it would be impossible to know the webbing was spliced without removing the tape. http://www.rockymountainrescue.org/...alysisHappyHour1.pdfThanks. I think that that could easily fool a beginning climber, and maybe even a non-so-beginner climber. Jay If there was a piece of tape on your rope, would you investigate that? "Fool"? There is no 'fooling'; common sense should tell you tape is inappropriate on a piece of webbing or rope by nature of what tape is for. Would I now? Sure. But I've been exposed to these splice horror stories for a couple of decades. Would I have questioned it if it was my very first purchase of webbing ever? I honestly don't know. Jay The fact that a beginner might not know what to do doesn't cut clearly one way or the other. On the one hand, if it was apparent to the store employees it makes their negligence more egregious. On the other, an inexperienced person has even more reason to be cautious when engaged in obviously dangerous activities.
*facepalm*
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Jul 3, 2011, 5:17 AM
Post #98 of 134
(13066 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
j_ung wrote: drivel wrote: In fact, lets run with that analogy. Let's say somebody bought a road bike. They'd rented a bike on vacation a few times, and were really enjoying it, so they decided to buy one (but didn't really know anything about bikes. They have some friends who are going to help out for the first couple rides in case of flats, ect). They go to the bike store, and ride some around, pick one out, and go home. Unknown to the purchaser, but known to the store employee, the front wheel wasn't on the bike all the way. It was cinched just tight enough to keep it on while being displayed in the store, but it wasn't tightened down. The employee never mentions this, just says have fun with your new bike! So, you're saying the climbing store employee did this deliberately?
No, just thoughtlessly. Assumed the customer ought to know, just like most of this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Jul 3, 2011, 5:56 AM
Post #99 of 134
(13057 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
jt512 wrote: j_ung wrote: jt512 wrote: markc wrote: jt512 wrote: Does anybody know what one of these tape splices looks like? Does it completely hide the fact that the webbing is not continuous? Jay Jay, the pdf I posted in my first comment has a photo of the webbing splice that separated in an accident at Happy Hour Crag in 2000. At least in that case, it would be impossible to know the webbing was spliced without removing the tape. http://www.rockymountainrescue.org/...alysisHappyHour1.pdfThanks. I think that that could easily fool a beginning climber, and maybe even a non-so-beginner climber. Jay I don't disagree with you very often, and when I do, it's usually not vehemently. But this time is different. The very first moment I saw one of those things, I thought, WTF, why is there tape on this webbing? Maybe I would have too. I've never seen one. I'll tell you one thing: there's no fucking excuse for webbing manufacturers to use these splices. Jay
I agree. If they want to put more than one piece of webbing on a spool then fine, but don't join the ends together in anyway. It just seems like an odd practice to continue on with in the face of all that has resulted from it.
|
|
|
|
|
MS1
Jul 3, 2011, 1:25 PM
Post #100 of 134
(13024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2009
Posts: 560
|
jt512 wrote: MS1 wrote: jt512 wrote: healyje wrote: jt512 wrote: markc wrote: jt512 wrote: Does anybody know what one of these tape splices looks like? Does it completely hide the fact that the webbing is not continuous? Jay Jay, the pdf I posted in my first comment has a photo of the webbing splice that separated in an accident at Happy Hour Crag in 2000. At least in that case, it would be impossible to know the webbing was spliced without removing the tape. http://www.rockymountainrescue.org/...alysisHappyHour1.pdfThanks. I think that that could easily fool a beginning climber, and maybe even a non-so-beginner climber. Jay If there was a piece of tape on your rope, would you investigate that? "Fool"? There is no 'fooling'; common sense should tell you tape is inappropriate on a piece of webbing or rope by nature of what tape is for. Would I now? Sure. But I've been exposed to these splice horror stories for a couple of decades. Would I have questioned it if it was my very first purchase of webbing ever? I honestly don't know. Jay The fact that a beginner might not know what to do doesn't cut clearly one way or the other. On the one hand, if it was apparent to the store employees it makes their negligence more egregious. On the other, an inexperienced person has even more reason to be cautious when engaged in obviously dangerous activities. *facepalm*
Thanks for the witty rejoinder, but I'd bet you agree with the principle if you reflect a bit. Beginner drivers shouldn't drive on a busy interstate before they've mastered the basics. Beginner skydivers shouldn't go basejumping in windy conditions. Beginner rockclimbers shouldn't be setting up their own rappels or deciding that they can dispense with redundancy until they've gotten both mileage and competent instruction.
The common theme is that, when undertaking to learn a dangerous new activity, the reasonable beginner takes it slow, seeks competent instruction, and follows all applicable safety practices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
