|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Nov 21, 2010, 3:18 AM
Post #26 of 61
(11867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
macblaze wrote: jt512 wrote: macblaze wrote: healyje wrote: From Alpinist's facebook page: In reply to: Christian Knoll Actually it is true, that he didn't use any auto-blocking device. He was using a tuber - the climber had allready clipped the top - when he sat into he just rushed through. The belayer was distracted by surrounding people and it seems that he had let go his hands of the rope. The climber landed on his feet, but unfortunately he fall backwards and hit the floor with his head, and no there were no padded floors. 15 hours ago · I wonder if this is a case of the climber clipping the top and just sitting back with out yelling take or any such communication. I've noticed this as a casual habit of many of the more experienced climbers at my gym (and at comps for that matter) and it always makes me cringe. The climber shouldn't have to call "take" at the top. If you have to tell to your belayer to catch you, there is something very wrong with your belayer. Jay Not that I disagree entirely, and yet it seems people do hit the ground. I prefer to check. Call me a n00b if ya want.
I feel like there is a big difference, in terms of a need for communication, between clipping the anchor at the gym and being lowered after cleaning an anchor or some similar activity where you were "off belay" at some point.
Not that you shouldn't wait till the rope comes tight to let go, I usually do, but if you can't for fear of being dropped, are you honestly comfortable taking a fall mid route with that belayer? If so, why?
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Nov 21, 2010, 3:21 AM
Post #27 of 61
(11862 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
healyje wrote: There are numerous approaches, variations, and nuances in belaying overall, but In reply to: ...and it seems that he had let go his hands of the rope. isn't one of them
Not to be flippant about it, because someone did lose their life but...*face palm*
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Nov 21, 2010, 3:31 AM
Post #28 of 61
(11857 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
I suspect this is yet another case of STFUAB.
|
|
|
|
|
kikitastrophe
Nov 21, 2010, 2:17 PM
Post #29 of 61
(11800 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2009
Posts: 25
|
I think a negligent homicide charge is pretty appropriate - True the climber did have to accept the risks of climbing, and clearly he did. Charging his belayer (and perhaps finding him guilty if it turns out he was chatting up some lady and really being legitimately negligent) will not bring back the climber, but it does afford some protection against your belayer getting away with murdering you.
If you think about it another way - outside of any egotistical need for participating in a dangerous sport (cause you know we all have that pathology) - think of it in the context of medicine - just because I am a doc trained in a procedure AND I tell you all the risks, you are still going to sue my ass if I kill you during it, especially if its because I was chatting up the nurse. And I even made you sign a paper stating I told you there was a small risk of death...! Hmmm.
|
|
|
|
|
gavroche
Nov 21, 2010, 3:20 PM
Post #30 of 61
(11786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2006
Posts: 32
|
+1
Separate the civil from the criminal. I don't think the victim should necessarily be able to receive money for their negligence but i don't think this should automatically not be a negligent homicide case.
Take it out of the climbing context, and put it into driving. If someone isn't paying attention and plows into another driver or a pedestrian or two, should they just there not be criminal repercussions? I don't see this as any different?
kikitastrophe wrote: I think a negligent homicide charge is pretty appropriate - True the climber did have to accept the risks of climbing, and clearly he did. Charging his belayer (and perhaps finding him guilty if it turns out he was chatting up some lady and really being legitimately negligent) will not bring back the climber, but it does afford some protection against your belayer getting away with murdering you. If you think about it another way - outside of any egotistical need for participating in a dangerous sport (cause you know we all have that pathology) - think of it in the context of medicine - just because I am a doc trained in a procedure AND I tell you all the risks, you are still going to sue my ass if I kill you during it, especially if its because I was chatting up the nurse. And I even made you sign a paper stating I told you there was a small risk of death...! Hmmm. |
|
|
|
|
Lbrombach
Nov 21, 2010, 4:25 PM
Post #31 of 61
(11771 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2010
Posts: 149
|
ahh, yes. But imagine that you are a doctor, and you need an appendectomy. You bring a buddy with no medical training to your office and convince him that it'll be perfectly safe if he just follows instruction you left him before you go under. He mistake your aorta for your appendix and severs it. Is that his fault or yours?
We don't really have enough info to make good conclusions, but I'm leaning toward thinking that the experience climber and/or the gym should have better trained the guy. He may not even have known the risks if he was a complete noob.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Nov 21, 2010, 9:08 PM
Post #32 of 61
(11725 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
gavroche wrote: +1 Separate the civil from the criminal. I don't think the victim should necessarily be able to receive money for their negligence but i don't think this should automatically not be a negligent homicide case. Take it out of the climbing context, and put it into driving. If someone isn't paying attention and plows into another driver or a pedestrian or two, should they just there not be criminal repercussions? I don't see this as any different? kikitastrophe wrote: I think a negligent homicide charge is pretty appropriate - True the climber did have to accept the risks of climbing, and clearly he did. Charging his belayer (and perhaps finding him guilty if it turns out he was chatting up some lady and really being legitimately negligent) will not bring back the climber, but it does afford some protection against your belayer getting away with murdering you. If you think about it another way - outside of any egotistical need for participating in a dangerous sport (cause you know we all have that pathology) - think of it in the context of medicine - just because I am a doc trained in a procedure AND I tell you all the risks, you are still going to sue my ass if I kill you during it, especially if its because I was chatting up the nurse. And I even made you sign a paper stating I told you there was a small risk of death...! Hmmm.
[shakes head] F'n sport climbers... [/shakes head]
|
|
|
|
|
gavroche
Nov 21, 2010, 10:15 PM
Post #33 of 61
(11705 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2006
Posts: 32
|
First off, it is a gym, not outside.
I don't know the exact circumstances of what happened, but neither do you. I'm not saying it is negligence, but I can think of situations where I think a belayer should be held criminally responsible for the death of his partner. What about a theoretical where the belayer dropped his partner on purpose, would you exclude that situation as well?
It has nothing to do with the risks inherent in the sport, it has to do with a duty of care owed on the part of those participating. I will go back to my driving analogy. Driving is as risky as climbing is. Would you say that careless or reckless drivers who kill others should also not be held responsible because the rest of us driving (or walking or biking) should be aware of the dangers? What if they are speeding recklessly? Drag racing? Drinking and driving? How are you going to differentiate driving from climbing in a gym?
I think that people who are careless and run others off the road should be held responsible. I think a similar duty of care that is owed in other dangerous situations. That doesn't mean that one is relieved from responsibility for the situations they get themselves into, or that every - or even most - accident is a result of a breach of that duty, only that there are some situations I think reach to that level.
If you want to curse me though, it's probably for being a lawyer, not for being a sport climber.
notapplicable wrote: gavroche wrote: +1 Separate the civil from the criminal. I don't think the victim should necessarily be able to receive money for their negligence but i don't think this should automatically not be a negligent homicide case. Take it out of the climbing context, and put it into driving. If someone isn't paying attention and plows into another driver or a pedestrian or two, should they just there not be criminal repercussions? I don't see this as any different? kikitastrophe wrote: I think a negligent homicide charge is pretty appropriate - True the climber did have to accept the risks of climbing, and clearly he did. Charging his belayer (and perhaps finding him guilty if it turns out he was chatting up some lady and really being legitimately negligent) will not bring back the climber, but it does afford some protection against your belayer getting away with murdering you. If you think about it another way - outside of any egotistical need for participating in a dangerous sport (cause you know we all have that pathology) - think of it in the context of medicine - just because I am a doc trained in a procedure AND I tell you all the risks, you are still going to sue my ass if I kill you during it, especially if its because I was chatting up the nurse. And I even made you sign a paper stating I told you there was a small risk of death...! Hmmm. F'n sport climbers... [/shakes head] |
|
|
|
|
healyje
Nov 21, 2010, 10:43 PM
Post #34 of 61
(11695 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
The more climbing is commercialized, marketed, and sold as just another risk-free, pop-suburban entertainment option anyone can and everyone should do the more notions of legal liability will creep into the sport - it's unavoidable.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Nov 21, 2010, 11:40 PM
Post #35 of 61
(11676 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
gavroche wrote: notapplicable wrote: gavroche wrote: +1 Separate the civil from the criminal. I don't think the victim should necessarily be able to receive money for their negligence but i don't think this should automatically not be a negligent homicide case. Take it out of the climbing context, and put it into driving. If someone isn't paying attention and plows into another driver or a pedestrian or two, should they just there not be criminal repercussions? I don't see this as any different? kikitastrophe wrote: I think a negligent homicide charge is pretty appropriate - True the climber did have to accept the risks of climbing, and clearly he did. Charging his belayer (and perhaps finding him guilty if it turns out he was chatting up some lady and really being legitimately negligent) will not bring back the climber, but it does afford some protection against your belayer getting away with murdering you. If you think about it another way - outside of any egotistical need for participating in a dangerous sport (cause you know we all have that pathology) - think of it in the context of medicine - just because I am a doc trained in a procedure AND I tell you all the risks, you are still going to sue my ass if I kill you during it, especially if its because I was chatting up the nurse. And I even made you sign a paper stating I told you there was a small risk of death...! Hmmm. F'n sport climbers... [/shakes head]First off, it is a gym, not outside. I don't know the exact circumstances of what happened, but neither do you. I'm not saying it is negligence, but I can think of situations where I think a belayer should be held criminally responsible for the death of his partner. What about a theoretical where the belayer dropped his partner on purpose, would you exclude that situation as well? It has nothing to do with the risks inherent in the sport, it has to do with a duty of care owed on the part of those participating. I will go back to my driving analogy. Driving is as risky as climbing is. Would you say that careless or reckless drivers who kill others should also not be held responsible because the rest of us driving (or walking or biking) should be aware of the dangers? What if they are speeding recklessly? Drag racing? Drinking and driving? How are you going to differentiate driving from climbing in a gym? I think that people who are careless and run others off the road should be held responsible. I think a similar duty of care that is owed in other dangerous situations. That doesn't mean that one is relieved from responsibility for the situations they get themselves into, or that every - or even most - accident is a result of a breach of that duty, only that there are some situations I think reach to that level. If you want to curse me though, it's probably for being a lawyer, not for being a sport climber.
Your analogy is a poor one because in climbing we have the opportunity (I would argue obligation) to evaluate the other parties knowledge, experience and skill level before putting our life in their hands. No such opportunity exists with respect to other drivers on the road.
I was belayed by a total nOOb today because I wanted her to gain the experience but I choose a route that was gravy and I TR'd instead of leading. She could have still dropped me during the lower but my regular partners where keeping an eye on things and I was willing to take that risk. And thats just it, I choose the level of risk I was willing to expose myself too. That is the key.
In climbing, holding another persons life in your hands is a privilege, the granting or withholding of which is entirely in the control of the individual at hazard. Will some choose wrong? Yes they will, but I do not want that unwritten contract, that bond between partners, compromised by the threat of litigation. I want all that baggage left on the ground where it belongs.
|
|
|
|
|
iknowfear
Nov 22, 2010, 12:51 AM
Post #36 of 61
(11656 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2004
Posts: 670
|
spikeddem wrote: Note that the Alpine author confirms that the belayer is being charged with negligent homicide. Can of worms?
Not really. SOP in Austria. The police investigates any death, so far with the consensus (upheld by numerous court cases) that the more experienced person is a "de facto" guide. If the belayer in this case was noobish, a court might still rule that the more experienced guy should have trained him better.
|
|
|
|
|
gavroche
Nov 22, 2010, 2:12 AM
Post #37 of 61
(11636 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2006
Posts: 32
|
To me this gets back to the distinction between criminal and civil matters. I'm not suggesting that the partner should have a civil claim against his belayer. In this case, unfortunately, the partner is dead and it doesn't sound like he or his family is suing for money or damages or anything else. The suit is being brought by the state and has nothing to do with any contractual obligation between parties, it has to do with the potentially reckless behavior of the belayer.
Why should you be able to enter into a contract that frees you from the laws? Does that mean your partner cannot be held responsible no matter their actions while you are on the rock because it is your fault for entering into a bad contract? What do you think the outcome should be if the other partner drops you on purpose because he wants you out of the way?
Or to keep my driving analogy, say you are driving recklessly and you kill your passenger, do you not think that there should be the possibility for criminal charges in that situation? Is there a contract between a driver and a passenger that negates all claims that the state should have?
I don't see how the level of risk that you have chosen to assume has any bearing on whether or not the other person acted in a criminal fashion.
I think the circumstances should be pretty severe for a belayer to be charged with criminal negligence, but I would not want to say never.
notapplicable wrote: gavroche wrote: notapplicable wrote: gavroche wrote: +1 Separate the civil from the criminal. I don't think the victim should necessarily be able to receive money for their negligence but i don't think this should automatically not be a negligent homicide case. Take it out of the climbing context, and put it into driving. If someone isn't paying attention and plows into another driver or a pedestrian or two, should they just there not be criminal repercussions? I don't see this as any different? kikitastrophe wrote: I think a negligent homicide charge is pretty appropriate - True the climber did have to accept the risks of climbing, and clearly he did. Charging his belayer (and perhaps finding him guilty if it turns out he was chatting up some lady and really being legitimately negligent) will not bring back the climber, but it does afford some protection against your belayer getting away with murdering you. If you think about it another way - outside of any egotistical need for participating in a dangerous sport (cause you know we all have that pathology) - think of it in the context of medicine - just because I am a doc trained in a procedure AND I tell you all the risks, you are still going to sue my ass if I kill you during it, especially if its because I was chatting up the nurse. And I even made you sign a paper stating I told you there was a small risk of death...! Hmmm. F'n sport climbers... [/shakes head]First off, it is a gym, not outside. I don't know the exact circumstances of what happened, but neither do you. I'm not saying it is negligence, but I can think of situations where I think a belayer should be held criminally responsible for the death of his partner. What about a theoretical where the belayer dropped his partner on purpose, would you exclude that situation as well? It has nothing to do with the risks inherent in the sport, it has to do with a duty of care owed on the part of those participating. I will go back to my driving analogy. Driving is as risky as climbing is. Would you say that careless or reckless drivers who kill others should also not be held responsible because the rest of us driving (or walking or biking) should be aware of the dangers? What if they are speeding recklessly? Drag racing? Drinking and driving? How are you going to differentiate driving from climbing in a gym? I think that people who are careless and run others off the road should be held responsible. I think a similar duty of care that is owed in other dangerous situations. That doesn't mean that one is relieved from responsibility for the situations they get themselves into, or that every - or even most - accident is a result of a breach of that duty, only that there are some situations I think reach to that level. If you want to curse me though, it's probably for being a lawyer, not for being a sport climber. Your analogy is a poor one because in climbing we have the opportunity (I would argue obligation) to evaluate the other parties knowledge, experience and skill level before putting our life in their hands. No such opportunity exists with respect to other drivers on the road. I was belayed by a total nOOb today because I wanted her to gain the experience but I choose a route that was gravy and I TR'd instead of leading. She could have still dropped me during the lower but my regular partners where keeping an eye on things and I was willing to take that risk. And thats just it, I choose the level of risk I was willing to expose myself too. That is the key. In climbing, holding another persons life in your hands is a privilege, the granting or withholding of which is entirely in the control of the individual at hazard. Will some choose wrong? Yes they will, but I do not want that unwritten contract, that bond between partners, compromised by the threat of litigation. I want all that baggage left on the ground where it belongs.
(This post was edited by gavroche on Nov 22, 2010, 2:34 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
zachypoopy
Nov 22, 2010, 4:41 AM
Post #38 of 61
(11592 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2010
Posts: 1
|
Taking a moment at the top of a route to make sure the belay has caught up is in the best interest of everyone. I know when I clip the top I tend to pull out extra slack to ensure no hang ups. Just clipping and dropping puts undo strain on all the system when a slight pause to make sure all slack is pulled is simply responsible. Ropes can only take so much and ALL gym ropes see their fair share of abuse.
As far as taking action against the belay. All climbers first line of defense is knowledge and caution. It is an inherently dangerous sport (as all the stupid signs like to remind us) and taking that initiative to train and ensure proper skill is crucial for success. If the belayer proves to have been overly dangerous in his attention then some form of punishment could be instilled. However I am not sure the suit should come from the state. The family of the injured party or the gym for sure but allowing the state to have that amount of power is scary. If something happened where my partner injured or killed me I do not want someone else deciding if charges should be brought. That is the decision of the parties it directly involves.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 22, 2010, 5:54 AM
Post #39 of 61
(11572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
zachypoopy wrote: Taking a moment at the top of a route to make sure the belay has caught up is in the best interest of everyone. I know when I clip the top I tend to pull out extra slack to ensure no hang ups. Just clipping and dropping puts undo strain on all the system when a slight pause to make sure all slack is pulled is simply responsible. Ropes can only take so much and ALL gym ropes see their fair share of abuse.
You're a gumby.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Nov 22, 2010, 9:53 AM
Post #40 of 61
(11534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
gavroche wrote: I think the circumstances should be pretty severe for a belayer to be charged with criminal negilgence, but I would not want to say never.
Short of a deliberate act of murder, I would want to say never. You leave the ground to climb in a non-commercial endeavor as a fully self-responsible adult then the assumption of risk is on you. Every step backwards from that self-responsible perspective will essentially 'weaken' individuals, climbing as a whole, and in the long term generate more accidents than it prevents.
|
|
|
|
|
c4c
Nov 22, 2010, 12:31 PM
Post #41 of 61
(11513 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 18, 2006
Posts: 1279
|
I wonder if the climber would have lived if he had been wearing a helmet?
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Nov 22, 2010, 4:18 PM
Post #42 of 61
(11460 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
healyje wrote: The more climbing is commercialized, marketed, and sold as just another risk-free, pop-suburban entertainment option anyone can and everyone should do the more notions of legal liability will creep into the sport - it's unavoidable.
Without question, this is the truth. I will add another point, the more climbing is commercialized and sold as risk free, the more we are going to see these accidents.
Which we are. Twenty years ago when I started climbing, you rarely heard about bad accidents happening. They did, just not that often. When I first started on SAR, Joshua Tree had not had a death in the park in over eight years. We have had many climbing deaths here over the past 7 to 8 years and god knows how many serious accidents.
(This post was edited by socalclimber on Nov 22, 2010, 4:20 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Nov 22, 2010, 4:24 PM
Post #43 of 61
(11452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
jt512 wrote: macblaze wrote: healyje wrote: From Alpinist's facebook page: In reply to: Christian Knoll Actually it is true, that he didn't use any auto-blocking device. He was using a tuber - the climber had allready clipped the top - when he sat into he just rushed through. The belayer was distracted by surrounding people and it seems that he had let go his hands of the rope. The climber landed on his feet, but unfortunately he fall backwards and hit the floor with his head, and no there were no padded floors. 15 hours ago · I wonder if this is a case of the climber clipping the top and just sitting back with out yelling take or any such communication. I've noticed this as a casual habit of many of the more experienced climbers at my gym (and at comps for that matter) and it always makes me cringe. The climber shouldn't have to call "take" at the top. If you have to tell to your belayer to catch you, there is something very wrong with your belayer. Jay
While I agree with the spirit of this statement, I have to say I disagree with the practice. I don't care WHO is belaying me on a top rope. I'm making VERY sure they know what my intentions are to my belayer BEFORE I lean back on that rope.
But that's just me. If the top of the route is out of sight of the belayer, you'd better be yelling commands or your just asking for trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Nov 22, 2010, 4:36 PM
Post #44 of 61
(11441 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
Inexperience does not excuse negligence. Regardless of how much of a newbie you are, when you agree to belay someone you owe it to them to pay attention. If you neglect this duty you are, surprise, negligent.
I don't know much about this case and I know not to believe media reports. But if the person was chatting and ignoring their duty they were indeed negligent.
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Nov 22, 2010, 4:37 PM
Post #45 of 61
(11440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
jt512 wrote: macblaze wrote: healyje wrote: From Alpinist's facebook page: In reply to: Christian Knoll Actually it is true, that he didn't use any auto-blocking device. He was using a tuber - the climber had allready clipped the top - when he sat into he just rushed through. The belayer was distracted by surrounding people and it seems that he had let go his hands of the rope. The climber landed on his feet, but unfortunately he fall backwards and hit the floor with his head, and no there were no padded floors. 15 hours ago · I wonder if this is a case of the climber clipping the top and just sitting back with out yelling take or any such communication. I've noticed this as a casual habit of many of the more experienced climbers at my gym (and at comps for that matter) and it always makes me cringe. The climber shouldn't have to call "take" at the top. If you have to tell to your belayer to catch you, there is something very wrong with your belayer. Jay
While I don't necessarily disagree; you have to admit the irony of you stating this after all the times you've stated that you hold onto the belayer's side of the rope until you feel tension before lowering. After all, if you have to double check that your belayer is doing their job...
Especially in Gym and Sport climbing environments, where there are many distractions, there are benefits to keeping an open dialogue between climber and belayer.
|
|
|
|
|
ClimbSoHigh
Nov 22, 2010, 5:08 PM
Post #46 of 61
(11422 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2008
Posts: 208
|
Since it seems there are some lawyers commenting in this thread, how about this situation. What if the climber was a minor? The US has laws of strict liability when it comes to minors. So if you bring out your nephew who gets injured (in a gym or outside), I would think you could get civil and legal suits brought against you, and defending strict liability is practically impossible since the burden of proof is simply custody and a resulting injury. If a gym hosts B-Day parties, they are strictly liable for those kids too, regardless of how the kid might have been injured or any waivers the parents signed. I know this is not relevant to this specific situation (not in the US or involving a minor) but it is still something to consider for those that think the law has no place in climbing.
I personally would like to see climbers left alone by legal stuff, but I agree with some that there are rare times where criminal or civil suits should be allowed, as with willfull intent which is hard to prove, strict liability which involves minors, and gross negligence which would usually apply to a gym or outfitter. Like if this situation involved a gym provided belayer that had zero training in belaying, I could see the gym being found guilty of gross neglegence by allowing an grossly unskilled employee to belay clients.
But two climbers randomly climbing in a gym together, I would like to see this suit tossed out at the door. Only if there is proof that the belayer intended to harm his climber should this case go through the wringer, which I think and hope is not what happened. I would not see any reason to justify gross negligence as the belayer was not guiding/hosting the climber, and the climber was in a possition to understand the risks associated with selecting his belayer and the dangers associated with belayer selection and climbing.
Either way, its sad to hear... RIP climber dude.
|
|
|
|
|
rsmillbern
Nov 22, 2010, 5:17 PM
Post #47 of 61
(11411 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2005
Posts: 319
|
macblaze wrote: jt512 wrote: macblaze wrote: healyje wrote: From Alpinist's facebook page: In reply to: Christian Knoll Actually it is true, that he didn't use any auto-blocking device. He was using a tuber - the climber had allready clipped the top - when he sat into he just rushed through. The belayer was distracted by surrounding people and it seems that he had let go his hands of the rope. The climber landed on his feet, but unfortunately he fall backwards and hit the floor with his head, and no there were no padded floors. 15 hours ago · I wonder if this is a case of the climber clipping the top and just sitting back with out yelling take or any such communication. I've noticed this as a casual habit of many of the more experienced climbers at my gym (and at comps for that matter) and it always makes me cringe. The climber shouldn't have to call "take" at the top. If you have to tell to your belayer to catch you, there is something very wrong with your belayer. Jay Not that I disagree entirely, and yet it seems people do hit the ground. I prefer to check. Call me a n00b if ya want.
I see no issue with someone checking (falls under the heading of unnecessary risk), however,with my steady partner in the US (in the gym) I would sometimes yank a bit of slack and drop without warning, or climb to the anchors and fall without clipping. Of course, only where falls were safe. This helped me with committing to hard moves with out thinking about whether she would catch me as well as keeping the feeling of falling safely fresh in my head. Maybe this is silly, but I trust her 100% but the "practice" still helped me.
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Nov 22, 2010, 5:30 PM
Post #48 of 61
(11394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
First off, I'm not a lawyer. There was an incident about 10 or so years ago where some guy lured a woman on their first date out climbing. He was very assuring he knew exactly what he was doing. Apparently she had some trepidation, but relented at his insistence of what an expert he was. Out to the crags they go. I don't remember what exactly happened, but either he lowered her off the end of the rope, or he lost the belay completely. Either way, she decked, suffering very serious injuries. I do believe there were spinal and hip fractures to name a few.
Turns out that this "expert" was a clueless noob with a whopping 2 years of time on the rock.
Needless to say she wasn't happy and filed a civil suit against him. I do not recall what the outcome was, but I think this was warranted.
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Nov 22, 2010, 7:10 PM
Post #50 of 61
(11346 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
My mistake on not making my point a little more clear. I don't a problem with him belaying, what do I have problem is passing himself off as an "expert" to somebody who had never climbed before. This most likely had to do with impressing her so he could get into her pants more than anything.
Thanks for the heads up!
|
|
|
|
|
|
