|
moondog
Mar 25, 2004, 12:50 AM
Post #126 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 196
|
I guess that the first 4 columns are for climbing (some belaying lead, some belaying second I guess) and the last 2 are for rapelling (or is one top roping)?
1st 4 (L to R) deal with various belaying situations, and the last two address lowering.
sometimes a few words are more helpful then cryptic pictures
agreed, and having both is even better...
|
|
|
|
|
robn
Mar 26, 2004, 12:15 PM
Post #127 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2004
Posts: 1
|
One thing you said in your very first post was that Hugh Banner and REI are "enormous" companies.
Now I can believe that REI might count as "enormous(ish)" on some scales, but by any sensible evaluation, HB is a tiny company. It's not the case of an international giant corp that can well afford to cope with lawsuits. It's of the size where one adverse decision could put it out of business entirely.
Just a thought to consider.
|
|
|
|
|
dontjinxme
Mar 26, 2004, 1:00 PM
Post #128 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2003
Posts: 109
|
Lets not turn this thread into a war on ethics. The original poster was trying to share some very nice to know information.
Whats happened has happened. Let us learn from it and move on.
Thanks to the original poster for the message.
|
|
|
|
|
akclimber
Apr 8, 2004, 9:04 AM
Post #129 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2004
Posts: 609
|
Evidence. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
cratercreator
Apr 8, 2004, 7:42 PM
Post #130 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 38
|
I believe that the manufacturer should give some indication of risk. Specificly on the locking mechanism. Any indication of possible flaws.
I say possible because if you don't think they are liable then their not. If you do then take them to court, but be prepared. That's what our whole court system is about.
The benefit the company would receive from the indication they send with their product would be a clause that releases them from liability, and more living climbers to buy more products.
The message I get from the family is that this circumstance can be recreated, and until it is known among climbers that it is Another potential risk in climbing then it could possibly go on.
On top of all of this, the corporation knew of this potential risk but didn't inform their consumers. This in and of itself places some liability on them. 10% maybe. I don't know.
How much of this death would rest on this corporations shoulders. If I had accepted the known risks of climbing and died due to trusted gear. I would have liked to have known that this equipment could get turned the wrong way (very easily) and rendered the whole experience fatal.
In court it's not black or white right or wrong. Their's shared responsibilities; lots of grey areas. With these final statements I arrest my case.
If Kyle died 95% at fault how much is the information witheld by this company worth?
If a man's life is worthless, how much is 5% worth?
Just some thoughts. Be nice if Kyle had some left.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 8, 2004, 8:54 PM
Post #131 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
cratercreator, I disagree with you about one very important thing, and that is what the manufacturers responsibilities *should* be.
The manufacturer should be responsible for delivering a product with which the user can have a high confidence that all of the components will function up to the spec defined by the UIAA. The role of understanding the safe use of that product should be *entirely* the responsibility of the user. Period.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cratercreator
Apr 8, 2004, 9:07 PM
Post #132 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 38
|
that is interesting. And I do agree. But, would be a very good Idea for manufacturers to inform their consumers of what some believe is a imperfection/flaw (place whatever word their). It's just good business plus it shoots holes in frivolous law suits.
I feel very safe with this one; the weakest part of the product is the locking mechanism.
My slight skepticism only points out that how much should they responsible for. This could be a ground breaking case. Cigarette companies are required to put Surgeon General warnings for people knowing their killing themselves. I smoke. I accept the risk. It's a little harder for me to sue now. (if I wanted too, I would lose) whether or not I pay attention or not is up to me. But lack of information I think is the culprit here. That company and others like it have that information. Not that they should be penalized for withholding this information, but they should be required to inform us directly not through 3rd party articles.
Alive climbers buy more equipment.
It's just good business. Again.
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Apr 8, 2004, 9:23 PM
Post #133 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
In reply to: cratercreator, I disagree with you about one very important thing, and that is what the manufacturers responsibilities *should* be. The manufacturer should be responsible for delivering a product with which the user can have a high confidence that all of the components will function up to the spec defined by the UIAA. The role of understanding the safe use of that product should be *entirely* the responsibility of the user. Period. GO
This is well said, and goes to the heart of how I see this case -- quite differently from the original poster. It's very sad that bad judgment led to a needless death, but the bad judgment came not from HB.
|
|
|
|
|
cratercreator
Apr 8, 2004, 9:40 PM
Post #134 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 38
|
Their comes a time when regulations need to be changed. We've seen this with our constitution. The courtroom is were these changes are made.
I don't believe that these companies should be penalized, but required by new regulations to inform the consumer of the weakest link of this device to create awareness of possible dangers. The company did their part in creating a product to standards. Great, someone died using failing equipment that meets UIAA standards. The UIAA standards obviously are not perfect. The company was aware of a weakness overlooked by the UIAA. Does this make them at fault? I don't know. Whether or not they are penalized is not for me to say.
I know now to pay special attention to the position of my equipment now. How many consumers aren't aware of this. Maybe the fruits of this lawsuit will save someone's life.
I don't know about you people but I want to know everything. not it all. just everything. So I can live with more confidence than yesterday. Personaly I've become a little bit safer just from reading this incredibly long and repetitive thread.
|
|
|
|
|
robmcc
Apr 8, 2004, 9:50 PM
Post #135 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 2176
|
In reply to: that is interesting. And I do agree. But, would be a very good Idea for manufacturers to inform their consumers of what some believe is a imperfection/flaw (place whatever word their). It's just good business plus it shoots holes in frivolous law suits.
It also creates an expectation that the manufacturer will tell you how to not hurt yourself in every conceivable way. McDonalds now warns me that coffee is hot. Krazy Glue warns me that getting glue on my fingers will make them stick to things. How long before the water coming out of your tap has little bits of paper in it warning that inhalation may be fatal?
Come on. You can't possibly cover every possible misuse, and loading the gate of a carabiner is a misuse.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
cratercreator
Apr 8, 2004, 10:24 PM
Post #136 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 38
|
But suprisingly weaker than expected.
That's the whole deal.
They put maximum load info, but neglect to mention the gate strength.
I'm not saying that they should have a warning label on everything. Only that they had information that is of some use. I don't need a gear manufacturer to tell me if I fall off a cliff It may result in injury or death. But I do need one to tell me the maximum load on every part of this product. It's purpose is keep me alive. All the information I can get about this product is important. whether or not they win or lose future law suits or that one for any matter, I want to know. I need a credible source, preferably from the manufacturer not a third party journalist.
|
|
|
|
|
moondog
Apr 8, 2004, 11:34 PM
Post #137 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 196
|
Part of the problem is leverage. The failure mode under discussion can happen with rigid devices such as fig. 8, brake bar rack, via ferrata self-belay plate, etc. Each of these devices can impart a great deal of leverage on the gate. As mentioned before, the force required to break the locking sleeve with such leverage is significantly less than bodyweight. Awareness of the problem can do a lot more toward preventing injuries than providing an arguably meaningless rating for the locking sleeve.
|
|
|
|
|
nicklikesfire
Apr 9, 2004, 12:23 AM
Post #138 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2004
Posts: 149
|
Condolences to everyone involved in this accident.
I think law suits suck, but I have quite a bit of respect for James for being really down te earth and cool about this whole thing.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Sep 20, 2005, 5:08 AM
Post #139 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
To those who didn't read my post earlier and did not understand. If you cross load a locked carabiner, especially with a figure 8, it can, it will and it sometimes does break the gate off in a sideways motion, then the figure 8 will come right off leaving you with nothing and you will die if you are rappelling and over the edge.
______________________________________________________________
Final note?
By most accounts, the HB offsets were the strongest, best fitting (especially in flaring situations) SAFEST nuts in the world.
They are no longer available or made
HB just went out of business.
|
|
|
|
|
docontherock
Sep 20, 2005, 2:22 PM
Post #141 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2004
Posts: 109
|
In reply to: Final note? By most accounts, the HB offsets were the strongest, best fitting (especially in flaring situations) SAFEST nuts in the world. They are no longer available or made HB just went out of business.
Lucky for us, DMM has picked up the line and will start with the brassies!!! Supposedly they have acquired the machining and everything (Search for other string on this site).
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Sep 20, 2005, 6:12 PM
Post #142 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: In reply to: HB just went out of business. Do you have reason to believe that the lawsuit referred to in this thread, or others like it, played a significant part in their demise?
Note: I am not Bill and I'm not speaking for him.
I (personally) was under the impression that HB had been seeking a buyer for some time, and, failing to find one, determined that liquidation was the appropriate exit strategy. DMM has purchased some of the most valuable assets (tools, dies, and machining) for eg. Offsets; while HB biners may in fact have been among the safest made (I believe Yates Gear purchased some of those designs, in fact, and few manufacturers have a more ardent following among the "bomber stuff" crowd than John Yates), that does not equate to them being the best marketed or most successful.
The idea that someone can win a lawsuit for punitive damages due to improperly crossloading a locker in an Aussie rappel is revolting to me, regardless of whether the settlement played a role in HB's demise. The Aussie method is inherently riskier than a standard abseil, and if a user were truly concerned with safety, I assert that they would use either two ovals reversed and opposed, with a backup, or a free-axis spidered rap device (eg. a 24" sling girth-hitched to one's tie-in, terminating at the rappel device biner, locking or redundant ovals), with a backup. Eliminating a single point of failure through redundancy or adaptation (see above for my standard free-hanging rappel setup, which has probably saved my bacon several times by now) is standard practice in most other risky sports (backup chutes even for base jumpers, buddy system for cave divers). Why should climbing somehow be different? (Yes, I climb with twin ropes on occasion... the occasion usually being sharp rock or full-length rappels)
Any presumption of safety in a gravity sport which is normally considered too risky for most insurance companies to cover, is ludicrous. Lay down your bets and take your chances. Hedge your own bets as necessary.
I am terribly sorry for Kyle's loss, and his friends and family certainly have my sympathies, but this verdict and its possible role in HB's demise trouble me greatly. This sport is doomed (at least in the United States) if people cannot accept responsibility for their endeavors, and do their own background research. If that warning sticker were in place and Kyle was killed by rockfall, would you sue the landowner? (Oh -- wait -- we've already got one of those suits happening right now. My condolences to the Terbush family, but I wish their lawsuit the worst of luck.)
The logical terminus of this procession is for climbing to become an outlaw pastime in the United States, permitted only on land you own free and clear, and prohibited by all other land owners and caretakers for fear of ruinous liability. Either the legal system or the participants in the sport must react to this challenge, or I fear that the above is inevitable.
Just my $0.02, and probably not worth even that, boilerplate hand-wringing that it is.
If anyone has any substantial input on HB's liquidation and its relation to this settlement, or (better!) the details of the settlement, I would be most grateful to read them.
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Sep 20, 2005, 6:25 PM
Post #143 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
I have not read the entire thread but will add my 2 centavos anyways. the aussi rap is a military manuver designed to let the rapeller shoot and Kill people while rapelling. It was not concived with safty as a first concern. It is NOT standard civilian climbing practice. The people who sued over a stunt like this do not get any respect from this corner.
|
|
|
|
|
paulc
Sep 20, 2005, 6:34 PM
Post #144 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2001
Posts: 464
|
Why is this on the FP? Again last post is from 2 years ago. Is this a crazy rating system thing moving threads to the FP?
(Yes this was on the FP, before I posted to it)
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Sep 20, 2005, 6:37 PM
Post #145 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
In reply to: Why is this on the FP? Again last post is from 2 years ago. Is this a crazy rating system thing moving threads to the FP? (Yes this was on the FP, before I posted to it) Paul
nope, it was linked from another lawsuit thread.
|
|
|
|
|
bighigaz
Sep 21, 2005, 6:37 PM
Post #146 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 696
|
In reply to: In reply to: HB just went out of business. Do you have reason to believe that the lawsuit referred to in this thread, or others like it, played a significant part in their demise? GO
Original poster here...
Wow, I wasn't aware that HB went our of business. Just got curious and started "updating" myself on this old thread.
I wanted to point out that HB won this case. They were actually (somehow) made aware of that fact before the jury gave the verdict, and settled with Kyle's wife and family before the verdict was given. I found this very honorable on their part, despite the fact that when all was said and done, this was determined to be an accident, and nothing else.
That being said, I don't believe this would have lead to the ousting of a company like this. From the posts, it sounded like they were planning on selling for a while, which doesn't suprise me. Mr. Banner was present at the proceedings, and he seemed to me to be more than ready for retirement. He had a severe limp, and a tired look, and it wouldn't suprise me if he was just ready to get out of the industry all together.
Oh, and one more thing to add, the figure 8 device is no longer a part of my rack, nor will it be in the future, unless I become heavily involved with mountain rescue... There are plenty of other much safer devices out there that meet my needs.
I think enough has been said on this forum. Thanks for everyones great comments and input. Now let's move on.
James
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Sep 21, 2005, 7:55 PM
Post #147 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
Thank you James, both for clearing up the matter, and for your continued patience with those of us who did not have all the facts. I for one am most appreciative of your providing both subjective and objective facts from the settlement, and I admit to being happy both that HB won, and that they (and you) were so honorable about it anyhow.
Much obliged.
--tim
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Sep 21, 2005, 9:17 PM
Post #149 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
[quote="bighigaz"]In reply to: In reply to: HB just went out of business.
In reply to: Original poster here... Wow, I wasn't aware that HB went our of business. Just got curious and started "updating" myself on this old thread. I wanted to point out that HB won this case. They were actually (somehow) made aware of that fact before the jury gave the verdict, and settled with Kyle's wife and family before the verdict was given. I found this very honorable on their part, despite the fact that when all was said and done, this was determined to be an accident, and nothing else.
They won it and still paid out money. I doubt that they knew what the jury was thinking as that is never the case in our judicial system. The jury deliberates secretly. You have to love a system where you feel you have to pay, even when you are in the right, just because you are afraid of somebody taking everything you have worked all of your life for.
In reply to: That being said, I don't believe this would have lead to the ousting of a company like this. From the posts, it sounded like they were planning on selling for a while, which doesn't surprise me. Mr. Banner was present at the proceedings, and he seemed to me to be more than ready for retirement. He had a severe limp, and a tired look, and it wouldn't surprise me if he was just ready to get out of the industry all together.
Only HB can say for sure, but walk a mile in the dudes shoes. God forbid you never get sued for making a product which killed another person or contributed to the death of any young person, and have to stare the grieving relatives in the face while at the same time facing total financial ruin. You have to concur that might take some of the fun out - even just a little tinie-bitsy? How about thinking that you might have a line of these people about to form? This is not why you make products.
I personally would rather take a 100 footer and die than get drug through the living hell of a lawsuit which would take every penny I have and put me out of business while accusing me of making a product which killed another person. But thats me, your results may vary. Maybe HB felt otherwise and it didn't bother him. Who can say.
In reply to: Oh, and one more thing to add, the figure 8 device is no longer a part of my rack, nor will it be in the future, unless I become heavily involved with mountain rescue... There are plenty of other much safer devices out there that meet my needs.
bighaz, thank you for openly and honestly bringing this to everybody's attention. You may have saved somebodies life by doing so, perhaps several lives. You have my highest regards for doing so.
In reply to: I think enough has been said on this forum. Thanks for everyones great comments and input. Now let's move on.
Unfortunately, for the rest of us, the lingering effects of this and things like this will remain. I hope the pain of the loss for all of the family members has softened with time, and again, bringing this up to the top of the heap once in a while might not be a bad thing if even 1 climber sees it and either retires a figure 8, or carefully checks it for cross loading before pitching off the edge.
Wishing you and yours well, and thank you again:
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Sep 21, 2005, 11:25 PM
Post #150 of 179
(23030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
What I think we need is the detail not the lawsuit, I personally think he did not check his system, he rushed to rappel like a star in some kind of movie. People rappel with none locking biner all the time and its safe if you know what you doing. It is unsafe to monkey around upside down when you are not sure what you rigged specially with a biner that is not locked. I used BD auto locking biner the first time they came out, and immediately notice that equipments like that was just so easy to go wrong, I rappelled on the piece of shit for few times and twice, the gate was not even locked.
This lawsuit or similar is not going to solve problems, its going to cost us more, its going to close climbing area and one day no one could buy a new climbing equipment because manufacture are going to say f*+^K you all, we had it with your monkey game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
