UKBouldering.com

BMC pays rope access contractor for re-equipping work. (Read 29353 times)

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5776
  • Karma: +621/-36
Surely it would have been better, if paying professionals to rebolt was deemed necessary by the BMC, to get Horseshoe rebolted and just keep quite about paying for it. No fanfare.

... accountability to/feedback from its members via area meetings being a poor method, in 2017, to have as a main method of communicating and receiving feedback from members; which other posters agree is a valid criticism (note to Dan and Dave - criticism isn't a reason to automatically assume a whirling handbags def-con3 missile defense posture).

There's something a little ironic about criticising the BMC publicising something too well while simultaneously criticising them for not communicating effectively.  :tease:

Perhaps Dan could respond to this. Assuming the area meets are a poor method of communicating with the membership, which I'm not convinced of. Are the area meets really the main method of communicating with the membership? The BMC staff actively read and respond to threads on UKC and UKB. They have telephones that have always been quickly answered when rang (regarding insurance) and emails also. They have the update emails and summit magazine (does that have a letters section anymore).

What would be a good alternative or improvement?

Regarding area meets. If i had a concern i wanted raising I'd contact the BMC/chair and ask them to raise it. It wouldn't matter that I was too shy to standup in the meeting and shout down all others. Is the issue here Pete that you know that raising the points at your area meet wouldn't get you much recognition - by which I mean they would be dismissed as they are being in this thread (in the main).

Ironic? Perhaps. But hopefully you can comprehend the idea of two different topics being treated differently from each other - i.e. Me pointing out that there might be better ways to communicate/receive feedback because area meets aren't truly representative of the area's membership, is completely different to me saying I think the bolting of horseshoe could have been done far more discreetly. I shouldn't really have to point this out though, it should be obvious to anyone with a bit of sense. ::)

Not getting recognition - are you having a laugh?! Probably the daftest thing I've read today.

I haven't read anything yet that gives a good answer about Horseshoe; and there's some agreement that area meets are naturally limited as a method of communicating and aren't representative of an area's membership; so I'd hardly say I'm being shouted down, more that I'm the head above the wall to aim at.


petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5776
  • Karma: +621/-36
Remind me what the worry about liability is, other than the obvious issue thats already been dealt with umpteen times (that the BMC can reasonably be assumed to have a greater duty of care to climbers than any other random landowner, what with it being a national representative body who bought the crag specifically for climbing).


'Greater duty of care' is one of the justifications used but it's very difficult to say who would be and who wouldn't be classed as 'having a greater duty of care' when it comes to land ownership - where do you draw the line?
What about the farmer who's teenage kids are keen climbers, he takes them to the indoor wall every week and they're members of the BMC, does he have greater duty of care? What about the landowner who used to do a bit of sport-climbing a long time ago and still has his harness and guidebooks gathering dust under the stairs, does he have greater duty of care? Or the landowner who still climbs? What about the council landowner which also funds outdoor education centres - do they have a greater duty of care? Or the landowner who does some work helping out with the local scouts outddor pursuits, does he have a greater duty of care? The point being every landowner's circumstances are unique.

The re-equipping issue could have been dealt with any number of different ways. You could still have paid 'professionals' (people deemed competent would be a better choice of term) if that's what was considered essential - I'm not completely inflexible and I do get it.
You could easily enough think up a way where 'expenses' were paid to a group of people deemed competent and have the BMC Technical authority quality check the work.
I recently just put two rope access sub-contractors (not employees) through an industry-recognized bolt anchor placement course for a job we're doing - the BMC could do this to cover itself.
You could also just pay a company as they did but without the fanfare. In other words there are lots of ways to skin a cat.

I don't really care about the costs, so I'm not swayed by the crowdfunder=fanfare point - I wouldn't have cared if the BMC paid directly, it is after all only the same as what the BMC do with other sport-climbing areas not owned by them! (n.Wales lime being an obvious example of BMC directly funding bolting).

Considering it's such a potentially sensitive issue, was it really wise to be make a national campaign, with all the associated fanfare, of the fact that the BMC is completely going against the culture in British climbing of individual responsibility when it comes to equipping / re-equipping sport routes? I see it as more questionable decision-making by the BMC and I can't help wonder if a culture at the BMC of marketing and growth has slightly got away with itself. In general though I still think the BMC mostly does good things for climbing

To quote Ken Wilson it's the thin end of the wedge ;)




 
« Last Edit: October 23, 2017, 11:29:35 am by petejh »

Will Hunt

Online
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Superworm is super-long
  • Posts: 7976
  • Karma: +631/-115
    • Unknown Stones
'Greater duty of care' is one of the justifications used but it's very difficult to say who would be and who wouldn't be classed as 'having a greater duty of care' when it comes to land ownership - where do you draw the line?
What about the farmer who's teenage kids are keen climbers, he takes them to the indoor wall every week and they're members of the BMC, does he have greater duty of care? What about the landowner who used to do a bit of sport-climbing a long time ago and still has his harness and guidebooks gathering dust under the stairs, does he have greater duty of care? Or the landowner who still climbs? What about the council landowner which also funds outdoor education centres - do they have a greater duty of care? Or the landowner who does some work helping out with the local scouts outddor pursuits, does he have a greater duty of care? The point being every landowner's circumstances are unique.

I think this is the first time you've actually responded to the argument about increased liability rather than just ignoring it, so it's hardly surprising that people were getting frustrated with you for seemingly being oblivious to the numerous posts which explained why the BMC had an increased duty of care.
I suspect the circumstances above are grey areas and, unsurprisingly, I don't know where a lawyer or a court might decide that an increased duty of care starts - I expect that each case would be judged on it's own merits in the event of it ever coming to court.
However, what your post doesn't do is challenge that the BMC do have an increased duty of care in the case of Horseshoe, which I think is very much cut and dried. So if you're not arguing against that point, why are we still here debating this?

Duma

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5751
  • Karma: +226/-4
good post pete - wadded

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5776
  • Karma: +621/-36

I think this is the first time you've actually responded to the argument about increased liability rather than just ignoring it, so it's hardly surprising that people were getting frustrated with you for seemingly being oblivious to the numerous posts which explained why the BMC had an increased duty of care.
I suspect the circumstances above are grey areas and, unsurprisingly, I don't know where a lawyer or a court might decide that an increased duty of care starts - I expect that each case would be judged on it's own merits in the event of it ever coming to court.
However, what your post doesn't do is challenge that the BMC do have an increased duty of care in the case of Horseshoe, which I think is very much cut and dried. So if you're not arguing against that point, why are we still here debating this?

I'm probably (almost certainly) guilty Will of thinking 'it's bleeding obvious to everybody' so I shouldn't have to explain myself, I tend to do this a lot.

I'm debating it because as I just outlined there are other ways the re-equipping could have been done and I think it's a terrible decision by the BMC.

dave

  • Guest
'Greater duty of care' is one of the justifications used but it's very difficult to say who would be and who wouldn't be classed as 'having a greater duty of care' when it comes to land ownership - where do you draw the line?

I don't draw the line, the courts would, and I understand the BMC have taken legal advice on this


What about the farmer who's teenage kids are keen climbers, he takes them to the indoor wall every week and they're members of the BMC, does he have greater duty of care?

I'm not a lawyer but I assume he would have a duty of care to them, in circumstances where he's supervising them or otherwise responsible for their safety. But he's not a national representative climbing body purchasing a crag for the express purposes of climbing and allowing climbing on it by the public, and making it known publicly that the crag is available for climbing.

What about the landowner who used to do a bit of sport-climbing a long time ago and still has his harness and guidebooks gathering dust under the stairs, does he have greater duty of care?

I'm not a lawyer but I suspect not, since he's not a national representative climbing body purchasing a crag for the express purposes of climbing and allowing climbing on it by the public, and making it known publicly that the crag is available for climbing.

Or the landowner who still climbs?

I'm not a lawyer but I suspect not significantly, since he's not a national representative climbing body purchasing a crag for the express purposes of climbing and allowing climbing on it by the public, and making it known publicly that the crag is available for climbing.

What about the council landowner which also funds outdoor education centres - do they have a greater duty of care?

I'm not a lawyer but I suspect not significantly, since he's not a national representative climbing body purchasing a crag for the express purposes of climbing and allowing climbing on it by the public, and making it known publicly that the crag is available for climbing.

Or the landowner who does some work helping out with the local scouts outddor pursuits, does he have a greater duty of care?

I'm not a lawyer but I suspect not significantly, since he's not a national representative climbing body purchasing a crag for the express purposes of climbing and allowing climbing on it by the public, and making it known publicly that the crag is available for climbing.

The point being every landowner's circumstances are unique.

Which is why the BMC took advice and acted on it. Especially since the BMC holds the unique position of being a national representative climbing body purchasing a crag for the express purposes of climbing and allowing climbing on it by the public, and making it known publicly that the crag is available for climbing.

danm

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 827
  • Karma: +112/-1
My opinion on why I think using contractors was a reasonable decision:

The pluralistic use of and coexistence of both paid professionals and volunteers exists in other areas of climbing quite happily. If you want to learn to climb, you can learn from a friend, or join a club, or you could pay for a course or qualified instructor. The existence of the latter does not preclude the use of the former. Why would you opt for a paid professional? Most likely because you didn't have access to a volunteer with the right skills or experience.

That's pretty much the situation the BMC found themselves in. Let's not kid ourselves, some parts of the quarry are very loose and dangerous to work in. LPT or Malham this is not. A great number of routes have been bolted on loose and unstable rock. The required skillset to not only work safely, whilst assessing whether the rock can be safely bolted and a route retained, and then doing this work satisfactorily is in my view is a pretty tough ask. Taken with the size and scope of the project, this made using a contractor seem like the best option, with the added benefit that without any personal stake or agenda, they would be totally objective about the work.

I don't want to get into a debate about why we didn't use certain people as an alternative, all I'll say is I doubt their competence to do the work to the required standards. That's speaking as someone who has stuck up for them in many previous situations and discussions. The suggestion that we train volunteers up instead is a good one, however when I spoke to the majority of people I'd recently had on local workshops, there wasn't much enthusiasm to do anything in Horseshoe. The final push towards choosing to use a contractor no doubt would have been knowing that if the contract wasn't signed and the money ring-fenced, that the impending financial squeeze caused by the SE funding cut very likely would have shit-canned the project.

The fact we've used contractors for this particular complex and difficult job won't preclude the BMC supporting or working with volunteer bolters in the future.

That leaves the concern over whether this will affect other landowners decisions. I'll write my thoughts on this in another post, because otherwise it'll be a nightmare wall of text.

bigironhorse

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 767
  • Karma: +16/-0
    • YouTube

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5776
  • Karma: +621/-36
Danm (and anyone else) - to avoid doubt I'll make it clear I'm not advocating that any 'particular person' (we know who) could have done the work. I'm aware of some the issues of one or other 'particular individuals'. Just so you don't view my points in that light.

danm

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 827
  • Karma: +112/-1
Pete, I have huge amounts of respect for you and the work you've done. I know that this is really important, which is why I'm trying to answer all of the issues as there are so many things which have fed into this. Here is the rest of my post:

Landowner liability:

For the ordinary landowner, all they care about is whether they are going to be sued if a climber is injured because a bolt fails on their property. From their perspective, anything they can do to either remove or shift liability for bolts on their land will be beneficial to them. Looked at from this angle, a precedent there was set long ago, when the access agreement for UPT was signed. The bolts there fall under the BMC’s insurance cover. Has this lead to a deluge of other landowners demanding that the BMC take over liability for bolts on their land, or otherwise ban climbing? No, it hasn’t, and you can hardly say that that access agreement was made secretly, it was made with a council and will be well known about. In fact, that agreement has turned out into a win-win all round. Climbing access was retained with the fringe benefit that it provides a route for money to be given to the bolt fund.

As a landowner is unlikely to commission rebolting work on their land, why would they consider using contractors? More likely, they might feel that they should insist that any bolting is done by competent and insured people in the hope that this might help them avoid any liability themselves. Nobody knows whether this would be true or not, because a case has never (as far as I know) gone to court yet in England or Wales.

Again, there is another precedent already set here. To climb at Cheddar you must be able to prove you have 3rd party liability insurance. This hasn’t as yet led to a deluge of other landowners requiring such cover. In the context of bolting, 3rd party cover is extended to BMC members who follow our bolting guidelines*, so even if landowners suddenly en masse decide that bolters must be competent and insured, there is a relatively easy way for bolters to comply. Before anyone cries that this is a plot to ensure all bolters join the BMC, I’d retort that they are at liberty to not join and arrange their own cover. The legal advice we received made it clear that anyone bolting has a duty of care to subsequent ascentionists, and that if they didn’t have adequate cover they could be in serious difficulty. So, if the end result of all this is that bolters need insurance cover, which they should probably have anyway to safeguard themselves…..is anyone actually any worse off?

Publicity: Anyone who thinks that rebolting one of the most popular venues in the Peak could have been done under the radar is fooling themselves. Questions would have been asked, and the BMC would then have undoubtedly have been accused of all sorts of underhand things (it's been that kind of year!)

For the majority of our members, the project seems to have come across as a major success and has been a really positive way for us to engage with the membership at large. People have been telling their friends on social media and getting psyched to visit, many others have contributed to the crowdfunder. If the end result is more members, and less money spent by the BMC on the project, then that means more money for other projects. Cynics will say this is so we can enlarge our empire, I'd argue that it's so we can do other good work for the benefit of the walking and climbing community.

*muggins here is currently rewriting these. Input and opinion from competent and active bolters would be useful when I have the draft together. This could be considered a hint.


kelvin

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1293
  • Karma: +60/-1
Thanks for the comprehensive answers Dan, much appreciated. To be clear, I personally mentioned having no fanfare, not trying to rebolt under the radar - that would be totally impossible in the Peak and as you say, the BMC would be open to all sorts of accusations.

I can only speak from my own background in the building trade and often, what was once uncommon, let's say public liability insurance in this instance, has now become so common that people rarely advertise the fact they have it. It's expected. The rare has become the norm. This happens.
I'm a decorator, apprentice served, Advanced Craft City & Guilds and just 15 years ago I could have walked onto any building site in the town and started work. Then one national builder who had a site here started to require a CSCS card (H&S money making bollox), just the one site mind but today, you need that CSCS card on EVERY site round here. So despite the fact I have 15 years more experience, have never fallen off a pair of step ladders or dropped a tin of paint on someone's head, I'm unemployable as a site painter.
That one builder moved the goalposts with regards to what was deemed 'professional' on building sites around here. Did they mean to do this? It doesn't matter whether they did or not, it happened.

I understand why the BMC employed someone to do the bolting and thanks Dan for your reply, you've made it very clear why and I appreciate the openness but your answer with regards to landowners and liability only addresses things as they stand now and I'm assuming, the BMC's hope that that stays the same? And what if that turns out to not be the case? What if all the parents of these new wonder kids coming out of the climbing walls (who the BMC is actively trying to turn into new members) see that the BMC has accepted they are liable for the bolts in Horseshoe and expect the same everywhere else?
At Anston Woods this summer I had exactly that conversation with the parent of two junior squad members from my local wall. He didn't take his kids roped climbing outside because he didn't know if the bolts were safe, as they aren't tested like those inside. A dad looking out for his kids, that's all but having no appreciation of how bolting in this country (and elsewhere) works. Then along comes Horseshoe, with all the fundraising publicity that throws the spotlight on rebolting by professionals and you say it's not a game changer? It will be to that dad.

Pete spoke earlier about duty of care. Up until now, it's fallen on all of us in the community. Along with everyone else, I've taken a spanner to loose bolts, replaced a couple of threads, mentioned to the right people when bolts or lower offs need sorting, removed loose rock and lost count of the times I've chalked a big fat cross on a loose hold. This summer myself and a couple of mates climbed Motorhead in Switzerland, maybe one of the most famous climbs in that part of the world and if I'm honest, the belay bolts are a bit crap. So over a beer, my mates decide that they'll replace them sometime before next summer and I stuck my hand in my pocket and gave them the money for the bolts. My worry and concern is that Horseshoe and the BMCs actions there will be the beginning of the end for this sort of scenario. The thin end of the wedge and all done in the glare of publicity.

I waffling and my dyslexia is getting to much to handle, so excuse any glaring deficiencies in my post.



mrjonathanr

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5377
  • Karma: +242/-6
  • Getting fatter, not fitter.

 The legal advice we received made it clear that anyone bolting has a duty of care to subsequent ascentionists, and that if they didn’t have adequate cover they could be in serious difficulty.

This is pretty vexed. 'Anyone'? Including one bolt on a crux, by a single ascentionist? Pegs in Gogarth could be similarly defined as permanent installations.

Or does this only apply to the intent to re-equip for others' subsequent enjoyment? This could head off into some difficult legislative territory, as Kelvin's excellent post above implies.

Climbers have tended to operate in our own free space, seemingly unencumbered by the hassles of modern society. The indoor experience is changing that I think. What is good about this thread is that it highlights the need to look into the implications of this further.

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
*edit* In reply to JonathanR:


Bolts and pegs are disimilar. Bolts if recent and well placed can be reliably and repeatedly lobbed on. Pegs are less reliable and that is recognised in the BMCs positioning statement:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/use-of-pegs-in-british-climbing--bmc-position-statement

Logically the inherent case for sueing someone for peg failure would be much weaker compared to bolt failure in similar circumstances. Nothing has been tested in case law yet.

Duma

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5751
  • Karma: +226/-4
good post kelvin, wadded

slackline

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 18863
  • Karma: +633/-26
    • Sheffield Boulder
A dad looking out for his kids, that's all but having no appreciation of how bolting in this country (and elsewhere) works. Then along comes Horseshoe, with all the fundraising publicity that throws the spotlight on rebolting by professionals and you say it's not a game changer? It will be to that dad.

I'm no doubt guilty of Pete's affliction and thinking things are obvious, but the BMC have a very clear participation statement that is displayed in indoor walls, just the place where this father (and others) will have hopefully been looking for information about how safe the activity they are allowing their children to participate in, and from memory it is present at the entrance to Horseshoe too...

Quote
The BMC recognises that climbing and mountaineering are activities with a danger of personal injury or death. Participants in these activities should be aware of and accept these risks and be responsible for their own actions.

The website expands on this and many walls have signs about checking your knot.

Blots, no matter who they are placed by, do not change this and whilst worrying about liability and precedences is relevant and for some important, the need to educate people that the activity they are undertaking is inherently dangerous seems to have been lost.

T_B

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3078
  • Karma: +149/-5

Blots, no matter who they are placed by, do not change this and whilst worrying about liability and precedences is relevant and for some important, the need to educate people that the activity they are undertaking is inherently dangerous seems to have been lost.

Indeed, this kind of tweeting by Team BMC "Thanks to all the Heroes we raised £16,200 to rebolt the quarry and make #climbing there safe & accessible for all." is misguided. If you say you're making it safe, then someone gets injured, you are screwed. Besides, we all know you can't make climbing safe.

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
In reply to slackline:

Whilst participants *should* accept the risks that is no guarantee that they will accept the consequences of a life changing fall from a demonstrably badly placed bolt that was for example visually indistinguishable from a well placed one and it may be that a court agrees and awards damages

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1

Blots, no matter who they are placed by, do not change this and whilst worrying about liability and precedences is relevant and for some important, the need to educate people that the activity they are undertaking is inherently dangerous seems to have been lost.

Indeed, this kind of tweeting by Team BMC "Thanks to all the Heroes we raised £16,200 to rebolt the quarry and make #climbing there safe & accessible for all." is misguided. If you say you're making it safe, then someone gets injured, you are screwed. Besides, we all know you can't make climbing safe.

That is a good point which I'll raise with Alex and Dave

slackline

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 18863
  • Karma: +633/-26
    • Sheffield Boulder
In reply to slackline:

Whilst participants *should* accept the risks that is no guarantee that they will accept the consequences of a life changing fall from a demonstrably badly placed bolt that was for example visually indistinguishable from a well placed one and it may be that a court agrees and awards damages

That pretty much precludes such people from ever doing Trad climbing and it could be argued bouldering where you have to place gear/mats yourself, which is a shame.  On the plus side it address' peoples concerns about over use and environmental damage from the increased popularity of climbing as people won't be willing to accept the risk and personal responsibility if there isn't someone they can hold liable.

The safety of climbing isn't a binary situation, there are degrees of safety and as T_B highlights the tweets by Team BMC give a false impression that it is as simple as safe/unsafe which isn't true and increase the likelihood of the BMC being held accountable in the unfortunate event of an accident.  As Pete has said the fanfare to promote and engage in crowd funding wasn't absolutely necessary to achieve the aim of rebolting the crag.

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11437
  • Karma: +690/-22
I'm not sure it's as simple as drawing a line between bolts and pegs. Bolts can be hand-drilled on lead, they might be old.

What matters is the context in which they are placed. If you are abseiling down a crag with a power drill to create a sport route - line of closely spaced bolts and a lower-off - there is no question that you are trying to create a safe experience and that a failure to do so would be negligent. As the bolts age and weaken they get replaced.

Nobody goes sport climbing for the russian roulette 'adventure' aspect. The key appeal is being able to push yourself because the risk is very well controlled. I've tested enough bolts (and pegs) to know that a visual inspection is no indicator of strength. As I've said before, this is the real ethical dilemma of sport climbing, not bolts on Archangel - you are turning a found environment into a made one and that places a great deal of responsibility on the maker. If you don't like that idea then don't place take a drill to the crag.

I suppose the logical extension would be 'so is the bolter liable for Mina banging her head at Malham?' The counter-argument would be the many falls taken on that bolt without that result. But they might be liable if the bolt was new and immediately the majority of falls ended like that. The phrase used in workplace health and safety is 'reasonably foreseeable'.

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5776
  • Karma: +621/-36
Danm - thanks for your well thought out posts. I think we all appreciate the time and effort people like you put in at the BMC and your clear explanations of how you see things. 

You won't be surprised to hear that I still don't agree with how the BMC handled the re-bolting of their own sport crag. Nothing I've heard - not even Dave's use of the rhetorical device of repetition - has changed my view that this could, with more forethought, have been done differently with less publicity and less danger of setting troublesome precedents while still doing the work to a standard that fully covered the BMC's arse for liability.

Basically, this.
Quote from: kelvin
My worry and concern is that Horseshoe and the BMCs actions there will be the beginning of the end for this sort of scenario. The thin end of the wedge and all done in the glare of publicity.

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11437
  • Karma: +690/-22
No, the beginning of the end was when someone was nearly killed by some local activist's shoddy bolting.

danm

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 827
  • Karma: +112/-1
No, the beginning of the end was when someone was nearly killed by some local activist's shoddy bolting.
Make that 2 people nearly killed, plus some of the stuff removed from Horseshoe seems to have been held in by nothing more tangible than the dust from angels wings.

I think it's fairly obvious that this discussion could go on and on, as for many of the questions the answer is - we don't know until there finally is a court case. The fact that there hasn't yet been one is great, and is one reason we can reassure landowners that it's OK to allow or turn a blind eye to climbing on their land.

The fact that we've used contractors isn't going to change the principle that the climber needs to be responsible for checking any fixed gear they use, including the bolts at Horseshoe. This will be made clear on the on-site signage. This area is also part of the educational work we're currently doing, helping inform climbers new to climbing outside about the differences between indoors and outdoors, one of which is that fixed equipment is not maintained and may be of variable quality. I'm currently (well I was, until I started replying to this thread) finishing off our users guide to bolts and I've also got an idea for a poster for climbing walls which will prime people for what to expect when sport climbing outside.

For fixed gear which isn't bolts, well it's much easier to describe this as abandoned equipment rather than something deliberately left for others to use. Everything in the literature and good practice guides says to carry your own tat and not to rely on pegs. I don't really have any worries about it becoming difficult to justify continuing as we are with this.

Finally, I totally agree with your sentiments Kelvin. The best work the BMC does is when a volunteer wants to give something back and comes to us to get some help doing something. I've helped with several of these small but important projects this year. They'll have little to no publicity, and in many ways we're just helping get the ball rolling and then letting people get on with it, no rules other than climbing's own ethics. That to me is still the mainstay of our work, and long may it continue. You said you quit your membership partly because your club got some crap advice, if PM's are working again and you can be arsed, if you let me know the details maybe I can look into it for you?

And Pete, I know you're not convinced by my arguments - fair enough, but I hope we can at least agree that the situation is far from black and white.

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
I’m not a lawyer.

But I was a Marine Surveyor. That means as part of my practice, I investigated Maritime accidents, rendered an opinion on fault on behalf of my client (sometimes that fault lay with my client) and acted as expert witness in Court or Enquiry.

If I was to apply my standard logic to investigating a climbing accident, after establishing that a fixed piece of equipment failed and that said failure resulted from incorrect or poor installation; my first question both rhetorically and to the installer would be “Why did you place this equipment?”

To my mind, this is directly comprable to fixed mooring equipment in any port or dock.

The difference, I would suggest, lies in this: Was the equipment placed to make the anchor/situation “ Safe” or “Safer”?
That the equipment was placed for the use of someone other than the person who placed it, would seem incontestable, it is the degree and extent of the duty of care which would be tested.

In short, I think Pete is wrong, in so far as thinking that the BMC decision at the Horseshoe is the game changer. I think that is just recognition that the game changed some time ago. I think the game changed the very first time someone installed a fixed belay, that required physically modifying the environment for the purpose of providing an anchor that would be left insitu and could reasonably be expected to be used by others for the same purpose.

Others mentioned that “responsibility has always fallen on the community and we accepted that” or similar, but I don’t think that was ever a legitimate position. Had it ever gone before a court, I think the liability would have been found to be on the individual.

It seems obvious to me that the BMC recognise this likelyhood?
Since we all know that fixed anchors are not infallible, pushing that message of “Safer, not Safe”, would seem prudent. So that Tweet was a poor decision, since we seem to live in a world where the most powerful nation on the planet, is governed by 3am incoherent Tweeted ramblings...

Edit:

Sorry, to be clear, that individual responsibility, would preclude the the landowners liabilty, unles they commissioned the work (which would muddy the water and divide the liability).

2nd edit:

Imagine parking your car in A.NOther ltd’s multistory carpark. Now imagine you failed to aply your parking break correctly and your car rolls off and someone is killed/injured, becuase the parking bay was not perfectly flat. How much liabilty lies with the “landowner”, the contractor who built the structure, the architect of the structure, or the person who parked the car?

Thats what the court would weigh up. I think in the climbing crag example, the court would need to stretch logic a long way to implicated the landowner in most circumstances.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2017, 04:28:00 pm by Oldmanmatt »

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11437
  • Karma: +690/-22
Exactly my logic Matt. Responsibility fell on the community when the gear was a bunch of random relics placed on lead, often in extremis, and intended primarily for the individual and for that moment. A sport climb is a thing expressly made to be used by others.

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal