[dave]

you would be unwise to treat fixed gear, placed by persons unknown, as 100% trustworthy until you have checked it yourself.

So go on then, say a bolt clipping punter with no knowledge of bolt placement techniques (as most of us are) roll up one day to do a sport route. How are we supposed to check the bolts? Bearing in mind we're stood on the floor and simply getting off the ground generally means pulling on at least one bolt.

[Johnny Brown]

Ignoring old bolts as a separate issue for a moment (much more akin to pegs and threads), this is very simple.

Any doubt over new bolts only exists for a very short period of time - between placement and first use. All that need to be ensured is that the first user is a) aware they are untested, and b) not a total incompetent. A note left clipped to the first bolt should be all that is ever required.

I'm not at all shocked that bolters would leave the crag without testing - its common practice to leave them overnight to set. Not everyone who has time to place bolts can also always commit the time to be first on the crag in the morning. Especially as in sensitive areas drilling might best be done on a mid-week evening.

As Pete says, I think folk need to be very wary of apportioning blame for for bolt failure. That's a direction with all sorts of problems.

[petejh]

So go on then, say a bolt clipping punter with no knowledge of bolt placement techniques (as most of us are) roll up one day to do a sport route. How are we supposed to check the bolts? Bearing in mind we're stood on the floor and simply getting off the ground generally means pulling on at least one bolt.

1. As above (ie if the route's well travelled it almost certainly means the bolts are ok).
2. Clipstick.
3. Climb to the first bolt, and see if it pulls out/see if the glue's set.
4. Most pertinently - what on earth are you doing going outside doing dangerous shit like clipping bolts without any knowledge of bolt-checking skills - hang on, could it be the same thing as going out tradding and assessing the risk of using in-situ pegs, threads, belay stakes, abseil stations, your partner's belaying skills?? Fuck me it seems this climbing game relies on an awful lot of self-reliance, situational awareness and risk assessment doesn't it!  - what if you fall off when it turns out your belayer was bullshitting and doesn't know a belay plate from a dinner plate - call JCM for legal advice (no win no fee).

 
 

[chris_j_s]

Pete, I think this is a rather unrealistic expectation of what people should or would do so, for what it's worth, I thought I'd throw my two penneth into the melting pot!

In my view anyone undertaking bolting has an enormous responsibility to do the best possible job they can. I don't really accept your brushing aside of the fact that in the real world some people will be shoddy bolters, because in the real world almost everybody implicitly trusts bolts.

In answer of your suggestions:

1. I imagine that very few people are aware of each and every move of everyone involved in rebolting - unless it is actually a new route (some may not even know that) how would people know whether it has just been rebolted or whether it is actually well travelled? Yes, at Malham you could make a reasonable assumption (it would still be an assumption though) but what about at, say, Smalldale Quarry?

2. A vast number of occasional sport climbers don't own a clipstick and, in fact, actively think it's cheating! Also, the failed bolts in question pulled out with an outward force. I may be wrong here but couldn't they have potentially seemed fine if you tugged on them downwards?

3. In reality, who on earth would climb to the first bolt and give it a good old jiggle before clipping, especially if the climbing is even remotely tricky/ holds are small? I hardly believe that anybody routinely (or even occasionally) does this.

Where do you stop - if the second bolt were dodgy that could mean a ground fall, should you wiggle that around too, and the third, fourth etc.?

It's also not particularly conducive to onsighting which many climbers are led (rightly or wrongly) to believe is the ethical 'holy grail' by their peers.

4. Threads,  pegs, belay stakes etc... I think even those with a poor imagination can understand exactly how this gear was placed and that gives them a very good idea of what to look for to assess it's reliability. The very fact that there are bolting workshops and guidelines around the placement of bolts suggests there may be a bit more to it than your average joe is going to realise. This makes it much more difficult for such people to make a good judgement call over whether anything is wrong beyond obvious corrosion.

Beyond this and only slightly tongue in cheek... sport climbing is supposed to be "safe" isn't it - you hear people saying this all the time and I'm sure a lot of climbing coaches do quite well out of it. Due to the perceived safety of it people are often encouraged to push their limit much further than they would on trad routes (where there might be dangerous, potentially untrustworthy things like pegs, threads etc...)!!

[Nigel]

Ignoring old bolts as a separate issue for a moment (much more akin to pegs and threads), this is very simple.

Any doubt over new bolts only exists for a very short period of time - between placement and first use. All that need to be ensured is that the first user is a) aware they are untested, and b) not a total incompetent. A note left clipped to the first bolt should be all that is ever required.

Only just caught up with this one today. I must say that until JB posted I was on the verge of despair that no-one had stated the obvious! The straw man arguments about all people checking every bolt before use was ridiculous. There is very little point debating whether climbers should check bolts, as we all know of course they don't. We know this because we all (don't) do it. The reason is that we assume it has been done before i.e. like JB says an established route has good bolts. This is the same reason I don't safety check every component in my car, I assume its been done and the fact I drive it around all the time confirms this. Would I check any bolts at Malham catwalk? No, it beggars belief that any suggests I should.

As JB rightly says the only area of real concern is the FIRST USE. It would appear that most bolters have this in hand or are prescient enough to warn others. Oops, run out of time at work, gotta go home!

[petejh]

This thread has gone a bit off-topic from my original gripe with Shark, however:

I accept that the practice of climbers checking every stainless bolt on well-travelled routes is unrealistic so I was wrong. That wasn't really what I wanted to argue for. My original argument was with Shark about aiming quite snide remarks at a bolter who's had bolts pull out.

I'm not 'brushing aside' anything - that's entirely your interpretation Chris js. I agree 100% with you that bolters should try to do the best job they can and should follow recognised safe practices. I do think however that there's some misinterpretation on here about what constitutes 'shoddy practice', and that misinterpretation is being fuelled by a couple of people with little or no experience of actual practice.

My experience (note, not uninformed opinion) of placing upwards of 500 glue-in bolts without any problems and then having one bolt not set on me (as I discovered when lowering off after having climbed past it!) despite me following a commonly used good practice has taught me that unset bolts can get missed. I know for certain that I was being careful when placing the bolts and by taking the top and bottom test samples home with me in the evening to check they set properly, tagging the bolts and then getting on the route the next day I know I wasn't negligent. My experience is strengthened by knowing of other similar occurances happening to other experienced equippers in the region. If that's happened in my locale then it means it will undoubtedly have happened elsewhere - that doesn't mean I think it's acceptable but it does colour my view on how it might happen to other equippers/re-equippers. It also colours my view about Shark making statements like 'there's no pysical reason that new stainless bolts shouldn't be trusted other than for reasons of shoddy practice'. The physical bit might be true, the shoddy practice bit most certainly isn't and strikes me as being in poor spirit by Shark.

Shark might have bolted a couple of routes using glue-ins but he doesn't have much depth of knowledge and I don't agree with him making snide remarks at someone far more experienced than him who, by his own admission, knows he messed up.
 
People with zero experience of placing glue-ins (or any bolts JCM??) can express as much shock as they like that a bolter might not jug back up the ropes to check every bolt or, if a belay is available, top-rope the route prior to leaving the crag; but as JB pointed out that's occasionally what happens due to any combination of circumstances - in which case the test samples of glue top and bottom are monitored, a tag or tape is placed on the first bolt and the bolter returns to check as soon as they are able - that is an accepted good practice like it or not JCM. If you want to start debates about legal responsibility for placing fixed gear I suggest you start a new thread, I know of just the place; I'm sure it would make for a pretty combustable debate. I'm also sure that lawyers trying to start debates on attributing blame for climbing accidents due to fixed gear failing are something climbing should try to steer well clear of.

[chris j]

a tag or tape is placed on the first bolt and the bolter returns to check as soon as they are able - that is an accepted good practice

Accepting that climbers won't check every bolt before they use it and accepting that those bolting routes can't always test every bolt the same day they glue them and that mistakes and equipment failure happen so that despite best endeavours there will be occasional bolts that don't set correctly, it makes the final part of your best practice procedure to tag routes with new untested bolts doubly important. There's no mention in the original posts or thread on t'other side as to whether the routes were tagged; if they weren't then the bolter at Smalldale really does need to buck his ideas up.

(I have no bolting experience at all other than falling on them...)

[chris_j_s]

Thanks for the well reasoned response Pete and apologies for the unfair brushing aside comment.

It seems to me that the critical thing here is tagging the route, and it sounds as though maybe that didn't occur at Smalldale? I imagine tagging in such a manner would put all but the most ignorant of punters in a more careful mindset.

[shark]

People with zero experience of placing glue-ins (or any bolts JCM??) can express as much shock as they like that a bolter might not jug back up the ropes to check every bolt or, if a belay is available, top-rope the route prior to leaving the crag; but as JB pointed out that's occasionally what happens due to any combination of circumstances - in which case the test samples of glue top and bottom are monitored, a tag or tape is placed on the first bolt and the bolter returns to check as soon as they are able - that is an accepted good practice like it or not JCM.

Straw man statement. This is the first time on this thread that you have stated this is what you do and advocated it as "accepted good practice".Had you done stated this at the outset the direction of this thread and some of mine and JCM's post taking issue with your statements would have been unnecessary.

It remains that Gibson did not take these sort of safeguards at Long Wall previously, and it is not what he did at Smalldale. That constitutes shoddy practice in my book.

 

[petejh]

??
That's not a straw man. - What it is is you and jcm blatantly making wrong assumptions through your own ignorance of the subject, which led you to the wrong conclusion, and then you made uninformed statements like 'there's no pysical reason that new stainless bolts shouldn't be trusted other than for reasons of shoddy practice', which experience has proven to be wrong.

 


 
You obviously have a long-running grudge against GG. Maybe I would too if my climbing partner had ripped out a newly-placed unset glue-in bolt and decked, though I hope I'd take away something a bit more constructive than just a grudge.

[shark]

??
That's not a straw man. - What it is is you and jcm blatantly making wrong assumptions through your own ignorance of the subject, which led you to the wrong conclusion, and then you made uninformed statements like 'there's no pysical reason that new stainless bolts shouldn't be trusted other than for reasons of shoddy practice', which experience has proven to be wrong.

 

You originally defend someone who hasn't checked that the glue in bolts they've placed and went to say that the responsibility for checking bolts lies with whoever climbs the routes. You have now seen the good sense to moderate that initial view. 

You have also now added that it is good practice to check bolts or leave fair warning and this is what you do. Great. Shame you didn't say that before but if you are going to tell half a story then don't be surprised if assumptions are made.

I contend that to not to follow such safeguards is shoddy practice. Do you think this is shoddy practice or not?

[jcm]

I was surprised to read in the BMC update that it was two anchor bolts that failed in this incident.

I don't think so, Toby. They were the first and second bolts on the route.

Petejh, I really don't know what your problem is. Shark and I initially took you to task for your comments on the punters' obligations/whatever to check bolts, which you've now agreed were wrong. Apart from that, as far as I can see everyone is agreeing vigorously that the equipper needs to:-

1. Check the bolts within a reasonable time of placing them and them setting by some form of inspection with a rope, and

2.  Either do that on the day or tag the bolts until it can be done.

Some of your earlier posts gave the impression that you didn't agree with that.

As for the Smalldale bolts, GG says that these were placed four months previously and that he had actually checked them on a previous occasion, so we're not talking about tagging. We're talking about not one but two bad bolts which have somehow survived the checking process.

[jcm]

And as what the law is, btw, there's no point in a debate about that. I can tell you the legal position in one sentence; whether you like it or not there will be a duty of care on equippers, and if anyone tells you different they're wrong. Don't shoot the messenger.

The ambit of that duty of care - ie what exactly has to be done by the equipper to discharge it - is open for debate, but that debate will be indistinguishable from a debate on what constitutes good practice anyway, and it's obviously healthy for climbing to have as many of those as possible.

In general though, I think 'climbers shouldn't sue climbers', while an attractive notion, is not as clearcut a proposition as it seems.

For one thing, often these things are driven by insurers. If a life insurance company has to pay out when its insured is killed in an accident, it's going to make a commercial decision whether to try and recover its outlay from another insurance company or not. It's not in any real sense climbers suing climbers; it's insurance companies doing what they do. It doesn't matter what climbers think or do about it.

Even if that isn't the position, it's one of those things which looks very different to a healthy happy person tapping away on the internet on their employer's time on the one hand, and on the other to a widow with no job, no way to provide for her two children or pay the mortgage, and an obvious route to enabling her to do that via an insurance company. I think anyone who condemns someone in that position for taking proceedings needs to have a pretty good long look at themselves. And if it isn't wrong for the claimant, it isn't wrong for the lawyer. As to no-win no-fee agreements, what would you prefer? Demanding payment up front? NWNF is one of those things the public slags off very enthusiastically until they get let down by (for example) their conveyancing solicitor and want to recover from the insurers for the fact they can't sell their house, and then I can assure you they like it very much indeed.

[nik at work]

As a slight aside JCM, how would you view the placement (and subsequent failure) of pegs/threads etc with respect to duty of care? If there is a distinction what would it's basis be?
If a recently placed bolt fails due to it being incorrectly placed (blocked glue nozzle or suchlike) how is that different to a recently placed peg failing due to a poor placement? (from a legal perspective rather than climbing perspective).
Just curious.

[jcm]

(from a legal perspective rather than climbing perspective).

I think this is a false distinction; the law - certainly the law of negligence - doesn't operate independent of practices in the field it's dealing in.

I suspect there's still some duty of care if someone is placing something they know and intend that others are going to rely on, though clearly pegs are different for lots of reasons - won't be the only gear, climbers will know they can be dodgy, may not be possible to get a good placement, etc, etc. But I don't think it's impossible there might be a claim in theory. Say someone decided to cut all the threads in Ghost Train and replace them for the benefit of all, and unfortunately tied the replacements together with granny knots, such that the first climber to run out of steam on the runout stripped all the threads and died. There might well be a claim, I guess. For all sorts of reasons we're not likely to see such a claim, though, whereas if there is a fatality from an unglued bolt it wouldn't be at all surprising if there were a claim, I think.

[nik at work]

Thanks.

[Oldmanmatt]

Just a question, not an opinion.

The key is the "intention" , though, surely?
The equipper would have to be shown to have intended his handiwork to be used by others.
And that would depend on how that handiwork was promulgated (and by who) etc etc.

I think it's an unlikely case to see pursued.(ok, that was an opinion but you know what I mean...)

At what point is Equipping deemed to be finished?

Can any reasonable guarantee period be expected? Was any offered?

I know that's off topic but, if anyone has a legally sound opinion...

[slackline]

I suspect there's still some duty of care if someone is placing something they know and intend that others are going to rely on, though clearly pegs are different for lots of reasons - won't be the only gear, climbers will know they can be dodgy, may not be possible to get a good placement, etc, etc. But I don't think it's impossible there might be a claim in theory. Say someone decided to cut all the threads in Ghost Train and replace them for the benefit of all, and unfortunately tied the replacements together with granny knots, such that the first climber to run out of steam on the runout stripped all the threads and died. There might well be a claim, I guess. For all sorts of reasons we're not likely to see such a claim, though, whereas if there is a fatality from an unglued bolt it wouldn't be at all surprising if there were a claim, I think.

Not so much an issue with bolts, but with pegs, especially the older ones, how do you identify and perhaps crucially demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt who placed them in order to claim against them?

[jcm]

Just a question, not an opinion.

The key is the "intention" , though, surely?
The equipper would have to be shown to have intended his handiwork to be used by others.
And that would depend on how that handiwork was promulgated (and by who) etc etc.

I think it's an unlikely case to see pursued.(ok, that was an opinion but you know what I mean...)

At what point is Equipping deemed to be finished?

Can any reasonable guarantee period be expected? Was any offered?

I know that's off topic but, if anyone has a legally sound opinion...

I'm not sure 'intention' is quite accurate (I know it was my word). Something more like 'whether it is reasonably foreseeable that other people are going to rely upon the handiwork', perhaps. In other words, it's no good the climber saying they were just placing the bolts for their own use, if it's a line of bolts up the middle of the Catwalk.

In a climbing context I'd have thought that might be quite easy or quite difficult to establish, depending on the facts. Clearly there's a big difference between someone taking publicly subscribed money out of a bolt fund and writing up their efforts on the one hand, and someone lowering off a hand-placed peg on an onsight foray on Left Hand Red Wall on the other.

As to how long the equipment should last, it's all part of whether reasonable care was taken. If it fails, was that because reasonable care wasn't taken in the first place, or not? It's a question of fact.

Clearly there's no 'guarantee', in the sense in which lawyers use that word. There's a duty to take reasonable care in all the circumstances. If that's done, there's no liability even if the bolt/gear fails.

[jcm]

Not so much an issue with bolts, but with pegs, especially the older ones, how do you identify and perhaps crucially demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt who placed them in order to claim against them?
[/quote]

Well, with grave difficulty, clearly. One of the many reasons I think that a claim in respect of a peg, certainly an old peg, is exremely improbable to happen. As you say though, recently placed bolts are different; in many cases it won't be such a problem to find out who placed them.

[mrjonathanr]

Bolts and pegs seem like very different beasts to me. Pegs' integrity depend on the quality of placement pre-determined by the rock/circumstances of placement. They range from offering bomber to barely psychological security.

Unless we're talking (American) bolts on the lead, a bolt is usually placed in a manner intended to over-ride any difficulties of placement ie pegs offer relative security, bolts are meant to offer absolute security within their tolerances and life-span.

Could you really envisage a failing peg result in a successful litigation JCM?

[shark]

I was surprised to read in the BMC update that it was two anchor bolts that failed in this incident.

I don't think so, Toby. They were the first and second bolts on the route.

Fair enough. It still appears at best ambiguous in the BMC web article I read, but perhaps there has been more clarification elsewhere.

I made the same mistake. It was two of the lower bolts pulled out on lowering off rather than two of the lower-off bolts.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=504677&v=1#x6870803

richardh  on - 07 May 2012
Hi,

Yesterday, climbing at Smalldale on a newish route - Summat Outanowt (7a), two of the lower bolts pulled out with the tension of the rope on lowering off. On examination the glue hadn't gone off, and I hadn't noticed on the way up that it hadn't...I presume the glue had set on the 6th because I sat on it rather than fell on it.

just to exercise caution until the local powers that be - who have been notified - get time to go out and have a proper look.

Cheers.

[Rocksteady]

I'd have thought that it would be quite easy to establish that an equipper does owe a duty of care to subsequent users/consumers of his/her route.

Where I imagine the real battle would be (in a hypothetical court case) is over the standard/scope of the duty of care. I'd imagine it would come down to expert witness testimony (from prolific equippers) as to what was standard practice amongst equippers - i.e. do people always test every bolt? So if someone was proved to owe a duty of care, and proved that they didn't test every bolt, they might still not breach that duty as the general standard of equippers was that they didn't test every bolt.

Not sure, I'm only an ex-legal type and my field was more insurers squabbling with each other than stuff like this.

On that note, as JCM mentioned above, I always assume that when climbing injury cases get into the papers it's because the insurers are vigorously pursuing a subrogated claim on behalf of the individuals who have claimed on their policy (eg. the lady who broke her ankle at Craggy Island). If you hurt yourself climbing and you miss work etc, you might very well want to claim on a policy that covers you. If the insurers pay out and then consider they can recoup their money through litigation be damn sure they'll go after whoever they can.

[slackline]

I hope they tested the bolts on this

[petejh]

You originally defend someone who hasn't checked that the glue in bolts they've placed and went to say that the responsibility for checking bolts lies with whoever climbs the routes. You have now seen the good sense to moderate that initial view. 

You have also now added that it is good practice to check bolts or leave fair warning and this is what you do. Great. Shame you didn't say that before but if you are going to tell half a story then don't be surprised if assumptions are made.

I contend that to not to follow such safeguards is shoddy practice. Do you think this is shoddy practice or not?

I've only just noticed you asked me this.

First, I would probably defend anyone who's done as much for mid-grade sport climbing as Gibson has, and who'd made a mistake whilst bolting. Despite not agreeing with many things he's reported to have done in the past at trad areas like Lundy and Pembroke (amongst others) his list of brilliant routes is impossible to ignore. If you enjoy climbing quality grade 7's in places such as the Llangollen crags, devil's gorge, the ormes, peak limestone, plus loads of other areas, then you'll have enjoyed Gisbon's routes. I think GG deserves praise for the many good things he's done for british sport climbing, and I don't think he deserves to have you, Shark, passing judgment on him for a mistake he'll no-doubt be pissed off about.
Yes, equippers should be responsible for the safety of the bolts that they place, and climbers should be responsible for their own safety - it's not a one way relationship - read the BMC participenmt statement and the BMC's own guidance on bolts:
Q. Who is responsible for the bolts at a crag?
A. In general, nobody. As a climber, it is your own responsibility to check that any bolts or lower offs that you rely on are secure. Never assume that it's safe just because it's a sport route.  (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/spot-a-bad-bolt)

'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.' (http://www.thebmc.co.uk/modules/article.aspx?id=1421)

Second, in this thread you haven't had anywhere close to 'half the story' (in your words)  - how on earth could you just from reading some posts on a forum. What makes you think you should expect to know 'the full story' just from a few posts on a web forum? To get 'the full story' would require you to go out and spend vast amounts of your spare time and energy placing glue-in bolts in lots of different circumstances. You haven't done this, you're in no position to pass judgement and imo you should refrain from doing so. You're not any kind of authority on the subject Shark.

Third, I'm not the one framing this debate in terms of 'shoddy practice' - you are. If we were discussing a tradesperson, say a builder, who was carrying out work for payment, then framing this debate in terms of 'shoddy practice' would be appropriate. Bolting, and especially replacing old bolts on existing routes, is only made possible, as you well know, by people doing it out of their enthusiasm for climbing good (a matter of taste) well-equipped climbs and for their enthusiasm for re-invigorating areas/crags to climb on. Nobody gets paid, nobody is a professional.
You, making online accusations of 'shoddy practice' when inevitable mistakes are made, goes against the spirit of amateurish voluntary effort and sounds more like a kangoroo courtroom.

It doesn't surprise me that the two people seemingly most eager to condem a bolter's mistakes and put forward the 'bolters have a duty of care' viewpoint are, firstly, a climber well-known for his strong oppostion to bolt-protected climbing; and secondly a climber who has an obvious axe to grind following an accident in the past involving GG's bolts.