[shark]

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.

Jesus christ you make it sound like rocket science. All we are talking about is checking the glue has set or leaving fair notice that the bolts haven't been checked. 

Also do you really believe that Gibson (or yourself) enjoy some special dispensation from any kind of criticism, blame or judgement if bolts fail through being inadequately checked or notice given and someone gets killed. 

I am happy to refrain from using the phrase "shoddy practice" if you can tender an alternative that represents almost the opposite of good practice falling just short of bad practice.

I'll let you have the last word because this is getting tedious beyond belief as it is going round in circles.

Fill your boots...

[jcm]

It doesn't surprise me that the two people seemingly most eager to ........ put forward the 'bolters have a duty of care' viewpoint are

I don't think anyone finds that a controversial proposition except you.

I'd be interested in a straight answer to a question I asked somewhere else but didn't get an answer to: how often does this happen? I don't mean glue failing to set and the equipper himself finding out there's a problem, but bad bolts slipping through the checking process such that the punter rocks up at the crag, puts his weight on them, and out they come. I can only think of three examples. One of them caused a fatality. The other one nearly did. This is the third, and the second involving the same equipper.

But then, I don't pretend to know that much about it. Maybe it does happen all the time. Has anyone else heard of or experienced such a thing?

[slackline]

Maybe some of this testing of newly place bolts should be in the Peak area Bolting Policy?

[shark]

Maybe some of this testing of newly place bolts should be in the Peak area Bolting Policy?

Yeah - silly me for assuming that this was common sense and therefore a matter of course. 

[slackline]

As common sense and a matter of course as not using sub-standard bolts which is explicitly stated under the Safety section I'd guess.

[petejh]

It doesn't surprise me that the two people seemingly most eager to ........ put forward the 'bolters have a duty of care' viewpoint are

I don't think anyone finds that a controversial proposition except you.

I'd be interested in a straight answer to a question I asked somewhere else but didn't get an answer to: how often does this happen? I don't mean glue failing to set and the equipper himself finding out there's a problem, but bad bolts slipping through the checking process such that the punter rocks up at the crag, puts his weight on them, and out they come. I can only think of three examples. One of them caused a fatality. The other one nearly did. This is the third, and the second involving the same equipper.

But then, I don't pretend to know that much about it. Maybe it does happen all the time. Has anyone else heard of or experienced such a thing?

On the contrary I'm not the only one who finds your 'duty of care' proposition controversial. Other equippers have said exactly the same thing to me just this weekend at the crag. For one thing it depends on whose definition is used of what is and isn't negligent, and it also depends on which version of personal responsibility in climbing you agree with - I agree with the BMC participent statement and the BMC's 'bad bolts' guidance notes; you on the other hand appear to be trying to load all the responsibility onto the equipper.

and,

It's happened twice that I know of in north wales in the last 12 months, with no injuries thankfully - that is, someone other than the equipper unexpectedly pulling out an unset glue-in. Not counting the one that happened to me. As you rightly point out -  not everything that happens to do with climbing makes it to your attention.

Out of interest JCM/Shark: over the years how many instances do you think there have been of pegs/threads ripping resulting in injury - no matter how minor, and accepting your cluelessness?
Do you believe that a person placing a crucial peg/thread protecting a long runnout has exactly the same duty of care as they would if placing a bolt in the same place on the same route?

[danm]

Guys,

I'm not suprised this subject has aroused strong emotions and a range of different views. It is by no means a straightforward discussion. Hopefully I can contribute to the debate without stirring it up to much!

Let's deal with the duty of care debate first. Our bolt guidance documents were written by a collection of front line bolters, it wasn't some unrealistic set of rules handed down by stuffed shirts. There was a realisation at the time that we weren't collectively dealing with this issue - nobody really knew what might happen in the event of the worst and a claim going to court. So we endeavoured to get legal advice and make sure that this informed the documents.

Our advice suggested two opposing arguments. The first is that as climbers willingly undertake a risky activity, they can't expect restitution if something bad happens to them. The other, is that as a bolter knows that others will use their bolts after them. Therefore, it is reasonable for them to take steps to ensure that they are placed competently and using suitable materials.

This still has never been tested in court, so which argument prevails remains to be seen. Our advice is to assume both to be true. After all, after a hard winter, the best bolting in the world won't help if the bit of crag it's in has come loose. Likewise, anyone bolting should really take every effort to do the best job they can, not only out of consideration for other climbers, but perhaps, more cynically, to protect themselves if the sh*t hits the fan. I'm in favour of the Yorshire approach, where they record everything, glue batches, the lot, so they at least have a chance of showing due diligence if it comes to it.

My final comments are purely my personal opinion, feel free to disagree. Gary has ballsed up and he knows it. He was mortified, and quite rightly. Like him or not though, he was there the very next day to put it right as best he could. Instead of slating him, let's consider this: without him, these routes wouldn't exist. There likely wouldn't be any mid grade sport routes in the Peak. More tellingly, if I look at the number of guys currently re-equipping in the Peak, its a dismal state of affairs. There are a couple of guys doing great work, mostly unheralded, and that's it. If you want someone other than Gary to be responsible for re-equipping routes in the Peak, then you as a community need to step up and put the bodies forward.

If you want to move things forward, then get involved and I'll do whatever I can to support you.

[shark]

Out of interest JCM/Shark: over the years how many instances do you think there have been of pegs/threads ripping resulting in injury - no matter how minor, and accepting your cluelessness?
Do you believe that a person placing a crucial peg/thread protecting a long runnout has exactly the same duty of care as they would if placing a bolt in the same place on the same route?

Re the first question no idea. As to the second there is a distinction between a bolt that can be placed anywhere that is expected to be clipsticked, dogged and fallen on and is explicity (however much you might huff and puff) safe and a crucial thread or peg that can only be placed where the rock can afford it and implicitly only offers the chance of protection in the event of mishap and implicitly not to be relied on. There might be some grey areas - JCM posed a scenario of badly knotting slings on Ghost Train above.

[petejh]

Firstly, thanks Dan.

Secondly, Shark, you've changed the argument either knowingly or not. I didn't say a bolt which could be 'clipsticked, dogged etc etc etc', for argument's sake I said a bolt in the same trad route situation as the aforementioned peg.
In which case, don't you see the problem with what you just said?
Why do you consider it ok for somebody to place a crucial peg on the runnout of a trad route, which it can be reasonably assumed others will use and which for argument's sake is crucial to prevent an injurious fall (not unusual on uk trad) -  in the full knowledge that it might only 'be placed where the rock can afford it and implicitly only offers the chance of protection in the event of mishap and implicitly not to be relied on'...

... But it's not ok for a bolt that is placed in the same postion on our imaginary trad route to be anything other than 100% reliable, and if it fails the person who placed it should be held negligable and open to whatever the law throws at them???

But then you say 'ahhh there's a distinction between knowingly placing poor pegs and placing 'thought-to-be good' bolts.
Except that I don't see any distinction explicitly stated anywhere to back you up - what I do see is statement after statement in every single guidebook, on the BMC website, on BMC bolting guidance, in every climbing wall etc etc.. that goes against what you said, -  that climbing is a dangerous activity where you might die and that you should assume an attitude of taking personal responsibilty for your actions, and that includes treating all fixed gear with suspicion. Which part of that don't you agree with?

If we treat fixed gear the same, the obvious conclusion, at least according to your logic of 'bolting must be 100% reliable', is that the person knowingly placing the poor peg is being just as negligent as the bolter unknowingly placing what he thought was a good bolt only for it to rip out. Negligent. If we treat fixed gear the same, a further logical conclusion is that it would be best practice not to place any 'shoddy' pegs in the first place.


I think the common-sense lies somewhere in the middle with all bolts and pegs/threads treated similarly. As per the disclaimers. JCM, where am I wrong?

[shark]

Firstly, thanks Dan.

Secondly, Shark, you've changed the argument either knowingly or not. I didn't say a bolt which could be 'clipsticked, dogged etc etc etc', for argument's sake I said a bolt in the same trad route situation as the aforementioned peg.
In which case, don't you see the problem with what you just said?

Sorry. I misread it. A bolt in the same position is inviting "sporting" falls whereas the trad gear never is and so the character of the runout is different. I appreciate that some might say that if its a bomber piece of trad gear then it might as well be a bolt but having relied on a chunky angle peg in this way and snapped the eye taking a 50foot+ factor-two headfirst plunge (on a route appropriately named Fallout) I'd disagree. I regarded that as 100% my fault for relying on a peg. If it had been a bolt that had failed I'd apportion some of the blame on the bolter depending on the circumstances - probably over 50% if it was a glue in where the glue hadnt set and the bolt hadn't been tested/weighted. So yes there is a difference in my opinion.

[petejh]

Fair enough, however(!) it could also be said that had the peg never been put there in the first place, then you wouldn't have been there either.

[Doylo]

I'm glad i'm stupid and don't understand any of this 

[jcm]

On the contrary I'm not the only one who finds your 'duty of care' proposition controversial. Other equippers have said exactly the same thing to me just this weekend at the crag. For one thing it depends on whose definition is used of what is and isn't negligent, and it also depends on which version of personal responsibility in climbing you agree with - I agree with the BMC participent statement and the BMC's 'bad bolts' guidance notes; you on the other hand appear to be trying to load all the responsibility onto the equipper.

Pete, I don't think you understand what a lawyer means when he says that there's a duty of care.

Let me give you an example from another field, a famous House of Lords case. A company's auditors screwed up terribly and allowed some very misleading accounts to be published. Lots of people bought shares in the company and lost their shirts. Could they recover from the auditors? No, said the HL. The auditors simply do not have any responsibility to these people; no matter how badly they do their job, they can't be sued. There is no duty of care, in lawyerspeak. The auditors can of course be sued by the company if they screw up (or by existing shareholders IIRC), but those people hadn't, on this occasion, suffered any loss.

So, in a bolting context, all that it means when a lawyer says there is a duty of care is that there is in principle at least some responsibility on bolters towards those who are going to hang off their bolts. That's the first question. Can the punter sue at all, no matter how badly the equipper performed? That's a question of pure law. Unless you and your friends know something about the law of personal injury and negligence, their opinions about it are worth about the same as my opinions about nuclear physics.

So what is that responsibility, if it exists? It will be, roughly speaking, something like "to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to keep potential users of the bolts safe".

So what does that mean? What do bolters have to do? That's the second question.

Now THAT is where the expertise you are shouting about comes in. It's a question for expert witnesses - people like you and your friends - to assist the court by saying what it is that you do, why that's good practice, why this step or that step wouldn't be necessary, and so forth. At the end of the day, if it comes to it, the judge says that in his opinion this or that step should have been taken by a reasonably competent equipper, and if it wasn't and that caused someone else an injury, the equipper is liable. Of course it's still a question for the court which will be decided by some judge who, like me, will never have placed a bolt, but that's law for you.

Now, as to the first question, I've been practising in the field of professional negligence (different but closely related) for 20 years, I've read the judgments in most of the well-known climbing-and-the-law cases, and in the context of the Australian bad bolts case I've discussed the question (very superficially, to be sure) with ten or so lawyers in the field, including two or three lawyer/climbers and two or three QCs one of whom is now a judge, and I've never heard anyone suggest that there wouldn't be a duty of care. Contrary to what you seem to think, I'd love it if there wasn't - few developments in the law would give me more pleasure. I would, however, be very surprised. It wouldn't be the first time or the last a court had surprised me greatly, but still.

Dan M says the BMC took some legal advice about this. Undoubtedly that advice was right to say that until the thing's tested in court, no-one really *knows*. English law deals with the question of whether there's a duty of care on a case-by-case basis rather than laying down sweeping principles. However, if the BMC has actually taken serious, informed advice which said anything other than that it was very probable that there would be a duty of care, then you'll just have to colour me astonished. If Dan M cares to share any reasoning that was given or any case referred to, I'd be very interested.

That would mean that if a bolter used a glue which said prominently on the packet that it shouldn't be used for anything other than sticking paper together, took no steps to check the bolts at all, and the next day a punter made his way up the route, clipped the lower-off, lent back and continued to the ground stripping the entire route, then the BMC's insurers (assuming this fellow to be a BMC member and the insurance to cover his activities) wouldn't have to pay out. I think most people would find that surprising.

However, I really don't think debate about this is that useful unless anyone else has some law to refer to, because we're only making predictions, after all. Mine is better informed than yours, but I could be wrong, certainly. If you and your friends choose to prefer your own predictions, go ahead. I hope you're right, I really do.

As to the second question, I don't profess to have an informed opinion. What I do think is this: I have always assumed, and I think many punters have, that the equipper will have tried to pull each bolt out after the glue has set and failed. Some of what you and others have said has led me to think that not all equippers actually do this. IMHO it would be useful if the punters did know what steps exactly have usually been taken, and it would be helpful if equippers did explain this. You really haven't explained very clearly what you think are the minimum checks that should be undertaken.

[jcm]

I think the common-sense lies somewhere in the middle with all bolts and pegs/threads treated similarly. As per the disclaimers. JCM, where am I wrong?

In a way, I don't think you are. I think that wherever climbers are placing fixed gear with a view to other people relying upon it, there will be a duty of care, a duty to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances for the safety of those who come after.

The question is going to be what care is reasonable in the particular circumstances, and as to that one of the circumstances which will differ widely is the approach which the punter to come can reasonably be expected to take to the fixed gear, which as we all know will be different in respect of pegs (or many pegs; perhaps not something like Shining Path) from bolts.

[jcm]

... But it's not ok for a bolt that is placed in the same postion on our imaginary trad route to be anything other than 100% reliable, and if it fails the person who placed it should be held negligable and open to whatever the law throws at them???

That's not quite right. The person who placed it isn't liable just because the bolt fails; he's liable if he didn't take reasonable care in placing it.

But then you say 'ahhh there's a distinction between knowingly placing poor pegs and placing 'thought-to-be good' bolts.
Except that I don't see any distinction explicitly stated anywhere to back you up - what I do see is statement after statement in every single guidebook, on the BMC website, on BMC bolting guidance, in every climbing wall etc etc.. that goes against what you said, -  that climbing is a dangerous activity where you might die and that you should assume an attitude of taking personal responsibilty for your actions, and that includes treating all fixed gear with suspicion. Which part of that don't you agree with?

Yes, yes, that's all splendid stuff by the BMC, but your point doesn't follow. Just because the punter ought to be careful, that doesn't mean there's no duty of care. It's true perhaps that the equipper is entitled to assume the punter will be following best practice. But then, didn't we establish earlier on that in practical terms punters do blindly trust the bolts on sport routes and indeed don't have much choice?

[jcm]

It's happened twice that I know of in north wales in the last 12 months, with no injuries thankfully - that is, someone other than the equipper unexpectedly pulling out an unset glue-in. Not counting the one that happened to me. As you rightly point out -  not everything that happens to do with climbing makes it to your attention.

Are we saying that these two failures happened in spite of the equippers having checked the bolts by pulling on them on abseil?

Because if not, doesn't this rather high incidence of failures suggest that equippers should be doing such checking?

Or alternatively, if it's happening in spite of the bolts having been checked and fairly recently placed, why it is happening? I don't think there are two such failures a year in other areas (though I stand to be corrected).

I asked this before. It would be more interesting - to me, anyway - if you answered it rather than getting personally aggressive and complaining about the law.

[petejh]

An informative post, thanks.

This is what I would consider the absolute minimum checks which should be undertaken:
Test sample before first bolt, test sample after last bolt. Remain at crag until both samples have gone off - sample should obviously be setting after 10 mins (depending on type of resin). If samples aren't setting then strip bolts. If samples are setting, leave.

This is better:
As above, return to crag as early as possible the following day to check the bolts/climb route.

This is better still:
As above, but place some kind of marker on the first bolt and return to the crag as early as possible (not neccessarily the next day).

This is best:
Finish glueing, wait around at least one hour from last bolt placed for the glue to have had sufficient time to withstand a virtually full load. Jug up ropes checking every bolt or climb the route to check bolts.


I've followed the last 'method' for the large majority of glue-ins I've placed, however I've also occasionally done the other three methods depending on various combinations of: how big/remote/obscure/popular the crag is, how knackered/thirsty/hungry I am, what other pressing engagments I may have had, the weather intervening, running out of time and not finishing all the bolts in one go, running out of bolts/resin, dropping bolts/resin etc etc.

(have just seen your other posts):
I don't know if the bolts that failed where checked on abseil or not. I wasn't there and didn't ask. I have my opinion on it - it would be very hard if not impossible to miss something like that if you had checked them.
You need to put it context though, N.wales isn't the peak and there has been a massive number of glue-ins used for re-equipping and new routes on the Ormes, A55 crags and Slate during the last few years - I'd guesstimate around a thousand, possibly more - I placed 250 on LPT alone.

I suggest discussions like this might better inform 'punters' and hopefully help to prevent them 'blindly trusting bolts'. That's also one of the purposes of participant statements. I think trying to inform people, especially about something which could affect their safety, is a pretty sensible thing - certainly better than just arguing that people should be able to blindly trust things.

I haven't been 'personally agressive' with you - I'm far from being the only person to have come across you online and perceived you to be somebody who thinks they know everything that ever happened in the climbing world. I've not been personally aggressive to you at all on this thread, I'm sure you're a lovely bloke in real life...

As for complaining about the law - guilty as charged. I hate it getting involved in anything to do with climbing - as do you by your own admission.

[shark]

JCM

I was reminded about a story that was knocking about when I first started climbing.

Apparently a prankster had abseiled down Great Slab at Froggatt and blu-tacked a couple of bolt hangers to the rock. The route was later led that day with someone clipping the hangers.

If this happened in the way described and the leader had fallen off and sued/claimed on insurance  would "duty of care" come into it or some other legal construct?

[petejh]

Hang on... Has anyone else noticed...

JCM is using the quotes correctly. 

[duncan]

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 ...

JCM demonstrating his strong opposition to bolt protected climbing:



Happy birthday old man!

[danm]

To JCM, I perhaps wasn't clear enough with my explanation. I don't think there was ever any doubt expressed by our legal advice that a duty of care was owed by a bolter to climbers subsequently climbing a route. The unresolved question appeared to lie around whether this would take precedence over the underlying principle of "to the willing victim, no harm is done." I'll be honest though, I know bugger all about the law, so I didn't question the advice we received!

There is a categoric difference between bolts and pegs/threads etc. A correctly placed bolt is pretty much guaranteed to meet a known strength, whereas for pegs you essentially have an unknown quantity, even when placed perfectly in any given situation. In addition, although pegs are routinuely left in situ, they are designed as leader placed protection, with the intention that the second removes them. It would be far easier to argue that a peg was abandoned gear and there was no intention for others to use it subsequently. You would have no difficulty, either, in getting an expert witness to state that it is well known that pegs should always be backed up with your own protection, because of their inherent unreliability.

Finally Pete, your hierarchy of checking options looks spot on to me, and tallies with the advice we give. I have a suspicion about why Gary didn't pick up on the glue problem in this case. One reason these bolts are so strong is that the spiral acts mechanically when loaded at 90 degrees. Jim Titt had some test results where they held 19kN without ANY glue when loaded downwards. So if Gary tested them by climbing the route, but didn't try rotating the bolt, then perhaps that might explain it and is something to consider when checking these bolts in the future.

[Bonjoy]

JCM demonstrating his strong opposition to bolt protected climbing:

Snappy duds!!

[chris j]

JCM demonstrating his strong opposition to bolt protected climbing:

He does look quite disgusted by it in that photo...   

[Johnny Brown]

"This is BULLSHIT! Lower me down now!"

[Doylo]

It does look like bullshit to be fair. Maybe that's why he hates sport climbing