[Sasquatch]

As a parent and someone who would like to live a very long time, I have fairly strict lines about tolerence for the "dying" part.  Injury, sure.  which is why I don't mind highballing.  death-no.  so no soloing a 50M v diff.  Others draw their own lines for their own reasons.

Yup. As you know, I live amongst perfect easy solo climbing terrain. It is very very tempting to pick up a pair of shoes, walk out of the door and solo a whole bunch of 25m 5.7 - 5.8 cracks. But I try to resist the temptation as I know that multiple repetitions x low-but-not-zero probability of a slip x high probability of death from a fall sums to an unacceptable long-term risk (for me, personally).

Yup. the other factor to consider in risk is how many times do you roll the dice.  A 1% likelihood of screwing up seems low, but go do that 100 or 1000 times and the chances really start to add up. 

[Offwidth]

As a parent and someone who would like to live a very long time, I have fairly strict lines about tolerence for the "dying" part.  Injury, sure.  which is why I don't mind highballing.  death-no.  so no soloing a 50M v diff.  Others draw their own lines for their own reasons.

Yup. As you know, I live amongst perfect easy solo climbing terrain. It is very very tempting to pick up a pair of shoes, walk out of the door and solo a whole bunch of 25m 5.7 - 5.8 cracks. But I try to resist the temptation as I know that multiple repetitions x low-but-not-zero probability of a slip x high probability of death from a fall sums to an unacceptable long-term risk (for me, personally).

Apply the same logic to trad climbing and you would never onsight at the same level of risk applied to your 5.8 crack solo. Its climbing that is dangerous not just soloing. There is a finite probablilty you will slip and rotate unexpectedly off a boulder problem bang your head on a rock and die.

[a dense loner]

No there's not, not in the same way at all.

[Sasquatch]

As a parent and someone who would like to live a very long time, I have fairly strict lines about tolerence for the "dying" part.  Injury, sure.  which is why I don't mind highballing.  death-no.  so no soloing a 50M v diff.  Others draw their own lines for their own reasons.

Yup. As you know, I live amongst perfect easy solo climbing terrain. It is very very tempting to pick up a pair of shoes, walk out of the door and solo a whole bunch of 25m 5.7 - 5.8 cracks. But I try to resist the temptation as I know that multiple repetitions x low-but-not-zero probability of a slip x high probability of death from a fall sums to an unacceptable long-term risk (for me, personally).

Apply the same logic to trad climbing and you would never onsight at the same level of risk applied to your 5.8 crack solo. Its climbing that is dangerous not just soloing. There is a finite probablilty you will slip and rotate unexpectedly off a boulder problem bang your head on a rock and die.

Why would onsighting carry the same risk as soloing?  For me they are very different.  I won't climb beyond a certain height (relatively safe and either droppable, or down climbable) without getting in gear, which then changes the liklihood of a fall resulting in death. so ergo, not the same.

I won't take the .01% chance I'll fall and die while soloing a 5.8 

I'll probably be willing to take the 0.00000000000000000000001% chance I'll die while leading protectable trad 5.8. 

I'm willing to take the 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that I'll die hitting my head on a low ball boulder, as that risk is more or less the same as the chances I'll die walking from my car into the office at work. 

[shark]

I had a stab at grappling with the diffrent types of risk in an article a few years ago.

A few thoughts about risk

[ferret]

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120302-extreme-sports-a-risky-business

A few interesting stats on this article

[Bubba]

Should much of this topic be split into a more general discussion about risk?

[andy popp]

Personally, and this may not make much sense, but I think we make a mistake in thinking any of this (going climbing etc.) is much about risk. Risk is, to some extent, intrinsic to the fact that we go climbing (as such its a by-product that has to be dealt with) but beyond that its pretty irrelevant and certainly not intrinsic to motivation, experience, pleasure, or reward - for me anyway.

[slackline]

Yup. the other factor to consider in risk is how many times do you roll the dice.  A 1% likelihood of screwing up seems low, but go do that 100 or 1000 times and the chances really start to add up.

If your likelihood of screwing up is 1% it remains the same whether you indulge in the activity once, one hundred, a thousand or a million times.

You'd be unlucky to observe that event if you only indulged in it once but you'd expect to observe it once if you undertook the activity 100 times, ten times out of 1000 tries etc. etc. but the likelihood of screwing up remains the same and do not start to add up, you are however more likely to observe an event.

[shurt]

Yup. the other factor to consider in risk is how many times do you roll the dice.  A 1% likelihood of screwing up seems low, but go do that 100 or 1000 times and the chances really start to add up.

If your likelihood of screwing up is 1% it remains the same whether you indulge in the activity once, one hundred, a thousand or a million times.

You'd be unlucky to observe that event if you only indulged in it once but you'd expect to observe it once if you undertook the activity 100 times, ten times out of 1000 tries etc. etc. but the likelihood of screwing up remains the same and do not start to add up, you are however more likely to observe an event.

You must be dynamite at a dinner party...

[ghisino]

1-(0.99)^100

If You consider all 100 reps as a whole?

[rich d]

Yup. the other factor to consider in risk is how many times do you roll the dice.  A 1% likelihood of screwing up seems low, but go do that 100 or 1000 times and the chances really start to add up.

If your likelihood of screwing up is 1% it remains the same whether you indulge in the activity once, one hundred, a thousand or a million times.

You'd be unlucky to observe that event if you only indulged in it once but you'd expect to observe it once if you undertook the activity 100 times, ten times out of 1000 tries etc. etc. but the likelihood of screwing up remains the same and do not start to add up, you are however more likely to observe an event.

You must be dynamite at a dinner party...

There's only a 2% chance that Slackers would be dynamite at a dinner party, you'd have to invite him to quite a few to observe that event. 

[shark]

Personally, and this may not make much sense, but I think we make a mistake in thinking any of this (going climbing etc.) is much about risk. Risk is, to some extent, intrinsic to the fact that we go climbing (as such its a by-product that has to be dealt with) but beyond that its pretty irrelevant and certainly not intrinsic to motivation, experience, pleasure, or reward - for me anyway.

Not sure what you are driving at here. I think it is more than a by-product and for most drives how we play the game. Risk steers the type of climbing you do both generally and on the day and in selecting routes. I have always sought to roughly weigh up enjoyment vs risk and quickly ruled out alpinism for that reason. I get an amazing thrill from soloing but now only ration it as an occasional treat at Stanage. My best day soloing was in Pembroke when a prospective partner failed to appear. It was great until I came over all tired and got a bit stuck at the end of the day. Wont be doing that again.   

I think it is traditional at this point in these sort of threads to link John Long's great article now on vimeo read by the man himself with a postscript:

[slackline]

You must be dynamite at a dinner party...

 

The distinction wasn't explicitly made and as I'm a statistician I think its worth making it clear.

[Johnny Brown]

I live amongst perfect easy solo climbing terrain. It is very very tempting to pick up a pair of shoes, walk out of the door and solo a whole bunch of 25m 5.7 - 5.8 cracks. But I try to resist the temptation as I know that multiple repetitions x low-but-not-zero probability of a slip x high probability of death from a fall sums to an unacceptable long-term risk (for me, personally).

I don't see how this is any different from driving. I solo every week, although generally on grit where the chance of death is perhaps lower (although not much different to the smoke bluffs). Whilst that increases the throws of the dice it also increases the competence level. 'What if you slip?' is a bit of a meaningless question. What if you suddenly lose control when driving? Does that happen? Not unless you suddenly lose concentration, which generally requires boredom, or distraction. I find soloing a pretty good aid to concentration, and I don't climb in such a style where one limb 'slipping' would be catastrophic. Plus, unlike driving, I don't get distracted by having to tune the radio, eat or find my son's dropped dummy whilst soloing.

I suspect it is more dangerous to dip into soloing as an occasional treat than it is to do it regularly. Getting tired and a bit stuck isn't something I've let happen for many years. No pressure and lots of downclimbing are the key, not a ticking mentality.

[SA Chris]

Plus, unlike driving, I don't get distracted by having to tune the radio, eat or find my son's dropped dummy whilst soloing.

Or meet a large person soloing the other way too quickly whilst on their mobile, eating and messing with their MP3 player.

[shark]

I suspect it is more dangerous to dip into soloing as an occasional treat than it is to do it regularly.

Go on ...I'm listening

[Johnny Brown]

Having circuits you do regularly and know well makes a big difference. Not only are you not onsighting, you can gauge your form on the day by how things feel. The circuits are never the same but tend to include a few favourite warmups and benchmarks, as well as stuff I've not done or don't remember. It's not so much about having everything wired - but knowing where cruxes are and that there are no nasty surprises. I think it needs a different mentality overall - grades and ticks should not be important, just moving well whatever the grade and finding the right level for your form and the conditions. I have lots of off days but I can't remember ever having a bad soloing session really, e.g. last night where I backed off a HVS I used to do in trainers, but it was still satisfying to go up and come down competently.

[Offwidth]

A short tribute to Graham Hunt

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZehwcYq9JOw&feature=youtu.be

[Johnny Brown]

I should add I do quite a lot of formal risk assessment for fairly dangerous work but remain pretty cynical of the whole process. I see it as more of a due diligence arse covering exercise. As Rumsfeld so wisely pointed out, the known unknowns are hard to predict and the unknown unknowns are even worse. Too much risk control leads to a complacent workforce - as with airbags and driving. An idiot-proof environment encourages idiots. Some genuine risk encourages engagement.

[Offwidth]

As a parent and someone who would like to live a very long time, I have fairly strict lines about tolerence for the "dying" part.  Injury, sure.  which is why I don't mind highballing.  death-no.  so no soloing a 50M v diff.  Others draw their own lines for their own reasons.

Yup. As you know, I live amongst perfect easy solo climbing terrain. It is very very tempting to pick up a pair of shoes, walk out of the door and solo a whole bunch of 25m 5.7 - 5.8 cracks. But I try to resist the temptation as I know that multiple repetitions x low-but-not-zero probability of a slip x high probability of death from a fall sums to an unacceptable long-term risk (for me, personally).

Apply the same logic to trad climbing and you would never onsight at the same level of risk applied to your 5.8 crack solo. Its climbing that is dangerous not just soloing. There is a finite probablilty you will slip and rotate unexpectedly off a boulder problem bang your head on a rock and die.

Why would onsighting carry the same risk as soloing?  For me they are very different.  I won't climb beyond a certain height (relatively safe and either droppable, or down climbable) without getting in gear, which then changes the liklihood of a fall resulting in death. so ergo, not the same.

I won't take the .01% chance I'll fall and die while soloing a 5.8 

I'll probably be willing to take the 0.00000000000000000000001% chance I'll die while leading protectable trad 5.8. 

I'm willing to take the 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that I'll die hitting my head on a low ball boulder, as that risk is more or less the same as the chances I'll die walking from my car into the office at work.

I think your guestimates of risk are just way off and I think Shark has it spot on in his article. The stats from real accident, analysis show experienced climbers make way too many stupid mistakes on easier terrain, yet the concentrated focus of the skilled climber leads to much less risk (hence accidents) on hard bold stuff than we might expect.

http://www.friendsofyosar.org/safety/climbingSafety.html

Having run and been involved in student trips for nearly 2 decades the most likely trip for an accident was always font and although ankles took the brunt,  I've seen heads whizz close past a rock enough times to know risk is real and good spotters are really important (I wear a lid now quite often, especially on my own).

[al]

I'm shocked he took his dog flying, glad he didn't this time

[shurt]

You must be dynamite at a dinner party...

 

The distinction wasn't explicitly made and as I'm a statistician I think its worth making it clear.

Clearly

[Fiend]

The stats from real accident, analysis show experienced climbers make way too many stupid mistakes on easier terrain, yet the concentrated focus of the skilled climber leads to much less risk (hence accidents) on hard bold stuff than we might expect.

From browsing Peak-area MRT reports a few years back, there are a shockingly large proportion of injurious accidents on well-protected climbs where the users have fucked up with theoretically safe gear placements, compared to, as you say, hard bold stuff.

Having agreed with that, I disagree that trad is risky - the safety system is well refined and works well, it's up to the users to use it well.

[Fiend]

I think there's a good discussion to be had here, perhaps somewhere else another time,

It might not be the time, but the quality of D.Piddy's question and of the replies since then, show that it is the PLACE.

I think it would be worth splitting the thread though, even if it's a bit awkward, as this could be generally useful and informative.