[petejh]

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/horseshoe-rebolting-project-kicks-off

As somebody well-versed in re-bolting sport crags who I know said, regarding this scheme: ''why is BMC paying a rope access contractor to do work which volunteers in Wales have been and continue to do?''. I agree.

The BMC is sending out a clear message and setting a precedent: that it's acceptable to pay companies for re-bolting work that has always, quite rightly, been carried out voluntarily. For this reason I'm against this idea on principle, because I don't think we should be encouraging the notion that re-equipping poorly bolted sport routes should ever be considered a 'professional' paid-for activity. I'd be in favour of donating if the money was purely to purchase equipment for volunteers to then do the re-equipping.

People re-bolt routes all the time for free - because they enjoy doing it, they get satisfaction from improving their local crags, and satisfaction from knowing others can have a quality experience as a result of their work. Bolted climbs are our resource and we're responsible for looking after them - not someone else. Remember self-sufficiency?

Following on from this, it's obvious that there are plenty of people in the climbing world who are competent to do re-equipping work to a standard that fulfills the BMC's responsibility, as the landowner of Horseshoe, to take 'reasonable' measures to ensure safety.

In the bigger picture the vast majority of British sport crags aren't owned by the BMC - with its associated land management funds to support bolting work - and I fail to see how this scheme will have anything but a negative impact on people's willingness to voluntary re-equip sport crags.

Why would anyone do re-equipping work for free if they can now squeeze some money out of the BMC to do it? Or get a company to do it for you..?

I appreciate this is a crowdfunded source of money and therefore not reliant on BMC funds contributed by members (?). As such whoever donates knows the deal - that some of their money (a significant proportion?) will go not towards paying for the actual bolts, resin and drills/ drill bits - but instead towards paying a company's workforce to do work which is usually done voluntarily.

The cynic in me also wonders who's BMC staff member mate's company is being paid - smells like jobs for the boys?

[dave]

Just a thought, but because the BMC owns the crag, and want it done a certain way and to a certain standard guaranteed? Maybe they are using volunteers too? Maybe you're reading way too much into it?

Anyway, sounds like you've just volunteered.

[shark]

As somebody well-versed in re-bolting sport crags who I know said, regarding this scheme: ''why is BMC paying a rope access contractor to do work which volunteers in Wales have been and continue to do?''. I agree.

Whilst any landowner has a duty of care to take reasonable measures to protect visitors from harm, what is considered reasonable may differ between a farmer with no knowledge of climbing and a national organisation that owns land for the purpose of facilitating climbing there. The duty of care for an organisation considered to be ‘expert’ regarding fixed equipment for recreational climbing means the BMC could be held to a higher standard than the average landowner.

[petejh]

'People re-bolt routes all the time for free - because they enjoy doing it, they get satisfaction from improving their local crags, and satisfaction from knowing others can have a quality experience as a result of their work. Bolted climbs are our resource and we're responsible for looking after them - not someone else. Remember self-sufficiency?'

Following on from this, it's obvious that there are plenty of people in the climbing world who are competent to do re-equipping work to a standard that fulfills the BMC's responsibility, as the landowner of Horseshoe, to take 'reasonable' measures to ensure safety.

A 'reasonable' measure is to ensure competency. Competency, in this context, doesn't necessitate payment for services.

In fact I'd be surprised if some of the paid rope access workers aren't the very same people who occasionally carry out re-equipping work voluntarily...

[petejh]

Just a thought, but because the BMC owns the crag, and want it done a certain way and to a certain standard guaranteed? Maybe they are using volunteers too? Maybe you're reading way too much into it?

Anyway, sounds like you've just volunteered.

I didn't get an invitation to tender 
AltradNSG

[T_B]

Just a thought, but because the BMC owns the crag, and want it done a certain way and to a certain standard guaranteed? Maybe they are using volunteers too? Maybe you're reading way too much into it?

Anyway, sounds like you've just volunteered.

I didn't get an invitation to tender 
AltradNSG

Was it put out to tender?

[Bonjoy]

Yes it was. It was also discussed well in advance at the area meeting.
It's tempting for me to publicly defend my corner on this, but I don't think that would be very professional so I'll refrain.

[Will Hunt]

A 'reasonable' measure is to ensure competency. Competency, in this context, doesn't necessitate payment for services.

Given Shark's point about the BMC being an 'expert' landowner with an elevated duty of care, I can see why the work has to be done.

Just a few thoughts:

I agree that competency might not necessarily mean that you have to get paid pros in to do it, but it might be that doing this is the easiest and quickest way in which to ensure competency. If the work was to be done by volunteers I expect there would be a few problems, namely:
The BMC would have to implement some sort of management system to ensure that the volunteers putting in the bolts were doing it in a safe way, with QC on their work. Given the number of routes at Horseshoe, and the number of different volunteers (most of whom won't hold an industry accreditation) I can imagine that this would become disproportionately onerous very quickly.

Trying to wrangle the volunteers and train them where necessary sounds like a complete ball ache when you consider how many man hours will have to go into the project. You can't hold volunteers to work to a deadline, or turn up on that particular day that you want them to work on. It's so much easier to manage a company who you can pay to stick to a deadline and turn up when you expect them to.

Bear in mind that if the bolts at Horseshoe are currently in a state, this represents a live liability risk for the BMC. Since the rope access company will do the work much faster than a set of volunteers, it will mean that the risk is removed much earlier. I expect that if a case was ever to come to court, a judge would want to see evidence that the BMC was working to fulfil their duty of care as soon as possible after the risk had been identified.

[petejh]

Where's the deadline? Why the rush? If the routes are currently thought to be dangerous then in the eyes of the law the BMC is remiss in its duty of care to allow people to climb them and should remove the bolts immediately, full stop.
Obviously this hasn't happened, becasue Horseshoe isn't a death trap waiting to happen.

What's reasonable is that some experienced people who have demonstrated competence would equip a route here or a bolt there, until it's all done to a satisfactory standard. That might take a few months to a year. It doesn't justify paying a private company to do it in my opinion. I also can't get around the awkward fact that BMC staff and rope access company owners/managers in that part of the world tend to be buddies, correct me if I'm wrong.

This sets a dangerous precedent for all other voluntary equippers of bolted crags. Surprising that it's the BMC who are setting it - given the messages it sends about climber's self-reliance and fighting against the perception by private landowners that climbing on their crags brings about greater liability!! The irony..

It also sends the wrong message to said volunteers about the value of their work.

[Oldmanmatt]

I would guess, that a court would likely view the quarry, in much the same light as a Climbing wall or other commercially operated, (normally an artificial structure and as a bolted quarry, arguably this is too) climbing structure.
Does the BMC own it as a LTD company?

Given that they own the land, the equipment and the rockface itself; their choice of professional installation seems highly appropriate. I'd do the same and had it been under the SW area purview, would have argued for such at the meeting.
I think there is a massive difference in law between the volunteer placed, bolt fund or privately donated equipment, on a third party owned crag.
We all better hope the court could distinguish between the two, or bolt funds and individual equippers better keep up their maintenance....



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dave]

I also can't get around the awkward fact that BMC staff and rope access company owners/managers in that part of the world tend to be buddies, correct me if I'm wrong.

Stop Press: climbers in "climbers actually know other climbers" shocker.

[petejh]

I would guess, that a court would likely view the quarry, in much the same light as a Climbing wall or other commercially operated, (normally an artificial structure and as a bolted quarry, arguably this is too) climbing structure.
Does the BMC own it as a LTD company?

Given that they own the land, the equipment and the rockface itself; their choice of professional installation seems highly appropriate. I'd do the same and had it been under the SW area purview, would have argued for such at the meeting.
I think there is a massive difference in law between the volunteer placed, bolt fund or privately donated equipment, on a third party owned crag.
We all better hope the court could distinguish between the two, or bolt funds and individual equippers better keep up their maintenance....



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly, you're proving my point - if you were the landowner and there happened to be a bolted crag on your land then anyone bolting routes would be screwed should any incident occur resulting in a claim; whether down to the bolts themselves or not. Broken ankle from slamming in too hard?
That's if you even allowed any access for climbing to take place. More likely is that you wouldn't allow climbers near the place unless it was bolted by 'access company ltd' with full liability insurance. The cost of which would be borne by....

It isn't a good look.

Thankfully you're not a landowner Matt!

[Johnny Brown]

This is the second time paid rebolting has been carried out at Horseshoe. Other management work that has been paid for at the crag include landscaping, scrub management, fence construction etc, although volunteers are used wherever possible. One of the ongoing issues at Horseshoe is improving less-than-ideal anchors placed by 'competent volunteers'. Competency doesn't require payment but it's a lot easier to get the job done quickly and to spec. In my experience as volunteers won't in fact work to a spec.

The key point is ownership, and the expertise of the owner. Volunteers in the Peak also continue to rebolt all the other crags that aren't under BMC ownership, just like Wales. Are there BMC owned sport crags in Wales, or anywhere else?

In recent years three key Peak BMC volunteers (Me, Jon, Neil) work for three different access companies. That means free expertise has been available to plan the work, including accurately estimating pricing.

The job spec requires employing climbers as otherwise they won't know where to put the bolts. Last time at least one local volunteer bolter got some paid work out of it. It did not put him off going back to doing it for free elsewhere.

[Oldmanmatt]

I would guess, that a court would likely view the quarry, in much the same light as a Climbing wall or other commercially operated, (normally an artificial structure and as a bolted quarry, arguably this is too) climbing structure.
Does the BMC own it as a LTD company?

Given that they own the land, the equipment and the rockface itself; their choice of professional installation seems highly appropriate. I'd do the same and had it been under the SW area purview, would have argued for such at the meeting.
I think there is a massive difference in law between the volunteer placed, bolt fund or privately donated equipment, on a third party owned crag.
We all better hope the court could distinguish between the two, or bolt funds and individual equippers better keep up their maintenance....



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly, you're proving my point - if you were the landowner and there happened to be a bolted crag on your land then anyone bolting routes would be screwed should any incident occur resulting in a claim; whether down to the bolts themselves or not. Broken ankle from slamming in too hard?
That's if you even allowed any access for climbing to take place. More likely is that you wouldn't allow climbers near the place unless it was bolted by 'access company ltd' with full liability insurance. The cost of which would be borne by....

It isn't a good look.

Thankfully you're not a landowner Matt!

And I think you might be missing mine...

Had they, the land owners, asked volunteers to carry out the work and/or procured, or asked said volunteers to procure, the equipment, to make the climbing on that site safe (even within the reasonably expected parameters and risks of sport climbing), where the option of a professional, regulated and indemnified installer was possible; then they could and probably would, be seen as negligent should it all go south.
Because they are holding forth the location, specifically, as a Sport climbing venue.

This is not the case with a third party land owner, who neither holds the location out as a "facility", nor procures equipment or equippers.

Regardless of how it may influence other landowners, it is the only defensible option.

It is, I suspect, a bit of a "Bollocks! Never thought of that!" moment, for the BMC.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

"ensure competency"

? Sorry Will, help ensure that someone claims competency perhaps. But then again, the purchasing agent are responsible for what they buy. There's a lot of very competently installed cladding out there.

[Bonjoy]

"ensure competency"

? Sorry Will, help ensure that someone claims competency perhaps. But then again, the purchasing agent are responsible for what they buy. There's a lot of very competently installed cladding out there.

Given that the BMC are being criticised for using people they have prior acquaintance with your statement neatly makes the point that they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

[petejh]

Jon.
Disregarding the 'jobs for the boys' point, which like you say is an easy jibe and it's obviously difficult to avoid a potential conflict when you have an membership body office full of peak-based climbers with a budget (well, except by not paying companies in the first place..).


We have a case here where a landowner has purchased land with a sport crag on it and decided that, in order to cover themselves in case of litigation, the bolts must be re-equipped by a professional rope access company.

Do you not see the problem here going forwards? I'm pretty certain you can. 

Like I say I'm amazed that the BMC has chosen to do things this way - it stinks of looking after themselves at the potential expense of future access and legal complications for other sport crags on private land, and also potentially route equippers themselves.

The background to this is that BMC access staff (and local climbers - it isn't always the BMC that talk to landowners) regularly attempt to calm the fears of landowners worried about liability for climbing on their land. Bolted routes bring additional concerns of equipment failure.

So where is the logic behind the BMC purchasing a sport crag - i.e. becoming said landowner - and then insisting that the bolts are re-equipped by paid professionals, which flys in the face of the established ethos of equipping bolted routes in the UK which the BMC work to defend?!

I sometimes wonder if the BMC employ someone with the remit to entirely screw up things just to create more work for the BMC.

If they'd thought through the potential implications then they either: wouldn't purchase a sport crag; or if they did they should practice what they preach to other landowners by getting competent private individuals to carry out whatever re-equipping they thought necessary - which going off what a number of people have said isn't actually that much, and certainly not suggestive of there being an immediate hazard which needs rectifying within a matter of weeks (another weak justification used by some for using a company).

[Oldmanmatt]

Ok.
Long winded, but bear with me.


Last week I took my kids up Snowdon. It was my first "proper" mountain as an 8 year old kid and I wanted it to be theirs.
That's 1979, to be clear. In cheap Black's boots, that were too big (3 pairs of socks too big) because kids boots didn't exist and Army surplus kit (actually WRAC stuff, to be small as possible) that my mother hand altered to be almost small enough.
Last time I was there, was the early 90's, doing winter drills in Exped prep on Crib Goch.
On both occasions we were pretty much alone on the mountain.

Last week, there must have been hundreds of people. We still did the Pyg track to the summit in 2 hours, not bad for an 8,10 and 11 year old (I might be a bit of bastard, but they enjoyed it), but it was a traffic jam up and down. The queue to stand by the Trig was 10min long...


So, my point is, things have changed.
We are no longer a part of rogue, ruggedly individualist and self reliant, sub culture, apart and hidden from the public gaze. We partake of a mainstream sport, very much in the media's view and, often, firing line.
That applies across the various disciplines of "Climbing".

Amateur status and privilege cannot survive much longer and we have to deal with that.
Watch. Sooner or later, there will be an accident and someone will say "how were these people qualified to (be there/instal that/climb that/etc. etc. etc)."
So, I can see a point coming soon, where bolters will require a ticket to bolt, even belayer's a ticket to hold a rope. You'll never hold back outside scrutiny forever.

Please don't imagine I like this vision, it's a nightmare. I just see it as inevitable.
This issue, at the quarry, is just a symptom of that change.
I fear you might be the new Cnute Pete.
I actually wish you could be right, just as I wish I'd been alone (or almost) with the kids on Snowdon last week.

[T_B]

Matt

Get a grip. It's not all a 'nightmare'. Or would you prefer your kids to be led on an outdoor adventure by some incompetent Scout leader?

Lyme bay?

[danm]

It also sends the wrong message to said volunteers about the value of their work.

The other irony here is that by constantly questioning motivations and second guessing decisions, the relentless barrage of online criticism is having the opposite effect to valuing and supporting voluntary work within the BMC. Who would wish to get involved under such conditions?

Decisions about the management of Horseshoe are made by the LMG, the majority of whom are volunteers. Membership list can be found here: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1495 none of whom I think live in Sheffield?

They will have consulted others, such as the local area chair and the local access rep plus the local dude who helps look after Horseshoe. Again, all these people are volunteers. Finally, they consulted me regarding bolting specs and sourcing materials.

Right at the beginning when it became apparent that they had decided to look at getting a contractor in, I declared that I had a potential conflict of interest as not only do I have many friends in access work, I rent a room off Nige who works for a potential contractor. Yep, that's me, living the dream as a fat cat bureaucrat. As it was, I wasn't involved in the tendering process, or even in the decision to decide if using a contractor was the best option.

If they'd asked me (which they didn't), I'd have said use a contractor, for a number of reasons which I'm not going to detail here, but suffice to say in my view the situation is not analogous to the one you seem to be referring to in Wales.

Matt's point is a good one. Horseshoe was purchased many years ago, in good faith in order to preserve climbing there. The legal advice we're getting these days is a reflection of the times, and things perhaps would be done very differently now.

[petejh]

If they'd asked me (which they didn't), I'd have said use a contractor, for a number of reasons which I'm not going to detail here, but suffice to say in my view the situation is not analogous to the one you seem to be referring to in Wales.

Matt's point is a good one. Horseshoe was purchased many years ago, in good faith in order to preserve climbing there. The legal advice we're getting these days is a reflection of the times, and things perhaps would be done very differently now.

What you're saying is the BMC has acted out of fear (of litigation) - never a good place from which to make long-term decisions. By doing so you've acted like all other landowners who have crags on their land and who worry about litigation. Do you not think that by letting fear of litigation rule your decisions, the BMC is giving up on the principles of amateur competence and self-sufficiency by which bolted climbing venues in the UK can continue to exist?

An alternative solution, which would help reinforce the message that it's entirely 'reasonable' (if things ever went to a court of law) for unpaid amateur activists to place bolts and that they can be perfectly competent to do so and indeed should be seen as 'the norm', would have been not to pay a rope access company but instead ask competent individuals to carry out the work. We've already debunked the idea that it's a time-critical project...

If it's anybody's rasion d'etre to reinforce this message then it's the BMC's surely!.

Applying the BMC's logic to north Wales - out of fear of litigation should I be stripping every bolt I've personally placed and letting 'someone else' - a paid for professional - replace them.

[Oldmanmatt]

Matt

Get a grip. It's not all a 'nightmare'. Or would you prefer your kids to be led on an outdoor adventure by some incompetent Scout leader?

Lyme bay?

No, no! I'm not touching on Outdoor Ed here at all! I refer to the rampaging, ignorant, journalist and the armchair busybody.
And, to be honest, the crowds (though that's a more ambiguous nostalgia, rather than nightmare).

If they'd asked me (which they didn't), I'd have said use a contractor, for a number of reasons which I'm not going to detail here, but suffice to say in my view the situation is not analogous to the one you seem to be referring to in Wales.

Matt's point is a good one. Horseshoe was purchased many years ago, in good faith in order to preserve climbing there. The legal advice we're getting these days is a reflection of the times, and things perhaps would be done very differently now.

What you're saying is the BMC has acted out of fear (of litigation) - never a good place from which to make long-term decisions. By doing so you've acted like all other landowners who have crags on their land and who worry about litigation. Do you not think that by letting fear of litigation rule your decisions, the BMC is giving up on the principles of amateur competence and self-sufficiency by which bolted climbing venues in the UK can continue to exist?

An alternative solution, which would help reinforce the message that it's entirely 'reasonable' (if things ever went to a court of law) for unpaid amateur activists to place bolts and that they can be perfectly competent to do so and indeed should be seen as 'the norm', would have been not to pay a rope access company but instead ask competent individuals to carry out the work. We've already debunked the idea that it's a time-critical project...

If it's anybody's rasion d'etre to reinforce this message then it's the BMC's surely!.

Applying the BMC's logic to north Wales - out of fear of litigation should I be stripping every bolt I've personally placed and letting 'someone else' - a paid for professional - replace them.

Or, you should be officially recognised as competent.
Something the BMC, or MT should be well placed to do.
Perhaps you should be talking to them about this? You certainly have the right credentials to set up and administer such a scheme, no?
Where agreed standards and practice exist and executed, individual liability is reduced to corporate liability, I believe?
Perhaps it is time we had a national policy and oversight of sport climbing equipment standards? Better to jump in early and set the tone, than to be pushed later by ignorant outsiders and uncaring judiciary?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danm]

You're asking me to answer questions about decisions I did not make. While we're about it, are you seriously saying that you'd ignore legal advice because it didn't fit in with your opinion on something? Really?

Regarding volunteers placing bolts without having to worry about being sued, we've already taken steps to facilitate that, which I assumed you'd know about. BMC volunteers are insured for their activities, and we managed to extend that cover to cover members who place bolts as long as they follow our guidelines. Because of how insurance works, they need to be a member when they do the work and when they get sued (hopefully never). I'm currently re-writing those guidelines to make them clearer and easier to follow, a job which I should be doing now except I'm responding to you.

That's the last I'm saying on this as I get the impression you'd be happy to argue till hell freezes over.

[Will Hunt]

Applying the BMC's logic to north Wales - out of fear of litigation should I be stripping every bolt I've personally placed and letting 'someone else' - a paid for professional - replace them.

First of all, Pete, you (presumably) do not own the crags that you've put bolts into. So you do not have a landowner's duty of care.

Your other posts are illogical because they do not take account of the following facts (I'm prepared to be corrected if these are not facts):

1. The BMC has an increased duty of care because a court would deem it an expert landowner. This does not apply to landowners who are not representative bodies who have purchased the land specifically to ensure access for climbing.

2. Nobody is saying that the only way to ensure that the bolts are placed competently is to pay a private company to do the work, but in this case it does appear to be the least onerous. That's not to say that a private company's work is competent de facto - but you can expect them to work to a spec and impose financial penalties upon them if they do not work to it.

3. Your statement that Horseshoe is not a death-trap is not concurrent with Dan's cited experience on the other thread (merge required?)

As for the existing bolts, what's there is a mixed bag but a lot of it is total junk. The BMC has spent approximately zero fuck alls on the place previously. There are 6 re-bolted routes which were done a part of a pilot we paid for,  and some staples Gary put in which we paid for over a decade ago. Given the test results for new staples aren't great and Portland are now starting to get regular failures as theirs age, I'm happy with the decision to go for a clean sheet. The other option of testing everything and then replacing the failures would probably cost as much tbh anyway.

This suggests that while a lot of routes might not be accidents waiting to happen, there's definitely a problem to be addressed. This is why there is a need to carry out the work quickly, and not in some drawn out multi-year volunteer effort, because there is a clear (and significant) legal risk to the BMC that needs to be mitigated.

[Oldmanmatt]

You're asking me to answer questions about decisions I did not make. While we're about it, are you seriously saying that you'd ignore legal advice because it didn't fit in with your opinion on something? Really?

Regarding volunteers placing bolts without having to worry about being sued, we've already taken steps to facilitate that, which I assumed you'd know about. BMC volunteers are insured for their activities, and we managed to extend that cover to cover members who place bolts as long as they follow our guidelines. Because of how insurance works, they need to be a member when they do the work and when they get sued (hopefully never). I'm currently re-writing those guidelines to make them clearer and easier to follow, a job which I should be doing now except I'm responding to you.

That's the last I'm saying on this as I get the impression you'd be happy to argue till hell freezes over.

Very glad to hear that.

I was just thinking about Lyme bay and it's impact on me, or at least how it might have impacted me had I not left the industry a couple of years prior.
I was an LEA certified climbing instructor. I worked for the South West Adventure centre in Boscastle and ran the Climbing wall in the Wadebridge sports centre as well.
Fortunately, I had run off to sea by the time of Lyme bay.
I do however remember how crap life was for many, many centres and instructors, all friends, when "The Activity Centre (Young Person's Safety Act) 1995" was forced onto the industry from the outside.
As an instructor, I had equally taken groups Kayaking on Sibley Back reservoir, Caving (even into mines), Wild swimming and (the only other thing I was actually qualified to do) Sailing dinghies on the Camel Estuary. We took groups into the Mountains of North Wales and the Lakes etc too. Ron, was qualified up to ying-yang and back (the boss), but most of us were just old clients that had been with him from a young age and just grew into "instructors" through experience.
Most found it impossible to get qualified in all the different aspects, after the law changed.
It probably weeded out large numbers of cowboys, but there were plenty of innocent casualties too.

So, get in there and set the tone, before someone else from a different world slaps our world down, with onerous and possibly irrelevant legal obligations.

I keep thinking about doing my SPA or even aiming for MIA, but every time I toy with the idea, I look at the costs and the whole "log book" thing and say fuck that, why should I start from scratch and pretend my 35+ years of doing this shit didn't happen.