[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.

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.

Hi Jon. No, I was pointing out the limits of what could be said. I had a job many years ago, where the contractor - Amec - had installed an access system, using eyebolts to allow access to a shopping centre glazing; it was a newbuild. One of the bolts sheared off, having only been tack-welded in place. Really frightening at the time. We had every bolt pull tested after that. It illustrated just how easy it is to assume competency. If someone had died, I feel I may have been culpable for making that assumption. On a different note, what I'm concerned about here, is what I see as the increasing federalisation of UK climbing (aside from UKC of course  ). Ascents won't be valid unless independently ratified by BMC lawyers. Missing out clips - forget it! The BMC are there to endorse good practice - and what real climbing is. Interesting that as soon as we have British climbing interest in the Olympics, Shauna gets honored. I totally support competition climbing, and applaud Shauna btw (tremendous), but I have always felt that Lucy Creamer's contribution was more deserving of special recognition. However Lucy's climbing lacked the union jack. It seems that now, if you want what you have to say to have any validity, it has to be registered through a BMC forum. I believe in helping the grass grow, but not through genetic modification to make it bigger and better.

[petejh]

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

Matt, I am recognised as competent. That was before I attended an industry-recognised bolted anchor placement course through work.

So I'm both competent through experience and I have a piece of paper to say I'm competent. So you see the schemes already exist - it doesn't require the BMC to set up anything else. You can go and pay £130 for a day at Lyon's training centre. Or Adam will do it for cheaper perhaps. Which is what the BMC could easily do if they want to cover themselves with paperwork to prove competency of a few volunteers.

[petejh]

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.

Which raises the obvious question - why don't you trust said volunteers to place bolts in HSQ?

Are you with me?

[petejh]

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.

1. Does this 'expert landowner' definition exist in law? Has it ever been tested in the case of climbing venues outdoors? Is there a precedent that  requires a private company must place anchors, and not competent individuals working voluntarily?
2.'Least onerous' isn't a priority - ensuring that an unhelpful precendent isn't set is surely a much more pressing concern over and above efficiency. This isn't a commercial decision, HSQ isn't going anywhere and the routes aren't at imminent risk of the bolts failing.
3. HSQ is clearly not a 'death trap' or, given the traffic the place receives, people would have died. I'm totally accepting that the bolts placed many years ago don't meet current best practice, however this is very different to saying their failure is imminent and that it all must be changed out within a month. That simply isn't true - if it were then the BMC would be remiss to allow people to climb there. The bolts could be re-equipped over a number of months by competent individuals - send a few on Lyon's or Adam's or A.N. Other's anchor placement course for industry approval. Do things by industry best-practicec, it doesn't require paying somone to bolt the crag. And the precedent could have been set - it could actually have been a precedent-setter in the best of senses.


Dan - as for ignoring legal opinion, you, me, the BMC and most climbers do that regularly when we participate in this activity. Did the BMC not pay for most of the bolts on slate? You're just being selective with your example.

Must go.. I'm bolting a new route on the Diamond this afternoon, followed soon by installing a via ferrata ladder to access the allotment. Hope I don't end up getting sued!

[highrepute]

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

Is your point...

1. If the BMC pay for horseshoe to be rebolted then people who currently re-bolt routes voluntarily will no longer want to rebolt for free?

2. If paid-professionals are employed to rebolt it will become no longer legally acceptable for volunteers to rebolt? Is the logic behind this that if there were ever an accident relating to a failure of a bolt on a volunteer bolted route the the bolter could be deemed negligent because a safe (in the legal liability sense) course of action would have been to pay a professional to bolt the route?

3. That landowners will not want to pay to have routes on their land re/bolted and so will ban climbing unless the BMC get the crag professionally re-bolted?

My response to your points (assuming I got them correct)...

Firstly as an aside - No one would volunteer to rebolt horseshoe, I doubt any of the peakboltfund bolters would do it for money. There's 320 routes in horseshoe; at current peak re-bolt rates we'd probably not be finished for a decade (if the volunteers hadn't jumped off the Main Wall during that time!)

1. It won't put-off anyone in the peak re-bolting other venues for free.

2. I can't imagine this happening. It seems a step too far.

3. This does seem possible I'll admit. An accident at Kilnsey, the farmer googles about and finds out that the BMC replaced "dangerous" bolts at Horseshoe, then thinks they should do the same at Kilnsey and closes the crag until they do.

[northern yob]

So exactly what does the precedent being set here mean for the abseil stations installed by the BMC at Tremadog? Have the trees been load tested? Will they be regularly tested? Or will they be removed and proper stations installed? Has anyone even considered this at the BMC? 

[Oldmanmatt]

So, we're now at the point where we have established that it is possible to be "Qualified " to instal and that Guidelines from the national governing body exist. That instruction/certification is available from a certified and regulated sister industry.
From my consultant days, I seem to recall liability exists regardless of payment (a favour requires the same diligence as a commission for financial reward).

So, it seems to me the precedent has been well and truly set and the only outstanding dispute is whether the payment was justified. Since that part is the least of the factors in establishing liability, Pete, surely you are arguing to shut the stable door, not jus after the horse bolted, but it appears to have settled down to raise a family in the suburbs and is working as a Consultant to the Amish public transport collective.

[Will Hunt]

So exactly what does the precedent being set here mean for the abseil stations installed by the BMC at Tremadog? Have the trees been load tested? Will they be regularly tested? Or will they be removed and proper stations installed? Has anyone even considered this at the BMC?

A trees principle function is not to be used to lower off from.


Reading back some of the posts from the detractors, there's a huge amount of cognitive dissonance going on. Instead of attempting to make the facts fit your view of the issue, why not try it the other way around?

[Hydraulic Man]

Any idea what the rates are like and who the POC is? Sounds like a nice little number.

[Will Hunt]

1. Does this 'expert landowner' definition exist in law?

I wish Ru would come along and speak with some actual authority here. My understanding of the law is that the duty of care that is owed to a visitor by a landowner is to be "reasonable". It is not reasonable to expect a farmer with no climbing specific knowledge, who allows climbers onto his land and to place their own bolts, to ensure the safety of the fixed protection that other people have placed upon his land. It is reasonable to expect a sport's representative body, who has bought the land specifically for the purpose of allowing people to come and weight the bolts, to ensure that the bolts are fit for purpose.

Is there a precedent that requires a private company must place anchors, and not competent individuals working voluntarily?

As far as I can ascertain, the BMC has never said that this requires a private company to do the work. This appears to be a product of your own imagination and your desire to view the situation in the worst possible light.

2.'Least onerous' isn't a priority - ensuring that an unhelpful precendent isn't set is surely a much more pressing concern over and above efficiency.

There is no precedent being set.

This isn't a commercial decision, HSQ isn't going anywhere and the routes aren't at imminent risk of the bolts failing.
3. HSQ is clearly not a 'death trap' or, given the traffic the place receives, people would have died. I'm totally accepting that the bolts placed many years ago don't meet current best practice, however this is very different to saying their failure is imminent and that it all must be changed out within a month. That simply isn't true - if it were then the BMC would be remiss to allow people to climb there.

I'm going to make a wild assumption here, Pete, and guess that you are not a Horseshoe Quarry regular. So how exactly would you know that this is the case? Dan is telling you information from his own experience and you're sweeping it aside in favour of your own non-informed opinion. It might be that the popular routes at Horseshoe are in a decent state or what appears to be a decent state. I doubt the same can be said for all the routes.

Dan - as for ignoring legal opinion, you, me, the BMC and most climbers do that regularly when we participate in this activity.

Do we? I certainly don't.

Did the BMC not pay for most of the bolts on slate?

This has absolutely no relevance to this discussion.

Must go.. I'm bolting a new route on the Diamond this afternoon, followed soon by installing a via ferrata ladder to access the allotment. Hope I don't end up getting sued!

Of course you won't be sued, because you do not own those crags and do not owe anybody a duty of care as a landowner. You probably (again, I have no authority on this subject) owe people a duty of care to place the bolts well. But as you have pointed out, you are a competent person (which of course does not depend on you holding any qualification or accreditation), so why would there be any reason to suspect you could be found liable for anything?

[northern yob]

A trees principle function is not to be used to lower off from.


Exactly! Has the BMC not got abseil stations off trees on a crag it owns? And what does the horseshoe precedent mean for said lower offs?

[Ru]

1. Horseshoe needs rebolting.

2. Horseshoe is owned by the BMC, there are BMC signs at the crag. Whilst the BMC's position with regards to fixed gear is that all users must evaluate the soundness of the gear before using it, it is recognised that a) Horseshoe is a beginner/low grade venue so that users are less likely to be able to do that, b) the very fact that the crag is owned by the BMC (and visibly owned - there are BMC signs at the entrance) will tend to lead users to believe that the gear is inherently trustworthy.

3. The litigation position with respect to fixed gear as against a land owner is untested. However there is good reason to assume that a claim arising out of a failure of fixed gear against a landowner that knows nothing about climbing and simply allows others to use his rock is very much less likely to succeed than a claim against a landowner that a) specifically bought the crag for climbing purposes b) manages that land for climbing purposes c) advertises the use of that land for climbing purposes d) holds its self out to be an authority on the appropriate standards for fixed gear e) promotes climbing f) is the national representative body for climbers. I could go into this in much more detail, but I don't intend this reply to become a How to Sue the BMC factsheet.

4. The BMC is therefore not in the same position as other land owners and Horseshoe is not directly comparable to other sport venues with different owners.

[petejh]

(just back from bolting and FA'ing a total classic)

Ru, why do any of the above points make it necessary to employ a professional company - bringing with it the risk of setting a precedent for other situations - instead of proceeding with the bolting by the usual method of competent training individuals. I'm aware this method would be far slower, but speed can't be a pressing safety concern. 

[Johnny Brown]

Might be worth mentioning that someone has already had an accident at Horseshoe and attempted to sue the BMC for it. It didn't get very far one, iirc, as witnesses stated that the rope being still in the lower off while the climber decked rather suggested user error. But I'm sure it shat people up. It might be the UK's most popular crag for indoor climbers' first venture outdoors.

Pete, the point you keep blindly ignoring is that the landowner of Horseshoe is a ROCK CLIMBING organisation. As Ru explains it makes all the difference.

I'm far from convinced the poor bolts at Horseshoe are simply relics. They are the result of rather over-keen local experts getting over confident in their expertise. There are a lot of routes there that might have been satisfying new routes for someone like that but are never going to be on anyone else's radar to re-equip. But now Horseshoe attracts total newbies who might search out a short route in a quiet corner so they don't embarrass themselves. They are not likely to stop to assess why the lower-off is in a detached block.

The BMC have run a few bolting workshops at Horseshoe in the last few years. I provided some expertise and pull-testers so folk could check their work. Unfortunately it didn't result in much re-bolting. In the Peak, as in Wales, the fact is that sport climbing relies completely on the selfless activity of a tiny number of people like yourself. For understandable reasons they aren't stepping up to re-bolt other people's shit routes in shit quarries.

[petejh]

I haven't blindly ignored that the landowner is a climbing organisation JB, I'm not as blind to that fact as you assume.

Thanks - yours is the first post that starts to give a reason why volunteers may not have been approached to do the work. It still doesn't convince me that it was worth the BMC risking setting what could prove to precedent that makes it a lot more difficult in future to equip / re-equip routes on private land.
If the shit routes with shit bolting in shit rock in the shit quarry are really as shit as that, then my solution as landowner would have been to get a few competent people to chop them, and over the course of the next year re-equip the half-decent ones. With a modern cordless grinder it takes less than an hour to rig up and chop an entire route. As the representative body for climbing I would have been fearful of going down the route of hiring a professional company for fear of being the one who ends up setting that precedent. I'm not the only experienced climber who thinks this is a very real risk, I'm just the only one prepared to say it on here.

[Will Hunt]

I haven't blindly ignored that the landowner is a climbing organisation JB, I'm not as blind to that fact as you assume.

Thanks - yours is the first post that starts to give a reason why volunteers may not have been approached to do the work. It still doesn't convince me that it was worth the BMC risking setting what could prove to precedent that makes it a lot more difficult in future to equip / re-equip routes on private land.
If the shit routes with shit bolting in shit rock in the shit quarry are really as shit as that, then my solution as landowner would have been to get a few competent people to chop them, and over the course of the next year re-equip the half-decent ones. With a modern cordless grinder it takes less than an hour to rig up and chop an entire route. As the representative body for climbing I would have been fearful of going down the route of hiring a professional company for fear of being the one who ends up setting that precedent. I'm not the only experienced climber who thinks this is a very real risk, I'm just the only one prepared to say it on here.

A precedent has not been set because the BMC are not saying that the work could only be done by a professional company. It is just something that they have chosen to do in this instance

[Johnny Brown]

Funnily enough I did volunteer to chop some routes, Pete. Unsurprisingly it was met with 'errr'. Potentially an even bigger can of worms... who would you deem competent to decide where to draw the line in the sand between the shit and the 'half-decent'?

Don't get the impression that this is the big difference though. The main issue is getting a big job done to a spec and in a timely manner. In theory, yes, it could have been done by volunteers. The reality is it is too big a job at venue which mostly appeals the time starved and the debutante/ dilettante.

As far as I'm concerned this - the realities of liability - is the thick end of sport climbing's wedge we were all warned about. If climbing environment is made not found the the maker assumes responsibility.

[Offwidth]

Wise words. A process that needed doing fairly quickly and to a uniform standard not something especially practical for the local, volunteers. All led by the horseshoe management group and trusted local access reps and with BMC central agreement. I think it is a bit of a precedent,  but a sensible one in my view, as it shows we can raise money quickly for access and safety issues where required.

I don't know whats got into some on the forums these days: almost everything the BMC does becomes a portent of doom

I wish climbers would not bolt choss at popular-with-beginner venues like Horseshoe and I'd support debolting of such. I can understand the appeal of such routes for some very experienced local activists but the relevant climbs are hardly sports climbs... maybe we need a newly named game for them (or a choss rating).

[Johnny Brown]

I like the way this thread is going, bolt choppers unite!

PS Pete what brand cordless grinder are you using? Mine is ok but overheats, meaning you have to leave it to cool down. Not ideal for guerrilla operations.

[petejh]

DeWalt. Great for reverting quarries to 'as found' by the quarrier after they blasted.

Seriously the difference between our old ryobi and the new dewalt is astounding - from one bolt per battery to double digits (ouch!)





There's a lot of bs being talked on this thread about speed of process and other stuff. Will reply when I have time. But speed of process? - really?, the crag was bought in 2005! What kept you? Or did the bolts start dropping out last week.
Nothing I've read refutes that a very worrying precedent has been set, willingly, by the BMC. I think the majority of climbers on here and in general have very little idea how fragile the access situation is for bolted routes on private land. Try developing new bolted crags in places like NI, where a very different attitude exists towards landowner liability - and that's from climbing's representative body! (the climbers just want to climb good routes, bolted or no). JB knows the score but unfortunately he doesn't really care for the 'made' environment. In short - you'll all be crying over your cornflakes when climbing on Malham, Pen Trwyn and Kilnsey are banned by landowners until inspection and re-equipping by a company, then 6-monthly re-inspection. And that company will no-doubt have to be 'accredited' by our increasingly overarching BMC,  but that's ok becasue we'll be able to have a fucking campaign with McClure talking about it on a film, and the smart marketing wonks in the BMC's increasingly large marketing department will be able to show on a graph what a positive influence it will have on younger BMC membership applications. Because the BMC 'is' climbing remember - or have I got that wrong, it seems that way lately?
This stinks, shame most are either too dumb, too cossetted, too naive or too middle-age and resigned to 'things just being this way' to realise it.

[dave]

Pete I hope you are as correct about this as you were about how Brexit was going to be a huge success, and about Trump being a great politician.

[Johnny Brown]

So the crag was bought in 2005. According to my records the trial rebolting of the main wall was carried out in Nov 2009. Eight years later and three(?) bolt workshops later little has progressed. Clearly nothing is being rushed. Equally clearly nothing was getting done either. The work has needed doing, and neither the bolts nor the dodgy blocks are getting any safer. You can't wait forever for an army of volunteers. 

Interesting post on the other channel:

"Mate of mine was going climbing at Castleberg. He is incredibly risk averse.
I said watch it there, the easy stuff is lose, some think it less safe.
He said "If it was not safe the BMC would not allow climbing there"

Clearly this person needs educating, but it does illustrate the sort of mentality arriving at Horseshoe daily.

[Offwidth]

I wouldn't entirely trust the UKC poster who reported this, but the attitude is similar to that in some previous (usually unsuccessful) vexatious claims (make obviously daft assumptions and blame someone else when it all goes wrong).

[Offwidth]

There's a lot of bs being talked on this thread about speed of process and other stuff. Will reply when I have time. But speed of process? - really?, the crag was bought in 2005! What kept you? Or did the bolts start dropping out last week.
Nothing I've read refutes that a very worrying precedent has been set, willingly, by the BMC. I think the majority of climbers on here and in general have very little idea how fragile the access situation is for bolted routes on private land. Try developing new bolted crags in places like NI, where a very different attitude exists towards landowner liability - and that's from climbing's representative body! (the climbers just want to climb good routes, bolted or no). JB knows the score but unfortunately he doesn't really care for the 'made' environment. In short - you'll all be crying over your cornflakes when climbing on Malham, Pen Trwyn and Kilnsey are banned by landowners until inspection and re-equipping by a company, then 6-monthly re-inspection. And that company will no-doubt have to be 'accredited' by our increasingly overarching BMC,  but that's ok becasue we'll be able to have a fucking campaign with McClure talking about it on a film, and the smart marketing wonks in the BMC's increasingly large marketing department will be able to show on a graph what a positive influence it will have on younger BMC membership applications. Because the BMC 'is' climbing remember - or have I got that wrong, it seems that way lately?
This stinks, shame most are either too dumb, too cossetted, too naive or too middle-age and resigned to 'things just being this way' to realise it.

Top rant, if a bit unfair on JB (who in my experience works just as hard on access to 'made' climbs as natural ones, despite his climbing preferences). Thing is, if we start moving down this imagined (unlikely in my view) chain of causality, at some point other actions will occur to prevent an anti-bolting apocalypse.  I do respect your very real concerns and a little paranoia is probably wise in similar matters but I trust and respect the management group and local activists involved in this case and you can argue the precedent both ways (the BMC will have more liability than a normal landowner).

[petejh]

Pete I hope you are as correct about this as you were about how Brexit was going to be a huge success, and about Trump being a great politician.

Trump being a great politician? Who the hell said that, Not me. Thanks for flinging that one Dave