[Will Hunt]

And just when it looked like there wasn't an obvious contender for Most Boring Thread of 2018, this came along.
 

[tomtom]

Good thread. Nice to hear wall owners (grahan, Matt) explaining a bit about the choices walls make on this.

[galpinos]

Downclimbing the sort of problems that are in Unit E is not an option and there are no juggy filler in probs.

A few walls over here have started putting dedicated downclimbing jugs on their comp walls.

The Manchester Depot does that sometimes. I don't get to the top enough for them to be much help though.....

The yellow ones are to help getting down from the green ones right? Btw - seen they’re open at 6am on weds now Galpinos?

I actually managed a yellow on the comp wall last night, turns out being tall-ish was the vital beta. I had seen the 6am opening, I'm obviously up at that time but generally trying to struggling to make coffee and before fighting the girls into clothes and the whole morning routine. I've not quite worked out how to fit it into my Tues and Thurs night routine either. I shall endeavour to do better in the new year.

[HaeMeS]

Really good thread. Bouldering walls will have more injuries per customer then climbing walls. No deaths or crippled thank god. But lots of broken bones or dislocations. The many accidents have woken up insurance companies. Often for fear of liability claims. People are claiming more these days. No injury? No claim. Simple as that. Whether harder or softer mats help is really hard to say. 'Downclimber' holds do help. Teaching people how to fail/jump of/be in control also helps.

I dislike mats that are to hard and am not afraid to land with lateral momentum on an uneven and soft mat (or next to one (Helicoptère style). I know how to fall and mitigate the effect of an impact after 40 years of jumping off stuff. But not everybody does. To soft isn't good. But slipping of the holds of a roof problem will sometimes land you on your back/head with no time to react. Some walls have mats that are too hard for a fall like that from more than 2 meters height. Its a fine line, and ageing/lots of customers will change the characteristics of a mat, some times in as short as a year below a vertical of slabby wall.

It's not that easy to get it right. Especially since there are hardly any impact criteria/ageing criteria available.

 

[tomtom]

So there’s the Works. Mini works for the kids, Unit E for the wads.

Here’s an idea for you Graham. How about Ward Z - a new extension featuring moderately overhanging, with small holds, absolutely NO parkour style problems and nice comfy soft matting for the over 50’s?

[Muenchener]

... and a section of nice vertical brick edge crimping

[GraemeA]

I suspect hard mats make people modify their risk... down climb more ... more likely to ask for a spot. That would be a good thing in risk reduction. I certainly wouldn't consider jumping off at the top of the new Macclesfield facility.. very hard mats and high feeling.  I started bouldering outdoors with no mats and back then we were much more cautious and better practiced at spotting.

Downclimbing the sort of problems that are in Unit E is not an option and there are no juggy filler in probs.

Personally I think the mat hardness in the main and mini  Works is spot on and after years of going there I've never had a problem with going over on my ankles or heard anyone else complain of it.
Doesn't seem like a hard call to me. if it isn't broke, don't try to fix it.
I suspect if any acute injury is avoided by using harder mats it would come at the cost of less easily attributable chronic damage.

Spot on, would agree that the mats in the main works are pretty much ideal. Have been to walls with much softer matting and found that fine too though. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the foundry, I think the mats there are too hard.

So we shouldn't be looking at replacing the mats in main Works next summer? Maybe just new covers and mats?

[shark]

Really good thread. Bouldering walls will have more injuries per customer then climbing walls. No deaths or crippled thank god.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2117196/People-injured-in-hazardous-activities-only-have-themselves-to-blame-court-rules.html

[Oldmanmatt]

Really good thread. Bouldering walls will have more injuries per customer then climbing walls. No deaths or crippled thank god.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2117196/People-injured-in-hazardous-activities-only-have-themselves-to-blame-court-rules.html

Yep. I actually keep a copy of the ruling, as a PDF, on my iPad.
I’ve often thought about handing it out to people as they walk in...

Got moaned at the other day, by the weekend manager, that there were too many signs around the Bunker.
I wasn’t polite.
 
http://www.39essex.com/docs/cases/Poppleton_judgment.pdf

[shark]

A different judge and a different barrister and different expert witnesses and the ruling might have gone another way.

[Oldmanmatt]

A different judge and a different barrister and different expert witnesses and the ruling might have gone another way.

I don’t think so.

Remember the High Court ruled a 75/25 % fault, in favour of the defendant and that it amounted to a “the signage was not prominent enough”.
Nevertheless, we always inform new customers of the risk of injury or death, when registering. It feels so melodramatic and as if it should really be bloody obvious.

Explaining to people that if they climb up, they might fall down...

FFS...

[shark]

It originally was 75/25 but went to appeal and was overruled

[Oldmanmatt]

It originally was 75/25 but went to appeal and was overruled

As I said...

The High court recognised the individual responsibility, but apportioned 1/4 of the blame to the wall, on the basis that they did not do enough to inform users of the risk.
At appeal, it was recognised that the risk should have been obvious to the user, where the user is capable of reasoned decision.

A competent adult should recognise the risks associated with any activity and the court saw that that would apply to, virtually, any activity (remember, Football, is statistically more risky than Bouldering).
It’s hard to imagine how any sporting or physical activity, club, organisation or business; could have survived the reverse of that ruling. If,for example, the court had found that a facility provider, held 3/4’s of the responsibility for an individuals decisions and actions, and that on appeal, the higher court ruled that to be full responsibility...

Actually, such a ruling would have, in effect, removed the concept of “Responsible Adult” from our society. The knock on, would have been mind bending, everything from criminal responsibility, to political campaigns and.... referendums.... would have been open to challenge.
Because the definition of “harm” has already moved beyond physical injury. Either an adult is responsible for their decisions and actions, or they are not, regardless of the arena in which those decisions are made.
If inexperience or lack of knowledge in one area, renders the individual immune from responsibility, why should the same arguments not apply in any other?
Currently, we recognise that some aspects of life require specialised knowledge. Things like “Driving a car” or “Practicing Medicine”, but rather than absolve an individual of responsibility, we seek to prevent those unqualified from performing those tasks. The appeal court recognised that lowering the threshold for “prerequisite qualification” to the point suggested by the plaintiff, would have had a serious impact on everyday life.
Buy you kid a skateboard for Xmas? Well, you’re  off to jail if they break their leg.
Do you make bicycles? Well, now you’re responsible for the idiot who tried to ride one of your bikes off the top of a multi-storey car park, because you didn’t run a four day seminar on the limitations of protection afforded by pneumatic tires and seat padding, as a Pre purchase requirement ...

Hopefully, you realise that was exaggerated for humour and illustrative purposes, rather than a real argument.

My point, is that I cannot see how any other verdict was actually probable.

Edit:

Counter argument very welcome! I actually have to think about this quite seriously, so exposing flaws in my reasoning is part of the reason for posting it in the first place.
(I find people more willing to argue, the more assertively you make your own arguments).

[shark]

My point, is that I cannot see how any other verdict was actually probable.

I haven't got an axe to grind and I do understand your views on personal responsibility. 

However, I'd point out that for a beginner "safety matting" is just that. The ruling acknowledges there is an issue here when it says:  "There is something of a tension between the unchallenged finding that the matting was entirely adequate and the critical finding that it constituted a hidden danger"

There was another incident were someone was able to claim compensation:  https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/craggy-island-damages-blow-common-4811475

[Oldmanmatt]

Yes, the “Climb down, don’t jump” case...

The primary difference here, was that she was part of an instructed group, specifically a group that had engaged the centre to provide training in that activity and that the staff failed to adequately brief the students. Although the accident took place during a “free climbing” session, without direct supervision, it was determined that the centre had given insufficient training and not followed their own procedures; increasing their own lability.
Still, a headache case for any provider.

It has changed the nature of informed consent for such activities . I’m sure you have all signed that participation statement and answered the “I understand that failure to exercise due care (etc etc) may result in injury or death” quuestion, in the affirmative, everytime you register at a climbing wall.

I know there’s no axe. It’s a useful debate.

Also, hard for anyone who’s read it, to say they were insufficiently informed of the risks...

[shark]

Are there best practice industry standards (voluntary or mandatory) regarding suitability of matting regarding design, risk assessment, materials, performance, installation and replacement?

[cheque]

Yes, the “Climb down, don’t jump” case...

Interesting to learn that that’s the reason for the warnings on climbing wall forms changing- I remember signing up for a new wall once thinking that the wording (the type they all have now) seemed a bit restrictive but when you think about it, how well you do in a fall, even onto thick indoor mats, is massively dependent on both how much you weigh and how adept you are at landing. I think I’m qualified to make that comment!

It’s easy for us as (comparatively) wiry, battle-hardened climbers to say “you’ll be fine jumping from the top” but the average person’s experience is likely to be vastly different- I once witnessed a nearly identical incident to the one in the article when a climber who had taken a few workmates to the wall said just that to a larger lady who’d got to the top of her first problem and was terrified. She jumped and was not fine at all. 

[Oldmanmatt]

Are there best practice industry standards (voluntary or mandatory) regarding suitability of matting regarding design, risk assessment, materials, performance, installation and replacement?

There’s an EU standard for artificial climbing structures which includes the prescribed landing surfaces. I can’t rember the number off the top of my head.

(Edit: EN 12572-2)

What irritates me (slightly) is wandering down to the play park and seeing a six meter high climbing frame, over 100mm of rubber screed and not understanding how it cannot be the same thing...

[shark]

Actually, such a ruling would have, in effect, removed the concept of “Responsible Adult” from our society. The knock on, would have been mind bending, everything from criminal responsibility, to political campaigns and.... referendums.... would have been open to challenge.
Because the definition of “harm” has already moved beyond physical injury. Either an adult is responsible for their decisions and actions, or they are not, regardless of the arena in which those decisions are made.
If inexperience or lack of knowledge in one area, renders the individual immune from responsibility, why should the same arguments not apply in any other?
Currently, we recognise that some aspects of life require specialised knowledge. Things like “Driving a car” or “Practicing Medicine”, but rather than absolve an individual of responsibility, we seek to prevent those unqualified from performing those tasks. The appeal court recognised that lowering the threshold for “prerequisite qualification” to the point suggested by the plaintiff, would have had a serious impact on everyday life.
Buy you kid a skateboard for Xmas? Well, you’re  off to jail if they break their leg.
Do you make bicycles? Well, now you’re responsible for the idiot who tried to ride one of your bikes off the top of a multi-storey car park, because you didn’t run a four day seminar on the limitations of protection afforded by pneumatic tires and seat padding, as a Pre purchase requirement ...

         


Just been musing on this topic further in relation to my previous experience of interviewing and recruiting Health and Safety Managers for Manufacturing Companies including a factory that recently had two deaths.

Virtually all Senior Management of any Manufacturer would say that they put safety first. For some that is genuinely so, others less so. The view at the top is important as it is always the case that culture and substantive cultural change starts at the top and cascades downwards. Safety procedures can slow product getting out the door and be at odds with a macho shop floor culture (using guards, PPE etc). Therefore it is best practice that a Health and Safety Manager should report directly to the MD/CEO rather than the Operations or Factory Manager who is focused on productivity.

For most companies the primary driver will be to keep within HSE statutory requirements and avoid personal injury litigation. However, other companies (notably Du Pont in the 70's) took a different view that there was a moral and ethical obligation on the company as well and they looked deeply into safety culture and both hard and soft (human) factors both within and outside the workplace.

Most climbing walls have been started by outdoor climbers whose views and attitudes will be shaped by that experience. However, running a facility that is more akin to a public swimming baths means that what is acceptable and admirable outside is at odds to running a climbing wall or bouldering centre.

Box ticking and legal compliance obviously has its place but a culture of genuinely putting safety first may be at odds with your professed strong views on individual responsibility (I appreciate you said they were overstated) and desire to run a successful business. Putting safety first might mean extra staff, extra training, extra monitoring, extra equipment and other costs above beyond what is legally required. In short do you feel a strong moral obligation to do everything you can? Don't take that personally - its a rhetorical question that applies to any centre owner. Like I say I have no axe to grind here but I imagine it would be a difficult dilemma to grapple with and reconcile if I owned a centre and was taking the lead on the safety culture. 

[petejh]

You might as well consider that same rhetorical question in light of the debate on here about the BMC's policy for increasing participation in climbing, indoor or out.

edit. In fact apply all you said above to anyone in the business of promoting climbing for whatever ends.

[shark]

Generally encouraging/promoting participation of climbing whilst highlighting its risks and encouraging self reliance is not inconsistent with asking whether a wall owner should (or should not) take all measures to mitigate the risk of injury of its customers on their premises above and beyond statutory requirements as part of its company ethos.

[Oldmanmatt]

Actually, such a ruling would have, in effect, removed the concept of “Responsible Adult” from our society. The knock on, would have been mind bending, everything from criminal responsibility, to political campaigns and.... referendums.... would have been open to challenge.
Because the definition of “harm” has already moved beyond physical injury. Either an adult is responsible for their decisions and actions, or they are not, regardless of the arena in which those decisions are made.
If inexperience or lack of knowledge in one area, renders the individual immune from responsibility, why should the same arguments not apply in any other?
Currently, we recognise that some aspects of life require specialised knowledge. Things like “Driving a car” or “Practicing Medicine”, but rather than absolve an individual of responsibility, we seek to prevent those unqualified from performing those tasks. The appeal court recognised that lowering the threshold for “prerequisite qualification” to the point suggested by the plaintiff, would have had a serious impact on everyday life.
Buy you kid a skateboard for Xmas? Well, you’re  off to jail if they break their leg.
Do you make bicycles? Well, now you’re responsible for the idiot who tried to ride one of your bikes off the top of a multi-storey car park, because you didn’t run a four day seminar on the limitations of protection afforded by pneumatic tires and seat padding, as a Pre purchase requirement ...

         


Just been musing on this topic further in relation to my previous experience of interviewing and recruiting Health and Safety Managers for Manufacturing Companies including a factory that recently had two deaths.

Virtually all Senior Management of any Manufacturer would say that they put safety first. For some that is genuinely so, others less so. The view at the top is important as it is always the case that culture and substantive cultural change starts at the top and cascades downwards. Safety procedures can slow product getting out the door and be at odds with a macho shop floor culture (using guards, PPE etc). Therefore it is best practice that a Health and Safety Manager should report directly to the MD/CEO rather than the Operations or Factory Manager who is focused on productivity.

For most companies the primary driver will be to keep within HSE statutory requirements and avoid personal injury litigation. However, other companies (notably Du Pont in the 70's) took a different view that there was a moral and ethical obligation on the company as well and they looked deeply into safety culture and both hard and soft (human) factors both within and outside the workplace.

Most climbing walls have been started by outdoor climbers whose views and attitudes will be shaped by that experience. However, running a facility that is more akin to a public swimming baths means that what is acceptable and admirable outside is at odds to running a climbing wall or bouldering centre.

Box ticking and legal compliance obviously has its place but a culture of genuinely putting safety first may be at odds with your professed strong views on individual responsibility (I appreciate you said they were overstated) and desire to run a successful business. Putting safety first might mean extra staff, extra training, extra monitoring, extra equipment and other costs above beyond what is legally required. In short do you feel a strong moral obligation to do everything you can? Don't take that personally - its a rhetorical question that applies to any centre owner. Like I say I have no axe to grind here but I imagine it would be a difficult dilemma to grapple with and reconcile if I owned a centre and was taking the lead on the safety culture.

Pretty sure I haven’t mentioned ticking boxes or similar.
Nor have I disparaged safety culture or advocated a reduction of such, in fact, I pointed out having strong words with a manager who did...

This discussion hinges around the point where individual responsibility assumes precidence over that of the provider.
That, has been established, in general, through the above rulings and the various regulations and codes of practice. Obviously, specifics will contue to be fleshed out over time and through future litigation.
I think it’s a little silly to suggest that anyone would not have a “moral imperative” to provide the best possible protection and I think you would be instantly aware of a lack of such at any facility. Neither of the cited cases allege such and where it was partially implied, it was struck down.

It, I think, should also be plain that much thought goes into this, from myself and others “in the game”.

Ultimately, if we took the “protection” to it’s logical limit (ie, short of actually banning the activity), there could be no such thing as Bouldering, because you’d be obliged to use all available safety equipment. To put it another way, you’d be in body armour, helmeted, safety glasses on, top roped, with additional auto belay and escape ladder in reach. 
(Again, exaggerated for effect).
Or, should we ask each individual to “take a test”, prior to using each center they visit? Should all participants in any activity that carries a risk of injury, be required to hold a license to do so?
You need one to hire SCUBA equipment or (usually) to hire a dingy, after all and no provider can vouch for the ability of an unkown user.

To be clear, a licensing system, would be a great money spinner! Insisting on induction courses for new users? Same. Imagine having to do an induction every time you went to a new wall? ( It’s understandable, where proof of belaying/tying in is sensibly required, but Bouldering risks and safety can be adequately assessed by asking questions and checking the understanding of a few simple rules).


I don’t think any of you would like that very much...

I think the centre rules and the conditions of use, as described in the BMC Climbing wall manual and the safety installations and structural requirements of the EN, as modified by individual, site specific, risk assessment are adequate.

So, it boils down to informed consent.

Plus, on a personal note, I do allow and encourage all of my own children to partake of this activity...

Pete.
What about MTB? Hill walking?
Golf? (Way more impact, per participant). Football and Rugby are riskier, but you are forced into those at school! Road biking actually requires the destruction of the natural landscape to build a road (or is that ok because the road was actually built for something else?)
I struggle to think of any activity that has no impact or cost, to the world or environment and, ultimately, driving to the wall is more dangerous. Ride a motorcycle there and...
Or are we just considering the activities where other people get in your way?😉

[Oldmanmatt]

Actually, to go back to the specifics of matting and it’s effectiveness:

Even foam pits have their risks.

You really do need to go all the way to roped belay to avoid the matting issue completely and that is actually cheaper to provide than the matting (typically, you’re looking at ~ £15K /100m^2, (or a very small centre, like mine)).

The whole debate can quickly descend into a “How long is a piece of string”? affair. More accurately “How much safety is enough?”

Many of the better dive agencies sum that up as “The safest dive, is the one where you don’t get in the water”.

My last incarnation, prior to entering this snake pit, was as a Marine Surveyor, Accident investigator and Expert witness (MIIMS), so yeah, I lose sleep over this stuff.
The ultimate problem being that “safe” can easily become “not fun anymore”.

[Duncan campbell]

Just been in Unit E, the Mats are certainly firm but I didn’t think too bad. They will soften up with time I’d have thought.

Some hard looking problems in there! Shame they didn’t stick two really good circuit boards in there a la depot. Maybe in the weights room?

Seems to me a good idea might have been to amalgamate so they are all together, that way made them the best they could be and maximising space for each of them? Ie all the “training” areas together. All the boards (circuit and mother) together and then all the standard bouldering. Maybe there was a reason they didn’t that I haven’t thought about. Still more climbing for your buck guess you cannae grumble too much!

[petejh]

Pete.
What about MTB? Hill walking?
Golf? (Way more impact, per participant). Football and Rugby are riskier, but you are forced into those at school! Road biking actually requires the destruction of the natural landscape to build a road (or is that ok because the road was actually built for something else?)
I struggle to think of any activity that has no impact or cost, to the world or environment and, ultimately, driving to the wall is more dangerous. Ride a motorcycle there and...
Or are we just considering the activities where other people get in your way?😉

Whoah there. I'm not in the slightest bit concerned about any of this or what the local wall does or doesn't implement, as long as I can still boulder and train when its raining/too cold and it doesn't involve asking permission of a health and safety manager before I drop off.

Just find it amusing to consider Shark's rhetorical questioning of the risks inherent in indoors climbing and applying the same line of reasoning to outdoors, to people who promote climbing, to representative bodies etc. And yes to golf, football etc. Fill your boots.

Edit - the safest dive is the one where you don't get in the water. Exactly. Because that's where rhetorical questioning leads when you start asking questions such as '..asking whether a wall owner should (or should not) take all measures to mitigate the risk of injury of its customers on their premises above and beyond statutory requirements as part of its company ethos..'. Because all measures would mean not allowing people to impact the floor.