[tomtom]

Is anyone going to ride their (high) horse to the crag then? 😃

(Couldn’t resist - sorry!)

[205Chris]

What you've written is not my rule either though. It would be better written as:

If there's a chance - even a small one - that you are more likely to come into contact with someone than you would going for a stroll somewhere quiet, think really hard about whether you really need to do that thing.

Isn't that easy?

Gav - I think you must have read the half of that UKC article that looks at what's legally OK, and not the bit in the black box that says please don't go out. Having said, that, there are situations where you could go climbing and satisfy my simple rule. As I've said before, if that applies to you then fill your boots.

  I think Stu's written a lot of sense.

Worth mentioning that if you injure yourself while out for a walk / run / exercise in a city / town park / suburban area then you'll get picked up by an NHS ambulance (crew of 2 hopefully with adequate PPE).

If you injure yourself in a rural area / National Park etc. away from a roadhead you'll need an MR team. If it involves a stretcher carry (likely if you can't get to a roadhead) it'll need anywhere between 6 - 20+ people depending on the location. When they get you back to a roadhead, they'll pass you over the the ambulance crew that would have attended the first scenario. The MR personnel are all volunteers, many of whom will have families and might still be going into their place of work. The level of PPE they have will vary significantly by team but it is unlikely to be at the level the NHS have.

I couldn't agree more with the mental health aspect so if the benefit you get from national parks or similar significantly outweighs the benefits from more urban spaces then go for it. However, for the rest of this it's this 'small chance' of something happening that means we probably shouldn't be doing it for now.

Teams from Mountain Rescue England and Wales had 40 callouts over the Easter weekend. Their advice is still to avoid activities where their services might be required.

[T_B]

Don’t call the MR then. Some of us do our risky outdoor activity in places overseas without MR and are happy to accept those risks. Personally I don’t like the way the MR argument has been presented, though I begrudgingly accept it’s there to put off the numpties. I’m happy to go out on Kinder on the basis of me crawling back to my car if I break an ankle.

[205Chris]

Don’t call the MR then. Some of us do our risky outdoor activity in places overseas without MR and are happy to accept those risks. Personally I don’t like the way the MR argument has been presented, though I begrudgingly accept it’s there to put off the numpties. I’m happy to go out on Kinder on the basis of me crawling back to my car if I break an ankle.

And if you break more than an ankle?

As for overseas trips to areas without MR teams the likelihood is you would still get support from other people, which in the middle of a global pandemic is still a problem.......

[Oldmanmatt]

Perception v reality.

ROSPA reports 1,000 accidents per 100m hours for walking and 4,000 for rock climbing. Cycling scores 7,000 and horse riding 10,000.

Interesting , couldn't find any breakdown of stats, type of accident etc - certainly insurance companies don't agree but not sure how much detail info they have to make decisions on. 

You only have to go to Llandegla at the the weekend to see that mountain biking is significantly more dangerous than road biking, the ambulance is there most weekends.  My feeling is that I know a lot more people who have been injured requiring medical treatment climbing (broken ankles, upper body inuries, head injuries etc) than road biking, but as you say this just may be my perception.   And on mountain biking (by which I mean trail/lite downhill style) pretty much everybody I've ever biked with as had significant offs involving some sort of medical treatment from stitches right up top days spent in hospital,

The attitude difference In the insurer, is not going to be purely predicated on the relative risk of the activity; it’s also going to be influenced by the punter’s perceived attitude to risk, I would have thought?
So, a climber might be perceived to have a greater tolerance of risk than a cyclist (regardless of the reality).

Then there’s the potential for rescue costs to spiral, as well (of course, that probably applies to MTB too) which seems less onerous (in general) for road cyclists?

[Oldmanmatt]

Don’t call the MR then. Some of us do our risky outdoor activity in places overseas without MR and are happy to accept those risks. Personally I don’t like the way the MR argument has been presented, though I begrudgingly accept it’s there to put off the numpties. I’m happy to go out on Kinder on the basis of me crawling back to my car if I break an ankle.

That won’t wash.

Even if you decide not to call out the team, if you are overdue and missed/reported the team will be out anyway.

Broke my ankle in the Dolomites, some years ago and hobbled back to our camp/the road with my climbing partner’s assistance. Bloody hard going. Pre-mobile phones. Alone, it would have been near fatal and only about four miles over not too steep ground.

Edit:

Thank you for supporting my supposition about the potentially hazardous attitude to risk that might be present in climbers versus cyclists...

[gme]

All of this is a non argument. I could just as easily twist my ankle out walking the dog or twist a knee. I walk the dog away from the roads shall I not do that either.

I have broken bones and sprained ankles a few times climbing And never called out MR, and have witness others do the same.
I have seen a couple of bad ones That did need MR but minimal in 30+ years of going out.

[Oldmanmatt]

All of this is a non argument. I could just as easily twist my ankle out walking the dog or twist a knee. I walk the dog away from the roads shall I not do that either.

I have broken bones and sprained ankles a few times climbing And never called out MR, and have witness others do the same.
I have seen a couple of bad ones That did need MR but minimal in 30+ years of going out.

That’s rubbish.

The MR teams are pretty damn busy and not only for silly call outs.
Just because you haven’t required them, doesn’t negate the argument, nor make it a non-argument.

Pure survivor bias.

[gme]

Just found out one of the neighbours fell off a ladder today and has broken his arm and ribs. My age as well not one of the old folks.

Maybe DIY should be banned as well, seems a lot more risky than climbing.

Didn’t need the MR though, it was in his garden.

[gme]

All of this is a non argument. I could just as easily twist my ankle out walking the dog or twist a knee. I walk the dog away from the roads shall I not do that either.

I have broken bones and sprained ankles a few times climbing And never called out MR, and have witness others do the same.
I have seen a couple of bad ones That did need MR but minimal in 30+ years of going out.

That’s rubbish.

The MR teams are pretty damn busy and not only for silly call outs.
Just because you haven’t required them, doesn’t negate the argument, nor make it a non-argument.

Pure survivor bias.

I didn’t say they were not busy, just said I have not used them despite breaking stuff. Always hobbled or hopped out and got myself to hospital as I suspect many in here have.
Wouldn’t have lived with the piss taking of having to call them.

[T_B]

Don’t call the MR then. Some of us do our risky outdoor activity in places overseas without MR and are happy to accept those risks. Personally I don’t like the way the MR argument has been presented, though I begrudgingly accept it’s there to put off the numpties. I’m happy to go out on Kinder on the basis of me crawling back to my car if I break an ankle.

That won’t wash.

Even if you decide not to call out the team, if you are overdue and missed/reported the team will be out anyway.

These aren’t normal times though are they? It’s not the law that you must be rescued! It’s a reasonable assumption that if you injure yourself in the UK hills at the moment you’re on your own. This idea that that makes hill walking too risky is ridiculous. There’s something very wrong if previously people were heading into the hills only willing to accept the risks with the safety net of the MR.

As Gav says I’m more likely to hurt myself around the house.

[Oldmanmatt]

All of this is a non argument. I could just as easily twist my ankle out walking the dog or twist a knee. I walk the dog away from the roads shall I not do that either.

I have broken bones and sprained ankles a few times climbing And never called out MR, and have witness others do the same.
I have seen a couple of bad ones That did need MR but minimal in 30+ years of going out.

That’s rubbish.

The MR teams are pretty damn busy and not only for silly call outs.
Just because you haven’t required them, doesn’t negate the argument, nor make it a non-argument.

Pure survivor bias.

I didn’t say they were not busy, just said I have not used them despite breaking stuff. Always hobbled or hopped out and got myself to hospital as I suspect many in here have.
Wouldn’t have lived with the piss taking of having to call them.

And if your twisted ankle had lead on to an awkward fall and suspected spinal?

Toby on the Catwalk?

Quite a few crags would require specialist rescue, even from the base.

This is much less likely walking the dog.

I have a friend, who managed to fall 400ft, off a certain Highland peak/ridge “walking his dog”, but he was a prime example of that attitude to risk I was talking about.

Yes, you are probably more likely to snap your spine in the shower/bath.
Yes, that would require specialist rescue.
But, in that instance, the FB are better set up for that than an MRT will be, at least in terms of PPE and controlling any potential infection aspect to the rescue.
Ditto for snapped femur in the park.

Shit, we’re all pissed off with this crap. Today’s rain has me sat on the friggin couch and mentally climbing the walls.
But, we just aren’t getting out again until the lockdown is lifted. Whether that’s “right” or “wrong” in our eyes is irrelevant and I just can’t see “climbing” as an easy sell to “the Man” as a low risk exercise option.

Cycling stats, by the way, are heavily clouded by commuter cycling and even several million kids bombing around like dickheads.
Not really sure how comparable the activities are?
Anyone climb to their place of work, normally?

[Bradders]

Shall we re-run the poll on this thread?

[petejh]

Yes!
(although I’ll probably be undecided again)

[Oldmanmatt]

Don’t call the MR then. Some of us do our risky outdoor activity in places overseas without MR and are happy to accept those risks. Personally I don’t like the way the MR argument has been presented, though I begrudgingly accept it’s there to put off the numpties. I’m happy to go out on Kinder on the basis of me crawling back to my car if I break an ankle.

That won’t wash.

Even if you decide not to call out the team, if you are overdue and missed/reported the team will be out anyway.

These aren’t normal times though are they? It’s not the law that you must be rescued! It’s a reasonable assumption that if you injure yourself in the UK hills at the moment you’re on your own. This idea that that makes hill walking too risky is ridiculous. There’s something very wrong if previously people were heading into the hills only willing to accept the risks with the safety net of the MR.

As Gav says I’m more likely to hurt myself around the house.

Go for it.

Seriously.

If you’re really not bothered. Just don’t tell anyone where you’re going.

The local NPAS Helo has been doing Misper searches, almost back to back, around here the last few weeks; just on the various mental health casualties. Pretty sure none of them called it out themselves...

Sarcasm aside, I really do think you can go out if you want to.

As I mentioned, several times, you might have to explain that, to someone less sympathetic than than this forum.
You might not mean to, but you
 might trigger a full scale search/rescue, even if you aren’t injured (remember the surfer, that witnesses just “thought” was in trouble?).

So, if you’re going, be careful, and keep your head down.

[Oldmanmatt]

Devon and Cornwall police issued this statement. It pertains to questions regarding surfing, but it seems to also reasonably apply to climbing.
I don’t expect other forces to differ significantly.

The pertinent paragraph:

“There has been much discussion around what the legislation does and doesn’t specifically prohibit. The legal aspects of the legislation are based upon whether a person’s actions are reasonable or not. Officers will continue to make individual judgements based on the specific circumstances presented to them.

The key to making this work for everyone in Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, and across the country, is for everyone to be reasonable. If you can exercise with a run or a walk near your home, it is reasonable for you to do so. Our interpretation is that it is not reasonable, for the majority, to drive miles to a specific place such as a beauty spot. It is also not within the spirit of what we are trying to achieve if you drive from Devon to the coast of Cornwall for surfing, regardless of whether that is “lawful” or not.

We are grateful that our communities understand what we are all trying to achieve together and are supporting us with this. Enforcement will only be used as a last resort. Officers will continue to use discretion and police with consent.

We enjoy the relationship we have with our communities and will continue to engage with people we meet, to provide reassurance and education at this challenging time.”

From their advice to the local paper:

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/devon-cornwall-police-answer-every-4053268

[Stabbsy]

@IanP

Travel insurers don’t really understand risk. One example: you pay less for a shorter trekking policy that goes to high altitude, whereas you’re less likely to get ill (and need evacuation/medical assistance) on a longer trip with more time to acclimatise. It’s perverse.

So I wouldn’t draw too many conclusions from how they load policies that include cover you for climbing, compared to a mass participation activity such as cycling.

Anecdotally, adventure travel companies that run mountain biking trips have a lot of accidents.

I'm not sure its correct to say that insurance companies don't understand risk, I would imagine their actuaries have much better understanding of the statistics and risk than your average layman, however I agree that they almost certainly don't have a detailed understanding of the relative risks for different aspects of niche activities.   

I’m only talking specifically about travel insurance as that’s what I have direct experience of. If you mean the premiums would relate precisely to where the claims fall, I don’t think that’s necessarily the case bizarrely.

I'm a life/pensions actuary, not a general insurance actuary, but the concepts are similar enough when it comes to setting premiums. So, firstly (and possibly me being pedantic), it's not bizarre the premiums don't relate to precisely where claims fall - that wouldn't be insurance. Insurance is the pooling of risk, so premiums should broadly reflect risk but there is a limit to how accurate that can be - if the premiums related precisely to where claims fall, you might as well not insure since you're paying your own claim cost and the insurer's expenses and profit margin.

Secondly, insurers/actuaries do understand risk, but they also understand statistics/data and its limitations. Where a factor (time in this case) is identifiable as a rating factor, if the data shows that it generates a statistically credible difference in the level of risk on the policy and they are allowed to differentiate/discriminate between policyholders on that basis, they will use it in the setting of premium. It's in their commercial interests to do so - if they use that factor and their competitor doesn't, they will get a competitive advantage and vice versa. So, if they charge more in premium for a long trip than a short trip (not sure if you mean per unit of time or not), it's most likely because the data says it's more risky. I can't really comment on why the data would say that, but one example might be the way that trekking policies are grouped with other risks due to lack of credible data.

So yes, the loadings for different activities can be quite broad brush, but they are based on experience and if they were massively out of line with the rest of the market they wouldn't get any business and competitive pressure would move them back into line.

[abarro81]

I can't really comment on why the data would say that, but one example might be the way that trekking policies are grouped with other risks due to lack of credible data.

Presumably if you have limited data, it would be v easy to group all trekking policies together, see that longer = more risk, but not spot that this doesn't hold for specific sub-sets of policies. Especially as I guess people may be going on extended trips where time trekking is not equal to length of policy, so the data all becomes quite jumbled...

[Stabbsy]

I can't really comment on why the data would say that, but one example might be the way that trekking policies are grouped with other risks due to lack of credible data.

Presumably if you have limited data, it would be v easy to group all trekking policies together, see that longer = more risk, but not spot that this doesn't hold for specific sub-sets of policies. Especially as I guess people may be going on extended trips where time trekking is not equal to length of policy, so the data all becomes quite jumbled...

Exactly that. I haven't got a feel for the size of the trekking insurance policy market on its own, but my guess would be that it won't generate credible experience on its own and will be grouped with other, similar-ish risks. If you think that you're also trying to split claim experience by policyholder age, location, etc., getting credible data in each of your cells requires a lot of data and therefore, grouping of risk types. Often, you will need to reduce the number of rating factors to maintain credibility, so you keep the best predictors. That's why car insurance can have so many more rating factors, because there's so much more data to start with.

And, as you say, the data can easily be jumbled. Having a longer policy doesn't explicitly mean you are going to get acclimatised, only in some situations. Risks like that are difficult to underwrite.

[Fatboyslimfast2]

So we have argued, we have gone round in circles, its got a bit heated at times but generally people are not climbing.....
So as the curve flattens, as restrictions are vaguely lifted (interestingly in Germany there was no restrictions on climbing ) when do we feel it is ok to go out again? When travel is relaxed, when people are working again.....when ?
Would it just be bouldering on your lonesome? Sport? Necky gear climbing? Grit E7?

As a side issueI was out above Stoney yesterday, went up Coombse dale to black harry gate and beyond to Longstone, a route that on a normal weekend you would see tops 3 people. I was at Black Harry gate and it was like a commuter route, at least 30 bikes passed me in 15 mins.

[Hydraulic Man]

Interestingly there were complaints in Great Longstone over the weekend about the amount of cyclists passing through the village.

[moose]

I've been walking on Ilkley Moor during the last few weekends.  Yesterday there was a definite increase in numbers.  The Cow & Calf parking area is still closed but the lay-bys and pull-ins were all full of cars.  Previously the people I saw on the Moor generally had the look of ramblers and fell runners; yesterday, there seemed to be far more families with bags of food and drink sitting around and not venturing far (and lots more cheap looking "fashion" wear to be horribly snobbish).  I suspect the recent announcements on driving to take exercise being reasonable has had an effect and people are now feeling it's okay to travel into the countryside from the towns and cities .

[fatneck]

We drove to the Wirral yesterday (c. 20minutes) for a 2 hour walk. Was blissful to have a different view for a change and by way of some possibly weak justification - my mental health was significantly improved by 10+ swallows (first of the year) Linnets, Dunlin, Whitethroat (also first of the year), Blackcaps and Chiffies...

[JamieG]

Lovely. The birds in the park are definitely good for helping preserve my mental health. Saw a couple dippers on the river recently which are my one of my favourites. And even the ubiquitous mallards and their ducklings are providing welcome relief. No swallows yet, but I have been keeping an eye out for them. Always feels good when they arrive back.

[Bradders]

I've been walking on Ilkley Moor during the last few weekends.  Yesterday there was a definite increase in numbers.  The Cow & Calf parking area is still closed but the lay-bys and pull-ins were all full of cars.  Previously the people I saw on the Moor generally had the look of ramblers and fell runners; yesterday, there seemed to be far more families with bags of food and drink sitting around and not venturing far (and lots more cheap looking "fashion" wear to be horribly snobbish).  I suspect the recent announcements on driving to take exercise being reasonable has had an effect and people are now feeling it's okay to travel into the countryside from the towns and cities .

Definitely echoes my experience on a long walk straight from home yesterday. Car park at the top of the valley rammed, loads of families out, very little commitment to keeping distance from probably the majority of people we passed - this bit I just couldn't get, I mean how clearly has it been stated that we need to keep 2m apart?! Didn't see anyone sitting with a picnic at least. Felt like the nice weather had caused lock-down fatigue to spill over quite a bit, not helped by the poor messaging from the Government. Hopefully just a weekend thing so damage won't be too bad for the overall curve / effort?