jwi said:
So here is a question for you people: How to do you differentiate between objective and subjective danger? I rather climb a 6b without any protection at all then a 6b with OK protection but with large sections on really loose rock. I would find the former pretty safe and the latter really dangerous.
OK, but what I meant by danger being subjective (until it suddenly becomes very objective), was that 'true' danger is hard to quantify until it's too late. So we rely on using subjective judgements to try to work out how dangerous we think something is.
Your term 'danger' can be called 'risk'. Risk is often formally calculated using a risk matrix, by estimating a likelihood of a bad event happening, say on a scale 1-to-5 from least likely to most likely. Then multiplying likelihood by the consequences should the bad event happen, on a scale 1-to-5 with '1' being fuck-all and '5' being death. You can formalise risk this way but it does still come down to a certain level of subjectivity in making the estimates, due to not knowing the exact likelihoods and consequences in advance due to a lack of crash-test people repeatedly spannering themselves in the exact circumstances of whatever it is you might be stood in front of contemplating.
With loose rock - not that I'm a loose rock specialist or actively seek it out - the cliff is still standing, therefore the whole cliff isn't about to fall down with you on it, just small bits of it! So as long as you identify as you're climbing which small bits will likely rip out if you pull on them or step on them, and use the bits that aren't those bits, then in theory you 'should' get up ok. And there's often lots of available protection in cliffs with loose rock, because they have lots of cracks! So if you fall off a climb with loose rock you might have tons of gear, some of which will likely hold, stopping you hitting the ground.
It might work out as: 'likely consequence of a fall (due to loose rock) = '3'. Where '3' = potential for a broken limb.
Likelihood of a fall (due to loose rock) for a typical climber on that route = '3'. Where 3 = 'possible but not probable'.
Meanwhile if you fall off your unprotected 6b example, then nothing's stopping you hitting the ground. So the breakdown might be: consequence of a fall = '5', death. Likelihood of a fall for a typical climber on that route = '2', unlikely but possible'.
Loose 6b route = risk rating of 3x3 = 9.
Solid but unprotected 6b route = risk rating of 5x2 = 10
Which is more 'dangerous' really? You'd need to run an experiment with countless soloists and loose rock climbers - maybe at the next Olympics - to see which version of climbing damaged the most people.
In your example of avalanche, not a great deal of personal climbing skill can change the outcome if it happens, but knowing how often an avalanche releases over a particular route gives you a likelihood to work with, to start to determine approx risk level.
Anyway, as it applies to eGoader I think they've over-done the number of risk ratings. Better to have kept it to 5 or 6 levels of 'danger' imo.