UKBouldering.com
places to visit => indoor walls => Topic started by: Jim on January 30, 2013, 04:41:24 pm
-
being a heavier gentleman I more often than not end up spinning the odd hold on the few occasions I visit an indoor wall.
I have noticed recently that I have been spinning more than normal (probably because I'm an even fatter bastard than before) and I feel like I am probably going to injury myself one day because of this.
I have also noticed that a lot more of the bolt on holds have screw holes in them as well (to ensure they don't spin), however I recon at least 90% of these screw holes don't have screws in them when I've had a look.
I have thought about complaining about this at the various walls I visit but I really can't be arsed with the hassle.
Now I'm fairly sure that if I did injure myself because of a spinning hold that had a screw hole but no screw in it, I would be able to sue the wall for incorrect installation of holds.
However I have no intention of becoming injured or wanting to sue anyone, all I want is to climb without worry of hurting myself due to someone else's laziness.
Thoughts?
-
I'm sure they don't bother with the screws at it would ultimately screw up the plywood (see what I did there). I spin a fair few myslef, being of large stature, and just get an allen key with an extension bit and crank it up.
Not sure about the legalities.
-
Take your own screws along and put them in as you go round. :clown:
Or lose some weight which I realise is why you're now back climbing now your bicep has healed (if I've remembered your injury correctly).
-
just myther the staff when they spin, and get them to tighten them.
I am a slim prop kind of size and it happens on the odd occasion to me (along with loud cracking noises from the walls where a screw might be missing).
2 things spring to mind -
1: the smaller holds tend to spin less frequently for me, so I climb stuff with smaller holds.
2: loose some weight/untapped power ;)
:sorry:
Although the addition of the screw can be quite good at stopping holds spinning they make a bleeding mess of the wall if routes are regularly reset. More often than not I am glad to not see them used.
-
Certain walls do put those little BMC disclaimer plaques up saying "holds can spin", so i don't know if that indemnifies them against your litigious plans.
-
Not that I'm in there every week, but the holds in the Works all tend to have a screw or two. Sounds like lazy route setting. Definitely worth a word - maybe ask if they have a feedback form?
-
Certain walls do put those little BMC disclaimer plaques up saying "holds can spin", so i don't know if that indemnifies them against your litigious plans.
...and its likely in your registration form and stated in the conditions of use too. God knows if things like that are any use if tested legally.
Jim just be glad they have a bolt in them, and not a bolt hole filled with scews ;D
-
Jim just be glad they have a bolt in them, and not a bolt hole filled with scews ;D
I've seen that a few times
-
Jim just be glad they have a bolt in them, and not a bolt hole filled with screws ;D
I've seen that a few times
:agree: always quality
-
I'm not ru but if there's a screw hole that's not been used for purpose n a hold has span causing injury of course you can sue the wall. The screw hole has obviously been put there to stop any sort of spinning, as opposed to a hold with 3screws in it. It's an accident caused by someone's omission. It's ok people saying lose weight, he can't he's obese, deal with it
-
but if the spin-merchants can show that he knew that holds are often not fixed properly (using this thread as evidence) then he would have to take a share of the responsibility for continuing to risk spinjury
maybe the mods can delete this thread to help his hypothetical case
I supose, that if Jim complains about the improperly installed spinners and the wall promises to fix them and then doesn't, then that would be a whole different thing
I'm not, and never will be, a lawyer - but I do spin holds which are not pinned properly. In fact I spun one last night - about 12 feet above a sign that says "holds can spin" or similar
there is no point to the previous paragraph, or if there was, I have forgotten it
-
about 12 feet above a sign that says "holds can spin" or similar
Was about to write that walls make users aware that this is a possibility.
-
about 12 feet above a sign that says "holds can spin" or similar
Was about to write that walls make users aware that this is a possibility.
Since hex holds used to spin all the time, hence the development of the screw holes. I think a wall could be in trouble if they omit a 'specific' safety feature, even with a disclaimer.
If you rented someone a moped without a helmet, telling them instead they may have an accident, wouldn't get you out of trouble.
If you were using holds without the screw hole provided, there would be no case to answer.
Of course no doubt we have all signed a disclaimer, regarding breaking holds etc upon joining, hence you would probably be at Strasbourg in 2020, by the time you got 'justice'
-
If you rented someone a moped without a helmet, telling them instead they may have an accident, wouldn't get you out of trouble.
But you could rent them a moped with a helmet and tell them they may have an accident, would you then still be liable? Helmet doesn't reduce the risk of accident, it protects against the consequences should you have one.
If you were using holds without the screw hole provided, there would be no case to answer.
So what is the logic that hold manufacturers use for including (or not) screw holes? Could they in turn be found negligible should a hold spin and it were demonstrated that having a screw hole in a particular place would have prevented it?
All it takes is common fucking sense to realise that bolt/screw-on holds on an indoor wall are not permanent and you accept that they may move when using them, in exactly the same manner as rock in some areas outdoors is unstable and carries an inherently greater risk.
So, back to Jim's question...
Now I'm fairly sure that if I did injure myself because of a spinning hold that had a screw hole but no screw in it, I would be able to sue the wall for incorrect installation of holds.
However I have no intention of becoming injured or wanting to sue anyone, all I want is to climb without worry of hurting myself due to someone else's laziness.
Thoughts?
If you're not happy with how holds are attached at the wall you go to don't go there (perhaps pointing out the shortcomings on your way out), and find another one where you are satisfied. Simple.
-
If you rented someone a moped without a helmet, telling them instead they may have an accident, wouldn't get you out of trouble.
But you could rent them a moped with a helmet and tell them they may have an accident, would you then still be liable? Helmet doesn't reduce the risk of accident, it protects against the consequences should you have one.
Unlikely and not the point I was making. My point was that if a known safety feature is available and u as the business - don't use or provide it, you would have increased legal risk.
So what is the logic that hold manufacturers use for including (or not) screw holes? Could they in turn be found negligible should a hold spin and it were demonstrated that having a screw hole in a particular place would have prevented it?
Unlikely. I would imagine the main responsibility would rest with the climbing wall that decided to use them, if the perceived industry standard was to use holds with screw hole in them
All it takes is common fucking sense to realise that bolt/screw-on holds on an indoor wall are not permanent and you accept that they may move when using them, in exactly the same manner as rock in some areas outdoors is unstable and carries an inherently greater risk.
I think most people know that. I was referring to the increased risk of a spinning hold and potential increase in legal risk of not using a screw hole designed to reduce risk.
Also 'common fucking sense' to you and me does not negate legal risk, as proven in this legal case, where a 100, 000 pound payment was handed out to an ignoramus just for jumping of a bouldering wall.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9146616/The-5ft-leap-at-Craggy-Island-that-may-end-in-payout.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9146616/The-5ft-leap-at-Craggy-Island-that-may-end-in-payout.html)
And discussed on UKB at the time.
Jim's question asked for some thoughts. Also JB is right the Work's all all have additional screws for a while now, according to Sam, to make their lives easier, and reduce 'risk'.
-
You could argue that because there is a risk associated with riding a moped you shouldn't rent them out, that way you reduce your legal risk to zero. Admittedly that takes it to an extreme but who decides where the mitigation of risk should end.
That Craggy debacle was a joke and should have been thrown out.
No one seeks liability in the event of an accident outdoors because the risk is known and accepted. I don't see any difference when you are indoors, you're leaving the ground, gravity has an over-bearing effect on you at all times, holds are by their nature not permanent and that is self-evident if looked at and thought about for a whole second.
People should, and in my opinion are, responsible for their own actions. If you decide to do something that has an inherent risk (cycling to work, cross roads, climbing cliffs, bouldering indoors) then you have to accept the risk associated with it. Knowing what the risks are (e.g. other road users, falling rock or spinning holds respectively for the above) helps you be aware of and ready for them. Jim, I and everyone else who posts here regularly know that holds might spin, so just be wary of them and accept it might happen. Holds aren't the same as other vehicles on the road which can be erratic because of their contorollers, they're static objects.
Of course this is not how the law/Health and Safety Executive sees it but then the law is often outdated and wrong and Health and Safety is often way over-interpreted.
-
I just read this whole thread. I think part of my brain just died of boredom and dribbled out of my ear.
-
I know Chris. What was asked was are the walls liable in this kind of case, of course they are. They ave been negligent, the hole has been put there to prevent spinning and has not been used. We all know holds can spin. We all know cars can crash. Interestingly I pay insurance in the event of such things, I also pay membership to a wall a tidy sum of which the wall would pay as insurance. Why do you think walls pay insurance? Just for fire n flood damage, or for theft of a load of Murple holds?
No one seeks liability outdoors? What do you mean like people who break a leg climbing then claim back off the bmc? This sounds like a holier than thou attitude slackers with no basis in anything, I know the risks n will not claim if owt bad happens to me. Nothing's gonna happen to me either I'm invincible, but just in case I'm not...
-
I'll carry my teeth into Diggle with a broken arm?
-
I'm in no way attempting to be "hollier" than anyone, rather I'm writing my thoughts on the matter.
If you've BMC insurance for accidents then of course you can claim from them. Its an insurance policy that covers the cost of medical care and re-patriation if abroad (I believe Jasper took full advantage of this last year). That is not the same as trying to hold the BMC or anyone else liable for the accident.
Walls pay insurance to protect them against pointless litigation from people who don't accept personal responsibility and the consequences of their choices. Didn't see Paul B suing the Works when he snapped his leg. That woman at Craggy failed to assess for herself that jumping from the top of the wall carried some inherent risk and potential for injury, thats a failure on her behalf and the wall shouldn't be liable for that in my opinion.
However I have no intention of becoming injured or wanting to sue anyone, all I want is to climb without worry of hurting myself due to someone else's laziness.
Thoughts?
And after my initial crap jokes, my thoughts were...
If you're not happy with how holds are attached at the wall you go to don't go there (perhaps pointing out the shortcomings on your way out), and find another one where you are satisfied. Simple.
-
unfortunately the walls I generally visit are set by more or less the same people. Going to any other walls isn't really viable
My main intention of this thread was really how best to get walls to get the setters to:
- use all the methods of attaching holds
- ensure that holds are tightend up properly so if I visit just after its being reset I don't end up tightening all holds on all problems I try
from what I can gather then, is that most of the times screws are not put into bolt on holds if they have a screw hole because it makes a mess of the plywood?
I'm afraid Slackers that your thought are rubbish.
I know most people on here weigh about the same as my leg(not my 3rd one) so you propably don't spin holds like I do
Would it be OK to only use half the amount of screws when building a climbing wall and if it fell down and someone got killed/injured, it would be ok because there was some inherant risk and it wasn't a permanent structure?
No of course not, so why is it acceptable to not attatch holds to the wall correctly?
-
Slackers uve just brought up 2examples of people who have jumped off from the top of a wall and hurt themselves badly, none of whom came off in an uncontrolled manner due to someone else's carelessness
-
Sorry Kavanagh, although most walls advocate descending in a controlled manner and down climbing rather than jumping from the top.
I don't really care, I accept that when I climb indoors holds might spin. If I come across loose holds I tell the staff and go and climb something else,
Good luck finding what you seek Jim, glad to hear your arms better :strongbench: . I suspect telling the staff about loose holds is probably the best way of achieving the intended goals of this thread, especially if there is such paranoia about litigation.
-
If I find a spinning or loose hold I ask at the desk for a key and tighten it up...
-
I've tried that in the past but am often told that they'd rather do it, so I don't bother asking these days.
-
I once reached statically for the finishing jug of a problem opposite the desk at The Works and lifted it off the wall.
I handed it in and was told that Percy had just set the problem.
This is of no relevance but I found it amusing.
-
I heard there's someone from claimsdirect.com who goes around loosening holds at the Works... ;)
-
Hmm. I may have glossed over the well trodden 'people are stupid/should they sue' argument :tumble:.
But, I do think it that spinning holds can be a problem.
Visiting a wall for the first time recently I span a hold, which I would have put a screw in if I were setting it. Knowing that it was easily avoidable was what annoyed me (rather than losing the plastic flash), especially as the setter then had to climb up and tighten it, which took up more time than just whacking a screw in would have.
I think its important to make a point if it happens regularly, like any gripe you have with a business you want to see succeed. In that case, as they were experienced setters I later I asked, why it didn't have screw in - as I was a new setter and always get told to put screws in at my wall... hopefully just enough of a point to get them thinking about it as a fixable problem rather that just punters making them spend time tightening holds/a dickhead whingeing.
The thing is, its quick and easy for route setters to remove the problem most of the time. Properly tightened, and with a screw if the hold is likely to have a large moment placed upon it.
We go to walls to train/have fun, neither of which are improved by spinning holds. I accept that some holds will occasionally spin, but this should not be an excuse for lazy setting on the holds which can easily be sorted with a screw.