UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => get involved: access, environment, BMC => Topic started by: danm on May 07, 2012, 01:05:03 pm
-
Dangerously loose bolts have been reported at Smalldale Quarry in the Peak District. Climbers are advised to avoid climbing at Smalldale until the situation can be clarified.
More on the BMC website here: http://www.thebmc.co.uk/loose-bolts-warning-at-smalldale-quarry (http://www.thebmc.co.uk/loose-bolts-warning-at-smalldale-quarry)
-
Thanks for the heads up. Gibson's work presumably? ::)
-
A quick update regarding the two loose bolts at Smalldale Quarry can be found here: http://www.thebmc.co.uk/update-on-smalldale-quarry (http://www.thebmc.co.uk/update-on-smalldale-quarry)
Read the BMC advice on bolts to help decide whether you can trust a bolt or not. If you equip routes, make sure you follow good practice and check your work before letting others use it.
-
Thanks for the heads up. Gibson's work presumably? ::)
Are you for real Shark?
Place enough bolts and you will place some bad ones. Rolling eyes are a tosser's response. It happens more often than the punter ignorant of equipping/reequipping realises and most of the time, thankfully, nobody gets hurt.
Dangerous game climbing - you could always get an IRATA company in to rebolt all sport crags and have the BMC pay them hey.
-
That was a rush of blood but I still don't agree with the rolling eyes etc..
-
Thanks for the heads up. Gibson's work presumably? ::)
Are you for real Shark?
Place enough bolts and you will place some bad ones. Rolling eyes are a tosser's response.
He's done it before and a friend decked out. Doing it once is bad enough.
I clip into bolts after placing them and jiggle around on them. I'm pretty lax and impractical but didnt need IRATA training to think of doing that.
Yes the rolling eyes was inappropriate. Should have been this :furious:
-
He's done it before and a friend decked out. Doing it once is bad enough.
..
That's unfortunate but it happens.
Old mild steel bolts snapping under bodyweight also happens - I've now snapped something like 8 of them by clip-sticking and hanging on them during re-equipping - the majority being the same first ascensionist's bolts.
Don't blindly trust bolts is the obvious conclusion.
I clip into bolts after placing them and jiggle around on them. I'm pretty lax and impractical but didnt need IRATA training to think of doing that.
You might. There are valid resons why that isn't always (or even often) done though - one is the cure time required for glue-in bolts, around an hour, and the unavoidable thing called 'life' which presses on your time. Standard practice is to do test blobs at start and finish and if these are ok it's a good indication that all the bolts in between are ok. You'd think that would be good enough but I've pulled the first bolt out of a route after re-equipping with glue-ins - the rope coming tight from the belayer whilst I was lowering off the route after climbing it being enough to pull the bolt out; both test blobs had set perfectly; go figure. I was obviously blindly trusting that it would be ok. Test blobs at every bolt is not practical nor good for the state of the route, and would use up more glue. All the active re-equippers I know in North Wales have had glue-in bolts not properly set on them despite following a sensible procedure.
Don't blindly trust bolts unless you're a sheep.
-
All the active re-equippers I know in North Wales have had glue-in bolts not properly set on them despite following a sensible procedure.
Just out of interest, what glue have you lot been using?
I'd hate to make assumptions but I have heard rumours (not necessarily in Wales) of people using the cheap shite from places like screwfix/toolstation!
http://www.screwfix.com/p/no-nonsense-polyester-resin-380ml/33554 (http://www.screwfix.com/p/no-nonsense-polyester-resin-380ml/33554)
I have always been super wary of budget resin for bolts and have always opted for the tried and tested construction brands such as Hilti and Fischer.
What is hard to understand though is how the resin did not continue to mix between test blobs. If there is a blockage in one of the compartments the applicator will just cease up as the plungers are locked together. Perhaps the glue was past its exp/date or had been used/stored below the recommended temp?
-
I've had test blobs cure while stuff in the rock is still soft. I put it down to difference in temp and moisture between test blob and glue in rock. The glue in the rock cured eventually, it just took a while longer. Also as KC said re-used resin tubes can end up with one of the outlets partially block which will affect the mix ratio. For this reason it's important to properly clean outlets before re-sealing and check for blockages after opening before re-use.
Take it from me, paying IRATA bods to re-bolt stuff, whilst a plausible/cynical way of outsourcing risk, is unlikely to improve the competence of bolt placements. Local activists are far more likely to be experienced bolters on rock (far more complex than bolting concrete) and have a greater incentive to get it right.
-
If I was going to pay anyone to do any bolting I'd want every bolt pull-testing before signing off. That's how it's done in the workplace, and the only sure way to catch the odd bolt not curing properly - which does happen. We're even required to repeat the pull-test every six months. If that's not realistic (and I'm not suggesting it is) then maybe rebolted routes should be tagged until someone has at least done a check by hand.
-
I've generally (but not always) abbed the route to strip the old bolts after putting new ones in and checked the new ones as I went. If this isn't done it makes a lot of sense to leave a note/tag saying when the bolts went in and that they have not been checked yet.
-
Old mild steel bolts snapping under bodyweight also happens - I've now snapped something like 8 of them by clip-sticking and hanging on them during re-equipping - the majority being the same first ascensionist's bolts.
Don't blindly trust bolts is the obvious conclusion.
This happened to me when I was gearing Hidden Sign on abseil. Mild steel bolts corroded by sea air and snapping is to be expected. You can (or should be able to) tell those sort of old bolts are untrustworthy. The corrosion is often visibly evident in pitting on the hangers and you could make that sort of assessment when climbing the route.
In contrast there's no physical reason for a modern recently placed bolt not to be trusted. The only reason you would believe it was untrustworthy was if you believed that shoddy practices are prevalent in the placing and subsequent testing of the bolts.
-
All the active re-equippers I know in North Wales have had glue-in bolts not properly set on them despite following a sensible procedure.
Just out of interest, what glue have you lot been using?
I'd hate to make assumptions but I have heard rumours (not necessarily in Wales) of people using the cheap shite from places like screwfix/toolstation!
http://www.screwfix.com/p/no-nonsense-polyester-resin-380ml/33554 (http://www.screwfix.com/p/no-nonsense-polyester-resin-380ml/33554)
I have always been super wary of budget resin for bolts and have always opted for the tried and tested construction brands such as Hilti and Fischer.
...
There's some annecdotal stuff in N.Wales that the bolts to keep an eye on are the ecos with red resin. Probably a cheapo hardware store polyester epoxy like in your link. Not many of them around though - think there was one on the single bolt lower-off of Pink Pinkie Snuffs It, which I pulled out by hand with a claw hammer a few years ago.
NWBF uses Masonmate epoxy acrylate: http://www.masonmate.com/pdf/datasheets/Data%20Information%20-%20Epoxy%20Acrylate%20-%20Styrene%20Free%20Resin%20-%20Masonmate.pdf (http://www.masonmate.com/pdf/datasheets/Data%20Information%20-%20Epoxy%20Acrylate%20-%20Styrene%20Free%20Resin%20-%20Masonmate.pdf)
... and have also used the masonmate glass capsules containing epoxy acrylate for a few bolts on the ormes in the past although they're a pain in the arse and more trouble than they're worth (to smash bolt in you need a rubber mallet or you damage the bolt/induce corrosion, the rubber mallet doesn't last very long, they're tyring to place, the fixe bolts we used welds' are different enough to the rest of the bolt to induce galvanic corrosion)
-
I've generally (but not always) abbed the route to strip the old bolts after putting new ones in and checked the new ones as I went. If this isn't done it makes a lot of sense to leave a note/tag saying when the bolts went in and that they have not been checked yet.
I will always haul back up the route not just to strip my gear out but tidy up. On every bolt I will clean of excess glue, brush it smooth and pat it with a chalk ball whilst being very careful not to disturb the placement. This way I can be sure that all the visible glue has set. This is really the least and at the same time the most you can do. It is best not to load test the bolt for a few hours by which time it's dark.
-
We use this jizz in the Peak. Good stuff, a bit sloppy though and a shite applicator.
It is also alkaline resistant which can be an issue apparently on wet lime so I'm told.
http://www.uksealants.co.uk/product.asp?idproduct=57 (http://www.uksealants.co.uk/product.asp?idproduct=57)
-
Just to be clear, when I said not always I can only think of not doing it once, on Thormen's and I went back and stripped later.
-
Didn't think you put resins in that did you? If you did then well done and I wouldn't blame you for not hauling back up that beast again.
-
No I didn't. Think I've always checked/stripped any routes I've put resins in (not that it amounts to a huge number)
-
Shark - Look you're just wrong on this (imo) :chair:
This happened to me when I was gearing Hidden Sign on abseil. Mild steel bolts corroded by sea air and snapping is to be expected. You can (or should be able to) tell those sort of old bolts are untrustworthy. The corrosion is often visibly evident in pitting on the hangers and you could make that sort of assessment when climbing the route.
You're completely missing the point. What you said is true but it isn't the whole story, which is this - a dangerously corroded mild steel bolt that could snap under body weight looks the same as a perfectly safe stainless bolt - once that stainless bolt has had a long enough time to have acquired all over, but superficial, surface corrosion. That is one of the reasons that lots of perfectly ok stainless expansion bolts have been replaced with glue-ins on N.Wales lime. (Its also the reason I turn away when seeing someone clipstick or climb up the old bolts on the diamond! 2 snapped there on me and Tommy last year or year before - you couldn't easily tell the difference between the mild steel and stainless ones, yet you want to try to make that call on the lead???). In short - you can't make a foolproof assessment of an expansion bolts integrity once it acquires surface corrosion. You can't with a glue-in either, but you can at least know it's made of stainless if it's an Eco, Petzl glue-in, Fixe or Titt bolt.
In contrast there's no physical reason for a modern recently placed bolt not to be trusted. The only reason you would believe it was untrustworthy was if you believed that shoddy practices are prevalent in the placing and subsequent testing of the bolts.
Yes there is! :rtfm:
Firstly - Shoddy practices and the taking of short cuts have been a hallmark of our species since we crawled out of the swamp (on a short cut to the savannha?). You have no reason (other than direct experience) to believe that the person driving the car in front of you is going to do something stuipid and unexpected resulting in your death on the way to work but it happens everyday.
Secondly - As I illustrated earlier, you don't even need to be following particularly shoddy bolting practices for something to get missed. The people doing it aren't flawless machines. And some people placing bolts will be shoddy - that's an unaviodable fact of life in the real world, not some perfect world.
For these resaons you should not be trusting somebody else's skill or lack of in placing bolts where your own safety is at stake.
-
...and subsequent testing of the bolts
And I think we've established no one tests the bolts either. They just place them as best they can, and then leave.
-
For these resaons you should not be trusting somebody else's skill or lack of in placing bolts where your own safety is at stake
I think this is foolish cant, certainly as an argument to justify leaving unglued bolts behind you.
It doesn't matter what you think climbers should do. The reality is that the vast majority of climbers simply assume bolts are safe unless there's some visual clue otherwise, and equippers need to work within that reality because otherwise they're going to kill someone sooner or later.
I don't really understand the rest of what you're saying. You say that in spite of checking every equipper sometimes finds the glue hasn't worked - I don't doubt it - and then you go on to say that no-one actually bothers to abseil down and check the bolts afterwards. I would have thought that if everyone knows the glue doesn't always work that made it even more obvious that abseiling down to check the bolts was mandatory.
I have the impression the BMC guidelines just assume the equipper's going to abseil down once the glue should have set and test the bolts - they say it's a 'good idea' to leave a note if this hasn't been done.
-
:agree:
-
For these resaons you should not be trusting somebody else's skill or lack of in placing bolts where your own safety is at stake
I think this is foolish cant, certainly as an argument to justify leaving unglued bolts behind you.
::) It's really not rocket surgery you silly cant.
Depite agreeing with the BMC procedure you mention, direct experience - not theoretical 'armchair' argument - has proven that even experienced people make errors. You would be wise to realise this / you would be unwise to treat fixed gear, placed by persons unknown, as 100% trustworthy until you have checked it yourself.
-
I'm quite sure it's sensible for the punters to bear in mind that mistakes can happen. However, that doesn't alter the fact that if equippers leave behind unglued bolts they are making a fatality distinctly possible and it will be largely their fault.
I'm pretty shocked to hear that some, maybe even most, equippers think it's OK to walk away from the cliff without having tested the bolts they've left, which is the impression I'm getting.
-
I'm quite sure it's sensible for the punters to bear in mind that mistakes can happen. However, that doesn't alter the fact that if equippers leave behind unglued bolts they are making a fatality distinctly possible and it will be largely their fault.
No argument from me that the bolter would be found largely at fault in that situation but who cares, blame is no consolation to somebody with a broken body from decking out. I'm sure you'd just rather not have an accident given the choice no? And treating bolts as if we live in a perfect world where mistakes aren't made i.e. with a mindset of: 'they're stainless glue-ins therefore they should be 100% reliable and the glue must be set because bolters always place them properly', which appears to be what you and Shark are saying, is an unbelievably stuipid mindset to adopt and goes against my beliefs of self-reliance. Can't really believe you and Shark are trying to argue the point.
Let me ask you this - do you have the same beliefs about in-situ pegs or threads on trad routes? Should they be tested for integrity by the person who placed them? It's all climbing after all, isn't it...
-
you would be unwise to treat fixed gear, placed by persons unknown, as 100% trustworthy until you have checked it yourself.
So go on then, say a bolt clipping punter with no knowledge of bolt placement techniques (as most of us are) roll up one day to do a sport route. How are we supposed to check the bolts? Bearing in mind we're stood on the floor and simply getting off the ground generally means pulling on at least one bolt.
-
Ignoring old bolts as a separate issue for a moment (much more akin to pegs and threads), this is very simple.
Any doubt over new bolts only exists for a very short period of time - between placement and first use. All that need to be ensured is that the first user is a) aware they are untested, and b) not a total incompetent. A note left clipped to the first bolt should be all that is ever required.
I'm not at all shocked that bolters would leave the crag without testing - its common practice to leave them overnight to set. Not everyone who has time to place bolts can also always commit the time to be first on the crag in the morning. Especially as in sensitive areas drilling might best be done on a mid-week evening.
As Pete says, I think folk need to be very wary of apportioning blame for for bolt failure. That's a direction with all sorts of problems.
-
So go on then, say a bolt clipping punter with no knowledge of bolt placement techniques (as most of us are) roll up one day to do a sport route. How are we supposed to check the bolts? Bearing in mind we're stood on the floor and simply getting off the ground generally means pulling on at least one bolt.
1. As above (ie if the route's well travelled it almost certainly means the bolts are ok).
2. Clipstick.
3. Climb to the first bolt, and see if it pulls out/see if the glue's set.
4. Most pertinently - what on earth are you doing going outside doing dangerous shit like clipping bolts without any knowledge of bolt-checking skills - hang on, could it be the same thing as going out tradding and assessing the risk of using in-situ pegs, threads, belay stakes, abseil stations, your partner's belaying skills?? Fuck me it seems this climbing game relies on an awful lot of self-reliance, situational awareness and risk assessment doesn't it! - what if you fall off when it turns out your belayer was bullshitting and doesn't know a belay plate from a dinner plate - call JCM for legal advice (no win no fee).
-
Pete, I think this is a rather unrealistic expectation of what people should or would do so, for what it's worth, I thought I'd throw my two penneth into the melting pot!
In my view anyone undertaking bolting has an enormous responsibility to do the best possible job they can. I don't really accept your brushing aside of the fact that in the real world some people will be shoddy bolters, because in the real world almost everybody implicitly trusts bolts.
In answer of your suggestions:
1. I imagine that very few people are aware of each and every move of everyone involved in rebolting - unless it is actually a new route (some may not even know that) how would people know whether it has just been rebolted or whether it is actually well travelled? Yes, at Malham you could make a reasonable assumption (it would still be an assumption though) but what about at, say, Smalldale Quarry?
2. A vast number of occasional sport climbers don't own a clipstick and, in fact, actively think it's cheating! Also, the failed bolts in question pulled out with an outward force. I may be wrong here but couldn't they have potentially seemed fine if you tugged on them downwards?
3. In reality, who on earth would climb to the first bolt and give it a good old jiggle before clipping, especially if the climbing is even remotely tricky/ holds are small? I hardly believe that anybody routinely (or even occasionally) does this.
Where do you stop - if the second bolt were dodgy that could mean a ground fall, should you wiggle that around too, and the third, fourth etc.?
It's also not particularly conducive to onsighting which many climbers are led (rightly or wrongly) to believe is the ethical 'holy grail' by their peers.
4. Threads, pegs, belay stakes etc... I think even those with a poor imagination can understand exactly how this gear was placed and that gives them a very good idea of what to look for to assess it's reliability. The very fact that there are bolting workshops and guidelines around the placement of bolts suggests there may be a bit more to it than your average joe is going to realise. This makes it much more difficult for such people to make a good judgement call over whether anything is wrong beyond obvious corrosion.
Beyond this and only slightly tongue in cheek... sport climbing is supposed to be "safe" isn't it - you hear people saying this all the time and I'm sure a lot of climbing coaches do quite well out of it. Due to the perceived safety of it people are often encouraged to push their limit much further than they would on trad routes (where there might be dangerous, potentially untrustworthy things like pegs, threads etc...)!!
-
Ignoring old bolts as a separate issue for a moment (much more akin to pegs and threads), this is very simple.
Any doubt over new bolts only exists for a very short period of time - between placement and first use. All that need to be ensured is that the first user is a) aware they are untested, and b) not a total incompetent. A note left clipped to the first bolt should be all that is ever required.
Only just caught up with this one today. I must say that until JB posted I was on the verge of despair that no-one had stated the obvious! The straw man arguments about all people checking every bolt before use was ridiculous. There is very little point debating whether climbers should check bolts, as we all know of course they don't. We know this because we all (don't) do it. The reason is that we assume it has been done before i.e. like JB says an established route has good bolts. This is the same reason I don't safety check every component in my car, I assume its been done and the fact I drive it around all the time confirms this. Would I check any bolts at Malham catwalk? No, it beggars belief that any suggests I should.
As JB rightly says the only area of real concern is the FIRST USE. It would appear that most bolters have this in hand or are prescient enough to warn others. Oops, run out of time at work, gotta go home!
-
This thread has gone a bit off-topic from my original gripe with Shark, however:
I accept that the practice of climbers checking every stainless bolt on well-travelled routes is unrealistic so I was wrong. That wasn't really what I wanted to argue for. My original argument was with Shark about aiming quite snide remarks at a bolter who's had bolts pull out.
I'm not 'brushing aside' anything - that's entirely your interpretation Chris js. I agree 100% with you that bolters should try to do the best job they can and should follow recognised safe practices. I do think however that there's some misinterpretation on here about what constitutes 'shoddy practice', and that misinterpretation is being fuelled by a couple of people with little or no experience of actual practice.
My experience (note, not uninformed opinion) of placing upwards of 500 glue-in bolts without any problems and then having one bolt not set on me (as I discovered when lowering off after having climbed past it!) despite me following a commonly used good practice has taught me that unset bolts can get missed. I know for certain that I was being careful when placing the bolts and by taking the top and bottom test samples home with me in the evening to check they set properly, tagging the bolts and then getting on the route the next day I know I wasn't negligent. My experience is strengthened by knowing of other similar occurances happening to other experienced equippers in the region. If that's happened in my locale then it means it will undoubtedly have happened elsewhere - that doesn't mean I think it's acceptable but it does colour my view on how it might happen to other equippers/re-equippers. It also colours my view about Shark making statements like 'there's no pysical reason that new stainless bolts shouldn't be trusted other than for reasons of shoddy practice'. The physical bit might be true, the shoddy practice bit most certainly isn't and strikes me as being in poor spirit by Shark.
Shark might have bolted a couple of routes using glue-ins but he doesn't have much depth of knowledge and I don't agree with him making snide remarks at someone far more experienced than him who, by his own admission, knows he messed up.
People with zero experience of placing glue-ins (or any bolts JCM??) can express as much shock as they like that a bolter might not jug back up the ropes to check every bolt or, if a belay is available, top-rope the route prior to leaving the crag; but as JB pointed out that's occasionally what happens due to any combination of circumstances - in which case the test samples of glue top and bottom are monitored, a tag or tape is placed on the first bolt and the bolter returns to check as soon as they are able - that is an accepted good practice like it or not JCM. If you want to start debates about legal responsibility for placing fixed gear I suggest you start a new thread, I know of just the place; I'm sure it would make for a pretty combustable debate. I'm also sure that lawyers trying to start debates on attributing blame for climbing accidents due to fixed gear failing are something climbing should try to steer well clear of.
-
a tag or tape is placed on the first bolt and the bolter returns to check as soon as they are able - that is an accepted good practice
Accepting that climbers won't check every bolt before they use it and accepting that those bolting routes can't always test every bolt the same day they glue them and that mistakes and equipment failure happen so that despite best endeavours there will be occasional bolts that don't set correctly, it makes the final part of your best practice procedure to tag routes with new untested bolts doubly important. There's no mention in the original posts or thread on t'other side as to whether the routes were tagged; if they weren't then the bolter at Smalldale really does need to buck his ideas up.
(I have no bolting experience at all other than falling on them...)
-
Thanks for the well reasoned response Pete and apologies for the unfair brushing aside comment.
It seems to me that the critical thing here is tagging the route, and it sounds as though maybe that didn't occur at Smalldale? I imagine tagging in such a manner would put all but the most ignorant of punters in a more careful mindset.
-
People with zero experience of placing glue-ins (or any bolts JCM??) can express as much shock as they like that a bolter might not jug back up the ropes to check every bolt or, if a belay is available, top-rope the route prior to leaving the crag; but as JB pointed out that's occasionally what happens due to any combination of circumstances - in which case the test samples of glue top and bottom are monitored, a tag or tape is placed on the first bolt and the bolter returns to check as soon as they are able - that is an accepted good practice like it or not JCM.
Straw man statement. This is the first time on this thread that you have stated this is what you do and advocated it as "accepted good practice".Had you done stated this at the outset the direction of this thread and some of mine and JCM's post taking issue with your statements would have been unnecessary.
It remains that Gibson did not take these sort of safeguards at Long Wall previously, and it is not what he did at Smalldale. That constitutes shoddy practice in my book.
-
??
That's not a straw man. - What it is is you and jcm blatantly making wrong assumptions through your own ignorance of the subject, which led you to the wrong conclusion, and then you made uninformed statements like 'there's no pysical reason that new stainless bolts shouldn't be trusted other than for reasons of shoddy practice', which experience has proven to be wrong.
:)
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
You obviously have a long-running grudge against GG. Maybe I would too if my climbing partner had ripped out a newly-placed unset glue-in bolt and decked, though I hope I'd take away something a bit more constructive than just a grudge.
-
??
That's not a straw man. - What it is is you and jcm blatantly making wrong assumptions through your own ignorance of the subject, which led you to the wrong conclusion, and then you made uninformed statements like 'there's no pysical reason that new stainless bolts shouldn't be trusted other than for reasons of shoddy practice', which experience has proven to be wrong.
You originally defend someone who hasn't checked that the glue in bolts they've placed and went to say that the responsibility for checking bolts lies with whoever climbs the routes. You have now seen the good sense to moderate that initial view.
You have also now added that it is good practice to check bolts or leave fair warning and this is what you do. Great. Shame you didn't say that before but if you are going to tell half a story then don't be surprised if assumptions are made.
I contend that to not to follow such safeguards is shoddy practice. Do you think this is shoddy practice or not?
-
I was surprised to read in the BMC update (http://www.thebmc.co.uk/smalldale-update-on-failed-bolts) that it was two anchor bolts that failed in this incident.
I don't think so, Toby. They were the first and second bolts on the route.
Petejh, I really don't know what your problem is. Shark and I initially took you to task for your comments on the punters' obligations/whatever to check bolts, which you've now agreed were wrong. Apart from that, as far as I can see everyone is agreeing vigorously that the equipper needs to:-
1. Check the bolts within a reasonable time of placing them and them setting by some form of inspection with a rope, and
2. Either do that on the day or tag the bolts until it can be done.
Some of your earlier posts gave the impression that you didn't agree with that.
As for the Smalldale bolts, GG says that these were placed four months previously and that he had actually checked them on a previous occasion, so we're not talking about tagging. We're talking about not one but two bad bolts which have somehow survived the checking process.
-
And as what the law is, btw, there's no point in a debate about that. I can tell you the legal position in one sentence; whether you like it or not there will be a duty of care on equippers, and if anyone tells you different they're wrong. Don't shoot the messenger.
The ambit of that duty of care - ie what exactly has to be done by the equipper to discharge it - is open for debate, but that debate will be indistinguishable from a debate on what constitutes good practice anyway, and it's obviously healthy for climbing to have as many of those as possible.
In general though, I think 'climbers shouldn't sue climbers', while an attractive notion, is not as clearcut a proposition as it seems.
For one thing, often these things are driven by insurers. If a life insurance company has to pay out when its insured is killed in an accident, it's going to make a commercial decision whether to try and recover its outlay from another insurance company or not. It's not in any real sense climbers suing climbers; it's insurance companies doing what they do. It doesn't matter what climbers think or do about it.
Even if that isn't the position, it's one of those things which looks very different to a healthy happy person tapping away on the internet on their employer's time on the one hand, and on the other to a widow with no job, no way to provide for her two children or pay the mortgage, and an obvious route to enabling her to do that via an insurance company. I think anyone who condemns someone in that position for taking proceedings needs to have a pretty good long look at themselves. And if it isn't wrong for the claimant, it isn't wrong for the lawyer. As to no-win no-fee agreements, what would you prefer? Demanding payment up front? NWNF is one of those things the public slags off very enthusiastically until they get let down by (for example) their conveyancing solicitor and want to recover from the insurers for the fact they can't sell their house, and then I can assure you they like it very much indeed.
-
As a slight aside JCM, how would you view the placement (and subsequent failure) of pegs/threads etc with respect to duty of care? If there is a distinction what would it's basis be?
If a recently placed bolt fails due to it being incorrectly placed (blocked glue nozzle or suchlike) how is that different to a recently placed peg failing due to a poor placement? (from a legal perspective rather than climbing perspective).
Just curious.
-
(from a legal perspective rather than climbing perspective).
I think this is a false distinction; the law - certainly the law of negligence - doesn't operate independent of practices in the field it's dealing in.
I suspect there's still some duty of care if someone is placing something they know and intend that others are going to rely on, though clearly pegs are different for lots of reasons - won't be the only gear, climbers will know they can be dodgy, may not be possible to get a good placement, etc, etc. But I don't think it's impossible there might be a claim in theory. Say someone decided to cut all the threads in Ghost Train and replace them for the benefit of all, and unfortunately tied the replacements together with granny knots, such that the first climber to run out of steam on the runout stripped all the threads and died. There might well be a claim, I guess. For all sorts of reasons we're not likely to see such a claim, though, whereas if there is a fatality from an unglued bolt it wouldn't be at all surprising if there were a claim, I think.
-
Thanks.
-
Just a question, not an opinion.
The key is the "intention" , though, surely?
The equipper would have to be shown to have intended his handiwork to be used by others.
And that would depend on how that handiwork was promulgated (and by who) etc etc.
I think it's an unlikely case to see pursued.(ok, that was an opinion but you know what I mean...)
At what point is Equipping deemed to be finished?
Can any reasonable guarantee period be expected? Was any offered?
I know that's off topic but, if anyone has a legally sound opinion...
-
I suspect there's still some duty of care if someone is placing something they know and intend that others are going to rely on, though clearly pegs are different for lots of reasons - won't be the only gear, climbers will know they can be dodgy, may not be possible to get a good placement, etc, etc. But I don't think it's impossible there might be a claim in theory. Say someone decided to cut all the threads in Ghost Train and replace them for the benefit of all, and unfortunately tied the replacements together with granny knots, such that the first climber to run out of steam on the runout stripped all the threads and died. There might well be a claim, I guess. For all sorts of reasons we're not likely to see such a claim, though, whereas if there is a fatality from an unglued bolt it wouldn't be at all surprising if there were a claim, I think.
Not so much an issue with bolts, but with pegs, especially the older ones, how do you identify and perhaps crucially demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt who placed them in order to claim against them?
-
Just a question, not an opinion.
The key is the "intention" , though, surely?
The equipper would have to be shown to have intended his handiwork to be used by others.
And that would depend on how that handiwork was promulgated (and by who) etc etc.
I think it's an unlikely case to see pursued.(ok, that was an opinion but you know what I mean...)
At what point is Equipping deemed to be finished?
Can any reasonable guarantee period be expected? Was any offered?
I know that's off topic but, if anyone has a legally sound opinion...
I'm not sure 'intention' is quite accurate (I know it was my word). Something more like 'whether it is reasonably foreseeable that other people are going to rely upon the handiwork', perhaps. In other words, it's no good the climber saying they were just placing the bolts for their own use, if it's a line of bolts up the middle of the Catwalk.
In a climbing context I'd have thought that might be quite easy or quite difficult to establish, depending on the facts. Clearly there's a big difference between someone taking publicly subscribed money out of a bolt fund and writing up their efforts on the one hand, and someone lowering off a hand-placed peg on an onsight foray on Left Hand Red Wall on the other.
As to how long the equipment should last, it's all part of whether reasonable care was taken. If it fails, was that because reasonable care wasn't taken in the first place, or not? It's a question of fact.
Clearly there's no 'guarantee', in the sense in which lawyers use that word. There's a duty to take reasonable care in all the circumstances. If that's done, there's no liability even if the bolt/gear fails.
-
Not so much an issue with bolts, but with pegs, especially the older ones, how do you identify and perhaps crucially demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt who placed them in order to claim against them?
[/quote]
Well, with grave difficulty, clearly. One of the many reasons I think that a claim in respect of a peg, certainly an old peg, is exremely improbable to happen. As you say though, recently placed bolts are different; in many cases it won't be such a problem to find out who placed them.
-
Bolts and pegs seem like very different beasts to me. Pegs' integrity depend on the quality of placement pre-determined by the rock/circumstances of placement. They range from offering bomber to barely psychological security.
Unless we're talking (American) bolts on the lead, a bolt is usually placed in a manner intended to over-ride any difficulties of placement ie pegs offer relative security, bolts are meant to offer absolute security within their tolerances and life-span.
Could you really envisage a failing peg result in a successful litigation JCM?
-
I was surprised to read in the BMC update (http://www.thebmc.co.uk/smalldale-update-on-failed-bolts) that it was two anchor bolts that failed in this incident.
I don't think so, Toby. They were the first and second bolts on the route.
Fair enough. It still appears at best ambiguous in the BMC web article I read, but perhaps there has been more clarification elsewhere.
I made the same mistake. It was two of the lower bolts pulled out on lowering off rather than two of the lower-off bolts.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=504677&v=1#x6870803 (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=504677&v=1#x6870803)
richardh on - 07 May 2012
Hi,
Yesterday, climbing at Smalldale on a newish route - Summat Outanowt (7a), two of the lower bolts pulled out with the tension of the rope on lowering off. On examination the glue hadn't gone off, and I hadn't noticed on the way up that it hadn't...I presume the glue had set on the 6th because I sat on it rather than fell on it.
just to exercise caution until the local powers that be - who have been notified - get time to go out and have a proper look.
Cheers.
-
I'd have thought that it would be quite easy to establish that an equipper does owe a duty of care to subsequent users/consumers of his/her route.
Where I imagine the real battle would be (in a hypothetical court case) is over the standard/scope of the duty of care. I'd imagine it would come down to expert witness testimony (from prolific equippers) as to what was standard practice amongst equippers - i.e. do people always test every bolt? So if someone was proved to owe a duty of care, and proved that they didn't test every bolt, they might still not breach that duty as the general standard of equippers was that they didn't test every bolt.
Not sure, I'm only an ex-legal type and my field was more insurers squabbling with each other than stuff like this.
On that note, as JCM mentioned above, I always assume that when climbing injury cases get into the papers it's because the insurers are vigorously pursuing a subrogated claim on behalf of the individuals who have claimed on their policy (eg. the lady who broke her ankle at Craggy Island). If you hurt yourself climbing and you miss work etc, you might very well want to claim on a policy that covers you. If the insurers pay out and then consider they can recoup their money through litigation be damn sure they'll go after whoever they can.
-
I hope they tested the bolts on this (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,4660.msg362477.html#msg362477) :clown:
-
You originally defend someone who hasn't checked that the glue in bolts they've placed and went to say that the responsibility for checking bolts lies with whoever climbs the routes. You have now seen the good sense to moderate that initial view.
You have also now added that it is good practice to check bolts or leave fair warning and this is what you do. Great. Shame you didn't say that before but if you are going to tell half a story then don't be surprised if assumptions are made.
I contend that to not to follow such safeguards is shoddy practice. Do you think this is shoddy practice or not?
I've only just noticed you asked me this.
First, I would probably defend anyone who's done as much for mid-grade sport climbing as Gibson has, and who'd made a mistake whilst bolting. Despite not agreeing with many things he's reported to have done in the past at trad areas like Lundy and Pembroke (amongst others) his list of brilliant routes is impossible to ignore. If you enjoy climbing quality grade 7's in places such as the Llangollen crags, devil's gorge, the ormes, peak limestone, plus loads of other areas, then you'll have enjoyed Gisbon's routes. I think GG deserves praise for the many good things he's done for british sport climbing, and I don't think he deserves to have you, Shark, passing judgment on him for a mistake he'll no-doubt be pissed off about.
Yes, equippers should be responsible for the safety of the bolts that they place, and climbers should be responsible for their own safety - it's not a one way relationship - read the BMC participenmt statement and the BMC's own guidance on bolts:
Q. Who is responsible for the bolts at a crag?
A. In general, nobody. As a climber, it is your own responsibility to check that any bolts or lower offs that you rely on are secure. Never assume that it's safe just because it's a sport route. (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/spot-a-bad-bolt (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/spot-a-bad-bolt))
'The BMC recognises that climbing and mountaineering are activities with a danger of personal injury or death. Participants in these activities should be aware of and accept these risks and be responsible for their own actions.' (http://www.thebmc.co.uk/modules/article.aspx?id=1421)
Second, in this thread you haven't had anywhere close to 'half the story' (in your words) - how on earth could you just from reading some posts on a forum. What makes you think you should expect to know 'the full story' just from a few posts on a web forum? To get 'the full story' would require you to go out and spend vast amounts of your spare time and energy placing glue-in bolts in lots of different circumstances. You haven't done this, you're in no position to pass judgement and imo you should refrain from doing so. You're not any kind of authority on the subject Shark.
Third, I'm not the one framing this debate in terms of 'shoddy practice' - you are. If we were discussing a tradesperson, say a builder, who was carrying out work for payment, then framing this debate in terms of 'shoddy practice' would be appropriate. Bolting, and especially replacing old bolts on existing routes, is only made possible, as you well know, by people doing it out of their enthusiasm for climbing good (a matter of taste) well-equipped climbs and for their enthusiasm for re-invigorating areas/crags to climb on. Nobody gets paid, nobody is a professional.
You, making online accusations of 'shoddy practice' when inevitable mistakes are made, goes against the spirit of amateurish voluntary effort and sounds more like a kangoroo courtroom.
It doesn't surprise me that the two people seemingly most eager to condem a bolter's mistakes and put forward the 'bolters have a duty of care' viewpoint are, firstly, a climber well-known for his strong oppostion to bolt-protected climbing; and secondly a climber who has an obvious axe to grind following an accident in the past involving GG's bolts.
-
To get 'the full story' would require you to go out and spend vast amounts of your spare time and energy placing glue-in bolts in lots of different circumstances. You haven't done this, you're in no position to pass judgement and imo you should refrain from doing so. You're not any kind of authority on the subject Shark.
Jesus christ you make it sound like rocket science. All we are talking about is checking the glue has set or leaving fair notice that the bolts haven't been checked.
Also do you really believe that Gibson (or yourself) enjoy some special dispensation from any kind of criticism, blame or judgement if bolts fail through being inadequately checked or notice given and someone gets killed.
I am happy to refrain from using the phrase "shoddy practice" if you can tender an alternative that represents almost the opposite of good practice falling just short of bad practice.
I'll let you have the last word because this is getting tedious beyond belief as it is going round in circles.
Fill your boots...
-
It doesn't surprise me that the two people seemingly most eager to ........ put forward the 'bolters have a duty of care' viewpoint are
I don't think anyone finds that a controversial proposition except you.
I'd be interested in a straight answer to a question I asked somewhere else but didn't get an answer to: how often does this happen? I don't mean glue failing to set and the equipper himself finding out there's a problem, but bad bolts slipping through the checking process such that the punter rocks up at the crag, puts his weight on them, and out they come. I can only think of three examples. One of them caused a fatality. The other one nearly did. This is the third, and the second involving the same equipper.
But then, I don't pretend to know that much about it. Maybe it does happen all the time. Has anyone else heard of or experienced such a thing?
-
Maybe some of this testing of newly place bolts should be in the Peak area Bolting Policy (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,19758.0.html)? :shrug: :worms:
-
Maybe some of this testing of newly place bolts should be in the Peak area Bolting Policy (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,19758.0.html)? :shrug: :worms:
Yeah - silly me for assuming that this was common sense and therefore a matter of course.
-
As common sense and a matter of course as not using sub-standard bolts which is explicitly stated under the Safety section I'd guess. :slap:
-
It doesn't surprise me that the two people seemingly most eager to ........ put forward the 'bolters have a duty of care' viewpoint are
I don't think anyone finds that a controversial proposition except you.
I'd be interested in a straight answer to a question I asked somewhere else but didn't get an answer to: how often does this happen? I don't mean glue failing to set and the equipper himself finding out there's a problem, but bad bolts slipping through the checking process such that the punter rocks up at the crag, puts his weight on them, and out they come. I can only think of three examples. One of them caused a fatality. The other one nearly did. This is the third, and the second involving the same equipper.
But then, I don't pretend to know that much about it. Maybe it does happen all the time. Has anyone else heard of or experienced such a thing?
On the contrary I'm not the only one who finds your 'duty of care' proposition controversial. Other equippers have said exactly the same thing to me just this weekend at the crag. For one thing it depends on whose definition is used of what is and isn't negligent, and it also depends on which version of personal responsibility in climbing you agree with - I agree with the BMC participent statement and the BMC's 'bad bolts' guidance notes; you on the other hand appear to be trying to load all the responsibility onto the equipper.
and,
It's happened twice that I know of in north wales in the last 12 months, with no injuries thankfully - that is, someone other than the equipper unexpectedly pulling out an unset glue-in. Not counting the one that happened to me. As you rightly point out - not everything that happens to do with climbing makes it to your attention.
Out of interest JCM/Shark: over the years how many instances do you think there have been of pegs/threads ripping resulting in injury - no matter how minor, and accepting your cluelessness?
Do you believe that a person placing a crucial peg/thread protecting a long runnout has exactly the same duty of care as they would if placing a bolt in the same place on the same route?
-
Guys,
I'm not suprised this subject has aroused strong emotions and a range of different views. It is by no means a straightforward discussion. Hopefully I can contribute to the debate without stirring it up to much!
Let's deal with the duty of care debate first. Our bolt guidance documents were written by a collection of front line bolters, it wasn't some unrealistic set of rules handed down by stuffed shirts. There was a realisation at the time that we weren't collectively dealing with this issue - nobody really knew what might happen in the event of the worst and a claim going to court. So we endeavoured to get legal advice and make sure that this informed the documents.
Our advice suggested two opposing arguments. The first is that as climbers willingly undertake a risky activity, they can't expect restitution if something bad happens to them. The other, is that as a bolter knows that others will use their bolts after them. Therefore, it is reasonable for them to take steps to ensure that they are placed competently and using suitable materials.
This still has never been tested in court, so which argument prevails remains to be seen. Our advice is to assume both to be true. After all, after a hard winter, the best bolting in the world won't help if the bit of crag it's in has come loose. Likewise, anyone bolting should really take every effort to do the best job they can, not only out of consideration for other climbers, but perhaps, more cynically, to protect themselves if the sh*t hits the fan. I'm in favour of the Yorshire approach, where they record everything, glue batches, the lot, so they at least have a chance of showing due diligence if it comes to it.
My final comments are purely my personal opinion, feel free to disagree. Gary has ballsed up and he knows it. He was mortified, and quite rightly. Like him or not though, he was there the very next day to put it right as best he could. Instead of slating him, let's consider this: without him, these routes wouldn't exist. There likely wouldn't be any mid grade sport routes in the Peak. More tellingly, if I look at the number of guys currently re-equipping in the Peak, its a dismal state of affairs. There are a couple of guys doing great work, mostly unheralded, and that's it. If you want someone other than Gary to be responsible for re-equipping routes in the Peak, then you as a community need to step up and put the bodies forward.
If you want to move things forward, then get involved and I'll do whatever I can to support you.
-
Out of interest JCM/Shark: over the years how many instances do you think there have been of pegs/threads ripping resulting in injury - no matter how minor, and accepting your cluelessness?
Do you believe that a person placing a crucial peg/thread protecting a long runnout has exactly the same duty of care as they would if placing a bolt in the same place on the same route?
Re the first question no idea. As to the second there is a distinction between a bolt that can be placed anywhere that is expected to be clipsticked, dogged and fallen on and is explicity (however much you might huff and puff) safe and a crucial thread or peg that can only be placed where the rock can afford it and implicitly only offers the chance of protection in the event of mishap and implicitly not to be relied on. There might be some grey areas - JCM posed a scenario of badly knotting slings on Ghost Train above.
-
Firstly, thanks Dan.
Secondly, Shark, you've changed the argument either knowingly or not. I didn't say a bolt which could be 'clipsticked, dogged etc etc etc', for argument's sake I said a bolt in the same trad route situation as the aforementioned peg.
In which case, don't you see the problem with what you just said?
Why do you consider it ok for somebody to place a crucial peg on the runnout of a trad route, which it can be reasonably assumed others will use and which for argument's sake is crucial to prevent an injurious fall (not unusual on uk trad) - in the full knowledge that it might only 'be placed where the rock can afford it and implicitly only offers the chance of protection in the event of mishap and implicitly not to be relied on'...
... But it's not ok for a bolt that is placed in the same postion on our imaginary trad route to be anything other than 100% reliable, and if it fails the person who placed it should be held negligable and open to whatever the law throws at them???
But then you say 'ahhh there's a distinction between knowingly placing poor pegs and placing 'thought-to-be good' bolts.
Except that I don't see any distinction explicitly stated anywhere to back you up - what I do see is statement after statement in every single guidebook, on the BMC website, on BMC bolting guidance, in every climbing wall etc etc.. that goes against what you said, - that climbing is a dangerous activity where you might die and that you should assume an attitude of taking personal responsibilty for your actions, and that includes treating all fixed gear with suspicion. Which part of that don't you agree with?
If we treat fixed gear the same, the obvious conclusion, at least according to your logic of 'bolting must be 100% reliable', is that the person knowingly placing the poor peg is being just as negligent as the bolter unknowingly placing what he thought was a good bolt only for it to rip out. Negligent. If we treat fixed gear the same, a further logical conclusion is that it would be best practice not to place any 'shoddy' pegs in the first place.
I think the common-sense lies somewhere in the middle with all bolts and pegs/threads treated similarly. As per the disclaimers. JCM, where am I wrong?
-
Firstly, thanks Dan.
Secondly, Shark, you've changed the argument either knowingly or not. I didn't say a bolt which could be 'clipsticked, dogged etc etc etc', for argument's sake I said a bolt in the same trad route situation as the aforementioned peg.
In which case, don't you see the problem with what you just said?
Sorry. I misread it. A bolt in the same position is inviting "sporting" falls whereas the trad gear never is and so the character of the runout is different. I appreciate that some might say that if its a bomber piece of trad gear then it might as well be a bolt but having relied on a chunky angle peg in this way and snapped the eye taking a 50foot+ factor-two headfirst plunge (on a route appropriately named Fallout) I'd disagree. I regarded that as 100% my fault for relying on a peg. If it had been a bolt that had failed I'd apportion some of the blame on the bolter depending on the circumstances - probably over 50% if it was a glue in where the glue hadnt set and the bolt hadn't been tested/weighted. So yes there is a difference in my opinion.
-
Fair enough, however(!) it could also be said that had the peg never been put there in the first place, then you wouldn't have been there either.
-
I'm glad i'm stupid and don't understand any of this :P
-
On the contrary I'm not the only one who finds your 'duty of care' proposition controversial. Other equippers have said exactly the same thing to me just this weekend at the crag. For one thing it depends on whose definition is used of what is and isn't negligent, and it also depends on which version of personal responsibility in climbing you agree with - I agree with the BMC participent statement and the BMC's 'bad bolts' guidance notes; you on the other hand appear to be trying to load all the responsibility onto the equipper.
Pete, I don't think you understand what a lawyer means when he says that there's a duty of care.
Let me give you an example from another field, a famous House of Lords case. A company's auditors screwed up terribly and allowed some very misleading accounts to be published. Lots of people bought shares in the company and lost their shirts. Could they recover from the auditors? No, said the HL. The auditors simply do not have any responsibility to these people; no matter how badly they do their job, they can't be sued. There is no duty of care, in lawyerspeak. The auditors can of course be sued by the company if they screw up (or by existing shareholders IIRC), but those people hadn't, on this occasion, suffered any loss.
So, in a bolting context, all that it means when a lawyer says there is a duty of care is that there is in principle at least some responsibility on bolters towards those who are going to hang off their bolts. That's the first question. Can the punter sue at all, no matter how badly the equipper performed? That's a question of pure law. Unless you and your friends know something about the law of personal injury and negligence, their opinions about it are worth about the same as my opinions about nuclear physics.
So what is that responsibility, if it exists? It will be, roughly speaking, something like "to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to keep potential users of the bolts safe".
So what does that mean? What do bolters have to do? That's the second question.
Now THAT is where the expertise you are shouting about comes in. It's a question for expert witnesses - people like you and your friends - to assist the court by saying what it is that you do, why that's good practice, why this step or that step wouldn't be necessary, and so forth. At the end of the day, if it comes to it, the judge says that in his opinion this or that step should have been taken by a reasonably competent equipper, and if it wasn't and that caused someone else an injury, the equipper is liable. Of course it's still a question for the court which will be decided by some judge who, like me, will never have placed a bolt, but that's law for you.
Now, as to the first question, I've been practising in the field of professional negligence (different but closely related) for 20 years, I've read the judgments in most of the well-known climbing-and-the-law cases, and in the context of the Australian bad bolts case I've discussed the question (very superficially, to be sure) with ten or so lawyers in the field, including two or three lawyer/climbers and two or three QCs one of whom is now a judge, and I've never heard anyone suggest that there wouldn't be a duty of care. Contrary to what you seem to think, I'd love it if there wasn't - few developments in the law would give me more pleasure. I would, however, be very surprised. It wouldn't be the first time or the last a court had surprised me greatly, but still.
Dan M says the BMC took some legal advice about this. Undoubtedly that advice was right to say that until the thing's tested in court, no-one really *knows*. English law deals with the question of whether there's a duty of care on a case-by-case basis rather than laying down sweeping principles. However, if the BMC has actually taken serious, informed advice which said anything other than that it was very probable that there would be a duty of care, then you'll just have to colour me astonished. If Dan M cares to share any reasoning that was given or any case referred to, I'd be very interested.
That would mean that if a bolter used a glue which said prominently on the packet that it shouldn't be used for anything other than sticking paper together, took no steps to check the bolts at all, and the next day a punter made his way up the route, clipped the lower-off, lent back and continued to the ground stripping the entire route, then the BMC's insurers (assuming this fellow to be a BMC member and the insurance to cover his activities) wouldn't have to pay out. I think most people would find that surprising.
However, I really don't think debate about this is that useful unless anyone else has some law to refer to, because we're only making predictions, after all. Mine is better informed than yours, but I could be wrong, certainly. If you and your friends choose to prefer your own predictions, go ahead. I hope you're right, I really do.
As to the second question, I don't profess to have an informed opinion. What I do think is this: I have always assumed, and I think many punters have, that the equipper will have tried to pull each bolt out after the glue has set and failed. Some of what you and others have said has led me to think that not all equippers actually do this. IMHO it would be useful if the punters did know what steps exactly have usually been taken, and it would be helpful if equippers did explain this. You really haven't explained very clearly what you think are the minimum checks that should be undertaken.
-
I think the common-sense lies somewhere in the middle with all bolts and pegs/threads treated similarly. As per the disclaimers. JCM, where am I wrong?
In a way, I don't think you are. I think that wherever climbers are placing fixed gear with a view to other people relying upon it, there will be a duty of care, a duty to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances for the safety of those who come after.
The question is going to be what care is reasonable in the particular circumstances, and as to that one of the circumstances which will differ widely is the approach which the punter to come can reasonably be expected to take to the fixed gear, which as we all know will be different in respect of pegs (or many pegs; perhaps not something like Shining Path) from bolts.
-
... But it's not ok for a bolt that is placed in the same postion on our imaginary trad route to be anything other than 100% reliable, and if it fails the person who placed it should be held negligable and open to whatever the law throws at them???
That's not quite right. The person who placed it isn't liable just because the bolt fails; he's liable if he didn't take reasonable care in placing it.
But then you say 'ahhh there's a distinction between knowingly placing poor pegs and placing 'thought-to-be good' bolts.
Except that I don't see any distinction explicitly stated anywhere to back you up - what I do see is statement after statement in every single guidebook, on the BMC website, on BMC bolting guidance, in every climbing wall etc etc.. that goes against what you said, - that climbing is a dangerous activity where you might die and that you should assume an attitude of taking personal responsibilty for your actions, and that includes treating all fixed gear with suspicion. Which part of that don't you agree with?
Yes, yes, that's all splendid stuff by the BMC, but your point doesn't follow. Just because the punter ought to be careful, that doesn't mean there's no duty of care. It's true perhaps that the equipper is entitled to assume the punter will be following best practice. But then, didn't we establish earlier on that in practical terms punters do blindly trust the bolts on sport routes and indeed don't have much choice?
-
It's happened twice that I know of in north wales in the last 12 months, with no injuries thankfully - that is, someone other than the equipper unexpectedly pulling out an unset glue-in. Not counting the one that happened to me. As you rightly point out - not everything that happens to do with climbing makes it to your attention.
Are we saying that these two failures happened in spite of the equippers having checked the bolts by pulling on them on abseil?
Because if not, doesn't this rather high incidence of failures suggest that equippers should be doing such checking?
Or alternatively, if it's happening in spite of the bolts having been checked and fairly recently placed, why it is happening? I don't think there are two such failures a year in other areas (though I stand to be corrected).
I asked this before. It would be more interesting - to me, anyway - if you answered it rather than getting personally aggressive and complaining about the law.
-
An informative post, thanks.
This is what I would consider the absolute minimum checks which should be undertaken:
Test sample before first bolt, test sample after last bolt. Remain at crag until both samples have gone off - sample should obviously be setting after 10 mins (depending on type of resin). If samples aren't setting then strip bolts. If samples are setting, leave.
This is better:
As above, return to crag as early as possible the following day to check the bolts/climb route.
This is better still:
As above, but place some kind of marker on the first bolt and return to the crag as early as possible (not neccessarily the next day).
This is best:
Finish glueing, wait around at least one hour from last bolt placed for the glue to have had sufficient time to withstand a virtually full load. Jug up ropes checking every bolt or climb the route to check bolts.
I've followed the last 'method' for the large majority of glue-ins I've placed, however I've also occasionally done the other three methods depending on various combinations of: how big/remote/obscure/popular the crag is, how knackered/thirsty/hungry I am, what other pressing engagments I may have had, the weather intervening, running out of time and not finishing all the bolts in one go, running out of bolts/resin, dropping bolts/resin etc etc.
(have just seen your other posts):
I don't know if the bolts that failed where checked on abseil or not. I wasn't there and didn't ask. I have my opinion on it - it would be very hard if not impossible to miss something like that if you had checked them.
You need to put it context though, N.wales isn't the peak and there has been a massive number of glue-ins used for re-equipping and new routes on the Ormes, A55 crags and Slate during the last few years - I'd guesstimate around a thousand, possibly more - I placed 250 on LPT alone.
I suggest discussions like this might better inform 'punters' and hopefully help to prevent them 'blindly trusting bolts'. That's also one of the purposes of participant statements. I think trying to inform people, especially about something which could affect their safety, is a pretty sensible thing - certainly better than just arguing that people should be able to blindly trust things.
I haven't been 'personally agressive' with you - I'm far from being the only person to have come across you online and perceived you to be somebody who thinks they know everything that ever happened in the climbing world. I've not been personally aggressive to you at all on this thread, I'm sure you're a lovely bloke in real life...
As for complaining about the law - guilty as charged. I hate it getting involved in anything to do with climbing - as do you by your own admission.
-
JCM
I was reminded about a story that was knocking about when I first started climbing.
Apparently a prankster had abseiled down Great Slab at Froggatt and blu-tacked a couple of bolt hangers to the rock. The route was later led that day with someone clipping the hangers.
If this happened in the way described and the leader had fallen off and sued/claimed on insurance would "duty of care" come into it or some other legal construct?
-
Hang on... Has anyone else noticed...
JCM is using the quotes correctly. :o
-
It doesn't surprise me that the two people seemingly most eager to condem a bolter's mistakes and put forward the 'bolters have a duty of care' viewpoint are, firstly, a climber well-known for his strong oppostion to bolt-protected climbing ...
JCM demonstrating his strong opposition to bolt protected climbing:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7236/7243165106_9fd38e6fec_c.jpg)
Happy birthday old man!
-
To JCM, I perhaps wasn't clear enough with my explanation. I don't think there was ever any doubt expressed by our legal advice that a duty of care was owed by a bolter to climbers subsequently climbing a route. The unresolved question appeared to lie around whether this would take precedence over the underlying principle of "to the willing victim, no harm is done." I'll be honest though, I know bugger all about the law, so I didn't question the advice we received!
There is a categoric difference between bolts and pegs/threads etc. A correctly placed bolt is pretty much guaranteed to meet a known strength, whereas for pegs you essentially have an unknown quantity, even when placed perfectly in any given situation. In addition, although pegs are routinuely left in situ, they are designed as leader placed protection, with the intention that the second removes them. It would be far easier to argue that a peg was abandoned gear and there was no intention for others to use it subsequently. You would have no difficulty, either, in getting an expert witness to state that it is well known that pegs should always be backed up with your own protection, because of their inherent unreliability.
Finally Pete, your hierarchy of checking options looks spot on to me, and tallies with the advice we give. I have a suspicion about why Gary didn't pick up on the glue problem in this case. One reason these bolts are so strong is that the spiral acts mechanically when loaded at 90 degrees. Jim Titt had some test results where they held 19kN without ANY glue when loaded downwards. So if Gary tested them by climbing the route, but didn't try rotating the bolt, then perhaps that might explain it and is something to consider when checking these bolts in the future.
-
JCM demonstrating his strong opposition to bolt protected climbing:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7236/7243165106_9fd38e6fec_c.jpg)
Snappy duds!!
-
JCM demonstrating his strong opposition to bolt protected climbing:
He does look quite disgusted by it in that photo...
-
"This is BULLSHIT! Lower me down now!"
-
It does look like bullshit to be fair. Maybe that's why he hates sport climbing
-
A perspective on this stuff from a lawyer outside the UK:
http://gripped.com/2011/03/sections/articles/bolting-is-not-a-crime/ (http://gripped.com/2011/03/sections/articles/bolting-is-not-a-crime/)
JCM – What was the outcome in the Australian case? Presumably it was the same case mentioned in this article? Has there ever in the whole history of sport climbing round the world been a successful case? Lets hope sanity prevails otherwise it’s a completely ridiculous can of worms… I can just picture you representing someone suing Redhead because he didn’t place the bolts more evenly on Poetry Pink...
In short, the legal stuff makes me want to vomit (although I guess it's worth being aware of). But I can’t help thinking that JCM’s argument is based on the bizarre premise that bolted climbing is “supposed to be safe”. Which strikes me as utter nonsense…. Climbing is dangerous. That is ALL climbing is dangerous. If you want to be safe, take up table tennis. There’s certainly no clear cut line between trad climbing and sport. And there are plenty of bad bolts around – I’ve clipped bolts I wouldn’t trust my body weight on, just the same as pegs. I’ve always just seen bolts in the same light as other in situ gear - ie: sometimes they're reliable, sometimes they aren't. How much you trust them depends on the route in question and the venue as well as how they appear. And there are a million reasons for bad bolts from surrounding rock failure, to bad glue, to rust, to a trad climber’s half arsed attempt to chop them… (Shark, the version of the blue tacked bolt wind up I vaguely remember being told was on Strawberries, but it is probably an urban myth…)
On the other hand, rightly or wrongly, I always thought with old expansion bolts that it was pretty obvious when the bolts were dodgy – rusty, loose, spinning hangers etc etc… The idea of brand new looking glue ins just pulling straight out is pretty scary stuff. And as such perhaps it is worth everyone being aware of some basic guidelines to try to prevent problems (although clearly these are going to be different in different rock types / sea cliffs etc). Random idea, dunno how it will go down – is it worth systematically putting say a black tag on the first bolt of all newly bolted / rebolted routes for the first month or so or until they’ve seen some ascents and the bolts have been given some use? Then at least people would be aware of the situation and treat with appropriate caution?
Finally, I certainly wouldn’t want to see this… But assuming the worst in the long run, perhaps people will need to think a bit about insurance? I guess one option is to insure the bolters as suggested in that article. But surely… (And I don’t know the first thing about this stuff, so this might be complete nonsense…) If say all climbers had BMC insurance, and if the BMC made it clear to the insurers that noone has any responsibility for fixed gear… Then wouldn’t it be exactly the same as if a serac lands on your head in mountaineering? – there would be noone to sue. And considering that statistically mountaineering must be way, way more dangerous than any form of rock climbing, then presumably the insurance wouldn’t be too expensive????? Let’s hope we don’t ever end up needing to go there though…
-
Nemo, there was no law suit in the Australian case, in large part probably because the perpetrators were Croatian. Here's the UKC thread with various links to reports of the facts
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=340148 (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=340148)
Someone on there was saying that in Australia there's a statutory provision to the effect that participants in risk sports can't sue for negligence. I don't know whether that's true or not. I don't know whether a manslaughter case was ever seriously contemplated either (as your link suggests) but the facts in that case were pretty gross. I wouldn't have ruled out some form of criminal prosecution.
The fellow in your link puts it a bit stronger than me, even, but he's basically saying the same as me.
As to insurance, I must say I'd assumed equippers were covered by the BMC insurance, assuming they're members. Is that not right, DanM? If they're not then the BMC would do well to address this IMHO.
I'm not quite sure what you have in mind your last paragraph, but anyway there's no prospect of evading this issue by insurance, participation statements (whatever they are) or anything else. The simple fact is that people who place bolts and do it badly are going to endanger other people's lives; if it's ever tested then I find it inconceivable that the law won't impose liability on the basis of romantic notions about climbers being responsible for their own safety, I'm afraid, especially given that we all know the truth is that sports climbers simply assume new bolts are going to work (as you acknowledge yourself; if you're routinely checking them then why is it "scary" if they're failing?).
The argument about people willingly accepting risks is analogous to the football cases; by playing football you submit to things that in other contexts would be assault, and take the risk of being tackled and ending up crippled. You don't take the risk of being fouled (or at least recklessly fouled - there's a slightly grey line, I think) and ending up crippled. So my 'argument' (whatever my 'argument' is; I think I'm just trying to say what the law is) doesn't depend on any notion that sport climbing is supposed to be safe - obviously the participant accepts various hazards that aren't present in table tennis. It doesn't follow that he accepts the risk that whoever put the bolts in didn;t take proper care.
-
JCM demonstrating his strong opposition to bolt protected climbing:
He does look quite disgusted by it in that photo...
:geek:I think that's a route called 'Rambling Moses Weetabix and the Secona Park Seven' which gets 6b or 6b+ at Dancing Ledge at Swanage. Actually quite nice moves, if I recall rightly.
-
Does anyone know the state of play with this kind of issue in the US? You'd think the potential liability risk to bolters would be even greater than in the UK, given their disproportionate population of the more rapacious type of lawyer. However I am not aware of any discussion on a US web forum similar to this one - though I have not looked hard.
Tangential to that, how about US-style ground-up bolting (one of the pillars of what yanks regard as "trad" climbing)? Almost by definition ground-up bolts are likely to be less well-placed and less likely to have been checked later, relative to normally-equipped sport routes. How would the legal analysis jcm suggests apply to those?
Toby, Nemo's link above was to a discussion by a US lawyer.
My (UK law) guess would be that ground-up bolts are the same as any other form of permanent protection; that there's a duty of care to take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances. What those steps might be would obviously be very much open for debate and might vary widely according to circumstances.
The Croatians, after all, placed their Australian bolts ground-up. They also used a type of bolt they had been specifically warned would not work in the local rock, pulled at least one bolt out by hand themselves during the ascent, and then wrote to the local guidebook author describing their route without mentioning these facts and decrsibing the rack needed for the route as '12 quickdraws'.
:geek:I think that's a route called 'Rambling Moses Weetabix and the Secona Park Seven' which gets 6b or 6b+ at Dancing Ledge at Swanage. Actually quite nice moves, if I recall rightly.
Actually, it's Double or Quits, the 7a+ next door.
On another note, though, I know the Secona Park Seven were a band who played Dorset pubs, but does anyone know who the magnificently-monikered Rambling Moses Weetabix was (or is?)?
-
Not really into the law much in a climbing context but it seems to me that a claim against any bolter will be fraught with extreme difficulty.
There is no contract between bolter and climber. When you buy a new car, you have a contract, and if the wheel comes off you have a very straightforward claim which I doubt would be contested once in a thousand. Same at a climbing wall. Duty of care = high.
With a bolter you are left with a potential claim in tort. Duty of care = not so high. The problem here is that there is no malfeasance (wrongdoing, where someone has done something to you, like run you over with their car) but nonfeasance, ie an omission to do something (check bolts, warn that they have not been checked, that they are Croatian and perhaps not suited to Australian sandstone, whatever ...). The law rarely imposes liability in these cases of omission.
Worryingly from a policy perspective there might well be liability for the unwitting landowner though.
Its a bit like digging a hole by a path and someone walks down the path at night and falls in. No real problem with the hole, assuming that you had the right to dig it in the first place, but you should have cordoned it off / put up a barrier. No liability for him who dug the hole - he has not done anything he was not entitled to do. Potential liability for him whose land it has happened on though. A contractor will have agreed to indemnify the landowner in the case of a proper building site, and other legislation will apply, but that is not the case on a climb.
All a bit technical on the civil side, but there you go.
To suggest that placing bad bolts could be potentially criminal would be an absolute first as far as I am aware and is quite fanciful. Barring some unknown criminal climbing legislation. There are a finite number of crimes in the UK and you can find out what they are. Placing bad bolts ain't one of them.
Of course usual disclaimers apply to all of the above.
From a climber's point of view of course I want bolters to do the best possible job for us, as testing can be tricky, but not impossible: apparently sticking a biner in and turning is the best way to check if bolts are (semi) sound.
One bad bolt can invalidate the work of lifetime for someone who puts routes up, so please guys, make really sure they are as good as can be.
Safe climbing ...
-
No doubt in light of this recent incident and discussion its generated...
BMC Tech Skills : spot a bad bolt (http://www.thebmc.co.uk/spot-a-bad-bolt)
-
Nothing in there about what to do when faced with probably correct but likely irrelevant legal arguments on a bolted route. ;)
-
UIAA issue anchor corrosion warning (http://www.thebmc.co.uk/uiaa-issue-anchor-corrosion-warning).