When things go wrong...

Post by **Wes** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:42 am

caribe wrote:
michaelarmand wrote:So which is better - we as a community defining acceptable risk, or would we rather a government bureaucrat do it for us?
3 thumbs up and +1. This is a mature responsible perspective.

And, as a PS, just in case you haven't been paying attention - climbing on gov't property around here is already fairly heavily regulated. No new routes, no new anchors, no new trails, no publishing of routes, etc. But, if I scope a new line on FS land, free solo, top out and walk off, I am totally legal. If I bolt it - illegal. If I just add anchors for a trad line - illegal.

How many hikers die in the red each year, yet there are no regulations against it, and most of them were doing kinda dumb stuff.

So, again, explain to me why free soloing is an access issue that is more important then all the other things I listed? I agree that it could be, but I just don't see it being more of a risk then a lot of other stuff. Roadside and Muir both have no soloing rules, yet they are far from accident free....

Post by **Redpoint** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:13 am

What I want to know is why is there no aid climbing allowed in Muir? I heard it's bad for the rock, but I suspect it might not be allowed for the same reason that free soloing isn't... I guess if someone dies free soloing, it could have been prevented if the person had just used a rope. When I go caving and get to a hairy spot there is two things that I assess: risk - what are the chances I'm going to mess this up, and consequences - what is going to happen to me if I do mess up. Maybe the reason there is no free soloing, is because the consequences are pretty bad. Or maybe... the reason for no soling is to help protect the landowners from being sued. If someone free solos and dies in either one of those places, and then the family of the deceased tries to sue, it sure would help the landowners case if he could say "well what he did was against the rules anyhow".

I wish I could lead solo in Muir but you can't do that either, and I think I know why; take for example the gumby on this forum who wanted to take it up but didn't even know how to make an anchor for it.

Post by **caribe** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:58 am

Wes wrote:
michaelarmand wrote:So which is better - we as a community defining acceptable risk, or would we rather a government bureaucrat do it for us?
Sorry, but, if you want to make rules to

1) No one is making rules--people can decide for themselves, but I am going to tell them what the hell I think about it. 2) Everyone defines acceptable risks. This happens when we teach others how to climb. No one ever says 'develop yourself to the point you are free soloing and then you are shit.' On the contrary, we teach people how to be safe within some level of risk. 3) If more people were free soloing there would be WAY more deaths from soloing. 4) We are trying to fix parking issues and the like. We are doing this all the time. 5) Drop in anchors versus free soloing . . . come on Wes . . .

Post by **caribe** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 6:02 am

Redpoint wrote:What I want to know is why is there no aid climbing allowed in Muir? I heard it's bad for the rock . . .

Redpoint, Just shut up and GO TO YOUR ROOM!!! Daddy and Daddy are fighting, but it is not as bad as it sounds. One of us will pop in soon to tuck you in.

Post by **Redpoint** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:01 am

Go PM each other, I don't want to have to listen to it!

Post by **TankAzz** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:13 am

kinda off topic from the debate now, but having not been on in awhile, i just watched the video... gotta say that was some pretty shitty pad placement/spotting. not that i was there to make the call, but the video makes it look like people pretty much weren't spotting at all. i understand that in a "solo" you wouldn't have that luxury anyways, but if you're bringing pads up, ya may as well try and make like you're bouldering...

Post by **michaelarmand** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 6:40 pm

Wes - I'm not arguing that soling accidents outnumber the others. I want to reduce gumby or other climbing related accidents just as much. But nobody intentionally raps off the end of their rope or ties their knot incorrectly. And if I or any other responsible climber sees a gumby doing something stupid we step in and say something. I remember a group of gumbies trying to toprope using keychain carabiners, and they even argued with me that they were â€œsuper strongâ€

Post by **Redpoint** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:08 pm

[quote="michaelarmand"]I remember a group of gumbies trying to toprope using keychain carabiners, and they even argued with me that they were â€œsuper strongâ€

Post by **caribe** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:24 pm

Redpoint wrote:It's stories like that one that help you to understand why gumbies aren't even allowed to climb at PMRP or Muir without the supervision of an experienced climber.

? ?

What's to stop these people from climbing at these places?

Post by **Redpoint** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:42 pm

caribe wrote:
Redpoint wrote:It's stories like that one that help you to understand why gumbies aren't even allowed to climb at PMRP or Muir without the supervision of an experienced climber.
? ? What's to stop these people from climbing at these places?

Ya I actually almost mentioned that, I guess you could call or tell Rick if you were at Muir, but I wouldn't even have his number or know where he lives, and besides what climber is going to miss out on his climbing time to do that anyhow. As far as PMRP, I would have no idea who to call, does anyone else? I guess all we can do is babysit and argue with them. I bet those rules are there just to help protect the landowner in case of a lawsuit: "well you aren't supposed to climb there if you have no idea what you are doing anyways".