RRC Archives

Risk and consequence is the same thing over the time average and sampling many samples taking the same level of risk. If this is not true then risk is not being correctly evaluated.

You are likely saying that risk is not being correctly evaluated. I want to avoid the silliness of semantic arguments by the way.

Whoever you are if you keep taking high risks you will die on the time average at some point. With a population of 100 risk takers given risk F(t) all you have to do to evaluate the population that remains is to go along the time axis and count the population on the y axis. The quantity with time will be a Gaussian distribution. At some point there will be only one person left and then later there will be 0.5 people left, etc.

Like, if you are walking along the top of a cliff on a nice flat, but little bit narrow ledge. The consequences if you fall are huge. But, what is the risk that you will fall? Risk is a complex formula with consequences as a component.

You took a fall recently right? Were you doing anything "risky" or where you not worried about the consequences. There were several injuries in you all's climbing group over the last few months. Anyone doing anything esp. risky or were the consequences not considered?

There is nothing inherently wrong with free soloing, high balling, fast and light alpine or hard aid climbing. It is just something you have to plug into the risk/reward formula. Hopefully, you are honest about the math, otherwise you could end up in a bad place.

Injuries have been sustained among us due to an accepted level of risk. I understand what you are saying. You and I are defining risk differently, I am not sure how else to maneuver without wading into bickering about semantics.

In any case high balling and free soloing involve combinations of risk and consequence. If we are talking about death as a consequence that removes population, if someone keeps doing it they are probably going to die from it or the risk / consequence combination has not been correctly evaluated.

You can't beat the house. Thinking you can is illusion.

I accept the fact that I could die rock climbing. I choose to try to optimize risk versus enjoyment. The same is for a zillion other activities that one might engage in including unprotected homosexual activity at the Slade rest stop.

Once you leave the ground, rope or not, you have death / severe injury as a consequence. Period. The rope doesn't take that away. In fact, I would say that sometime roped climbers give too much weight to the rope in their math, and that is where people get hurt. If you had known that you could take a fall like you did, would you have approached that move with more focus?

Yes, I would have. I find good reason in this aspect of your argument.

However your question brings more questions. Would this increased focus have prevent my fall. Perhaps it would have made me 80% more secure. Would I have wanted to take the remaining 20% of these falls in the absence of a rope? No . . .

You can't beat the house in the long run.

I think part of what I am trying to say is that risk is always there, rope or not. But saying you are being safe because you aren't a hard climber with an ego soloing 5.14 isn't right. Or, saying someone is being unsafe because the free solo /highball isn't always true, either. Gravity is always in effect, ego or not. And, the math of risk isn't always directly related to the consequences.

In the long run we all die. We only have a choice in how we live.

Wes wrote:In the long run we all die. We only have a choice in how we live.

Well I am not arguing with you here.

Wes wrote:saying someone is being unsafe because the free solo /highball isn't always true, either.

Here is where we go in opposite directions. Pushing it without adequate protection is irresponsible.

caribe wrote:

Wes wrote:In the long run we all die. We only have a choice in how we live.

Well I am not arguing with you here.

Wes wrote:saying someone is being unsafe because the free solo /highball isn't always true, either.

Here is where we go in opposite directions. Pushing it without adequate protection is irresponsible.

Then why not just toperope all the time? Same movement, much less risk. Or, only lead at 2.3453 number grades below your max on TR?

Irresponsible?

I'm with Wes, and his last argument is the overall nail in the coffin for me. You define your own acceptable limit of risk. I would say "irresponsibility" would come in the form of selfishness and little thought toward others who might like to climb where you do, know you, etc., but again, your life, your choice. If you're trying to avoid risk just stay home and hope an asteroid doesn't strike or a burglar break in or the innumerable other things that could still go wrong to end your life as you know it. If you must climb have your risky friends set the route and then TR all of them, even stop before the last bolt so now you have THREE bolts in the wall upping your chances of returning to the ground. Then your only problem will be points on this website, or lack thereof! Alright, back to work now.