RRC Archives

I am not a judge but I agree with Art.

It is the ultimate risk of death when free soloing. The climber can not control all circumstances (risk). Earthquake, broken hold, a bird poops in your eye! Without protection it is Russian Roulette and a matter of time.

But, I agree that nothing is safe - there are precautions that can reduce risk and certain activities (and attitudes) that will inevitably increase it.

charlie wrote:Judge rules.......Wes is right.

He certainly is right especially if popularity determined such things. As minds change the world goes from flat to spherical and back again. I know that if I start free soloing at my limit I might survive my next outing, but definitely not my next three. Just give it a moments thought. Think from the perspective of statistics instead of from some neo-religious/ spiritual perspective. Just because you are in the 'zone' does not mean that you are safe.

caribe wrote:Those still around to discuss the impact of the impact are the coins that landed on their tails instead of their heads.

Two thumbs up.

caribe wrote:I am espousing the opinion that climbing unprotected is basically Russian roulette..

I don't mind russian roulette if the worst case scenario is a broken ankle. As long as you can eliminate death/permanent disability from the list of likely options, it's not that bad.

Brentucky wrote: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.

Unfortunately you and Wes are living in the theoretical world. You are imagining a world where an individuals decision only affects them. I like your imaginary world, but it simply does not exist.

Government officials or others will define for us what the acceptable limits of risk are. Why is cliff jumping banned everywhere now? Why do many alpine route require costly permits and accident insurance?

So which is better - we as a community defining acceptable risk, or would we rather a government bureaucrat do it for us?

First of all, 'risk' is generally defined as the likelihood of an accident times the severity of the consequence. See Houston's book on Alpine Climbing, wikipedia, etc.

Second, an accomplished climber free soloing is nothing like Russian Roulette. That is a horrible, and demonstrably erroneous, analogy. The above definition of 'risk' bears this out. For example, the odds of being shot playing Russian Roulette are roughly one in six. The odds of an accomplished free soloist falling, while almost impossible to define, are far less. The severity of the consequence (near-certain death) is the same for each example. But the likelihoods are nowhere near similar. So they make for a poor analogy.

Even with that said, I'm generally against free-soloing. An accomplished free soloist may have very little 'risk', using the above definition, because there is very little likelihood of him or her falling. Thus, despite the severe consequence, the 'risk' would appear to be acceptable.

The problem is that the input data for the 'risk' equation is skewed. You are dealing with an extreme outlier to arrive at an ostensibly acceptable risk.

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.

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 one that has no place in climbing.

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.

Sorry, but, if you want to make rules to keep people safe, then start with mandatory helmets and mandatory stick clips, along with drop in anchors that never need to be cleaned. Because those cause 1000s times more injuries and accidents. Also, don't forget the things that can really cause access issues - parking, over crowding, lack of infrastructure support, dogs, etc. I never understood rules against soloing, when as far as actual, real incidents, it is way down the list. I think it is just a judgmental/emotional thing. And, more or less, it is already self policed. How many free soloiests do you see on an ave. day at the red? Now how many newbies do you see doing really scary stuff with their setups?

Wes wrote:

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.

Sorry, but, if you want to make rules to keep people safe, then start with mandatory helmets and mandatory stick clips, along with drop in anchors that never need to be cleaned. Because those cause 1000s times more injuries and accidents.

O and don't forget mandatory knots in the end of your rope if you are repelling. I read that over 50 % of climbing deaths happened while the climber was repelling. Well a knot in the end of your rope won't save you if you accidentally let go of the rope, so we should add mandatory autoblocks as well, not that they are fail safe, but they usually work if they are done right. I also think your belay partner should have to always hold on to the end of rope, ready to give a firemans belay in case you start speed repelling, sort of like how they cut off your go kart when you start repeatedly ramming someone.