Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Are you a safe climber?

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Oct 11, 2002, 12:59:58 PM10/11/02
to
Or are you just kidding yourself? Or somewhere in between? What makes you
safe and others not? And just what is "safe" anyway, when it comes to this
shit? Who's safer, the sport climber replying upon his talkative belayer to
catch him when he falls or the free soloing ice climber who tests every
placement and has never once fallen in 50,000 feet of ice climbing? Clearly
both can be safe or unsafe. Are you ever unsafe? Do you even know?

DMT


anhaga

unread,
Oct 11, 2002, 1:10:12 PM10/11/02
to

Dingus Milktoast <none@yabis> wrote in message
news:uqe0kok...@corp.supernews.com...

> What makes you
> safe and others not? And just what is "safe" anyway, when it comes to this
> shit? DMT

anhaga safe
alwys cndms in pckt


Julie

unread,
Oct 11, 2002, 1:11:34 PM10/11/02
to
I assume that I am blindly and ignorantly inattentive and unsafe, and I
seek a contradiction.

JSH


MarkW

unread,
Oct 11, 2002, 2:18:48 PM10/11/02
to

"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> wrote in message
news:uqe0kok...@corp.supernews.com...
> Or are you just kidding yourself?

Yes. Talking to my partner, about to top out on Whodunnit, I said, "When I
get to the top, I'll set a quick 1 or 2 piece anchor." He replied, "Or you
could just hip-belay me, it's really just 4th class to the top." I replied,
"Well, I don't want to tempt fate." To which he said, "What do you think
we've been doing all day?"

Hmm...

MarkW


David Kastrup

unread,
Oct 11, 2002, 2:31:39 PM10/11/02
to
"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> writes:

Well, last visit to the Eifel, I decided doing Fuchsröhre, a 20m
partly off-width crack rated UIAA VI or so and with one bolt in
between in the crack part IIRC. So I fiddled around with gear. This
is a crack, sure, but it is Eifel: conglomerate, pebbles in sand
stone. Quite a few placements you'll be certain to rip. So I goofed
around a lot, then shrugged, laughed, and went on. My belayer (a real
sports weeny who won't do routes where he has to lean to far out in
_toprope_) was really sweating because I was at quite unhealthy
heights when finally finding placements or clipping.

Later I had the opportunity of doing the route again in toprope
because my follower had not been able to remove a friend from a small
finger crack on the slabby portion. I was moving much faster, and
quite more on the outside of the crack.

So while I might have appeared "brave" and unsafe, I was going up
rather in a chicken manner while leading. It would have taken
something pretty serious to get me wedged out of that crack and down.

On an alpine climb, I would have taken too much time.

Safe/unsafe? Whatever. Get home alive, if you ask me.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Email: David....@t-online.de

Scott Grimes

unread,
Oct 11, 2002, 4:39:10 PM10/11/02
to
"Dingus Milktoast" wrote

> Or are you just kidding yourself?

you can't kid a kidder ;~)

> Are you ever unsafe?

Yes, or at least I hope so. I can say that the more fear I feel the more
un-safe I feel, and it had nothing to do with difficulty. Sometimes I'm
able to leave fear behind and the climbing feels incredibly solid. Other
times, I'm not so fortunate so I back off trying to increase my level of
safety

> Do you even know?

Truthfully, I don't think any of us ever really knows. I think that is,
not knowing, one of the motivate factors to climb because it brings the
issue of safety smack dab in the middle of everything else that you have
going on in your life. Climbing at least gives you some control over your
safety, sort of in a proactive manner whereas driving to work everyday is so
common place that we become passive or complacent.

I do feel that climbing and its danger will catch-up to me some day but at
least for now I'm able to convince, kid, myself that I am being safe.


Cheers,

SMG

-wiseguy

unread,
Oct 11, 2002, 4:34:57 PM10/11/02
to
"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> wrote in
news:uqe0kok...@corp.supernews.com:

Safety is subjective but...

Complacency kills. Nurture that deep sinking feeling in the pit of your
stomach. It will help you to question things that could be week links in the
system. The guys I know who have had accidents doing ropework all were in
the self-proclaimed guru stage where they did everthing like robots without
thinking about worst case scenarios.

What could go wrong? is a good question to ask yourself frequently.
Although there is a fine line between being prudent and dwelling on or
worrying about it.


--
-- Rob Prowel (A.K.A. da wiseguy)
URL: http://www.prowel.com/

-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

cornelius

unread,
Oct 11, 2002, 7:33:37 PM10/11/02
to
"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> wrote in message news:<uqe0kok...@corp.supernews.com>...

your question is inherantly flawed...you see...if someone was unsafe,
they'd obviously not know enough about their own shit to know the
difference.

Zac Hester

unread,
Oct 11, 2002, 8:10:54 PM10/11/02
to
"cornelius" <cornelius...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:156db863.02101...@posting.google.com...

> your question is inherantly flawed...you see...if someone was unsafe,
> they'd obviously not know enough about their own shit to know the
> difference.

That brings up an interesting point. If you're not a safe climber, how do
you stay alive long enough to realize the lack of safety and therefore post
about it in this newsgroup?

"...maybe I should have doubled-up on that rap anchor... oh wait, too late
now."

-Zac


Cameron Grant

unread,
Oct 11, 2002, 8:37:32 PM10/11/02
to
Double up & double check
On Rap, Triple up & triple check
Read Accidents in NM Mountaineering every year.
Don't do what they did.
Beyond that it's crap shoot, but so is going to the store?
Cheers, C.

Julie

unread,
Oct 11, 2002, 8:44:25 PM10/11/02
to
"Cameron Grant" <camm...@alpha66.com> wrote

> Beyond that it's crap shoot, but so is going to the store?

... or going to the gas station?

JSH, who was in DC last w/e (!)


-wiseguy

unread,
Oct 11, 2002, 8:52:58 PM10/11/02
to
"Zac Hester" <ne...@planetzac.net> wrote in news:3da768a1$1...@news.enetis.net:

> "cornelius" <cornelius...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:156db863.02101...@posting.google.com...
>> your question is inherantly flawed...you see...if someone was unsafe,
>> they'd obviously not know enough about their own shit to know the
>> difference.
>
> That brings up an interesting point. If you're not a safe climber, how do
> you stay alive long enough to realize the lack of safety and therefore post
> about it in this newsgroup?

many folks who are not safety minded can go a while on sheer luck. or worse,
they may be more of a hazard to those around them than they are to
themselves.

you ever hear of a "yugo knot". That a knot that someone ties on a rigging
then says to their partner "ok, yugo first".

John Lawrence

unread,
Oct 11, 2002, 9:08:49 PM10/11/02
to

> your question is inherantly flawed...you see...if someone was unsafe,
> they'd obviously not know enough about their own shit to know the
> difference.

I agree... the question is oxymoronic, but interesting nevertheless...in the
end the judgement depends on the ultimate outcome of the climb...in an
article for Summit many years back, I mused on a fairly spectacular failure
to struggle up the then (and I think still) unclimbed north Ridge of the
Pumas Claw in Perus' Cordillera Vilcabamba... we retreated very delicately,
and in face of awesome difficulties just a few hundred feet from the
summit... I paid for disgogglement (they fell down the six thousand foot
face beneath our toes) with a brutal dose of snoblindness... but we both
worked hard and got off the mountain safely... (my climbing mate Rob
McKerrow phoned me several years later on return from Will Steger's
expedition to the North Pole, from which he was subsequently evacuated due
to injured ribs) to wanly share and celebrate another safe return from
danger..... neither trip was successful.... but extricating onself (and
others with you) to enjoy another day is the better option...........


Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Oct 11, 2002, 9:11:42 PM10/11/02
to

"cornelius" <cornelius...@hotmail.com> wrote

> your question is inherantly flawed...you see...if someone was unsafe,
> they'd obviously not know enough about their own shit to know the
> difference.

That's ridiculous. Your answer is inherently flawed. Nothing at all wrong
with my question. Take off your blinders man! I've been unsafe at times, and
fully aware of it while I was doing it.

So there.

DMT


Dave Schuller

unread,
Oct 11, 2002, 11:00:56 PM10/11/02
to
There's a different word fer that.
Dave

Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Oct 11, 2002, 11:35:34 PM10/11/02
to

"John Lawrence" <jesla...@worldnet.att.net> wrote

> I agree... the question is oxymoronic,

> in the


> end the judgement depends on the ultimate outcome of the climb

> we retreated very delicately,


> and in face of awesome difficulties just a few hundred feet from the
> summit... I paid for disgogglement (they fell down the six thousand foot
> face beneath our toes) with a brutal dose of snoblindness... but we both
> worked hard and got off the mountain safely...

Oxymoronic...You attempt a peak on poor condition, drop your goggles down a
face, get snow blindness and eventually stagger off the mountain and in
hindsight claim you did it safely.

How can I argue with such powerful logic???

DMT


C_Kryll

unread,
Oct 11, 2002, 11:42:01 PM10/11/02
to
I think we've ALL run gear out and that's pretty unsafe. So am I safe? Not
always, or at least not as "safe" as I should be when leading easy pitches.
However, I'd have to say that I'm very safe when it comes to my anchors on
which I will bring up my second. I may 'choose' to be unsafe in my leading
but that gives me NO excuse to jepordize the life of my partner. The belay
anchor should ALWAYS be bomber.

Chris


David Kastrup

unread,
Oct 12, 2002, 3:32:47 AM10/12/02
to
"Zac Hester" <ne...@planetzac.net> writes:

> "cornelius" <cornelius...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:156db863.02101...@posting.google.com...
> > your question is inherantly flawed...you see...if someone was unsafe,
> > they'd obviously not know enough about their own shit to know the
> > difference.
>
> That brings up an interesting point. If you're not a safe climber,
> how do you stay alive long enough to realize the lack of safety and
> therefore post about it in this newsgroup?

By having a near miss or a non-fatal accident. Or by figuring out
what could have happened when in replay mode.

David Kastrup

unread,
Oct 12, 2002, 3:36:57 AM10/12/02
to
"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> writes:

Actually, those that are aware of a conscious risk they are taking
might be comparatively "safer" than those that aren't.

It is one thing being somewhere where a single mistake or stumble
might cost you your life. It is another not even knowing that.

Guido

unread,
Oct 12, 2002, 5:58:23 AM10/12/02
to
Zac wrote
:

> That brings up an interesting point. If you're not a safe climber, how do
> you stay alive long enough to realize the lack of safety and therefore
post
> about it in this newsgroup?
>
> "...maybe I should have doubled-up on that rap anchor... oh wait, too late
> now."

Then somebody else posts for you, here and in Accidents in North American
Mountaineering.

G


Guido

unread,
Oct 12, 2002, 7:24:21 AM10/12/02
to
Dingus asks:

Borowing from a post on rec.skiing backcountry:

It was originally in a Canadian farmers' almanac, but reproduced in Bill
March's "Modern Snow and Ice Techniques":

"Good judgement is the result of experience. Experience is the result
of bad judgement"

Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Oct 12, 2002, 9:56:56 AM10/12/02
to

"David Kastrup" <David....@t-online.de> wrote

> Actually, those that are aware of a conscious risk they are taking
> might be comparatively "safer" than those that aren't.

OK, compare this.

I jump in my car. I'm driving across the parking lot to another store. I
choose not to buckle my seatbelt because its such a short, low speed
journey.

Safe or unsafe? Choice or blind ignorance? It may be comparatively safer
than doing the same at 100 kph, but so what? I say many climbers do this
sort of thing on a fairly regular basis. The point that many folks are
unaware of when they are being unsafe is a good one. But to say that all
climbers who do unsafe things are unaware of it at the time is just stupid.
It is not a supportable argument.

DMT


John Lawrence

unread,
Oct 12, 2002, 11:26:18 AM10/12/02
to

> Oxymoronic...You attempt a peak on poor condition, drop your goggles down
a
> face, get snow blindness and eventually stagger off the mountain and in
> hindsight claim you did it safely.
>
>

you put it so elegantly.........the attempt was more moronic/quixotic than
not perhaps, but a major purpose of the expedition.....actually I didnt say
we did it safely, that would not be true.... but as I did say
(self-extrication from a bad situation was my poorly made point) we both got
off the mountain safely ......ultimately a more important goal than knocking
off the north ridge...... but that can be argued... Bob and I joked on the
ridge that Herman Buhl would have halved the chocolate, untied the rope and
pushed on alone, probably successfully......technically, the ridge was
almost horizontal at its final points, and we didnt have enough rope to fix
as a means of reversing the icy overhangs that stood in our way... so
reluctantly we gave up...in books and articles, the ridge has been called
`unclimbable', as have so many other climbs, but I think it still is
virgin....... maybe you know different? Anyway, a photo I took of the last
part of the ridge made the cover of Summit, and they published our rather
sad retreat as the lead article in September 1969.......


Edward Gerety

unread,
Oct 12, 2002, 7:55:28 PM10/12/02
to
<<<And just what is "safe" anyway, when it comes to this
shit? >>>

What is "safe" when it comes to anything at all. There's a small but finite
probability that any one of us will be struck by a meteorite in the next 12
hours. We don't worry about it and call ourselves safe.
There's a larger probability that we'd get hit if we ran across the 5 in the
middle of LA. I'd call that unsafe and won't do it.

I don't think it's possible to divide the universe up into "safe" and
"unsafe" in any objective way. We probably shouldn't use those words as
absolutes.
For me, "safety" has always been recognizing the risk in front of me so I
can decide whether or not to take it.

Edward

Dwight Haymes

unread,
Oct 13, 2002, 1:06:58 AM10/13/02
to
"C_Kryll" <C_Kryll@*nospam*compuserve.com> wrote in message news:<ao85ij$6k0$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com>...

If you get hurt running it out, aren't you putting your partner in jeopardy?

Dwight

John Lawrence

unread,
Oct 13, 2002, 9:11:39 AM10/13/02
to

Dwight Haymes <hay...@tsioregon.net> wrote in message
news:b0776018.02101...@posting.google.com...

> If you get hurt running it out, aren't you putting your partner in
jeopardy?
>
> Dwight

not just physically, but also psychologically? maybe we should insist on
post-climb counselor services for belayer stress (BS) syndrome?


Nafod40

unread,
Oct 13, 2002, 2:01:54 PM10/13/02
to
"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> wrote in message news:<uqe0kok...@corp.supernews.com>...
> Or are you just kidding yourself? Or somewhere in between? What makes you
> safe and others not? And just what is "safe" anyway, when it comes to this
> shit? Who's safer, the sport climber replying upon his talkative belayer to
> catch him when he falls or the free soloing ice climber who tests every
> placement and has never once fallen in 50,000 feet of ice climbing? Clearly
> both can be safe or unsafe. Are you ever unsafe? Do you even know?
>
> DMT

Here's what Webster says...

"Free from harm, injury, or risk; untouched or unthreatened by danger
or injury; unharmed; unhurt; secure; whole; as, safe from disease;
safe from storms; safe from foes. ``And ye dwelled safe.'' --1 Sam.
xii. 11."

So by that definition, no, climbing is not safe. You might argue
nothing is safe, since you can get hit by a meteorite tomorrow. Yea,
but climbing is not even close to safe. Also, money talks and BS
walks. You go to the life insurance salesman, he's going to charge you
extra for climbing because...it's not safe. It's dangerous. Even when
the climbing is easy, it remains painfully unforgiving of error.

I like Stu's disclaimer on his Nelson Rocks website,
http://www.nelsonrocks.org/ . It says it the best.

John Lawrence

unread,
Oct 13, 2002, 2:55:30 PM10/13/02
to

Nafod40 <may...@psu.edu> wrote in message
news:a9cff2cc.02101...@posting.google.com...
> no, climbing is not safe. ........You go to the life insurance salesman,

he's going to charge you
> extra for climbing because...it's not safe. It's dangerous. Even when
> the climbing is easy, it remains painfully unforgiving of error.

Climbing (and specifically rock-climbing) interests me because in order to
be good at it, you have to overcome several deeply intuitive, even
instinctual, human reactions. The `visual cliff' experiments, accessible in
any intro psych textbook (or
http://www.undergrad.ahs.uwaterloo.ca/~mjmaclel/experiments.htm) show that
humans and animals appear to be born wired with natural fear of heights. So
you have to overcome that, and become so to speak, unnatural . And time away
from the cliff brings back the fear of being `gripped', so each time I go
back after a delay, that fear has to be dealt with all over again.... an
intriguing discipline in itself. Friends who still climb hard after a
lifetime of doing it say they dont generally have that particular `grip'
problem to exposure, but even if they are immune, there are still other
`natural' reactions to quell.... one of which is what brits called the
`twitter' ... or jackhammerleg... which is guaranteed to pop you off the
tiny hold that is between you and your last tenuous piece of psychopro or
your second (or your creator) .... a lot has to do with conditioning...but
its a CNS `shock' reaction that is entirely normal (with I believe
underlying circulatory origination) under severe stress (Sue please correct
me if Im wrong).... and thats another fundamental human system response that
has to be deliberately suppressed..... finally theres the social reprobation
in most cultures (the only place Ive ever really noticed strong social, even
national approval for climbers, was New Zealand in the sixties, perhaps
following Hillary's 1953 Everest triumph)...and that opprobrium has to be
overcome too... so its not surprising that climbing is incomprehensible to
the risk-averse.... and perhaps more controversially, that it remains
predominantly a young man's sport ........(ricochet sounds offstage...)


Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 12:03:24 AM10/14/02
to
OK, here is what I think about safety with respect to climbing (or any other
dangerous activity)...

Safety is process oriented, not result oriented. I wasn't safe simply
because I survuved the climb.

We adopt a regime of safety behaviors designed to allow us to enter the
danger zone, do what we went there to do, and get out again in once piece.

Driving a car is a danger zone. We buckle our seatbelts, use our signals,
obey traffic signs, watch out for other drivers; all habits designed to
allow us to survive our drive. If we speed, fail to use our signals,
threaten other drivers, drink heavily and remain unbuckled, and still arrive
intact at our destination, we were not safe in the process. We did not do
the drive safely.

Now think about your climbing... are you cutting corners? When I leave my
seatbelt unbuckled it is a conscious act because buckling it has become
ingrained. I have to choose to be unsafe in that respect. For me, ignoring
certain climbing safety habits requires a conscious thought as well.

Think about your climbing! Are you choosing to be unsafe at times?
Expedience of the moment? How many of us have let go of the belay rope, even
for a split second, to attend to some task? How many of us have worked at
the edge of the precipice unroped, simply because it was easier and faster?

Risk was mentioned. Risk analysis is the process where we shave the safety
margins by purposely disregarding the very safety behaviors we have worked
so hard to learn.

I just did a 800 foot ice climb today, unroped. There were two roped parties
above us when we stated. Occasional ice bombs were falling our way, yet we
chose to continue. Our risk analysis led us to believe we could do the climb
safely *enough.* And oddly, while safety is process driven, risk analysis is
result oriented. Our analysis was correct.

So when someone declares my question to be oxymoronic or somehow defective,
I gotta tell you, those are the very people I expect to succumb to their own
warnings. All of us, or damn near all of us, choose to ignore certain safety
behaviors from time to time. Are we too arrogant to realize that? And in
certain circumstances, it is vitally important we do so.

In coming storm, your ice ax is vibrating, your partner wants a belay on
that last 4th class pitch... risk anaysis. What are you going to do?

Are you a safe climber?

DMT


stinkwagen

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 2:27:42 AM10/14/02
to
"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> wrote in message
>
> Are you a safe climber?

Compared to what? I can tell you I'm less safe than some people and safer
'n dead.

To answer this question you need some benchmark(s) for the inherent relative
scale of safety. So far this discussion (unless I've missed something) has
only discussed the scalepoints dead and alive. I believed I've answered
that question, but so far it's not a very interesting one. To refine the
question more points are needed to map out whatever relative scale you
choose.

Are you...
less safe than you oughta be?
a good bet for the guy selling you life insurance?
for the guy selling you disability insurance?

Are you ...
safer 'n a postman?
safer 'n a gasoline truck driver?
safer 'n DMT?

(


> I just did a 800 foot ice climb today, unroped. There were two roped
parties
> above us when we stated. Occasional ice bombs were falling our way, yet we
> chose to continue.

)

safer 'n me?

--
http://home.attbi.com/~cspieker/

John Lawrence

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 5:23:12 AM10/14/02
to

Dingus Milktoast <none@yabis> wrote in message
news:uqkgvnr...@corp.supernews.com...

> OK, here is what I think about safety with respect to climbing (or any
other
> dangerous activity)...
>
> Safety is process oriented, not result oriented.

couldnt it be both?....and how much does lady luck have to do with it?

> I wasn't safe simply because I survuved the climb.

severe and life-debilitating injury may be an unacceptable cost for mere
survival, but what about the converse..... was somebody inevitably unsafe
because they didnt survive? This has been an ongoing issue for years (e.g.
discussions around Aciidents in North American Mountaineering), and gets to
the inherent `unsafety' of climbing itself....

for example, if someone is well belayed, both hands on the rope, sober (!)
with helmet on, and seconding a route well within their grade level, and
rockfall independent of (and not caused by) the leader falls on them and
severely injures or kills them .... are they to be condemned for getting on
a route that suddenly proved so unstable, even though it could be argued
they had no way of knowing it was that unstable? Parenthetically, I am
staggered to learn each time I go back to the Lake District of major changes
in climbs, even whole crags, as I knew them. Huge chunks, even whole faces
sometimes just fall off as part of the weathering process, tectonic tilts...
who lnows....one well known example of this fatal whimsicality of mountain
faces is the chock behind the flake on Scafell's CB, which provided crux
handholds on one of the areas most classic climbs, even a belay point for
countless hundreds of climbers, and suddenly one day came out, killing (I
think) the second, but I cant honestly remember the details.... yet should
we (or insurers) look askance at climbers who are so unlucky as to be there
at that precise moment in annihilation's waste?

BenignVanilla

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 8:20:04 AM10/14/02
to
"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> wrote in message
news:uqetenk...@corp.supernews.com...


I agree with DMT here.

For the most part I am overly safe. For example, after climbing the other
day I started taking my harness off. When I do that I totally unstrap all
straps so they just hang. Someone saw me and asked why I didn't just loosen
them and step out. It is my feeling, I explained, that if I have to fully
put the harness on every time, I am forcing myself to check and recheck the
straps. The next time I climb, I won't get complacent, step in to the
harness and assume I am ready to go. Overly safe. But, in contrast, I
attempted a rapell this summer after some rainy conditions. I shouldn't have
attempted it in this case, and I got into some slippery (pun intended)
spots. Not safe. Not life threatening, but dangerous non the less.

So I think DMT's question is perfectly sound. I am not dead nor stupid nor
ignorant of safety, but that doesn't mean I do not sometimes make bad
decisions. Nor does it mean, I am able or unable to recognize those
decisions in hindsight and learn from them.

BV.
aka Safe Climber...most of the time.


Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 11:07:01 AM10/14/02
to

"John Lawrence" <jesla...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>
> couldnt it be both?

In the end, yes it could be. It was for you! It certainly has been for me! I
agree that it is never as simple as safe vs. unsafe. Risk analysis is
analog, not digital. So is safety.

But I do know that in dangerous environments, the flight desk of an aircraft
carrier, deep sea welding, working as a stripper... the more one deviates
from saftey protocols, the more one is risking. Do that enough times in
those environments and you'll get the chop.

When I'm on a wall where potentially every act is life threatening, I tend
to stay very close to the fold with respect to safety. When bouldering on a
sunny rock in the middle of a sandy field, much less so.

So I guess it's all relative indeed, which is what many of you have been
saying. And I would guess that many of us, myself at the head of the line,
are at times much less safe than we believe or acknowledge. Cheers!

DMT

Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 11:09:08 AM10/14/02
to

"stinkwagen" <cspi...@DONTSPAMattbi.com> wrote

> Compared to what?

Compared to nothing. I'm not posing the question as a benchmark. I'm not
saying I'm safe and you're not. I'm just posing the question. It's up to
each of us and our mates to answer it as we see fit.

> I can tell you I'm less safe than some people and safer
> 'n dead.

You seemed to be a pretty safe climber to me my friend. Cheers,

DMT


Edward Gerety

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 1:43:38 PM10/14/02
to
<<<Risk analysis is the process where we shave the safety
margins by purposely disregarding the very safety behaviors we have worked
so hard to learn.>>>

No - Risk analysis is the process of understanding the risk.

Edward

jeslawrence

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 3:15:41 PM10/14/02
to

"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> wrote in message
news:uqln8ro...@corp.supernews.com...

> But I do know that in dangerous environments, the flight desk of an
aircraft
> carrier, deep sea welding, working as a stripper... the more one deviates
> from saftey protocols, the more one is risking. Do that enough times in
> those environments and you'll get the chop.

as usual, interesting, provocative................and I agree, but would
also ask whether the real danger lies often beyond the book... outside the
pages so to speak, where quick and innovative problemsolving (and again
luck!) can save the day? An example (which I may have posted before, if so
please put it down to olefart memoryfade) was during a NSPS lift-evacuation
seminar I ran where we were following the book and carefully lowering a 200
lb patroller about 40' from a chair using a routine body belay and a single
11m bluewater (?) and the rope suddenly jammed in the toe where the chair
clamps onto the cable. This had never before happened in hundreds of
(practice and real) lowers, and I still think was due to a small deformity
in that particular toe.... anyway there we were... patroller in a harness
(actually quite safe for the moment, but increasingly uncomfortable and
freakin out) about 20' up, and totally stuck.....no prussiks (since we were
simulating actual chairlift rescue, and the public are usually
prussikless)... and no practical way he could do anything ... I fortunately
kept a spare rope on the side just out of natural scaredness, and with
difficulty we were were able to get it up and over the cable (damn hard in
any kind of wind)... and lowered him a double bowline to stand in to take
the weight off his rather uncomfortable harness, while we fixed up an
alternative and got him safely down.... but thats the sort of stuff that
doesnt make it into the books at least until after it has happened at least
once.... other than key general principles such as backup everything if
possible (with due regard to the cost in reduced speed and available
gear)... and always respect Murphy....

> When I'm on a wall where potentially every act is life threatening, I tend
> to stay very close to the fold with respect to safety. When bouldering on
a
> sunny rock in the middle of a sandy field, much less so.

me too... and especially nowadays... double and triple check
everyhting.....horrors!......but its still also possible to break ones neck
falling off a sunny little rock in the middle of a field as well you (and
the padpeople) know!

David Kastrup

unread,
Oct 20, 2002, 10:28:06 AM10/20/02
to
"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> writes:

> "David Kastrup" <David....@t-online.de> wrote
> > Actually, those that are aware of a conscious risk they are taking
> > might be comparatively "safer" than those that aren't.
>
> OK, compare this.
>
> I jump in my car. I'm driving across the parking lot to another store. I
> choose not to buckle my seatbelt because its such a short, low speed
> journey.
>
> Safe or unsafe? Choice or blind ignorance? It may be comparatively safer
> than doing the same at 100 kph, but so what?

So what? Do you mean to say that you drive at 100kph across the
parking lot when you are not aware you have not buckled your seatbelt?

> I say many climbers do this sort of thing on a fairly regular
> basis. The point that many folks are unaware of when they are being
> unsafe is a good one. But to say that all climbers who do unsafe
> things are unaware of it at the time is just stupid. It is not a
> supportable argument.

Ding, Ding, Dingus. If it is stupid and not a supportable argument,
why bother bringing it up? What relevance at all does your "example"
have to what I wrote?

Perhaps a misunderstanding? In the lines quoted above, "those that
aren't" refers to people not being aware of the risks they are
taking, not to people not taking any risks. I would have thought
this obvious, but perhaps I have been mistaken?

Dingus Milktoast

unread,
Oct 21, 2002, 12:11:39 AM10/21/02
to

"David Kastrup" <David....@t-online.de> wrote

<snip>

I'm sorry, but my interest in this thread expired about a week ago. You have
missed the cut off.

Feel free to resubmit your comments the next time this subject rolls around,
but not before Oct. 14, 2004.

DMT


Chiloe

unread,
Oct 21, 2002, 8:13:20 AM10/21/02
to
"Dingus Milktoast" <none@yabis> wrote:
>
> "David Kastrup" <David....@t-online.de> wrote
>
> <snip>
>
> I'm sorry, but my interest in this thread expired about a week ago.
> You have missed the cut off.

But, is there any climbing in Latvia? Just curious.

David Kastrup

unread,
Oct 21, 2002, 8:31:10 AM10/21/02
to
Chiloe <ich...@hotmail.com> writes:

Pretty much unqualified to say anything about this since I was on a
pretty much guided tour, and when there was free time, it was in
cities.

IIRC from the explanations of our guide, Estonia has no elevations
above about 300m, and things are probably not too much different in
Latvia.

However, with respect to buildering... in Tallin (former Reval,
Estonia), one prevalent building material for old buildings and
fortifications is what we Germans call "Kalk", probably limestone or
something in English. Quite a few old buildings made from large
blocks/bricks from material like that have had serious damage and
repairs over the time, leading to "natural" lines of varying
difficulty. The old mortar is _very_ strong and solid, newer repairs
seem to employ softer stuff with a higher sand content.

When driving back to Estonia, we halted at some old castle ruins (on
the Latvian side) where there was really excellent buildering.

Of course, this is quite not legal, using pro would be necessary for
larger heights, but with freestanding ruin walls when the pro held
(which I would consider actually pretty probably in quite a few
cracks) I would not want to warrant that you could not topple things
when falling.

Also, I would have wished I had at least brought my shoes: in Estonia
there was already quite a bit of snow and Latvia was not exactly warm,
either. So my feet took quite a bit of time to get warm again after
putting socks and shoes back on.

Anyhow, the kind of trip I took makes me quite unqualified to tell
whether or not there might be any _rock_ worth climbing in the Baltic
area.

0 new messages