This post was originally a comment in Double Cross

Double Cross is a very well protected route. The only part that is not is the first 15-20 feet (some gear available). But the first 15 to 20 feet is not where people are falling off and hurting themselves. It is higher up where pro is bomber and you can place as many cams as you are willing to carry up with you.

This is not an access issue or a land management issue. To claim so is irresponsible and misinformed.

The comment that times are changing is right on the mark, however. What has changed is that climbers who do not know how to place good gear or perhaps where to place gear and who do not know how to jam cracks are always jumping on this route due to its moderate rating.

"I can lead 5.10 in the gym or at some sport area, its only 5.7" is the problem. Many new climbers' expectations are unrealistic; their willingness to learn trad lead skills limited.

DC is not some R rated route that lures climbers to their doom. It is a "G" rated route (meaning good protection).

But what exactly are you proposing? Should climbers place big fat bolts right next to the crack so that someone straight of the gym can "safely" lead it. None of this makes any sense to me.

This post was originally a comment in Double Cross

Sorry, I thought I made myself clear: If you, as an experienced climber, see someone start to do something questionable, and your intuition tells you they're possibly lacking experience and about to get in over their heads, speak up. It will usually be appreciated, particularly if you've got some gray in your hair and a few wrinkles on your face. The old attitude of you're on your own displayed by some is nowdays antiquated. There's too much potential for tragedy out there now.

As the the original post queries....how many deaths does the route have?? any good guestimates or approximation's?

how about when you enter the park you have to sign something acknowledging the fact that Josh 5.7 isn't the same as your gym's 5.7?

If that many people were actually dying on the route, I think it would be incredibly irresponsible for the climbing community to let such a thing continue. This is not some cutting edge testpiece here, were talking beginners and inexperienced climbers. Something like this would be all that the "powers that be" would need to step in and start regulating the sport! I come from other 'dangerous' sports where the level of regulation is stifling. Certified training (costly), quarterly gear inspections (costly), annual license renewal (costly), currency ratings! Inevidably it will happen, but theres no reason to expedite the process.

You old timers have more of a say than I do. But, I see the basic problem here being that newbies believe that all climbs in a guidebook will be well-protected and "safe." Sure, adding a bolt on the slab will keep some climbers from decking but that does not address the basic problem. Better protection will continue the myth that all climbs in a book are "safe," thus setting them up for failure in the future.

As discussed, a note in the new guidebook will help educate new climbers in a long-term way. A bolt makes DC safer but does no long-term favor to new trad climbers. The goal should be to have climbers learn to say "that's over my head, I need to do something else." It's a hard thing to say, but important. I said it just last weekend for the first time in years on Pitch 3 of Jabberwock in Cochise Stronghold.

The bottom line here, as has been stated in fits and starts above, is this:

-Climbing is never 'safe'. Double Cross, despite being a popular, highly accessible, moderate climb, is also not 'safe'.

-Of two 'identical' roads, the one with more traffic will see more accidents than the other; neither is 'safe'. As stated by Randy, the number of accidents per climber is probably the same with respect to Double Cross as it is to many other routes in the park.

-Bolted climbs are not 'safe' because they are also rock climbs. Leaders have died during short sport climbing falls due to inexperienced belayers, bad rope management (feet behind the rope while falling), etc.

-The NPS knows perfectly well that climbing isn't 'safe'. Neither is backcountry hiking. Neither is stopping at the gas station on your way through Yucca Valley during a meth-induced shooting spree. Neither is...ad nauseum, ad infinitum. If the NPS really wants to restrict climbing, it will do so regardless and will find the excuse(s) necessary.

So what's the issue here? The first ascentionists aren't responsible for your own relative personal 'safety' on any climb: YOU are responsible for your own highly relative, highly subjective personal 'safety' during your whole life, including the time when, as a totally green young whippersnapper of a traditional climber, you step up to Double Cross as your first traditional lead due to its moderate reputation and proceed to get your ass handed to you properly! Few will wish you pain during your humbling experience, but you have to realize that simply by stepping out of your door, you are tacitly and/or explicitly accepting both the fact that life is NOT 'SAFE' and the fact that if you choose to participate in activities that are potentially even less 'safe' than life in general, you are even more responsible for your own 'safety'!

Ad nauseum, ad infinitum.