Risk management in areas with both single and multi-pitch climbing

Tradibanwrote:

"Rock climbing is inherently dangerous"

               -Tradiban

Woah! Mind blown. Please say more!

PRRosewrote:

This has never been the case, nor should it ever be. The party climbing above others has the responsibility to do whatever they can to mitigate risks to those below them. For example, we were all taught to scream "Rock," whenever something is dropped or dislodged--that is risk mitigation. And, clearly, the higher party has the obligation to take any action, or refrain from any action, that increases the likelihood of causing rockfall--such as being careful on belay ledges.

Emphasis mine. I'll disagree a bit and say the party above should take reasonable but not burdensome precautions and certainly shouldn't be intentionally trundling. That said, if a party decides to start up a route knowing there are already climbers above, they have to assume that risk. I can think of a few chossier multiptich venues where you just don't climb under other parties. This is a pretty well established thing for ice climbing; I don't view it as fundamentally different for rock. (As an aside, the Wasatch is the only place I've ever climbed ice where everyone seems willfully ignorant of the whole "don't climb beneath another multipitch party" thing.)

Derek DeBruinwrote:

Emphasis mine. I'll disagree a bit and say the party above should take reasonable but not burdensome precautions and certainly shouldn't be intentionally trundling. That said, if a party decides to start up a route knowing there are already climbers above, they have to assume that risk. I can think of a few chossier multiptich venues where you just don't climb under other parties. This is a pretty well established thing for ice climbing; I don't view it as fundamentally different for rock. (As an aside, the Wasatch is the only place I've ever climbed ice where everyone seems willfully ignorant of the whole "don't climb beneath another multipitch party" thing.)

"Mitigate" means to reduce; It does not mean eliminate.

PRRosewrote:

"Mitigate" means to reduce; It does not mean eliminate.

Indeed. Pedantry aside, that does not negate my point. I don't think the party above necessarily owes any significant mitigation measures beyond what a leader would afford their own belayer. Beyond that, if you start up beneath another party, that's on you. 

However, if the multipitch party elected to climb above an established single pitch (or other) party below, then I think pretty strenuous mitigation is much more reasonably demanded.

Jon Wwrote:

This...

It doesn't matter if it's multi-pitch or single pitch. rock fall happens. I think that large numbers of people, all talking, spewing beta, etc. all detract from the attention that should be dedicated to being aware at the base of a cliff (not just a cliff with routes). I've seen wind cause rocks to fall. I've seen large rocks fall when there was not reason for them to.  All those rocks that are on the ground, got there by falling off of something above.  And just because we are there, doesn't mean it's not going to happen again.  To try to do something that makes us think that the risk is mitigated only makes us more vulnerable. So, as stated by  Franck, a heads up approach is absolutely required. Fall zones are pretty obvious.  Stay in close or far enough away from the cliff, that you minimize the risk. And pay attention...

Absolutely agree with what you and Franck wrote.  This latest accident is horribly sad for the friends, family and the community at large.  They always are heartbreaking.

These kinds of rock fall related fatalities have been happening for as long as people have been climbing.  Whether it's a climber pulling off a block onto themselves, or onto their belayer, or knocking rock to the ground onto people below, the danger is always a possibility. 

Is the frequency increasing?  I don't know, but my impression, when I end up at crowded places, which isn't too often, is that people these days don't seem to have as much situational awareness about objective hazards.  Unless they have a mentor, people coming out of gyms probably don't know how to look at/for loose rock, how to knock on rocks to listen to the tone, how to see fracture lines on blocks.  I always talk about this as an important issue with people I'm out with who are newer to climbing.

People at the base these days seem kind of oblivious to where they are sitting relative to hazards from above.

Maybe the most productive thing we can do is adopt a "see something, say something" mentality.  I'm going to try to be more aware of opportunities to do that going forward.

aikibujinwrote:

Woah! Mind blown. Please say more!

No matter how many "rules" you make it's a free country and people will continue to climb the climbs they please regardless of the risks. No matter how many rocks you trundle there will always be more, especially in Colo. No matter how many bolts you place people will still kill themselves rock climbing.

Tradibanwrote:

No matter how many "rules" you make it's a free country and people will continue to climb the climbs they please regardless of the risks. 

This is only sort of true. Cultural norms and social pressure are incredibly powerful forces to shape behavior. They may not totally eliminate the behavoir, but can move the needle in a significant way.

As an example, let's talk poop. If I were to go up to a popular crag, squat right at the base, and drop a turd, there would be a unanimous chorus from those present, of "WTF, don't do that." While there are some sociopaths out there that wouldn't care ("FU, I poop where I want"), 99% of us respond to the social pressure and find somewhere more acceptable to poop.

Same can be applied to an action like climbing the chossy multipitch above the popular crag on a Saturday. Right now the climbing culture norm is "Oh well, I guess we can't stop them." But what if, context specific to a crag, most the local community decided the the chossy multipitch routes above the popular crag should not be climbed on a popular weekend. So if someone showed up on a Saturday and started climbing it, just like the crag pooper they would receive an angry chorus of "WTF, don't do that." While there are certainly the "FU I climb where I want" people, most people will respond to social pressure.

So it isn't a question of rules, it's a question of discussing norms of accepted behavoir. We've done this with poop, bolts, pad stashing, tick marks, and so many other things. These norms are far from 100% effective, but they make a big difference. We can do the same with rockfall risk behavoir at popular crags.

JCMwrote:

This is only sort of true. Cultural norms and social pressure are incredibly powerful forces to shape behavior. They may not totally eliminate the behavoir, but can move the needle in a significant way.

As an example, let's talk poop. If I were to go up to a popular crag, squat right at the base, and drop a turd, there would be a unanimous chorus from those present, of "WTF, don't do that." While there are some sociopaths out there that wouldn't care ("FU, I poop where I want"), 99% of us respond to the social pressure and find somewhere more acceptable to poop.

Same can be applied to an action like climbing the chossy multipitch above the popular crag on a Saturday. Right now the climbing culture norm is "Oh well, I guess we can't stop them." But what if, context specific to a crag, most the local community decided the the chossy multipitch routes above the popular crag should not be climbed on a popular weekend. So if someone showed up on a Saturday and started climbing it, just like the crag pooper they would receive an angry chorus of "WTF, don't do that." While there are certainly the "FU I climb where I want" people, most people will respond to social pressure.

So it isn't a question of rules, it's a question of discussing norms of accepted behavoir. We've done this with poop, bolts, pad stashing, tick marks, and so many other things. These norms are far from 100% effective, but they make a big difference. We can do the same with rockfall risk behavoir at popular crags.

I hope you are right. I have no experience of Colorado crowded crag trad/multipitch climbing, other than a deep gut feeling that I want no part of it.

But I think the norms change faster when the immediate effect of the actions is clear/visible every time, and felt by all people at the crag. (Pooping in the middle of a crowded crag example).

When it comes to rockfall-related fatalities, they are relatively rare in the first place. And of all the rockfall-caused fatalities only a tiny, tiny fraction are the ones related to a climbing party above directly causing the rock fall that injures the party below. So the social pressure effect would be incredibly diluted…

Again, I hope you are right. But the realist in me says it is very unlikely 

@ JCM -- I think the way you've framed this leads you to an easy but impractical "solution."

You've set it up as a popular sport climbing crag with a few random chossy multi-pitches above.  Is this how all the climbers in the local community would characterize it?  Or would some say there are small run of the mill single pitches, with some interesting and potentially classic multi pitches above?  Clearly, these two groups/viewpoints would not feel the same way about a general "don't climb the multi-pitches on crowded weekends" social norm.  You would be prioritizing one group over another, which is troublesome.  Also, who gets to decide which weekends are crowded?  Is there some sort of schedule?  And what about a group that wants to climb multipitch, wakes up at 6:00 AM, walks in, and starts climbing, and then others show up below. 

I feel like the "leaving a note on your car" or at some central register, as is the practice in some Canadian ice climbing venues, could work.  If you wanted to start early to climb multipitch others would know and could make a reasonable decision.  And if you arrived and say 10 groups signed in as sport climbing, you would know not to go in and multi-pitch. 

Anyway, as I said in the other posts, and as many people have elaborated here, it's not a simple situation with a black and white answer.  

Bruno Schullwrote:

@ JCM -- I think the way you've framed this leads you to an easy but impractical "solution."

You've set it up as a popular sport climbing crag with a few random chossy multi-pitches above.  Is this how all the climbers in the local community would characterize it?  Or would some say there are small run of the mill single pitches, with some interesting and potentially classic multi pitches above?  Clearly, these two groups/viewpoints would not feel the same way about a general "don't climb the multi-pitches on crowded weekends" social norm.  You would be prioritizing one group over another, which is troublesome.  

I agree that this is an over-simplification, but that is just one example that represent an end-member of the spectrum. This also is in response to the specific case of the crag Other Critters, brought up by OP.  The situation/norm/solution may be totally different in other circumstances. See also my earlier post (first page of this thread). And in other places it is a gray area that may never be settled easily.

I do think that these two things are broadly true:

1. The circumstances are unique at each crag and must be considered by the local community.

2. Even if we can't set hard "rules", there is space for a local community to develop and promote local norms and best practices. 

---

The local norms and best practices could be (A) "It's not cool to climb the multi-pitches on a Saturday since you'll knock rocks on people" or it could be (B) "climbers should carefully consider the risks of cragging below a party of multiptich climbers, due to rockfall hazard". Or it could be (C) something totally different based on local circumstances.  Each situation has its own biases and favors a different set of routes. Which to choose can be debated by each community within each context and based on the values of the community. However, if we say we can't favor one set of climbs or the other and can do nothing, then the situation just defaults to (B), implicitly favoring the multipitch climbs and meaning there is not safe time to climb the cragging routes on the weekend.  This fine if that is what the community wants, but is should be a decision that is discussed directly, rather than something that happens by default.

I feel like the "leaving a note on your car" or at some central register, as is the practice in some Canadian ice climbing venues, could work.  If you wanted to start early to climb multipitch others would know and could make a reasonable decision.  And if you arrived and say 10 groups signed in as sport climbing, you would know not to go in and multi-pitch.

This fits into the general framework, of a community social norm. Though this particular example sets up an arms-race of getting there first, which has its own issues.  It would likely work well in a less-busy area where there is lots of space for everyone and its just a matter of coordinating. It would likely break down in a popular, highly trafficked zone where there will be high demand for both types of route on any given Saturday.

Again, there is no universal solution. But I think there can be local solutions in some circumstances. Even if we can't establish universal rules, we can establish local norms when needed.

That makes sense JCM.  I appreciate whjat you]re saying.  In many ways, it's discussions just like this that would benefit communities. 

I'm from the US, but have lived in Europe for about 15 years.  There are varying practices here, as anywhere.  In the area where I live in Switzerland, the guidebooks usually include language like "Be careful if climbing at site X because parties above can cause rock fall."  There is some attempt to raise awareness about potential dangers, but little attempt to influence what/when/how people climb.  That said, I think most reasonable/experienced climbers around here would be concerned or at least mindful about starting a multi-pitch above others.  I also climb often around Chamonix, and there it's even more, "Climb at your own risk, do whatever you want."  All the stories you hear about people  climbing through other parties, pulling on ropes, clipping gear, going above, below, to the side of others are pretty much true!  You meet some great people and have some nice climbs, and sometimes you have some bad experiences.  Best to get up early!  

Back to this incident, it's just hard to know, but it seems like such a preventable tragedy, I'm glad the discussion is happening.

Lena chitawrote:

But I think the norms change faster when the immediate effect of the actions is clear/visible every time, and felt by all people at the crag. (Pooping in the middle of a crowded crag example).

When it comes to rockfall-related fatalities, they are relatively rare in the first place. And of all the rockfall-caused fatalities only a tiny, tiny fraction are the ones related to a climbing party above directly causing the rock fall that injures the party below. So the social pressure effect would be incredibly diluted…

Again, I hope you are right. But the realist in me says it is very unlikely 

I disagree, and the evidence I present as a counter-argument is the desert sandstone wet-rock police. This is a well-known norm now, and adherence to it is fairly OK. Some people are absolutely dogmatic and lose their mind over the possibility that someone could break a hold and alter a climb. Yet "you could break a hold on this boulder" is small fry compared to "you could kill someone". 

Another example is the continued adherence to the rap-instead-of-lower norm, for concern of wearing out anchors. This is a distant and dilute concern, yet is still strongly held by some people even in cases where it is outdated. Norms, once established, are powerful.

For whatever local norm you want to establish (lets say it is to not climb a specific multipitch route on weekends when other parties are present below), the MP route page and crag page could be changed to have this message in bold text on top of the page. And the local access society would post it on their instagram, etc.  Most climbers will be pretty compliant if the message is delivered with some sort of authority behind it. Not everyone will comply, but that is fine. Partial-compliance still makes a big difference.

-----

I also climb often around Chamonix, and there it's even more, "Climb at your own risk, do whatever you want."  All the stories you hear about people  climbing through other parties, pulling on ropes, clipping gear, going above, below, to the side of others are pretty much true!  You meet some great people and have some nice climbs, and sometimes you have some bad experiences.  Best to get up early!  

Hehe, I encountered this in Chamonix (many years ago). I adapted, but then brought this attitude back to the US. This made me a bit of a a-hole on multpitch routes for a while.... Eventually I got back to "US-standard" etiquette norms. 

I feel that, if you choose to climb below other climbers, regardless of whether the crag is primarily single pitch with random chossy multi-pitch climbs sprinkled in, you've got to recognize that you are choosing to put yourself at risk by climbing below others. Should be a no-brainer but apparently not. My example also brings up etiquette issues: 

Last fall me and a buddy went to do Second Coming on Muralla Grande in the Sandias. We were the only ones there. This is a great route, but there is a lot of choss on route and surrounding it. As my partner started the second pitch, another party arrived at the base, clearly intending to do the route. They could have just waited 30 minutes before starting the route to avoid conflict, but they probably assumed they were going to be faster and would pass us, so they started up the route. Nice enough guys and I enjoyed my conversations with both of them at various belays, but they complicated everything at all belays for both parties once they caught up to us. Most of the belays have at least one old piton which can only fit a single carabiner. So every belay from the second belay to the top, they ended up having to clip into our gear which was already occupying the anchor. Not to mention awkward stance sharing. Again, if they'd just waited about a half an hour, we would have never had to share ledges/anchors/fixed gear/our gear.

While following pitch three or four, I managed to knock loose a cinder block sized rock. I yelled "rock, rock!" as loudly as I could, and it bounced well out away from the following party, but it was scary. At the end, we all topped out unharmed, but my partner and I had to wait an hour and fifteen minutes at the top for them to top out, just to retrieve gear of ours that they had to clip into at belays.

Again, nice enough guys, but the fact is they bumrushed us on this route, complicating belays and necessitating their use of our gear and us waiting for them to finish just to retrieve our gear. And again, had they just waited 30 minutes, we would not have had the gear/belay situation. But regardless of timing, they chose to subject themselves to any falling rock from us above them. I would never follow another party up a multi-pitch route in the Sandias. I would choose another route.

JCMwrote:

This is only sort of true. Cultural norms and social pressure are incredibly powerful forces to shape behavior. They may not totally eliminate the behavoir, but can move the needle in a significant way.

As an example, let's talk poop. If I were to go up to a popular crag, squat right at the base, and drop a turd, there would be a unanimous chorus from those present, of "WTF, don't do that." While there are some sociopaths out there that wouldn't care ("FU, I poop where I want"), 99% of us respond to the social pressure and find somewhere more acceptable to poop.

Same can be applied to an action like climbing the chossy multipitch above the popular crag on a Saturday. Right now the climbing culture norm is "Oh well, I guess we can't stop them." But what if, context specific to a crag, most the local community decided the the chossy multipitch routes above the popular crag should not be climbed on a popular weekend. So if someone showed up on a Saturday and started climbing it, just like the crag pooper they would receive an angry chorus of "WTF, don't do that." While there are certainly the "FU I climb where I want" people, most people will respond to social pressure.

So it isn't a question of rules, it's a question of discussing norms of accepted behavoir. We've done this with poop, bolts, pad stashing, tick marks, and so many other things. These norms are far from 100% effective, but they make a big difference. We can do the same with rockfall risk behavoir at popular crags.

Taking a poop at the base of a popular crag has always been unacceptable behavior, ie nothing has changed. There are certainly somethings that the social contract can enforce but they have to be a certain level of outrageous and specifically definable, like pooping at the base of a crag, but a climbing route is subjective.  

I can almost hear all the Colo Flexers screaming obscenities at the parties above. 

I just want to chime in, I have almost died from a rockfall HIKING in Yosemite. I don't mean like "oh a small rock fell and could've knocked me off" I mean an entire boulder fell off somewhere above. Not sure if it was other hikers, or just got dislodged somehow. My point being rockfall is an inherent danger of the sport. We can argue both sides of the ethics around climbing above people all day but the truth is no matter what it is going to happen one way the other. The only thing we can do is like what we do with everything in climbing, limit risks. Wear a helmet. Try to avoid climbing below people who are doing a multipitch, and if you're going to do it anyway, that is you accepting those risks. Same thing for the people above. I know that puts less responsibility on those doing the multipitch but its also hard to find a clear cut answer other than "depends on the situation" as plenty of others have pointed out.

Tradibanwrote:

"Rock climbing is inherently dangerous"

               -Tradiban

Pretty much it. 

JCMwrote:

I disagree, and the evidence I present as a counter-argument is the desert sandstone wet-rock police. This is a well-known norm now, and adherence to it is fairly OK. Some people are absolutely dogmatic and lose their mind over the possibility that someone could break a hold and alter a climb. Yet "you could break a hold on this boulder" is small fry compared to "you could kill someone". 

Another example is the continued adherence to the rap-instead-of-lower norm, for concern of wearing out anchors. This is a distant and dilute concern, yet is still strongly held by some people even in cases where it is outdated. Norms, once established, are powerful.

For whatever local norm you want to establish (lets say it is to not climb a specific multipitch route on weekends when other parties are present below), the MP route page and crag page could be changed to have this message in bold text on top of the page. And the local access society would post it on their instagram, etc.  Most climbers will be pretty compliant if the message is delivered with some sort of authority behind it. Not everyone will comply, but that is fine. Partial-compliance still makes a big difference.

Those are good points. The other thing that makes the rock-from-above concern likely to lead to lasting and widespread behavior changes, imo, is that well we're talking about death. Event htough climbers are generally less risk-averse than average people, most still don't want to die (or kill someone). Concrete, recent examples of that happening can have an effect. Lena may still be right, but I'm inclined to be optimistic.

The other part to that is that even though not EVERYONE sticks to whatever rules/best practices come out from these incident, if a large enough proportion of people actually do, we're still winning. If 1/10 don't care about people below in such a setting, that still mean that now 9/10 do and prevent accident. Likewise for those below. A lot of things have to go wrong for someone to die from a rockfall like in that fatality - carefless/back luck from aboce dislodge something, that thing falls at a time and place where someone below is present, the accident is grave enough to cause a fatality. Lots of rock fall and hit nothing.

i think Lena is probably on track here.  my guess is that people tend to forget about the rockfall type incidents pretty quickly, and will to go back to lounging in hammocks at the base of busy areas. contrast this with taking a dump in front of everybody at the base of the wall, which has much wider/deeper social acceptance as being a total faux-pas. 

slimwrote:

i think Lena is probably on track here.  my guess is that people tend to forget about the rockfall type incidents pretty quickly, and will to go back to lounging in hammocks at the base of busy areas. contrast this with taking a dump in front of everybody at the base of the wall, which has much wider/deeper social acceptance as being a total faux-pas. 

Apparently except for crapping on the sidewalk in some western cities right next to outdoor dining.

In all seriousness, I have always avoided climbing behind other parties in the alpine environment and avoid places like Eldo on weekends.  In some places like Wizard's Gate where there are good multi-pitch routes above popular single pitch ones, a dedicated cleaning activity could be done to toss the loose stuff with the bottom cordoned off.  I haven't seen much loose rock on the upper parts of Wizard's Gate, so that could be practical there. On the other hand the upper pitches of Too at The Little Eiger should be completely avoided except for maybe very early in the morning.  There are a lot of climbers that I have seen dragging their ropes across ledges, etc., completely disregarding the consequence to anyone who might be below.  

Tzilla Rapdrillawrote:

Apparently except for crapping on the sidewalk in some western cities right next to outdoor dining.

I witnessed exactly this last month in San Diego while I was having lunch at a nice restaurant on a major street.