Passed by a soloing couple on a climb.... who was in the wrong?

Spencer Ralston wrote:

What is one to do? I am a new trad multi-pitch climber so I am still figuring out a lot of my own decisions and this caught me off guard. Were we in the wrong for not seeing them before we started out pitch? Should I have laid into the guy and told him off in the middle of his girlfriend trying to do a very hard move? Would love to here some thoughts.

To answer another part of your post, you made the right call once the situation presented itself. Keep still, STFU and have some kind of plan for if the worst happens.

Even if they deserved an ass-chewing, mid free-solo is not the time to interfere with their mental state. The ultimate goal is everyone makes it back to base camp regardless of who's right and who's wrong.

This may be the one case where it's appropriate to bitch about people after the fact on Mountain Project instead of confronting them directly.

The only acceptable choice is to fart loudly in protest as the soloist pass by, but that’s it.

You're not responsible for moron soloists that overtake you on route. There was no mistake on your part.

Sounds like they subjected you to some not insignificant sketch risk and are in line for an ass chewing. But it's not like you want to rattle these two morons especially when they're sketching on the heinous 5.7 moves over your head.

Here's my free advice: next time take pictures and casually tell them you'll be posting those photos later to MP, along with your commentary. Ask their names, saying "so I can get it right."

Tradiban wrote:

Soloists have right of way, you were driving slow in the left lane, so to speak.

As a climber you must accept that others have different risk tolerances and that may make you uncomfortable at times. The assumption that she might fall and break your partners leg seems like a stretch and if she did her fate would certainly overshadow your partners.

As usual, a trollish comment from you. No, a soloist does not have the right of way just because they choose to climb a cliff without a rope while others chose to use a rope. There are a few well-known soloists who lap the easiest route on Beacon rock outside Portland and I assure you they do not tell parties above them to "stand down' because "soloist coming through" with the "right of way." That would be like driving your car with no seat belt but asking all the other drivers ahead of you to pull over because you voluntarily chose to put yourself in a vulnerable place.

bryans wrote:

As usual, a trollish comment from you. No, a soloist does not have the right of way just because they choose to climb a cliff without a rope while others chose to use a rope. There are a few well-known soloists who lap the easiest route on Beacon rock outside Portland and I assure you they do not tell parties above them to "stand down' because "soloist coming through" with the "right of way." That would be like driving your car with no seat belt but asking all the other drivers ahead of you to pull over because you voluntarily chose to put yourself in a vulnerable place.

Right of way isn’t based in safety, although that would be nice, it’s based on speed. Soloists will be much faster overall and it’s polite to move over. The fact that this soloist was caught in pause right over his follower is simply happenstance.

In general it’s best to go through life assuming that not everyone is out to ruin your day and a “call out” is almost always unwarranted. I don’t even honk my horn while driving. “SERENITY NOW!”.

Based on the description of what happened, I’m guessing this relationship (the soloist couple) isn’t going to last.

Tradiban wrote:

Right of way isn’t based in safety, although that would be nice, it’s based on speed. Soloists will be much faster overall and it’s polite to move over. The fact that this soloist was caught in pause right over his follower is simply happenstance.

In general it’s best to go through life assuming that not everyone is out to ruin your day and a “call out” is almost always unwarranted. I don’t even honk my horn while driving. “SERENITY NOW!”.

I try not to argue with people on the internet, but here we go.  Most people on this thread got it right and the soloists IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE got it wrong and shouldn't have been there based on their skill, they shouldn't have interfered based on their skill, and they shouldn't have ever been cruxing out over and the around the roped party that they just decided to pass mid pitch.

-As Traddy said, right of way isn't based in safety, but based on who showed up first! Tradiban, ever read any other threads on MP?
-Soloists will be much faster overall and it is polite to move over. This is generally true if you feel safe doing so. But this is not necessarily related to the prior comment on right of way. It's a strawman argument in this specific case because the roped party was not in a good spot to move over at this moment.
-The fact that the soloists were caught in pause (CRUXING OUT) right over the roped follower is not simply happenstance. The soloists put themselves there very specifically moments before.

The safety of everyone involved should be paramount; however, the soloists neglected this ideal themselves by getting involved with the other party in a tight spot. The roped party displayed  excellent tact in remaining quiet so as not to spook the soloists who were clearly having a moment. It is not upon the roped party to potentially endure serious injury instead of injury/death to the soloists after the soloists party initiated the situation. 

Jake woo wrote:

I try not to argue with people on the internet, but here we go.  Most people on this thread got it right and the soloists IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE got it wrong and shouldn't have been there based on their skill, they shouldn't have interfered based on their skill, and they shouldn't have ever been cruxing out over and the around the roped party that they just decided to pass mid pitch.

I don’t think we really have enough information to determine if the soloists shouldn’t have been there based on their skill, we only have one side of the story, from a non-soloist.

Furthermore, surely they didn’t intend to “crux” above the follower, even if she was in fact “cruxing out”.

-As Traddy said, right of way isn't based in safety, but based on who showed up first! Tradiban, ever read any other threads on MP?
-Soloists will be much faster overall and it is polite to move over. This is generally true if you feel safe doing so. But this is not necessarily related to the prior comment on right of way. It's a strawman argument in this specific case because the roped party was not in a good spot to move over at this moment.
-The fact that the soloists were caught in pause (CRUXING OUT) right over the roped follower is not simply happenstance. The soloists put themselves there very specifically moments before.

It’s likely they didn’t know that was the crux, even if they did sometimes soloists get a bit “hung up” on a move and prudently take the time to work it out.

The safety of everyone involved should be paramount; however, the soloists neglected this ideal themselves by getting involved with the other party in a tight spot. The roped party displayed  excellent tact in remaining quiet so as not to spook the soloists who were clearly having a moment. It is not upon the roped party to potentially endure serious injury instead of injury/death to the soloists after the soloists party initiated the situation. 

Like I said, I don’t think the roped party was in danger and again, the soloists likely didn’t intend to be in a tight spot just then.

This was all nothing more than an awkward moment on the wall and an expression of discomfort from the roped party.

I never thought I'd agree with tradiban, first time for everything I guess. 

There are no rules.  This thread demonstrates that there isn't even a consensus ethic.  Soloists are just another objective hazard.

that guy named seb wrote:

I never thought I'd agree with tradiban, first time for everything I guess. 

Second this. His comments are right on. We have absolutely no idea how sketched out the soloist was beyond the OP’s original description. Do you really thing that that original post was the innocent unbiased account it was trying to sound like?  Anyone who posts to MP asking  for it to be the jury has an agenda.  The jury at least needs to hear both sides

Personally I think it is a total dick move to solo around other people unless they are totally fine with it (and that doesn't mean putting them on the spot asking when you are already getting into sketch territory), especially if there is a chance they can drop on you or make the roped climber nervous they might sweep you off the wall with their rope if they fall.. In the interest of safety, I wouldn't make it into an altercation while on the wall, but I would most likely be thinking you deserve a nice kick in the head

Soloists taking time to figure out the easiest and most secure way is fine, but minutes spent on a single move? That's some sketchy shit right there. It sounds like some dick pressuring his girlfriend to solo something she didn't want to. 

Soloists don't have right of way, they don't own the rock anymore than anyone else. If you aren't able to stop at a convenient spot in order to play well with others, you probably shouldn't be soloing. That being said, I always let soloists pass, because I don't want to be around them and they are almost certainly faster. But I'd say the same rules for passing apply to unroped climbers. If I got to a comfy spot and saw a follower 1/3rd of the way up the next pitch, I'd hang out and wait for them to be an appropriate distance where I'd pass them as they're finishing.

I wouldn't say either party was in the wrong if they asked your follower to pass, and I definitely wouldn't say anything to a sketched out soloist mid climb. I would have asked her if she felt comfortable continuing and offer to let her join my team, though.

Only times soloists passed me, I was at the belay station with my partner. And they asked if they could pass. Of course we said yes. What are we going to say no you stay here at the belay station without any rope?  They were still in line of fall with us and we would’ve died or been hurt if they fell though. I really don’t like this experience and hope it doesn’t come up again. Also, no soloist ever looked uncomfortable at all. That would be really scary.

But I wouldn’t have said anything if I was in your situation. They might die if I made them upset and they lost concentration.

nat han wrote:

Meanwhile her partner was turning around to film her struggling...

Watch our amazing FREE SOLO adventure!  Remember to like and subscribe.  

nat han wrote:

The soloist was the one cruxing on 5.4.

Spencer and his girlfriend were moving along without difficulty.

In the one sided fairy tale we heard

How can you stroke your ego if you don’t solo routes with people already on it?  This especially applies to easy routes that have noobs struggling along that you can confidently breeze past looking down your nose at them. Maybe if you want to solo, go find something with no one on it. 

 …I tied into the anchor and called down for my girlfriend to start climbing. After a few moves she stopped, a couple was passing her free solo. My girlfriend was off the anchor and about 1/3 up the pitch. The couple passed her one by one

She did a “few moves” (off her belay it sounds like) and was “about 1/3 up the pitch”?

Must be a really short pitch. Leader should’ve seen, or been aware of the soloists coming and told his gf to wait for them to pass while she was still anchored, or lowered her back to the anchor “a few moves” down, so she was as secure as possible. Leader says he could see the female soloist “sketching out”, so he must have seen what led up to that.

Sheesh!

Another MP tempest in a teapot

Kevin Worrall wrote:

She did a “few moves” (off her belay it sounds like) and was “about 1/3 up the pitch”?

Must be a really short pitch. Leader should’ve seen, or been aware of the soloists coming and told his gf to wait for them to pass while she was still anchored, or lowered her back to the anchor “a few moves” down, so she was as secure as possible. Leader says he could see the female soloist “sketching out”, so he must have seen what led up to that.

Sheesh!

Another MP tempest in a teapot

Agreed! Mistakes were made (most likely by both parties). A great lesson in this since you are, as you say, a newer trad/multiptich leader, is awareness of other parties, roped or otherwise, in your general vicinity, and definitely on your same route. Anticipate issues, negotiate solutions and manage the risk...that's what makes climbing fun anyways.

If you're in a party of 2, and you're surrounded by other parties with ropes, then is it really soloing?