Safety Third. The Glorification of Injury.

What is really interesting about this revived old thread is how many boundry-pushing climbers have died since it was written. Watching old reel rock films recently, I realized that a ton of these people are gone. Sad. 

slim wrote:

This seems a bit embellished. Climbing is what you make it. You can make it risky, or you can make it pretty pedestrian.

The fact that you can make choices about trad risks doesn't change the fact that risk is a critical ingredient.  In fact the opposite: all the things we do to mitigate risk are a consequence of the presence of risk.  There didn't use to be a choice about this, but now we can clip (well-placed and well-spaced) bolts and more or less banish risk from the equation.

Creed Archibald wrote: I agree with OP. I actually hate the whole "Safety Third" saying and concept, even if it is supposed to be a joke. After taking a 60 foot slab fall and cheese grating the skin off my arms and legs, I realized that coming home safe is actually the *only* thing that matters. If you are ready, go for it. But if it feels wrong, call take, leave gear, or back down. It doesn't matter. Stay safe and climb next weekend.

I understand that “safety third” was not a joke or indifference to safety but a different way of looking at how safety is analyzed in commercial settings. On movie sets the accident rate went up when “safety first” became the mantra and dedicated teams were employed to make sure everyone stayed safe. As a result, everyone assumed the safety team was looking out for them and quit looking out for themselves. The result was more accidents through negligence thinking someone else was responsible for your safety. So other parameters like self preservation and situational awareness were given priority and safety came in third, resulting in a safer environment. 
The phrase has probably been adopted by some as way to show machismo. 

^^ Greg R that's really interesting.  I just associated the phrase with the Brad Gobright film from 2017.  I can't be alone in that misconception.  

In a gym, Mike Rowes mantra certainly applies. How often are they replacing their ropes? How many whips has that bolt in the roof taken? How old is that rental harness? Some gyms clearly maintain their equipment well and some do not. You should not assume they are taking care of you (that’s why ya signed the waiver).
Outdoors though, it’s a totally different story. Obviously there is no one that you could possibly mistake for being responsible for your safety when you’re running it out in defiance of death. In order to make good content, climbers consider safety third to looking good and having fun, and the audience eats up the thrilling narratives. But it’s irresponsible to tell these tales without acknowledgement of the consequences  

 The lives of brad gobright and Marc-Andre demonstrate that you can’t evade consequence forever. Despite all the sketchy shit they got away with, putting yourself in risky situations can catch up with you when you’re not expecting it.  The tone of The Alpinist changes dramatically at the end when you learn of MA’s passing. I’m sure the cedar Wright film would have hit different if the news brad’s passing was included at conclusion of the film. 

These are eternal, generational and repetitive discussions. Youth celebrates reckless freedom, age invests in insurance and heavy risk management. Has it ever been any different in the history of our civilizations? I promise you the OP celebrated risk in his day, too. Some of our reckless youth will not make it to old age. So what? Plenty do. 

I say celebrate the wild heart of climbing and do not be so quick to criticize the risk of others. 

Ira OMC wrote:

What is really interesting about this revived old thread is how many boundry-pushing climbers have died since it was written. Watching old reel rock films recently, I realized that a ton of these people are gone. Sad. 

Who besides BradG?

Andrew Rice wrote:

Who besides BradG?

Dean. 

Chris Johnson wrote:

Dean. 

Dean died three years before this thread was even created. And he wasn't climbing. Hard for me to see the connection. I mean, sure, there are climbers who have died of heroin overdoses, and from driving too fast, too. 

Andrew Rice wrote:

Dean died three years before this thread was even created. And he wasn't climbing. Hard for me to see the connection. I mean, sure, there are climbers who have died of heroin overdoses, and from driving too fast, too. 

I think they were responding to climbers who have died since the thread was created.  I don't think it needed to be climbing related.  

Chad Miller wrote:

I think they were responding to climbers who have died since the thread was created.  I don't think it needed to be climbing related.  

Maybe that's true, but the original focus of the thread is recklessness in climbing. As I said above, I really don't see the meaningfulness of people who climb dying some other way. I fly small airplanes. I scuba dive. I surf. If I crash into a mountain, or get the bends, or drown surfing, what does say about climbing? 

Andrew Rice wrote:

Maybe that's true, but the original focus of the thread is recklessness in climbing. As I said above, I really don't see the meaningfulness of people who climb dying some other way. I fly small airplanes. I scuba dive. I surf. If I crash into a mountain, or get the bends, or drown surfing, what does say about climbing? 

It says that climbing would have been safer and if you had been climbing you wouldn't of died. 

In short you should have gone climbing.  

Andrew Rice wrote:

Who besides BradG?

I had just watched Safety Third, so in that is Brad and Hayden Kennedy. Then Race for the Nose, Dean and Sean both have passed. Then I watched The Swiss Machine...

Not saying they died because of "glorification" of risk- but they led lives with a lot if inherent risk. Now Hillaree Nelson, Marc Andre, etc... I just got bummed out watching these movies about people I idolized who are now dead. Definitely not judging them. I'd be doing the same shit if I was in their position.  

As Jim Morrison said “no one here gets out alive” . So you choose whatever level of risk is acceptable to you. You make an assessment of whether the reward is worth the risk. And that’s different for different individuals while I consider myself to be a conservative old lady on telemark skis. Many people think that I’m crazy, but I consider that to be complement.

Ira OMC wrote:

I had just watched Safety Third, so in that is Brad and Hayden Kennedy. Then Race for the Nose, Dean and Sean both have passed. Then I watched The Swiss Machine...

Not saying they died because of "glorification" of risk- but they led lives with a lot if inherent risk. Now Hillaree Nelson, Marc Andre, etc... I just got bummed out watching these movies about people I idolized who are now dead. Definitely not judging them. I'd be doing the same shit if I was in their position.  

I hear you. I consider the risk of high altitude mountaineering to be a very different critter from rock climbing. So Andre and Nelson and Dean Potter's wing suiting death don't seem applicable. And Hayden died by suicide. But, like you, I also grieve their loss. 

The best way to sum up this discussion for myself is by adding a word to Rich’s assertion: “the essence of trad climbing is risk [management]”.

Healyje wrote:

The best way to sum up this discussion for myself is by adding a word to Rich’s assertion: “the essence of trad climbing is risk [management]”.

I agree with that, but I don't think it changes the way I put it, because you have to have risk if you are going to manage it.

I know, we tend to prefer other euphemisms like "adventure," because we told our mums we were in more danger driving to the crag (which I seriously doubt). But risk, and most definitely yes---how you deal with it---is one of the defining characteristics of trad climbing. The Brits and Eastern European climbers seem to be keen on preserving this distinction. The world's best rock climber, Adam Ondra, seems to get that there should be room for demanding trad as well as demanding sport and every route does not have to be made safe for every climber. See 

Chad Miller wrote:

It says that climbing would have been safer and if you had been climbing you wouldn't of died. 

In short you should have gone climbing.  

I like how you think.