ATC ban

Amarius, there is more than 1 insurance company out there.

Red Rock Climbing Center now only allows the new GriGri, GriGri+, or GriGri2, the old GriGri is out... based on insurance requirements. Some insurance companies have not strictly mandated certain devices *yet*, others have. There are even requirements for type of rope to use for individual walls sometimes. A gym manager I was chatting with recently was required to use only semi-static rope for their tall top rope only wall, dynamic had too much stretch, static too little... again, insurance requirements... ones that actually make a lot of sense for the circumstances of that particular wall.

For sure, there is some silliness with requirements out there... but most of it comes down to what is needed to meet insurance requirements. No matter how silly they may seem to us climbers.

Connor Dobsonwrote:

Tell me you only climb easy trad without telling me you only climb easy trad. 

I guess it depends on one’s definition of “easy trad” doesn’t it? But the inherent relative difficulty of a route should have no effect on this issue. If I am belaying a leader who is experiencing difficulties, or falling, on a route of any difficulty ( as I have done many times, for what it’s worth) I much prefer my ability to react quickly to the situation with an ATC, than when I have had to use a Grigri. Obviously you differ, but I don’t believe that there are any ‘absolutes’ in this discussion, just preferences.

Alan Rubinwrote:

I guess it depends on one’s definition of “easy trad” doesn’t it? But the inherent relative difficulty of a route should have no effect on this issue. If I am belaying a leader who is experiencing difficulties, or falling, on a route of any difficulty ( as I have done many times, for what it’s worth) I much prefer my ability to react quickly to the situation with an ATC, than when I have had to use a Grigri. Obviously you differ, but I don’t believe that there are any ‘absolutes’ in this discussion, just preferences.

Alan with all due respect, and respect is due, there is no way that a human with an ATC can react quicker than a Gri Gri will lock.  I haven’t climbed as long as you, but I have been around long enough to through the figure 8, to sticht plate, to ATC (HB Sheriff), to Gri Gri route, and for single pitch cragging, the ATC literally has zero advantages over a Gri Gri or similar. 

Depending on the situation, locking up quickly isn’t always the correct response.

Frank Steinwrote:

... the figure 8, to sticht plate, to ATC (HB Sheriff), to Gri Gri route...

Minor historical point. The sticht plate came before the figure 8. It was an improvement on the single link of 3/8" chain.

In single pitch context outside ATC can be more convenient to rap... but everyone is moving to lowering instead.

In a gym, the ATC has no benefits over GriGri or other assisted breaking device with the exception of how much it drills into people when they are learning, the importance of not letting go of the brake strand... at the possible expense of the safety of the climber one is belaying, hence why insurance companies prefer GriGri. Yes, you can, and should, mitigate that by using a back up belayer when someone is learning how to belay... but we have all seen some shit belayers in the gym, and the consequences would be worse with ATCs than with GriGris in their hands. For paying out/in rope if you can't do it as smooth with an GriGri as an ATC you don't have enough practice. For softer catches you step off the ground, not let rope slide through the device.

Re: employees paying more attention. Yeah, they should. I've seen plenty of strong climbers who have been climbing for years belaying with shit technique. We (contributors to this thread in general on mountain project) are not face to face in the same gym belaying to say who here is belaying like shit, but statistically, some one who has posted to this thread, probably is.

Frank Steinwrote:

Alan with all due respect, and respect is due, there is no way that a human with an ATC can react quicker than a Gri Gri will lock.  I haven’t climbed as long as you, but I have been around long enough to through the figure 8, to sticht plate, to ATC (HB Sheriff), to Gri Gri route, and for single pitch cragging, the ATC literally has zero advantages over a Gri Gri or similar.

One of many counter examples:

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/109869225/another-accident-due-to-mis-use-of-the-gri-gri

I suspect insurance has something to do with their decisions.  I suspect it was also a data-driven, not opinion-based, decision.

Eric Engbergwrote:

One of many counter examples:

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/109869225/another-accident-due-to-mis-use-of-the-gri-gri

Are you saying that you cannot screw up with an ATC?

Gumby Kingwrote:

I suspect insurance has something to do with their decisions.  I suspect it was also a data-driven, not opinion-based, decision.

I could not stress enough about how bad user reported data is at an insurance company. From intake alone it would be hard because there are so many elements. Scenarios a gym might have: abd on all hanging ropes, gri-gri on all prehung ropes, no device rules (this is a huge data problem). Now how many ropes, how often do people lead, how tall are the walls, how many auto belays, whats is the instruction, dog policy. Now you compare this to like 5 claims a year for all climbing gyms.

Just to hammer home how dumb some claims departments are. I am looking at policies for rental properties in California. I notice that we are somehow making a ton of money on fire only policies, which is insane after the years of wildfires. I look in the claim records, “structure burnt down in wildfire.” The department was coding wildfire claims as not fire. They showed me their drop down which had two options: fire or not fire. 

Demanding to use your ATC at a gym is like demanding to play in your hockey league without a helmet. Find a pond. Go be old school at the old school crag. The gym is not old school. And take that crap off your harness too please!  You will not be building an anchor or rapping. It’s a gym. Geez. 

j mowrote:

Demanding to use your ATC at a gym is like demanding to play in your hockey league without a helmet. Find a pond. Go be old school at the old school crag. The gym is not old school. And take that crap off your harness too please!  You will not be building an anchor or rapping. It’s a gym. Geez. 

 I find it hilarious when I see someone at the gym with a rack on their harness. Like cmom leave the shiny jingles for when you are going to actually place them. Had a partner that would say they had them on for weight training... I guess that's something... but it just looks like you want to show off for no reason. Just climb harder if you are really there for training or use a weight vest if you're actually that buff. Idk man just seems egotistical even for climbing types. Full disclaimer I haven't climbed harder than like 5.9 in a year

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

I could not stress enough about how bad user reported data is at an insurance company. From intake alone it would be hard because there are so many elements. Scenarios a gym might have: abd on all hanging ropes, gri-gri on all prehung ropes, no device rules (this is a huge data problem). Now how many ropes, how often do people lead, how tall are the walls, how many auto belays, whats is the instruction, dog policy. Now you compare this to like 5 claims a year for all climbing gyms.

Just to hammer home how dumb some claims departments are. I am looking at policies for rental properties in California. I notice that we are somehow making a ton of money on fire only policies, which is insane after the years of wildfires. I look in the claim records, “structure burnt down in wildfire.” The department was coding wildfire claims as not fire. They showed me their drop down which had two options: fire or not fire. 

At the end of the day its about money.  Gyms want the lowest but most sufficient insurance policy.  Gyms also want to avoid lawsuits.  Gyms also want to make their members happy...  But no joke, walk around the rope area of a large commercial gym; grigri's have prevented some serious accidents where an ATC (with improper use) would have lead to an 911 call.

Gumby Kingwrote:

At the end of the day its about money.  Gyms want the lowest but most sufficient insurance policy.  Gyms also want to avoid lawsuits.  Gyms also want to make their members happy...  But no joke, walk around the rope area of a large commercial gym; grigri's have prevented some serious accidents where an ATC (with improper use) would have lead to an 911 call.

Gumby, you often make good points, but the last sentence above is a real ‘doozy’. It is a total non sequitur. It is like saying if you watch any football game, the winning team would have lost if they’d fumbled more often. I’ve spent a lot of time ( too much time) of late in mostly mid-size commercial gyms, do observe a lot, and have seen no such things. Sure, I’ve observed some scary behavior, but none of that involved the type of belay device being used.

I realize that gym owners have the right to make the rules for their facilities and that such rules are often based upon the demands of insurers who have no real understanding of climbing.  I have much less understanding for those climbers ( and climbing organizations—which have much influence on said insurers) who so adamantly insist that their way of doing things is the ONLY acceptable way.

I have climbed at gyms that require the use of abd —they have had them already on the top ropes and I,obviously, have complied with their use, and would reluctantly do so if the gyms that I frequent adopt such a requirement ( while making my disagreement known). In my case, though, it would mean that I would no longer feel comfortable giving lead belays ( at least with Grigri type devices) as I would not be able to feed the rope to the leader in a way that I feel to be safe and appropriate—for physical reasons, not due to lack of training.

Alan Rubinwrote:

Gumby, you often make good points, but the last sentence above is a real ‘doozy’. It is a total non sequitur. It is like saying if you watch any football game, the winning team would have lost if they’d fumbled more often.

I agree Gumby does often make good points.  I'm not sure if it is a non-sequitur though.  A non-sequitur is something that doesn't logically follow what precedes it.  If Gumby has witnessed people doing things that would have resulted in a disaster had there not been a device that cams on the rope, like say, letting go of the rope while a climber is weighting it, or not having full control of the brake strand during a leader fall, then it DOES logically follow that those instances would likely have resulted in injury if the subjects were belaying with a tube device vs. a lock-assist device.  Your analogy isn't accurate.  Your analogy would be accurate if the player was running slowly and didn't have control of the ball but WASN'T obliterated by the defense because that portion of the field that the running back was in just so happened not to have any defensive players nearby.  *Most* of the conditions for disaster were there, but for one given variable that worked in the player's (belayer's) favor.

Don’t want to get too deeply into a discussion of ‘logic’ with you, but both Gumby and you are making arguments based upon unsupported assumptions without providing any data to back them up—because such data does not exist, as he is positing theoretical incidents that never happened. Gumby is saying that if a random person walks into a large commercial gym they will observe behavior that would have led to disaster if ATCs had been used improperly but that said potential disasters would not have occurred if Grigris were used ( ignoring that Grigris can be—and have been—improperly used,with bad results, as Eric posted above). I stated that I have not made such specific observations during my numerous gym visits. If Gumby or you can provide details of such observations that you have made, then we would have something to discuss. I don’t dispute that incidents have happened as a result of the improper use of ATCs, as they have with ABDs, but don’t agree that either are that common.

Alan Rubinwrote:

Gumby is saying that if a random person walks into a large commercial gym they will observe behavior that would have led to disaster if ATCs had been used improperly but that said potential disasters would not have occurred if Grigris were used 

Perhaps Gumby's statements could be interpreted in a slightly different way - even though there are known GriGri failure modes, making GriGri fail requires active adverse participation from belayer, while active and attentive operation of ATC/tube style device is required for safe use. Basically - you got to force GriGri to fail, while no effort is required to make tuber fail.

Frank Steinwrote:

Are you saying that you cannot screw up with an ATC?

Nope I am not saying that.  Sort of the opposite.  You can screw up with anything.  I am just questioning that a Gri-Gri is MUCH safer,  Everywhere with everybody all the time.  But obviously in the gym context its more limited and its an easy rule to enforce.  Gyms tend to like rules.

Would like to know why, from any of the lawyer perspectives here, there is even an “insurance or lawsuit issue” in the first place.   Negligence is one thing (clearly inappropriate/faulty safety equipment provided by gym, or blatant or egregious stupidity by gym, etc). But that is rare to non-existent

What law or principle holds a gym liable if a climber drops/injures another climber thru the Climbers own negligence or misuse of their own equipment?  

Why is this even a thing for gyms to worry about?  Or is it?  Who is pushing this on gyms?  Lawyers or insurance ?  Is it strictly just covering the risk and cost of defending against even meritless lawsuits that wouldn’t win anyway? 

The misguided and futile attempt to idiot proof the world makes it suck for non-idiots

Mark Pilatewrote:

Would like to know why, from any of the lawyer perspectives here, there is even an “insurance or lawsuit issue” in the first place.   Negligence is one thing (clearly inappropriate/faulty safety equipment provided by gym, or blatant or egregious stupidity by gym, etc). But that is rare to non-existent

What law or principle holds a gym liable if a climber drops/injures another climber thru the Climbers own negligence or misuse of their own equipment?  

Why is this even a thing for gyms to worry about?  Or is it?  Who is pushing this on gyms?  Lawyers or insurance ?  Is it strictly just covering the risk and cost of defending against even meritless lawsuits that wouldn’t win anyway? 

The misguided and futile attempt to idiot proof the world makes it suck for non-idiots

For posterity.