ATC ban

Alan Rubinwrote:

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.

Yeah man, I totally hear what you're saying, and it was a bit hair splitter of me to say that in the first place.  Of course there is no data for an accident that didn't happen.  But it is a reasonable assumption that when you see someone looking at their phone with no hands on the rope and a climber resting on the rope with a grigri engaged, that if that was a tube, the climber would plummet to the ground in the exact same circumstances.  The fact that the grigri was in use doesn't negate basic physics, so assuming that physics would react the way that physics does, isn't a non-sequitur.  I also agree with you that they aren't common- but defining something or labeling something as "common" is vague.  Data definitely would be more helpful.  ANAM and other sources are of *some* help, but there is no definitive source of data that records every accident, the reason why, and the device being used and whether or not it was a factor, unfortunately.  If there was, then we could just point at that source of the data and at the very least draw well-founded inferences.  But alas, that definitive source doesn't exist, only pieces of it.

amariuswrote:

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.

But how often do these ‘failure’ incidents —with either category of device—actually occur?  Not very often as best as I have been able to learn.

While I generally acknowledge your point ( at least in the top-rope context, lead belaying—at least with a Grigri—does add in significant opportunities for human ‘interference’), I look at that distinction very differently. I am speaking as a climber here and realize that gym owners/insurers have a different perspective, but  for me the necessity to always be alert and pay attention in many situations is a very important aspect of climbing. To the extent that ABDs allow ( or are less likely to punish) inattention and sloppiness  ( which is why owners and insurers prefer them) in that aspect of climbing is something that I consider to be concerning ( I’m not saying that all ABD users are inattentive or sloppy but I have personally observed such behavior from some as have others who posted above).

There is another issue with some ABDs that I haven’t seen mentioned in this discussion. All are ‘machines’ of some sort, many involve multiple parts, some of which move, and in some these parts are enclosed or partially enclosed. All of these are potential points of failure, however rare such failures may be, especially with frequent use. How often, I wonder, do gyms with pre-fixed Grigris on their ropes inspect them for wear and tear? And  I doubt if there is any gym that performs such inspections on their clients’ personal gear. This isn’t anything causing me to stay up at night but is just another possible lawsuit that may happen some day, for those who do worry about such things!!!!

With this I’ll have reached my post limit for this thread early in the day—unless I add some edits.

Adding an edit already, to answer Mark’s question. The sad answer is that such lawsuits do occur, with climbing gyms and other activities.   Plaintiffs can ( and do) always claim that someone—ideally the ‘someone’ with the ‘deepest pockets’ was negligent in some way—and there almost always seem to be ‘experts’ willing to support such claims. The reality, that all involved are aware of, is that such suits, even seemingly frivolous ones, are expensive and time-consuming to defend—and, if the case gets that far, juries are very unpredictable. This leads to a desire to settle such cases just to get rid of them. There are posts earlier in this thread ( I think) about one such situation in Seattle.

That’s partially why I spent my career as a public defender so that I didn’t have to get involved in such suits!!!!

I couldn’t care either way which device a gym mandates. I’m comfortable with just about anything. For the record, I’ve seen at least 3 people get dropped in a gym and one person deck outside… all using some version of a gri-gri. It’s not magic. For new climbers especially, I think it can be a complicated device to understand compared to the simplicity of a tube style device. 

Alan Rubinwrote:

There is another issue with some ABDs that I haven’t seen mentioned in this discussion. All are ‘machines’ of some sort, many involve multiple parts, some of which move, and in some these parts are enclosed or partially enclosed.

How is something like a Jul or ATC Pilot any more of a "machine" than a regular non-assisted tube style belay device?

I suspect the insurance companies actually have data.  The could have acquired it by comparing the accident rates in gyms requiring ABDs vs gyms allowing ATCs.  The insurance company would know when the ABD policy went into effect at each gym they insure so the comparisons would be fairly easy.   They probably also have information as to what belay devices were in use during accidents before ABD policies when into effect.

I think many of us old climbers like to think that learning to belay using a grigri might cause problems when transitioning to belaying with and ATC.  It certainly seems plausible to me.  But I think that is becoming a non-issue because ABD are being used more and more trad climbing probably because many climbers migrate from the gym to sport to trad climbing and bring along their belay device.  I cannot count the number of threads that I have read where someone is talking about climbing with both and ATC and a grigri, mostly using the ATC for rappelling.  Consider how many trad climbers love their mega jul, giga Jul, alpine up, alpine smart devices.   Simul rapping is common now; I think because people are climbing with grigris.  ABD are becoming more common in the trad world and the ATC is becoming less relevant. 

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

I am not that type of a lawyer, but from what I remember from tort law, if one deviates from what is the accepted industry standard, and then there is a reasonably related injury, then that fact can be used in a lawsuit to establish negligence.

climber patwrote:

I suspect the insurance companies actually have data.  The could have acquired it by comparing the accident rates in gyms requiring ABDs vs gyms allowing ATCs.  The insurance company would know when the ABD policy went into effect at each gym they insure so the comparisons would be fairly easy.   They probably also have information as to what belay devices were in use during accidents before ABD policies when into effect.

We 100% do not know this. More broadly, can you imagine making advanced statistical conclusions with a dataset of less than 50 claims. How many people have had a life altering event that the gym was liable for? Broken bones are almost entirely insignificant claims. For a claim to material it would need a component of indemnity (not going to work, loss of life quality). 

Everyone is missing so many components to understanding the intricacies of determining how an insurance policy is even created. If climbing gyms are joining risk pools they likely have no data but could make up whatever requirements they want.

If climbing gyms are paying for insurance, it is under CGL. CGL policies are not generally rated by the insurance company. They are rated on what is considered a loss cost basis. Data is almost entirely irrelevant since the rating structure is likely predetermined by ISO. 

To drive the point home about insurance, give me a carrier who sells climbing gym insurance and a state and I will tell you how they rate a climbing gym. It is publicly available information in most states. 

When I worked in workers comp, people couldn't even tell us how many trucks they were liable for under WC claims. We had to approximate the number of trucks on payroll data. For some reason the tech revolution has made everyone think we have great data. The insurance tech companies are all on the verge of going under, last year lemonade lost $2 on every $1 of policy premium. 

I am sure no one is going to read this, then I am going to correct another misunderstanding about insurance and the life cycle will go on. 

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

Well use this analogy. You rent cars. You rent some without seatbelts or headrests. See any lawsuit in your future?

I'm hardly a "gri" fan boi, but I do like the convenience of gyms with fixed grigris and captive clip-in carabiners on their top ropes. Less faffing since I'm not there to practice tying and untying, clipping, loading belay devices, etc. Probably why I mostly boulder at the gym. Just a good workout that isn't boring and simulates climbing movement. 

A possible compromise would be mandatory, gym provided Revos, instead of grigris. Even more idiot proof than grigris with the added benefit of reinforcing good belay technique and attention. 

Also, how does "the industry standard" become the industry standard? Just popularity? Or are there studies that lead to something becoming industry standard? 

Brandon Rwrote:

A possible compromise would be mandatory, gym provided Revos, instead of grigris. Even more idiot proof than grigris with the added benefit of reinforcing good belay technique and attention.

Good point. The Revo also would better handle ropes where rope diameter has become uneven due to sheath slippage.

I know. I know. Just replace the rope. Still, am aware of a couple people inexplicably dropped during gri-lowering … I suspect uneven rope diameter contributed. 

j mowrote:

Well use this analogy. You rent cars. You rent some without seatbelts or headrests. See any lawsuit in your future?

Well, a better analogy more to my point is you rent a car and then rear end someone while on your phone posting to instagram, and then try to hold the rental car company liable.  

You and “the schmuck” are positing std negligence criteria - the GYM (or car rental outfit) doing something blatantly stupid and dangerous - like cars with no seat belts, or a gym using non-climbing rated ropes from China to save costs - clearly lawsuit worthy and negligent   

Understand Rubin’s explanation: regardless of lawsuit merit, the costs of just responding/defending it are too high and unsophisticated Juries are too unpredictable, that it is unfortunately irrelevant whether there is merit or foundation to the lawsuit.

The problem is too many people want someone else to take responsibility for them…and we facilitate it by making it too easy for them

Edit:  Curt, you changed your post name while I typed?   I can’t keep up with all the changes on MP lately 

Bill Lawrywrote:

…inexplicable dropped during gri-lowering … I suspect uneven rope diameter contributed. 

I suspect user error contributed.

Alan Rubinwrote:

There is another issue with some ABDs that I haven’t seen mentioned in this discussion. All are ‘machines’ of some sort, many involve multiple parts, some of which move, and in some these parts are enclosed or partially enclosed. All of these are potential points of failure, however rare such failures may be, especially with frequent use. How often, I wonder, do gyms with pre-fixed Grigris on their ropes inspect them for wear and tear? And  I doubt if there is any gym that performs such inspections on their clients’ personal gear. This isn’t anything causing me to stay up at night but is just another possible lawsuit that may happen some day, for those who do worry about such things!!!!

It's been more than a decade, but when I was the "ropes manager" at Rockin 'n' Jammin, every rope in the joint had to be inspected every 10 days or some such, and that included the 2 fixed gri-gris chained to the floor on the gumby wall. I also had to understand and maintain the autobelays, which had their own manufactured-required inspection and maintenance cadence (and a hefty service contract too). As I recall, the setting staff was responsible for the draws on the lead walls. I was led to understand that this was industry standard.

Also, I am really befuddled by the resistance to gri-gris at this point. They've been on the market for 32 years. This is very much akin to saying "I don't think anyone should trust Windows, those GUIs take too much out of your control."

If it still doesn't work for you, that's a *you* problem.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

To drive the point home about insurance, give me a carrier who sells climbing gym insurance and a state and I will tell you how they rate a climbing gym. It is publicly available information in most states. 

I will take you up on your offer.   Tell me how carriers in WA rate gyms and determine premiums. 

Thanks

Petsfed 00wrote:

Also, I am really befuddled by the resistance to gri-gris at this point. They've been on the market for 32 years. This is very much akin to saying "I don't think anyone should trust Windows, those GUIs take too much out of your control."

If it still doesn't work for you, that's a *you* problem.

I agree. Just like the hip belay, sticht plate, figure 8, et al, we are currently in the sunset years of the ATC and similar tube devices as they are supplanted by superior technology. We'll likely see them vanish (or perhaps occupy a small niche for alpine climbing) in the next few years.

I would argue the new policy is put in place for the 90% of gym climbers that don't know this site exists.  Most of the climbing population will never have a need for an ATC.  They aren't doing  multipitch, or rappelling.  THE Biggest issue I see is it makes it a little more cost prohibited for new climbers.  $100 vs. $15-20.  

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. 

Any climbing gyms requiring helmets yet?  

Brad Johnsonwrote:

I would argue the new policy is put in place for the 90% of gym climbers that don't know this site exists.  Most of the climbing population will never have a need for an ATC.  They aren't doing  multipitch, or rappelling.  THE Biggest issue I see is it makes it a little more cost prohibited for new climbers.  $100 vs. $15-20.  

A Pilot is about $30 I believe. But yeah, I get it. My first belay device was a figure 8 that I pilfered from the university outdoor rec dept.  I was psyched when I found a sticht plate at the base of Redgarden Wall to replace it with, and the sticht plate I replaced with a HB Sheriff because it was $4.00 cheaper than an ATC. However, the truth is that one month after purchase, even when I was a po’ ass, I would not have missed the $62.00 that the Gri Gri cost back then. 

Brad Johnsonwrote:

I would argue the new policy is put in place for the 90% of gym climbers that don't know this site exists.  Most of the climbing population will never have a need for an ATC.  They aren't doing  multipitch, or rappelling.  THE Biggest issue I see is it makes it a little more cost prohibited for new climbers.  $100 vs. $15-20.  

Even though the OP implies that ONLY GriGris are allowed, the "finer" print specifies ABDs - Assisted Braking Devices.

Here is the link from OP's photo https://edgeworksclimbing.com/jobs/ABD%20Policy_Devices 

A bit more information may be found here -

- https://edgeworksclimbing.com/blog/assisted-braking-device-policy/ 

Here is the relevant bit 

We’re providing several options to assist climbers through the transition, including:

Tips and demos from our staff. If you’ve never used an ABD before, our staff will happily show you how to use any ABD.  No appointment required, just come see us at the desk!

Free clinics for members. Beginning February 15, our climbing school staff will offer 30 minute clinics designed to teach you how active and passive ABDs work, how to use them, and offer recommended belay techniques for various models. Registration is now open, sign up online!

Free rental devices. We will have a selection of Black Diamond Pilots available for use during the transition.

30% off all ABD devices in our retail shop. Including discounts on Black Diamond Pilots, Edelrid Giga Juls and Jul 2s, Petzl Grigris, and Mammut Smart 2.0s. 

(Limited time offers through March 31, 2023)

That said, the cheapest ABD that can I see listed on REI is ~45 USD. Your point that is is more expensive than the cheapest tuber, ~22USD on the same site, is valid, but the difference is not as drastic. 

climber patwrote:

I will take you up on your offer.   Tell me how carriers in WA rate gyms and determine premiums. 

Thanks

It helps to have an actual insurance carrier that a gym has purchased insurance from, since some carriers have rates for things they do not currently sell. Looking through, there is insurance for clubs/gyms underCompany Tracking #: SPA-GL-WA-22074-PH-RR . Reading it,it reads more like boys and girls club but it is hard to know, since underwriting rules are not public (which is why it is easier to have a specific carrier). According to a document filed by SiriusPoint America Insurance Company they use ISO loss costs with exposure bases. Rating Base: Per Participant / Admissions or “Active” Members for Health/Fitness Clubs & Spa, so number of gym members. Climbing is classified into hazard group 5, so it is lumped in with BMX/skateboarding/high risk activities. The ISO rate for hazard group is 7.01. The ISO number is based on a large pooling of insurance data across the nation, so everyone using ISO and classifiying gyms the same way uses a base rate of 7.01. This company filed a loss cost factor of 1.3, so the rate 9.11 (which looks like the rate for one participant for the whole year it is kinda hard to tell without having the ISO manual). There is a separate surcharge for the walls themselves if climbing is a secondary component the charges are as follow: 10ft and under $475.00; 10.1ft – 20ft $950.00; 20.1ft+ $1185.00 . I kinda doubt they would sell insurance to gyms as this seems a bit expensive.

One thing I did forget about though is scheduled credits, I didn't think they would be applied to such small policies (climbing gym policies are totally immaterial compared to other liability policies). Schedule rating allows the carrier to provide a discount based on a perceived benefit. I could find the table of schedule rating but it would take forever.

TLDR; Seems CGL carriers have the same base rate but they multiply that number by their company factor, so if you find the insurance carrier with the best loss experience as a company for CGL, that will be the lowest rate, regardless of whether they have had historical climbing claims or not. Or you join a risk pool, that might have its totally own calculation.  They might be getting a discount for ABD but the discount is not based on data and it could disappear for no reason at all.

on the actual topic. I look forward to the day we are required to double rope with gri gris, the trad dads won't know whether to be pissed or psyched!