ATC ban

With a 50$ startup fee and 84$ monthly memberships I don't think peeps in Bellevue will think twice about getting a grigri or other ABDs pricier than plain ATC. Member$hip

Climbing in the Seattle area is all about gear anyway, most gym people are more excited to spend $$$ on the fanciest gear and flaunt it on their harness than they are actually climbing...

And hell, I've gotten dropped a couple times as a novice being belayed with ATCs (outside new belayer), do you know how many grigris I could have bought with the money I spent on stiches and PT? (luckily I didn't need intrusive surgery these times). I don't let anyone belay me on single pitch anymore unless they are using a Gri Gri; plain and simple.

JaredGwrote:

Any climbing gyms requiring helmets yet?  

Analogy, my friend. You don’t have to wear a seatbelt in the gym either. Just ditch that ATC!

Recently I took an unexpected slip & fall on an easy 10b right before the second clip and my wife's GriGri and attentiveness barely kept me off the floor. The 40 lb difference between us and the natural reflex delay and slip in an ATC likely would have had me decking. We're not world class, but she's not inattentive and we've been catching each other outdoors and in for a couple years. Maybe we should use an Ohm but neither of us like the extra drag.

FWIW, I belay on ABD and ATC at the gym, depending on what we're working on. If my partner wants to project I use the ABD and if it's laps I prefer the ATC. I've been to 2 gyms that require ABDs and I don't have any issue with it. The most frustrating issue for me is that none of the gyms I've yet seen have a place to teach/practice/learn outdoor techniques (i.e building anchors, lead change over, placing gear, etc...) but I'm sure that's also tied to an insurance/liability issue.

I remember when ATCs were banned and everyone started riding quads. 

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’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.

Why not just learn how to belay properly? Isn't that the ATC argument...

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

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! 

It seems likely that an insurance company is giving discounts for ABD only gyms probably because they have evidence that their payout is lower at these gyms.  Just like car insurance is less for cars that have better safety ratings.

Edit.  I guess another option is gym owners are noticing proportionally fewer ABD accidents than ATC accidents and are deciding to protect their clients independent of insurance costs

Edit,. Perhaps training employees to be competent with ATC is no longer worthwhile or difficult. 

Just A Climberwrote:

I suspect user error contributed.

Yes. That is the first order explanation. But also not relevant to the comparison.

Not unlike saying “the Pinto rounded the bend in the road and crashed due to user error”  when the topic is whether a Pinto corners better than a Miata.

I just want to point out to all the people that keep singling out the owners. I own some businesses that all need liability insurance, not climbing but sports activities.

Insurance companies are our overlords. On the low end, liability rates are absurdly high. For sports activities, borderline prohibitively expensive. And if they don’t insure us we can’t operate. If we don’t follow certain policies they set they won’t insure us. Not we have a higher rate, they won’t insure us. They don’t operate in a vacuum. Most likely all insurance companies will tell you the same thing because they all use the same statistics. And in my experience, they don’t budge on requirements.

So the way I would assume this goes down is the insurance company says “your new annual policy will state you need to only use assisted braking devices”. And the owner says “done”.

climber patwrote:

It seems likely that an insurance company is giving discounts for ABD only gyms probably because they have evidence that their payout is lower at these gyms.  Just like car insurance is less for cars that have better safety ratings.

Edit.  I guess another option is gym owners are noticing proportionally fewer ABD accidents than ATC accidents and are deciding to protect their clients independent of insurance costs

Edit,. Perhaps training employees to be competent with ATC is no longer worthwhile or difficult. 

The definition of schedule rating is that we don’t have evidence. It is a silly silly thing that should not exist.

The fact is this insurance companies rates are dependent on the industry rates and the industry rates are a collection of multiple business classifications. The loss experience in skiing, climbing, bmx, scuba collectively dictates the rates in my example. If you don’t believe me there is a white paper talking about hazard groups.

This grigri vs atc is such a tired argument. Assisted Belay Devices are clearly safer, especially with an experienced belayer. The gumbies can screw up any belay device, including a grigri, but overall ABD's are a lot better. The only time I use my ATC anymore is outdoors on multipitch to save weight. We do have some old schoolers at Edgeworks who still use ATC's. And obviously in the right hands they work fine. 

Occasionally, just for fun, Fletch and I used to do lead falls at Edgeworks with a waist belay, if the owner wasn't around and we knew everyone at the front desk. Waist belays were all we had in the seventies and they work great, especially with a biner in the front to keep it from unwinding.

I'm guessing this new rule is related to 'best practices' knowledge, and the ever present threat of litigation. I've seen some very raw beginners belaying there. It's scary to watch, but we all start somewhere. If you climb a lot you've surely had your brake hand accidentally come partially off the rope...it's rare, but it happens. There are usually contributing factors, like you are suddenly, and hurriedly  taking up rope after a blown clip. Anyway, my point is, a grigri or other ABD is a beautiful thing when the sh&t hits the fan.

I've known the owner of Edgeworks since it opened in 2006-ish. He is a real climber and a super nice guy with deep roots in the Tacoma climbing community, not to mention a back country skier and mountain guide. He still comes out on the floor and pulls down hard. If he is bringing in this new rule, I'm certain there is a good reason for it.

The other gym in Tacoma (Climb Tacoma) is a fine gym but they only have two ropes, the rest is bouldering. Yes there is a gym in Olympia, and maybe a new one in Bremerton, but traffic is awful going any direction out of Tacoma.

If you come to Edgeworks, say hi. I'm the white haired guy taking whippers in the new lead cave.

As there have been no confirmed and reliable reports of logic and coherence on Mountain Project for > 20 years, those qualities are now, for that website, considered to be extinct. Attempts to reintroduce them - assuming they were ever native to MP - would almost certainly fail due to the nature of the site's users     

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

Real-life lawyer here, although as another poster wrote, I'm not "that type" of lawyer, so what do I know.  Still I  believe your questions are valid and deserve a serious answer (if anyone is really trying to "get to the bottom of this", perhaps an unrealistic expectation on an MP forum). 

As related follow-up questions, if someone thinks gyms may have liability for allowing ATCs, what liability might Black Diamond have for making and selling ATCs?  What liability might REI have for selling ATCs?  What liability might various land managers have for allowing the use of ATCs on their lands?  (There are some differences in theoretical liability of the different players--as I said I'm not a tort lawyer, but it's well known that part of the game is thinking how anyone with the ability to pay could theoretically be liable, no matter how much more culpable some other actor, such as a negligent belayer, might seem to be.)  

I don't know the answer to the above questions (and government land managers may raise sovereign immunity issues, a further complication).  I suppose my point is that I wouldn't assume that gym policies requiring ABDs are necessarily the product of someone's legal risk assessment.  They might be, in which case I'd be interested in their reasoning and an explanation as to why the gyms seem to have come to a different conclusion than the many manufacturers and sellers of tube-style belay devices.  It's also possible gyms think that requiring ABDs will lead to a safer and generally better gym experience for most users, regardless of legal issues (that's my guess, but again, I don't know).

Edit:  In looking at other posts, part of what I'm saying was already said by another poster here:  "another option is gym owners are noticing proportionally fewer ABD accidents than ATC accidents and are deciding to protect their clients independent of insurance costs"

Shawn Swrote:

With a 50$ startup feel

Are you sure that's a climbing gym you've been going to? This sounds like some sort of new membership deal at a ...um... "massage establishment"....

pfwein Weinbergwrote:

Edit:  In looking at other posts, part of what I'm saying was already said by another poster here:  "another option is gym owners are noticing proportionally fewer ABD accidents than ATC accidents and are deciding to protect their clients independent of insurance costs"

 There are indeed practical considerations. One doesn’t have to be a gym owner to appreciate the impact  of another serious accident on patrons who saw it and maybe helped, the impact to employees who once more handled it, the overhead of dealing with another investigation, the ongoing exposure to liability while enabling a dangerous sport, etc..

I don’t mean to jump on the ABD bandwagon. But there is a practical side where a gym owner might autonomously reach for something that might mitigate.

But then how do you rap from the top?

Can you imagine the clown car of gym employees spilling forth?

And where has this spate of ATC caused gym (or outside) accidents been occurring? I haven’t been hearing of any. The most common gym accidents that I am aware of have been from bouldering ( yes, usually not life threatening—but injuries nonetheless), with the second most common involving autobelays. I realize this is all anecdotal, but I’d be interested to see any data to contradict it.

I do understand that the concerns of the owners/insurers are for the ‘potentials’ not the actualities. What is disturbing to me is the climbers, including several posting on this thread, who are on the ‘ABD or nothing’ bandwagon.  From a climbing perspective, there are advantages and disadvantages to both ABDs and ‘tube’ devices and it should be up to the individual to make an informed choice about which to use ( many will use one or the other depending upon the circumstances). It is the rigid ‘demand’ that we all must accept a certain ‘orthodoxy’ in this area that I am disagreeing with. It is also likely that those ‘voices’ are the ones  being listened to by those who are instituting the gym ATC bans.

Alan Rubinwrote:

What is disturbing to me is the climbers, including several posting on this thread, who are on the ‘ABD or nothing’ bandwagon. 

Speaking of the all or nothing band wagon, Just anecdotal but …

Two friends of mine have been dropped while belayers were using an ATC, both with serious outcomes:  badly broken back w/ disk fusion later for the first. And, years later, eventual ankle fusion for the second. 

After the second one and outwardly independent of the first accident, his group of a half dozen veteran climbers autonomously went to ABD devices in the gym. (It seems a few months later (?) the gym started requiring ABDs for lead belays.)

In the case of the veteran group of climbers, their autonomous decision had nothing to do with lawyers or lawsuits. They simply did not want to endure another accident as they all aged.

ATC is my preferred device. But I’ve gotten to a place where transitioning is usually not a big deal if desired by a partner or required by a gym.  Leaves me wondering if the OP just had an axe to grind for that gym itself. Maybe there really is no “there” there.

BTW, in both cases, my take and that of others is that the belayers were simply incompetent. Can understand where a gym would want to guard against those. How else?

Tom Chingas wrote:

ATCs are for gumby wannabe trad hard men. All the crusher climbers I know these days use a gri even in multipitch. When I was new at climbing I only used an ATC and thought I was cool too...

I dunno man when you start TRADing hard, the grigri gives too hard of a catch and all the gear instantly explodes. /S

ATCs are for gumby wannabe trad hard men. All the crusher climbers I know these days use a gri even in multipitch. When I was new at climbing I only used an ATC and thought I was cool too...

Man, every time I read one of these arguments that attempts to pit "new school against old school" a comment like this shows up and just makes it all so clear to me. But go on, you were saying you're subscribed to a bunch of youtube and tictok channels... 

Abbott Abbottwrote:

I just want to point out to all the people that keep singling out the owners. I own some businesses that all need liability insurance, not climbing but sports activities.

Insurance companies are our overlords. On the low end, liability rates are absurdly high. For sports activities, borderline prohibitively expensive. And if they don’t insure us we can’t operate. If we don’t follow certain policies they set they won’t insure us. Not we have a higher rate, they won’t insure us. They don’t operate in a vacuum. Most likely all insurance companies will tell you the same thing because they all use the same statistics. And in my experience, they don’t budge on requirements.

Yeah from a loss experience standpoint you want risks as homogenous as possible so everyone gets the same rate.

So the way I would assume this goes down is the insurance company says “your new annual policy will state you need to only use assisted braking devices”. And the owner says “done”.

The only point I was making earlier is that we don’t have the data to support this as exemplified in the hazard grouping of climbing. What I imagine climbing gyms are doing is that indoor climbing wall association has insurance that can be bought. This is likely a risk pool so the requirements are set by whomever has the larger gyms in the pool not necessarily a carrier. This is why I am curious who gyms buy insurance from.