Head injury at Red River Gorge
|
1/338 is pretty high in the world of risk. So how many more tree impacts do you need before you think it’s R? This is great, absolutely fabulous. Statistics, logic, and - as we say from the DJT administration - pivoting, all in one. |
|
Redacted Redactberg wrote: Do you honestly think that 338 represents everyone who has ever done the route? Without having seen the fall, let alone never having seen the route, and what little info we do know, do you honestly think the tree is root cause* of this accident? (*: yes, I know!) |
|
Marc801 C wrote: Root cause - LOL, I love this. 1/338 is not high in my assessment of risk, even without the likelihood that 338 probably vastly underrepresents the number of actual ascents that have been safely done. |
|
Ben Silver wrote: Do you guys bother to read anything that doesn't directly involve your unnecessary argument? Sam posted in this thread. It was his friend that was injured. Hoping the climber makes a speedy recovery. I'm all for discussing accident mechanics for educational purposes, but the argument over the validity of an R rating on a route that nobody so far has been on, definitely doesn't belong here. |
|
Actually, discussions about R-rated sport routes don't belong anywhere... |
|
Russ Keane wrote: Where have you been? |
|
Paul L wrote: Sorry I didn’t recall the guy’s name from his post 3 days ago. Hey, did his post suggest an R rating? |
|
Redacted Redactberg wrote: I am *extremely* thankful that the climber will make a full recovery. I do not want to downplay the accident, because firsthand, it was very scary, and very serious. |
|
First let me say that I wish the injured climber a speedy and full recovery. As a someone who was at the crag the day of the accident, I think proposal of an R rating for this route is a bit much. From my conversations with people at the crag that day, there was never a clear consensus on all of the events that took place. The only consistent recollection of events was that he hit the tree and then the wall. But I also heard mentions of bolts coming unclipped and fall distances spanning between 10-40 feet. So I don't know if anyone can say with certainty what happened. I came back to this crag a week later, and was able to climb this route to gain my own experience. While I do concede that the tree is present, and given what we all know now is obviously in play, I would have never once considered it as a danger while climbing. I have climbed dozens of routes with trees in much more precarious spots than this one. I would agree that hitting this tree was a freak occurrence, and speculate that there were other factors in play leading to the accident. Maybe the climber pushed off the wall, fell with a load of slack in the system or possibly skipped one of the last bolts while falling from near the anchors. Lastly, I would like to state the risk of injury while climbing is always present. By giving this route an R rating, it opens a whole conversation around other potential places of danger on routes. For instance, falling into a hueco or undercutting a roof. Maybe there is a little horn sticking out of the wall you wouldn't want to fall in to. Where do we as a community draw that line? |
|
+1 Kristi and Blake. I've climbed There Goes the Neighborhood twice in the past two years. I never felt concerned about the proximity of the tree. This was a sad, unfortunate accident. However, PG-13 / R / X ratings should be reserved for routes whose lack of protection would result in injury or death in a fall. The best way to warn prospective suitors of terrain hazards such as trees, loose flakes, wasp nests and aspiring brand ambassadors is by posting a conditions report comment on the route. I hope the climber recovers quickly and returns to send the route, if he so chooses. Mad respect to the SAR team and everyone who assisted with the evac from FRC, whose trail is more involved than the average RRG hike. |
|
This route does not deserve an R rating (nor PG13) for that matter. The tree is not in play unless the climber or belayer does something extremely foolish or gets very unlucky due to a series of unfortunate circumstances. Best wishes for a full and speedy recovery, but blaming this accident on the inherent danger of this route instead of the climber’s choice to not wear a helmet is not beneficial to anyone. |
|
F r i t z wrote: Absolutely correct. Lots of talk about the river crossing at Funk Rock, but the truth is that the scramble up to the cliff base after the river is one of the most strenuous at the Red. Kudos to those who volunteer. |
|
Louis Weiher wrote: I wear a helmet. This is a stupid comment though. This reads like smacking your head in a fall in a fall is ok, as long as you wear a helmet. A helmet, even the foam sided ones built for some impacts, are a last resort. They’re there for the factors that are out of your control. Strapping on a helmet as your only means of protection against head injury is far more dangerous than being cautious about body position and gear selection. My takeaway, climb like you only have one head, then put a helmet on since you can’t plan for everything. |
|
Wish the climber speedy recovery. As far as “accepted standards” for grading the risk of a climb, it seemed to me a foregone conclusion that that is derived by consensus of those who have actually climbed the climb. Totally floors me that someone would weigh in from the armchair peanut gallery and propose changes or a “proper grade” sight unseen. I mean seriously. WTF goes on in some people’s minds? |
|
Worth repeating, I think: safety grades on a sport route? I thought that was the whole point of those shiny bolty hangy things. |
|
Tone Loc wrote: While the route under discussion doesn’t merit an R rating, to say that it is NEVER possible for a bolted route to have anything other than G rating is ridiculous. Even setting aside bolted-on-lead trad routes, bolts are placed by people, and people sometimes make less than optimal bolt placements. Occasionally there is no possibility of safe bolt spacing. More often the FA ego, or lack of thought, result in less-safe bolt placement, and correcting that on an established route is nearly impossible, unless the FA graciously says that they do not care about moving the bolts, or adding bolts. I wish the climber a speedy and full recovery. Hope they’ll come back to send this route sometime in the future. It is a great route. |
|
highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote: Have you climbed the route in question? I have. The route’s inherent danger is not the issue. That was my point. Nonetheless, your clarification that wearing a helmet does not mean that one should climb with complete disregard to body position, rope location, protection, rock features, trees, etc. is correct. Furthermore, you are right- people should not assume that a helmet provides absolute protection and the freedom to climb without consequences. I thought that went without saying, but I forgot that this is Mountain Project. |
|
I'm glad now people who have done the climb have weighed in. I will not argue it or ever intended to with those who have done the climb. My only interest was to get people who have done the route to weigh in. I did ask, and I waited for several days, and no one did anything about it or said anything to me for almost a week: Redacted Redactberg wrote: Meanwhile, Sam Bloch's following comments and reports confirmed that it was the tree, and not the fault of the belayer or bad rope management. So as a climber interested in seeing cautious danger beta in RRG, it seemed appropriate to suggest an upgrade to the area admin, based on this educated guess and the circumstances. To all those coming down hard on me for this, genuinely wondering how much longer should I have waited? It seemed to me nonsensical to further risk a tired mind accidentally hitting the tree again based on the available information at the time. Final question: In terms of danger ratings, is something a confirmed A5 if there's a corpse, even if no one else has gotten on it, or reported the grade otherwise? If the film ratings are really "consensus," and do not allow the input of objective accidents that happen without any real climber or belayer error, then maybe it might be appropriate to have an upfront field on each route page that isn't just about the consensus rating, but also specifically documents relevant accidents that happen on route, and not buried in the miscellaneous comments. edit: maybe a hazards field also would be helpful. |
|
Rock climbing is inherently dangerous. Just because an accident happened does not mean a route deserves a safety rating. You ask how long you should have waited? The answer is that you should have waited until you climbed the route - or you at least physically looked at it! To me, this seems like a case of gym culture overlapping into outdoor climbing. Gyms tend to present climbing as a safe, wholesome activity with a low barrier of entry. That’s fine, but it’s not the case outdoors. Climbing. Is. Dangerous. By the standard you seem to want established, pretty much every climb I’ve ever done warrants a safety rating. That’s obviously ridiculous. Bottom line: don’t pass judgment on any climb until you have at least some experience on it. |
|
Redacted Redactberg wrote: Until you'd been on the route. |