Head injury at Red River Gorge

Mark Pilate wrote:

???  Agree with Weasel above.   Lock the thread? Are you trying to out do David ridiculous takes on how to  best save us from ourselves ?

The thread was meant to discuss the accident itself.  Not what helmet you like best or how to properly rate a sport climb.  There’s other forums on MP to discuss that.  That’s why it should be locked.

M Santisi wrote:

The thread was meant to discuss the accident itself.  Not what helmet you like best or how to properly rate a sport climb.  There’s other forums on MP to discuss that.  That’s why it should be locked.

Totally agree with everything you said, except for the last sentence 

QUICK!  EVERYONE NERF THE EDGES ON EVERYTHING FOR THE DUMDUMS THAT CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS ON THE FLY!

What a scary accident; hoping for a speedy recovery to all those involved.

To the extent we can learn anything, it’s tough for me to escape the fact that this is type of accident is precisely why I always wear a helmet sport climbing. Weird falls are going to happen if you push yourself enough, and a helmet is a basically cost-less way to give yourself some added protection. Who knows if it would have made a difference, but it couldn’t have hurt, and it might have helped a lot. Helmets are so light and low-profile these days that it’s almost silly not to wear one.

Certainly no judgment towards the climber here. It’s very common for people not to wear helmets when clipping bolts (partially, I believe, because pros/influencers never do in published photos/videos, which I think sucks), and so no one can be faulted for doing basically what lots of other people do. But it’s just another data point in support of an argument to change the general practice in climbing and make it the default that when you tie into a rope (especially on lead) that we all wear a helmet. Remember, your accident doesn’t just affect you—it affects everyone around you.

Not that wearing a helmet is a substitute for good judgment or knowing how to fall, etc. But, as someone said above, “shit happens,” so might as well put a bucket on your noggin.

Redacted Redactberg wrote:

With that in mind, I agree that it is 100% of the responsibility on the party, but does it have to be a one way street entirely? These kinds of climbing accidents among beginners are so common, and not everyone can get a proper mentor, a guaranteed 100% of the time solid belayer, or predict random weather conditions that might change the game. Even among expert belayers, attention wanders, and tired minds can miss certain details. There's a reason climbers will say "watch me on that part." 

Yes David. It does need to be a one way street. It's called personal responsibility. That's what 100% means. If we allow your attitude to percolate into our collective mindset, at some point we will lose the freedom that is such a rewarding aspect of climbing. 

And if a person can't find a proper mentor, hire a guide. 

"an otherwise meaningless danger grade for sport climbing."

DW so you are making the argument for a separate "risk" entry box, to differentiate from " regular danger grades" of sport climbing.   Do you realize that sport climbs DON'T have danger grades, so your argument makes no sense.  Sport climbing literally cannot be R/X or even PG-13.   If you don't understand this, please stop ranting about whatever else.

At the dire risk of being lumped in with folks calling for safety ratings on sport climbs they haven’t even climbed…

For example though, and I only have a piddly 10ish days of climbing in Tuolumne but I recall quite a few bolt only routes that have massive runouts or ledges that would end in serious injury if botched. Seems theres a bit of a grey area between pure modern sport climbs, old school bolted lines, and mixed trad/sport lines.

Open to being corrected if I have something backwards or mis-stated/understood. 

just cut the tree down and be done with it. 

Redacted Redactberg wrote:

Something like this I think would be helpful. The "safety rating" seems pretty meaningless for sport routes. For this route, I think:

"

Watch out for the tree:

1. Belayer: don't give too loose of a catch
2. Climber: don't kick too hard off the wall

"

This field could also include postings about bad bolts, rather than having it buried in the comments, and buried in some other "bad bolts" thread.

Some jump straight to crack, but for most, these days, sport climbing is the gateway drug to outdoor route climbing. I think it would be pedagogically helpful to many beginners to articulate what might be redundant for experienced climbers. And even so, I'd still personally find such redundancy helpful, especially for long days.

Marc, in my opinion the description, just like the comment section, does not solve the "collage of beta" issue. Descriptions can include (or fail to include) movement and direction beta, history, danger beta, bad bolts, etc. Descriptions are unstructured and wildly vary in quality. More structure, for something as simple and generic as a route page, is better.

I’m sure you’re a nice guy, and I’ll bet we likely could enjoy a beer together and agree on many things.

But your entire position on this issue is ridiculously asinine.  

Andy Shoemaker wrote:

At the dire risk of being lumped in with folks calling for safety ratings on sport climbs they haven’t even climbed…

For example though, and I only have a piddly 10ish days of climbing in Tuolumne but I recall quite a few bolt only routes that have massive runouts or ledges that would end in serious injury if botched. Seems theres a bit of a grey area between pure modern sport climbs, old school bolted lines, and mixed trad/sport lines.

Open to being corrected if I have something backwards or mis-stated/understood. 

I don't think there is a grey area in what you are describing as far as ratings.  Those routes you describe are not sport routes and are typically categorized as trad in the database.

The issue being discussed is if a recognized sport route needs a specific designation if one could get seriously injured doing it.  Even with sport routes with low bolts, one can be injured if you fall before clipping the first bolt.  You have to recognize the terrain and your own ability and stick clip or not as you choose.  This danger does not need a rating designation.  It's quite easy to hit the ground on many sport routes if one falls while clipping the second bolt, if one has an inattentive or unskilled belayer.  This danger does not need a rating designation.  Even with a closely bolted sport route, it's sometimes possible to hit a ledge midroute or hit a slab if falling from an overhang.  This danger does not need a rating designation.  It's possible on a sport route to hit adjacent walls or trees for a variety of reasons usually related to how you fall or your belayer.  This does not need a rating designation.  What the stated circumstances need is opening your eyes and using common sense and having a good belayer.  Having user comments for the route in the database is nice and can be helpful.  The route in question that started this whole discussion now has a comment about the tree.  Most people apparently never needed even the comment to climb the route safely, but maybe some people will find it useful.  I agree with the comment above that a sport route, by definition, means that the route is not R or X.  People can figure out ways to get hurt.  That is only inherent to the route in the sense that all climbing is inherently an activity with risks.

phylp phylp wrote:

I don't think there is a grey area in what you are describing as far as ratings.  Those routes you describe are not sport routes and are typically categorized as trad in the database.

The issue being discussed is if….

I totally agree with this in principle and appreciate the explanation.  I do still see grey area. There are dozens of routes just on domes in the meadow that are sport categorized routes in the database which are -supposedly- PG13 according to the proj.

Are we calling Shipoopi a trad route? Or what about Head Rush which it appears you personally submitted and is listed as sport and X?

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/113862808/head-rush

Merely playing devils advocate at this point… bored, stuck waiting for a delayed flight to get its act together. 

Andy Shoemaker wrote:

I totally agree with this in principle and appreciate the explanation.  I do still see grey area. There are dozens of routes just on domes in the meadow that are sport categorized routes in the database which are -supposedly- PG13 according to the proj.

Are we calling Shipoopi a trad route? Or what about Head Rush which it appears you personally submitted and is listed as sport and X?

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/113862808/head-rush

Merely playing devils advocate at this point… bored, stuck waiting for a delayed flight to get its act together. 

Pretty funny that the second comment in there argues that anything bolted ground up is trad and sport is all rap-bolted. There are some prolific route developers who would disagree with that, many of whom put up classics in both disciplines.

Andy Shoemaker wrote:

I totally agree with this in principle and appreciate the explanation.  I do still see grey area. There are dozens of routes just on domes in the meadow that are sport categorized routes in the database which are -supposedly- PG13 according to the proj.

Are we calling Shipoopi a trad route? Or what about Head Rush which it appears you personally submitted and is listed as sport and X?

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/113862808/head-rush

Merely playing devils advocate at this point… bored, stuck waiting for a delayed flight to get its act together. 

LOL, Andy, you got me!  I don't enter a lot of routes into the database. This was an early entry of mine and I was following the literal instructions:

I have changed the route description. But now I have a problem with the routes database definition of T because that seems to imply that you will have the opportunity to supplement the bolts with gear.  If anything needs to be changed, it's this aspect of the database.

phylp phylp wrote:

^ I actually prefer this definition. If not this, then it is all quite arbitrary and reliant on info about the FA that may or may not be known. I also disagree with the notion that sport climbs should not have Pg13, R, x. If you’re clipping bolts but there are mandatory runouts with dangerous fall potential, then that is precisely what the danger modifier is useful for identifying. I do agree that these ratings need to be proposed by people who have climbed or have good understanding of the risks and the particulars of a route, not simply because an accident took place.

Mitch L wrote:

^ I actually prefer this definition. If not this, then it is all quite arbitrary and reliant on info about the FA that may or may not be known. I also disagree with the notion that sport climbs should not have Pg13, R, x. If you’re clipping bolts but there are mandatory runouts with dangerous fall potential, then that is precisely what the danger modifier is useful for identifying. I do agree that these ratings need to be proposed by people who have climbed or have good understanding of the risks and the particulars of a route, not simply because an accident took place.

If it is a sport route, it shouldn't involve "mandatory runouts with dangerous fall potential"--it should then be considered a trad route even if fully bolted and no matter if they were placed ground up or on rappel.

Mitch L wrote:

^ I actually prefer this definition. If not this, then it is all quite arbitrary and reliant on info about the FA that may or may not be known. I also disagree with the notion that sport climbs should not have Pg13, R, x. If you’re clipping bolts but there are mandatory runouts with dangerous fall potential, then that is precisely what the danger modifier is useful for identifying.

No, Al has it right. The whole point of a sport route is that it's (pre)protected well enough so that danger from falls is minimized as much as possible allowing the climber to focus on the moves. Although this typically means bolts, it really can be most anything else (eg: the drilled angles that were once popular in Moab and other soft sandstone areas). Remember that when the old-school bolted meadows routes were established, the quiver of climbing protection included bolts. Sport climbing didn't exist, nor did power drills, but climbs protected exclusively by bolts did. To say that a route that only requires draws is a sport route is a total bastardization of the term.

Ben Silver wrote:

Pretty funny that the second comment in there argues that anything bolted ground up is trad and sport is all rap-bolted. There are some prolific route developers who would disagree with that, many of whom put up classics in both disciplines.

Agreed- gave me a sly grin when the 3rd Tuolumne route I checked fit this portion of the discussion so well. And agreed with others who suggest ground up ethics being the defining line.

I do enjoy the arbitrary nature of the rules and definitions we apply to our craft. Its all lines in the sand. And those lines only have so much resolution. Great reason to treat every outing and every decision as purely your own in terms of keeping yourself safe. A bolt every 4’ guarantees nothing. Nor a perfect splitter to the top. We all gotta be the captain of our ship out there on the sharp end, and otherwise.

Reminds me of the discussion a month or two ago about the ideal guidebook. How much beta/hand holding was definitely a frequent point of opinion, which has a-lot of overlap with this discussion. The proj is guidebook 2.0 right? How and what content belongs in said resource? Unsurprisingly, opinions vary. Another great aspect of the sport.

Keep your head on a swivel folks. And a helmet on that head. 

Brad White wrote:

Yes David. It does need to be a one way street. It's called personal responsibility. That's what 100% means. If we allow your attitude to percolate into our collective mindset, at some point we will lose the freedom that is such a rewarding aspect of climbing. 

Barring a fairy godmother constantly spraying beta in your ear, I don't see how you'll lose freedom. No one's forcing you to open a guidebook, and if you do, you can skip over the spoilers. Saying beginners, or even those just choosing not to onsight, shouldn't have the ability to choose to view such hazard beta seems to me the actual loss of freedom.

And if a person can't find a proper mentor, hire a guide. 

I never had a guide, so I wouldn't know. Do you really go from noob to expert after a guide? Is just a few days of training really enough to let you go up to that trad route a few weeks later, and immediately spot all the hazards and mitigate them on your own with perfect finesse? 

I never have hired a guide either, but I have worked as a guide for several seasons in the Tetons and always taught my clients that climbing is dangerous, and that going slow thru the learning curve is appropriate. Is it our collective responsibility to make sure beginners have all available knowledge about a route before they get in over their heads?? Or should we encourage caution, and taking the time to gain experience that will help to make good decisions? When beginners get in over their head, accidents happen. And that's when land managers do their thing, which is to regulate. That is a loss of freedom. 

Should we really encourage climbers that claim to lead .12b trad in an online profile, but apparently follow trad routes at a much more moderate level to be going big for that hard route where there are consequences to the decisions they make?

If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing with a helmet on.
climbing, skiing, kayaking, rafting, biking…

A helmet saved my life years ago, in a situation where only the dedicated helmet wearer not worried about how dumb someone may think they look would wear a helmet.

This is not a knock on this thread’s accident. Just a PSA for anyone willing to read.

Times someone thought I looked dumb wearing a helmet: probably hundreds.
Times it saved my life: once.