You are responsible for your partner's knot: controversial?

What I've learned here is to use the word "responsible," responsibly!

Collin Hwrote:

The question of whether or not partner checks should be done is totally separate from the question of responsibility. I make a habit of doing checks and taking them seriously, and I ask that my partners do the same, but I would never put any blame on a belayer if I didn't tie in correctly and had an accident. That would mean I failed to tie in correctly, I failed to check my own knot, and I failed to notice that they didn't check. That would be so many errors on my end that it would feel absurd to cast blame anywhere else. I don't think that's a small semantic point nor is it strictly legalese. Responsibility and blame go hand-in-hand. If you are responsible for something, you are also responsible for the consequences. At the end of the day, I take full responsibility for my knot even though I expect partners to check it. Obviously that's totally different if I am taking out a friend who is new to climbing and expecting me to keep them safe, in which case I would be responsible for their knot.

You explained that really well. I’m convinced. What he said.

Mr Rogerswrote:

I hope the irony of your comment is not lost on you.

Is it ironic? You should ask him and talk to him a bit before deciding or concluding it's ironic. It is (somewhat) dependent on the state of mind. 

Sheesh idk why it’s such a controversial topic. Regardless of objective responsibility, it cost $0.00 to check your pal and for them to check you. 30 seconds isn’t much to make sure everyone gets back home to hug their loved ones and for you not to have to deal with potential trauma from seeing your friend get their head caved in after hitting the ground.

You don’t agree that you’re responsible for someone’s knot? Ok but if there’s an accident, your friend is still hurt or dead and you’ll feel guilt even it’s not exactly your fault. 

rgoldwrote:

I tie in with a tucked Yosemtie Bowline. (This is credited to Alan Lee but I prefer the name describing what it is.)  

Most climbers nowadays can't check it in any reliable way.  I usually get one of three responses.

1. "You sure that knot's ok?"

2. < Shrug >

3. "Looks good."

The third response is interesting; the person making it has taken a cursory glance and thinks they've verified a figure-eight even though it isn't that. (I guess they could be taken quite literally too, as the knot is--ahem--very attractive.) This type of confirmation bias can be very dangerous.  In any case, I know that most people (except for a few old farts like me) cannot check the knot so I better make sure it's right myself. So I use a "pointing and calling" approach common in Asian railroads (originally Japan), which has been found to reduce accident rates by as much as 85%.  This is not a partner-checking protocol; it is something the primary operator does by themselves, pointing to critical things and calling out their status (I do it sub voce).  You can do it with knots, anchors, rappel setups, etc.  It is a form of structured self-talk that seems to promote focus and decrease distraction.

My sense about many (but not all) tie-in accidents is not that a knot was mistied but that there was no knot at all.  That's perhaps the main thing to look out for: has the climber actually tied in?

Here's another thing.  We've found over the years that it helps rope handling if the second doesn't tie in on the first pitch until the leader has just about pulled the ropes up.  This way, all the lurking twists come out.  But then the second is all by themselves with no one to check their tie-in.

I’m curious, because usually I’m 110% on board with every post you make: why the tucked yos bowline instead of one of the inherently secure ones? (Ie scotts locked or butler)

To chime in with my changed view: At the end of the day, the responsibility most lies on whoever is leaving the ground/belay to ensure their knot is good. 'Only you can prevent wildfires.'

The climber is taking the most risk leading, ultimately the responsibility lies most with them to make sure their lifeline is secured. Whichever person is stepping into the riskier role has a bit more onus to check their knot. That's part of why it's called the 'sharp end'.

My takeaway: We should all check our systems before someone leaves the ground. If you're on the sharp end, YOU BETTER MAKE DAMN SURE YOUR LIFELINE IS OK. Inherently, we all care for our own survival a bit more, one of the breaks of survivalism, you know, life... Because I love my friends, if I'm belaying I will make damn sure their lifeline is ok.

We should all do buddy checks. If something were to happen because of the leaders knot, I don't doubt 90% of belayers would be wrought with guilt. Buddy checks are the right thing to do, but onus most lies on the leader to check their knot.

Jared Ewrote:

I’m curious, because usually I’m 110% on board with every post you make: why the tucked yos bowline instead of one of the inherently secure ones? (Ie scotts locked or butler)

It's just as secure as any of the others.  And tying it involves things I've done for years, because the tying sequence is bowline --> Yosemite finish --> tuck.  This also gives me three well-defined double-check stages.

J Cowrote:

Sheesh idk why it’s such a controversial topic…….You don’t agree that you’re responsible for someone’s knot….

Just gonna point out to those who continue to disagree, that we are all in agreement here.  

A reminder that this is more than just a philosophical debate:

Ten Sleep Fatality 

Chad Millerwrote:

I would have to respectfully disagree with you Becca.  At least outside of guiding.  

There is no shared blame.  Double checking  someone’s knot / locked biner / buckle  is just that, a double check.

The person tying the knot, attaching the biner, or putting on the harness has responsibility to do it correctly. They have all the blame if it’s done wrong.

Put it this way, let’s say you tied your double bowline in wrong and as such you were hurt and needed hospitalization.   Your partner double checked your knot but missed your error. Would you ask or expect your partner to help pay for medical bills resulting from injury?  

I think of the belayer double checking the same as an operator of a car making sure their occupants are buckled in. The person doing the buckling is ultimately responsible and likely liable,  but it's imprudent for the driver to start driving without making sure all the occupants are buckled. And if anything happens to an unbuckled occupant both parties are responsible to some degree, even if legally the occupant would be at fault. 

Here I'm using the Merriam-Webster 2(a) definition of responsible: able to answer for one's conduct and obligations

And not the 1st definition: liable to be called on to answer

English is hard because it's so overloaded.

Matthew Bellwrote:

I think of the belayer double checking the same as an operator of a car making sure their occupants are buckled in. The person doing the buckling is ultimately responsible and likely liable,  but it's imprudent for the driver to start driving without making sure all the occupants are buckled. And if anything happens to an unbuckled occupant both parties are responsiable to some degree, even if legally the occupant would be at fault. 

You're kidding, right?

It's interesting to see the reaction to the word responsible in this context. But semantics of that word aside, here's my thoughts on tie-in failures:

There are two causes of tie-in failures: First is lack of skill, the second is lack of attentiveness. 

We check beginners knots because they may not yet have learned to tie correctly. But knots aren't hard and the skill is learned pretty quicky. Knot tying skill is binary: Once you know it, you know it, and everyone learns it in a day or two. Experience doesn't make your tie-in knots better.

I suspect that accidents due to beginners failing to tie the knot correctly are uncommon. Because there is a short window when a beginner does not have the skill, they are extra attentive because they know they don't have the skill, and they are usually double-checked.

Lack of attentiveness is the real issue. People who know how to tie the knot can fail to complete the knot. It can happen to anyone, as proven by the Lynn Hill, John Long, and many other accidents including the one I linked above.

It's likely that experience does not correlate to being more attentive, in fact it may be the inverse. As we become more experienced we are more likely to be distracted during routine tasks that we have completed successfully so many times. We simultaneously have a conversation, multitask, etc., because why not? Tying-in is so easy and automatic...

If we are climbing together I'm going to check your knot, no matter how long you've been climbing, or how much it annoys you. I hope you check mine.

Matthew Bellwrote:

I think of the belayer double checking the same as an operator of a car making sure their occupants are buckled in. The person doing the buckling is ultimately responsible and likely liable,  but it's imprudent for the driver to start driving without making sure all the occupants are buckled. And if anything happens to an unbuckled occupant both parties are responsible to some degree, even if legally the occupant would be at fault. 

Here I'm using the Merriam-Webster 2(a) definition of responsible: able to answer for one's conduct and obligations

And not the 1st definition: liable to be called on to answer

English is hard because it's so overloaded.

Always do the double check.

The person doing the double check isn’t responsible though  

Chad Millerwrote:

Always do the double check.

The person doing the double check isn’t responsible though  

So you think the belayer should "Always do the double check" but that they're not obligated to?

Obligate: to bind legally or morally

My argument about responsibility is that the belayer has a moral obligation to double check their climber. 

Moral: 1(c) conforming to a standard of right behavior

It's funny, I actually largely agree with the spirit of the posts that argue the belayer is responsible for their partner's knot. I don't think there is really all that much disagreement here. I think checks are really important, we should try to build good safety habits, and we should do everything in our power to keep our partners safe. But I would also treat it as analogous to writing a paper. I might send a draft to colleagues/friends to help me review and edit it, hoping they will catch any major mistakes that I missed. I hope they will do their best, but if any mistakes escape their notice, I am still the author of the paper and the person who made the initial mistake, so in the end the responsibility for the mistakes and their consequences is mine. I am the author of my knot, and if it is tied improperly, I hope my editor (belayer) will catch it during review, but as the author, the responsibility for the knot remains with me. None of that means I don't want a good editor or wouldn't strive to be a good editor myself.

Also, I think part of the difference in views may come from different climbing styles. It seems many of the older climbers who mostly learned outdoors are less inclined to accept the premise that we are responsible for the knots of our partners. This probably reflects the emphasis on self-sufficiency, individualism, and personal responsibility that were all central values in the early growth of the sport. It also makes sense in the context of multipitch trad climbing. There are a ton of situations where partner checks aren't possible or routine (setting up an anchor, putting someone on belay from above, rappelling), so you get very used to the idea that you are responsible for checking your own work and trusting your partner to do the same. When partner checks are only sometimes possible, they become a nice way to reduce risk and increase safety, but they are viewed as secondary to the primary responsibility that each climber has for their part of the system.

Finally, if a climber does deck because of an incomplete/incorrect knot, I don't think their belayer deserves to feel any more guilt than that which is unavoidable. Having a partner get seriously hurt or killed would be unimaginably terrible. If the prevailing view is that we are responsible for catching the errors of our partners, I would think it would make it that much harder on the surviving partners who are already suffering enough. I would not want a partner to blame themselves if I got hurt because of a mistake like this.

ya al got too many rulze.. Bunch of appies here and I gravitate towards the Vulgarians....

Jared Ewrote:

I’m curious, because usually I’m 110% on board with every post you make: why the tucked yos bowline instead of one of the inherently secure ones? (Ie scotts locked or butler)

The knot is a secure version. Its the Lee Yosemite Bowline. Ive heard it refered to as Lee's Lock,
I use this version myself.

Also, I think part of the difference in views may come from different climbing styles. It seems many of the older climbers who mostly learned outdoors are less inclined to accept the premise that we are responsible for the knots of our partners. This probably reflects the emphasis on self-sufficiency, individualism, and personal responsibility that were all central values in the early growth of the sport.

I'm an older climber who always checks my partner's knot, whether they want it or not. Setting aside the lawyerly objections of implied liability, its simple. Maybe you all never missed a tie-in and almost died as a result, I dunno.

My notion is those who frequently climb with transactional partners and are belying or perhaps being belayed by different people all the time have to by necessity become more self-sufficient. They aren't close enough to most of their transactional partners. They don't love them and they might not even be friends. It isn't their responsibility, full stop. Its a good lesson imo - that stranger belying you at the gym or crag doesn't care enough about you to check your fucking knot.

Matthew Bellwrote:

So you think the belayer should "Always do the double check" but that they're not obligated to?

Obligate: to bind legally or morally

My argument about responsibility is that the belayer has a moral obligation to double check their climber. 

Moral: 1(c) conforming to a standard of right behavior

No.

I’m saying that the double check should always be done.  

The person doing the double check isn’t responsible for catching any errors.  It’s simply a cursory double check that BOTH people on themselves and their partner.  

The person  who tied the knot, put in the harness, or attached the biner is responsible for doing so correctly  

If you double checked someone’s knot, harness, rappel biner, and missed something would you be responsible for the failure? 

if you noticed something odd about a knot, told the person and they ignored you would you be responsible?

Lets say in each of the above situations the person you where double checking was hurt and incurred medical bills.   Would you feel obligated to help pay for said medical bills?  

Chad Millerwrote:

No.

I’m saying that the double check should always be done.  

The person doing the double check isn’t responsible for catching any errors.  It’s simply a cursory double check that BOTH people on themselves and their partner.  

The person  who tied the knot, put in the harness, or attached the biner is responsible for doing so correctly  

If you double checked someone’s knot, harness, rappel biner, and missed something would you be responsible for the failure? 

if you noticed something odd about a knot, told the person and they ignored you would you be responsible?

Lets say in each of the above situations the person you where double checking was hurt and incurred medical bills.   Would you feel obligated to help pay for said medical bills?  

I think you're changing the argument here.

My argument is that the belayer is obligated to check. You're seem to be extending the argument to the belayer being responsible fully responsible for the state after the check, and that is not the argument I'm making. 

You seem to be continuously mixing the concepts of financial liability and moral responsibility. I have not argued about financial liabilty.

> The person  who tied the knot, put in the harness, or attached the biner is responsible for doing so correctly 

We are in agreement on this.

> If you double checked someone’s knot, harness, rappel biner, and missed something would you be responsible for the failure? 

No. I think we are in agreement on this.

Now had the belayer not bothered to check at all, I think the belayer would be morally responsible for the failure to some degree due to their negligence.

> if you noticed something odd about a knot, told the person and they ignored you would you be responsible?

Yes you are the belayer. If you know the system isn't safe and you choose to belay anyways you are culpable in their death.