Will Stanhope

Mauricio Herrera Cuadrawrote:

j) Free soloing with a helmet

  Dave Mcleod Free Solo With Helmet   ✅

Stay safe out there. 

MB MBwrote:

  Dave Mcleod Free Solo With Helmet   ✅

Stay safe out there. 

There was also a cover of Rock & Ice magazine that had Sonnie Trotter free-soloing on the Stawamus Chief in Squamish while wearing a helmet. There was even on article about it in that same issue where Sonnie Trotter talks about why he was wearing a helmet for that free solo climb, and maybe for other free solo climbs as well... I don't remember...

People arguing until they’re blue in the face about helmets, from their righteous pedestals, clutching their pearls. Says nothing about soloing or highballs that can kill you.

We need to save all the strong children from highballing these V16s at the Buttermilks before they kill themselves and endanger our climbing access. They congregate in droves there. Make sure you stop by and hand out helmets.  Better yet, mandate that’s its top rope only. We don’t have anything to save their legs and spines. 

T Taylor wrote: 

Imagine a conversation about car safety features. You have seatbelts and you have chest harnesses. The chest harness by all metrics is far safer however it has such a diminished utility in making you safer that spending the extra money for a .01% improvement in safety might not be worth it.

If you think helmets make you twice as safe, it’s obvious that you should wear a helmet. If helmets only make you .1% safer, should you worry about it?

in this scenario you are going from a shoulder belt to a five point harness? that seems a lot different than going from no-belt to any belt, or from no-helmet to a helmet.

anyway, i think the shame factor for us regular kooks keeps us a bit more careful. if i sustain a head injury recreating i know people will comment. same with any victim of a free solo, avy, whatever. 

pros must know that too but it doesn’t drive them the same way - maybe that belief allowed them to “go pro” to begin with, a complete mental thing. or maybe it was just a “below the limit” thing. 

i was pretty young in my climbing career when a talented climber from chile slipped on the easy ground in the beginning of yellow wall, tragically ending her life. that really affected me, the idea of “below the limit” has never meant “free of consequences”, at least for me. 

this conversation won’t end, whether we talk about helmets, free soloing, etc. but the pushback here without facts makes it seem like he wasn’t climbing with a helmet and making marginal decisions with the rain and route selection. 

there’s probably something there to learn, even for the individualists that are so concerned that the nanny state is about to make them wear helmets in gyms or whatever. 

Only mountainproject can make a 60-foot climbing fall by a drunk climber about helmet use...

I'm sorry to learn from this post that will's drinking seems to have really spiralled out of control. When I met him 6-7 years ago he seemed to have a binge drinking problem, all signs point to it having spiralled out of control since then. He was very nice, and helped us out when we where in a tough spot in patagonia. RIP.

(and yes, talking about this is more relevant than helmet stuff-- when a 5.14 climber falls on a 5.10 I'm gonna assume he was significantly inebriated during the climb).  

Trad Dogwrote:

I mean, I'm no saint - so I'll make a snarky comment here and there if I see somebody not wearing a helmet while climbing ice in the alpine - but that is a straight up insane thing to do since you get hit with falling rocks and ice all the time in that setting. 

This is what I’m getting atsome decisions are insane, some are reasonable and stuff happens.

But everywhere else it's honestly such a grey zone in my honest opinion. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but the logic is about criticizing people taking unnecessary risks, so - for example, which of these scenarios are unnecessary risks?

a) Climbing A5 in yosemite with a helmet

b) Not wearing a helmet while climbing Squamish granite

c) Not wearing a helmet while bouldering

d) Wearing a helmet but you're highball bouldering

e) Riding your bike with a helmet but in city traffic

f) Doing gymnastics without a helmet

g) Figure skating without a helmet

h) Getting shot out of a human cannon but you are wearing a helmet

i) Climbing at the gym without a helmet

a, b (maybe), e .

If every person who has ever been fired from a cannon has worn a helmet I would, I don’t really know the risks.

Okay, which of these scenarios deserves criticism and condemnation for being unnecessarily risking your life? Is the key criteria the danger involved, or is it the presence of absence of a helmet that we are looking for? Where and how should we or should we not grab our pitchforks?

I think criticism is fine, I feel like pitchforks require just blind rage which there is certainly some of in this case. I think we can be critical of decisions that the majority of people with experience would not make (which is vague). If someone walks up to a crack that is .5 with 2s, I think we can all agree that is the wrong decisions. If someone only has 4 .5s when everyone else uses 5, criticism should be far far less.

Personally, I don't know or care to know. My view is it's up to the individual to decide if they want to protect their head or not based on the situation at hand as they see fit, and we shouldn't bully people for having OR not having a helmet on. Both options are quite obnoxious and imposing in my opinion. 

I agree, but if the climb has elevated risk of head trauma I think it’s fair to bring up the decision making.

The only times I think such mandates are acceptable is in a formal organized sport/job where the safety apparel is codified.

OSHA is overtly conservative often having requirements that don’t make sense, but I wouldn’t be critical of people following them.

MPwrote:

when a 5.14 climber falls on a 5.10 I'm gonna assume he was significantly inebriated during the climb).  

You'd assume wrong, since his partner and family stated otherwise. Rutabaga is 11a, has a slippery crux with thin gear, and it was raining.  

Andy Novakwrote:

You'd assume wrong, since his partner and family stated otherwise. Rutabaga is 11a, has a slippery crux with thin gear, and it was raining.  

Fair point.
Counterpoint would be-- if I were his (grieving) belayer, would I really tell people "I let my partner lead a 5.11 trad climb in the rain drunk?" Like, that's a pretty heavy thing to verbalize, and the sort detail that no one really has an incentive to share. 

^^^^^
I am going to ASSUME you would

MPwrote:

Only mountainproject can make a 60-foot climbing fall by a drunk climber about helmet use.

I'm sorry to learn from this post that will's drinking seems to have really spiralled out of control. When I met him 6-7 years ago he seemed to have a binge drinking problem, sound like it had progressed significantly since then.

(and yes, talking about this is more relevant than helmet stuff-- when a 5.14 climber falls on a 5.10 I'm gonna assume he was significantly inebriated during the climb).  

How do you know that Will was drunk when he was on this climb?

The climb in question is not 5.10

FWIW, I would separate potential Alcohol Addiction from the tragic accident unless otherwise documented. It's a separate issue, although it may have been contributing to his recent troubles.

Keep in mind that the alcohol addicted do require a certain level of alcohol to feel "normal" as a consequence of the addiction is lack of fine motor control/general well-being without alcohol due to the physiological adaptations to chronic use. We internet prognosticators cannot claim he was impaired and should not, to be fair.

I do think it is important for there to be support in this community for those with substance addiction as well as supporting their supporters. It's very difficult for all involved. We also need to stop glorifying substance abuse, particularly as attentiveness to safety details are so important in our sport.

I think the use/non-use of a helmet, once details come out, is a reasonable reminder of the importance of their use. If a helmet had been used, then it likely gave Will what chance to survive he had. If one had not been used then that chance to survive simply would have been greater with wearing a helmet. We cannot unequivocally state it would have led to an ideal outcome, though certainly it would be an endorsement for their use to give every chance of not being injured. A serious head injury clearly can happen to the best of climbers.

Regardless, helmets are good for anyone on the sharp end if there is any chance of head injury. I personally don't wear one much being an old crusty fook but probably should more often. 

MPwrote:

Only mountainproject can make a 60-foot climbing fall by a drunk climber about helmet use.

I'm sorry to learn from this post that will's drinking seems to have really spiralled out of control. When I met him 6-7 years ago he seemed to have a binge drinking problem, sound like it had progressed significantly since then.

(and yes, talking about this is more relevant than helmet stuff-- when a 5.14 climber falls on a 5.10 I'm gonna assume he was significantly inebriated during the climb).  

Only mountainproject can make the list of bastards, who talk shit about recently deceased human in climbing accident

MPwrote:

(and yes, talking about this is more relevant than helmet stuff-- when a 5.14 climber falls on a 5.10 I'm gonna assume he was significantly inebriated during the climb).  

Maybe the worst assumption, since it seems like almost everytime a high level climber is injured or dies while climbing it is on something well below their limit.   

And, regardless, the presence of a helmet would still directly relate to the outcome of any accident, despite the initial cause of the fall.  

This thread should be shut down. It’s so unbelievably disrespectful — full of ridiculous and hurtful and thoughtless assumptions. It’s as if people value the role that the Internet plays in their lives more than they value an actual human life. People spend more time crafting reactions online than they spend reflecting on what it means to be human. It’s really a sad thing to see. And, yup, I’m not reading anymore. 

It is reasonable to analyze the incident in an effort to learn how to avoid a similar fate.    

It does seem that certain factors, if true, would have significantly contributed to the outcome.  

While I agree folks could have used more tact, ignoring  major potential factors due to some misguided sense of decency is just plain stupid.

Derek PKwrote:

It is reasonable to analyze the incident in an effort to learn how to avoid a similar fate.    

Yet hardly any factual analysis happens , just a shit ton of speculation and gossip. 

The Flying Dutchmanwrote:

Yet hardly any factual analysis happens , just a shit ton of speculation and gossip. 

Analysis based on hypotheticals is useful.

If we were to takeaway that hypothetically drunkenly climbing 5.11 R without a helmet in the rain is going to end in tragedy, is that a bad thing?

Seems like the fundamental issue is that, in the "injuries and accidents" section of mountainproject, some people want it to be the 'memorial' section, some people want it to be for dispassionate accident analysis , and still others want it to be place to talk past each other about helmet use. 

I wonder if the same stuff happens in, like, private aviation forums? I think the equivalent accident+ thread  would be "famous pilot whose life+alcoholism have been spiraling out of control crashes his plane while taking off in a thunderstorm, " then everyone in the thread ignores the elephant in the room and discusses the importance of pre-flight engine checks.  

dispassionate accident analysis

Dispassionate, lol. Yeah... clinical soaps boxing is more like it.

John Tuttlewrote:

Keep in mind that the alcohol addicted do require a certain level of alcohol to feel "normal" as a consequence of the addiction is lack of fine motor control/general well-being without alcohol due to the physiological adaptations to chronic use. We internet prognosticators cannot claim he was impaired and should not, to be fair.

Having worked with and known many full blown alcoholics what you say  is spot on, the day drinkers need it to function and can often be better workers for a while  before burnout happens, which it always does. Then you have the heavy evening drinkers that can't think straight all day, a bit grumpy/irritable all day and also in a hurry to get that first drink of the day. Things at work or the hills shouldn't be rushed IMO.  

I didn't know this guy but he sounded like a great dude that needed some help, this information being shared here might help some folks.