When is it okay to open your mouth?

CascadeKid, reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit.

DEF wrote:I have been very very lucky to have a few great mentors to teach and guide me along my very young climbing career. Not everybody gets the chance to learn from others and in climbing, learning lessons 'the hard way' can have pretty dire consequences. Why not speak up when somebody is doing something you feel is dangerous to themself or others. Maybe you could help prevent an accident, or maybe YOU are wrong and can learn something from them. Either way, isn't it always worth the effort to try to lend a hand? It is easy to say on the internet that you should let the idiot fall to his death, but any reasonable person would do what they can to help someone who may not know how to help themselves.

I concur...there are many reasons other than "altruism"...

Decades ago I was on my first trip to Cave Rock and doing something very dangerous when Dan Osman walked up and yelled at me to "come down! you could get hurt!"

I was headed angling up (sketchily, I might add) for a poor fixed nut that would not have held (it was a directional set for a route coming the other way). Likely a ground fall given the physics... Later when the rope was set up proper by Dan, he said, "man, that nut fell out in the last earthquake we had..."

Never knew if he was kidding or not; RIP and thanks for being helpful and saying something...

I'd probably say something. It depends on the situation. If a person looks like a solid soloist then I'd keep quiet. To each his own in that situation (we all make choices and that's fine), but this sounds a bit different than a soloist who has made a calculated decision.

Maybe I wouldn't say anything about the kids on the 5.6 except to maybe cut out the crap and be more serious (they can still decide to solo if that's what they want to do), but I'd say something about the kid on the 5.9 if (s)he looked out of his or her league.

On a colder note, how many of the natural selection people would really be willing to say to the media "It's not my responsibility" if a 16-year old kid out of the parent's watchful eye and possibly under peer pressure happened to slip, fall, and die? I'd have a hard time looking in the mirror on that one, with or without the media.

GMBurns wrote:On a colder note, how many of the natural selection people would really be willing to say to the media "It's not my responsibility" if a 16-year old kid out of the parent's watchful eye and possibly under peer pressure happened to slip, fall, and die? I'd have a hard time looking in the mirror on that one, with or without the media.

I'm not a natural selection guy, but I would truly have no problem saying I am not responsible. To you, to me, the parents, the reportedly dip shit friends... I have enough bad decisions of my own to go around trying to lay claim to others'.

If rescue is asked for (it reportedly wasn't), I would help enact that.

Never write a check with your mouth you can't cash with your ass.

As a 17 year old who often climbs without any real adult supervision, I know that I try to learn something every time I'm on rock.

While I (and I believe many others) consider me competent, we all do may silly mistakes.

For example, something that happened recently:

I usually am climbing with my little brother who is about 40lbs lighter then me, or people who are about my size. However this time I was belaying someone (I was belaying from above) about 100lbs heavier then me. He is also a beginning climber. I am used to setting the anchor and then extending myself a little bit away from it with a nylon runner in order to watch the person coming up.

I much more experienced climber POLITELY pointed out that if my follower was to fall, I would be slammed into the wall that my anchor was built on. While I had a strong stance, I realized that I would not have been able to hold him so I moved back to the anchor and was able to bring him up. He did fall, and I was pulled into the anchor.

So I guess the moral is this: Don't be afraid to let people who are doing something unsafe know that they are doing something unsafe, just don't be patronizing or "Holier then thou art" about it.

Remember, if they die it makes us all look bad.

Jace Mullen wrote: Remember, if they die it makes us all look bad.

WTF are you talking about? How does someone, who I've never heard of, dying because they did something stupid have the slightest impact on me? How does someone else doing something stupid make me look any different in anyone's eyes? If you are talking about the view that the general public takes of climbers as a whole then you need to wake the hell up. They are going to think you are reckless and dangerous no matter how safe you climb. They think the very act is stupid and dangerous. If no one died doing it they wouldn't pay any attention. This is the same public that wants to tell you, me and the rest of the world how we should live our lives. Who gives two shits what they think?

Mind your own business unless asked for help and just climb on. Simple, simple, simple.

Land management agencies tend to frown upon climbers dying on their land.

if i'm hangin' out belaying my partner, keepin' it real and someone wanst to give me unsolicited advice. i simply tell my friend to chill while i lock him off, and proceed to slap the shit out of the unsuspecting fool. As he walks away stunned, i light up a smoke.

mitchy wrote:if i'm hangin' out belaying my partner, keepin' it real and someone wanst to give me unsolicited advice. i simply tell my friend to chill while i lock him off, and proceed to slap the shit out of the unsuspecting fool. As he walks away stunned, i light up a smoke.

You would have more cred with this tough guy talk if your name were Rocko or Bruno...but not "Mitchy"! :)

Zeke wrote: I'm not a natural selection guy, but I would truly have no problem saying I am not responsible. To you, to me, the parents, the reportedly dip shit friends... I have enough bad decisions of my own to go around trying to lay claim to others'. If rescue is asked for (it reportedly wasn't), I would help enact that.

Maybe I didn't say that correctly, (or maybe you understood it perfectly) but what I meant to say was that even if I didn't think I was responsible I'd still feel pretty bad for not trying to prevent a situation that could probably have been avoided.

Personally, I’m inclined to agree with Crag Dweller, Cruxic, GMBurns, Taylor Ogden (despite the screwy&funny multiple choice thing), et al.

And I think Ryan Williams has a decent perspective if you notice something that's obviously amiss... That is, as long as you (whoever is in the situation) can be honest with yourself about the likelihood of things actually being out-of-whack and heading south for another group like those kids AND whether or not you could really ignore it or could really help.

At least, personally, I would find it very hard (if not utterly impossible) to simply do nothing if/when somebody decks. Aside from personal obligation (personal values - not morals or ethics; big difference), it is an understood/implied expectation (per ICS/FEMA) that someone with adequate medical & incident assessment training be willing (barring potential harm) to assist with an incident until EMT’s show up (and I'm sure there are some of you in that boat with me). But back to the personal aspect; I find it really amazing that so many people could HONESTLY say (to themselves) that they could totally ignore an incident and not feel compelled to mention something to help avoid a potential injury/death. I understand that there’s a strong inclination toward personal liberties here, but really? Kids are clearly being stupid (punching/kicking each other on solo) and you’re totally ok with blowing it off so you don’t have to say anything?

Besides, I don’t think the OP was saying that it had to be a chastising or condescending remark. It could be something as simple as “You guys sure you got everything [in check / under control / managed / whatever idiom you want]?” That may serve as a reminder to them to get their shit straight, or they might be such sick climbers that they're fine. Either way, at least I would’ve settled my mind.
Hell, I’ve pointed out when someone missed double-checking something and also mentioned to someone that they keep an eye on their shitty belay (he was literally turned around, pissing with a slack rope). I wasn't a dick. And they didn’t get pissed or up in my face (albeit different situations). I’ve also had someone tell me to plug more gear. My partner and I knew I was leapfrogging the gear for the tougher section farther up, but I didn’t get all huffy with the guy. I just said “Thanks, I’m OK” and all parties went on their way. And I actually kind of appreciated his concern. Saying something doesn’t always have to be some chest-thumping, holier-than-thou confrontation.

But I dunno. That's all just IMHO. Ignoring an actual/potential serious incident/accident is just foreign to me. But I'm not passing judgement on those who have the testicular fortitude to do so. To each their own.

to Crag Dweller, CascadeKid wrote: that's funny, you speak up to prevent other people from ruining your day - that's not altruism, it's selfishness.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the "ruining my day" thing might be a bit tongue-in-cheek. Plus, the philosophical debate of [true] altruism vs self-motivated relinquishment of personal guilt/responsibility (or even limbic reward) is old hat and it’s been beaten to death in PLENTY of books, journal articles, magazines, and pamphlets. Go read those. And besides, WHO CARES? Does it really matter why he wants to help? I still want that guy around if I pull a Lynn Hill or random solo accident

Ryan Williams wrote:Live in the east!

Don’t tell people that! I like it without a ton of climbers. ;)
By the way, Thailand to Raleigh? Rough break. Stay well.

GMBurns wrote: Maybe I didn't say that correctly, (or maybe you understood it perfectly) but what I meant to say was that even if I didn't think I was responsible I'd still feel pretty bad for not trying to prevent a situation that could probably have been avoided.

So, you're going to run up to any impending soloists with a questionnaire to assess their risk? How can you feel badly about what you're not responsible for? That's taking too much on, man. Anybody who gets up 15, 20 feet off the ground while soloing has made their own decision: summit or plummet (or downclimb).

Zeke wrote: So, you're going to run up to any impending soloists with a questionnaire to assess their risk? How can you feel badly about what you're not responsible for? That's taking too much on, man. Anybody who gets up 15, 20 feet off the ground while soloing has made their own decision: summit or plummet (or downclimb).

I'm not trying to get in between or pick a fight but...

Don't you think there's a significant difference between a soloist and the situation described in the OP?
I feel like rational judgement could readily make the differentiation between when to pipe up about a sketchy situation that could be prevented and when somebody's out soloing. At least the guys I know certainly look like they have their wits about them even when their ropes aren't.

Either way, if they tell me to go fuck myself and they deck, is it on me? HELL NO.
Will I help anyway?
YEP, but at least I won't wonder if a simple "you got this?" head-check would've prevented the whole thing.
Again, that's just me. I don't expect it of others and I don't think that anyone else climbing should either.

C Travis wrote:. Aside from personal obligation (personal values - not morals or ethics; big difference), it is an understood/implied expectation (per ICS/FEMA) that someone with adequate medical & incident assessment training be willing (barring potential harm) to assist with an incident until EMT’s show up (and I'm sure there are some of you in that boat with me).

The definition of "duty to act" varies from state to state, and your statement is not true in many states and/or situations, at least from a legal perspective. If you have such training, you should be aware of the definition in your area.

Copperhead wrote: The definition of "duty to act" varies from state to state, and your statement is not true in many states and/or situations, at least from a legal perspective. If you have such training, you should be aware of the definition in your area.

Copperhead, what you said is true and I whole-heartedly agree with you, which is why I didn't get into the technicalities of a "duty to act" and related statutes. If I remember correctly, there are only a handful of states (but at least 6 or 7) that actually mandate assisting in incidents by citizens at the scene (misdemeanor offense and considered separate from a true duty to act law). Other than those states, in reality, the legal sense of any sort of duty to act (or do much of anything) ends when you clock out/are out of uniform. Then you get to worry about whether or not to get involved based on protection from the realm of good Samaritan laws (which are generally good though variable in the way they read, as you said; and do NOT cover anyone on the clock). Mark, my above response to Copperhead is in reference to "duty to act" and not "duty to rescue." And my original post discusses neither. Look to my friend's home in Vermont for an example of a duty to assist clause under good Samaritan laws (to which I was referring above by saying "mandate assisting") as related to duty to rescue (per my understanding of the definitions of each). [*edit: my statement to Mark was in reference to a post he deleted stating that there's not a duty to rescue in the US, which there is not except for some situations (e.g. spouses, children or someone for whom you're responsible, cross-over to what we know as "duty to act" for medical/emergency pro's, and if you were the one who caused the f-up). -- again, as I understand it*]

Rather than getting into all that, I chose to simply reference professional and organizational understood/accepted expectations as they were outlined when I read them. These admittedly get trumped by the aforementioned (reflected in the linguistics of the statements). Again, we agree that this is the very reason that people in the medical field should know the statutes in their area. Keep in mind, I'm no lawyer. So please excuse any lack of the appropriate legal language or many of the legal particularities that vary by state/district (I just know broad strokes). But I agree with you that knowing potential legal ramifications (or lack thereof) definitely plays a part. AND I think that there should NOT be laws that mandate rescue by citizens (it would often make a big mess bigger). However...

My point was simply that I was surprised that, among all the people who responded, there weren't more who felt either
a) motivated by ethical expectations of their profession or organization by certification (hence the reference)
OR b) PERSONALLY compelled to do something aside from just ignoring situations.
Not passing judgement either way; just surprised, especially with regard to point b. Maybe I was underestimating the likelihood that many of those people would fall into both camps (thus overestimating the number of people affected by one or the other).

dont climb in squamish for the squeemish

chances are there will be someone soloing beside you in the bluffs, or someone soloing past you on the chief ...

soloers are more common than dogs here ...

during the mountain festival last year, a whole bunch of top notch climbers went and soloed up and down a lot of the climbs in the bluffs ... they were doing this beside those taking courses ... i dont want to say any names, but they are ones you would easily recognize

your day will easily get ruined up here ;)

Jace Mullen wrote: I much more experienced climber POLITELY pointed out that if my follower was to fall, I would be slammed into the wall that my anchor was built on. While I had a strong stance, I realized that I would not have been able to hold him so I moved back to the anchor and was able to bring him up. He did fall, and I was pulled into the anchor.

Ugh, did the more experienced climber also enlighten you about the slack in the system?

Zeke wrote: So, you're going to run up to any impending soloists with a questionnaire to assess their risk? How can you feel badly about what you're not responsible for? That's taking too much on, man. Anybody who gets up 15, 20 feet off the ground while soloing has made their own decision: summit or plummet (or downclimb).

I'm not out crusading, nor have I ever actually told a soloist to not climb up (except for one asswipe who got in the way of a beginner leader I was belaying who was testing herself), but I have seen obvious roped beginners start to get off-route from a 5.6 to 5.9R territory (for example), and I have told them what they're getting in to. Some have said that they were fine. OK, fine. No more from me. They know what they're doing (in fact, after he had sent the line we had a good chat about it at the ledge). But others have asked where the 5.6 line went, or for beta on how to get past the crux, or simply thanked me and down-climbed.

A questionnaire isn't needed, and I don't take it as a personal responsibility to save everyone from harm's way. But sometimes obvious is obvious. It's like seeing a British person in the US look right when crossing the street and not seeing the bus coming from the left; not pulling the person back is kind of an insane mindset to me (and I was saved in the UK, btw, for doing the same thing, so I'm grateful).

BTW - feel free to pop in from time to time to say hi. We miss the Cochise TRs.

"when is okay to open your mouth?"

what a silly question, if anyone should know its you!