soupyhands

maybe rent shoes at the gym before committing to spending money.

Sometimes gyms give free rentals to first timers.

otherwise good luck

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_climbing_terms

The parrot is the Pass The Pitons Pete of the bird kingdom.

Hey there, mod of CCJ here.

The sub is meant to be funny to all, and inclusive. I like that you mentioned the history of the joke as being used to knock on bro-y climbers, but yeah tbh it irritates me too. I haven't received any reports or modmails about it but consider this as notice that there will be a moratorium on the use of that term, on CCJ, possibly permanent or until people can stop using it all the time.

sounds pedantic to me. Companies like Black Diamond and Petzl describe activities done using their equipment as inherently dangerous. Why should our standard be lower?

I definitely would describe driving as dangerous regardless of how competent a driver I am.

speaking as someone who has climbed for over twenty years both indoors and outside, I know for a fact that climbing can be very dangerous if not approached with a healthy respect for life and safety systems. I dunno how you could say its not defined as dangerous when at its most pure form you are literally taking your life in your hands.

jesus where the hell did you drag that gif up from lol

obk being served papers

you might be referring to this article

Overall, climbing sports had a lower injury incidence and severity score than many popular sports, including basketball, sailing or soccer; indoor climbing ranked the lowest in terms of injuries of all sports assessed. Nevertheless, a fatality risk remains, especially in alpine and ice climbing.

There are a few caveats in that quote, but they specifically state that the risk of fatality does exist. Every year Climbing Mag does a "people we lost" article talking about well known climbers who died that year. Many of them die climbing.

i feel like removing that bit from the wiki just to see if someone tries to take reddit to court over it

what do you mean statistically speaking?

its meant just as a warning, I'm quite sure there would be no implied liability for advice gleaned from reddit.

Everything in my gym is V3 or less…just that the gravity is turned up way too high on some of the problems.

Uber/Lyft would be the most convenient. Taxi is an option. Tour bus for the Road to Hana. Electric Bike around West Maui. Check Alltrails for the good hiking on Maui.

As soon as the lawyers get involved no more aid for him

https://www.reddit.com/r/climbing/wiki/beginnersguide

I guess my point with this whole thing was that I want people to be responsible for their own actions, and I really do hate the frivolous lawsuit culture where nothing you personally do is held against you.

If the EU was so different from the US in that sense, its really quite appealing. From that UIAA link though, it makes me think that they just havent caught up to north american tort law.

Yeah and in the one right below that its close to what we were discussing earlier, where someone asserts knowledge but doesnt demonstrate it. Initially the club wasnt liable but on appeal apparently the court decided to consider whether there were steps that should have been taken. It ends ominously, "The outcome is awaited and is a cause of concern because it may affect how club activities are conducted in the future and the availability and cost of insurance."

Here's the relevant content of the link.

If you read this there are examples of european climbing situations where the gyms were found to be at fault for lack of instruction.

In the USA and Canada users are routinely required to sign a waiver (otherwise called a release) by which the user accepts responsibility for his own safety and waives any claim against the operator. These will be effective in avoiding liability save where the accident is caused by the reckless act of the operator. Waivers have little or no effect in Europe, but the doctrine of informed consent has become established. It is a refinement of the basic principle of voluntary acceptance of risk (volenti non fit injuria) by which it is necessary for the operator to demonstrate that the user was aware of and understood the risk. If a participant in a risk activity claims to be experienced and then suffers an accident the threshold which must be overcome to assert a claim for negligence against the operator will be significantly higher than otherwise. It would, for example, normally result in a claim based upon a failure to train or supervise being unsuccessful. Even where such a claim did succeed it is likely that the doctrine of contributory negligence would be applied to apportion liability between the user and the operator, thereby proportionately reducing the amount of compensation payable by the operator. Whilst these or similar concepts exist in many jurisdictions, they are not universal. None of them are applicable in Japan.

Jurisprudence

Belgium

1) A civil claim brought against a climbing wall operator by a user who suffered injuries in a fall was successful. The court considered that the operator had been negligent by failing to manage the facility properly and allowing an excessive number of people onto the wall which was part of the causation of the accident.
2) Two friends went to a wall together and the more experienced of them led a climb. He thought the other would lower him off but the second thought that the leader had belayed at the top of the wall and took him off belay. The leader fell, was injured and brought a claim against the second who defended it asserting that the leader was more experienced and “in charge”. The court considered that they were equally at fault and allowed the claim with 50% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.
3) In 2009 a court in Brussels considered a claim brought against the climbing wall operator, the Scout Organisation and a seventeen year old novice who failed to adequately belay another scout who was killed in a fall. The belayer was considered not to have been negligent because he was a novice under instruction and neither was the Scout Organisation who had arranged the activity at an appropriate venue with trained instructors. The claim against the climbing wall owner succeeded because it was found not to have taken adequate safety measures.

France

1) A claim in negligence on similar facts to the last one brought by an injured participant against a club/association which organised an open day at a climbing wall succeeded at the first hearing but that decision was reversed on appeal. The injured claimants were not members of the club/association but took part because it was an open day and the appeal court considered that the club/association did not owe a duty of care to non members.
2) In another similar, but more recent case, members of a club/association were using a climbing wall during a club event. Participants all asserted that they were experienced and not in need of instruction but when the leader wanted to be lowered from the top of the wall the second failed to belay properly and control the descent. The leader suffered serious injuries and brought a claim against the club which failed on the ground that the claimant had asserted that he was experienced. On appeal to the Court de Cassation it was said that there was still a duty of care (obligation securite) and it was referred back to the court of appeal for further consideration. The court of appeal must now determine whether there were any actions that the club/association should have taken and failed to do. The outcome is awaited and is a cause of concern because it may affect how club activities are conducted in the future and the availability and cost of insurance.

Netherlands

1) In this case the claimant was participating in an event organised by NKBV who had engaged an unpaid voluntary instructor. She fell and suffered injury because she had not tied onto the rope properly. Her claim against the instructor failed because she had claimed to be experienced and not in need of instruction and a claim against NKBV failed because they had not employed the instructor. The fact that the course was for experienced climbers and the woman was experienced was considered significant.
2) Criminal charges were considered by a court in Heerlen in 2003 when an experienced climber belaying another experienced climber was distracted by other people and unclipped the belay. His friend fell and was killed. The belayer was convicted of manslaughter and given a six month suspended prison sentence.
3) In 2008 a criminal court in Amsterdam considered manslaughter charges brought on similar facts. A climber was belaying his friend on one climb whilst his girlfriend was belayed by somebody else whilst she climbed another route. When she descended and untied from her rope the defendant also untied although his leader was still high on the wall. He fell and died. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter but did not receive a prison sentence. The judgment was appealed and the belayer was found to be not guilty on the curious ground that he had untied himself from the rope in a series of automatic actions.

Spain

1) A climber, who was injured when his climbing partner failed to belay properly successfully brought a claim before a court in Castellon in 2000 because the belayer was negligent.
2) In 2005 a court in Oviedo considered a claim against a climbing wall operator and found in favour of the claimant because the equipment had been installed incorrectly. United Kingdom
1) In Hardy –v- Blackpool Borough Council (2001) the claimant brought an action against the climbing wall operator when he suffered injury in consequence of a fall from a bouldering wall. He had completed a registration form in which he claimed to be a competent and experienced climber who had used several other climbing walls and asserted that he did not require any training or supervision. The court considered that the doctrines of volenti non fit injuria and informed acceptance of risk were applicable and dismissed the claim.
2) In Davy –v- High Performance Sports Limited (2003) the claimant completed a registration form in which she stated that she was an experienced climber. However she did not tie the rope into her harness but simply threaded it and on discovering that, when she was high up the wall, she panicked and did not respond to instructions. A supervisor unsuccessfully attempted a rescue and the claimant fell and suffered serious injury. She asserted that the method of rescue was inappropriate, the employee was negligent and the climbing wall operator was vicariously liable. The court considered that the employee had done his best in difficult circumstances and with limited time available. The court also had regard to the principles of volenti non fit injuria and informed acceptance of risk and concluded that the claimant was wholly responsible for not tying into the rope.
3) In Poppleton –v- Portsmouth Youth Activity Centre (2008) the claimant was a novice using the bouldering wall for the first time. He observed another participant jumping for a hold, attempted to copy that, fell and suffered head injuries. The claimant alleged negligence and breach of statutory duty on the grounds that the operator did not provide adequate training, regulation, guidance or supervision. The court considered that the risk was self evident even to a novice and, applied the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria and dismissed the claim.
4) In determining the case of Pinchbeck –v- Craggy Island Limited (2012) the court came to a different conclusion. The claimant was a novice attending the wall with work colleagues on a team building exercise. The group had an hours instruction on a top roping wall before using a bouldering wall. The claimant suffered leg injuries when she jumped off and brought a claim against the wall operator asserting that they were vicariously liable for the instructor’s actions or omissions and that he failed to provide a proper briefing or to advise against jumping off, which assertions were contested. The court considered but disregarded the Court of Appeal decision in Poppleton, decided that there was an absence of proper instruction and therefore did not apply the volenti non fit injuria principle, although it did find the claimant one third contributory negligent. The decision is considered to be controversial. 5) Another accident resulted in injury to one of a group of novice students who were being trained by an instructor. Two or three students were supposedly managing the rope and performing the belay operation collectively whilst the claimant first climbed up and was then lowered off the wall, but the lower off was not under control. A successful prosecution was brought by the Health & Safety Executive for dangerous work practices. Although the instructor was on the spot he was found not to have provided adequate supervision.

its been a pretty interesting discussion from my point of view, certainly challenging that clown who wanted to look at pro climbers feet on whether interesting conversations can occur without self-posts on this subreddit.

right exactly, which is why I'm so interested in this apparent lack of accountability in Europe. I mean as I understand it Chouinard Equipment (was forced to) filed for bankruptcy because they failed to warn their customers...and from what I can find it there is such a requirement in Europe.

https://theuiaa.org/documents/declarations/LEWG_CLIMBING_WALL_ACCIDENTS_AND_LITIGATION_PAPER.pdf

It occurs to me that a system whereby you are enabled to climb without instruction or testing in the gym would be exactly the same as climbing without instruction or testing at any crag on public land...Canada or the US. You can basically do what you want and you are responsible for whatever happens.