|
|
Forums:
Climbing Information:
Injury Treatment and Prevention:
Re: [pwscottiv] Omega Cam Breaking!:
Edit Log
|
|
healyje
Dec 19, 2007, 12:47 PM
Views: 25841
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
pwscottiv wrote: I think peoples' safety is MUCH more important than expanding climbing technology. I think it's good to remind all the gear manufactures that it's their responsibility to properly test equipment BEFORE it gets out in the field... We aren't talking about dolls that have a difficult time retaining their heads, in turn making some kid cry... We're talking life and death. Climbers are NOT guinea pigs.
pwscottiv, I think we agree on a lot of points in this discussion, but here I think we part company. If safety were the ultimate goal, no one would be in the business at all. Willing 'guinea pigs' is what we've essentially been all along, most of you are just too young to realize it. Some incredibly bad gear has gone by over the decades - ironically, most of it well-made and robust, just poorly suited for the purpose of protection. There would never be innovation in climbing if designs had to be vetted as fool-proof for today's 'average' climber as described by some in this thread.
Manufacturers have a responsibility to produce the best possible products they can, but history is replete with dead-ends and products which need significant expertise to wield appropriately. And no, I'm not implying the Link Cams are a dead-end product, but rather one that requires some expertise to wield effectively and safely. In general, I think OP is doing a good job relative to the introduction and service of Link Cams. If the limitations have not been well-stated by them, I'm more than willing to chalk it up to a bunch of highly experienced folks who on one hand were excited about the pure potential of the design on one hand, and intuitively avoided such placements when field-testing them on the other.
It may turn out the liability costs of the general population of climbers using these is just too high in the long run for them to stay on the market, but I'll consider that a loss to a few due to the folly or inexperience of the many. Again, it must be a generational phenomena that simply because gear is sold commercially it somehow means climbers are in some way mysteriously absolved of their own responsibility and imperative in judging the fitness of the gear they use.
(This post was edited by healyje on Dec 19, 2007, 1:33 PM)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by healyje
() on Dec 19, 2007, 12:50 PM
|
|
Post edited by healyje
() on Dec 19, 2007, 1:01 PM
|
|
Post edited by healyje
() on Dec 19, 2007, 1:02 PM
|
|
Post edited by healyje
() on Dec 19, 2007, 1:04 PM
|
|
Post edited by healyje
() on Dec 19, 2007, 1:31 PM
|
|
Post edited by healyje
() on Dec 19, 2007, 1:31 PM
|
|
Post edited by healyje
() on Dec 19, 2007, 1:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
