|
pehperboy
Dec 6, 2003, 5:12 PM
Post #1 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2003
Posts: 871
|
Arrived at the gym to climb the other night to be greeted by a requirement to sign a new waiver - or else wear a helmet. Apparently the insurer has told the owner that helmets are now required for such a "high risk" activity. I suspect the owner told the insurer they were nuts and sawed it off with the waiver option. Up to this point helmets were only required for kids under a certain age. There has never been a serious injury in the gym since it opened (though I split my lip last night on a climb - see, guess I should've been wearing a helmet).
Anyhow, anyone seen this before? Is this just our nutty insurer, or has the overprotective culture we live in finally penetrated the sanctum of climbing gyms all over the place? Just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
neeshman
Dec 6, 2003, 5:18 PM
Post #2 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2002
Posts: 261
|
Insurance companies are a HUGE part of life nowadays. It does kinda suck that they have such a big say in things but hey, it's how the world works.
|
|
|
|
|
firn
Dec 6, 2003, 5:46 PM
Post #3 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2003
Posts: 37
|
Actually, it's how America works. Don't include the rest of the world please. Most everywhere else, a person can, amongst other things, show up at a climbing gym and start climbing without signing anything at all.
+A
|
|
|
|
|
iclimbtoo
Dec 6, 2003, 6:07 PM
Post #4 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 10, 2002
Posts: 645
|
I work at a climbing wall and have for four years. We make people sign waivers and wear helmets. The reason for the waiver's is of course liability. The reason that we make patrons wear helmets is so when we do outdoor trips they get used to wearing helmets. I definitely back this policy being as when I'm outdoors I always see people not wearing any form of head protection. I'm an advocate of helmets, so when the gym created a policy to get people in the habit of practicing safe climbing, I was all about that.
|
|
|
|
|
dirko
Dec 6, 2003, 6:18 PM
Post #5 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 374
|
Thank you firn. God Bless America.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Dec 6, 2003, 6:52 PM
Post #6 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Arrived at the gym to climb the other night to be greeted by a requirement to sign a new waiver - or else wear a helmet. Apparently the insurer has told the owner that helmets are now required for such a "high risk" activity. I suspect the owner told the insurer they were nuts and sawed it off with the waiver option. Up to this point helmets were only required for kids under a certain age. There has never been a serious injury in the gym since it opened (though I split my lip last night on a climb - see, guess I should've been wearing a helmet). Anyhow, anyone seen this before? Is this just our nutty insurer, or has the overprotective culture we live in finally penetrated the sanctum of climbing gyms all over the place? Just curious.
That is totally stupid--but thank God you at least have the waiver option in your gym.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
harrisha
Dec 6, 2003, 7:29 PM
Post #7 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2003
Posts: 314
|
thank's firn America is too sue happy
|
|
|
|
|
addiroids
Dec 6, 2003, 9:54 PM
Post #8 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2001
Posts: 1046
|
The first documented death in a climbing gym happened like a few months ago. It was from one of those hydrolic belay setups (like $30,000 each!!!) failing and a woman fell to her death. First ever death. Pretty good if you ask me considering how many gyms are out there. It's good you have that waiver, but just go along with it.
Hey, look at it this way, you could only be able to climb outside. But that's way to dangerous to even think about.
TRADitionally yours,
Cali Dirtbag
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Dec 6, 2003, 11:01 PM
Post #9 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
It cut's down on insurance costs which keeps the admission fee down for you. Our gym has kids under 16 wear helmets, lead climbers wear helmets, and everyone else doesn't have to wear one as long as they sign the waiver.
|
|
|
|
|
robmcc
Dec 6, 2003, 11:03 PM
Post #10 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 2176
|
The gym I go to has the same deal. Helmet required unless you sign a waiver. Everyone signs it, nobody wears helmets.
|
|
|
|
|
beyond_gravity
Dec 7, 2003, 12:26 AM
Post #11 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2002
Posts: 5078
|
In reply to: Actually, it's how America works. Don't include the rest of the world please. Most everywhere else, a person can, amongst other things, show up at a climbing gym and start climbing without signing anything at all. +A
Ditto.
At one gym here, you take a top rope belay test, then you are free to do whatever the hell you want in there (sport, trad, aid, rescue)
I think it's you can sue anyone in the states. Sueing McDonalds because they didnt have a warning that the coffee is hot and burning yourself? come on!
|
|
|
|
|
corpse
Dec 7, 2003, 2:08 AM
Post #12 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2003
Posts: 822
|
I'm waiting for the day children can sue their parents because they got grounded :-)
iclimbtoo - I know you don't make the rules about your gym, but that, in my opinion, is a lame reason to make people wear helmets - "so they get used to them"? I would not wear a helmet in a gym, if I had to, I would not climb there. Yet, when I'm outdoors, doing a lead and often when seconding or TR'ing, I'll wear a helmet. And for hte record, I'm against helmet laws for motorcycles too. And I'm against those stupid frick frackin seatbelt laws!! But ya know, I wear my seatbelt, AND when I have a motorcycle, I'll wear a helmet. Me wearing a helmet or seatbelt does not jeaporize anyone else, only myself. I'm bitter lately because I got a ticket for not wearing my SHOULDER belt the other day, I was wearing my lap belt, but that wasn't good enough.
addiroids - If you are talking about that lady that died at the fair or carnival or whatever, that wasn't due to mechanical failure of a $30,000 system, but due to negligence from the portable wall owner. He didn't maintain the system and a safety cable was rusty and frayed, and it broke, and she fell, and she died. He could have prevented it if he had done the necessary maintenance and replaced a cheap cable.
|
|
|
|
|
keinangst
Dec 7, 2003, 2:59 AM
Post #13 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 1408
|
I love America, but we are definitely too lawsuit-crazed...
Here, you can bring a suit against anyone, for anything--and even if you lose, you are not responsible for the defendant's legal fees.
My understanding is that in most other nations, especially Commonwealth members, that you would be responsible for all legal fees. Hence, a disincentive to suing everyone around you. Can any foreigners offer some input?
|
|
|
|
|
djnibs
Dec 7, 2003, 6:53 PM
Post #14 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2002
Posts: 464
|
Well. It would appear to me that in the states you guys and gurls are a little to sue crazed. But thats just what has to be done i guess. I work at a gym and we don't make anyone wear any helmets. Although we do have a waiver that if you pay for the climbing, you due waive all rights to sue. its a use at own risk type of thing. I don't think anyone has ever been hurt while climbing.... but when that day comes, they won't be able to sue if we do our jobs and fill out the incident report. he hehe, wounderfull inusrance companies.... I think wearing a helmet in the gym is a bit off colour. The main reason why i wear a helmet outside is for falling rocks, or sometimes people... Helmets in gyms are just crazy. But if it keeps the cost down, why not use them? Its a small inconvience. Good luck all.
|
|
|
|
|
fanederhand
Dec 7, 2003, 7:54 PM
Post #15 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 28, 2002
Posts: 243
|
Well folks, its ok for folks (or should I say fools) that want to play with danger and choose not to wear a helmet when leading climbs (as some gyms allow) or not as long as getting hurt does not effect anyone else but them (is that ever true though). But at a gym, the owner sticks his neck out every time you climb at his gym, and if you get hurt then his head rolls. Don't get me wrong, I like to climb without having to wear a helmet but safety is important to me so I wear one when there is any risk of getting a head injury. Head injuries are bad and if you are participating in a sport that can cause head injuries and you could have avoided one by wearing a helmet then why is it some folks (excuss me fools) wish to expose themselves to that added risk? Oh I forgot, helmets are just so expensive. Grow up people!!
|
|
|
|
|
bustloose
Dec 8, 2003, 10:19 PM
Post #16 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2003
Posts: 489
|
you're kidding, right? risk of getting a head injury while leading indoors?? I have NEVER heard of someone who had a helmet save their lid because of a fall sport climbing.. let alone in a gym.
by your argument, you should wear a helmet when driving your car, or even when walking along the sidewalk...
|
|
|
|
|
cfnubbler
Dec 8, 2003, 10:46 PM
Post #17 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2003
Posts: 628
|
In reply to: The reason that we make patrons wear helmets is so when we do outdoor trips they get used to wearing helmets.
This is a poor argument. What percentage of your customers ever do an outdoor program with you? And for those that do, you needn't "get them used to it" in such a contrived way. You simply describe the benefits of helmets outside and make it nonnegotiable policy that they wear them, like every reputable guide service in the industry.
Do you require boulderers to wear helmets too? My guess would be that an unspotted boulderer is more likely to hit their head than any roped climber in a gym.
All this aside, provided their is a waiver option to get out of this lame policy, I suppose I wouldn't walk out in disgust.
BTW, I wear a helmet when I climb outside.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtbagginit
Dec 8, 2003, 10:47 PM
Post #18 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 23, 2003
Posts: 34
|
faneederhand-- calling someone who doesn't wear a helmet indoors a fool is like me calling you a dink. I think if I saw a helmet in a gym Id stare in bewilderment for a minute
|
|
|
|
|
musicheck
Dec 8, 2003, 11:18 PM
Post #19 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2003
Posts: 34
|
well, there are advantages of suing. In the event of something actually dangerous, it gets rid of it immediatly. For example, in Egypt deaths from highrise collapes are very common cause the building companys dont give a damn. That doesnt happen here cause the company would get the hell sued out of them if their building collapsed.
|
|
|
|
|
noshoesnoshirt
Dec 8, 2003, 11:32 PM
Post #20 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2002
Posts: 440
|
whack all the insurance company execs. then all the lawyers. no, wait, whack the lawyers first.
hmm, maybe whack 'em all at once. just don't leave any alive, or you'll get yer socks sued off.
|
|
|
|
|
wandt
Dec 8, 2003, 11:41 PM
Post #21 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2000
Posts: 341
|
Gym insurance around North America has skyrocketed (doubled in some places) over the last two years. Gym owners are faced with the conundrum of whether they should raise prices accordingly, or take heavy financial losses. Of course, most climbers are cheap bastards, and if the gym's prices go up considerably, will stop going there, and gym owners realise this. Helmet rules and new waivers are a way to lower insurance rates, and thus keep prices reasonable. As climbers, we all know that climbing helmets prevent injury from objects falling from above. (If you don't know this, put your helmet on and have someone hit the top of the helmet hard with their hand, and then hit the front of the helmet hard. See which hurts more.) But they are a visible "safety measure" that any suit from an insurance firm will think reduces the likelihood of death or dismemberment. Chances are, if you fall one your head, the spinal injury will be what kills you- not your head exploding like a watermelon all over the cushy, padded gym floor.
Helmets = lower insurance = no massive price jumps.
|
|
|
|
|
iclimbtoo
Dec 9, 2003, 12:03 AM
Post #22 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 10, 2002
Posts: 645
|
In reply to: This is a poor argument. What percentage of your customers ever do an outdoor program with you? And for those that do, you needn't "get them used to it" in such a contrived way. You simply describe the benefits of helmets outside and make it nonnegotiable policy that they wear them, like every reputable guide service in the industry. Do you require boulderers to wear helmets too? My guess would be that an unspotted boulderer is more likely to hit their head than any roped climber in a gym. All this aside, provided their is a waiver option to get out of this lame policy, I suppose I wouldn't walk out in disgust. BTW, I wear a helmet when I climb outside
First of all, I work at a wall at a college, which is a sidebar of our outdoors program, which I run. So yes, I am a guide, and all the patrons at our wall also climb on our trips outdoors. None of them see a problem with it, so I don't quite understand why you have a problem with it since you don't climb here. This isn't a normal gym since we also consistantly lead outdoor climbing trips. Yes, seatbelt laws and biker helmet laws are important too I think, and there are some of us smart enough to see the importance of following them. The laws are there for the rest who don't really know any better.
|
|
|
|
|
cfnubbler
Dec 9, 2003, 8:09 PM
Post #23 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2003
Posts: 628
|
In reply to: I work at a wall at a college, which is a sidebar of our outdoors program, which I run. So yes, I am a guide...
Oh boy. Now that is a scary statement. Hopefully you have other qualifications for considering yourself a "guide", but I digress...
In reply to: all the patrons at our wall also climb on our trips outdoors. None of them see a problem with it, so I don't quite understand why you have a problem with it..
Really? All of them participate in in your outdoor programs and none of them have a problem with this policy? All and none? I doubt it, but if you say so. Speaking of which, do you speak for them all? Careful...generalization is a dangerous thing. Oh yes...I have a problem with it because it's a stupid policy that smells more like an irrational reaction to some outside pressure than a well reasoned risk management decision.
Finally, I find it hilarious that someone who so enthusiastically advocates universal (and mindless) helmet use isn't wearing one in his profile picture. There's a word for that sort of thing...hypocrite. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps that isn't you in the picture.
-Nubbler
|
|
|
|
|
straightedgeteen
Dec 10, 2003, 4:11 AM
Post #24 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 8, 2002
Posts: 367
|
straightedgeteen has locked this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
straightedgeteen
Dec 11, 2003, 3:46 AM
Post #25 of 38
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 8, 2002
Posts: 367
|
straightedgeteen has unlocked this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
