|
jammer
Aug 17, 2005, 5:32 PM
Post #2 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2002
Posts: 3472
|
The way he puts it, being focused is safer. As any one persons idea, it's 50/50 ... depending on what you are talking about and in what context.
Arno has good points about being and staying focused. Being "In The Now" is really where it's at. Drifting into the "What Ifs" is a dangerous place to be, but still, can it be totally turned off?
Alan
|
|
|
|
|
arnoilgner
Aug 17, 2005, 6:54 PM
Post #3 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 366
|
Follow Jay's link to the article. I also posted a companion article (if Jay approves it) that digs into the climbing mags for examples of why climbers take risks.
Check out the articles and let's get some discussion going.
best,
arno
|
|
|
|
|
degaine
Aug 17, 2005, 7:31 PM
Post #4 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2003
Posts: 491
|
The article is an interesting read, and makes good points regarding the need to be focused when climbing.
However, I feel there are a lot of assumptions regarding the general desire to make a risky situation completely safe.
I wear a climbing helmet due to the risks I am already taking, not as a tool that will enable me to take more risks. Ditto for wearing a ski helmet: I was already skiing at high speed and jumping of significantly large cliffs/cornices before I ever decided to don a helmet. Given the risks I was ALREADY taking, I thought that wearing a helmet might be a good idea.
Does wearing my seatbelt mean I have now put myself at a greater risk for a car accident? Of course not.
In climbing, we take risks, but also do not practice the sport with a death wish (at least I do not). I do what I can to ensure a safe journey, but understand the inherent risks when stepping off the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
mtnbkrxtrordnair
Aug 17, 2005, 8:23 PM
Post #5 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 267
|
In reply to: I wear a climbing helmet due to the risks I am already taking, not as a tool that will enable me to take more risks. Ditto for wearing a ski helmet: I was already skiing at high speed and jumping of significantly large cliffs/cornices before I ever decided to don a helmet. Given the risks I was ALREADY taking, I thought that wearing a helmet might be a good idea.
Just as an example, when I do lift service downhill mountain biking, I will push it more if I am wearing a full face helmet, knee/shin and elbow guards. So I guess they are a tool for me to take greater risks. If I'm just wearing a regular helmet and no pads, I ride with more caution. This is simply because the consequences of a fall will be much less with the protection.
It's different when I'm climbing (trad) because the consequences can be far more severe vs. Mt. biking. Yes you could die on a mt. bike, but if I F up on the bike, I can break myself but most likely will not die. If I F up climbing, death is a real possibility.
So in climbing, wearing a helmet will not make me take more risk because of the different severity of the outcome in climbing vs. the bike.
Nice article btw.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 17, 2005, 8:51 PM
Post #6 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
A few random thoughts about your article Arno...
You present the notion of one or the other; avoiding risk or embracing it. Many times it seems to me it can be both. A wall climb is a great example of the tidal forces that strive for our attention, distilled because the experience can be so intense. On the one hand we have planned and dreamed for a year (or more, hah!) to put ourselves in a position to 'feel alive.' We know, because we've done em before, rarely are they fun.
Yet for many of us, once we have at it, it is very hard to think of anything other than getting the hell off that wall. When we're done? All we can think about is going back!
I'm a great example of how complacency can lead to near misses or even significant injury, sort of a poster child for it. One of my worst injuries (one broken ankle and another sprained) was incurred backing off a boulder problem (I'd done before) out of fear, not inability. So I can totally relate to the notion that fleeing to safety may be the more dangerous course.
I guess my main point is that it isn't one or the other for me and I'd hazard it isn't for anyone else either. Its more like a sliding scale from risk aversion to risk immersion. For me, somedays have been better than others.
Been a long time since Bee Rock bro! 20 plus years at this point. 20 years since T-Wall too (damn!)
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
arnoilgner
Aug 17, 2005, 9:08 PM
Post #7 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 366
|
Hello degaine, (your quote below)
"However, I feel there are a lot of assumptions regarding the general desire to make a risky situation completely safe."
My point was not to indicate that we could make climbing completely safe. To the contrary, my point was that we cannot make climbing safe; we can only make it safer by being attentive to them. I can understand how that point could be misunderstood; I am not the best writer.
Look at the whole article and not just one issue like wearing seat belts. I wasn't advocating not wearing seat belts but rather our intentions behind our choices. What is our intention when inventing something (like seat belts)? Is it to make our world safer or to allow us to better face risks? This may not seem like a difference but it is. In the former our attention is focused away from the risk and in the latter it is focused toward the risk.
Anyway, some thoughts to help clarify. arno
|
|
|
|
|
arnoilgner
Aug 17, 2005, 9:21 PM
Post #8 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 366
|
Hi Dingus (Craig, right?), your quote below:
"You present the notion of one or the other; avoiding risk or embracing it. Many times it seems to me it can be both."
Life is never black and white so maybe it is somewhat sliding. But, I guess what I'm referring to is when we are deciding to take a risk, how are we focused? We cannot stay in risky situations too long; need time to regain in comfort. Essentially, my point is, how do we focus attention when we are wanting to assess and engage a challenge? Are we focused on making it safer so we don't get hurt or are we focused on what we can do to make it as safe as possible so we can engage an appropriate risk? Kinda like the note I wrote to degaine. Wearing a seat belt or helmet has nothing to do with my point. It is our intention behind what we are doing.
Anyway, I thought you lived in CA. You in TN now?
arno
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 17, 2005, 9:44 PM
Post #9 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Are we focused on making it safer so we don't get hurt or are we focused on what we can do to make it as safe as possible so we can engage an appropriate risk?
Got it. Its a real time thing you're talking about, not over the course of a climb, but RIGHT NOW, for what is about to happen. What is the intent behind my assessment of the next section, that sort of thing.
In reply to: Anyway, I thought you lived in CA. You in TN now? arno
Still in Cali, Sacramento area. They revoked my Tennessee passport I think.
I have some cool pics of you from various locals, Bee Rock, Stone Mtn, etc. I'll dig em out one day, scan and post one or two so you can see what you used to look like when you were young and handsome, hah!
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
annak
Aug 18, 2005, 5:39 AM
Post #10 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2004
Posts: 191
|
Excellent article, I would swear by every word in it. I was not aware of the insurance companies stats, or of the psychological research about happiness, but it all makes perfect sense.
Feeling safe is indeed dangerous. And self-deceptive, as we are never completely safe. Of course, risks faced on a run-out climb are quite different from those we're exposed while walking on the LA streets, but there are always some, and we are served well by being aware of, and, consequently, being focused on addressing them.
Looking back, anytime I got myself in trouble can be traced back to the feeling of being safe and lasps of attention it caused. I got a traffic ticket when I was driving by the speed limit and therefore was not alert and missed a cop on the prowl. Got another one while thinking I am safe with a radar detector on. I was hurt only by those I felt safe with. Almost fell from a chair today, trying to reach to a high shelf in the office! Once, after safely getting through a multi-day dangerous trip (heavily criminogenic area, no law enforcement), I've found myself in the major epics the moment I reached a safer destination (with police around) and relaxed my attention.
I've never had a "descent accident", but have friends who did -- after completing a major challenge, screwing up on the descent, under the influence "it's over, we're safe now" feelings.
Re: embracing the consequences while climbing -- I found this idea from the RWW book to be counter-intuitive at the time, and contradicting with a common advice I received from many fellow climbers ("just think you are on the ground, or at the bolt; don't think about falling, etc"). So I stopped ignoring the consequences, and am always telling to myself that I may fall anytime, and what would the fall result in. What I find to be much more difficult, however, is how not to attempt to escape the danger by, e.g., over-protecting. The common train of thought is: "I may fall, it seems ok now, but am not sure if the last piece will hold, and here is a textbook pro opportunity, and although it is just 3 feet above the last pro I will put it anyway because I do not know what's above, and if I fall from above .....". [Arno, I remember your advise from "Putting it all together" thread, nothing to report yet, but I will follow it this weekend in Tuolomne.].
Anyway, although I cannot say I am doing it right, I feel that constantly being aware of the imminent risks is the right state of mind.
|
|
|
|
|
golsen
Aug 18, 2005, 6:30 AM
Post #11 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Posts: 361
|
Interesting article. On the wall analogy Dingus says that once on the wall we are always lookin to get off. Now we know that is not the best way to climb the wall but cetainly those thoughts cloud our minds.
We know that the best way to succeed on a wall is to climb it pitch by pitch. Dont worry about how long it is, if it is one pitch we can do that pitch. If you break this analogy down to a short climb it is the moves tht get us up that moment in time the NOW that we do and as soon as it is done we are on to the next NOW, and then to the top. All of those extraneous thoughts of the chains above or the belayer below will not help you in your progression up the climb.
As far as the climbing to feel alive? I dunno. I started to climb so I could be in a more beautiful environment and then it morphed into fitness and movement as well. To feel alive? I guess there is some of that.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Aug 18, 2005, 6:34 AM
Post #12 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
This thread should be required reading for any occupational health and safety inspector. they attempt to create a risk free work environment and by doing so they lull the workers into a false sense of security. They in fact help the worker to disconnect their own inbuilt cunning and inate sense of self preservation. Thus we are seeing workers on building sites being killed for stupid avoidable reasons.
The thing is that in Australia now OH&S government departments are now starting to take company directors to court over workplace accidents and they are levying absolutely astronomical fines for accidents that in my view should have been investigated in a non confrontational way to explore the true reasons for the accident happening.
On a similar note I was driving every day from one town where I live to another town to do a job. Back and forth I would go for about six months. There was a road gang fixing the road for most of this time. They would put out all their warning signs and I of course would disconnect my own sense of cunning and self preservation and allow the signs to dictate what I should do cos if you don`t the traffic cop would skin you alive.
Driving down one day I was confronted with the usual signs and of course the stop go man signs were there warning me that I would have to stop when the bloke with the lollipop stop sign held his sign up.
No lollypop stop sign man.
Arrrgh, a dirty great dump truck stopped right in front of me, how did I not see this, I was looking for the stop go man. I drive up and over a couple of 44 gallon drums to avoid an accident, lucky I have a 4wd Land Cruiser Toyota.
I was so busy looking at all of the warning signs that I neglected to use my own eyes to see the obvious giant truck right in front of me. Perceptions overcame reality.
I swore from that day onwards that I would never ever allow a road sign to tell me me what to do. I take responsibility for my own safety thank you very much. This is as it should be. I now drive to suit the road conditions not to avoid a fine.
Now how does this relate to climbing and the subject at hand. Arnos opening paragraph in the linked article is very much at the core of how I drive and how I view my climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
squish
Aug 18, 2005, 6:52 AM
Post #13 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2003
Posts: 470
|
In reply to: I was so busy looking at all of the warning signs that I neglected to use my own eyes to see the obvious giant truck right in front of me. Perceptions overcame reality.
I know exactly where you're coming from. They're doing 24-hour construction work on the Sea to Sky Highway to Squamish in preparation for the Olympics, and it's pretty much the situation you describe.
Driving at night, I sometimes get so overwhelmed by the flashing lights on those safety trucks (or squinting so as not to be blinded by them 'cause they're so damned bright) that it's hard to focus on the road.
There's a point where the safety aids become detrimental to our safety.
|
|
|
|
|
squish
Aug 18, 2005, 7:19 AM
Post #14 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2003
Posts: 470
|
In reply to: "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."
It's a good analogy for comfort zones and high-risk situations.
Don't kill yourself finding that edge, but stretch your boundaries once in a while so you know where it is. Then you can walk that fine line by not worrying about it.
Great article.
|
|
|
|
|
jaybird2
Aug 18, 2005, 8:38 AM
Post #15 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2004
Posts: 163
|
I don't think that anyone pointed this out:
(maybe i think to simply though and this was obvious)
When I was reading the article I thought that there were contradictions and that the gray area that Dingus mentioned could not be overlooked. When I was finished I was asking myself what the point of the article was, what was it trying to say. When I went back over it I realized it was all about the first sentence of the last paragraph.
"There isn’t anything wrong with the top-rope-to-leading-trad progression as long as your intent is to embrace the consequences of climbing."
If I got this right, Arno was just saying that if you don't embrace the consequences, but avoid them you will (1) be more likely to get hurt and (2) you will not realize the alive feeling which is the reason that you are out there. Of course there are many different paths/points-of-view to explain the general idea that Arno was trying to get across, but I think that goes without saying and that he got that general point across.
I think the correlation between insurance coverage and accidents is BS though. Nowhere in the furthest recess of my psychy do I drive more dangerously because my car is covered. One, I still have a deductible, and (most importantly) two, insurance doesn't cover death or paralysis.
|
|
|
|
|
phillygoat
Aug 18, 2005, 4:10 PM
Post #16 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 22, 2004
Posts: 428
|
I feel that I am attentive while climbing, but have noticed that I tend to play down the risks to family and non-climbing friends. Not because I don't want them to worry, but because I am averse to coming across as some X-treme sports adrenaline junkie. I frequently make up data to support my stance like: Climbing is safer than my bike commute to work, for instance. Whether or not this is true, I would be better off by not playing this game and owning up to what I know to be true- Yeah, it certainly IS dangerous, but I accept and take responsibility for my actions. Thanks for the article.
|
|
|
|
|
antiqued
Aug 18, 2005, 4:56 PM
Post #17 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 243
|
Arno wrote
"We tend to avoid risks and strive for a comfortable, secure life."
But we also strive to avoid boredom. So this becomes muchly about where each of us draw the line between spice and bland.
Anyway, I wanted to add a pseudo-reference backing him up. Police cars turn over fairly quickly (running all the time). When ABS was introduced into Canadian police cars, there was a rapid and statistically significant reduction in the accidents they were involved in. However, in a few years, the accident rate returned to it's previous level.
The study authors interpreted the data as showing that even professionally trained safety officers on the job clock possessed an inner sense of acceptable safety. Before they got used to ABS, the accident rate dropped due to the enhanced braking, skid resistance, etc. However, once the officers became accustomed to the better performance, they demanded it, and occasionally failed to get it, at the same rate they had previously failed.
With a stretch, this suggests that the accident rates for gym climbers, top ropers, sport climbers and trad craggers should be similar, once one fudges the data for more serious accidents being more faithfully reported, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 18, 2005, 4:58 PM
Post #18 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: I think the correlation between insurance coverage and accidents is BS though. Nowhere in the furthest recess of my psychy do I drive more dangerously because my car is covered. One, I still have a deductible, and (most importantly) two, insurance doesn't cover death or paralysis.
[rant]I've been biting my epidemiological tongue since I read that, but since you brought it up, I would flunk any student who thought those statistics represented a valid cause-and-effect relationship. One could as easily conclude that dangerous driving causes seat belt wearing as one could that seat belt wearing causes dangerous driving, or that a third unmeasured variable causes both.[/rant] But inspite of this example, I believe that the general principle has some validity: that feeling safer causes more reckless behavior. The best example I can think of in climbing is the trend toward helmet wearing.
Climbers wear helmets presumably for two reasons: to protect them from rockfall and to avoid head injury in an upsidedown fall. When I started climbing in the 80s helmets were rarely worn, and new climbers were taught to be acutely aware of rockfall danger and flipping upsidedown in a fall. You didn't belay directly under your partner, you kept a sharp eye out for falling rock, you were careful with your footwork so that you didn't dislodge rocks on those below you, you were sure to yell "rock" if you did, you kept the rope in front of your legs when you climbed, etc. Compare this behavior with what you see from today's helmet-wearing n00bs. Their whole psychology has changed: care and attentiveness in climbing have been replaced by helmet wearing to a considerable extent.
Another common example is how the grigri, an autolocking belay device that should have reduced the belay accident rate, seems to have increased it. New grigri users are lulled into a false sense of security by the device's autolocking feature, and make more belay errors as a result.
This is not to knock either helmets or grigris. Both are useful tools, but both have been misused by becoming substitutes for safer behavior.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
organic
Aug 18, 2005, 5:13 PM
Post #19 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215
|
Excellent post jt512
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Aug 18, 2005, 5:32 PM
Post #20 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Aye, trophy for sure, especially the Gri-gri part.
|
|
|
|
|
jammer
Aug 18, 2005, 5:49 PM
Post #21 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2002
Posts: 3472
|
Nice JT ... totally agree!
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Aug 18, 2005, 6:00 PM
Post #22 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
In reply to: But some researchers since have concluded
I conclude that many researchers preconclude that which they want to conclude.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Aug 18, 2005, 6:38 PM
Post #23 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
In reply to: In reply to: I think the correlation between insurance coverage and accidents is BS though. Nowhere in the furthest recess of my psychy do I drive more dangerously because my car is covered. One, I still have a deductible, and (most importantly) two, insurance doesn't cover death or paralysis. [rant]I've been biting my epidemiological tongue since I read that, but since you brought it up, I would flunk any student who thought those statistics represented a valid cause-and-effect relationship. One could as easily conclude that dangerous driving causes seat belt wearing as one could that seat belt wearing causes dangerous driving, or that a third unmeasured variable causes both.[/rant]
In reference to the ranting, I can provide a more valid comparison for the same point. When I was trained as a forest firefighter for the National Park Service, they provided statistics in reference to this point.
NPS firefighters are required to carry a protective bag. This bag is designed to reflect the heat of the fire if you get encircled and cannot escape. It is basicly a modified emergency blanket. Australian firefighters are not provided such a protective device. You can probably guess the ending, there were more deaths from causes this bag is designed to prevent in the US than in Australia. They also thought US firefighters were lulled into believing they were safe. Then US firefighters became relaxed in ensuring their exit route remained open. I forget the numbers on this since it was about 5 years ago, but maybe another can find the numbers on the web?
Anyways, I am just trying to back up that his arguements have other statistics out there to support them.
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
degaine
Aug 19, 2005, 12:58 AM
Post #25 of 48
(14873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2003
Posts: 491
|
In reply to: I predict that you will find that you drive more carefully because you do not want to suffer the financial consequences of a car accident or worse a personal injury claim against you. It is not so much a factor of driving more dangerously but the reverse is true.
Maybe so, but my driving more carefully does not prevent other idiots on the road from running in to me. Case and point - I stopped at a crosswalk to let a pedestrian pass, at least 4 seconds after stopping, a guy rear ends me. So if that guy did not have insurance, I would have had to pay for the damage. My parents had their car totaled while it was parked in front of our house, good thing they had it insured.
Point being, as I stated in my first post, I take advantage of the "safety tools" knowing full well potential risks of a given situation. I certainly drive defensively and pay attention, but that's not a good reason for me not to purchase insurance, or wear a seat belt, etc.
In reply to: The same logic can be applied to roped and unroped climbing. The rope being insurance.
Well, can it really? I mean, extended to the extreme, would it be safer for one to onsight free solo the Nose? Of course not.
For me I boil it down to the heart of these two comments:
In reply to: What is our intention when inventing something (like seat belts)? Is it to make our world safer or to allow us to better face risks?
In reply to: Compare this behavior with what you see from today's helmet-wearing n00bs. Their whole psychology has changed: care and attentiveness in climbing have been replaced by helmet wearing to a considerable extent.
In other words, know what you are getting into and focus on the elements needed to get through the situation - safety gear is essential, but not to be used as a crutch or a substitute for knowledge and experience.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Aug 19, 2005, 1:03 AM
Post #26 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
All true degaine, I cannot fault your logic.
|
|
|
|
|
ronolsen
Aug 19, 2005, 2:09 AM
Post #27 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 8, 2003
Posts: 47
|
In reply to: Climbers wear helmets presumably for two reasons: to protect them from rockfall and to avoid head injury in an upsidedown fall. When I started climbing in the 80s helmets were rarely worn, and new climbers were taught to be acutely aware of rockfall danger and flipping upsidedown in a fall. You didn't belay directly under your partner, you kept a sharp eye out for falling rock, you were careful with your footwork so that you didn't dislodge rocks on those below you, you were sure to yell "rock" if you did, you kept the rope in front of your legs when you climbed, etc. Compare this behavior with what you see from today's helmet-wearing n00bs. Their whole psychology has changed: care and attentiveness in climbing have been replaced by helmet wearing to a considerable extent. This is not to knock either helmets or grigris. Both are useful tools, but both have been misused by becoming substitutes for safer behavior. -Jay
How can you be sure that the lack of care and attentiveness you see in new climbers is due to their wearing helmets?
Perhaps a more important cause is that many new climbers today learned to climb in a gym where rockfall is not an issue, and climbing is perceived as a relatively safe activity.
-- Ron
|
|
|
|
|
shank
Aug 19, 2005, 3:29 AM
Post #28 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2002
Posts: 541
|
I think it should be called "Feeling Safe COULD be dangerous."
I notice when I am in certain situations I observe more closely the people around me, say for instance going to the gas station after dark, which may not ever make any difference, but if ever someone decides to mug me, there is a greater chance of me reacting quickly when I am more observant of my surroundings, wouldn't you think?
In reply to: Resisting the falling outcome will cause your attention to be focused on down-climbing, over-gripping, stopping climbing, hanging on pro, etc. In other words, your attention will be on what you need to do to prevent falling from occurring.
And something I find kinda ironic is the fact that by doing so you increase your risk of falling.
No one know how dangerous anything is till something bad happens, and the safer you feel the better the chance of something bad happening is, due to the relaxed state of your attention.
|
|
|
|
|
maimed
Aug 19, 2005, 5:05 AM
Post #29 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2005
Posts: 104
|
We've been discussing some similar issues at http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=94338
Thanks for the posts.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Aug 19, 2005, 6:00 AM
Post #30 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
Phil and Jay both made excellent points.
Being focused means not consciously thinking about anything.
If you want to climb with full commitment, then lunge for the next hold, every single time you start to come off. (in a safe situation) This will help ensure a that you do not lose your upward momentum in your mind before your body... It also sets you up in an ideal falling position.
Every now and then you actually stick the hold. Hail mary's are great when they work
Some of Arno's reasoning are worthy of comment. But I would agree with his bottom line.
|
|
|
|
|
jaybird2
Aug 19, 2005, 7:21 AM
Post #31 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2004
Posts: 163
|
The farse of opposites...
Phil, what I was trying to get at, but in no way eluded to was that because I am insured, I do not drive more dangerously. The scenario which you presented has other variables in it which distract us from looking at the original question: Are uninsured drivers more dangerous. Yes they are, but you are not truly answering the question if you are restaining the system with other independent variables. What about the scenario if you had a '82 Yugo? Then the answer is no. Then you wouldn't care if you had insurance or not. Of course if I am uninsured, I will drive more cautiously, but not because of the SENSE OF SAFETY... you see what I mean. Your scenario is addressing the SENSE OF CONSEQUENCE. Of course they are linked, but fundamentally, I do not drive more or less dangerously because of my insurance status. I drive more or less dangerously because of my regard for my health. Insurance has nothing to do with SAFETY, which is the point I am trying to get at:
The false sense of safety, leading to more dangerous driving is the spawn of not ever having to have paid the consequences. NOW, being uninsured will cause you to drive more cautiously, but it has nothing to do with safety, but from a fiscally-induced state of fear. I am just trying to look at this from the standpoint of the topic "Feeling Safe is Dangerous".
"Could our desire to protect ourselves and be safe actually cause us to be less protected and act in unsafe ways?"
Now we may get into fewer accidents (fatalities) because we are driving more cautiously, but it is not out of a sense of safety. It is all about the money.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 22, 2005, 9:20 PM
Post #32 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: Climbers wear helmets presumably for two reasons: to protect them from rockfall and to avoid head injury in an upsidedown fall. When I started climbing in the 80s helmets were rarely worn, and new climbers were taught to be acutely aware of rockfall danger and flipping upsidedown in a fall. You didn't belay directly under your partner, you kept a sharp eye out for falling rock, you were careful with your footwork so that you didn't dislodge rocks on those below you, you were sure to yell "rock" if you did, you kept the rope in front of your legs when you climbed, etc. Compare this behavior with what you see from today's helmet-wearing n00bs. Their whole psychology has changed: care and attentiveness in climbing have been replaced by helmet wearing to a considerable extent. This is not to knock either helmets or grigris. Both are useful tools, but both have been misused by becoming substitutes for safer behavior. -Jay How can you be sure that the lack of care and attentiveness you see in new climbers is due to their wearing helmets? Perhaps a more important cause is that many new climbers today learned to climb in a gym where rockfall is not an issue, and climbing is perceived as a relatively safe activity. -- Ron
Well, the fact that they are wearing helmets suggests that they are aware of rockfall danger, and the fact that they hang around at the base of climbs wearing helmets -- without so much as looking up -- while inept climbers above them kick rocks down on them suggests that they feel sufficiently safe to expose themselves to the rockfall.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 22, 2005, 9:26 PM
Post #33 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Well, the fact that they are wearing helmets suggests that they are aware of rockfall danger,
While I agree with your point in this thread, I wouldn't go so far as to make this assumption!
Many noobs wear helmets simply because they are told to. A certain % wear them to protect their heads in a fall. I'd say rock fall danger is a distant 3rd, reason-wise.
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 22, 2005, 9:32 PM
Post #34 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: The false sense of safety, leading to more dangerous driving is the spawn of not ever having to have paid the consequences. NOW, being uninsured will cause you to drive more cautiously, but it has nothing to do with safety, but from a fiscally-induced state of fear.
All right jaybird, you make a good point.
I once was slated to do some alpine climbing with a friend. I deferred the trip until I had life insurance in place, telling myself it was irresponsible for a family man to undertake such a climbing trip without leaving his family taken care of.
So... financial reasons? Of course! That's what insurance is... sorta unavoidable and all that.
But there are certain climbing trips I would like to take that I WOULD NOT TAKE if I didn't have life insurance. So whether its a consequence thing, or a financial thing, or a fear thing, the fact remains that life insurance directly led to more risky climbing (self evaluated of course).
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
sick_climba
Aug 22, 2005, 9:44 PM
Post #35 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2005
Posts: 508
|
I didn't read the article but the basic qoute "Felling safe is dangerous" is true to a point. I think you need to balance your feeling of fear and safty. For example if you feel too safe you are more common to make small but critical mistakes. (ie in trad bad placements, sport back clipping or skipping bolts, and bouldering, as well as all, not knowing when to back off.) But if you are to scared you tend to cling to the rock and still make mistakes that are vital because your focus is on falling and dieing when it should be on the climb. In short I think that you should have more of a trust in yourself but always remember that there is a 51/49 chance you live or die. If you are reckless the odds are tipped to death but if you keep your cool and respect mortality they are tipped in your own! Be safe but don't lose focus!
Climb on
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Aug 23, 2005, 4:26 PM
Post #36 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
In reply to: But inspite of this example, I believe that the general principle has some validity: that feeling safer causes more reckless behavior. The best example I can think of in climbing is the trend toward helmet wearing.
What would you make of a similar trend in cycling?
In reply to: Climbers wear helmets presumably for two reasons: to protect them from rockfall and to avoid head injury in an upsidedown fall. Compare this behavior with what you see from today's helmet-wearing n00bs. Their whole psychology has changed: care and attentiveness in climbing have been replaced by helmet wearing to a considerable extent.
New grigri users are lulled into a false sense of security by the device's autolocking feature, and make more belay errors as a result.
This is most certainly a false analogy ( helmets and grigri's ). I would say helmets are pretty binary, where grigri's certainly are not. Also, aren't you flunking the same epidemiological test relating "care and attentiveness" with helmet use ( and-or the opposite )?
I think most people learn not to sit directly under the leader due to large objects whizzing by their heads. Back in the day, most folks assumed a certain level of intelligence from a new partner, like "don't get hit with shit" was sort of assumed.
I'd be more inclined to believe that there are more morons climbing because more people are climbing. I suspect of those wearing helmets many do it for "safety", and that they haven't thought much about what that means. That being said, its hard to see a downside to helmets, w/o going to boundary cases. While people *may* be more adventurous while wearing a helmet, my opinion is it is a very weak effect.
The grigri issue is possibly more to point. It comes advertised as a "autolocking" device, which is hard to overcome, all posted warnings to the contrary. It is used primarily due to the fact that you can take your hand off the rope, which can be deadly in common circumstances. It also takes a high level of competence to use ( which a helmet certainly doesn't ).
All of this is most likely a highjack of the thread.
Murf
|
|
|
|
|
micronut
Aug 23, 2005, 5:08 PM
Post #37 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 1760
|
In reply to: However, I advocate leading right away.............................Too many climbers get into the sport thinking that climbing is safe. Climbing isn’t safe; it’s dangerous. You can make it safer but you cannot make it safe. .......... As a result, you’ll understand how climbing fits into your life and how it satisfies your need to feel alive.
when we are in real danger; run-out, on sketchy ice, caught in a thunderstorm, and have to keep cool and perform, i feel that at least for an instant, the whole story disolves into that one moment when we realize how precious this life really is. the real danger of which arno speaks helps me to put the whole drama of living into proper perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 23, 2005, 6:46 PM
Post #38 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: But inspite of this example, I believe that the general principle has some validity: that feeling safer causes more reckless behavior. The best example I can think of in climbing is the trend toward helmet wearing. What would you make of a similar trend in cycling?
I think we have to distinguish between safety devices promoting reckless behavior and safety devices allowing one to push the performance envelope. If wearing a helmet allows the rider to ride more aggressively, then that's his choice, but that is different than climbers feeling safe hanging out casually in rockfall zones because they are wearing helmets. That's purely reckless behavior.
In reply to: In reply to: Climbers wear helmets presumably for two reasons: to protect them from rockfall and to avoid head injury in an upsidedown fall. Compare this behavior with what you see from today's helmet-wearing n00bs. Their whole psychology has changed: care and attentiveness in climbing have been replaced by helmet wearing to a considerable extent.
New grigri users are lulled into a false sense of security by the device's autolocking feature, and make more belay errors as a result.This is most certainly a false analogy ( helmets and grigri's ). I would say helmets are pretty binary, where grigri's certainly are not. Also, aren't you flunking the same epidemiological test relating "care and attentiveness" with helmet use ( and-or the opposite )?
I have 11 comments about the above:
1. It's not a false analogy because it it's not even an analogy. It's 10 examples of the same phenomenon.
10. Yes, I may be flunking my own epi test, but my impression that n00bs are willing to hang out at the base of crags with rocks raining down around them is because they are wearing helmets. Those of us without the helmets are always standing a ways away watching in dismay.
11. There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't. However, I have no idea what you mean by "binary" in the above quote.
In reply to: I think most people learn not to sit directly under the leader due to large objects whizzing by their heads. Back in the day, most folks assumed a certain level of intelligence from a new partner, like "don't get hit with s---" was sort of assumed.
The sport has changed. Nowadays you really have to assume the opposite: that a new partner is an idiot until proven otherwise.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
squish
Aug 23, 2005, 7:00 PM
Post #39 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2003
Posts: 470
|
Jay, you're such a geek. That 1,10,11 was awesome... :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
cruxmonger
Aug 23, 2005, 7:07 PM
Post #40 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2005
Posts: 106
|
I like the part about car insurance. I can relate. One of my partners just recently joined the world of the employed and he now has health insurance. He told me on out way to climb this weekend, "now I can push myslef and really lead some crazy hard shit now that I have insurance." Not having to deal with the financial consequences of injuring himself was hindering his climbing. Now that he is free and clear of that burden he feels more willing to push the boundries.
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Aug 23, 2005, 7:51 PM
Post #41 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: But inspite of this example, I believe that the general principle has some validity: that feeling safer causes more reckless behavior. The best example I can think of in climbing is the trend toward helmet wearing. What would you make of a similar trend in cycling? I think we have to distinguish between safety devices promoting reckless behavior and safety devices allowing one to push the performance envelope. If wearing a helmet allows the rider to ride more aggressively, then that's his choice, but that is different than climbers feeling safe hanging out casually in rockfall zones because they are wearing helmets. That's purely reckless behavior.
You are avoiding the question. The majority of riders I see these days are wearing helmets. Most aren't trying to ride more aggressively one day to the next, but they are wearing their helmets from one day to the next. Are they all mindless sheep as well?
And if you are really seeing hordes of people with their helmets on standing directly under multiple rockfalls, I guess I can't argue with what you are saying. With that in mind, if I was belaying in an area that commonly had loose rock, you might find me wearing a helmet belaying. Even if I wasn't under the direct line, since it seems rock never seems to fall where you expect it.
Its interesting that your example of FSID has to do with helmet use while belaying. Usually the example is closer to Dingus's; use of the helmet as the override to do climb something you wouldn't without it. Quite frankly, if I feel my noggin is gonna be in danger , I've got the chancellor on my head. I don't believe that wearing it has ever made the difference between a go/no go situation. I'd be curious to how many people *really* use it in this way.
In reply to: In reply to: This is most certainly a false analogy ( helmets and grigri's ). I would say helmets are pretty binary, where grigri's certainly are not. Also, aren't you flunking the same epidemiological test relating "care and attentiveness" with helmet use ( and-or the opposite )? I have 11 comments about the above: 1. It's not a false analogy because it it's not even an analogy. It's 10 examples of the same phenomenon.
I'll grant you the analogy issue ( my bad ). But there's a bit of halo effect thinking about hordes of helmet wearing grigri users standing under a constant rain of rock
In reply to: 10. Yes, I may be flunking my own epi test, but my impression that n00bs are willing to hang out at the base of crags with rocks raining down around them is because they are wearing helmets. Those of us without the helmets are always standing a ways away watching in dismay. 11. There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't. However, I have no idea what you mean by "binary" in the above quote.
Obviously, helmet is on or off. Your heavy handed ( but amusing ) use of 10's above shows you understand the use pretty well. As you've beat into the ground many times, there are multiple issues with grigri (mis)use.
Murf
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 23, 2005, 10:03 PM
Post #42 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: But inspite of this example, I believe that the general principle has some validity: that feeling safer causes more reckless behavior. The best example I can think of in climbing is the trend toward helmet wearing. What would you make of a similar trend in cycling? I think we have to distinguish between safety devices promoting reckless behavior and safety devices allowing one to push the performance envelope. If wearing a helmet allows the rider to ride more aggressively, then that's his choice, but that is different than climbers feeling safe hanging out casually in rockfall zones because they are wearing helmets. That's purely reckless behavior. You are avoiding the question. The majority of riders I see these days are wearing helmets. Most aren't trying to ride more aggressively one day to the next, but they are wearing their helmets from one day to the next. Are they all mindless sheep as well?
I'm not sure I understand what your question is, but regardless, I doubt I'd know the answer, since I don't ride. There is clearly a secular trend toward wearing helmets, if that's what you're getting at. In the last 10 or 15 years, additional state helmet laws have been passed for motorcyclists and bicyclists, and more people voluntarily wear helmets in numerous sports. When I was a kid, you'd have been laughed out of the neighborhood if you wore a helmet while bicycling; now it's the law. This trend is likely responsible for the increase in helmet wearing in rock climbing, and although I can't prove it, I think that the security people feel wearing a helmet is partly responsible for the careless behavior with respect to rockfall that is becoming the rule, rather than the exception, among newer climbers. Certainly it's not the entire cause, but I think it is part of the story.
In reply to: And if you are really seeing hordes of people with their helmets on standing directly under multiple rockfalls, I guess I can't argue with what you are saying.
Among the crags I frequent, the dichotomy between the helmeted n00bs and the non-helmeted, more-experienced climbers is most evident at Echo Cliffs where the Left Flank Wall and the Java Wall meet at right angles forming an open book and share the same belay space. The Left Flank has some of the easiest routes at Echo, as well as the loosest rock. Naturally, it attracts the n00bs, who, with typically poor footwork, dislodge a constant stream of rocks. In contrast, the routes on the Java Wall are all 5.11 and 5.12, and attract more experienced climbers. One frequently overhears conversations among the n00bs about how important it is to wear a helmet at the base. And, yeah, if you're going to stand around like a deer in headlights letting rocks fall onto you, it is. I warm up at the Java Wall almost every time I climb at Echo. I don't wear a helmet, and have never been hit by a rock there. Yet, almost every time I've climbed there, some gumby has gotten hit on the helmet.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
arnoilgner
Aug 30, 2005, 3:31 PM
Post #43 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 366
|
I've been gone for a while but just today read through the posts and was pleased to see some lively discussion going on.
One thing that helps me is to ground my perception and not get distracted by various components in a situation (ie. helmets, seatbelts). This issue isn't whether or not wearing a helmet/seatbelt is right or wrong. The issue is what is happening to your attention when you do this?
What is the effect on my attention when I put that helmet on? Someone, I think degaine, stated this well. Something like, "what thought processes does it cause." If your intent is to make the situation safer and more comfortable then your attention will probably be distracted toward being safe/comfortable. But, if your intent is to add a dimention to the situation (a helmet, for instance) to allow you to take more risk, or a more appropriate risk then attention is focused in the moment better.
Life, like climbing, is about change and taking risks. We cannot live by staying in our comfort zones. So keep intent on how to take risks and your attention will automatically go to how to assess the situation well, mitigate the consequences as well as you can, and then be deliberate in forging forward.
Thanks for all your posts. arno
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Oct 1, 2005, 5:34 PM
Post #44 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
I can think of several accidents that happened precisely because the victims felt safe. The victims were not on alert bacause they had that sense of security that comes from familiarity and nothing having ever gone wrong before.
A strong (5.12) climber fell off a ledge while setting a top rope for some other climbers and died. I'll bet the last thing on his mind was, "THis could be dangerous.".
I know from my own sad experiences that most of my accidents happened when I was feeling pretty safe-- as in, oblivious to any danger at all.
I would guess that when we feel the presence of danger, we are more careful, and when we feel safe, we let our guard down, even itf objectively the situation does not warrant easing off on the pay attention throttle.
Yeah, that's obvious, but still, people die from forgetting this.
|
|
|
|
|
shank
Oct 1, 2005, 7:18 PM
Post #45 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2002
Posts: 541
|
So Dirt,
How safe were you feeling when you broke your elbow?
Hope it is doing better.
|
|
|
|
|
antigrav
Oct 1, 2005, 9:01 PM
Post #46 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2003
Posts: 215
|
Interesting thread... to a certain extent...
In reply to: I can think of several accidents that happened precisely because the victims felt safe. ...
Agreed. But still, I want to be safer, even though maybe it's disadvantageous to feel safer. So, how about some actual practical suggestions? Should I stop climbing stuff more than a letter grade below my level? And how do I reduce the risk when walking home from the crag, blissful after a successful redpointing or whatever? I don't want to break my ankle walking through the woods either...
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Oct 1, 2005, 9:35 PM
Post #47 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
In reply to: So Dirt, How safe were you feeling when you broke your elbow? Hope it is doing better.
Well that's just my point LOL!
The previous day, I was three pitches up, working the FA of an overhanging, wet, brush filled 5.11, and very aware of the situation at all times. The guy I climb those things with is one of the most dafety concious and safe climbers I know. We stay sharp at all times while off the ground.
The next day, when I broke my elbow, I was standing on a tow truck bed, the crisis stage of a major water pump failure in the middle of nowhere was at an end, and I was just getting one last thing out of the van. I felt like the worst was over and we were about to head for home. I stepped away from the car, like I usually do but, I just happened to be 3 feet off the ground instead of standing on it.
It was really dumb. I had totally lost my awareness of the situation, and I felt perfectly safe. Bad idea!
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Oct 1, 2005, 9:48 PM
Post #48 of 48
(11478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
In reply to: Interesting thread... to a certain extent... In reply to: I can think of several accidents that happened precisely because the victims felt safe. ... Agreed. But still, I want to be safer, even though maybe it's disadvantageous to feel safer. So, how about some actual practical suggestions? Should I stop climbing stuff more than a letter grade below my level? And how do I reduce the risk when walking home from the crag, blissful after a successful redpointing or whatever? I don't want to break my ankle walking through the woods either...
Don't stop climbing harder, it's actually when people climb stuff that they take for granted that bad things often happen. You must guard against complacency.
So, don;t take your situation for granted. Stay aware. Um, I've been hurt more on trails than I have on climbs, so I'm not the best person to ask about that, heh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
