|
jammer
Aug 17, 2005, 5:32 PM
Post #2 of 48
(14799 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
(14799 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
(14799 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
(14799 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
(14799 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
(14799 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
(14799 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
(14799 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
(14799 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
(14799 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
(14799 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
(14799 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
(14799 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
(14799 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
(14799 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
(14799 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
(14799 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
(14799 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215
|
Excellent post jt512
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Aug 18, 2005, 5:32 PM
Post #20 of 48
(14799 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
(14799 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2002
Posts: 3472
|
Nice JT ... totally agree!
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Aug 18, 2005, 6:00 PM
Post #22 of 48
(14799 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
(14799 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
(14799 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
