Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - Crag & Route Beta

Crag & Route Beta

Area	Location	Sub Location	Crag	Links
All NSW	(General)	(General)	(General)

Topic Date User

Climbing banned Centennial Trev Blue Mtns - NPWS 5-May-2015 At 1:45:27 PM Snacks

Message

On 5/05/2015 Macciza wrote:
>Snacks - never really considered insurance as a demarker between amateur
>and professional expertise . In fact insurance has been shown to lead to
>less safe practice because 'insurance will cover stuff ups' .

Fantastic... maybe you should spread the news to all organisations and individuals that tend to their assets with insured, qualified and skilled workers.. apparently unqualified uninsured work is the latest and greatest thing revealed by some vague research...

>If insurance and liability is such a concern then how can any uncertified
>bolts be placed and allowed to be used. What recourse does anyone have
>in that situation if they hurt themselves? Sue or suck it up?

It's not a legal concern when it's kept within the experienced climbing community.

I haven't heard of a precedent in the climbing world (maybe someone else has?) but the situation with Nick Kaz's passing seems like it would have come close to criminal/civil action. Though I don't know the fine detailed he said/she said particulars in that case and what reasons this may not have been pursued... (Please do not reply to this. I do not want to re-hash this story. And I'd rather you just considered how it does relate, and if you don't think it does, then don't reply to it.)

If there is demonstrated negligence where an installer ignores sound and proven technical advice within the particular recreational community and installs something that leads to serious injury or death then this might be pursued. Think of it as accidental booby-trapping...

The obvious defence rebuttal in the above example would be demonstrating that the climber or experienced participant should also have known better as well and not use particular bolts. But, climbing is generally a difficult one for negligence cases...

With climbing being a 'stop', 'think' then 'do' activity a lot of the responsibility and liability falls upon the participant as they would have had many opportunities to retreat if they were unsure about a given safety concern.

Again, this is a headache for an organisation like NPWS that is just trying to do the best it can within the framework provided to them and accepting ongoing liability for installed anchors in natural rock is a big ask (as is officially getting them removed)... removing them is probably most swiftly done as Damian (ODH) has described with a ban being imposed and someone quietly deciding to go about removing them on their own with no attachment or directive from NPWS.

>Most importantly, I think you need to check your facts- there is no 'blanket
>ban' on bolting in the Blue Mountains National Park, in fact bolting is
>recognised as being necessary for climbing activities but NPs are unable
>to do installation and certification of them. Participants need to accept

Not sure how you keep jumping to conclusions and misquoting me. I never said there was a blanket ban on bolting in the Blue Mountains...

Areas get blanket banned by land owners or managers to negate liability and other access issues. No secret there and their legal reasoning (risk profile reduction) is sound. Beulah Rock Festivus closure is one sad example.

>responsibility for there own actions, as is the case in most adventure
>activities that make use of non-Parks installed equipment. Rock climbing
>is an approved activity in the NP provided that certain rules are followed,
>including acceptable bolting techniques. Closure of unacceptable sites
>and removal of bolts is one possible consequence of not playing by the
>rules....

Do you have a reference to these rules that I could peruse?