Paul Bailey accident

[markwebster]

The full story, posted by another one of the people who were there that day is here:

 

http://www.edgeworksclimbing.com/cgi/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1260472569

 

And yes, a helmet would have helped a lot. When one of my partners, who is a doctor, heard about the accident, her immediate response was: based on those injuries, he was not wearing a helmet. The news (about the helmet) was withheld for months. When it did appear on his blog, it was taken down the next day.

 

Paul always wore a helmet when he climbed with me. Sadly, most climbers who get up into the 5.10 range stop wearing their helmets. And you can probably get away with it...most people do...but some don't.

 

Do you feel lucky?

 

 

[summitchaserCJB]

That is ironic about how climbers in the 5.10 range stop wearing helmets because not only are they the people who are probably climbing more often (and thus more likely to be struck by some objective hazard) but they are also climbing harder routes. But it's true from what I've witnessed. It only takes one screw up to ruin your life.

[goatboy]

There's nothing in that edgeworks story that specifically states whether he was wearing a helmet or not. There is conjecture in subsequent posts, however.

[Water]

The news (about the helmet) was withheld for months. When it did appear on his blog, it was taken down the next day.

 

i too read about it on the blog when it was there, but cannot find it now-it seems that post was removed.

[markwebster]

the post was removed by Tara, his sister. I can confirm that he was not wearing a helmet. I, or my buddy Brett have talked on the phone with the family, his partners and his girlfriend. I suspect she pulled the story off the blog due to insurance, liability issues. With a helmet, it is likely he would just have some badly shattered hands, as opposed to having head injuries that led to being blind...so far. There is still hope!

[Frenchy]

The increasing difficulty of routes has absolutely no relation to an increasing need for a helmet

[ivan]

The increasing difficulty of routes has absolutely no relation to an increasing need for a helmet

harder routes are generally steeper than easier routes and offer therefore cleaner falls - it doesn't excuse anyone for going sans-brain bucket, but it no doubt plays a part

[goatboy]

So, if the family removed that info from the blog in order to decrease their liability, it's not really in their best interest to re-post that info here I imagine, despite its marginal educational value.

 

True?

[ivan]

sounds more like an ethical question to me w/ plenty of latitude to keep discussing it

[goatboy]

Agreed, definitely an ethical question.

[summitchaserCJB]

The increasing difficulty of routes has absolutely no relation to an increasing need for a helmet

I beg to differ. A difficult route is more likely to see a fall. A fall is more likely to result in an injury. And a helmet is more likely to prevent a brain injury. Make sense?

[noraA]

A difficult route is more likely to see a fall.

Your "point" is pointless, it depends on who is climbing it.

[Rad]

First, I send positive healing energies to Paul and his family. Accidents happen to good people, and we all wish you a full recovery. Speculating about things that might or might not have happened is not very useful. But we can look forward and think about the risks we take.

 

The increasing difficulty of routes has absolutely no relation to an increasing need for a helmet

I beg to differ. A difficult route is more likely to see a fall. A fall is more likely to result in an injury. And a helmet is more likely to prevent a brain injury. Make sense?

 

Sounds like non-climber logic, but I don't want to trash your post without explanation. I think we can all agree that if you hit your head you're far better off having a helmet versus not having one. The question, then, is whether hard climbs are more likely to result in head impacts/injuries than easier ones.

 

Let's make a few assumptions to start (feel free to dispute these if you wish):

 

A - Steeper climbs are generally harder than lower angle climbs in the same area/style.

 

B - One generally finds a higher ratio of experienced/inexperienced climbers on harder routes than on easier routes.

 

C - Less experienced climbers are more likely to make mistakes than experienced climbers (perhaps the weakest of these three assumptions).

 

Then, consider how these factors affect the most common head impact/injury situations:

 

1 - A falling object hits your head. The object might be a rock dislodged by a climber, a rock or other item falling for unknown reasons, or an item dropped by someone above you. This mainly applies in the mountains and on multipitch routes, but it can happen on single pitch routes as well. On steeper terrain (aka harder routes), falling objects are more likely to bounce away from the climber (belayers note that you are in the line of fire too). Also, less experienced climbers are probably more likely to drop or dislodge things onto people below them, and less experienced climbers are more prevalent on easier routes. For both of these reasons, harder/steeper routes are safer than easier routes.

 

2 - The climber falls and somehow flips, tumbles, spins, or pendulums and hits their head. Everyone is going to fall if they are pushing their limits, and everyone has different limits, so the suggestion that people fall more on hard routes is a fallacy. If anything, more people try the easier routes so more fall on them. Recall that it's not the fall that hurts you, it's the sudden stop at the end of it that causes damage. With that in mind, let's pose a few questions: Who is less likely to put their leg behind the rope, flip in a fall, and hit their head: the fledgling 5.9 leader who has done little outdoor leading or someone who has climbed and fallen on lead outdoors many times over many years? The experienced leader is probably safer. Who is more likely to be cognizant of unavoidable risks in climbs (moves away from corners, runout sections, mediocre pro) and be able to back off or keep it together mentally to fight through or fall safely? Again, the more experienced climber is probably safer. Whose trad protection is less likely to fail in a fall because it was improperly placed/clipped? Once again, the experienced climber should be safer. Since there is a higher proportion of experienced climbers on harder routes compared with easier routes, the harder routes should be safer.

 

But what about the climbs themselves? Assuming protection is adequate and belayers do their jobs properly, climbers are least likely to have nasty impacts on overhanging routes, less likely to have impacts on vertical routes, and most likely to have nasty impacts on routes with ledges or big protruding features (easier routes). Thus harder routes are generally safer than easier routes.

 

In case you need a baseball bat summary, two factors make harder routes safer than easier routes: the higher proportion of experienced climbers on them AND their steeper nature.

 

Of course, we can always come up with exceptions. Experienced climbers make mistakes too. Steep routes can be dangerous, particularly if protection is bad.

 

Heck, climbing is dangerous. If you want zero risk stay home and watch TV.

[summitchaserCJB]

You make some good points. It is good to first remember the source of this discussion (An experienced climber on a moderate route who sustained worse injury as the result of not wearing a helmet). Also, all other things aside, we are talking about probability. Actually, we are guessing about probability. You saying that steeper climbs are less dangerous and me saying that people fall more on hard climbs are just statements at worst and at best based on anecdotal and personal experience.

I still stand by my logic. Assuming the premise is true- which I think we disagree on.

Now I just noticed something else. You made a logical jump that isn't called for.

I agree when you say that the steepness of a climb and the experience of the climbers that do the climb increase the safety overall, assuming that the free fall from a steep climb doesn't result in a swing directly into the wall (let's assume this isn't going to happen). But this doesn't prove that harder climbs are safer than easier climbs because there are other factors making easier climbs less dangerous. I believe one of them is the pump factor. I will almost never fall of a route 5.9 and below. But above that and things get a little foggy at times. The fact that I am not going to fall off a route is something to consider when deciding whether or not to wear a helmet (rockfall aside for the moment)- because a helmet will help protect your head during a leader fall to some extent.

 

 

Edited April 7, 2010 by summitchaserCJB

[markwebster]

This 'should you wear a helmet' topic always reminds me of the motorcycle helmet debate in California. It raged on for years back in the 80's?. The bikers insisted that they couldn't "feel free" if they had to wear a helmet. I think the law eventually passed. I'm thinking people don't wear seat belts for the same reason: they need to feel free.

 

If I can do something to make my life safer, like always wearing my seat belt, not drinking and driving, and wearing a helmet when I bicycle, ski, and climb, I will. Feel free to call me an old woman.

 

It's a personal choice. I climb with very smart people, some of them don't wear a helmet. I wish they would, but I don't bring it up. It's a free country for crying out loud. Are we done with helmets?

 

And yeah, send Paul some healing energy. It would be so awesome if his sight came back.

 

 

[Rad]

... But this doesn't prove that harder climbs are safer than easier climbs because there are other factors making easier climbs less dangerous. I believe one of them is the pump factor. I will almost never fall of a route 5.9 and below. But above that and things get a little foggy at times. The fact that I am not going to fall off a route is something to consider when deciding whether or not to wear a helmet (rockfall aside for the moment)- because a helmet will help protect your head during a leader fall to some extent.

 

If you never fall you're not going to improve, no matter what grade you are climbing now.

 

If you only wear a helmet when you plan to fall then you WILL fall. You've set yourself up for it.

 

Motivation is strongest when the chances of success are close to 50/50. The most satisfying leads for me are ones where it felt like I was going to fall and then somehow I kept it in control and pulled it off. Sure, being in a great setting with great partners is wonderful, but to get that heightened awareness I need to be at or near the edge of my abilities. Difficulty doesn't matter in that regard, which is why I can be as excited reading someone's 5.8 TR as someone else's 5.12 TR. It's about adventure, which means the unknown.

 

Try it. You might like it.

[ryanb]

Head injuries from lead falls seem to result when the leader inverts. In general there are two things that are very likely to cause this: the leader getting their foot caught up in the rope and the belayer locking off and giving a hard static belay that flips the leader and slams them into the wall.

 

Both of these thing are more likely on easy climbs where the leader doesn't expect to fall. In particular, in particularly it is quite easy to get ones feet caught up in the rope on hands or wider cracks in the 5.8-5.9 range... I see inexperienced leaders doing this all the time usually while being belayed by someone who seems to have never caught a lead fall.

 

People on harder routes tend to be more aware of their feet hand have more experienced belayers...the risk of flipping on a hard sport climb with a good belayer is low. I do tend to wear a helmet on harder routes including sport at index where you re often required to make moves with your feet directly above the last piece of gear which I find slightly unnerving but I feel it is reasonable to not wear one at a steep sport crag provided the amount of loose rock is low.

 

 

 

[rob]

If you never fall you're not going to improve, no matter what grade you are climbing now.

 

Ridiculous. Once upon a time, the leader "never fell." Are you saying those guys never improved? Perhaps you'll improve faster if you push yourself to fall more often, but your statement basically means a newbie 5.5 leader will be stuck leading 5.5 until he takes a fall.

 

anyway, why are we having this discussion in the "Paul Bailey accident" thread? LAME.

[JoshK]

anyway, why are we having this discussion in the "Paul Bailey accident" thread? LAME.

 

I'm amazed people can still have discussions on whether somebody should wear a helmet or not. Experience of the climber, difficulty of route, etc, are moot points. Does it really matter if a route holds a high likelyhood of falling or not? Obviously the goal is not to fall no matter what the difficulty. The helmet is there to protect your dome from getting hit not just in a fall but from any number of things that could happen. It is safer to wear a helmet than not..end of story. If somebody chooses to not wear a helmet, that is their choie, but trying to justify the decision with logic is bogus.

[summitchaserCJB]

Since when is justifying a decision with logic bogus? Aren't we adults?

I agree-splitting hairs is just that, splitting hairs. But if it gets someone who doesn't like to think very often to wear a helmet, so be it.

Edited April 8, 2010 by summitchaserCJB

[JoshK]

Since when is justifying a decision with logic bogus? Aren't we adults?

I agree-splitting hairs is just that, splitting hairs. But if it gets someone who doesn't like to think very often to wear a helmet, so be it.

 

Because any sensible logic will lead you to the conclusion that climbing with a helmet on is safer. Sorry, but no way around that fact. I'm not judging somebody's decision to wear or not wear a helmet, just pointing out what should be a very OBVIOUS fact: you will be safer with one on.

[ivan]

Because any sensible logic will lead you to the conclusion that climbing with a helmet on is safer. Sorry, but no way around that fact. I'm not judging somebody's decision to wear or not wear a helmet, just pointing out what should be a very OBVIOUS fact: you will be safer with one on.

...says the man who saw the bloody carnage after i pile-drived my unhelmeted skull into a block atop of the savage la cunt mtn!

 

just couldn't be bothered to carry my helmet for the brutal 1/2 mile approach

[summitchaserCJB]

Josh- Agreed. But just because logic leads us to a conclusion we don't like (which is not the case here BTW) doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. People will do what they do, but might as well think it through.

[markwebster]

to get this thread back on track...

 

I talked to Paul last night. His old cell number still works. He is still blind, has another brain surgery coming in a month. Said his hands hurt a lot from all the screws and plates holding the bone together. He just got one of those blind walking pointing stick thingies.

 

Said it's really strange being blind, and that he regrets not wearing his helmet. It pretty much ripped my heart out hearing the pain in his voice.

 

He said he wanted to come out and climb, even if he was still blind. I promised to take him up classic crack.

 

I'm thinking about sending him a harmonica with a 'how to play' cassette. He used to enjoy hearing me jam at jtree. Pictures of him down there here,and a recent recording of me and David D. jamming:

 

http://www.websterart.com/slideshowpro/slideshow.html

[ivan]

jesus.