|  Author | Topic: Fixed Protection on dangerous routes (Read 1,336 times) |
derek
Global Moderator
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://www.canisfamiliaris.co.uk/photographs/lingmoorfell/42-derek.jpg "[avatar]")
214 up ... and Beattie 202/214...
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
Joined: Feb 2004
Gender: Male 
Posts: 5,366
Location: Suffolk
|  | Fixed Protection on dangerous routes
« Thread Started on May 18, 2008, 6:54pm » | |
This is the latest of The Sharp Edge debates. Please send your ideas for future debates to me via a Personal Message on the Forum.
To send a PM, click on derek and then click Send Personal Message.
This week, John has selected the subject for The Sharp Edge Debate – Fixed Protection on dangerous routes
John will put up the first post after which the soapbox is yours!
Over to you, John ...
derek
|
|
|
JB
Super-duper-hero
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://www.wainwright.org.uk/images/events/2011/jb_aw_talk_11.jpg "[avatar]")
An Evening With...
Joined: Feb 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,292
Location: Wharfedale in God's Own County
| | Re: Fixed Protection on dangerous routes
« Reply #1 on May 19, 2008, 9:40pm » | |
In an article a couple of months ago, Sir Chris Bonington was arguing the case against the suggestion of having fixed protection on certain dangerous routes in the Lake District.
During his climbing career, and I have read many of his books including Next Horizon, I Chose to Climb, Annapurna South Face and Everest South West Face, Chris used fixed protection on the climbs, particularly on Everest's South West Face where the team used 470 Karabiners, 200 snow stakes, 100 deadman anchors, 170 ice pitons, 200 rock pitons and 7,500 metres of various rope and 450 metres of tape in the form of slings.
So what is wrong with having fixed protection on certain routes such as Sharp Edge, Striding Edge, Broad Stand, Lords Rake and even the corridor route on Scafell Pike which in certain parts, as Derek and I found out during our recent walk, can be quite "hairy" on certain exposed parts?
What do you think?
Would this help walkers if they had a rope to use as protection, or is it more likely to encourage those with limited fell-walking knowledge and experience to go on routes that they were ill-prepared to tackle?
We await your comments on this subject.
John 
|
|
|
crib goch
Superhero+
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,481
Location: Hexham
| | Re: Fixed Protection on dangerous routes
« Reply #2 on May 19, 2008, 10:00pm » | |
I cannot think of anything worse.
The nanny state has taken over most things, but please not the fells. The only equipment required for the routes mentioned are a reasonable level of fell-fitness, and a fully functioning brain. I have handled all the routes mentioned (except Broad Stand !) without problem in decent conditions, and if conditions looked dicey would stay away.
If we start putting in artificial aids on so-called difficult routes, we will merely encourage the incompetent to chance their arm, causing more work for the already over-stretched MRTs.
No thanks. We enjoy the challenge, don't spoil it.
Martin
|
Martin |
|
kidstypike
Guest
| | Re: Fixed Protection on dangerous routes
« Reply #3 on May 20, 2008, 6:00am » | |
May 19, 2008, 10:00pm, crib goch wrote:I cannot think of anything worse.
The nanny state has taken over most things, but please not the fells. The only equipment required for the routes mentioned are a reasonable level of fell-fitness, and a fully functioning brain. I have handled all the routes mentioned (except Broad Stand !) without problem in decent conditions, and if conditions looked dicey would stay away.
If we start putting in artificial aids on so-called difficult routes, we will merely encourage the incompetent to chance their arm, causing more work for the already over-stretched MRTs.
No thanks. We enjoy the challenge, don't spoil it.
Martin
|
|
Can't add anything else to this.
Dave
| |
|
David
Superhero+
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://imageshack.us/a/img831/1885/imgp9057copy.jpg "[avatar]")
Joined: Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,064
Location: Histon, Cambridge
| | Re: Fixed Protection on dangerous routes
« Reply #4 on May 20, 2008, 10:07am » | |
I can see that there is an argument for having safety aids in certain places, but I am not in favour for the following reasons.
- The LD is very accessible (not like Everest) and people can decide their limitations. For example, there are various ways up Scafell, from sheer rock climbs, exciting gulllies, rocky paths and easy walks (albeit uphill!) over greenery. I suppose fixed protection on Broad Stand would enable more people to get up that way, but I'm sure AW would not have approved.
- The introduction of fixed protection would probably be the thin end of a wedge. I could foresee over time it becoming mandatory to use where installed and being installed in more and more places. Next - a Stannah stairlift up Lord's Rake?
- It can be counter-productive. It could encourage people to let down their guard if they think that all dangers have been removed. When I go in the loft, I am consciously careful not to bang my head on the beams and don't do so. When I used to wear a hard-hat to protect me, I kept banging my head! One reason cricketers are hit on the head and body far more often than in 'days of old' is because they now have so much protection.
David
| |
|
Donald Holliday
Wanderer
member is offline
Joined: Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 92
Location: Windermere
| | Re: Fixed Protection on dangerous routes
« Reply #5 on May 20, 2008, 10:55am » | |
Shock Horror!
I hope nobody is serious about this.
Fellwalking, scrambling and rock climbing are all about knowing your limits and keeping within them.
How is anyone to learn his or her personal limits without over-stretching them a bit with the confidence of youth and getting a good scare. Next time you'll be a bit more circumspect.
If Jacks Rake is too tame for you, take up serious rock climbing. If it's too scary, avoid it in future.
There is no duty on everyone to reach every summit by every route. We do it because we enjoy the thrill as well as the natural beauty.
Sadly, Lord's Rake is now closed because of rockfalls, so more people are attempting Broad Stand. We should note Wainwright's comments and keep well away!
Finally, if fixed protection were to be put up, who would take responsibility for maintaining it for all and sundry (including the inexperienced) and doing those lovely Health & Safety Risk Assessments? The Safety mafia would soon close all the fells and I would be off to Scotland for some real walking!
Donald
|
Donald |
|
garyrichardson
Guest
| | Re: Fixed Protection on dangerous routes
« Reply #6 on May 20, 2008, 11:07am » | |
Going by what has happened in Scotland, if such things were installed on dangerous route's I'm sure that they would soon be removed or damaged so people couldn't use them!
If people want to do such route's and are not confident in the ability to do them, let them pay for the service's of one of the many local mountain guide's!
Gary ...
| |
|
JB
Super-duper-hero
member is offline
An Evening With...
Joined: Feb 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,292
Location: Wharfedale in God's Own County
| | Re: Fixed Protection on dangerous routes
« Reply #7 on May 20, 2008, 7:07pm » | |
My goodness - you've all risen to the bait this week. Must have been all the walking last week in the Lakes.
I am not advocating fixed protection, just creating healthy debate!
John
|
|
|
andybeck
Superhero+
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6286/ab20photoxg3.jpg "[avatar]")
Joined: Oct 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,063
Location: Barnard Castle, Co Durham
| | Re: Fixed Protection on dangerous routes
« Reply #8 on May 20, 2008, 8:15pm » | |
John,
It seems that we are all on the same opinion here, who was it that put forward the suggestion of fixed ropes in the first place?
Andy
|
|
|
Dik
Superhero
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://www.wainwright.org.uk/images/profile.jpg "[avatar]")
one man and his dog!
Joined: Nov 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,527
Location: Penrith
| | Re: Fixed Protection on dangerous routes
« Reply #9 on May 20, 2008, 9:08pm » | |
Can't really add anything to this except to agree wholeheartedly with Martin and the rest of you guys.
Dik
| |
|
crib goch
Superhero+
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,481
Location: Hexham
| | Re: Fixed Protection on dangerous routes
« Reply #10 on May 20, 2008, 9:18pm » | |
Quote:My goodness - you've all risen to the bait this week. Must have been all the walking last week in the Lakes.
I am not advocating fixed protection, just creating healthy debate!
John |
|
John
I think this was always going to be a pretty one-sided debate, certainly as far as members of this forum are concerned.
I suspect that you would get a similar reaction if you proposed a debate on abolishing beer or sex.
Martin
|
Martin |
|
David
Superhero+
member is offline
Joined: Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,064
Location: Histon, Cambridge
| | Re: Fixed Protection on dangerous routes
« Reply #11 on May 20, 2008, 9:28pm » | |
Although, so far, we seem to be of one mind, it has been worth airing, as it makes us think the issue through and puts us on our guard against possible future moves to interfere.
David
| |
|
kidstypike
Guest
| | Re: Fixed Protection on dangerous routes
« Reply #12 on May 20, 2008, 10:14pm » | |
May 20, 2008, 9:18pm, crib goch wrote:
Quote:My goodness - you've all risen to the bait this week. Must have been all the walking last week in the Lakes.
I am not advocating fixed protection, just creating healthy debate!
John |
|
John
I think this was always going to be a pretty one-sided debate, certainly as far as members of this forum are concerned.
I suspect that you would get a similar reaction if you proposed a debate on abolishing beer or sex.
Martin |
|
Fixed protection and sex......doesn't bear thinking about!!
Dave
| |
|
JB
Super-duper-hero
member is offline
An Evening With...
Joined: Feb 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,292
Location: Wharfedale in God's Own County
| | Re: Fixed Protection on dangerous routes
« Reply #13 on May 20, 2008, 10:25pm » | |
May 20, 2008, 8:15pm, andybeck wrote:John,
It seems that we are all on the same opinion here, who was it that put forward the suggestion of fixed ropes in the first place?
Andy |
|
Can't remember, Andy. I know, though, that Sir Chris was very much against them also.
John
|
|
|
PeteBog
Superhero
member is offline
Joined: Feb 2004
Gender: Female 
Posts: 1,700
| | Re: Fixed Protection on dangerous routes
« Reply #14 on May 21, 2008, 8:31am » | |
Think we are all going to be of the same mind on this one. The absence of fixed protection encourages us all to walk and scramble within our personal limits, which must be a good thing.
I'd love to have a go at climbing Central Buttress myself, just waiting for the scaffolding and ladders before I have a pop at it! 
PeteH
| |
| |
|
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Calendar]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif "[Calendar]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Logged