2 rope climbing are we sticking to the rules

[Mike Hill]

4 hours ago, 5thelement said:

I am pretty sure these two where involved in demonstrating to the HSE just how safe and effective climbing on one rope is, but to no avail, the HSE had already made up their minds.

No one, including trainers and assessors pushed for, or welcomed mandatory two rope working. The end of the day, climb on two ropes or one, it’s up to you, and up to you to explain in court why you made those decisions in the event of a catastrophic injury or accident.

 

Eh?

 

Do you truely beleive a person would be prosecuted post injury for not using two ropes?

[Mick Dempsey]

2 minutes ago, Mike Hill said:

 

Eh?

 

Do you truely beleive a person would be prosecuted post injury for not using two ropes?

Depends if you land on the groundy.

[Bolt]

3 hours ago, Mike Hill said:

 

Eh?

 

Do you truely beleive a person would be prosecuted post injury for not using two ropes?

I shouldn’t think so.

 

If anyone should be perused, it would be the organisation (such as the employer, or the organisation that engaged a sub-contract climber, and was in control of the process of putting people to work.

 

I should think that in certain cases, they would either investigate (and issue  a juicy FFI bill to cover their trouble) or prosecute.  Bear in mind the burden of proof for a successful criminal prosecution is “beyond all reasonable doubt” which is a very high requirement, so it would only be considered for pretty obvious cases.

[Bolt]

To add insult to injury, any ‘injured parties’ (these could  be employed, self-employed or public) are almost guaranteed success suing the insurer of a controlling company that had been successfully prosecuted by the HSE, as the burden of proof for civil claims is set at  ‘beyond the balance of probabilities’ which is way way lower (51% or higher).

[5thelement]

5 hours ago, Mike Hill said:

Do you truely beleive a person would be prosecuted post injury for not using two ropes

I am talking about employers/companies allowing climbers to work on one rope and leaving themselves in the firing line for court action in the event of a serious accident. 
Out of interest, since the HSE implemented the changes, how many serious accidents have you heard of where the two rope working was proven to be the cause?

[Joe Newton]

11 hours ago, Mike Hill said:

 

Setting the bar higher as to who can enter the industry as a climber would do alot more to reduce accidents than increasing the number of ropes used.

 

I bet if you had enough money you could lobby for the mandatory use of SCUBA gear up a tree , weeks late Jo Hedger and Ben Rose would be flapping around aloft with two ropes and air tanks displaying to the world how easy it is.

 

Its not a job for stupids, sadly anyone can get fully trained and still be totally incompetent on the job.The countries with large and difficult trees dont have all these pointless rules, and do the job much sharper and more productively than their UK counterparts.

Whilst I agree with most of your post, does the UK not have large or difficult trees?

 

We both know the answer, and most of the guys that get called in for those trees are using whatever system they see fit. Not necessarily sticking to what HSE dictate. 

5 hours ago, Mike Hill said:

 

Eh?

 

Do you truely beleive a person would be prosecuted post injury for not using two ropes?

I truly believe that it's a great way for insurance companies to get out of paying. Why should they if best practice wasn't adhered to?

[Bolt]

31 minutes ago, Joe Newton said:

 

I truly believe that it's a great way for insurance companies to get out of paying. Why should they if best practice wasn't adhered to?

 

Although you can get insurance to cover legal fees, they would never cover fines that you got as a result of prosecution by the HSE.

 

[Bolt]

Deets on FFI

 

(currently you are charged £163 per hour to be investigated.

 

HSE: Fee for Intervention - What is FFI?

WWW.HSE.GOV.UK

 

[Joe Newton]

Just now, Bolt said:

Deets on FFI

 

(currently you are charged £163 per hour to be investigated.

 

HSE: Fee for Intervention - What is FFI?

WWW.HSE.GOV.UK

 

Covering legal fees is irrelevant. If a person had an accident the first thing hse would look for is if they'd been working to best practice. Even if the accident had nothing to do with 2 lines in the tree it would be the first thing they'd flag up.

 

Essentially if you're employing people who aren't compliant (two attachments, loler, refreshers etc) then you're still culpable.

 

[Bolt]

16 minutes ago, Joe Newton said:

Covering legal fees is irrelevant. If a person had an accident the first thing hse would look for is if they'd been working to best practice. Even if the accident had nothing to do with 2 lines in the tree it would be the first thing they'd flag up.

 

Essentially if you're employing people who aren't compliant (two attachments, loler, refreshers etc) then you're still culpable.

 

Indeed, but you still can’t insure against prosecutions, so insurers have nothing to “get out of paying”.