Caving insurance - club opinion/policy ?

[cap n chris]

unilateral failure to use a safety line would void the insurance of the cavers on the trip

I feel a blanket statement like this linking specific technique/equipment to Insurance Liability would be a thin end of a wedge towards specifying reccomended techniques/equipment for vertical caving..something cavers have long resisted.

It wasn't a statement, it was part of a question. The recommended techniques are public domain (books etc.) and are well established - there is nothing new about this. How is it wrong to have, or use, a recommended technique?

 

[Pitlamp]

Because in certain circumstances the best / safest option might be to modify the technique rather than slavishly following what someone else says is right.

Here's an example. A cave with a few very short pitches. "Recommended" technique says use a lifeline. Cave starts to flood. Team needs to leave cave urgently. Safest option might be to dispense with lifelines on these ladders and get the hell out fast (assuming ladders & belays are strong, all cavers fit and confident, etc).

Going too far down the route of "recommended" techniques doesn't allow for judgements to be made in unusual circumstances, based on long experience.

 

[Mark Wright]

Bob's last sentence reminded me of the recent discoveries in Rowter Hole. Although the Buttered Badgers rightfully took most of the credit, regular digging teams over the 4 year project (we spent 2 years digging in the wrong place!!) included members of the TSG, BEC, Eldon, Masson, SUSS, LUCC, NCC as well as a number of people not affiliated to any club and not holding BCA insurance. Often 4 different clubs would be represented on a typical digging night.

I don't know if anyone was listening to Radio 2 this morning on the Jeremy Vine show.

A cyclist, who happened to work for the BBC was knocked off his bike by a car. It was a clear cut case that the driver of the car was 100% responsible. Unfortunately for the cyclist, although the driver of the car was legally fully insured, because he had resprayed his car yellow from the original brown? he had technically made a modification to the vehicle and had failed to notify the insurer and as such they refused to make any payment to the cyclist.

Within 24 hours of the cyclist, a very senior BBC program controller, giving his business card to the insurance companies solicitor he received the full amount of his claim.

This demonstrates the levels that some insurance companies will stoop to in order to try and wriggle out of making genuine bona fide claims. I'm not suggesting for one minute that our new brokers would stoop to such levels, I have used their services when they used to offer policies for IRATA Assessors and was very satisfied with their service. Having said that, I never had to make a claim, and the majority of policy holders never make a claim.

How many stories do you hear about how fantastic ABC Insurance Co. was at sorting out the aftermath of an accident (other than on their own TV and radio commercials) compared to the number of stories you hear about how crap they were. I've heard three crap stories today!!

My general cynicism of insurance companies is based on the wholly crap stories that I hear, i've genuinely never heard a good story. It doesn't help that cynicism when you get a phone call from a no-win no fee solicitor less than 1 hour after calling the insurance company after somebody drove into the back of me and within 2 hours a call from my insurers almost forcing a ?300.00 per day hire car on me, all covered on my policy. 

Is there any wonder insurance premiums are rising with this sort of behaviour?

Rant over.

I'll get my coat.

Mark
 

 

[cap n chris]

Because in certain circumstances the best / safest option might be to modify the technique rather than slavishly following what someone else says is right.

Here's an example. A cave with a few very short pitches. "Recommended" technique says use a lifeline. Cave starts to flood. Team needs to leave cave urgently. Safest option might be to dispense with lifelines on these ladders and get the hell out fast (assuming ladders & belays are strong, all cavers fit and confident, etc).

Going too far down the route of "recommended" techniques doesn't allow for judgements to be made in unusual circumstances, based on long experience.

Fully agree. However, it does not follow that, just because in extremis it may be unequivocally acceptable to climb a ladder without a line, it is therefore acceptable to routinely climb a ladder without a line. Repetition combined with a blemish-free history of non-failure generates understandable complacency. This does not make it "safe" and might still be easily considered gross negligence, when cross-referring to published established safe practice, surely?

 

[al]

Because in certain circumstances the best / safest option might be to modify the technique rather than slavishly following what someone else says is right.

Here's an example. A cave with a few very short pitches. "Recommended" technique says use a lifeline. Cave starts to flood. Team needs to leave cave urgently. Safest option might be to dispense with lifelines on these ladders and get the hell out fast (assuming ladders & belays are strong, all cavers fit and confident, etc).

Going too far down the route of "recommended" techniques doesn't allow for judgements to be made in unusual circumstances, based on long experience.

Fully agree. However, it does not follow that, just because in extremis it may be unequivocally acceptable to climb a ladder without a line, it is therefore acceptable to routinely climb a ladder without a line. Repetition combined with a blemish-free history of non-failure generates understandable complacency. This does not make it "safe" and might still be easily considered gross negligence, when cross-referring to published established safe practice, surely?

Agreed. But it shows why "blanket statements" can in themselves be potentially dangerous, and also why you won't get that kind of black and white rule from an FSA registered insurance adviser. Because life aint like that.

Moreover, caving, like most exploratory pastimes, is an evolving practice, and commandments carved in stone might make some people's lives easier, but, in reality, stifling progress can be just as deadly. I mean most of us don't use ladder and line except in special circumstances simply because there are safer ways of doing things.

 

[martinm]

I fear certain people are using the word 'sanction' in completely the wrong way. See:-
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/sanction
A sanction is a restriction or order. Bob is correct in using the word 'condone'.

Anyway, back to caving matters, SRT is only safer than ladders if the person knows what they are doing and preferably supervised by somebody who does. I know of at least 2 people who didn't clip their Petzl Stop onto the rope properly and almost fell to their deaths. One was on Slit Pot in  Swinsto or Simpson Pot. (Can't remember which cave it's in now, it's been a while since I was last up the Dales.) They were only saved by a companion grabbing them before they fell. Scary.

How would an insurance company deal with that sort of situation? In all likelihood they would assume a particular member of the party was 'the leader' and put the blame on them. You need BCA insurance to cover this, which currently covers claims of up ?5 million, but they now have the option of increasing that if necessary.

 

[al]

Anyway, back to caving matters, SRT is only safer than ladders if the person knows what they are doing and preferably supervised by somebody who does. I know of at least 2 people who didn't clip their Petzl Stop onto the rope properly and almost fell to their deaths. One was on Slit Pot in  Swinsto or Simpson Pot. (Can't remember which cave it's in now, it's been a while since I was last up the Dales.) They were only saved by a companion grabbing them before they fell. Scary.

How would an insurance company deal with that sort of situation? In all likelihood they would assume a particular member of the party was 'the leader' and put the blame on them. You need BCA insurance to cover this, which currently covers claims of up ?5 million, but they now have the option of increasing that if necessary.

Carelessness exposes us all to extra risks no matter what techniques are in use, or how proficient we are in using them.

And any one of us can be careless - when we are tired after a long trip, when we are exposed to other dangers and need to sort something out quickly etc. These are times when mistakes can happen to the best of us, and occasionally (rarely I would argue) such an error can lead to civil liability proceedings. But this is why, as Mel says, we have and need the insurance.

What we don't need is a set of hard and fast dos and don'ts which, while attempting to clarify a difficult situation, could have the reverse effect.

 

[cap n chris]

What we don't need is a set of hard and fast dos and don'ts which, while attempting to clarify a difficult situation, could have the reverse effect.

Indeed, but who was suggesting such a thing?

 

[owd git]

Anyway, back to caving matters, SRT is only safer than ladders if the person knows what they are doing and preferably supervised by somebody who does. I know of at least 2 people who didn't clip their Petzl Stop onto the rope properly and almost fell to their deaths. One was on Slit Pot in  Swinsto or Simpson Pot. (Can't remember which cave it's in now, it's been a while since I was last up the Dales.) They were only saved by a companion grabbing them before they fell. Scary.


No cows tails? no full lock off then test? 
O.G.

 

[cavermark]

Anyway, back to caving matters, SRT is only safer than ladders if the person knows what they are doing and preferably supervised by somebody who does.

..and ladders are only safe if the person has had appropriate training and supervision...

 

[cavermark]

By the way I did not say 'sanctioned', I deliberately used the word 'condoned' given the constitutions of most clubs usually aim to promote caving.  A useful way of thinking about this is to consider what the club's reaction would be if a member along with  non members found a major new system?

I think lots of digs have benefitted from the ability to bring random people along, especially surface ones. Jrat used to be a master of talking people into things who he had just met in the pub or his shop. He even persuaded such people to drive 600miles to dig in Scotland on occasion.  I have roped various housemates/climbing mates/girlfriends etc. into occasional digs - I think if I had asked them to join a club and pay for insurance for such one-time ventures I would have been digging alone.  I've assumed that if there was an incident then my BCA insurance would cover them on the "taster trip" basis.
But should some kind of paperwork been in place to formalise this?
Also, what if it's not a specific "club" dig, or I'm a direct individual member....?

 

[badger]

think my understanding of all this so far is, that for "taster trips" you will be covered if it hits the fan, if you can prove you took all necessary precautions, from weather forecast, right equipment, to the trip is suitable for everyone.
the next question is how many taster trips should one undertake before you then get the necessary insurance? or as been suggested there is many a caver who caves without. (is that wise?)

 

[Pitlamp]

Anyway, back to caving matters, SRT is only safer than ladders if the person knows what they are doing and preferably supervised by somebody who does.

..and ladders are only safe if the person has had appropriate training and supervision...

Really? Do we discount the ability of intelligent people to obtain the necessary information and work it out for themselves?

The generation which brought SRT to mainstream British caving did exactly that - before the term "SRT" was thought of.

Going down the road of thinking people "have to be trained" in everything in life is a very dangerous journey. It's a mindset which needs eliminating from the caving insurance equation.

 

[al]

At another time, and in another world, I was for quite a few years the General Secretary of the national body of a sport which takes place over the hills and mountains of this country, and which is classed by many insurers as an inherently dangerous activity. As a responsible body, we provided an annual handbook which, as well as listing events, also had a list of things to do to make the sport as safe as possible.

At a meeting at UK Athletics, a spokesman for our insurers mentioned that he had a problem with our Safety Rules. Thinking that he was going to say that they didn't go far enough, I asked what the issue was. He replied that it was only the sentence right at the head of the list which said that failure to comply with these rules would invalidate the insurance.

"You can't say that," he told me. "It's the very reason why you have the insurance - to take care of financial loss incurred by an event organiser who fails to take the proper precautions."

I just thought I'd contribute this to the discussion, as there are a lot of similarities here.

Of course he went on to say that Insurance is a statistical game, and that this wasn't a green light for people to take short cuts with safety; lots of claims would eventually result in an increase in the price of the policy.

 

[nickwilliams]

Blimey, you lot can't half make a meal of things!

Stop worrying about insurance. Focus instead on whether what you do is safe enough, and if it's not then do something about it.

And, BTW, what Al said above is exactly the point I was making in my last post!

 

[Bottlebank]

Blimey, you lot can't half make a meal of things!

Stop worrying about insurance. Focus instead on whether what you do is safe enough, and if it's not then do something about it.

And, BTW, what Al said above is exactly the point I was making in my last post!

 

[nickwilliams]

the next question is how many taster trips should one undertake before you then get the necessary insurance?

... cover will be provided for up to four taster trips...

 

[cavermark]

Anyway, back to caving matters, SRT is only safer than ladders if the person knows what they are doing and preferably supervised by somebody who does.

..and ladders are only safe if the person has had appropriate training and supervision...

Really? Do we discount the ability of intelligent people to obtain the necessary information and work it out for themselves?

The generation which brought SRT to mainstream British caving did exactly that - before the term "SRT" was thought of.

Going down the road of thinking people "have to be trained" in everything in life is a very dangerous journey. It's a mindset which needs eliminating from the caving insurance equation.

I was making the point that foolproof use ladders and lifeline benefits from some "instruction", just as SRT does. Maybe there's less to learn but there's still some stuff to learn.
Which is better - give a newby a rope and ladder and send them off to a pitch...  or you (or someone that knows what they are doing) go along with them to show them? Will they instinctively know what to do if the ladder climber gets stuck or exhausted (which does happen with novices)?
Were you never shown how to lifeline or body belay?
This is what I'm suggesting by "trained and supervised" (ie. your mate that knows what he is doing shows you how on your first caving trip).  Maybe you learnt from a book - this is still instruction (self-instruction). 

I'm not saying that training/supervision should be enforced, just recommended. Learning by trial and error after picking up an electron ladder from somewhere might well work ok, but it's not guaranteed.

 

[cavermark]

Blimey, you lot can't half make a meal of things!

Stop worrying about insurance.

..but it's more interesting discussing this than doing what I'm meant to be doing... 

 

[Bottlebank]

Blimey, you lot can't half make a meal of things!

Stop worrying about insurance.

..but it's more interesting discussing this than doing what I'm meant to be doing... 

I have to confess that you lot have probably been subjected to too many posts from me for the same reason, sorry!