Offical groups - Usefull or Pain in the arse

[Brendan]

How about I make a group called the BWA (British Walking Association) and charge people to go walking, on say national trust land? Provide insurence to walkers then encourage national trust to block people access unless they have BWA insurence. What is the difference?

The difference is that you are aloowed to go on the National Trust land anyway - it is a body open to the public. There is no obligation for landowners to open their private land to anyone. If a national body organises access then you should surely be a bit grateful, not bitter about having to pay a, to be honest, fairly small fee for insurance.

And as for why you need to have insurance - yes, it may not be claimed on, but it is there in case. Not everyone with a house gets house insurance, but it is incredibly expensive if it burns down without cover. I don't think it is that unreasonable to pay £18/yr and thereby cover myself for being sued IF I accidently injure someone. However, this doesn't mean I will go and injure someone anyway, just because I am covered.

 

[darkplaces]

But what about the people who dont want to join a club? - you hate them dont you. You all hate them :shock:

 

[SamT]

:troll:

:wink:

 

[Vance]

If you don't like clubs then why don't you join the BCA insurance scheme as an individual member?

 

[paul]

If your not part of a group and ask someone for permission (eg english nature) for access they say no. Indipendant groups are excluded.

Why do I need insurence? Why dont cyclists need insurence? Why dont walkers need insurence? Why dont swimmers need insurence, what makes caving different that it needs insurence, dont tell me risks, we know walking accross the road is more risky then caving.

Cyclists have permission to cycle on the public highway, bridleways, etc.
Walkers have permission to walk on pubic rights of way and areas designated as open access. Swimmers can swim in most rivers, lakes, etc. (not many reservoirs)

The reason that cavers may need insurance to go caving is because you have no right to enter a cave on land owned by somebody else, even if there is a Public Right of Way (or the entrance is located on Access Land as determined by the recent CROW regulations).

You will need the landowner's permission to enter the cave. Some landowners are very amenable and you can turn up at anytime and go down the cave (say Knotlow Cavern or Eldon Hole, in the Peak). Some landowners require you ask permission for each trip (P8 or Giants Hole). Some landowners stipulate that you are a member of a recognised representative organistion and have third-party liability insurance (Peak Cavern, many caves on Chatsworth Estate land).

The reason why you have the option of visiting many of these caves and mines, both in the Peak and elsewhere is because somebody, as a volunteer in one of your despised beaurocracies, has arranged it with the landowner on your behalf and continues to have discussions with landowners whenever there is a threat to access. You don't normally hear about all this work quietly going on in the background until access is withdrawn.

For example, recently the new landowner of a farm which has the entrance to a major Derbyshire cave was being *strongly* advised by his solicitior to prevent further access in case of liability problems. The action of the regional caving body for the area, involving meeting the new owner, has luckily made hime happy to continue to allow access.

Don't join a club if you don't want to - nobody is forcing you to. Don't join a representative organisation either. Forget insurance and just cave where you want to and sod everybody else. Ignore all the work being carried out voluntarily by cavers on your behalf. That's your option. BUT do not moan if you want to visit a cave or mine and you are not allowed to because the landowner has decided to withdraw permission and block the entrance permanently.

 

[pisshead]

Don't join a club if you don't want to - nobody is forcing you to. Don't join a representative organisation either. Forget insurance and just cave where you want to and sod everybody else. Ignore all the work being carried out voluntarily by cavers on your behalf. That's your option. BUT do not moan if you want to visit a cave or mine and you are not allowed to because the landowner has decided to withdraw permission and block the entrance permanently.

well said

and well said sam T...

...we don't hate you...i think maybe you should just think your arguments through a little more before you kick off an almightly fight!

 

[graham]

To clarify one of the points made earlier: When the old BCRA policy was withdrawn and before the new BCA one was put in place, some caves on Mendip were indeed closed. This was because those caves are owned by the caving group concerned (they have a 150 year lease on them). Thus for that period the cavers concerned would have been in deep shit if anything had happened in those caves during that period.

Not a risk that was worth taking.

 

[rich]

Tell us, where are all these gated caves.

South Wales :roll:

 

[Vance]

To clarify one of the points made earlier: When the old BCRA policy was withdrawn and before the new BCA one was put in place, some caves on Mendip were indeed closed. This was because those caves are owned by the caving group concerned (they have a 150 year lease on them).

Which caves were they?

I know that St. Cuthberts was closed but I thought that was due to it being a leader cave (please, nobody start on needing leaders to go caving) and that since the leaders had no insurance they were unwilling to be responsible for anyone (fair enough.)

As far as caves being gated, the only reason caves are gated is to meet landowner access requirements (such as OFD which is a nature reserve because of the cave) or when the cave is in an actively being dug and there are considerable liability issues placed on the diggers (re: Titan)

 

[Huw Groucutt]

the only reason caves are gated is to meet landowner access requirements

Not really, conservation and preventing unecessary rescues are also very important issues

 

[Getwet]

Having read all these posts I have changed my mind !

As many have pointed out cave access is very different to public rights of way on fells and acess to river for canoeists and kayakers. It would be difficult for landowners to completly block acess to a river or a peak, however cave acess could be very easily blocked and lost forever.

I am off to join a caving club, if only to help support all the good work thays being done out there

 

[Mine Explorer]

...Nenthead is amazing, big gates on the mines, no locks access for all as long as you can lift the gate this is how it should be, I would be happy to contribute if only I didnt HAVE to join a group to do so. ...

Glad you find Nenthead so wonderful, the reason I've arrived here a little late is because I've just had a week's holiday up there!

Of course, I'm sure you're already aware that although the gates are unlocked, there are still access agreements to abide to. The NPHT (North Pennies Heritage Trust) hold the lease for the land outside the main entrances (Smallcleugh, Rampgill, Capelcleugh, Hodgsons High Level/Low Level etc. etc.) and charge a £1 access fee for explorers (who aren't NPHT members) to cross their land to the entrance. Of course, if you go underground at Nenthead more than nine times a year it makes financial sense to join the Trust! (unless you object to that as well.) I think you'll also find that the NPHT have a lease on the mineral rights (which are still held by the Catholic Trust) and the collection of minerals (in bulk or specimens) is not allowed... not that it stops visitors hacking the place apart - that's club visitors as well as independant explorers.

You'll also be aware that the NPHT have also requested visitors have suitable insurance (not limited to BCRA/BCA, but equivalent sort of thing), although I note that this aspect doesn't seem to be mentioned/requested much this year?? It certainly has been in the past.

Just goes to show that even your idea of bliss, gated entrances without locks, require visitors to pay a charge to get in (unless you join their trust - which I am BTW.) and certainly until very recently requested that visitors have insurance.

All mines are owned by someone and entry without permission is tresspass. Some owners don't mind, many owners are unknown and the closest alternative is the land owner - who doesn't mind. But if the 'owner' places conditions on entry then that's their prerogative. The owner has no way of knowing if you as an independant explorer will trash the place or be responsible, they don't know your experience level and have no way of knowing if you'll kill yourself as soon as you set foot underground. In the absence of any information it's not unreasonable for a concerned 'owner' to only allow access to 'official' clubs and organisations. These offer the landowner some reasurance that you know what you're doing and are going to be responsible - a club has a reputation, an unknown independant explorer is 'unknown'.

 

[cap n chris]

... someone comes along and gates an entrance for no good reason then demands money (via BCA TAX)"

No good reason? - I think not. Perhaps you've failed to notice that society has changed - people sue at the drop of a hat (haven't you seen the TV adverts for ambulance chasing solicitors?). There's such a thing as "duty of care" and anyone can owe this to another person. An organisation which fails to secure potentially dangerous sites is liable to be sued since in the event of an accident it could be claimed that the duty of care (to keep people out of harm's way) had been breached.

In the past (when accidents happened and "acts of God" occurred) this wasn't an issue. Nowadays it is.

Also, in the case of the mines you mention you'll find another "good reason" to gate the sites is to protect the bat population - a species which has dwindled sufficiently for the gene pool to be seriously at risk from in-breeding. (But let's not mention in-breeding too much as a cap may be found to fit).
:wink:

The "demands money" bit is usually directly linked to the gating - gates and padlocks get vandalised by people trying to force an entry; the small charge which is usually levvied goes towards defraying the costs of replacing gates/padlocks which have been damaged. C'est la vie!

 

[Dai Trace]

Cavers should be aware that landowners really have little to fear from accidents in caves. In the UIAA Mountaineering Commission report of the Legal Experts Working Group on Current Liability Issues Relating To Mountain Sports (June 2002), Paul Debney (BMC Hon Legal Advisor) asserts:

"In the UK there is no liability from a landowner to a third party for injury caused by natural hazards"

Track down this report on the web and read it. One of the other authors is Tony Rich, another BMC solicitor, who also helps cave rescue in the UK. Sadly the BCA has other legal counsel, who seem to have given them some very duff advice in the past.

 

[bubba]

The report is here for anyone interested:

Microsoft Word Document Format

 

[cap n chris]

Many thanks to Dai Trace (shurely shome mishtake?) for bringing to our attention the existence of this useful report (and to Bubba for creating the link). It appears that, contrary to my uneducated previous assertion, the mines Darkplaces bemoans may be locked entirely to protect the resident bat populace and not to limit any likelihood (apparently without support from legislation) of someone placing a claim against the landowning organisation. However, it is perhaps worth noting that the same report includes the following paragraphs which appear to support both my and Darkplaces previous comments on this topic, viz:


"We have no evidence that the risk of climbers having to pay compensation if, by their own fault, they injured others has yet had any significant impact on mountain sports. In practice the financial consequences of findings of civil liability can usually be dealt with by insurance and many member associations provide this to their members as one of the benefits of membership. Nevertheless vigilance is needed to prevent the spread of a “culture of blame” and to create a judicial climate in which the risks of the sport are recognised.

The problem becomes more complicated because many jurisdictions are increasingly imposing strict liability (that is responsibility for paying compensation even though there is no fault) on occupiers of land and public authorities (or requiring only minimal “fault”). It is of increasing importance that participants are informed of the nature and extent of the risks; the doctrine of informed consent.

At the same time land owners and public authorities often perceive the risk to themselves from compensation claims (or in France criminal prosecutions) arising out of mountain sports as being greater than it actually is and this leads them to needlessly restrict access."

This all sounds pretty familiar territory to us cavers and despite Dai's quote from Paul Debney that "... there is no liability from a landowner to a third party blah blah blah etc..." the above paragraphs do acknowledge the understandable "paranoia" of groups wishing to place locks to entirely remove themselves from even the POTENTIAL for being on the receiving end of a lawsuit (whatever its likelihood, or not). Mind you, it is a nice quote from Mr. Debney and one well worth memorising for future reference when negotiating access to as yet undiscovered sites maybe.... but this obviously raises the question "what is natural?" - a man-dug entrance may fall foul of HSE regs? Perhaps this is another can of worms.

 

[Dai Trace]

Yes indeed! Another can of worms, but one which may well be kept contained by the defence in tort 'Volenti Non Fit Injuria' - the willing can't be injured. When cases do get to court, which is rare thanks to the interests of the insurers, the courts in England and Wales are pretty good at letting people take risks upon themselves. The Article in the last Descent about the case in Congleton illustrates this. The message is that if we all act reasonably in looking after each other, then we have little to fear from actions against us. That goes for all of us - cavers, clubs, landowners and politicians. The UIAA report has an interesting paragraph about the approach taken by climbers in the US - selected claims defended in the courts by lawyers outside the influence of the insurers have been successful in establishing legal precedents which understood the hazards of the sports and did not unnecessarily extend liability.

 

[cap n chris]

Yes, just read that bit. All very informative and useful.

But it did just occur to me that the opening topic itself is skewed - "Official Groups; useful or pain in the arse?".

Perhaps rather than being one OR the other they are in fact BOTH.

It wouldn't surprise me if the volunteers who work behind the scenes in these official groups probably find it more of a pain in the arse than the people on the receiving end of their efforts (but perhaps they continue to do whatever they can to make life better for their fellow woman/man - because they have a conscience and wish to help).

 

[Dai Trace]

I agree - the committees and politicos are probably well meaning most of the time ( I can think of one or two BCA council members who might be better off retired), and they do suffer for their efforts. A big part of the problem is that caving politics is as fundamentally dull as any other sort of administration, and people with spark are deterred from involvement by the endless talk about structure, while cavers are pretty much in the dark about the good things which our national body might be doing for us.

 

[cap n chris]

It helps being retired since you need a lot of time to read all the minutes, reports, voting proposals and then attend relentless waves of meetings, symposia, EGMs, AGMs, general meetings et al. It is possibly the case that any sport which has an umbrella administrative organisation behind the scenes automatically attracts the retired, armchair practitioners who have the inclination, enthusiasm (and patience and tolerance) to engage in the dotting of i's and the crossing of t's. They probably need support as much as anyone else.

One thing which came to mind, in a sinister moment today, was the fleeting thought that UK caving seems to have more than its fair share of misery-guts; do other activities attract as many misanthropes? It would be nice to have this proved wrong!