Most Ridiculous Bullshit You Have Ever Heard?

csproul wrote:Who told you to use the balm!? I didn't tell you to use the balm!

Nice!

awesome , this thread just got ten times better with the Jackie Chiles reference ...

20 kN wrote:Even though suing outdoor landowners for climbing-related injuries is pretty much unheard of in the USA,

I know IL has the same problem so I don't think it's that unheard of.

I still remember when McDonald's sold coffee in those flimsy-ass styrofoam cups, the main change was not in the temperature but in the packaging.

Suing landowners for climbing related injuries unheard of? Yes.

Suing landowners for injuries stemming from doing stupid shit on their property? No.

I can see how a landowner (especially a non-climber) might worry.

Why the state of Hawaii cares, I have no idea.

Ryan Watts wrote:Suing landowners for climbing related injuries unheard of? Yes. Suing landowners for injuries stemming from doing stupid shit on their property? No. I can see how a landowner (especially a non-climber) might worry. Why the state of Hawaii cares, I have no idea.

Just a guess--but consider that Hawaii is in fact a landowner.
The blanket statement that "you can't sue the government" is wrong--various levels of government are involved in all kinds of lawsuits (as defendants as well as plaintiffs). (The legal jargon is generally "sovereign immunity," and it may in fact be impossible to sue the government in some contexts and may "change the rules," a little or a lot, in other contexts.)

As I learned when I looked into the details, McDonalds lost the suit because there was an extensive paper trail that documented numerous warnings from both inside and outside the company that their coffee was WAY too hot and was in fact an accident waiting to happen. IIRC their own internal lawyers said it was an unsafe product. That's what did them in. And yea, it was at least 50 degrees hotter than anything that the human body can ingest.

Gunkiemike wrote:As I learned when I looked into the details, McDonalds lost the suit because there was an extensive paper trail that documented numerous warnings from both inside and outside the company that their coffee was WAY too hot and was in fact an accident waiting to happen. IIRC their own internal lawyers said it was an unsafe product. That's what did them in. And yea, it was at least 50 degrees hotter than anything that the human body can ingest.

In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards.[2] An "admittedly unscientific" survey by the LA Times that year found that coffee was served between 157 and 182 °F, and that two locations tested served hotter coffee than McDonald's.[27]
Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80–90 °C (176–194 °F),[28] relying on more sternly-worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.[28][29] The Specialty Coffee Association supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases.[30] Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C). Retailers today sell coffee as hot or hotter than the coffee that burned Stella Liebeck.

This is pretty absurd. Don't see surfers (I do surf, know the culture and community well) ever suing the state over injuries and someone drowns nearly every year at least. Seems like absolute crap, but also seems like it could be fought with this argument pretty easily.

The state of Hawaii has seen lawsuit after lawsuit due to injuries and death on many of its hiking trails. The general course of action is that someone gets hurt or killed, the news reports on it, litigation lawyers approach the family and offer to take the case pro bono promising a large settlement, the family takes them up, and the state loses a bunch of money. The core of the problem comes from the fact that the state assumes complete liability for all activities on their land. They have very limited protections. So, unfortunately, they have just cause to believe that someone could sue them as a result of a rock climbing incident. To make matters worse, the climbing incident in question came weeks after a $15 million settlement due to the deaths of two visiting hikers.

One of the bigger reasons that Hawaii does not have comprehensive liability protections is that many of the politicians are litigation attorneys. These are the people making money off of these liability issues. As a result, they are none too eager to create legislation that puts an end to their cash cow.

The surfing analogy has been a helpful argument, but it's not enough. Hawaii is a world class surfing destination. To ban surfing would result in a huge drop off in tourism. It's economic suicide. On the other hand, very few people climb in Hawaii, and even fewer visit Hawaii to climb. So the economic argument falls a bit flat as well.

The argument that seems to be resonating is that Hawaii cannot afford to be without liability protections. Also, continually closing trails and restricting activities will result in a drop in tourism. A lot of different communities (hikers, mountain bikers, hang gliders, etc.) are standing together to push this reform through for their own interests as well. It's a beautiful place, and being able to be out in nature is one of the key features to lviing/visiting there.

All this to say, trespassing on state lands (which is what accessing the climbing areas is considered now) should not be a worse crime than drunk driving. But whoever said that politics was supposed to make sense.

What's up Slayer. Nice to see someone shining some light on the climbing access issue in Hawaii.

I clicked on this forum link thinking it would feature stupid things like what I said to my partner looking up at the DNB in 1976:

'Oh we'll get up this thing today ... '

Some factors you may not think of

- People giving Hawaiian Police shit when their car gets broken into (just like tourists & surfers) we had our car broken into at Mokuleia Wall and two hikers as well and they were super rude to the Cops

- Surfing doesn't require adding bolts(Human addition to Hawaiian land = potential insurance issues to their mind) If you ride/skate/etc. There were a few incidents cops got pissed about that

- most people (lawmakers,etc) in Hawaii know next to nothing about climbing & most organizations don't give a shit about it. Alex Honnold on NatGeo and some lady falling seems pretty sketchy if you think about it and that is how the little group of rocks view it.

- My friend does Invasive species work on the island and Climbers (along with backpackers) are seen as a big headache in their minds. We carry a bunch of shit into the woods and normally don't clean it off how they would like.

You should have those magazines that blew up the Hawaiian climbing help spread the word on this law & get access fund in line. (Look at the problems Surfing had there with locals when shit got published) To them a bunch of Haloes climbing Lava rock seems dangerous and they didn't wanna deal, Gotta stick it to the White Man somehow...

But yes it is a giant load of BS and it makes me miss that place a bit less.

Alicia Sokolowski wrote: It was a 79 year old lady, not a guy. She needed skin grafts and 2 years of medical treatments after receiving thrid degree burns to 6% of her body. The crux of the lawsuit was that McDonald's coffee was significantly hotter than any other sold by similar chains, and that level of damage would not have occurred in another fast food restaurant. McDonald's lowered the temperature at which their coffee is served to meet industry norms after the lawsuit. But yeah, we all get that it sounds silly.

The NYTs did a Retro Report on that incident recently. I was young at the time and remember how it was portrayed. If you watch the retro report you see it very differently and feel for the poor woman. Awful injuries and crazy temps.

Christian wrote: Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C),

I'm calling BS on that. You can't get hot coffee from Starbucks. Luke warm, yes. But not hot. Starbucks sucks.

Sounds like you guys are right, climbing is out. Why any recreational activity is still permitted is beyond me.

good luck with it.

I used to be a manager at a McDonalds... I like their coffee once it's cool enough to drink, but seriously... I remember when we had to adjust the temperature of our coffee brewer, we lowered it from like 203F to 194F. I don't understand why coffee ever needs to be that hot. I had minor burns on my hands on multiple occasions from coffee spilling over the edge of the cup when preparing it for a customer.

Also, Dunkin Donuts coffee is also absurdly hot too from my experience. If I get breakfast there, I eat the food, wait 30 minutes, and then finally I can start to barely sip my coffee (I drink mine black which exacerbates the issue)

20kn you said they "effectively" banned climbing on "most" crags. This seems open to interpretation. What article are you referencing? When I read the OP, I take away that climbing isn't banned every where.

That being said as a scuba diver and a climber I can say without a doubt that diving is way more dangerous than climbing and more people are killed rather than hurt in diving. I imagine it's the same with surfing. These sports don't usually produce injuries but rather death. Anyway this argument has already been brought up. Sad story.

"I find that most (not all) of the folks who claim tricams are esentual do not climb very hard;)"

Said every 4th grader everywhere...

Although, this situation is nowhere near as jacked as cell proliferation from inactive GSK-3B not phosphorylating B-catenin due to excess Wnt signaling from our intestinal crypts. That is some ridiculous bullshit.

Good thing it mostly targets lawyers, from Hawaii.