Tuber (Tubular belay device): Difference between revisions

Line 139:

Assisted belay devices, on the other hand, offer an additional layer of security, as the device itself can often stop a fall even if the break hand is not on position. This can reduce the likelihood of accidents. At the same time, the added security may also allow incorrect handling to go unnoticed and, over time, weaken safe habits as seen even among experienced users.<ref name=grigri_coach>{{Cite AV media | author=Hard is Easy | date=2 March 2025 | title=Coach Nearly Kills Pro Climber – GriGri Incident Analysis | url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBGkKqLhM8Y | publisher=Hard is Easy | access-date=31 August 2025}}</ref>

The German Alpine Club (DAV) study from 2016 once again indicated more accidents with non-assisted tubular devices than with assisted devices, though most accidents were still traced back to incorrect use (burned hands).<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.alpenverein.de/files/kletterhallen-unfallstatistik-2016.pdf | title=Kletterhallenunfallstatistik 2016 | publisher=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author1=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author2=KLEVER Kletterhallenverbandes | website=alpenverein.de | date=September 22, 2017 | access-date=31 August 2025}}</ref> Following these findings, gyms and clubs in Germany and the Netherlands began to strongly recommend assisted belay devices, or even banned the non-assisted ones. Yet, for instance a study conducted in 2019 year showed that Megajul is statistically more dangerous than a tubular device.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.alpenverein.de/files/kletterhallenunfallstatistik-2019.pdf | title=Kletterhallenunfallstatistik 2019 | publisher=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author1=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author2=KLEVER Kletterhallenverbandes | website=alpenverein.de | date=November 5, 2020 | access-date=31 August 2025}}</ref> ~~This was~~ obviously caused by a very small sample size of accidents~~. However~~, ~~this might illustrate~~ that user experience and handling technique may matter more than the device type. Affordability may also play a role, as non-assisted devices might have been chosen by newcomers as a starter option. As newcomers are less experienced, it is therefore reasonable to expect that they have a higher accident risk. Also in the same study, it has been shown that during bouldering there is approximately 10 times higher chance of an accident needing an ambulance when compared to a climbing hall, showing climbing is a generally safer option.

The German Alpine Club (DAV) study from 2016 once again indicated more accidents with non-assisted tubular devices than with assisted devices, though most accidents were still traced back to incorrect use (burned hands).<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.alpenverein.de/files/kletterhallen-unfallstatistik-2016.pdf | title=Kletterhallenunfallstatistik 2016 | publisher=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author1=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author2=KLEVER Kletterhallenverbandes | website=alpenverein.de | date=September 22, 2017 | access-date=31 August 2025}}</ref> Following these findings, gyms and clubs in Germany and the Netherlands began to strongly recommend assisted belay devices, or even banned the non-assisted ones. Yet, for instance a study conducted in 2019 year showed that Megajul is statistically more dangerous than a non-assisted tubular device.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.alpenverein.de/files/kletterhallenunfallstatistik-2019.pdf | title=Kletterhallenunfallstatistik 2019 | publisher=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author1=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author2=KLEVER Kletterhallenverbandes | website=alpenverein.de | date=November 5, 2020 | access-date=31 August 2025}}</ref> While this is obviously caused by a very small sample size of accidents, it shows that user experience and handling technique may matter more than the device type. Affordability may also play a role, as non-assisted devices might have been chosen by newcomers as a starter option. As newcomers are less experienced, it is therefore reasonable to expect that they have a higher accident risk. Also in the same study, it has been shown that during bouldering there is approximately 10 times higher chance of an accident needing an ambulance when compared to a climbing hall, showing climbing is a generally safer option.

Different alpine clubs highlight different aspects. For instance the education commission of the Czech Alpine Club (ČHS),<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.horosvaz.cz/res/archive/550/093301.pdf | title=Doporučení pro použití jistítek ve výuce (recommendation for using belay devices in teaching) | publisher=Český horolezecký svaz | first1=Břetislav | last1=Brodský | first2=Jiří | last2=Vogel | first3=Michael | last3=Hron | first4=Lukáš | last4=Tkáč | first5=Karel | last5=Kříž | first6=Michaela | last6=Adámková | website=Horosvaz.cz | date=13 August 2024 |access-date=31 August 2025}}</ref> highlights non-assisted devices for the way they build good habits, yet at the same time recommends assisted devices operated in a same way as the non-assisted ones for youth and newcomers.

@@ Line 139: / Line 139: @@
 Assisted belay devices, on the other hand, offer an additional layer of security, as the device itself can often stop a fall even if the break hand is not on position. This can reduce the likelihood of accidents. At the same time, the added security may also allow incorrect handling to go unnoticed and, over time, weaken safe habits as seen even among experienced users.<ref name=grigri_coach>{{Cite AV media | author=Hard is Easy | date=2 March 2025 | title=Coach Nearly Kills Pro Climber – GriGri Incident Analysis | url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBGkKqLhM8Y | publisher=Hard is Easy | access-date=31 August 2025}}</ref>
-The German Alpine Club (DAV) study from 2016 once again indicated more accidents with non-assisted tubular devices than with assisted devices, though most accidents were still traced back to incorrect use (burned hands).<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.alpenverein.de/files/kletterhallen-unfallstatistik-2016.pdf | title=Kletterhallenunfallstatistik 2016 | publisher=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author1=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author2=KLEVER Kletterhallenverbandes | website=alpenverein.de | date=September 22, 2017 | access-date=31 August 2025}}</ref> Following these findings, gyms and clubs in Germany and the Netherlands began to strongly recommend assisted belay devices, or even banned the non-assisted ones. Yet, for instance a study conducted in 2019 year showed that Megajul is statistically more dangerous than a tubular device.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.alpenverein.de/files/kletterhallenunfallstatistik-2019.pdf | title=Kletterhallenunfallstatistik 2019 | publisher=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author1=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author2=KLEVER Kletterhallenverbandes | website=alpenverein.de | date=November 5, 2020 | access-date=31 August 2025}}</ref> This was obviously caused by a very small sample size of accidents. However, this might illustrate that user experience and handling technique may matter more than the device type. Affordability may also play a role, as non-assisted devices might have been chosen by newcomers as a starter option. As newcomers are less experienced, it is therefore reasonable to expect that they have a higher accident risk. Also in the same study, it has been shown that during bouldering there is approximately 10 times higher chance of an accident needing an ambulance when compared to a climbing hall, showing climbing is a generally safer option.
+The German Alpine Club (DAV) study from 2016 once again indicated more accidents with non-assisted tubular devices than with assisted devices, though most accidents were still traced back to incorrect use (burned hands).<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.alpenverein.de/files/kletterhallen-unfallstatistik-2016.pdf | title=Kletterhallenunfallstatistik 2016 | publisher=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author1=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author2=KLEVER Kletterhallenverbandes | website=alpenverein.de | date=September 22, 2017 | access-date=31 August 2025}}</ref> Following these findings, gyms and clubs in Germany and the Netherlands began to strongly recommend assisted belay devices, or even banned the non-assisted ones. Yet, for instance a study conducted in 2019 year showed that Megajul is statistically more dangerous than a non-assisted tubular device.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.alpenverein.de/files/kletterhallenunfallstatistik-2019.pdf | title=Kletterhallenunfallstatistik 2019 | publisher=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author1=Deutschen Alpenverein (DAV) | author2=KLEVER Kletterhallenverbandes | website=alpenverein.de | date=November 5, 2020 | access-date=31 August 2025}}</ref> While this is obviously caused by a very small sample size of accidents, it shows that user experience and handling technique may matter more than the device type. Affordability may also play a role, as non-assisted devices might have been chosen by newcomers as a starter option. As newcomers are less experienced, it is therefore reasonable to expect that they have a higher accident risk. Also in the same study, it has been shown that during bouldering there is approximately 10 times higher chance of an accident needing an ambulance when compared to a climbing hall, showing climbing is a generally safer option.
 Different alpine clubs highlight different aspects. For instance the education commission of the Czech Alpine Club (ČHS),<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.horosvaz.cz/res/archive/550/093301.pdf | title=Doporučení pro použití jistítek ve výuce (recommendation for using belay devices in teaching) | publisher=Český horolezecký svaz | first1=Břetislav | last1=Brodský | first2=Jiří | last2=Vogel | first3=Michael | last3=Hron | first4=Lukáš | last4=Tkáč | first5=Karel | last5=Kříž | first6=Michaela | last6=Adámková | website=Horosvaz.cz | date=13 August 2024 |access-date=31 August 2025}}</ref> highlights non-assisted devices for the way they build good habits, yet at the same time recommends assisted devices operated in a same way as the non-assisted ones for youth and newcomers.