Paul Walker.

[Incandenza]

Paul Walker.

kevchenko wrote: Not sure what you mean by it wasn't 'really true in this particular case'? How was he not endangering other people? He was flooring a ton of metal around a public road, not a racetrack.

By "he," I assume you mean Walker's friend, and not Walker himself.

[alyxandr]

Paul Walker.

kevchenko wrote: Pedestrians and cyclists don't have crumple zones, side impact panels and air bags.

Well, i've got a fairly good-sized front impact panel, and i'm pretty sure most of me would be a crumple zone.

[WOM]

Paul Walker.

I guess we just differ on this one, Reed. When I read about a free climber falling to his death, I see a guy who lived the way he wanted and died the way he pretty much knew he would (but, of course, hoped he wouldn't). And their family, while devastated, usually says something along the lines of "he died doing what he loved" etc etc.

To me, tragic is when someone minding their own business gets killed by neglect or stupidity (or disease) through nothing they precipitated or could have anticipated.

[Calvert]

Paul Walker.

The Awesome Berbaslug!!! wrote:

Sooner or later you're going to listen to Ralph Nader.
I don't want to cause a fuss, but fast cars are so dangerous.
Fast cars. Fast cars. I hate fast cars.

I can't imagine that that buzzcocks song went down well in the north, what with doing handbrake turns in ford fiesta vans with the muffler removed being the favourite pastime of nordie males, and the one thing that reaches across the sectarian divide.

That and buckfast and heavily adulterated recreational drugs.

Hahaha.

That's right, there's no car crime in Tipperary because you can't hotwire a donkey and you've already hoovered up all the drugs.

Obsessed, you are.

[Borracho]

Paul Walker.

Not that he'll care now, wherever he is, but why is Walker getting stick when he wasn't even driving the bloody car?

[WOM]

Paul Walker.

Honest answer? Because, in this case, it almost feels like a technicality who was behind the wheel. Both were complicit.

Unless - which is possible - Walker was shouting "slow down, slow down, let me out" as they rocketed down a city street, all Fast & Furious-like. Which is possible, you see.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Paul Walker.

Hahaha.

That's right, there's no car crime in Tipperary because you can't hotwire a donkey and you've already hoovered up all the drugs.

Obsessed, you are.

are you actually seriously going to argue that Ulster doesn't have a huge boy racer problem, particularly in comparison with the rest of the island?

[Calvert]

Paul Walker.

Piss off, moonhead.

[Reed John]

Paul Walker.

I guess we just differ on this one, Reed. When I read about a free climber falling to his death, I see a guy who lived the way he wanted and died the way he pretty much knew he would (but, of course, hoped he wouldn't). And their family, while devastated, usually says something along the lines of "he died doing what he loved" etc etc.

I've heard all of that, but that strikes me as terribly irresponsible for somebody who has friends and family, especially if that family includes children. A spouse usually knew what they were getting into when they got married, but a kid can't chose their parents.

To me, tragic is when someone minding their own business gets killed by neglect or stupidity (or disease) through nothing they precipitated or could have anticipated.

We usually use it that way now, but that's not what it means historically.

That reminds me. I recall that when pope John Paul died a few years ago, I was watching -- I think it was a US World Cup qualifier -- and it caused stuff on ABC to be pushed onto ESPN2, I think. I can't recall those details. But the commentator mentioned, more than once, the "tragic" death of the pope. The guy was very old and it was hardly a surprise. That definitely stretches the term "tragic" way too far.

[Moonlight Shadow]

Paul Walker.

Not entirely sure you can bag together reckless idiots who drive very fast and potentially kill others than themselves with,say, a free climber who does his/her thing without any danger to others?

Why do it? I guess there is a line of risk taking and we all have our place on it, some are very cautious by nature, some see no issue with climbing a huge cliff without any protection, a lot more might be in the middle.

In my own limited experience of taking a chance on technically easy but exposed rock scrambles, I never thought(in an existential pondering kind of way, of course I was thinking, hard) about what I was doing whilst on the act. Before, yes, you look at the climb, you see what potential issues lie ahead but during, you just on occasion look down to a nice drop that would certainly kill you but it barely registers as you are focused on what you are doing and you know you have the know-how to achieve it and that focus on not screwing up your moves will keep you alive...

Afterwards, well, it's a huge bag of mixed feelings from elation to "how stupide can you get to do that, last time..."....

[Reed John]

Paul Walker.

I'm not bagging those two things together at all. This was a one-car accident in an empty business park on a Saturday. But even if it wasn't, that's not really what I'm talking about anyway.

Doing something dangerous while doing what you can to make it less dangerous is not the same as getting a thrill out of cheating death. It may be that in order to do the thing you really want to do - go very fast, climb K2, ski the Olympic downhill - you must accept the risk, but that's not the same as getting a thrill out of skirting death itself.

Free climbing strikes me as risking death for the sake of risking death. Otherwise, why not use protection? Are there climbs that can only be done without ropes? I've never heard of that.*

I hate to be a dick about it, but in my world, risking death like that is not fair to the people who will be shattered when you're dead. It's not really even fair to the people who are worried sick the whole time you're doing it.

*I'm not totally ignorant on this topic. I have friends who are into climbing. I tried climbing a bit and still have the shoes and the harness. I didn't like it. All of the ropes and stuff are expensive and a hassle. I only ever tried "top-roping" and it seemed like about 50% of the time we spent at the rock was spent setting up the top rope. I imagine doing it properly with those things you jam into rocks would raise raise the cost astronomically and raise the risk of injury a lot.

I did enjoy bouldering. That's most of the physical challenge bit none of the hassle and a lot less of the risk and cost. However, I'm built all wrong for it. I don't think there is any possible version of my body that would be suitable for it.

[Moonlight Shadow]

Paul Walker.

I gather from interviews with free-climbers that it's all about the purity of the climb, complete freedom etc. Not once have I heard one saying it was some kind of adrenaline thrill to defy death and just that. You'll simply have to accept that for some people risk-taking is something they push much further than you Reed and they do so for rather more complex reasons than a cheap thrill.

Are they horribly selfish? No more so than if someone told them that they must stop doing something they love or is an essential part of their being because they get upset at them doing it. You accept your loved ones, all take risks in their own way, be it by free-climbing mountains or eating a diet of junk-food and/or smoking, the couch potato is a risk-taker too you know!

Never lead or seconded a climb, my experience is strictly top-rope, can't remember spending that much time setting up the anchor really and once it's done, it's considerably faster than placing protection on the way. Mostly been indoors anyway so rope is there dangling, begging to be used... Found it a great way to enjoy the puzzle of a good climb without being concerned about injury (I'd be more concerned about injuring myself bouldering actually, strained myself badly jumping down once...)so I quickly went up higher and higher walls, a good way to do away with vertigo issues...

[Reed John]

Paul Walker.

I gather from interviews with free-climbers that it's all about the purity of the climb, complete freedom etc. Not once have I heard one saying it was some kind of adrenaline thrill to defy death and just that. You'll simply have to accept that for some people risk-taking is something they push much further than you Reed and they do so for rather more complex reasons than a cheap thrill.

That smells of bong-water, to be honest, because setting protection requires just as many technical skills and intense focus as actually climbing.

But I accept that it may be the case that the risk of death is not directly responsible for the allure. Still, the accounts I've seen explain that the total concentration necessitated by tbe zero margin for error is key to the thrill of it. There used to be a radio ad on in North Carolina - for God knows what - where Richard Petty said "If you're not a little scared, you're not going fast enough." Not sure how that sold tires or whatever, but I've heard others say similar things.

It may not be about spitting at death per se, but it wouldn't be the same if it weren't very dangerous. And in Rush, the James Hunt character tells us that chicks are attracted to dudes who have come close to death. I accept that may be bullshit.*

And I have no doubt that speed itself is addictive. Not the drug - although that too - but going really fast. Every race driver, extreme skiier, etc, I've ever heard interviewed describes it that way. Also, some people seem to have an uncontrollable competitive drive. I can't recall who it was, but one motorcycle rider (the road kind, not motocross) said, in effect, that he didn't really enjoy it anymore but couldn't stop doing it. If not being able to stop something you don't really like isn't mental illness than what is?

Are they horribly selfish? No more so than if someone told them that they must stop doing something they love or is an essential part of their being because they get upset at them doing it.

Even if it isn't flat out irresponsible, then at least I can say with certainty that I wouldn't want to be friends with somebody who did shit like that. If I needed any confirmation of that, I got it when I saw how my colleague/friend reacted when her brother was in a nasty speedway accident a while back. She was beside herself worrying about his wife and kids. How could anybody look into the eyes of their loved one and say that they just can't stop and/or tell them that there's simply nothing else that they want to live for?

Lots of people do manage to transition to safer activities. Nikki Lauda took up flying, for example. Not 100% safe, but safer.

I recognize that there's a gray area between what is acceptable risk and what is too much, but I just read that 30 climbers die in the alps each year. That strikes me as way unacceptable.

And, especially in the case of free-climbing, it's not just a selfish way to treat loved ones. It's a selfish way to treat the people who are going to have to fish your corpse out of the rocks at the bottom. Forest rangers, et al, don't get paid enough for that shit. If it were up to me, free-soloing would be banned in National Parks and forests (if it isn't already). We don't let people drive without a seatbelt, why is it their godgiven right to do that?

And, as many have mentioned, it's ridiculous for taxpayers to have to pay for helicopter rescues of people who were just too cool or too dumb to take proper precautions. People should have to get insurance before doing something that might require that and I'm sure nobody would insure solo-free climbs.

You accept your loved ones, all take risks in their own way, be it by free-climbing mountains or eating a diet of junk-food and/or smoking, the couch potato is a risk-taker too you know!

Yes they are and thus I think it's irresponsible to live like that, especially if you're a parent. Indeed, the main thing that motivated me to finally get out of my funk and get in better shape was the thought that I could have a stroke, or end up with heart failure or something like that in my 50s or 60s and become a burden on my family. If I died tomorrow, I'd be ok - because I'd be dead - but they wouldn't.

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24172885

[Reed John]

Paul Walker.

Never lead or seconded a climb, my experience is strictly top-rope, can't remember spending that much time setting up the anchor really and once it's done, it's considerably faster than placing protection on the way. Mostly been indoors anyway so rope is there dangling, begging to be used... Found it a great way to enjoy the puzzle of a good climb without being concerned about injury (I'd be more concerned about injuring myself bouldering actually, strained myself badly jumping down once...)so I quickly went up higher and higher walls, a good way to do away with vertigo issues...

I suppose it depends on how many people you've got waiting for a turn. If it's just two people, the messing-with-the-top-rope/climbing ratio is low. If you've got six or seven, as was often the case the summer I lived with climbers, it was boring. It also depends how far you have to hike to get to the top.

I think the key to safe bouldering is to get one of those crash pads. They make some that fold up and can be carried easily. I know what you mean, though. I hurt my foot landing on the ground from about six feet up.

We have a climbing wall in the Y I belong to but I haven't tried it. It's a good confidence-builder for kids, but for me it's just an invitation to bruises and scrapes.

[WOM]

Paul Walker.

That last half-sentence reads well in the 'worried Marge Simpson' voice.

[Reed John]

Paul Walker.

It does. But it's my experience. I can never be comfortable climbing a wall. Always banging my knees, tearing open cuts on my hands, and fucking up my shoulders, which are now in a perpetual state of being fucked up or almost-but-not-quite-healing.

My shoulder is like Louis CK's ankle.

[Bored Of Education]

Paul Walker.

I have nothing to add to this thread as I don't the guy. However, the boy is a big F & F fan and I noticed that, on the cover of 6, is a classic Ford Escort Mk1. What's that about?