Compact Bulldog Bone

evo said:
There is a certain level of personal accountability that which this society lacks. Going back to your car insurance analogy, which is entirely inaccurate. The difference is having liability car insurance is law, that’s due to the risk presented to the collective general public. Climbing has inherent risk, and heaven forbid someone died on a bone, they made a personal choice that only affects themselves directly. Sure it’s traumatic for any who witness, or their close ones. Yet that’s their personal choice, someone climbing on the bone or any ‘certified’ unit only puts the user at risk.
Click to expand...
There is a gear distributor who faced a really nasty lawsuit over a piece of kit that was used improperly and resulted in a fall with some serious injuries. They didn't sue the manufacturer of the kit, they sued the seller alleging they didn't do their due diligence to ensure user training, proficiency, and understanding of the product. I don't think anything happens in a vacuum were the user is the only one who faces the risk. I don't really have a position on this debate, just felt like this lawsuit would be a great example of how the world is currently working, justified or not. But, I would agree in personal accountability. I recently got permission to climb on private property. I went out of my way to explain how I won't sue them for anything I do that results in my death or injury on their property. I'm accountable for myself as you well stated.
 
Steve Connally said:
There is a gear distributor who faced a really nasty lawsuit over a piece of kit that was used improperly and resulted in a fall with some serious injuries. They didn't sue the manufacturer of the kit, they sued the seller alleging they didn't do their due diligence to ensure user training, proficiency, and understanding of the product. I don't think anything happens in a vacuum were the user is the only one who faces the risk. I don't really have a position on this debate, just felt like this lawsuit would be a great example of how the world is currently working, justified or not. But, I would agree in personal accountability. I recently got permission to climb on private property. I went out of my way to explain how I won't sue them for anything I do that results in my death or injury on their property. I'm accountable for myself as you well stated.
Click to expand...
I’m not surprised, to refine this one step further in context of this thread. One can’t buy this device over the counter, only straight from the manufacturer’. Thus the personal accountability goes down the chain one link.

Putting the responsibility on the retailer is a stretch, can one sue the gun store down the street for selling a firearm? However I do think it would be a different story where the retailer should clearly state the item isn’t certified. I’ve actually been burned buying gear thinking it was rated for the intended use based on lack of deets and proximity to other rated gear
 
Reg said:
Listen. I don't give a Sht about the device, whether it's legal, or who uses it. It hasn't effected me through the 10 years its existed, nor will it the next 10. I just happened to read a post that I thought was odd, and asked about it. If Gordon had just said, "yeah I want to keep the spotlight on my device and not them others" Id have just left it there.
Click to expand...
I reread that post and your comment on it. I suggest reading it objectively. It sounds really off.

I’m not jumping to anyone’s defense, I respect the bone, tried it and it certainly wasn’t for me. No biggie, and I appreciate the loaner/try before you buy. I just replied to something you said going down a liability/car insurance rabbit hole. Trying to add to the conversation.
 
Evo
I treat everyone the same. Without bais or favoritism. Not running with the herd. That's my take in being objective.

I don't know Gordon. I don't know the designers of the throttle and Blackbird. I see one putting down the other, specifically on cost, weight and functionality. But they are not here to defend themselves. That to me is off, so I asked a question. The horse comes before the cart

But it's since been revealed that Gordon's comparison was not coming from a level playing field. He knew that when he made the comment, along with everyone else except me it seems. That very fact, and Gordons failure to answer a single one if my follow up question reafirms to me that my initial question was on point afterall.

I launched lots of products on treebuzz and other forums, back when. Youtube too. I stood on our Stein booth at the expos probably a dozen times. Never ducked a question..Never answered with a platitude, a distraction, or hid while others answered for me.

You can endorse and celebrate this Underground operation if you like. You can claim personal accountability as some kind of moral argument all you want. But that will but that will carry no weight in the event of an accident. First off with families of victims. Do you think they are going to be all cool about things ? Do you think a judge is going to look favorably at Gordon's 10 + year underground manufacturing operations ? Do you think hitting a like button will help him.
Its crazy, and reckless, after 10 years. Somebody has to say it. If Gordon has a true friend amongst this group, help him sort this out. I posted a link earlier with a list if applicable standards. Some of which will be a achievable, perhaps without any modifications. Then you get product liability insurance, same as August for example. Then he and his customers are covered. I have no skin in the game, as stated earlier. But it seems there's a 10 year old elephant in the room that really doesnt need to be.
 
evo said:
I’m not surprised, to refine this one step further in context of this thread. One can’t buy this device over the counter, only straight from the manufacturer’. Thus the personal accountability goes down the chain one link.

Putting the responsibility on the retailer is a stretch, can one sue the gun store down the street for selling a firearm? However I do think it would be a different story where the retailer should clearly state the item isn’t certified. I’ve actually been burned buying gear thinking it was rated for the intended use based on lack of deets and proximity to other rated gear
Click to expand...
It may sound like a stretch but it happened and yes people sue the gun store and the manufacturer for someone who bought a gun legally and then used it illegally.......and then there's this line of reasoning. LOL.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9996.jpeg
    IMG_9996.jpeg
    79.2 KB · Views: 16
rico said:
Correct me if I'm am wrong, but I believe one has to sign a waiver to purchase the BDB which for better or worse puts all responsibility squarely in the purchasers lap...
Click to expand...
One thing to keep in mind, regarding this, is that a person may sign a waiver but they cannot sign away the rights of their minor children. That is to say, the waiver might protect someone like Gordon from being sued by the arborist who purchased the BDB, or his widow if the worst happened, but he could still be sued on behalf of the man's kids. I have seen this happen several times in relation to experimental or home-built aircraft when there was an accident. Safest way to proceed, if possible, is to find out if a potential purchaser has children still at home.
 
Well, @Reg I feel you are being a bit harsh towards Gordon's choice, of how he has decided to offer the BDB.
I think we all (at least a few) stand by the adages of "treat others as you would like to be treated" and "put yourself in another's shoes, before offering criticism"

But, I cannot assure you you'd be treated better, had your approach been more appeasing to this crowd.
When I inquired about an ideal arborist rope, referencing a rope I liked that needed improvement, I was quickly ridiculed. Though later, someone came across the very rope I referenced, touting its qualities,
and inquires about it were welcomed, with great interest by others.

It's not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes.
 
Reg, I understand that you are coming from a place of concern and wellbeing for our industry. Safety shouldn’t be ignored, but regularly an arborist must make calculations with unrated anchors and structures to judge the risks involved…take any tree for example. Anyone that has held a BDB in their hands can judge for themselves the very inspectable parts and robust simple design.
It isn’t for everyone. Depending on your company, you might not be able to climb with devices that do not have a stamp on them.
I have been MIA from Tree buzz for some time, and haven’t been following the threads for a while. Great to have you back Reg! I respect where you are coming from. You must be living and breathing this issue with where you are at with your device. I appreciate you looking to help others with the knowledge you have become well versed in. I am not writing to change your mind, but merely to help you understand the legend that is the Compact BullDog Bone. The climbers that use it understand that it hasn’t been rated, just like the anchors we climb on every day. There is a risk, but the risk is also there climbing on a rated device as well. Anything can happen. We make calculated decisions…I’m sure we have all been guilty of climbing past the date on our harness after inspection demonstrates it’s still functioning and the parts are all still good. I am just as aware and inspect a Rope Runner, Akimbo, zigzag, etc. when ever I’m climbing on one of those devices. I don’t take anything for granted just because it has a stamp on it…and I’m not saying the stamp isn’t important.

Thanks for your concern!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom