Assignation of guilt

9.3k · September 16, 2006

With all the recent talk about "extreme" caches, I was wondering; if somebody died attempting one of your caches, would you personally feel guilty? I know we all accept the disclaimer on every cache page, so I'm not looking to debate blame. That's an argument best left for a civil trial judge. I was wondering about your inner emotions. I've got two caches which could easily get someone killed if they make a simple mistake, and I'm not sure how I'd feel if I read a log like:

"Found corpse at base of tree. Called the cops TNLNSL"

How would you feel? Would you archive the cache? Would you quit geocaching? Would you check the corpse's pockets for travel bugs?

September 16, 2006

There is a doctrine of attractive nuisance, if you create it you are responsible for the resulting injuries to those attracted to it. But it usually only applies to the case where "children" get injured. But I noticed a cache, well couldn't help but notice, that is currently the rage on the forum, that looks to have potential for severe injury. So as adults you are in command of what you seek and do. So be careful out there. Machismo only belongs in movies and Brazil ,I think.

September 16, 2006

With all the recent talk about "extreme" caches, I was wondering; if somebody died attempting one of your caches, would you personally feel guilty? I know we all accept the disclaimer on every cache page, so I'm not looking to debate blame. That's an argument best left for a civil trial judge. I was wondering about your inner emotions. I've got two caches which could easily get someone killed if they make a simple mistake, and I'm not sure how I'd feel if I read a log like:

"Found corpse at base of tree. Called the cops TNLNSL"

How would you feel? Would you archive the cache? Would you quit geocaching? Would you check the corpse's pockets for travel bugs?

Everyone should assume personally liability for the risk he or she takes. That being said, there are a lot of adrenaline junkies who think they are immortal. Unfortunately, they (or their survivors) feel that someone should pay for their stupidity. Even more unfortunately, courts tend to agree. Extreme cache owners should be willing to assume that risk, as well.

On a different note, besides the obvious tragedy of a serious injury or death, the fallout on the rest of the geocaching might not be pleasant. I'm sure that Groundspeak has lawyered this out, but would an extreme cache wrongful death suit bite the hand that feeds us?

September 16, 2006

Caching can be unsafe

September 16, 2006

Personally, yeah I would, even if something unforeseen happened at a 1/1 that I had placed. Legally, no, I would not feel guilty.

7.2k · September 16, 2006

There is a doctrine of attractive nuisance, if you create it you are responsible for the resulting injuries to those attracted to it. But it usually only applies to the case where "children" get injured.

INAL, but attractive nuisance probably will not apply here.

Also, many states have Recreational Use statutes that limit the liability of landowners against injury claims. The land owner is not completely shielded, because if there is a known, hidden danger on his land and says nothing about it, then he could be liable.

I think the common idea in both of the above is the issue of the potentially injured parties being able to appreciate any dangers involved and could the landowner have done something about it.

In geocaching, because there are so many variables involved in a hunt which the cache owner has absolutely no control over, the finder should always be alert of their surroundings, know their limitations, and have the maturity to abandon a hunt when necessary.

So, will I feel responsible for an injury? No.

Would I feel guilt? No.

Would I feel sad? Sure, but not because it was my cache. I'd feel the same regardless of which cache it was.

Would I pull the cache? It would be something to think about.

Why? Well, it's obvious those folks aren't taking their own responsibility seriously. I think one course of action would be to make it a private cache available to only those I feel would take the proper care for their own safety.

Would I quit geocaching? I've not stopped driving, riding motorcycles, or a host of other activities where folks have gotten hurt or killed. In other words, no.

Edited September 16, 2006 by CoyoteRed

1.6k · September 16, 2006

did you read the 47 warning on the cache page?

I place it - you find it. But yeah, I would have a dark spot in my mind for the rest of my life.

September 16, 2006

With all the recent talk about "extreme" caches, I was wondering; if somebody died attempting one of your caches, would you personally feel guilty? I know we all accept the disclaimer on every cache page, so I'm not looking to debate blame. That's an argument best left for a civil trial judge. I was wondering about your inner emotions. I've got two caches which could easily get someone killed if they make a simple mistake, and I'm not sure how I'd feel if I read a log like:

"Found corpse at base of tree. Called the cops TNLNSL"

How would you feel? Would you archive the cache? Would you quit geocaching? Would you check the corpse's pockets for travel bugs?

One could argue that ANY cache has the capability of killing someone. I go to log a simple cache in a park, I slip on the grass, my head hits a rock or a stick on the ground pierces into it by some freak accident. Or a car could lose control, hop the curb, and take me out while I'm getting a micro under a bench. Accidents happen. I wouldn't feel guilty. A little weirded out maybe, but I wouldn't archive it.

6.7k · September 16, 2006

I'm with Kabuthunk on this one. A cacher is FAR more likely to be injured in his car on the way to my cache than at it.

Stll, he got hurt in the act of hunting my cache. Man, I would hate that it happened, but it's not my problem.

This has been discussed many times here. There are caches along trails in a my area where there are open unmarked holes literally in or beside (within inches) of the trail. These are vents in the roofs of eroded limestone caverns and can be dozens of feet deep.

A full grown person could quite easily be walking along looking at his GPS and be gone forever without a clue left behind with his next step.

One local cache has an uncovered abandoned well along the access route. After much local forum debate I don't think it was ever mentioned on the cache page.

Yet none of the cache pages mention this.

None of the State and private preserve parks that have these pitfalls along the trails mention them. (Oak Mountain State Park has several, Ruffner Mtn. Nature Preserve has 3 that I have seen).

I believe, as I have mentioned before, that this issue will eventually be tried in court, and further believe that the cache owner and maybe even the listing site will be held responsible IF it can be proven that the danger was known and not mentioned (despite the disclaimer).

A judge recenly ruled that all private boating in US navigable waters is illegal, so it could happen!

Still, in direct answer to the OP, yes, if someone were hurt while seeking my cache (or in any other area of life) where I knew about a specific and unusual danger and failed to give warning I would feel badly, but responsible? Probably not.

As I read somewhere recently, life is dangerous and often unhealthy, but so is sitting in your darkened basement!

Ed

September 16, 2006

I have several caches placed near a fire road in the nearby mountains. It is a 4.5 mile hike up the road with 2,000 ft altitude gain, and then you come back down the same way. There are a couple of shortcuts that are paths running between switchbacks or down to the canyon floor. A few months after I placed the caches, the news was filled with the story of a hiker that took one of these shortcuts - and fell to his death.

That happens often enough in the local area, and you learn to accept it as a fact of life. In this case, however, I felt a twinge that I may have been the reason that person was there. It was not a pleasant feeling.

As it turned out, there was no geacaching involved. If there was, would I have changed anything about the caches? No.

I have taken those shortcuts myself. I debated about it beforehand and still continued on with care; but I will not go there if I'm alone just in case something did happen.

9.3k · September 16, 2006

Thanx for all the replies. Maybe I should've put this part of my OP in bold text?

I'm not looking to debate blame

We can argue for hours as to liability and geocaching without accomplishing anything worthwhile.

if someone were hurt while seeking my cache (or in any other area of life) where I knew about a specific and unusual danger and failed to give warning I would feel badly, but responsible? Probably not.

Thanx Ed. I was actually hoping to direct the topic toward those caches in which the danger is clearly spelled out, and some fidiot still manages to get themselves killed. To answer my own question, I would not feel guilty. If someone boldly walks into a lion's den, they shouldn't whine when they get bit.

1.6k · September 16, 2006

How would you feel? Would you archive the cache? Would you quit geocaching? Would you check the corpse's pockets for travel bugs?

Hmm... there may be a Green Jeep in there...

Thats the beauty of IL/WI caching. Its FLAT. Our biggest threat is killer rabbits and horny deer.

38.2k · September 17, 2006

Somebody *was* seriously injured doing one of my caches. I felt bad for the guy, but didn't feel guilty.

2k · September 17, 2006

Everyone should assume personally liability for the risk he or she takes!!!

EXACTLY!!! What more is there to say. If you deem it to be an acceptible risk it's on you. Nobody is forcing you to go after a risky cache. It bears repeating...Everyone should assume personally liability for the risk he or she takes!!! I think this should be a disclaimer on all caches.

6.7k · September 17, 2006

Everyone should assume personally liability for the risk he or she takes!!!

EXACTLY!!! What more is there to say. If you deem it to be an acceptible risk it's on you. Nobody is forcing you to go after a risky cache. It bears repeating...Everyone should assume personally liability for the risk he or she takes!!! I think this should be a disclaimer on all caches.

It is - right at the top of every listing!

2.7k · September 17, 2006

Would you check the corpse's pockets for travel bugs?

There You Go!

And I would delete his log. It is obviously bogus, dead men don't type.

1.5k · September 17, 2006

So do I need to get a will put together when I go after most of Vinney and Sue's caches?

September 17, 2006

Yes I would feel guilty if someone died hunting one of my caches. And I would archive it. I would archive it not because I feel responsible but out of respect for the person who died.

I would also feel guilty if they fell and broke their leg or hit their head and caused brain damage. I wouldn't archive the cache under that circumstance though. I would probably up the terrain rating and put warnings in bold letters in the cache page letting others know what happend so they can avoid the same mistake.

I hide caches so others can have fun finding them. If people get serious injuries looking for it then obviously the fun just ended.

1.2k · September 17, 2006

I've known a lot of idiots that I've liked. Seriously, there are a lot of dumb people out there that are really nice, but they just can't think for themselves. I wouldn't want to create an idiot trap. It's like a mousetrap wherein the victim may not have the mental capacity or the willpower to fully understand the danger or overcome the temptation. I understand that it's their responsibility to walk away from it if they can't do it, but I'm not willing to rely on the judgement of the general public, because intuition tells me there's just too many crazy idiots out there. I've got nothing against extreme caches and their owners, but they probably won't be getting my visit.

September 17, 2006

I've known a lot of idiots that I've liked. Seriously, there are a lot of dumb people out there that are really nice, but they just can't think for themselves. I wouldn't want to create an idiot trap. It's like a mousetrap wherein the victim may not have the mental capacity or the willpower to fully understand the danger or overcome the temptation. I understand that it's their responsibility to walk away from it if they can't do it, but I'm not willing to rely on the judgement of the general public, because intuition tells me there's just too many crazy idiots out there. I've got nothing against extreme caches and their owners, but they probably won't be getting my visit.

Not to be cold hearted, but that's called "Natural Selection" And BTW if I do ever end up in a bad way in a situation like this, I will have been naturally selected. Lack of common sense to me is and never has been likable. Maybe I need to lower my standards, but I'm gonig to stop now before I get off on a rant.

Edit: adding content

Edited September 17, 2006 by mgbmusic

3.2k · September 17, 2006

Seriously, there are a lot of dumb people out there that are really nice, but they just can't think for themselves. I wouldn't want to create an idiot trap. It's like a mousetrap wherein the victim may not have the mental capacity or the willpower to fully understand the danger or overcome the temptation.

Idiot traps aren't necessarily bad. They help to maintain the overall quality of the gene pool.

Stupidity is a self-curing disease. :laughing:

1.2k · September 17, 2006

Not to be cold hearted, but that's called "Natural Selection"

I knew this one would come up. I could go on a rant about Darwinism, but it's off-topic. I mean, if you want to kill off the weak and the stupid then what we really need is a world-wide riot that gets millions of people killed. Give me a break. :laughing: "Not to be cold hearted" my eye!

3.2k · September 17, 2006

Not to be cold hearted, but that's called "Natural Selection"
I knew this one would come up. I could go on a rant about Darwinism, but it's off-topic.

Not off topic at all. I believe one’s philosophy regarding the relevance of Natural Selection to judgment and personal responsibility is critical to how one answers the OP’s question.

I mean, if you want to kill off the weak and the stupid then what we really need is a world-wide riot that gets millions of people killed. Give me a break. "Not to be cold hearted" my eye!

You're confusing two completely different ideas (or putting up an intentional strawman).

"Allowing stupidity to run its natural course" is not at all the same thing as "wanting to kill off the weak and the stupid." The latter would require the existence of a cache owner who intends to lead cache hunters into hurting themselves. The former potentially applies to every geocache in existence, and merely observes a basic, natural truth. The latter is cold-hearted. The former is something you can’t eliminate no matter how much you’d like.

See the difference?

3.2k · September 17, 2006

You also said:

I understand that it's their responsibility to walk away from it if they can't do it, but I'm not willing to rely on the judgement of the general public, because intuition tells me there's just too many crazy idiots out there.

You’re welcome to your opinion of course, but while this line of thinking may sound warm-hearted and considerate on the surface, I believe it’s actually quite dangerous.

For many generations now the United States has been gradually moving away from a culture of self-reliance and personal responsibility, and toward a general preference for the government to "protect us from ourselves." Why is this kind of thinking dangerous? Because liberty and security tend not to live together very well. Generally the choice is one or the other.

People who think the general public needs to be protected from its own judgment are the kind of voters who demand totalitarian leaders (and laws) versus libertarian ones. Democrats who want to protect me from the non-existent threat of free-market gas prices. Republicans who want to protect me from the non-existent threat of two gays marrying each other. (How's THAT for dragging up a couple off-topic hot button issues?) The more "safety" we demand and receive, the closer we move toward totalitarianism.

I've done a little traveling, and one of the most striking things to me about most places outside the US is the way people there are free to use their own judgment regarding their personal safety. For my taste, the US is covered with way too many warning signs, railings, cushions, fences, and other restrictions that exist for no other reason other than to preserve the lives of the idiots who live at the very bottom of the common sense scale. A few people are stupid, therefore we ALL must live restricted. :laughing:

I'm not advocating anarchy -- or the elimination of ALL safety railings. Some protections are obviously needed. Deciding which ones are good and which go too far is subjective, obviously. It's a question of degree. Where one draws the line is simply a matter of how much freedom one is willing to surrender.

One of the great things about this hobby is that each cache hunter is allowed to decide for himself, for the most part, how much personal risk he is willing to take. Fear of negative consequences resulting from bad choices is a much better form of restraint that any laws, rules or guidelines could ever be.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin*

September 17, 2006

Not to be cold hearted, but that's called "Natural Selection"

I knew this one would come up. I could go on a rant about Darwinism, but it's off-topic. I mean, if you want to kill off the weak and the stupid then what we really need is a world-wide riot that gets millions of people killed. Give me a break. "Not to be cold hearted" my eye!

Well golly Gee. Since KDI opened this door, I may as well step in too...

I might be a bit jaded, because I do work in Technical Support. So therefore, if someone contacts me - they don't know something. However, I must say I've encountered the absolute dredges of human intelligence working where I have and where I do now. To give you an example - I work for an online university now. However, I get callers on a DAILY basis whose first word to me are "I know nothing about computers"

Now I have no problem with someone not knowning computers - they're tricky and sometime scary things, but my question is this - If you know nothing about computer WHY ARE YOU ENROLLING IN AN ONLINE UNIVERSITY?!?!? Personally I don't care - it keeps me emplyed, but for the love of Jesus and everything holy. It's common sense lacking, not necessarily intelligence.

My point is this - there are people out there that are so incredibly lame-brained, it really does lower the bar for everyone else. If they want to kill themselves and save us all a lot of grief, whether it's during caching, or playing with a rifle, I have no problem with that. Regarding that, if you set a cache on a cliffside, post reasonable warnings and danger signs, and a person decides to go after it with a rubber band and a beer - no big loss. If someone decides to go after the cache and takes the proper safety precautions and still through a freak accident, hurts/kills him/herself, then my heart will be heavy.

For what it's worth. Have a nice day..

2.7k · September 18, 2006

Regarding safety issues, I think the big issue is the impact (no pun intended- well, maybe just a little) of the "stupid" on the sensible people around him. Notwithstanding the all-too-common American knee jerk reaction of banning the product or activity that the "stupid" utilised to cause his untimely demise, there are also direct and incidental effects on relatives, rescue workers, and society as a whole.

In the example for instance of playing with a rifle, it is more likely that an "innocent" will suffer rather than the "stupid" blowing his own head off. (how that related to caching I haven't a clue)

Natural selection only works when the inferior organism dies b4 reproducing. :laughing:

3.2k · September 18, 2006

Natural selection only works when the inferior organism dies b4 reproducing.

Not necessarily ...

1.2k · September 18, 2006

You're confusing two completely different ideas (or putting up an intentional strawman).

"Allowing stupidity to run its natural course" is not at all the same thing as "wanting to kill off the weak and the stupid."

See the difference?

Hardly. If you have a riot that kills millions, then people have to be strong and smart to survive. Stupidity runs its course much faster than normal. More hurricanes would also up the ante. People really have to be smart and strong to survive then. Why not have an impossible cache designed to kill people so that only the stupid will go for it? That really skims the scum off the ol' gene pool, doesn't it? Gives new meaning to the concept of an "evil" cache, doesn't it? I'm not saying that a finder isn't responsible for their own decisions, mind you, but to flippantly not care if someone dies trying is...well, evil.

1.2k · September 18, 2006

I've done a little traveling, and one of the most striking things to me about most places outside the US is the way people there are free to use their own judgment regarding their personal safety. For my taste, the US is covered with way too many warning signs, railings, cushions, fences, and other restrictions that exist for no other reason other than to preserve the lives of the idiots who live at the very bottom of the common sense scale. A few people are stupid, therefore we ALL must live restricted.

I'm not advocating anarchy -- or the elimination of ALL safety railings. Some protections are obviously needed. Deciding which ones are good and which go too far is subjective, obviously. It's a question of degree. Where one draws the line is simply a matter of how much freedom one is willing to surrender.

One of the great things about this hobby is that each cache hunter is allowed to decide for himself, for the most part, how much personal risk he is willing to take. Fear of negative consequences resulting from bad choices is a much better form of restraint that any laws, rules or guidelines could ever be.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin*

You need to read more carefully. I never suggested making rules to override peoples' judgment. It is MY judgment not to place a dangerous cache, and I don't have anything against other cachers who place dangerous caches. I never said anything about restrictions. I only said that I (as in, me, myself and I) will not do that sort of thing. I'm not stopping or trying to stop anyone. Clear?

Edited September 18, 2006 by nonaeroterraqueous

3.2k · September 18, 2006

You're confusing two completely different ideas (or putting up an intentional strawman).

"Allowing stupidity to run its natural course" is not at all the same thing as "wanting to kill off the weak and the stupid."

See the difference?

Hardly. If you have a riot that kills millions, then people have to be strong and smart to survive. Stupidity runs its course much faster than normal. More hurricanes would also up the ante. People really have to be smart and strong to survive then. Why not have an impossible cache designed to kill people so that only the stupid will go for it? That really skims the scum off the ol' gene pool, doesn't it? Gives new meaning to the concept of an "evil" cache, doesn't it?

Apparently you don't see the difference.

We were talking about hypothetical stupid people getting themselves killed due to their own poor decision making while searching for a cache. We were NOT talking about having "an impossible cache designed to kill people so that only the stupid will go for it." How did you make that leap? I'm sorry, but I don't follow you at all.

The OP's question has nothing to do with evil booby traps. The question only applies to whether a cache owner would feel responsible for unintentional cache-related deaths.

People hurt and kill themselves all the time, whether through their own carelessness or by unforeseen freak accident. There’s nothing you or I can do to stop it. If a death results from stupidity, well, then, like mgbmusic and I said, that’s Natural Selection. A sad thing to be sure, but natural nonetheless.

This other stuff you’re talking about is nothing less than murder. I sure hope you can eventually see the difference.

I'm not saying that a finder isn't responsible for their own decisions, mind you, but to flippantly not care if someone dies trying is...well, evil.

Again, you’re confusing two totally different concepts: "Not caring" vs "not feeling personally guilty."

I’m guessing you would care if someone got killed while trying to locate one of your caches – right? Gets bitten by a poisonous snake, falls and bumps his head on a rock, or simply overexerts himself on the hike and has an MI?

Yes, you would care, as would I, but that’s simply not the same thing as feeling personally responsible for that person’s death.

See the difference yet?

3.2k · September 18, 2006

You need to read more carefully. I never suggested making rules to override peoples' judgment. It is MY judgment not to place a dangerous cache, and I don't have anything against other cachers who place dangerous caches. I never said anything about restrictions. I only said that I (as in, me, myself and I) will not do that sort of thing. I'm not stopping or trying to stop anyone. Clear?

I never said you said anything about restrictions. YOU need to read more carefully. If you do, you'll see that I was responding to this statement:

I'm not willing to rely on the judgement of the general public, because intuition tells me there's just too many crazy idiots out there.

I clearly explained that it was your attitude -- wanting to protect others from themselves, preventing them from making their own risk decisions -- that had me concerned.

Clear?

Incidentally ... I'm curious: how, exactly, do you ensure that there is no danger associated with your own cache hides?

2.2k · September 18, 2006

one further downside to the powers that be taking responsibility for us all and trying to protect us all from hurting ourselves is that people stop being able to assess risks and therefore actually hurt themselves more.

they assume that because there is no safety rail etc it must be safe!

being able to sue everyone also doesn't help, again why be careful when if you do something stupid then you can try to claim money from a supposedly guilty party....

accidents happen, the world is not totally safe, but we all need to take care for ourselves and not rely on others to do it. once you have made sure that the cache etc that you have placed is as safe as is reasonable then it's up to others.

1.2k · September 18, 2006

I clearly explained that it was your attitude -- wanting to protect others from themselves, preventing them from making their own risk decisions -- that had me concerned.

Clear?

Incidentally ... I'm curious: how, exactly, do you ensure that there is no danger associated with your own cache hides?

That is not my attitude. You're not listening. If other cachers want to place dangerous caches for other cachers to find, then that's their own business. I will not place a dangerous cache because I am not interested in being an involved party to someone else's injury. If you want to play it tough, have fun! Break a leg! I don't care! While you're at it make sure you film it so you can sell it to prime time television. I'm not interested! That's not my cup of tea! I want to place caches that parents can bring their kids to. I'm not going to place a dangerous one to make you happy. I don't care if you're happy. I want to make a safe cache and that is what I will do, if I can.

How do I ensure...what was that? I don't ensure anything. I use my judgment, same as you!

3.2k · September 18, 2006

That is not my attitude. You're not listening ... If you want to play it tough, have fun! Break a leg! I don't care! ... I'm not going to place a dangerous one to make you happy. I don't care if you're happy.

When did I say dangerous caches make me happy?

And you say I'M not listening?

How do I ensure...what was that? I don't ensure anything. I use my judgment, same as you!

No, you said:

It is MY judgment not to place a dangerous cache, and I don't have anything against other cachers who place dangerous caches.

I'll admit my question was somewhat off-topic. I was merely curious how you go about making sure there's no danger to those who would seek your cache. How do you judge that your cache has no associated hazards?

I thought it was a very reasonable question, considering that you don't place dangerous caches yourself. Every single cache I've ever found came with potential safety hazards -- and I'm NOT talking about the booby traps you referred to. I responded to that point, but you've apparently chosen to ignore that post.

6.7k · September 18, 2006

That is not my attitude. You're not listening ... If you want to play it tough, have fun! Break a leg! I don't care! ... I'm not going to place a dangerous one to make you happy. I don't care if you're happy.

When did I say dangerous caches make me happy?

And you say I'M not listening?

How do I ensure...what was that? I don't ensure anything. I use my judgment, same as you!

No, you said:

It is MY judgment not to place a dangerous cache, and I don't have anything against other cachers who place dangerous caches.

I'll admit my question was somewhat off-topic. I was merely curious how you go about making sure there's no danger to those who would seek your cache. How do you judge that your cache has no associated hazards?

I thought it was a very reasonable question, considering that you don't place dangerous caches yourself. Every single cache I've ever found came with potential safety hazards -- and I'm NOT talking about the booby traps you referred to. I responded to that point, but you've apparently chosen to ignore that post.

Um, you know you're arguing with a bush, right? A boxwood, to be exact. Good luck with that!

3.2k · September 18, 2006

Um, you know you're arguing with a bush, right? A boxwood, to be exact. Good luck with that!

I'm getting used to it.

September 19, 2006

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...11-52ff24a7fce3

Two days after one of mine opened. The second person to find fell and got knocked out, concussion and 4 broke ribs. I archived this one just because I did feel quilty and did not want another person to possibly be in the same predicament.

2.7k · September 19, 2006

Natural selection only works when the inferior organism dies b4 reproducing.

Not necessarily ...

Looks like these 2 DID reproduce b4 their "stupidity" got them. Does this not bolster my argument that natural selection is NOT working? Also, that the innocent often suffer for others' stupidity.

I don't think the "stupid" ones are in danger in these illustrations.

2.7k · September 19, 2006

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...11-52ff24a7fce3

Two days after one of mine opened. The second person to find fell and got knocked out, concussion and 4 broke ribs. I archived this one just because I did feel quilty and did not want another person to possibly be in the same predicament.

Seriously, I would probably do the same, not out of guilt, but out of respect for their suffering and as you said, to prevent others from suffering the same fate or worse.

The game is meant to be fun. Getting hurt is not fun. If people are getting hurt at a cache (or coming close), especially if it is relatively frequent, then notwithstanding that they are solely responsible for their own safety, I would remove the temptation for others to put themselves in harm's way.

It is A decent thging to do. (Please note I did not say THE decent thing to do- it is a matter open to personal choice, not a "right or wrong" issue IMHO)

Although the whole issue of trying to protect another from himself reminds me of a story told by Carlos Casteneda in one of his books:

Carlos stopped to rescue a turtle from the middle of the road. He took the turtle to the grass on the other side of the road and Don Juan commented that perhaps he had interfered with something he did not understand.

Then an alligator came out of the weeds and ate the turtle. Don Juan said, "see for all you know the turtle would have survived on the road". (I think I got the gist of it, but prolly not exact story)

Anyway, disabling all the caches in the world probably won't cure stupidity.

September 19, 2006

We can rest assured that, in the event of the discovery of a dangerous cache, a self-appointed cache cop will step up and get the cache archived, saving us all from ourselves.

September 19, 2006

I agree with you confusius cat. Fluke accidents happen all the time. The Wall cache was a cinder block wall. I looked it over several times. After the accident I went out to remove the micro, and saw exactly what happened. One of the cinder blocks had not been mortared. When he was climbing up the side, one of the blocks shifted and sent him tumbling. This could have been someones child. The cacher had asked that I not archive the cache, but to change the name in honor of him. I thought about it and went ahead and removed it.

I have been hurt on several other cache's and noted that in the log, but would not want to see it archived.

20.7k · September 19, 2006

This is an activity that gets people off their duffs and outside. Unfortunately, in all outdoor activities, sometimes people get hurt. That's too bad, but I'm not going to feel guilty if someone is damaged going after one of my caches. As long as the cache is rated correctly and has reasonably good coordinates, I'll sleep at night. I also would not archive one of my caches just because someone hurt themselves going after it.

September 19, 2006

Well, I'd have to say that it comes down to commons sense. When it comes to actions, I tend to agree under most circumstances that there are no stupid actions, just stupid results.

For example a two-point convesion in a football games to secure a win, rather than a tie. IF it works, you're a genious. If it doesn't, you're a moron. It's a matter of perception.

Now, if there is a cache that requires me to scale a 100 foot rock wall to complete, even if there's no warnings on the cache pages, then I'll turn around and go home. If someone decides to go for it and they mae it, that'd probably be pretty cool. If someone who is 5'5" and 300 pounds decides it'd be a good idea to take that one on, and checks out in the process, I blame them, not the placer, not the forest preserve commission, and not God.

Now if I place a cache somewhere, regardless of terrain, i will do my best to give it a fair, and probably overestimated difficulty rating based on that terrain. That is all I think can be asked of me. If one person falls and hurts themselves, severly or otherwise, or god-forbid dies or ends up in the hospital trying to hunt it out, then I will have to reevaluate. I would not automatically archive the cache because one person got hurt. I would have to ask myself - "Did my familiarity with the area help me place this cache and skew my perception of the terrain." I would have to go to the area and look. I can't be expected to remove every root, rock, etc on the way to the cache, but I can ask myself did I give this a fair terrain warning. I would probably also take someone along with me to give me another perspective.

If another person or two got hurt, then I would have to come up with a really good reason to keep it active. Failing that, I'll pull it and go place it somwhere else. It should also be mentioned that there is always more than one way to get to a cache. Often there's an easy way and a hard way. I remember one cache of mine had me scaling (ok hurtling) down an embankment that ended in a lot of downed and sharp looking trees. In retrospect, stupid. Little did I know that there was a PAVED hiking trail that passed within a couple hundred feet of the cache.

So I guess what this all boils down to is this-

Whatever you want to do, feel, etc. feel free. Some will agree, some will disagree. Some will be wrong, and some, as long as they agree with me, will be right!

Assignation of guilt

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation