
A daredevil climber risking his life for breathtaking views - bspn
http://www.huckmagazine.com/places/vitaliy-raskalov-interview-daredevil-rooftop-climber/
======
SimpleMinds
A counter article, to keep the dangers into perspective:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/12/11...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/12/11/a-daredevil-
died-doing-pullups-off-a-skyscraper-in-china)

If you have nerves to see it, the video of him losing the grip and falling is
available online (sorry, I won't link here) and it's nerve-wracking terrible.
How he struggles to climb back, just to let go... I only saw it because I
didn't know at that time that he fell to his death.

From personal (anecdotal) experience, after videos of the person from
huckmagazine went viral - Shangai Tower, Hong Kong - a lot of Chinese started
to do the same, plainly risking their lives to be cool.

I'm not sure what I'm trying to say, maybe that it's all awesome until someone
dies.

~~~
majos
There is a similar discussion in the rock climbing community about free
soloing, which is climbing without any sort of safety gear except climbing
shoes and chalk. Its foremost practicioner is Alex Honnold, and he produces
some amazing photos:

[https://static.businessinsider.com/image/57bf13b9b996ebef008...](https://static.businessinsider.com/image/57bf13b9b996ebef008b474c/image.jpg)

But a sizable chunk of the climbing community is against publicizing of free
solos. Some think it will encourage others, some think the practicioners are
irresponsible -- not so much for risking their own lives as commanding rescue
resources if they mess up but don't fall and need rescue. Sponsors have an
uncertain relationship with the whole thing.

I personally think it's fine to publicize free soloing, and the original post
here as well. Watching a skilled practicioner like Honnold do it is a unique
experience [1] and remarkable just like any demonstration of skill and
athleticism in a very high-stakes environment, except perhaps more so.

The fact that there is apparently a subset of less-prepared people interested
in copying these stunts is unfortunate. A compromise might be to cover the
level of preparation that goes into these things rather than just shots of
tennis shoes dangling off a crane -- Honnold has said he only started soloing
after thousands of hours of climbing -- but in general this is one of those
things where the risk is so obvious that I think publicizing it is not really
irresponsible.

[1]
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b4c-8xWD1Mk](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b4c-8xWD1Mk)

~~~
dahart
The same discussion is going on with lots of sports from winguit flying to
football.

I do wonder if pointing at some people's lack of preparedness or skill is
misleading. These choices carry significant risk, regardless of skill. Very
experienced mountaineers die every year. Skydivers and base jumpers with
decades of experience have accidents. (I knew some, before I chose to stop
skydiving.)

Suggesting that "experience" will make you safer leaves one with the obvious
question of how to gain that experience. It also ignores the fact that more
participation in any risky activity is more exposure; the longer you do it,
the more likely you are to have an accident.

~~~
majos
To elaborate on my suggestion of emphasizing the experience of people who
participate in dangerous activities: the goal would be to communicate that
experience is _necessary_ (not _sufficient_ ) for safety. I agree that these
activities have some constant fraction of risk you can't remove.

~~~
dahart
I'm 100% with you that preparedness and awareness and skill and experience
improve your odds and are good things. But if you want true risk awareness,
you must know that experience only improves your odds a small amount compared
to the time spent participating in the activity. And, like I said, you still
have to gain that experience. Everyone who's experienced went through taking
those risks when they were less experienced. Many survived because of luck,
not because of experience.

Consider it this way: half of all drivers in auto collisions weren't at fault
for the accident. You can be the best/safest driver in the world, and you
might only reduce your odds of an accident by half. You can beat that easily
by cutting your driving to 40%, or eliminate the chance of dying in a car
crash by not driving (which might involve an alternative activity that carries
it's own risks.)

There are similar factors that are out of your control in most risky
activities. In rock climbing, there are loose and sharp and slippery grips,
there is weather and equipment, and there are often people on the other end of
your rope. There are a lot of potential failure points that skill simply
doesn't eliminate, whereas time spent in an activity _always_ compounds the
risk.

Skydive once in a year and you have a 1 in 100,000 chance of dying. If you
make 100 jumps in a year, your chances multiply to 1 in 1,000. There is no
amount of skill that will overcome the compounded risk of prolonged exposure
to an inherently risky activity.

~~~
Malician
I agree with your greater point, but your auto collision example is flawed.

If you say half of drivers are not at fault, it's only because we assume only
one person can be at fault. Most collisions involve more than one mistake, and
it's certainly possible for a sufficiently good driver to improve their odds
by much better than half (there is more to defensive driving than just not
making obvious mistakes.) This is not to claim, of course, that perfection is
possible. Sometimes the chips are all stacked against you and there is nothing
reasonable you can do.

~~~
dahart
> If you say half of drivers are not at fault, it's only because we assume
> only one person can be at fault.

You're absolutely right; there are at least some collisions that are the fault
of both/multiple drivers, or of no drivers. I did assume that fault is most
often one driver in two-car collisions (and I still think that), but I
shouldn't have stated it as fact, I was thinking of it as the premise of the
subsequent point. My apologies.

> Most collisions involve more than one mistake

That's a strong claim you're making. Citation needed.

Here are some resources:

[https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...](https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812115)

[http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-
statistics/fatalit...](http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-
statistics/fatalityfacts/overview-of-fatality-facts)

> it's certainly possible for a sufficiently good driver to improve their odds
> by much better than half

Of course. Single vehicle crashes are already more than half. 30% of all car
fatalities have been attributed to drunk driving. Don't ever get in a car
after drinking, and your odds are already much better. Another 30% of car
deaths occur when speeding. Stay under the limit, and your odds are that much
better again.

I hope you can see that I wasn't claiming that half is the actual limit, I was
making a point about the arithmetic of probabilities. My point is that if
factors out of your control are responsible for x% of crashes, then the
maximum upper limit of good you can do by honing your skill and being the best
driver in the world is 100-x%. The point is there's an upper bound to what
training and preparedness can do for you, and that upper bound can always be
exceeded by avoiding the risk in the first place.

------
huhtenberg
For those who managed to miss the "Shanghai Tower" video from 2014 - this is
what basically put this guy and his friend on the radar. An absolutely
fantastic watch.

Incidentally, it also helped putting some much deserved light on N'to and
Worakls, whose Trauma track was used for the soundtrack.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLDYtH1RH-U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLDYtH1RH-U)

------
adanto6840
Does anyone else get actually sweat palms just from looking at the photos?
Happens to my feet as well (sandals), though not quite as bad. It's not an
immediate reaction but if I take a few seconds to focus on it then it really
happens -- especially so when viewing the photo of him looking down at his
feet from the top of a spire.

The photos are absolutely breathtaking though, and I'm only half-way through
the article, but I had to take a second to ask this question -- it's something
I've been curious about before as well. =)

~~~
zimpenfish
Not sweaty palms but a kind of "URRHGURHGURHG" in my legs.

(Mind you, same thing happens if I look down the 5 storey stairwell at
Waterstones Piccadilly. Or playing that damned bridge section in Half Life 2.)

~~~
danparsonson
Oh god that bridge :-O See also Dying Light - really fun but makes me squirm
as much as watching the videos on this article.

------
fb03
I don't have any issue at all with people doing what they love. I am just
slightly worried about him putting others to risk, should he fall and possibly
hit someone. Anyone feeling the same?

Besides that, do whatever you want, even if I don't agree with it or its
motivations. I am not the ruler of the world.

People tend to get overly emotional with these subjects because they usually
project themselves onto their opinions and if they get a nasty rebuttal, they
feel it like a personal attack or w/e. Being brutally honest: It's his body
and will and he's free to do whatever he wants with it, except harm others
without their consent.

o/

~~~
matte_black
These buildings are high enough that he should be carrying an emergency
parachute to prevent killing a person on the ground should he fall.

~~~
StillBored
The first time I saw the shanghi tower video, I actually thought he was going
to BASE jump because he initially had a backpack on.

But, many of these situations guys are putting themselves in wouldn't be
helped by a parachute. If they fall close to the structure getting the chute
to open is going to be a problem.

------
ainiriand
This guy is putting himself, and others, at risk. This is not romantic or
fantastic in any way when accidents happen. Imagine that this guy falls or
loses any object and falls over someone. This is a serious topic and it is
life threatening with the only excuse of getting video views.

~~~
stinos
You've got a point, but statistically speaking this single guy is _nothing_ in
comparision with the actual real risks other people's acts put you in every
single day. By getting in their car, on their bike, crossing you on stairs,
flying planes above you, lighting candles in houses around you, ...

And I'm not sure if your 'but those are accidental' argument makes sense. If
the guy falls or drops something it will obviously be an accident as well. Is
there really a difference between what he does and me getting on my bike and
riding in the presence of pedestrians? I.e. if I really wanted to I could also
walk, which would reduce the risk towards others. Should I stop riding my bike
for that?

~~~
Audible_logic
Kinda feels like a false equivalence to me. Yes, as a society we all put
ourselves at risk as we drive and interact. Doesn't mean I want to be an
possible participant in witnessing some adrenaline addict fall off a building.
I don't want to see people die horribly in auto accidents either, but that
seems like a compromise to use a car, something that actually has a use for
me. Nothing about random daredevil getting a dose of adrenaline benefits me
personally, so out of all of the possible horrible things that can be produced
from human interaction, this one doesn't seem necessary.

~~~
stinos
_benefits me personally_

People driving around me by car (whether I'm by bike or car or ...) usually
also don't benefit me personally. On the contrary. Also there's a ton of car
driving going on which to me seems completely unnecessary (e.g. I know people
driving to a store 3 times a week, and I know for a fact the products they buy
would be just as good if only bought once a week, and I'm not even speaking
about the extra emissions of the car). I actually know of accidents caused by
people in perfect health which as such in my opinion could just as well have
taken their bike out in the sunny weather to go to the bakery 1 kilometre from
their house.

Apart from that, being no stranger to extreme sports and random 'weird'
behaviour myself, I also think about it in another way: what this guy does is
in no way beneficial to me or you but maybe it is beneficial for him. He did
this already before sharing it with millions and I'm pretty sure that is not
his main driving force. 'Adrenaline addiction' or whatever you want to call it
is likely pretty real from him. At least it is for me. And what happens to me
mentally when I don't get my shot is not nice. So yes, this behaviour is sort
of necessary to be able to function normally and feel alive. Though I do try
not to things which might put other people at risk.

------
microcolonel
Honestly I'm fine with people risking their lives, as long as they foot the
bill when they need a harrowing rescue. It can cost high hundreds of thousands
of dollars to get a single person out of a bind, it should not be anyone
else's responsibility to pay for one person's high-risk behaviours (at least
not after the fact).

If you knowingly engage in an impractical behaviour which makes the need for a
rescue likely, and don't bring your own staff and equipment to reasonably
expect to achieve that, then you should be liable when you consent or would
inevitably consent to rescue.

------
monadmancer
I think the next logical step is to base jump from these towers.

~~~
usrusr
It would ruin the plain clothes "just a random guy" aesthetic that makes these
stories so clickable.

In brand identity terms, what this guy is doing is supposed to be more
Instagram than Red Bull.

