Topic: Arguments for parkour as a safe activity

[Wyo Daniel]

This was bound to happen sooner or later; my group is just starting to get caught up in the politics of liability and security on the local campus, the University of Wyoming, where we train. I'm trying to deal with this immediately in a mature, civilized manner, so I typed up the following letter to the head of campus police, since it pertains most directly to his department.

Bear in mind that this letter has now been sent, but still feel free to discuss.

Chief (removed),

   I am writing to you regarding an issue that you might not even be aware of yet. I am involved with an athletic organization called Wyoming Parkour. Although we do training in a wide variety of different areas, we tend to spend a significant amount of time training on the UW Campus.
   Let me back up a bit and explain more about what parkour is. It is a sport, a discipline, almost a martial art. Its goal is to learn to utilize your surroundings, your environment, to help yourself move faster. This is done by such means as running, jumping, vaulting, and climbing. It is a mentally challenging and physically demanding sport, and it must be taken slowly and carefully to avoid damaging your own body and your environment.
   We have been actively training on UW grounds for over a year with no problems. However, on Saturday, March 19th 2011, we were approached by a UW Police Officer, who told us that there had been a complaint against us, and we had to stop “climbing on buildings”. This was no doubt referring to one of the many physical conditioning exercises we do, making our way around the circumference of certain buildings, hanging from our fingertips gripped on the tiny ledge where there is an indent in the wall slightly over our heads. Again, we have never had issues while doing this sort of training in the past, and were frankly quite surprised that anyone would consider it a problem. The officer who was talking to us was quite nice about it, explaining that the complaint was not coming from him, but he had to take action because of the liability concern.
   Our main concern, however, is that we are not by any means the only people who utilize the UW Campus for physical fitness. People run all over campus; on the sidewalks, in the AA, even in the actual bleachers of the AA and War Memorial Stadium. There is just as much potential for injury there, if not more, as there is in a group of people properly doing parkour training and conditioning. How is it fair that they can use the campus grounds to conduct their daily physical training, and we cannot?
   The question I am really getting at is this: Where is the line drawn? Bear in mind that absolutely everything is some sort of obstacle / training tool for us. Rails, wheelchair ramps, benches, rocks, short walls, tall walls, fences… Everything is used, in one way or another, to increase our physical fitness and spatial awareness. But if we are forbidden from doing anything that is “potentially dangerous” on UW grounds, we need to know where the line is. If a student in a hurry to get to class vaults over a bike rack, will he be stopped by UW Police for “endangering himself”? What if he vaults over a handrail? What about a wall? At some point in this progression, people who do not realize the incredible amount of training and precautions that go into this will probably start to complain. That is, I believe, what happened on the Saturday training session previously mentioned, and why I am writing this letter.
   Also understand that we are not a group of hoodlums, out to cause trouble. All of us take our training quite seriously, for whatever reasons we have for continuing it. In my own case, I am a soldier with the Wyoming Army National Guard, as well as a Correctional Officer for the Wyoming Department Of Corrections. I have physical standards I need to maintain, and this training is how I choose to do so. We have had reputable reporters from the Laramie Boomerang and CBS Channel 5 News do stories on us, and we have never had cause to complain about UW’s hospitality. We even have enough current UW students training with us that we are working on forming an official RSO – The University of Wyoming Parkour Club.
   Ultimately, we do not want to cause problems for UW or anyone associated with it. We do not want to make more work for your law enforcement officers, nor get ourselves in any sort of trouble. All we want is to be able to continue our parkour training in peace, in our favorite, most useful area to practice and condition in.

If you want to contact me personally about this matter, feel free to use any of the following contact information. Thank you for your time.

(removed)
Torrington, WY 82240

(removed)@us.army.mil

307-(removed)

Sincerely,
Daniel Steiger

________________________

[trebuchet]

Dan,

The letter looks awesome.  I certainly couldn't have phrased it so politely myself.

KC

[Patrick Witbrod]

It looks really good. It's very polite and well phrased.

Two things if I may though.
Instead of saying "almost a martial art" I would say similar to a martial art.
 There are two reasons behind this. One, it is technically more accurate. More importantly Martial art is a buzzword for liability. My colleges TKD club was banned for several months when they found out they were sparing. If you were doing a martial art outside without pads or anything that could be a liability issue. I know what you mean but you don't want to conjure up images of ninjas climbing buildings and sparring on tops of wall for balance training. It may not be that big of an issue but the smallest phrase can make a big difference sometimes.
 Two, as a general rule make sure someone proofreads for grammar and clarity. Nothing stood out to me but I always have my newspaper articles proofread by my girlfriend (an English genius). Just in case. Grammar goes a long way but you know that I'm sure.     

[Mark Toorock]

Daniel, I don't have enough time to check and give my thoughts now, but also check and put this in the "college clubs" forum and reach out to some of the guys in there for samples, there may be some people who had success that you can see.

[Stevie Leifheit]

Like M2 said, you might get better success in the college club forum. I can move this there if you'd like?

[Kyle Reiniger]

Sounds great. Maybe you could give them an example. The way most people think now a days is no matter what *Blank* is dangerous. So give em an example like this one: Parkour is safe, because for instance. Lets say you hand a kid a pistol. Chances are he will accidently shoot himself or someone else. Now say you hand the same gun to a highley trained professional, one who has had gun training for years. It is extremely unlikely he will accidently shoot himself or anyone else. Tell them walking on a wall or vaulting is the same. In the untrained eye it may look dangerous and difficult, but because you train ever so much its extremely unlikely for anything bad to happen

[Alec Furtado]

Well, in comparison to football where you've got 300lb men flying into your knees, parkour is infinitely safer.

The issue is always proper training and knowledge of parkour. One of the founding principles of parkour is être et durer, to be and to last. Training that really risks that tenet "to last"--i.e. anything that risks your ability to continue to do parkour--consequently cannot be considered to be parkour. Thus, the important thing is proper instruction: It is essential that you exist and are allowed to function normally.

This, however, does not exactly address the concern on damaging others' property, and "Oh we won't" isn't going to help, haha.

[DaveS]

For practitioners, Parkour is a safe activity because each practitioner is entirely in control of what they do. Nobody is forced to do anything dangerous.

For authorities, Parkour is generally only a safe activity when they can be sure that the people doing the activity are responsible, and can be held responsible.

The letter as shown comes across as very emotional and the overall tone is that of a complaint not the start of serious dialogue. I don't think it would inspire the authority to trust you and your group.

Rhetorical questions ("How is it fair?") are always a bad idea. Letters of that length are a bad idea.


First impressions are important. You need to put all of the evidence that you are responsible at the front of the letter. Then, put a section on how your group benefits the University (health benefits of Parkour, involvement of students, student society etc.).

After that, you can get into the specifics of what you need. However I don't think you need to go into specifics about what your exercise involves, and you certainly don't need to do it twice. Saying that you use everything is a) wrong (would you use a fragile rooftop?), and b) counter productive (no authority will want to give you an absolutely free rein with their premises).
Instead, emphasize that although you use the University environment you only use the parts that are suitable and durable enough. Include the fact that Parkour is a long-term practice, and by it's very nature it needs to treat the environment with respect.

After that, you can start to mention how you've been training according to these principles for a long time already without causing any problems.

After that, mention that apparently someone had a problem with your group on the date in question, and that you would like to try and avoid such problems in the future by making sure that the University understands the responsible nature of your group of Parkour practitioners.

[Wyo Daniel]

Like M2 said, you might get better success in the college club forum. I can move this there if you'd like?

Ah yeah, sure.