 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Scrumpy wrote: |
| Before there were half a dozen members trying to refute DG's interminable and oft repeated arguments on a dozen annually repeated topics |
surely, that means they were enjoying themselves. Forums are simply a form of entertainment. Frankly, when DG "the molester" makes a reappearance on here he livens things up a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
[quote="Bode Swiller"]
| Quote: |
under 2% penetration, go figure. |
I've seen more penetration in a nunnery  . Still there are not many 104 year olds who can still get it up, I would wager.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
davidof, you're visiting all the wrong websites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| Scrumpy wrote: |
| Before there were half a dozen members trying to refute DG's interminable and oft repeated arguments on a dozen annually repeated topics |
surely, that means they were enjoying themselves. Forums are simply a form of entertainment. Frankly, when DG "the molester" makes a reappearance on here he livens things up a bit. |
In the same way a violent drunk will liven up a quite bar?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
All the doom and gloom about the Ski Club forum on the previous page tends to obscure the fact that before February 2004 the SCGB forum served the function that snowHeads serves today. It was extremely busy, with scores of different threads at any time.
The irony is that the discussion which tipped the balance in terms of closing the SCGB forum to non-members was the one about off-piste repping - a perfectly honest and very informative exchange of views, underpinned by considerable technical knowledge from some contributors.
That was three years ago - the spring of 2004 - and questions were raised about the wisdom of the off-piste policy. The fatal accident which prompted this thread took place in spring 2007: 38 months later
I wonder what will be concluded and decided on Thursday? One strategy would be for the Club to battle on and take the risk of a repeat incident. But it should be remembered that the precedent was set in March 1989, when a skier with a Ski Club rep died in an avalanche - also in Verbier.
After that 1989 avalanche, the then SCGB Chairman John Pettifer said:
| Quote: |
"Although the Press questioned our policy of off-piste skiing, they also acknowledged our very good safety record particularly in a sport with a known risk factor.
Nonetheless, it is vital for us to view our activities objectively and after a full enquiry the Club believes that skiers will continue to go off piste and therefore it is better to do so with a trained Club rep, rather than alone." |
Is that still a valid viewpoint?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Every viewpoint is valid. I want off-piste repping to continue. If you don't want to underwrite the risk, then you have the option of leaving the club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith, yes. Whether that will still be possible for worthwhile off-piste skiing will depend upon the Council's assessment of the current situation. Not doubt you'll be anxious to brief us after the AGM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| .......... One strategy would be for the Club to battle on and take the risk of a repeat incident. ......... |
I'm not with you. Skiing is risky. Of course the Club will have reviewed the latest one, and see what lesson can have been learned. We do not know enough about this incident to know if it could reasonably have been avoided. Do you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| .......... One strategy would be for the Club to battle on and take the risk of a repeat incident. ......... |
I'm not with you. Skiing is risky. Of course the Club will have reviewed the latest one, and see what lesson can have been learned. We do not know enough about this incident to know if it could reasonably have been avoided. Do you? |
You can rail all you like, but you sound like a dinosaur.
In case you hadn't noticed it, there are fundamental cultural changes at work here: in almost all Western countries the public, courts and politicians are becoming more risk averse. That's why we have compulsory seat bets, food hygiene courses for parents making prizes for school fetes and luke-warm coffee from drive-thrus.
The world has changed. Get over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonny Jones, You're right. Unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
luke-warm coffee from drive-thrus.
|
the other week I bought such a luke-warm take-away cappuccino at a petrol station. The lady was just putting the plastic top on it when I told her not to bother as I was going to sprinkle chocolate on it. She explained that H&S legislation prevented her from handing it over without the lid... I'd have to remove it, sprinkle the choc and replace the lid myself. Clearly, utterly mad. However, when you come to think about it, H&S legislation has saved a heap of unnecessary death and injury in many work places and at home. Some (if not alot) of it is maddening but, whatever you think of it, it's life today and there's no going back. SCGB's activities will be judged alongside any other commercial enterprise and the fall out from this latest incident in Verbier is bound to change everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| snowball wrote: |
| achilles wrote: |
| snowball, a lot - but not a lot. I haven't counted (I have a life) but maybe 20 posters - out of a membership of 30,000 odd - are having a lively discussion about something I agree needs clearing up. Some posters I can't recall seeing before are vociferous - almost as though somebody had got his mates together to lobby - and maybe start new threads when existing ones were running. Quite understandable - but hardly a mass outcry from the membership. |
Yes, I agree, but then very few people use members chat anyway.
The subject of the first thread was not clear from its title and I think people have just added threads because, (as things were also moved to the Ski Club forum) they did not at once see a thread on it in the Ski forum. I don't see a mass protest but I also don't see any need to imagine an orchestrated response in what is there. Surely if there is some feeling about it in the club membership you would expect new people to find the Ski Club Chat section and start posting. I have friends who are reps and have expressed views to me, but they have not wanted to stick out their necks and so have not expressed their thoughts on line. |
I am one of those "new" posters both there and here. What prompted me to find these fora and post was my profound disappointment with a knee-jerk response that if implemented as published with IMHO make the SCGB a purely social club that will decline into oblivion. My family have been members for over 50 years (even though we live in Canada), but I am now quesitoning whether I will join up again next year.
The proof for me will be on the off-piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| David Goldsmith I agree that the risk on piste is probably less, but that doesn't mean that a rep who leads someone into a dangerous situation on piste can never be liable. There ain't much 'never' in the law on negligence. |
How about this for an example...
On-piste group stops for a coffee or two (with Schnapps naturally), has a few runs, stops for lunch with wine or beer. A few more runs and another "coffee" break. Next piste run a member of the party collides with and seriously injures a skier. Who does not believe the rep and ski club would be charged and held liable?
The above scenario (minus collision) happens almost every day when skiing with reps on piste and yet I see no policy limiting or forbidding alcohol consumption.
Of course a day on-piste with the rep and no alcohol is a recipe for zero attendance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Levitt, I take it your scenario refers to a collision which could be attributed to - say - alcohol in the bloodstream exceeding the drink-drive limit. The skier would be responsible for his/her own intake. It's unlikely that the bartender would be held liable, let alone anyone else, unless the booze was being forced on them.
I'm not sure of the law regarding alcohol while skiing - it's likely to vary a lot between countries. The last time I looked at the FIS rules (which are usually held as quasi-law) they said nothing about drinking and skiing. That said, I'd expect any ski group to be collectively responsible about drinking before handling high-speed equipment in potentially dangerous terrain, wouldn't you?
Whatever response the SCGB makes to the death of its member in Verbier it could hardly be described as "knee jerk". This subject has been hot for about 20 years, has involved the Club repeatedly making moves to indemnify itself or protect itself (for instance, by forming limited liability companies) or train its reps to higher standards.
I disagree that the Club will "decline into oblivion" if it changes its repping policy. There are many useful and relevant things it can do. As far as one can make out, off-piste repping benefits fewer than 10% of members in any given winter, and these members pay no premium membership rate for the service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Jonny Jones wrote: |
| achilles wrote: |
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| .......... One strategy would be for the Club to battle on and take the risk of a repeat incident. ......... |
I'm not with you. Skiing is risky. Of course the Club will have reviewed the latest one, and see what lesson can have been learned. We do not know enough about this incident to know if it could reasonably have been avoided. Do you? |
You can rail all you like, but you sound like a dinosaur.
In case you hadn't noticed it, there are fundamental cultural changes at work here: in almost all Western countries the public, courts and politicians are becoming more risk averse. That's why we have compulsory seat bets, food hygiene courses for parents making prizes for school fetes and luke-warm coffee from drive-thrus.
The world has changed. Get over it. |
Because you have not bothered to read through the thread and see that I have been pointing out that the world is more risk averse, and the courts are reflecting that, doesn't mean to say that I think you are discourteous. I do think the 'get over it' expression is over-used these days -and usually is a sign of sloppy thinking. But surely not in your case. 
My response was in response to specific points raised by David Goldsmith. He wrote of the risk of a 'repeat incident'. Whether with or without a rep, skiers risk incidents - and if it's their unlucky day death. DG also queried whether a former Chairman's statement was still valid. I believe it is - "skiers will continue to go off piste and therefore it is better to do so with a trained Club rep, rather than alone." It may not be possible in the future - but it is better. As we have been discussing- for legal reasons perhaps it soon may not be possible.
There. Do bother to read things through another time before calling a fellow snowhead a dinosaur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
achilles, a Gnomeosaurus perhaps...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Bode Swiller, uilty as charged, m'lud, and carrying an offensive club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
achilles, I'm sorry if I sounded rude. But if I can quote you from much earlier in the thread (page 3 or thereabouts):
| Quote: |
| We are heading towards a mundane, safe boring world... There seem to be quite a few on this thread who think that is a good thing. |
My reading of your posts is that you're a consistent objector to life being derisked, and that you see the SCGB's actions against the backdrop of that world view. You're welcome to your opinion. I don't share it.
But whichever of us is right, I sense that your cause is already lost. Forces much more more powerful than us are at work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Maybe we could take a slightly closer look at what SCGB Chairman John Pettifer said in his report to members in the 1989 annual report. Once again:
| Quote: |
| ... it is vital for us to view our activities objectively and after a full enquiry the Club believes that skiers will continue to go off piste and therefore it is better to do so with a trained Club rep, rather than alone |
Clearly a single avalanche death would not deter members from skiing off piste. Skiers have been dying in avalanches since the sport began. Indeed, one change since 1989 is the advent of fat skis, making off-piste more accessible and popular. But the crux here seems to be his words "... therefore it is better to do so with a trained Club rep ..." That may be, but the alternative is to say to people "Ski at your own risk, we don't want to be sued for leading you if something goes wrong. Or, better still, go to the guides office and they will find you a top professional."
Another point which John Pettifer made was:
| Quote: |
| All our Reps will now be trained in first aid procedures to Ski Patroller standards ..." |
I'm not a ski patroller, so I can't comment. How many days training does a ski patroller receive? What does their training comprise? Has anyone hereabouts done this training?
Note: the above quote was from 1989, so I don't know the current first aid training for SCGB reps and what standard it is aimed to achieve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| There are many useful and relevant things it can do. |
There are, but it probably has too cosy a relationship with the industry to do many of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's for the Club's members ultimately to decide what relationship the Club has to the ski industry. Nothing is irreversible.
Sir Arnold Lunn was originally excluded from the SCGB because his father Henry Lunn ran the first ski holiday company. The former eventually became the Club's president.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonny Jones, I don't think I have a 'cause'. I continue to lead my life pretty much as I wish. I do think a risk-free world (in leisure time) will be boring, but it's not my problem. As a technical designer for my company, my job is to think risk avoidance every day, so I don't think I need a lesson from you about it. Thankfully, I am old enough that I don't think my leisure life I will be much affected as society changes. I have already said I think that, whilst I hope it won't, I do think the Club will have to change its reps' policy. For young skiers, I think that is sad - but I shall be fine. For next season, I am already in a group that plans to ski steep and deep (by our standards, not snowball's!) - with and instructor or guide on most days of our week. I have no plans to ski with the reps (perhaps just as well) - though nothing is ever certain.
If the reps program folds, I might benefit, for the Club will, IMO, only be viable if it is sold off to be fully commercial - probably in separate entities (holidays, insurance, publishing). In which case, I would hope to get enough to pay for a week's lift pass.
Cause? Strange choice of word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
boredsurfin,
1. yes. In fact maybe 4 threads (though it is settling down to one) but David Goldsmith cannot access.
2. I don't know - I expect it will come up under AOB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| achilles wrote: |
boredsurfin,
1. yes. In fact maybe 4 threads (though it is settling down to one) .
. |
Why not simply provide a link to this thread 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Quote: |
I'm not a ski patroller, so I can't comment. How many days training does a ski patroller receive? What does their training comprise? Has anyone hereabouts done this training
|
David Goldsmith, http://www.basp.org.uk/
As a self confessed jounalist how do you exist without knowing about Google?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| It's for the Club's members ultimately to decide what relationship the Club has to the ski industry. Nothing is irreversible. |
Only if they vote with their feet, otherwise it is the chief exec and board who dictate this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
boredsurfin, I think there are links for it. It's up to members (bar David Goldsmith) to do as they will on their site.
davidof, not quite true. Members can nominate candidates for the council who may be more sympathetic to their viewpoint. Most (including David Goldsmith) don't, and so are either apathetic or content. Or just like a moan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Levitt wrote: |
| Hurtle wrote: |
| David Goldsmith I agree that the risk on piste is probably less, but that doesn't mean that a rep who leads someone into a dangerous situation on piste can never be liable. There ain't much 'never' in the law on negligence. |
How about this for an example...
On-piste group stops for a coffee or two (with Schnapps naturally), has a few runs, stops for lunch with wine or beer. A few more runs and another "coffee" break. Next piste run a member of the party collides with and seriously injures a skier. Who does not believe the rep and ski club would be charged and held liable?
|
Me.
The skier involved could well be charged, but unless he was very obviiously drunk, and the rep had made no attempts to persuade him not to continue, I don't see how the rep could be responsible.
| Quote: |
The above scenario (minus collision) happens almost every day when skiing with reps on piste and yet I see no policy limiting or forbidding alcohol consumption.
Of course a day on-piste with the rep and no alcohol is a recipe for zero attendance. |
Why? While I know the above scenario does happen, I have never understood it.
I'll have a beer with lunch, just as I would at home if I was driving afterwards. But other than that, I keep my alcohol consumption for after skiing, and so has almost everybody else I have ever skied with. Coffee or hot chocloate are plenty for rest breaks.
I can't see why anybody who really loves skiing would want to impair the experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
[quote="alex_heney"]The skier involved could well be charged, but unless he was very obviiously drunk, and the rep had made no attempts to persuade him not to continue, I don't see how the rep could be responsible.
| Quote: |
Generally agreed except:
1. It is often the rep who is suggesting the group take a break for a "coffee".
2. As the "leader" the rep could be found to have a duty of care to ensure those under his charge are not impaired.
3. Is this so different from the rep taking the group off piste and having one of the members start an avalanche?
[quote="alex_heney"]I can't see why anybody who really loves skiing would want to impair the experience. |
I agree with you, but plenty do not. (and I too enjoy a beer at lunch).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
AxsMan, just curious, I presume you wouldn't mind if the service were provided by commercial company, rather than a mutually owned club (I guess that would happen if the rep system folded)?
As a spin off. Could I also assume you wouldn't object to a windfall as a result of the de-mutualisation?
Oh. And what do you belong for the club for - ie why did you join in the first place, let alone consider renewing?
Not loaded questions. Genuinely curious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
AxsMan, "1) SCGB reps will no longer lead groups off piste"
You're stating that like it's a fact, when it isn't a fact according to the comments I've seen from reps on the SCGB board. Pretty much all the reps who have commented say that the new policy won't change things for them. Seems like a lot of panicking from some members, as well as some political opportunism from other, has clouded the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
AxsMan, two tiers would seem to be a good suggestion. If, currently, say 10% use reps and the cost of running the rep prog is approx £250k, you are in fact suggesting an almighty price hike for those who want repping. Haven't got my abacus handy but their membership would need to be in the order of £150 I reckon and that alone would see off many. From what I can glean, the place is basically run by the reps so are you not asking mosquitos to cure malaria?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Bode Swiller, why would there be a price hike? Surely I could just pay my share of the repping costs, as could the other users of the service? Not interested in the mag, don't use the discounts, not too bothered about the website or skitv, so I don't see why I should pay for them if I don't use them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PJSki wrote: |
AxsMan, "1) SCGB reps will no longer lead groups off piste"
You're stating that like it's a fact, when it isn't a fact according to the comments I've seen from reps on the SCGB board. Pretty much all the reps who have commented say that the new policy won't change things for them. Seems like a lot of panicking from some members, as well as some political opportunism from other, has clouded the facts. |
Not how I read it. One rep on council has said he won't change the way he reps. But his description of how he reps has not pleased everybody. The rest seem to be waiting clarification (happy to be corrected by a specific reference or two, must admit I don't want to wade through that lot again. Problem is there have been few 'facts' to cloud. We don't know all the circumstances of the Verbier incident (for understandable reasons). We do have a very vaguely worded letter - the quality of which has triggered this speculation. However, if I may re-word your opening line, I agree that there has been no conclusion that the reps parties will no longer go off piste.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Tue 27-11-07 16:44; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PJSki, If you end up with 2 tiers along the lines that AxsMan suggests, then I reckon the top tier would need to be circa £150 and the lower tier of say £35 (haven't sat down to work that out, just a guess). That way those who use the reps pay for it, those who don't pay less. Strip out the mag and you have another scenario. I think you're suggesting menu pricing. If it were my club I'd rather have 200,000 paying members at 10 quid (and cut the frills) than 19,000 at £50 (who are more labour-intensive).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| PJSki wrote: |
| Bode Swiller, why would there be a price hike? Surely I could just pay my share of the repping costs, as could the other users of the service? Not interested in the mag, don't use the discounts, not too bothered about the website or skitv, so I don't see why I should pay for them if I don't use them. |
I agree with you there, David has to realise the modular game can go 2 ways. I don't want the library, discount, or insurance. Quite like the mag, but you can keep skiTV. Others would want different modules I am sure. We could get into some very silly pricing games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller, 200,000 members? can't see why they would want to join your no frills op. However, if the membership approached anything near that, you really would have to have a fully commercial company running it. Swillerski perhaps? In which case, why not get on with it and start up your own company to do just that? You seem to think the business is there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
it seems that the issues boil down to:
) at Tignes and they seemed jolly nice fellows, but as I'm not bothered about off-piste, and am unsure as to what 'colour' grade of skier I am, decided I'd rather just enjoy the slopes without the 'guide'.
