 Poster: A snowHead
|
How much extra would it actually cost for them to put a search bit into the device and get it tested to spec. I don't doubt that the testing to spec. could cost a pretty penny, but would modifying it to include the receiver cost a lot? I don't know anything about this sort of thing, are such components that expensive?
clarky999, I think the response that they will get from the manufacturer is that they aren't being marketted for all mountain use, If they get that response will they continue to sell them? I guess the problem is that you couldn't stop anyone buying them under one pretext, but trying to use them under another. After all people are advised that cigarettes are bad for their health yet thousands still buy them.
Edited cos I put 'market' and not 'mountain'
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Fri 22-03-13 21:39; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| I think the response that they will get from the manufacturer is that they aren't being marketted for all market use, If they get that response will they continue to sell them? I guess the problem is that you couldn't stop anyone buying them under one pretext, but trying to use them under another. |
That's it in a nutshell. What does the retailer do - intensive due dilligence on the purchaser - prove this is for a child who is too young to work basic electronics (my 2 year old niece has a fair crack at an iPad these days), prove you only ever ski on piste etc?
Nope.
So it will get used very quickly "just off the side" and by every muppet who always thought safety gear was too expensive (the "inventor's" original rationale was he wanted his kids to be safe off piste but gear was too expensive) etc. The main purpose I can see in a shop stocking them is to educate any punter that tries to buy one by saying " this is a fake product what you really want is a) to get a grip or b) appropriate avy gear and education, here's a start..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
fatbob, I guess the most they could do is to ensure that they don't sell one to any customer unless they buy a proper transmit/receive device at the same time. Then to get the purchaser to sign a waiver that they understand the snowbe is intended for use by a minor child in the company of a responsible adult skier who should wear the proper dual function device. However, even then there would be no guarantees that they would be only used for that purpose once out on the mountain, and you couldn't control the resale of them secondhand on ebay in that way. To my mind even if they were being used by a child skiing on piste who was caught in an avalanche there would be no point unless an accompanying parent/responsible adult had a receive device on them and immediately available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| fatbob, To my mind even if they were being used by a child skiing on piste who was caught in an avalanche there would be no point unless an accompanying parent/responsible adult had a receive device on them and immediately available. |
And a shovel and probe? But putting my BBC/Jeremy Clarkson "balanced" hat on, I suppose the manufacturer would say that the pisteurs are likely to be (1) on the scene relatively quickly where an avalanche hits a piste (2) suitably equipped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
DT68, and a shovel and a probe - granted. Do pisteurs carry them and proper transceivers as a matter of course on routine trips around the hill? It is often quoted that time is of the essence - even 5 mins for pisteurs to arrive with the necessary, might be 5 minutes too long when someone with a proper device could already be searching.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| gsb, IMO you've done quite well out of this thread and whether one thinks the OP jumped the gun is a matter of judgement. You made the conscious decision to stock and advertise the product so you're not quite the innocent victim. I hope you'll be giving robust feedback to the supplier as to why reputable ski shops don't consider it a viable product because the longer he's around the more chance it will be sold and used for purposes for which it isn't advertised (as was his original intent). |
^This
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The original post says that I can by a "pieps freeride" for only £75. I do not have a lot of money and have tried everywhere on line to buy one at this price and the cheapest I can find is £127 which is substantially more. Can you put a link on please to where to buy at this price?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Just re read all the posts about this matter and it seems to me that a lot of the argument in the original post is based on being able to buy the pieps for £75. This is one of the main comments in the original post, that there is no excuse for buying any other budget alternative when the Pieps can be found so cheaply. There are links to places where it can be bought but not as economically as this and all on European sites. The only Uk site I can find with stock charges £127!!! I do feel that people should say where a product can be bought for this money when they are using it as a prime argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^ Blue tomato are a legit www store and sell Pieps freeride for 100 euros (£85)
Free postage to UK. Extra 10 euros discount if you sign up online
i,e total cost = 90 euros (£76)
Though this debate is not just about the cost. There are many other valid arguments....
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Megamum, is it not quite indicative that pisteurs do not routinely carry avvy rescue gear while on piste patrol?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
mophead, the main arguments are that a) the gizmo is useless/dangerous for off piste use and b) it's an irrelevant waste of money if you're sticking to the pistes. THe fact that you can get a proper transceiver for a relatively small additional cost is an addendum to argument (a) above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone think this product might be of "some" use when skiing with kids off Piste. See plenty of parents doing it with kids, some probably too young to organise a search party, but would at least give them a fighting chance of finding any should the shite hit the fan. I will certainly insist on something for my boy, and can't see me or him not skiing of piste together when he's 7ish, all said assessment is the key, but there are never 100% certainties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
CH2O, if kids are too young to participate in a search I'd suggest they shouldn't be there in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Lizzard, Easier said than done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
^ do you think its morally acceptable to take small kids into avalanche terrain ?
should the UKs largest ski store be promoting such behaviour ?
the "cambridge snow safety" product uses unjustified scare-mongering, not only in its marketting, but also to justify its short comings.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Sat 23-03-13 10:46; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Haggis_Trap, No I don't think it's "moral" however, I will take my boy off piste, when my judgement thinks it's not totally unsafe. My call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
CH2O, No problem with parents taking their kids where the kids will have fun if the kids have the skills and the parents are exercising good conservative judgement/have a high degree of awareness. I've seen 6 year olds skiing ballsy tree lines and minor rock drops etc and having a ball.
It's kinda different from this product though, any full transceiver would be valid for a kid in those circumstances because it enables the right sort of education, not the "wear this passive device and "the officials" will come and rescue you because you don't need to be self reliant"
Cambridge Snow Safety are scraping the barrel on their website - they've scoured news to find stories of people buried on piste to justify their forced positioning and can only find one. They'd save far more lives selling a cheap self breathalyser that reminded people not to try to walk home alone drunk in ski resorts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
Easier said than done.
|
Rubbish. Decide to take them off piste if you want, but you make it sound like something which happens by accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Lizzard, How many of Chamonix' young gun skiers and Freeride Heros grew up here using Arva? I have my eyes open to what happen's around me, and believe me when i say, no one cares more about my little boy than me, being a realist in the environment in which I live is what will save his life, I hope. Making "Off Piste" out of bounds until he is old enough to run a search party is simply not going to happen, further more, making it out of bounds will lead him to take more risks. I'll educate my boy, avalanche victims are "accidents".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
CH2O, Nice post mate, I will be taking my Girls off-piste when I feel that they are ready for it and the conditions are right. It is impossible to shelter your children from all risks (particularly if you enjoy activities such as skiing).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH2O, I also feel that education and good instilling of good practice is also the key. My kids are already exploring the bigger mountain off the edge of the piste - they are 10 and 13, but I make sure that they do so safely and go in the company of responsible adults such as instructors. I also get them to read all I can about mountain safety and am learning as much as I can myself so I can also inform them. SH's will have noticed my recent interest in these issues and this is all part of the process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
airbornebadger, I doubt Lizzard has Children, you have to get laid first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH2O, gosh you're so funny. 
The trick is to get laid and manage at the same time not to breed. Clearly you didn't quite get that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
^ do you think its morally acceptable to take small kids into avalanche terrain ?
should the UKs largest ski store be promoting such behaviour ?
the "cambridge snow safety" product uses unjustified scare-mongering, not only in its marketting, but also to justify its short comings. |
Perfectly acceptable. Risk is good and people should be able to decide how much risk they want to expose themselves and their kids to.
'The "cambridge snow safety" product' is a perfectly acceptable product to bring to market, imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Lizzard, I think prostitutes have some birth control stuff in 'em, perhaps that or Evolution is why you haven't quite managed to participate in the only important thing in life, preservation of the species, at least my DNA seemed valueable. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH2O, that post made no discernible sense. Are you drunk?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Lizzard, I'm sure someone will be along to explain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Haggis_Trap, fatbob, ok, understand your pov and frustration with this repeatedly popping back up and hence your responses, just the thread seemed to get swept up and away by the strong feelings of a few individuals leaving little time for others to collect their faculties and next thing you know, the axe had fallen on the perpetrator. Even though I think in balance the outcome is the right one it all seemed to happen so quickly!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Megamum, sorry, I (honest) wasn't trying to be deliberately obtuse.
Things may have changed and I wasn't paying attention but as far as I am aware, pisteurs are not regularly or routinely wearing transceivers nor carrying probes and shovels.
There's no need.
Which, I think, rather informs much of the argument around this product.
P.s. Neither are ski instructors, lift operators, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
under a new name, In that case, and as I suspected (your message above confirms) there is no point in putting a transmit only receiver on a child unless someone else in the party is carrying a receiver. They are not marketted for use off piste (or so they say), and are sold for on piste use. If they were used off piste I guess, if other people were around, there is a chance of another receiver being in the vicinity, but much less chance of this being the the case on piste - yet this is where, it is ostensibly (now!!) marketted for. They certainly shouldn't be sold for use by a child unless a receiver is sold at the same time, even then if the person wearing the receiver is caught in an on-piste avalanche there will be a very helpless child who can't even say 'I have a bleep for searching if anyone can help by using one', or even start a search themselves, which my kids now at 10 and 13 could now learn to do and I'm sure could have comprehended the process several years earlier - lets face it most computer games and controllers are more complex.
It's one of those things where I first thought 'well maybe', if only a child wears it and a parent wears the full dual function item. However, the more I think about it and find out things like piste patrols not carrying transceivers as standard, the more I talk myself out of that and decide that they are non-starter, It has to be transmit and receive or nothing at all, and certainly with both a shovel and probe. Though there is perhaps no need for a child to carry these until they are physically able to use them. Though even then they could be handed to any stronger help that might arrive on the scene.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
CH2O, why the infantile hostility? You think it's fine to take your anklebiters off piste. I'm dubious about the wisdom of doing so with people incapable of conducting a search. So what? This is what we adults call a 'difference of opinion'. It's hardly grounds for chucking moronic sexual insults at a person whom you have never met and about whom you know nothing whatsoever. Do grow up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Megamum, exactly. Complete rubbish product.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
PJSki, I agree
1. It is perfectly acceptable to take kids (too young to search) off piste
2. The emitter is not the work of th edevil (ARVA used to make a device like this the Blip I think used by assorted guides)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
slikedges,
| Quote: |
I can't help the unwelcome feeling I'm getting that there's been a response to this product rather akin to a mass hysteria or even a lynching mob
|
I think there is always a bit of a danger in groupthink in respnse to some situations and you have a valid point about not always going along with a crusade. Equally though I think there is a danger as consumers of never robustly criticising clearly poor products. We sometimes reap what we sow, had there been rather more robust and verbal criticsm of say PPI from the banks both the banks and consumers would be in less of mess than they are now.
I think Haggis Traps crusade against the product falls well within the limits of pertinent criticsm and complaint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must admit I do try to not be a 'gut reaction' type person. I like to try to consider things on facts and then decide what side I will come down on. That is why I didn't intially dismiss this product out of hand. At that time I wasn't informed enough to be comfortable with doing so.
However, as noted above, I now think that the potential for mis-use is high as it cheap and therefore an attractive purchase for anyone not understanding things. A parent might buy it for a child with good intentions, and then should it be needed in anger might be frustrated by not having something themselves to make use of it. I think the likelihood that a buried child/victim still might not be in the vicinity of someone with a receiver is significant and it seems a false investment to buy something that it is suggested should be useful, when it would seem it could not be used unless other party members were carrying something different. That is a conclusion that I hope is drawn from my own collection of facts rather than being led by mass hysteria.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| However, the more I think about it and find out things like piste patrols not carrying transceivers as standard |
What makes you think that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Couldn't this product be used on dogs?
i.e. ones used in search & rescue that could be buried in a secondary avalanche.
A dog would have no use for the search function.
Somebody needs to tell the inventor before he tops himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bikeandsnow, you would not want something in the search area which is not buried but which is emitting a signal - it would confuse transceivers and potentially slow down the search.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Cheers!