 Poster: A snowHead
|
@WindOfChange, Why do I need to be able to withstand a fall? (I don't think I've fallen in the last 120 days of skiing).
Anywhere I'm likely to fall, it's likely to be relatively injurious. Last time I recall falling I smashed one digit and dislocated its neighbour. Nearly cracked my helmet as well. (Interestingly, that was initiated by a pre-release, from bindings I'd skied about 250 days on with no problems).
A self test by falling over of bindings would be meaningless.
"If you're knees are shot, then it's gonna happen sooner or later anyhow." - no, it's not.
There are static tests you can do - kicking yourself out of your heels, side swiping yourself out of the toes, but I think they're meaningless as well.
Knowing what DINs you should be on is far more important. If you're then consistently pre-releasing there's a technical issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@WindOfChange, induce falls? No thanks. I skied 100+ days on my old skis/bindings and fell plenty, on piste and off, on same DIN without any issues. As my tag line suggests, one day I was pootling along a blue chatting about where to go for lunch when I caught an edge, ski didn't release in a slow twisting fall and pop went my ACL. Practice falls will achieve only a very embarrassing trip to the nearest hospital.
Other things I don't do: running headlong at a wall to test my helmet, and dragging a sharp stone down my new jacket to test the strength of the gore-tex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
120 days with out falling - So every new trick in the park just works first time?
Like going from 180s to switch 180s, new transitions on the boxes, or trying a new grab you've yet to master.
You can practise on an airbag, but it's not the same as landing on the snow.
Incidentally, do you bindings release normally when you land on the airbag?
Falling is a natural consequence of trying new stuff and pushing yourself.
( you can test your helmet and gore tex this way too if you like )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@WindOfChange, love that fact you presume all anyone wants to do is hang about the park doing tricks. It's cute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, and, @WindOfChange, everyone, like, everyone can do 180s, in either direction, if they try. It’s 360s that become tricky...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@WindOfChange, crashing on purpose to determine din settings is not something that should be encouraged/promoted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@swarmcatcher, they could store your details, but they don’t know if you’ve added/lost 5kg since last time, or bought new boots which could give you a new BSL, and possibly a new DIN. The calculation does need to be checked as these things change, and as your skiing improves, and as you get older.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@swarmcatcher, In terms of 'messing with' DIN settings you're totally at will to do that - they're your legs. It's not that it voids an insurance claim, it's more that it will prevent your insurer transferring the payout to the shop's insurer.
You the way insurers work is that they don't ever want to pay. But what they do when somebody claims, is fight amongst themselves and try to find another insurer to foot the bill. So this is when you crash your car, the insurer finds a way to make it the other driver's fault... not because they actually care who did what, but mostly so they can get the other driver's insurer to cover the cost. This is the same. If you brake your legs either from a pre-release or a non-release; your insurer has room to try to argue that the accident was ultimately caused by negligence of the rental-shop's ski tech, who gave you the wrong DIN setting. This will transfer the payout liability to the hire shop's insurers. If you change the settings, then they lose that angle on it.
Then again, some insurers might argue that bindings are safety equipment, and may/probably will have a clause in their terms that if you are not a 'competent person' and you mess with the safety systems and an accident occurs which would have been prevented by correct working of the safety systems... then you take all liability for that.
It's a messy world, insurance. But one way or another you'll almost always lose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
I cannot believe binding settings will have any impact on your insurance.
Consider the context.
C’mon. Reality?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| Oh, and, @WindOfChange, everyone, like, everyone can do 180s, in either direction, if they try. It’s 360s that become tricky... |
180s and 360s are easy. It's landing a 90 or 270 that's hard...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@Mjit, hahaha 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
@WindOfChange So every new trick in the park just works first time?
Like going from 180s to switch 180s, new transitions on the boxes, or trying a new grab you've yet to master.
You can practise on an airbag, but it's not the same as landing on the snow.
Incidentally, do you bindings release normally when you land on the airbag?
|
I literally have no idea what this means - does it come with subtitles? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@Gordyjh, if you can’t work out what a 180 or a grab is then I don’t think subtitles would help you much 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
What insurance company ever investigated someone's DIN settings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@SnoodlesMcFlude, the words appear to be English but don’t seem to have anything to do with skiing as I learned it!
Transitions? Boxes? Grab? Airbag? WTF?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Gordyjh, you are clearly not a park rat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@Gordyjh, what about 'steeze', 'double cork' or 'nose butter'? 
I'd dearly love to be a park rat, sadly I seem to be reaching a stage in my life where the brain is concerned with self preservation, just wish I picked up skiing 20 years earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| bar shaker wrote: |
| What insurance company ever investigated someone's DIN settings? |
What do you actually, genuinely know about what goes on in an insurance investigation? Have you any experience in it?
They absolutely do. If you're on rental skis they will want the rental shop's stock number for that ski. They will check the bindings for them being setup to the correct BSL and the correct DIN setting. They will want to know who set the skis up, what training they have, the history of the ski, how it's been inspected for wear and tear, how it's been maintained.
The JOB of insurers is not to pay out. The job of insurers is to find somebody else to pay out. In a major accident, they've got somebody who's bought a £120 policy and racked up £30,000 of helicopters, CT scans, ambulances, hospital rooms, etc etc. Some hospitals charge for the jug of water they put by your bed. Everything is monetised so no insurer can afford to pay a claim that can possibly be passed onto somebody else. That's what insurance people do - they scrutinise everything about a claim, to look for a party who is at least partly responsible so that that party's insurer has to take the hit.
So if the injured skier's insurer can claim that the bindings were set incorrectly, that caused them to not release when they should have, and that led to further injury... there is every scope that the rental shop's insurer will take at least some of the hit.
If they could claim that the colour of the skis had anything to do with it, they would do. They will find anything.
| under a new name wrote: |
I cannot believe binding settings will have any impact on your insurance.
Consider the context.
C’mon. Reality? |
So you're telling me that binding setting has no effect on the potential for injury?
Do you just lock yours out completely or something because you evidently believe they don't do anything?
If the binding can contribute to the injury, it can, and will, contribute to the claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@dp, well, for at least relatively minor accidents, involving only some surgery, in Italy, in 2015, in my personal experience, with Italian, French and Swiss insurance, they absolutely do not.
I tend to run on around 7 most of the time and up to 9 or 10 for racing.
I've seen many insurance triggering accidents including helo evac and never was a binding inspected.
And I am pretty darn sure that any shop worth its salt (and definitely, for sure in the US) has a pretty convincing waiver that whatever happens to you, it's not their fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@under a new name, how many of those were hire skis?
Waivers are basically not legally enforceable. If your negligent actions contribute to an insurance claim, you can inspect the insurer to hunt you down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@dp, not saying you are wrong exactly but... surely in order to prove negligence the ski's would have to be taken as evidence at the scene and there would have to be "chain of evidence" or whatever it is the crime progs always go on about on the telly. And even then who is to say what is an appropriate setting or who made that setting? Forgetting whether it is a hire ski or not, if I up my DIN from 6 to 7 and then take a fall, can the insurance company hold me liable. I don't think so. Maybe, just maybe, if I whacked it up to 12. I am just not convinced they would or able to go to those lengths. Though it would seem prudent to do some checks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@dp, I've had experience of claiming on ski insurance. A few years ago I popped my ACL (own skis), and last year my mate broke his leg in a nasty spiral fracture (rentals). My ski insurance paid for in resort expenses, new flights (including 3 seats for my locked knee brace), also my traveling companion, taxi from Val d'Isere to Lyon, and 2 taxis from Luton to North London. My friend had immediate surgery at the private clinic in St Anton, 16 pins if I recall correctly, racking up a ~€8,000 bill, as well as a change of flight and taxi home in the UK. Both mine and my friends insurance covered all costs without fuss.
On neither occasion were we asked if the skis were our own, hired, or what DIN settings they were on.
Back in the UK, our respective private medical insurers then took over; I had multiple consultations with a top knee surgeon (the Doc specifically recommended by Alan Griffiths, the long-term British Doc in Val), an MRI scan followed by hammy graft ACL replacement operation at a private hospital, all done as quickly as medical advice allowed, and several post-op physio sessions. Again, there was no question of any equipment liability, in fact no question of anything other than "yep, you've bust your ACL whilst skiing, we'd better get that fixed up for you". My friends UK experience was similar.
I'm afraid your summary of insurance company actions in no way reflects my personal experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@dp, it was on my own skis, but no-one even asked about them. Swiss insurers covered the surgery without even asking how it happened.
Re waivers, so TLH (and all the other heli-operators) are wasting their time? http://www.tlhheliskiing.com/heliski-packages/release-of-liability-waiver-of-claims/
I don't think so.
You'd have to prove negligence, and when I've hired skis in the US, there's a form to sign when you tell them to put the DIN up from their default.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
The most important factor when choosing a rental shop is proximity. After that little else matters. IME most rental shops are much the same. I think you are over-thinking it. They are only skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My company medical insurance covered rehab and scan costs when I did my knee. Didn’t have any issues getting them to cover it, in fact it was them that suggested I may want to MRI for peace of mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
re DIN settings, seems I will have to change mine overnight when I turn 50, now as I will be in Canada I hope I can work out what exact day my birth was re time zones etc, http://www.dincalculator.com/#/
In all seriousness, I shall leave it alone where it is now!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Try and get a recommendation for a good ski rental shop. Some are dreadful. I finally bought my own skis after an experience with a shop in Italy that were very helpful until I wasn't keen on the first pair of planks they offered me, then suddenly lost all ability to speak English.
One shop in Austria rented some of my group skis so poorly serviced a competent skier couldn't get down a red run.
Having inappropriate or rubbish skis can really spoil a holiday.
Proximity is important though. Even with the best shops you may want to swap your skis sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@under a new name, I can't comment on the law in the US or France. But in the UK, one of the roles of my company is to attend sites on behalf of one of the big insurance companies, to inspect theatrical lifting and rigging equipment - both as part of routine inspections, but also in the event of an accident. In the event of an accident, I would be there - on a closed site (which insurers can do in the event of a major accident) - essentially trying to find other people to blame by way of finding sub-par equipment, work or record-keeping. They literally pay me a day rate - which might be for several days concurrently - to look for ways out of them paying.
Waivers are basically legally unenforceable. You cannot avoid liability by saying "you accept that I am not liable". Anyone can say that. If it meant anything, everyone would say it. It's an attempt to prevent people trying to claim, at best.
With the case of ski bindings, I would say, with an average 1-week-a-year skier: Are they suitably trained and experienced to adjust their own ski bindings to an appropriate level? The answer is probably no. Therefore, unless the ski shop undertakes a process to identify that they are in fact competent in undertaking that work, the ski shop in doing the work must therefore accept responsibility for setting the appropriate DIN setting on the binding - as they, a competent ski rental shop, is acting on behalf of their customer. This would then be recorded by the ski shop and kept on file, as that information might be demanded by the (shop's) insurer. An insurance waiver cannot circumvent this process.
The reason you didn't see the skis get examined on your trip is because the helicopter crew do not work for the insurers. They don't give a toss who pays the bill - it's irrelevant to them. Their job is to get you off the mountain.
I don't know if you are familiar with the insurance process. But what happens is that you basically submit a claim to your insurer. They then review the claim. Experts work on your case to decide whether they must accept liability for the full sum; whether you can be expected to contribute some or all of the sum in addition to your excess (generally because you breached one/some of the terms of your policy); and whether anyone else can be expected to contribute some or all of the sum because the accident was entirely or partly their fault.
So the helicopter crew are way above this. They don't care. But the insurer will receive your medical documents. Your documents will show how you got hurt. And if the injury you sustained shows possible symptoms of an incorrectly set binding (and you can bet your ass there'll be a medical professional working for the insurer who can spot such a thing), the insurer could ask things such as - to see the binding settings, to know who the skis were hired from, etc. Your insurer might then contact the insurer of the hire shop, to request details of how the binding settings were determined, and who adjusted them.
They will clutch at straws for any opportunity to undermine your claim by attempting to prove that somebody else was at least partly responsible so that somebody else foots all or some of the bill.
I'm not saying that they'll routinely check bindings. You seem to have responded as though what I said was that the helicopter comes out to you and before checking for a pulse, first grabs your skis and writes your DIN settings down. That's not what I'm saying. But the insurer can absolutely request evidence of what binding settings you were using - as it should have been recorded by the shop - to examine whether the DIN setting was appropriate and whether, if not, it might have contributed to the injury. And thus - referring to my original post - if they had the opportunity to cross-examine your actual bindings, and found that the DIN setting on your actual bindings differed from the DIN settings recorded by the rental shop; then when the rental shop's insurer gets the letter from your insurer telling them that they want to hold them partly-liable for your injury; the rental shop's insurer has their own opportunity to wiggle out of it by presenting that the setting you were using differed to that which their technicians' set - and therefore by doing so, you contributed to your own injury.
It's long and boring but basically it's a game of passing the liability buck to another insurer and them passing it either back, or to somebody else; until it sticks to somebody.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@dp, myself, @under a new name, and @SnoodlesMcFlude have all said that what you say takes place did not, actually, take place. Yet you persist in trying to tell us something that we know to be untrue. Can you give an example when the insurance companies sent Columbo to a resort to question, under bright lights, the rental shop in the case of claiming for knee injuries?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@dp, what an interesting (and somewhat niche?) job!
I would argue that the adjustment of bindings is somewhat akin to tying ones own laces. But I have been skiing for rather a long time (probably since before I started to tie my own shoelaces).
I get your point, but I really don't think/observe that's what happens in practice. I know for a fact that my brother in law's shop (in France) doesn't record what DIN he sets customer's skis on. So there's absolutely no way to establish negligence. Last time I used hire skis in the UK they didn't record them (Braehead, ski test) and frankly the biggest liability was the (appalling) rental ski boots.
I the U.S. a release of liability is typically a necessary protection for a business in a risky activity like skiing and while I'm not sure enforceable is the right term, it certainly offers some protection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| dp wrote: |
| ... The JOB of insurers is not to pay out. The job of insurers is to find somebody else to pay out. In a major accident, they've got somebody who's bought a £120 policy and racked up £30,000 of helicopters, CT scans, ambulances, hospital rooms, etc etc. .... |
Rubbish. The job of insurers IS to pay out, for valid claims. And if someone is injured and needs treatment there is clearly a valid claim. If they are doing their job right they will have another 4-500 people who have also paid them £120 but not made a claim at all.
For most accident medical claims involving a single skier there would be no point in an insurance assessor going to the hire shop - by the time they get there the skis may have been serviced and rented out to another customer at different settings. The only circumstances I can imagine where this sort of post-accident investigation might happen is either where a third party has been seriously injured, which may have nothing to do with binding settings, or if there has been a series of claims involving the same shop / rental company / TO etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| sugarmoma666 wrote: |
Try and get a recommendation for a good ski rental shop. Some are dreadful. ....
...Proximity is important though. Even with the best shops you may want to swap your skis sometimes. |
This. There is a shop I avoid because over a number of years it repeatedly set bindings for beginners ridiculously high - in one case leading too an ACL injury.
And ideally proximity to both your accommodation and to the slopes - you may want something adjusting or changed either in the evening or during the day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ecureuil, come on - name and shame
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dp wrote: |
| But the insurer will receive your medical documents. Your documents will show how you got hurt. And if the injury you sustained shows possible symptoms of an incorrectly set binding (and you can bet your ass there'll be a medical professional working for the insurer who can spot such a thing), |
I think this is the first mistake you are making here. I would be surprised if even a medical professional could tell from the claim documentation whether the binding settings were a contributing factor.
| dp wrote: |
| the insurer could ask things such as - to see the binding settings, to know who the skis were hired from, etc. Your insurer might then contact the insurer of the hire shop, to request details of how the binding settings were determined, and who adjusted them. |
As others have pointed out that information in many cases would not be available.
I think you are assuming the experience you have with the cases you investigate can be transferred over to this entirely different situation/industry - and it doesn't seem to....
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Layne wrote: |
| dp wrote: |
| But the insurer will receive your medical documents. Your documents will show how you got hurt. And if the injury you sustained shows possible symptoms of an incorrectly set binding (and you can bet your ass there'll be a medical professional working for the insurer who can spot such a thing), |
I think this is the first mistake you are making here. I would be surprised if even a medical professional could tell from the claim documentation whether the binding settings were a contributing factor.
|
I didn't say that you could decide from a picture that the bindings contributed. I said that you could see from a picture whether bindings could have contributed.
There's a big enough difference there to land a jumbo jet in.
| Quote: |
| dp wrote: |
| the insurer could ask things such as - to see the binding settings, to know who the skis were hired from, etc. Your insurer might then contact the insurer of the hire shop, to request details of how the binding settings were determined, and who adjusted them. |
As others have pointed out that information in many cases would not be available.
I think you are assuming the experience you have with the cases you investigate can be transferred over to this entirely different situation/industry - and it doesn't seem to.... |
No I'm not. I know that DIN settings do get requested by insurers.
In what circumstances would the information not be available? Apart from the shop not recording it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| @dp, what an interesting (and somewhat niche?) job! |
Sometimes. But other times I feel a bit parasitic for costing somebody half their insurance payout on a technicality that probably didn't influence it. (I sleep at night because the routine inspections do spot problems which reduce the need for the post-incident inspections).
| Quote: |
I would argue that the adjustment of bindings is somewhat akin to tying ones own laces. But I have been skiing for rather a long time (probably since before I started to tie my own shoelaces).
|
Well in that situation the shop could argue that having spoken to you, and you told them that you had skied, and adjusted your own bindings for "a rather long time" - that you had sufficient experience to either (a) do your own bindings on the hire skis, or (b) at least spot that the setting they had provided you with was unsuitable and taken action. The issue is more with people who would not be considered competent enough to either adjust their own bindings, or spot a bad adjustment and correct it.
| Quote: |
I get your point, but I really don't think/observe that's what happens in practice. I know for a fact that my brother in law's shop (in France) doesn't record what DIN he sets customer's skis on. So there's absolutely no way to establish negligence. Last time I used hire skis in the UK they didn't record them (Braehead, ski test) and frankly the biggest liability was the (appalling) rental ski boots.
|
Places I've been take more records in terms of binding adjustments. I think in reality that you can really take more or less records as you please - some people will record only what they are legally obliged to, others will record all possible values. Some theatres I go into will inspect a winch, and they'll also inspect the anchor that is holding the winch to the structure. Legally - they're only obliged to inspect the winch - as the anchor is not a piece of lifting equipment, nor a lifting accessory. BUT, in the event of the anchor point failing - which would cause the winch to shoot off skywards and the thing it carries to plummet... my inspection in the theatre may highlight that the anchor hadn't been inspected and since the failure of the anchor ultimately caused the accident, they had failed in their duty of care to their employees since they had not inspected something which was a load bearing component in a lifting system which when it failed caused the catastrophic failure of the system. In this scenario, the theatre would possibly not be prosecuted through the courts - owing to the fact that they did fulfil their legal obligations by way of inspecting the things they were legally obliged to; but the insurer might offer a reduced payout on the grounds that better practice in inspecting the equipment might have prevented it. A theatre who inspects their anchors, in the same scenario, could prove that due diligence was paid in the inspection of the anchors and that no damage was observed, and thus the failure of the anchor and thus the accident, would not have been preventable by way of more thorough inspections.
From the insurance side, my client (probably the theatre's insurer) would be looking to offload responsibility to anyone else - be that the winch manufacturer or supplier, the touring theatre company using the winch, the inspections contractor who last inspected it, etc - and speaking to their insurers who would be battling that responsibility. In the event that my client had to accept liability and pay out, they would potentially use my findings to offer a reduced payout on the basis that the theatre couldn't prove that routine inspection of the anchor would not have prevented the incident (where a theatre which does routinely inspect the anchor points could prove such a point).
Thus in the ski industry, a ski insurer could potentially try to shift some liability onto the rental shop by suggesting that the incorrect setup of the ski bindings contributed to the accident - particularly if the victim suggests this in their statement. Whilst you might not be legally obliged to record those settings, by recording those settings, the shop would be able to demonstrate that all bindings are setup by a competent ski technician, and that they are set in accordance with industry guidelines.
When you go to the indoor ski slops and they make you go the machine where you stand on a scale, tell it your ability, and it works out a binding size for you and gives you a ticket - that's what it's doing. It's giving the snowdome an audit-ready document that stores itself on the computer, that shows that the ski binding was set to a level that was suggested by a computer based on industry guidelines and best practice. This doesn't prove that different settings would/could have prevented the injury, but it proves that the shop could not have reduced the likelihood of injury through incorrectly set bindings, by employing better procedures. Having a system in place for setting bindings - and then recording those settings - covers the shop as it cannot be suggested that better practice in setting bindings could have reduced the scope for injury.
It was wrong of me to suggest that the insurance company 'will' want the details of the ski. What I really meant was - as I alluded to in my original post - these are details that insurer reserves the right to ask for in attempting to transfer the liability to somebody else, or reduce the payout. Thus transparency in setting bindings is good and record keeping is good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
