 Poster: A snowHead
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| As you've suggested, this is a highly complex area, full of contigencies and potential for billing (or uncertainty over billing). |
Yes that is a good summary of the situation.
From a cost viewpoint you can see that it makes sense for the state to be able to call on private contractors for large operations as companies like SAF can use their helicopters for other purposes when they are not engaged in rescue work. In the case where the piste services are billing you for rescue they may not even have the mechanisms in place to know whether you were helicoptered out by the state rescue services or their own contractors.
I should point out none of this directly relates to the Tignes accident but are just general comments about mountain rescue in France.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
http://www.airliners.net is a good place to look for plane & helicopter pictures, if you use the search option it will find all the photos from, say, Courchevel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Would Carte Neige/Carré Neige cover these costs? Do they make an assessment of whether the risk being run was "reasonable"?
It would certainly be good to know more about this case and particularly the evidence used by the insurance company to decide that the skiers were taking an unreasonable risk.
easiski, it's very different from sailing in a gale. If you have to decide whether, or how, to sail in a gale you can know pretty well exactly what to expect and make a decision based on your planned route, experience and equipment in relation to the nature of the weather. You can "work up to" coping with gales, if you have the strength and skills. A Force 6 feels like a gale in a small boat. You learn to anticipate the conditions, having absorbed the forecasts and charts. For example, off-shore gales feel very different from on-shore gales, and are far less dangerous. You can go out in strong winds in boats skippered by others, to gain experience, etc. You feel the full force of the weather, the exhaustion, the cold, the fear. You know what you are taking on and it's never a walk in the park. The chance of an avalanche is not like that. You might have a pleasant day in the sun, with no special knowledge, experience or skills seemingly required, or death might sweep you down the mountain. Even for knowledgeable people it's a bit of a lottery, as the number of highly experienced guides and mountaineers who are killed testifies. Ordinary holiday makers can go off-piste despite a high avalanche risk, nothing happens most of the time, they get away with it, and think it's OK. They watch people ski-ing off-piste, from a chairlift, and it looks OK. Most of the time most people DO get away with it, even when they don't "deserve" to do so and are taking risks similar to those unlucky few who DON't get away with it.
If nothing else this dreadful story should make us more determined to understand the small print, and perhaps for parents of gap-year kids to take an interest in the insurance cover their offspring have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
PGHM at Bourg St Maurice also have access to a helicopter ((blue Alouette 3 [tbc] possibly shared with the CRS in Albertville?.
|
At least one in the stack I saw was Blue, IFIR the other two were red.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
davidof,
Interesting insight to heli-use. How much of these costs could be avoided with French mountain insurance such as Carte/Carre Neige..as pam w says.??
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
davidof, Extremely interesting. I'm sure at least one of the helicopters I see regularly has SAF written on it. They also do the trips to ADH and back and I think you can have a fly around the area from ADH (not 100% sure about that).
Your post clarifies it nicely.
Perhaps I'm being harsh, but I do think most skiers underestimate the dangers of the mountain, and if I, with all my experience, would ask someone with more - why don't most holiday-makers? This is nothing to do with the incident concerned, but a general question. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
easiski, I agree with your comments, I came to skiing from fell walking in the UK and feel I have a greater appreciation of the dangers of moutains and their environments than a lot of my friends who seem to see it all as a free to go anyware environment with out thinking about the consequences, and reading some of the stiff on SH it gives you a far better perception of the risks than the average punter - not sure whether its relevant but most of my friends go one trips only with each other and don't interact with many other skiiers, say as you would on a chalet style holiday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| FenlandSkier wrote: |
| http://www.airliners.net is a good place to look for plane & helicopter pictures, if you use the search option it will find all the photos from, say, Courchevel. |
Thank-you. Hats off to those guys freezing their nuts off at Courchevel altiport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
I assume that under French law a dead person is liable for things which happened after they were dead - weird. By the time the rescue was initiated the snowboarders were dead.
As the whole economy within most ski resorts is dependent on the snow sports, I do not see why rescue should not be funded by the local economy - taking the money but not the downside of the inevitable idiots is not the real world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This episode is worrying. We rely on our insurance (given that it has an off-piste clause) to protect us from such costs. I think in UK law there is a requirement to take reasonable care, and in this travel insurance contract, as the insured, you must take all reasonable care to protect yourself and your property and to act as though you are not insured. But what on earth is meant by "reasonable care" in the context of off-piste skiing or boarding? I don't know the circumstances of this individual case, but at face-value, it is a very bad precedent for all of us who go off-piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
[quote="easiski"]richmond, I'm sorry, but I fail to see why (if this happened here), I should pay for the actions of a couple of ?idiots. Here, for instance, if it was the pisteurs who made the attempted rescue, that would be the lift company's responsibility and would be eventually passed on through your lift passes (which most people moan about the cost of). If it was Mountain Rescue (which is a separate entity) then the local community would end up paying. there's a huge difference. I don't know how it works at Tignes, but I'm pretty sure that the lift company is not run by the commune there. (Damn it - PG would know)!
[quote]
I don't know about others but I find this a bit offensive - is everyone who loses their life or has potential to lose their life in the mountains an idiot? The short answer to your question is because you and I presume most of the permanent resort residents make a living out of potential idiots & get plenty of cheap labour from seasonal potential idiots so taking the occasional hit isn't unfair.
The easiest solution in France at least it seems would be to include Carte/Carre Neige automatically into lift pasess - do any mountain residents lobby for this or do uninsured punters prove too much of a nice little earner compared to the negotiating power of a single insurer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
fatbob, would Carte Neige have covered these costs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
achilles,
No idea and I suspect it would take a bi-lingual expert in insurance law to definitely confirm that Carte Neige was indeed bombproof compared to a comprehensive off-piste insurance policy.
On the same topic how many of our sHs who like a beer at lunchtime have considered that they are potentially uninsured all afternoon & could you countersue a mountain-top bar for serving alcohol in the first place if it invalidated insurance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
i think its a bit sad when you reach the stage that countries wont rescue people in trouble, for whatever reason, in whatever circumstances, without requiring a credit card or insurance first..
yes its stupid to do things that are risky, yes its stupid to not insure yourself.. but people have and will always do stupid things..
as for the risk to the rescuers, well if you didnt like the risky rescuing lifestyle, why did you join the 'rescue' services..
as for paying for it.. well the local economy has the benefits of tourism in skings case, as for extra taxes.. well the world and his dog pay extra taxes for people who cant afford to do things .. be it single teenage parents, to bone idle dole claiments, to pie eating lard butts to people who ski where they shouldn't, we alos pay taxes and donate money to people who are unlucky like sailors or climbers who get caught out in bad weather.. .
yes its not fair, yes people should know better,, but to help people out of the the doggy doo, especially life threatening doggy doo is pretty much a defiing point of any caring civilisation.. the sooner we lose that regardless of cost the worse off we will all be..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
easkski wrote
| Quote: |
Clearly as the family and extended family is alive and well in France, this isn't considered particularly odd at all. You must be well aware of this, as you also live here.
|
No I'm not aware of it and it's absurd. If I commit a crime and do a bunk does a member of my family get locked up in my stead? In what modern legal system can someone who played no part in an event and which they had no knowledge of be liable for it?
What if the people that died were adopted? Who would be liable, the birth parents, the adoptive parents?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
In China, the family of an executed person is billed for the bullet (or so I've read).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| easiski wrote: |
| richmond, I'm sorry, but I fail to see why (if this happened here), I should pay for the actions of a couple of ?idiots. Here, for instance, if it was the pisteurs who made the attempted rescue, that would be the lift company's responsibility and would be eventually passed on through your lift passes (which most people moan about the cost of). If it was Mountain Rescue (which is a separate entity) then the local community would end up paying. there's a huge difference. I don't know how it works at Tignes, but I'm pretty sure that the lift company is not run by the commune there. (Damn it - PG would know)! |
Since you are one of the people in the front line for bearing the cost of rescues where there is no adequate insurance and the unfortunate rescuees (?) are no longer around to shell out, I see your point of view. But who is to pay? English law (I don't know about French) does not allow the money to be recovered from the estates, SFAIK. It's nothing to do with the families, there's no reason to expect them to shell out; these guys were adults and cannot be regarded as their families' responsibilites (if I had a car crash and was uninsured and unable to pay the other guy's bill, my mum wouldn't respond favourably to a request to cough up, and who would blame her?). If the insurance is inadequate, why should the insurance co. pay? It seems to me that expecting the local community, who benefit enormously from having a ski resort, to bear the cost in these circs is reasonable enough. If they make a commercial decision to pass that cost on to lift pass buyers, that's up to them, and certainly not particularly unfair.
The alternative seems to be either not to rescue people unless it is known, because they have established it beforehand, that they have adequate insurance or have deposited a wodge of cash or cc with the rescue body, which seems a bit dodgy; I can't imagine rescuers being very happy to leave people out there for financial reasons. Perhaps the purchase of a lift pass should be conditional on showing adequate insurance. Wouldn't deal with every case, but would deal with most. No idea whether or not it's practical, and might well lead to resorts insisting on their own, expensive, insurance. My suspicion is that paying for uninsured rescues isn't a big problem otherwise we'd hear more about it from the resorts.
I believe that in the 70s or 80s, the Nepali Air Force got so fed up with having to helicopter out injured trekkers who had no means of footing the bill that they would only do so after they had established that they could pay. This meant that some trekkers with relatively minor injuries (broken limbs and so on) were carried for a couple of days, no doubt in pain, which probably served them right. Whether anyone called the air force's bluff by becoming dangerously ill while uninsured I don't know. This policy was made apparent in guide books and at least some brochures, so there was a very good chance that trekkers would know of it, although SKAICR there was no requirement to show adequate funds before being given a trekking visa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Quote: |
no requirement to show adequate funds before being given a trekking visa
|
But perhaps there should be, after all is it fair for others to have to bear the cost of a rescue that is down to your error of judgement ? Or even bad luck ?
With regard to insurance policies I am very much against so called catch all get out clauses, if you are taking out an off piste policy it is one thing to be told you won't be covered if you ski when the risk is higher than a certain level, quite another to say exposure to danger which is reasonably foreseeable is not covered, how do you know the danger is foreseable, in this particular case the director of the Tignes Piste Service, Jean-Louis Tuaillon put the accident down to bad luck rather than any particular error committed by the young men. Which to me indicates that the danger of an avalanche was not reasonably foreseable even by what might be regarded as a local expert, if we get more insurance companies using these get out clauses then the question will be asked "why do we pay for insurance that does not cover us ?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| easiski wrote: |
Arno, If asny person (not talking about this particular case) made no assessment of risk before going off piste then they deserve what they get, and I really can't see why any insurance company (mush as I dislike them) should have to pay.
|
well, they paid a pretty high price for their error of judgement (i think we can call it that without making any comment as to whether it was a negligent error or not) regardless of the rescue bill
the fact is that the insurance company has no way of judging what assessment of risk those guys made. the only people who could tell anyone that are dead. seems to me that the insurance co has to do more than just assert that they failed to take all reasonable care and then state that because no-one has proved beyond doubt that the guys did take reasonable care the insurance co has no obligation to pay out. this is an appeal to ignorance. the insurance co needs to present evidence that the deceased acted unreasonably which is stronger than the evidence that they acted reasonably
as to whether other people should bear the loss... this is all about spreading risk. insurance is all about 100 people paying £1 to cover themselves for a £100 liability which has a 1 in 100 chance of happening (very crude - not taking into account a healthy profit for the insurance co); same with tax really - we pay for the NHS whether we use it or not. so the community bearing the costs of rescue is tough really - that's just part of the mutual responsibility of being in a community
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
[quote="D G Orf"]
| Quote: |
| "why do we pay for insurance that does not cover us ?" |
Many,I believe,simply don't ask(or even care).The assumption is made(often wrongly)that having paid 'you' are covered Insurance companies,and brokers,must shoulder their share of the blame.Ambiguous terms,unfamilier language,miss information and downright dodgy practise all contribute to the confusion IMO.Often these companies are reluctant to give a black,or white,answer;and tack on extra conditions to the condition you are asking about.Is it any wonder people trip up
I can,just about,muster a little sympathy with the insurance industry(but only just  )They are being asked to provide financial compensation to someone that a,They have never met b,Based on an application that could be false,full of errors and lies and c,Could be the basis of a fraudulent claim!!
Would you do it??
PS. I have no connection with the insurance industry,other than being a reluctant customer 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
snowskisnow, thing is, companies providing holiday insurance don't make much of an effort to ask questions and the cost of the insurance is adjusted to take into account the risks you mention. so, no, i don't have any sympathy for them
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To get back to the apparent wording of the policy, surely by simply going off piste I am exposing myself to a increased risk which is reasonably foreseable thus the insurace company concerned is effectively saying that despite the fact that you think you are covered off piste, in fact you are not !
Certainly I always think about the risks of going off piste for even a short distance, for instance whilst pisted fields have their fences either removed or lowered to lie flat on the ground, the same is not always true of off pisted areas, thus in going off piste I run the risk of skiing into a barbed wire fence hidden beneath the snow, or for that matter a more natural obstruction like a rock or tree stump, anyone who has skied for long enough will know that such things do happen, though fortunately they're not common, by having an ambiguous comment like "risk which is reasonably foreseable" insurance companies are in effect giving themselves a massive get out clause, for that matter the chances of being injured seem to be higher for beginners thus they too could fall under such a clause, even slipping on an icy road might not be covered
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fatbob, you might have noticed a ? BEFORE the word you find offensive.....
What I don't think is being appreciated here, and nothing to do with this particular case, is that the necessity for these rescues (not all avalanche, but others too) is becoming more and more regular, and it's not just one incident - in which case fair enough, the resort can pay the costs. But with more and more people cheating on their obligations (again NOT talking about this case), it's becoming a very big problem. Also, the general attitude is now becoming - "well, if I get stuck, the pisteurs will come and rescue me so wht the hell". Don't forget, I, and other mountain residents meet these people day after day after day, all year round (almost). I don't think you all realise how big the problem potentially is. In addition, you should realise that most people who pay council tax in a ski resort are not rich, and probably have an income a bit less than €20,000, which is probably a lot less than most of you. Of course the bosses get rich - they do that everywhere! 
Oh and BTW, with your liftpass here you can get very good insurance for €2.50 per day. I don't think that's expensive, neither is Carte Neige (which BTW doesn't cover professional skiing). Probably much cheaper than the average TO insurance.
I also don't like get out clauses, and it does sound, in this case, as if the insurance company should have sought the advice of the Tignes Director of Pistes, who must be the local acknowledged expert. I think you need it specified what risk factor is allowable - but that would mean everyone would rush off in, say, factor 3 and promptly die in avalanches! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
easiski,
I noticed the ? but had no idea what it meant - I guess now you meant questionable idiots. I would consider it offensive to relate the term to this case as the comments quoted elsewhere suggests these guys were unlucky. I do agree that in any resort there are plenty of idiots including (& I don't include you in this) arrogant locals, but I don't think your original post made the distinction clear.
If its such a big issue are you and other resort residents actively lobbying to have carte neige/carre neige included mandatorily in lift passes? This would seem the easiest solution and works pretty well in North America for inbounds rescue. Do you actively dissuade your customers from drinking at luchtimes as it might invalidate their insurance or attempting runs clearly beyond their ability- there are lots of ways insurance cos can weasel out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| easiski wrote: |
| Oh and BTW, with your liftpass here you can get very good insurance for €2.50 per day. I don't think that's expensive, neither is Carte Neige (which BTW doesn't cover professional skiing). Probably much cheaper than the average TO insurance. |
Maybe that should be made compulsory with the purchase of a lift pass. Some other insurance would still be needed for most people, to cover non skiing medical costs and less obviously essential cover which some people might want, such as cancellation, delay, loss of bits and pieces. I have annual cover which includes adequate winter sports insurance; whether the cost saving on the same policy without the winter sports bit (if it was made optional) would be enough to cover the cost of local insurance, who knows? €2.50 a day sounds very cheap, so you'd think so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
The crunch is that it looks as though the guys thought they were insured. And they do not seem to have behaved irresponsibly. It is all very well saying that they should have had Carte Neige - but would that have covered them in this instance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
achilles, you've realised my point, these two chaps did almost everything correctly, they picked insurance specifically to cover them off piste, they went equiped with the right gear including avalanche transmiters, if as has been said by the director of the Tignes Piste Service they were simply unlucky why should their parents be further penalised, if the director had said they were foolish or reckless then imho their insurers might have a case for not paying, but surely the reason we take out insurance is to cover us in case we are unlucky.
I do believe that the rescuers should be paid, however I think the insurers should pay, to play with the words of Jean-Louis Tuaillon the insurers took out a bet, that they wouldn't have to pay up because the chaps concerned would not need to claim, sadly the insurers have had some bad luck
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D G Orf, unless one has read the policy, how can one say whether or not the insurers should cough up? If they should, then they should, end of discussion. It's perhaps more interesing to consider who should foot the bill when mountain users are rescued and can't pay (because they are dead or, worse, poor).
I don't see where the parents or other family come into it, and I'd be astonished if the law of any country obliged them to pay. That leaves only the victims' estates, which might well be unavailable, inadequate and/or have better claimants, and the public purse in one way or another, which might decide to push the cost back onto skiers in general through lift pass prices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
I'd definately be in favour of insurance being added automatically to ski passes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
D G Orf, is that possible? Travel companies can't insist on you buying their insurance so, assuming that was as a result of a European directive, I would expect that the lift company can't insist on you taking out their insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
ben wright, maybe not, but they could increase lift pass prices by a couple of € a day and provide free rescue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
richmond, ah but what about rescuing snowshoers or people that hike up to ski down and who hadn't bought a lift pass?
As someone who pays about 5 different loads of tax in France, I don't see why the local/regional govt doesn't cough up for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
ben wright, yes, indeed, they'd still cause the sort of soul searching troubling us now. Presumably, some organ of government picks up the tab now for unpaid rescue bills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I do agree that it would be sensible to add the cost of insurance to the lift passes, at the very least that would avoid the sort of problems that Snowbunny had in Val T last year (or the year before). I asked to the extra with my liftpass at the EOSB precisely because of her troubles. However that probably wouldn't cover off piste outside the domain. My pisteur friend (the auzzie one), says it's all very political! - what a surprise. 
ben wright, I'm sure any additional costs incurred by local or regional government would result in an extra tax.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
easiski, exactly. What's a few Euros on everyone's tax bill? My (unclear) post was intended to convey that I don't care if I pay a bit more tax rather than I pay enough already so why isn't this included. I thought that if I didn't mention that I paid endless taxes in France someone else who lives there would, erroneously, say "that's easy for you to say as you don't pay tax here".
As everyone does, I might moan about how much tax I pay but whenever it goes up it makes no difference to my lifestyle/spending habits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Automatically adding insurance to a lift pass would appear to be a logical solution to this issue, as long as the insurance is straightforward & comprehensive (unlike the case described with the catch all clause). There will always be exceptions with those that don't purchase lift passes(as described above), but isn't that the case with most things. Unfortunately, it appears that the indivuals that died thought that they had been insured for the activity they where doing.
This raises the question what "off-piste" insurance actually covers and what are the caveats?
Are you sure that your insurance policy would provide adequate cover if you had an accident off-piste?
If anything this tragic event has highlighted the different presception of what is covered, between the insurance company and the policy holders.
The problem is that unless you are very familiar with ins and outs of the insurance procedures and legal jargon that accompanies them. It can be very easy to fall foul of the "small print", and in most cases you only find this out when you claim. Even if you have done everything "correctly" a large number of insurance companies are a "pain in the RS" to deal with when it comes to claiming (unlike the impression their advertisements give on TV).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowskisnow, nobody here has yet assured me that Carte Neige would have covered the lads who got killed in the subject accident. Your link states:
| Quote: |
| Carte Neige covers you for transport off the mountain |
But what about the cost of a full-scale avalanche search?
I have long accepted that in France one has to cough up cash up front in an accident, then claim back afterwards - though after the experience of my accident last season, I am becoming less inclined to ski there, EOSB apart. The subject incident only adds to this thought. However, the suggestion that an insurance company will also opt out of its responsibility is also worrying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Agghhh the Natives article is incorrect. Carte Neige medical cover is currently limited to 3800 euros (take a look at the policy document). As the EHIC only covers you to the same extent as the French State insurance scheme (75% of costs for the first 31 days, 100% thereafter) you could find yourself with a hefty bill as hospital treatment even for something such as a broken wrist will not be cheap. The Carte Neige medical cover is aimed at all those incidental expenses such as injections, crutches, ambulance etc not covered by a French Mutuelle.
| Quote: |
In France the EHIC will pay 75 per cent or more of the cost direct to the hospital. You pay the balance. You must also pay a fixed daily hospital charge ('forfait journalier'). The 25 per cent balance and the forfait journalier are non-refundable.
Around 70 per cent of standard doctors' and dentists' fees are refunded, and between 35 and 65 per cent of the cost of most prescribed medicines.
|
You also need to use hospitals and doctors in the French state system. Many resort doctors are private as are a good % of French hospitals.
Remember also that the Carte Neige search and rescue cover is limited to 15,000 euros when you are not in France.
In France the piste patrol have a legal duty to take you off the mountain insured or not, doctors have a duty to treat you insured or not. Carte Neige is just another private insurance underwritten by the same brokers that underwrite many UK policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The good thing (in my experience) is that French patrollers etc understand and trust Carte Neige. So when I was carted off the mountain, I just showed them my Carte, signed a few forms and that was it. They didn't take my credit card number or march me to a cash machine or anything like that.
That said, I've no idea whether it would have covered the costs in this case
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
I take a different view.Its the way the French domains operate and,should you wish to ski there,its the way you should.
