 Poster: A snowHead
|
I love the attempts to shoot the messenger. It's not Haggis_Trap who started stocking these morally dubious devices and the insinuation that he owes some duty of care to the stores when they (apparently) don't have any duty of care to the customer is rather hypocritical. 
"It's legal, so it's okay", is a hilariously bad defense. Many things have been criminalised in the name of safety, the most obvious being not wearing seat belts. Just because something is legal doesn't make it acceptable and visa versa (e.g. the treatment of Alan Turing).
Honestly some people on here are reactionary morons who don't understand that the ability to comment on the actions of people and businesses in the public sphere is typically free and protected. Even if you really like the businesses in question.
Comedy Goldsmith, avalanches don't work in such a manner that avi cords are effective. This has been known for decades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
DT68,
If you choose to retail potentially lethal safety equipment and it is discussed on an internet forum tough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Can you imagine how big a 2@ you are going to look when the FLASH AVI CRAPOLA self deploys during an overestimate of ability to difficulty moment AKA a yard sale.
RECCOs are great for finding stuff that goes missing like skis or wallets. See above scenario.
Really, apart from training (and that sounds limp), I would see these transmit only beacons as only of any use for recovering non sentient objects; like snowboarders, for example..
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
DT68, normal standards of responsibility should mean a retailer do due diligence before selling a supposed 'safety' product. Sorry you love them so much but they are entirely right to receive opprobrium for even thinking of selling the device. If people  up in public they will be criticised there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
mcspreader, are Recco's good for that? - it was my understanding and I'm happy to be corrected, that you needed a special device to search for them. Ergo, even if you had them on a ski you wouldn't be carrying something that could send and pick up a signal bounced from them. Is that correct?
I've thought long and hard about the argument for putting a transmit only beacon on kids. I have kids who are now venturing off the edge of the piste, through trees etc. Possibly they could get trapped in a tree well and I'd have to find them if they didn't reappear where I was expecting. If I carried a transmit/recieve and they were wearing transmit only, I could achieve this. However, to buy a transmit only still requires investment.
Within just a few more years they will be wanting to explore proper off piste. At their age they can learn to use a receive device make searches etc. In fact I have seen a 7 year old handle a receive device and comprehend how to search with them. So, if I want to invest in anything like this, doesn't it make sense to buy something decent that will take them into the future with no further outlay? I have often had the argument quoted if you can afford to ski, you should be able to afford the safety gear necessary - I think it applies to these avalanche transceivers. A smaller lightly built child might not be able to probe and certainly would find digging difficult - i.e. maybe no need to carry shovels and probes, but if I want a safety net for when they dive through trees and I lose sight of them then I think a beacon that both sends and receives is the best way to invest cash and use knowledge for the long term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
under a new name, less of the b*llocks and humbug, please. The OP involved nothing more than self-indulgent, synthetic and vicarious indignation on behalf of any "mug" who might have bought one (no doubt on the patronising basis that any such "mug" is too stupid to make their own mind up and therefore has to be protected) and ignored the fact that (1) it was being sold explicitly on the basis that it should NOT be used off-piste and (2) its shortcomings were already obvious without the need for anyone to shout about them.
| Quote: |
| Rant over. For the mo |
Really? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DT68, nope, I can rant for as long as you like 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| meh wrote: |
I love the attempts to shoot the messenger. It's not Haggis_Trap who started stocking these morally dubious devices and the insinuation that he owes some duty of care to the stores when they (apparently) don't have any duty of care to the customer is rather hypocritical.
|
Big fat +1
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
DT68, So who would buy them - a concerned parent who decides that £50 is ok to buy a gamble that little Jonnie survives a highly improbable event but that little Jonnie's not worth a £75 roll of the dice from a reputable manufacturer? Very smart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DT68, and and, its shortcomngs are not at all obvious.
This is a product whose shortcomings should be trumpeted loud and clear across the world. It's crap and dangerous.
Need any more?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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 wrote: |
| DT68, So who would buy them? |
Not me: but because I think they are pointless rather than "dangerous".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^ DT68 : under what pretence should a shop recommend this 'safety' product to a customer ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
DT68, so the stores are only ripping people off with a useless product rather than one that is dangerously useless. Good to know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Haggis Trap, try reading my first post in this thread (@17:34)
Now you have popped back up, how about answers to those questions I posed earlier? Here they are again:
| DT68 wrote: |
| Haggis_Trap, quick question, born out of idle but insatiable curtiosity - did you try speaking to XXXXXX before you started slagging them off? And when did you email them - how long before or after your first post in which complain about not having received a reply? |
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Fri 22-03-13 9:27; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
DT68, you haven't really grasped this whole putting things in public invites public comment thing. If you run a company selling products to a special interest group you should find up what said customer group thinks of a product before trying to sell them something you yourself consider pointless. You should be asking why the retailers in question didn't do due diligence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| meh wrote: |
| DT68, you haven't really grasped this whole putting things in public invites public comment thing. |
Plainly not  ! I had thought there was still a place for basic courtesy but that seems to be outweighed by everyone's "right" to be rude. Equally naively, although I might decide not to buy something because I consider it to be pointless, I had rather assumed that others should be allowed to make up their own minds.
Ho hum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
What is supposed to be the difference between the £14.95 model and the £49.50 model?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
DT68, as Haggis_Trap, does not want to answer your reasonable question I will tell you. He waited 11 minutes before posting this, at which time his email had not even been opened.
You can make your own mind up!
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Fri 22-03-13 0:44; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| DT68 wrote: |
| meh wrote: |
| DT68, you haven't really grasped this whole putting things in public invites public comment thing. |
Plainly not ! I had thought there was still a place for basic courtesy but that seems to be outweighed by everyone's "right" to be rude. Equally naively, although I might decide not to buy something because I consider it to be pointless, I had rather assumed that others should be allowed to make up their own minds.
Ho hum. |
What is rude or discourteous about the OP? A group of people giving negative feedback about a product is probably useful to a business, I'd have thought - more useful than one person's feedback, which could well have been the case if it wasn't pointed out on here.
The thing is, by definition, anyone interested in this product will not enough knowledge to realise just how bad an idea this thing is (or they wouldn't be interested in it).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So this is a pointless device. Its sales ploy appears to be to try to scare some into thinking that they ought to spend money to mitigate against the very unlikely risk that they might be caught in an avalanche on piste. No doubt they won't be upset if a few people who ski just off-piste also buy them. The potential effectiveness of these devices depends on someone capable (both with a search capable device and search competencies eg piste patrol) coming to your aid so the closer you are to civilisation (a piste?) the more likely the device might be useful. Of course in such places you'd be massively unlikely to encounter an avalanche in the first place hence still a pointless device.
However, I suspect a lot of off-piste transceiver sales are probably to people who don't really need them but are somehow scared into thinking they do, so not all that very different from scaring people into thinking they might need an on-piste beacon? Not an issue about the validity of standard transceiver products themselves though.
The moral issue of whether you should expect to be found if you're not prepared to search is a different one. Quite a lot like if it's reasonable to refuse to treat people who contract a disease after, in an effort to avoid the small individual risk of vaccination, they've opted out of a community-wide vaccination programme against it, knowing that they'll benefit from the herd immunity anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
| DT68 wrote: |
| meh wrote: |
| DT68, you haven't really grasped this whole putting things in public invites public comment thing. |
Plainly not ! I had thought there was still a place for basic courtesy but that seems to be outweighed by everyone's "right" to be rude. Equally naively, although I might decide not to buy something because I consider it to be pointless, I had rather assumed that others should be allowed to make up their own minds.
Ho hum. |
What is rude or discourteous about the OP? A group of people giving negative feedback about a product is probably useful to a business, I'd have thought - more useful than one person's feedback, which could well have been the case if it wasn't pointed out on here.
The thing is, by definition, anyone interested in this product will not enough knowledge to realise just how bad an idea this thing is (or they wouldn't be interested in it). |
C'mon Clarky999, you can do better than that. The OP was not just a bit of "negative feedback about a product" but included vitriol directed at the retailers in question (you may recall the naming and shaming bit), 11 minutes after (or was that before?) he had first contacted one of them. More like hysteria than anything else with lots of fellow-travellers subsequently joining the mob.
Anyway, that's the way I see it. You may see it differently. We are each entitled to our viewpoint, and to express it. And if you really believe there was nothing discourteous in the OP, then I am not going to spend the rest of tonight trying to change your mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
DT68, 99% of the OP is info about the product. One perfectly valid question about responsibility of the retailers. Yes, there is one jibe, but it's pretty mild (and IMO appropriate).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
clarky999, well, as I said before, opinions differ. CH20's articulate and measured immediate reaction to the OP shows that some did not see the matter as mildly as you assert.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
DT68, Someone is trying to sell a potentially dangerous product and misrepresenting its purpose and you think the fault lies with the poster criticising its sale?
Interesting standards you hold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
T Bar, I am obviously being slow. Why would the device be "potentially dangerous" if, as both retailers said it should be, it was used ON piste and not OFF piste?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DT68,
Slush and Rubble have it in their section on off piste products.
Bartlett emphaisse its utility in avalanches and its compliance withstandards it could readily be bought unwittingly by someone believing it to be a useful product that enhances safety and the companions of anyone wearing it may not know its provenance.
It is a potentially dangeous product that a responsible retailer should not be marketing, if as you say they have withdrawn it from sale presumably they agree.
Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much  on Fri 22-03-13 2:00; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| T Bar wrote: |
| DT68, Someone is trying to sell a potentially dangerous product and misrepresenting its purpose... |
In the case of Bartletts the description is clear (albeit lifted straight from the manufacturer):
| Quote: |
On-Piste Emitter
Sometimes we all need peace of mind so Cambridge Ski Safety Limited has developed the on-piste emitter to enhance safety on the ski slopes for all ages and ability levels.
Wherever there are mountains, snow avalanches happen on a regular basis. Skiers and snowboarders are sometimes at risk even within the marked runs of a ski resort.
There are ways to reduce these risks; taking the right precautions and wearing the right equipment is a start. Wearing a helmet and back protector reduces the risk of serious injury. In an avalanche our emitter can significantly enhance your chances of being rescued alive.
Designed and built in the world-leading centre of technological advancement from which we take our name, our emitter complies with the application of Article 3(3)(e) of the Directive 1999/5 EC to avalanche beacons.
Our emitter signals its location on the internationally agreed Avalanche Distress Frequency (457 kHz ) and is compatible with all transceivers currently on the market, worldwide.
Rescue services are able to find you because they trace this signal back to where you are buried.
Your survival window is severely compromised after only 15 minutes after which the likelihood of asphyxiation increases dramatically.
If you don’t wear an emitter, finding you within 15 minutes is a matter of luck and so your survival is dependent upon how easy you’ve made it for your rescuers to find you.
Please be aware
Wearing our emitter does not prevent you from being caught in an avalanche.
It has no search function and therefore is not suited off-piste skiing. You cannot use it to locate other avalanche victims in your party.
Adult & child harnesses available for use with these |
So, OK, the risk of an on-piste avalanche is fantastically overplayed but they are clear it is an on-piste product which means it'll almost certainly never ever ever get used in anger if the user sticks to the piste. This white elephant isn't dangerous. The only time it becomes dangerous is if people use it for a purpose for which it clearly isn't designed. It is just a total waste of £49.50 basically.
The bigger issue for me is that they are making normal recreational holiday skiing sound dangerous, which it isn't. For every mug buying one of these things, there will be another saying to themselves "blimey I might get buried alive" and they'll think of something else to do.
Loads of ski safety products are sold on fear though eh?... helmets especially. If you read all the blurb you'd think it was a man-eating avalanche and fatal head injury fest all the freakin' time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Bode Swiller, I agree with most of that!
For those who want to try and understand "Why" this product exists (even if they would not themselves buy it) you can have a look at the manufacturer's website here. There is a page with some examples of avalanches hitting pistes (including an on-piste fatality in an avalanche in Ischgl last year).
For balance, there's a blog post, expressing a similar viewpoint to Bode's and without the mass-hysteria that seems to have afflicted many of the posters on this thread, here.
Of course no-one should feel under pressure to inform themselves before grandstanding and trying to put this British company (Cambridge Ski Safety) out of business 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
DT68, i think the world would be a better place if SHs did put Cambridge Ski nothing-to-do-with-Safety-but-all-about-gouging-money-out-of-the-naive-and/or-gullible out of business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
DT68, we're informed. This isn't the first time this dodgy little company has come up with this same product in various forms. As posted above if you were really worried about on piste avalanche for a tiny amount more money you can buy a proper transceiver so you'd actually be useful in the event of a loved one being buried. It's morally dubious for a company to try to trade off the ignorance of their customers. That goes for the retailers as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| gsb wrote: |
DT68, as Haggis_Trap, does not want to answer your reasonable question I will tell you. He waited 11 minutes before posting this, at which time his email had not even been opened.
You can make your own mind up! |
Thanks for confirming that you have recieved my email.
If <store> do not want to be assoiciated with promotion of this product then simply remove it from sale.
I will then remove the shops name from this thread (if they so wish).
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Fri 22-03-13 10:07; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
meh, as far as I can tell, this company was only formed in 2011.
| Quote: |
Name & Registered Office:
CAMBRIDGE SKI SAFETY LIMITED
112 HILLS ROAD
CAMBRIDGE
CAMBRIDGESHIRE
UNITED KINGDOM
CB2 1PH
Company No. 07858543
Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 23/11/2011
Country of Origin: United Kingdom |
Can you give particulars of their "dodginess" and previous? If not, I hope they don't sue you but would not be surprised if they did.
Haggis_Trap, you are a work of art.
In the meantime, I am looking forward to the campaign to prevent all small children and anyone who does not have a certificate of competence in the use of a transceiver from skiing off-piste on the grounds of the immorality of people skiing off-piste if they are not able to help others. Double-standards would never do ... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
^ second hit on google (search : "snow-be transmit only")
http://unofficialnetworks.com/dangerous-piece-avalanche-safety-gear-world-snowbe-98574/
Since blasting this product in this post, “Snow-Beacon” has Greatly Modified their site including:
- DELETING the Founders Name…kinda “shady”
- CHANGING their Email Address
- CORRECTING the Product Description (originally marketted for off piste use!)
Would also add that this product has not been through EU certification for use as an avalanche beacon.
This test measures battery life in the cold, signal strength etc, range, durability etc.
Though they imply on their web site that it would meet requirements (despite lack of certificate)
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Fri 22-03-13 8:54; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haggis_Trap, If you had bothered to check you would have seen that it was last night. It is not possible to delete your old link.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
DT68, it's written about in the blog you linked to above. So much for being informed yourself, you can't even bother reading sources you cite!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DT68,
| Quote: |
Of course no-one should feel under pressure to inform themselves before grandstanding and trying to put this British company (Cambridge Ski Safety) out of business
|
What complete hogwash Shoddy British productss and practices have no call on our favours and in the long run cost us, see the banks.
has a tradition of calling out shoddy practice amongst tour operatprs and other service providers.They have a right to reply.
Reciprocity is an important part of the safety to existing users of these devices. Any vendor of such potentially dangerous rubbish is fully deserving of naming and shaming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
! The modern version has a little RF remote-control to make them beep, about a tenner a pair on ebay, might be worth a punt for an expensive pair of skis. Don't think they will work for the kids though! 