 Poster: A snowHead
|
An ordinary member of the Ski Club of Great Britain once appealed for order at a lively AGM (it was the largest-attended during the past 20 years, and the location had been moved to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders HQ to accommodate the numbers). He simply said "Please. We are a family."
The family is sizeable, and like any family it has a genetic survival instinct. I agree that stridency should be avoided. But with lawyers circling, it's best not to offer them meat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
David Goldsmith,
| Quote: |
with lawyers circling, it's best not to offer them meat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
achilles,
| Quote: |
I am not clear that the situation is that much better on-piste
|
Absolutely right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Well, no. The hypothetical accident which achilles outlines above ...
| Quote: |
| 'Hot shot' skier in rep's party decides he can belt down the slope faster than the rep down a narrow rather icy piste winding round the side of a mountain with a very steep open face by the side (I can think of one such piste at LDA) . Wipes out small child |
... would be resolved by a straightforward application of the FIS skiing rules (which tend to be recognised by the courts as authoritative). It's a prima facie breach of those rules. The court would simply rule the skier responsible, and the rep couldn't be blamed.
I think the Club's risk exposure on piste is low. By adopting a piste-only policy for reps, in line with tour operators' ski hosts, and leaving the off-piste to professional guides or skiers who want to definitively ski at their own risk we'd have less litigation and controversy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
It might be interesting to see if this leads to an increasing number of the more experienced reps choosing to rep in the US and Canada where more challenging territory may well be considered as on-piste by the simple virtue of being inside the ski area?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
David Goldsmith, I disagree (there's a surprise). The party member would indeed have breached FIS rules. The problem would arise if the party leader was deemed to be in charge of the party, and therefore responsible for the behaviour of members in it. I think there are measures a rep could take to diminish that risk - but it could get messy. Furthermore, there is the problem if a party member comes to grief because of conditions on the piste - rocks or ice (think of Verte, nominally the green run to La Daille). The locals are less likely to accept blame for themselves, if there is another convenient target.
The TO argument offered by you and BS is spurious, I think. It would be far harder for a TO to ensure a rep was of a reasonable standard than it is for the SCGB. Moreover, my understanding is that the TOs have been barred by the resorts from taking parties off-piste - and sometimes on it. AFIK, such restrictions have not been applied by the resorts to the SCGB (except at St Anton and LDA) hence the SCGB has been able to operate in the way it does, whereas the TOs have not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith I agree that the risk on piste is probably less, but that doesn't mean that a rep who leads someone into a dangerous situation on piste can never be liable. There ain't much 'never' in the law on negligence. As to the specific example cited by achilles, you could well be right in your estimation that the rep would not be blamed, I was merely agreeing to the general principle that liability cannot be avoided merely by virtue of the incident occuring on the piste.
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| It might be interesting to see if this leads to an increasing number of the more experienced reps choosing to rep in the US and Canada where more challenging territory may well be considered as on-piste by the simple virtue of being inside the ski area? |
I am only just beginning to realise how much more unpisted skiing is on offer in North America, by virtue of the different rules. I should have thought it will indeed be more attractive to reps, as you suggest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stoatsbrother, There are a limited number of North American rep resorts. Salt Lake City/Utah/ Park City ? was only a rep resort in Olympic year.
The number of rep resorts has gone down.
Last edited by After all it is free  on Fri 23-11-07 14:33; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
stoatsbrother, I think it could lead to more skiing in the US generally, if parties can ski there with less likelihood of an individual (rep or not) being fingered. In teasing out this argument, DG seems to be promoting North American skiing - an ironic unintended consequence of his actions.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Fri 23-11-07 14:36; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stoatsbrother, are you familiar with Highland Bowl, Aspen? Perhaps best to review a bit of history vis-a-vis what you've just said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Latchigo, I was going to say, but achilles got there before me, that as a result of these shenanigans, more people may want to ski in NA and, consequently, that the Ski Club of Great Britain might make a policy decision to send more reps there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
David Goldsmith, my apologies for editing in a comment in my last post - unintentionally, the comment came out after you had posted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hurtle, I think rep resorts also depend, to some extent, on the largesse of the hosting resort. Hence the appearance of a couple of relatively obscure Canadian resorts.
I suspect DG may also point out they should be cost effective - which is fair comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| ...........I just think that it may be time to leave off-piste leadership, and the associated jungle of liabilities, to paid professionals. |
I am not clear that the situation is that much better on-piste.
Scenario:
'Hot shot' skier in rep's party decides he can belt down the slope faster than the rep down a narrow rather icy piste winding round the side of a mountain with a very steep open face by the side (I can think of one such piste at LDA) . Wipes out small child, who is then permanently maimed from the subsequent fall down the face. I can't think that the courts/insurance company would be sympathetic because the incident started 'on piste'.
For rep read anyone of us the locals decides was in charge of a group. Times are changing - and not for the better. Glad most of my skiing was in easier times. |
It's all very well lawyers, both real and self-imagined, postulating that there could be a case where an individual were held responsible for their group simply on the grounds that they are the most experienced and 'took the lead' but until such a case has been pursued and the courts decide that this is the case, it isn't.
( Similarly with paid on-piste guiding by whatever contrived mechanism they are rewarded for the duty. )
Every season there are countless accidents resulting in injury of every level of seriousness: AFAIK there has never been a case of the nature that an individual within a group of peers has been held responsible in this way.(maybe someone will tell me otherwise now?)
The Ski Club of Great Britain is understandabley highly protective of its repping scheme and markets it as one of the club's primary features, it's USP if you like. It also doubles as a valuable marketting tool, addressing potential new members when they are at their most suggestable with regard to spending money on skiing.
IMO the reason why the SCGB repping service courts so much controversy is that it has ventured into areas that are regulated stringently where professionals are concerned. Hence, those proffessionals make sure they are qualified and indemnified properly and display such qualifications with pride to reassure their punters.
However the SCGB has attempted to rest within, or some might say 'create', a grey area whereby the reps are both available as a service to the SCGB's clients yet still defined to be skiing as one of a group of peers and hence not liable to the responsibility that a proffessional would bear.
Kramer gained some notoriety for leading a number of snowHeads on a little off-piste excursion at one of the EoSB's. Had there been an accident, would he have been liable as the leader? Well as a group of peers I suspect not. But it was a 'snowHeads holiday' and he is a moderator on the site, wouldn't that put him in a position of responsibility? Well, given that he acts as moderator on a purely voluntary basis and had paid to be on the trip like everyone else, I suspect his irresponsibility would be unquestionable  Furthermore, his guiding skills were not promoted as one of the features of the holiday in the first place.
But in the case of the SCGB, the reps scheme is promoted so vociferously that it's natural to assume many members may be paying to join the club purely on the basis that they wish to access that particular service. With hotel accommodation, lift passes and travel all covered by the club, the reps' volunteer status itself is a little grey too. Between the two of them, these facts seem to squeeze the SCGB's grey area into a fairly narrow couloir. Turn up one day to find that couloir icier than you expected and you may be in trouble....
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Fri 23-11-07 14:41; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
At this rate the reps will be confined to the bar...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I note Heavenly is no longer a rep resort this year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
David Goldsmith, forgotten that one - but that lawsuit went away didn't it?
My point it that there are a lot of "pistes" in some North American resorts which are inbounds, patrolled, safety controlled and where you would never expect to use a guidebut which would be off-piste usually in Europe. This would place a rather different expectation on the skills of a Ski Club of Great Britain rep leading a party in.
Latchigo, That may change - and I am skiing in two N American repped resorts this season. 4 repped resorts in the US and 4 in Canada this year. There certainly might be room for reps in Utah, Steamboat, Telluride and Heavenly to name just a few.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Sorry, but there are no easy solutions like nipping over to America to avoid hassles. A professionally-trained and experienced ski guide or instructor deals with terrain 7 days a week, using honed skills to weigh up groups and judge suitable terrain for groups. 'In bound' non-piste terrain in America is off-piste, and I don't think it's any longer wise for Club reps to be taking skiers down tricky ungroomed stuff.
If 14% of Club members ski with a rep in any given season, what percentage are skiing off-piste with a rep? Are they paying a premium membership price, based of the Club's exposure to risk? Is it fair for the general membership to effectively cross-subsidise such a service?
Things were more straightforward up to the early 1960s. Hardly any pistes were groomed. There were no British ski instructors and SCGB reps were (often) the elite skiers of this country. There was a bronze-silver-gold test qualification for skiers, and these were serious exams - not tourism badges. Partly by dint of the Club avoiding Scottish mountains at the time, the BASI system happened and the Club was simply by-passed.
This is not a time for illusions and diversions.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Fri 23-11-07 14:50; 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.
|
|
u brain, I don't whether you are a real or self-imagined lawyer, but your post contains a lot of (perfectly legitimate) postulating on your own part. I think that what many posters, including me, are saying is that there is room for liability to attach, on piste as well as off it, and - in an increasingly litigious age - that is the only real certainty in this grey area. Actually, I don't think the general principles are particularly grey, it is merely that each and every incident will be decided on its facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Bode Swiller, could be. Hope not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| u brain wrote: |
| ...........Kramer gained some notoriety for leading a number of snowHeads on a little off-piste excursion at one of the EoSB's. Had there been an accident, would he have been liable as the leader? Well as a group of peers I suspect not.... |
I am not so clear about that, bearing in mind comments made by davidof earlier. I must say, North American skiing is becoming more attractive to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith, Many US areas don't work like that. I seem to recall you haven't been there for a while. Rather than having clearly marked pistes with boundaries, a piste will often be the name of an area of the hill, bounded by areas of trees, which if not roped off, will also have a piste/trail name. The concept is really rather different. What you do not do... ever... is cross a rope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith,
| Quote: |
tricky ungroomed stuff
|
Off-piste, on-piste, tricky ungroomed inbound, accidents with liability attaching to them can occur, regardless. Reliance on someone, causing the victim to act to his own detriment, is what lies at the bottom of all this.
Cost effectiveness is another issue and I guess the Ski Club of Great Britain site is the place to argue that, not here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Alastair Pink wrote: |
I received a letter from Ski Club of Great Britain today detailing some changes to the rules on where SCGB resort reps and holiday leaders on Ski Freshtracks holidays can ski with groups.
Quote:
"The policy for the terrain where reps and leaders can now ski off-piste states that off-piste skiing will generally be closer to the piste and only involve a short ski to return to the marked runs. What this means is that some areas you've been used to skiing with a rep or leader may now be 'out of bounds'.
To complement this, for those wanting to ski further afield the rep will organise a mountain guide or an off-piste instructor, with the cost being shared among the group. This can be done any day, where (sic) it used to be available only towards the end of the week."
Presumably this is a result of the ski rep qualification/liability debate (where's DG when you need him to comment?) |
Three season ago (2004) just before Xmas 3 skiers (2 Germans & American) were killed in an Avalanche in Lech just 10 Metres off the side of the piste !
http://www.vorarlberg.at/pdf/041220_rotschrofen_lech.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| David Goldsmith, Many US areas don't work like that. I seem to recall you haven't been there for a while. Rather than having clearly marked pistes with boundaries, a piste will often be the name of an area of the hill, bounded by areas of trees, which if not roped off, will also have a piste/trail name. The concept is really rather different. What you do not do... ever... is cross a rope. |
Not sure about all that... the inbound trails are always named and identified on the map (I've sampled over 25 US resorts). There are normally tons of rabbit runs through the trees linking runs. The ski area boundary is often an inpenetrable (sp) fence or, at the very least, there are big warning signs/disclaimers etc. Most people duck under the inbound ropes if it looks OK, I certainly do. It all appears safer than Europe but they still have heaps of injury & death litigation going on. Skiing into a tree is a very popular way to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
The repping system is rooted in recruitment (let's call it the three Rs).
Many decades ago the Club responded to the fact that skiers were spreading their wings and going to numerous resorts [we're dealing with the era before mass charter air travel]. The obvious way to recruit new members was at the heart of the action - in all those lovely quaint Swiss and Austrian resorts, over a glass of gluhwein. Any costs associated with repping (a miniscule sum compared to today) were offset by the substantial membership revenues gained by the new members joining.
The bronze-silver-gold tests emerged, members loved taking them, and reps became examiners. As a 9-year-old I did the bronze in 1962.
Reps have always led skiers, but the emphasis on this being their almost-exclusive role (aside from filing snow reports) is more recent.
The problem is that the recruitment has plummeted, while the costs have escalated (£227k last winter)
So this may be a bit of a crunch time, but the Club can sail on by finding other relevant cost-effective things to do. All aboard!
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Fri 23-11-07 15:33; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[the "all-aboard" remark is slightly tongue-in-cheek, and I think it applies to railway trains rather than boats]
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
(£227k last winter)
|
How much guiding by UIAGM guides can you buy for that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| u brain, I don't whether you are a real or self-imagined lawyer, but your post contains a lot of (perfectly legitimate) postulating on your own part. |
FYI: I am no kind of lawyer at all, although I am entirely self-imagined and can postulate with the best of them.
I was concerned that poor old Achilles might be worrying himself into an early grave by his 'Glad most of my skiing was in easier times' comment.
There are a couple of other real certainties: Lawyers err on the side of caution in their advice and if we lived by their advice alone, we'd never have skied in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
u brain,
| Quote: |
Lawyers err on the side of caution in their advice
|
True.
| Quote: |
if we lived by their advice alone, we'd never have skied in the first place.
|
Who, in his right mind, would live by the advice of a lawyer alone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
That's a novel concept. "Excuse me while I consult my brief. I'm not coming skiing with you until my solicitor's checked my DIN settings [Solemn 'n Bindings]"
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Fri 23-11-07 15:49; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| Quote: |
(£227k last winter)
|
How much guiding by UIAGM guides can you buy for that? |
Probably half an hour in Courchevel
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Bode Swiller, DG has an amusing ability to interpret costs in away he chooses. I am not as clear as he is that stopping the rep skiing would save £227K. But the concept of hiring UAGM guides has been discussed in the Club site - one suggestion was to offset or even fund it by stopping Ski and Board. That is food for thought - but should not be done without a poll of the members. I suspect they would want to keep it - and not have the guiding.
u brain, you worrying about me and the grave has, um, touched me. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
achilles, I agreed with you that it was worth airing the reps off-piste issue on here, because of the general principles about liability for accidents that it throws up. However, I'm less happy about discussing the cost of reps to the Club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hurtle, can't stop DG chuntering. Maybe the mods could split the thread, though - with the cost of reps being split off into the SCGB section in the archives - leaving the rest of the thread discussing liability issues here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
The proposition that less than 10% of SCGB members (I'm one of the 90%) should pay for their off-piste UIAGM excursions with my membership subscription would not leave me over the moon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith, you would be at full liberty to resign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
