 Poster: A snowHead
|
Attended the school ski trip meeting last night and was surprised to hear that helmets for a group of ten yr olds are not compulsory.
Skiing in lecht and cairngorm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Ooo that's very poor.
Some kids might want to wear them but would be worried about having the wee wee taken.
A word with the head teacher might be appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
In certain areas of Austria helmets are compulsory for children up to the age of 15.
Looks like they aren't compulsory for Tyrol and Voralberg. (Standing 01.01.2012 may have changed)
| Quote: |
Vorarlberg: Derzeit nein
Tirol:Derzeit nein
Salzburg:Skihelmpflicht für Minderjährige bis zum 15. Lebensjahr (§ 3c Sbg Landessportgesetz 1988)
Steiermark: Helmpflicht für Minderjährige bis zum 15. Lebensjahr (§20b Steiermärkisches Landessportgesetz)
Kärnten: Helmpflicht für Minderjährige bis zum 15. Lebensjahr (§ 9b Kärntner Sportgesetz)
Oberösterreich: Helmpflicht für Minderjährige bis zum 15. Lebensjahr (§ 3a Oö SportG)
Niederösterreich: Helmpflicht für Minderjährige bis zum vollendeten 15. Lebensjahr (§ 26b NÖ SportG; jedoch befristet bis 1.5.2012)
Burgenland: Helmpflicht für Minderjährige bis zum vollendeten 15. Lebensjahr (§ 11 Bgld. Sportförderungsgesetz 2004) - gilt auch bei pistenähnlichem, freien Gelände!
Wien: Helmpflicht für Minderjährige bis zum 15. Lebensjahr (Gesetz über die Unterweisung in Wintersportarten (Wiener Schischulgesetz) § 3: jedenfalls Helmpflicht beim Alpinschilauf und Snowboarden) |
http://www.das.at/Rechtsauskunft_Skihelmpflicht.DAS
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Thu 16-01-14 9:36; 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.
|
|
IFIRC helmets are compulsory for children's lessons in France and Italy, not sure if that's by agreement or by law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
As far as I'm concerned it's for individual parents to decide what their children wear. If some of the children in that group wear helmets and others don't, then the children can have an educated debate about the issues and their parents.
This would be a useful start in life, and an essential qualification for joining snowHeads [and sustaining it!]
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| As far as I'm concerned it's for individual parents to decide what their children wear. |
Weeeell... usually in those sort of circumstances, its the insurance company who gets to decide, no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
As far as I'm concerned it's for individual parents to decide what their children wear. If some of the children in that group wear helmets and others don't, then the children can have an educated debate about the issues and their parents.
This would be a useful start in life, and an essential qualification for joining snowHeads [and sustaining it!] |
The link I posted in German specifically says Tourists must also adher to the Austrian law on ski helmets or risk having their liftpass withdrawn.
| Quote: |
Was passiert, wenn ich keinen Helm habe und in dem Skiort/Umgebung gibt es keine zu kaufen/auszuborgen. Ist die Skihelmpflicht zumutbar?
(Ausländische Gäste haben von der Pflicht noch nichts erfahren und kommen nach Österreich. Gefahr für Tourismus?)
Das Argument wird letztlich nicht zählen, da sich jeder/jede vorab erkundigen muss, welche Gesetze/Verordnungen im jeweiligen Land gelten. In den meisten Fällen werden Tourismusverbände und Hotelleitungen die Gäste vorab darüber informieren.. Fraglich ist, ob der/die SkiliftbetreiberIn eine Informationspflicht als Nebenpflicht vor Verkauf des Skipasses hat – im Zweifel wohl ja! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| DB wrote: |
| The link I posted in German specifically says Tourists must also adher to the Austrian law on ski helmets or risk having their liftpass withdrawn. |
...which is fair enough, but not entirely relevant to the OP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Serriadh,
Yes I was just pointing out that in some places (e.g. Scotland) it's still your choice if your child should wear a helmet or not. In parts of Austria (and some other ski countries) this isn't the case.
When my kids go on the School ski day trip here in Austria, helmets are compulsory but rucksacks are not allowed for small children (so the rucksack doesn't get caught up with the chair lift).
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Italy it's compulsory up to the age of 14
|
|
|
|
|
|
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've just been reading my holiday documentation and it says under skiers code " wearing a helmet is compulsory in some resorts" . A one know which ones?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're joking, right? Whose holiday documentation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I think the issue with helmets isn't so much the law, it is insurance. Helmets are now commonly regarded as good practice in skiing. Insurance companies expect policy holders to take reasonable care. In my view nit wearing a helmut will put your insurance at risk as they can easily argue that this is just taking reasonable care. Insurance companies are well renowned for trying to avoid paying. Not wearing a helmut gives then a reasonable excuse.
At the end of the day while we all may have an opinion on this - it doesn't matter, it is the opinion of others that matters whether it be the law or insurance companies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| tspill wrote: |
I think the issue with helmets isn't so much the law, it is insurance. Helmets are now commonly regarded as good practice in skiing. Insurance companies expect policy holders to take reasonable care. In my view nit wearing a helmut will put your insurance at risk as they can easily argue that this is just taking reasonable care. Insurance companies are well renowned for trying to avoid paying. Not wearing a helmut gives then a reasonable excuse.
At the end of the day while we all may have an opinion on this - it doesn't matter, it is the opinion of others that matters whether it be the law or insurance companies. |
Insurance company will use any EXCUSE to get out of paying. They may wish to get out of paying by saying your wearing white color jacket was the cause for others running into you and hence not paying. But unless it's written into the policy, it can't.
There's no use TRYING to please the insurance company. Either helemt is required by the policy, or not
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Helmets are compulsory in my family.
I made the kids wear them when they were learning, now they make me wear one, by means of emotional blackmail.
That aside, the fear really is the occasional idiot you come across on the piste who can put you in hospital. Had just such an incident earlier in the season, when so oaf hit me from behind when I was in Ischgl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| abc wrote: |
| tspill wrote: |
I think the issue with helmets isn't so much the law, it is insurance. Helmets are now commonly regarded as good practice in skiing. Insurance companies expect policy holders to take reasonable care. In my view nit wearing a helmut will put your insurance at risk as they can easily argue that this is just taking reasonable care. Insurance companies are well renowned for trying to avoid paying. Not wearing a helmut gives then a reasonable excuse.
At the end of the day while we all may have an opinion on this - it doesn't matter, it is the opinion of others that matters whether it be the law or insurance companies. |
Insurance company will use any EXCUSE to get out of paying. They may wish to get out of paying by saying your wearing white color jacket was the cause for others running into you and hence not paying. But unless it's written into the policy, it can't.
There's no use TRYING to please the insurance company. Either helemt is required by the policy, or not |
They absolutely don't have to write every detail in. All insurance policies have a "take reasonable care" catch all and it is really easy to argue a helmet falls into that. And yes, they use every excuse and are in the main successful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| tspill wrote: |
| They absolutely don't have to write every detail in. All insurance policies have a "take reasonable care" catch all and it is really easy to argue a helmet falls into that. And yes, they use every excuse and are in the main successful. |
Do you have any evidence of a claim that has been refused on the grounds that not wearing a helmet is not taking reasonable care?
I'm with ABC, either a helmet is explicitly required by the policy or it isn't. I believe the Insurance Ombudsman would take that view as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| PeteMan wrote: |
| tspill wrote: |
| They absolutely don't have to write every detail in. All insurance policies have a "take reasonable care" catch all and it is really easy to argue a helmet falls into that. And yes, they use every excuse and are in the main successful. |
Do you have any evidence of a claim that has been refused on the grounds that not wearing a helmet is not taking reasonable care?
I'm with ABC, either a helmet is explicitly required by the policy or it isn't. I believe the Insurance Ombudsman would take that view as well. |
I don't have experience specifically on travel. BUT I have just has a claim in a nom-travel policy turned down (house policy) on "reasonable care" and it was on a far smaller technicality than something like wearing a helmet. Hence my post in the first place.
So for me - I simply wont take any chances at all with insurance now having been badly burnt. Everyone always talks about how bad insurance is; well in my view they are much worse than I ever imagined they could be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| tspill wrote: |
| PeteMan wrote: |
| tspill wrote: |
| They absolutely don't have to write every detail in. All insurance policies have a "take reasonable care" catch all and it is really easy to argue a helmet falls into that. And yes, they use every excuse and are in the main successful. |
Do you have any evidence of a claim that has been refused on the grounds that not wearing a helmet is not taking reasonable care?
I'm with ABC, either a helmet is explicitly required by the policy or it isn't. I believe the Insurance Ombudsman would take that view as well. |
I don't have experience specifically on travel. BUT I have just has a claim in a nom-travel policy turned down (house policy) on "reasonable care" and it was on a far smaller technicality than something like wearing a helmet. Hence my post in the first place.
So for me - I simply wont take any chances at all with insurance now having been badly burnt. Everyone always talks about how bad insurance is; well in my view they are much worse than I ever imagined they could be. |
Obviously I don't know the detail of your refused claim (would be interested to know what it is if you care to share it), but I would suggest that you take legal advice, follow the Insurers complaint procedure and raise the matter with the Insurance Ombudsman if you think you've been treated unfairly.
I also don't think it's right to take a totally unrelated experience as a precedent that Insurers will refuse a claim on the grounds of not wearing a helmet.
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PeteMan wrote: |
| tspill wrote: |
| PeteMan wrote: |
| tspill wrote: |
| They absolutely don't have to write every detail in. All insurance policies have a "take reasonable care" catch all and it is really easy to argue a helmet falls into that. And yes, they use every excuse and are in the main successful. |
Do you have any evidence of a claim that has been refused on the grounds that not wearing a helmet is not taking reasonable care?
I'm with ABC, either a helmet is explicitly required by the policy or it isn't. I believe the Insurance Ombudsman would take that view as well. |
I don't have experience specifically on travel. BUT I have just has a claim in a nom-travel policy turned down (house policy) on "reasonable care" and it was on a far smaller technicality than something like wearing a helmet. Hence my post in the first place.
So for me - I simply wont take any chances at all with insurance now having been badly burnt. Everyone always talks about how bad insurance is; well in my view they are much worse than I ever imagined they could be. |
Obviously I don't know the detail of your refused claim (would be interested to know what it is if you care to share it), but I would suggest that you take legal advice, follow the Insurers complaint procedure and raise the matter with the Insurance Ombudsman if you think you've been treated unfairly.
I also don't think it's right to take a totally unrelated experience as a precedent that Insurers will refuse a claim on the grounds of not wearing a helmet.
Pete |
I wasn't really trying to compare unrelated insurances, but to highlight that there are no depths they wont stoop to to refuse a claim.
And for me, i place zero trust in them now. So in my view not wearing a helmet makes it dead easy for them to refuse a claim so I will be wearing one.
Others may place much more faith in them thinking they can deal and fight with them; my experience in them is the reverse. I have been through many of the processes available - all pointless. Next step for me would be a barrister and a significant financial commitment with still no guarantee of winning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tspill,
| Quote: |
So in my view not wearing a helmet makes it dead easy for them to refuse a claim so I will be wearing one.
|
Well I suppose the same could be said for wrist guards, back protectors, elbow guards etc. Do you wear all of those?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| swiftoid wrote: |
tspill,
| Quote: |
So in my view not wearing a helmet makes it dead easy for them to refuse a claim so I will be wearing one.
|
Well I suppose the same could be said for wrist guards, back protectors, elbow guards etc. Do you wear all of those? |
Yep, and a gazillion other things, skiing on busy slopes, stopping in the middle of the piste, having a pint at lunch time.
If you are skiing on piste, then wear a helmet because you think it's safer (or to comply with local laws), not because of insurance implications (unless it's explicitly required by the policy).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
homers double, This is not at all suprising. The school knows nothing about the subject area and imposes a rule it is ignorant of - let us say, for example, that it has heard that consuming vast quantities of water is good for the pupils concentration and energy levels. If it later transpires that the teeth of all the children fall out or some other illness blights the pupils the school may be sued for negligence.
It is better for the school to avoid such litigation by not imposing any rules unless it has complete knowledge of all the consequences.
If the resorts do not impose any rules then the school cannot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| swiftoid wrote: |
tspill,
| Quote: |
So in my view not wearing a helmet makes it dead easy for them to refuse a claim so I will be wearing one.
|
Well I suppose the same could be said for wrist guards, back protectors, elbow guards etc. Do you wear all of those? |
I guess you are right. But helmets are now commonly used and get a lot of publicity. You have to draw the line somewhere. Each person needs to make their own choice.
The helmet debate is often one person's opinion against another's and the point is that this doesn't matter. If anyone get's a head injury, it wont be our opinion that matters but the insurance company's and that needs to be factored into people's choices (along with many other things).
PS. I have considered a back protector.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| tspill wrote: |
| If anyone get's a head injury, it wont be our opinion that matters but the insurance company's and that needs to be factored into people's choices (along with many other things). |
Actually, it's for the Insurance Ombudsman and Courts to decide if a claim can be refused or not (not the insurer).
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PeteMan wrote: |
| tspill wrote: |
| If anyone get's a head injury, it wont be our opinion that matters but the insurance company's and that needs to be factored into people's choices (along with many other things). |
Actually, it's for the Insurance Ombudsman and Courts to decide if a claim can be refused or not (not the insurer).
Pete |
I assume you have not used these processes? I have (Ombudsman) and they are completely useless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| tspill wrote: |
| PeteMan wrote: |
| tspill wrote: |
| If anyone get's a head injury, it wont be our opinion that matters but the insurance company's and that needs to be factored into people's choices (along with many other things). |
Actually, it's for the Insurance Ombudsman and Courts to decide if a claim can be refused or not (not the insurer).
Pete |
I assume you have not used these processes? I have (Ombudsman) and they are completely useless. |
Without knowing your circumstances it's impossible to commen but I would reiterate what I said earlier that I've not heard of anyone having a claim refused for not wearing a helmet.
Still I'll be wearing one so won't ever find out myself whether it's an issue or not!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
The kid needs to work the core more...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I thought I'd borrow a vaguely relevant thread. I've just had home a school letter advertising their pricey ski trip. Interestingly the following comments were included:
"It is compulsory for all skiers and snowboarders to wear helmets and this is included in the overall price."
Then they put in a separate line:
"Helmets for all skier’s and snowboarder’s is now law in Austria."
Without wishing to stir up the usual helmet debate, I just wondered if the bit in bold ( I added the boldness) was right? Only I don't recall seeing such a statement discussed so far on SH's and I would have thought it would have been if this was true. It's the word 'All' that I found intesting. It doesn't bother us as we wear them anyway, but it might affect some folks if it's true. Does anyone know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Megamum, I'd be worried if my son's school sent out a letter like that 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
A school that can't tell the difference between the plural and the possessive is worrying :S
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Conjugation also seems to be a closed book to the author.
"Helmets is now law".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Megamum, I suggest you return the letter to the school having marked up the English mistakes and comment "Poor, could do better".... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Alastair Pink wrote: |
| Megamum, I suggest you return the letter to the school having marked up the English mistakes and comment "Poor, could do better".... |
I'd go a step further and ask them why, if that is their standard of written English one should trust their opinion on matters of law. Might of course be true in spirit if skiers and slowboarders are defined for these purposes as those of the relevant school age.
D'oh at least 3 missed commas and a questionable ommission of a question mark. Must do better to be superior.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Wed 18-06-14 20:14; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Megamum, it is the law that under 12s (or is it under 14s) wear helmets in Italy. A quick Google suggests some parts of Austria will bring a law in for under 15s next winter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Dear oh dear. In all seriousness, is that an accurate quotation? If so, it is truly shocking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pedantica, it's modern educashun innit? No wonder people can't rite proper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
