 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
if she falls off again she'll be asked to leave the slope with no refund
|
Hilarious. That's got us all banned from every resort we've ever been to. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
trainee snowboard jedi, Even less obvious when only one lift is running.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
little ms spock, When only one lift it is the one on the right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Cynic wrote: |
| little ms spock, When only one lift it is the one on the right. |
Unless there's a technical fault with the one on the right.
I now have absolutely no idea what point you were trying to make in your previous post as you were replying to a poster who was unaware that the left lift is (supposedly) reserved for more experienced skiers.
Oh well, this thread has now drifted so far off topic that it's getting silly (and rather petty).
IMHO Mosha Marc's, main mistake was in using the nursery slope without permission. Staff assumed that he was instructing rather than assisting (and this must be a difficult judgement call at times) and were over cautious. Slope Patrol sometimes get it right and sometimes get it wrong. Some of them are just plain awful and some are quite fabulous. I think the good ones last longer than the bad ones. Fridges, by their very nature, attract two main groups of skiers; early stage beginners, who are just about getting down the hill in control, and enthusiastic skiers who are focussing on technique. It is generally the responsibility of the latter to respect the former (we've all been there, haven't we?) rather than treat them like a nuisance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
FWIW I spotted a sign about the RH lift at Chill Factore being faster, unmanned and therefore experienced skiers only, but this was only after using it for around 15 minutes (it was on the back wall behind the lifts). It hadn't even occurred to me that the two lifts were significantly different until I saw the sign and then a quick look around confirmed what others here have said that one lift runs slower and is manned. It has to be said that I don't recall see such a sign at HH or MK, it may be that they do have such things, but if they are then they are easy to miss when you are more concerned with physical process of riding the lifts and skiing. Maybe they need displaying with more prominence - after all you don't miss the ads for the beer on the side walls do you? LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
little ms spock, I wasn’t being petty I was correcting myself as was informed by the OH that this is what happens, I have been to HH probably 50 times and have never seen said notice.
If you run a ski establishment I do not think anyone minds the "being given tips", but if the person does not meet the criteria given for open practice of controlled snowplough turns, or a falling leaf and has to be given assistance to achieve this then they do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The signage regarding the manned vs unmanned lifts could be more prominent but to be honest most people just ignore it any ways and go to the lift that has the shortest queue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
skimottaret, that's exactly what I do , and I guess most people would be the same even a beginner if there was no immediately perceived difference between the two lifts, but perhaps this is a good reason to make it more obvious. As, I would think, if given a choice when newly released to ride a Poma I'm sure a beginner would strongly consider the slower, manned lift to which-ever one had the shortest queue.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Tue 1-01-13 17:13; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, the fact that a slower manned lift exists suggests that any of the indoor slopes recognise that some people may still require a modicum of assistance. Ergo, the ability to ride a Poma unassisted without the odd fall, wouldn't seem to be an indication that someone should be turned off the slope unless there are other attributing factors would it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
If you want to teach someone in a big fridge in the UK, why don't you just send them an email first and I don't think you'll have any problems.
I emailed Chill Factor about taking a two year old on her first ski lessons. I got a reply that they would be happy for this as long as I let them know when I was coming and kept to their slope rules. This seemed fair to me. In the end I didn’t have time to take her for any lessons, but as she will be out here for 3 weeks this season it won't be a problem. The point is the Chill Factor were really helpful and I didn’t have problems.
I think Hemel have the same policy (may be wrong). If you email PSG with details I think you'll find its OK.
Not a clue about the other fridges but I asssume it's the same everywhere (again may be wrong)
Those big fridges cost loads of money to build and run so, unlike it the alps where you have a mountain and then just wait for it to snow, there are lots of costs involved, so you can't blame them for wanting to (needing to) recoup the building and operating costs.
PS - just started to snow here (Brenta Dolomites) and the forecast is that it will continue for a while
Happy New Year to everyone in the UK
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Wayne,
I'd expect you meet the requirements of being a qualified instructor to the appropiate level.....
The main issue is the unqualified teaching and the (potentially) interesting legal ramifications should accident(s) occur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All this 'legal ramifications' stuff is a red herring.
Stopping 'unauthorised' instruction is just their way of protecting the market to make sure only people who pay the venue owners a fee are allowed to teach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
red 27, Why do I have public liability insurance as part of being a qualified instructor then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
scooby_simon, in case a client sues you due to your incompetance I suppose - but that's got nowt to do with getting permission from the venue owner to give skiing advice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
Stopping 'unauthorised' instruction is just their way of protecting the market to make sure only people who pay the venue owners a fee are allowed to teach.
|
A bit like being a golfing beginner wearing jeans and being instructed by mates having a hack around St.Andrews sort of thing then?
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Tue 1-01-13 21:07; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
scooby_simon, I would think a lot of this is tied up with payment for instruction. If instruction is being paid for then I think it should be delivered by a qualified and insured person who asks permission of the indoor slope owners before it goes ahead on the basis that it could be taking business away from the slope. On the other hand I can't see that you can stop an unqualified (or even a qualified instructor) from offering UNPAID advice to another skier. It is my understanding that you pay a professional for their services, but anyone can volunteer advice. In that respect what difference does it make whether that advice is given on slope or obtained by watching a 2 hr video prior to an hours skiing or even reading up on SH's before you go - it is only advice NOT PAID FOR professional instruction and its always been my impression that this distinction is important and not only for skiing instruction. Maybe a legal SH could comment on this line of thought?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Cynic wrote: |
| Quote: |
Stopping 'unauthorised' instruction is just their way of protecting the market to make sure only people who pay the venue owners a fee are allowed to teach.
|
A bit like being a golfing beginner wearing jeans and being instructed by mates having a hack around St.Andrews sort of thing then? |
No, not like that. In fact Golf a good example as players are quite free to pass on the wisdom of their experience (if any) to each other as they play a round without some official telling them that only authorised instructors can do that.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Tue 1-01-13 21:12; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
There's nothing legally interesting about it. Talking to someone is still a legal activity.
I could walk into the Kennedy Space Center on a guided tour and give tips to an astronaut. Doesn't mean he has to listen to me, and certainly doesn't mean there's a legal case to be brought.
It's nasty little twin-tipped twats in daft uniform, given a grain of power, being arseholes and nothing more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
What happens if an un-qualified (and thus un-insured) person tells someone to say "slide down that slope, you will be OK" and said person does so without looking as they are told 'you will be fine'; crashes into someone and that someone gets hurt?
Is there any liability, and if so, with whom?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I use Hemel from time to time, including a bit of race training, and I have to say I think it's a pretty safe and well run environment. My 9 year old is certainly much less likely to get hurt at. Hemel than she was last weekend in the alps. I don't really recognize some of the experiences mentioned - maybe those involved were just unlucky.
The staff generally are friendly and do a good job. You have to remember the slope patrol are mostly about 15, so their natural method of communication is actually grunting. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scooby_simon, I can't see that the liability rests with the slope owners, it must surely rest with the skier that made the decision to take the free advice. Any more than I would hold a riding stable responsible if I fell off one of their horses and damaged myself. My daughter broke a wrist in the summer after being instructed to try some jumps - I would not even contemplate suing the stable who met the requirements to provide suitable first aid at the time. I was amazed during a lesson the other week when another rider fell off when they said that they are not allowed to encourage a fallen rider back into the saddle due to HSE issues (when it is the best thing to do if you haven't obviously broken something vital) - The country has gone mad!
I am not aware that, whilst I am under 'paid for' instruction (indoor slope or on the mountain), anyone is insuring me other than myself. How can the establishment be responsible if they were not the ones providing the 'instruction'? Yes, an indoor slope might be responsible if someone broke a leg because a Poma broke half way up, but I won't believe that anyone is responsible for my safety other than me in any other actually skiing situation. An organisation is responsible if the facilities that they provide causes an accident - I hire a canoe and it sinks because it has a socking great crack in it, then the organisation is responsible for my two week off work through double pneumonia, but if I fall out of the canoe because I've done something stupid, even if I've been trying to follow instructions from a paid for instructor I can hardly see that you can hold that person or organisation responsible. We don't hold a ski resort, VT, Les Arcs, Tgnes etc. responsible if someone crashes into us so why the hell should we hold an indoor ski slope responsibile? Surely this is down to common sense (though I will agree that the current litigous society we live in - see the above riding school incident - perhaps doesn't help)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was the person who "instructed" your daughter, qualified to do so ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| scooby_simon, I would think a lot of this is tied up with payment for instruction. If instruction is being paid for then I think it should be delivered by a qualified and insured person who asks permission of the indoor slope owners before it goes ahead on the basis that it could be taking business away from the slope. On the other hand I can't see that you can stop an unqualified (or even a qualified instructor) from offering UNPAID advice to another skier. It is my understanding that you pay a professional for their services, but anyone can volunteer advice. In that respect what difference does it make whether that advice is given on slope or obtained by watching a 2 hr video prior to an hours skiing or even reading up on SH's before you go - it is only advice NOT PAID FOR professional instruction and its always been my impression that this distinction is important and not only for skiing instruction. Maybe a legal SH could comment on this line of thought? |
but the point is, it is their slope, their snow and they set the rules, if they say you all have to wear 20 year old 210cm skis to go on the slope then that is their choice and like it or not we have to follow their rules.
I am not saying this is right or correct and i for one think a modicum of common sense should be applied. If i my children or mates can meet the criteria to ski the main slope then why should i not be allowed to give them some pointers.,
I said in a previous post on this subject that the piste patrol is hit and miss and that is an issue. As mentioned above i have seen staff applying the rules sometimes and sometimes not. I have also seen off duty staff going a lot faster down the slope than is safe given the numbers (at hh and mk).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scooby_simon, Yes, they were, but you can hardly hold someone responsible because you were unseated by a horse. I was unseated myself about 4 weeks ago, I nearly wrecked a £400 pair of specs (my fault I should have been wearing my cheaper ones or lenses) and still have a scar on my face. You can't control a horse jumping early and large and unseating you - neither can an instructor have done ANYTHING to have stopped it. It was reasonable to assume that I and the horse could clear the fence given my current skills set it just didn't happen and the fault was my own. No different with my daughter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
I suppose the issue of liability is most relevant if a third party was injured by the maybe-not-so-competent skier. Third party might make a claim saying the girl was clearly being given instruction by a non-employee and the snowdome staff had ignored the situation. Sounds like the staff have been a wee bit (to say the least) overzealous in application of the rules - but I suppose the situation is never black and white and they have to make judgement calls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Megamum, the reason there have been a lot of riding schools closing in recent years is they are struggling to get insured. I have a number of friends who own riding schools (I have horses myself) & it is unfortunately becoming quite common for people to attempt to sue them after falling off. So I can easily see how this could apply to a snow dome too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just checked our records and currently we are reporting 2.4 accidents per 1000 users. Most of the reported accidents are bumps and bruises. As said before we work in a dynamic environment and at times I am sure it looks manic, but on the whole I think we manage things quite well on the slope (obviously can always be better and we are striving for that). There will always be an element of risk involved when you have lots of people sliding around in one area, its about managing the risk.
All our instructors and slope patrollers are first aid qualified, sometimes you may have up to 40 qualified first aiders all in one area! Other than a St Johns meeting or a hospital I cant think of anywhere else this could be the case!
As a private building / facility we have a duty of care towards the people who use us. It is for that reason that we only allow our own insured and qualified instructors to teach. When an instructor joins us they undertake an induction (where to teach, fire escapes, first aid procedure and so on). If we had lots of people teaching who did not understand these procedures then the risk of injury would be higher.
If an unofficial instructor had a client who injured another client we would have litigation problems. Also we would have no control over the professional practices of the unofficial instructor (are they qualified, do they have a first aid certificate, are they a current member of an official ski instructors association).
We have a sensible approach to friends / family skiing together and offering support to each other. If people are unsure or unhappy with anything they see, or just want to enquire then all they need to do is ask for a duty manager (slope patrol have radios so this is very easy).
PSG
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
snowpony, I saw the closure of our local riding schools and having spoken to ex riding school owner I know you are correct that insurance and safety is the issue that caused many to close. However, as we all know, it is litigation gone crazy. It is just as easy to fall off a horse and for it to be entirely your own fault as it is to catch an edge on an indoor ski slope and break a leg in the resulting fall, or for another horse and rider to 'spook' yours and for the riders to fall, or for another skier to accidentally ski into you and injuries to be sustained in a resulting crash - why the hell has the law enabled riding schools and indoor ski slopes to be held as the responsible parties in such cases and to be the ones that are sued? Perhaps a better option would be for every skier/rider/cyclist etc to hold 3rd party insurance as is necessary for car drivers. For that matter why is the legal aspect on an indoor slope any different to an outdoor one. If someone cannoned into another skier on a moutain, UK, French, Austrian etc. I can't see that the skiers could sue to moutain owners - in fact they don't do they I'm sure that I've read of cases of where individual skiers being taken to court, but not the resort itself unless the reason for the crash was incorrect signage etc. Why are the owners of the indoor slopes held responsibile when they may be blame free for the crash???
| Quote: |
We have a sensible approach to friends / family skiing together and offering support to each other
|
Common sense is all it takes - were that all the slopes did the same, but it seems from the OP and my own experience at the weekend that this may not be the case.
gilleski, you do your organisation proud with your contributions in this sort of subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
There is no such thing as common sense. As for the opinion that the best thing to do after falling off a horse is to get back on it immediately..... well, you might just as well argue that the best thing to do is walk away and never go near horses again. Common sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Chris Bish, It is said to be common sense, because if you ever want to ride a horse again they say it more likely that you wouldn't do so if you didn't get straight back on. If you fall off and walk away and think on it you are liable to talk yourself out of ever remounting. It's a bit like those beginners that fall when skiing and walk off the hill never to return - I've seen odd people walk down the hill and you kind of know that they won't ever get on skis again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
And thus they rejoin the 99% of our population that have the common sense not to engage in the ridiculous and expensive activity of skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 wrote: |
scooby_simon, I can't see that the liability rests with the slope owners, it must surely rest with the skier that made the decision to take the free advice. Any more than I would hold a riding stable responsible if I fell off one of their horses and damaged myself. My daughter broke a wrist in the summer after being instructed to try some jumps - I would not even contemplate suing the stable who met the requirements to provide suitable first aid at the time. I was amazed during a lesson the other week when another rider fell off when they said that they are not allowed to encourage a fallen rider back into the saddle due to HSE issues (when it is the best thing to do if you haven't obviously broken something vital) - The country has gone mad!
I am not aware that, whilst I am under 'paid for' instruction (indoor slope or on the mountain), anyone is insuring me other than myself. How can the establishment be responsible if they were not the ones providing the 'instruction'? Yes, an indoor slope might be responsible if someone broke a leg because a Poma broke half way up, but I won't believe that anyone is responsible for my safety other than me in any other actually skiing situation. An organisation is responsible if the facilities that they provide causes an accident - I hire a canoe and it sinks because it has a socking great crack in it, then the organisation is responsible for my two week off work through double pneumonia, but if I fall out of the canoe because I've done something stupid, even if I've been trying to follow instructions from a paid for instructor I can hardly see that you can hold that person or organisation responsible. We don't hold a ski resort, VT, Les Arcs, Tgnes etc. responsible if someone crashes into us so why the hell should we hold an indoor ski slope responsibile? Surely this is down to common sense (though I will agree that the current litigous society we live in - see the above riding school incident - perhaps doesn't help) |
I think the slope is insuring themselves and not insuring you. It is probably a legal requirement ( possibly of the local authority that gives them planning permission) that they hold 3rd party insurance. It is then probably a requirement of the insurers that they have management arrangements in place that minimise the chance of an injury and hence a claim.
If I ski in a ski resort, and as a result of the negligence of the resort ( possibly say by insufficient warning of an obvious hazard) then the law allows me under tort to make a claim for damages, which if I am successful ( and I might not be) then that resort operator has to pay me damages, and for which it needs an insurance policy, and for which it needs to have management arrangements in place in order for it to obtain that insurance at sensible commercial rates.
So it has nothing much to do with common sense, nor what you and I both seems reasonable, but instead is more about the commerical aspects of tort and insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Ps sorry about hitting the quote button above
I got an ipad recently and am just getting used to typing on it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Megamum,
| Quote: |
why the hell has the law enabled riding schools and indoor ski slopes to be held as the responsible parties in such cases and to be the ones that are sued?
|
I'm not a lawyer, but I think the answer is: it hasn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Well if it hasn't, then why does it seem that people are saying that you can't be instructed in a snowdome unless with a snow dome authorised instructor and then citing insurance issues as one of the reasons why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What we don't ever hear about is the number of "frivolous" (?) cases that get to court but are unsuccessful, because that doesn't make a news story, opposed to the very few that are successful, and in which case there is usually something very specific to that case. Which is what makes us think we live in a " sue them all" society. Unfortunately this perception leads many businesses to risk averse behaviours.
Also I am sure people have been suing mountain companies in recent years. - would have to do a search to be sure though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But individual 3rd party insurance is not a bad idea, whether compulsory or not. And in fact many travel and home insurance policies already have some level of cover in them. Worth checking
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
But individual 3rd party insurance is not a bad idea, whether compulsory or not. And in fact many travel and home insurance policies already have some level of cover in them. Worth checking
|
there still has to be an element of control at the Snowdome though - just as there is now; its just a different party/entity paying out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes of course, in my utopian world we would all be righteous citizens 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
.
.
