I agree with a ll the viewpoints here, this whole subject are of health and safety infuriates me, as Ian correctly states, we can't wrap ourselves in cotton wool, and we can't eliminate risk from our lives altogther, crikey how do we manage to allow Formula 1 to proceed??
Snowsports are classed as 'high-risk' that's why the premiums are more, but ultimately as with everything we do the responsibility lies with the individual to assess the risk against their own experience level and decide upon the correct route to take. Unfortunatley human beings and particulalrly those of us that live in a litigation culture have forgotten this, they place all the onus on corporate bodies and organisations to protect them without taking some of the responsibility themselves.
One of my employees cracked his head open recently whislt working on a vehicle in a pit, parts of the underside of these vehicles protrude lower than others and there is always a slight risk that you may hit your head, the responsibility is on the individual to be aware of their surroundings. Typically we've received correspondance from a solicitor claiming neglect on our part!!! Fortunatley we have all the relevant risk assesments and safe systems of work in place so we've told them to poke it, but the point is that you cannot legislate from a health and safety perspective for an individuals stupidity
Take a helmet and tell your daughter to enjoy herself in a safe and responsible manner and she should be fine.
How do you explain the risks.
Login
Well done freezy thats four paragraphs of complete 100% common sense, you have returned my faith in human nature :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
No they aren't, snowsports is not classed as high risk because it's not and premiums are not high compared to other sports. And you don't live in a litigation culture, unlike most people here I actually am a provider of mountaineering activities and fear of litigation just doesn't exist in a serious way for me or my peers, providing we act within our remits and follow best practice we've absolutely nothing to worry about.
ise - we're all entitled to our opinions, it just happens that you're wrong. I DO live in a litigation culture, you may not but that was not my point and snowsports ARE classed as 'high-risk' and the premiums ARE higher, or do you also work in insurance part-time?
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
This is pretty simple to prove.
First, ski premiums are very low, it's a fact. How low? Less than 3€ a day (source: AXA Insurance, French ski Federation, l' ASSOCIATION TOURISTIQUE SPORTIVE et CULTURELLE des ADMINISTRATIONS FINANCIERES), that's what carte neige would cost in France for a day on the slopes, it's a perfect example as all other risk is stripped out, they're not covering having your skis stolen, flight delays, lost or delayed luggage that a policy with a ski holiday might cover, it's just cover for having an accident on or near the slopes.
In fact, that's expensive, you can have the whole season, regardless of how many days, for under 50€ by taking the annual ticket. (source: AXA Insurance, French ski Federation, l' ASSOCIATION TOURISTIQUE SPORTIVE et CULTURELLE des ADMINISTRATIONS FINANCIERES)
... but even that's expensive, you could have the whole year in the mountains in Switzerland, skiing, climbing, hiking, mountain biking, flying a parapente if you wished for 30.- chf. (source: air glaciers or REGA)
... but even that's expensive, as a mountain professional resident in Switzerland I pay only 20.- and they'll come and get me from anywhere in the world if I have an accident. (source: air glaciers or REGA, Swiss residency permit holders only, federally recognised mountaineering qualifications, member of recognised professional groups only)
... but even that's expensive, it's so low risk that as a leader, guide or ski instructor your household insurer in Switzerland will cover your first 6000.- chf of income professionally. (source: Zurich, Zuritel and others, "responsabilité civile", federally recognised mountaineering qualifications, member of recognised professional groups only)
Are snowsports high risk? Of course not, trencher already pointed this out. This is measured, recorded and logged, we know exactly, globally how much risk there is because adverse outcomes are recorded. We know there's fewer accidents per participant days in skiing than in football, rugby, cycling or, the very best known and most used example, horse riding. (I've provided this data and sources previously on J2SKI I believe)
You don't live in a litigation culture unless you personally chose to. Number of UK claims has risen by 3% in the last 5 years and numbers of personal injury claims are actually down. (source: Compensation Recovery Unit at the Department for Work and Pensions) The figures cherry picked by newspaper scare stories include motor claims and clinical negligence, if I were looking for something to worry about in the UK it would the underlying causes of the rise in clinical negligence claims and just who the national press is beholden to.
To Create or Answer a Topic
Started by Vincentus in Beginning Skiing 09-May-2009 - 26 Replies
Freezywater
reply to 'How do you explain the risks.' posted May-2009
I would have got away with it if it wasn't for those pesky kids!
Ian Wickham
reply to 'How do you explain the risks.' posted May-2009
freezywater wrote:I agree with a ll the viewpoints here, this whole subject are of health and safety infuriates me, as Ian correctly states, we can't wrap ourselves in cotton wool, and we can't eliminate risk from our lives altogther, crikey how do we manage to allow Formula 1 to proceed??
Snowsports are classed as 'high-risk' that's why the premiums are more, but ultimately as with everything we do the responsibility lies with the individual to assess the risk against their own experience level and decide upon the correct route to take. Unfortunatley human beings and particulalrly those of us that live in a litigation culture have forgotten this, they place all the onus on corporate bodies and organisations to protect them without taking some of the responsibility themselves.
One of my employees cracked his head open recently whislt working on a vehicle in a pit, parts of the underside of these vehicles protrude lower than others and there is always a slight risk that you may hit your head, the responsibility is on the individual to be aware of their surroundings. Typically we've received correspondance from a solicitor claiming neglect on our part!!! Fortunatley we have all the relevant risk assesments and safe systems of work in place so we've told them to poke it, but the point is that you cannot legislate from a health and safety perspective for an individuals stupidity
Take a helmet and tell your daughter to enjoy herself in a safe and responsible manner and she should be fine.
Well done freezy thats four paragraphs of complete 100% common sense, you have returned my faith in human nature :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Ise
reply to 'How do you explain the risks.' posted May-2009
freezywater wrote:
Snowsports are classed as 'high-risk' that's why the premiums are more, but ultimately as with everything we do the responsibility lies with the individual to assess the risk against their own experience level and decide upon the correct route to take. Unfortunatley human beings and particulalrly those of us that live in a litigation culture have forgotten this, they place all the onus on corporate bodies and organisations to protect them without taking some of the responsibility themselves.
No they aren't, snowsports is not classed as high risk because it's not and premiums are not high compared to other sports. And you don't live in a litigation culture, unlike most people here I actually am a provider of mountaineering activities and fear of litigation just doesn't exist in a serious way for me or my peers, providing we act within our remits and follow best practice we've absolutely nothing to worry about.
Freezywater
reply to 'How do you explain the risks.' posted May-2009
ise wrote:freezywater wrote:
Snowsports are classed as 'high-risk' that's why the premiums are more, but ultimately as with everything we do the responsibility lies with the individual to assess the risk against their own experience level and decide upon the correct route to take. Unfortunatley human beings and particulalrly those of us that live in a litigation culture have forgotten this, they place all the onus on corporate bodies and organisations to protect them without taking some of the responsibility themselves.
No they aren't, snowsports is not classed as high risk because it's not and premiums are not high compared to other sports. And you don't live in a litigation culture, unlike most people here I actually am a provider of mountaineering activities and fear of litigation just doesn't exist in a serious way for me or my peers, providing we act within our remits and follow best practice we've absolutely nothing to worry about.
ise - we're all entitled to our opinions, it just happens that you're wrong. I DO live in a litigation culture, you may not but that was not my point and snowsports ARE classed as 'high-risk' and the premiums ARE higher, or do you also work in insurance part-time?
I would have got away with it if it wasn't for those pesky kids!
Ian Wickham
reply to 'How do you explain the risks.' posted May-2009
freezywater wrote:ise wrote:freezywater wrote:
Snowsports are classed as 'high-risk' that's why the premiums are more, but ultimately as with everything we do the responsibility lies with the individual to assess the risk against their own experience level and decide upon the correct route to take. Unfortunatley human beings and particulalrly those of us that live in a litigation culture have forgotten this, they place all the onus on corporate bodies and organisations to protect them without taking some of the responsibility themselves.
No they aren't, snowsports is not classed as high risk because it's not and premiums are not high compared to other sports. And you don't live in a litigation culture, unlike most people here I actually am a provider of mountaineering activities and fear of litigation just doesn't exist in a serious way for me or my peers, providing we act within our remits and follow best practice we've absolutely nothing to worry about.
ise - we're all entitled to our opinions, it just happens that you're wrong. I DO live in a litigation culture, you may not but that was not my point and snowsports ARE classed as 'high-risk' and the premiums ARE higher, or do you also work in insurance part-time?
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Tino_11
reply to 'How do you explain the risks.' posted May-2009
Risk can only be considered in anything we do when tempered with benefit. I work in the medical industry and spend every day balancing risk and benifit. We design new medical devices for implantation into human beings, which likely have to survive up to 20 years. There are all kinds of standards we have to adhere to when doing this regarding durability, design, functionability and performance. The most important standard we have to follow however is the risk management one, and the most important thing about that one is to understand NOTHING IS RISK FREE.
We have to map the function of the device in the environment it is meant to work. Then we have to brainstorm every conceivable defect that can occur. This ranges from operator mis-use to design failure. Once that is done, we have to assign a severity and occurance to the defect and work out the likely detection of that defect. From this we come up with a risk rating. Procedures state that the overall risk must be less than value x, however you are allowed to exceed value x is the benifit outweighs the risk. For example if a device carries a small risk of embolism and the 70 year old patient losing a toe after 6 months, the benifit of being alive for 6 months to lose it can be percieved to outweigh the risk.
Real life is really no different, we all do this every day we draw breath. Some are better at it than others, some do it consciously, others unconciously, however we all do.
Snow sports are interesting. The attraction to certain people (me for instance) is the risk, however that risk is largely overstated and a result of the occurance of defect/failure (detection) being more obvious. Mrs. Richardson only hit the news because of her fame, not because of her skiing injury. Her visibility and that of her accident were only high profile due to her fame. She would have hit the news in the same way if here laces had been caught in an escalator and she had fallen, hitting her head and suffering death as she did. Would that mean we should be frightened of escalators and class them as high risk? Absolutely not, the manufacturer has already done it for you, I guarantee it. The real question is, shall/will/do I get enough benefit from the activity to take the inherent risk? This is almost impossible to know without trying it.
How to measure benifit is far more difficult, as it is 100% personally percieved. Taking Aspirin is a worldwide phenomenum which carries small inherent risk when administered correctly, however one can still react and die to a single dose. The fact this occurance is likely minute amongst the general population does not actually decrease your statistical likelyhood of it happening, it merely reduces the probability. You or your doctor make this calculation without thinking as the benifit of immediate relief from pain outweighs the slight risk you will react negatively.
The benifit of skiing is exactly the same. The feeling of freedom, speed, control, danger are all positive (for me). I know I can fall and suffer injury or god-forbid, death, but I choose this risk against the risk of siiting on my bar stool complaining about how dull life is. All of the things I could suffer skiing/snowboarding I could theoretically suffer crossing the road, and all of them are probably more likely in the second scenario (not fact checked)...... The real question is "If you look at the benifit of both activities, which would you rather do?"
We have to map the function of the device in the environment it is meant to work. Then we have to brainstorm every conceivable defect that can occur. This ranges from operator mis-use to design failure. Once that is done, we have to assign a severity and occurance to the defect and work out the likely detection of that defect. From this we come up with a risk rating. Procedures state that the overall risk must be less than value x, however you are allowed to exceed value x is the benifit outweighs the risk. For example if a device carries a small risk of embolism and the 70 year old patient losing a toe after 6 months, the benifit of being alive for 6 months to lose it can be percieved to outweigh the risk.
Real life is really no different, we all do this every day we draw breath. Some are better at it than others, some do it consciously, others unconciously, however we all do.
Snow sports are interesting. The attraction to certain people (me for instance) is the risk, however that risk is largely overstated and a result of the occurance of defect/failure (detection) being more obvious. Mrs. Richardson only hit the news because of her fame, not because of her skiing injury. Her visibility and that of her accident were only high profile due to her fame. She would have hit the news in the same way if here laces had been caught in an escalator and she had fallen, hitting her head and suffering death as she did. Would that mean we should be frightened of escalators and class them as high risk? Absolutely not, the manufacturer has already done it for you, I guarantee it. The real question is, shall/will/do I get enough benefit from the activity to take the inherent risk? This is almost impossible to know without trying it.
How to measure benifit is far more difficult, as it is 100% personally percieved. Taking Aspirin is a worldwide phenomenum which carries small inherent risk when administered correctly, however one can still react and die to a single dose. The fact this occurance is likely minute amongst the general population does not actually decrease your statistical likelyhood of it happening, it merely reduces the probability. You or your doctor make this calculation without thinking as the benifit of immediate relief from pain outweighs the slight risk you will react negatively.
The benifit of skiing is exactly the same. The feeling of freedom, speed, control, danger are all positive (for me). I know I can fall and suffer injury or god-forbid, death, but I choose this risk against the risk of siiting on my bar stool complaining about how dull life is. All of the things I could suffer skiing/snowboarding I could theoretically suffer crossing the road, and all of them are probably more likely in the second scenario (not fact checked)...... The real question is "If you look at the benifit of both activities, which would you rather do?"
www
The Only Way is Down
http://towid.blogspot.com/
Edited 1 time. Last update at 10-May-2009
Ise
reply to 'How do you explain the risks.' posted May-2009
freezywater wrote:
ise - we're all entitled to our opinions, it just happens that you're wrong. I DO live in a litigation culture, you may not but that was not my point and snowsports ARE classed as 'high-risk' and the premiums ARE higher, or do you also work in insurance part-time?
This is pretty simple to prove.
First, ski premiums are very low, it's a fact. How low? Less than 3€ a day (source: AXA Insurance, French ski Federation, l' ASSOCIATION TOURISTIQUE SPORTIVE et CULTURELLE des ADMINISTRATIONS FINANCIERES), that's what carte neige would cost in France for a day on the slopes, it's a perfect example as all other risk is stripped out, they're not covering having your skis stolen, flight delays, lost or delayed luggage that a policy with a ski holiday might cover, it's just cover for having an accident on or near the slopes.
In fact, that's expensive, you can have the whole season, regardless of how many days, for under 50€ by taking the annual ticket. (source: AXA Insurance, French ski Federation, l' ASSOCIATION TOURISTIQUE SPORTIVE et CULTURELLE des ADMINISTRATIONS FINANCIERES)
... but even that's expensive, you could have the whole year in the mountains in Switzerland, skiing, climbing, hiking, mountain biking, flying a parapente if you wished for 30.- chf. (source: air glaciers or REGA)
... but even that's expensive, as a mountain professional resident in Switzerland I pay only 20.- and they'll come and get me from anywhere in the world if I have an accident. (source: air glaciers or REGA, Swiss residency permit holders only, federally recognised mountaineering qualifications, member of recognised professional groups only)
... but even that's expensive, it's so low risk that as a leader, guide or ski instructor your household insurer in Switzerland will cover your first 6000.- chf of income professionally. (source: Zurich, Zuritel and others, "responsabilité civile", federally recognised mountaineering qualifications, member of recognised professional groups only)
Are snowsports high risk? Of course not, trencher already pointed this out. This is measured, recorded and logged, we know exactly, globally how much risk there is because adverse outcomes are recorded. We know there's fewer accidents per participant days in skiing than in football, rugby, cycling or, the very best known and most used example, horse riding. (I've provided this data and sources previously on J2SKI I believe)
You don't live in a litigation culture unless you personally chose to. Number of UK claims has risen by 3% in the last 5 years and numbers of personal injury claims are actually down. (source: Compensation Recovery Unit at the Department for Work and Pensions) The figures cherry picked by newspaper scare stories include motor claims and clinical negligence, if I were looking for something to worry about in the UK it would the underlying causes of the rise in clinical negligence claims and just who the national press is beholden to.
Edited 1 time. Last update at 10-May-2009
AllyG
reply to 'How do you explain the risks.' posted May-2009
Tino,
That's very interesting that you work with medical implants.
I have a very expensive dental implant, £2800, and so far, after one year it seems very successful. But, a couple of weeks ago, I got a gum infection next to the implant and had to go on a high dose of antibiotics to clear it up. It seems that this is a common problem with dental implants - something to do with the gum not behaving 'normally' next to the implant, and I have to keep my mouth super duper clean all the time. I was so stressed out with worrying about getting everything ready for the holidaymakers that I think I slipped up a bit with my dental hygiene. My mouth is O.K now, and the implant seems to be fine.
I think it's a very worthwile job, helping people to get the implants they need. If it wasn't for the work some people did designing my titanium implant I would still have a big hole in my mouth where my tooth was pulled out, and I wouldn't be able to eat properly, and I'd feel ancient.
As far as I'm concerned, the risk I took was that it would fail and I'd waste all my money.
Ally
That's very interesting that you work with medical implants.
I have a very expensive dental implant, £2800, and so far, after one year it seems very successful. But, a couple of weeks ago, I got a gum infection next to the implant and had to go on a high dose of antibiotics to clear it up. It seems that this is a common problem with dental implants - something to do with the gum not behaving 'normally' next to the implant, and I have to keep my mouth super duper clean all the time. I was so stressed out with worrying about getting everything ready for the holidaymakers that I think I slipped up a bit with my dental hygiene. My mouth is O.K now, and the implant seems to be fine.
I think it's a very worthwile job, helping people to get the implants they need. If it wasn't for the work some people did designing my titanium implant I would still have a big hole in my mouth where my tooth was pulled out, and I wouldn't be able to eat properly, and I'd feel ancient.
As far as I'm concerned, the risk I took was that it would fail and I'd waste all my money.
Ally
Topic last updated on 12-May-2009 at 14:00