Messages posted by : EmmaEvs
|
Hmmm - just for me to be clear in my simple mind - are you saying that if the accident were sustained off piste, and your own policy (not Ally's lift pass insurance) didn't cover off piste skiing, that they could refuse to cough up on medical expenses etc?
Bugger. That's a good point. Back to square one. Just when the problem was solved too! :cry: |
|
Brilliant idea IMHO. :thumbup: |
|
I think you're both bonkers :lol: |
|
|
Stunning photos Rose! :thumbup: Just as I pictured it :D
|
|
|
(to be sung football chant stylee)...
Come on Daaave show us your song, show us your song, show us your song... :lol: |
|
|
Am still following this thread with interest. To my inexperienced mind, this issue seems to get less and less clear, the more that is discovered.
Looking at it form the insurance co's perspective, I can understand why they would want to review their policies with more and more people going off piste. It makes good business sense. However, their methods are a mystery at the moment, and the outcomes are unclear. It seems that a good base level of knowledge, which is widely recognised (inc by ins co's.) would be useful. Looking at it very simply, and throwing an idea in to the pot... if they could all agree on a specific short course (for example) that would demonstrate an individual is capable of being sensible off piste, this could form the basis of eligibility for a sensible off piste policy. Trouble is this would then be open to abuse e.g. companies charging extortionate amounts of money to attend, with the skier being unable to gain insurance if they do not. The 'responsible party' point which includes on piste skiing is an interesting twist. In a clear cut situation I can see the sense in it e.g. a group of more experienced skiers take a beginner on to a black run he/she is not ready for and an accident happens. The most experienced skier should really have had the sense to recognise that it was a daft thing to do. Again though perhaps the question is in the application. It depends how far they take it when the situation is much greyer e.g. a group of skiers with similar levels of experience and skill try a new run, one may have a year or two more under their belt, and an accident happens. My head says that each of these people were capable of making their own decisions, and not one stands out as the 'responsible party'. However, would that person with the extra year or two be prosecuted? I'd like to think that common sense would lead to a 'no' as the group were so similar in skill. Or, taking the first example again, what if the group had warned the beginner that they should not attempt the black run, but they insisted and joined their friends anyway (short of physically restraining them how do you prevent it?), why should the most experienced person then be prosecuted because their mate took a risk they shouldn't have? It would be interesting to see some examples of this rule being applied to see how it works in practise. |
|
That's my dream problem! :lol: Easy solution - exercise to improve strength/fitness etc, then eat loads of lovely food to maintain your weight :D Bargain. |
|
|
I liked private lessons last year too. Found the concentrated focus on my skiing during the one hour slots pretty equal to the amount of feedback I've had in all day group lessons. Plus had the extra freedom of planning the majority of the day myself. I guess it depends on what you want out of the experience. Ally I suspect you are a more sociable animal than me! :D
|
|