Fullfaces future
Hey, im in the market for a fullface and was just wondering, is there a future ban or restriction with paragliding helmets? (Charlies, vector m-4/5, icaro, etc.) Because i really dont wanna get one and not be able to use it in the future. This question doesnt just concern me but a couple of my mates. So far, its just easier access to a paragliding helmet, price and stock wise. Suggestions on what to do please. :)
Views: 1727
Replies to This Discussion
-
Premium MemberPermalink Reply by murrah on -
screwed up wrong link for t8 type standard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_bKZhsnDvY&feature=youtube_gdata
-
Permalink Reply by Sakamoto on
-
Robbo, I'm surprised you openly call me a lier, as this type of personal attack usually indicates a lack of security within the argument of the person making the comment. Once the discussion starts down that path, it's not worth continuing, as no-one benefits, especially the sport and the riders.
Some points which are not a falsehood, or "Fantasy"
1. The type of insurance policy I've described DOES exist, and is readily available to any organiser staging any type of legitimate gravity event in every State in Australia.
2. It is available to every country in the World, except Canada and Nth America.
3.The majority of legit events/gatherings in Aus do use this insurance. (If you would like, I'm more than happy to give you the actual number of days which have already secured the insurance for road closed, Council approved, Police permitted legit Training Days, Races or Free Rides.)
4. The points I've made regarding responsibility are based on legal guidance, gained from the two legal firms mentioned.
5. Gravity disciplines, in general, are moving forward, and as such ALL aspects of organising have to match the growth of the respective disciplines.
Just for the recored, Robbo, and so there is no misunderstanding, I beleive that the best way for gravity sports to grow in Australia, and world wide, is for ALL disciplines to work together, with no derision. There are alot of people who beleive this to be the case, and are working to put into place facets of organising which cater to each and every mainstream discipline.
Remember Robbo, the non-standup disciplines are not the ones pushing skateboarding out of races/events, it's the other way around.
Robbo said:The Law is near identical in QLD as it is in most of Australia. Your legal advice sounds like garbage Andy so I assume you are simply lying and have never researched the law on this subject.
Take a moment to read the law in your own state
-
Premium MemberPermalink Reply by Trav on -
no, its pretty much calling a spade a spade..
its is you that deviates from the actual argument to suit whatever delusional point you're trying to make... which is often not the point
Sakamoto said:Robbo, I'm surprised you openly call me a lier, as this type of personal attack usually indicates a lack of security within the argument of the person making the comment.
-
Permalink Reply by Kanufi on
-
I agree with Trav.
After reading this thread it sounds like Andy just likes having a dig at Robbo.
Andy are you for or against the new helmet laws as its getting confusing where you stand on this topic. My opinion is that we have regressed the sport a good 10 years with this helmet crap.
-
-
It was mainly Robbo and myself doing the talking, and there has been other stuff which has happened which was the basis of some comments, so I do understand where you're coming from Kanufi. Robbo's and Trav's last comments are totally uncalled for, but thats their own issues.
Kanufi, I think the helmet requirments for racing do have to be reviewed, as there are helmets out in the marketplace which really aren't safe. If the IGSA are going to do this, great, however they have to be extremely explicit as to what ratings/helmets will be allowed for next season. My personal thoughts are, that instead of naming specific helmets as unsuitable to be considered safe, set down very stringent "ratings" as being acceptable, ie, Motorcycle Snell rating, etc. Heavy motorbike helmets create issues for skaters, making it to difficult to skate, however I'm using the Motorcycle Snell rating purely as an acceptable standard, and as an example. There are totally acceptable helmets out there that are not as heavy as motorcycle helmets, yet are just as strong. My opinion only, I can see where the IGSA is coming from, but the stated acceptable ratings are too broad and loose, and could be considered confusing for riders when buying a helmet.
Tighten up the helmet requirements for sure, however be very specific as to what rating and what "sport" the helmets can come from, ie, skating, white water paddling, paragliding or motor racing. At the moment, as I said, the proposed ratings for next year are not specific enough.
Just my thoughts.
Kanufi said:I agree with Trav.
After reading this thread it sounds like Andy just likes having a dig at Robbo.
Andy are you for or against the new helmet laws as its getting confusing where you stand on this topic. My opinion is that we have regressed the sport a good 10 years with this helmet crap.
-
Premium MemberPermalink Reply by sean meaney on -
if it aint broke don't fix it, the helmet system now has had no issues and until there is a reasonable solution why bother trying to change anything there isn't the supply there to make it reasonable for everyone to go race predators, risch's and triple 8's so untill that happens its pointless changing the rules in this regard
-
Premium MemberPermalink Reply by Benbro on -
charlys are a good helmet,...every helmet is only as safe as the crash you happen to have,.like said before,no helmet will save you in some situations,..i have smashed my charly with head inside it ,hard on the road,after the second time, it cracked and was replaced,.but yes it did its job,.
when you suggest that 'skateboarding is pushing out other gravity disiplines'',..i now say 'badluck''.
what are organisers ment to do,.this year the greatest events on earth were held here in australia,organised and run by asra,and you guys didnt even show up and be apart of it,rather just winged and bitched about it costing to much,and oh we dont like this,and we dont like that,and theres not enough prize money and all the other niggles and remarks that came from various people.
Why should skateboarding bend over backwards for you,..the other gravity disiplines are fading away due to their own doing,...
but you continue to blame skateboarding,.
-
ASRA AdminPermalink Reply by bernie on -
This discussion has been really useful in airing some of the liability issues race organisers may or may not face, by people who have done practical research from different directions, over a number of years.
This should be kept as a useful debate, and not an opportunity to open old wounds.
So how about we drop the name calling, and personal attacks, and sniping from the sidelines.
if you cannot add anything to the discussion, then dont.
As an infrequent race organiser, I find the bit on NSW & QLD Civil Liability laws very useful, and somewhat comforting, and I really hope that there is something similar in Victoria.
It would also be good to have some case references for where those laws have been tested, because for states that dont have the appropriate laws, established legal precedent from another jurisdiction is often the next line of defence, and a law is much easier to rely on if cases have already been to court and confirmed or denied that law's authority or application in the given set of circumstances to which it is applied.
I had always thought that having certain activities "proscribed" as being inherently dangerous would be good for sports generally, as that would remove the opportunity for lawyers to get involved.
If only we can extend that to the spectators of those acitivities....ie if you go to the airshow and the latest experimental jet fighter crashes right where you were standing...bad luck!
-
-
Some of the points you've raised, Bernie, are spoton questions/issues, ie, prescribing or catagorising activities, spectators, etc. I can only give you situations and answers based on what I've been told by insurance companies and legal firms. It may help:
At this point in time, most insurance companies do, to some extent, catagorise sports/lifestyle activities, and this is reflected in the respective premiums and conditions of the policy in question. Extreme activities, such as gravity sports, paragliding, white water paddling and similar, all fall into the same catagory, requiring a boost in insurance coverage and/or a massive premium adjustment. However, not all insurance companies do this, but it is a general act by the insurance industry.
$10,000,000.00 to $20,000,000.00 Public Liability cover is the amount of coverage that most Councils/Authorities require to stage an event, regardless of the activity. This is a basic coverage for the organisers of any type of event. Something which really shocked me was this: The amount of coverage which is given by an events public liability policy is the same amount of coverage that is gained by a policy attached to a home being purchased. Obviously there is a slight variance when it's a $10,000,000.00 or $20,000,000.00 policy.
Other policies do exist, giving greater coverage, if the organiser wants that type of cover.
I hope this helps, Bernie.
bernie said:This discussion has been really useful in airing some of the liability issues race organisers may or may not face, by people who have done practical research from different directions, over a number of years.
This should be kept as a useful debate, and not an opportunity to open old wounds.
So how about we drop the name calling, and personal attacks, and sniping from the sidelines.
if you cannot add anything to the discussion, then dont.
As an infrequent race organiser, I find the bit on NSW & QLD Civil Liability laws very useful, and somewhat comforting, and I really hope that there is something similar in Victoria.
It would also be good to have some case references for where those laws have been tested, because for states that dont have the appropriate laws, established legal precedent from another jurisdiction is often the next line of defence, and a law is much easier to rely on if cases have already been to court and confirmed or denied that law's authority or application in the given set of circumstances to which it is applied.
I had always thought that having certain activities "proscribed" as being inherently dangerous would be good for sports generally, as that would remove the opportunity for lawyers to get involved.
If only we can extend that to the spectators of those acitivities....ie if you go to the airshow and the latest experimental jet fighter crashes right where you were standing...bad luck!
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Bugs.
Powered by
