Insurance

General discussion
brianmacmahon
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am

Re: Insurance

Post by brianmacmahon » Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:38 pm

Hi Dave,

He doesn't solely rely on the waivers, as a provider he also has insurance.

Sorry if I gave the impression that he solely relied on waivers to protect him from erroneous litigation.

My bad :lol:

johnd
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am

Re: Insurance

Post by johnd » Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:17 pm

Alan H refers to an increase in ECSKC members doing leadership training. I am one of these. I hope to do a BCU 4* Sea Kayak Leader assessment this year.

Alan makes a comment in relation to people thinking about doing leadership training:
I believe the concept of liability weighed heavily on some shoulders enough for them to say to themselves
"I don't want to take responsibility - I don't want that risk"
I would not dispute this is in the least. I often wonder about the responsibility myself. However, I can take out CANI membership for £45 and know that I am insured to lead paddlers in certain conditions. I owe those paddlers 'a duty to ensure that they are not exposed to a foreseeable risk of injury as far as you reasonably can' (my emphasis--see attached document which I mentioned and attached earlier).

If a paddle is taking place outside those conditions, I will not lead. I will declare the paddle a peer paddle. On a peer paddle, 'the most experienced and or qualified person there ought reasonably to intervene and at least advise if a foreseeable risk of injury arises.'

In either case, I am 'not expected to guarantee the safety of others, merely to act reasonably'. I don't see how it makes any difference to me if those paddlers are insured or not. I just need to act reasonably. I cannot think of any ISKA meet I have been on where people did not act reasonably. This includes meets where accidents have happened.

Sea kayaking is an adventure sport. People go out in risky conditions. They are forewarned of the dangers and they still take chances.This is not being unreasonable. It is being adventurous.

This is why I voted against this proposal.
Attachments

[The extension pdf has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]


Chancer
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am

Re: Insurance

Post by Chancer » Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:24 am

Because the risk weighs heavily on their shoulders -
That's why ECSKC decided that the club take out an insurance on every club member. So that the committee and club leaders not to mention the members, the public and NOK of members have insurance if things go wrong. ISKA is an unincorporated society under the law and every member of the Association is liable to discharge any claims against ISKA whether from members of the public or club members or their NOK. Leaders and the organising committee are in a particularly vulnerable position and deserve the protection of an insurance as do the public and the members. I believe the insurance offered by being a member of my NGB CI for €20 is great value and covers me and all ISKA members in the event of an accident. As John points out we act responsibly we assess the risks and we can declare a peer paddle if required. This is why I want to have the reassurance when leading that every club member has insurance if there is an accident when I am leading. That's why I have voted yes.

brianmacmahon
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am

Re: Insurance

Post by brianmacmahon » Sun Feb 26, 2017 11:31 am

Interesting article on the Journal today not unrelated to our debate.
Here's the link ;- Compensation culture: 'We can’t apply health and safety standards to the great outdoors'
http://jrnl.ie/3256904

I think that it has already been established that the insurance being provided through CI and CANI is just not fit for purpose despite Chancers belief in it.
CI are looking for best practise which currently does not exist in any written form that I'm aware of. CANI are looking for a constitution again which ISKA does not have.

The insurance debate has been a contentious issue amongst the membership.
Trying to establish best practise and a constitution would be at the very least fracturist !

I've voted against the proposal ( no surprise there ).
I believe that Iska should strive for compliance by encouraging training and certification.
In a few years the association will be in a better position to comply with the insurers.
In the meantime I can see no reason why all Iska meets can't be peer paddles if that makes people feel better.
All paddles on WISKA are peer. The person who posts up about the paddle decides where and when but after that every person that turns up on the beach is responsible for themselves first and foremost and for their kayaking crew around them after that. Peer all the way.

Mac

johnd
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am

Re: Insurance

Post by johnd » Sun Feb 26, 2017 12:19 pm

My main point was I don't see how it makes any difference to a trip leader if the paddlers they are leading have third party insurance or not.

If a paddler injures a third party then the trip leader cannot be held responsible as long as they have forewarned the paddler of any dangers.

Whether or not that paddler has third party insurance makes no difference to the leader that I am aware of.

I agree trip leaders and committee members are particularly vulnerable. The committee has decided to take out Directors and officers insurance. Trip leaders should insure themselves by joining CI and/or CANI.

conorsmith
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am

Re: Insurance

Post by conorsmith » Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:53 pm

Posters on lamp posts might be pushing it but we should at least come up with a few slogans?

To start the ball rolling - If In Doubt, Leave It Out - VOTE NO :D

DaveWalsh
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am

Re: Insurance

Post by DaveWalsh » Sun Feb 26, 2017 6:30 pm

MAKE WORK YOUR HOBBY AND PADDLING YOUR PLEASURE ................

afinn
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am

Re: Insurance

Post by afinn » Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:00 pm

What do we want, no insurance
When do we not want it....NOW
Vote NO on the first
Making ISKA great again
Yes we can...
Vote no


Apologies for the blatant plagiarism :D

john.ruston
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2014 11:51 pm

Re: Insurance

Post by john.ruston » Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:10 am

Have good insurance because its the right thing to do and still vote NO to compulsion.

DaveWalsh
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am

Re: Insurance

Post by DaveWalsh » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:59 pm

Down to the wire it seems.

Time to vote, or not, that is the first question, and then, if voting, which way.

I have been firmly resolved up to this not to vote, partly because I hate this toxic topic, and partly because I hate the clumsiness of a head count to sort it out.

Boiled down, its about leaders and leadership. Vote no and say to people who want to and can get insured that they can’t, but must lead anyway, or vote yes and tell people who can’t or don’t want insurance that they must, or else?

Put another way, disregard hard earned formal qualifications or disrespect those without.

I am sure there must be those who can’t believe that circle can’t be squared.

I envy anyone who finds this easy.

Over and out.

DWalsh

Post Reply