Insurance

General discussion
fionatrahe
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am

Re: Insurance

Post by fionatrahe » Tue Feb 21, 2017 6:12 pm

1. The committee did not ask people to vote for CI membership for all ISKA members, so I don’t see how you can recommend they vote for that Mick. We recommended members to vote that PL insurance be mandatory, members would have the option of selecting their own policy; CI, CANI or other.
2. I respect the committee recommendation and did NOT recommend anything, I merely stated that I would be voting No.
3. I got the ok from the committee to put my opinions on the forum as long as I made clear that I was not speaking on behalf of the committee.

Apart from all that, I agree with most of what you said Mick, but believe we're not there yet. Once members have up-skilled and we've got clearer definition of best practice, we should certainly reconsider. It's a pity you didn't stay on the committee to pursue those goals.

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

Re: Insurance

Post by DaveWalsh » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:37 pm

Honestly, you couldn’t make this stuff up.

Guess what members of the Irish Mountaineering Club received yesterday ? The formal notice of an emergency single issue EGM for 23rd March next –
  • "That this EGM acknowledges that the Club does not have and is unlikely for the foreseeable future to have the resources to implement the recommendations contained in the report of the subcommittee on the Introduction to Rockclimbing as published in Autumn 2001 and endorsed by the AGM on 22/11/2001 and amended from time to time and accordingly, this EGM resolves not henceforth to attempt to implement those recommendations."
Guess what the 2001 recommendations were about? You got it – compulsory “qualified only” leaders.

They pursued best practice beyond their available (then, since, now) capacity to deliver and found themselves out on a limb. My understanding is that they don’t have associated insurance consequences so they appear to have the option, legally, of using experienced non-qualified leaders. Land based activities, even risky ones, are in a happier position in that regard than their water based counterparts.

Everyone wants best practice, everyone wants insurance, everyone would put their hand in their pocket, but if jumping or jumping too soon means jettisoning quality non-qualified leaders who have contributed loyally for years, that troubles me deeply.

And I would be no less troubled knowing a “democratic” vote brought that about. It isn’t democracy, it’s a naked power struggle, if a vote’s majority doesn’t bring the minority with it, and that works either way. I fear there is no happy result imminent.

DWalsh

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

Re: Insurance

Post by Chancer » Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:19 pm

I believe that we will still continue to use experienced unqualified leaders for some time yet even if the members adopt the committee recommendation. There are a number of qualified leaders already leading at ISKA meets. The training programme should produce more qualified leaders, some in a short space of time, perhaps even before the paddlling season opens for ISKA.

Having PL insurance provides that extra margin of safety not only for the general body but for the leaders who we are trying to develop and attract to lead at ISKA meets. If we turn up at a meet and find we have enough qualified leaders to either lead or ride shotgun for an experienced unqualified leader with local knowledge then we are good to go. If we don't have enough qualified leaders then we are no worse off than we are now and we run some trips with experienced unqualified leaders as peer paddles. We will have an ever increasing number of paddlers being qualified and fed into the system to reach the desired best practice status.

If we park the insurance option now because of fears that we might not be able to in the short term meet all the requirements of best practice on every meet it will be difficult to resurrect it again. There is an incremental nature to this progress which I believe will be worth the effort on behalf of the members and the association and will I feel make the association stronger not weaker. I don't see this issue as a defining moment for ISKA. It is just a step forward as far as I am concerned. No matter what the vote result I hope that members see it as that. A naked power struggle is putting it a bit too strong. Certainly it has generated more typing than almost any issue I can remember. However, no matter which way the vote goes ISKA will still run the meets and it would be a pity if people had dug in so deep in their trenches and become so wedded to one position or another that in the end they felt that a vote against their position was a catastrophe leading to them with no option but to quit ISKA.

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

Re: Insurance

Post by conorsmith » Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:04 pm

.
When I joined ISKA almost 8 years ago, we just worried about getting out often enough with good friends and watching out for one another. The good old days...
.

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

Re: Insurance

Post by Chancer » Thu Feb 23, 2017 5:06 pm

No matter which way the vote goes I expect we will continue to worry about the exact same things in the future and little else. Always look on the bright side of things Conor.

iskacommittee
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:37 am

Re: Insurance

Post by iskacommittee » Thu Feb 23, 2017 7:28 pm

To answer the question raised by Emma, in it's simplest terms, the proposal is that "every ISKA member will be required to have third-party insurance". You are being asked to agree or disagree with this proposal.

The ISKA committee is not making a recommendation in favour or against this proposal. It is regrettable that some ISKA members may have been misled about this on another forum.

If the proposal is accepted then all ISKA members will be required to have third-party insurance. If the proposal is rejected then ISKA members can decide for themselves if they want to have third-party insurance.

The vote is NOT about whether YOU should take out insurance: regardless of the vote you can go ahead and take out third party insurance yourself. The vote is about what you expect of other members.

There are differing opinions with regards to the consequences of the proposal being accepted or approved. Regardless of any consequences, the ISKA committee will work to ensure that ISKA meets continue as they always have.

Regards,

John

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

Re: Insurance

Post by johnd » Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:05 pm

Well said Conor.

And when I do get out with you next, I will have insurance and a tow rope but only because I know the value of both and not because of any rule or regulation.

Let's not lose perspective here. Let's not retreat into tribal camps. Instead, let's meet on the beach for a paddle and be thankful that we have nothing more serious to worry about.

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

Re: Insurance

Post by DaveWalsh » Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:54 pm

A side issue …….

When this whole matter re-broke-out in 2017, you will see that the first question I asked (so far unanswered) was whether the coexistence of Liability Insurance and a Waiver of Liability had been thoroughly looked at? I pointed out that it is very possible to fall through the cracks with such potentially conflicting ways of addressing things, that it is possible to generate a situation where the Waiver prevents liability arising so no need for the Insurance, and the Insurance means no need for the Waiver.

Tricky territory ……

For those who don’t know, I was once the “go-to” sort of person for advanced kayaking legal advice, until 2008 when I suffered severe and immediate burn out, the result mainly of multitudinous overseas kayaking holidays. In 2008 though I was still the legal advisor to a certain kayaking organisation for the country where I live and also to the provincial region where I live. I will name neither, to avoid embarrassment, for them and for me. This whole broad issue was then “live” as it is now. An option I then offered each was a Waiver. The Waiver I offered each organisation was in my opinion fit for purpose, in that it did the job, but …...

I would never dream of offering professional advice uninvited. And so I don’t do so now. But I will say this in a general way. Waivers seem to me to be an alternative to Insurance. You go one way or the other, either/or. Its not belt and braces.

Waivers, effective ones, are obnoxious documents, and are rarely if ever used. Their content and language is awful, but they do work. They are “efficacious” if properly constructed.

There are two things I would say about the Waiver the Committee have offered, and I would ask for their opinion :

1. Who gave the Committee the authority to conceive and design any Waiver, or such a Waiver other than to put to the Members, which they haven’t. They seem to have decided on that. It does rather seem like a Members sorta thing?

2. Does it work? It looks anaemic, a bit half hearted. Have the Committee received professional advice and if so what is that advice? Maybe it does work? It does though seem to be intended to be like the MCI “personal responsibility” statement, which is about personal attitude, but has no immediate legal effect as such, though it did seem to have influenced a High Court judge very importantly last week.

Look. Maybe I’m wrong about it but what seems to me is that either the Waiver successfully does its job or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t we don’t need it. But if it does we don’t need Liability Insurance.

Which is it?

DWalsh

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

Re: Insurance

Post by afinn » Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:29 am

Dave,may I say,I pride myself on my writing...(I know I know, self praise is no praise) but I am enthralled by your dissertations, which are, as good,nay,better than mine.
It is refreshing to read such well written and thought provoking pieces, informative, based on years of experience in sea kayaking and years of experience in the legal profession. I think that needs repeating...years of experience in the LEGAL profession.
No vitriol,no nastiness,nothing but the facts with a smattering of subtle humour.
I am well educated,but,when I meet someone equally educated but perhaps in a different profession...I listen, I listen to what they have to say,to do otherwise,is, in my opinion,arroganct or egotistical. I presume that they know what they are talking about, they certainly know more,a lot more about their work than I do,so I listen and learn
If we are ill we go to a doctor, in legal trouble a Solicitor or Barrister, tooth ache,a Dentist. Rarely if ever do we argue with them or ignore what we are told to do,to do so would be arrogant...or painful perhaps.
I would urge EVERYONE to consider the facts before voting,to listen to people who have knowledge of the subject,not to people who have no expertise,being a great kayaker is one thing,im not too bad myself (more self praise) but it does not give one a God given right to have more knowledge of Insurance or the Law than a less experienced kayaker. Like most things in life,we lose a couple of those every year due to retirement etc.
So,listen and learn people I implore you.I am not saying that Dave knows everything,but,he knows a lot more than anyone in the Kayaking community about the law ( apologies to any other "eagles" I do not know)
Consider what he has to say AND if anyone, anyone has hard info on the subject,facts,legal opinion,legal precedent, the truth,then please please please do post it.
There seems to be a few Donald Trumps in the debate because somewhere there is the truth but I for one am having difficulty finding it.
So,Dave,pleasr keep posting,it is food for thought...and fellow members of ISKA,please choose carefully based on some modicum of expertise.
Just to say,many many other outdoor activities are being run all over Ireland on a waiver system, I was recently Mountain Biking and came around many a bend on the descent to be confronted by a drop and thinking,f##k go down there and it wont end well, I signed a waiver and one for my underage son. As we say last week,a judge will say to me in the event of an accident if I crash, "what did you expect Mr Finn" they even rented me a bike...
One problem I have is this....I pay circa 400e for house insurance, a house that is alarmed,windows locked double locks on back and front doors,triple glazed etc.not impossible to break into but not easy....
400 for car ins, ncted, full licence,no penalty points, 59 years old etc
What I find hard to believe,vety genuinely, is that for circa 1500e an insurance company will insure a kayaking outfit.taking out say 20 people..so you can go out to the Stags of Broadhaven in a 3 mtr swell,and a F 3 wind, ive been out,and the insurance co will say in the event of an accident," thats grand lads, yep,we knew you would be out there in the Atlantic in those conditions so we have no problem paying...or perhaps trying to go between Diarmuid and Grainnes rock or maybe around Malin Hd....well I may be wrong but on those prices,based on risk,by a well versed and trained Actuary,I cannot see it....
But,if someone can prove me wrong I will take out fully comprehensive cover,that will cover my dry suit, paddles etc.
Happy carefree paddling to all and see ye on the water soon.

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

Re: Insurance

Post by brianmacmahon » Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:38 am

Waiver !!!

Absolutely !

I've a buddy who provides sea kayak tours in Galway Bay.
He relies heavily on the waiver system.
Bear in mind his job consists of shoe horning large Americans into small boats.

If it works for him I can't see how it couldn't for us.
Committee should definitely look at this closer.


Mac

Post Reply