Commission de sécurité des consommateurs

On 27 August 2002, a petition was brought before the Consumer Safety Committee by Mrs V., Chair of the Association ‘Génération Glisse Snowboard Protection’, with respect to the safety of ski lifts as regards two aspects:

 

A.     So-called ‘difficult’ drag lifts

The Association calls into question the safety of some drag lifts described as ‘difficult’ by the classification set in place by the Order of 25 June 2002 on the assessment and the signalling of drag lift usage difficulty.

 

It indeed feels that:

 

- Such a classification is likely to mislead users in that it could legitimise the occurrence of accidents for which users would wholly or partly shoulder the responsibility, whereas it is the drag lift’s lack of safety which should be blamed. The Association refers in particular to two fatal accidents that occurred at Prapoutel-Les Sept-Laux ski resort in 1997 and 1998[1]. These accidents led the ski resort operators to dismantle in 2000 two dangerous drag lifts which could have been described as ‘difficult’ by the new nomenclature.

 

- As regards the application of Community law, the Association points out that the Order’s provisions appear to infringe some of the provisions of Directive 2000/9/EC of 20 March 2000 on the safety of cableway installations in that the Directive lays down that no installation can be put into service if it is liable to endanger the safety and health of persons. An installation described a priori as ‘difficult’ according to criteria relating to the characteristics of the installation runs counter to the absolute obligation laid down by the Directive.

B.     Safety of child transport

 

The Association challenges a model of a prefectoral order, laying down general organisational regulations on drag lifts, appended to Circular 2008-8 of 6 January 2000 on ski lift operation and organisation and, in particular, its Article 4 concerning child transport[2], on the grounds that the responsibilities of the various parties are not clearly defined. In effect, which are the ‘persons responsible for children’? The instructor, who cannot supervise all the children at the same time during transport; the adult accompanying the child? Here too, the Association feels that undue responsibilities are borne by the user. It is not up to the latter to decide if a child is entitled to take a drag lift. The operator must decide.

 

The problem arises even more critically on chair lifts where liability has been incurred by persons accompanying a child injured on one of them. Therefore what supervisory obligation must adults respect? Are adults previously informed of such an obligation? Do ski lift operators provide them with advice on seeing to the safety of young passengers (for instance must they keep the child within hand’s reach during the ascent? Must they help children when the ski lift arrives, by steadying them as they alight, or must they limit themselves to a purely passive attitude of supervision and intervention in the event of danger?

 

The occurrence of an accident on 21 February 2003 was brought before the Committee on 18 April 2003 on its Internet site. The victim was a 4-year-old child and the accident calls into question the lack of maintenance of a ski slope whose bad condition was caused by drag lift poles: ‘My son was on an ESF ski lesson. He had taken a baby class ski lift. On the slope taken by this lift there were many holes formed by the poles during heavy snowfall. He fell into one of these holes and his ski remained stuck. He couldn’t free himself. When other skiers passed over his leg, or when someone fell over him (there are different pieces of evidence), his thighbone was fractured. I feel that the accident occurred because the slope was poorly maintained.’ The plaintiff made a complaint to Nanterre Court of first instance in May 2003.

THE COMMITTEE’S OPINION OF 2 DECEMBER 1999

 

Ski lift safety is not a new subject for the Committee.

 

In effect, in its opinion of 2 December 1999 on ski slope safety, the Committee had recommended that:

 

‘The Ministry of Transport should disclose ski lift accident statistics.

In all possible cases, the construction of chair lifts shall be recommended to replace drag lifts. For new drag lifts, crossings between ski lifts and descent runs are to be avoided. For existing drag lifts, the regulations set forth by the Order and the Instructions of 28 June 1979 on the construction and operation of drag lifts should be applied more strictly with regard to the prior authorisation, the lay-out and the signalling of crossings.’

The Committee had emphasised the need for a possible change in regulations on the maximum gradient threshold for drag lift slopes, the protection of pylons and fair information for skiers:

- lower the maximum authorised degree of a slope which can currently attain 80% on some sections. For this purpose a study should be started to define the rate of accidents in terms of the slope gradient, so as to fix a maximum gradient,

 

The Committee had expressed the desire that fair and full information should be provided to users:

 

The follow-up to the opinion by the Committee and the information gathered by it as part of the present opinion show that, apart from the standardisation of ski lift pylon protective claddings, none of the Committee’s recommendations have been implemented.

INVESTIGATION BY THE COMMITTEE

The Committee heard:

 

      1.   Mr B. and Mr R., representatives of the Mountain Lift and Tracked Transport Technical Department (Service Technique des Remontées Mécaniques et des Transports Guidés—STRMTG) from the Ministry for Infrastructure, Transport, Housing, Tourism and the Sea

 

The STRMTG is a Ministry of Transport department with national powers. It has a threefold task :

 

-         elaborating regulations and participating in the standardisation of ski lifts;

-         issuing equipment approvals;

-         coordinating the network of the seven interdepartmental ski lift offices (bureaux interdépartementaux des remontées mécaniques—BIRM) and of the departmental ski lift offices (bureaux départementaux des remontées mécaniques—BDRM) of Savoie and Haute-Savoie and providing them with its expertise to ensure that their ski lifts comply with the regulations.

 

2.   Mr L., technical director of the National Cable Cars Union of France (Syndicat National des Téléphériques de France—SNTF)

 

The SNTF is an employers’ chamber created in 1938, grouping 240 ski lift and cable car operators, in other words nearly all the professionals except for a few small operators. Its remit is to inform and defend the professionals’ interests, particularly as regards their relations with the public authorities and changes in regulations, in very close cooperation with the Ministry of Transport.

 

3.      Mr C., chargé de mission to the chairman of the National Union of French ski Instructors (Syndicat national des moniteurs du ski français—SNMSF)

 

The SNMSF represents the 14,000 instructors of French ski schools and is tasked with defending their interests.

NUMBER OF DRAG LIFTS IN FRANCE

French ski resorts have some 4,000 ski lifts including 3,000 drag lifts[3]. Few new drag lifts are built each year (2 to 3 per year) because they occupy much ground space. According to SNTF, the general trend when ski areas are being laid out anew is to eliminate drag lifts which chop up the skiing area. They are replaced with cableway installations which free surface areas. Drag lifts are more numerous in small ski resorts owing to their lower cost than cableway installations (chair lifts, gondola lifts) which are preferred in large resorts.

 

According to SNTF:

-         A drag lift over 200 m vertical drop carries 900 skiers per hour. Its cost is €0.3M.

-         A chair lift over 300 m vertical drop carries 1,500 skiers per hour. Its cost is €1.5M.

-         A gondola lift over 500 m vertical drop carries 1,800 skiers per hour. Its cost is €4M.

 

The highest number of ski lifts in Europe are to be found in France and Austria. France has the highest number of drag lifts with poles. In other countries, winding engine systems are employed.

 

The mayor concerned authorises the construction of such equipment after obtaining the Prefect’s opinion[4]. The first equipment in the series to be produced is approved by STRMTG. BIRM/BDRM perform a check on behalf of the Prefect during tests prior to entry into service of equipment. All told, the mayor also authorises entry into operation but only after necessarily obtaining the Prefect’s opinion (prepared by BIRM/BDRM after the above-mentioned tests).

 

During operation, the operator performs various checks with daily, weekly or monthly periodicities.

 

Each year, before the beginning of the winter season, operators must carry out tests (grouped under the name ‘annual visit’) to check that ski lifts are fit to operate (particularly adjustment of brakes and of safety devices…). 

 

For drag lifts, this annual visit is often made by the operator alone who then sends a certificate to BIRM/BDRM. For cableway installations, the operator is generally assisted by technical control bureaus (for instance NORISKO, APAVE, and HALEC). BIRM/BDRM are legally obliged to participate in the annual visits of cableway installations.

 

Cableway installations also undergo ‘major visits’ after 15, 25 or 30 years. During these visits, the elements participating in the safety of the installation are disassembled, checked and/or replaced. The checks performed can be visual, by ultrasounds or by magnetic particles.

 

For drag lifts and cableway installations, the cable is checked visually every year. For cableway installations, there is also magneto-inductive testing to check there are no broken wires in the cable. Breaks in drag lift cables have already occurred but without causing any injured, particularly because of the presence of many pylons holding the cable.

 

As for ascent slopes, they are checked only once a year by BIRM/BDRM, when they are checking the equipment, to ensure they are free of holes, moguls or icy patches[5].

 

As part of the checks on establishments open to the public (établissements recevant du public—ERP), departmental safety committees intervene, under the authority of the prefect, to check major stations which are likened to 5^th category ERPs.

 

 

Ski lift operation is organised by boroughs on whose territory they are situated, or by a grouping of boroughs. In a very few cases their operation is organised by the geographic department (Art. 46 amended of Act no. 85-30 of 9 January 1985, so-called ‘Loi Montagne’).

 

Performance is ensured either directly by the state, or by the state via a public corporation in the form of an industrial and commercial public service, or by a company that has signed for this purpose an agreement with the organising authority for a specified period (Art. 47 ‘Loi Montagne’).

 

In this latter case, the agreement can take one of the four following forms: concession, contracting, leasing or régie intéressée (public corporation run by a manager paid in terms of the turnover).

 

As for ski lift liability, the operator owes a contractual duty of safety towards his users. This is a so-called best-endeavours obligation during all drag lift transport. Referring to cableway installations, during cable transport (chair lifts, gondola lifts, cable cars), the operator owes a duty of safety and is bound by an absolute obligation; during boarding and alighting operations, he is bound by a safety-best-endeavours obligation.

 

Apart from cases of prosecution, accidents that occur during transport operations are within the jurisdiction of civil courts.

 

Conversely, accidents incurred by users on the ski slope, but which can be ascribed to a ski lift, are a matter for administrative courts within the framework of public works liability (lack of normal maintenance), or for civil courts within the framework of liability for negligence (Act of 8 July 1941 establishing a fly-over right for ski lifts).

ACCIDENTS

 

Drag lifts are a means of transport requiring active participation by the person concerned. In effect, the user can do what he likes on a drag lift. For instance he can let go of the pole any time during the ascent. The most serious risks are falls that lead to the skier sliding, especially on steeper slopes where sliding will be quicker. Such falls can be stopped by the presence of other skiers, artificial obstacles (pylons, poles) or natural obstacles (rocks, trees), leading to traumatic shocks with sometimes fatal consequences.

 

Each year, a report of ski lift user accidents is drawn up by STRMTG on the basis of the declarations made by ski lift operators to BIRM/BDRM. Contrary to the desire the Committee expressed in its opinion of 1999 on the safety of ski slopes, this report is still not disclosed whereas ski accident statistics are published each year by the National system observing safety in mountains (Système national d’observation de la sécurité en montagne—SNOSM), placed under the aegis of the Ministry of Sport, the Ministry of the Interior, Internal Security and Local Freedoms, and the Ministry of Defence[6].

 

The ski lift accidents report is circulated to the members of the so-called Cable Car Committee under the Ministry of Transport (composed of representatives of operators, of mountain ski resort mayors, of ski instructors, of ski lift personnel, of consumers and of State administrations), which is tasked with analysing accidents and, where applicable, proposing inspections of risky installations.

 

Only serious accidents are taken into account in the statistics. Ski lift managers call accidents serious only if they involve a fracture, the sectioning of a limb or injuries that gave rise to a hospital stay of over six days.

 

The latest listings made for the last 3 years show 14 to 20 serious accidents involving 15 to 21 seriously injured. The problem is that operators do not always know about the follow-up to accidents (especially the real lengths of hospital stays). Therefore, since 1999 a summary diagnosis made on the spot by the emergency services is taken into account.

 

The representatives of STRMTG specified that approximately 600 million passengers are transported each year by ski lifts and that accidents on ski slopes are 70 times more numerous[7]. The lightly injured are not counted unlike the statistical inventory made by SNOSM[8]. According to the representatives of STRMTG their number is estimated at 120 per year.

 

According to SNTF, a considerable decrease in the ratio of the number of accidents to millions of passages is taking place. The ratio has fallen from 2.9 to 2.1 in 3 years i.e. a more than 30% decrease in accidentology. For the 2001-2002 season, 10 accidents were counted on cableway installations (due to users getting on or off wrongly) and 5 on drag lifts (accidents on the way up).

 

For the 2000-2001 season, the toll was 11 injured on cableway installations and 6 on drag lifts (including 5 with variable speed poles).

 

For the 1999-2000 season, there were 12 injured on cableway installations and 9 on drag lifts.

 

According to STRMTG, there are as many serious accidents on drag lifts as on chair lifts. On drag lifts, it is a matter of falls (on the way up and on arrival); on chair lifts, falls on departure or arrival are reported. 75% of accidents result from user behaviour.

 

The fact that drag lifts with poles sometimes start with violent jerks does not appear among the difficulty criteria, because this does not cause serious accidents. If users have objective information, they can make informed judgments.

 

The last three serious accidents were fatal accidents at the resort Prapoutel and a serious accident during the 1997-1998 season (collision between a skier and a drag lift user).

 

This file has been open to consultation and according to the information provided by the Ministry of Transport in a letter dated 8 January 2004 which was sent within this framework ‘these difficult to use drag lifts represent approximately 20% of drag lifts. 6 accidents that can be ascribed to usage difficulty were therefore counted on these drag lifts during the past four seasons, to be compared with the 26 accidents that occurred on drag lifts as a whole.’

 

 

 

STRMTG created this classification basing itself on the fact that it is preferable, for their own comfort, that some users should not take or should take in an informed manner drag lifts which can be a difficult ride for them.

 

The Cable Car Committee decided to create a working group with STRMTG to reflect on the evaluation of the difficulty of a lift and on how to inform the clientele. Two consumer associations, l’Union Nationale des Associations Familiales (UNAF) and l'Union Féminine Civique et Sociale (UFCS), participated in this working group.

 

The evaluation of the usage difficulty of a drag lift is made by quantifying five parameters, which it is hoped are as objective as possible:

-         maximum slope;

-         average slope;

-         length of the slope ascended;

-         presence and value of any angle in the route;

-         cable speed.

 

Each parameter is given a number of points depending on its value. If the sum of these points exceeds 10, the drag lift is termed ‘difficult’[9].

 

During the 1999-2000 winter season in Savoie and Isère, the Ministry of Transport, in cooperation with ski lift operators, successfully experimented with ‘difficult drag lift’ signposting. The procedure was officially introduced by the Order of 25 June 2002 and generalised for the 2002-2003 season.

 

The working group had identified approximately 20% of difficult drag lifts in Savoie and Isère. In a letter dated 3 October 2002, the Association ‘Génération Glisse’ told the Committee that, according to its sources of information, fifty or so drag lifts had been considered as difficult to use by the Ministry of Transport. The maximum points according to the criteria taken into account for this evaluation, is 28. The Association is revolted by this method: ‘We are alarmed by the idea that a drag lift given 5 points should be considered as not difficult, that another given 10 points should be considered difficult, and that drag lifts given 28 points are also considered difficult, but no more so! And also alarmed that other drag lifts can be set up without any points limitation, and merely displaying a ‘difficult drag lift’ sign in order to be authorised to operate. The OUDIS drag lift at Les Sept Laux, dismantled because of its danger since the two fatal accidents of N. B. and S. C., had at least 21 points according to the technical information which Mr C. sent us and according to the criteria retained. A sign indicating ‘difficult to ascend slope’ did not avoid the two fatal accidents of S. and N., even though N. was accompanied by a ski instructor. Therefore displaying the term ‘difficult’ with respect to a public transport system is not a dissuasive element in the way people subjectively evaluate their skill threshold and is even less dissuasive as regards the danger threshold, but tends to excuse those who have installed the sign[10].’

 

According to the SNTF representative, difficult drag lifts are often run by small operators. He feels that the Committee should realise that part of the French mountains (Alpes du Sud, Vosges, Massif Central, Jura, and the Pyrénées for example) would be ‘placed in dire straits’ if difficult drag lifts were dismantled. In effect, the economic effects would be financially unbearable for these operators whereas they are often the only economic motor of the region.

 

SNTF feels that operators are making a big effort to raise the awareness of their personnel and drag lift operatives often call users to order. Two media are available to provide users with information: signs and the ski slopes plan (in the brochure distributed to skiers) showing the location of difficult drag lifts. Better signposting promotes better legal protection for operators.

 

SNMSF expressed serious reserves about this procedure. During his hearing, the ski instructors’ representative said that the criteria established by the Ministry of Transport do not reflect the reality to be taken into account to inform skiers.

 

Skiers should be informed of more objective elements: for example the slope percentage should be signalled from 45%, because 60% is too steep a gradient. Each danger (turn, abrupt slope…) should be systematically signalled by a pictogram en route. Further, a drag lift may have a steep slope or a turn on one of its sections and be used every day by beginners, yet without being ‘difficult’. Conversely, a drag lift classified as ‘easy’ can become difficult if the ascent slope has a poor snow coverage or is poorly maintained. The quality of the slope is an essential element of appreciation. Problems result in particular from snowboarders. Before the advent of snowboards, drag lifts had 2 tracks. Now slopes remain smooth because snowboarders position themselves however they can.

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDISATION

 

Ski lifts are both services and products. They must therefore comply with the general safety obligation set forth by Article L. 221-1 of the Consumer Code: ‘Products and services must, under normal conditions of use or under other circumstances that may reasonably be foreseen by the professional, offer the safety that can legitimately be expected and must not be a danger to public health’.

Apart from these general provisions, ski lifts are subject to specific regulations whose provisions appear redundant on some points owing to the successive ‘stacking’ over time of texts of different legal levels.

 

 

The rules on the construction and use of drag lifts are based on an annex to the Order of 28 June 1979 ‘Instructions concerning the construction and operation of drag lifts’. Without making a full analysis of this text, three points are to be selected concerning this file:

 

1. In their Article 2.111, the instructions lay down safety rules for the siting of drag lifts: ‘The siting of drag lifts must avoid areas that are obviously dangerous owing to local weather conditions or terrain-related risks. They should be sited in a manner allowing all skiers who have taken them to safely reach an easily accessible area should the lift come to a standstill’.

 

2. The instructions authorise a drag lift slope gradient up to 80%. Between 60% and 80%, the length of the slope is the subject of restrictions: ‘The lengthways profile of the platform must be such that the ski slope does not comprise in any point a slope over 60%. However, for single-seat drag lifts pulled by towing devices, a slope over 60% is acceptable over sections whose total length does not exceed 15% of the length of the line, the length of each section whose slope is comprised between 70 and 80% itself being limited to the minimum distance between two consecutive towing devices.’ Pursuant to Article 5.22, line structures such as pylons must have some form of protection around them (soft protection such as walls of snow, trellises, wattle, plastic cladding) ‘on slopes over 60%’ and ‘downstream from these slopes over a distance of 100 m at least.’ Slopes over 60% are ‘announced’ to skiers by a standardised sign which may also indicate the length of the slope in metres. When a slope under 60% is worth being signalled the same sign without any percentage indication can be installed[11].

 

3. In Chapter 5 ‘Developments on the ski slope, neighbouring areas and resort platforms’ maintenance obligations are laid down for ski slopes for towed skiers which, given the fall suffered by a young child on a ‘baby’ level drag lift (cf. petition no. 03- 006) and given the remarks by the SNMSF representative, would no doubt be worth being more strictly applied: 

 

 

The rules laid down by the Order of 28 June 1979 on the usage conditions of drag lifts by the public were amended by the Order of 1 October 1999 on the technical and safety regulations of ski lifts. This Order lays down that a drag lift must be operated while taking into account in particular the provisions of the general organisational regulation on drag lifts established by the prefect in accordance with a model of an order approved by a ministerial circular (ministerial Circular 2008-8 of 6 January 2000). The public is informed of this regulation.

 

Article 2 of Circular 2000-8 devoted to the ‘admission of users’ stipulates that users shall ‘read the specific transport conditions and the information displayed at the departure (closure times, condition of the ascent slope, possible transport difficulties, descent runs serviced, etc., and ‘gauge their aptitude to use said installation in terms of said information (…).’

 

Article 4 of the model of the prefectoral order defines the transport conditions for children, which are today disputed by the Association ‘Génération Glisse’:  ‘Persons responsible for children shall check and gauge their aptitude to use these installations.’ The legal value of the text (model of a prefectoral order) founding such a recommendation is debatable. Children are not required to be of a minimum height, which is the case on chair lifts[12]. Access to children can be forbidden only if there is insufficient snow coverage leading to too great a height under the drag lift cable.

According to the SNTF representative, Mr L., the recommendation by the circular is appropriate and relevant. It is indeed impossible for the operator to know the level of each user’s skiing proficiency. Only users themselves know their level and, as regards children, the persons accompanying them. It is their responsibility to check they have the necessary level to take a drag lift more difficult than others. They can also question the drag lift personnel to obtain the necessary information.

 

As for the transport of children on chair lifts, Mr L. informed the Committee representatives about the occurrence of a serious accident suffered by a young child two years ago. The latter was accompanied by two adults. The child’s head got stuck under the chair lift safety bar. There are ongoing legal proceedings.

 

A working group coordinated by STRMTG and comprising the representatives of the whole profession is currently drafting a text on the operation of cableway installations. This text includes a preciser definition of the role of the personnel supervising the ski lift, of the person in charge of the child(ren) and of the person accompanying the child and present on the chair lift. This text should ‘shed light’ on the legal position of each of the players. It could be implemented during 2004. Similar work is also ongoing internationally within OITAF (Organizzazione internazionale Transporti A Fune, International Organisation for Transportation by Rope).

 

According to the representative of the ski instructors union, Mr C., the rule whereby access to chair lifts is forbidden to children under 1.25 m tall is not legally founded. Its purpose is merely to relieve operators from their responsibility. The responsibility issue is going to arise with ever greater intensity owing to the increase in the number of chair lifts. Indeed, operators are tending to dismantle small drag lifts for beginners, replacing them with chair lifts. In the face of this legal deadlock, technical alternatives exist:

 

-         The company POMALGALSKI currently manufactures cableway installations comprising chair lifts and closed cabins sheltering children alternately (but this represents a 10% increase in cost);

-         In some countries there are chair lifts which have lower and adjustable safety bars, so the height of the bar can be better adapted in the closed position;

-         As in the United States, chair lifts without a footrest could also be installed. These operate close to the snow and at low speed which would allow the safety bar to be placed lower. On these chair lifts the ground perimeter could be neutralised.

 

According to Mr C., the regulations on chair lifts for beginners should differ from those for chair lifts leading to the other slopes, with lower bars and elimination of the footrest. Generally speaking, ski lift operators should be made aware of their responsibilities at the departure and arrival because that’s where the greatest risks exist.

 

 

This Directive requires Member States to ensure that installations are installed and operated without any risk of endangering the safety and health of persons.

 

Whenever a Member State observes that an installation is liable to endanger the safety and health of persons, it shall take all appropriate measures ‘to restrict the conditions of operation of the installation or to prohibit the operation thereof.’ (Art.15).

 

Cableway installations for which authorisation has been given, but in connection with which building work has not yet started before the date when the Directive comes into force, must comply with the Directive’s safety requirements ‘unless Member States decide otherwise, stating their reasons, and an equally high level of protection is achieved.’(Art.20).

 

Pursuant to recital 28 of the Directive: ‘It is not necessary to require all existing cableway installations to be brought into conformity with the provisions applicable to new installations. However, this may prove necessary if the essential safety objectives are not complied with. In that event, the Commission should propose to the Member States a series of recommendations designed to ensure that existing cableway installations on their territory afford users a high degree of protection in the light of the provisions applicable in this field to new installations.’

 

 

This text is the transposal into French law of the Directive. In its annex II, the Order subjects installations, their safety components and their sub-systems to compliance with essential safety requirements. Among the latter appear personal safety principles taken up identically from the Directive (Art. 2.1 and 2.2):

 

It is therefore only when it is obviously impossible to eliminate or technically reduce the risks that protective or precautionary measures can be taken with respect to ski lift users, such as classifying drag lifts according to their degree of difficulty.

 

Also the Order is silent regarding the application of safety requirements to existing installations and to those for which authorisation has already been given but in connection with which building work has not yet started.

 

The essential safety requirements defined in the Order are presumed to be complied with either by compliance with common technical specification or European technical approvals, or by the existence of national standards transposing harmonised European standards (Art. 2).

A draft European standard prEN 12929-1: ‘Safety requirements for cableway installations designed to carry persons – General requirements - Part 1: Requirements for all installations", started in September 1999, defines general safety requirements applying to all ski lifts. A second part deals with additional requirements for reversible bicable aerial ropeways without carrier truck brakes.

 

Thirteen other standards on cableway installations are being elaborated.

 

These standards were expected to be submitted to the formal vote of the Member States at end 2003.

 

As it stands, the draft standard EN 12929-1 examined by the Commission bans in Article 5.5.3 any drag lift slope over 60%: ‘the longitudinal slope of the ascent slope shall not exceed the following values: 

 a)      drag lifts with a low cable and:
     1)      with direct hooking on the towing cable: 25%;
     2)      with hooking of a towing device: 40%

 

During their hearing, the representatives of STRMTG agreed that this recommendation made the existing French regulations non-compliant on this point with the Directive’s safety requirements[13].

 

SNTF and the Ministry of Transport pointed out that harmonised standards were only one of the means of demonstrating compliance with the safety requirements set forth by the Directive. According to this analysis, SNTF feels that a drag lift with a slope over 60% could be authorised provided all the preventive means are implemented which are necessary for the safety of skiers who have gone adrift: improvement of signalling, daily follow-up of the condition of the ascent slope and of the protections around obstacles situated close to high gradient areas.

 

The Ministry of Transport stated for its part that it was currently carrying out ‘a reorganisation of the legislative ordering relative to the safety of ski lifts. In this connection, the regulatory requirements specific to the layout of installations, which remain the responsibility of Member States, will be reorganised and amended. The maximum slope for new drag lift installations will be reexamined in this framework.’

It should also be pointed out that the draft standard does not contain any provision on a possible classification of drag lifts according to their degree of difficulty or any specific prescription on child transport.

 

Whereas there is a lack of exhaustivity and of disclosure of the statistics on accidents caused by the use of ski lifts, and a lack of explanation of their causes;

 

Whereas the principle of the classification of drag lifts according to their degree of difficulty and the setting in place of ‘Difficult drag lift’ signs are suitable and necessary measures to improve user information;

 

Whereas, nevertheless, the classification set in place must not entail any risk of confusion between the notions of ‘difficulty’ and ‘danger’;

Whereas, in its opinion of 2 December 1999 on the safety of ski slopes, the Committee had asked for a lowering of the maximum authorised slope threshold for drag lift ascent slopes, which can reach 80% in some sections;

 

Whereas the draft European standard prEN 12929-1 as such allows it to be presumed that the safety requirements of Directive 2000/9/EC are complied with and bans the entry into service of new drag lifts whose ascent slopes are totally or partly over 60%;

Whereas the decree transposing the European Directive on cableway installations does not apply to existing installations, one of the recitals of said Directive provides for the possibility of making it applicable to them ‘if the essential safety objectives are not complied with’;

 

Whereas, as a consequence, all existing ‘difficult’ drag lifts comprising slopes over 60% should be ‘rendered safe’;

Whereas compliance with the provisions of a harmonised standard is only one of the means permitting compliance with the safety requirements set forth by the Directive, and whereas a representative of the professionals concerned feels that entry into service of drag lifts comprising slopes over 60% does not raise any difficulties if it is proven that appropriate preventive devices comply with the Directive safety requirements;

Whereas pending such evidence certified by the competent authorities as meeting the Directive, the Committee cannot but recommend the application of the provisions of the existing draft standard and whereas, in particular, use of the ‘maximum slope’ criterion adopted for the classification of new ‘difficult drag lifts’ excludes the taking into account of drag lift slopes whose gradient is totally or partly over 60%;

 

Whereas, as emphasised by the ski instructors’ union, any section of a drag lift slope with a gradient over 45% should be signalled on the slope by a standardised sign;

 

Whereas the recommendations made by the Committee in its above-mentioned opinion should be implemented as regards the need for ‘real-time information’ for drag lift users, at the departure point of drag lifts, on the condition of ascent slopes and on the weather conditions of the time of day;

Whereas it transpires from one of the petitions brought before the Committee and from the remarks made by the instructors’ union that ascent slopes are not always maintained in good condition, free of holes, moguls or icy patches likely to cause difficulties to skiers, as laid down by the regulations;

Whereas the protection by soft cladding of line structures (ski lift pylons) and of natural obstacles (tree trunks, rocks, etc.) alongside slopes is laid down by the regulations and should be checked periodically;

 

Whereas it is common practice to ban the transport on chair lifts of an unaccompanied child under 1.25 m tall;

 

Whereas technical solutions exist and are being studied by mountain professionals to transport unaccompanied children under 1.25 m tall on cableway installations;

 

Whereas a working group comprising representatives of the whole profession is currently studying the elaboration of a regulation on the operation of cableway installations;

 

Whereas, pending the implementation of technical solutions, users accepting to accompany young children should be given adapted advice, especially on how to oversee young passengers during transport on chair lifts and, generally speaking, on how to use ski lifts correctly;

Whereas an assessment made, on request by the Committee, by an independent body on the impact of the national ski accident prevention campaign for 2002 consisting, in particular, in the distribution at ski resorts of leaflets providing prevention advice, had shown that this campaign had had only very low impact on the public;

Whereas it should be examined which communication means allow skiers to be made effectively aware not only of the correct use of ski lifts but also of the behaviour rules to be respected while skiing;

 

After having heard at a session Mr L., representative of SNTF;

 

 

 

The Committee recommends that:

 

 

1.      list all accidents related to the use of ski lifts, whatever their seriousness and circumstances, per type of equipment. These statistics could be disclosed each year;

 

2.      not put into service new drag lifts with slopes over 60% in accordance with the provisions of the draft European standard, the only European reference document that exists to date;

 

3.      eliminate any reference to slopes over 60% from the ‘maximum slope’ criterion used in describing new difficult drag lift installations;

 

4.      ensure that the existing ‘difficult drag lifts’ with slopes over 60% should, by action taken by professionals or in accordance with the provisions laid down in the specifications drawn up by the public authorities:

 

-   be progressively dismantled either as they become obsolescent or within a timeframe granted to operators, or

-     be maintained provided the safety devices making their installations compatible with the safety requirements of the new Community regulations are assessed by the competent authorities;

 

5.      systematically signal any section of a slope over a given percentage to be defined, by the standardised sign which is laid down for slopes over 60% in the standard NF X 05-100. In any case any slope over 45% should be signalled;

 

6.      check, during the season, that operators comply with their legal obligations regarding the maintenance and the layout of drag lift ascent slopes, particularly in difficult weather conditions (extreme cold, heat, wind);

 

7.      keep the Committee informed of work by the working group coordinated by STRMTG on the operation of cableway installations;

 

8.      define and render applicable a specific regulation for chair lifts, defining in a detailed manner the role and responsibilities of each of the players (supervisory staff, person in charge of children, accompanying person present on the chair lift) when children under 1.25 m get on.

 

Professionals (operators, ski slope safety personnel, ski instructors) should

9.      begin thinking about the most appropriate means of providing on-the-spot information to ensure skiers are informed while avoiding any overabundance of information which can have the opposite effect to that sought. The communication topics related to this opinion are:

-       at the departure point of ski lifts, legible and visible information with day-long updating on the weather conditions, visibility, snow conditions (presence of sheets of ice),

-       advice to persons accompanying children of low height showing, in the form of diagrams, ‘correct gestures’ allowing them to ensure children are transported and released from the chair lift in an entirely safe manner.

 

Users should

 

10.  bear in mind that skiing is an exacting sport and sufficient physical preparation is necessary. Beginners and children should be accompanied, where applicable, by an instructor.

Seek information on the type of lift available and its difficulty, before skiing down a slope.

Beginners should refrain from using a drag lift with a high gradient slope.

 

The Committee will not fail to remain particularly attentive to the follow-up to these recommendations.

 

 

 

---