 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Dr John wrote: |
But to throw in my 2p worth, as it’s a particular bug-bear of mine, I think a huge amount of grief can be saved by skiers and boarders throwing a quick glance over their shoulder when setting off or moving across the slope.
In many cases a collision might be the fault of the uphill skier, but that’s of little comfort when you’re laying in a hospital bed. |
Yes, agree, and certainly for those where this is possible, who are not stuck in the back of their skis on what turns out to be an icy slope,
It is a very very sensible Risk Management technique
But n response to the OP , responsibility in (what i remember) are FIS "Rules" (?) with higher obligation than a very sensible thing, lies with the uphill skier to avoid those below, even for unexpected movements
@aklos uses the word "reasonable". We see this in UK law in a variety of different pieces of legislation. It is extremely difficult to define. It is also a different thing in different countries based on their system and basis of law. i think that the FIS rules apply across multiple borders in the same form and wording ?
So how does one try to address this - by single mindedly allocate responsibility to one single party for ensuring safe passage of one skier past another for the general case. (They also provide specific rules within the 10 "rules" for specific situations such as joining the piste etc.).
i do wonder however whether in different languages, whether the translation affects the meaning or interpretation in some way?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
| aklos wrote: |
| The current technology can already identify ... |
Right, so you _are_ selling something, or trying to. Snake oil, I strongly suggest. |
I was suspecting the same. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
The technology is there. One of the top selling items for cycling last year, and has already hit the point where the cheap Chinese versions were on every stand in the trade shows. So there won't be much profit now it's hit that point.
So when the ski version comes out, i really hope they also put it in every phone and pair of headphones as standard. For all the people walking down the street (and crossing pedestrian crossings) that are totally disengaged from their surroundings.
Sure it'll reverse the FIS rules, but at least warn you when there's an out of control tw@t about to crash in to you from behind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
| aklos wrote: |
| The current technology can already identify ... |
Right, so you _are_ selling something, or trying to. Snake oil, I strongly suggest. |
I doubt this is a technology many resorts will be interested in as this will affect their profits, including ability to conduct group lessons on oversaturated slopes, endangering both children and all around them. Some resorts already started using drones and cameras for relevant operational reasons, combining it with the open source AI models will be a no-brainer if the will to prevent incidents is there (which is not). Please focus on what is written and not on the paranoid imagination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@andy, wow. What term do I search for, to have a look at one of those? General interest, really, and because I got my head somewhat rearranged by a pedestrian not looking where they were going recently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many resorts publish their own rules, e.g. see #6 here. As a result, a number of people even in this thread think differently (see below). It is important for downhill skiers to understand that their position does not absolve them of responsibility.
| thecramps wrote: |
| @aklos, Absolutely 100% incorrect. Assuming all skiers are and remain on the piste, the downhill skier always has priority. No excuses. |
On a related note, the rule #4 on the FIS list that you shared ("leave enough space for the overtaken skier or snowboarder to make any voluntary or involuntary movement") does not make any sense with the current density of mixed beginners/advanced skiers on the slopes. The density thresholds should be established and resorts accountable for exceeding them for this rule to work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am strictly analogue, so will continue to look down the hill, and have my wits about me and check on who is coming from behind. Every serious ski collision that I have seen has been the result of recklessly fast skiers coming from further up the hill, and I have seen quite a few
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| aklos wrote: |
On a related note, the rule #4 on the FIS list that you shared ("leave enough space for the overtaken skier or snowboarder to make any voluntary or involuntary movement") does not make any sense with the current density of mixed beginners/advanced skiers on the slopes. The density thresholds should be established and resorts accountable for exceeding them for this rule to work. |
You are missing the point: that these rules must be read as a whole and not in isolation, viz Rule 2 also pertains , (my emphasis )
“2. Control of speed and skiing or snowboarding
A skier or snowboarder must move in control. He must adapt his speed and manner of skiing or snowboarding to his personal ability and to the prevailing conditions of terrain, snow and weather as well as to the density of traffic. Collisions usually happen because skiers or snowboarders are moving too fast, out of control or have failed to see others. A skier or snowboarder must be able to stop, turn and move within the ambit of his own vision. In crowded areas or in places where visibility is reduced, skiers and snowboarders must move slowly especially at the edge of a steep slope, at the bottom of a slope and within areas surrounding ski lifts.“
As these are the “rules “ (and only rules) that the courts tend to recognise, like the highway code here, I suggest you maybe stop kicking against them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| aklos wrote: |
Many resorts publish their own rules, e.g. see #6 here. As a result, a number of people even in this thread think differently (see below). It is important for downhill skiers to understand that their position does not absolve them of responsibility.
| thecramps wrote: |
| @aklos, Absolutely 100% incorrect. Assuming all skiers are and remain on the piste, the downhill skier always has priority. No excuses. |
On a related note, the rule #4 on the FIS list that you shared ("leave enough space for the overtaken skier or snowboarder to make any voluntary or involuntary movement") does not make any sense with the current density of mixed beginners/advanced skiers on the slopes. The density thresholds should be established and resorts accountable for exceeding them for this rule to work. |
*Rule #6 on the Val d'Isere website is Rule #3 of FIS....
*Your comment on #4 makes no sense: If it is indeed that busy, rule #2 applies. Quite simple. (or: compare with road-traffic: similar)
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Sun 4-01-26 13:21; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
[quote="ster"]
| aklos wrote: |
As these are the “rules “ (and only rules) that the courts tend to recognise, like the highway code here, I suggest you maybe stop kicking against them. |
Fully in agreement, the topic is exactly about that, that the downhill skier priority is not an absolute rule as many try to present it, but a combination of factors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Problem starts with the snowboarder, his hoody prevents him from having a good overview (rule#1)
(I actually think you can notice this from his behavior, he is not paying attention, he should have seen the skier coming earlier) Or is this an instructive video, set up?)
Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much  on Sun 4-01-26 13:26; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@KSH, radar bike lights
Ouch!
I thought it was my camo shade of clothes that made me invisible, but then saw someone bigger than me walk straight in to a woman dressed in bright red. And the no entry sign for my one way street that got run over by a driver (going the wrong way). And the pedestrian that was totally surprised for me pass them on my bike... on a cycle path (ffs!), literally 2 seconds after they jumped out of the way for a cyclist who rang their bell.
In all cases, I'm pretty sure phones/headphones were involved.
And although you and i probably prefer the sound of nature when skiing, others insist on wicked tunes pumped directly in to their ears.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Racing incident first lap. No further investigation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Langerzug wrote: |
*Your comment on #4 makes no sense: If it is indeed that busy, rule #2 applies. Quite simple. (or: compare with road-traffic: similar) |
In road traffic, you are not required to yield to unpredictable moves, because it’s physically impossible to anticipate every sudden action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| aklos wrote: |
| Langerzug wrote: |
*Your comment on #4 makes no sense: If it is indeed that busy, rule #2 applies. Quite simple. (or: compare with road-traffic: similar) |
In road traffic, you are not required to yield to unpredictable moves, because it’s physically impossible to anticipate every sudden action. |
But if it is busy on the road, traffic is slow. Same on a piste: if it busy, you can't go racing down
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Langerzug wrote: |
Problem starts with the snowboarder, his hoody prevents him from having a good overview (rule#1)
(I actually think you can notice this from his behavior, he is not paying attention, he should have seen the skier coming earlier) Or is this an instructive video, set up?) |
I guess the point here is that, if reaching a court, i doubt that the 100% of responsibility will be assigned to the snowboarder in this case. As in many other cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
The uphill boarder 100%. He completely failed to look. If he had he would easily have seen the obvious beginner skier unsteadily trying to follow his ski lesson snake. Fortunately a low speed accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
The more I read the OP's argument the more I wonder if he is the uphill skier. ....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| thecramps wrote: |
| The uphill boarder 100%. He completely failed to look. If he had he would easily have seen the obvious beginner skier unsteadily trying to follow his ski lesson snake. Fortunately a low speed accident. |
Exactly this. The snowboarder is clearly more experienced. This will definitely be a factor in court. (the hoody is very irresponsible behavior!)
Rules #1,#2,#3 apply
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Sun 4-01-26 13:38; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| thecramps wrote: |
| The uphill boarder 100%. He completely failed to look. If he had he would easily have seen the obvious beginner skier unsteadily trying to follow his ski lesson snake. Fortunately a low speed accident. |
Your position was clear from the beginning, thank you for commenting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@aklos, It's quite clear that you don't really have any understanding of how these rules apply - have you ever actually skied or boarded?
You're arguing against a straw-man of your own making, nobody is suggesting that the downhill skier rule is absolute - I refer you to my earlier point about Rule 1.
And the thought of some sort of electronic monitoring for the tens of thousands of skiers you might find on an average day in many ski resorts is absolutely laughable. An unworkable solution to a non-existent problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| holidayloverxx wrote: |
| The more I read the OP's argument the more I wonder if he is the uphill skier. .... |
And as an uphill reckless skier suggests to start automatically controlling speed and other dangerous patterns rather than relying on the not fully working principles. Nice guess 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
@aklos, It's quite clear that you don't really have any understanding of how these rules apply - have you ever actually skied or boarded?
You're arguing against a straw-man of your own making, nobody is suggesting that the downhill skier rule is absolute - I refer you to my earlier point about Rule 1.
|
As mentioned, i even looked at a number of different court resolutions to better understand how the rules apply in reality. There are still many people who think that the rule is absolute, this thread is for that. If you are not one of them, no need to argue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| holidayloverxx wrote: |
| The more I read the OP's argument the more I wonder if he is the uphill skier. .... |
I reckon they got chased down by an ESF instructor and got given a bollocking for hurtling through a line of Club Med ski school kids at high speed with out of control skidding in a straight line turns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| aklos wrote: |
| holidayloverxx wrote: |
| The more I read the OP's argument the more I wonder if he is the uphill skier. .... |
And as an uphill reckless skier suggests to start automatically controlling speed and other dangerous patterns rather than relying on the not fully working principles. Nice guess |
I have no idea what that means
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ManiaMuse, absolutely. Boarder was clearly looking only for his next turn point, skier looked like they wanted the whole piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I’ve never understood why there is any confusion over this whole subject. It is, provided everyone puts aside their biases, stupidity and ignorance really really easy. The uphill skier has to bear the responsibility to keep those below safe as they can see all before them. If the uphill skier cannot avoid those below then it’s almost certain they are going too fast and/or not reading the landscape and variables of other skiers.
The downhill skier has a responsibility to be aware of their surroundings especially when stopping and starting, to read the landscape also and be sensible enough if skilled enough to leave space for people to pass. That’s logical but if they cannot do that then it’s still the uphill skiers responsibility to negotiate the path ahead safely no matter what.
If everyone was just more considerate of others and the potential for it to go wrong I’m sure we’d have less cause for these debates. But of course we are talking about human beings and some just can’t help but put others and themselves in danger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| aklos wrote: |
| I actually looked at a number of discussions over the past years and still see a lot of conflicting opinions and people not understanding how the real responsibility is defined and by whom. |
Your opening post asks "what do you all think" but then you post the above, so you already know what people think and are just spuddling for the sake of it. You're like the type of person to get out on a speed awareness course and spend the day arguing with the person presenting like you're somehow going to change their mind.
May I also recommend wading into the current Helmets in Italy thread for further pointless arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Because your beautiful highly moral theoretical concept no longer works on the overcrowded pistes full of undertrained amateurs that the industry pushes to have « winter fun» not bothering to add relevant training or safety layers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| SnoodyMcFlude wrote: |
| .....You're like the type of person to get out on a speed awareness course and spend the day arguing with the person presenting like you're somehow going to change their mind.... |
Those of us who've attended a course have definitely had one of those in the class
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| SnoodyMcFlude wrote: |
May I also recommend wading into the current Helmets in Italy thread for further pointless arguments. |
That is how the exchange of thoughts actually works, you are more than welcome to share yours.
No sure how this discussion is connected to helmets - the law is the law (which also applies to those thinking that their interpretation of FIS rules have an absolute legal value)…
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Specialman wrote: |
| SnoodyMcFlude wrote: |
| .....You're like the type of person to get out on a speed awareness course and spend the day arguing with the person presenting like you're somehow going to change their mind.... |
Those of us who've attended a course have definitely had one of those in the class |
Hah! I've had to do one over here, a year or five back now, and had to really bite my lip to not be that one. Not so much from the speed aspects but from all the other fine detail of Swiss driving rules which are stupid and can be outright dangerous, IMO, like the "never indicate left if you're going to go left round a roundabout, neither before the roundabout nor when you're on it, only indicate right when you're going to leave it". Nearly caught me out a few times, people looking like they're coming straight across but then staying on, making it much more difficult for other drivers (me) to predict what they're going to do. And indicating to change lanes, whether moving out or back in, regardless of whether there's anyone to benefit from your indication. Grrr.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Specialman wrote: |
| SnoodyMcFlude wrote: |
| .....You're like the type of person to get out on a speed awareness course and spend the day arguing with the person presenting like you're somehow going to change their mind.... |
Those of us who've attended a course have definitely had one of those in the class |
Our online SAC didn’t have one of those, instead, clearly the oldest attendee who wouldn’t accept that him getting caught was a fair cop. Said he’d driven on the M25/M23 in the middle of the night on a Gatwick Airport run for family, he was caught doing 80mph I think, he was steadfast that that was unfair on empty motorways. Everyone else seemed humble and said they learned key lessons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Chaletbeauroc, the indication rules for roundabouts are the same here in Germany. Completely idiotic, but rules is rules.
Mostly I do think the simple FIS rules are OK, but have had a close call with a guy passing me at hi-speed (I didn't say he was a good skier) and then doing a hockey stop right in front of me. Not sure what a court would have said about that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| aklos wrote: |
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
@aklos, It's quite clear that you don't really have any understanding of how these rules apply - have you ever actually skied or boarded?
You're arguing against a straw-man of your own making, nobody is suggesting that the downhill skier rule is absolute - I refer you to my earlier point about Rule 1.
|
As mentioned, i even looked at a number of different court resolutions to better understand how the rules apply in reality. There are still many people who think that the rule is absolute, this thread is for that. If you are not one of them, no need to argue. |
Err, you started with
| aklos wrote: |
| I want to talk about that FIS "downhill skier has priority" rule |
, by which everyone who's not taking the p¡ss will have interpreted as a combination of Rules 3 & 4 (or so I expect)
3. Choice of route – A skier or snowboarder coming from behind must choose his route in such a way not to endanger skiers or snowboarders ahead
4. Overtaking – A skier or snowboarder may overtake another skier or snowboarder above or below and to the right or to the left provided that he leaves enough space for the overtaken skier or snowboarder to make any voluntary or involuntary movement.
Are you arguing that, if everyone followed the rules as written, the slopes would be a safer place, to which everyone would agree, or are you arguing that people interpret the rules wrongly (which is supported by the number of Snowheads who start threads on this topic), or are you trying to say something else? How would you improve those two rules? Actually no, please don't answer that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Steilhang wrote: |
@Chaletbeauroc, the indication rules for roundabouts are the same here in Germany. Completely idiotic, but rules is rules.
Mostly I do think the simple FIS rules are OK, but have had a close call with a guy passing me at hi-speed (I didn't say he was a good skier) and then doing a hockey stop right in front of me. Not sure what a court would have said about that! |
That he was in violation of 3. "Choice of route – A skier or snowboarder coming from behind must choose his route in such a way not to endanger skiers or snowboarders ahead", I would think.
I did have cause last week to chase after three Italian teenagers, on three separate occasions, about Rule 3 and have strong words (perhaps only the sentiment was understood) about skiing out of control/cutting me up/actually making contact. The first two looked duly sheepish and apologetic, the third, who'd done it deliberately, really didn't care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
My goodness this started off well because now degenerated into rather pointless bickering.
Having read this I can think of no better reason to invest time in upgrading your skiing ability and spend most of your time off-piste avoiding all of this. Other risks associated with skiing off piste do however apply. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RickBoden wrote: |
| My goodness this started off well because now degenerated into rather pointless bickering. |
No it didn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ