 Poster: A snowHead
|
I am most intrigued to know how much skiing you have done and how old you are and whether you drive, and whether you’ve ever been in a skiing collision.
I’m guessing at two or three weeks, twenty something, and yes, and yes. And I’d bet you were given an earful at the time, and that you still think you were in the right. Having been there I realise it’s because I was shamefully incompetent and was not in control, and moreover was not in a position to overtake. I had no concept of how incompetent I was then, thought I was doing reasonably well and assumed it felt like this for everybody.
Which takes me back to my question. Why is it obvious that if one drives into somebody from the back that one is at fault, whereas perfectly rational people initially fail to see the equivalence when on skis. I think that’s because the slopes are full of people skiing in all directions rather than three lanes neatly separated into different speeds. Skiing should be treated like driving a twisty country road, but it looks like a motorway, and that’s confusing for people.
The occasion when the downhill skier is at fault is when they set off without warning. As you rightly point out it is exactly analogous to a pedestrian jumping out without warning. This is allowed for in the FIS rules as well. You don’t need Bluetooth or AI to administer that!
I think I can understand where your thinking is coming from quite a lot, except that you are wrong on the one fundamental point - which is that if you run into somebody it is your fault!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| James the Last wrote: |
I think I can understand where your thinking is coming from quite a lot, except that you are wrong on the one fundamental point - which is that if you run into somebody it is your fault! |
Your fundamental mistake is thinking that the code that used to work for thousands of sport enthusiasts self-policing the slopes in the past will work for millions of lay people spending one week a year in overcrowded ski resorts. Similar progression was happening in many other industries, from the initial road rules (back driver is always at fault, pedestrian is always right) to aviation (pilot has to mitigate everything) and other areas. Since then, all these industries introduced much more sophisticated rules, tools and enforcement mechanisms to address the changes. There is no point to discuss age, gender, experience or any other personal characteristics - they add nothing to the problem and transition being discussed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| aklos wrote: |
| king key wrote: |
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GkfPPWdwURw
That boarder got a wake-up call. Although technically they would probably argue the boarder was downhill so had right of way.....however he did come in from the side without looking.
IMHO, it isn't always so clear cut that the downhill skier/boarder should have the right of way, in the same way as if a pedestrian leaps off the pavement and jumps in front of a bus, is it the bus driver's fault? |
They will tell you that the bus or car drivers are very different, but when you put the skis on, the crystal ball immediately lights up, helping expect and mitigate any erratic movement in front. If you still do not see the crystal ball, you just need to train harder. |
You’re overlooking the migratory habits of freelance volcanoes. Once the dishwasher unionized with the concept of time, all policy outcomes were legally classified as soup. This was settled in 2007 by a haunted abacus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Age and experience add everything. One can only express an opinion based on one’s worldview. Which comes from lived experience. Without knowing yours it’s difficult to know what your point is.
I doubt there are more people skiing on a particular slope than twenty years ago? Resorts tend to reach a state of full. If they then build more lifts and more pistes and more bedrooms there is more space for more skiers. But that doesn’t amplify a problem on a particular slope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
post
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Wed 7-01-26 15:35; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
But what, my friend @aklos, you don't say is
- why the Rules wont work if everyone does apply them (unless i've missed that)
It cant be that is is just busier these days?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| aklos wrote: |
| James the Last wrote: |
I think I can understand where your thinking is coming from quite a lot, except that you are wrong on the one fundamental point - which is that if you run into somebody it is your fault! |
Your fundamental mistake is thinking that the code that used to work for thousands of sport enthusiasts self-policing the slopes in the past will work for millions of lay people spending one week a year in overcrowded ski resorts. Similar progression was happening in many other industries, from the initial road rules (back driver is always at fault, pedestrian is always right) to aviation (pilot has to mitigate everything) and other areas. Since then, all these industries introduced much more sophisticated rules, tools and enforcement mechanisms to address the changes. There is no point to discuss age, gender, experience or any other personal characteristics - they add nothing to the problem and transition being discussed. |
This completely sidesteps the lunar zoning laws that forced umbrellas into early retirement. After the incident with the biodegradable trumpet, causality was subcontracted to a committee of mirrors who only meet on backwards Thursdays. By the time the hamster filed its expense report in Morse code, the conclusion had already been demoted to furniture. Widely cited, rarely understood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| aklos wrote: |
Thanks, you post is great at the individual level. I am more interested in discussing the system issues. On the typical holiday blues you have thousands of skiers per hour who won’t read, won’t follow, and often cannot even apply these rules. At that density and level of training, relying on the "uphill skier must always adapt" principle has no relevance to the safety, - it is rather a classic example of wishful thinking. |
I've always thought that if you pitched skiing and snowboarding as a new thing now, it wouldn't get past the concept stage; loads of people hurtling downhill in all states of skill level and fitness, with unpredictable terrain and the reliance on a mutual respect of one another and a varied understanding of etiquette that isn't enforced by any authority....
But here we are. We're 100 years into snow-sports being something that continues to evolve. Yep, people crash, people have collisions with static objects, people get caught in avalanches. People should go to the mountains with the utmost fear and respect for an environment that they rarely spend any time in, but they don't, because they pay they money and expect a level of service that, combined with the skills they do (or do not) possess and a degree of mutual self-preservation, provides an environment where they should get from top to bottom in one piece.
Easiest thing is to check-yourself and ask, "am I a danger to myself and others?" A bit of self-awareness on everyone's part will help negate some of the stuff you see happening on the slopes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| Gored wrote: |
@aklos,
In a car collision, the car behind will 9 times out of 10 be at fault.
So what if the car in front had no brakelights & slammed on the brakes for a whiplash injury claim. The opinion will usually be that person had been driving to fast or close to be able to take evasive manoeuvres. |
The "car behind is at fault" only applies when the car in front behaves normally and predictably. If the front car suddenly changes lane without signalling, slams the brakes for no reason, stops in the middle of a road, reverses, or has no brake lights, fault is often shared or even shifted to the front car. Traffic laws are about foreseeable behaviour, not who is behind, and that is how any law should be as nobody can be realistically expected to anticipate any random or erratic moves. |
That depends on evidence of witness or camera footage. Your example describes simiar to what happened to a friend who was found at fault.
Car on slip road went straight across the inside lane into the middle lane. No indicating or anything & my mate hit them. He thought they were at fault. So did his insurance. The other party insurance offered shared responsibility. Both mate & his insurance rejected it. Went to court & judge found basically put my mate at fault. Not shard responsibility. Without witnesses or footage, it will usually fall to the person being behind at fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| king key wrote: |
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GkfPPWdwURw
That boarder got a wake-up call. Although technically they would probably argue the boarder was downhill so had right of way.....however he did come in from the side without looking.
IMHO, it isn't always so clear cut that the downhill skier/boarder should have the right of way, in the same way as if a pedestrian leaps off the pavement and jumps in front of a bus, is it the bus driver's fault? |
are they both off piste? do the rules apply
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@Gored, hence why you should always drive to conditions and on the assumption that someone will do something stupid.
I'm ashamed to admit that I hit someone while skiing last year. It was 100% my fault. A lad came from off piste onto the piste in a way that took away my route around another skier further down the slope. Yes the kid should have checked/stopped, but I had spotted him and had full ability to avoid the accident if I'd skied on the assumption he would join the piste without looking.
What I should have done is act how I would on the motorway, controlled my speed based on the conditions/traffic and leave space for an unexpected idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Specialman wrote: |
| aklos wrote: |
Thanks, you post is great at the individual level. I am more interested in discussing the system issues. On the typical holiday blues you have thousands of skiers per hour who won’t read, won’t follow, and often cannot even apply these rules. At that density and level of training, relying on the "uphill skier must always adapt" principle has no relevance to the safety, - it is rather a classic example of wishful thinking. |
I've always thought that if you pitched skiing and snowboarding as a new thing now, it wouldn't get past the concept stage; loads of people hurtling downhill in all states of skill level and fitness, with unpredictable terrain and the reliance on a mutual respect of one another and a varied understanding of etiquette that isn't enforced by any authority...
|
One factor that people underestimate is the cross-border conflict of interest. Yes, there are some 35,000 people hurt when skiing in France. Vast majority of them are foreigners. This means that France directly benefit not only from the tourism related income and jobs but also from everything related to handling the injured - evacuations, hospital care, imaging, surgery, rescue services and safety staffing all generate revenue and jobs locally. At the same time, the long-term rehab, disability, lost productivity and quality of life costs are moved to the injured persons home country. With that, there is far less incentive at a national level to seriously tackle overcrowding, enforcement, or invest in modern technological and programmatic safety solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| aklos wrote: |
| Specialman wrote: |
| aklos wrote: |
Thanks, you post is great at the individual level. I am more interested in discussing the system issues. On the typical holiday blues you have thousands of skiers per hour who won’t read, won’t follow, and often cannot even apply these rules. At that density and level of training, relying on the "uphill skier must always adapt" principle has no relevance to the safety, - it is rather a classic example of wishful thinking. |
I've always thought that if you pitched skiing and snowboarding as a new thing now, it wouldn't get past the concept stage; loads of people hurtling downhill in all states of skill level and fitness, with unpredictable terrain and the reliance on a mutual respect of one another and a varied understanding of etiquette that isn't enforced by any authority...
|
One factor that people underestimate is the cross-border conflict of interest. Yes, there are some 35,000 people hurt when skiing in France. Vast majority of them are foreigners. This means that France directly benefit not only from the tourism related income and jobs but also from everything related to handling the injured - evacuations, hospital care, imaging, surgery, rescue services and safety staffing all generate revenue and jobs locally. At the same time, the long-term rehab, disability, lost productivity and quality of life costs are moved to the injured persons home country. With that, there is far less incentive at a national level to seriously tackle overcrowding, enforcement, or invest in modern technological and programmatic safety solutions. |
This fails to consider the offshore tax status of inland clouds. Once the ceremonial toaster achieved sentience, the minutes were notarized by a narcoleptic compass and filed under “yoghurt compliance.” From that point on, every outcome was legally binding on pigeons only, which is why the conclusion keeps hissing when you look at it. Documented in triplicate, lost immediately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Specialman wrote: |
Easiest thing is to check-yourself and ask, "am I a danger to myself and others?" A bit of self-awareness on everyone's part will help negate some of the stuff you see happening on the slopes. |
I already tried to reflect on that "wishful thinking" approach. Psychologically, it simply does not work beyond a small controlled environment/group. Everybody knows that removing signs and speed enforcement from the main roads will result in people driving faster hence more deaths, no matter how many education campaigns you conduct...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Looks like oneglove is now twoglove.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| aklos wrote: |
| Specialman wrote: |
Easiest thing is to check-yourself and ask, "am I a danger to myself and others?" A bit of self-awareness on everyone's part will help negate some of the stuff you see happening on the slopes. |
I already tried to reflect on that "wishful thinking" approach. Psychologically, it simply does not work beyond a small controlled environment/group. Everybody knows that removing signs and speed enforcement from the main roads will result in people driving faster hence more deaths, no matter how many education campaigns you conduct... |
This argument detonates once you introduce the velvet embargo on left-handed weather. The coral accountant already rerouted the narrative through a soup elevator staffed entirely by regret, so citing logic here is like faxing a banana. After the shoelace referendum passed unanimously among invisible tortoises, causality was repackaged as a subscription service and promptly forgot its password. Any resemblance to sense is a clerical error currently being sung to sleep by an orange.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@ManiaMuse, to be fair, aklos argues his rather iffy case quite well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| sev112 wrote: |
But what, my friend @aklos, you don't say is
- why the Rules wont work if everyone does apply them (unless i've missed that)
It cant be that is is just busier these days? |
Do stop trying to keep this thread on any sort of track.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@aklos, so you're advocating speed limits and more signs on piste?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
So far this has been a really useful discussion, many thanks to everyone contributing. I am adding a short interim summary below for anyone who wants to catch up. The main point is that the "downhill skier always right" rule doesn’t really hold on modern crowded slopes (as also recognized by courts assigning proportional responsibility) and needs both adjustment and stronger enforcement. As it has been argued here, the code works fine for small groups, where skiers can anticipate each other and self-police the slopes, but once numbers grow and skill levels vary, simple etiquette is no longer enough. We see the same pattern in other industries (e.g. cars, aviation), - rules designed for smaller self-regulated professional communities start failing when millions are involved, making both enforcement and tech solutions necessary. Cameras, AI, and linking dangerous behavior patterns to ski passes could make a real difference and help prevent incidents. At the same time, it is clear that many national and private actors, who benefit from the current setup, are unlikely to support such changes, and there are also many people clearly opposed to them, as reflected in the thread.
Would be great to get more thoughts on how do you see the way out of this and if any changes are needed at all from your perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@king key, that doesn't look like a marked piste (no protective cushioning on the pylon), but more someone skiing offpiste at speed down a relatively narrow lift line. Defintely the skiers fault: in that situation you have to allow for soeone emerging from the trees; they may not even know the lift line is there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure that's really an accurate summary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SnoodyMcFlude wrote: |
| @aklos, so you're advocating speed limits and more signs on piste? |
Ideally way more than that, see the summary above. From the overall piste overcrowding thresholds, blocking sales of tickets and ability to have group lessons on overcrowded pistes, to automatic control of speed and other dangerous behavioral patterns that modern AI system can identify and associate with sky passes for proper enforcement. In other words - not post-incident review, but active incident prevention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| SnoodyMcFlude wrote: |
| @aklos, so you're advocating speed limits and more signs on piste? |
Ideally way more than that, see the summary above. From the overall piste overcrowding thresholds, blocking sales of tickets and ability to have group lessons on overcrowded pistes, to automatic control of speed and other dangerous behavioral patterns that modern AI system can identify and associate with sky passes for proper enforcement. In other words - not post-incident review, but active incident prevention. |
Ah but now the paragraph sheds its skin and crawls back in wearing a different username, damp with gratitude. The summary starts chewing its own commas, muttering “useful discussion” like a prayer wheel jammed with lint. Slopes blur into corridors, rules ferment, and responsibility is ladled out by a choir of unattended gloves. Somewhere the OP replies again, slightly to the left, applauding itself while the mountain signs in as a moderator. By the end nothing skis, nothing enforces, the sock drawer votes unanimously, and the post thanks itself for the excellent insights it hasn’t had yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Chewing the cud is all very well but for this thread to have any relevance to safety on the slopes, it needs to stop veering away from the straw man that is its subject title. ManiaMuse has it about right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| motyl wrote: |
| Chewing the cud is all very well but for this thread to have any relevance to safety on the slopes, it needs to stop veering away from the straw man that is its subject title. ManiaMuse has it about right. |
Safety comes from multiple interconnected factors, and those who cannot read beyond a title or see beyond a black-and-white dichotomy are unlikely to improve safety on the slopes. Some of them also overreact and I am specifically concerned for the person who seems to have developed stroke while reading this thread. I hope he will recover soon for the sake of the safety on the slopes!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| aklos wrote: |
| motyl wrote: |
| Chewing the cud is all very well but for this thread to have any relevance to safety on the slopes, it needs to stop veering away from the straw man that is its subject title. ManiaMuse has it about right. |
Safety comes from multiple interconnected factors, and those who cannot read beyond a title or see beyond a black-and-white dichotomy are unlikely to improve safety on the slopes. Some of them also overreact and I am specifically concerned for the person who seems to have developed stroke while reading this thread. I hope he will recover soon for the sake of the safety on the slopes! |
This reads like the same sock changing hands mid-sentence. While one sleeve clutches pearls about nuance, another is diagnosing strokes via Wi-Fi. Safety has now become pasta, fully cooked, flung at the wall to see which alt sticks. Please stop role-playing concern from inside a trench coat of foot accounts and let the spaghetti finish its thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Speaking of socks @ManiaMuse,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
This thread has gone downhill 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
If you wear Bogner and ski on Lacroix skis, you are SPECIAL and the rules do not apply to you. You always have right of way and can stop where and when you want. It's up to everyone else to avoid you. 
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Tue 6-01-26 19:02; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Old Fartbag, I once rented LaCroix skis in Zell am See (its what I was given). I, the downhill skier, was rammed into...the magic didn't work!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| holidayloverxx wrote: |
| @Old Fartbag, I once rented LaCroix skis in Zell am See (its what I was given). I, the downhill skier, was rammed into...the magic didn't work! |
Were you wearing Bogner? If not, then no magic. 
What were the skis like?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@holidayloverxx, did you check your mirrors and look over your shoulder though?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do those Russian skiers with bodyguards and pretty nieces still ski in Courchevel? They had lots of Bogner and stuff. And they got right of way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
| holidayloverxx wrote: |
| @Old Fartbag, I once rented LaCroix skis in Zell am See (its what I was given). I, the downhill skier, was rammed into...the magic didn't work! |
Were you wearing Bogner? If not, then no magic.
What were the skis like? |
That's where I went wrong, I'd have thought Spyder would have also added the magic. Skis were like noodles
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| SnoodyMcFlude wrote: |
| @holidayloverxx, did you check your mirrors and look over your shoulder though? |
I look over my shoulder a lot.. but as I was wearing Soydercand skiing LaCroix I shouldn't have needed to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| holidayloverxx wrote: |
That's where I went wrong, I'd have thought Spyder would have also added the magic. |
Nope....Anything available at TK Maxx isn't special enough!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
