 Poster: A snowHead
|
| 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! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@Old Fartbag, how very dare you! I bought mine in Breckenridge 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Problem solved by Temu
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Another great example of the diversity of opinion on this subject (even when some people try to pretend that there is no diversity whatsoever to protect their absolutist view of the world  ). Whoever is tired of reading about Bogner can take a look:
https://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=168460
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| SnoodyMcFlude wrote: |
@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. |
One might say the kid made themselves fair game by joining the piste without looking. Same as those stationary setting off no look point blank into your path.
I never understand how people neglect the most basic of self preservation in these circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| One might say the kid made themselves fair game by joining the piste without looking. Same as those stationary setting off no look point blank into your path |
In retrospect, if I'd just flattened the kid instead of trying to avoid any accident, I'd probably have felt less guilty than I did stacking it and taking out his old man...I still think his actions are kind of irrelevant though, I could have avoided the whole thing if I'd just skied slower.
I took wonder about mentality though, I think people are quite selfish so expect others to work around them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| aklos wrote: |
| I hope your definition of troll is not someone who does not share your opinion? |
I think a good definition would be someone so tedious in putting their viewpoint that, even if you were thirsty and they were buying, you wouldn't stick around to have a pint with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| knackered knees wrote: |
Posts asking for validation that its the downhill skiers fault crop up here on a regular basis, and they get a range of opinions from "wrong, read the rules" to total derision.
Now I think I've fed you enough for today  |
There is no need to see it in black or white, and fully allocate fault to either uphill or downhill skiers. Much of the confusion seems to be coming from treating the FIS rules as a tool for allocating blame. That is not their purpose. The code is useful as guidance for individual conduct on the slopes, but it should not be used to argue that shared responsibility is impossible (as done here on in the referenced thread) or that one party (=downhill) should be automatically exonerated. Nor is it sufficient on its own without additional enforcement, given how significantly the industry has evolved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| aklos wrote: |
| knackered knees wrote: |
Posts asking for validation that its the downhill skiers fault crop up here on a regular basis, and they get a range of opinions from "wrong, read the rules" to total derision.
Now I think I've fed you enough for today |
There is no need to see it in black or white, and fully allocate fault to either uphill or downhill skiers. Much of the confusion seems to be coming from treating the FIS rules as a tool for allocating blame. That is not their purpose. The code is useful as guidance for individual conduct on the slopes, but it should not be used to argue that shared responsibility is impossible (as done here on in the referenced thread) or that one party (=downhill) should be automatically exonerated. Nor is it sufficient on its own without additional enforcement, given how significantly the industry has evolved. |
I’m going to gently close the hatch here. The conversation has wandered far enough that it’s now arguing with its own echo, and the echo is filing footnotes. Nothing more productive is going to hatch from this slope, no matter how carefully the rules are laminated.
So with respect, it’s probably time for you to step off the mountain, take the skis off the discourse, and let the snow settle without another diagram. The thread is full, the soup is cooked, and the orchestra has already packed up its chairs. Wishing you a calm descent elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Interesting relevant development - some French resorts just started the new systems for controlling speed and "downhill obstacles". Here is the link: https://archive.ph/6Ajlo No sophisticated AI yet but at least moving in the right direction.
The mentioned 40% increase in the medical helicopter call-out as compared to the past 2 winters is a very alarming increase.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| aklos wrote: |
Interesting relevant development - some French resorts just started the new systems for controlling speed and "downhill obstacles". Here is the link: https://archive.ph/6Ajlo No sophisticated AI yet but at least moving in the right direction.
The mentioned 40% increase in the medical helicopter call-out as compared to the past 2 winters is a very alarming increase. |
Interesting article, thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Have someone run into the back of me and suffer a spiral fracture of fib and rob I'd have to say the downhill skier has priority...I've not got eyes in back of my head or review mirrors
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| Interesting relevant development - some French resorts just started the new systems for controlling speed and "downhill obstacles". Here is the link: https://archive.ph/6Ajlo No sophisticated AI yet but at least moving in the right direction. |
Did you not actually read the article you yourself posted?
All it talks about are new attempts to remind people of the existing rules and a couple of places where they're bringing in roped off areas for slow skiers only, even there no mention of using any technology to police it; indeed the only mention of enforcement simply states that piste patrol cannot actually enforce it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Is there a useful comparison with the "rules of the road" for sailors? If both boats are sailing, the one on starboard tack has right of way. If it's a power boat and a sailing boat, the sailing boat has priority.
BUT it is the responsibility of both to keep a good look out, and to avoid collisions. The stand on vessel should stand on - not faff about. But if a collision looks like becoming inevitable, they have a responsibility too.
If I am on starboard tack, on a collision course with a boat on port which is clearly paying no attention, and just stand on till he hits me, I am culpable too.
I have been proceeding at a sensible pace down a blue piste and had some lads hurtling out of the trees and jumping onto the piste just in front of me. Clearly without stopping to look! There are certainly circumstances where the downhill skier's poor judgement could be considered to have been a contributory factor. And perhaps that's all we need to concede to make the OP go away?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@Origen,
| Quote: |
There are certainly circumstances where the downhill skier's poor judgement could be considered to have been a contributory factor
|
Dunno about making him go away, but that is certainly a super-sensible observation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Origen, I'm not sure the comparison really works much beyond skin deep, especially given that the application (and indeed, for the sailing rules you mention, even the understanding) of rules by leisure boat users is so sketchy that in some cases they might as well not exist.
It's true though that in both cases you have an overriding rule one to not cause collisions/endanger other people, so the principle of all the other rules being subordinate to that one applies in both scenarios, as your examples show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the FIS code itself talks about when overtaking leaving enough space for the overtaken skier or snowboarder to make any voluntary or involuntary movement. The exceptions to that where the downhill skier or snowboarders behaviour could nonetheless cause an incident are identified as starting, entering or moving upwards, and stopping in appropriate places - which are specifically covered in other rules.
I don't think it is generally helpful for downhill skiers to look behind. Quite apart from the effect doing so has on their skiing, changing your hereto predictable skiing because someone is approaching from behind is a good way to catch them out and actually cause an accident.
My personal approach (and what I teach beginners) is to focus on skiing rhythmically / consistently, but that it is pragmatic to take a quick look around and be aware of surroundings before making any sudden change of direction / rhythm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
| aklos wrote: |
| Interesting relevant development - some French resorts just started the new systems for controlling speed and "downhill obstacles". Here is the link: https://archive.ph/6Ajlo No sophisticated AI yet but at least moving in the right direction. |
Did you not actually read the article you yourself posted?
All it talks about are new attempts to remind people of the existing rules and a couple of places where they're bringing in roped off areas for slow skiers only, even there no mention of using any technology to police it; indeed the only mention of enforcement simply states that piste patrol cannot actually enforce it. |
Of course I read it, not sure what makes you entitled to reply in such an aggressive tone, is that another ethical code of this forum? If you are actually interested in your question, it seems that different technologies are being implemented (some drone based), more about that here: https://www.20minutes.fr/societe/4138393-20250215-sports-hiver-verbalisations-radars-drones-faire-limiter-vitesse-pistes-ski
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
| aklos wrote: |
| Interesting relevant development - some French resorts just started the new systems for controlling speed and "downhill obstacles". Here is the link: https://archive.ph/6Ajlo No sophisticated AI yet but at least moving in the right direction. |
Did you not actually read the article you yourself posted?
All it talks about are new attempts to remind people of the existing rules and a couple of places where they're bringing in roped off areas for slow skiers only, even there no mention of using any technology to police it; indeed the only mention of enforcement simply states that piste patrol cannot actually enforce it. |
Of course I read it, not sure what makes you entitled to reply in such an aggressive tone, is that another ethical code of this forum? If you are actually interested in your question, it seems that different technologies are being implemented (some drone based), more about that here: https://www.20minutes.fr/societe/4138393-20250215-sports-hiver-verbalisations-radars-drones-faire-limiter-vitesse-pistes-ski |
The thread has reached the stage where it’s reheating its own leftovers and calling it cuisine. Every new link is another spoon stirring the same beige porridge, and the porridge is filing complaints about tone. At this point the conversation is just an antique clock arguing with the wall about time, ticking loudly, going nowhere. Best to let it power down gently and return to the museum of earnest footnotes, where it can hum to itself without demanding applause from the living world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
so sketchy that in some cases they might as well not exist.
|
As sketchy as most skiers' knowledge of the ski rules?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
@ManiaMuse, you are I think entering the Snowheads first annual poetry competition?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| @ManiaMuse, you are I think entering the Snowheads first annual poetry competition? |
Sponsored by ChatGPT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FIS “downhill skier has priority” rule discussion
I agree it’s oversimplified. In real conditions, responsibility can’t realistically be 100% uphill every time
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Origen wrote: |
| Quote: |
so sketchy that in some cases they might as well not exist.
|
As sketchy as most skiers' knowledge of the ski rules? |
Mmm, not sure. But this is why the comparison breaks down, given that the FIS rules number ten, and are very simply stated, just one or two sentences. In the main most skiers obey most of them most of the time in a common-sense way even if they could not actually quote them. And indeed I could not do so either.
The 1972 International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea on the other hand consists of 41 basic rules (was 38 when I had to learn them by heart back in my Merchant Navy days) many of which include complex descriptions and definitions, and many of which cross-reference each other. Every deck officer should have been required to know them by heart and be able to explain them as part of their qualifications, from the lowest 2nd mate's ticket upwards. And they can be enforced through prosecution, although they rarely are, even if no collision takes place.
But such detailed knowledge is not a normal part of non-commercial sailing qualifications that most leisure sailors such as myself need (I've the ICC sail and power <24m coastal and was never tested on them. I believe they are needed and tested for a yachtmaster ticket). The point being that in reality the majority of operators of pleasure craft do not know them all.
Anyway, the point is largely moot, as my facetious remark was more about people simply not adhering to the rules, whether they know (or once knew) them or not. There are hundreds of recorded non-collision incidents each year where it's evident that a proper look-out is not being kept, for instance, on large commercial merchant vessels, and of course it's even more evident for pleasure craft users.
So yeah, I guess it's not so very different in general terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
I don't think it is generally helpful for downhill skiers to look behind.
|
I agree and it's why I consistently disagree with people who disapprove of my skiing with music on the grounds that I can't hear what's happening behind me. We quite often have nervous skiers moaning about the sound of a snowboarder "coming at them" from behind. And probably jittering around as a result.
I did look over my shoulder, check and signal if crossing a piste from edge to edge (e.g. to join a group) but I was competent to do that. My music didn't prevent my seeing the guy hammering down at warp speed and waiting for him to pass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@Origen, what about sonic feedback from your skis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| @ManiaMuse, you are I think entering the Snowheads first annual poetry competition? |
You rang? *knuckles*
An ode to the descent of decent man.
When sliding, as a rule
remember not be be a tool
and attend to those below as you would a brother
for while they, as you may say
may be clearly in your way
they may not know that they're causing you some bother
so while why you may be cursing
at the way they are traversing
it could just as easy be you blocking another
as from on high, there sails by
some other guy who's letting fly
down the face at rapid pace with oaths and curses uttered
because there's always someone faster
as sure as autumn follows summer
so when sliding, as a rule
remember not be be that tool
and remember a little patience spreads around like butter
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@Richard_Sideways,
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Somewhat late to the party on this thread but this popped up on my instagram feed this afternoon:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTX9kCejZUZ/?igsh=MTZuMDQyNTZydWNyMw==
I didn’t see the skier ahead of the snowboarder twice through, until I read the comments. Then I saw her!
All white ski attire save a yellow helmet? During night-skiing?
I’m a skier but prefer to seen on the slopes against what is usually a white background.
It’s a tricky call as to who is the culprit for blame in this scenario unless I’m missing something? Bad clothing design vs uphill snowboarder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@Tijjy, While I agree that they have managed to pick camo gear for the environment, I will also note that the human eye is a LOT better than most cameras, especially in low light...
In fact (as a software developer who works on video conferencing) they are completely removed from the start of the footage by lossy video compression - its impossible to pick them up early enough in the footage (and I suspect the snowboarder does demo that they are more visible in real life by managing to avoid them).
TBH I would also argue that this is similar to one or two of the other near miss/impacts - close encounters that are way less severe than they could have been because the uphill skier is mitigating for hazards, so any incidents are at far lower speeds etc...
(Most of the cases I see of people bringing up 'uphill skier isn't always at fault' do so with an example where they are arguing they werent at fault for speeding into a highly predictable hazard, usually followed by finding an example where other rules apply (setting off/joining piste) or where neither skier is obviously uphill and the collision is low consequence because they were both showing extra caution...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| qwerty360 wrote: |
@Tijjy, While I agree that they have managed to pick camo gear for the environment, I will also note that the human eye is a LOT better than most cameras, especially in low light...
In fact (as a software developer who works on video conferencing) they are completely removed from the start of the footage by lossy video compression - its impossible to pick them up early enough in the footage (and I suspect the snowboarder does demo that they are more visible in real life by managing to avoid them).
TBH I would also argue that this is similar to one or two of the other near miss/impacts - close encounters that are way less severe than they could have been because the uphill skier is mitigating for hazards, so any incidents are at far lower speeds etc...
(Most of the cases I see of people bringing up 'uphill skier isn't always at fault' do so with an example where they are arguing they werent at fault for speeding into a highly predictable hazard, usually followed by finding an example where other rules apply (setting off/joining piste) or where neither skier is obviously uphill and the collision is low consequence because they were both showing extra caution...) |
Agree about the compression on the video - eyes are much better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| aklos wrote: |
| GreenDay wrote: |
| aklos wrote: |
None of this is difficult to comprehend. Also, stop with the "driving" comparisons. |
You need to learn how human behaviour and risk actually work, and whether that past norm that you are trying to assert through a common sense notion is operationally realistic in today's conditions. In safety work, the more uncontrolled variables you add, the less you can reasonably expect one participant to absorb all the risk. That is why responsibility is distributed and cannot be relying on individual vigilance alone. |
|
Blimey, are we still going? This is a lot less interesting than last year's discussion about eurocarving snowboarders (and that was dull).
@aklos, you still haven't said what you propose as a better rule or rules than the current ones: just that the statement "the Downhill skier has priority" is wrong, even though no FIS rule states that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the downhill skier is the husband and the uphill skier is his wife it may be the exception.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@tsgsh, I know! And Gwyneth Paltrow isn't even involved!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@No Style,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
