 Poster: A snowHead
|
| adithorp wrote: |
| Hurtle wrote: |
@kosmoz,
| Quote: |
It's so easy on skis to start skiing relatively fast, faster than able to control
|
Absolutely the crux of the matter. |
Actually I think I'd more...
It's so easy on snow to start traveling faster than you're able to control.
Doesn't matter how you choose to slide. |
yes and no. There is always someone going to fast for their skill on whatever they choose to slide on, but there is very little to none noobs on a board going at speed to wipe you out from behind, when there is plenty on skis. More natural to slide face forward, one can get in wider stance and start going relatively fast, when pizza/plow is the only technique they "mastered"  Then add the fact, that in some places skiers to riders are 10:1 rate or even worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@Hurtle, not so much "hairy speeds" as faster than you have the skills for.
Last afternoon of the preBB both me and JK had close shaves with a boarder coming past and we weren't hanging about. Then he hit a girl (boarder I think) who was only a beginner from the look of it on a shallow blue (past the circus tent in Alleghe). The odd too close for comfort near miss, is not unexpected but when one person has 3 with the only 3 people on the slope...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@adithorp, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
well, if you're not sure she was a boarder or skier, how that bomber could even notice her? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| DB wrote: |
| Mr.Egg wrote: |
| Riccardo wrote: |
| Boarder totally at fault. He gave himself zero margin of error and events conspired against him. The expectation that everyone below you will remain as still as a statue until you pass is unreasonable. If taking avoiding action sends you towards other people, bail out, don't try to slalom through them. |
rubbish
the kid done the equivalent of stepping out onto a busy road without looking |
Yes but onto a road where someone was dangerous driving at high speed in the gutter. |
You cant judge the speed from that video and without knowing the slope, conditions, etc.
Indont see any danger. Snowboarder had his line. The kid should have looked up hill.
If someone jumps in front of a train, then thats not the drivers fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@kosmoz, I was concentrating on where he was and was aware of someone going slow ahead but on the other side of the (wide) piste. As I passed her (assumption based on all pink clothing  ) he hit her. Either way I don't think it was him being a boarder was relevant then whether she was is even less so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mr.Egg wrote: |
You cant judge the speed from that video and without knowing the slope, conditions, etc.
Indont see any danger. Snowboarder had his line. The kid should have looked up hill.
If someone jumps in front of a train, then thats not the drivers fault. |
Haha, come on you can do better than that!
A) You can judge the speed. Boarder going too fast and kid going at about 1 foot per second, he hadn't even cleared the tails of his dad's skis before he was hit.
B) Clear danger because he was squeezing into a narrow gap between skier and dad.
C) Snowboarder's line was way too close to dad. Would have deserved a strong word or two even without the collision.
D) Yes kid should have looked up the hill, but having started out from behind his dad's back, which he needed to do in order to look up the hill, he was already in a position where he was going to get hit.
E) Weird thing about trains is that they tend to follow predetermined tracks and don't on the spur of the moment swoop into gaps that turn out not to be there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mr.Egg wrote: |
You cant judge the speed from that video and without knowing the slope, conditions, etc.
Indont see any danger. Snowboarder had his line. The kid should have looked up hill.
The speed is relative, if the boarder can't avoid 2 other skiers his speed is most likely too fast.
If someone jumps in front of a train, then thats not the drivers fault. |
How wide was that line? Was the snowboard facing down the hill or across the hill on impact? (look at the boarder's shadow).
Was the snowboarder far enough away from the father's ski tails?
This is the moment before impact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@DB, and look 3 seconds before your screenshot, where there is a skier on his left & another border to the right standing in the middle of the slope (like the kid & dad skiers), forcing him with nowhere to go. You can see on the shadow that he has already gone hard on heel edge to avoid the initial skier & then attempted to go straight again instead of being on heel edge to avoid the skis - which he did do. Then some dumb kid decided to step out without looking.
No doubt if the snowboarder didn't wallop the kid, the other skier would have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The skier's responsibility to avoid collision with those ahead of them includes catering for sudden and unexpected movements by them (or those occluded by them).
You might be forgiven for failing to avoid a numpty that shoots out of a forest or jumps onto the piste in front of you, but you should still attempt to avoid them.
The advice to look up slope before joining a piste, resuming motion, or making a sudden course change still doesn't absolve the upslope skier of their responsibility, though it seems far too many blighters think it does, and so will adopt it as a 'not my fault' argument to make themselves feel better after their victims have been carted off the slope to hospital.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
At the risk of reopening old wounds DB's analysis is of course correct that the boarder kid would have been wise to shut it down at frame 1. However he clearly wasn't himself the most skilled boarder and probably had a bunch of self perception issues. It is hard to have the experience and foresight on sh*t going sideways on you until sh*t has gone sideways. None of it changes why dad should have looked before letting kid out into traffic because it may not have been "reckless boarder" but a terrified beginner on a slide for life or mum locked in a kamikazee snowplough or a DNGAF Blue run hero or a dozen other things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Then add the fact, that in some places skiers to riders are 10:1 rate or even worse.
|
It is much worse in Japan where there are possibly only two skiers to every snowboarder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@DB,
He can see the skier a long way off.....
yet its captured in 5 seconds of footage.
 flying home. he may as well ski home if he's going that fast to make up the long way off distance he can see in under 5 seconds.
the border is reacting to the moment. He has realised he won't slow down enough and likely to hit the bloke, so gone straight again to turn left. THen a kid comes from nowhere.
Look at your own frames, you dont see the kid, even when on his heel edge.
At no point do you see the kid until that last second.
Border is not at fault, he is just unlucky.
helmet on, goggles down, you don't get the same peripheral view the camera is giving you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| zikomo wrote: |
This is so simple, and it seems to me that the same people rehash the same nonsense every time there is any discussion about fault on the slopes.
I have never collided with anyone on a piste, not gave I come close to doing so. Because I follow the rules about being in control, adapting to conditions, traffic and ability. I allow downhill skiers sufficient space top make any voluntary or involuntary movement (including setting off without looking).
I suspect those who argue that it is not always the responsibility of the uphill slope user to avoid the downhill slope user either:
1. Have a sense of entitlement, and expect others below them to stay out of their way/ski in such a way as to never cause them to slow down or change line
2. Ski beyond their capability to stop and/or avoid those below them on the slope when they do something freaky.
Take responsibility and ski within your abilities rather than try and justify an uphill slope user crashing into a downhill slope user. There is absolutely no doubt this is the snowboarders fault. I do not condone the father hitting another kid however. |
I agree. I think the number of times that you can genuinely say its not the uphill skier's fault in any situation is limited, minute even. In the video, to suggest its the parents fault for allowing the child to ski off is perverse. Yes he should probably have had a look and slowed the kid's start, but he wouldn't have needed to had the boarder been in control or been aware enough to be in control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@FrediKanoute, not 'probably should have had a look'. He should have looked, simple as that. That doesn't absolve the other party, but he also isn't 100% at fault. If the dad looks uphill then the boarder just has a near miss. That doesn't excuse being a knob, but it does mean one less crying child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Mr.Egg wrote: |
@DB,
He can see the skier a long way off.....
yet its captured in 5 seconds of footage.
flying home. he may as well ski home if he's going that fast to make up the long way off distance he can see in under 5 seconds.
the border is reacting to the moment. He has realised he won't slow down enough and likely to hit the bloke, so gone straight again to turn left. THen a kid comes from nowhere.
Look at your own frames, you dont see the kid, even when on his heel edge.
At no point do you see the kid until that last second.
Border is not at fault, he is just unlucky.
helmet on, goggles down, you don't get the same peripheral view the camera is giving you. |
Yes it was a chain reaction I agree the child in black pants cannot be seen until the last moment but he should have seen the first skier in white pants. Even without the second child that he hits, he was too close to the father. It looks like his board went over the father's ski tails. His problems started when despite there being many skiers & boarders standing around and learner skiers about he decided to try and use them as slalom poles rather than taking speed out. His skill level wasn't good enough to avoid the skiers yet for some reason he gives the boarders plently of room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| SnoodlesMcFlude wrote: |
| @FrediKanoute, not 'probably should have had a look'. He should have looked, simple as that. That doesn't absolve the other party, but he also isn't 100% at fault. If the dad looks uphill then the boarder just has a near miss. That doesn't excuse being a knob, but it does mean one less crying child. |
See, I disagree (and not because he is a border). I think the boarder is 100% at fault in this situation. There is an element that the dad/kid, contributed to the accident by being careless, but the accident doesn't happen if the boarder takes a conservative approach which he situation called for. Any OHS expert will tell you that near misses are pre-cursours to hits unless behaviour changes as a result of the near miss.
Skiing is a fun sport and it carries risks, but those risks are increased by skiers/boarders taking an aggressive line. Would you ride a bike on a pedestrianized walkway at speed if there were people using that walkway? That is essentially what the snowboarder has done in this situation.
I'm pretty black and white on this. Uphill skier has to exercise caution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@DB, Yup, he's already bumped into the girl in green who tried to turn out of his way, which then sends him towards the dad. He probably clips the dad on the way through too, so that's two people he's hit before he reaches the kid. The kid was still behind his dad's skis at the point of contact so even though he and his dad haven't looked, the kid's still in a position where there shouldn't have been anyone anywhere near him and as such theoretically 'safe'.
and what @FrediKanoute, said too.
I've actually got a lot of sympathy for the boarder, an awkward situation got progressively worse, and then to cap it all, the little lad emerging at the end. Very unlucky. But he caused it all. He needed to go left where the space was, got baulked by the girl and took the wrong decision not to pull up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
It's weird how many will claim a boarder doing 30mph is not at fault if a child ahead of them skis into their chosen path at 3mph.
They probably have similar experiences and are still trying to delude themselves that their victims were similarly at fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@what...snow, a few moments when I thought if you recently lol !
So basically, I'm going to hold on this. The uphill skiier/rider fault does not give carte blanche to the downhill skiier. You must always look up before joining a run, no matter the scenario.
Moments in question:
A. Father middle of piste carrying child. It's wide autobahn cruiser. I am a long way away but carving across the whole face and at high speeds. Father looks up to 'drop in' I give him 'the nod' and adjust my line even further away. That's all it takes. (Few similar moments with ski instructors and their classes)
B. Bouncy starfish kid maybe 3-4 darts out from behind trees/bush. If I'd been a few meters further forward would have hit him at jogging pace. And I would have felt awful. No way I could have seen him from behind the bushes. Parents acknowledged the possible risk, had a with the kid and gave me the smile/nod.
C. Trails merge, skiier looks up and gives me 'the nod' to head ahead of him.
Your safety is also your responsibility, you cannot expect all skiiers and snowboarders to make the right judgement call and be able to dodge you.
Unfortunately sometimes people take reckless lines. This is one of the risks in skiing (just like driving).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@FrediKanoute, your analogy doesn't work (cycling on the pavement is against the rules, walking is not), you need an example where both activities are against the rules. It's more similar to a car speeding through a light turning amber on a crossroads, while a cyclist jumps a red light cutting across. Both are wrong, the car should have been preparing to come to a stop but the cyclist should also not have set off.
Do not misunderstand me, the boarder is definitely the main carrier of the fault, but the dad still broke the rules and contributed to the accident (as you say), and if that's the case then it's not 100% one side or the other.
And it still doesn't help the poor feller that ended up in hospital.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LittleBullet wrote: |
Your safety is also your responsibility, you cannot expect all skiiers and snowboarders to make the right judgement call and be able to dodge you.
Unfortunately sometimes people take reckless lines. This is one of the risks in skiing (just like driving). |
^^This. It is not black and white if you get hit, we shouldn't be brushing the idea of taking care under the carpet just because "it's always the uphill skier".
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| FrediKanoute wrote: |
Skiing is a fun sport and it carries risks, but those risks are increased by skiers/boarders taking an aggressive line. Would you ride a bike on a pedestrianized walkway at speed if there were people using that walkway? That is essentially what the snowboarder has done in this situation.
I'm pretty black and white on this. Uphill skier has to exercise caution. |
Pedestrian or even road analogues are often used and are not always that helpful other than in a "show a bit of awareness and responsibility and don't do dumb crap that will endanger yourself and others " sense. Particularly when they are plainly a false analogy.
I think there isn't a single person claiming that uphill skier doesn't have to exercise caution or has a responsibility to naviagte the slope safely. But we are saying what if they don't (and remember it may not always be deliberate - what if the boarder hits a patch of ice at the top of the slope and starts an uncontrollable slide, what if a skier sheds a ski and the brake doesn't work etc) ? Why do the other rules exist and do they help you if someone or something else fails?
poo-poo happens skiing. By not insisting that A = Bad therefore everything else righteous good it helps you maintain more awareness and better protect yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Answer.... If it hasn't been said before (sorry if it has) ... Stop bashing pistes. Leave them au-naturel.
That would slow everyone down and vastly increase the quality of skiing /boarding by necessity.
They pretty much adopt this approach in the Canadian ski resorts I frequent and there are virtually no bad skiers at all.....
The commercial pressure to produce ultra-sanitised pistes to appeal to as many paying punters as possible will always allow less proficient skiers/boarders to be dangerous.
Maybe we have gone too far and made it way too easy?
.... or am I just sad and old..... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| FoofyNoo wrote: |
Answer.... If it hasn't been said before (sorry if it has) ... Stop bashing pistes. Leave them au-naturel.
That would slow everyone down and vastly increase the quality of skiing /boarding by necessity.
They pretty much adopt this approach in the Canadian ski resorts I frequent and there are virtually no bad skiers at all.....
The commercial pressure to produce ultra-sanitised pistes to appeal to as many paying punters as possible will always allow less proficient skiers/boarders to be dangerous.
Maybe we have gone too far and made it way too easy?
.... or am I just sad and old..... |
It has been said before but you are absolutely right.
They won't do it though. They might pay lip service and cordon off an area or two for the purists but the flattering groomers is what keeps the hordes of cash-touting Billy Bunters coming back for more. They maybe only ski once a year so it is kind of understandable. The endless snowmaking and grooming cycle makes the winter last longer too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@DB, so much for learning from experience. What a victim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| SnoodlesMcFlude wrote: |
| your analogy doesn't work (cycling on the pavement is against the rules, walking is not), you need an example where both activities are against the rules. |
If a pedestrian steps off the pavement (without looking behind them) in front of a cyclist, it will have been the cyclist's responsibility to avoid collision, because they should cater for such pedestrians, keeping a safe distance and reducing speed accordingly. This is despite the fact that pedestrians should look both ways before crossing (or entering) the road.
Note that the 'should' does not absolve 'responsibility' to any extent.
Of course, you still get psychopathic cyclists who believe that they can cycle 20mph next to a crowded pavement 'knowing' that it'd be the stupid pedestrian's fault if they stepped out. And yet they still learn to evade car doors being opened by careless passengers...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@crosbie, exactly. If a pedestrian steps out it is not 100% the fault of the cyclist, because a pedestrian should look both ways. The fact the cyclist is riding like an idiot does not make the pedestrian blameless any more than the negligence of the pedestrian makes the cyclist blameless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@SnoodlesMcFlude, you're missing the elephant in the room. At 20mph the cyclist is the lethal weapon. At 3mph, the pedestrian is a priori the innocent party. Those in control of lethal weapons have the responsibility to prevent lethal consequences.
It's not like pedestrians are stepping in front of a 90mph locomotive, although it seems as if some piste users have adopted this mindset.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
At 20mph the cyclist is the lethal weapon. At 3mph, the pedestrian is a priori the innocent party.
|
And stepping out in front of a 20mph car is that the drivers fault too?
This discussion is going nowhere and the parties getting more and more intransigent in their thinking. We are not going to solve the problem so perhaps we should all drop the subject.
Going back to the OP is their any update on the guy hospitalised by the snowboarder using a ski pole?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| tarrantd wrote: |
| And stepping out in front of a 20mph car is that the drivers fault too? |
The driver of a car/bus/taxi has the responsibility to avoid colliding with pedestrians stepping out in front of them. Consequently, drivers will carefully reduce their speed and increase clearance when driving near pedestrians.
What you should worry about is other piste users having your attitude, considering your life expendable should you unwittingly intrude upon their trajectory or otherwise fail to keep out of their way...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
That interview of the border and posted by @DB, is quite damming really.
He uses the descriptions "skier cut across me" and things like "they should stick to the bunny slopes" as well as stating the others should take more care and attention.
It matters not whether skier or border, it's the same approach needed to take care of what's happening in front of you and reasonably being able to react to it.
All the information was there in his approach, how busy it was, the type of slope user, their pace in respect to his direction of travel. He's headed in there with a sense of entitled superiority, which he still sees as entirely correct. No guessing that he'd do the same again? If he doesn't see it as risk, then it'll repeat.
No he shouldn't have been hit by the enraged father, but he's probably going to have to get familiar with more interactions of similar anger if he insists on doing the same.
If he doesn't want to get involved with this sort of situation, the answer is loud and clear, take notice of what you are approaching and modify your pace to accommodate the risk that is clearly laid out in front of you.
If you don't get involved in accidents you then don't have to anything to explain. Some will occur, that's accidents. This was a very easy one to avoid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| crosbie wrote: |
| @SnoodlesMcFlude, you're missing the elephant in the room. At 20mph the cyclist is the lethal weapon. At 3mph, the pedestrian is a priori the innocent party. Those in control of lethal weapons have the responsibility to prevent lethal consequences. |
I have no strong feelings on the culpability of those involved in the boarder / skier crash - my feeling is that both parties bear some responsibility.
However, I totally disagree with your assertion that a motorist or cyclist is totally responsible for any accident involving a pedestrian.
IMO, in the absence of excess speed (ie. in ecxess of the speed limit) or other driving offences, any such collision (taking place in the road) is, by definition, the fault of the pedestrian who should not be in a position to be involved in the accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Red Leon, there is such a spiteful attitude among some road users that the road belongs to the motorised, and the pedestrian is the foolhardy intruder inevitably the root cause of any collision.
It is the other way around.
Ethically, it is the soft and vulnerable that are the innocent, and the armoured, kinetically charged that are culpable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@crosbie, We have a comprehensive pavement system (unlike the US) for peds. There should be zero collisions. I'd go so far as to say that zero accidents should be the norm, given our excellent road network (excluding 'smart' motorways) and traffic regulations. Just need harsher punishments for tw4t drivers (lifetime bans, unlimited fines, prison sentencing), riders, cyclists and peds.
Snowboarder should be arrested for GBH of a minor and serve time; it would certainly focus the minds of others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When walking or running on country lanes near me, where there are no footpaths, the amount of car drivers who seem to think i should leap into the verge so they don't have to move over to pass is quite alarming. They need to learn the rules regarding road users and what constitutes a road user.
On the boarder moron, If i was stood minding my own an somebody passed me so closely they ran over my ski tails, I would chase them down and there definately would be words. I am gob smacked so many are defending his actions. He wiped out a little kid and thinks he did nothing wrong. What a tosser. Dad shouldn't have hit him, but was justified to be furious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@thecramps, I don’t see anyone here defending the boarder. I do see people (rightly imv) apportioning some blame to the father & kid for setting off without looking, which clearly breaks the code. It really is a dumb thing to do, especially so if you have stopped in the middle of a busy piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fortunately, it's only on online forum discussions of piste priorities that psychopathic piste users outnumber conscientious and considerate ones.
Otherwise, no parent would dare take their child out on to a piste.
It would be like Death Race 2000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
