 Poster: A snowHead
|
I hesitate to get involved in what has, at times, been a rather bitchy and pedantic thread. However ... 
My thoughts:
1. Yes there is an inherent risk of collision. We shouldn't be complacent about it, but we should accept that the risk will always be there. We take what reasonable and proportionate steps to reduce that risk.
2. The idea of TV screens at the bottom of pistes is a touch daft. All it will achieve is to encourage people to back bottom about as they come past the camera.
3. I really dislike the attitude of some people who seem to think that, as experienced skiers, they have a greater right to the mountain, or certain pistes, than others. If a beginner wants to side-slip down a mogulled black run then that's up to him.
4. The idea of 'advanced pistes' for approved skiers only is also wrong and a non-starter. It's wrong because of the reason above, and it's a non-starter because a. How would it be policed? b. How much would you charge for the certification? c. How many people would bother with the hassle of certification? How much extra would you charge those people to go on the 'private runs'?
5. Really don't like the attitude of the poster on the previous page, can't remember who, who seemed to think that as the faster skier/boarder others should keep out of his way. I think we're mostly in agreement that his attitude is wrong.
6. The FIS rules say something along the lines of it being the responsibility of the uphill skier to ensure that the downhill skier is not 'endangered'. I'd go a little further than that and suggest that they should take steps to ensure the downhill skier is not 'alarmed' by their actions. That may be the wrong word, but I think that overtaking skiers need to be aware that hurtling past someone at what they consider a safe speed/distance may be quite disconcerting to a less experienced skier who was possibly unaware of their presence. That in itself can cause them a degree of distress/alarm or even prompt them to take sudden avoiding action that can be risky itself. It's more a question of common courtesy than anything else.
So, what should be done to reduce the risk/severity of collisions? The key to this is, I think, the FIS code. I'm not sure my children have ever been taught this in ski school, they''ve only learned it from me. If I asked many of the people I ski with about the FIS code I suspect >50 would have no knowledge of it despite the fact that they have picked up the rules by osmosis and follow them faultlessly. Here are some ideas:
1. Testing and retesting should make up part of the criteria to advance to the next ski school level.
2. TO's should include FIS fliers with their literature.
3. Lift operators should print the code on piste maps / lift passes / gondola interiors etc.
4. Airlines flying in the ski season to Geneva/Chambery etc. could be encouraged to include a quick reminder as part of inflight entertainment package
5. I dislike regulation, but maybe enforcing 'slow speed' areas more rigorously. Pull a few lift passes 'pour encourager les autres'
6. More visible presence of ski patrol without turning them into ski police.
7. Encouraging kit manufacturers to include the FIS rules with every item of kit sold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Never skied into anyone, never came close to it. Thank heavens.
I am a good lawyer and no, doing something unpredictable would not be sufficient to place any blame on the downhill skier. Doing something deliberate, intended to cause a collision, would. Same as happens with car accidents. Being drunk or high might also have a bearing. Other than that, not only would there not be a defence in law, there would not be any moral defence as frankly you should be able to avoid a collision even if the downhill skier did something predictable - IF you were skiing in control, within your ability relevant to conditions, and had allowed sufficient space. Which I do - I consider my safety and the safety of skiers and boarders downhill of me to be more important than my desire to overtake or ski fast. I hope other slope users are conscious and courteous but I do not expect it and slow down, staying behind until I am sure I have enough space.
On an unrelated note, skiing close to and fast past beginner skiers is also reprehensible. What sort of courtesy is that? Do you drive aggressively when you see an L plate on another car?
Frankly this is a matter of balance and the safety of others comes first - you are entitled to take any risks you like with yourself but strict adherence to the uphill skier is responsible rule is the only way of ensuring you are not taking risks with the safety of others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| bobmcstuff wrote: |
| sev112 wrote: |
| eddiethebus wrote: |
| [Stuff] |
Eddie mate, that was my attempt at a sensible discussion, and no, I can't think of something , hence I asked because there might be something I am or might be doing - hence another nice question - please let me know what you think I should not be doing as a downhill skier - honestly. Don't think that I am flaming you because I asked for an example |
Really? What about:
| Avalanche Poodle wrote: |
sev112, I think that what may be being said is that whilst it is the responsibility of the uphill skier to avoid collisions, if, for example, I had skied most of a busy piste towards one side making uniform turns then suddenly decide to head to the opposite side to rest and therefore turn 90 degrees at speed and shot across, whilst totally within my rights as the downhill skier that would probably increase the risk of a collision for the large number of people coming down greatly, not just to myself but to other skiers, imagine 10 people at once all taking avoiding action.
|
I accept that ultimately it is the uphill skier's responsibility - however there are things that the downhill skier could (arguably should) be doing to make everybody's life easier, particularly on crowded pistes. |
Perfectly put. In fact so perfect I think I will leave this debate as is. I am in danger of being the problem (re bitchy and pedantic  ) not the solution!
All the best to all and thanks for the debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Bob, that post appeared after I wrote mine, so messages obviously crossed there.
I would note in Avalanche Poodle's example, that if that was an involuntary 90deg at speed turn and was then hit by the uphill skier, then it is the uphill skiers' fault(s) because the FIS rules say that you should ensure you don't hit a downhill skier making an involuntary movement.
In which case because the uphill skiers are /should be prepared for an involuntary movement, they should also be ready for the exact same voluntary movement by the downhill skier.
And I think this is the crux. Perhaps uphill skiers believe that downhill skiers should ski in a certain way and to a certain rhythm. Personally I think that's a bit optimistic and therefore one should keep the biggest gap as possible when passing, and if that also needs a scrubbing of speed then so be it, particularly on flat tracks where many skiers try to keep their speed up, yet is probably one of the places where collisions are more likely given the limited width plus the wide variations of speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| 4. The idea of 'advanced pistes' for approved skiers only is also wrong and a non-starter. It's wrong because of the reason above, and it's a non-starter because a. How would it be policed? b. How much would you charge for the certification? c. How many people would bother with the hassle of certification? How much extra would you charge those people to go on the 'private runs'? |
Actually that's not bad idea and technically it could be done. And it would fit into same category as "people with skiing teachers can jump queues", which is actually happening and quite lot of people (even on this forum) are fine with it. Just that in case of "private runs" you would be actually paying for this benefit, while with paying ski teacher, you don't pay for jumping queue, and on the end you still pay exactly same lift pass as everyone else without privilege of jumping queue.
But thing is, no resort is going to do this, as they all earn more filling courses with endless amount of people, as every extra sold ski pass brings additional 40eur/day. Limiting this, just brings their profit down, even if tickets would be more expensive. I have been talking already with few people in position to actually do something about this (not as serious suggestion, but as chatting when having beer), about possibilities to limit number of skiers, as lately problems are not lift queues as they were 20 years ago, but filled courses. And every single one knew about this problem, but they are not going to do anything, as I wrote before, every extra ticket they sell means another 40eur or so a day more profit. So realistically I don't think "advanced courses" are option, at least not anywhere in near future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| sev112 wrote: |
Bob, that post appeared after I wrote mine, so messages obviously crossed there.
I would note in Avalanche Poodle's example, that if that was an involuntary 90deg at speed turn and was then hit by the uphill skier, then it is the uphill skiers' fault(s) because the FIS rules say that you should ensure you don't hit a downhill skier making an involuntary movement.
In which case because the uphill skiers are /should be prepared for an involuntary movement, they should also be ready for the exact same voluntary movement by the downhill skier.
And I think this is the crux. Perhaps uphill skiers believe that downhill skiers should ski in a certain way and to a certain rhythm. Personally I think that's a bit optimistic and therefore one should keep the biggest gap as possible when passing, and if that also needs a scrubbing of speed then so be it, particularly on flat tracks where many skiers try to keep their speed up, yet is probably one of the places where collisions are more likely given the limited width plus the wide variations of speed. |
Well said. Flat tracks also create problems because those maintaining their speed are often not as able as they think they are, i.e. not able to stop/change direction when it is narrow. bThen blame "slower" skiers who make a mistake or do something unpredictable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
primoz, I can't believe there really is much demand for 'private runs'. I'm not going to ski it, because my family may not be up to it. Nor am I going to spend the time and money to be tested by a an examiner. And to what benefit? If it just means that better skiers can go faster then I doubt it's going to reduce accident rates that much. All you have done is squeeze the same number of less experienced skiers down fewer runs and given others the green light to ski faster.
If you are suggesting that the problem is the mixture of good/bad skiers on the same runs then let's ban the good skiers from some runs
If, and it is a big 'IF', we think there is a large enough problem with collisions that we need to take further action then 'private pistes' is not the answer. Fewer people on the pistes will enhance the enjoyment of all and the best solution for this may be to spread visitors more evenly throughout the season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well in reality you are "banning" better skiers with making easy runs, but this just works one way, as there's no "banning" worse skiers with creating more difficult runs. I don't get it, but obviously there's something in "whoa I made it down Streif, sure I broke my leg several times, lost conscious, but I was butt sliding down whole Streif" 
Personally I don't have problems with collisions. And if there would be "private runs", I would most likely use them, but not to get rid of slower/worse skiers, but to have less crowded course. I don't have any problems with bad/worse skiers, but I do have problems with too many people on course (even if they are all World cup racers), and that's main reason why I never go alpine skiing on February weekends
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
zikomo, yep. I find that if I am passing on the side of a piste that I'm trying to be aware of what I do if person on front does anything at all to pass in my path - always have an escape route!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| zikomo wrote: |
On an unrelated note, skiing close to and fast past beginner skiers is also reprehensible. What sort of courtesy is that? Do you drive aggressively when you see an L plate on another car?
|
Your kids clearly haven't reached the L plate stage yet - I was appalled when taking my learner kids out, how often drivers would aggressively cut into a ridiculous space just to get in front of them. Really shocking, believe me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| genepi wrote: |
| zikomo wrote: |
On an unrelated note, skiing close to and fast past beginner skiers is also reprehensible. What sort of courtesy is that? Do you drive aggressively when you see an L plate on another car?
|
Your kids clearly haven't reached the L plate stage yet - I was appalled when taking my learner kids out, how often drivers would aggressively cut into a ridiculous space just to get in front of them. Really shocking, believe me! |
I guess it is the same mentality we are hearing about here. i.e. some "right" to go as fast and aggressively as you like and it is discourtesy of anyone else not to make way for you - regardless of learner status or age. Sad really, I feel sorry for those who think like that but not as sorry as they will feel if I ever have cause to sue their ass!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
<tangent>
| zikomo wrote: |
| not as sorry as they will feel if I ever have cause to sue their ass! |
I'm hoping you are american, not a sign of the ever growing litigiousness in the UK. But I'm wrong aren't I?
If someone hits another skier and causes a serious injury, I'd be hoping their concern for a fellow man would cause more pain and future caution than the fiscal hit of you "suing their ass" which their insurance of some kind or another will probably cover.
Being sued shouldn't be retribution, it should be about just compensation...
</end>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a.j., +1
I certainly hope zikomo is American, otherwise he really should know how to spell 'back bottom'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I posted on this thread late last night and obviously there has been a great deal of comment from my fellow Snowheads since. My complaint was of the speed that some (not all) skiers carry on village level runs at the end of the day when everyone's muscles are tired and reaction times perhaps a little slower. However, I find it difficult to be critical of the sort of collision caused by Boris, or jedster, because in my humble opinion they are just accidents; and no amount of self discipline is going to eliminate them.
I appreciate that I may be setting myself up for a fall here because I'm making assumptions about others' comments, but I was a little dismayed at the exchange between eddiethebus, and zikomo. If my interpretation of (most) of eddiethebus comments are correct then I think he has a point. Perhaps because he is a lawyer zikomo has intensely championed the cause of liability to the exclusion of everything else. In another poster's example of a skier (A) re-joining a piste from the side without looking uphill, and being hit by an uphill skier (B), clearly skier B is at fault, but I'm sorry, for skier A, being right isn't enough. Being downhill does not give you the right to abdicate all responsibility simply because you'll be able to
We partake in a sport which, when things go wrong, can be dangerous: I understand zikomo fear for the safety of his children, but surely it would be better if we could look at all ways to reduce danger levels, and challenge our own thinking about what is and isn't courtesy to all? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
mozwold, When it comes down to it too many recreational skiers have not really thought about the possible consequences of their actions. And going fast is fun, and people beginning to push themselves will do it. So how to educate without switching people off? Maybe a drip feed method, a few warning posters at the side of a large on piste map, showing the impact trauma of an adult on a child. Little quick reinforcements on beer mats giving accident figures for the previous year along with some more stimulating ski facts. Small things. I think it's going to take a combined effort by a great many agencies to make people more aware. I doubt purely punitive measures will work unless they are extremely common and consistently applied. But I would like to see more home runs with speed limits, it can be a good chance for the 'better skiers' to practice drills too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| zikomo wrote: |
This is not the same thing as colliding with someone who is downhill of you and already on the piste, there is never an excuse for that, and I think this is a very useful clarification. Thanks! |
Here's an excuse Colin Clueless and the entire Clueless clan are stopped on the piste having a conflab. Without an uphill glance Colin shouts "Tally ho!" and sets off and his brood mindlessly follow. Just as you're passing them.
I see this about a dozen times a day. FIS code is virtually worthless as people on holiday don't use their brains for basic self preservation or common sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| zikomo wrote: |
On an unrelated note, skiing close to and fast past beginner skiers is also reprehensible. What sort of courtesy is that? Do you drive aggressively when you see an L plate on another car?
. |
It's called a snowdome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
There is another solution here which we've offerred multiple times before - STOP THE BRUTAL GROOMING!. I've noted that in certain US resorts not every Blue and certainly not every Black (remember no Reds so some Blacks are pretty tame) are not groomed every day. Sure they get bumped up but that just makes them better for some real skiing for the Blue Run Heroes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| There is another solution here which we've offerred multiple times before - STOP THE BRUTAL GROOMING!. I've noted that in certain US resorts not every Blue and certainly not every Black (remember no Reds so some Blacks are pretty tame) are not groomed every day. Sure they get bumped up but that just makes them better for some real skiing for the Blue Run Heroes. |
One fundamental problem with this:
Whether you or I like it or not, most people prefer groomed runs so doing this will just increase the population on the groomed runs and hence make them even more dangerous
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
dsoutar, ah, rasy, solution, stopg any grooming, anywhere.
And do more glading.
Oh and limit ski length for over 16s to > 190cms. Would have a helpful effect on skier fitness as well. 
(I am quite serious).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
fatbob, Colin Clueless setting off unannounced May be an explanation but it isn't an excuse. As you say, you have seen it often so you know to expect that sort of thing. You should be passing them at a speed and distance that allows you an opportunity to avoid them. The balance of blame may be shifting somewhat, but you would still be in the wrong, even if they are too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| a.j. wrote: |
<tangent>
| zikomo wrote: |
| not as sorry as they will feel if I ever have cause to sue their ass! |
I'm hoping you are american, not a sign of the ever growing litigiousness in the UK. But I'm wrong aren't I?
If someone hits another skier and causes a serious injury, I'd be hoping their concern for a fellow man would cause more pain and future caution than the fiscal hit of you "suing their ass" which their insurance of some kind or another will probably cover.
Being sued shouldn't be retribution, it should be about just compensation...
</end> |
I am not American, the comment was (somewhat) tongue in cheek which should have been picked up by the spelling of "back bottom". That being said, I will hound to the gates of hell anyone who injures my kids by ploughing into them from uphill for no other reason than believing they have some "right" to expect the skier downhill to get out of the way/not do anything unpredictable. It is also the case that particularly Switzerland law takes a robust view and compensation is pursued and generally very generous, and in almost all cases being the uphill skier will be sufficient to appropriate blame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps it's time for a little perspective?
Rate of medical intervention required accident is about 2.5 in 1,000 skier days. "Due to collision" is about 12.5%... => Rate of collision induced intervention is just over 3 in 10,000 days.
(NB stats from Medecins des Montagnes, 10 year eyeball average, risk slightly elevated for beginners in first few days skiing).
Now, although it doesn't quite work this way, but I ski quite a bit and would guesstimate I've skied about 1,200 days in a bit more than 40 years... and never had to seek medical assistance for a collision. Been inside the Centre Medicale for various other reasons however... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
I see this about a dozen times a day. FIS code is virtually worthless as people on holiday don't use their brains for basic self preservation or common sense.
|
Indeed. No one takes it very seriously outside of internet forums or, indeed, knows that much about it. It is also very poorly drafted - it is easy to think of situations where a downhill skier can ski dangerously and precipitate an accident or where the drafting of the code is unclear. For instance where skiers may overtake and then brake suddenly or crash, carve back up the hill or veer into the line of the uphill skier while marginally down the slope. In all of these instances the safer skier is the one technically at fault.
The point is that a code of conduct is intended to guide behaviour rather than to establish the burden of liability in the case of an accident. The FIS code would be a poor implement for the latter owing to being a weakly drafted p.o.s. unsuited to the resolution of anything other than the most obvious cases. It makes for interminable internet arguments for exactly those reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last word - stop looking for an "out" for accidents where an skier from uphill collides with a skier downhill of them. I have applied perspective and admit there are extreme cases where the uphill skier would not be at fault. Here is a sobering perspective. A quick survey of several full time professional guides/instructors that I know showed none had ever collided with a skier downhill of them. I know this is self selecting (and it is possible people would not want to admit to it) but the truth is:
1. You are skiing too fast for your abilities if you cannot stop/avoid someone downhill of you.
2. When skiing you are supposed to anticipate what could happen, if someone is stationary on the piste you should ski in a way that you would not collide with them if they started off unexpectedly.
3. I do not at all understand why so much passion would be built up defending the position that those who want to ski/board fast have a right to expect those below them on the hill to ski in a way that allows them to do so.
All I can conclude from all this is some people know full well they are going a bit too fast/close to the edge for their ability, it is the only explanation for the defensive responses. I think there is a lot of overestimation of ability (particularly on piste) based on ability to get down a slope fast without falling over. There is more to it than that and having near misses with skiers downhill of you should give you an indication that skills are perhaps not as great as perceived.
Ends
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
can we have a look at your survey?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
A quick survey of several full time professional guides/instructors that I know showed none had ever collided with a skier downhill of them
|
I've never collided with someone downhill of me either, and I suspect that's true of absolutely loads of other very ordinary skiers. My collision last year happened in an awkward spot where there are two lifts at the bottom of a bowl, and people crossing in different directions to get to them - at the moment of collision I was actually travelling uphill and the man I collided with was travelling downhill (though the area is almost flat) and he said afterwards that he had taken sudden evasive action to avoid one person, then collided head on with me. He was very concerned, stuck around, nice guy. I felt at the time that I had definitely contributed because I had chosen to "carry my way" up to the lift rather than slow down earlier then have to walk up - I felt I should have been able to accommodate his sudden change of trajectory (and would have been easier to avoid if I'd been moving slower). As it was we both turned to avoid each other, but in the same direction. If one of us had been seriously injured and there'd been some kind of enquiry I think it would have been very difficult to attribute blame. I just felt at the time that it was "just one of those things".
Given that my previous injury was a twisted knee in the Cairngorms in about 1985 I don't see that there's an enormous safety concern. Mountain biking seems hugely more hazardous, to name but one sport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pam w wrote: |
| Quote: |
A quick survey of several full time professional guides/instructors that I know showed none had ever collided with a skier downhill of them
|
I was actually travelling uphill and the man I collided with was travelling downhill (though the area is almost flat) and he said afterwards that he had taken sudden evasive action to avoid one person, then collided head on with me. He was very concerned, stuck around, nice guy. I felt at the time that I had definitely contributed because I had chosen to "carry my way" up to the lift rather than slow down earlier then have to walk up - I felt I should have been able to accommodate his sudden change of trajectory (and would have been easier to avoid if I'd been moving slower). . |
it always amazes me that there arent more collisons on the run down to the riders cafe at the mid station at grand montets. To position a learners area on the same piste where everyone else is basically going as fast as possible to avoid walking up the hill is (IMO) madness
touch wood i've never seen a collision there, but i'm fairly sure there must have a been some bad ones 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
For some sub-disciplines of MTBing, especially competitive downhill, that may be the case. But for the average punter, the stats are probably so low that they are rounding errors. Is 10 people in 10000 vs 5 people in 10000 twice the rate or 5 more in the course of a year?
100% of my collisions and very close brushes have been ESF instructors from behind, my brothers from behind and snowboarders from behind, and all on green slopes and cat tracks. Not sure what to make of that, other than the fact that ESF instructors can't be trusted, and green cat tracks are a dangerous place  I've conveniently excluded the pillock who decided to walk right across the offload ramp of a chair lift, whose skis I skied right over, since that's in the same class as escalator numpties who step off and don't take a pace or two forwards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| eddiethebus wrote: |
| can we have a look at your survey? |
Are you serious? Phoned 5 chums, none had skied I to the back of anyone. Would have thought referring to a quick survey of those I know might have given an indication it was informal, as would my reference to self selection and people being unwilling to admit. Seems not.
As an aside none were ESF!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
I don't think that folks are looking for an out - simply saying that life is never as simple or black & white as being portrayed...
|
Indeed. The burden of responsibility is very heavy on the uphill skier to avoid accidents. That said, the smashes I've seen have fallen broadly into two categories - fast and unsafe uphill skier cleaning out someone downhill. And then the second category where more than one person has made a mistake and people have collided as a result. Downhill vs uphill is usually a much less useful principle than "ski slower and don't run into people ahead of you" in those cases.
Full disclosure - I skied over the back of someone's skis in the late 1990s. I've been hit about four times since. Strictly speaking in the last four cases it was the fault of someone else - but I could have done more in each case to avoid getting clattered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Accidents happen in skiing, including collisions (which thankfully are not serious that often).
Stupid, dangerous skiing shouldn't happen.
I'm fairly accepting of accidents, although it seems prudent to take sensible precautions to avoid being in one. I'm completely intolerant of stupid, dangerous skiing and it is this which should be clamped down on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
A common collision I see is where someone tries stopping from speed above the group they are skiing with and gets it all wrong (or deliberately does the big spray job and gets that wrong). So, that's easy to eliminate - always make sure you're below your fellow buffers.
As for who's fault, let's sue someone - depends where you are. I think in certain states in the US, just by being on the mountain you are accepting that you're the one putting yourself in harm's way so tough titty.
And kids, I'll say it again, why take them to mega busy mega resorts where they are far more likely to be skittled? Pick somewhere quiet, smaller and family friendly - they'll have a better time. If they get hit and they get hurt, talk of suing the hitter is all a bit too late.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
A common collision I see is where someone tries stopping from speed above the group they are skiing with and gets it all wrong (or deliberately does the big spray job and gets that wrong).
|
Yep, that was me  Luckily, the only person who ended up on their bum was me, but I did learn to always stop below people after that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I too would be reasonably tolerant of "accidents" if it weren't for the fact that my daughter has been hit circa 4 or 5 times in the last 2 or 3 seasons during instructed lessons ! And presumably I'm getting a bit annoyed by it. Also that in each of those cases I wasn't told about it by the instructor. So I'm obviously a bit biased, but I am beginning to get a bit of intolerance to the general acceptance that collisions are just one of those things that happens, and hence poor behaviour doesn't get challenged (I'm not looking for revenge or punishment, more that in the instance when a so-called accident happens, the people involved understand why it happened. If that means a fervent discussion at the side of the piste or the site of the accident to the offending party, then assuming no-one is hurt, the offending party at least understands that what they did had something fundamental to do with it.
I agree with whoever above said there are mainly 2 types of accidents - the majority when an uphill skier hits a skier in front of them, and the far fewer where 2 adjacent skiers come together (in one of a variety of locations). And it's the former that I think needs constant reinforcement/ information campaigns, and I think that is easy to do.
I'd like to think that age has something to do with it, that as one gets older the young-risk taking dominance of that side of the brain becomes replaced by the more conservative older brain. But I can't actually back that up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
A common collision I see is where someone tries stopping from speed above the group they are skiing with and gets it all wrong (or deliberately does the big spray job and gets that wrong).
|
This was me trying to hockey stop next to a mate - had a mental block and somehow skied straight into him. Bruised his shoulder so I felt pretty bad about it. Don't recall ever colliding with anyone else on the piste, or even witnessing one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Broke my collarbone last year.
Final run home one day mid season, light gone a bit flat, piste is a rolly blue that I normally skied pretty quick to avoid walking. Soft snow, so parts of it had turned quite bumpy, but with a narrow "path" down the edge. Being a cocky seasonaire I was going "pretty fast" down that path and just getting to the point where I'm debating putting the brakes on for the chap in front who's going much slower when he leaves the piste to the right. Great. But just as I get up to him he swerves back onto the piste right in front of me. I swerve off the smooth path into the bumps, got flipped, landed on my shoulder and got dragged off the mountain in a sledge.
So, was I going too fast? With hindsight - possibly.
Did he look uphill before rejoining the piste? Nope. But in his defense he wasn't stopped, he was skiing all the time, but his chosen path straddled the piste boundary.
Both of us made mistakes, but I paid for it, I'm not even sure he ever saw me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
I've been crashed into from behind three times. Once whilst skiing as a family group, Once with an instructor, and once whilst standing still at the side of the piste. Every time by a boarder! The closest I got to being involved in a crash was at a point where a path crossed the path I was on small child enters from the right I see her, she doesn't seem to see me, every place I want to go to get away she seems to go to. I end up on my backside having caught hold of her lifted her in the air and sat her back down on her skis. Parents waved and smiled and we all skied off. Heaven knows whose fault it was, but no one got hurt except my damaged pride.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| fatbob, Colin Clueless setting off unannounced May be an explanation but it isn't an excuse. As you say, you have seen it often so you know to expect that sort of thing. You should be passing them at a speed and distance that allows you an opportunity to avoid them. The balance of blame may be shifting somewhat, but you would still be in the wrong, even if they are too. |
Ahem - FIS rule 5. The US version goes further and states that the setting off skier must look for uphill skiers and "yield" to them. So our lawyer friend, if there, may be sore out of luck when his kid gets creamed by a descending skier if he hasn't observed
But as gorilla says the whole thing is poorly drafted and not intended to be legal. Be aware of others and take every action to avoid them regardless of relative position on the hill would be sensible practical advice. Don't be a douche would be a further useful tip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
