 Poster: A snowHead
|
@crosbie,
| Quote: |
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
|
Wrong. Just plain wrong. It isn't "advice". It's in the FIS code just like the responsibility of the uphill skier to wield way to the downhill skier. Just like on the road: yes, you should keep you distance and if you rear end someone it's usually your fault. But let's say you're driving at 60 mph and 20 meters ahead of you a car joins from stationary on the shoulder without looking or signaling. You will hit him and please explain how you're at fault
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@sugardaddy, on the road, you're not at fault. There are some similarities between skiing and driving but the analogy breaks down very quickly.
On piste it is a bit like driving with no lane control where other piste users are either drunk or learners and that is perfectly ok - it is the nature of skiing.
The responsibility for safety rests on each of us which means the more people there are, the less you are able to ski just how you want, and the more you have to look out for the unpredictable. This is reflected in the FIS code.
I have been passed close by at speed in icy and variable conditions where I can't honestly predict where I might be in the next split second (though I might be able to recover/adjust). How can anyone else know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
The FIS code is not a menu. You can’t just pick out the bits that suit you. You have to follow the code as a whole. Having said that, if everyone followed rule 1 and treated everyone else with proper respect there would be no need for the other rules.
When there is an accident it is not always just one person’s fault. Both parties may be partially to blame. In any case there is no need for violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| DB wrote: |
| 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. |
then you have to go back to the original skier to his left. He was locked into a situation of nowhere to go.
You can see he attempted to slow down, yet you still repeatedly say he should have slowed down. All very well he could have done X, Y, Z, which is easy to do when watching it replayed multiple times. It all happened in 4-5 seconds. All the chap can do is to react to the first danger, the skier on his left, then the 2nd danger, the boarder standing in the middle before getting to the 3rd issue the skier standing in the middle. From the initial issue of skier to the left to the 3rd skier (the dad) he is mostly on his heel edge & then back to nose in an attempt to avoid the 3rd skier instead of taking him out. Unfortunate for him, some dumb kid stepped out in front of him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@Rabbie, +1 even if you are feeling extremely angry and feeling very wronged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Mr.Egg, I've not seen the video but from your description is it fair to conclude that the events indicate that at least one person is moving too fast for the conditions and didn't check their speed early enough?
People "appear from nowhere" because situations change in a split second, and the higher the speed, the shorter that second.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Rabbie, +1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Mr.Egg,
He should have been able to avoid the first learner skier who was traveling at a slow speed. Either his speed or lack of skill (or both) prevented him from doing that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
still beating the dead horse? That farther and kid were less concerned than you are. Get over it, everybody, involved in the situation, got a lesson, nobody was seriously injured, skiing sucks, case closed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@crosbie, one of my favourites 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only just seen this for the first time. My main impression is of someone travelling at a totally inappropriate speed for the situation. It's a narrow , busy piste. He only just misses the first skier, passing far to close, dangerous overtake to start off with. Some sort of a collision is inevitable. To me there's a big difference between the split second moment of misjudgement ( let's face it we've all done it) of the man and child, and a sustained and deliberate act of dangerous skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
For all the "sustained and deliberate" assertions just remember this was an overconfident teen and there are tens of thousands of them (and indeed older adults) out on the ski slopes. The more you exercise your freedom to do what you damn well please because you are the ahead skier the more you are likely to fall foul of an error or misjudgement by one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, Especially when they refuse to learn, and feel entitled to repeat the mistake, over and over? From the interview, that kid learnt nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
The kid had been assaulted then pursued/pushed in front of a local news crew. We might be adults who wanted to make sure we were on top of the finer points in such a situation but I think we can all recognise that as kids we did stupid things and didn't always recognise our own culpability.
But it's also a reality - the average "casual" US slope user probably believes in "lanes" and being "cut up". I bet the average Euro does too. "I was just skiing along and suddenly they swerved in front of me". We had at least one person post a thread unsolicited with video evidence last year hoping erroneously to have us all agree that he was right. Certainly a heel skidding blue run zoomer probably believes it. They are good enough to balance upright and confident enough to get up some speed - what can possibly go wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| For all the "sustained and deliberate" assertions just remember this was an overconfident teen and there are tens of thousands of them (and indeed older adults) out on the ski slopes. The more you exercise your freedom to do what you damn well please because you are the ahead skier the more you are likely to fall foul of an error or misjudgement by one of them. |
I don't disagree. In 25 years I've never run into anyone whilst overtaking, but increasingly now feel the need to ski defensively. Even then, I've been right over to one side of a 40 metre wide piste, to give the idiots some space, and still had someone muscle through the 2 foot gap between me and the edge of the piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Be considerate just about covers it I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| For all the "sustained and deliberate" assertions just remember this was an overconfident teen and there are tens of thousands of them (and indeed older adults) out on the ski slopes. The more you exercise your freedom to do what you damn well please because you are the ahead skier the more you are likely to fall foul of an error or misjudgement by one of them. |
But but but...FIS rule says uphill skier 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
The kid had been assaulted then pursued/pushed in front of a local news crew. We might be adults who wanted to make sure we were on top of the finer points in such a situation but I think we can all recognise that as kids we did stupid things and didn't always recognise our own culpability.
But it's also a reality - the average "casual" US slope user probably believes in "lanes" and being "cut up". I bet the average Euro does too. "I was just skiing along and suddenly they swerved in front of me". We had at least one person post a thread unsolicited with video evidence last year hoping erroneously to have us all agree that he was right. Certainly a heel skidding blue run zoomer probably believes it. They are good enough to balance upright and confident enough to get up some speed - what can possibly go wrong? |
Absolutely, but when i did something stupid i got a clip round the lug for my troubles (metaphorically, at least some of the time anyway), learnt and moved on. I think the lane thing in europe is very much more a young thing, IME the older skiers and boarders are more aware of the rules. And the younger folk making these mistakes are never going to learn if no one tells them, or worse, if older more experienced folk leap to their defence when they make a catastrophic error of judgement. The little kid didn't look, your right, but he was barely moving and hadn't cleared the tails of his fathers skies. Does that make him responsible for the accident, strictly speaking, a tiny tiny bit. As for claims his Dad should have made him look or looked for him, there isn't nearly enough information available to judge that. Hands up all super parents that are in complete control at all times of their kids actions. Also, we have no idea why they were stopped where they were. The little kid probably learnt to look before moving an inch, but what a way to learn. The boarder has demonstrated he learnt zip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But if you are going to teach people you need to teach them everything. Always be alert to traffic and situations ahead of you but also be sufficiently aware that you don't put yourself in harm's way for want of simple checks/ understanding what is a safe stopping place v. risky etc etc. The best people to be doing it are instructors, coaches, parents, patrol/pisteurs not third parties because that leads to conflict reflexes. But unfortunately patrol/pisteurs aren't doing it because it isn't their job in the main (safety "cops" in N America being a possible weak exception) and, with no disrespect to the instructors here who are very dilligent, many instructed groups don't either.
I think I've concluded it's a bit like helmet threads there is no resolution. So avoidable accidents will continue to happen. Fingers crossed we all do enough (whether obliged to by the rules or not) to stay out of them ourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| crosbie wrote: |
| 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. |
Sorry, but no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, Yeah, can't argue with that. I do wish there was better patrolling sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps all beginners should be given a lecture about the rights and wrongs before their first lesson I know lots will go on to ignore it but it might help.
There is another going on about a really young lad skiing on powder filmed by his dad, it appears both rejoin the piste without looking certainly the head cam does not look up hill,
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| crosbie wrote: |
| 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... |
I don’t know where to start with this... but I’ll go with “ I’ve heard some weird views expressed about the responsibilities of cyclists, but this is up there with the most bigoted”. That’s assuming you mean the pedestrian hasn’t looked IN FRONT OF THEM rather than “behind” them. If you actually mean “behind” then I’m totally baffled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@Captain Primrose, I took it to mean that a pedestrian walking in the direction of traffic might step off the kerb having relied on sound alone to assure them nothing was coming. As any cyclist can attest that is clearly a risky asumption and with EVs becoming more common potentially even riskier. It is of course bollux that the cyclist would always be totally responsible in such circumstances notwithstanding the "cycling furiously" manslaughter case*.
*I still think, notwithstanding that the guy was clearly a dick that the case would have got nowhere near a manslaughter charge or even court had the woman been killed by a motor vehicle doing under 20mph.
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Wed 19-02-20 17:58; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| robs1 wrote: |
Perhaps all beginners should be given a lecture about the rights and wrongs before their first lesson I know lots will go on to ignore it but it might help.
There is another going on about a really young lad skiing on powder filmed by his dad, it appears both rejoin the piste without looking certainly the head cam does not look up hill, |
Not just the first lesson, but any lesson TBH. Very hard for beginners to remember everything as there is a lot for them to take in during their first couple of lessons. I'm always mentioning it in my lessons, regardless as to the level, after all, learning to ski isn't just about using your skis, it's understanding and adapting to the terrain/snow conditions/other slope users/weather etc. on top.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, I always assume other road users will do something stupid (whether on my bike or in my car) unfortunately you won’t always be able to avoid them, or it’s an impossible choice, swerve to avoid a kamikaze pedestrian into the path of an oncoming car. Luckily it hasn’t happened to me other than on a shared use cycle path when I have been baulked by a pedestrian and narrowly avoided ending up on the bonnet of an oncoming car. I will use the road in future...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
So, had the little kid “stumbled” forward instead, does that then make the boarder 100% responsible?
He wouldn’t be starting off, so not apparently braking the “looking” rule, but the boarder would still be in exactly the same position and caused the same accident.
And FIS rules don’t mention “uphill” - they refer to overtaking skier,
Just being facetious in a boring TV night 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@sev112, Very good point. Uphill is incorrect. Imagine a dip where you get up speed to climb over a rise. On that uphill part, it is the skier downhill who must give way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Back to the OP Quite a big fight here this afternoon by the Toura lift. Normally see 1 or 2 during holiday weeks. It's the lift for the park so plenty of undesirables using it. No idea what it was about but one, the smaller, was getting quite a beating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
