 Poster: A snowHead
|
| jedster wrote: |
The same logic would call for people hooting their horns when coming up behind you in traffic. Just makes no sense. |
Please tell that to the c. 5% of drivers in Cardiff who seem to think that hooting is the appropriate thing to do if driving behind a cyclist. Often followed by a borderline-dangerous overtaking manœuvre that results in their spending a bit longer idling in a queue at a set of traffic lights while I ride past. If I'm unlucky the entire process gets repeated at the next sets of lights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Scooter in Seattle wrote: |
| Clicking poles and following the rules are not mutually exclusive |
Interesting in that it seems there is a bit of an East (europe) / West (states) divide on the 'clicking subject' . . .I'm clearly on the side of the good 'ol US of A in this instance and have no issue with perceiving or delivering clicking in a positive light and not a negative one. Maybe its down to demographic (I'm Gen X) and experience having skied in the states and enjoyed its safety aspect and general etiquette / sue culture fear more than Europe . . .I also remember my formative years in Austria where ski clicking was de rigeur by instructors in ski school - not only as a means of communication to us as horrible ski brat kids but also to others as we skied in a group . . . .
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Thu 18-01-24 13:26; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 tapping thing is rather self defeating though - making noises behind people, particularly people who may not be particularly confident, has a tendency to make them look or try to look where its coming from, and that typically will weight an edge and send them in that direction... towards you.
You see it snowboarding if you have to put in a speed check on a firm cat-track; you edge the board and it makes that oh-so-lovely ripper noise and it's like a moth to a flame, so you just have to be aware. As usual, the long and the short of it comes down to 'don't be a dick', which is pretty much a good mantra to live life by in my book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Yes, I'm comfortable with pole-clicking as a courtesy...but not if the clicker in someway thinks it turns their responsibility to avoid me, into my responsibility to avoid them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| NickYoung wrote: |
| Yes, I'm comfortable with pole-clicking as a courtesy...but not if the clicker in someway thinks it turns their responsibility to avoid me, into my responsibility to avoid them. |
Just out of interest, how do you determine which of those two options is at play if you hear that noise behind you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| NickYoung wrote: |
| Pyramus wrote: |
| JayRo wrote: |
| Ok, I’ll bite. In the second one, what exactly do you expect the student to do with the knowledge that there is someone coming from above? If you’re traversing slowly across a slope, it’s not as if you can change direction quickly, & stopping won’t help. This is a perfect illustration of why the responsibility is solely with the uphill skier, & that you’re either a troll or completely clueless (or both, or worse). |
It was an interesting response from the instructor, that is to blame uphill guy entirely and to try and convince him he is entirely in the wrong and to explain him "the rules".
The alternative response would be to do that (as obviously uphill guy was being a bit of a prat and did need schooling), but also to use it as a learning experience for his student that crossing perpendicular across a narrow busy piste without having any care of what is coming at you from above is, at the very least, rather risky and asking for trouble, as he just found out.
And maybe a quick glance up and adjusting speed (or stopping) and/or adjusting line would have avoided the near miss entirely. If student isn't capable of basic control that would have allowed him to do that, then I question why the instructor even took him on that piste in the first place. |
Victim-blaming.
Only one person is at fault.
There is no grey area. |
100% This.
As soon as there is any kind of potential for a mitigating excuse for the uphill skier causing an avoidable accident, the carnage levels will undoubtedly go up. The rules are clear and there to be observed.
Regarding pole clicking, I’ve changed my view. I was of the mind that clicking poles was a good way to make people aware of your presence however, as has been pointed out, what one expects the (possibly nervous) recipient to do with the information is by no means clear and could lead to an avoidable incident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cacciatore wrote: |
| .. The rules are clear and there to be observed. ... . |
I think that's an over simplification, and it may be what's causing the issues here. Well that and the internet.
There are many rules, and there are many cases where they contradict each other, although the basic principles as expressed in Rule 1 are very clear.
For example most people don't appear to be aware that the FIS rules require downhill skiers/ borders to take steps to avoid uphill people in some circumstances (page 4 paragraph 2). I think many people get obsessed with one specific rule and ignore everything else, which is against the spirit and letter of those rules.
--
Whilst we're here, does anyone know how the FIS rules are promulgated? I think the FIS is the ultimate source, but some Americans I'm talking with think the NSAA doesn't inherit from the FIS. I'll ask the organizations if I have to, but if someone here already knows the structure of this, you can save me some time. None of this is "law", but I think it would be relevant legally, the issue is just... which version of these "rules" rules them all?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NickYoung wrote: |
Victim-blaming.
|
If you go out with a £75k watch on your wrist in a nasty part of town and it's nicked and somebody warned you in advance you would be foolish to do so, is it victim-blaming or is it because they wanted to protect you? Don't ski right up to the edges of a fast and busy piste as you might well be in the right but get flattened anyway.
The 'completing the overtaking manoeuvre' point is not in some people's mindsets. I recall skiing down a cat track and being overtaken by somebody else in my group. He wasn't going much quicker than I was, and having mostly passed the tips of my skis decided to ski right up to the edge of the track in front of me. We collapsed in a heap and he proceeded to swear at me for not giving priority to the downhill skier. I have been rather more careful to slow a little to let people pass me in similar circumstances.
Being careful and considerate, even (indeed, particularly) towards idiots, doesn't cost anything and it might save you from being hurt. Same applies on the roads; the more idiotic the driver, the more considerate towards them I am. It also keeps my blood pressure down, particularly if I remember to say 'thank you' to them rather than something less polite!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Guy carving turns down the left hand side of the piste suddenly turns directly across the piste in front of me as I am turning right.
Decent skier moving at speed, I was keeping pace with him.
I was 5~6m to his right and nearly level with him.
I ended up going across his tails as I checked.
If I was not already turning right, the guy would have run into me from the side.
Solaise last week.
Moral, just ski like a dick and blame everyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
Watch:
https://1drv.ms/v/s!AuA8LbZSsBUjg-c3RC7EuQ4Zxa_E3A?e=sM8moE
Whose fault?
Isn't this proof that "anyone below the skier has priority" is a bad rule? The front guy had no situational awareness and pulls a hard left and cuts up the back guy who was in the process of making a safe pass.
In my view the front guy is to blame.  |
No. It's proof the person behind was not paying attention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| NickYoung wrote: |
| Yes, I'm comfortable with pole-clicking as a courtesy...but not if the clicker in someway thinks it turns their responsibility to avoid me, into my responsibility to avoid them. |
Just out of interest, how do you determine which of those two options is at play if you hear that noise behind you? |
I like to see the best in people, so I'd assume it's the former...it's their problem if they think I'm somehow gonna disappear off the piste if it's the latter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| NickYoung wrote: |
Victim-blaming.
|
Don't ski right up to the edges of a fast and busy piste as you might well be in the right but get flattened anyway.
|
I'm skiing in Bormio the first week of Feb, with 30 school-aged learners - I'd be grateful if you ensure that you aren't!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| NickYoung wrote: |
| James the Last wrote: |
| NickYoung wrote: |
Victim-blaming.
|
Don't ski right up to the edges of a fast and busy piste as you might well be in the right but get flattened anyway.
|
I'm skiing in Bormio the first week of Feb, with 30 school-aged learners - I'd be grateful if you ensure that you aren't! |
Any particular reason why? I'm not sure why my avoiding turning right at the edge of the pistes is going to bring you into danger. If anything, it's going to give your learners less chance of hitting me when they're out of control.
Frankly, *I*'d rather ski in places where *you're* not, and I'm delighted to confirm I won't be in Bormio. Are you actually going to tell your children that it's better to be in the right and injured than to accept that there are idiots on the slopes so sometimes it's better to allow the idiots to be wrong but to be safe yourself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| NickYoung wrote: |
| James the Last wrote: |
| NickYoung wrote: |
Victim-blaming.
|
Don't ski right up to the edges of a fast and busy piste as you might well be in the right but get flattened anyway.
|
I'm skiing in Bormio the first week of Feb, with 30 school-aged learners - I'd be grateful if you ensure that you aren't! |
Any particular reason why? I'm not sure why my avoiding turning right at the edge of the pistes is going to bring you into danger. If anything, it's going to give your learners less chance of hitting me when they're out of control.
Frankly, *I*'d rather ski in places where *you're* not, and I'm delighted to confirm I won't be in Bormio. Are you actually going to tell your children that it's better to be in the right and injured than to accept that there are idiots on the slopes so sometimes it's better to allow the idiots to be wrong but to be safe yourself? |
Because if I have to tell learners that, even if they ski safely that they have to accept the pain is someone who doesn't wipes them out, then we shouldn't be skiing anyway.
I know there are idiots who don't want to take responsibility for their actions - there's quite a bit of evidence of that on here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Points 5 and 6 of the code place some responsibility on the downhill skier, but neither of them are what you are looking for. Nothing in the code provides the defence for the uphill skier that you are looking for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
The comments in your link state:
| Quote: |
| Skiing and Snowboarding like all sports entail risks. The FIS Rules must be considered an ideal pattern of conduct for a responsible and careful skier or snowboarder and their purpose is to avoid accidents on the slope. The FIS Rules apply to all skiers and snowboarders. The skier or snowboarder is obliged to be familiar with and to respect them. If they fail to do so, their behaviour could expose them to civil and criminal liability in the event of an accident. |
And for rule 4:
| Quote: |
| Rule 4 A skier or snowboarder who overtakes another is wholly responsible for completing that manoeuvre in such a way to cause no difficulty to the skier or snowboarder being overtaken. This responsibility rests with them until the overtaking manoeuvre has been completed. This rule applies even when overtaking a stationary skier or snowboarder. |
I see no interpretation of the rules which puts the onus on the skier in front in either of your examples!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| tarrantd wrote: |
| I see no interpretation of the rules which puts the onus on the skier in front in either of your examples! |
Well not true, there is this for example:
A skier or snowboarder entering a marked run, starting again after stopping or moving upwards on the slopes must look up and down the slopes that they can do so without endangering themselves or others.
The development of carving skis and snowboards allows their users to carve and turn upwards on the slopes. Hence they move opposite to the general downhill traffic. They must, therefore, make sure in time that they can do so without endangering themselves and others.
This puts onus on downhill skier.
The difference between "moving upwards" vs crossing a piste at 90 degrees is basically 1 degree. FIS are suggesting you do look up as you are basically an obstacle on the piste. You are equally an obstacle if deciding to traverse straight across a cat track, who cares whether you are going "up the slope" or not, we are talking marginal differences here.
In the second clip with the ski instructor + student, they are pretty much moving against the general downhill traffic, everyone else is heading downhill normally apart from them causing an obstacle crossing directly across the piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
This is very clear and that “Uphill” = “Guilty” which was tested in the recent judgement for Gwyneth Palthrow. We should not confuse rule 5 where the downhill skiier has a responsibility when starting or entering a piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Ozboy wrote: |
| This is very clear and that “Uphill” = “Guilty” which was tested in the recent judgement for Gwyneth Palthrow. We should not confuse rule 5 where the downhill skiier has a responsibility when starting or entering a piste. |
I doubt very much anyone is actually moving upwards even under extreme carving as the fall line maybe momentum is moving downhill. The upwards language probably is intended for tourers who need to stay out of the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
| ...Got a link? I can't find that specific reference but this will make my day as was not aware of this.. .. |
It's there as referenced. I'm not going to paste it because I want people to read the rules, which from this thread I think is not something most can possibly have done.
| Quote: |
| There is no grey area. |
But there are many scenarios where rules conflict, creating precisely "grey areas". I referenced a simple example above.
The purpose of the FIS document isn't to provide tools to beat people up with, it's to improve safety.
They're identified as "guidelines" multiple times by the FIS themselves.
By all means whine about people warning you that they're behind you, but there's no rule about that. You can try guessing what you think those people may do, and positing that that thing would be against one or more of your favourite rules, and then claim you've been "disrespected", but that's a confection of nonsense.
If a skier behind me taps their poles, using exactly the same rule set - except I actually read it - I would assume they are doing that because in their judgement that's the the best way they can fulfil rule 1. You may disagree with them, but you don't get to beat them up with rules, or claim with any credence that you're being "disrespected", which is a preposterous inference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@phil_w, You do know that any hyperlinks in these posts created when you type the rules take you Snowhead "rules" rather than the FIS rules? So, maybe it would have been a courtesy to post a link to the FIS rules.
| Quote: |
A skier or snowboarder entering a marked run, starting again after stopping or moving upwards on the slopes must look up and down the slopes that they can do so without endangering themselves or others.
The development of carving skis and snowboards allows their users to carve and turn upwards on the slopes. Hence they move opposite to the general downhill traffic. They must, therefore, make sure in time that they can do so without endangering themselves and others.
This puts onus on downhill skier.........
|
But the discussions have all been about an uphill skier coming up behind a downhill skier and not about a downhill skier rejoining a piste. Thus, your quote is not relevant to the OP let alone the subsequent 7 pages.
Just admit it @Pyramus, you've cocked up here as have all the other posters trying to put some responsibility on the downhill 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.
|
I wonder how many follow rule 10 for every incident that they witness? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think in this video everyone is concerning themselves with downhill guy and uphill guy, but failing to think about the possible existence of “further uphill guy” who’s closing on them both at Mach 9
If we’re to accept that downhill guy has some responsibility to keep a check on what uphill guys is doing, then you have to accept that uphill guy has to not only monitor what downhill guy is doing, but also keep craning his neck round to see what “further-uphill-Mach-9-guy” is doing. Is that reasonable? No, it isn’t.
The only workable convention is that those behind keep an eye on and have a responsibility to avoid those in front, otherwise we’ll all have to develop necks like an owl!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I think in this video everyone is concerning themselves with downhill guy and uphill guy, but failing to think about the possible existence of “further uphill guy” who’s closing on them both at Mach 9
If we’re to accept that downhill guy has some responsibility to keep a check on what uphill guys is doing, then you have to accept that uphill guy has to not only monitor what downhill guy is doing, but also keep craning his neck round to see what “further-uphill-Mach-9-guy” is doing. Is that reasonable? No, it isn’t.
The only workable convention is that those behind keep an eye on and have a responsibility to avoid those in front, otherwise we’ll all have to develop necks like an owl!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| halfhand wrote: |
| But the discussions have all been about an uphill skier coming up behind a downhill skier and not about a downhill skier rejoining a piste. |
Read the rule I quoted again. The statement about looking up (i.e. relating to downhill skier) does not relate to rejoining a piste, it is a general statement applying to when skiing up the slope, however marginal "up the slope" might mean. My point is, why differentiate between someone skiing 90 degrees across the slope vs someone skiing 91 degrees (i.e. 1 degree up the slope).
It's a silly rule tbh, they need to rethink it. In both cases, they are equally an obstacle that could endanger themselves or others if it is a sudden unexpected manoeuvre on a narrow busy piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
| halfhand wrote: |
| But the discussions have all been about an uphill skier coming up behind a downhill skier and not about a downhill skier rejoining a piste. |
Read the rule I quoted again. The statement about looking up (i.e. relating to downhill skier) does not relate to rejoining a piste, it is a general statement applying to when skiing up the slope, however marginal "up the slope" might mean. My point is, why differentiate between someone skiing 90 degrees across the slope vs someone skiing 91 degrees (i.e. 1 degree up the slope).
It's a silly rule tbh, they need to rethink it. In both cases, they are equally an obstacle that could endanger themselves or others if it is a sudden unexpected manoeuvre on a narrow busy piste. |
It's nothing to do with the angle you are skiing the slope - it's who is higher or lower on the slope.
Despite all the polite discussion on here - 90% telling you that you and 1 or 2 others are WRONG - you won't have it.
You are, without doubt, a danger on the slope.
You remind me of a Jasper Carrot car insurance skit - "the man in the middle of the road didn't know which way to run - he went left and right several times, before I ran him over!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@Pyramus, do you work for an insurance company by any chance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@motyl,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| phil_w wrote: |
| If a skier behind me taps their poles, using exactly the same rule set - except I actually read it - I would assume they are doing that because in their judgement that's the the best way they can fulfil rule 1. You may disagree with them, but you don't get to beat them up with rules, or claim with any credence that you're being "disrespected", which is a preposterous inference. |
100% perfectly articulated @phil_w
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
In reality clicking poles on a cat track is a well used and effective protocol used everwhere to ensure two people don't try to be in the same patch of snow at the same time and keeps everyone safe - it does not however absolve the clicker from their FIS and real-life responsibilities . The danger on cat tracks are generally the local youth who are flying along sitting on the back of their skis and look out of control, but to be fair I've never seen this go wrong. The little kids snow ploughing and zig-zagging along the green cat track are not the problem. The ones hitting the jumps on the sides and rejoining are dangerous but once again should be anticipated by the uphill skiier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| NickYoung wrote: |
Because if I have to tell learners that, even if they ski safely that they have to accept the pain is someone who doesn't wipes them out, then we shouldn't be skiing anyway.
I know there are idiots who don't want to take responsibility for their actions - there's quite a bit of evidence of that on here. |
I'm not sure I quite understand your first sentence, I think there's a typo, but doesn't your second sentence completely disagree with the first one?
We know there are idiots; therefore encourage beginners to ski defensively. If somebody comes up behind me clicking their poles (I can't say I've ever heard it behind me), then I'd make sure I left a way through for them. I'd rather have idiots in front of me than behind!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@James the Last, I think you are describing well the two different aspects that are causing so much argument. I think it is wise to ski with awareness of potential risk from above, and it doesn’t exonerate those who don’t ski according to the FIS guidelines. Two different things. There is no obligation to ski defensively and speaking from experience, it really takes away from the enjoyment. There is however an obligation to watch out for others whose lines you might cross.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| encourage beginners to ski defensively |
Is that something that instructors should do really?
Weight forward, look where you want to go, open the snow plough, close the snow plough, traverse parallel, weight on outside ski....oh yeah...and ski defensively...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| motyl wrote: |
| There is however an obligation to watch out for others whose lines you might cross. |
????
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@James the Last, I do agree with a lot of what you say in the beginners should be encouraged to stop safely at the side of a piste etc (Rule 6) as that is courteous but the obligation is always on the uphill skier as we have no idea if that is the beginners first week, first day, first hour etc. so to expect them to ski defensively and have the ability to look after themselves is too much. Of course that is the aim, the goal (it is common sense to look after yourself after all) and no doubt where the instructor wants to take them with his or her instructing but it may not have gotten there yet (and may never, it takes all sorts after all) so everything relies upon the uphill skier only passing when it is safe to do so no matter what the people below have done.
At least I think that is what you have said. Apologies if not!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Legend. wrote: |
| motyl wrote: |
| There is however an obligation to watch out for others whose lines you might cross. |
???? |
NO - There is no obligation except for when starting, entering a run or skiing uphill (touring). There are court judgements and persecutions that support the FIS rules. I accept there may be a sense of self-preservation or general courtesy but may be exercised but this is not obligated nor should it be expected by 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.
|
| Ozboy wrote: |
| Legend. wrote: |
| motyl wrote: |
| There is however an obligation to watch out for others whose lines you might cross. |
???? |
NO - There is no obligation except for when starting, entering a run or skiing uphill (touring). There are court judgements and persecutions that support the FIS rules. I accept there may be a sense of self-preservation or general courtesy but may be exercised but this is not obligated nor should it be expected by the uphill skier |
Sorry, I wasn’t really clear enough (distracted by ski racing) - by lines, I’m referring really to the ability to assess what’s happening (or not happening in the case of standing skiers) below you* and having calculated possibilities, to ski in such a way that you aren’t going to be in potential collision.
* on a very wide piste you need to be keeping an eye on skiers in your periphery - combined speeds make things hard to judge ime
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| motyl wrote: |
| Ozboy wrote: |
| Legend. wrote: |
| motyl wrote: |
| There is however an obligation to watch out for others whose lines you might cross. |
???? |
NO - There is no obligation except for when starting, entering a run or skiing uphill (touring). There are court judgements and persecutions that support the FIS rules. I accept there may be a sense of self-preservation or general courtesy but may be exercised but this is not obligated nor should it be expected by the uphill skier |
Sorry, I wasn’t really clear enough - by lines, I’m referring really to the ability to assess what’s happening (or not happening in the case of standing skiers) below you* and having calculated possibilities, to ski in such a way that you aren’t going to be in potential collision.
* on a very wide piste you need to be keeping an eye on skiers in your periphery - combined speeds make things hard to judge ime |
Right! I took you meaning that the downhill skier should watch for the uphill skiers lines!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
