 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I think the only motoring analogy I try to always apply to my skiing is always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. In almost all cases whether behind the wheel or on a pair of skis this has served me well and definitely self regulates speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@hyperkub, I would very much hope that there were no pedestrians, cyclists nor wheelchairs on a motorway, for instance. I think you are being somewhat disingenuous.
| Quote: |
in many cases causing nuisance is unavoidable
|
I think I made clear that my points relate only to where it is patently quite avoidable. & there are also plenty of pistes that are unavoidable in making one's way around certain areas. ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| hyperkub wrote: |
| ... Blaming anybody for being knocked down by a drunk skier is just ridiculous. |
It is - why would you think that?
My point was that those of us who are not drunk can complain all we like about drunks,
but they will always exist, and in the end it's better to accept that and deal with it safely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
A question for everyone thus far moaning about ski school snakes.............You get a call from the ski school to tell you your child has just been struck by another skier whilst they were in class. Are you going seriously try to apportion blame to the instructor for conducting what is a known practice (Snaking) which takes place the world over in every ski resort on every blue piste there is? Or are you going to blame the moron that decided to ignore the fact that ski school classes snake on every piste known to mankind?
Wake up you loonies, slow down and stop trying to justify the unjustifiable.
There will be a snake, slow down and go round it as to do otherwise may kill another 5yr old child, it really is as simple as that ! Rant over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Oh dear - I rather suspect that the driving instructor probably assumed his pupil didn't need educating on the obvious golden rules of Don't run people over nor needed to assess whether he conformed to the species biological hardcoding of "protect children". No one hates kids. In fact the alleged manslaughterer in this thread was apparently a volunteer firefighter and probably therefore saved some.
But the fact is on the day, minute or second he made an error of judgement possibly and the worst thing happened (I don't like to pre judge - having been cannoned into a third party skier who then accused me of being out of control). Given it's not a perfect world people on ski slopes will continue to make these errors of judgement 1000s of times a day. Better to accept the reality and plan around it than blindly hope that shouting long and hard enough will change things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@jirac18, I thought I was being quite clear, perhaps not, my gripe (for that is what it is) is simply with the very specific and unnecessary occasional practice of extending said "snake" across the entire available piste when said piste is, say, 100m wide. Not with having kiddie winks following the turns of their instructor in a snake like fashion, in and of itself. 
I mean, jeez, I had 4 darling kiddie winks "snaking" behind me a week ago until the little crots decided they wanted to do their own things, which was a lot worse, I can assure you.
Anyway, I fear I am dragging things O.T. so, my "contribution" to this particular theme is done..
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Wed 19-01-22 16:32; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| zikomo wrote: |
I still don't see the problem, if they are downhill they have priority and uphill slope users either have to wait or find a safe way to pass (allowing for any involuntary movement of the downhill skier). The instructor will choose to make the safest progress down the piste while embedding skills. The risk is caused by a sense that there is some "right" to be able to pass slope users who are proceeding more slowly that you might like, no such right or expectation exists in my view as the responsibility is on the uphill skier to find a safe way to pass not the downhill skier to make way.
What exactly is it that you have issue with? |
Just because you have a legal right to do something, that does not make it morally right. A ski instructor using the whole width of a piste (assuming the piste is sufficiently wide that it's not necessary) is being a completely inconsiderate of all the other users on the piste. I IMHO rightly take issue with people who give no consideration to others. Regards the tractor analogy that fails because the tractor has to use the road to get about his business, which is ensuring that I have food to eat. Also on many occasion I have seen them pull in to let the traffic past. A ski instructor does not have to use the full width of the piste to teach their lesson so the analogy is flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jirac18 wrote: |
A question for everyone thus far moaning about ski school snakes.............You get a call from the ski school to tell you your child has just been struck by another skier whilst they were in class. Are you going seriously try to apportion blame to the instructor for conducting what is a known practice (Snaking) which takes place the world over in every ski resort on every blue piste there is? Or are you going to blame the moron that decided to ignore the fact that ski school classes snake on every piste known to mankind?
Wake up you loonies, slow down and stop trying to justify the unjustifiable.
There will be a snake, slow down and go round it as to do otherwise may kill another 5yr old child, it really is as simple as that ! Rant over. |
i - I'm going to ascertain first and foremost whether my child is ok before doing any blaming, if they are not it kinda trumps blame or rage in priority
ii - if I get onto the forensics of the incident then I'm going to include what the adult who was in loco parentis was doing to keep them safe as well as the "moron"
I'm not moaning about snakes - last time I was skiing I saw some very good instructor practices like using only half the width of the piste and even then leaving about a 2m corridor to the edge. Done in a disciplined way it was abundantly clear to other slope users how they could easily pass safely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| jirac18 wrote: |
| I think the only motoring analogy I try to always apply to my skiing is always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. In almost all cases whether behind the wheel or on a pair of skis this has served me well and definitely self regulates speed. |
That is indeed the golden rule of driving and skiing. However the problem is when some idiot decides to do something that abruptly leaves you without sufficient distance to be able to stop in the distance you see to be clear. So driving that might be pulling out of a junction without looking onto the main road, or changing lane on a motorway and slamming the breaks on. Either one of which will leave you as the driver behind as not the party at fault. Especially if you have dash cam footage to prove what the other idiot driver did. In skiing terms if you decide to abruptly do a hockey stop in the middle of the piste at the bottom of a schuss, there is going to be a high likely hood that someone else will pile into you and it's your fault. Alternatively you could be cruising down a green run when some idiot pops out the trees at the side 1m in front of you, at which point you pile into them.
So while if you follow that rule you will avoid many accidents it won't eliminate all accidents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@under a new name, @Dave of the Marmottes, Ok I am not going to convince you to consider a different perspective, which is all I have been trying to do. This "snaking" behaviour clearly does frustrate you as you do not seen to be willing to consider any other interpretation than it is selfish and that there are safer ways for individual instructors to conduct their lesson.
I think it likely that neither of you are ski instructors, you would probably have a different perspective if you were and there would be a better basis for your position.
I am sure, however, that you are both safe and courteous skiers. You just have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about this!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
It's not a bee in the bonnet - it's just observation from a couple of people who have done a fair amount of skiing that not all terrain choice and behaviour by ski classes is the most self protective. Fortunately the good instructors outnumber the poor considerably and most follow the prime directive of keeping their pupils safe over all others. And even more fortunately speaking personally I avoid ski classes most of the time. Freeride classes is another matter - highly annoying seeing those little shits huck into a chute from the side then send the bumps like they aren't there bouncing with their rubber joints. 
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Wed 19-01-22 16:49; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From ladepeche.fr concerning the very sad Flaine incident and the court hearing Monday.
A man in his forties had been in police custody since Saturday following the accident on the Serpentine blue run, in Flaine (Haute-Savoie), which resulted in the death of a five-year-old girl. Monday, the man was indicted for "manslaughter" and placed under judicial supervision, according to the prosecutor of Bonneville, Karline Bouisset, our colleagues from Dauphiné Libéré tell us.
The gendarmes of the Bonneville research brigade are in charge of the investigation. Several witnesses of the scene were heard. The defendant risks up to 3 years in prison and a fine of 45,000 euros.
The autopsy confirms "a very violent shock"
The skier admitted to having hit the 5-year-old girl who was taking part in an ESF ski lesson at the resort of Flaine, in Haute-Savoie, this Saturday. She died despite rescue attempts to resuscitate her. In order to establish the causes of death, the victim's body was also autopsied in the morning. According to the first elements, it was a very violent shock that caused the death of the girl. The result of the expertise will be entrusted to the investigating judge.
"The excessive speed" of the skier would be the main cause in this accident", according to the prosecutor. The skier had however quickly provided first aid to the victim after having struck her. But when the help arrived, the girl was in cardiorespiratory arrest before dying during her transport by helicopter.
Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much  on Wed 19-01-22 16:50; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| jabuzzard wrote: |
| jirac18 wrote: |
| I think the only motoring analogy I try to always apply to my skiing is always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. In almost all cases whether behind the wheel or on a pair of skis this has served me well and definitely self regulates speed. |
That is indeed the golden rule of driving and skiing. However the problem is when some idiot decides to do something that abruptly leaves you without sufficient distance to be able to stop in the distance you see to be clear. So driving that might be pulling out of a junction without looking onto the main road, or changing lane on a motorway and slamming the breaks on. Either one of which will leave you as the driver behind as not the party at fault. Especially if you have dash cam footage to prove what the other idiot driver did. In skiing terms if you decide to abruptly do a hockey stop in the middle of the piste at the bottom of a schuss, there is going to be a high likely hood that someone else will pile into you and it's your fault. Alternatively you could be cruising down a green run when some idiot pops out the trees at the side 1m in front of you, at which point you pile into them.
So while if you follow that rule you will avoid many accidents it won't eliminate all accidents. |
Nope - it would be the fault of the uphill skier in the scenario you outline. It the responsibility of the uphill skier to be able to stop or avoid a downhill skier, and it is explicit that this is regardless of whatever voluntary or involuntary movement the downhill skier makes. This is the basic mis-understanding. You should not be skiing in a way that a hockey stop in front of you would cause you to collide with another slope user. And it is your responsibility to adapt your speed and line so that you can avoid doing so. I am a bit concerned that you do not seem to fully understand this basic principle
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I agree snaking is annoying, but slamming into a kid/person is more annoying (and probably have greater consequences than being annoyed).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Oh dear and we're now back to the fundamental misunderstanding about the Skiers Code - that one clause has priority over all others and it allows every collision to be avoided. It doesn't. Well unless everyone skis at walking pace everywhere. I can think of half a dozen ways I could easily draw a collision from an otherwise innocent and behaving perfectly well "behind" skier. But that's something people are never going to agree on.
That and the fact that the code itself is only necessary because everyone breaches "rule 1" - always ski in control. A beginner falling over fails on that as well as the moron.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Wed 19-01-22 17:09; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, You are right, all rules in the code apply all of the time.
But no - this is a case of being unwilling to accept the responsibilities. The scenario@jabuzzard, outlined is clear cut. I.e. a skier came to an abrupt stop in the middle of the piste, and was then piled into by an uphill skier. The collision should not happen as any uphill skier should be able to either stop or change their line to avoid the stopped downhill skier. The only way it would happen is of they were unable to do so due to poor selection of line, too high speed, too close, or not adapting speed and manner of skiing to personal ability.
I have to say I dislike this nitpicking on this point. If everyone took their responsibility fully as the uphill skier there would be many less near misses and collisions. I have never come close to colliding with another skier from uphill, because that is the view I take (consistent with the FIS rules). I just do not get why anyone would argue the toss on this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| zikomo wrote: |
| I just do not get why anyone would argue the toss on this point. |
Maybe because they dislike the sanctimony involved and absolutism of some who argue for the uphill skier is always negligent. And maybe because they are sick of seeing the half of slopeusers who don't look before they set off/merge etc or dick around on side hits and crashing onto the slope in traffic but are then excused in debates like this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Mr.Egg wrote: |
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10418859/Actor-Gaspard-Ulliel-stars-new-Marvel-series-Moon-Knight-dies-aged-37-ski-accident.html
The father-of-one was not wearing a helmet when he crashed into another skier at the intersection of two blue slopes in the Rosiere resort in Savoie.
rather than starting another thread? |
In response to your question, start another thread, let the helmet debate rage in dull.*
Really sad news on all counts 
*obvs meant full
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@zikomo, you haven't digested what I've typed, I feel; I have no bee in my bonnet in general.
I spent much of last Wednesday "snaking" a quartet of young kids around Courmayeur, safest for them, safest for everyone else. Totally less safe once they decided they knew where everything was and they could then go wherever they wanted. Oops! (The father of 2 of them is a senior pisteur, so I don't think anyone's safety was really compromised at any point).
I do however, find that you do occasionally come across ridiculous situations. Although I don't think I've ever cut through a class, no matter what.
Darn, I thought I'd typed my last comment on the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| zikomo wrote: |
| I just do not get why anyone would argue the toss on this point. |
Maybe because they dislike the sanctimony involved and absolutism of some who argue for the uphill skier is always negligent. And maybe because they are sick of seeing the half of slopeusers who don't look before they set off/merge etc or dick around on side hits and crashing onto the slope in traffic but are then excused in debates like this. |
Yes all should look before setting off
Yes it sometimes happens that people crash onto the slope or dick around with side hits. And this is unacceptable.
Yes I do challenge these behaviours and others.
I would counsel you that you and other slope users will be safer if you take the fullest responsibility as the uphill skier that is possible. And not just to the extent that it is convenient, or that you can find some reason to "blame" someone else in a near-miss situation.
But if you can see skiers who MAY set off unexpectedly it is incumbent on you to ski in such a way that a collision would not occur. The higher your skill level the faster and closer you will be able to be whilst still being able to take effective action to avoid a conflict. The same applies to others crashing on to the piste from the side or side-hitting. If you are aware, as the uphill skier, you should adjust your skiing for whatever dumb-ass thing they might do. Of course if you cannot see or it is impossible to judge there is little you can do, but it is incumbent on you for the safety of yourself as well as others to be aware and adapt as much as is possible.
I just don't get your unwillingness. It is actually in your own interest to think differently. And absolutely no use to man or beast to nitpick with singular scenarios where because another slope user technically broke a different rule that you believe any collision would be their fault. If the fact remains that by fully taking your responsibility as the uphill skier risk or injury would be avoided, and you chose not to, then that would be both stupid and selfish surely?
I have not been at all sanctimonious, but rather calm and reasoned. I clearly disagree with you on some points, which is not the same thing at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@under a new name, Apologies if I have mis-understood you, I have re-read and tried to better understand. And for sure neither held nor hold any rancour based on anything you wrote!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@under a new name, Oh and you wrote more because it is a very interesting subject and in my view worth of consideration and debate!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, what unwillingness? And as for sanctimony what about words such as "i would counsel you", "fullest reponsibility", "incumbent on you"?
Look we don't like each other's style of debating but you don't really know anything about how I ski in the real world where the main hazzard remains thankfully to myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| zikomo wrote: |
| I just do not get why anyone would argue the toss on this point. |
Maybe because they dislike the sanctimony involved and absolutism of some who argue for the uphill skier is always negligent. And maybe because they are sick of seeing the half of slopeusers who don't look before they set off/merge etc or dick around on side hits and crashing onto the slope in traffic but are then excused in debates like this. |
In the case of small children they can't be expected to know the FIS rules, let alone interpret them in a complex situation.
As a ski instructor you only have limited control over your charges. A fall, a sudden change of direction could happen at any time. The safety of children is therefore the responsibility of everybody.
I used to work occasionally as a ski instructor, so I know all about this. I have raced myself and also been race director, chief of course and technical delegate at junior races, with hundreds of competitors, including speed events. Not only have I dealt with the aftermath of crashes on course but also had to remonstrate with youngsters letting it rip outside the course. Oh and I've crashed in an international speedski race at about 150km/h as well as collecting a few cups and medals along the way. I enjoy going fast. Really fast. But I know when to keep it down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, I have tried to take extreme care to not say anything personal to or about you. I would hope you would extend the same courtesy and be mature enough to debate and disagree without taking it personally.
I don't know how you ski, you are right. If I had to guess I would say you are quite advanced and safe. But you are not an instructor, of that I am sure.
I disagree with you. It is that simple. If everyone took the attitude that the uphill skier should take the fullest possible responsibility, I believe there would be less risk and injury in general on the piste. And I think there would be less risk specifically to anyone who had that attitude. I think that is why rule 3 and 4 are there. I do not believe that other rules should be ignored. Neither do I think that someone else breaking a different rule is a good excuse for not being able to stop/slow/avoid from uphill. I have already said WHERE POSSIBLE several times and of course also when hazard can either be seen or anticipated.
I have expressed my opinion clearly. I have rebutted some of the arguments you have out forward. You have done the same to me. What exactly is your problem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@zikomo, Just to jump in.
I usually ascribe to the "uphill skier responsible" mantra myself.
However if I ski over the lip of a hill and there are some dickheads lying in the middle of the piste sharing a spliff..........I will try and avoid them, but occasionally I may be too close for comfort.
On the face of it, my fault, but in reality they need to have a wee reality check to themselves and maybe consider where and when they stop.
Everyone needs to be cognisant of risks in any sport / pastime - its not always black and white.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think some of the arguments here are not logically inconsistent.
It is perfectly possible to ski in complete control and to not be a danger to anyone else, but still to notice behaviours that are unwise from downhill skiers who otherwise have the right of way. I still take full responsibility to avoid them. (I try very hard not just to avoid collisions but avoid even coming close enough to the skiers below that they get scared. Basically, on blue runs I ski quite slowly unless they are (nearly) empty. And I do like speed, though nowhere close to @hyperkub's level)
I for one don't remember ever being annoyed by a ski snake, no matter how much of the piste it took. But, if it was my child in there, and I noticed that the snake blocked the entire piste, I would ask the instructor if that was wise.
That said, hyperkub makes a very good point - small children can't know the FIS rules and instructors can't control them completely. See a snake, slow down already, or stop if necessary.
For the record, having skied with @Dave of the Marmottes, on busy pistes I've never seen him ski in any other way than in full control and well slower than needed to avoid any crashes with the skiers below. He can definitely crash in style offpiste, though.
@GreenDay, I have to say I disagree with your example. Just don't ski over a lip at speed if you can't stop or avoid comfortably someone whom you can't see. It doesn't matter if they're lying there to have a splif or because they've just fallen over and can't move.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| zikomo wrote: |
Nope - it would be the fault of the uphill skier in the scenario you outline. It the responsibility of the uphill skier to be able to stop or avoid a downhill skier, and it is explicit that this is regardless of whatever voluntary or involuntary movement the downhill skier makes. This is the basic mis-understanding. You should not be skiing in a way that a hockey stop in front of you would cause you to collide with another slope user. And it is your responsibility to adapt your speed and line so that you can avoid doing so. I am a bit concerned that you do not seem to fully understand this basic principle |
The car analogy would be changing lanes on a motorway and then braking hard causing a crash, frequently a "crash for cash" accident. The police will and do prosecute drivers who do that sort thing.
I would point out that the FIS code requires you to stop at the edge of the piste, not cut half way across the piste and do a hockey stop without checking it was safe to do so. I would also point out that the *FIRST* point in the code is that one must behave in such a way that one does not endager or prejuidice others. There is also no indication in the code of which points take precedence over others.
What you are claiming is that the downhill person can do anything they like with reckless abandonment for everyone above them on the slope and it will *ALWAYS* be the uphill's persons fault. If we keep following your line of argument I could tie a rope to a tree and ski across the piste and everyone above should just avoid me and my rope. Or I could throw my pole 5m to the side causing you to crash. I could spend all evening coming up with stupid things I could do to cause the people behind to crash or crash into me when they where skiing in a perfectly reasonable manner for the location. Certainly in Scotland that is not how the law works. Cutting across a piste and stopping abruptly for no good reason in a schuss where people will be carrying speed to get out the other side breaks the FIS code is "reckless endangerment" and an offence in law. Based on my personal experience that's how it works in France too as the Gendarmerie didn't pursue it and I was free to go.
You seem to be one of the sorts of people who think that in a road traffic accident that it is always the person behinds fault. Just because it usually is does not mean it always is and that applies on ski slopes too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
if I ski over the lip of a hill and there are some dickheads lying in the middle of the piste sharing a spliff.........
|
"If I ski over the lip of a hill and there is an injured skier being attended by 2 pisteurs and a doctor in the middle of the piste......"
"If I drive round a bend and there is a broken down vehicle in the middle of the road...."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
No problem. I just think everyone should take the attitude of following ALL the code to the fullest extent possible there would be EVEN less risk and injury in general. It takes 2 lots of behaviours for there to be a collision between 2 parties and all that. That isn't absolving uphill skiers from responsibility its just creating a bigger total world of responsible behaviour.
And beyond the code I would still advise those who have the capacity to think and ski defensively in the riskiest places because the world and others are not perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Off to look up sanctimonious in the dictionary........
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| horizon wrote: |
For the record, having skied with @Dave of the Marmottes, on busy pistes I've never seen him ski in any other way than in full control and well slower than needed to avoid any crashes with the skiers below. He can definitely crash in style offpiste, though.
|
As befits the fine tennis player you are I appreciate the delicate early backhand compliment followed by the full forehand smash
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| pam w wrote: |
| Quote: |
if I ski over the lip of a hill and there are some dickheads lying in the middle of the piste sharing a spliff.........
|
"If I ski over the lip of a hill and there is an injured skier being attended by 2 pisteurs and a doctor in the middle of the piste......"
"If I drive round a bend and there is a broken down vehicle in the middle of the road...." |
Every pisteur I know would have placed crossed skis on the top of the lip well before the doctor arrived............
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Yes, crossed skis would be there normally, after a certain length of time. But if someone has just crashed, and being attended by passers by, or family, there could be no warning. The point is, you must be able to stop and manoevre within the distance you can see, just as you do on a road. Those lips are danger points. When I did an early morning swoop round with a pisteur ( super experience, which was laid on for visitors in Les Saisies) we chairlifted up over a red run with a lip/drop off like that. He said it was the most accident-prone spot on his patch because people came over it too fast, the surface dropped away and "Ils volent"
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| zikomo wrote: |
But no - this is a case of being unwilling to accept the responsibilities. The scenario@jabuzzard, outlined is clear cut. I.e. a skier came to an abrupt stop in the middle of the piste, and was then piled into by an uphill skier. The collision should not happen as any uphill skier should be able to either stop or change their line to avoid the stopped downhill skier. The only way it would happen is of they were unable to do so due to poor selection of line, too high speed, too close, or not adapting speed and manner of skiing to personal ability. |
Problem is the law says otherwise. If you act with reckless abandonment for other people and get injured then you are to blame. If it was as clear cut as you claim why when a French lady did that in front of me at Les Carroz and ended up with a broken leg (her binding failed to release) where the Gendarmerie not interested and I was free to go? It was not poor selection of line the woman was several metres to the side and only just in front. I was wasn't even carrying enough speed to get out the dip which was not that big so not going terribly fast either. I was also well within my ability at the time. However the lady in question acted with reckless abandonment cutting right across the piste into the middle and coming to a stop at the bottom of the dip without looking. Basically the only way to get from her line to my line was for her to actually be in control but act with reckless abandonment. If it was my fault then nobody can ever enter a dip or flat section with enough speed to get out the other side unless the slope is empty. That is just not nor should it be how ski slopes work in reality.
Like I said before just because it is usually the person behind's fault does not mean it always is the person behinds fault, and the FIS code is not a get of out jail card if you act with reckless abandonment for the safety of others, noting that the first item on the code is to act with due care and attention to everyone else.
Also sometimes it is just a freak accident and nobody is to blame. The only other time I have crashed into anyone in over 30 years of skiing I was doing cruisey wide turns down a corduroy blue piste. As I turned I clipped a hidden rock or lump of ice hidden just under the snow (I didn't climb back up the slope to find out), ski came off and went flat on my face and slid 30m down the slope and through a group of snow boarders on the side of the piste (yeah the irony of it all). The only way to have avoided hitting someone in an incident like that would be to only ski if there was nobody on the slope below which is frankly impractical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pam w wrote: |
| Yes, crossed skis would be there normally, after a certain length of time. But if someone has just crashed, and being attended by passers by, or family, there could be no warning. The point is, you must be able to stop and manoevre within the distance you can see, just as you do on a road. Those lips are danger points. When I did an early morning swoop round with a pisteur ( super experience, which was laid on for visitors in Les Saisies) we chairlifted up over a red run with a lip/drop off like that. He said it was the most accident-prone spot on his patch because people came over it too fast, the surface dropped away and "Ils volent" |
And the practical reality if you stood in the middle of the road round a blind bend is you'd be run over pretty quickly. Ask a badger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's no good excusing yourself for running into the back of someone by saying they were stopped in a stupid place. It could be a tractor doing 5 mph, or a pedestrian walking sensibly on the correct side of the road coinciding with a vehicle coming from the opposite direction, or a cow (which can get its own back more effectively than a badger). You shouldn't be hammering over a blind summit or round a blind bend assuming there's going to be nothing in your way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
When I was learning to drive my father explained it by saying you should always assume there is a jack knifed petrol tanker with school children lining the pavements on either side just round the corner...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two of us were skiing on a track-like sort of piste, winding down round the side of a mountain in Praz sur Arly. Very quiet, the sort of gradient where you could be straightlining, or just sort of swinging from side to side enjoying the view. We went round a bend to find a pisteur standing in the middle of the track, flagging us down. So we stopped. A gang of 4 young french lads shot past us at speed and stopped about 30 metres further on. The pisteur gave them a right bollocking and made them shuffle back and wait behind us and pointed out why he'd stopped us. A couple of his colleagues were up on a cornice above us, jumping around and obviously looking to secure the slope above the track. He pointed out to the boys that the guys were, at some risk to themselves, working to ensure we were all safe. They did look shamefaced, and apologised. They were not doing anything obviously reckless - and they were all competent enough to pass us safely, despite the narrowness of the path. But they were not able to stop when they came at speed round the corner and were faced with a pisteur. He could have been a child or adult who'd just fallen over and was sprawled across the path with skis and poles all over the place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
