 Poster: A snowHead
|
I have absolutely no idea what the point of this clip is supposed to be. Boarders are doing nothing wrong, skier's clearly at fault having misjudged speed, line and the downhill snow users' lines. So the skier's an idiot and there's nothing to discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Thank you Pyramus, I've no one drive facility so will not comment specifically on culpability or other levels of responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@Je suis un Skieur, titter
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Je suis un Skieur wrote: |
I have absolutely no idea what the point of this clip is supposed to be. Boarders are doing nothing wrong, skier's clearly at fault having misjudged speed, line and the downhill snow users' lines. So the skier's an idiot and there's nothing to discuss. |
Again - the discussion has moved on from "whose fault is it", to what additional measures and/or risk mitigation techniques should be employed to reduce the likelihood of collisions occurring (hence this discussion about "pole clicking"..).
So basically, you're saying the boarders are right, and everyone else shussing past them at speed are in the wrong.
OK fine. No wonder there are still so many collisions happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
| Je suis un Skieur wrote: |
I have absolutely no idea what the point of this clip is supposed to be. Boarders are doing nothing wrong, skier's clearly at fault having misjudged speed, line and the downhill snow users' lines. So the skier's an idiot and there's nothing to discuss. |
Again - the discussion has moved on from "whose fault is it", to what additional measures and/or risk mitigation techniques should be employed to reduce the likelihood of collisions occurring (hence this discussion about "pole clicking"..).
So basically, you're saying the boarders are right, and everyone else shussing past them at speed are in the wrong.
OK fine. No wonder there are still so many collisions happening. |
What would you have the boarders do in this situation, regardless of whether they're a beginner or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
on occasion when someone passes me on a cat track I'd far rather hear a few clicks and know to leave space or hold course as appropriate; I can't image why this would be an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually think Rule 5 should be changed.
Current rule
| Quote: |
5. Entering, starting and moving upwards.
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 he can do so without endangering himself or others. |
Amended rule:
| Quote: |
5. Entering, starting and moving against or directly across the general flow of traffic
A skier or snowboarder entering a marked run, starting again after stopping or moving against or directly across the general flow of traffic on the slopes must look up and down the slopes that he can do so without endangering himself or others. |
Simples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is next level trolling…
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Charliee wrote: |
| on occasion when someone passes me on a cat track I'd far rather hear a few clicks and know to leave space or hold course as appropriate; I can't image why this would be an issue. |
You're linking turns on a cat track and you hear some clicks behind you, what do you do:
- "leave space?"
- "hold course?"
- carry on skiing because the clicker is in charge of their own skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
Again - the discussion has moved on from "whose fault is it", to what additional measures and/or risk mitigation techniques should be employed to reduce the likelihood of collisions occurring (hence this discussion about "pole clicking"..).
So basically, you're saying the boarders are right, and everyone else shussing past them at speed are in the wrong.
OK fine. No wonder there are still so many collisions happening. |
Don't put words in my mouth. I have no issue at all with the people shussing past IF they give a suitably wide berth that has no impact on anyone else.
What I actually said was
| Je suis un Skieur wrote: |
| skier's clearly at fault having misjudged speed, line and the downhill snow users' lines. |
I will repeat, the skier's an idiot who's skiing beyond her ability to react. She's not giving a wide berth, she's using the boarders as slalom poles.
You can't mitigate for idiocy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
So basically, you're saying the boarders are right, and everyone else shussing past them at speed are in the wrong.
|
The boarder’s actions are immaterial - everyone else “shushing past” - i.e. the faster uphill riders need to give way
Simples…
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
So basically, you're saying the boarders are right, and everyone else shussing past them at speed are in the wrong.
OK fine. No wonder there are still so many collisions happening. |
The boarder did nothing wrong. Nor did the vast majority of people shussing past there was loads of room and the person who collided clearly did not leave enough room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| T Bar wrote: |
| there was loads of room and the person who collided clearly did not leave enough room. |
But isn't this one of the problems? There is only "loads of room" until someone decides they are going to "close the door" on someone without caring about anyone else above them and traverse straight across them. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that could have happened to numerous other skiers in that video.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| abc wrote: |
| pam w wrote: |
| I don't think @abc has said anything which suggests she is a danger to other skiers. She just has a different way of expressing herself and likes to avoid bandwagons. And blood wagons, probably. |
I believe @zikomo doesn’t want to ski where people click their poles. Well, he has to avoid a lot of places. And I for one, am happy to have my regular ski destinations having one fewer such snowflake. |
No I don't want to ski anywhere near people like you who pole click so that others on a cart track know to maintain their line. The downhill skier is not in any way responsible for "maintaining" their line so you can get past. If you don't know that yet, then you are indeed a danger to others. If you do know that, why did you say that is what you expect following a pole click?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
Amended rule:
| Quote: |
5. Entering, starting and moving against or directly across the general flow of traffic
A skier or snowboarder entering a marked run, starting again after stopping or moving against or directly across the general flow of traffic on the slopes must look up and down the slopes that he can do so without endangering himself or others. |
Simples. |
What a load of nonsense. The boarder's lost his balance and put his hands down as a natural reaction to falling over. He doesn't have time to look up the slope, and even if he did it would make no difference. The natural reaction to falling over is to look at the impact point and try and reduce the impact, which is exactly what he's doing.
Changing a written rule will make zero difference to what is an intuitive human reaction to a physical situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
The boarder had pretty much stopped. You could argue they are already contravening rule 5 by making no attempt to look up when re-starting (ref "starting again after stopping"), even with the un-amended version of the rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
| The boarder had pretty much stopped. You could argue they are already contravening rule 5 by making no attempt to look up when re-starting (ref "starting again after stopping"), even with the un-amended version of the rule. |
Rubbish. The film's been edited. It starts again at 19s and he loses his balance at 20-21s and puts his hands down. The swing across the slope is not a conscious movement, it's a natural consequence of him putting his hands down. Eff all he can do about it and precisely why it's the schussing skier's fault for not leaving enough room in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@Pyramus, I'm curious, If you're driving at 80mph on a motorway and the car in front has a blowout, swings sideways and you drive straight in to the back of them, is the car in front at fault or is it you for being too close to be able to take avoiding action?
I know what the Police and the Highway Code would say, and it ain't the person in front!
This is the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Charliee wrote: |
| ....I can't image why this would be an issue. |
try reading the thread. explanations from people who are clicked at, instructors and others
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
There is always some equivocation about the uphill slope user always being responsible for avoiding those below. And accepting the default position that the uphill slope user is at fault if they collide with someone downhill of them. The reason is simple. Many do not want to fully accept that responsibility as they will have to significantly change how they ski. Especially slowing down, a lot, when in busy areas. And adjusting their line not to the most fun terrain features or best carved turn, but to the conditions and the need to ensure they can avoid hitting any downhill slope user regardless of what they do. And for many that would reduce their enjoyment. And most of those won't admit that is what the problem is, even to themselves. So there is little chance of persuading them.
The answer is obvious. Slow down, or get better at skiing (probably both). Or if you want to ski at a speed and line of your choosing do so in an environment that allows that, either a controlled race track or off-piste routes that are empty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Je suis un Skieur wrote: |
@Pyramus, I'm curious, If you're driving at 80mph on a motorway and the car in front has a blowout, swings sideways and you drive straight in to the back of them, is the car in front at fault or is it you for being too close to be able to take avoiding action?
I know what the Police and the Highway Code would say, and it ain't the person in front!
This is the same. |
OK so we're using the driving analogy again, and I'll run with the motorway analogy. If you're joining a motorway from a slip road and you pull straight out into lane 3 without even checking your mirrors and someone drives into the back of you, who is at fault?
Well, I think legally it's still the driver at the back. But the fact is, your car is a write off and you're the one driving a Nissan Micra hire car until it's repaired or replaced, whether it's rear car drivers fault or not. So most (non BMW) drivers actually use their mirrors now and again to avoid such scenarios.
My proposed rule 5 amendment is to introduce a bit more common sense into the permitted actions of the downhill skier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That whole section from the top all the way down to the plateau is always carnage! I always put myself as a guard at the back of my wife and kids going down there for exactly the reasons seen in the video.
I think one significant thing of note regarding the offending skier is how passive she/he is, looks like she’s not even trying to gauge what’s ahead or actively be in a position to react. This could have and should have been avoided by a better style of skiing with a switched on mentality. Looks away with the fairies to 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.
|
| jedster wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
| jedster wrote: |
I can't think how a bell could say something better than I can |
I have to disagree on that one.
A decent bell is a lot louder than a voice. And its high pitch penetrates the air much better. You can ring the bell much further back, giving the walkers a lot more time “to register your presence”, as you correctly puts it.
Better for both parties.
I cycle on share path a lot, because there’s one near where I live and it goes rather a long way (all the way into New York city 50 miles away!). On a busy day, when there’re many walkers on the trail, I can see the effect of my bell vs my voice (when I’m on a bike without a bell). The bell got several groups of walkers “register my presence”. My voice only the closest group, from a short distance. The clicking of the freewheel? Only when I’m practically on their back! (And they’re typically startled, dash in all directions) |
I think you probably cycle faster on a shared use path than I would find acceptable. At the speed I close at, my voice is more than adequate. If you are closing at a moderate speed there is no need for them to scramble. If I want to cycle quicker (and I usually do) then I'll be on the road not a shared path. And if the path is genuinely busy with walkers I would avoid it or be going walking pace until I could swap to a road. |
Put it this way, I ride as fast as I can safely maneuver around the people on the path!
Using a bell allows me to go faster, due to the bell being heard further away. As simple as that.
After all, a “shared” path is for everyone. There’s no priority on walkers vs cyclists. Cyclist are allowed to cycle on it at whatever speed appropriate for cycling, allowing for opportunity for other users to safely co-exist as well. A bell helps significantly to achieve that goal.
(On such “shared” path, it’s a common sight that some groups of walkers COMPLETELY block the full width of the path! Technically, they are not “sharing” responsibly. But rather than lecturing each and every such group, I just use my bell. And they slowly but orderly vacate a path for me to pass. As far as I’m concern, that’s an acceptable way to “share”. It may not be ideal by your book. But I’m more pragmatic)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
| T Bar wrote: |
| there was loads of room and the person who collided clearly did not leave enough room. |
But isn't this one of the problems? There is only "loads of room" until someone decides they are going to "close the door" on someone without caring about anyone else above them and traverse straight across them. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that could have happened to numerous other skiers in that video. |
Er no there was loads of room full stop, the skier had masses of room to avoid the boarder.
There was no closed door the boarder was virtually in the middle of the piste and only moved across a couple of meters as they fell.
The skier was at fault possibly through inexperience but definitely at fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@Pyramus, I think the point is that she should have expected it. With so many variables at play whilst skiing you have to expect the unexpected. I’m not so hung up about the FIS rules as being the issue here and I do understand your thought process around your perception of the value of those rules. But in very practical terms if she had been able to stop in the distance she could see to be clear, or safely changer her course to avoid a downhill skier then there is no accident.
It’s the uphill skiers responsibility to avoid because they are in the very best position of anyone to be able to avoid. That’s the crux of this as a practical issue. Can downhill skiers do their bit to make the slopes safer, yes I think so but the responsibility sits firmly with the uphill skier. This latest video is 100% proof of this imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
| My proposed rule 5 amendment is to introduce a bit more common sense into the permitted actions of the downhill skier. |
The problem isn't that you've rewritten the rule. It's that you think it would make any difference whatsover to the situation in the film you've linked to. It won't. He's a beginner boarder who's falling over and there is sod all he can do about his line. He's entitled to be on the slope so the responsibility for avoiding a collision lies with the more experienced slope user.
And to use your driving analogy:
| Pyramus wrote: |
If you're joining a motorway from a slip road and you pull straight out into lane 3 without even checking your mirrors and someone drives into the back of you, who is at fault?
Well, I think legally it's still the driver at the back. |
Nope. Any action that causes another driver to take evasive action and/or emergency braking is an instant driving test fail. But you can't apply that same logic to the film you've linked to because it's not a conscious move by the boarder. He's falling over, so it's my puncture analogy that's correct here, not your veering across three lanes one.
If you actually wanted to mitigate this stuff, you'd have a separate mountain for beginners who have to pass a test before they're allowed on the big mountain with the experienced people. Same as learner drivers aren't allowed on a motorway. But that still doesn't prevent reckless or drink driving, the same as it won't prevent drunk, reckless or away with the fairies skiers. People can be idiotic, whether permanently or temporarily and you can't mitigate for idiocy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| T Bar wrote: |
| Pyramus wrote: |
| T Bar wrote: |
| there was loads of room and the person who collided clearly did not leave enough room. |
But isn't this one of the problems? There is only "loads of room" until someone decides they are going to "close the door" on someone without caring about anyone else above them and traverse straight across them. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that could have happened to numerous other skiers in that video. |
Er no there was loads of room full stop, the skier had masses of room to avoid the boarder.
There was no closed door the boarder was virtually in the middle of the piste and only moved across a couple of meters as they fell.
The skier was at fault possibly through inexperience but definitely at fault. |
Absolutely right, and if she had been skiing slower the “loads of room” would have been more easily selected, accessed and taken thus avoiding a collision. The key to avoiding accidents is to approach and negotiate hazards leaving nothing to chance. Everything solid which doesn’t move is a hazard, every person is a hazard. They are not potential hazards. They are simply hazards. If you can’t make a safe plan to avoid hazards involving, spacial awareness, anticipation, speed and positioning then you shouldn’t be skiing where you are skiing in the manner in which you’re skiing. All of this is the responsibility of the uphill skier because they are best placed to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
| But, it is an example of a flat narrow section of piste where all skiers (not just her) were schuss-ing through. Ok in this case it was the innocent (learner?) boarder, but equally someone could have decided to suddenly traverse a hard turn straight across the path of someone else. |
Yes, lots of people are skiing too fast for that spot. Not especially narrow and obviously a keen location for beginners. It's busy so a good chance of happening upon someone stopped/fallen/turning so switch speed to suit, or be prepared to turn. Also she needs better observation, the boarder was already heading in that direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Je suis un Skieur wrote: |
| The problem isn't that you've rewritten the rule. It's that you think it would make any difference whatsover to the situation in the film you've linked to. It won't. |
I agree in this particular example, she was cutting it too close. But it is a more general point I am making. There are examples (a bit like in the video in the "Whose fault" thread) where there is apparently "loads of space" and suddenly that space disappears with someone cutting a hard carve right across a narrow piste. The rule amendment actually introduces some more common sense into preventing mindless manoeuvres.
| Je suis un Skieur wrote: |
And to use your driving analogy:
| Pyramus wrote: |
If you're joining a motorway from a slip road and you pull straight out into lane 3 without even checking your mirrors and someone drives into the back of you, who is at fault?
Well, I think legally it's still the driver at the back. |
Nope. Any action that causes another driver to take evasive action and/or emergency braking is an instant driving test fail.
|
I very much doubt an insurance company would pay out based on the front driver being at fault, it's pretty much guaranteed to be the fault of rear driver although thankfully I've never had to test this. But anyway it's besides the point, fact is in my example, it's the front driver that ultimately caused the collision regardless of who is legally responsible. Or are you somehow expecting the driver in the 3rd lane to be expecting it and should have allowed enough time to brake?
| Je suis un Skieur wrote: |
If you actually wanted to mitigate this stuff, you'd have a separate mountain for beginners who have to pass a test before they're allowed on the big mountain with the experienced people. Same as learner drivers aren't allowed on a motorway. But that still doesn't prevent reckless or drink driving, the same as it won't prevent drunk, reckless or away with the fairies skiers. People can be idiotic, whether permanently or temporarily and you can't mitigate for idiocy. |
You can mitigate by having some more common sense in the rules to further reduce chances of collisions.
And by pole clicking of course 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
| Je suis un Skieur wrote: |
And to use your driving analogy:
| Pyramus wrote: |
If you're joining a motorway from a slip road and you pull straight out into lane 3 without even checking your mirrors and someone drives into the back of you, who is at fault?
Well, I think legally it's still the driver at the back. |
Nope. Any action that causes another driver to take evasive action and/or emergency braking is an instant driving test fail. |
I very much doubt an insurance company would pay out based on the front driver being at fault, it's pretty much guaranteed to be the fault of rear driver although thankfully I've never had to test this. But anyway it's besides the point, fact is in my example, it's the front driver that ultimately caused the collision regardless of who is legally responsible. Or are you somehow expecting the driver in the 3rd lane to be expecting it and should have allowed enough time to brake? |
I'm pretty sure that if you did an advanced driving test, you would be expected to anticipate that some idiot might emerge from a slip road and veer straight across to the outside lane. In any case, in the land of dashcam footage, I'm also pretty sure that if you had sufficient footage for the subject driver to be charged with due care & attention or worse, the insurance company would have little choice but to side with you and consider it a no fault claim.
The point though, is that people have to pass a driving test to prove they're competent and understand the highway code before they're allowed solo on the road. If they choose to drive differently, there are consequences. There's no such equivalent test for skiing competence, unless you want to include basic instructor qualifications, so you're relying on an ignorant skier to self-educate themselves on the FIS code or ski with a degree of self-preservation and anticipation, preferably both. But the mountains are open to anybody, experienced or not, so re-writing a rule that an inexperienced person doesn't even know exists makes zero difference.
| Pyramus wrote: |
| Je suis un Skieur wrote: |
| People can be idiotic, whether permanently or temporarily and you can't mitigate for idiocy. |
You can mitigate by having some more common sense in the rules to further reduce chances of collisions. |
If they had common sense, they wouldn't be in the idiot skier category to start with!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Been thinking about getting one of these, it’s about 40 bux in Temu. Designed as an adhesive led sign for the car to send messages to other drivers, but I can see a case to stick it on the back of my jacket to clearly point out the rules to people behind me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Thomasski wrote: |
| Charliee wrote: |
| on occasion when someone passes me on a cat track I'd far rather hear a few clicks and know to leave space or hold course as appropriate; I can't image why this would be an issue. |
You're linking turns on a cat track and you hear some clicks behind you, what do you do:
- "leave space?"
- "hold course?"
- carry on skiing because the clicker is in charge of their own skis. |
Maybe not launch off of that juicy looking side hit landing switch in the middle of the cat track? Personally I don't mind a couple of clicks as long as its not aggressive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Snow Hound wrote: |
| Thomasski wrote: |
| Charliee wrote: |
| on occasion when someone passes me on a cat track I'd far rather hear a few clicks and know to leave space or hold course as appropriate; I can't image why this would be an issue. |
You're linking turns on a cat track and you hear some clicks behind you, what do you do:
- "leave space?"
- "hold course?"
- carry on skiing because the clicker is in charge of their own skis. |
Maybe not launch off of that juicy looking side hit landing switch in the middle of the cat track? Personally I don't mind a couple of clicks as long as its not aggressive. |
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@abc, Maybe not click your poles so that those in front of you on a cat track "know to maintain their line" so you can get past them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
| T Bar wrote: |
| there was loads of room and the person who collided clearly did not leave enough room. |
But isn't this one of the problems? There is only "loads of room" until someone decides they are going to "close the door" on someone without caring about anyone else above them and traverse straight across them. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that could have happened to numerous other skiers in that video. |
Surely what you do is wait until a ski/boarder JUST TURNS then nip round the back of them away from the direction they've JUST TURNED? Then they can't close the door on you (which is their right). It's not rocket science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@jedster, Ah but that's the knack - you have to work out the speed, oscillation and predictability of those ahead, married to your own speed and future momentum, the current and future pitch and width of the track, radius of your own turns, the inherent loss of speed, surface adhesion, the occupation of your own position, all while not being too much of a dick and maintaining the appearance of effortless steez and (for some) maintaining a pleasing backbeat of pole tapping.
Its as much a science as it is art. Frankly, I see competitive cat-track overtaking as an exhibition event at the next Olympics, style, speed, danger - a ratings winner without doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jedster wrote: |
| Surely what you do is wait until a ski/boarder JUST TURNS then nip round the back of them away from the direction they've JUST TURNED? Then they can't close the door on you (which is their right). It's not rocket science. |
Exactly. This is what I aim to do as much as possible, and typically means I don't have to manage my speed too much. The trick is to think ahead to be able to safely complete your overtake, managing your speed in a progressive way if necessary, just like its best to do in a car. No point in screaming up behind somebody at full tilt, then discovering that there's no option for a safe overtake so you have to do something to avoid a collision. It's BS to suggest that it's impossible to overtake on a narrow piste like a cat track. It happens all the time, safely and without drama. You just need to respect the person in front of you and act accordingly, rather than believe you are entitled to that person staying out of 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.
|
| Richard_Sideways wrote: |
@jedster, Ah but that's the knack - you have to work out the speed, oscillation and predictability of those ahead, married to your own speed and future momentum, the current and future pitch and width of the track, radius of your own turns, the inherent loss of speed, surface adhesion, the occupation of your own position, all while not being too much of a dick and maintaining the appearance of effortless steez and (for some) maintaining a pleasing backbeat of pole tapping.
Its as much a science as it is art. Frankly, I see competitive cat-track overtaking as an exhibition event at the next Olympics, style, speed, danger - a ratings winner without doubt. |
I confess me and the kids have a little game about who can flow through the traffic as efficiently as possible on the last run down to resort in Les Contamines. We have a very tough stewards inquiry among the three of us that has a zero tolerance disqualification for skiing that gets in the vague vicinity of dickishness. It never actually gets to the point of a vote because the offender always voluntarily self-disqualifies "honestly I thought I got a bit too close on that last bend".
So I'll give you the style and speed and add courtesy but I'm not having danger. If it's dangerous you lose 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
Amended rule:
| Quote: |
5. Entering, starting and moving against or directly across the general flow of traffic
A skier or snowboarder entering a marked run, starting again after stopping or moving against or directly across the general flow of traffic on the slopes must look up and down the slopes that he can do so without endangering himself or others. |
|
I think there is a reason why that's not the rule. I agree that there should be a separate rule/advice about checking if we can safely turn but it's not always possible, so the rule would need to be different depending on type of ride, speed and abilities.
If someone in front of me does either short turns or rides from edge to edge but does it consistently then the only problem I may have is that I need to be a bit more careful when overtaking him (if it's edge2edge). If he does it randomly and I'm on a board and terrain is flat, I can't safely pass him without risking full stop.
So again, we need to be aware of what is happening in front us but not only judge the distance but also predict what may happen (e.g. someone losing control). When we are in front we should bear in mind that change in the profile of our ride may surprise someone.
On the clip if the snowboarder turned deliberately I would say the fault is 85-95% on skier side.
Motorway analogy doesn't always work because even though most of the time we are not prepared for someone in front of us doing emergency stop it doesn't happen often. Also it's not always drivers behind fault (e.g insurance scams).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
