British skier beaten unconscious by snowboarder

A snowHead

Are you lot still bickering? You should be out looking for that snowboarder!

A snowHead

Returning to the original purpose of this post. I hope the victim of this assault makes a speedy and full recovery from his injuries, which by all accounts are serious and potentially life changing.

The description of the attack, assuming it is reasonably accurate, appears to constitute Actual, if not Grievous Bodily Harm, or whatever the Austrian equivalents in law are.

Reports suggest the victim was already on the floor when the perpetrator started hitting him around the head with the ‘borrowed’ ski pole.

I hope the Austrian authorities are striving to identify the perpetrator. I would think there would be plenty of CCTV images of people and groups using that area on the day and that specific location at the time of the assault. Coupled with lift pass use data and possibly eye witnesses, maybe there will be enough evidence to take action.

Regardless of where this perpetrator is, bar, shopping mall, piste, he appears to be a violent and dangerous man. This type of behaviour deserves punishment.

The incident is also a sad reminder of the need to think carefully about context and vulnerability before challenging someone’s behaviour. Many of us, certainly me, have occasionally ended up worse off despite trying to do ‘the right thing’.

Take care out there Sad

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

From the article I read the skier didn't wear a crash helmet. Perhaps the snowboarder was just teaching him the value of them.

I'd had firmer instructors myself.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

A colleague near me recently told a story of his youth. He was thumbing a lift home and he middle fingered a driver that drove past. The car stopped and a guy got out, walked over and clobbered him with a snooker ball in a sock, smashing his eye socket.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

The post about other issues playing a part in collisions is absolutely valid i think, but also a lack of knowledge of the rules. I put this compilation up not so much for the actual content, but scroll to the comments (you will have to view it on YouTube to do this.) The amount of people complaining about having been "cut off" by kids and supporting a guy who quite clearly is completely at fault wiping a little kid out is quite crazy, and shows a complete lack of understanding of the rules.

http://youtube.com/v/-YfquR9B3h0

After all it is free

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

@Dave of the Marmottes, If people suddenly change direction and ski across someone else, they haven't cut anyone off. It is always the uphill skier or boarders responsibility not to collide. That is my point. But you knew that.
There is no defence for the boarder in that incident. He was traveling at reckless speed towards a group. He should have chosen a much wider line away from them. It was clearly a gentle piste where families, young kids and learners would be. He may have been young, but deserved a bollocking. I would have done the same. As an adult, I don't need the FIS to tell me that I should gove kids an extra margin of safety. Do you?

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

2 ways of looking at it. The Dad is a at fault as it is he who is on a busy piste and has not checked uphill before letting his kid go off. Completely negligent of the guardian to that child. The dad's first instinct is to attack the boarder rather than to look into how his kid is as well.

snow reports

@Layne,

Both were at fault. Someone other than me will have to decide on the % split of responsibility.

You know it makes sense.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

It's often tricky to make judgements on clips like these due to the reduced field of view, but i reckon:
Boarder at fault for getting too close to first (girl?) skier.
Kid at fault for taking off without looking uphill.
Dad at fault for stopping in the middle of the piste.

A snowHead

Boarder totally at fault. He gave himself zero margin of error and events conspired against him. The expectation that everyone below you will remain as still as a statue until you pass is unreasonable. If taking avoiding action sends you towards other people, bail out, don't try to slalom through them.

A snowHead

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Nobody is totally at fault. Everyone is at fault.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

@Dave of the Marmottes,

My take is the snowboarder broke rules 1 to 4 before the child broke rule 5 (Father's responsibility). It's possible that the child had fallen over and that's the reason they had stopped in the middle of the piste. If a snowboarder/Skier is not good enough to avoid the first skier then they should be cutting down on their speed.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

After all it is free

I don't think it does. The little kid was barely moving. He and his Dad may have been stationary there because he had fallen and had just got up. There is no excuse for the boarder other than lack of experience, It was an evolving situation and it was easy to see that it would be best to avoid the group. Dad's actions after were OTT physically, but shouting at the boarder, totally fine, he deserved it.
As for it being the main run back in, why shouldn't they be there, they have just as much right to be there as anyone else who have paid there lift pass. If there is a group of learners for example, or a family, or some people who just want to go slowly, yes, the uphill skiers AND boarders should slow to a crawl and pass safely. Bellends who think they own the shop because "they are sooooo good" and charge about passing folk unnecessarily closely "because they shouldn't be there"get on my wires.
And I certainly don't beleive that the kid was "totally hidden".

@thecramps, Believe me people did frame by frame analysis trying to prove he was visible and it was unconvincing. & the kid moved enough at the last second to go from protected by his dad to totally unprotected.

I guess what we are proving is that even among people who know the rules and try to follow them there is disagreement. Personally I don't believe that there is any hierarchy or priority in the rules i.e. 1-4 do not trump 5 otherwise 5 would make no sense. But bear in mind we are probably in the 30% of slope users who know the rules anyway rather than some made up hotch potch based on their own entitlement..

And any righteousness based on the rules is futile anyway. The rules fairy doesn't fly to your hospital bed and heal any ouchies becaiuse you are right. And litigation is very very difficult

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

@Dave of the Marmottes,

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

It was a chain reaction, if the snowboarder hadn't broken rules 1 to 4 the collision with the child would not have happened.
I see responsibility with the whoever broke the rules first. If the child had broken rule 5 first and caused the boarder to lose control I'd see it as the child's/father's fault.
Even in isolation (without the child being there) the boarder rode far too close to the father.

snow reports

@DB, Nah you have to look at all the rules anyway. It's an academic exercise but had kid/dad not broken rule 5 (& probably 6 for that matter) no collision. Near misses maybe but no collision. A collision normally involves 2 screw ups and any one party can usually avoid it through appropriate vigilance e.g. stop at the side of piste where you can look uphill and therefore be ready to move if a maniac is cannonballing toward you. Or put it another way if the snowboarder was not upright but had fallen and was sliding is he still at fault or should the dad have been looking out for that on a busy slope?

You could say yes anyone who falls defacto breaches Rule 2 but I expect that would be viewed as a harsh interpretation in the context of a sport which it is inherently a risk.

You know it makes sense.

@Dave of the Marmottes, What a load of trot.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

@Legend., Can't agree. The kid barely moved. Surely you are not saying that you cannot and should not move even a couple of feet without making sure you aren't stepping into someone's path? No one should be passing anyone so closely and it is right that no one should expect it. The boarder was totally at fault.

A snowHead

@Dave of the Marmottes, I can see why there was so much debate over it. I've watched it over & over now.

If you ignore the boarder brushing into the first skier (for which he was clearly at fault) and start watching from when he had to change his line. Focus on the dad and kid. They are both stationary at first. The kid then sets off, without looking, right into the path of the boarder. You could argue that the boarder got far too close to the dad, but an uphill glance from the kid, or the dad, would have prevented the collision.

A snowHead

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

@Legend.,
No I‘m not saying sod rule 7. People will be stationary in the middle of the piste because they fall over etc. Looks like you are saying if the boarder hadn‘t of hit the kid everything would have been OK. Dangerous driving is ok as long as you don’t have a crash? Yes the kid and father were at fault too, I just put the majority of the blame on the boarder. In no way am I saying that the father hitting the boarder was the proper response either.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

This is so simple, and it seems to me that the same people rehash the same nonsense every time there is any discussion about fault on the slopes.

I have never collided with anyone on a piste, not gave I come close to doing so. Because I follow the rules about being in control, adapting to conditions, traffic and ability. I allow downhill skiers sufficient space top make any voluntary or involuntary movement (including setting off without looking).

I suspect those who argue that it is not always the responsibility of the uphill slope user to avoid the downhill slope user either:
1. Have a sense of entitlement, and expect others below them to stay out of their way/ski in such a way as to never cause them to slow down or change line
2. Ski beyond their capability to stop and/or avoid those below them on the slope when they do something freaky.

Take responsibility and ski within your abilities rather than try and justify an uphill slope user crashing into a downhill slope user. There is absolutely no doubt this is the snowboarders fault. I do not condone the father hitting another kid however.

You'll need to Register first of course.

@zikomo, Good for you but that's not what the rules require in completeness. I expect people to set off without looking because that's what experience tells me will happen. But that doesn't put them in the right and me in the worng if I end up a bit closer to them then they are comfortable with (because it's their action that has closed down the safety gap).

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

<laughs> In this fantasy rules-based world, no one ever "skis beyond their capability".
You could get rid of releasable bindings for a start, then.

After all it is free

@Dave of the Marmottes, If you are coming from uphill, and crash into someone below you, it is your fault. If you will not or cannot ski in such a way as to avoid that happening you are at fault.

That being said I will exit this discussion now, you are one of a sizeable minority who simply refuse to take responsibility and display a very worrying sense of entitlement to whatever speed and line you want to ski with scant regard for others. I wonder how many close calls you have had in your skiing career? I would guess quite a few.

@zikomo, Completely agree, especially about the entitlement of some people.

@Dave of the Marmottes, boarder never gave any dude plenty of space. He was at fault, 100%.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

@zikomo, Nice simplistic world you live in. Well done. But we've had this debate before and you weren't persuaded then either. Maybe one day someone will jump switch from tree cover onto a cattrack you are on and you'll be hit (happened to me last year). Then you'll appreciate the importance of rule 5. Until then.....

and like we said before you know nothing about how I ski but keep up the ad homs anyway....

Help!!

British skier beaten unconscious by snowboarder

snowHeads Forum Index >>> The Piste