Was just looking at Alpe d'huez videos on Youtube and came across this one. Would like people's opinions on who was at fault here for the collision, I thought it was pretty clear the first time round but having watched it a couple of times now I've since changed my mind.
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?
Plenty of room on the piste, they should both be aware of who is around them as well as looking where they are going.
Actually that looks a bit like my wipeout last year. First run, wide blue piste with no one else on it other than me and my 3 ski buddies. I'm third in line lots of space between me and the two in front. I'm getting my ski legs and making wide easy turns using most of the piste suddenly as I turn to the right I ski in to the back marker buddy who is making short fast turns coming behind me. That hurt and sheepish grins all round
I feel the overtaking skier was at fault because although the other guy changed direction that's his prerogative and the fast skier didn't have the ability to alter his trajectory. Watched it twice. Will have another look.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Still think so. He could have put in another (right) turn and avoided the collision. They were both possibly skiing too fast for their ability to manoeuvre and focus on those around them.
There is seldom a situation where one individual is solely and wholly to blame.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Minion1980 wrote:
Erm it was the boarders fault obviously. This is Snowheads isn't it?
Disclaimer: I'm a boarder
You're absolutely right. Both skiers were in such a state of shock to see a boarder awake at that time of day that they were transfixed.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
pam w wrote:
I feel the overtaking skier was at fault because although the other guy changed direction that's his prerogative and the fast skier didn't have the ability to alter his trajectory. Watched it twice. Will have another look.
Yep. The skier who comes from the right overtook while turning and sweeps left across the piste. Should have had awareness and control to turn back right.
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.
mcspreader wrote:
There is seldom a situation where one individual is solely and wholly to blame.
I don't believe that to be true but even if it were, this isn't one of those unclear situations.
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
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
It was the guy in the red jacket,
On a serious note the guy doing the big carving turns was at fault, and this is a problem I have found with doing big carving turns, the nature of the turn, crossing a large amount of the piste at highish speed can lead to collisions just like this one, or worse, two skiers doing big carving turns meeting head on. If you are skiing in a group, playing follow the leader could avoid this type of crash but you do need to be much more aware of other skiers when doing the big carves.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
With a faster overtaking skier crashing someone below I think it usually IS clear cut, as it is when a car crashes into the rear of the car in front when both are on the same road. That's why, however good you are it's seldom safe to ski fast on a crowded piste.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
People seem to forget they have eyes. They're quite a powerful tool when used correctly...
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Boy scouts could spend a lot of time trying to work out who in fact was "the downhill skier" or "faster". It depends where you start the video. That's hardly a calculation either rider could make on the piste, so it is practically irrelevant, irrespective of anything else.
To me it's really simple: both riders failed to look where they were going. They turned into each other. Either could have easily avoided a collision if they'd looked where they were turning.
If you don't look where you're going then trying to find someone to blame is pretty pointless.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
philwig wrote:
Boy scouts could spend a lot of time trying to work out who in fact was "the downhill skier" or "faster". It depends where you start the video. .
No it doesn't. Overtaking happens at the point one skier passes the other. Yes both skiers could have taken avoiding action but that does not mean both are at fault.
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?
Surely from this single, distant viewpoint it is impossible to be sure who is at fault anyway.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
The skier on the right (R) (blue pants ) is clearly the overtaking skier. The skier on the left (L) is the skier being overtaken. So you would think skier (R) is at fault, skier (L) though takes a long traverse and has/should have view of skier (R) and have placed another turn to avoid contact ( just because you are the skier being overtaken does not mean you can not and should not give room to an overtaking skier if you can, you still have a duty to not deliberatly cause a collision ). Skier (R) is further to the right to avoid, looks like he does see skier (L) and puts in another turn but too late as skier (L) is coming quick.
Both should have been more observant both have made errors of judgement, skier (R) is by default to blame as the overtaker but I think did make room for skier (L) by moving further across the slope and also tried to take avoiding action. skier (L) did not make any effort to avoid.
I would class it as a skiing accident these things happen, no matter the best intentions and could not assign blame solely to skier (R).
... Overtaking happens at the point one skier passes the other. Yes both skiers could have taken avoiding action but that does not mean both are at fault.
On that first point, in this case, first the skier L "overtakes" the skier R, then the skier R just edges ahead before the collision, which occurs when the skier L is about to overtake skier R a second time. Hence my point that depending on when you decide to start your observation, your rule book will give you a different answer. This is why we have courts and judges, not machines, to adjudicate on such things.
On your second point I think you'll find that no rule book says it's acceptable to ride around without looking where you're going, which is why in my view they are clearly both at fault. We shall no doubt disagree on that.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Skier (R) did indeed overtake fairly quickly early on, but at point of impact skier (L) was ahead, which means skier (L) had just re-overtaken skier (R) - therefore by default skier (L) is to blame. Or maybe skier (R) as they were the uphill skier at impact...
Actually watching again it looks like (R) slowed a little after passing the boarder, with (L) speeding up significantly. (R) having passed the (at the time) much slower skiers was not expecting anyone to come level with him/her so felt they had no need to look before making a fairly innocuous turn.
Can catch you out on the road too, if you think your speed means nobody should be passing or even coming level you don't always check mirrors as carefully as you should before changing lanes.
After all it is free
After all it is free
wait a minute, are we talking skier's or viewer's Left and Right? I think me and philwig may have this opposite way round, but I think the conclusion is the same!
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.
@kerb, (L) is the skier on the left in black as we see them and (R) is the skier on the right with blue pants.
Skier (L) hits the front of skier (R) so was still ahead but travelling faster. On full screen it is clear that skier (R) did just manage to make another turn to his left and IMO it was to avoid skier (L) as it did not fit in with his rythm of turns ( maybe making a presumption there ).
Skier (R) did slow down quite a bit when avoiding/passing the snowboarder so never actually passed the skier (L) doing GS turns.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
speed098 wrote:
@kerb, (L) is the skier on the left in black as we see them and (R) is the skier on the right with blue pants.
Ah, good, that's what I thought too, although I can't make out the colour of his pants on my screen. I see what you mean about skier (R) not actually passing (L), (R) was coming up on (L) and the boarder at quite a rate, but its debatable if (R) actually passed (L).
And you are again correct about (R) making a last second turn probably to avoid (L).
So on balance I'd say (L) was mostly to blame, but overall best considered a 'racing incident'.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
@speed098, I agree. Having watched it full screen then skier(R) clearly turns away to the left just before the impact. Skier(L) makes no attempt to avoid the collision.
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.
Skier in black downslope of skier in blue pants at start of video. Skier in blue pants going faster, looks like he slows a bit to go around snowboarder, then continues. It could be argued that because of this his situational awareness of the skier in black was interrupted. Skier in black doing big turns was initially doing turns on left as viewing, but then makes decision to use whole slope and then collides with skier in blue. Skier in black does not turn head once to look back upslope before or after turns. Avoidable collision on both skiers parts. Hopefully no one injured, but I would caution the skier in black for not looking about to check where others were.
Had two instances this holiday in La Plagne where I had 2 skiers ski into me. (I am 6'6", dressed head to toe in red with a big black backpack, so not exactly something you don't see), both were women. Both instances caught on video which I will upload at some point. It just seems to me that some people when they strap skies or boards on their feet don't give a damn about anyone else, just go where they like, stop in the middle of the piste, or worse right in front of the lifts to have a good old chinwag and to hell with everyone else crashing about behind them trying to avoid them.
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
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
L was going too fast for the density on the slope (albeit not very high) and his own skill/situational awareness (pretty low).
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Tankerdriver wrote:
Had two instances this holiday in La Plagne where I had 2 skiers ski into me. (I am 6'6", dressed head to toe in red with a big black backpack, so not exactly something you don't see), both were women.
tbh mate if a big lump like you can't take the odd knock from a girl then you shouldn't be on the hill.
This applies to us all in varying degrees - accidents are bound to happen and unless it's actual recklessness (not the case in the OP's vid) then the only civilised response is to get up, man up, dust ourselves down, shake hands and forget it.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
red 27 wrote:
This applies to us all in varying degrees - accidents are bound to happen and unless it's actual recklessness (not the case in the OP's vid)
Don't agree. The skier going big turns across a reasonably busy piste was reckless. The trouble with saying it doesn't matter unless there is injury is that you cannot calibrate what may cause injury until after the event. Therefore collision and risk of collision must be avoided.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Of course every collision "matters" because it ought to make people thing what went wrong, and try to avoid another. Even an apparently minor collision can cause injury and we often read here of new skiers, or nervous ones, being badly freaked out by collisions.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Was he blind? It doesn't look busy and there is no need to ski that close to a person ahead on almost empty slope, no distractions either to be lose focus on what's ahead.
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?
red 27 wrote:
accidents are bound to happen
Are they? I'm fortunate enough to have had several hundred days of skiing, and I've not been involved in a collision. An awareness of what's going on around you is the key, irrespective of the rules of priority etc. The guy doing the big sweeping turns is clearly at fault, to my mind; he had plenty of time to avoid that crash.
Of course every collision "matters" because it ought to make people thing what went wrong, and try to avoid another. Even an apparently minor collision can cause injury and we often read here of new skiers, or nervous ones, being badly freaked out by collisions.
+1 I also think we should think about close calls we may have been involved in, and how we may avoid them in future. Even if we do clear by what we think is an ample distance, whizzing past a nervous skier at highish speed can cause anxiety. Why do it? I heard someone give a nervous yelp when I did just that on the BB; I gave myself an on the spot interview.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
I've been through the usual suspects when it comes to apportioning blame:
Globalization, Capitalism, 18 years of under-investment by the previous administration, Immigrants, GM Crops, the Investment Banks, Global warming, the wrong type of snow etc... and whilst a case could be made for some, all or any of the above it would hardly be compelling.
I blame the culture where we have to find blame in everything - for that we all have ourselves to blame.
My hunch is that the collision was an example of pre-destination.
If you think that slope was busy I would hate to find out what you think of the fridges or even the home runs at the end of a day.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
The piste was a fair bit busier than the ones I usually frequent.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Definitely not a busy piste in my opinion. Although @laundryman, 's piste density in the area of the collision would be high . It's what makes it all the more pathetic and avoidable collision as there was plenty of room for them all.
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.
WindOfChange wrote:
I've been through the usual suspects when it comes to apportioning blame:
Globalization, Capitalism, 18 years of under-investment by the previous administration, Immigrants, GM Crops, the Investment Banks, Global warming, the wrong type of snow etc... and whilst a case could be made for some, all or any of the above it would hardly be compelling.
I blame the culture where we have to find blame in everything - for that we all have ourselves to blame.
My hunch is that the collision was an example of pre-destination.
My hunch is that it was incompetence.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
speed098 wrote:
@dogwatch,
If you think that slope was busy I would hate to find out what you think of the fridges or even the home runs at the end of a day.
The last time but one I went to a fridge at a weekend I said to myself, never again. And the last time, I remembered telling myself the time before. Sometimes I'm a slow learner. I'd generally file home runs at the end of the day under "necessary evil" rather than "pleasure" although a busy Santons goes under "never again".
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
. It's what makes it all the more pathetic and avoidable collision as there was plenty of room for them all.