The definitive video, by a snowboarder, on 'who has the right of way'. If everyone followed this basic principle, everyone would get on famously on the slopes.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@Tankerdriver, good one.
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?
Love this guy wish everyone was this chill on the mountain. He should start a T-shirt line "they have the right of way"
Send homeboy down Happy Valley at 3pm during Fasching and see if he's so chill them. He's also not right on those sat in the middle of the run having right of way.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
@Dave of the Marmottes, You missed the point entirely....It is about respect....Even if he is a snowboarder.
Dave of the Marmottes:- He is STILL right even if it was 'Happy Valley' at ANY time. If you are driving a car in rush hour in central London/Los Angeles/Paris or anywhere else in the world. if YOU run into the back of them, it's ALWAYS your fault. Same principle. It's time every skier/boarder/snow biker etc learned that.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Thornyhill wrote:
@Dave of the Marmottes, You missed the point entirely....It is about respect....Even if he is a snowboarder.
No I entirely get the point which I wholeheartedly endorse. I just think that knowing 1 rule while it is better than none is still not as good as knowing they all apply. Which means showing respect by not stopping in jackass places or setting off blind and trusting it's someone else's poo-poo to deal with frinstance.
After all it is free
After all it is free
I think from English law that the right of way does not include the right to stop there for some time (from when paparazzi camped on a pavement outside some sleb's house) so not sure he'd be right on the boarders if that would be valid there.
Love the video though.
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.
Quote:
I think from English law that the right of way does not include the right to stop there for some time (from when paparazzi camped on a pavement outside some sleb's house) so not sure he'd be right on the boarders if that would be valid there.
I will bear that in mind next time I am skiing in Weardale.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Why oh why does anyone ever argue about downhill skier or snowboarder having the right of way? Seem to me every time this comes up there is some sort of equivocation. This guy is spot on. It is always the case, we should all accept that, and the slopes will be much safer as a result. I am amazed, frankly, at the number of skiers and boarders who remain reistent to this approach, and will argue the point even when they have collided with someone.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Quote:
I just think that knowing 1 rule while it is better than none is still not as good as knowing they all apply. Which means showing respect by not stopping in jackass places or setting off blind and trusting it's someone else's poo-poo to deal with frinstance.
Personally I think he was right - people shouldn't stop in the middle of the piste but once they do, it IS your responsibility as the uphill skier to leave them a wide berth. You can't buzz them just because they stopped in the wrong place.
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.
Old Man Of Lech wrote:
Dave of the Marmottes:- He is STILL right even if it was 'Happy Valley' at ANY time. If you are driving a car in rush hour in central London/Los Angeles/Paris or anywhere else in the world. if YOU run into the back of them, it's ALWAYS your fault. Same principle. It's time every skier/boarder/snow biker etc learned that.
Always? If you were driving down the motorway in a clear lane and somebody at a slower speed suddenly changed lanes into your lane right in front of you causing you to go into the back of them would that be your fault?
What about if someone parked their car in the middle of an empty road round the corner of a blind bend or the other side of a brow of a hill? Would they be completely blameless if another car went into the back of 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
@SlipnSlide, funny how skiing seems to draws parallels with driving from people. When driving the Highway Code states you should always be able to stop in the space you can see to be clear ahead.
It's common sense and the guy in the video is spot on. Don't know why some people have to be so contrary 🔔Ends
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
SlipnSlide wrote:
Old Man Of Lech wrote:
Dave of the Marmottes:- He is STILL right even if it was 'Happy Valley' at ANY time. If you are driving a car in rush hour in central London/Los Angeles/Paris or anywhere else in the world. if YOU run into the back of them, it's ALWAYS your fault. Same principle. It's time every skier/boarder/snow biker etc learned that.
Always? If you were driving down the motorway in a clear lane and somebody at a slower speed suddenly changed lanes into your lane right in front of you causing you to go into the back of them would that be your fault?
What about if someone parked their car in the middle of an empty road round the corner of a blind bend or the other side of a brow of a hill? Would they be completely blameless if another car went into the back of them?
So if it was an accident in the middle of the road, and that same car went into them who's fault would that be ?
Or maybe you just shouldn't drive so fast on that stretch of road such that you can always stop no matter what lies hidden round the corner.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Replace parked car with child, old person, petrol tanker etc... My father explained it simply to me, when you come round a corner imagine there is a jack knifed petrol tanker and school children lining the sides of the road. If you can't stop in time you are going too fast.
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Thu 2-02-17 12:56; edited 1 time in total
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
jirac18 wrote:
@SlipnSlide, funny how skiing seems to draws parallels with driving from people. When driving the Highway Code states you should always be able to stop in the space you can see to be clear ahead.
It's common sense and the guy in the video is spot on. Don't know why some people have to be so contrary 🔔Ends
Indeed. But if the space in front of you is clear and someone suddenly cuts in front of you without warning (from a side road or another lane) that space is no longer clear through no fault of your own. (I'm talking about driving now, not skiing).
I take the point about replacing the parked car with an accident, school kids, sheep whatever, but if someone did just decide to park their car in the middle of a fast moving road for no good reason, when they could easily have just pulled into the side, then surely that would be regarded as irresponsible wouldn't it? Same with skiing. If someone wants to stop everyone should be aware that they should stop at the side of the piste, somewhere visible, rather than in the middle under a dip?
BTW, I'm not a reckless skier and always give those in front plenty of room and slow down at bends and dips. I just think its worth everyone having a bit of common sense.
Perhaps a better analogy is pedestrian traffic lights. If a traffic light is on red (green man) and someone gets run over crossing then we would all agree it is the drivers fault. However its worth drumming into kids that even if the green man is showing you should still ALWAYS look both ways before crossing just in case, rather than blindly walking out just because you have right of way.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Quote:
but if someone did just decide to park their car in the middle of a fast moving road for no good reason, when they could easily have just pulled into the side, then surely that would be regarded as irresponsible wouldn't it? Same with skiing.
Very true. But that in no way removes your responsibility to do everything sensible to mitigate their irresponsible behaviour including slowing down and giving them plenty of space if necessary. THAT was the point of the video.
Clearly if an accident happened and it went to court their would be an apportionment of blame and quite likely most of it would go to the person who stopped in a foolish place but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have made every reasonable step to prevent their foolishness turning into an accident.
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?
"It's written on his gravestone: 'It was my right of way' " .
The OP, and the video as far as I can tell, is about respect, it is about avoiding accidents where possible. And the best way to reduce them, is to respect everyone - specifically those below you, but, and as he says in the video, those above you too.
In this context, who cares if someone comes in from the blindside and you hit them: we're not discussing 'fault' or 'blame' here: this (thread) is not about insurance payouts.
Respect your fellow mountain users, and no matter who is 'wrong', you are less likely to be in, or cause others to be in, an accident.
Of course the more people who take on this mantra, the better. But to start with, let's "change the mountain one slider at a time".
I prefer 'my priority' to 'my right of way' on both skis and in cars
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
pieman666 wrote:
I prefer 'my priority' to 'my right of way' on both skis and in cars
I prefer "stand on vessel" myself ....
After all it is free
After all it is free
@Arctic Roll, spot on well said
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.
pieman666 wrote:
Replace parked car with child, old person, petrol tanker etc... My father explained it simply to me, when you come round a corner imagine there is a jack knifed petrol tanker and school children lining the sides of the road. If you can't stop in time you are going too fast.
Exactly. You need to ski with exactly the same mindset. I get pissed off hearing about folks complaining about running into people stopped in the middle of the piste, or just over a brow, with the "It's their fault it was a stupid place to stop" line. Replace that with an injured skier and they're going to run into them still. Your wise father's words are spot on.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
zikomo wrote:
Why oh why does anyone ever argue about downhill skier or snowboarder having the right of way? Seem to me every time this comes up there is some sort of equivocation. This guy is spot on. It is always the case, we should all accept that, and the slopes will be much safer as a result. I am amazed, frankly, at the number of skiers and boarders who remain reistent to this approach, and will argue the point even when they have collided with someone.
No one's arguing on the basic principle but there is equivocation, as Knapton is in Colorado here is an express clause in the Colorado Ski Safety Act which is actual law not just FIS "rules"
Quote:
( 8 ) Before beginning to ski from a stationary position or before entering a ski slope or trail from the side, the skier
shall have the duty of avoiding moving skiers already on the ski slope or trail.
Old Man of Lech should be familiar as I understand he is currently subject to the Act. As an instructor how aware are your students of all of the Act under which they have obligations?
I'm not trying to be a dick as the video has the best of intentions but every time we discuss this sort of thing people are so definitive with the "end of" and mic drops that behaviour on the slopes never surprises me. Nuance is sadly lacking and lack of understanding of nuance doesn't always lead to great decision making.
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads on Thu 2-02-17 14:09; edited 1 time in total
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
His first point is that in the two situations (either you're in front or you're behind), the rule is clear and unambiguous and there are no excuses.
It's not smart to stop, or fall, in places where people are likely to run into you. This is not the point.
It's not polite or particularly safe for novices to side-slip down expert runs. This is not the point.
His second point is the one which trips up people who usually manage the first. That is: even when the rule is in your favour, you'd be daft to assume that will guarantee your safety.
Um, it seems unlikely that anyone here is likely to have much trouble with any of this, from the posts.
---
I'm sure we're all aware that there is an additional rule regarding starting off etc.
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.
@philwig, quite.
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
So we can all agree the spirit of the video is right.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@Dave of the Marmottes, this is the internet, there is no nuance, only pornography and people talking about nazis.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
This is so simple, and I really don't see why it is not possible for all to understand that in all circumstances it is the responsibility of uphill skiers to avoid those downhill of them. I have never come close to skiing into someone from uphill of them (and neither have I come close to back-ending anything on the road). I ski and drive relatively fast, but am aware of my surroundings and anticipate potential dangers - for example only cranking up the speed when I have clear sight and it is safe to do so.
Examples I often hear are when a skier sets off from stationary without looking uphill, or where a skier joins the piste from the side without warning. Both hazards are possible to account for. Don't ski fast in a narrow corridor at the edge of the piste when you do not have sight and awareness of what is going on off the side of the piste. Don't forget to look around you, below, to the sides and uphill and be aware of both what you can see and what you cannot. Assume anyone standing or sitting on the piste could take off at any time and allow for that in your choice of turn shape and speed. Slow down or even stop at intersections. Always assume there is some boarder sitting on the piste the other side of a crest, it may be an injured kid and not doing so could prove fatal.
This does not of course mean that it is sensible to set off without looking downhill, to stop in the middle of the piste, or to do anything unpredictable if it can be avoided. That is base common sense. But do not excuse lack of awareness, poor decision making, lack of skill or consideration by claiming others should not do daft things downhill of you.
I simply do not understand why there is such equivocation on this point. And neither do I understand why the rule on this point is not both more generally accepted and more rigorously enforced.
All that being said, accidents do happen in very exceptional circumstances where it is neigh on impossible to apportion blame (hence the term accident). Such freak accidents do not justify any unwillingness to accept that the downhill skier has the right of way and the uphill skier has the responsibility to avoid crashing into them in all circumstances.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
@zikomo, So what do you make of the "Duty" in the Colorado Ski Safety Act? Kinda nice to have but as the uphill skier is always responsible in your eyes no biggie?
You might not have had it but I see every ski day people blindly setting off and expecting others above them to avoid them. And teh "rules" provide for it by making it pretty clear that they have responsibility.
I've had a pair of people set off blindly into my path point blank blind on a mogul run. You could have heard my breathing even if you didn't want to look. I swerved the first but the one below got skied over. No guilt on my part.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
If I'm parked at the side of the road (or even the middle ) I'd look behind me before I set off. When skiing it seems sensible to do the same, but I approach skiers like I do other road users, as if they are idiots.
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?
If people are downhill of you, either moving or stationary, then you avoid/slow down/wait as necessary.
If you are changing state from moving to stationary, from stationary to moving, or joining or leaving the piste then check all around that it's safe first.
If you do stop on the piste, make your checks first, as above, and then stop in a clearly visible place where you are easy to avoid. (This is likely to be, but not definitely, at the side of the piste).
Anyone want to suggest any edits to simplify or improve?
@zikomo, So what do you make of the "Duty" in the Colorado Ski Safety Act? Kinda nice to have but as the uphill skier is always responsible in your eyes no biggie?
You might not have had it but I see every ski day people blindly setting off and expecting others above them to avoid them. And teh "rules" provide for it by making it pretty clear that they have responsibility.
I've had a pair of people set off blindly into my path point blank blind on a mogul run. You could have heard my breathing even if you didn't want to look. I swerved the first but the one below got skied over. No guilt on my part.
No - the need for others to check uphill before setting off does not mean the rule that the downhill skier has priority is invalid. You are still responsible for avoiding those downhill of you. You must control your speed and manner of skiing to the conditions (including density of traffic) and your ability, choose a route that does not endanger others, and leave enough space for the skier below you to make any voluntary or involuntary movement. No-one would argue that all skiers should check up and down the hill before setting off, but that does not abrogate you from your responsibilities.
I have seen and experienced this many times, it happens very often and I can't imagine anyone with any skiing experience will not have seen people setting off unexpectedly. My point is, I would not be close enough to a stationary skier for this to cause a collision and would have anticipated that they MIGHT decide to set off with no warning or checking uphill. In fact I would assume that is exactly what they are likely to do. The problem happens when you assume someone stationary on the piste will NOT set off without checking first, based on a false assumption that it is their responsibility and therefore their "fault" when the inevitable collision happens.
I just don't see why you could not have safely avoided them.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
@BigSouthernJesse, I'm certain that you could trim a couple of words out but that's a great common sense summary.
The only thing that I would add is something about skiing at a speed that is commensurable with how far you can see. The nastiest crashes I've seen have often been when somebody flies over a dip and straight into a traffic jam.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Matt1959 wrote:
@BigSouthernJesse,
The only thing that I would add is something about skiing at a speed that is commensurable with how far you can see. The nastiest crashes I've seen have often been when somebody flies over a dip and straight into a traffic jam.
Your speed and control should be governed by the limits of visibility and ability to safely avoid/slow down/wait behind all downhill users whether moving or stationary.
If you are changing state from moving to stationary, from stationary to moving, or joining or leaving the piste then check all around that it's safe first.
If you do stop on the piste, make your checks first, as above, and then stop in a clearly visible place where you are easy to avoid. (This is likely to be, but not definitely, at the side of the piste).
Anything else to add? And can someone tidy it up?
After all it is free
After all it is free
By far and away the worst crash I've ever had, which cost me a broken collarbone, was I think probably 50:50 in terms of blame. It went like this.
I was going fast down the right edge of a mellow blue piste that had cut up badly at the end of the day, in a thin path of smooth snow at the edge of the piste. There was someone ahead of me making short turns down this thin path unquestionably he is ahead. Nobody else was around. Just as I was about to slow down, he left the piste to the right. Oh goodie I thought, and carried on pointing down the thin path between the cut up bumps and the edge of the piste, wanting to keep my speed for the uphill section ahead.
However, without looking back up the piste, he then rejoined the piste right in front of me, I had to swerve to miss him, hit a bump and got launched. It hurt when I landed on my shoulder and I got a nice plate courtesy of Bourg hospital.
He was downhill skier. No question. However he also left the piste and rejoined it right in front of me. Possibly I should have predicted that and not skied in a way that required him to stay off the piste until I was past.
And no, he did not stop, despite the fact I flew past him in the air.
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 wrote:
I just don't see why you could not have safely avoided them.
Because they were standing off the side of the piste & therefore not in play at all. I was skiing a perfectly safe line in a corridor about 3m wide avoiding all the chaos and falls in the middle of the piste. I couldn't even see boyfriend who was screened from my sight by GF standing above him. They then push off in a traverse directly into my path when I am about 2 m vertically above their chosen traverse and about 2m into the "piste" - I swerve round the girl but have to ski over the BF's tips. I'm fine no harm done, he obviously is a bit surprised and has a fall and learns some choice anglo saxon
I could have avoided them of course if i stopped above every bystander at the side of the piste and asked them if I was ok to proceed but as I was on the piste and had "right of way" and was in enough control to avoid any single idiot I didn't see why I should. 2 idiots acting in unison obviously was the breaking point.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@flaming, No not your fault - he took himself out of play by leaving the piste. It may have been prudent or safe practice to continue to monitor him but as soon as he left the piste responsibility for safe rejoining fell on him.
So many people fail to get this it is worrying. I can only assume that the saints who slow to a crawl near everyone stood off to the side or skiing adjacent to the piste also put the brakes on at every side junction when driving a main road in case the other motorists come out suddenly.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
