@pieman666, @Tubaski, @rob@rar, I agree. You must ride and drive leaving a safe breaking distance given all appropriate circumstances. Just like everyone does on a busy motorway all the time... (expert at screaming all the way down the M6, me ). And the rules expect everyone to ski or board in control...
Like I said, not an expert on the rules of the piste - so just read 'em.
Rule 1 - respect others and don't do anything to endanger or prejudice them. Rule 6 - avoid stopping where visibility is restricted. So at what point does doing a sudden stop or turning across someone's path automatically make it one person's fault rather than the other's? Just an innocent, genuine question. Rule 2, under control, obviously then comes into play, but surely only as one factor? Ditto Rules 3,4&5.
All good rules, BTW - but a litigators dream, surely?
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Richie_S wrote:
Someone needs to break out the "He's got the right of way, she's got the right of way... they've got the right of way..." YouTube dude....
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?
Dr John wrote:
@Layne, I said nothing about skiing recklessly, my point was about the erroneous need to know miles/vertical/speed by recording it all on an app.
We are discussing collisions on the piste and you among others said that by showing your maximum speed Ski Tracks meant you wanted to constantly beat your previous highest speed, which led you to ski faster than you ordinarily would and ergo meant recklessly - the meaning of which is "without regard to the danger or the consequences of one's actions; rashly." Have I got something wrong?
... Like I said, not an expert on the rules of the piste - so just read 'em.... So at what point does doing a sudden stop or turning across someone's path automatically make it one person's fault rather than the other's? ..
I'm honestly not sure why anyone finds this remotely difficult.
Let's imagine there's a child in front of you on a slope. She has the right of way. If she falls, you must not hit her. If she turns, you must not hit her. This is all your responsibility.
If I'm in front of you, I ride a lot so I'll know you're there, but you are still responsible for keeping out of my way. If I make a heel-side turn into your path, that's your problem. Perhaps I don't fancy making money from litigation against you whilst bored in my hospital bed, in which case maybe I won't turn there, but it's my right and I may not have a choice as I may be avoiding someone else. In addition to hurting people and putting you in the position of financial responsibility, behaving dangerously is simply incredibly inconsiderate and rude.
Finally you may fall and slide in my direction. Still your fault.
In Snowbird they'll tell you all this every time you ride up in the tram. "Remember, the person in front of you has the right of way". Some people have to be told repeatedly, it seems.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
OK, OK... Sorry. But like you said, behaving dangerously is inconsiderate and rude. So I respectfully refer to my previous query: how does Rule 1 and Rule 6 come into play, if at all? If I'm reading you right, @philwig, then a person in front of me can therefore act in any manner they wish to endanger or prejudice me, be as reckless or dangerous as they want, stop deliberately in my path (preferably where not visible or at the narrowest point) and still be regarded as being in the right just because they are in front. That just seems, well, strange to me. Simple, easy, but strange.
I bow to superior knowledge; and will try to fall uphill in future
@Grizzler,
The FIS code is like the Highway Code. It never gives you the right of way, it always suggests when you should cede it.
As has been said recently on other threads, it doesn't matter if you are in the right or not. You could still get squashed by a truck/snowboarder/runaway elephant. It's so much better to just be careful and drive/ski/ride defensively.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@Grizzler, can you distinguish if the skier in front has stopped quickly because they are messing around, because they've pulled a muscle and are in pain, because they've caught an edge and wanted to quickly regain composure, because they have done 60 turns and need to stop for a rest, because they've realised they are lost, because they are waiting for a family member, etc, etc? For me, I'd rather avoid the collision in the first place (as I'm sure you would too) than get in to a discussion about responsibility and try to think of circumstances where the person in front of me was at fault. Just seems like common sense, as much as common curtesy.
After all it is free
After all it is free
@BoardieK, yup, that's the fella...
His attitude needs to permeate out there a little more, clearly.
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.
If litigation grasps the slopes it will be a sad day for me. The founding fathers of our sport were pioneers and gentlemen. They saw fit to sum up responsibility in a few guidelines that, if everyone adheres to, are sufficient. If you rear end someone, regardless of their actions, you are in the wrong.
For me, the only grey area is rule 2, always in control. There are always beginners, they are not always in control. I treat them like learner drivers, stay farther back, have more patience to allow them to practice reverse parking or slide slipping.
Yet you always get some numpty than can turn left, turn right or stop when they want on a gentle slope. Then they hit a short steep section, and straight line it out of control because they do not have the ability to control their turns in the tougher stuff, so they don't even try to turn. Folk riding on the cusp of their ability, pushing the envelope are the dangerous ones.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
I agree it seems both simple and slightly strange - I think that's why Ryan made the video: it's laughably easy.
--
On the specific point, the rules are set up so those people in a blind spot are safe, irrespective of if they fell there or stupidly decided to stop there. Their motivation is irrelevant.
People who are being overtaken do not have to signal their intention to turn; they do not have to signal or ask permission to stop (or fall); they do not have to look behind or even be aware anyone else may be there; they can and do fall absolutely anywhere. We have all benefited from this.
As Ryan suggests, even very experienced people simply can't ride fast much of the time at resorts.
--
"People at the limit of their ability" would presumably include all learners, so perhaps "people at the limit of their ability straight lining at high speed" is the real problem. That's what speed cops are for, although not all resorts have them unfortunately. I also find people who feel they need to "compete" can be an issue. I'll stop to let them "beat me" every time.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
You can't compare skiing to driving on the road, the road is a very ordered place (hard to believe at times, I know) wnen compared to skiing, there are clear lanes, marked junctions etc where rules are easier to apply and follow. Skiing is chaotic in comparison and applying a blanket rule of "The downhill skier has right of way regardless of what they do", may, at times, seem unreasonable but it is the only way to do it.
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.
Sorry folks - but still interested in any local reports providing more detail of what actually happened and whether any action by police, by resort etc uis being taken as a result......anyone with any insights or details?
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
Agree with the above with the important qualifications of the other FIS rules including: stopping to the side where you can be seen, yielding to uphill traffic when setting off and when entering a run. Too many people seem to believe only in the non- existent rule that downhill skier always has right of way. In that respect Knapton's video while well intentioned is unhelpful.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@valais2, I'll ask around.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
Agree with the above with the important qualifications of the other FIS rules including: stopping to the side where you can be seen
Rule 6 actually jsays "Unless absolutely necessary, a skier or snowboarder must avoid stopping on the piste in narrow places or where visibility is restricted", the general comments about rule 6 add: "Except on wide pistes stops must be made at the side of the piste. One must not stop in narrow places or where it is difficult to be seen from above." So not necessarily at the side.
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
yielding to uphill traffic when setting off and when entering a run.
Well, it talks about looking and not causing an obstruction or danger. Interestingly the comments say "When he has started skiing or snowboarding properly again – even slowly – he has the benefit of rule 3 as against faster skiers and snowboarders coming from above or behind." but also worth noting this from the general comments to rule 4 (overtaking): "This rule applies even when overtaking a stationary skier or snowboarder.". So not especially consistent!
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
Too many people seem to believe only in the non- existent rule that downhill skier always has right of way.
From the FIS general comments to rule 3: " The skier or snowboarder in front has priority. "
@Tubaski, my emphasis on "always" they don't when they've stopped or are joining the piste for example.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
I come at this discussion from the point of view of a skier who (a) wants to avoid crashing in to somebody else, and (b) would like not to be crashed in to. Sometimes the discussions we have on this topic seem to turn towards a lawyerly debate on liability in all possible circumstances, which I think clouds the real issue of personal responsibility to the skiers and boarders we share the mountain with and the priority of avoiding accidents happening regardless of who is in the right and who is in the wrong.
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?
@Norrin Radd,
Quote:
Only if you are three abreast chatting away.
Not on phone or speeding, just trying to do 40 not 13.
Single file educated riders maybe 6-7 foot.
Went to the pub last Sunday, couldn't park as the local cyclists were having a ride, all parked in pub car park or yellow lines. Not one had a drink or a meal, but I suppose that was them being spatial/special.
They had not asked, just did what they fancied.
Also as a pedestrian I am often forced to dodge the red light pavement runners!
And in London red lights mean go if you are on a bike???!!?? No sympathy from me until more riders lose the chip and treat others with respect.
I know this is not about skiing and is a bit old now but I really want to comment on two attitudes you are implying here which I think are utterly misguided, immoral and illegal:
1. You are suggesting that inconsiderate behaviour by cyclists (riding three abreast) makes it acceptable to put their lives at risk by passing too close. It doesn't. At least not in the world of anyone reasonable. It is disproportionate and clearly against the law. . Your responsibility to drive in a way that avoids the risk of an accident is not removed by anyone's lack of courtesy
2. You are suggesting that because some cyclists ride dangerously and inconsiderately NO cyclists deserve sympathy if drivers treat their safety with contempt. I don't ride through red lights, I give way to pedestrians, I get out of the way of cars as soon as I can do so safely - in what world would you be justified in not treating me with respect because some cyclists behave differently?
To be honest the attitudes you express are illogical and very childish. They don't suggest you have the appropriate temperament to be given the serious responsibility of driving a car on public roads.
I take it as a given that most people want to avoid collisions regardless. I remain constantly astounded however that oh so many people on any given piste on any day neglect to do the most basic things that might enable a bit of self preservation. A simple test next time anyone is skiing a moderately long run. Count how many people set off from a stop without a glance uphill. Then add the number of people that are stopped unnecessarily in the middle of the run.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
I remain constantly astounded however that oh so many people on any given piste on any day neglect to do the most basic things that might enable a bit of self preservation.
yes, pretty much all of it. I said I stopped using skitracks because I realised that there's no need to record my distance/vertical/speed. Constantly trying to beat one's top speed is something else entirely and not something I've mentioned. You're conflating several posters opinion into one line.
I think we're broadly in agreement that skitracks is at best an irrelevant waste of battery, at worst a dangerous distraction.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Fri 17-03-17 10:43; edited 1 time in total
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
As has been pointed out, road traffic analogies are not ideal, but rule 13 of the (maritime) Collision Regulations is worth a read. There are NO EXCEPTIONS to this rule, and over many decades it has been tested in courts across the world.
Overtaking
(a)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I and II, any vessel overtaking any other vessel shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.
(b)
A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the sternlight of that vessel but neither of her sidelights.
(c)
When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she is overtaking another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.
(d)
Any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall not make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel within the meaning of these Rules or relieve her of the duty of keeping clear of the overtaken vessel until she is finally past and clear.
After all it is free
After all it is free
If Road analogies are unhelpful I can't see maritime ones being any more so given the speed at which a "vessel" can suddenly change direction on a ski slope compared to a body of water.
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.
@Dave of the Marmottes, quite, different modes of transport have very different rules, guidelines and codes of conduct for a reason i.e. they're all different.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Not that I think Road analogies are particularly unhelpful - you don't allow kids to run out into traffic, you don't pull out blind from side roads and parking spots, in return you don't expect to be rear ended by anyone desiring to be in front of you on the road.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
@jedster, @rob@rar, Very well said
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.
Perhaps a personal observation which is pertinent, vis the FIS rules in general. Apart from when going to Scotland, many times, and once whilst on a Scandanavian climbing trip, I have always gone with a TO and I have never (TO or otherwise) knowingly or overtly been made aware of the existence of the FIS rules, nor their content or potential implicaitons. That incudes the requirement to stop, report details, render assistance etc. This therefore also applies to Mr G.
I have never been referred to it or had it mentioned at all when having instruction in any country, indoor or out. I think somewhere in the information packs which the TO sends out there was some reference to a code of conduct which I should ski or board by, but no actual details of what it contains; and how many happy holiday-makers actually read all of these info packs anyway? I recall vaguely reading the FIS rules, in very small and weathered print, hung on a notice at the bottom of a chair life in a small resort in Finland recently, buy not previously noticed them anywhere or any time else (they may be there, but not noticed them, that's the real point).
If it wasn't for having seen debate and reference on this forum, I would not therefore really know of their existence or content or interpretation (which requires reading of the comments section anyway, of course).
So sadly, whilst all of said rules are really utter common sense and courtesy, and I would hope that all piste users are taught to use their common sense wherever they are on the hill and whatever they're doing (and that includes in life queues and being aware of where their sharp point poles are pointing), perhaps a few more overt reminders, in many forms, would be worth it from everyone in the chain of organising or actually operating the piste experience? At least people can't then say that they're not aware of the rules and expected conduct: and I think that many recreational or occasional skiers/boarders really aren't aware. Certainly I think that they may currently take a more liberal or incorrect interpretation of said rules, and not be aware of the general downhill has right of way concept, expecting more of a 'you turn across my path it's your fault' attitude. Quick straw poll of a few piste-using contacts confirms this belief and interpretation of what 'should' be right (if apparently not).
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
@Grizzler, I agree, I think the industry as a whole could, and should, do a lot more to promote it.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Dr John wrote:
Layne wrote:
Have I got something wrong?
yes, pretty much all of it. I said I stopped using skitracks because I realised that there's no need to record my distance/vertical/speed. Constantly trying to beat one's top speed is something else entirely and not something I've mentioned.
So basically not relevant to this thread.
Dr John wrote:
You're conflating several posters opinion into one line.
Probably because you quoted their comments when replying
Dr John wrote:
I think we're broadly in agreement that skitracks is at best an irrelevant waste of battery, at worst a dangerous distraction.
Err no, we're not - there about three posters saying it in a discussion among dozens.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Dr John wrote:
skitracks is at best an irrelevant waste of battery, at worst a dangerous distraction.
+1
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
jellylegs wrote:
Dr John wrote:
skitracks is at best an irrelevant waste of battery, at worst a dangerous distraction.
+1
Do many skiers with the'ski tracks' app use it 'on the fly'; and if not, how is it a dangerous distraction?
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@Layne, you sound like an absolute riot at a dinner party
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?
Quote:
As it would be if when driving along a road you ploughed in to the car in front which had just done an emergency stop because a small child had run in front of it. You can think what you like, but a court would find you liable
On the other hand if you are driving down the motorway and someone changes into your lane in front of you taking up your safe stopping distance and then does an emergency stop, it is not your fault when you plough into the back of them. You need to leave a safe stopping distance in your lane only. It's the crash for cash scam, let me cut in front of you and slam the breaks on for no good reason.
Similarly she broke rule six of the FIS skiing code by stopping in the middle of a narrow piste without checking it was safe to do so at the bottom of a known chuse. Just because you are behind (and I was not I was couple of metres to the side of her, her hockey stop took her across the piste in front of me) does not make it your fault. What she did was extremely reckless, broke the FIS skiing code, and consequently I will never except I was in any way to blame. These days had I been injured I would have a good case for suing her for reckless endangerment.
Basically the only way to avoid her would be for only been one person in the dip at any one time, which is frankly a preposterous suggestion.
Everyone saying it is my fault has fallen into the trap of assuming that the person behind or travelling faster is always to blame. The law in the UK at least does not agree, you have a duty not to behave in a reckless fashion, and if you do that makes the consequences of your reckless behaviour your fault.
Yeh you're still wrong. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
@jabuzzard, she might well have been inconsiderate and foolish, and we should avoid both kinds of behaviour when we share the mountain with other people. But you crashed in to her because you weren't able to control your speed and line in time to avoid her. Maybe it would be good for you to accept responsibility for that?
@jabuzzard, Are you trying to tell us there was no choice that you could have made that would have allowed you to avoid crashing. You could not have skiied slower and/or further from her? Or is the truth that you were focused on carrying enough speed to make it up the other side of the dip, so that you didn't have to walk/pole up? It seems, from your account, that she made some poor choices, but it looks like you did too.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
I have some sympathy for @jabuzzard, I had a similar incident years ago - following a small group of skiers who decided to stop at the top of a narrow crest with dense trees either side, 3 a-breast leaving me nowhere to go except slam on the anchors hard uphill; caught the toe-edge and went down like the proverbial sack and broke my nose about a meter from them. Cue blood on the snow, and the skiers choosing to swoosh off without a word, and a look of disdain.
And earlier this year I had a minor coming together with a young skier; he was overtaking me on my heelside, I caught a glimpse of him coming in from the left as he was trying to cut in front of me to rejoin what turned out to be mum and sibling on the right side, if I'd have left it or not seen him, I reckon he'd have blindsided me. On with the anchors but he straddles the board, his shin connects with the back of my knee and puts me down on my back bottom. His uphill ski detaches and he goes cartwheeling. Anyway, I help collect up his gear and get it back over to him, help him up - mum is standing there looking a bit shocked that Darling Son has come a cropper. Make sure he's ok - he is, make sure mum is ok, and she's ok with him being ok.
Bottom line for me is, the only FIS rule worth a damn is Rule 1: Respect the other mountain users. There isn't one rule in the deck which can't be summed up with that simple statement. Bit of respect from all participants and the number of these apocryphal incidents would tumble, and when the inevitable does happen, a bit of respect in helping people would go miles.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Humans are a hugely ordered species. Millions cram on tubes and walk through conjestion in London every day. The roads are very ordered as are the ski slopes.
The world is more crowded and humans, as individuals have become less tolerant. If 30 000 people are going to slide down a mountain one day then there s going to be the odd collision.
Amongst a very strong field this thread does seem to contain more bs than any other I've come across.
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.
I tend to side with @rob@rar, on this debate. Just because a crash isn't your fault doesn't make up for being injured and loss of ski time (particularly given I only get one week per year...) so I try to avoid being hit as well as avoiding hitting others. I also think the collision risk gets overstated. I skied VT at half-term and while it was busy I didn't witness any collisions and only had one near-ish miss myself (someone uphill of me not being in control as I was traversing across so had to make a sharp turn to avoid them). OK my brother skied into me once when we were on an icy black run and I'd stopped (nicely on the side visible etc.). Trying to stop above me he lost control of an edge and bumped into me at a very gentle pace ("it was that or falling" he said). Perhaps not the greatest etiquette but no harm done.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@Richard_Sideways,
Totally Agree . . .Respect is the word . . .empathy for others
Some peeps don't tend to give a merde these days, goddam millenials . . .that and the fact that a week 2/3 beginner doesn't have to learn stem christies anymore. . .
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
but no harm done.
