 Poster: A snowHead
|
you're above him so can see the situation better, sorry I think you're at fault. However the collision does seem fairly tame and he's clearly a bit of a powderpuff making such a fuss instead of just getting on with it, probably embarrassed about going down so easily. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Blackblade wrote: |
| dogwatch wrote: |
| Blackblade wrote: |
| The skier who hit the OP clearly, at the last part of the collision, had become the uphill skier - and thus was not a blameless party. |
I don't agree. At six seconds, which is a split second before impact, the OP is still the uphill skier. |
Oxymoron. Six seconds is clearly NOT a split second which is axiomatically less than one second.
More importantly, and being less facetious, six seconds is a long distance when you are travelling at 30mph - 80 metres to be precise. If we skied/rode based on what was happening six seconds ago given that distance travelled then we'd all be sking into each other and the scenery all the time. |
I don't think you understood dogwatch's post. I also don't think you know what 'oxymoron' means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Blackblade wrote: |
The fact that someone was once the uphill, overtaking skier does not continue to pertain once they are parallel or ahead of the other skier. So, no, there is no requirement to check uphill (unless starting) but there is a duty to scan parallel and below. The skier who hit the OP clearly, at the last part of the collision, had become the uphill skier - and thus was not a blameless party. |
Rubbish. As I previously stated, the rule with regards to uphill / downhill skier is not to be taken absolutely literally, whereby the second you pass you become the 'downhill' skier with automatic right of way. If you start the manoeuvre as the uphill skier, you are responsible for ensuring the manoeuvre is safe until the completion of said manoeuvre is complete - IE you are on the other side of that skier with a safe gap between you again. There is no transfer of responsibility at the immediate moment that you pass.
The plain, unarguable difference between the OP, and the other skier, is that the OP saw the other skier prior to the crash. The other skier did not see the OP until about half a second before hitting the OP. This is not the other skier's fault. They had a right to ski the way they were skiing - I did not think the way they were skiing was in any way callous - and a right to expect anyone passing from behind to give them due space. This is why it was entirely the OP's fault... the OP was the only one, out of the two, who had the opportunity to see the other skier and take action to prevent a collision, which the OP failed to do.
As I said in my first post, I think the other skier could have done more... they went from a pattern of tight turns down a line in the piste to a big wide turn across the piste. If it were me, I would have first glanced back over my right shoulder to check nobody was coming down to the side of me. I'd have seen the OP, and not skied in front of them. But ultimately, it's not actually the other skier's responsibility to do this, it's just good practice for keeping yourself uninjured. The OP had the ultimate responsibility to see the other skier (which he did), and ski in a manner that could accommodate for a change in course / behaviour of the other skier or allow room to ski around them in an accident etc... by not doing this, the OP contributed a genuine failure to the accident where the other skier only contributed less-than-best-practice.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Tue 27-02-18 20:57; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
This has become a WUT - or perhaps it always was... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| zikomo wrote: |
The cause (and justification for most of those who think the OP was not at fault), is some weird perceived "right" to ski your space on the slope and the speed you want to ski at. I see this all the time. No one has the right to any part of the slope or any particular speed, everyone has the obligation to match speed and line to conditions, ability and other slope users. The OP did not do this and so is at fault.
|
I don't think anyone has said that the OP was not at fault. However, several (including me) have said that he was not SOLELY at fault.
I don't disagree with your statement but, by your own logic, this applies to BOTH skiers. The OS does not have a right to continue on a path that, now, will result in him colliding with another skier. It's a question of time and when a manoeuvre is deemed 'completed' if you want to be pedantic BUT IF both skiers are roughly parallel on the slope then it behoves the OS to modify his line just as much as the OP.
That's why I called it as a 50/50 - neither skier modified their line so as to avoid a collision when both had a duty to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| dogwatch wrote: |
| I have watched this video several times and sorry but to me it is 100% clear that the OP is the uphill overtaking skier and at fault. The fact that the other skier also seems to be skiing unpredictably doesn't change that. It's pretty terrifying that so many here are concluding it is a 50/50 situation. |
I think this is an oversimplification and incorrect.
Let me ask you a question ... at what point is an overtake manoeuvre completed ? Unless you can answer that question you cannot adjudge this as 100% the fault of the OP.
At the point of impact the OS ran into the OP from slightly behind - the OS was, AT THAT POINT, the uphill skier. I would therefore conclude that the overtake manoeuvre was completed by the OP. If, as someone else pointed out, he then made a sudden deviation that would change the situation but he didn't. He overtook, completed the manoeuvre and became the parallel/downhill skier. Then there was a collision between two skiers who were roughly parallel on the piste.
As I pointed out to someone else, arguing on the basis of the situation 6secs ago is completely pointless - in that time a skier travelling at 30mph (not an unreasonable speed on a wide open piste) will cover 80 metres. It behoves any skier to realise that other skiers may overtake and that, once that has happened, they are required to treat the skier now ahead as the downhill skier. It cannot be realistic to state that just because someone was ONCE the uphill skier that this then makes everything their fault irrespective of subsequent actions/situations.
Don't know if that helps you understand why I call it 50/50 ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dp wrote: |
... Rubbish. As I previously stated, the rule with regards to uphill / downhill skier is not to be taken absolutely literally, whereby the second you pass you become the 'downhill' skier with automatic right of way. If you start the manoeuvre as the uphill skier, you are responsible for ensuring the manoeuvre is safe until the completion of said manoeuvre is complete - IE you are on the other side of that skier with a safe gap between you again. There is no transfer of responsibility at the immediate moment that you pass.
... |
But there must be some point where your rule swaps the onus from one to the other, as they exchange positions, or you're going to have to take it back to "who started first" to know who your rules condemn as being "wrong".
Every interpretation of those rules is just as valid as every other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| agw wrote: |
I don't think you understood dogwatch's post. I also don't think you know what 'oxymoron' means. |
Literary definition; An oxymoron occurs when two contradictory words are together in one phrase.
Six seconds CANNOT be a split second - so the phrase is clearly oxymoronic by the definition. QED.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| dp wrote: |
| Blackblade wrote: |
The fact that someone was once the uphill, overtaking skier does not continue to pertain once they are parallel or ahead of the other skier. So, no, there is no requirement to check uphill (unless starting) but there is a duty to scan parallel and below. The skier who hit the OP clearly, at the last part of the collision, had become the uphill skier - and thus was not a blameless party. |
Rubbish. As I previously stated, the rule with regards to uphill / downhill skier is not to be taken absolutely literally, whereby the second you pass you become the 'downhill' skier with automatic right of way. If you start the manoeuvre as the uphill skier, you are responsible for ensuring the manoeuvre is safe until the completion of said manoeuvre is complete - IE you are on the other side of that skier with a safe gap between you again. There is no transfer of responsibility at the immediate moment that you pass. |
If the collision had happened almost immediately after the manoeuvre then one could argue that it was still ongoing and I would then agree with you. However, from my viewing of the video, I think that it's clear that the OP had already passed the OS and was in clear space. The OS DID have sufficient time to observe and modify his line and thus is equally to blame for the collision.
As I think I admitted to someone else - the crux of the mater is essentially when the overtaking manoeuvre is deemed completed. My reading of the video is that it is - whereas others differ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| philwig wrote: |
| dp wrote: |
... Rubbish. As I previously stated, the rule with regards to uphill / downhill skier is not to be taken absolutely literally, whereby the second you pass you become the 'downhill' skier with automatic right of way. If you start the manoeuvre as the uphill skier, you are responsible for ensuring the manoeuvre is safe until the completion of said manoeuvre is complete - IE you are on the other side of that skier with a safe gap between you again. There is no transfer of responsibility at the immediate moment that you pass.
... |
But there must be some point where your rule swaps the onus from one to the other, as they exchange positions, or you're going to have to take it back to "who started first" to know who your rules condemn as being "wrong".
Every interpretation of those rules is just as valid as every other. |
A skier or snowboarder may overtake another skier or snowboarder above or below and to the right or to the left provided that he leaves enough space for the overtaken skier or snowboarder to make any voluntary or involuntary movement.
Rule 4 refers to the overtaken skier. The use of the past tense suggests that overtaking must be completed before the responsibility maintaining a safe separation passes to the other skier. And while I agree that there could be different opinions as to what that actually means in practice, in this case I think it's obvious who the overtaking skier is and it's obvious that the overtake isn't completed at the point of contact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Penry wrote: |
Rule 4 refers to the overtaken skier. The use of the past tense suggests that overtaking must be completed before the responsibility maintaining a safe separation passes to the other skier. And while I agree that there could be different opinions as to what that actually means in practice, in this case I think it's obvious who the overtaking skier is and it's obvious that the overtake isn't completed at the point of contact. |
I agree with you on everything except the last sentence. I don't think it's obvious at all. Looking at the video, the period involved and the distances I think it is reasonable to conclude that the manoeuvre by the OP had already been completed before the collision. The collision was thus an impact between two skiers travelling parallel down the slope and therefore BOTH have a duty to be aware and make observations and modify their course to avoid a collision.
If you conclude that the manoeuvre was not completed then you are right - it's the OP's fault completely - but that's not how I see the video.
As such, it's probably pointless discussing it too much further although it's interesting - because with only one video angle to look at it is, in reality, impossible to determine which of us is definitively 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.
|
All this braying about rule this and rule that and semantics is rather depressing. There are no rights on the slopes, only responsibilities.
OP: kudos sir, a brave post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I applaud the OP for coughing to his mistake. I think the takeaway is that everyone needs to keep their head on a swivel whenever they are not the only skier on the mtn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| I think the takeaway is that everyone needs to keep their head on a swivel whenever they are not the only skier on the mtn. |
...and that we can come to differing conclusions, when looking at the same footage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
| ...and that we can come to differing conclusions, when looking at the same footage. |
This made me think of a study/test in the NYT about police body cams worn because they “show what happened” and how that perception can be misleading. It takes 5-10 mins to go through, but is quite interesting, especially if you think that the camera never lies. Generally, we need more than one angle on an incident to get a good view of the situation: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/01/us/police-bodycam-video.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
[quote="Blackblade"
I agree with you on everything except the last sentence. I don't think it's obvious at all. Looking at the video, the period involved and the distances I think it is reasonable to conclude that the manoeuvre by the OP had already been completed before the collision. The collision was thus an impact between two skiers travelling parallel down the slope and therefore BOTH have a duty to be aware and make observations and modify their course to avoid a collision.
If you conclude that the manoeuvre was not completed then you are right - it's the OP's fault completely - but that's not how I see the video.
As such, it's probably pointless discussing it too much further although it's interesting - because with only one video angle to look at it is, in reality, impossible to determine which of us is definitively right.[/quote]
If the overtake manoeuvre had been completed, how did the collision occur???????? Ffs!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Scarlet wrote: |
| https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/01/us/police-bodycam-video.html |
Fascinating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| tangowaggon wrote: |
If the overtake manoeuvre had been completed, how did the collision occur???????? Ffs!!!! |
The OP completed his overtake. He was in clear space, as was the OS.
Both skiers were, at this point, roughly parallel on the slope.
Both skiers then failed to take proper observation or modify their lines and skied into each other - hence a 50/50 accident.
You seem to labour under the misapprehension that a collision can only occur when someone is overtaking. That is incorrect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Hmmm . . . Whilst neither skier was blameless, the other skier was traveling toward the OP and did run over the back of his skis indicating that not only was the OS deeply negligent about his surroundings but also (just) the uphill skier. The OP on the other hand was aware of the OS and should have kept a better weather eye on him. From watching the video repeatedly. . . the other skier wuz a dickhead and the OP wuz negligent. . . 50/50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it’s tosh then prove it. Refute the argument. Simply calling it tosh is pointless and infantile.
Okay, the os is traversing across the slope quite legitimately, looking across/down the slope as you would expect, the op is skiing straight down the slope, straight into the path of the other skier and gets T boned but lucky for him, it's the os that loses it. Being the uphill skier, the op has the os in his field of vision for a couple of seconds and fails to take evasive action. The op does not enter the os's field of vision untill they a few cm from making contact and it is impossible for the os to take any evasive action.
As the os had almost completed a traverse when the colision ocurred, he must have been well ahead of the op when he started it as the os's speed in the direction of the slope will have been reduced by the traverse and he was still ahead of the op when the colision became inevitable.
You could ask who skied into whose path? But just as sailors give way to the right, skiers give way to the downhill skier and it is clear to me that the os is the downhill skier in this case
It has been claimed by dp I think, that the os was doing short turns at the other side of the piste but, apart from a second of camera shot that shows him on the other side of the piste, there is no evidence for this, he may have been doing traverses all the way down and just happened to be at the other side as the camera saw him, or he may have put the traverse in as the slope got steeper.
If this is a 50/50 , I would put 50 on the op and 50 on wearing goggles that restrict peripheral vision (I am making an assumption that the op was wearing goggles) I have various pairs of goggles and all of them restrict my field of vision by a significant amount. Skiing is nothing like driving on a road with lane discipline, it is random, chaotic motion generally in the same direction with other skiers coming from any direction in a ~180' arc, sometimes 360' as the previous video showed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I echo the sentiments of other poster in the op making this post, it has certainly provoked a lively and worthwhile discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@auntie masque, I take your point, as a skier of 30+ years and a biker, my level of observation and spatial awareness is well above average, I will go above and beyond what is expected and expect the other guy to have his eyes shut, yes, had I been the os in this case, I would have clocked the op by sight or sound but that is something that comes with experience and ability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
And if you're skiing a nice piste and you suddenly hit an ice patch mid-turn which you didn't see, and your skis come out underneath you... that's just an accident. You can't blame that on somebody. Or any other example of nature-led occurrences.
|
OK fine if it is just you falling down. But if someone hits you - and I was talking about collisions - it is because there wasn't enough space left to react to a known risk. That is what I'm talking about.
Equally If you get hit by a meteorite that is just one of those things!
But I think we are talking about collisions here aren't we?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
Must admit I don't support the 'lane' discipline' thing. Of course experienced skiers tend to ski turning down the fall line. It may be frustrating when others do not.
|
On a broad piste with only 2 skiers on it I totally reject the lane discipline point!
Those are idea GS type carving conditions. I'd have thought most "experienced skiers" would be making pretty big carved turns using a lot of the piste under those conditions (skiing the slow line fast). Now when I'm doing that I will do a bit of shoulder checking to help reduce the risk of what happened here but ultimately an uphill skier who elects to ski a narrow corridor (fast line slow) has to be ready to avoid the skier carving up the piste ahead of him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Blackblade wrote: |
| agw wrote: |
I don't think you understood dogwatch's post. I also don't think you know what 'oxymoron' means. |
Literary definition; An oxymoron occurs when two contradictory words are together in one phrase.
Six seconds CANNOT be a split second - so the phrase is clearly oxymoronic by the definition. QED. |
“Six seconds” obviously refers to the six second mark in the video, not a period of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Blackblade wrote: |
| dogwatch wrote: |
| Blackblade wrote: |
| The skier who hit the OP clearly, at the last part of the collision, had become the uphill skier - and thus was not a blameless party. |
I don't agree. At six seconds, which is a split second before impact, the OP is still the uphill skier. |
Oxymoron. Six seconds is clearly NOT a split second which is axiomatically less than one second.
More importantly, and being less facetious, six seconds is a long distance when you are travelling at 30mph - 80 metres to be precise. If we skied/rode based on what was happening six seconds ago given that distance travelled then we'd all be sking into each other and the scenery all the time. |
By "six seconds" I meant the six second point in the video. I think that given a few moments of thought, that is obvious from what I wrote, since the interpretation you have followed is indeed nonsensical. If you look at the video at six seconds, you will see the skiers are a split second from impact.
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Wed 28-02-18 11:39; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Where is the TMO when you need him?
We need three more camera angles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I have found this to be an interesting thread, along with a previous one about the clicking of poles;
Previously I have always assumed it reasonable to think that the downhill skier will not make random manouvres across the piste in front of me; upon reflection I need to expect the unexpected and no amount of pole clicking will assert my right to go past the downhill skier.
In this vain, I always try to make tigher turns to leave channels to my left or right to allow faster skiers to come through.
I have no particular problem with this when skiing on my own, or in a group of my "own", the problem comes when you are hanging onto the back of a group of speedy skiers and you don't know where they are heading ... I had a couple of moments a few weeks ago where I might have been more considerate when overtaking had I not been following a group ... didn't cause any accidents, but certainly took the downhill skiers by surprise because of their lack of awareness of those further uphill, when they were making random turns across the piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
So in conclusion, who was at fault is very subjective. However we all agree that the lesson to be learned is that awareness on the mountain is extremely important, and can help avoid situations like this in the first place
(now we can all go back to getting along)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
I really don't think there's any actual doubt it's the OPs fault.
As I said before, the important difference is that the OP saw the OS, the OS did not see the OP. That gave the OP a crucial advantage that he failed to properly exploit.
Everyone should be able to ski a nice line down a mountain without constantly looking around themselves for somebody coming in too fast from behind. As an overtaking skier, you have to accept that the person ahead of you is likely looking ahead of their skis. Just because you can see them, it doesn't mean they can see you. They will first see you at the point that you cross the line directly ahead of them. Until that point they are ignorant to your presence.
You can't take an approach, which Blackblade seems to be suggesting, that providing you can squeeze past and get ahead of the other skier, you now have right of way and it's their role to compensate. I understand what Blackblade is saying, but if you are close enough that this is able to occur, you are TOO CLOSE. Just because you can physically fit past somebody, it doesn't mean you've passed by a safe distance. And that, IMO, is the critical thing. You need to leave a nice big space between you and the skier you're passing... so if they make a sudden turn, or they lose an edge, or suddenly fall... they're not heading straight into your path.
The OP didn't leave enough space. End of. The OP passed too close. In some situations, it'd have panned out OK. In this case it didn't, and it reminds us why we need to leave plenty of room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Bennisboy wrote: |
So in conclusion, who was at fault is very subjective. However we all agree that the lesson to be learned is that awareness on the mountain is extremely important, and can help avoid situations like this in the first place
(now we can all go back to getting along) |
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Rule 13 (Overtaking)
(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I and II, any vessel overtaking any other 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° 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
It is getting to the stage where I really don't care who was to blame 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point of posting the above is because any serious shipping collision will be tested in the courts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Frosty the Snowman wrote: |
| It is getting to the stage where I really don't care who was to blame |
+1 again
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
C'mon guys! There are a couple of very pertinent points here; not least of all: "..... until finally past and clear"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@BoardieK, you are aware there is no shipping going on here...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
) blasting out of the trees onto the piste at terminal velocity. We can't assume as the downhill skier that we are automatically in the right of way . . . assigning blame after a preventable collision is a poor exercise in self-denial 
