 Poster: A snowHead
|
@chocksaway wrote
"Peculiar….
I understand the Very Happy collective are interested.
But why it justifies a live BBC ticker is beyond me Puzzled"
Sky news were showing the Summing Up live. As an aside -- The BBC's Sophie Long was sat in the second row back
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
We saw a huge crash in Duved the other day, that Ironically I think I was the catalyst of. I will describe as per looking down the hill. Visibility and snow were perfect. Sunshine on freshly groomed, very quiet pistes. In view in all directions were only us, those two, and one of them had a partner, it was VERY quiet. At a crossroads of two pistes, I was skiing quickly (40-50mph) from the left to cross to the right. As I looked uphill to the piste to my right, about 50-80m away were two skiers, about 10m apart, both also going at a good lick. I assumed they were together. As we were, we were fine....but, the skier on the right hand side of the two put in a left swerve, I think in instinctive reaction to me. I think he was being cautious and thinking, as I always do, that when there's one quicky, there's often two or three. Unfortunately, as he did, the skier to his left put in a swerve to the right, probably for the same reasons.
They came together pretty much side on to each other and then there were skis and broken poles flying everywhere. They were both big(not fat, just big 6foot+ 30 something guys), and it was a huge accident. We both stopped, me about 40m after the accident site, mrsthecramps was still well above it. When it was apparent they were both at least fairly ok ( one standing, the other sitting up, both talking) we gathered up the gear. When we got to them, one had an obvious broken nose, bleeding alot, both looked very shocked. The one with the bleeding nose had a slash/crack through the polycarbonate of his helmet right through to the polystyrene molding under it about 4 inches long. We made double sure they were ok and left.
I mention this because as a witness to anything I would've been useless. As they collided one was slightly behind the other, by a foot or so, but they were both wearing orange jackets and dark coloured trousers (one black, one navy blue). There is no way I could remember which was which. The one that seemed to be most convinced that he was not at fault, was the one injured the least though.
It was a biggy at big speeds, but I think proves yet again my advice for nervous skiers. Your not lucky to not be injured if you crash skiing, your unlucky if you are injured.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Thu 30-03-23 22:19; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| snowball wrote: |
| She may have a slight advantage in that she only asked £1 plus expenses, but he asked for big pay out. |
Not in this $300k barely scratches the sides in a US litigation. He's gonna be stuck with a lot of legal fees though if she wins so presumably he'll pull the crazy old man default trick. |
Didnt he originally ask for $3m and then change the figure to $300k for some reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Bones, I read that somewhere too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
The Jury has found in favour of Gwyneth Paltrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| knackered knees wrote: |
No wonder neither of them can decide who was at fault. From the first few lines of the article...
"Actor Gwyneth Paltrow’s ... |
she seems to have become a bloke too
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verdict...Gwyneth not at fault
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@davidof, No such thing as an actress now, always actor regardless of gender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
So he has to pay 1 dollar plus her legal fees?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@halfhand, Unless its the Oscars.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
@DB, Yes. Ouch!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| davidof wrote: |
she seems to have become a bloke too |
It all becomes clearer now 
That Guardian article a couple of pages back mentioned "fanny steaming" and I did wonder about side effects..........................
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GreenDay wrote: |
That Guardian article a couple of pages back mentioned "fanny steaming" |
must be the cold air, was that before or after the accident?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
I'm surprised there have been no case such as XXXXX pushed me off the chairlift after refusing to lower the safety bar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Whole thing an object lesson in making sure that the only way of getting "justice" in a skiing accident is to avoid being in an accident at all. Frankly the whole case was such a shitshow we've no way of knowing what really went down but we can see that stardust and spending money on imaginary videos and character assasinating the plaintiff worked effectively.
Head on a swivel, duck and deflect and ALWAYS face uphill when you stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Many years ago I had what must have looked like a comedy collision. Skiing fast longish turns down a big, open off-piste slope with not a single track on it. And just looking forwards.
My group watched as I and another skier doing exactly the same and completely unaware of each other, gradually converged over more than half a kilometre till we finally turned together and collided. Luckily both OK. No excuses possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| snowball wrote: |
| gradually converged over more than half a kilometre till we finally turned together and collided. Luckily both OK. No excuses possible. |
I had a similar collision on the Sarenne, turned right at the same time as another skier turned left, we were level so no-one was upslope and we collided. I blame helmets and goggles for that crash. No harm done, I helped the other party up and we continued down.
Another near accident was on a narrow piste. A person was skiing in front of me with headphones leaning right back on his skis and skiing from edge to edge of the slope, a cliff on both sides so not easy to get past. I skied right at the edge of the slope in a straight line but saw him coming across at me, he went very quickly from being down slope to up slope and therefore, technically being in the wrong. I stuck my elbow out and back and he skied straight into it ! I don't think he was aware I was there until his face made a very painful collision with my bony elbow. He accused me of punching him in the face ! As if.
I say he was technically in the wrong as he was skiing in a dangerous fashion and upslope when he hit me but I could have waited a bit to pass in a safer spot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Surprised we don’t see more accidents with the people that are crouched down low almost sat on the back of their skis.
What’s the point of that-apart from presumably they think they look like a smart ass?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| davidof wrote: |
| snowball wrote: |
| gradually converged over more than half a kilometre till we finally turned together and collided. Luckily both OK. No excuses possible. |
I had a similar collision on the Sarenne, turned right at the same time as another skier turned left, we were level so no-one was upslope and we collided. I blame helmets and goggles for that crash. No harm done, I helped the other party up and we continued down.
Another near accident was on a narrow piste. A person was skiing in front of me with headphones leaning right back on his skis and skiing from edge to edge of the slope, a cliff on both sides so not easy to get past. I skied right at the edge of the slope in a straight line but saw him coming across at me, he went very quickly from being down slope to up slope and therefore, technically being in the wrong. I stuck my elbow out and back and he skied straight into it ! I don't think he was aware I was there until his face made a very painful collision with my bony elbow. He accused me of punching him in the face ! As if.
I say he was technically in the wrong as he was skiing in a dangerous fashion and upslope when he hit me but I could have waited a bit to pass in a safer spot. |
The symmetry collisions are just something that happens and IMV they are the only true 50/50 though usually both parties could have been more observant.
Your elbow punch sounds very much like your fault in that you failed to complete your pass by a safe distance, you can't just ski marginally ahead of someone and wait for them to hit you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, +1. Should have waited until it was 100% safe and clear to pass. IMO Any overtaking move that results in a crash is the overtaker's fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another time a line of skiers was weaving across the whole slope so I went off piste into a strip of deep snow to pass them on the left. Just as I was about to pass the lead skier, instead of turning, went into the off piste and stopped directly in front of me. I had no option but ski off the blind edge to his left (landed OK but fell over). I don't think he even noticed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@snowball, That still sounds like your fault. The uphill skier has to avoid the downhill skier, no question. A bit like a car stopping suddenly or swerving unexpectedly - if you're in the vehicle behind you have to avoid it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| billb wrote: |
| @snowball, That still sounds like your fault. The uphill skier has to avoid the downhill skier, no question. |
when he skied into me he was the uphill skier and had the whole piste to avoid hitting me - if he'd had his eyes open and not had a pair of headphones on. If you want to avoid a bloody nose don't ski into people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| you can't just ski marginally ahead of someone and wait for them to hit you. |
that't the rules though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| billb wrote: |
| @snowball, That still sounds like your fault. The uphill skier has to avoid the downhill skier, no question. A bit like a car stopping suddenly or swerving unexpectedly - if you're in the vehicle behind you have to avoid it. |
No it is the lead skiers fault, not snowballs, when he went from on piste to off piste he should have checked if it was safe to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@davidof, Have to agree with you on the headphones issue. If anybody had shouted a warning, he wouldn't have heard it so was not skiing safely imo.
Might even have invalidated any insurance claim if he'd been badly hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| davidof wrote: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| you can't just ski marginally ahead of someone and wait for them to hit you. |
that't the rules though. |
If you want to take some perverse literal interpretation. It's certainly not the spirit of the code. If I were malicious I could probably draw a foul from over half the skiers on a given run on a given day by nicking in front of them. I'd be the dickhead though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| davidof wrote: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| you can't just ski marginally ahead of someone and wait for them to hit you. |
that't the rules though. |
If you want to take some perverse literal interpretation. |
Like a court would do.
The rules are okay as far as they go but have to be aware of the world around you to a certain extent. I'll give a pass to beginners and kiddie lines.
As I already said I could have waited, it was a decisions I made to ski pass and it would have been safer to wait but I had the vain hope that the weaving skier would see me and actually alter his course as he was skiing from one edge to another of a relatively narrow piste.
The person behind me didn't mince his words, telling the weaving skier that he'd skied straight into me... so to an outsider who didn't have the context it looked like 100% the other skiers fault.
And maybe a lesson for the Gwen Paltrow case that things are not entirely black and white.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@davidof, Suppose you are skiing straight down. If someone going diagonally past you at say a 45 degree angle from behind overtakes you incredibly close by , skiing over the front of your skis which causes you both to go down who's fault is it ? By the literal interpretation of the rules you are at fault as you were the uphill skiing at the time of crash (as he/her was on the front of your skis at the time).
But it doesn't work like that IMO; when overtaking you can't get a nostril hair's width ahead and then claim that you now have the priority. When overtaking you must complete the whole manoeuvre in complete safety without causing the person being overtaken to take any evasive action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| davidof wrote: |
The person behind me didn't mince his words, telling the weaving skier that he'd skied straight into me... so to an outsider who didn't have the context it looked like 100% the other skiers fault.
And maybe a lesson for the Gwen Paltrow case that things are not entirely black and white. |
The lesson from the Paltrow case is that the facts don't matter it's only what you can get a jury to believe that does. And as you proved you can be in the wrong but still get witnesses on your side. Code is useless in litigation and as most people aren't aware of it or don't follow it I'd argue it's pretty useless all round. It's Rollerball out there armour up!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| eblunt wrote: |
| @davidof, Suppose you are skiing straight down. If someone going diagonally past you at say a 45 degree angle from behind overtakes you incredibly close by , skiing over the front of your skis which causes you both to go down who's fault is it ? |
Well in this case I was skiing straight down the the person diagonally skied into the back of me.
I would suggest that, irrespective of the rules, if you are traversing from edge to edge on a slope you need a bit of situational awareness if you want to avoid getting hurt.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Fri 31-03-23 13:52; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| eblunt wrote: |
@davidof, Suppose you are skiing straight down. If someone going diagonally past you at say a 45 degree angle from behind overtakes you incredibly close by , skiing over the front of your skis which causes you both to go down who's fault is it ? By the literal interpretation of the rules you are at fault as you were the uphill skier at the time of crash (as he/her was on the front of your skis at the time).
But it doesn't work like that IMO; when overtaking you can't get a nostril hair's width ahead and then claim that you now have the priority. When overtaking you must complete the whole manoeuvre in complete safety without causing the person being overtaken to take any evasive action. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
As usual, the examples (and the FIS code) aren't black and white. With @snowball's on/off-piste example, the lead skier could have looked and thus avoided the collision (although with a literal interpretation rule 5 applies to pistes only) and snowball could have slowed down and waited for a safer place to pass rather than putting himself in a position where whe was unable to avoid an unpredicted action (rules 3 & 4, in parts).
| davidof wrote: |
I skied right at the edge of the slope in a straight line but saw him coming across at me, he went very quickly from being down slope to up slope and therefore, technically being in the wrong.
|
One interpretation of this is that you were overtaking a skier who was was behaving predictably (skiing from side to side across the whole slope, downhill of you), and failed to leave room for him to continue his predictable course. You broke rule 4 whilst he was probably breaking rule 1 (at least), given your description of him.
Arguably in both cases, both parties involved were at fault and action by either of them (in each case) to adhere to all of the rules would have prevented the collisions. AFAIK the FIS Code doesn't have any priority, i.e. no one rule has primacy, so the "fault" or "blame" would be shared here. Hence it makes sense to keep your wits about you and take avoiding action (or just be patient) even if you believe you are following the code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
The lesson from the Paltrow case is that the facts don't matter ... It's Rollerball out there armour up! |
indeed, the plaintiff seems to have suffered badly from his brief encounter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| davidof wrote: |
| eblunt wrote: |
| @davidof, Suppose you are skiing straight down. If someone going diagonally past you at say a 45 degree angle from behind overtakes you incredibly close by , skiing over the front of your skis which causes you both to go down who's fault is it ? |
Well in this case I was skiing straight down the the person diagonally skied into the back of me.
I would suggest that, irrespective of the rules, if you are traversing from edge to edge on a slope you need a bit of situational awareness if you want to avoid getting hurt. |
But they didn't though did they. They were in front of you How could they have skied into the back of you whilst being on top of the front of your skis ?
The point I'm making is that a "perverse literal interpretation" , "like a court would do" clearly doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| davidof wrote: |
| ... And maybe a lesson for the Gwen Paltrow case that things are not entirely black and white. |
I think that's a good lesson. This thread suggests it's possibly not been widely understood.
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| The lesson from the Paltrow case is that the facts don't matter ... |
I don't think so - I think that the plaintiff simply failed to establish the facts he was basing his claims on.
Which is essentially what happened in his earlier claim too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| davidof wrote: |
| billb wrote: |
| @snowball, That still sounds like your fault. The uphill skier has to avoid the downhill skier, no question. A bit like a car stopping suddenly or swerving unexpectedly - if you're in the vehicle behind you have to avoid it. |
No it is the lead skiers fault, not snowballs, when he went from on piste to off piste he should have checked if it was safe to do so. |
Is that right? Slightly off the piste doesn't really imply you're skiing off-piste surely? In which case snowball is still the uphill skier. Although the downhill lead skier should check before moving off the uphill skier should still avoid them, surely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| eblunt wrote: |
But they didn't though did they. They were in front of you How could they have skied into the back of you whilst being on top of the front of your skis ?
|
who said they were? I think you've imagined that, are you Gwen Paltrow's expert witness?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
billb I have no idea who was technically in the right but ski schools shouldn't take up the whole piste width. Well yes, I avoided the ski teacher and the punters piling up behind him into the off piste edge. As I said, I don't think he even noticed me when I went over the edge as he was looking back at them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
