Another who's fault is this question?

A snowHead

The complete indifference of all the people who just passed the boarder on the floor is unforgiveable.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

I have a question, is it one piste or is it two pistes merging around that point? Or is it a main piste with one joining from the left or right hand side? Rule 4 may then come into play.
Terribly sad outcome

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

It's a scary video - two beginners colliding. For me none of them is at fault, but the leading skier (who seem to disappear?!) is partly to blame. Even more if he's truly linked to the fallen skier.

Obviously we don't have the context. It's interesting that rules can lead you an initial conclusion that can be swayed by (1) the event context and (2) the presentation context. On the other thread (ski tourer up a piste) a flamme war started because it was a rando (skinning) group, and we all drew initial conclusions as a gut reaction. The context, later provided, made me rethink.

You'll need to Register first of course.

@pieman666, I think (not 100%) that it occurred on the fork between 10 & 10a here:

https://bialkatatrzanska.pl/en/plan-of-the-resort

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Ask a boarder they'll say it's the skier, ask a skier they'll tell you it's the boarder..... Toofy Grin

After all it is free

after watching it again from the full view & not the zoomed in view, I think the snowboarder is at fault as they took zero precaution when the 2 forks merged and joined.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

The skier turns into the boarder from an uphill position, so the skier is at fault. I would cut the lead skier (and it's not 100% clear that they were skiing together) some slack as the collision happened behind them and they may not even have been aware of it.
I would also cut the slope users that passed by AFTER the third party had stopped to assist some slack, although it would have been sensible for at least one of them to stop and ask whether or not they needed to alert ski patrol when they got to the lift station at the bottom.
It's not 100% clear whether the person that stopped to help the skier actually knew them, it looks like they probably did, but they should never have skied off with the skier who was involved in the collision. Again it's hard to tell, but it doesn't look like they enquired about the condition of the boarder before skiing away. That, imo, is the most shocking part of the incident.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

snow reports

I don't think the skier stood a chance here. I'd say that at the point the border chose his line he was actually higher than the skier at that point. He then just meandered across and basically parked up in front of the skiing child. Considering the general flow was all in one direction, crossing the slope in that way was similar to crossing a road when there is no gap in the traffic. Also there are 2 pistes merging at that point, the border effectively crossed blindly from one piste to another. Not looking before doing so in my book over-rides any "uphill person is always to blame".

I would have said exactly the same thing if the equipment were the other way round too.

I'd say according to the letter of the law the skier is at fault. However, it's clearly an overcrowded piste, with lots of beginners, and the skier didn't seem to be going overly fast or was out of control. Probably one of those unfortunate situations where accidents happen and it would be harsh to appoint too much blame.

Interesting though how even with good angle video that can be rewatched multiple times people still come to different conclusions. It makes you wonder what hope there is of people working out who was to blame in real time accidents where emotions are also high.

You know it makes sense.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

A snowHead

I've just watched it to the end where you get the zoomed in footage. There are a lot of skiers in bibs, which I'm presuming means they are in lessons. Both of the skiers in the 'snake' before the crash are in bibs and the skier that stops to help the other skier is also in a bib. I'm guessing the three of them are just practicing without their instructor.
imo the skier looks more at fault when looking at the zoomed in footage. Sure, the boarder could have picked a different line, but they didn't HAVE to.

A snowHead

I dont get the criticism of the boarder( I'm normally fairly critical of boarders)for crossing the piste, was obviously a learner that's what learners do whether skier or boarder, fair enough the skier is a novice too but that doesnt make them not liable, as accidental the accident was.
I've always told my kids and anyone new to skiing that boarders have a large blind spot and while many dont look that self preservation means you avoid them

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

I have looked at it 3 x and wouldn’t want to judge too much... Hands up anyone who hasn’t been in a collision at some point in their ski/boarding life. It was a very busy piste.
What is refreshing is how slowly everyone is going. Compared with the average chaos on a blue/green run in central VT or Meribel it looks like it’s in slow motion!

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

I think adult skiers and boarders need to be aware that children can often ski dangerously. Keep an eye out for them and stay well away.

You'll need to Register first of course.

To me, faults from them all.

The skier, their companion and the boarder all have tunnel vision for their own trajectory and width of turns. From the footage, seemingly a complete lack of interest in or awareness of others on the slope.

The skier may’ve by a split second hit the boarder from behind, but it could’ve very easily been the other way round.

If any adult with the child was aware that the boarder was hurt, but chose to carry on with their day, that’s despicable.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Definitely the boarder/ snowboarding's fault, the boarder cuts in from behind, the kid & her parent? have no chance of seeing the boarder approaching on his blind side & the boarder can't see that he is about to come from behind to go into the path of a skier.

After all it is free

It's very marginal who is the uphill skier in the first place especially as the situation is complicated by the fact that two pistes are merging. The uphill rule is in any case dependent on having good peripheral vision otherwise you simply won't see another person slightly ahead but to the side of you. Children (which the skier seems to be) don't have good peripheral vision or judgement of speed/distance and beginner snowboarders (even adults) don't tend to have good oversight of their blind side.

I don't think either party was being reckless, it was just one of those things that can happen to the inexperienced. Fill a piste full of skiers and snowboarders many of whom are relative beginners and the occasional collision seems inevitable.

A fractured spine can mean a lot of things from very serious to not that bad, if it's just a break of one of the appendages to a vertebra. Hopefully it was at the less serious end of things, it certainly didn't look like a heavy collision.

technically the skier at fault, just, but really it was more of a coming together where the skier is in the blind spot of the boarder and basically skis into him/her … wouldn’t really blame either if push came to shove

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=5066792986706906&set=a.538949559491294&type=3

Annoyingly you'll need an account to see the pics, but for those that have access, to my untrained eye the injuries appear far worse than I would have imagined possible from that!

snow reports

I re-watched this at 1/4 speed and, having done that, now have no doubt that the skier was at fault. That skier appears to be a relatively young boy who was following an adult so there is limited culpability (not reckless, not travelling excessively fast, not obviously out of control) but, nonetheless, he was clearly at fault in my opinion.

1. Merging Pistes

Not the case. Look carefully and you will see that the pistes merge higher up ... the area to the left (of the video) is simply a wider part of the same piste at that point. On top of that, since none of the involved parties were crossing that area it's irrelevant.

2. The skier/boarder were not uphill/downhill of each other therefore Rule 4 doesn't apply

The adult leading the skier who collided with the boarder was clearly at the same level on the slope. That skier and the boarder pass very close to each other but there is no collision. The young skier following the adult is therefore clearly uphill. It appears likely that he was entirely focused on the adult ahead and therefore not sufficiently observant.

3. The boarder should have been more observant

Perhaps, but her ability to observe given that she is clearly a beginner is somewhat limited and her lines were not excessively wide. In fact, just before she is hit, you can see that she is initiating a turn to her left so there would have been plenty of space for the following skier to move right and avoid the collision. From her perspective she was making regular, not overly wide, turns and was suddenly struck without warning from behind. And, if you look at the video again, you can see that the skier went directly into her back rather than hitting at an oblique angle. In fact, this might be the reason why the injuries were rather more serious than one might expect given the relatively slow speed ... as the impacting skier was a helmeted child the helmet may well have impacted directly on the boarder's spine given the relative heights.

4. The skier's view was obscured by the adult skier he was following

That may well be true. However, that then imposes a Rule 3 obligation on the (supposed) parent leading the child skier to ensure a safe route for BOTH of them and it cannot negate a skier's Rule 4 obligation to a third party being overtaken.

Overall

So, in summary, I think that there is no doubt whatsoever that the skier is entirely to blame from a Rules perspective and the boarder entirely innocent. However, the skier's culpability seems to me to be lessened by the fact that he is a child following an adult (who should have taken better observation and ensured a clear route for both of them), that he was not travelling excessively fast nor out of control and that, as a beginner, he was clearly concentrating on following and his skiing.

So, I don't think that the skier should be punished despite being at fault for the accident.

However, if the boarder suffered serious injuries then the skier (or hopefully his insurance) would be liable to meet the costs of any medical treatment and/or loss of earnings suffered by the boarder.

(As an aside, speaking as a Brit now resident in Germany, I now find it strange NOT to have personal liability insurance. Pretty much all Germans have it so if we do something that results in a loss to someone else (for example spill red wine on someone's new white carpet or accidentally slip and knock someone else over) then that insurance pays out.)

I find it inconceivable that the boarder was not helped; a clear violation of Rule 9 not to mention morally indefensible.

You know it makes sense.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

@rogg, @Blackblade,

Agree with all that analysis. FIS code is really about avoidance of collisions rather than blame or restitution. I'd be feeling very guilty if I was the adult leading the kid into that situation.

Even with insurance I'm sure the insurer would argue the toss on any serious 3rd party medical bills/ permanent disability/death without clear proof and then wash its hands anyway if it could contend negligence by the skier.

Problem as with the kid killed in Flaine and likely the actor in La Ros is that behaviours don't get adapted to risk level of a situation. High traffic = high risk = ultimate caution NOT carry on as usual. The really scary thing in this video is no-one seemed to be going recklessly fast (obviously the skiers were apparently going too fast for their levels of observation but a more skilled and aware skier could easily be going that fast without material risk) yet there was a serious and potentially lifechanging injury. The culture of "accidents happen" and "no harm, no foul" with collisions all being a bit of a shrug and dust yourself off probably does need to change.

A snowHead

A snowHead

In terms of investigation....

What was the situation? (busy piste, mixed abilities, good visibility)

Were both parties in control? (it appears so)

Were both parties aware of the FIS rules (probably not)

Were both parties aware of situation and prepared to take action to avoid a collision? (Open to debate, potentially no)

Were either party behaving in a manner likely to cause a collision? ( the skier was more intent on following the leader than his surroundings, the boarder was focusing on her own trajectory)

Which party was best placed to avoid the collision? (It would appear to be the skier)

On balance, there were many ways that this could have been avoided, but it appears that skier was best placed to avoid the collision.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

I suppose technically the skier might be considered at fault but in the end it was just an unfortunate accident. And shocking that what looked like quite an innocuous low speed collision resulted in such serious injury for one of them.

Its all very well expert skiers/boarders on here saying that the skier should have done this or the boarder should have done that but I think its important to note that the skier looks like a kid and the boarder a beginner or low/intermediate. Try to remember what it was like when you were a kid or beginner. The kid was just concentrating on following their parent and the boarder on making the next turn.

I really hate those easy greens and blues that get crowded with people of all abilities criss-crossing all over the place trying to get back to the resort at the end of the day. I find them far more scary than blacks and hard reds with nobody else on them.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

I don't understand the accusation that no-one helped. Skier and snowboarder came to a rest at 2:09. Grown up skier in black, who's one of the few competent skiers in the video at any time, immediately changes his line and is with the uphill faller by 2:14. Then there's a fair bit of traffic where most skiers are trying to avoid collisions rather than focus on the fallen parties. By 2:18, the guy in black's ascertained the kid is OK, then has to manoeuvre back out and makes his way down to the snowboarder, gets there around 2:30. It's about as quick a response as you could wish for given the level most of them were at.

As for fault, by the time the lead skier and the snowboarder have avoided each other, the collision is inevitable given the level they were both at. Neither skier or boarder were paying enough attention to what was going on around them on a nightmare of a piste, so both must bear some level of blame. It also depends on whether the lead skier was actively leading the younger one. If he was, he led him into a collision and it's partially his fault too.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

@Blackblade, sure true accidents do happen - I was once skiing a line deep in the trees and rounded one to find myself face to face with another skier who had been on a convergent but opposite diagonal and at no time had we seen each other (some of that probably tunnel vision - when you're skiing trees you really don't want to be looking around more widely). We both stopped dead without collision but equally could have collided.

But I think that a lot of what is accepted as "accident" is anything but i.e. more proactive avoidance behaviour by one or both parties could easily avoid it - even an out of control beginner could learn to flop safely before building up speed etc. And people could actually look uphill when they stop rather than being oblivious.

After all it is free

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

I am astounded that anyone can watch this and not conclude it is the skier. The skier is going faster, overtaking and on the uphill. There is absolutely zero question. Watch it from 2m to 2m8s. Whether it was because the skier was a learner following another skier is another matter. Also interesting to see that the skier and the lead skier (if they were indeed together) also seemed to come exceptionally close to another skier they overtook in the previous turn at about 4 seconds into the clip, a bit too zoomed out to tell how close, so it didn't scream awareness of other users prior to the board collision to me.

Neither is the board "cutting across" or particularly traversing as some have said - what I see is he/she is making regular wide skidded turns which tend to be much wider than a skiers zig zag turn, even on flattish slopes beginners find it hard to do tight turns or run the board flat, so they will still make fairly wide turns on gentler slopes where skiers can run straighter or tighter. The boarder is taking a wide turning circle I would expect of a beginner boarder. Boarder is on heal edge already, so the uphill side is entirely behind the head - the whole point is the boarder should be looking downhill because he/she does not have eyes in the back of their head and should be looking forward so they can avoid any obstacle/skier downhill of them which they themselves are responsible for avoiding.

Slope awareness is one thing (we should all have more of) but suggesting the boarder should be looking up hill more is cretinous and shows a lack of understanding of both the sport and human phsyiology. When you are on a heal edge right foot forward your head is already at 90 degrees looking across your shoulder, down the length of the board, which is pointing across or diagonally down the slope, and as is the case here you will be turning to your toe edge on the downhill side so you need to be looking where you are turning. You cannot crane your neck any further to look "more uphill", unless you happen to be related to an owl, are willing to not look where you are going, and/or you rotated your whole chest/shoulders uphill which is totally the wrong way you need them to be in order to make the turn to your toe edge and risks loosing control, especially for a beginner. It would be like asking a skier to rotate their head, shoulders and chest 90 degrees around to the left when they are initiating a turn to the right. I am sure you conclude it would be stupidty. Both skiers and boarders, and indeed those ski bike things, need to have an awareness of the different mechanics of all other slope users if they are to avoid them when overtaking, understanding that they turn differently and have different angles of visibility.

That said it does look like the skier was a beginner/older child being led, so I tend to think it was just one of those things and sad for those involved. But maybe there's another lesson - learners should be well spaced and not a split second behind the skier/boarder they are following.
A pity the boarder got such an injury.

I think most disappointing is that another adult came down to help the skier, and then they both just appeared to sod off at the end.

Help!!

Another who's fault is this question?

snowHeads Forum Index >>> The Piste