Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /var/www/html/ski-forum/includes/xtrafunctions.php on line 2650
Another who's fault is this question? (2), snowHeads ski forum
 Ski Club 2.0 Home
Snow Reports
FAQFAQ

Mail for help.Help!!

Log in to snowHeads to make it MUCH better! Registration's totally free, of course, and makes snowHeads easier to use and to understand, gives better searching, filtering etc. as well as access to 'members only' forums, discounts and deals that U don't even know exist as a 'guest' user. (btw. 50,000+ snowHeads already know all this, making snowHeads the biggest, most active community of snow-heads in the UK, so you'll be in good company)..... When you register, you get our free weekly(-ish) snow report by email. It's rather good and not made up by tourist offices (or people that love the tourist office and want to marry it either)... We don't share your email address with anyone and we never send out any of those cheesy 'message from our partners' emails either. Anyway, snowHeads really is MUCH better when you're logged in - not least because you get to post your own messages complaining about things that annoy you like perhaps this banner which, incidentally, disappears when you log in :-)
Username:-
 Password:
Remember me:
👁 durr, I forgot...
Or: Register
(to be a proper snow-head, all official-like!)

Another who's fault is this question?

 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Quote:

I think there is some bias from skiers in making up additional responsibilities for a beginner boarder that they would never seek to impose on a beginner skier.

Maybe. But if a skier is doing erratic sort of things across the piste in front of you, as they do from time to time, it's surely your responsibility as the overtaking skier, to slow down until you can be sure you have room to pass safely. It's not the responsibility of the below skier to make nice predictable turns - though once we have the skills to do so, we probably do, out of self-preservation. I have also been known to look over my shoulder and signal. I don't think a wobbly beginner of either discipline can be held responsible for the line they take.
snow report
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
The complete indifference of all the people who just passed the boarder on the floor is unforgiveable.
snow report
 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?
pam w wrote:
On the road, no matter how "suddenly" someone in front of you stops, it's always your fault if you run into the back of them.
Not necessarily I think, the presumption can be rebutted if the sudden stop is found not to be necessary and reasonable. Otherwise those insurance jobs when someone slams on their brakes in front of you to cause a collision and a personal injury claim would be ok.
latest report
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
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
snow report
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
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.
snow conditions
 You'll need to Register first of course.
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
ski holidays
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
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
ski holidays
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
pam w wrote:
The complete indifference of all the people who just passed the boarder on the floor is unforgiveable.


I'd be a bit more generous than that - a beginner snowboarder flopped on the snow isn't exactly a rarity - if everyone stopped to check on them no one would get any skiing done.
latest report
 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.
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 holidays
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
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.
latest report
 snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
philwig wrote:
Both of them are a danger to others. They can't expect everyone else to look out for them.

There were three people in that: the left hand pair of snowplough skiers look like a pair, a snake.
The skier at the back of that pair was likely focused on the one in front... who led her into the line of the snowboarder.
The leader of the pair didn't stop, which is a bit odd. But then the pair's previous turn, just before this
collision, looked to cut up another skier, so I think the leader may have been completely gormless.

  • The snake leader needs to take more care.
  • The snowboarder needs to watch out for others, especially on heel side turns..


Thuis. Too many people switched off. Probably inexperience is a factor.
ski holidays
 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.
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.
snow conditions
 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
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.
snow conditions
 You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
boarder2020 wrote:
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.


wonder what VAR would give.
ski holidays
 Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
boarder2020 wrote:
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.


Yes I'd agree with pretty much all of this.

beeryletcher wrote:
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".


Not sure about this - the boarder as far as I can see on the video is only ever on one piste, and we can't see him crossing (blindly or otherwise) from one piste to another (unless I've missed that). And the boarder always appears to be in front - it appears to be that way visually but it's also backed up by the impression that the skiier is going faster and on a straighter line than the boarder, which says to me that he must have always been behind. The footage from 2mins seems to show that fairly clearly.

But as boarder2020 says if it's taken multiple views, and lots of differing opinions, then it's obviously not that clear cut.
latest report
 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: 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.
snow conditions
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
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
ski holidays
 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?
pam w wrote:
On the road, no matter how "suddenly" someone in front of you stops, it's always your fault if you run into the back of them.


Not quite true, there have been cases when its gone the other way.

Horrible for the snowboarder sustain those injuries, easy to see the skier is up hill and so hits the boarder from behind.
First skier actually starts to turn when they see the boarder, and turns in their path. slow the vid down and watch around 2.05 both skiers are moving faster than majority of the other slope users.
2nd skier would have seen the boarder, but failed to react at all, didnt even try to slow or turn.

If you watch at the very beginning, both skiers have a near miss with another skier, before the boarder - so have previous form.

Possibly the boarder 'shouldnt' have been doing heel turns or traversing a beginner slope like that, but if they are learning and practicing, why not ?
latest report
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
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!
ski holidays
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
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.
latest report
 You'll need to Register first of course.
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.
ski holidays
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
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.
snow report
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
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.
ski holidays
 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.
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
snow conditions
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
hyperkub wrote:
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.

This is the best summary of the incident on this thread imo.
snow report
 snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
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 report
 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.
vjmehra wrote:
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!


That's pretty brutal.

Skiers fault entirely. Comes from above, not at all aware of their surroundings, boarder acting entirely appropriately for a beginner piste, skier straight into the rear. Once the damage is done they dust themselves off and ski away. Wrong on all levels.
snow conditions
 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
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.
ski holidays
 You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Blackblade wrote:
... (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.)...
On that specific, in the UK if you're chasing someone for damages then what matters is... that they have the money to make it worth your while. Insurance is one way they may try to cover that liability, but it's hard to see how why it would need to be mandatory in a country where lots of people own property which has a significant value, for example. That said, many household insurances do include some liability insurance.
ski holidays
 Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
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.
snow report
 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
philwig wrote:
On that specific, in the UK if you're chasing someone for damages then what matters is... that they have the money to make it worth your while. Insurance is one way they may try to cover that liability, but it's hard to see how why it would need to be mandatory in a country where lots of people own property which has a significant value


It's not mandatory but, under German law, you are liable for any damage you cause to someone else even if it was unintentional and all your personal assets can be claimed against. As such, and because it's cheap (under €100/annum), nearly everyone has it.

Even if the damage were to a home then the homeowner would likely be insured BUT that insurer might still chase you for the costs if you caused it. And, for me at least, I really like it because were I to damage someone's property then I'd feel morally obliged to rectify it anyway ... so being able to do so without fear of a very large bill is good. And, it also covers me when out cycling ... if I were to accidentally hit a pedestrian then I'm also insured for that.
snow conditions
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
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.
ski holidays
 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 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.
latest report
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
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.


I don't think any party reached the level of negligence here ... not least because you're talking about the skier being a minor. However, a minor (their parents or guardians) can still be liable for damages caused and, if such liability were admitted ('I drove into her' were allegedly the child's words to his mother/carer) then hard to avoid payment for the insurer.

Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
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.


I'm not entirely with you on this. I want to make a clear distinction between liability for costs and blame. People make mistakes, terrain catches them out, someone else falls and you take avoiding action and then collide with someone else. To expect that a dynamic activity like skiing will be accident free is not realistic. I would say that you do have to accept that, yes, accidents do happen and if you are not prepared to take that risk you shouldn't do it. At the same time, accepting that there is an inherent risk, it behoves everyone to minimise that risk ... particularly with respect to other people. If a beginner makes a mistake, falls and slides into me then I would view that as 'accidents happen'. If someone goes flying out of control through a slow zone with lots of small children then I'd view that very differently. The reason I wanted to make the clear distinction between blame and liability is that an 'accidents happen' incident CAN still result in serious consequences and we should all be insured to deal with that. However, your point about adaptation to risk I agree with completely; to not adapt to a risky situation is negligent because it fails the duty of care to your fellow skiers.
snow report
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
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.
ski holidays
 You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
SlipnSlide wrote:
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.


Agree completely. I'm not trying to blame anyone ... just to answer the technical question as to who is at fault. Actually, reconsidering, the one person I would blame is the adult who arrived on the scene and didn't take care of the injured boarder. THAT is the really blameworthy omission.
snow report
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
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.
ski holidays
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
Blackblade wrote:
...If someone goes flying out of control through a slow zone with lots of small children then I'd view that very differently.

<politely> Perhaps, but the intent behind "damages" in UK law at least isn't I think to "punish".
From personal experience of such things I seem to recall that "Punitive Damages" is more of a US concept.
So I'm not sure what the attitude of the parties involved is relevant, even though it'd be hard to prove.
--
On the OP, it's hard to judge as many have pointed out.
Various people's "Rules" are a factor, but aren't some kind of Road Traffic Act for the pistes and are no excuse for negligence.
snow report
 You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Quote:

the one person I would blame is the adult who arrived on the scene and didn't take care of the injured boarder.


I'm not all that convinced they were an adult. As I mentioned upthread, if you look at the zoomed in footage at the end of the clip, the two skiers at the start are wearing bibs, as is the skier that arrives last and helps the skier. The only two not in bibs are the boarder and the competent skier who stopped to help the boarder. I'm inclined to think the three in bibs are practising without their instructor.

If you look at the link that @vjmehra, posted to the boarder's fb page, you can see that she has shared a cctv pic of the skier involved in the collision sitting on a ski lift with his class mates. They appear to be all kids of varying sizes. I'm guessing she is trying to get him identified and tracked down via social media.

If I'm correct, and they are all beginners, then I reckon the ski school/instructor could be partly culpable for leaving beginners unattended without teaching them the FIS Code.
snow conditions
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
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.
latest report



Terms and conditions  Privacy Policy