 Poster: A snowHead
|
Maybe you should consider yourself lucky they didn't get violent with you.
I wouldn't be too happy if someone hit me from behind while I was riding.
Now you know how snowboards will be using the piste going forward - look at your own line choices - adapt or die. Don't be a North Going Zax.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@Pyramus, “general traffic” is doing some fairly hefty lifting there my friend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Belch wrote: |
@bumpybrandy, Just act like you're from France in future and don't utter a word of English after you've detangled yourself even if the boarder is lying on the piste twitching and in pain from your obvious error - just huff a lot and smugly ski off into the distance negating all assumed responsibility. . .  |
I really hope you encounter some French people who are as bigoted as you - you will deserve it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
If this
| Quote: |
The development of carving skis and snowboards allows their users to carve and turn upwards on the slopes. Hence they move opposite to the general downhill traffic. They must, therefore, make sure in time that they can do so without endangering themselves and others.
|
is what the FIS Rules actually state - and I must confess that, to my shame, I haven't read them in full  - surely the OP and
Pyramus have a point? |
That is in the notes on Rule 5 on re-entering the piste, not on Rules 3 or 4 about Downhill skier/boarder having priority and Overtaking, respectively. So, no they don't have a point, other than the point that the boarder in this case did something idiotic (because he didn't look before the radical turn) that was totally dependent on the OP conforming to Rule 3 "The skier or snowboarder moving behind another in the same direction must keep sufficient distance between themselves and the other skier or snowboarder so as to leave the preceding skier or snowboarder enough space to make all their movements freely."
We all have to follow the same rules whether or not the other person is an idiot, and if an accident happens because I didn't follow them, I'm at fault even if the proximate cause of the accident was the idiotic behaviour of an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@Hurtle, Calm down - was just being ironic whatever that means . . . and by the way I've already met several French skiers who have acted precisely as described; so perhaps as the downhill skier I deserved it . . . . .dufus
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@tsgsh, I think that, at the very least, the Rules, and specifically the Notes to the Rules, are quite poorly drafted. The Note in question is quite prescriptive in tone and, arguably, shouldn't be a Note at all, but a Rule in itself or, at least, not attached to a particular Rule. Arguably.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Hurtle, arguably, yes although in both the cases under discussion, the movement was across the piste not uphill so it wouldn't come under such a new rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@bumpybrandy, by the worldwide FIS piste users code, the crash was your fault. Own it and stop making excuses. You have zero mitigation. The rules are simple and straight forward for a reason. Everyone below you, in any situation, has right of way. You failed to anticipate his move, but that is 100% your fault. Any blurring of that very simple rule would make the slopes a very dangerous place. Just own your misjudgement and move on. No one was hurt so what's your issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| tsgsh wrote: |
| @Hurtle, arguably, yes although in both the cases under discussion, the movement was across the piste not uphill so it wouldn't come under such a new rule. |
True, on a very literal interpretation, which is possibly not intended with respect to the Notes. The Notes look a bit of a dog's dinner to me, honestly; the Rules themselves are pretty clear, the Notes muddy the waters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Maybe you should consider yourself lucky they didn't get violent with you.
I wouldn't be too happy if someone hit me from behind while I was riding."
S ht happens
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| WinBoard2 wrote: |
| Maybe you should consider yourself lucky they didn't get violent with you. |
 Because that would be the appropriate response to an accident wouldn’t it. I despise this attitude more than the OP not owning his mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| tsgsh wrote: |
| That is in the notes on Rule 5 on re-entering the piste, not on Rules 3 or 4 about Downhill skier/boarder having priority and Overtaking, respectively. |
Load of rubbish, read Rule 5 again.
The note is clarifying the reference to “moving upwards” in Rule 5, which FIS are saying includes the carving scenario, not only ski touring like others suggested in other thread.
This exact confusion is why rule 5 needs updating.
And my point is, why is a 91 degree turn (so moving upwards 1 degree during a carve) any more endangering than a 90 degree turn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| bumpybrandy wrote: |
| Suddenly, without even the most minute head turn or glance back over his shoulder he crouched, dragged his hand and whipped into a full 90 degree +/- carve crossing directly in front of my line and before I could blink I had slammed right into him. |
This sounds a lot like justification after the fact that you weren’t paying full attention to the slope user below you to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Legend. wrote: |
| WinBoard2 wrote: |
| Maybe you should consider yourself lucky they didn't get violent with you. |
Because that would be the appropriate response to an accident wouldn’t it. I despise this attitude more than the OP not owning his mistake. |
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
| tsgsh wrote: |
| That is in the notes on Rule 5 on re-entering the piste, not on Rules 3 or 4 about Downhill skier/boarder having priority and Overtaking, respectively. |
Load of rubbish, read Rule 5 again.
The note is clarifying the reference to “moving upwards” in Rule 5, which FIS are saying includes the carving scenario, not only ski touring like others suggested in other thread.
This exact confusion is why rule 5 needs updating.
And my point is, why is a 91 degree turn (so moving upwards 1 degree during a carve) any more endangering than a 90 degree turn. |
I did read it. 91 degrees or more has always been commonplace: a way to get out of trouble rather than risk a turn that you fear will go wrong. Carving a 360 degree turn is qualitatively different. Without having any idea of how the FIS actually drafted that note, my assumption is that they did so because it's now possible to turn a long way past 90 degrees to the fall line and retain a significant speed.
A modified Rule 5 as you describe would cause no end of issues caused over the interpretation of "general direction" e.g. you were traversing the slope and the "general direction" was downhill, so I had right of way over you.
I had exactly this in AdH 2 weeks ago. There's a crossroads with three reds although in practice it's like two. Most traffic (the "general direction") tends to go down the Belvédère onto the Chamois, which is much steeper than the route approaching from the left from the Chamois onto the Rousses. I was taking the latter route and there was a skier nervously negotiating a bare patch of hardpack just above and ahead of me on the Belvédère. I slowed so that if he lost it he was going in front of me (even though it was his responsibility not to hit me, I wasn't sure he could discharge that). The English snowboarder trying to overtake behind this skier had to break very hard but once he'd composed himself he hurled abuse at me for skiing across his slope ["the general direction"]. I replied "you were supposed to be in control and you weren't" and he shut up and bu**ered off. This happened just below the 4m wide red sign saying "Danger" in four languages. What is the wording you propose to account for this and a miriad of other scenarios? How long complex does Rule 5 get before it becomes impossible to remember/interpret on the slopes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
My take on the FIS rules taken as a whole, is that everyone should be moving in a manner that doesn't cause difficulties for others - as summarised in Rule 1.
The rule about the skier behind being ultimately responsible makes sense because he is in the best position to be aware of what is happening below (and ideally also of skiers of similar speed alongside when on a wide piste).
The point is that anyone can make unpredictable movements, for whatever reason ranging from unentitled entitlement, through ignorance, to being their first time on snow. The FIS rules by their very existence implicitly acknowledge the possibility of people breaking the rules.
If someone below breaks a rule, it is then incumbent on the person behind to prevent an accident. The buck always stops there.
In my view it isn't that easy to assess combined speeds and always accurately predict an outcome, which makes for a not very relaxing time when I'm sharing the snow sometimes. But my getting it wrong doesn't make anyone in front of me more wrong, ever. Even if they are breaking rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Hello, I didn't disappear although I had thought the discussion was over. I simply went to a more applicable is based forum where nobody would say something like 'you're lucky he didn't get violent' with you because that sounds like the words of someone who wouldn't have pummeled anyone who tried. BTW one of the plusses of being a skier is that your skinny 19YO feet aren't tied together when someone is about to get loud. Believe me, other than the nauseating legalities that would always ensue, I was not the lucky one. I shall return momentarily with the post that I believe encapsulates why I am finding this as frustrating as I an because I think Europeans may better appreciate than my native gentry the subtext of the conversation that goes beyond skiing, which is the only thing that makes this more interesting than listening to celebrities complain about the public eye while giving unsolicited political opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@bumpybrandy, You are OneGlove and I claim my five pounds 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@bumpybrandy, You should stick around. Always nice to have a discussion on all things skiing and also poor old @Pyramus needs some support for his bonkers views.
What are skinny 19YO feet btw?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| tsgsh wrote: |
| A modified Rule 5 as you describe would cause no end of issues caused over the interpretation of "general direction" e.g. you were traversing the slope and the "general direction" was downhill, so I had right of way over you. |
Not really. The use of the words "general flow of traffic" I am paraphrasing from the FIS notes for Rule 5.
And let's face it, what does that really mean? The general flow of traffic is pretty much always going to be from the top of the slope to the bottom. It's just slightly extending the existing rule to say, include a 90 degree carve as well as a 91 degree carve in the requirement to "not endanger others".
i.e. people deciding to carve perpendicular across a slope should only do so without endangering others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I first mentioned this matter thinking I might find a path to getting the message to snowboarders so they would at least check first before changing from an inconspicuous straight line to a kamikaze speed whip in a single unannounced motion, I found myself repeatedly being placed in a construct where all one has to do is read the words on a sanctioned piece of paper and give absolutely no further consideration to whether a new development or circumstance might require a fresh look. It's that sort of blind compliance that bugged me. I work in an industry with many legal elements to it and I can tell you that the spirit of the law is what guides judges, not the syntax. You literally are NOT automatically responsible in a car accident solely because you were behind the other car. Driving in Miami at night some kids driving what turned out to be an unregistered uninsured car passed recklessly up in front of me. They lost control and spun out three times drifting into my lane and despite my best efforts to slow down and simultaneously dodge them, I ended up hitting them because I was squeezed up against a median and them. Do you think the police said it was my fault? No, they simply asked if I even wanted to bother filing a police report considering I was in a rented car with full coverage and that "these jerks are just an uninsured menace." Blindly citing rules verbatim has led to some of the greatest atrocities in the history of mankind. Socrates, Ptolemy, Rosa Parks, and on. my point is, use your own mind and ear and sometimes you'll see things may need a little tweak, or perhaps more. The people who wrote down "the rules" were not as prescient and noble as those reflexively and anxiously compliant followers here are willing to give them credit for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| bumpybrandy wrote: |
| I first mentioned this matter thinking I might find a path to getting the message to snowboarders so they would at least check first before changing from an inconspicuous straight line to a kamikaze speed whip in a single unannounced motion, I found myself repeatedly being placed in a construct where all one has to do is read the words on a sanctioned piece of paper and give absolutely no further consideration to whether a new development or circumstance might require a fresh look. It's that sort of blind compliance that bugged me. I work in an industry with many legal elements to it and I can tell you that the spirit of the law is what guides judges, not the syntax. You literally are NOT automatically responsible in a car accident solely because you were behind the other car. Driving in Miami at night some kids driving what turned out to be an unregistered uninsured car passed recklessly up in front of me. They lost control and spun out three times drifting into my lane and despite my best efforts to slow down and simultaneously dodge them, I ended up hitting them because I was squeezed up against a median and them. Do you think the police said it was my fault? No, they simply asked if I even wanted to bother filing a police report considering I was in a rented car with full coverage and that "these jerks are just an uninsured menace." Blindly citing rules verbatim has led to some of the greatest atrocities in the history of mankind. Socrates, Ptolemy, Rosa Parks, and on. my point is, use your own mind and ear and sometimes you'll see things may need a little tweak, or perhaps more. The people who wrote down "the rules" were not as prescient and noble as those reflexively and anxiously compliant followers here are willing to give them credit for. |
Snowheads gold and bumpybrandy is the gift that keeps on giving. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@bumpybrandy, “You’re no Jack Kennedy”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@bumpybrandy, Dude I love you. You are the member I have been waiting for. Simple application of common sense isn't it. Let's start a revolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Clever. You are correct though, he and I have very little in common. For instance he had hair, whereas I have never traveled the world committing adultery with movie stars and mobster's girlfriends while hooked on painkillers and simultaneously being responsible for the safety of the free world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Haha, thank you Pyramus!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry - I should have said Rosa Parkes, but I assumed you would have realised the inference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| bumpybrandy wrote: |
| Driving in Miami at night some kids driving what turned out to be an unregistered uninsured car passed recklessly up in front of me. They lost control and spun out three times drifting into my lane and despite my best efforts to slow down and simultaneously dodge them, I ended up hitting them because I was squeezed up against a median and them. |
Soooo... you're saying they came from behind and caused an accident?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I don't know about snowboarding, but when skiing down the mountain, you're meant to keep facing downhill.
How can you look around before initiating a turn whilst keeping facing downhill?
Not once, not ever, in the multitude of lessons that I have had, has an instructor ever told me to look around before initiating a turn. Never.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Sorry, I thought you were simply referring to a level of profundity, not to one of the three revolutionaries I mentioned. Not sure how I would have inferred which one. However, in that case you are 100% correct. Who could type on their phone getting distracted from real obligations, talking about a single oblivious snowboarder and yet compare themselves to any great revolutionary? Not I. I simply mean to say that not everyone must be a revolutionary, but no one should be a sheep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Kramer wrote: |
| Not once, not ever, in the multitude of lessons that I have had, has an instructor ever told me to look around before initiating a turn. Never. |
Nail on the head. One reason why there are still so many collisions occurring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
HandyHand. I'll speak slooowwlly for you. No. They were ahead of me when they lost control, crossed multiple lanes, and caused the accident. and on the way toward me they hit others as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
| Kramer wrote: |
| Not once, not ever, in the multitude of lessons that I have had, has an instructor ever told me to look around before initiating a turn. Never. |
Nail on the head. One reason why there are still so many collisions occurring. |
You can't look round and turn effectively, it unbalances you.
Every time I've seen a collision it's been because the person above hasn't been in control. End of. If you're in control you can turn and stop. If you can't do that, then you're not in control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| bumpybrandy wrote: |
| HandyHand. I'll speak slooowwlly for you. No. They were ahead of me when they lost control, crossed multiple lanes, and caused the accident. and on the way toward me they hit others as well. |
Sounds like you don't pay attention too well when driving either?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@bumpybrandy,
| Quote: |
the spirit of the law is what guides judges, not the syntax.
|
It's not always quite as black and white as that, and one has to hope that it's not usually a binary choice, but that in part was what I was alluding to when I said that literally construing a note to a rule (not even the rule itself) was not necessarily the right approach.
I join you and @Pyramus in thinking the Rules and Notes are not quite as simple and well-drafted as people think, or as easy to interpret. Additionally there are potentially questions of mitigation and contributory negligence. As I mentioned above, I caused an inexperienced skier, who was at one stage in front of me, to fall. My fault, no question. If the other person had been an experienced boarder executing the manoeuvre you described, then yes, also my fault if I was above him, but I think I would, in a court, have been required to pay less in damages to an injured party than in the first instance. Arguably.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kramer, first To continue to remind readers of the ONLY circumstance I am referring to, I am confident that the turns that you, as well as even aggressive ski carvers and the vast majority of highly skilled snowboarders make are quite within the norms of directional conventions which would never merit mention here. However if that is not the case then I recommend you travel down a typical groomer on a crowded weekend ski day, continue to face your head down the hill, turn your skis as hard as you are physically able and intentionally travel directly perpendicular to the hill a good distance. Try it three different times even. If in at least one of those cases somebody doesn't barrel right into you please write back and I will take your point under further advisement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@bumpybrandy, To continue to remind readers, we think you're wrong. Stop digging.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@bumpybrandy, totally agree. You have this topic nailed, good stuff (did I mention I love you?)
@Hurtle, Absolutely. The "moving upward" reference in Rule 5 is frankly confusing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would argue that the FIS rules are about avoidance of collision, and not about apportioning blame.
Also, I expect that “a typical groomer on a crowded weekend ski day” needs variable speed limit signs as inevitably the general speed will be too fast for the congested conditions and yet there will be surprise and consternation when collisions occur. I don’t think the rules consider “enjoying yourself” is a requirement, they are purely about safety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
