 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@jonm, to be fair to the OP here, the referenced thread is very cryptically titled. I was surprised at the lack of reference here to Les Arcs yesterday, and never thought to look in a thread about avalanches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@DirkPitt, agreed. I also found it by accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
The other thread has now moved on to an eternal argument about helmets!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@munich_irish, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was going to be 50/50 - helmet debate or whether its the uphill skiers fault/downhill stopped unsafely debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
A "snow reports and weather conditions" thread isn't the obvious place to look either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DirkPitt wrote: |
A "snow reports and weather conditions" thread isn't the obvious place to look either. |
Aren’t the two threads in the same location “The Piste”?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Richard_Sideways wrote: |
| ...whether its the uphill skiers fault/downhill stopped unsafely debate. |
Surely it's always the uphill skier's fault primarily, just as unless someone's brake lights were faulty or there's "brake testing" involved, you're on the backfoot avoiding blame if you drive into the back of another vehicle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| DirkPitt wrote: |
A "snow reports and weather conditions" thread isn't the obvious place to look either. |
Along with similar threads for other destinations, that “weather thread” inevitably becomes a general discussion and news about the resort. It has the great advantage of not becoming argumentative nonsense, so this tragic incident was reported factually then received a few responses expressing empathy. Seems appropriate, in my view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Snow&skifan wrote: |
| DirkPitt wrote: |
A "snow reports and weather conditions" thread isn't the obvious place to look either. |
Aren’t the two threads in the same location “The Piste”? |
Rob's linked thread is in " Snow Reports - weather - snow conditions".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| DirkPitt wrote: |
A "snow reports and weather conditions" thread isn't the obvious place to look either. |
Along with similar threads for other destinations, that “weather thread” inevitably becomes a general discussion and news about the resort. It has the great advantage of not becoming argumentative nonsense, so this tragic incident was reported factually then received a few responses expressing empathy. Seems appropriate, in my view. |
I think you need to be a regular in the "weather" threads to know that! As a once a year skier, with trips booked months in advance, weather discussions are largely irrelevant, as weather for my week is what it is, and likewise for snow conditions. It's of passing interest maybe that conditions were great before I get there, or that there's a massive dump of snow forecast for when I'm back at work. And obviously when I've just been skiing in Montgenevre, weather conditions in Les Arcs are genuinely irrelevant.
I saw the story in a news feed on my phone yesterday, but didn't note the resort as I was just skim-reading, so "The Piste" was the obvious place to look for a thread about a fatal incident, given that such incidents are often covered there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| DirkPitt wrote: |
| I saw the story in a news feed on my phone yesterday, but didn't note the resort as I was just skim-reading, so "The Piste" was the obvious place to look for a thread about a fatal incident, given that such incidents are often covered there. |
My first port of call when I see news of this kind is the relevant resort thread, if there is one, as that seems to give me the best chance of hearing from a local or at least people in resort, rather than endless pontification from afar, which all too often falls down the usual discursive rabbit holes that the forum indulges in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| munich_irish wrote: |
| The other thread has now moved on to an eternal argument about helmets! |
Vs eternal argument over where’s the best place to report the incident 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
The law in France is quite clear. In the case of a collision the uphill skier is at fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
But "fault" doesn't necessarily imply moral responsibility. It could be bad luck, or a heart attack. We know virtually nothing about the incident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| DirkPitt wrote: |
| I saw the story in a news feed on my phone yesterday, but didn't note the resort as I was just skim-reading, so "The Piste" was the obvious place to look for a thread about a fatal incident, given that such incidents are often covered there. |
My first port of call when I see news of this kind is the relevant resort thread, if there is one, as that seems to give me the best chance of hearing from a local or at least people in resort... |
OK, but per my earlier comment, the thread concerned is very clearly a weather and snow conditions thread as presented, and one needs to know that it has actually morphed into a general purpose thread. Maybe the sub-forum itself needs re-titling e.g. "General Resort Information".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| DirkPitt wrote: |
| Maybe the sub-forum itself needs re-titling e.g. "General Resort Information". |
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| john2 wrote: |
| The law in France is quite clear. In the case of a collision the uphill skier is at fault. |
I'm no expert in French law, but I assume there are provisions to allow for mitigating circumstances such as being out of control due to having been skied into by an uphill skier (hard to prove, no doubt!) or an unforeseeable medical incident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have skied Aiguille Rouge a number of times over the past few years. It can be quite difficult and is certainly fast and it is more of a challenge than enjoyable to me. My commiserations over such a tragedy to all involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DirkPitt wrote: |
| john2 wrote: |
| The law in France is quite clear. In the case of a collision the uphill skier is at fault. |
I'm no expert in French law, but I assume there are provisions to allow for mitigating circumstances such as being out of control due to having been skied into by an uphill skier (hard to prove, no doubt!) or an unforeseeable medical incident. |
Presumably, other things, such as equipment failure. I have fallen over because the binding on my rental skis failed. Also, if someone comes zooming out the trees at the side of the piste directly in front of me, am I at fault in the resultant collision? What if someone comes past me and stops right in front of me? The uphill skier always being at fault is the same nonsense as the car behind always being at fault. It is a good starting point, but life is never that black and white, and it would be hard to see how such a black and white legal stance is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
I suppose it's a presumption, a starting point, but would need to be argued out in court, taking all the evidence into consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the downhill skier was stopped in the middle of the piste under the brow of a hill, that doesn't absolve the uphill skier. Any more than coming round a bend and finding a car stopped in the middle of the road excuses the driver who crashes into it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Origen wrote: |
| If the downhill skier was stopped in the middle of the piste under the brow of a hill, that doesn't absolve the uphill skier. Any more than coming round a bend and finding a car stopped in the middle of the road excuses the driver who crashes into it. |
Good point.
It is quite a while since I skiied Les Arcs, and on that occasion we didn't ski that well known black (at the time our daughter was an early teen). But from vague long ago memories, it is quite narrow in places with bends which mean you can't see what is coming. As with that driver example, safe skiing is such that you can stop if you have to if you meet an obstacle round a corner. A speed which you could ski safely on a steep wide black becomes unsafe if it is narrower and twistier.
But actually, without knowledge of the terrain where the tragedy happens, we are just speculating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Origen wrote: |
| If the downhill skier was stopped in the middle of the piste under the brow of a hill, that doesn't absolve the uphill skier. Any more than coming round a bend and finding a car stopped in the middle of the road excuses the driver who crashes into it. |
No, but if a car pulls out of a junction in front of you and you hit them from behind, the car in front is at fault. If a car changes lanes right before you on a dual carriageway and slams on the brakes immediately, they are also at fault. We have all seen the idiot tearing up the outside lane at traffic works and trying to move into a space that may not exist. All brake checking is the fault of the car in front. There are loads of scenarios where the driver in front is at fault. There are also plenty of scenarios where the skier downhill at the time of the collision is at fault, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
If a car changes lanes right before you on a dual carriageway and slams on the brakes immediately, they are also at fault.
|
Hmm. They might be braking to avoid something like an obstacle in the road. It is annoying when a car overtakes you then pulls in so close in front of you that the gap between you is too short. I find it happens more in France, where they are good about not sitting in the middle lane, than in the UK. The correct response then is to ease off till there's an adequate gap for you to stop safely whatever they do next. .
If a car joins a motorway in front of me, just nicking in, too close for comfort, or pulls into the outside lane just in front of me, I do the same. Ease off, leave a sensible gap. Annoying, maybe, but suck it up. And if approaching a junction, slow down, be alert, anticipate the possibility of some dickhead doing a dick thing. That's why junctions are invariably signposted on main roads. There are some instances, as you say, where the car in front is at fault. But they are relatively rare. It's obvious to anyone who thinks about it that many drivers drive too close to the vehicle in front
Sometimes people on ski runs do just appear from nowhere, jumping down out of the trees. Very annoying and negligent. But we do get a lot of people here complaining of ski instructors snaking their kids from one side of the piste to the other. Just chill, enjoy the scenery, slow down. You have no God-given right to pass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Origen wrote: |
| Quote: |
If a car changes lanes right before you on a dual carriageway and slams on the brakes immediately, they are also at fault.
|
Hmm. They might be braking to avoid something like an obstacle in the road. It is annoying when a car overtakes you then pulls in so close in front of you that the gap between you is too short. I find it happens more in France, where they are good about not sitting in the middle lane, than in the UK. The correct response then is to ease off till there's an adequate gap for you to stop safely whatever they do next. .
|
It doesn't matter why they were breaking. If a vehicle pulls into your safe breaking distance and a collision occurs before you have the time to safely reestablish your safe breaking distance, then the vehicle in front is at fault. The issue is that people assume that if they get in front of you, then all responsibility instantly shifts to the person behind them for any accidents. Reasons to have a dashcam.
The point is that it should be clear to anyone with even a modicum of imagination that the idea the person behind is *always* at fault is rubbish.
Another random example where the uphill person is not at fault is if you go into the back of someone coming out of a dip  I can make a very good argument that they are uphill, but anyone who says it's their fault is disingenuous. So even who is uphill of who is potentially going to be open to interpretation.
Another one I have seen is people pop out of trees onto pistes that are closed for racing, no collision but would the racer be at fault if there was one?
Life is rarely black and white.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@jabuzzard, the "idiot" is doing the correct thing. You're supposed to merge at the beginning of the roadworks, one by one. That's what the sign "Merge in turn" means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
It doesn't matter why they were breaking
|
Did you mean "braking" or just falling apart
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@jabuzzard, I reckon the principle that it is the uphill skier's responsibility to keep clear is a sensible, and widely understood, one. As is the principle that if you run into a car in front of you, you are at fault. The fact that you can propose some situations in which it might be otherwise doesn't change the principle let alone make it, as you suggest, "rubbish".
None of this is directly relevant to a skiing accident where we have, as yet, no idea at all of what happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@mountainaddict, Wouldn't worry about it. Seems like you did what you thought was right at the time.
Based on some of what people have subsequently posted, the placement of your thread is minor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
In the highway code it does give rules about priority but it also says that everyone should give priority in any situation where it will avoid an accident. I think that's the whole thing. The downhill rule is about looking after the people you can see, and the people who can see you, looking after you. It's about avoiding accidents and being clear where responsibility is for what, so we can all be safe. But of course, that doesn't mean it's right to hang out under a lip on a fast black or set off onto the piste without looking uphill. But in court, probably the burden of proof will be more on the overtaking or uphill person (because of their greater visibility of the situation and their greater speed) to prove it wasn't their fault. But judges aren't stupid and aren't just going to measure the respective altitudes or velocities. They know it's unwise to judge without knowing all the circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| joffy69 wrote: |
| @jabuzzard, the "idiot" is doing the correct thing. You're supposed to merge at the beginning of the roadworks, one by one. That's what the sign "Merge in turn" means. |
That’s incorrect, according to the AA and RAC assessment on the Highway Code on slow, stop-start traffic merging.
“Where traffic is queuing and moving slowly you should use all available road space in both lanes with drivers at the front of the queues taking it in turns to 'merge in turn' or 'zip merge' as the Americans call it. This can help reduce the overall length of the queue significantly and minimises the risk of disruption at junctions further back up the road”.
Queuing early is likely to cause even more congestion because drivers aren’t utilising all of the available road. Of course we’ve all seen drivers who want to play God, moving half lane to the right very early on in a snaking pattern to try to prevent cars using all available road space.
The merge in turn comes later on.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Fri 17-01-25 1:59; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Snow&skifan, the AA and RAC have just confirmed what I said.
| Quote: |
Where traffic is queuing and moving slowly you should use all available road space in both lanes with drivers at the front of the queues taking it in turns to 'merge in turn'
|
"all available road space" are the operative words.
We are agreeing with each other.
I am disagreeing with this: "We have all seen the idiot tearing up the outside lane at traffic works and trying to move into a space that may not exist."
There should always be a space as you "merge in turn".
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Fri 17-01-25 1:14; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers @GreenDay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
To bring this back to the tragic loss of life. I witnessed the aftermath of the crash. It was incredibly sobering to see someone being worked on my so many medics on what should be a “happy” place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@AlIre2024,
Horrible to see, where did it happen?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
