 Poster: A snowHead
|
Last couple of times I've been hit were in totally bizarre circumstances that showed zero anticipatory or avoidance action
1 a late teen French snowboarder who decided to go for a non existent gap at the arc of my turn when there was no one on the other half of the piste. He wiped out over my tails.
2 a youngish male snowboarder who decided that straightlining across the life maze entrances was a good idea as people were skiing in. Again bounced him and left him tangled in ropes.
That same week saw @adithorp clattered while stood still in a sensible spot above lift by a boarder who lost control.
General skill levels are not high in busier resorts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Wouldn't say its just youngsters. On my recent trip to the Jungfrau an older Italian gentleman thought he would ski within an inch of me whilst I was pulling over to the side of the piste at a junction to wait for my OH to make sure we both went the same way. Bear in mind, it was a wide piste, it was just us on it, and I hadn't pulled over sharply. He proceeded to shout many obscenities at me, which were replied with in kind. He promptly came to a stop to shout more at me, thus negating him travelling at a speed far beyond his ability.
Saying that, we went up to the top of Grindelwald to near the park and my god....it was like a creche. Immature kids skiing well beyond their ability rushing to get past you to get onto the lift again for another turn round. We promptly left for calmer areas.
Many people just don't recognise that the downhill skier has priority. It's like driving and being overtaken. It's not the responsibility of the car being overtaken to make sure its safe for the car overtaking. And that car overtaking needs to be prepared to adjust to a change in circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| hang11 wrote: |
| I would say Middle Aged men who aren’t as good as they like to think would be a far bigger issue. |
I'd argue that middle aged men tend to have greater skiing experience, have more regard for their personal safety as they no longer 'bounce' as a younger person might and are less full of BS and b0110x.
Obviously, there are exceptions. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
...That same week saw @adithorp clattered while stood still in a sensible spot above lift by a boarder who lost control.
General skill levels are not high in busier resorts. |
Suspect that otherwise polite Canadian kid is still mentally scarred by the freeform stream of F**k based consciousness I hit him with! 
I'm not convinced kids are the issue. There's as many middle-aged (and more) hero's, straightening slopes, trying to beat each others highest speed, as there are youngsters and most of them have a lot more mass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
All it takes is for them to crash into an instructor and they'll be immediately humbled, seen a few of them go absolutely mental demanding ID ready to scrap 
On that note, what can they do with your ID does anyone know? I presume they'd take it to the police but what can happen?
Some people deserve action against them to be honest. At the speed they are travelling a collision could be life changing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| adithorp wrote: |
I'm not convinced kids are the issue. There's as many middle-aged (and more) hero's, straightening slopes, trying to beat each others highest speed, as there are youngsters and most of them have a lot more mass. |
I think it's both. The lack of fear and forethought in younger folk is replaced by ingrained skill deficits and "I've been skiing/riding X years" entitlement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see a lot of moaning and hand wringing here - I’ve probably done a fair amount of it myself. But, what is the solution/remedy in a largely permissive/liberal society? If you think about the analogy of the unwanted user initiated muddy path across a public park you can do a number of things: you can educate and put up signs asking people not to walk there; you can put up fences and increase penalties; or you can accommodate the behaviour and pave the path.
In this case the solution (given at least in France there seems to be no appetite for the second) may be a bit of the first and a bit of the third. None will be perfect. Perhaps using education and information at every possible opportunity - on-line sales, lifts, YouTube, FB etc I know much of this is done already and you don’t want to completely spoil the view. On the third the provision of more dedicated speedy pistes where folk can test their speed and perhaps get educated. At the same time the authorities could allow ‘normal’ slopes to bump up a bit to encourage the development of skill. There was a time when skateboarding was a curse and we have a similar situation now with E-scooters. The answer with the first was to build skate parks and the answer to the second will eventually be to accommodate 90% of the scooters and as far as we can remove the remaining 10% ultra dangerous ones. The world moves on and the slopes and slope behaviour has evolved. Not in the way we necessarily wanted but we have to get used to it.
I’m sure there are other solutions out there, but we need to deal with the world how it is not how we would like it to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Mollerski wrote: |
| hang11 wrote: |
| I would say Middle Aged men who aren’t as good as they like to think would be a far bigger issue. |
I'd argue that middle aged men tend to have greater skiing experience, have more regard for their personal safety as they no longer 'bounce' as a younger person might and are less full of BS and b0110x.
Obviously, there are exceptions. |
The counterpoint to this of course are the competitive dads. People with probably have half a dozen or so weeks sliding under their belts, split between as children and now as parents, who need to "keep the kids in their place" by showing they are still better than them/know better than their instructors (but aren't, in either case).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
The long and the short of it. There are rules. But nobody wants to actually enforce them. And plenty of people don't want to follow them. A sport that could be made a lot safer misses that opportunity for those reasons. People get hurt and die in accidents that could easily have been prevented without taking actions that take all the fun (and risk) out of the sport.
There are quite a few in this forum that will argue and argue to justify inherently dangerous and unjustifiable behaviours because they are "good" skiers, and the rules are mere guidance, and others behave badly, and others ski too slowly, and others should leave more of a gap etc. And that is in a forum where in general people are quite experienced, capable and sensible.
What is needed is proper piste patrol, with enforcement powers. 99 times out of 100 a few words of caution and advice will be sufficient to change the behaviour. But there should be the right to demand ID and to remove access to the lifts when needed. The patrol needs to be visible and active. There really is no excuse, and I can't think of any other activity conducted at such high speeds where there is no infrastructure to enforce simple rules that make it safer for everyone. It has always amazed me that not only do we all accept that situation, but many will even advocate strongly for no regulation or enforcement. I for one complain regularly to ski lift companies in the vain hope that more are also complaining and over time this m,ight persuade them to do something about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| zikomo wrote: |
| What is needed is proper piste patrol, with enforcement powers. 99 times out of 100 a few words of caution and advice will be sufficient to change the behaviour. But there should be the right to demand ID and to remove access to the lifts when needed. |
I think I agree with you in principle but I think it's not at all practical in Europe. In the US the resort owner usually owns both the lift infrastructure and the land. In Europe, it's usually the municipality that owns the land and the lift company owns the lift infrastructure and they, in effect, merely sell you a ticket to use that infrastructure.
So, piste patrol would have to be accredited officers with quasi police powers to have any ability to enforce rules. I think someone else already mentioned the case of the French skier whose pass WAS confiscated and he won his case that the lift company did not have any right to do so since they were merely a travel provider with no authority to control the land.
So, the lift operators would need to persuade (or pay) the police or other publicly authorised personnel to fulfil this role. The municipality would also need some new rules ... not the lift operators, since they would need to apply to public land.
The FIS rules are way too imprecise if you're talking about taking enforcement action. For example;
Rule 2: Control of speed when skiing or snowboarding
A skier or snowboarder must move in control. He or she must adapt their speed and manner of skiing or snowboarding to their personal ability and to the prevailing terrain, snow and weather as well as to the density of traffic.
This is so widely open to the interpretation of the patrol that it would almost certainly need to be much more precisely specified. It's exactly the same situation as trying to prove Dangerous Driving; as a general rule, the prosecution needs some objective measure, such as wildlly excessive speed or crossing double white lines, to secure a conviction for this (if the defendant has the money for a good lawyer).
So, whilst I agree in principle and wish people would just follow the very sensible FIS rules so we could all be safer I think that the potential downside in terms of cost, regulation and other unintended consequences is high.
All that said, when an out of control snowboarder nearly took out a class of small children (which included my son) whilst going way too fast in a slow zone and then got very aggressive with the, rather small, instructor who upbraided him for this I just stepped in and took his board away and said I'd deposit it at the ski school where he could collect it the following day. Clearly, I had no actual right to do that but it seemed appropriate action (and more restrained than my initial instinct to punch his lights out for endangering my son).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to go fast go on the reds not down greens which is what i saw a lot of skiers doing when i was in Morillon taking the kids down the long green. Also at the pistes where everyone is getting back into the resort especially Tignes Val claret its madness!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
The argument that the lift company is not in control of the land is simply not true. That land is littered with snow cannons (which the lift company own and manage) for example. And the lift company creates and manages the pistes. They have much more "control" over the land than many are suggesting. I actually think that by NOT enforcing the rules and taking direct action to improve safety, they are potentially creating liability for themselves. If you create a piste specifically designed for skiing and build the means to get to it, you are by default somewhat responsible for what happens on that piste.
I think it is more a matter of cost and a cultural reluctance to interfere in leisure activities. Both are quite bizarre arguments, as other sports clearly DO enforce safety standards and everyone is happy with that. Motorsport would be a good example, with rules and marshals to enforce them. Sailing is similar, with safety boats and clearly defined rules that are enforced. I don't think the additional costs would be that substantial anyway, and I for one would be happy to pay it anyway.
I disagree that the FIS rules are too imprecise. They are quite sufficient for a competent and trained individual to base judgements on. I can tell quite easily when a skier is going faster than their technique can safely support for example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Having ridden enough in North America to be used to seeing ski patrol mooching about I don't have any particular issue with them, but I'd expect there to be quite a bit of push back for anyone attempting to implement something similar in Europe, from inside and outside of the industry.
Marshals don't enforce rules, by the way, but they are treated as a judge of fact which then goes back to the clerk of the course who then decides whether to take action. Plus its a very different environment to an open piste, so the analogy isn't particularly apt.
I'd suggest that the FIS rules are not well written - you don't have to go far to find contradictions - but I'd actually go the other way and say that there are too many. The only one you really need is "Respect other mountain users". You can say that you were in control, and overtaking without impinging on anyone else by weaving around but hooning it on a busy green is patently disrespectful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| zikomo wrote: |
| The argument that the lift company is not in control of the land is simply not true. |
Well it depends on which country you're talking about. Certainly in France in a lot of cases it very much IS true. Hell in the Morzine-Les Gets area there's one lift that's not even owned by the lift company but by the famer who owns the land (from memory the Fys chair, which is why it's still a slow old fixed 2-man - the land/lift owner would get the same cut of lift pass takings just doing basic maintainence as he would replacing the chair so just does the basic maintainence).
And even if the lift operating company was given some authority to 'police' the pistes exactly what 'enforcement' action do you expect them to take - for example against someone who's skined up so doesn't have a lift pass?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Mjit wrote: |
| zikomo wrote: |
| The argument that the lift company is not in control of the land is simply not true. |
Well it depends on which country you're talking about. Certainly in France in a lot of cases it very much IS true. Hell in the Morzine-Les Gets area there's one lift that's not even owned by the lift company but by the famer who owns the land (from memory the Fys chair, which is why it's still a slow old fixed 2-man - the land/lift owner would get the same cut of lift pass takings just doing basic maintainence as he would replacing the chair so just does the basic maintainence).
And even if the lift operating company was given some authority to 'police' the pistes exactly what 'enforcement' action do you expect them to take - for example against someone who's skined up so doesn't have a lift pass? |
Fine. Ignore the fact that the lift company leases the use of the land under licence. And that the lift company creates the pistes. And maintains them. And many pistes have snowmaking infrastructure which is also owned and run by the lift company. Do you really think all that happens with no "control" over the land that infrastructure is on? Probably a good idea to educate yourself on how this all actually works before espousing here (or anywhere else for that matter). In general the lift company does not own the land, that is true. But they do lease the right to use it for periods of the year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Quote: |
for example against someone who's skined up so doesn't have a lift pass?
|
That would be a tiny percentage of the people on the piste - not a good reason for not taking action against the rest. I don't see why the "contract", when somebody buys a pass, could not include heeding the ski-code.
From comments here, and my own experience, this dangerous behaviour is mostly encountered in a few "big name" resorts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I think what both @zikomo and Richard_Sideways are saying is that it's not so complicated to see bad skiing; people clearly out of control and going too fast, people endangering others etc. And, I agree ! Completely. I'm just pointing out that if you are potentially taking action that results in a financial loss to individuals it's a bit trickier to enforce. @zikomo I note what you said about the snow cannons but operation and ownership are not the same thing. In most cases the land is public; so the fact that you operate a ski piste on it doesn't change that and, if it is public land, the law of the land applies. Same as if you were climbing Ben Nevis; no private individual can throw you off that land as it's publicly owned.
@Richard_Sideways' quote of "Respect other mountain users" is, I note, remarkably similar to the Golden Rule "Do as you would be done by" ... and most people agree with that ... but, funnily enough, that's not sufficient for rule of law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Origen wrote: |
| I don't see why the "contract", when somebody buys a pass, could not include heeding the ski-code. |
... because of a fundamental aspect of law; you cannot 'bind' any third party. The lift company can't enter into a contract to allow you to ski on the mountain and behave in a certain way because they don't own it. They have a licence to do certain things on it ... but that is not ownership. They can contract for your behaviour on their property but they can't do it for public land.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Blackblade, my personal opinion is that while its easy to pick up on things in other people skiing and snowboarding that you may not like the look of, its much harder to say that they are 'out of control'. Many anecdotes we read here talk about near misses by 'out of control' people - if you've nearly missed you're in enough control to avoid whatever incident had the potential to occur... maybe not. Point is unless an actual incident happens then how can you sanction someone on the mountain, what exactly have they done wrong beyond perhaps not agreeing with another persons point of view?
Would you be OK with me having your ski pass taken off you because I have judged you to be a poor skier?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Richard_Sideways wrote: |
@Blackblade, my personal opinion is that while its easy to pick up on things in other people skiing and snowboarding that you may not like the look of, its much harder to say that they are 'out of control'. Many anecdotes we read here talk about near misses by 'out of control' people - if you've nearly missed you're in enough control to avoid whatever incident had the potential to occur... maybe not. Point is unless an actual incident happens then how can you sanction someone on the mountain, what exactly have they done wrong beyond perhaps not agreeing with another persons point of view?
Would you be OK with me having your ski pass taken off you because I have judged you to be a poor skier? |
I agree with you completely. Defining 'Out of Control' is tricky. Who is the arbiter and what status do they have to make such a judgement ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Blackblade, I don't think you have the first idea of what "control" of land means. If I rent some land from you, I have every right to throw anyone else off that piece of land. For example. Ownership is not the only thing that matters. The fact that the lift company create and maintain pistes means that they have lease rights to do so. It also means they are responsible for that happens on those pistes. It is a simple matter to tidy up the legal aspects of this (especially by making that explicit in the lease). It is also a simple matter to impose conditions of use on those who use the pistes prepared by the lift company. There may need to be some adjustments made to make sure it is all legally watertight, but those adjustments are not complex or difficult to implement. Frankly your arguments in this regard are both ill-informed (you just don't know what you are talking about) and a red herring. If both state and lift company wanted there to be imposition of safety rules by the lift company, there would be no legal problem in doing so.
I suspect you are using some legal speak, but have no legal basis on which to do so. I can indeed "bind" a third party if my lease allows the same rights in this regard as the landowner. Quite a "fundamental aspect of law". You should tell all the tenant landlords of the nation, however, that because you so well understand the "fundamental aspect of law" that they are not allowed to deny access, deny service or demand that anyone leave the premises because they do not own the pub. It is simply a ridiculous notion.
It is also true that there is nothing stopping piste patrol right now from being visible on the pistes. And giving anyone deemed to be skiing unsafely a telling off. 99 times out of 100 that is all that is needed. If that is not sufficient, and the behaviour is very obviously dangerous, there are plenty of civil and criminal statutes that could be deployed with a bit of cooperation from the local police. Far better though to tidy up the relevant leasing and licensing agreements to allow the lift company to deny access to the lifts and pistes in order to improve safety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@zikomo, Ownership of land, lift companies piste prep and rescue vary from resort to resort. The only resort I know intimately is Tignes and:
The land is owned by the farmers.
Those farmers do not have rights to the snow above it (bizarre).
STGM have the licence to operate the lifts on behalf of the commune who own them (for another year then it becomes a local company).
Piste bashing, snow making and Pisteur services are run by the Regie de Pistes, a local not for profit organisation funded by the Commune and from lift ticket sales.
So, it’s not simple!
But the FIS code has been incorporated into local law, therefore you need a Gendarme to enforce it. Eg when there is a serious collision it’s the Gendarmes called by the Pisteurs that will do the arresting and charging.
STGM have 2 staff trained by the Police to deal with lift ticket fraud, ie collect evidence and refer to Les Flics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Blackblade, you can't, I'm afraid, opine on what any lift company can or can't do, unless you've seen the document which governs its entitlement to be on the land at all. That's going to differ from country to country and indeed from lift company to company.
Where there's a will there's a way, though, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to impose safeguarding obligations on anyone, be it a freeholder, a lessee, a licensee or whatever. Or a combination of them, as is sometimes the case in English law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
@chocksaway, cross post!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@zikomo I'm sorry, but you are the one who doesn't fully understand. I've had to deal with this in the past so I am very confident in what I am saying.
You are confusing a LICENCE to conduct an activity with a LEASE of a piece of land. They are very different and, particularly, when the land is in public ownership.
If you LEASE a piece of land then you are not trying to bind a third party because the owner has contracted to give you those rights which you can then contract with someone else.
If you are LICENCED to conduct an activity on land then you do not have those rights.
I wish it were as simple as you seem to think it is ... but it really isn't. The municipality would need to change the rules that apply to the land ... and, as it's public land, the public has certain rights over that land.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Blackblade, he's mixing up terms and you're assuming that your terms actually apply. Neither of you is right! Or at least not universally right. This really isn't a subject where generalisations are helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Blackblade wrote: |
@zikomo I'm sorry, but you are the one who doesn't fully understand. I've had to deal with this in the past so I am very confident in what I am saying.
You are confusing a LICENCE to conduct an activity with a LEASE of a piece of land. They are very different and, particularly, when the land is in public ownership.
If you LEASE a piece of land then you are not trying to bind a third party because the owner has contracted to give you those rights which you can then contract with someone else.
If you are LICENCED to conduct an activity on land then you do not have those rights.
I wish it were as simple as you seem to think it is ... but it really isn't. The municipality would need to change the rules that apply to the land ... and, as it's public land, the public has certain rights over that land. |
I am trying to avoid legalese. As that will only confuse you. Hence why I have used the terms that I have. I well know the difference between a license and a lease. Both or either could be used for the purposes we are discussing. And the best route will be different in different jurisdictions and circumstances. So again all you are doing is throwing red herrings. And clearly have no idea what you are talking about anyway.
The point is that your rather sad attempt to demonstrate you are a legal expert ("fundamental aspect of law") by claiming that only the owner of the land can impose any sort of conditions on who uses the land and how is just plain nonsense. And I mean so far from reality it beggars belief. Probably not a good idea to display such complete ignorance when trying to persuade others of your legal brilliance. Of course it does not need to be the landowner, and of course it is easy to have a legal structure where lift companies (or someone else if the preparer and operator of the pistes is not the lift company) are able to impose conditions on those who use those pistes. The question is not whether it is possible, but whether it is a good idea. And whether the interested parties want to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Is it me, or has this post descended into an episode of the Jeremy Vine show?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| RedandWhiteFlachau wrote: |
| Is it me, or has this post descended into an episode of the Jeremy Vine show? |
I've never watched it. Does it often feature barrack room lawyers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
All this talk of getting all police state about the whole thing but is there even any evidence that resorts where the threat of pass removal exists as a deterrent are safer than resorts where it doesn't? I suspect it would be very hard to eliminate all the different variables such as piste layout, visitor numbers etc. to get a clear idea.
But anecdotally we seem to hear about idiots and get served videos on social media of skiing accidents from both sides of the pond, so pass removal threat certainly isn't the golden ticket to solve all antisocial or dangerous skiing. Seems like a big distraction really.
Stands to reason, look at driving as a parallel, roads are policed, licences can be taken away but there still be idiots killing people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 have never claimed to be a legal expert. I stated that I have personal experience of dealing with very similar issues in the past.
I also didn't say that only the owner could impose conditions; if the land is leased then the owner has given rights to the lessee which can then be contracted. I said that if all you have is a LICENCE to conduct certain activities then you cannot give any rights not conveyed to you. If the land is public then right of access is almost certainly not something the licensee can restrict or control.
I really don't know why we're even arguing this; there is case law on it. Val d'Isere removed a skiers pass for allegedly dangerous skiing. He sued them, and won, on precisely these grounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Anyway, I think the argument has become rather otiose and boring to everyone else; happy to discuss it one:one but I'll not revert further on the point in this thread. zikomo feel free to PM me if you wish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| KSH wrote: |
| RedandWhiteFlachau wrote: |
| Is it me, or has this post descended into an episode of the Jeremy Vine show? |
I've never watched it. Does it often feature barrack room lawyers? |
Apologies. Will desist from further comments on the point. I'm no lawyer (of any type).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Blackblade wrote: |
| KSH wrote: |
| RedandWhiteFlachau wrote: |
| Is it me, or has this post descended into an episode of the Jeremy Vine show? |
I've never watched it. Does it often feature barrack room lawyers? |
Apologies. Will desist from further comments on the point. I'm no lawyer (of any type). |
Worry not. At least you're reasonably polite!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| KSH wrote: |
| Worry not. At least you're reasonably polite! |
Thank you, I do try. Not least because I've signed up for the End of Season Bash so I shall, after a long time as a lurker here, have to answer for any forum misdemeanours in person !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Blackblade, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@KSH, It is a Radio 2 show that features the least endearing characteristics of middle-England. A bit like most of Stanton's posts on here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[quote="Macey1975"]So I was reading an article from a ski instructor in les 2 alps
He said that youths particularly male are ruining skiing in the resort
Bombing down pistes with no regard for anyone other than themselves
He said they are powerless as were the instructors in valdesere
Have you noticed this across the alps ????
Actually, it was me, and last I looked I was a she! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
