 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@thecramps I think you meant "hadn't descended… before now".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@tsgsh, Possibly, if that means what I said 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| thecramps wrote: |
I can't believe this thread hasn't yet descended into the gutter, what with all this talk of "uphill skiers".  |
People are not blind and see the growing disconnect between the reality on the slopes and the outdated/unenforced rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@aklos, again, what improved rules would you suggest?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Please put this thread out of its misery and no-one post in it ever again. Definitively my last word.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Fri 16-01-26 6:09; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@195062, I agree
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| tsgsh wrote: |
| @aklos, again, what improved rules would you suggest? |
There were a few summary posts buried in this thread, but i will be happy to summarize once again.
The existing code worked well when skiing was a small, self-regulated activity, but with modern volumes and lack of training it needs to be both revised and complemented by enforcement and technology. Getting people to accept that the frequently applied "downhill skier is always right" principle is not absolute is already a meaningful step forward. Many accidents happen precisely because this nuance is ignored and the discussion is shut down too early, multiple attempts of which you see on any single page of this thread.
A number of other solutions to revise and enforce the rules have already been proposed in this and other similar threads. Including shared responsibility depending on the situation, saturation thresholds, clearer expectations for learners, groups, and instructors on saturated pistes as well as basic enforcement of speed, density, and dangerous behavioral patterns, already possible technologically. This mirrors what happened in other industries as they evolved from enthusiast-driven activities into mass participation systems, - ethical codes stopped working and had to be adjusted and enforced.
Even without immediate changes, keeping this conversation on the existing gaps ongoing is already part of the solution.
P.S. I hope that ManiaMuse will be able to translate the above into more poetic language for some people to understand it better 
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To summarise: the current rules are wrong because they say the downhill skier is always right, even though they don't and it would be much better to have better rules although you don't have a proposal to change them, however you think that this discussion between a dozen or so ski nerds is helping to improve the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 hope I'm not stepping on toes here, but:
They said the rules were good enough
When skiing was a minor sin,
A few who knew the hill was rough
And learned by pain to check their spin.
But now the lifts disgorge a crowd
Who think a slogan counts as sense:
The downhill’s right, they shout it loud,
And use that rule as their defence.
That lie is where the bodies fall,
Because it ends the thought too fast.
No rule survives when numbers sprawl
And skill belongs to years long past.
Old codes rely on decent men
Who know when not to push their luck.
Scale breaks them — then you need it plain:
Speed watched, density, and muck.
So change the rule. Admit the fact:
Responsibility can split.
What worked for few won’t serve the mass —
And hills don’t care who quotes their poo-poo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| tsgsh wrote: |
| To summarise: the current rules are wrong because they say the downhill skier is always right, even though they don't and it would be much better to have better rules although you don't have a proposal to change them, however you think that this discussion between a dozen or so ski nerds is helping to improve the situation. |
/thread
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| James the Last wrote: |
I hope I'm not stepping on toes here, but:
|
Nicely put, - you nailed the core,
What worked for few won't scale for more.
A slogan yelled is not a rule,
And hills stay blind to who plays fool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But, lest we forget, man is not an owl. Or a horse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Replace all the FIS code with 1 rule - Don't be a dick
A second modifier if necessay if there is any doubt about rule 1 - you are being a dick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| aklos wrote: |
| tsgsh wrote: |
| @aklos, again, what improved rules would you suggest? |
There were a few summary posts buried in this thread, but i will be happy to summarize once again.
The existing code worked well when skiing was a small, self-regulated activity, but with modern volumes and lack of training it needs to be both revised and complemented by enforcement and technology. Getting people to accept that the frequently applied "downhill skier is always right" principle is not absolute is already a meaningful step forward. Many accidents happen precisely because this nuance is ignored and the discussion is shut down too early, multiple attempts of which you see on any single page of this thread.
A number of other solutions to revise and enforce the rules have already been proposed in this and other similar threads. Including shared responsibility depending on the situation, saturation thresholds, clearer expectations for learners, groups, and instructors on saturated pistes as well as basic enforcement of speed, density, and dangerous behavioral patterns, already possible technologically. This mirrors what happened in other industries as they evolved from enthusiast-driven activities into mass participation systems, - ethical codes stopped working and had to be adjusted and enforced.
Even without immediate changes, keeping this conversation on the existing gaps ongoing is already part of the solution.
P.S. I hope that ManiaMuse will be able to translate the above into more poetic language for some people to understand it better
. |
so, you don't like rules we have, and you have no new rules @aklos ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@Ozboy, He's not very big though is he
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@thecramps, He is siting below a blind crest!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Ozboy, No, I meant the one on the board that hit him in the head. It was a joke...but now realise it was actually a ski with the brake remove. Why do people do that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@thecramps, All good I knew you were joking
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Not always brake removed. I almost got decapitated once by a rental ski cartwheeling at head height on a steep groomer which was obvious too much for the punter. Brake wasn't capable of springing out past the ski width. Guess my estate would have had a claim against the Jerry for overterraining himself and for sure the rental shop for issuing unsafe equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Origen wrote: |
Is there a useful comparison with the "rules of the road" for sailors? If both boats are sailing, the one on starboard tack has right of way. If it's a power boat and a sailing boat, the sailing boat has priority.
|
Other factors come into play; is one of the vessels maneuvering in a channel and constrained by draft ? Is one of the vessels trawling ? IMO the rules of the road for sailors are much more complex than for skiers. That's why there are many exams for competency, often required for insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| eblunt wrote: |
| Origen wrote: |
Is there a useful comparison with the "rules of the road" for sailors? If both boats are sailing, the one on starboard tack has right of way. If it's a power boat and a sailing boat, the sailing boat has priority.
|
Other factors come into play; is one of the vessels maneuvering in a channel and constrained by draft ? Is one of the vessels trawling ? IMO the rules of the road for sailors are much more complex than for skiers. That's why there are many exams for competency, often required for insurance. |
And the need to be qualified at sea [to be insured] is a very big distinction from skiing, where no competence has to be demonstrated before you are allowed on the slopes and nobody [sensible] wants that to change! There have been countless arguments here that there should be a change to one or several of them because "such and such a thing happenned in my recollection" (sometimes demonstrably impossible) or "this YouTube video proves that...". However, very few people on SH (I can't remember any) arguing for a change are able to articulate that would be.
The FIS rules as written [not as misquoted] represent a considered effort to expand "don't be a dick" into terms that people with "dickish" tendencies can understand. Unfortunately, "the dicks" don't know/care/remember there are rules and/or think they apply to other people. Refining rules to deal with a small number of "problematic downhill skiers" will make not one iota of difference to the behaviour of "the dicks", who would be blisfully/willfully unaware of the rule change. Nearly everyone else is in the "not a dick" category.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
There have been countless arguments here that there should be a change to one or several of them because "such and such a thing happenned in my recollection" (sometimes demonstrably impossible) or "this YouTube video proves that...". However, very few people on SH (I can't remember any) arguing for a change are able to articulate that would be. |
What has never been the case is thousands of posts on different platforms that slopes have never been so crowded and dangerous in their 20-30-40 years of skiing as in the past year. If the pendulum keeps moving into that problematic zone, politicians and lawmakers will wake up, just like in other industries once numbers and risks got too high.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Probably the result of people being pushed higher up the hill and faster chairs, bubbles and gondolas increasing the density of skiers and snowboarders on the hill.
We were in Zermatt last week and a lot of American’s (pretending to be Canadians ) on the Ikon pass, talking to them the typical day pass rate in Ikon resorts is extremely expensive, which is why Europe is looking very cheap. I guess that a dynamic pricing model is a way to go to control numbers, but does little to encourage people into the sport.
TBH I found skiing last week to be very civilised, and most people looked pretty competent, maybe the relatively limited access and cost of Zermatt encourages this? Certainly I felt way more comfortable than in the Three Valleys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
