 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
OK so here's a question for all the 'right of way' experts on here - I know that the uphill skier must give way to the downhill skier, and that the skier entering a piste should give way to the skier on the piste..however what happens when you have the classic 'blue cat track' crossing a red piste. So you're skiing down the blue which means you are on a piste, not entering one...the speed bandit is piling down the red and by definition will be uphill - so should they be giving way or should you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
bertie bassett, La Foret all the way across Les Arc can be very scary at times 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| thefatcontroller wrote: |
| bertie bassett, La Foret all the way across Les Arc can be very scary at times |
Actually it was more in relation to a near crash I had on the way to the derby, but then I've experienced the same setup in Le Tour / Vallorcine this week..
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Obligation on both parties to observe the merge/crossing warning signs. Ultimate responsibility is probably for red skier to avaoid but this does not give blue skier carte blanche to act like a muppet by skiing blindly across piste towing 20 kids behind them then stopping mid piste (ESF instructors might like to note this  ).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
bertie bassett, I recognise the situation - coming from the 2 lacs restaurant down the green to get across to the knife and fork or any of the lifts on that side of the piste in Val Thorens involves crossing the paths of a piste of two that are entering from the right. Do the rules of the road (continental driving!!) apply perhaps?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
You are all supposed to use your common sense. Possibly this expalins the high accident rate. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^^^
who cares? in a situation like that i'll keep an eye out even if i "shouldn't" have to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a real life example I drive to the station on my bike each morning..upon parking it yesterday car pulls up beside me to conplain. The lady said " excuse me but that moneuver you just pulled could have resulted in an accident that would have been deemed to be my fault"
??? I was at a loss of words as to why a "near" accident that didn't happen and would have been her fault in her own words - should concern me...
So i agreed and asked her to drive more carefully in future..
She at least understood if I was in front of her then if she hit me it would be her fault...I on the other hand was looking out for idiots like her in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
The quandry scenario I've been toying with is the narrow, winding 3 metre wide road/track in not quite perfect snow conditions. A snowboarder is taking it easy, occupying 66% of the track with a steady, rhythmic 'S' course, being considerate of the faster skiers they are aware of behind them who may choose to overtake in a straight-lining manouvre in the metre gap. However, just as a skier is about to overtake, a particularly nasty/gnarly patch of rock/rubble looms on the ground in front of the snowboarder (which the skier couldn't see given the snowboarder obscured it). The boarder does a sharp broadside swerve to the other side of the track to miss the rock, and at the same instant is hit from behind by the overtaking skier.
One could change the scenario such that the boarder swerves through momentary incompetence.
Is this just one of those cases where the overtaking skier must accept the possibility that they may become at fault? I guess that means that a skier who wishes to avoid fault must never overtake a boarder on a narrow road?
I deduce that in general, if one is to avoid fault, one should never come within the psychopathic range of a downhill skier/boarder. Where 'psychopathic range' is defined as the region in which the downhill skier could adjust course to if they were intent on being collided with by the uphill skier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| bertie bassett wrote: |
| .however what happens when you have the classic 'blue cat track' crossing a red piste. So you're skiing down the blue which means you are on a piste, not entering one...the speed bandit is piling down the red and by definition will be uphill - so should they be giving way or should you? |
Got to disagree with your wording "So you're skiing down the blue which means you are on a piste, not entering one." Certainly you are on a (blue)piste, but as soon as you reach the point where you start to cross the red piste you are entering the red piste, therefore it is your responsibility under FIS rule No.5:
"Entering and Starting- Look up and down the mountain each time before starting or entering a marked run"
ie if in your words there is a speed bandit piling down the red then you should give way to them and not enter the red until it is clear.
Once you are crossing the (red) piste, then skiers above you have the responsibility to avoid you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| crosbie wrote: |
| Is this just one of those cases where the overtaking skier must accept the possibility that they may become at fault? I guess that means that a skier who wishes to avoid fault must never overtake a boarder on a narrow road? |
I think it means that the overtaking snow user needs to be aware of what's ahead before overtaking and make sure they can execute the manoeuvre safely. Which could mean waiting for a wider section, or it could mean waiting until visibility is better, or it could mean staying behind for the duration of the track, or it could mean being prepared and able to dive off the edge of the track if the person in front swerves.
| Quote: |
| I deduce that in general, if one is to avoid fault, one should never come within the psychopathic range of a downhill skier/boarder. Where 'psychopathic range' is defined as the region in which the downhill skier could adjust course to if they were intent on being collided with by the uphill skier. |
Seems sensible to me - expect the unexpected and give people below you a wide berth. What's wrong with that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CB1 wrote: |
| Whenever I overtake someone on a cat track .... and hit my poles together behind me before and as I do so. |
I do to- but I don't shout- this makesz some sense....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| CB1 wrote: |
| ..... hit my poles together behind me before and as I do so ..... |
....... noooooooooooo ... no clicking ..... please .... it just freaks people out, makes the wonder where the noise is coming from, makes them panic and maybe fall or stop 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
"Is this just one of those cases where the overtaking skier must accept the possibility that they may become at fault? I guess that means that a skier who wishes to avoid fault must never overtake a boarder on a narrow road?"
Think of it like overtaking when you can't see the road ahead. Dangerous to attempt when you can't see the factors that will influence anothers course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Scarpa, I think it is irrelivant if it is a skier or boarder in front of you.
If you are behind take your time wait for the opportunity and pass or ask can I pass to the left? You have to consider the person in front of you may be a beginner and could be struggling to control their speed and need to make turns like that
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
Scarpa, I think it is irrelivant if it is a skier or boarder in front of you.
|
It is relevant to the boarder being overtaken. If you're on a narrow piste, as a boarder and a skier comes alongside you it means that you can't easily control your speed. Obviously to brake on a board you have to turn. Most narrow pistes are the green fire road types and when I was learning to board I had several occasions where a skier would pull alongside or overtake slowly meaning I would progressivly get faster. I guess they thought i was being awkward and speeding up until I fell down when in fact I had little choice.
Doesn't happen now by the way, I'm alot faster 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I have observed that the general rule of thumb is that those posting on Snowheads are always in the right, and Muppets, Crankies, Wombles, Sooty and Sweep are ...er... not
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| rookt wrote: |
| It is relevant to the boarder being overtaken. If you're on a narrow piste, as a boarder and a skier comes alongside you it means that you can't easily control your speed. |
Yep. A boarder has no 'snow plough' feature.
It is still possible to slow down in a constricted space by increasing the frequency of the S, or even a rapid falling-leaf (tricky if very little space), but it's not a skill to be expected from an early intermediate (which you only find out when they fail to demonstrate such skill in front of you - or beside you if you're a slowly overtaking skier).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| crosbie wrote: |
| It is still possible to slow down in a constricted space by increasing the frequency of the S, or even a rapid falling-leaf |
or 'Face Plant' as it's better known
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 tend to ski at the moment with the view point that someone is going to take me out, and get pre-occupied at times with checking for the presence of other users, when setting off, when joining/going across other pistes, I drum it into the kids as well. At the moment I probably allow a far too huge margin of safety, resulting in slow progress down a slope where I sometime don't set off, but the way I see it its probably better than allowing too small a margin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| eng_ch wrote: |
| Seems sensible to me - expect the unexpected and give people below you a wide berth. What's wrong with that? |
Seems sensible to me too. Nothing wrong with it. However, in some circumstances it is tempting to overtake despite entering the collision zone. Even so, as you say, one must always expect the unexpected. Probably better to do the honourable thing and fall off the piste or collide with a rock than wipe out the chappie you were trying to overtake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Ordhan, I agree... I was quoting the previous post... should have made that more clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| bertie bassett wrote: |
| OK so here's a question for all the 'right of way' experts on here |
Sorry, but I think even the concept of "right of way" is dangerous.
Although the skiers code quite reasonably places emphasis on the responsibility of one slider over another, that will not help either party if they incapacitate each other due to the "downhill skier" insisting on his "right of way" when the other has made a mistake.
Incidentally, the FIS-endorsed skiers code does not mention uphill/downhill skier/snowboarder. It talks about "in front".
And the first (and most importan rule) just simply says "Do not endanger others".
| Quote: |
Respect
Do not endanger others.
Control
Adapt the manner and speed of your skiing to your ability and to the general conditions on the mountain.
Choice of route
The skier/snowboarder in front has priority - leave enough space.
Overtaking
Leave plenty of space when overtaking a slower skier/snowboarder.
Entering and starting
Look up and down the mountain each time before starting or entering a marked run.
Stopping
Only stop at the edge of the piste or where you can easily be seen.
Climbing
When climbing up or down, always keep to the side of the piste.
Signs
Obey all signs and markings - they are there for your safety.
Assistance
In case of accidents provide help and alert the rescue service.
Identification
All those involved in an accident, including witnesses, should exchange names and addresses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| alex_heney wrote: |
Incidentally, the FIS-endorsed skiers code does not mention uphill/downhill skier/snowboarder. It talks about "in front".
|
Ah hah the legal eagles and wannabes can have a field day with someone skiing switch
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
the muppet is the one who shouts in a language that the shouted at may, or may not, understand and then presumes that, even if they do understand, they will be willing and/or able to comply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
CB1, that would be me then and don't go calling me a muppet. You muppet.
Calls of "passing on your left" may work in certain cases satisfying ALL of these conditions: skier below understands English AND skier below hears the full phrase AND skier below understands what you mean AND skier below is in control AND skier below cares - after all it's your responsibility to avoid them.
Someone yelled something at me around Christmas which may have included the word "left" before screaming past in no-control-whatsoever and depositing themselves in a heap about 10 feet in front of me which I then had to avoid. Very untidy.
Clicking probably a worse tactic.
rookt, crosbie, if you "can't easily control your speed", you're, errr, going too fast...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
CB1,
Haven't heard many well, any, "passing on your left" type shouts and would agree with under a new name that the "muppet" in question possibly didn't either understand English or may only have heard part. I would save shouts for instances where there is a potential close call and not because there is someone impatiently trying to get past.
Not sure where you were, but it would be arrogant to expect that everyone speaks English.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
rookt, crosbie, if you "can't easily control your speed", you're, errr, going too fast...
|
Not necessarily. I’ve had instances as described previously at no more than walking speed. Bottom line is boards have no brakes in a straight line and if not left enough room to turn to control speed then inevitable will happen!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
rookt, OK, let me re-phrase. If you can't stop in time to avoid making someone else take avoiding action, you're going too fast. It's a little bit black and white. Ever hear the one about the US navy vessel and the lighthouse? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Let us imagine an extremely flat road going through a forest of whispering fir trees.
A snowboarder is straight-lining it (though still going fairly slowly), and very gradually catching up with a skier doing a gentle S in 60% of the road. The skier is blissfully unaware of the boarder. Given the skier could at any moment swerve in front of the boarder to avoid a fir cone (without noticing the boarder), should the boarder give audible and thus verbal indication of their overtaking manoeuvre and encroachment into the 'in-front' skier's collision zone?
Boarders don't have clicky ski poles you see...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
Scarpa, I think it is irrelivant if it is a skier or boarder in front of you.
It is relevant to the boarder being overtaken. If you're on a narrow piste, as a boarder and a skier comes alongside you it means that you can't easily control your speed. Obviously to brake on a board you have to turn. Most narrow pistes are the green fire road types and when I was learning to board I had several occasions where a skier would pull alongside or overtake slowly meaning I would progressivly get faster. I guess they thought i was being awkward and speeding up until I fell down when in fact I had little choice.
Doesn't happen now by the way, I'm alot faster
|
I meant in terms of the courtesy and space you should afford them apologies! Totally agree with you skiers/boarders should over take in a manner that does not impact the person they are overtaking. Unless they are on snowbladed then you should beat them sensless
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
very gradually catching up with a skier doing a gentle S in 60% of the road. The skier is blissfully unaware of the boarder. Given the skier could at any moment swerve in front of the boarder to avoid a fir cone (without noticing the boarder), should the boarder give audible and thus verbal indication of their overtaking manoeuvre and encroachment into the 'in-front' skier's collision zone?
|
I'd say that if there isn't room safely to pass, the boarder should stop or slow down for a while, enjoy the scenery, then carry on at the same speed as the skier. I agree that narrow paths aren't easy for unskilled boarders (of which I am one). I might well take my board off and carry it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's pretty easy. If you run into someone else it's your fault, you weren't in 'full control'. Doesn't matter what they were doing. Like driving you should always be able to stop within the range of your visibility.
In practice you should expect every skier below you to swerve, every boarder to suddenly stop for a smoke, and everyone standing by the side of the piste to leap out in front of you. You should also expect at any moment to be taken out by a speeding maniac from above.
This is what makes skiing (and boarding) such fun!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| crosbie wrote: |
Yep. A boarder has no 'snow plough' feature. |
Au Contraire. I can very happily straight line then flip to to edge (normally toe side for some reason) and alternate this manouevre down a path only just as wide as my board. No "S" required, more a series of "J" shapes! Murder on the calf muscles after a while though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do the clanging my poles together thing, and it mostly works.
Passing very close to the edge of something is always a risky endeavour though. In Zermatt a couple of weeks ago I was running out of steam along a flat bit (on skis) and at the precise moment I decided to start skating, a snowboarder who had astoundingly managed to retain some speed silently crashed into the back of me. He was planning on snicking through the 6-inch gap between me and the bank of the river to my left, I think, and didn't expect there to suddenly be a ski and a pole in the way.
I had to laugh. It would have been even better if he'd fallen in the river.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
( I swerved up a small bank and got past) I think this is safer than just nailing it at speed past other skiers or boarders. I have been surprised to see people talking about the dangers of passing other people without referring to this. Don't other people do this or is it viewed as some dreadful (if practical) faux pas 
