 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Two skiers who triggered an avalanche in Saint-Jean-Montclar last week are now looking at a year in prison. Major bummer for next season. They had the bad luck of burying 5 members of the French police.... like Doh!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Yes bit of bad luck there, but if they had obeyed saftey rules about not crossing until people below are clear then they probably would have got away with a fine 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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'm in favour of the prosecution. People have got to stop behaving like self-indulgent idiots on mountains and start caring for others in the same playground.
What was the prevailing avalanche warning level at the time, anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Difficult area this as there is no clear "out of bounds" in most French resorts. Its good sence not to cut across apotential avelanche slope if there are people below in the run out area, and we have to take individual responsibility for our actions both on and off the piste. Lets hope that this doesn't provide more fuel for litigation and (apologies to lawyers on site) cash for the legal wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Without doubt a shame.
I'm sure they'll be more aware of their responsibilities next time. It would be interesting to know how many similar incidents NOT involving buring French police resulted in any kind of prosecution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
That's part of the problem, it's all a bit ad hoc. They'll probably only get a fine. Nice little resort is in the southern French Alps this, fine for a beginner's holiday or a day or two when touring the area, but a bit low so at best in Feb usually - although we had a great time there late March a couple of years back after an unexpected dump, and just 5 or 6 skiers in the whole resort!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While I completely subscribe to the rule that you shouldn't slide above people off-piste. A number of times now I have had my lines spoilt, had to wait a considerable time or simply had to pull up because people have cut below me off piste, or traversed across from a different direction and ended up below me. They have neve looked up to see if any one is there so all I can do is sit and wait. How do we deal with that? Shouting would seem a bit risky!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a good point that Ashton brings up here, whilst it may be the responsibility of the person above it does'nt always work properly, if crossing a piste or taking a route off piste I always check that there is nobody above me, the number of times I have seen people have accidents or near misses from not doing the same I have lost count of, most people would not pull out of a side turning onto a main road without looking and that's with a nice steel car arround you, why then do they insist on doing it on the piste where the only steel they're likely to see will be the edges of the incoming skis or board coming towards them at the same sort of speed as a car ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 Digne les Bains court finally released the two off-piste skiers yesterday. The prosecution for “reckless endangerment” finally collapsed to the apparent regret of the presiding judge who stated that “no laws in France outside of local by-laws forbade off-piste skiing” and that the court “regretted having to release them.”
The two local men, aged 21 and 26, faced maximum sentences of up to a year in prison as well as a 15,000 euros fine. The prosecution had asked for sentences of two months' prison for one who already had a conviction for drug offences and a suspended three month sentence for the other. They had set off an avalanche which swept away 5 gendarmes as well as a resort employee who was attempting to help the partially buried policemen. He was carried some 300 yards, and suffered a broken arm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
TKS for the update PG. The more I read about French legal affairs in this forum the more baffled I become. Surely 'reckless endangerment' is an action which is not location specific ? You could 'recklessly endanger' someone with a Safeways trolley. No need to be on or off piste ?
The court knows more about French law than I ever will but these 2 seem to be lucky guys to get off without even a fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
kuwait_ian, a degree of intent and/or recklessness has to be demonstrated given that the activity is in itself quite legal in France, and the risk factor was 3 (considerable), and no higher. I have only seen the sketchiest of details, but if the two accused were able to prove that they were capable off-piste skiers, had taken the necessary precautions, and were in an area where they were permitted to be, I reckon even a French court would find it difficult to convict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PG, now that explanation I do understand. TVM. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| kuwait_ian wrote: |
| The more I read about French legal affairs in this forum the more baffled I become. Surely 'reckless endangerment' is an action which is not location specific ? |
I've spoken with the police group who were hit by the avalanche. They told me that slide occured entirely off-piste but within the ski domain. They said that an appeal is being considered but they don't have any more information about this. I'll let you know if it goes in.
Unfortunately a possible consequence is that the commune of St Jean - Montclar will pass a local by-law banning or restricting off-piste skiing in the ski domain. This is already the case in Barèges and in Montgenèvre where, you will recall, a British skier was released on appeal after causing an avalanche that hit a ski piste.
Here is a bit more information: http://www.pistehors.com/comments/275_0_1_0_C/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
If folks duck under the ropes and ski in a restricted area and cause a problem endangering the life of other innocent skiers then throw the book at them. It's like driving a car without due care and attention. If skiers are off piste in a designated area then it's more difficult if there is an avalanche caused. Then you have got a genuine accident and it is possibly nobody's fault. Skiing can be dangerous and most of us are aware of this and should keep this in the back of our minds at all times. Have fun but don't get carried away and take risks. Difficult!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Not quite sure I understand the need for all this to go to court, especially as a possible consequence is everyone, whether responsible or not, being prevented from skiing off-piste.
Presumably the guys who accidently started the avalanche have learnt an important lesson, as have the people caught in the avalanche, and everyone else who's read about the case. Why the need to line lawyers' pockets, cost taxpayers money, and potentially gain nothing more than ruining everyone's fun off-piste by getting it banned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
