 Poster: A snowHead
|
...I like the high mountains. I like not having a phone. I like the freedom and isolation.
once upon a time...a long while ago...I would ignore avalanche warnings, and go down pistes which had 'closed' signs on them. I stopped doing these things a while ago. I learned that the local pisteurs closed runs for good reasons, and didn't want some a@+e breaking their leg on a piste of unbroken ice footballs and having to come to get him. I observed the avalanche warnings since I had seen the results when people had ignored them, and all the consequences which followed. This didn't restrict me. I still climbed to the very very wild places, and had plenty of epics. So.....this is interesting...and forgive me if it's been posted before...couldn't find anything on it on here....
what's interesting is that the Swiss, in discussion, really don't want to extend the law into the mountains, but are VERY fed up with people who ignore warnings and then put others at risk on piste - eg by going off piste above a piste, during a time of high avalanche risk, and then cause a slide which goes down onto the piste. Actually, I think that they have every right to be pretty cross.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/Off-pisters_face_fines_for_causing_avalanches.html?cid=8012298
I think we should all behave reasonably in the hills - I get fed up if people drop rocks on me when I am climbing, but if it's because I left late and know I am going to be on a loose face under other teams then, hell, that's my fault.
if we are going to continue to enjoy the freedoms which get us into the hills in the first place, we should bloody well behave, and self-regulate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
valais2, ifirc there are at least 2 court cases due against guides leading groups off piste and then being involved in avalanches 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
interesting - and difficult - question. Most of us would probably agree that reckless on-piste behaviour which endangers others (e.g. someone skiing too fast and hitting someone below them on the slope) can, and should, be sanctioned. What's the difference, on or off piste? The burden of proof of reckless behaviour (as opposed to inexperience, or being a bit daft, or plain bad luck) would often be very difficult It's often difficult in RTAs but that doesn't mean the attempt should not be made - or that people should not be made aware that they have a duty to others.
I wonder how often Italian or Slovenian police piste-patrols tell people off?
If someone were fined for recklessly setting off avalanches, I guess their insurance wouldn't cover that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Boredsurfing, ....interesting...is one of those the case in Val D'Aosta involving the British guide from Chamonix?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
valais2, Not heard of that one I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
pam w, ...I agree...bad behaviour off-piste will mean that the law may be extended and I think that would be A Bad Thing - the Italian reference is interesting, in fact the Italian legal authorities (like in the Senna case) act in incidents even if no client complains. My point is that people should be aware of the responsibilities of going off-piste and control the risks - both to self and others. Your final point is very interesting - not sure...I have off piste insurance but it does say that I should comply with local advice and warnings, and that means I am required actively to check warnings, meteo etc, an quite right too...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the people that ignore the signs will also be unlikely to be aware of possible legal action and if they so set off a slide well it's after the fact and this law has prevented little. I understand their frustration, I've seen plenty of people skiing terrain after having skied right past signs reporting the avalanche risk as 4/5 or 5/5 just meters before.
The US doesn't seem to have as much of an issue, is it because they avy control more terrain because of their in bounds/out of bounds system?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| narc wrote: |
The US doesn't seem to have as much of an issue, is it because they avy control more terrain because of their in bounds/out of bounds system? |
With outabounds slides? Plenty plus the odd inbounds when conditions are a bit topsy e.g. Jackson Hole, Big White & Mammoth from recent memory.
But generally yep a control line will mean that access isn't allowed until the overhanging risks and known trigger points have been dealt with. Generally patrol invest as much effort in keeping poachers out or busting them as control work during this time, largely to protect the guys and girls working in the area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
by going off piste above a piste, during a time of high avalanche risk, and then cause a slide which goes down onto the piste.
|
I think the piste should be closed if there's a chance that slopes above it could slide on. The whole point of a piste is that it's safe from things like that. One of the reasons Happy Valley in St Anton gets closed so often.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
