or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Time for the Code of Conduct to be updated
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Time for the Code of Conduct to be updated - Page 16

Ah but the speed and being ahead is interdependent, and the effect is self compensating.  The faster you go and the slower the other skiers go the more they have to be ahead of you for them to be able to collide with you or you with them.   To understand, think of the extreme and at the limit:

If you are skiing across the hill at 90 degrees to the fall line at 60 mph and a skier is skiing straight down the fall line at  zero miles per hour then that the angle between your direction of travel and a line to the other skier would have to be zero degrees for a collision to occur (He's right in front of you the whole time), and the angle between that skiers direction of travel (yes I know zero mph has no direction, but it is at the limit, meaning as near to zero as you can make it while still having a direction) and the line from him to you would be 90 degrees.  He is the skier ahead and you must  avoid that slow moving skier, which should be easy to do.

If you are skiing at as close to zero miles per hour as possible across the fall line and the other skier is skiing downhill at 60 mph, then the angle between your direction of travel and the line to the other skier would be at 90 degrees for a collision to occur, while the angles for the other skier would be zero.  You are the skier ahead (you're right in front of him the whole time) and he can easily avoid such a slow moving skier.

If you are both skiing at 30 mph for an angle to occur, the angles would be equal and you both must avoid the collision.  If you're both doing 60, then, good luck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog

Ah you're a cubist in posting Jacque!
Naybreak what's SCOC?

The Skier Code of Conduct. In CO, the SCOC has no bearing on law, i.e. a court ruling, because CO has a definitive statute on skier 'code' and it does not include the SCOC.

The relevant clause of the Colorado Ski Safety Act is as follows under Duties of Skiers:
Quote:
(2) Each skier has the duty to maintain control of his speed and course at all times when skiing and to maintain a proper lookout so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects. However, the primary duty shall be on the person skiing downhill to avoid collision with any person or objects below him.

This entire thread debates a point addresses what the CO legislature has already defined. In CO, the uphill skier only has a primary duty, not an absolute duty. In Tog's video, red does not have absolute fault due to being uphill. It is only one state, and this can be argued however emotionally people want to argue, but in CO a downhill skier can be negligent for causing a collision. Nobody in CO should care legally what the SCOC says, because the SCOC is not what applies to you, and the CO legislature was deliberate in making that the case.

As I pointed out earlier, @Sibhusky posted the MT ski act, and it does incorporate the SCOC by reference. In MT, what SCOC says has legal implications. In CO, it does not. That should be quite relevant to this entire thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacques

Tog, you are joking?  Right.   SCOC?  Skier Code of Conduct.   As far a Cubisim, I don't think I have a style that is definitive.  Tog away!  I'm happy!  First turns today.
Ah yes ye olde Responsibility Code. But it seems like its just called the Code these days.

I don't know why I'm doing this, but I'm going to wade into this argument. I'll make a few points

1. the argument about Red vs Grey and who is 'ahead'. put simply, regardless of the moment of impact, for a long time before impact Grey was clearly, indisputably ahead of Red. So up until a mere fraction of a second before impact, it was the clear and indisputable responsibility of Red to avoid a crash with Grey. Any action to avoid a collision should have been taken during the time in which it was Red's responsibility to avoid a collision. By the time it could have possibly become Grey's responsibility to avoid a collision (which never happens in my opinion, but lets leave that out), it was too late to avoid it.

2. Skier v snowboarder, there isn't enough info on the video to determine fault. The camera angle is far too narrow.

So is the argument that we should be teaching beginners atrocious technique in order to satisfy others' desire to be entirely ignorant? Sorry but no.

My final point, had this collision happened in front of me while I was in uniform, I would have pulled Red's pass, no question. Yes, I am confident enough in the assessment of the situation that I'll take a pass that cost that person nearly \$100, and not feel an ounce bad about it.

Did you read naybreak's post above?

So what exactly are we teaching people to be ignorant of?

So, one can't ski with counter and glance uphill while skiing across a trail?
Some people have difficulty and loose balance but that's a skill that should be taught/learned.
"Atrocious Technique" would be teaching beginners to wander across a slope without looking. But beginners aren't the problem in general.

It's indisputabable!!!

Well, I asked 6 people in the past 2 days to look at  the video and tell me what they think happened. (They didn't know about this, er, debate.) Four said gray hit red, two said red hit gray. The two who said red hit gray felt quite sure that red could see gray. The others weren't so sure, but they felt gray had a better view at red.

Strangely enough, the two who said red was at fault are the two that I find lack spatial awareness when they ski.

Very small sample size, I know, but I think there is way more going on than we realize in the way each of our brains is perceiving the video.

There's a different between "who hit whom" and who is at fault.

Let's make it a poll!

Who's pass gets pulled or gets the warning, Red or Grey?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky

There's a different between "who hit whom" and who is at fault.

Could be, I am just telling what they said. That's pretty much what they meant, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost

Let's make it a poll!

Who's pass gets pulled or gets the warning, Red or Grey?

Neither! That's what I said at first, and I am sticking to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost

Let's make it a poll!

Who's pass gets pulled or gets the warning, Red or Grey?

Neither! That's what I said at first, and I am sticking to it.

Add neither, and both as choices too.

The other thing I want to point out is the concept of defensible space. If you look at the video, red is up against the trail edge. Line that edge with trees. There is no question red should be aware of gray, but the idea of fault, which here is negligence, means there has to be a duty of care that the negligent party failed to meet. As gray comes in from the side, unless red anticipates this soon enough to stop in his downhill plane, the 'duty to avoid' occurs by veering into the trees.

Sticking purely with the more defined duties in CO, the uphill skier has a primary duty and the downhill skier lesser duty, but the downhill skier cannot reasonably force the uphill skier off the trail into a potentially fatal situation. CO law recognizes that a skier that is adjacent but slightly downhill can cause a collision. That does not relieve the uphill skier of a primary duty, but it does recognize exactly the situation discussed on this thread. Taking this to the absurd ( that being a legal principle in and of itself ), I could ski just adjacent and barely in front of you and force you to kill yourself into trees or be negligent. The SCOC fails on this point legally when taken to the absurd.

CO recognizes this appropriately, as I suspect other states do, and these literal discussions of "ahead" should be tempered with legal reasoning that plane of approach alone is a deficient standard of fault no matter the extent to which it advises on 'defensive' behavior. SCOC says "drive defensively". Absolutely as a code of conduct, but that is not a matter of law unless a state makes it so, and as a standard of negligence it has huge problems in duty of care reasoning, which I read as the point of the OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog

Did you read naybreak's post above?

So what exactly are we teaching people to be ignorant of?

So, one can't ski with counter and glance uphill while skiing across a trail?
Some people have difficulty and loose balance but that's a skill that should be taught/learned.
"Atrocious Technique" would be teaching beginners to wander across a slope without looking. But beginners aren't the problem in general.

We aren't teaching anybody to be ignorant. If you reread my post, I never say we are teaching anybody to ignorant. I said we shouldn't be teaching atrocious technique in order to accommodate others' ignorance. Throughout this thread you have consistently taken what others have said, and twisted it to fit your point. It does nothing to further your point, but rather shows that your position is a weak one.

One can ski with counter and glance uphill. However, at the point where the collision occurs, Gray shouldn't have to be worrying about what is happening nearly 180 degrees away from where his attention should be directed. Put simply, if it had been a more advanced skier, his field of vision would have been even further from Red. If Red were a conscientious skier, he would realize this and give way.

No, atrocious technique is not teaching students proper counter movements and encouraging them to keep their shoulders aligned with their ski tips at all times. Teaching a beginner to ski defensively and to be careful in a traverse is teaching good tactics. Tactics and technique are two different things.

The problem here is that a lot of people are getting confused with the difference between fault/liability and prudent, defensive skiing. Defensive skiing entails being aware of your whole surroundings, and being prepared to yield to others even when the right of way is technically yours. When I traverse, I check my six. If I see someone like Mr. Red hauling along, I'm not going to traverse. Does that mean it was my responsibility to avoid the collision? No, it was still his. But I'm better off avoiding the collision rather than getting in the collision and being warm and fuzzy knowing it wasn't my fault.  Just because Grey wasn't skiing defensively doesn't mean that the fault becomes his.

I do want to point out that Red could STOP (!) if he needed to avoid the trees. He can see Grey way before the point of the collision.

And, yes I've said times, Grey was an idiot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak

The other thing I want to point out is the concept of defensible space. If you look at the video, red is up against the trail edge. Line that edge with trees. There is no question red should be aware of gray, but the idea of fault, which here is negligence, means there has to be a duty of care that the negligent party failed to meet. As gray comes in from the side, unless red anticipates this soon enough to stop in his downhill plane, the 'duty to avoid' occurs by veering into the trees.

If your options are to get into a collision with another skier, or go into the trees, you've already done something seriously wrong prior to that moment. That is the problem here. People are talking about what happened moments, instants before the collision happened. The responsibility of Red was far before that, not to put himself in a position to get into the collision.

Here's a smart tip that I always use, and its managed to keep me out of a collision with a downhill skier every single time I've executed a pass (which is thousands of times). Pick the side you're going to pass on. Wait (that's right, wait! that's a key point here) until the skier ahead turns in the direction away from the side you're going to pass on. As soon as the skiers energy is going away from the side you're passing on, off you go. Inertia dictates that the skier will not be able to collide with you when they're heading away from you. Isn't that simple?

Oh, and as far as the T-boning argument, I'll go to the automobile analogy, even though it isn't 100% accurate. In high school, I was driving home one rainy night. As I'm driving along, a driver from a cross street with a stop sign blows the stop and enters the intersection directly in front of me. I don't have a stop, he did. I T-boned him pretty squarely, striking right at his front door hinge with the front of my car. According to Tog and company, that accident should have been my fault? Luckily the police understood fault a little better, and the other driver was assessed with a traffic citation and was at fault for the accident.

And again, had I been driving more defensively, I may have slowed down, prepared to avoid the car in case he pulled out. But that doesn't mean the accident was somehow my fault. I had a clear road ahead, and was minding my own business, just like Grey. The other driver had a stop sign, and a duty to yield and avoid collision, just like Red.

Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown

It's indisputabable!!!

Well, I asked 6 people in the past 2 days to look at  the video and tell me what they think happened. (They didn't know about this, er, debate.) Four said gray hit red, two said red hit gray. The two who said red hit gray felt quite sure that red could see gray. The others weren't so sure, but they felt gray had a better view at red.

Strangely enough, the two who said red was at fault are the two that I find lack spatial awareness when they ski.

Very small sample size, I know, but I think there is way more going on than we realize in the way each of our brains is perceiving the video.

Last I checked, my results were different    http://www.epicski.com/t/123217/whos-pass-would-you-pull

Rather than look at the instant of crash, let's look at this right here:

In this frame, the whole incident can be seen with glaring clarity. Gray is clearly the downhill skier/ the skier ahead. He is very, very clearly fully engaged in a turn to the left, which is very obviously going to bring him into Red's path. It is just as obvious that it is absolutely Red's responsibility to avoid a collision. In fact, by this time, Red should already have taken action to avoid a collision. I only use this frame because it is the earliest in the video to show the obviousness of Red's fault. And even at this time, Red has plenty of time to avoid the collision, as is his responsibility.

Which comes back to my belief that it's staged. No one is that blind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky

Which comes back to my belief that it's staged. No one is that blind.

???????? WHY ???????? would someone stage an accident when they could get seriously injured

Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919

Here's a smart tip that I always use, and its managed to keep me out of a collision with a downhill skier every single time I've executed a pass (which is thousands of times). Pick the side you're going to pass on. Wait (that's right, wait! that's a key point here) until the skier ahead turns in the direction away from the side you're going to pass on. As soon as the skiers energy is going away from the side you're passing on, off you go. Inertia dictates that the skier will not be able to collide with you when they're heading away from you. Isn't that simple?

Great tip

Using a similar passing technique in the Red v. Grey case...

Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919

Rather than look at the instant of crash, let's look at this right here:

In this frame, the whole incident can be seen with glaring clarity. Gray is clearly the downhill skier/ the skier ahead. He is very, very clearly fully engaged in a turn to the left, which is very obviously going to bring him into Red's path. It is just as obvious that it is absolutely Red's responsibility to avoid a collision. In fact, by this time, Red should already have taken action to avoid a collision. I only use this frame because it is the earliest in the video to show the obviousness of Red's fault.

Right there, Red should have:
1. Slowed to more closely match Grey's speed.

2. Turned toward the center of the run to line up with Grey

3. When cose enough to Grey that it would be impossible for Grey to change directions and hit him...

4. Pass Grey behind him where a collision is impossible.

Passing in front of someone is just stupid.  They can quickly change their rate of turn to collide with you unless you have such a wide berth it's physically impossible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost

Last I checked, my results were different    http://www.epicski.com/t/123217/whos-pass-would-you-pull

I'm not trying to prove anything except that I don't think anything is GLARINGLY OBVIOUS. What people think depends on how they interpret the video. That is what I am saying. It's GLARINGLY OBVIOUS that people are seeing different things, which is what I find most interesting about the whole thing. I don't care about "ahead' or the Code anymore, at all, lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown

I'm not trying to prove anything except that I don't think anything is GLARINGLY OBVIOUS. What people think depends on how they interpret the video. That is what I am saying. It's GLARINGLY OBVIOUS that people are seeing different things, which is what I find most interesting about the whole thing. I don't care about "ahead' or the Code anymore, at all, lol.

So what you're saying is that in the frame above, Red isn't clearly the trailing skier? And that if Red were situationally aware, he would have had the space and time to avoid the collision? I'm sorry, I don't see room for interpretation, as you put it.

Honestly, I think the resistance to admitting Red's fault on some people's parts is because they have found themselves in Red's situation before, maybe a number of times. Possibly not to the point of actually colliding, but near misses maybe. I hate to be harsh, but if you're finding yourself in Red's position, you're doing something wrong. Being an instructor who deals with unpredictable students on skis all the time, and who spends much more time on the pinball machine known as the beginner slope than the average adult skier, I am acutely aware and very careful about avoiding unpredictable skiers. I can tell you I can't think of a time since I was a reckless teenager in which I've found myself in Red's position. Because I'm aware, I'm careful, and I pass properly and with caution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky

I do want to point out that Red could STOP (!) if he needed to avoid the trees. He can see Grey way before the point of the collision.

And, yes I've said times, Grey was an idiot.

This whole thing has been taking what would have been a good idea for grey, looking over his shoulder, and giving it equal weight with what was an absolute responsibility for red, avoiding grey.

A good idea and a responsibility are not the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacques

Some of us like to use the entire width of the trail!  This is old and been seen, but here I go again.

If this is how you would ski on crowded slopes, then you may be a good skier, but are selfish and a hazard to others.  By skiing mostly straight across a crowded slop at 50 MPH, you are forcing less skilled skiers who are travelling at slower speeds than you and want to pass to have good timing, and the ability to change their route when you come out of nowhere while avoiding other skiers besides you.  A skier may be 50 feet (or more) clear of you 1 second and colliding with you the next second while you take no responsibility yourself.

Do you see anybody ahead of me here?   I have already stated about "crowded trails".  I am The King of Courtesy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacques

Tog, you are joking?  Right.   SCOC?  Skier Code of Conduct.   As far a Cubisim, I don't think I have a style that is definitive.  Tog away!  I'm happy!  First turns today.
Ah yes ye olde Responsibility Code. But it seems like its just called the Code these days.

Your so right!  Know "The Code"!

Because everyone wants to be a movie star these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown

Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky

Which comes back to my belief that it's staged. No one is that blind.
???????? WHY ???????? would someone stage an accident when they could get seriously injured
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown

???????? WHY ???????? would someone stage an accident when they could get seriously injured

Ever seen Jackass?

I don't really think this is staged, but thinking people won't do blatantly stupid and dangerous things just because they're in front of a camera... well...

Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919

If your options are to get into a collision with another skier, or go into the trees, you've already done something seriously wrong prior to that moment. That is the problem here. People are talking about what happened moments, instants before the collision happened. The responsibility of Red was far before that, not to put himself in a position to get into the collision.

The concept I am getting at is Reductio ad absurdum.

I ski up right behind you while you are making short turns up against the trees. I pull up so your tips are in line with my bindings just as the tree line cuts into the trail. You have lost the ability to turn effectively, I am the downhill skier, it is your responsibility to avoid a collision with me but I just eliminated your ability to stop and I have to turn away from the trees so that you can. You hit me and it is your fault.

Codes of conduct, absent incorporation into contract or law, are aspirational standards, and they function well in that regard for things like memberships. But if you fail the standard of reduction to the absurd, then you fail a proper legal standard. If we are discussing membership fault (getting your pass pulled) vs. legal liability fault (negligence), then modifying the SCOC to the behavior you want is fine. You could even include a dress code banning red. If it is legal, you have to be a lot more careful.

These concepts are being mixed up. There is no 'fault' in a code of conduct. There are violations of a code of conduct. Codes of conduct set general principles to be followed...they are 'class of behavior' standards that provide for revocation of privileges when violated.

Red violated the SCOC, but gray could well be seen as being legally at fault for any injuries ( at least in CO ). Segbrown's informal polling indicates this well enough. The terms uphill and downhill may not create enough meaning to address 'adjacent' space. People may not like the idea of right of way, but again, at least in CO, the law obviously intends to address the concept of collisions where the downhill skier has fault.

This thread is not about CO, but CO statute points out that modifying the SCOC has no bearing beyond membership privilege here, as well as that the law in this state disagrees in plain English with the majority opinion on this thread.

Again, from the Colorado Ski Safety Act, Duties of Skiers section:
Quote:
(2) Each skier has the duty to maintain control of his speed and course at all times when skiing and to maintain a proper lookout so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects. However, the primary duty shall be on the person skiing downhill to avoid collision with any person or objects below him.

I would like an explanation as to how gray fulfilled his duties under CO law. Keep in mind failure to meet a duty assigned to you under the Colorado Ski Safety Act is negligence. What do you think the duty to control "course" means? If you can take any course at any time or place independent of your surroundings, then there is no standard to fail and no duty of care. But the law gives CO skiers a duty to maintain control of course in the context of avoiding collisions, so they intended something more than the downhill skier can do anything at any time in regards to course, yes? What was that intent if not something more than "ahead"?
Edited by NayBreak - 11/23/13 at 11:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky

Which comes back to my belief that it's staged. No one is that blind.

I don't think it's staged, Sib.  The camera-man brings up his camera a bit off line and catches Grey for a sec until adjusting to catch Red.  I do all that all the time when I bring up a camera...have it be off-line just a tad one way or another until I search for a second and adjust.  I DO think the camera-man sees the potential crash coming and adjusts his focus to catch both skiers.

They're also moving too uncomfortably fast to stage a collision at that speed.  As it is, Red's right leg appears to go behind Grey's left leg, tripping Red (which is apparent in the last "stop-frame" of the video) tumbling him forward over the front of Grey's legs which have been pulled forward and out from under him, causing him to fall on his back.  Just think what sort of impeccable timing that would have required...a millisecond off and they collide full body to full body with a far, far higher chance of injury.

Finally, and it's hard to say with absolute certainty given the distance and the resolution, but it really does appear that Red is looking slightly downward and just a shade to his left...he doesn't see Grey coming in from his right-front, or roughly his 2:00.  It's even harder to say with Grey, but it appears he is looking in his direction of travel, which would mean he wouldn't be able to see Red just slightly behind him and to his left, or roughly his 8:00.  If it were staged, you can be damn sure they would have been closely, and pretty obviously, watching one another to ensure that they hit each other "just right."  They're not.

Most importantly, there's no grassy knoll anywhere, and you can't have a credible conspiracy without one!

On a more chipper note, t'was low(ish) coverage at Schweitzer today, yet still surprisingly good skiing for this early and no snow in awhile.  It warrants returning tomorrow.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Time for the Code of Conduct to be updated