Originally Posted by Ewok
Originally Posted by Ghost
You don't have to assume anything. The code says avoid obstacles and people ahead of you. That includes all obstacles and people ahed of you; it doesn't say avoid obstacles and people ahead of you except for little kids that are obscured from view because they are behind other people also ahead of you. As long as you can avoid the kid in the vid, you're good. I'm just suggesting that if you assume blind spots contain skiers, it's easier to do.
By this train of thought all other aspects of the code are irrelevent, so why do they exist?
Beyond the scope of the kid starting off behind the dad, if a stationary skier, stopped in a safe place on the trail, pulls out onto a run without looking uphill to yeild to the traffic flow, how are the uphill skiers, planning to avoid the stationary skier, supposed to read the mind of the stationary skier to avoid the possible collision? If you are taking a break on the side or in the middle of the run, in a safe visible spot, do you look uphill before continuing the run?
Excellent point. Why do the other aspects of the Code exist?
After 32 pages it's fairly clear that most people only focus on rule 2) People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them. It's also clear that many people still use "downhill" in that rule.
4) clearly states that "when starting downhill look uphill and yield to others". That means that the downhill person actually yields to the uphill person coming down. No exclusive rights just because you are downhill.
Originally Posted by SrfaceHoar
Think about it, the kid was hit when he was maybe three feet from the dad. In addition, the snowboard actually hit the dad's skis when he plowed into the kid. This does not constitute starting downhill. Snowboarder should have never been that close and was not able to stop or avoid.
In my book, they were "starting downhill". I mean the Dad is not moving! The kid just started moving. How does that have nothing to do with "starting downhill"? - Tog
Please consult a dictionary for "start" or "starting". If you can justify your statement with a dictionary I would be very surprised, but give it a shot.
Of course it constitutes "starting downhill". You're going to have to do more explaining to show how a kid going from near dead stop to moving does not constitute "starting downhill". It's too late when the kid is 3 feet away. That's why the Code says 4) Whenever starting downhill or merging into a trail, look uphill and yield to others. It's also just common sense to look uphill to see if anyone's coming. This trail is a freakin' highway for everyone. There are constantly people coming down. To expect no one to be coming is just naive or willfull disregard of the situation.
The snowboarder did not come out of the blue with no one else around. I still say if the snowboarder hadn't deflected the girl, the girl would have hit the kid most likely or very narrowly missed him.
Put it this way.
Whether he was obliged to or not, if Dad had followed 4) Whenever starting downhill or merging into a trail, look uphill and yield to others. His son would not have gotten hit by that boarder. So what you're really arguing is whether he was obliged to follow 4) or not. Why not just do it??
Let me put it another way.
I'd love to hear you explain to the kid's Mom why Dad did not follow 4) and look uphill.
I'll give you snowboarder should not have been that close.
Filling a three foot gap is still the issue. The boarder should have never been that close and neither should anyone else. You act like you are inviting someone to fill the gap if you make or create one.
Nowhere did I say you can't stop in the middle of a trail. I agree, sometimes it's better to stop there, and it's almost always worse to stand all the way at the edge unless you're behind a tree. Inevitably, if you leave 4 feet of space from you to the trees, someone will go for the gap. -Tog
Let's be clear here. I'm not talking about the video in that statement, I'm talking about being on trails in general. You're right though, when I said " if you leave 4 feet of space from you to the trees, someone will go for the gap", I was saying you are inviting someone to fill the gap. I never said they had a right to or you're in the wrong for creating that gap. That is just what happens. I've seen it too many times. People skiing down the edge of the trail, you leave even 3 feet and they'll go for it. It's dangerous, so be aware of it. That's all I'm saying.
Originally Posted by Ghost
Given their speed, starting from a dead stop, it really isn't that hard to avoid stationary skiers no matter what they do, unless you are skiing within three feet of them. Don'\t do that!
"Starting from a dead stop". That would certainly invoke rule 4) Whenever starting downhill or merging into a trail, look uphill and yield to others.
Did Dad look? No. Was the boarder at fault, yes. Solely at fault is another thing.
Originally Posted by Skierish
Originally Posted by Tog
...I guess Dad got the kid shot...
And the Boarder shot him...after first gunning down an innocent little girl minding her own business, of course.
The boarder merely deflected the girl, she was not injured.
As for the other. Again, explain to the kid's Mom how Dad was so Safety Conscious that her son got injured.
Edited by Tog - 12/10/13 at 5:42pm