or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Ski areas need to be more responsible
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski areas need to be more responsible - Page 2

post #31 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by BodyByDuff
I guess I have been misinformed during all my years of skiing... I always assumed that the ski patrol has the power to take my ticket. And the few times where I have had my ticket pulled, I assumed that I was no longer allowed to use the lifts and ski at the resort that day. If an average joe like me gets fooled by all these regulations and authority figures, maybe the system works.
Don't spin out of control. I said, the enforcement agent (usually ski patrol) of the area has the authority to take your ticket--but does not have any real authority to forcibly remove you.
post #32 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier_j
Did I say money?? where did I say money???:
Man! You go and edit the good stuff out, and now my quotes are all screwed up. Fortunately for me, I quoted it in my post before you edited it out. You're stuck now, buddy! The $500k is nothing. Wait till the labor (manpower) costs start racking up. Your real name better be Bill Gates
post #33 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnH
Which is about as much as ski areas are willing to spend on education and enforcement. And we wonder why it's such a problem.:

Here's an interesting thought along those lines. If they were to implement education and enforcement programs, it might cost them (making up a random number) $25k/yr.

When they don't spend that money, they get sued, and their liability insurance pays the $1M settlement. They have to pay the liability insurance no matter what. Guess what??? they ain't gonna spend the $25k/yr. They have no idea what it cost them in lost revenues. Since they can't figure it out, the number is $0 as presented to SAM. Therefore, the problem will never get fixed.
Bingo!
post #34 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier_j
Don't spin out of control. I said, the enforcement agent (usually ski patrol) of the area has the authority to take your ticket--but does not have any real authority to forcibly remove you.
Yes they do. (usually security does the dirty work of escorting you off the premisis). If you try to come back in, and security calls the cops, the cops will take the side of the business, not the beligerent individual. They could then book you with trespassing, disorderly conduct, or any number of other little offenses.
post #35 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnH
Man! You go and edit the good stuff out, and now my quotes are all screwed up. Fortunately for me, I quoted it in my post before you edited it out. You're stuck now, buddy! The $500k is nothing. Wait till the labor (manpower) costs start racking up. Your real name better be Bill Gates
Damn! caught in the act---ok just like in Trading Places, where should I send the dollar, John?

Oh and the manpower? we'll hire 6 or 8 and pay 'em with season passes.

Sound familiar?
post #36 of 90
it's refreshing to see Ski Mango Jazz not all pantybunched, redfaced, stammering with anger.
post #37 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnH
Yes they do. (usually security does the dirty work of escorting you off the premisis). If you try to come back in, and security calls the cops, the cops will take the side of the business, not the beligerent individual. They could then book you with trespassing, disorderly conduct, or any number of other little offenses.
I'll concede I may be wrong, but I don't think so, at least not here where I patrol. I have always been told that we really don't have any authority to detain anyone, and cannot forcibly remove anyone. As a result, if they will not leave willingly, we are to call in the local cops.

BTW we have no security at my small hill.
post #38 of 90

to the contrary

I have been told by ski area legal professionals...

The more active a position SAM takes in controlling their guest's behavior, the more likely it is that they will bear the brunt of liabilty.

That doesn't mean that there should be no control. But how much presents a dilema for SAM. Too much control and you assume the responsibility that "skiers" should assume. Too little control and you have scenarios that could have been easily avoided with some amount of control.

I really think that the best scenario to provide a safer on mountain environment is to limit skier visits.
post #39 of 90
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzostrike
it's refreshing to see Ski Mango Jazz not all pantybunched, redfaced, stammering with anger.
It's refreshing to see all of you discussing this issue thoughtfully.

I hope some ski area owners/lawyers/Risk Managers read this thread.
post #40 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz
(This post is paraphrased from a reply I just made in another thread, I felt it warranted it's own dialogue.)

No one wants a world of excessive litigation, but there has to some responsibility and enforcement of the skier's code. Many of you are so worried about the price of lift tickets going up due to ski areas being sued for negligence when accidents occur. Instead how about a little less grooming, a little less advertising? For much less than the cost of one snow cat a resort could have a cadre of people on the hill at all times encouraging safe skiing.

Ski areas also would not survive in an enviroment in which our children are put at great risk, and told it's their own problem, they assume those risks. Sure, let's let them have driver's licenses with the same understanding. "Driving a car involves inherent risks...etc."

Think of an analogy, traffic enforcement. Would we want to live in communities with no enforcement of safe driving laws? Where the only thing to do is to sue a driver AFTER they hurt or kill someone? Don't the communities have responsibility to protect their citizens? This is what laws and enforcement of them are for. To PREVENT or minimize bad things from happening. Lawsuits occur AFTER things happen, and are an unfortunate necessity to pressure companies to put measures in place to help to prevent them.

Yes the skiers and boarders who hit people and cause harm should be the one's primarily responsible, but why should the resorts have no responsibility? Instead of worrying about the resorts being sued, we should want them to have some enforcement in place to minimize out-of-control skiers. Some areas do this, Vail has the Yellow Jackets for example. This isn't the Ski Patrol's job.

Do you want no enforcement of safe food manufacturing, of safe products? Should lawsuits against unscrupulous businesses be stopped to keep the price of our products down?

Sounds like the rich pig "Let the marketplace decide" approach to me. I'd rather my tax dollars (and my lift ticket expenses) go to protecting people. I'd rather learn to ski ungroomed trails more than to have grooming being more important than enforcement of the skier's code - which without enforcement is like a stop sign which everyone knows they can ignore.

End of rant.
I think you have hit on something there. The perfect adjunct to the Nanny State, the Nanny Ski Resort! I can see it now, soon no more injuries, accidents or liability. I guess we should all go out and buy our own vinyl super padded Sumo Wrestler outfits, which should reduce contact injuries. And of course we will need full-face motorcycle helmets, and those fancy retention systems they use on roller coasters for the chairlifts. And maybe they could reduce the slope angle to a safe 8 degrees or so.

I can see the possibilities. No fun but safe, safe, safe.

Go Fu#* yourself and the horse you road in on you TROLL.

Mark
post #41 of 90
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maddog
I think you have hit on something there. The perfect adjunct to the Nanny State, the Nanny Ski Resort! I can see it now, soon no more injuries, accidents or liability. I guess we should all go out and buy our own vinyl super padded Sumo Wrestler outfits, which should reduce contact injuries. And of course we will need full-face motorcycle helmets, and those fancy retention systems they use on roller coasters for the chairlifts. And maybe they could reduce the slope angle to a safe 8 degrees or so.

I can see the possibilities. No fun but safe, safe, safe.

Go Fu#* yourself and the horse you road in on you TROLL.

Mark
If you read the rest of the thread I think you'll see this is not trolling, but a very relevant subject.

You really need to take a chill pill Mark, and use your mind instead of your emotions.
post #42 of 90
Some areas in the East have "slope patrol" to take the policing off of the red patrolers who can then focus on injuries etc. I think this is a good idea and as I understand it, it costs SAM nothing. They are volunteers who get to ski for free and weild some amount of power on the hill.

I have not seen any abuse of this yet. Rather, I would like to see more involvement. On the East--there are lots of skiers on very few runs. It gets crowed.

That said, I also agree with the case, the more you try to control or police safety, the MORE likely you are to be sued. Think Autos. There have been more lawsuits over air bags and safety belts than I care to discuss. It does not matter that I was drunk, high and speeding away from the cops as I drove through the red light...by God...when I wrecked and hit the telephone pole I should not have broken my neck. Yes the air bag went off and the seat belt worked....but the engineer did not design it for my 150 mile/hr speed. They were negligent for designing a car that goes 150 mph but does not protect me if I come to a sudden, unanticipated stop. I'll sue. And--maybe win. But in any event, cost the manufacturers and their insurers 10s of thousands in defense costs. Might get a settlment
post #43 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier_j
Taken to an extreme, if you grab me, that is assault. Hell, taken to an extreme, If I yell at you that could be construed as assault as well.
Actually, if you grab someone or push someone with the intent to harm it's battery, you yell obscenities or other unpleasantries, with the attempt to hit someone w/o actually hitting or causing harm it's assualt. I see a lot of posts threating violence if someone runs into them or almost runs into them or skis/boards by them too close, too fast or if they even think that someone might hit them or maybe it's just a punk snoboarder and they have a prejudice against snoboarders, and decide to take them out as an "preemtpive strike". Because you know that sometime that snoboarders going to hit someone. In any event it should be left up to patrollers or resort security to handle the problem and not take it into your own hands. I know it's tough when it's your kid that just got slammed and you want to be a vigilante and serve street justice but it might also land you in jail too.
post #44 of 90
Toad hit on something here.

I can go and take out skiers/boarders I see as a danger. If sued, I can claim self defense, as I thought me and my kid were in imminent danger of being harmed, so I took preemptive action to mitigate the threat.

It worked for W, why not me?
post #45 of 90
If skiing in the East generates this kind of concern and desire for Nanny Ski Areaism, I am not "tuned" for skiing in the East. As a former patroller, I marginally agree that in high traffic areas the patrol or the ski areas designated safety patrol should make sure that high speed or out-of-control skiers don't injure others. But the reality is that most of these issues can be addressed through proper ski area run layout and design.

For example, don't place expert attractions like the terrain park on a green bunny run. Try to avoid run merges where high skilled and low skilled skiers must merge or cross.

But to regulate ski areas to make them hire a cadre of ski cops is silly. Maybe we should license skiers. After all it has worked so well with our Highway system. Gahhhhhhh. Our highways are filled with incompetent drivers, licensed drivers. And the police are such a big help in keeping our highways safe, right. Well no, not really.

And, where are all these lawsuits everyone seems to be worried about? The actual cost of all liability insurance for ski areas in minimal. And most of that insurance goes to non-skiing liability insurance.

Posts like Skimangojazz's are so far behind the curve they are either TROLLS or completely inobservant. I have never skied at and area that did not follow the points I made above or which was unwilling to pull a ticket or call the Sheriff’s office if necessary (yes there is a learning curve but would ski cops really change that?). On slope serious injuries are rare and declining.

So, what is Skimangojazz's point? He feels uncomfortable on the slopes so he wants to up your costs and limit your freedom to make himself feel more comfortable. His solution is "Bureaucracy is the cure to all ills." But it isn't it is just a limit to freedom.

I still have less than fond memories of skiing in the 1970's when the Skimangojazz mentality held sway. Tickets were pulled for jumping wind drifts or building a small kicker, or skiing moderately fast on the groomers. I still wonder how skiing survived, but it did. With tort liability changes in the 1990's we discovered that it could be fun to super pipe or blast off huge kickers. And for the most part, it is fun and safe (although the terrain park is commonly called the trauma park by patrollers, and for good reason).

What so puzzles me is that the Skimangojazz cadre don’t seem to understand that the market actually regulates the ski areas better than any bureaucratically imposed regulations could. It is in the ski areas interest to make the area fun and safe while not eliminating the thrill element. The areas balance these competing interests quite well.

Yeah, so let's all sue every ski area that doesn't provide enough ski cops or regulate the fun out of skiing. Heaven forbid if we let anyone have fun or ski fast on the groomers.

Mark
post #46 of 90
Thread Starter 
For the record, I ski fast, I am not afraid of other skiers when I'm skiing. I don't need YellowJackets to protect ME. My post was a followup to people who had had their children crashed into by negligent skiers who skied off with nothing done to them.

There does need to be more done by ski areas then is currently being done. Letting the market self-regulate leads to profit driven greed and that's it. Regulation is necessary.

Maddog seems to think it's all or nothing, either too much regulation, or none. I disagree.
post #47 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz
Maddog seems to think it's all or nothing, either too much regulation, or none. I disagree.
You are on the committee, when will your first drafts be available for comment?

Lets hear some well thought out suggestions that do not smack of vigilanteism, and retain as much freedom for the participants as possible.

Go wild at first, we can pare the list down in time when the resources to accomplish the list become more apparent.

I've already given quite a lot of my time and skills to the sport and, frankly, I don't have the answers---in fact I have more questions---than when I started nearly 15 years ago.
post #48 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz
( I'd rather learn to ski ungroomed trails more than to have grooming being more important than enforcement of the skier's code - which without enforcement is like a stop sign which everyone knows they can ignore.

End of rant.
Why don't you learn to ski ungroomed trails. Thats the way it was for so many years. You are much safer in the bumps and trees. Grooming has not been around that long. It has created a differnt environment, it has alowed people to access more of the mountain with much lesser skills than used to be required. It also creates the potential for danger from other skiers. There was a time when getting into situations over a skiers/Riders head, was only a danger to that individual, now this person becomes a threat to others.

I am probably one of the skiers you want to shut down? If you saw me sking on groomed runs you would precive me as a threat to you.

I have never hit anyone I always have some level of control.
The less than advanced (Timid) skiers are really more of a threat to others and themselfs than most of the fast, experienced racer wanabee's like me.

There is a skiers code, there doies exist, correct mountain etiquette.
This does not apply to just aggrerssive riders. It is very important that slower or less experienced riders understand and follow the rules of the mountain also!.

When you are sking a trail, do you think about how your speed and direction changes affect others comming up behind you?

When you stop @ the top of a steeper run on ion a run do you think about how your position might affect someone sking down behind you.

When you are stoped or god forid fall, are you constantly looking up hill, to watch for others?

Do you stop in place's where you connot see a good distance up the hill?

I could go on and on.

Yes its dangerous out there!!
It always has been. Enforcment does take place, skiers and riders take care of there own.

I wish, well I keep that to myself (refernce to passive submissive)
post #49 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
Why don't you learn to ski ungroomed trails. Thats the way it was for so many years. You are much safer in the bumps and trees. Grooming has not been around that long. It has created a differnt environment, it has alowed people to access more of the mountain with much lesser skills than used to be required. It also creates the potential for danger from other skiers. There was a time when getting into situations over a skiers/Riders head, was only a danger to that individual, now this person becomes a threat to others.
What about my 4 year old standing at the bottom of the hill in the lift line? (That's the topic of discussion)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
I am probably one of the skiers you want to shut down? If you saw me sking on groomed runs you would precive me as a threat to you.
Probably not. You're in control.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
I have never hit anyone I always have some level of control.
The less than advanced (Timid) skiers are really more of a threat to others and themselfs than most of the fast, experienced racer wanabee's like me.

There is a skiers code, there doies exist, correct mountain etiquette.
This does not apply to just aggrerssive riders. It is very important that slower or less experienced riders understand and follow the rules of the mountain also!.
Agreed!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
When you are sking a trail, do you think about how your speed and direction changes affect others comming up behind you?
All the time

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
When you stop @ the top of a steeper run on ion a run do you think about how your position might affect someone sking down behind you.
Yup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
When you are stoped or god forid fall, are you constantly looking up hill, to watch for others?
Yup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
Do you stop in place's where you connot see a good distance up the hill?
Only if I'm so far off to the side that no one can hit me from above, such as being protected by trees directly above me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
Yes its dangerous out there!!
It always has been. Enforcment does take place, skiers and riders take care of there own.
The problem we're having is that enforcement doesn't always take place.

If I slam into you on the hill, and turn you or a loved one into a quadraplegic, then ski off never to be found and questioned by patrol, you'll be okay with that? Afterall, it's dangerous out there.
post #50 of 90
John, if you are doing these things your not gonna get hit by anyone.
post #51 of 90
For any Loveland season pass holders out there, read the second to the last sentence on your pass: "This pass is revocable by any Ski Area personnel if in their sole judgement Holder engages in any improper conduct, or commits any act, which endangers Holder or others". This is new language this year.

As for CDOT, about 14 years ago they were blasting Berthoud Pass in the highway widening project then. They didn't quite stop traffic where they should have. Seems they dislodged a house-size boulder and took out a busload of German tourists. Colorado has a state law that limits the state liability to 1 million per accident. The survivors and relatives of the deceased spilt up the million which was almost nothing in the end. Litigation against the state of Colorado is pointless.
post #52 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
John, if you are doing these things your not gonna get hit by anyone.
Not necessarily true. Therein lies the issue that started this thread. If I'm standing at the bottom of a hill with my kid, and someone comes through the line with a head of steam and takes my kid out, there's really no way for me to avoid that. I've seen people go clean through lift line ropes and take out two lanes of people. The thing is, is at my ski area, if someone had been hurt, patrol knows that noone leaves the scene until witness statements, names, etc are taken and that the people doing the crashing are properly questioned and info exchanged.

That's all I'm asking for. I'm NOT asking for the ski area have people chasing skiers around screaming "Slow Down!", or standing at the bottom of the hill marking lift tickets of people who pass the slow sign "a bit too fast" (all of these things have been done in our past, by the way). That stuff pisses me off, because the people doing the "controlling" had a tendency to abuse the power and were not good enough skiers to be able to distinguish fast from out of control, and their opinion of fast is a bit warped toward the slow end of the spectrum. They were actually yelling at instructors during a clinic!

I just want a ski area to train their employees on how to handle incidents and mitigate the really overtly dangerous (only to other people) behavior. We have had incidents of people taking air coming out of the woods onto crowded trails and landing on people. That's a problem.
post #53 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzostrike
it's refreshing to see Ski Mango Jazz not all pantybunched, redfaced, stammering with anger.
Actually, MOST of the pantybunching in this thread is happening to those who claim "the Code solves all".:
post #54 of 90
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnH
Not necessarily true. Therein lies the issue that started this thread. If I'm standing at the bottom of a hill with my kid, and someone comes through the line with a head of steam and takes my kid out, there's really no way for me to avoid that. I've seen people go clean through lift line ropes and take out two lanes of people. The thing is, is at my ski area, if someone had been hurt, patrol knows that noone leaves the scene until witness statements, names, etc are taken and that the people doing the crashing are properly questioned and info exchanged.

That's all I'm asking for. I'm NOT asking for the ski area have people chasing skiers around screaming "Slow Down!", or standing at the bottom of the hill marking lift tickets of people who pass the slow sign "a bit too fast" (all of these things have been done in our past, by the way). That stuff pisses me off, because the people doing the "controlling" had a tendency to abuse the power and were not good enough skiers to be able to distinguish fast from out of control, and their opinion of fast is a bit warped toward the slow end of the spectrum. They were actually yelling at instructors during a clinic!

I just want a ski area to train their employees on how to handle incidents and mitigate the really overtly dangerous (only to other people) behavior. We have had incidents of people taking air coming out of the woods onto crowded trails and landing on people. That's a problem.
I agree, and frankly don't know if my "cadre of...." is a good idea. Just making the point of how inexpensive people are in compared to groomers.

And by the way - what is pantybunching? :
post #55 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz
I agree, and frankly don't know if my "cadre of...." is a good idea. Just making the point of how inexpensive people are in compared to groomers.

And by the way - what is pantybunching? :
These are rough, I could get some firmer figures from our owner if you'd like, but for our purposes here I think they are reasonably good numbers.

a used groomer is a one time 100K investment and lasts with another say 100K in parts for 5 to 10 years depending on use.

The other---You'd know if it were an issue!

People---I'll compile something in a minute.
post #56 of 90
Body by Duff mentioned cops and liabilty. Aceman, in another thread alluded to accident investigation as has Bunion.

Lets look at that stuff and what some are asking for in a slightly different context for a minute.

In your community---who does each of the following?

Fights fires?
Responds to 911 calls? And then hands off to whom?
Enforces traffic laws?
Investigates traffic accidents?
Investigates suspicious incidents?
Controls crowds---say at parades?
Helps with traffic congestion at say---a concert?

Do you suppose that each of those with the possible exception of the last one require some sort of specific training?

Who would you like to perform all these duties at your area?

Should they be the same person?

Should they be paid?

Should they be trained?
post #57 of 90
When I learned to ski, I had to pass a test of basic skiing skills before being allowed to ride the T-bar to the top of the mountain. When I learned how to snowboard, I had to pass a test before I could snowboard without an instructor. Such testing would be a good way to insure skiers could stop, turn and understood the responsibility code. Unfortunately as Seven points out, this puts SAM at a greater risk of law suits. If I run you over after SAM says I'm qualified to ski that run, it's their fault, not mine.
post #58 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15
When I learned to ski, I had to pass a test of basic skiing skills before being allowed to ride the T-bar to the top of the mountain. When I learned how to snowboard, I had to pass a test before I could snowboard without an instructor. Such testing would be a good way to insure skiers could stop, turn and understood the responsibility code. Unfortunately as Seven points out, this puts SAM at a greater risk of law suits. If I run you over after SAM says I'm qualified to ski that run, it's their fault, not mine.
I like the idea in pincipal, where was this, if you don't mind.

Although Bellayre has a segregated beginners area---as I understand it, you have to be at a certain level to "cross the road" so to speak.
post #59 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnH
I just want a ski area to train their employees on how to handle incidents and mitigate the really overtly dangerous (only to other people) behavior. We have had incidents of people taking air coming out of the woods onto crowded trails and landing on people. That's a problem.
I agree that it is a problem, but I don't see any people sueing ski resorts and asking for policy changes. They ask for $$$$$$. Their kid gets hit, and they pay $300 co-pay at an emergency room, then they don't like the ski resorts response to the situation, so they sue for 3.5 million, for some kind of pain and suffering!

Poor little Susie, she is emotionally scarred, and can no long stand in a lifline, so I need several millions of dollars so I can buy a place at Yellowstone, so she can enjoy skiing again!!!

Give me a break.........................................

If I am wrong, please show me a lawsuit were the Plantiff didn't ask for money, but rather wanted to see some kind of safety reform on the slopes.
post #60 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier_j
I like the idea in pincipal, where was this, if you don't mind.

Although Bellayre has a segregated beginners area---as I understand it, you have to be at a certain level to "cross the road" so to speak.
The ski hill at West Point, NY, in the early sixties and Ski Liberty, Ski Roundtop when snowboarding was first allowed there, 1986(?). I got my level 1 (green trails only) at Liberty and level 3 (all terrain) at Roundtop.
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 › Ski areas need to be more responsible