or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Who's at fault? - Page 3

post #61 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
Downhill skier has the right of way.
NOPE ! Skier ahead has the right of way.
post #62 of 122
I think these situations are kind of like rear-end auto collisions where the person in front unexpectedly stops for no apparent reason.

Who's "at fault"? The driver who hit from behind...he/she should have followed at a distance so that the collision would not have happened.

Does this make it any easier for the person who got hit? No, he/she still could get injured and there are still repairs to be done, etc.

Could the accident have been avoided? Perhaps...if the person in front didn't make a sudden, unexpected move then the accident may not have happened.

The bottom line is that, while our society always likes to assign "blame" for an accident (automobile, skiing/snowboarding, other), sometimes we need to step back and look at ways that the accidents could be avoided and provide advice on both sides to prevent them.
post #63 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpinord View Post
Statistically, even if #1 is followed by everyone, bodys will collide without using common sense and the others.

I teach my kid to ski with his head on a swivel and be respectful and considerate of others, no matter what any rule says or who's responsibility.
Perfectly put....now we are left with the status of the bodies in motion at the point of impact. There are 2 and only two possibilities

1) Two people hit head on....this would be a judgement call as to who was in control and who wasn't (if either...in either case)

2) In every other instance someone has to be behind someone else getting hit. The person who is behind...no matter where they strike the other is at fault.

In this case the boarder hit the skier in the SIDE.....Boarder at fault.

NOTE....While all of us should look and communicate (and most due) there is NOTHING in the code that requires this action.
post #64 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
You make a compelling arguement. Proper lookout by the boarder would have spotted the skier before the collision.
Yes. Unfortunately boarders never see it this way, probably because they do not have eyes in the back of their head. This is why I always, always, give boarders a very wide lane when skiing around them.
post #65 of 122
I kept thinking about an MP3 player being involved in this accident. It's typical for a teen boarder to have one and have it blasting! Therefore, not hearing you yell what side you're on. Just my experience in the past. Aceman
post #66 of 122
This thread has proved to me, without a doubt, that I am justified in not sharing my shutes or powder stashes with ANYONE!!!:

Moral of the story... what people don't know won't hurt them.
post #67 of 122
Any of these arguements regrading looking before a turn totally in opposition to the MA/body mechanics of good skiing. It would be impossible and dangerous to clear each turn with a "look over your shoulder"; it puts you off balance and on the wrong edge.

With this in mind, I think that ..... "finer minds than yours and mine have prevailed ... ... "

In establishing the code/rule/policy/law ... or ... whatever when it comes to the overtaking/uphill ..... ski/board/slip-slider ... gotta' be the one!

just my .... humble opinion ..
post #68 of 122
It's a gray area and as tromano suggests we don't really have enough info to judge. Accidents happen. I think Louie might be over simplifying. I ran into the side of a car with my bicycle in April but no one involved, including motorist, police, witnesses, insurance company, suggested that the driver was not entirely at fault. I went into the side of her, but she was in violation of the rules of the road. I tried to stop, but could not. If I had not tried to stop, I would have been hit from the side, but I might also have been killed.
post #69 of 122
I'm curious about a question. Let's say this wreck resulted in injury. Even if one party is at fault, there isn't anything you can legally do because by buying a lift ticket, the purchaser assumes any risks that might occur on the hill. Is this correct?
post #70 of 122
If we can forget about legalities for a moment . . . It can be very difficult to avoid another skier when you don't know which way they are going to turn, expecially on a narrow trail. It seems that some skiers have a knack for turning in front of you, no matter how much we try to avoid them.
For all those who ski slower than someone else (which is all of us unless you are Bode Miller) - if we ski in a predictable fashion, it's easier for the fast skier to go by safely.
What is a predictable fashion? Stay on the right or Stay on the left.
It's no different if you are on the freeway going 70 in the left lane. If the car that you are passing turns in front of you at the last second and he is going 65, an accident will probably happen.
In many years of skiing, I've had at least a couple close calls, sometimes I've been the slow guy and sometimes I've been the fast guy but almost always the slow skier turned in front of the fast skier making a collision difficult to avoid.
post #71 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by garyskr View Post
If we can forget about legalities for a moment . . . It can be very difficult to avoid another skier when you don't know which way they are going to turn, expecially on a narrow trail. It seems that some skiers have a knack for turning in front of you, no matter how much we try to avoid them.
For all those who ski slower than someone else (which is all of us unless you are Bode Miller) - if we ski in a predictable fashion, it's easier for the fast skier to go by safely.
What is a predictable fashion? Stay on the right or Stay on the left.
It's no different if you are on the freeway going 70 in the left lane. If the car that you are passing turns in front of you at the last second and he is going 65, an accident will probably happen.
In many years of skiing, I've had at least a couple close calls, sometimes I've been the slow guy and sometimes I've been the fast guy but almost always the slow skier turned in front of the fast skier making a collision difficult to avoid.
slightly disagree. if you can't judge where someone is going, then slow down. Everybody below/in front of you has the right of way in relation to you. Period. that's how the system has been working for decades.

I was tucking groomers one morning and almost clipped a boarder who I though was setting up a turn, he didn't turn, so I aired over his board. Then I stopped to apologize. Before I had the chance, he apologized for cutting across the run... No, it ain't like that. I almost took off his knees. Who cares if "the beginner" (for example) is not predictable.
Accept responsibility people...
(man am i crabby today)
post #72 of 122
Another even worse menace of the same sort is the ski class which snakes accross the full width of the trail (I'm assuming you get this in the US too.)

I was once going quite fast down one edge of a trail and saw a ski class ahead. The teacher had turned at the right hand edge of the trail and the line of skiers was obvously still going to be occupying that edge when I got there, so I stayed on the left. It wasn't a narrow trail so I assumed he would turn a bit before reaching my edge, but as I approached he showed no sign of turning, so I went into the narrow strip of off-piste beyond the edge of the trail (beyond that was some sort of drop-off - not a cliff, but I didn't know what was over it).
When I was almost on to him the teacher didn't turn at all but came into the off piste (and I assume, then stopped). I couldn't go right of him because of his tail of students, so all I could do was turn sharp left and go over the edge.
Luckily it was only a small drop and the steep slope I landed on had no rocks or trees just there. I was able to traverse and get on the trail further down.
The ski teacher hadn't looked at all, or thought how his group was blocking the piste so I was angry. But I would have been in the wrong if I'd hit him.
post #73 of 122
How about you apologize, and ski away. Not ******* sue and worry about how much you can get from them.
post #74 of 122
Some of you guys make this so complicated. It's similar to when a driver rear-ends the car in front. It's almost always the fault of the driver who does the rear-ending.

As several pointed out it's the uphill's skier/rider's fault in most every collision. It's much easier and natural to look down the trail/slope than look uphill. As you get older it gets harder and harder to twist the old neck to look uphill but since I don't want to get hit I always DO look uphill everytime before I start going again.

I think aceman's point is an important one. The "old school" system of letting the person know your behind them just doesn't work that well anymore. If they are listening to tunes or talking to someone on their headset they are just not going to hear you.

In addition if the downhill skier/rider is totally focused on just surviving and getting to the bottom, trying to communicate verbally will probably freak them out and cause them to fall, usually right in front of you.

The CR is simple but stills works, the width or steepness shouldn't matter. Course, it only works perfectly in a perfect world. The real question and solution is " how do you get people to read the code and then follow it?".
post #75 of 122
I am truly sorry that it just not a perfect world that is operating up to the high standards to which some of you have become accustomed.

Sadly, there are days when you may have to slow down and "lurk" till you can make a safe pass.

That, is just the way of life.

and if you are reading real carefully between the lines you may get the message that it's highly probable that the "bombers" who don't slow down .... can't .... a bit "skill deficient"... legends in your own minds and rumors in your own time ..
post #76 of 122
Most more experienced riders and skiers tend to be more predictable (and perhaps a little more aware of their surroundings). I tend to ski in areas (and on days) where the general masses don't go. Hiking to great stashes is a great way to get away from the hoards of dangerous Dallas Cowboy "Starter" jackets.

When I do come back down the hill, I respect the trails in which I ski. Meaning... when I end up on a narrow traverse (usually and "green"), I ski like I am on a green, and treat everyone else like they can only ski beginner trails. Thus, there is no need to plow down a green at Mach 3... not because I can't be in control, but because it's STUPID.

You want to ski mach 3, find a better plae than a 60 ft wide traverse!:
post #77 of 122
Newbie here, but long-time lurker who feels compelled to jump in.

I used to feel that the edge of the trail was the best place to be - both from the standpoint of safety and the best snow conditions. Now I'm starting to re-think the former. For example, last season I was skiing near the edge of a relatively uncrowded, intermediate trail in the Elk Camp area of Snowmass at a moderate speed while working on short-radius turns. I got tired and as I turned to stop at the side of the trail, another skier flew past along the narrow corridor between me and the very edge, yelling a$$hole as he just avoided colliding with me : . I've also noticed that a lot of boarders seem to straightline the edge of trails at mach schnell. So, like some of you have mentioned already, I now find myself continually looking over my shoulder nearly every time I make a turn, despite the fact that I know the uphill skier is supposed to be in control and give me the right-of-way. Not the most fun way to ski , but it seems to be the wisest now.
post #78 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
Another even worse menace of the same sort is the ski class which snakes accross the full width of the trail (I'm assuming you get this in the US too.)

I was once going quite fast down one edge of a trail and saw a ski class ahead. The teacher had turned at the right hand edge of the trail and the line of skiers was obvously still going to be occupying that edge when I got there, so I stayed on the left. It wasn't a narrow trail so I assumed he would turn a bit before reaching my edge, but as I approached he showed no sign of turning, so I went into the narrow strip of off-piste beyond the edge of the trail (beyond that was some sort of drop-off - not a cliff, but I didn't know what was over it).
When I was almost on to him the teacher didn't turn at all but came into the off piste (and I assume, then stopped). I couldn't go right of him because of his tail of students, so all I could do was turn sharp left and go over the edge.
Luckily it was only a small drop and the steep slope I landed on had no rocks or trees just there. I was able to traverse and get on the trail further down.
The ski teacher hadn't looked at all, or thought how his group was blocking the piste so I was angry. But I would have been in the wrong if I'd hit him.
Sometimes I wonder if they are doing it deliberately to make you slow down in the "presence" (within 20 yards) of their students.

The same thing happened to me once upon a time. The ski instructor and tail of students went way farther than I thought they would, but I had anticipated this possibility and knew there was skiable terrain in the woods beyond the trail. What I didn't know was there was a snow-snake lying in ambush right at the point where I was passing the ski school. I treated them all to a beautiful superman.

Yuki, yes learning to be resigned to your fate and just NOT PASSING is something everybody should learn. I spent a lot of time learning this acceptance years ago when I had two vehicles: A Honda 750 Interceptor and a Chevrolet Chevette. The bike, which I had geared to redline at 210 kph in top gear, would go from 50 to 125 mph in a few seconds, about as long as it took me to work the shift lever. The car couldn't get out of it's own way.
post #79 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngsman View Post
It's a narrow trail (60 feet wide). On the far right is a snowboarder transitioning from a turn where he was facing up-hill. On the far left up-the-hill a skier is overtaking the boarder and judges that he can continue on the left and pass without incident. Now, the boarder completes his transition and comes directly across the hill and runs into the side of the skier who the boarder never saw because he had his back to the hill.

Who's at fault?

They are both gapers, thus equally deserving of getting slammed.
post #80 of 122
Jer ... there is indeed some truth in that one ... .... they do award points here for humor ....
post #81 of 122
Welcome, tnskier1! Isn't it good to no longer lurk?

I'm wondering if any of the skiers who 'look over their shoulder with every turn' are skiing the Eastern US resorts. I could buy the possibility of doing that in the West where the space of the runs blows your mind, but here in the East, it's a different story. There could be 10-15 people skiing around you within the space of a thrown ski pole, and not all of them are skiing slower than you, passing in control or even with a modicum of skill, they're Breaking the Law, Breaking the Laaaaw, and you want to keep looking uphill?

Suicide, man, suicide.
post #82 of 122
I clicked edges with an instructor today. It was my fault. But he contributed to the situation. I over took him on the right with plenty of room. Two boarders were down close to my side of the trail's edge. I snuck through on the right and was using tight turns. The instructor went by on the left side of the trail. Once past the boarders he began using the entire trail to turn and we clicked.

I did not yell to him because I thought I was far enough to his right, especially with the boarders on the trail. I could not believe that he used the entire trail in such a congested area. But that's what he did and we clicked and he was pissed. I humbly said I was sorry and acknowledged my error. He snarled some more and I skied away.
post #83 of 122
Turning your head too far can definitely cause an unwanted body movement and can easily throw you off. Be mindful of that. Remember, you only need to turn far enough to see what's there in your peripheral vision, while keeping the other half of your peripheral vision watching ahead. NEVER be blind to what's ahead of you! Also if you are making a series of regular turns, then the shoulder check need only be made once in a while.

I ALWAYS glance uphill when two trails join, or when I make a major shift in direction.

Oh Bonie,
I can not remember the last time I went free-skiing alone and was not the fastest skier on the hill, but then again I haven't been on the same hill as Highway star.
post #84 of 122
You wouldn't see HS, anyway.....nothing but a vapor trail.
post #85 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
Turning your head too far can definitely cause an unwanted body movement and can easily throw you off. Be mindful of that. Remember, you only need to turn far enough to see what's there in your peripheral vision, while keeping the other half of your peripheral vision watching ahead. NEVER be blind to what's ahead of you! Also if you are making a series of regular turns, then the shoulder check need only be made once in a while.
If you cut across the hill after skiing the fall line with out looking you are asking for trouble. Just ask Phil.

I would never do that!
post #86 of 122
Skier:
plain and simple, the downhill rider had the right of way
post #87 of 122
Errrrrrr ... do the math; you spend about .002% of your time "in the fall line", the rest of the time you are skiing across the hill.
post #88 of 122
You may Yuki , but some people take it straight

For your Maths, how far off the exact fall line do you consider to be going "accross the slope"? 0.1º?, 1º?, 5º?
post #89 of 122
Responding to original question - the skier is at fault. This seems to agree to most other replies (but not all).

Why would people think otherwise? A clue is found in the original post where it was said that the boarder ran into the side of the skiier. This seems to imply that simply because the boarder was going across the trail at the time of the collision that he bears responsibility for the collision. More correctly it would simply have been stated that the skier and boarder collided.

I have found in the past that some people use the "rules of the road" from automobiles a bit too literally in skiing. There are many cases where you can use the rules of driving an automobile as an example for what you should do while skiing. Passing situations in general are not one of these cases. In cars, traffic is expected to travel in the same direction, and everyone is expected to "stay in their lane". This is almost opposite to skiing, where turning side-to-side is expected. If you are overtaking a skier you must expect that he will be turning side-to-side across the trail, and it is your responsibility to avoid him as he is the downhill skier.

A collision resulting from a passing situation on a ski trail is going to be the passer's fault as they did not yield the right-of-way to the downhill skier.
post #90 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmanmlh View Post
Skier:
plain and simple, the downhill rider had the right of way

OK.....for those of you who STILL aren't quite catching on.....

#1----Go back and read the code Lonnie posted in this thread....post 18 I believe. If ANY of you see ANYWHERE where it says the downhill skier/rider has the right of way please show it to me.

The downhill skier having the right of way has been dead for 2 years now....no longer there...gone....ka-put....finished ....over....done with. It is the skier/rider AHEAD that has the right of way...uphill downhill...flats...wherever.

In this case....given what Youngsman has told us....he was clearly skiing in control and on the edge of a narrow trail (we have to assume limited escape possibilities to the left) and a boarder struck him from the side.

Skiing in control and able to stop (rule 1) doesn't quite mean stop on a dime to avoid in all instances....just like stopping distances in a car or on a bike as Telerod mentioned in his post here. If the skier (in this case) is skiing in control enough to enact a braking move at the first moment he realizes there is a problem, he would clearly be considered in control even if he can't STOP in time to not have contact with the boarder.

It was stated that the boarder struck the skier in the SIDE. I am assuming that it wasn't side to side....and that the boarder (his board and CM) were moving toward the skier when they made contact (no matter where he was looking). If all the above is true....the BOARDER is clearly at fault.

In another post here T-rod also asked if he should be looking up the hill to avoid contact. Here is the best answer I can come up with.....Assume you (skier/boarder/snow bike guy..don't care who) hit somebody. AS in you are going forward and you don't hit the other person head on. The lawyer asks you if you were looking where you were going and did you see the person you were about to hit, and you say "NO" to both.

You are;
A. Planning on hitting jail cause the person died
B. Suddenly Broke
C. All of the above.

Here is some food for thought for the boarders out there, and all the rest of you. You shouldn't be moving anywhere at any speed if you are unable to look where you are going. That much is common sense. The fact is that a boarder (or anyone for that matter) that strikes someone they don't see may still be at fault for the collision. Given that Boarders are basically blind to their backside while their CM moves a different direction than their field of vision does not excuse them under the code, nor will it in court.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion