The primary purpose of the code isn't to apportion blame but to provide rules to (attempt to) prevent collisions.
Originally Posted by drewski180
climbin, I agree. I know as far as the code is concerned there are no exceptions but I feel there are many rules that are not completely right.
The trailing skier is in the best position to "ski" defensively because they can see
the skier they are following. It's because the leading skier doesn't have eyes in the back of their head that the "People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them" rule exists.
You, as the trailing skier, can't do anything to keep the lead skier from doing stupid things. You can only ski in such a manner as to expect that the lead skier might do something stupid.
Part of the difficulty is that what the lead skier does might not really be stupid. It's possible that they needed to take an abrupt change of course to avoid getting into an accident. Of course, it's possible that the skier might not be very skilled.
The analogous situation in driving is rear-end collisions. You are always responsible regardless of what stupid/careless things the car in front of you does.
Note that there are cases where both parties in a collision each have responsibility for the collision. In trailing/leading collisions, greater responsibility is born by the trailing skier.
Originally Posted by drewski180
(but let me ask you one more question... what if a skier tries to cause an accident? they are skiing with the sole purpose of making crazy turns acting like an A$$ and aiming to get in someones way. or what if they've been drinking? is it still the uphill skiers fault?) All I am looking for here is for someone to admit you can't go to a situation/accident and immediately put ALL the blame on the uphill skier. Throw me a bone here...there HAS to be exceptions. Doesn't there?
What actions can the uphill skier take to avoid an accident in this example? Certainly, choosing to pass such a person isn't really a reasonable and safe action to take.
(Anyway, the responsibility code certainly doesn't free people from the legal/moral obligations of their gross negligence or willful intent to cause harm.)
Originally Posted by lbt
Another comment though: whilst the downhill skier is not 'at fault'; I do think skiers are obliged to ski responsibly. Part of that is awareness and non-random behaviour. So whilst the uphill skier is at fault - the downhill skier can minimise the chances of the accident happening
Yes, all skiers are obliged to ski responsibly. Note that one always has a responsibility to take action (if one can) to avoid a collision.
Originally Posted by catskills
A women went through a red light and I hit her passenger side rear quarter panel. The police office told me there was not enough evidence to give her a ticket. ...........Some time later after the damage esteimate, I am talking to the women's insurance company (InsCo) on the phone. InsCo says, I am 40 percent responsible since by law I am required to drive defensively and avoid accidents. This means they will pay for 60 percent of my damages.
I don't believe you would have been held responsible for any of it if she had gotten a ticket for running the red light (or if there was some independent evidence of her doing so). The problem is that, without "proof", it's a "he said/she said" kind of situation. In your case, the insurance company used the only evidence they had (how the cars collided).
The logic behind the "drive defensively" requirement, in this case, is that you hit her "late". That is, the idea is that you should have had ample time to see that she was not going to yield and stopped to avoid the collision. Note that I am describing how the automatic distribution of responsibilities works. In practice, it can be very difficult to take the action you are supposed
to take. That is, I'm not trying to blame you for the accident. By using simple rules, the automatic distribution of responsibilities avoids the expense of people suing each other over "minor" car accidents (that's the purpose of the rules). It doesn't have to work perfectly (it can't
Many things in life don't work out fairly and we have to accept that there's some degree of risk of things not working out fairly. In this case, it was just bad luck on your part.
Everybody has the responsibility to take action to avoid collisions. That is, having the "right of way" does give people the right to run into other people.