or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Patrol Shack › Skier vs. Skier collision
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Skier vs. Skier collision - Page 4

post #91 of 118
The skier's responsibility code is a guideline to safe skiing. Its not regulatory or absolute. The code is mostly common sense and therefore seem foreign to many people. I imagine that the code could be admissible in a legal action, but it really shouldn't be read as a legal instrument, but as a common sense guideline to good and courteous skiing. If you enter a ski run without looking uphill and get whacked, you are at fault; and if you are approaching an area of congestion and don't check your speed and take out someone below you; you're at fault.

These simple rules were written decades ago and have not changed to describe new hazards like terrain parks. In a terrain park, the code is all about flow. If you ski across a marked feature in a blind spot, or sit where you can't be seen, and get whacked, you are at fault. Don't point to the skier responsibility code if you get whacked in a terrain park. The rules there are different and usually posted. Almost universally, you have to enter a gate or cross a rope to enter. Crossing ropes and getting whacked is bad. When you enter a park, you agree to the rules posted at the top, and those take precedent over the responsibility code.

Its my observation that its necessary to ski more defensively now. I agree with the observations of rh338 above that there are high risk areas and skiers/snowboarders skidding down the fall line. Those of us who can, ski faster than general traffic, and in more difficult terrain to improve our chances. Anyway, what's to debate? These are logical guidelines for safety. When someone doesn't follow them, risks increase for collisions and injuries.
  1. Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.
  2. People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them.
  3. You must not stop where you obstruct a trail, or are not visible from above.
  4. Whenever starting downhill or merging into a trail, look uphill and yield to others.
  5. Always use devices to help prevent runaway equipment.
  6. Observe all posted signs and warnings. Keep off closed trails and out of closed areas.
  7. Prior to using any lift, you must have the knowledge and ability to load, ride and unload safely.
post #92 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewski180 View Post
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 primary purpose of the code isn't to apportion blame but to provide rules to (attempt to) prevent collisions.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drewski180 View Post
(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.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lbt View Post
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.

==============================

Quote:
Originally Posted by catskills View Post
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 work perfectly).

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.
post #93 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by catskills View Post
I argue some more and got it to 30 percent my fault and 70 percent their insured fault. They paid me for 70 percent of my damages.
Oooh. I think they got you.

The correct response is "She broke the law. I am required to anticipate unexpected but otherwise legal manoeuvres. Pay me 100% of my costs or I'll see you in court for costs+inconvenience. I will put this in writing to show the courts that I was attempting to be fair and reasonable."

Of course, that would be the course of action here in the UK.
post #94 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by lbt View Post
The correct response is "She broke the law. I am required to anticipate unexpected but otherwise legal manoeuvres. Pay me 100% of my costs or I'll see you in court for costs+inconvenience. I will put this in writing to show the courts that I was attempting to be fair and reasonable."
How would the court know "she broke the law"? How would you prove "she broke the law"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lbt View Post
Of course, that would be the course of action here in the UK.
It doesn't work that way in the US. In the US, tere are restrictions on bringing legal action in minor car accidents (it reduces the cost of insurance). One could pay for the legal costs yourself but is that reasonable to do in the case of a minor car accident?

==================

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
The code is mostly common sense and therefore seem foreign to many people.
That's very funny.

I think the rules are well-designed. People should understand that they describe what you can do do avoid collisions (rather than relying on the actions of other people that you cannot control).
post #95 of 118
Well I find it real interesting how many people have views on this topic. I suppose its because it happens far more than we'd like. Unfortunetly there have been a lot of accidents this year and many deaths (usually from trees), I hope poeple cont. to ski in control and defensively, especially in crowded areas or intersections. Continue to educate others and stay safe-Drew.
post #96 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
How would the court know "she broke the law"? How would you prove "she broke the law"?

It doesn't work that way in the US. In the US, tere are restrictions on bringing legal action in minor car accidents (it reduces the cost of insurance). One could pay for the legal costs yourself but is that reasonable to do in the case of a minor car accident?
Getting OT here

Proof - too many unknowns to debate this situation meaningfully. The main thing is that the insurance companies will swear black is white to minimise payouts. In general, if you are in the right, you stand your ground.

My wife had a similar experience - the InsCo was trying to settle 50/50 - Mrs lbt kept at them and would not accept any liability. She wrote to the council asking for camera tapes (there weren't any), she took photos of the road layout, explained what happened etc etc. In the end they caved - they were trying it on and they knew it.

In the UK we have something called a small claims court. Minimal costs (<$100) Claims limited to around $2-3000. Explain yourselves with minimal legal bureaucracy to a 'lay judge' who makes a binding order. Common sense rules.
post #97 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by lbt View Post
Getting OT here

Proof - too many unknowns to debate this situation meaningfully. The main thing is that the insurance companies will swear black is white to minimise payouts. In general, if you are in the right, you stand your ground.

My wife had a similar experience - the InsCo was trying to settle 50/50 - Mrs lbt kept at them and would not accept any liability. She wrote to the council asking for camera tapes (there weren't any), she took photos of the road layout, explained what happened etc etc. In the end they caved - they were trying it on and they knew it.

In the UK we have something called a small claims court. Minimal costs (<$100) Claims limited to around $2-3000. Explain yourselves with minimal legal bureaucracy to a 'lay judge' who makes a binding order. Common sense rules.
The other driver being cited for running a red light would have been sufficient proof. Independent witnesses might be sufficient proof.

Like "catskills" (and your wife) did, arguing the point is reasonable and worthwhile to do. We have small-claims courts here too. I'm confused about what "claim" you would be asking for (unless it was the deductable or if you don't have collision insurance). As far as I understand, in the US, you can only get claims from documented costs (ie, you can't get compensation for "inconveniences"). (There could certainly be differences between states.)

http://www.newjersey.gov/dobi/ins_om...s_acnsfaq.html
post #98 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
The skier's responsibility code is a guideline to safe skiing. Its not regulatory or absolute. The code is mostly common sense and therefore seem foreign to many people. I imagine that the code could be admissible in a legal action, but it really shouldn't be read as a legal instrument, but as a common sense guideline to good and courteous skiing.

In Quebec, it Si the law. Due to he fact that many ski resorts are on public land, the skiers code was enacted into a law. Why you may ask? Well, if someone is being a Doofus on public land, you cannot ask them to leave. If however, said Doofus is breaking the law on public land, then the people who are responsible for the good order of the hill have the right to kick Doofus of off the property. It makes life far easier.

Dean.
post #99 of 118
Virtually all ski resorts sell lift tickets that are expressly subject to a list of terms and conditions which include the Skiers' Responsibility Code. One of the terms is that failure to comply with the terms entitles the resort management to confiscate the lift ticket and eject the offender off the resort property.

If the offender refuses to leave, the resort management can call the police to have the offender charged and removed as a trespasser.

So this system seems to function well enough without the Code being a law.
post #100 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
Ok. Here's one. A skier behind you passes you just as you are getting to that one gap between snowboarders standing gaping at the steep section just over a crest and cuts you off, like someone passing you on a road just as you are getting to a one lane bridge. At the moment of impact you hit him, but he came from behind you.

That's an easy one: Up hill skier goes past and cuts you off, he is still the up hill skier who passed you and cut you off. In theory it was his fault.

One thing that bugs me is when a competent skier skis back and forth edge to edge. We have a trail that is rocks on one side and sheer drop on the other. Some of the instructors make a point of choaking the trail practicing smooth big turns in a fairly tight chute. When I blow by I yell at them loudly ie on your right or sometimes coming through (which is it right or left). We've had words on this and code is not an excuse for behavior like this. A kid or beginner - that's understandable.
post #101 of 118
Quote:
One thing that bugs me is when a competent skier skis back and forth edge to edge. We have a trail that is rocks on one side and sheer drop on the other. Some of the instructors make a point of choaking the trail practicing smooth big turns in a fairly tight chute. When I blow by I yell at them loudly ie on your right or sometimes coming through (which is it right or left). We've had words on this and code is not an excuse for behavior like this. A kid or beginner - that's understandable.
This is a tricky situation at best in the general case. I mean, your complaint is basically "they're skiing too slowly" and/or "their turns are too wide". There aren't any rules that say you have to ski fast, or ski in such a manner that it is easy for other people to pass you without slowing down.

If they're just doing it to piss you off... well, they're jerks for sure, but the rules don't speak much to intent.
post #102 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias99 View Post
If they're just doing it to piss you off... well, they're jerks for sure, but the rules don't speak much to intent.
It's just plain rude and inconsiderate to cut off a chute that is used by alot of people, if you are an experienced skier. And if you do, don't be surprised when skiers pass and give you warning. The up hill skier must still be in control and capable of stopping.

My point is that it is ok to pass with a warning, while under control. I do this on the side of the trail sometimes. Also use the timing of a skier's turns, but sometimes they pull over to rest and then if you don't leave room for a margin of error there could be trouble.
post #103 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jones View Post
It's just plain rude and inconsiderate to cut off a chute that is used by alot of people, if you are an experienced skier. And if you do, don't be surprised when skiers pass and give you warning. The up hill skier must still be in control and capable of stopping.

My point is that it is ok to pass with a warning, while under control. I do this on the side of the trail sometimes. Also use the timing of a skier's turns, but sometimes they pull over to rest and then if you don't leave room for a margin of error there could be trouble.
I don't know the exact terrain you're talking about, so it's a little hard for me to gauge the situation you are discussing. What constitutes "cutting off" a chute also depends on how fast you want to take it. If you want to straight-line it, anybody who doesn't do the same will be going too slow for your liking, because they will force you to ski differently than you would prefer. Other people might not see anything wrong with skiing it slowly, and might consider you to be out of control if you want to ski it really fast! I'm reminded of what George Carlin said in one of his stand-up routines about driving -- anyone who goes slower than you is an idiot, and anyone who goes faster than you is a maniac. What is an "acceptable" speed to ski various terrain is relative. If you can and do ski fast, you'll have to accept that some other people will want (or need) to ski slower on the same terrain at the same time.

Certainly, skiing slowly (particularly if you do things like traversing all the way across the slope and back) on narrow, crowded slopes is, at best, somewhat inconsiderate of other skiers. If you want to do drills, or ski a line that makes it hard for anyone else to get past you, it's better to do so on a wide, empty slope. But sometimes you don't have much of a choice, or a trail goes from empty to crowded in a hurry.

Agreed on passing. You have to be careful.
post #104 of 118
It's just courtesy to leave some room so that people who wish to go faster than you can get by. I get annoyed when someone uses the whole chute, but I bite the bullet and don't run them down.
post #105 of 118
I would have liked to see the following added to the skier's code of responsibility: If you can't see beyond the drop. Don't jump.

One of my biggest annoyances is with snowboarders who think regular runs are the place to catch air. You know the drill: a blue or a black with a bunch of flats and steep sections where if you are coming from the flat you have no idea what's going on below.

Correct strategy: stop at the crest, look down, make sure there's nobody stopped in the middle of the run because of ice, falls, etc. (Happens on steeps).

Average teenager on snowboard strategy: There might be girls watching. Let's jump just before the drop, and hope all would be well.

I was at Sno Mountain PA tonight, as usual lots of snowboarders and teens though the runs are still relatively quiet. I get to the top of a crest, see a girl sprawled close to the bottom having hit ice in the middle. I look and see a snowboarder coming down the flat. He yells at me: is it clear? I answer: no, there's somebody down there. Rather than break at that point (he still had lots of flat), he aims straight and makes a jump, not knowing where the girl might be there. Luckily, girl was almost all the way down, so he landed, swerved and missed her by a couple of inches, and rushed away.

I wish there was the equivalent of citizen's arrest or a good old lynching on the slopes.
post #106 of 118
Quote:
I would have liked to see the following added to the skier's code of responsibility: If you can't see beyond the drop. Don't jump.
This is usually explicit in terrain park rules (actually, there was a thread about this a few weeks ago in the general discussion forum.)

This is also a consequence of several of the other responsibility code rules -- basically, if you hit a stopped/fallen/injured skier/rider and they weren't stopped in a spot where it is nearly impossible to see them from above, it's your fault.

Quote:
I wish there was the equivalent of citizen's arrest or a good old lynching on the slopes.
That's bad. I don't see too much of that at Wachusett, possibly because any slopes like that are almost always too crowded to try to pull that sort of thing. They also have a pretty decent terrain park that offers much better jumps than any of the normal trails.

You could chase him to the bottom and try to have his ticket pulled, I guess. Unlikely to stick unless other people saw it or he actually hit someone, though, unless he is a repeat offender.
post #107 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias99 View Post
This is usually explicit in terrain park rules (actually, there was a thread about this a few weeks ago in the general discussion forum.)
That was on a downhill run, not the park...

Sno mountain is a shabby local hill (though decent by PA standards) in Scranton. It caters significantly to teenagers, it seems (5 minutes from the multiplex), and seems to pride itself on terrain parks. They're actually having a hooplah about a 22" halfpipe coming in tomorrow.

Unfortunately, the employees (at least the lift operators) are pretty much the same crowd, and the ski patrol don't patrol much during teen peak hours unless anyone gets injured.

For such a tiny place the slopes are actually not that busy; probably because 90% of the people are inside the ski lodge at any one time. Still, just because the slope appears quiet, it doesn't tell you what's happening in the area you couldn't see. I think that in some ways going on a board is like driving a truck: you can mow down stuff and not even notice it.
post #108 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by uricmu View Post
That was on a downhill run, not the park...
I know. I was just commenting that in the places where you *usually* expect people to be jumping off things all the time, they do usually explicitly have that rule.

Quote:
Sno mountain is a shabby local hill (though decent by PA standards) in Scranton. It caters significantly to teenagers, it seems (5 minutes from the multiplex), and seems to pride itself on terrain parks. They're actually having a hooplah about a 22" halfpipe coming in tomorrow.
I'll assume you mean 22' and not 22" there.

Quote:
Unfortunately, the employees (at least the lift operators) are pretty much the same crowd, and the ski patrol don't patrol much during teen peak hours unless anyone gets injured.
Bummer.

You could maybe try to bring it up with a manager, or with the ski patrollers themselves? If they don't care and nobody makes a big deal of it then they won't do anything until somebody gets killed and/or sues them.
post #109 of 118
I skied too fast for years; sometimes I'd hear a snowboarder thrashing around tearing up the slope behind me and just point my skis downhill and take off to get away from him.
Other times I'd carefully get past a group of skidders making unpredictable turns across the slope, and once past them try to ensure my own safety by outrunning them.
I enjoyed skiing fast, turns are easier at speed, and there's the adrenaline... but I'd get to the bottom of a place like Hunter in about 2 minutes and then have to sit for the 7 minute ride back up... and realize that I hadn't done anything but move forward.
I didn't see anything, experience anything, notice any views off of the mountain, or see frozen cascades of ice on the rock walls, birds... anything.
I've been thinking for years that a fall in the wrong place could kill or cripple me for life, but once I got onto the slope, my fear of being hit from behind usually took over, and I sped up.
This season I made a decision to risk being hit by the typical Hunter Mtn Moron, and make more turns, and ski more slowly.
I'm fortunate in being very good at skiing on ice, so I make all my short turns in the middle of the slope where it's icy; and let the fast skiers have the edges, where they can familiarize themselves with trees, if they choose.
I do feel real fear when someone who's fast and sloppy passes me very closely. This is mainly because I'm just not accustomed to anyone passing me; it's been years.
I think I'll start wearing a helmet to protect me from idiots who may hit me from behind.
post #110 of 118

Gettin Hit

All this talk about getting hit like it is something minor.
It does not take much of a fall to tear out the ACL or land on your shoulder and do your rotator cuff, or ver off into the trees.
It could end your skiing and change your quality of life. No "I am sorry" is going to fix it. You just can not hit anyone.
Keep your head up.
post #111 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag View Post
Why? What are you looking for? Satisfaction? Get over it, life happens everyday and everyone walked away.
I know this is old but I agree, get over it! You should be glad your wife skied away!!! It's typical that everyone looks for someone to blame today, it's always someone elses fault! The ski patrol does what they can and I am sure they would appreciate you not hounding them about this small incident, "what can I do to persue this"? Skiing is a dangerous sport and if your arent willing to accept the risk then you shouldn't be on the hill. Why would a patroller waste his time kicking a skier off the hill when their is an injured person that needs help? If the person that hit your wife has a season pass then I am sure they will be taken care of, you only get so many warnings before you get kicked off the hill for good. Give the ski partoler a break, he gets paid peanuts for what he does, that is if he isint a volunteer, then he get's paid nothing!

Exactly as stated above, if your wife had her head up, she would have seen it comming and maybe could have avoided it. I bet your wife cut all the way accross the hill sideways to avoid the accident, if you do that and arent looking up hill you are asking to get hit! Your wife is also at fault here, not just the girl.
post #112 of 118
I once had a guy chase me down for two full runs because I came too close to him (passed on the trails edge). He caught up with me by barging through the lift-line and actually popped (in the helmet haha) me why getting on the lift. The lift stopped and he was screaming for them to pull my pass. It was pretty silly considering I never actually made contact or caused him to fall. I wonder if he post here.


BTW-Every time I saw the lifty we would laugh about this @sshole.
post #113 of 118
I know road rage exists, what about hill rage? I'm sure some guy beat up a grandma who cut him off on the hill somewhere, it happened to a grandma in a car.

If I were you I would have fallowed him around all day, hide in the trees and wait for him to pass and then ride his tail until he wanted to fight me, let him take the first swing and then press charges, maybe get his pass pulled. HAHAH
post #114 of 118
good call bert ... if I were the patroller and got called to that, I'd pull both your passes for being dumb
post #115 of 118

Rules

WOW, going through the posts almost everyone is from the East Coast.

Crowds, collisions, choked up runs, trails, chutes. UGH. Never experienced that where I ski. Too bad you have to concern yourselves with all the above instead of looking for the best snow.TOO BAD
post #116 of 118
"Too bad you have to concern yourselves with all the above instead of looking for the best snow."

I already know where the snow is, and it is not on the east coast. I enjoy playing in the bowls of utah and colorado,montana, dare I generalize and say the rockey mountain range in general.
post #117 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
The skier's responsibility code is a guideline to safe skiing. Its not regulatory or absolute.
It is the law in New York. General Obligations Law § 18-105:

§ 18-105. Duties of skiers

All skiers shall have the following duties:

1. Not to ski in any area not designated for skiing;

2. Not to ski beyond their limits or ability to overcome variations in slope, trail configuration and surface or subsurface conditions which may be caused or altered by weather, slope or trail maintenance work by the ski area operator, or skier use;

3. To abide by the directions of the ski area operator;

4. To remain in constant control of speed and course at all times while skiing so as to avoid contact with plainly visible or clearly marked obstacles and with other skiers and passengers on surface operating tramways;

5. To familiarize themselves with posted information before skiing any slope or trail, including all information posted pursuant to subdivision five of section 18-103 of this article;

6. Not to cross the uphill track of any surface lift, except at points clearly designated by the ski area operator;

7. Not to ski on a slope or trail or portion thereof that has been designated as "closed" by the ski area operator;

8. Not to leave the scene of any accident resulting in personal injury to another party until such times as the ski area operator arrives, except for the purpose of summoning aid;

9. Not to overtake another skier in such a manner as to cause contact with the skier being overtaken and to yield the right-of-way to the skier being overtaken;

10. Not to willfully stop on any slope or trail where such stopping is likely to cause a collision with other skiers or vehicles;

11. To yield to other skiers when entering a trail or starting downhill;

12. To wear retention straps or other devices to prevent runaway skis;

13. To report any personal injury to the ski area operator before leaving the ski area; and

14. Not to willfully remove, deface, alter or otherwise damage signage, warning devices or implements, or other safety devices placed and maintained by the ski area operator pursuant to the requirements of section 18-103 of this article.
post #118 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DockerZ View Post
...Another young girl (19ish) ...

He "hotted" her card which I'm told means she has to take a 1 1/2 hr safety course to be able to ski on the resorts.
Um, I'm guessing this has a different meaning than you were told. :

No, that wouldn't happen. I think you ski with your head on a swivel. The girl had absolute responsibility to avoid this collision, but I would never bet my well being on other skiers doing what they are supposed to do. Before any big change in direction or speed on the groomers, it pays to steal a look up the hill. It shouldn't be that way, but better safe than splattered.

 

I was flamed hard for this same suggestion (looking back up with any large direction change) on another ski related forum.  I practice this all the time and have taught my daugters to do the same.

 

Sure, I HAVE the right away, but do you want to risk that the uphill skier has the skill to abide by that "rule"?
 

Not saying the OP's wife didn't look up - just saying it's a great practice.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Patrol Shack
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Patrol Shack › Skier vs. Skier collision