or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › How not to run into trees while skiing on groomed blue terrain
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How not to run into trees while skiing on groomed blue terrain - Page 2

post #31 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
I remember the wooden and wire pickett fencing that resorts used to use to line every run and surround every parch of trees and everything obstacle related. It used to get snow banks all around it. Those made AWESOME jumps!
What an AWESOME adrenaline rush!!!
post #32 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
This was about the response I expected.

I will remember to post this link next time someone runs head first into a tree on a blue groomer and some asshat makes a remark about helmets.
You're the only asshat here. How long have people been skiing groomers for? How long have people been skiing trees for?

You think you might slide off a run, crash into a tree and die, and that bothers you, then STAY HOME. You want to ski blue groomers fast and safely? Ski more until you're actually a good enough skier that this is possible, then crank those bindings and let'er rip.

Seriously, netting? I very much doubt you've hit DH speeds in your life.
post #33 of 126
Wawawachusett actually does a good job of this. I can see "more netting" in a small area (few hundred acres or less) like that being doable. And I think it makes sense due to the crowding on the icy slopes and plethora of snowmaking gear.

But there are limits to how much you can do. I think following up with speed patrols and aggressive pass removal etc is one way to deal with this. But again, you can only protect people so much from themselves ...
post #34 of 126
I'm not singling anyone out here but some of these suggestions are on the rediculous side aren't they?

The whole thing is if everyone would ski responsibly and within their abilities all the time like they are supposed to, there would be no need to wear helmets or even think about nets. (nets?) are you kidding me?
post #35 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by contec View Post
Seriously, netting? I very much doubt you've hit DH speeds in your life.
I think where G was going with this was that there are movements towards MANDATORY helmet requirements at resorts due to laywerphobia. OP was tossing out some alternatives for discussion. In the very old days, they tried to fence off the trees so it has been done, just not with bright orange x's:
post #36 of 126
In Colorado all this is basically a non issue since the ski resorts are virtually immune to liability. They aren't going to spend money installing safety devices nor should they (IMO).
post #37 of 126
There's an instructor at Loveland who seems to be buying a new helmet every month for the past few seasons. This happens when he skis The Ridge which is entirely above tree-line. He's an aggressive expert skier. I think he's found every rock up there with his head. He'll come back to the Basin lodge with a helmet with a big dent on the outside and a cracked inner liner. I think I would have gone to his funeral a long time ago if not for his helmet purchases. He did finally give up amateur car drag racing. Too expensive.
post #38 of 126
If you can't control your skiing and go screaming off into the trees is it the resorts fault or yours? I think trees along blue groomers are just a modern form of natural selection. The resorts shouldn't have to keep skiers from getting stuck to trees... the skiers should be doing that part at least. What is the world coming to?
post #39 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by daysailer1 View Post
There's an instructor at Loveland who seems to be buying a new helmet every month for the past few seasons. This happens when he skis The Ridge which is entirely above tree-line. He's an aggressive expert skier. I think he's found every rock up there with his head. He'll come back to the Basin lodge with a helmet with a big dent on the outside and a cracked inner liner. I think I would have gone to his funeral a long time ago if not for his helmet purchases. He did finally give up amateur car drag racing. Too expensive.
I don't think I'll be taking any lessons from him ... I don't need to learn to do THAT.
post #40 of 126
Anyone who repeatedly falls in rocky exposed terrain is not a person to be looked up to or admired. In fact I'd say that is redonkulous.
post #41 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by danimal's dead View Post
Anyone who repeatedly falls in rocky exposed terrain is not a person to be looked up to or admired. In fact I'd say that is redonkulous.
Put him on helmet restriction and thin the herd.

When I was in Grad school in Texas I had a professor that had relocated from Chicago and taken up bull riding. He preached about how much safer it wad than bronk riding despite bulls having horns because most injuries occur inthe chute and bulls cant turn to injure the rider ad easily as a horse can. The very next semster I saw him in a full neck brace, the kind bolted to his head. I almost dropped my book bag trying not to laugh. Nothing personal, OTT he was a pretty nice guy and did give me As in both courses i took from him..
post #42 of 126
The issue of high speed impact with trees next to blue cruisers is worth some thought, especially since
1. Many of the high-speed unguided missiles on blue runs are thoughtless, hazardous, and have an unrealistically high opinion of their own abilities, and
2. The relatively large numbers of blue cruising skiers, who many of us regard in scorn while looking down our noses, actually pay most of the bills at the ski area and thus, to some extent, subsidize the relatively small numbers of more skilled skiers.

Number 1 makes them difficult to protect; number 2 might make them worth protecting.

Allowing bumps to grow on the sides of cruisers might be worthwhile, since it would force some measure of speed reduction among skiers approaching the trees. However, it might also contribute to an increase in injuries among those who are truly out of control. And some of them might sue - "The poor grooming by the ski area on a designated blue run constituted negligence that caused me to fall down go boom."

Maybe ski areas should have "Disneyland" zones, with full padding, netting, all skiers must wear helmets and body protection, controlled entry to limit the number of skiers on each run, etc. - just like some kind of carnival ride or something at a water park. Then the rest of the ski area could be an "Adventureland" zone, with all kinds of dire warnings ("Here there be dragons"), but nothing to keep you out of the trees, even on groomed runs.

What do I know? Around here, we even let anyone who wants to ski out of bounds. Ropes, unless accompanied by signs indicating that an area is really closed, are merely informational boundaries that can usually be ducked at will, albeit with many caveats.

Maybe that's it, though - make "Disneyland" available for them as wants it; put lots of big warning signs elsewhere and let people choose to take their chances. Go ahead - try to catch a football while skiing backwards - but we'll charge your family for retrieving the body.
post #43 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhcooley View Post
Go ahead - try to catch a football while skiing backwards - but we'll charge your family for retrieving the body.
:OMG That was a freaking good one!. You should have added "while listening to Rocky Mountain High on your i-pod"!
post #44 of 126
Forgot all the fences just pad all the trees!
post #45 of 126
If you're hitting trees on groomers you've got some serious issues. They're probably best solved by waking up in the morning and putting a double shot of common sense in your coffee.

Other random thoughts:

If you want to ski so fast or so out of control you need nets on a groomer to protect yourself from yourself or other people, then you're doing something wrong.

Skiing really isn't dangerous enough these days. We've got all these fancy release mechanisms on bindings, helmets, and kevlar jackets. It'd be a lot more challenging if we took down all the signs and ropes. I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, I'm just saying we should take the safety labels off everything and see what happens.

Oh - someone will probably take this argument in a different direction and say we should get rid of chairlifts too. Hell no! I've got skins, but I'll be the first to admit how lazy I am.
post #46 of 126
I say, leave the easy runs to the so-so skiers, the ones who are just learning or the ones who just plain want to go slowly. If you need challenge, find it on a black or out of bounds.
post #47 of 126
I try to avoid blue groomers. There much too dangerous. People always skiing way to fast hitting each other. I ski on safer trails like black diamond mogul trails or the woods. Its much safer that way.
post #48 of 126

Lawyers,Insurance, Helmets, Dummies

Quote:
Originally Posted by prickly View Post
Or you could ski in the Alps. We ain't got no trees over here. Course you might fall in a crevasse, but hey.
Great idea, but hey Swiss put a speed limit out probably not around the crevasses I'll bet. Prickly any free airfare around?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhcooley View Post
The issue of high speed impact with trees next to blue cruisers is worth some thought, especially since
1. Many of the high-speed unguided missiles on blue runs are thoughtless, hazardous, and have an unrealistically high opinion of their own abilities, and
2. The relatively large numbers of blue cruising skiers, who many of us regard in scorn while looking down our noses, actually pay most of the bills at the ski area and thus, to some extent, subsidize the relatively small numbers of more skilled skiers.

Number 1 makes them difficult to protect; number 2 might make them worth protecting.

Allowing bumps to grow on the sides of cruisers might be worthwhile, since it would force some measure of speed reduction among skiers approaching the trees. However, it might also contribute to an increase in injuries among those who are truly out of control. And some of them might sue - "The poor grooming by the ski area on a designated blue run constituted negligence that caused me to fall down go boom."

Maybe ski areas should have "Disneyland" zones, with full padding, netting, all skiers must wear helmets and body protection, controlled entry to limit the number of skiers on each run, etc. - just like some kind of carnival ride or something at a water park. Then the rest of the ski area could be an "Adventureland" zone, with all kinds of dire warnings ("Here there be dragons"), but nothing to keep you out of the trees, even on groomed runs.

What do I know? Around here, we even let anyone who wants to ski out of bounds. Ropes, unless accompanied by signs indicating that an area is really closed, are merely informational boundaries that can usually be ducked at will, albeit with many caveats.

Maybe that's it, though - make "Disneyland" available for them as wants it; put lots of big warning signs elsewhere and let people choose to take their chances. Go ahead - try to catch a football while skiing backwards - but we'll charge your family for retrieving the body.
Great idea everyone, next year visit Whitewater Ski Area AKA Disneyland of BC and ski to your hearts content with no fear of Trees. Whitewater with Mr. Cooleys help is going to pad all the trees for maybe the greatest pinball downhill run on the American Continent. I can't wait. And for all you real diehards they're going to put a MacDonalds in at the Base of this run with a play area for the kids.:

Oh and since we are talking about Football Backwards. Remember or if you didn't know Sonny Bono hit an approximately 3-4 foot diameter Sugar Pine that was at least 6 trees in off the run, so the padding and netting would have to be pretty extensive all over Heavenly Valley. After hitting 2 trees last year (one black eye from a Limb and one slighltly damaged rotator cuff and completely trashing parka I have solved this problem with some common sense. I have slowed down in the trees - DUH.
post #49 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by contec View Post
Seriously, netting? I very much doubt you've hit DH speeds in your life.
Ooh, the gauntlet. Post your DH points, since you can talk such game obviously you've got the skills to back it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
I think trees along blue groomers are just a modern form of natural selection.
I'd say the same about guardrails.

You live in the US runner up to the ultimate nanny-state. The winner is California of course. You should try moving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinn View Post
If you want to ski so fast or so out of control you need nets on a groomer to protect yourself from yourself or other people, then you're doing something wrong.
Really? So you never freeski on GS skis or SG skis?

Just idly cruising along on my 29m/193cm everyday skis I'm going more than fast enough to die if I happen to hit something hard. I hope for your sake you recognize that if you ski at even very reasonable speed into a lift tower, you might not do well. What with common sense and all, I try not to hit anything. Your post appears full of hubris. Are you suggesting you can ski all your life and never fall, because you are always in control? Sounds a) like BS and b) pretty boring. I probably don't need nets, but it is sort of hard to say. If you read about my massive internal injuries in a paper someday you'll know I did.

As to safety labels: If you like thinking for yourself, move someplace where the government doesn't micromanage your life. Otherwise, talking about how you want less of these BS signs and crimes against evolution in your life comes across a bit like pointless whining. Believe it or not, there are still states that are more West than West Jersey. CO chain law: Pages of requirements, enforced by gubbernment employees at great cost to taxpayers. NM Chain law: If you want to chain up, go for it pal.

I am not in favor of putting nets on every blue run on earth. I think it would be large PITA and waste of money. OTOH, I would far prefer nets on these runs to some government or ski area telling me I'm required to wear a helmet...at least the nets might actually help me someday. Mandatory helmet rules are utterly asinine and out of place in skiing. Voluntary installation of netting might actually make some sense, yet it results in a furious outcry of rage that someone might sully the designs of Galapagos Chuck D. This is a weird and irrational reaction.
post #50 of 126
Honestly, I don't see a problem with taking trees, and other dangerous obstacles, out of the equation on blues where it is feesible. Leave the "deadly" (OOOooohh) obstacles on the advanced runs. Who gives a rat's arse about blues anyway?
post #51 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
Leave the "deadly" (OOOooohh) obstacles on the advanced runs. Who gives a rat's arse about blues anyway?
This is a valid point. The comments about limiting the access to the tree skiing struck me as funny for that reason.

The cost would be fairly tremendous. Net systems could probably be mass produced for considerably less money if the market grew, though the maintenance cost would always be huge, particularly at places where snowmaking equipment is dragged around all the time. But would it be worth it? I don't know and I really doubt it, but I do know the argument about helmets is moot when the problem is people skiing or sliding off groomed terrain at speeds that lead to death.
post #52 of 126
I'm with ya. I don't think the thinning the herd philosophy should apply as "death penalty for intermediate skier hooking an edge on intermediate run not going that fast with a helmet'. I know for a fact they used to at least line the runs with green snow landscape fencing, but that probably caused many minor injuries and kids like me just hopped over it anyway. Anyway, at the least it might knock down an out of control skier before they hit the woods (so they could sue the resort for the busted knee like the other person shrewdly pointed out). Still the lesser of evils IMO, but leave the blacks alone.
post #53 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishEH View Post
How about "ski under control"?
Yes, if you don't, you're basically assuming all risk. Helmets aren't the answer, people die wearing helmets too.

Quote:
I will say that it amazes me the difference in safety precautions taken between ski areas. Things that should be netted or padded ar very often not. Especially at the older resorts.
You're kidding right? Of course everything isn't padded or netted. Do you realize that this is completely impossible ( especially at the mountain where I ski, ie snowbird. ) Please don't ruin it by suggesting this should be the case!
post #54 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
I know for a fact they used to at least line the runs with green snow landscape fencing
No, no, no this is not the solution. If my favorite ski area starts doing this, I will stop skiing. What's the point of skiing if they *force* you to ski groomed runs and prevent you from going into the trees. Don't even suggest it, (true) skiing will die.
post #55 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by catskills View Post
I try to avoid blue groomers. There much too dangerous. People always skiing way to fast hitting each other. I ski on safer trails like black diamond mogul trails or the woods. Its much safer that way.
I have to agree with this. The the solution doesn't involve a fence or netting.
post #56 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahPowderPig View Post
No, no, no this is not the solution. If my favorite ski area starts doing this, I will stop skiing. What's the point of skiing if they *force* you to ski groomed runs and prevent you from going into the trees. Don't even suggest it, (true) skiing will die.
Read the thread, I said do it for intermediates/blues. Leave the blacks. Hooking an edge shouldn't be fatal for an intermediate skier wearing a helmet.
post #57 of 126
No, no. We need safety netting on the highways. Do you realize how easy it would be to die if you drove off the road into a rock cut. We need to petition the nanny state to put some netting along every major highway!

And we need to close the roads down when it rains.

And we need smart cars that drive themselves.

And maybe skis that ski themselves, no, wait, we can just ride the lift back down.:

(he says hoping not to become the next fatality cruising blacks on his super-gs tomorrow after a few short hours of sleep)
post #58 of 126
Have lurked this thread, and now it's time for me to chime in with the obvious solution. ALL skiers shall be required to wear inflatable sumo outfits, thus allowing appropriate defensive bouncing off of all harmful obstacles. And if you elect the correct person in November, your gubmint will subsidize its purchase...
post #59 of 126
Interesting discussion here - kinda like rubbernecking at a massive pile-up on the highway.

To me, here's the bottom line: skiing is dangerous by design. And it doesn't help that technological improvements in skis and boots have made folks who used to be the cautious new participants into people who feel (falsely) like super-skiers without the proper training. When you funnel these skiers in with truly proficient skiers, the cautious beginners, and the rest, onto the most common of trails, and mix in the added variable of snow conditions, there's a high likelihood that a skier (or snowboarder) can and will hit a tree with dire consequences.

Perhaps that's what it all boils down to: there's no proficiency exam required to ski on various kinds of trails. And in the United States, there's a natural tendency by many skiers to not take any lessons beyond the introductory session. You see it all the time with teens and college-age skiers: they'll go to the resort in a pack for something like Spring Break, and the newbies will take a day of intro lessons before being dragged into the big time by their (sometimes) more proficient friends. So there are entire generations of skiers who possess nothing more than the most rudimentary skills, not caring about control, technique, or whatever.

But that's another thing entirely.

If I recall, the example of junior racers training GS without any safety nets was an example used by the original poster. And when I was a junior racer, we did that all the time (at Solitude, Utah, on the Serenity F.I.S. trail). And there were some high-speed crashes that would often take us toward - and sometimes into - the trees. I remember crashing into a tree well one spring: I wasn't hurt, though my GS training skis were bent beyond repair.

Since then, many of the more financially endowed teams have invested in safety measures for their training use. Some, like those that train at Park City Mountain Resort or Vail, have the luxury of racers-only training facilities that have B-netting installed in all dangerous sections of the run. In the case of Park City, this is an attractive aspect to the facility, and many teams book the two available trails in the Eagle Race Arena for the unique training and safety opportunities (and it's a booking nightmare for the PCMR Race Department).

But for teams that don't have such luxuries, either due to financial challenges or due to resort resistance (B-netting is involved to install and remove, and can hinder grooming operations in some situations), the risk is certainly there. And there are cases of serious injury from such scenarios a few times every season. It's tragic that they happen, but it is part of the inherent risk of skiing - a risk that is increased when race elements are introduced.

In terms of recreational skiing, I think that there are limits to the amount of safety a resort can reasonably provide vis-a-vis the consumer demand. If a resort becomes too sanitized - the aforementioned "Disneyland" factor - it runs the risk of alienating a potential customer base. And for the resorts, the bottom line is always hanging overhead.

So there's a balance that is struck, often in different ways by different resorts to cater to the perceived clientèle. And it may not seem ideal to some - it may be overkill, or it may seem like too little - but the compromise is what we get.

Just my $0.02 - your mileage may vary.
post #60 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by DropCliffsNotBombs View Post
If you think that people need to be protected from themselves because they otherwise would kill themselves then you need to stay inside, learn to play chess, and get a life. How do these same idiots that you speak of cross the road all by themselves?! If anyone is blindly jumping off stuff without looking and hurting themselves, then they are just dumbasses! Please don't propose that we bring the whole sport of skiing down to the level of these idiots!
Where do you stop coddling dumbassses? Sending them out in bubble-wrap suits with sirens mounted on the top of their helmets and lawyers in tow?!
STOP SKIING MORON!.....it's much safer!!!

P.S.- a meteor might crash into your house right now...to be safe, better get under the table!

Relax man. No need to get bent out of shape. I DON'T think trees should be fenced off. Lift poles and other such obstacles, especially considering the odd placement sometimes, yes they should have something around them to lessen the impact. Say a pad. I don't think we should protect people from themselves. Everyone needs to take responsibility for taking part in risky sport. I don't think we should coddle dumbasses but something should be done when a lift pole is stuck right smack in the middle of an already too narrow midwest ski run. I personally don't have a problem avoiding trees or obstacles but I see an awful lot of people who do. And I don't appreciate YOU calling ME a MORON. I will not respond by calling you names. I don't want to bring this thread down to YOUR level.
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 › How not to run into trees while skiing on groomed blue terrain