EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Punishment for Loss of Control
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Punishment for Loss of Control - Page 3

post #61 of 89
Thread Starter 
Ye shall know the fart, and the fart shall set ye free.
post #62 of 89
Not to beat the dead horse too many times, but I do feel this is an important issue that many people are blithely unaware of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
I've never done that or even seen it done, but I'd bet that goes something like 50/50 if the consequences are trivial. I've avoided being "bumped" in supermarket parking lots by reckless drivers too many times to count...do you call the cops every time that happens? Or are we agreeing that the consequences are important?
In theory, you're supposed to exchange insurance information and report any vehicle-vehicle or vehicle-person collision (in most states). In practice, if no damage occurred then this often isn't done.

Consequences do matter, but so does the amount of 'recklessness' and danger. Allowing reckless behavior as long as you don't hurt anybody is not a good policy. And a low-probability, extremely bad outcome from a tiny mistake also should not be punished the same way as gross negligence. For instance, if you slightly bump someone in line at a lift and they awkwardly fall and tear their ACL, that's not the same as if you smash into someone while out of control at speed and they sustain the same injury. One is bordering on a freak accident, the other is being extremely reckless.

I've called the police while driving on the highway if I see a car speeding/weaving dangerously through traffic, or that is clearly being driven by a drunk driver late at night. If I saw someone on the slopes who was clearly a danger to themselves or others, I'd tell ski patrol about them.

Quote:
There is no justifiable excuse for colliding with someone, period, end of story.
Quote:
Having actually skied quite a bit, I'm fairly certain there are many, many skier collisions where both parties would find the above statement very peculiar and off base. I'd describe particular examples, but I fear I'd be patronizing. If you'd like I'll go for it.
I agree that exact statement is, at best, extreme.

There are definitely cases where a collision can happen with no real fault on the part of either person involved. There is a much broader range of situations where there may have been some small fault, but very unexpected events also happened. In situations where avoiding the collision would have required extreme or abnormal actions, it is often chalked up as a risk of the sport. There are also situations where at least one person made very poor decisions. "Skiing is inherently risky" is not a blanket excuse for allowing reckless behavior.

Quote:
Makes sense. If someone is careening down a slope steep and hard enough that self arrest is unlikely and a slide for life is expected in case of a fall, do you have the same feeling, or would you consider it partially your responsibility to avoid the obvious risks from uphill, and thus ask for the police report to include your negligence?
I would have a hard time blaming a nonmoving skier for almost any collision (let alone calling them "negligent"), unless they were stopped in a location where they could not easily be seen from uphill or that for some other reason was a very 'bad' place to stop. To be fair, that might include purposefully stopping on a very steep, icy, and/or narrow section of trail where other skiers would have a very hard time avoiding them. But if someone is visible from uphill, and it is possible for someone skiing in control to avoid them or stop, anyone who hits them is at fault to some extent. At least IMO. If the nonmoving person purposefully stopped in a bad location, they might both be at fault. (Consider that they may be stopped there because they are hurt, or lost a ski, etc.)

Skiers/riders have a responsibility to avoid collisions with people who are downhill -- which might mean slowing down or even stopping if you see people ahead of you in certain areas. To me, deliberately putting yourself in a situation where a simple mistake is likely to cause a collision is itself negligent, because sometimes bad things happen.

Like someone else mentioned, 'defensive skiing' is somewhat necessary around other people. If you hit someone, and it could have reasonably been avoided, you're probably at fault. Of course, this is to some extent a matter of degree, and not everyone will agree on how 'reasonable' certain actions are in all situations. If push comes to shove, a jury of your peers will decide for you.

Quote:
This strikes me as odd. Are there not hills covered in snow in your region of the world that do not have lifts? It might not be the most attractive option to you, but I'd be surprised if it isn't an option.
Okay, okay, you do have a point there.

On public land that I could reasonably access? I guess there is some terrain, but it would certainly be much more of a PITA and much less fun.

Quote:
I certainly agree with this point. My point about avoiding the risk is pragmatic. If you can't tolerate the risk that exists right now (and it is substantial) you should fight to change the system while concurrently avoiding the risk, with the latter being more effective in the short term.
Absolutely.
post #63 of 89
A good old fashioned caning would learn 'em.

post #64 of 89
I don't usually have to worry about collisions when skiing (I did for a short while when I was into making circles and spent some time skiing up hill), but occasionally I find my self running blocker uphill from my son or daughter. In that role I always revert to gentle redirection a la tai chi. However there are times I've been very tempted to use a hard block. Sometimes just setting up a guard using a ski pole to reinforce the forearm works quite well to deflect and somewhat punish errant skiers without doing too much damage.
post #65 of 89

NOT Recommended, But Funny

This happened to a friend of mine - we'll call him "Tim" - who is fairly burly and an expert skier. Tim was skiing at a moderate pace down an intermediate slope when - out of the blue - a guy comes barreling up from behind and sideswipes him, causing him to fall. The anonymous skier - we'll call him "Bonehead" -managed to stay upright and skied away without a glance or word.

Tim was incensed. He got up quickly and began a mad rush downhill to catch Bonehead. You know what he did when he reached him? Purposely ran into him, knocking Bonehead to the ground. (Of this, Tim is not proud.)

He then went up to Bonehead, grabbed him by the front of his jacket and yelled directly into his face: "If ... you ... make ... someone ... fall ... you ... cannot ... leave ... until ... you ... make ... sure ... he's ... okay. [pause] ARE YOU OKAY?"

Bonehead gave a weak nod, and Tim skied off, feeling simultaneously embarrassed and elated.
post #66 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias99 View Post
In theory, you're supposed to exchange insurance information and report any vehicle-vehicle or vehicle-person collision (in most states).
I've never lived in a state where an accident without injury or significant (>500 bones) property damage was required to be reported, AFAIK. This is sane. This was the case even when I lived on the Nanny Coast.
Quote:
I would have a hard time blaming a nonmoving skier for almost any collision (let alone calling them "negligent"), unless they were stopped in a location where they could not easily be seen from uphill which happens all the time or that for some other reason was a very 'bad' place to stop. (also happens all the time)
My bold additions.

Let me tell you about the last slide for life I took. At a closed ski area, I hiked along the white ribbon on a nominally green run, though it has several rather steep sections perhaps reaching 20 degrees. Some serious freeze had occurred, and the white ribbon was as shiny and hard as a skating rink. At some point after beginning the descent I fell at very low speed while crossing some paddle tracks from a cat. A mistake on my part.

Despite my best attempts at self-arresting I accelerated and followed the path of water. I probably reached 15-20mph...more than fast enough to seriously injure someone. After several hundred yards sliding for life on a green run, I slid out into rocky grassland and finally stopped with no injuries except battered hands/knuckles and a few bruises. It definitely got the heart working. Some facts of note: I've seen open ski runs that slippery, sometimes even with lots of manmade obstacles, though most times patrol will close them in such poor conditions. I was wearing a typical shell, instead of a GS suit that would have slowed me down considerably. I was aware that a fall would be risky, and I chose a route that I thought would have little consequence if I slid. There was no one around except my partners, and if anyone had been around I would have found an alternate route. I knew how risky a fall would be in those conditions in part because I have a lot of experience.

How scary and unexpected might such a ride be for a new skier? Is the new skier expected to understand that they might fall and be unable to stop for 10, 20, 30 seconds? Are they, now out of control, responsible for the actions of everyone downhill who is in control and could prudently look uphill before they move, or move when they hear something approaching?

For someone of my experience, stopping anywhere in the "path of water" on that run would be reckless and stupid, even though it is a green run for beginning skiers. For someone new to the sport, it might be called a learning experience, and it might be unavoidable if they fall. The reality is that in the course of gaining experience, we sometimes get hurt. There are ways to minimize that risk, but none make it go away, and skiing always has been a dangerous sport....long before anyone thought of suing someone who ran into them on skis.

To put this in perspective, many hockey coaches don't let their players ski. Sane outsiders recognize skiing isn't golf. It is a group of semi-experienced semi-educated skiers who think that the sport should be "safe". It isn't.
Quote:
To me, deliberately putting yourself in a situation where a simple mistake is likely to cause a collision is itself negligent, because sometimes bad things happen.
I agree, but that is easy for me because I'm experienced and I've seen it happen...an awful lot.

Skiing isn't driving. There is no test required for someone to go out and enjoy the ski area. There is no book of laws designed to regulate behavior on the slopes. Compare a typical V&T book to the Skier Code that fits on the ticket and note that one activity is rather obviously regulated less than the other. This is sane, as the consequences of human error on skis are vastly smaller individually and as a group.

Folks who would prefer that skiing be more like driving can, IMHO, DIAF. If you want to participate in some highly regulated boring activity there are plenty to choose from.

Suing other skiers for personal injury should be limited to a small number of extreme cases, much like it is in most sports. The vast majority of injuries "caused by others" in hockey, baseball, basketball, soccer, etc. do not result in lawsuits. This is also the case in skiing at the moment, and it should stay that way.
Quote:
If push comes to shove, a jury of your peers will decide for you.
Incredibly unlikely. A jury will decide, but they won't likely be my peers in the same sense that I'm not a peer reviewing medical literature. These matters are unique to skiing and should be solved by skiers in the vast majority of cases. Lawsuits are a symptom of skiing failing to take care of skiing. This is a recent trend, and there are reasons for that.
Quote:
On public land that I could reasonably access? I guess there is some terrain, but it would certainly be much more of a PITA and much less fun.
The more people that think this, the better for the rest of us.

edit: just checked, and you do live in the Nanny State. Yeah, I'm sure the non-lift-served mostly sucks there, but VT and NH aren't far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altanaut
He then went up to Bonehead, grabbed him by the front of his jacket and yelled directly into his face: "If ... you ... make ... someone ... fall ... you ... cannot ... leave ... until ... you ... make ... sure ... he's ... okay. [pause] ARE YOU OKAY?"
Nice. Good to see some skiers still teach others how this sport works. Of course threatening to sue everyone for minor collisions will only make Bonehead's behavior more common.
post #67 of 89
I found early in my skiing that being on the runs was unnerving because of reckless behavior. So I started skiing in the trees or where there was unfavorable snow conditions. To my delight I found the only skiers out there were either in control or just trying to stay upright and survive. To this day I stay in the Trees where I belong.
post #68 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wannabe View Post
I don't disagree, but I'd also like to add:

By choosing to ski, you assume the risk of doing something to someone else and bearing that responsibility.

Just like driving a car, yes, I know something bad will happen eventually, and I think the risk is worth it. But I do not expect anyone to "give me the benefit of the doubt" for driving my car over their kid.
I have read that strict liability does not apply to skiing. That would seem to indicate that a skier is not legally responsible for any and all harm resulting from his actions. But only for harm that is the result of negligence or intentional assault.
post #69 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altanaut View Post
This happened to a friend of mine - we'll call him "Tim" - who is fairly burly and an expert skier. Tim was skiing at a moderate pace down an intermediate slope when - out of the blue - a guy comes barreling up from behind and sideswipes him, causing him to fall. The anonymous skier - we'll call him "Bonehead" -managed to stay upright and skied away without a glance or word.

Tim was incensed. He got up quickly and began a mad rush downhill to catch Bonehead. You know what he did when he reached him? Purposely ran into him, knocking Bonehead to the ground. (Of this, Tim is not proud.)

He then went up to Bonehead, grabbed him by the front of his jacket and yelled directly into his face: "If ... you ... make ... someone ... fall ... you ... cannot ... leave ... until ... you ... make ... sure ... he's ... okay. [pause] ARE YOU OKAY?"

Bonehead gave a weak nod, and Tim skied off, feeling simultaneously embarrassed and elated.
That's pretty funny. As you said, not advisable, but still funny.
post #70 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altanaut View Post
This happened to a friend of mine - we'll call him "Tim" - who is fairly burly and an expert skier. Tim was skiing at a moderate pace down an intermediate slope when - out of the blue - a guy comes barreling up from behind and sideswipes him, causing him to fall. The anonymous skier - we'll call him "Bonehead" -managed to stay upright and skied away without a glance or word.

Tim was incensed. He got up quickly and began a mad rush downhill to catch Bonehead. You know what he did when he reached him? Purposely ran into him, knocking Bonehead to the ground. (Of this, Tim is not proud.)

He then went up to Bonehead, grabbed him by the front of his jacket and yelled directly into his face: "If ... you ... make ... someone ... fall ... you ... cannot ... leave ... until ... you ... make ... sure ... he's ... okay. [pause] ARE YOU OKAY?"

Bonehead gave a weak nod, and Tim skied off, feeling simultaneously embarrassed and elated.
if he was an expert hed be skiing all the time where he cant get hit
post #71 of 89
The defensive skiing idea is important. When you are in a high-risk of collision area is not the time to work on your technique, or time to tuck cause you are late to a meeting. It's time to be vigilant about traffic and ski conservatively. (Skiing just slightly faster than the traffic is probably the safest.)

Truly difficult trails rarely get crowded enough to be dangerous to other people, even in the East. Its the connecting blues that are the more common problem, with a miix of fast skiers trying to get somewhere else and intermediates skiing the slope for its own sake.
post #72 of 89

why do you call it WROD? maybe because its dangerous?

ok,i had to google WROD, but when there is only one lane on shitty snow,you cant expect much. stay home until there is more space and avoid gaper days
post #73 of 89
Ski defensively! Enough sense should be had to understand how to stop and be aware of surroundings before even hitting the lift. People who ski carelessly and oblivious to their surroundings should have their passes taken or at the very least warned.

A friend's leg was broken when a careless skier plowed into her--a horrible experience that could have been completely avoided. When the collision gets to be of that proportion, I definitely think the law needs to get involved...it was just plain recklessness and caused lots of pain, cost lots of money and recovery time.
post #74 of 89
Situation Awareness-Respect=People who are carelessly and oblivious to their surroundings. A formula for disaster.
post #75 of 89
I used to ski too fast, just to keep idiots from running into me. I never hit anyone, but I'm sure some people thought I was skiing recklessly, going so fast, when in fact I was just trying to stay out of reach of the idiots.
When I decided to slow down, I had to face the danger of being hit from behind; I consider it worth the risk, since i fit the profile of the middle aged experienced skier who kills himself going into the trees on a blue run.
post #76 of 89
Being a former hockey player I make sure to have my elbow up and deliver it right to the head when I see someone coming at me.
post #77 of 89
I think you'd have to prove negligence. When you get in a Car Accident there is often a layer of fault in both drivers. You were on a very busy ski slope. Did some person cut off the lady by skiing over her ski tips when that person had also been cut off because the the slope is so over crowded where all open runs of the day joined, as you mentioned, and then the poor lady that lost control when someone skied over her tips, proceded to ski over your wife's tips and then ski into you.....oh, And did your wife suddenly stop when this happened and cause someone else to lose control, and when you fell, did you land on anyone??????

Who was truly negligent in this accident? Did you see everything that happened and what caused this poor lady you farted on to lose control? Who was truly negligent, maybe the ski hill for selling too many tickets on their limited slopes? Was it merely ski hill conditions that were at fault this day?

Just a few things you might consider before labeling every poor sod you run into as an out of control idiot.
post #78 of 89
Have you or a loved one been run over or startled on the ski slopes of North America??
IF SO CALL 1 800 ski hill and talk to one of our knowledgable law interns to seek financial gains and become part of the outta control class action suit !!!
post #79 of 89
Quote:
I've never lived in a state where an accident without injury or significant (>500 bones) property damage was required to be reported, AFAIK. This is sane. This was the case even when I lived on the Nanny Coast.
Really? My understanding was that this was the case almost everywhere.

Quote:
How scary and unexpected might such a ride be for a new skier?
Extremely. An inexperienced skier should not be in conditions like that. If a resort is keeping nominally "beginner" slopes open when they're sheets of ice, that is extremely poor policy.

Quote:
Is the new skier expected to understand that they might fall and be unable to stop for 10, 20, 30 seconds?
New skiers should not be on terrain where they could fall and slide for 10 or 20 or 30 seconds without stopping, but that might be a different discussion unless you are talking about people who deliberately ski on terrain where they cannot stay in control.

All skiers should be aware that they're responsible for what happens if someone gets hurt because of their actions.

I've had bad falls and slid a long way on ice, too. If there were people below me I would have been much more cautious. If I slid at high speed and hurt somebody downhill -- it probably would have been my fault, not theirs.

Quote:
Are they, now out of control, responsible for the actions of everyone downhill who is in control and could prudently look uphill before they move, or move when they hear something approaching?
Why are the people down the hill now responsible for making sure that something uphill doesn't hit them all the time? Do you stand facing uphill every time you are stopped? What if I "hear something approaching" but I don't react fast enough to get out of the way? (You might be talking 1-2 seconds of time here if they're really moving fast.) Or if I'm skiing at a slow to moderate pace and someone out of control hits me from behind at a much higher speed?

You can't reasonably expect downhill skiers to be responsible for avoiding collisions resulting from the actions of uphill skiers in most cases. It would be like making drivers responsible when they are hit from behind -- they could have seen that car coming up from behind them and moved out of the way, right? I'm not trying to say that "skiing should be more like driving", but there is a certain logic to how driving rules work that often parallels how skiers are expected to behave. I'm curious why you don't think it should apply here.

People agree to certain rules at ski areas -- maybe implicitly, if they're not paying attention. The relevant ones here are basically "stay in control" and "don't hit people who are downhill from you". You'll note there is no rule that says "watch uphill all the time and move out of the way if someone is coming towards you".

Quote:
Incredibly unlikely. A jury will decide, but they won't likely be my peers in the same sense that I'm not a peer reviewing medical literature. These matters are unique to skiing and should be solved by skiers in the vast majority of cases. Lawsuits are a symptom of skiing failing to take care of skiing. This is a recent trend, and there are reasons for that.
Assuming people aren't just suing out of spite, lawsuits should only happen if there is a major disagreement about fault or responsibility (or the extent of damages, maybe). If there is an accident, and one party is at fault for it, and they (or, more likely, their insurance company) won't take responsibility for the aftermath, they're probably going to get sued.

Juries are composed of your "peers" in the sense that they are average people who will listen to what both parties have to say and make a decision on the information that is presented. (In theory.) If most people are swayed by the argument that skiing is inherently risky and <insert accident here> could not reasonably have been predicted or avoided, or that <insert skier here> should not be held responsible because <mitigating factor here>, then the person suing over it will not win. If you can't convince average people that your argument has merit -- maybe the problem isn't with the people, but with your argument.

Quote:
Suing other skiers for personal injury should be limited to a small number of extreme cases, much like it is in most sports. The vast majority of injuries "caused by others" in hockey, baseball, basketball, soccer, etc. do not result in lawsuits. This is also the case in skiing at the moment, and it should stay that way.
What you seem to be saying is that there shouldn't be fault (in a legal sense) for skiing accidents caused by anything short of willful, reckless behavior. That would certainly cut down on the number of lawsuits, but I'm not sure it would be good for the safety of most skiers. I don't think skiing should be "safe" in the "nobody should ever get hurt while skiing" sense, but I do think that you should try to minimize stupid risks.

In all the other activities you mentioned, physical contact with other people (sometimes at high intensity) is expected to occur as a matter of course. If I block somebody at the basket in a pickup basketball game, and they fall down and twist their ankle -- it's not my fault, because I didn't do anything wrong. Skiing is not supposed to be a contact sport; if someone else hits you, almost by definition they did something "wrong". The question is whether it was "wrong" enough to be responsible (or completely responsible) for what happened to you after they hit you. If the parties involved can't agree on responsibility, the legal system provides recourse for that. If people are going to lawsuits before trying to work things out, it's a problem with the people and not the lawsuits.

It has to fall to individuals to be responsible for their own actions. You can't just say "Well, I made some horribly bad mistakes and seriously injured you, but I was skiing, so I don't have to be responsible for it." If people are not responsible, there is no incentive for them to avoid actions that are likely to cause accidents.
post #80 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias99 View Post
Really? My understanding was that this was the case almost everywhere.
No. There are a lot of policies in your state that don't reflect what is typical in the United States. These policies have an insidious effect on the people that live on the Nanny Coasts...to the point where you think it is normal that the government would require you report a trivial incident with your automobile. It turns out in this case MA actually follows exactly the sort of precedent I'm used to:

You should file a report if you’re the operator of a vehicle involved in a crash where the damage to any one vehicle or
property is over $1000, or if there is an injury to any person, even if a police officer was on the scene. You should fil
the report within 5 days of the date of the crash.

http://www.mass.gov/rmv/forms/21278.pdf
Quote:
If I slid at high speed and hurt somebody downhill -- it probably would have been my fault, not theirs.
One time I watched a runaway snowboard hit someone and break their arm. Fault: 100% with the person who got injured. Why? The injured party was sleeping smack in the middle of the runout to a very steep bowl with obvious and lethal natural hazards such as falling rock, ice, snow plus obvious manmade hazards with large numbers of people. That someone happened to drop a snowboard above is irrelevant: there was zero excuse for being asleep facing away from such tremendous hazards.
Quote:
Why are the people down the hill now responsible for making sure that something uphill doesn't hit them all the time? Do you stand facing uphill every time you are stopped?
If there are hazards above me I always face uphill or across hill while watching uphill. That is basic safe skiing, and should be taught in the first hour ski lesson. Depending on risk, I often avoid stopping in a places with hazards altogether. Do you stop in terrain traps?
Quote:
Or if I'm skiing at a slow to moderate pace and someone out of control hits me from behind at a much higher speed?
That "someone" could very easily be "something". Like a chunk of cornice. Or a boulder. Or a slab of snow. If the "someone" is out of control because the terrain is sufficiently steep and slick that falls result in long slides, you fail if you get hit from behind. Your situational awareness was inadequate and you paid for your negligence. If someone hits you from behind in circumstances where uncontrolled uphill hazards aren't expected, then of course they are at fault and should be dealt with accordingly.
Quote:
You can't reasonably expect downhill skiers to be responsible for avoiding collisions resulting from the actions of uphill skiers in most cases.
I've been avoiding collisions with uphill skiers with 100% success for about 15 years now. I was taught at a very young age to do so, in accordance with the skier code.
Quote:
It would be like making drivers responsible when they are hit from behind
They are. Enter a road unsafely, get hit from behind, and be found at fault and potentially held accountable by the law depending on consequence. Get hit from behind while idling along an interstate without traffic or hazard in front of you? Your fault.

Be hit from behind in situations where you are found not-at-fault too often, and your insurer will raise your rates and punish you for your claims history. Safer drivers don't just avoid causing accidents, they avoid them altogether.
Quote:
I'm curious why you don't think it should apply here.
Giant mischaracterization. Fail.
Quote:
You'll note there is no rule that says "watch uphill all the time and move out of the way if someone is coming towards you".
No, it is actually more general. The old version says don't obstruct a trail, full stop. The new version says stop in a safe place for yourself and others. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to determine that stopping in the middle of a WROD isn't safe for anyone and constitutes an obstruction.

Take responsibility for your actions, including where and how you stop.
Quote:
Skiing is not supposed to be a contact sport
The risk of collision is inherent. Less common or acceptable than in basketball, more common and acceptable than in golf. Skiing is supposed to be skiing, nothing more or less.

The rest of your post doesn't contain a single item I disagree with substantially and is mostly redundant.
post #81 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
No. There are a lot of policies in your state that don't reflect what is typical in the United States. These policies have an insidious effect on the people that live on the Nanny Coasts...to the point where you think it is normal that the government would require you report a trivial incident with your automobile. It turns out in this case MA actually follows exactly the sort of precedent I'm used to:

You should file a report if you’re the operator of a vehicle involved in a crash where the damage to any one vehicle or
property is over $1000, or if there is an injury to any person, even if a police officer was on the scene. You should fil
the report within 5 days of the date of the crash.

http://www.mass.gov/rmv/forms/21278.pdf
One time I watched a runaway snowboard hit someone and break their arm. Fault: 100% with the person who got injured. Why? The injured party was sleeping smack in the middle of the runout to a very steep bowl with obvious and lethal natural hazards such as falling rock, ice, snow plus obvious manmade hazards with large numbers of people. That someone happened to drop a snowboard above is irrelevant: there was zero excuse for being asleep facing away from such tremendous hazards.
If there are hazards above me I always face uphill or across hill while watching uphill. That is basic safe skiing, and should be taught in the first hour ski lesson. Depending on risk, I often avoid stopping in a places with hazards altogether. Do you stop in terrain traps?
That "someone" could very easily be "something". Like a chunk of cornice. Or a boulder. Or a slab of snow. If the "someone" is out of control because the terrain is sufficiently steep and slick that falls result in long slides, you fail if you get hit from behind. Your situational awareness was inadequate and you paid for your negligence. If someone hits you from behind in circumstances where uncontrolled uphill hazards aren't expected, then of course they are at fault and should be dealt with accordingly.
I've been avoiding collisions with uphill skiers with 100% success for about 15 years now. I was taught at a very young age to do so, in accordance with the skier code.
They are. Enter a road unsafely, get hit from behind, and be found at fault and potentially held accountable by the law depending on consequence. Get hit from behind while idling along an interstate without traffic or hazard in front of you? Your fault.

Be hit from behind in situations where you are found not-at-fault too often, and your insurer will raise your rates and punish you for your claims history. Safer drivers don't just avoid causing accidents, they avoid them altogether.
Giant mischaracterization. Fail.
No, it is actually more general. The old version says don't obstruct a trail, full stop. The new version says stop in a safe place for yourself and others. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to determine that stopping in the middle of a WROD isn't safe for anyone and constitutes an obstruction.

Take responsibility for your actions, including where and how you stop.
The risk of collision is inherent. Less common or acceptable than in basketball, more common and acceptable than in golf. Skiing is supposed to be skiing, nothing more or less.

The rest of your post doesn't contain a single item I disagree with substantially and is mostly redundant.
garrert I am creating a new political party. Libertarian-Darwinist I think me and you might be the first 2 members.
post #82 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias99 View Post
All skiers should be aware that they're responsible for what happens if someone gets hurt because of their actions.
I am curious where this is written. I posted earlier that my reading indicates that (at least in most states) there is no strict liability for skiing or skiers. Which to me means that a skier is not responsible anytime "someone gets hurt because of their actions."
post #83 of 89
Thread Starter 
I'm curious...do you folks see any difference between what the law requires and what your morals require? In my mind, even if the law doesn't say anything about skier liability, I feel like it's right to say that a skier is responsible for any damage they cause...

It's interesting how quickly we turn to The Man to solve our problems.
post #84 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wannabe View Post
It's interesting how quickly we turn to The Man to solve our problems.
Everybody should step-up and be The Man, anyway. People get hurt.
post #85 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
One time I watched a runaway snowboard hit someone and break their arm. Fault: 100% with the person who got injured. Why? The injured party was sleeping smack in the middle of the runout to a very steep bowl with obvious and lethal natural hazards such as falling rock, ice, snow plus obvious manmade hazards with large numbers of people. That someone happened to drop a snowboard above is irrelevant: there was zero excuse for being asleep facing away from such tremendous hazards.
...
Your situational awareness was inadequate and you paid for your negligence. If someone hits you from behind in circumstances where uncontrolled uphill hazards aren't expected, then of course they are at fault and should be dealt with accordingly.
I think at this point we're just splitting hairs over where stopping is "safe" (or at least "safe enough"). If you stop somewhere that makes it very hard for uphill skiers to avoid hitting you, then you are at least partly at fault if you get hit.

Obviously it is a good idea to be situationally aware, especially if you have reason to believe that uphill accidents are likely to occur. And I'm not saying the downhill skier shouldn't try to avoid accidents if they can. My position, however, is that unless the downhill skier has done something really dumb, I would have a hard time calling them "negligent" or actually at fault in a collision. But these situations get so specific that it is hard to generalize about them.

Quote:
They are. Enter a road unsafely, get hit from behind, and be found at fault and potentially held accountable by the law depending on consequence.
Different situation. That would more analagous to starting or merging onto a ski trail without checking uphill; clearly the downhill skier is at fault there.

Quote:
Get hit from behind while idling along an interstate without traffic or hazard in front of you? Your fault.
I'm not sure what you mean by "idling along an interstate" -- purposefully driving 5mph in a traffic lane on a busy interstate highway when everyone else is doing 55+? Sure, you're being an idiot. If you're going 5mph because your transmission just failed, and someone hits you from behind? Then it's the fault of the person behind you, since they were following you too closely. If you're going 40 in the right lane in a 55mph zone (maybe you're towing something big and awkward uphill) and someone plows into you from behind because they're not paying attention? Their fault.

Quote:
No, it is actually more general. The old version says don't obstruct a trail, full stop.
Which was kind of silly, because stopping anywhere "obstructs" some portion of the trail.

Quote:
The new version says stop in a safe place for yourself and others. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to determine that stopping in the middle of a WROD isn't safe for anyone and constitutes an obstruction.
Depends on how wide and steep the trail is, how many other people are around, how far in advance you can be seen... IMO you can't just say "you didn't stop in the absolute safest place possible, therefore you're at fault if you get hit". There is still responsibility on the uphill skier to try to avoid people regardless of where they stopped.

Quote:
Take responsibility for your actions, including where and how you stop.
I agree. You should always attempt to stop somewhere that is "safe". Again, I think we're just splitting hairs over how much responsibility should be placed on the downhill skier in that situation and how "safe" a place to stop needs to be.

Quote:
The risk of collision is inherent. Less common or acceptable than in basketball, more common and acceptable than in golf. Skiing is supposed to be skiing, nothing more or less.
Risk of collision is inherent due to accidents. Sometimes bad things happen and it really wasn't anybody's fault.

Other people being reckless or making very bad decisions is not "inherent" to skiing in the same way.
post #86 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post
I am curious where this is written. I posted earlier that my reading indicates that (at least in most states) there is no strict liability for skiing or skiers. Which to me means that a skier is not responsible anytime "someone gets hurt because of their actions."
I looked back through the thread, and I couldn't see where you had posted anything like this. Did you have an actual reference to some state law about skier liability?

My understanding is that, for the most part, ski areas are protected from liability, but that individual skiers are not. Certainly you would not be protected in cases of gross negligence (ie, you did something incredibly stupid and dangerous).
post #87 of 89
I am seeing a distinct line between cintrol and out of control being drawn by most people here. What about something that is purely an accident. In my sliding example, I ment to reflect a person who is standing and possibly bends to pick something up, or maybe turns to look uphill, and for some reason (admit it, we have all done it) just catches an edge and falls over. Your not moving, so how can you be out of control. Are you being reckless because gravity propels you down the hill at 9.8 meters per second per second less friction?

I have never been, so I am admitting that I am ignorant, but it seems that the "big mountain" skiers take themselves a little too seriously sometimes. I know thats a generalization, and forgive me, but stereotypes come from somewhere.

You are on a hill covered in frozen water, with devices attached to your feet designed to slide you doen the hill as quickly as possible.

I like the story from Altanaut- I bet the bonehead was a gaper who did not know any different. And after he washed his pants, I ll bet he never failed to stop after a fall again...

I actually work in insurance, and I am hally to say that there is no typical case. Fault is hardly ever cut and dry. I like the idea of being tried by a jury of your SKI PEERS, not by "Joe the plumer" who has never set foot in skis in his life... who better to know the subtle differences between recklessness and an accident. People are too quick to point a finger now a days. SOmetimes an accident is just an accident... and sometimes the gaper was lost, and sometimes the racer was sking unsafely in a crowd... but its never as cut and dry as it seems, unless of course, it is!
post #88 of 89
I did a little bit of searching, and turned up a few pages offering seemingly coherent legal discussions about this sort of thing:

http://www.chalathatten.com/CM/Articles/Articles36.asp

http://www.chalathatten.com/CM/Articles/Articles38.asp

A couple relevant passages:

Quote:
Skier/snowboarder collision cases
Collisions between skiers, or skiers and snowboarders, produce a unique type of case. In a downhill skiing accident case, the standard of care of a ski area operator is diminished to some extent by a doctrine of assumption of risk, as expressed in the Ski Act and as interpreted by case law. However, in a skier/skier collision, there is no assumption of risk, but an operating presumption that the uphill skier is at fault and is responsible for damages.

Collision cases are determined on a per se basis, under the statute, which requires all skiers to ski in control, exercise caution, maintain a lookout, yield to skiers already on trails, and avoid collision with skiers below. In an action between skiers, the risk of a skier/skier collision is not an "inherent risk." Thus, the "hittee" has a right of recovery against the negligent "hitter." A rebuttable presumption arises against the uphill skier that is similar to the presumption against the following car in a rear-end car accident case.
Ironically, however, a sharply divided California Supreme Court has held that in some instances a skier assumes the risk of a skier collision.


The trial of Nathan Hall was the first case in Colorado where felony reckless manslaughter charges were brought against a skier responsible for a fatal collision with another skier on a slope. The case went to trial after remand from the Colorado Supreme Court. People v. Hall, 999 P.2d 207 (Colo. 2000). The jury found Hall guilty of criminally negligent homicide.
Quote:
The laws differ, from state to state, on the duty of care one skier owes to another, in a skier collision case. The jurisdictions can be divided into two classifications. The prevailing view is holds skiers to a standard of reasonable care to avoid injury to another skier. The standard of care is usually founded on a statutory principle obliging a skier to exercise reasonable care, to yield the right of way to the skier below. One skier does not assume the risk of another's negligence; a skier collision is not a risk "inherent" in the sport. Skiing is not a contact sport. {For example, Ulissey v Shvartsman, 61 F3d 805; Novak v Virene, 586 NE2d 578; Martin v Luther, 642 NYS2d 728.}
In California, a claim by one skier against another for simple negligence, is barred as a matter of primary assumption of risk, under the "co-participant" rule. Absent reckless, wanton or intentional conduct, the injured skier is not permitted to recover. Cheong v Antablin, 946 P.2d 817. Yet a third rule has been announced by a federal court, applying Vermont law. There, the jury was instructed that they were to determine whether the collision was an inherent risk of skiing, thus allowing the collision to be considered as a matter of secondary assumption of risk. Dillworth v Gambardella, 970 F2d 1113.
From the practitioner's standpoint, therefore, skier collision cases can be serious, and comprise a genre of personal injury action which is becoming more common and more complex.

(emphases added)


This is basically what I've been saying -- but IANAL, and these cases are clearly complex and have to be looked at individually. The law also varies substantially from state to state.
post #89 of 89
Didn't read more than page 1, but I would never ever consider taking a novice skier/snowboarder to the hill during WROD early season conditions, it's way too dangerous for someone trying to learn the ropes.
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 › Punishment for Loss of Control