or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Who's at Fault? - Page 4

post #91 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetonpwdrjunkie View Post

I am pretty familiar with the code but, sadly, am not familiar with the parts that talk about "common sense and awareness" or "courtesy".

Here is the paper titled "Skier Responsibility Code" (sic):

http://skiing.about.com/od/safetyforskiers/a/skicode.htm

 

It should be easy to find references to "common sense", "best judgment", "courtesy", and "awareness".

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by exracer View Post

It's crazy to say that a skier on a groomed run needs to watch out for other skiers popping out from behind every tree on the edge of the run.  It shouldn't be necessary, and it isn't their responsibility.

 

Couldn't disagree more. Of course a skier needs to watch out for anything that may cause him/her injury or damage.

 

The bottom line should be -- while skiing, do all you can to avoid injury, equipment damage, etc. to you or people around you. That includes avoiding skiing along the tree line in collision zones, like the tree line in the video, where tree trails merge into the piste. This topic wouldn't exist if AngryBully was aware enough to move 10 ft or more to the right, regardless of TreeDude's violation of the rules. That would give all participants in this crash enough time and space to react properly.

 

Again, I am not making excuses for TreeDude, as has been implied to me on several occasions.

 

Also, the resort should put a "Trails Merge" signs in the area, it would help avoid collisions like this.

post #92 of 111

post #93 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post

amazed this is 3 pages.

 

Ditto... but I came in late and it looked like a lot of fun
 

post #94 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forerunner View Post

I have already admitted that I am aware that my opinion about shared guilt between the two is in a huge minority here. It doesn't bother me at all, and I am fine with that. Here is why:

 

Before I stop beating this half dead horse, one more question.

 

Would you ever pick this AngryBully line, that close to trees, with tree trails exits behind every big dense evergreen tree? As the footage clearly shows, it made the AngryBully unable to avoid other participants, even if those other participants were reckless themselves.

 

If your answer is yes, than it seems that you would voluntarily engage in risky skiing, knowingly or unknowingly, thus putting yourself in violation of the beloved Skier's Code. Not only that you would violate one of the spelled-out codes, but one of the main ingredients of the beloved Code - "common sense" - would be missing


If your answer is no, you need to explain to yourself how you can still believe that the AngryBully didn't do anything wrong before the crash.

 

So, would you ever pick this AngryBully line, that close to trees, with tree trails exits behind every big dense evergreen tree?

Yes, I would ski that line. That isn't in any way a "risky" line. Just as I would ski through those trees. Riskier, but still not what I would consider at all "risky".

 

Angry dude is an ass, but he is 0% at fault for the collision.
 

post #95 of 111

fc1903a4_crash.jpg

 

From that screen shot it appears that tree dude actually clipped angrydudea little from behind.  That would make angrydude the skier that was ahead/downhill at the time of impact.

post #96 of 111

I looked at your link and saw the code that I am familiar with.  No where did it say anything at all about "common sense, best judgment, courtesy, or awareness".  Did you even look at it?  

 

Skiing defensively is a very good idea, but it is not code.  In fact in my experience skiing defensively means that I yield when the code say I have right of way.  Either way I'm happy to avoid an accident or injury.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Forerunner View Post



Here is the paper titled "Skier Responsibility Code" (sic):

http://skiing.about.com/od/safetyforskiers/a/skicode.htm

 

It should be easy to find references to "common sense", "best judgment", "courtesy", and "awareness".

 

 

 

Couldn't disagree more. Of course a skier needs to watch out for anything that may cause him/her injury or damage.

 

The bottom line should be -- while skiing, do all you can to avoid injury, equipment damage, etc. to you or people around you. That includes avoiding skiing along the tree line in collision zones, like the tree line in the video, where tree trails merge into the piste. This topic wouldn't exist if AngryBully was aware enough to move 10 ft or more to the right, regardless of TreeDude's violation of the rules. That would give all participants in this crash enough time and space to react properly.

 

Again, I am not making excuses for TreeDude, as has been implied to me on several occasions.

 

Also, the resort should put a "Trails Merge" signs in the area, it would help avoid collisions like this.

post #97 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forerunner View Post
Also, the resort should put a "Trails Merge" signs in the area, it would help avoid collisions like this.

 

There isn't any trail merging. One guy is skiing from off the piste onto the piste.


 

post #98 of 111

No common sense, no best judgment, no merging trails.

 

That explains it and sums it up nicely. AngryBully also didn't want to see trails merging, and ignored common sense, best judgment, and, at the end, courtesy. No wonder, for him too it was always someone else's fault.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

From that screen shot it appears that tree dude actually clipped angrydudea little from behind.  That would make angrydude the skier that was ahead/downhill at the time of impact.


Interesting thought, although it is the other way around. The guy on the left is actually AngryBully, so, at least for a very short instance it was TreeDude who was ahead, and thus could claim the right of way. 

He could use it as his argument about being a victim of AngryBully's reckless skiing.

post #99 of 111

Hey at_nyc.... when was the last time YOU drove 15 in a 35?  Juuuuust curious...

Spag

post #100 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forerunner View Post

That explains it and sums it up nicely. AngryBully also didn't want to see trails merging, and ignored common sense, best judgment, and, at the end, courtesy. No wonder, for him too it was always someone else's fault.
 


The guy on the left is actually AngryBully, so, at least for a very short instance it was TreeDude who was ahead, and thus could claim the right of way. 

He could use it as his argument about being a victim of AngryBully's reckless skiing.

 

I just couldn't resist keeping my mouth shut any longer.

 

To repeat iWill's comment, there is no trail merging with the main run (not that it makes a difference to who was responsible).  The tree skier intersected from an off-piste opening between the trees in a dangerous manner so there was no intersecting trail for angry skier to even see or be aware of.  It was 100% the tree skier's responsibility to check himself and ensure it was safe to merge with the main trail.  Even if he had been on a proper trail, it would still be the tree skier's responsibility to ensure it was safe to enter the main trail (check for oncoming skiers).  The skier on the main run has the right of way over somebody intersecting from the side at approximately the same time, and it is the intersecting skier's responsibility to ensure it is safe to enter the run.... period.  It is rare that two trails merge together; almost always one is merging into the other (like this case) and the skier on the trail that is merging must check for faster skiers approaching on the run he is about to enter, especially if it's a blind corner.....  okay, I think I've repeated myself enough...enough... enough.

 

I once pulled out from a driveway onto a street, and an oncoming car was in my blind spot.  He collided with my right front fender (in my opinion he had plenty of time for evasive action, but didn't take it).  Who was deemed at fault?  It wasn't the guy who hit me, even though I was technically in front of him and he hit me, not the other way around.  I was deemed 100% responsible by the police and my insurance company because I had entered the street when it was unsafe to do so.... exactly the same way that tree skier did.  Fortunately the other driver didn't try to lay a beating on me, but he was livid, and rightly so.

 

Hopefully this silliness will end.  Your position on this simply isn't defensible.
 

One thing I agree with, though, is that the resort should place a caution/merge sign at that spot to try to get the intersecting off-piste skiers to slow down and look before they enter the main trail  It's obviously a dangerous spot and they probably have many near collisions at that point.

post #101 of 111

Since Forerunner keeps referring to the nailed skier as "Angrybully", I have to think that F is prejudiced.

Had the nailed skier reacted in a non physical way (one of the 1st things he called treeboy was "fool")

maybe F would see the crash in a realistic view.

About 45 sec. in the video the cause of this crash said , "I was out of control".

Whenever you cut into a trail, you better be in a downhill (in this case a left) turn.

Otherwise you are entering a freeway on the exit ramp.

Aside from putting a least one other poster on your "ignore" list (shiver!)

you must have put reality there also.

post #102 of 111


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John J View Post

Since Forerunner keeps referring to the nailed skier as "Angrybully", I have to think that F is prejudiced.

Had the nailed skier reacted in a non physical way (one of the 1st things he called treeboy was "fool")

maybe F would see the crash in a realistic view.

About 45 sec. in the video the cause of this crash said , "I was out of control".

Whenever you cut into a trail, you better be in a downhill (in this case a left) turn.

Otherwise you are entering a freeway on the exit ramp.

Aside from putting a least one other poster on your "ignore" list (shiver!)

you must have put reality there also.

John,

What kind of post is this? Are you trying to psycho-analyze me? This discussion shouldn't be about Forerunner, John, or Snowdude. It is about a collision and violence on the slopes. If you are interested in my reasons for filtering another participant, you should have asked and I would have explained to you that the reason was this: II consider it extremely rude to turn a discussion into personal attacks and ad-hominem arguments, something your post is very close to. I refuse to take part in those dialogs (this one is exception, as you implied the explanation was warranted), and the simplest way to do so is by filtering out the other participant. If you have an urge to discuss other posters, I suggest you open another topic and have fun there.

 

To try to steer it back to topic: You bet I am biased. A skier assaulted another skier after being involved in a collision to which he contributed himself, by violating this rule:

 

  • Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.

 

by skiing in a location with insufficient and obscured vision in the foothill of a merging trail, even if "other people" was a reckless skier himself. Should he have picked a safe line and/or adjusted his speed to safer level, the collision would have been easily avoided, and his aggressiveness would not have been exposed.. On top of that, his assault was despicable.

 

Having said that, I will try to close my participation in the discussion with this:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by exracer View Post

 

Hopefully this silliness will end.  Your position on this simply isn't defensible.

 

As I repeated about half a dozen times before, I am well aware of my position being at odds with just about every other participant's here.
 

post #103 of 111



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by exracer View Post



 

I just couldn't resist keeping my mouth shut any longer.

 

To repeat iWill's comment, there is no trail merging with the main run (not that it makes a difference to who was responsible).  The tree skier intersected from an off-piste opening between the trees in a dangerous manner so there was no intersecting trail for angry skier to even see or be aware of. 

 

While I agree with the general premise of the rest of your post I take exception to this part.  Unless you (or anybody else) here knows for certain this is not a trail that tree guy is on, it shouldn't be mentioned. There are plenty of (off piste type) "trails" that look like this in many areas that I ski at.   If you were in court and you said that without knowing for certain and it happened to be a named trail, council for the defense would have a field day with you. 

 

Head to the wide open Back Bowls at Vail for another example of trails that don't appear to be trails.  There are named areas of wide open expansive space there and they merge with other areas, all of which are treeless or lightly dotted with trees.  VERY tough to know when you merge with what, but our responsibility is unchanged under the code.  I fully agree that whether it is an actual trail or an off piste area the end result is the same.  Tree skier failed to grant the right of way to those on the "main trail".


 

One thing I agree with, though, is that the resort should place a caution/merge sign at that spot to try to get the intersecting off-piste skiers to slow down and look before they enter the main trail  It's obviously a dangerous spot and they probably have many near collisions at that point.

 

The generally accepted rule on this is that most areas will place a permanent or movable sign only in what would be considered dangerous high traffic areas.  I doubt this area would qualify as "high traffic" and if it isn't a "real trail" no sign would or should be placed.  Doing so would mean the area would need to place signs in all areas where off-piste areas merge with legitimate trails....effectively the entire ski area.

post #104 of 111

No, this thread is entirely about you at this point. Everyone else is in agreement that tree skier was at fault. There is nothing else to discuss except your nutty posts.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Forerunner View Post


 

John,

What kind of post is this? Are you trying to psycho-analyze me? This discussion shouldn't be about Forerunner...

 

 

...As I repeated about half a dozen times before, I am well aware of my position being at odds with just about every other participant's here.
 


Maybe because your position is completely unfounded? 

post #105 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15 View Post

No, this thread is entirely about you at this point. Everyone else is in agreement that tree skier was at fault. There is nothing else to discuss except your nutty posts.
 


Maybe because your position is completely unfounded? 


Telerod,

 

Frontrunner is really um, someone who shall remain namelss.  He was chased off this board for being a total tosser.  He has now come back with a new name.  Surprise surprise, it only took 20 odd posts for him to be an outcast again. 
 

post #106 of 111

He's good at what he does. They should have never got rid of him. :)

post #107 of 111
Thread Starter 

Man, I didn't expect this thread to get that big.

post #108 of 111

Just saw the video.  Haven't read the entire thread.

 

As to who is at fault?  I think its beside the point because neither skier seemed to have sustained a major injury.  I am sure most everyone here has seen a collision as bad as that while on a hill.

 

The angry guy is a jerk.  Yes, he just got blind-sided, but that it comes with the territory.  The guy coming through the trees isn't doing anything abnormal.  Hard lesson to learn, but if you're moving at high speed, then you should try to keep away from objects that can obscure obstacles (like the tree line).

 

There's no reason to tee off on someone who has admitted their fault in the matter and is offering profuse apologies. I wonder if angry guy was on roids or something? Or maybe he can't count?  He's outnumbered 2-1 if the apologetic skiers decide to defend themselves.

 

I can only imagine what the outcry on this board would be if it were a snowboarder coming through those trees.  

post #109 of 111


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarzanman View Post


 

I can only imagine what the outcry on this board would be if it were a snowboarder coming through those trees.  


If snowboarder would be involved in any of this then the topic would be named "snowboarder at fault hits innocent skier" or something of that sort no matter who SB would be - the TreeDude or the AngryGuy. The question actually would not even be allowed to be raised in the forum - just revoke the SB's pass and be done with it.

 

It is shame that you didn't read the discussion though - i think we converged to the point when we were discussing what will happen to the AngryGuy if the TreeDude is a lucky possessor of the black belt since the rest of it was

post #110 of 111
REALLY??? Or.... How about the kids parents teach them not to run into the road under any circumstances and not be a moron. Speed limits are created in areas after people consider the surroundings and say "hhmmm that sounds like a safe speed for this area" and it is my firm belief if you are going the speed limit down any road and some one jumps out infront of you without so much as a glance left or right it is there problem. Why should i pay for there stupidity. Period
post #111 of 111

Jeeezo ......... just waking up from a a 4 year nap Mr. Winkle?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion