You and the skier you were following might choose to pay more attention to your surroundings in the future.
It sounds like the skier you were following was skiing such that he could stop or turn to avoid collisions. No harm no foul. The other guy was STOPPED. There was nobody ahead of him. With respect to his direction of travel, being stopped, there is no "ahead".
The pick was set, but he failed to draw the charge. No free throws.
UL, think of it this way. If the bump/groomer sections of that trail were considered separate trails, then this is a no brainer, right? The groomer guy entered a trail without yielding to uphill skiers. So lets put that scenario aside for now and consider the bump/groomer sections all one trail.
In that case, whether bumped or groomed is really irrelevant, isn't it. Groomer guy was traveling down the slope twice as fast as bump guy, passed him, then cut in front of him and stopped, taxing bump guys ability to avoid him. Would you ever pull a stunt like that on someone? I wouldn't, not only because it would be grossly discourteous to the skier I cut in front of, but also because I would not trust that bump skier would have the skill to avoid me, and would flatten me. The right/wrong safety aspect of this situation really comes down to common sense, and any intended interpretation of the term"ahead" that would put bump skier at fault would be dangerously misguided.
Humans have 180 degrees of peripheral vision. What you can see and what you choose to notice are two different things. A skier who can only see a narrow cone should be guided.
Greg, I am surprised that the Groomer Guy let up so easily when you showed him the new code. Reading the new version of it I have no idea what ahead means, other than downhill of you. How did you interpret it to him?
On a personal note, I have always felt that SRC should include the suggestion that any skier traversing a slope should look uphill and avoid cutting off other skiers. This is especially true when approaching the edge of a run.
I had an experience at Keystone this winter that had me scratching my head. I was at the far west side of the terrain park, heading towards GoDevil. This is a gentle slope with a few terrain features that I use to get to some nice slopes that are usually empty. At one point the slope turns into a quarter pipe for maybe 75 yards or less. At this point a young boarder dropped down into the pipe right in front of me. I caught her out of the corner of my eye and realized that she wasn't looking to see if anyone was in the pipe. I went into a snowplow brake but still almost hit her. I skied up to her and told her that when she cut me off I had almost hit her and she said she had the right off way. I chewed on that one for the next hour or so. It seemed to me that she was entering a slope when she dropped off the flat top into the little pipe. I could be wrong, but I don't see how she could expect me to see her in time to yield. It could also be that she was actually "uphill" from me when she dropped into the pipe, but who is taking measurements?
Common sense needs to prevail. Look uphill when crossing a slope, even making lovely carved turns, and yield to that skier taking up 15 yards of fall line on the edge of the slope.
My 2 cents. Lew Bob
Your answer is hi-lited in red
and the next question is who is the biggest?
I had skied in two bumps behind the lead bump skier and mirrored his turns. I don't think he knew I was there.
The guy on the groomer came in so fast I didn't even have time to warn the lead skier. I had seem groomer guy skiing on the trail much further up and he was a very skilled and refined skier. He admitted he had decided to head over to try some of the bumps and had intended to pull in behind us, but reaching the top of one of the bumps noticed a rock in the trough and was forced to turn right (toward us) which wasn't his intended direction. He simply traveled a little further than expected and got in front of us. I'm not sure if contact was made. It was close enough that the lead bump skiers pants may have brushed the tips of groomer guys skis.
Both apologized to each other and thanked me for the code update and asked who I was. My answer was, In Breckenridge(this happened there) I'm known as Uncle Louie. Have you guys ever seen the EpicSki web site?
UL,
First you say all skiers are visible to each other - then you say they are possibly out of view of each other - then you are following the skier ahead of you without him knowing you are there.
This add's to confusion, are they (the 3 skiers) not aware of their surroundings? If not, should they be, to be in control?
Most "natural bump trails", the bumps are spaced 15 to 20 ft, so the 10 ft space stop distance is even more confusing when not being visible to other skiers.
The skier {cutting in and stopping in the middle of a trail) is wrong.........
The original first skier in the bumps is not really aware of his surrounding's's, (not being aware of the skier that passed him and not being aware of the skier following) is wrong ..........
The skier closely following skier in the bump trail (w/o the lead skier knowing he is there) is wrong.
I think 2 wrongs don't make a right. And neither does 3.
Unless you are a snake (attorney) it's difficult to make a right from wrongs. OR you have "big" pockets and can hire a snake.
Then of course, "common courtesy" would have avoided the whole event.... Which also appears to be lacking for all 3...............
First you say all skiers are visible to each other - then you say they are possibly out of view of each other - then you are following the skier ahead of you without him knowing you are there. Here is what I said about visibility in the first post "Visibility is excellent with clear skies and no obstructions where any of the skiers could not see the others."
This add's to confusion, are they (the 3 skiers) not aware of their surroundings? If not, should they be, to be in control? I can't imagine that on a crowded hill you would expect to know the location, speed, size of turn and ability of all the skiers on a trail when you ski, especially if they are behind you....do you ? This trail wasn't crowded but to believe that you can't be in control as a result of not knowing who is well behind you but approaching fast while you are skiing bumps is ludicrous. This is the case for the lead bump skier.
Most "natural bump trails", the bumps are spaced 15 to 20 ft, so the 10 ft space stop distance is even more confusing when not being visible to other skiers. The bumps on this run are quite close together, perhaps as much as 15 feet. Groomer guy is moving diagonally across the hill and descends on the lead guy in the bumps. Groomer guy was able to see the lead bump skier. The bump skier would have had to turn his head fully around to see if someone was approaching as he was making a left turn at the time. This means that the guy coming off the groomed trail, now entering the bumps is approaching from directly behind (not to be confused as directly uphill) as the lead bump skier has turned left. This is the point where I spot groomer guy entering the picture about a bump and a half away from the lead skier who now begins to make his right turn while groomer guy is slowing. The lead bump skier spots the skier to his right and instinctively turns left to avoid the collision. Groomer guy was always able to see the lead bump guy and the lead bump skier spots him when he begins to turn right. Up to the lead bump skiers point of transition to the right hand turn the lead skiers head would have to have rotated his head nearly 180 degrees to have looked at groomer guy face to face.
The skier {cutting in and stopping in the middle of a trail) is wrong.........Correct
The original first skier in the bumps is not really aware of his surrounding's's, (not being aware of the skier that passed him and not being aware of the skier following) is wrong ..........I don't agree. The lead skier actually did an excellent job of avoiding the guy coming in rapidly from the groomed section of the run and has an instant reaction once he's aware of his presence. They were on intersecting path as a result of the groomer guys choice of line and his speed. The lead bump skiers actions were very timely. He also has no "responsibility" to react in any way to someone who is following him at a safe distance whether he knows the person is there or not.
The skier closely following skier in the bump trail (w/o the lead skier knowing he is there) is wrong. Using the spacing of 15' per bump I'm about 30 feet back, an instructor and former instructor trainer skiing on excellent snow, good visibility following a good skier on waist high bumps on an Intermediate run. My obligations were solely with the skier below me as he was ahead. I stopped comfortably and without incident avoiding everybody with plenty of space to spare. I had already started a left turn when I spot the guy coming in fast from the groomed section to my right and was on the brakes at that point.
I think 2 wrongs don't make a right. And neither does 3.
Unless you are a snake (attorney) it's difficult to make a right from wrongs. OR you have "big" pockets and can hire a snake.
Then of course, "common courtesy" would have avoided the whole event.... Which also appears to be lacking for all 3...............I suspect that the 100 or so that I have met with and skied with from here could easily answer your comments above with a resounding no on all counts.
I would be interested in why you indicate common courtesy was lacking in all three people though. The lead bump skier was skiing a trail well within his limits with no-one in front of him till groomer guy almost collides with him. I was skiing behind the lead bump skier at what I considered to be a very comfortable distance given my abilities and quietly enough that I'm pretty sure he was unaware of my presence. I don't see a lack of courtesy there at all. Groomer guy, that's a different story.
My counter points to Steve's post are above in blue.
Steve,
Your personal views on safety and courtesy are admirable and wise thinking but it doesn't address the issue of who would have been at fault should there have actually been a collision. Tackle that one.
Here is my take, if you don't mind me jumping in:
- Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.
The way you describe it, the fact that the three skiers were somehow able to avoid each other was luck.
One skier being obviously at fault (Groomer guy) even for violating multiple rules, doesn't excuse the other participants. #2 Lead Mogul guy having for excuse "I haven't seen you, and you were in violation anyway", should not be good enough if the collision had actually happened.
I find it little strange that #3 Mogul Trailing guy had the urge to ski several yards behind another skier, regardless of one's perception how skilled both of them were. It seems to me that the #3 engaged in some kind of show-off dare game, and all of them were lucky that no one got hurt.
- Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.
I find it little strange that #3 Mogul Trailing guy had the urge to ski several yards behind another skier, regardless of one's perception how skilled both of them were. It seems to me that the #3 engaged in some kind of show-off dare game, and all of them were lucky that no one got hurt.
It's a great drill to work on ones own skiing when done properly.
It's a great drill to work on ones own skiing when done properly.
It looks great.
If both of you are aware of each other, that is, or if both of you train together, or if both of you are doing this on some other purpose.
I guess, I wouldn't feel comfortable if someone else was doing this to me, without knowing their ability and skill, and I surely wouldn't appreciate if someone is doing it to me without my knowledge of their presence and/or intentions. As much as I try to be aware of my surrounding, looking directly behind me while skiing is not one of the skills I mastered yet.
Uncle Louie, I'm with you here.
Shadowing is not just a great drill, it can be a hoot!
Wonder where 8's come from on a powder day? Oh ya, shadowing.
A control question for your off season thought. If you are skiing bumps aggressively, with upper and lower body divergence; would you agree that during the middle of the turn there is no real control? Your upper body is in a controlled fall down the fall line catching up with your feet, until you are balanced over your feet again you are not able to stop.
Good common sense says give somebody going after it in short radius turns a little more space, as in do not cut them off. PLEASE!
The crash you avoid may be your own.
When I ski alone I seldom have issues because I'm generally overtaking others, and I know how and have the skill to do it safely. When I'm skiing with a student, working on skill development, that's often not the case. Frequently we'll get passed by people going way too fast for their skill level, who get way too close, and just don't have the skills needed to make quick speed and/or line adjustments at the speed they're traveling. When it gets really bad I'll often ski above the student, in the manner shown in Uncle Louie's picture in post #68, always staying close to and falline above him/her, to create a human shield to protect them. For the falline streakers coming up from behind it works well.
It's can also be a good thing to do when skiing with your kids, to protect them. Be sure you have the skill to do it, though. You don't want to end up doing to him/her yourself what you're trying to stop others from doing to him/her.
BTW, bump skier number 2 is a very good skier, and a very safe skier. I've skied with him many times, and know this for a fact. He knows very well what a safe buffer zone is according to his personal abilities, and I can guarantee you that whatever distance he was behind bump skier number one was well within the safe zone. That he easily maneuvered around bumpman 1 when he tried to slam on the brakes is testimony to his good judgement.
One of the things good skiers have to remember is even when they're in complete control, and believe they're well clear of the lesser skiers they're passing, it can be still very scary for the person being passed. They don't know you're a good skier, they just catch a blur out of the corner of their eye and get severely startled by the rocket man that just passed within what can seem to them a whisker hair away. Try to remember that when you're passing weaker skiers. You may feel you're a safe distance away, but it can still scare the scat out of the person you're passing. Provide well more space than you think is necessary. It's something I try to remind myself of regularly. Uncle Louie can tell you that I've on occasion slipped up with this, times when I've perceived myself well clear, but have still startled people. Bad Dobby!!!! The perceptions of the passer and the passed are so much different.
The high speed carver was WRONG-WRONG-WRONG! NEVER-NEVER-NEVER cut in front of an uphill skier and then come to a stop! Yeah, the uphill lead bump skier must yield or slow down to avoid hitting a down slope skier who clearly has the right of way. But in this case, the downhill skier actually entered a new "trail".
The question that was posed gave me the impression that one half the trail was groomed, and one half was bumped. And the trail was a blue square (more difficult than a green circle). Seems that we have 2 distinct halves that should be treated as 2 separate trails since different skills are needed for each (bumps: short turns and slower than carvers; carvers (moderate to high speed and faster than bump skiing). So, unless the downhill skier didn't like bump skiers and was actually looking for a fight, or was a single person wanting to meet up with another hot single person and thought this was a good way to strike up a conversation, I am making an assumption that his (or her) reason for cutting over into the bump half of the run was 'cause he or she was out of control or was plain stupid to not realize that this could cause an accident.
So, what would be my reaction to the verbal comment? "Sorry I ruined your day" and then blow a kiss. That person didn't have a clue of what was going on. Lesson to be learned? If you like to ski bumps, don't show-off on blue runs. Do it on black diamonds and above. If you like to ski screaming carvers, do it on black diamond groomers. That way you will more than likely avoid folks that don't have a clue.
Here is my take, if you don't mind me jumping in:
- Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.
...
I find it little strange that #3 Mogul Trailing guy had the urge to ski several yards behind another skier, regardless of one's perception how skilled both of them were. It seems to me that the #3 engaged in some kind of show-off dare game, and all of them were lucky that no one got hurt.
This reminds me of something that happened to me several years ago. A friend of mine and I made the same decision at the same time and started down adjacent zipper lines on Phantom Bridge at Mary Jane right next to each other. When I say adjacent, I mean that we were simultaneously on opposite sides of the same bump.
The first three turns didn't result in disaster, so we kept going. Peripheral vision was an absolute necessity. He yelled at me, while we were skiing, "Don't miss a turn!!"
He outweighed me by at least 50 lbs, so I was highly motivated to not miss any turns, at least on the side that would have sent me into him!
Was it a show-off dare game? Well, I don't think anyone else was watching, but we were certainly entertaining each other.
I don't get these threads. Ski under control, don't cross blind spots going faster than you are capable of stopping if someone/something is there, and keep your eyes open. Do that and the only collisions you will have are likely to be clipping a buddy skiing along side of you ziggiing when you though they were zagging. However, collisions like that are part of skiing.
I actually did have a couple of very close calls last season. I locked it up out of the blue (to stop when I heard someone way behind me fall) and a snowboarder that was trying to keep up with me almost hit me from behind. They did the noble thing and fell instead of crashing in to me they went skidding by me.
So, if they had smacked in to me from behind after I laid down a very sudden hockey stop with no warning at all, who's fault with that be?
Other one, dude on edge of trail facing the middle hopped a 180 and pushed off in front of me towards the tree side
of the edge of the trail as I was passing on what was his backside/tree side before he hopped the 180 and pushed off without looking. Who's fault would that have been?
I'll say both would have been my fault regardless of what the code says.
I should look behind me before jamming on the brakes.
I should have given dude on side of trail more room. What he did was stupid and very unexpected (just like me jamming on brakes) but I know better.
Ski safe folks, it is more fun when you can ski again tomorrow than taking unnecessary risks today.
Trolling is fun isn't it?
A control question for your off season thought. If you are skiing bumps aggressively, with upper and lower body divergence; would you agree that during the middle of the turn there is no real control? Your upper body is in a controlled fall down the fall line catching up with your feet, until you are balanced over your feet again you are not able to stop.
You have a good point here. It really would depend on your line as far as bumps go.
Think about this though. If any of us are skiing dynamically (that is to say our hips get to the inside of the boot on our inner most ski) anywhere on the hill, then just past the point of transition when our CM heads downhill ahead of our feet (early edge engagement but with the skis fairly light) we have a very limited ability to make any changes and it would be very difficult to stop suddenly. In theory while we are controlling the ski (hopefully) we wouldn't be able to do much else for a second or two now would we? 
In this case the bump skiing was far from aggressive, just some casual round turns mostly around the bumps in the troughs.
Somewhat irresponsible to be tailing a stranger that closely without his knowledge and consent.
Somewhat irresponsible to be tailing a stranger that closely without his knowledge and consent.
Ya, I kinda chucked as he went tumbling by me. Live and learn. Heck, I've buzzed a few folks in my time.
My counter points to Steve's post are above in blue.
Steve,
Your personal views on safety and courtesy are admirable and wise thinking but it doesn't address the issue of who would have been at fault should there have actually been a collision. Tackle that one.
UL,
The guy with the biggest pockets wins - The most notable example is the OJ trial.
I almost became the filling of a human sandwich yesterday as I was skiing at A-Basin. One guy (skier A) was on a trail to my right that was only separated from the trail I was on by an island of boo and rope line. A woman (skier B) was skiing to my left on the same trail I was on. I saw them at least 100 m before the trails converged. Skier A sped up to cross the flats and skier B changed her line, perhaps to get to the East Wall traverse and I was caught in the middle. I simply straight lined as I knew that I would pass both of them without incident because I'd waxed and scraped (
) my skis.
__it Happens, as Forrest would say. Luck was on everyone's side yesterday, as no one collided. It wasn't even close enough to worry about apologies, but it would have been a mess if it had been much closer.
I was constantly looking up the hill when I made a turn to insure that I wasn't going to cut off (or get in the way of) someone. On the other hand there were riders jumping snow fences and popping off rollers without any apparent concern to what was below the roller. On a number of occasions I had to alter my course as a rider was passing me then high speed traversing in front of me to take a jump. It was annoying, but not unexpected.
It really doesn't matter who is right or wrong until you get to court or are standing in front of the Patrol. What matters on the hill is that you are attentive, considerate and ski within your abilities. Avoiding collisions is a constant task while skiing.
Rules only take you so far. You can be 100% right, but dead wrong.
UL, I, for one, would not appreciate someone skiing behind me as closely as you described without knowing who you were. Of course I probably would not know you were there unless I heard you as I can't see directly behind me while skiing a tight line down the fall line. Regardless of ability, consideration of others is paramount to us all getting along on and off the slopes.
UL, nice case study, and your first-hand knowledge has been helpful in filling in detailed information to fuel discussions.
It's clear that the Skier's Responsibility Code, as good as it is, does not definitively address every situation that could occur on the mountain.
Good judgement, common sense and a measure of courtesy are also important safety ingredients.
Uncle Louie,
A question for you as a instructor -- If you are following closely behind a skier that does not know you are there and as your presence becomes suddenly noticed by them and startling them causing them to lose control and crash, are you at fault or them for being out of control?
He couldn't "cause" him to lose control if he is behind him. He might distract him, but so do all kinds of things on the ski slope. I get more alert when I hear someone behind me. LewBob
Oh no, a full cert could never cause someone to lose it by following too close! In such a case, the loser fell because he hasn't taken enough lessons.
