Can you identify this hit-and-run skier?

looks like the helmet-cam skier is veering to his right and hits the other "reckless" skier from behind... I don't see this as either persons fault... well, I see it as BOTH their fault. The girl  (the other skier is clearly a girl) should have stopped, leaving was wrong, but the footage to me is clear: they turn into each other.

I agree with Whiteroom. If anything the girl was ahead of the filming skier.  Quite simply if he had of been looking around at his surroundings he wouldn't have turned into her and the accident wouldn't have happened.  If anyone is to blame it looks to be the filmer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whiteroom 

looks like the helmet-cam skier is veering to his right and hits the other "reckless" skier from behind... I don't see this as either persons fault... well, I see it as BOTH their fault. The girl  (the other skier is clearly a girl) should have stopped, leaving was wrong, but the footage to me is clear: they turn into each other.

At first i was in disagreement with this statement.  However, after viewing it several times I have to now agree with Whiteroom.  The girl skier is clearly over taking cam man; her fault for hitting him.  Cam man is not looking where the heck he's going.  Notice how his cam is focused on the front of his skis and his shadow.  Clearly not paying attention to whats up ahead, preoccupied playing with his toy..  Reminds me of a car accident where the driver is texting on his iphone.  Notice how good skiers that use the cams very seldom have their ski tips showing in the vids.  You always have the horizon line in the field of view with the skier looking ahead, making use of their peripheral vision.  I have to call it like Whiteroom...both at fault.

Tough call here but consider this.

The cam guy IS looking where he is going....it's ahead and the film shows it clearly.  A shadow appears to that skiers right and appears to be traveling at a greater speed than the guy with the cam and is passing at the moment of contact.  True the guy with the cam is on a right hand turn while the female skier is on a left hand turn and they do ski into each other, but to me it appears the girl is moving faster. Both appear to be in control before the point of contact. 

The code violation here in question are;

Yielding to the skier ahead (which the female didn't)

and to a much lesser extent

Failure to ski under control in such a way to avoid objects / others etc etc. (cam guy)

The question now is who would have appeared in the others field of vision first.  That is the person who is required to take action to ensure the safety of the other.  I'd say the female skier could have seen the guy with the cam long before he could have seen her.  It is therefore her responsibility to avoid him, which she did not. She should be assuming (if she did in fact have him in his field of vision) that she shouldn't have passed close in the event the man made a turn to the right.  She had plenty of slope to work with, we can see that on the video. 

You can yell all you want about "knowing about your surroundings" but the legal fact is that you are responsible only for what's ahead of you and not to the side of you. He's not responsible to avoid her as she is overtaking,  had him in the field of vision and failed to overtake at a safe distance.

Contributory negligence would be a stretch, more likely she's at fault.

Exactly, what an idiot. 

She clearly comes in from behind and wham ... clear violation of the code .... and just to remind you none of us ski looking over our shoulder .. that is bull schizz.

I think what may confuse some ... it did me a bit .. was that the narrative seemed to be "real time" and it didn't quite make sense.

I'm going to say the girl was at fault. She clearly was traveling faster and overtaking him. Prior to him getting hit he was making smooth, predictable turns. I did see a course correction several seconds before the impact - he was traveling down the hill and made a change toward the barrels (or something) a bit to the right. He didn't make any exaggerated movements to radically change lines. 

She came from his 5 o'clock position and crossed in front of him. The whole slope was open - she shouldn't have been anywhere near him. 

That she took off and didn't assist aides in my assessment that she knew she was in the wrong.

D

Quote:

Originally Posted by ragin' cajun' 

At first i was in disagreement with this statement.  However, after viewing it several times I have to now agree with Whiteroom.  The girl skier is clearly over taking cam man; her fault for hitting him.  Cam man is not looking where the heck he's going.  Notice how his cam is focused on the front of his skis and his shadow.  Clearly not paying attention to whats up ahead, preoccupied playing with his toy..  Reminds me of a car accident where the driver is texting on his iphone.  Notice how good skiers that use the cams very seldom have their ski tips showing in the vids.  You always have the horizon line in the field of view with the skier looking ahead, making use of their peripheral vision.  I have to call it like Whiteroom...both at fault.

The camera looking down doesn't mean the skier was looking down. The more experienced helmet cam users have dialed the position of the cam on their helmet to show what they want. He could mount the camera backwards if he wanted to, it wouldn't tell us much about where he is looking.

I agree that the girl was overtaking him, therefore should have seen him first and given him a wider berth.  Even though at that point she was "in front" of him, the fact that she cut him off so close tells me she overtook him from behind and timed their mutual turns poorly.  My guess is she didn't realize he was so severely injured. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by epic 

The camera looking down doesn't mean the skier was looking down. The more experienced helmet cam users have dialed the position of the cam on their helmet to show what they want. He could mount the camera backwards if he wanted to, it wouldn't tell us much about where he is looking.

Very true and a good observation Epic. 

I noted that also, but in this case you can see the terrain ahead, the cam skiers tips at one point and his hands.  Those are all good indications his CM, his eyes and the cam are pointed (relatively) the same way on what looks to be a very easy trail.  He is even straight running at one point without major change in speed.

The pitch of the camera (toward the feet or ahead) is one of the few variables but I think we can all agree that it's pointing the general direction the skier is traveling.

It would be nice if somebody could I.D. this person.  It's a cheap shot, and a crappy thing to do.

 

First he says it's "thirteen hundred and eighty dollars"  then later "thirteen hundred and eighty five dollars."  Gotta make you wonder about the veracity of the whole thing.  Sounds like he's under stating his age by the sound of his voice too! 

btw how can you all tell the other skier is a "she?"

If this took place where I think it did it happened on a very wide, easy blue trail that comes down from the gap in the ridge between Peak Chair and Harmony.  This was near the bottom (you can see the lift terminal for Peak in the video) where it is pretty flat.  The skier at the beginning of the video is making regular turns but then straight lines it over the flat area.  He then makes a wide turn to the right.

The girl could have been overtaking and cutting close  as he was straight lining it (why she did this when nobody was visible on this very wide groomed run is a mystery) when, suddenly, he veered into her path.  I can see it how it happened, but it's still her fault.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz 

 

 

btw how can you all tell the other skier is a "she?"

Her CM.

She over took him.  It's her fault.  How could you hit someone in that situation?  And how did you get hurt?

I'm just glad it wasn't me
 

Why is it that we can see the ski tips of the other skier, apparently ahead of the "victim's" ski tips before the collision seems to occur? Why then do we begin to see the other skier himself/herself  who appears to get closer and closer to the camera before the collision and only then further and further away. Notice how the camera seems to pan toward the right, relative to the background during the sequence. I'm not so sure that this is as cut-and-dried as the helmet cam person contends. The other skier is evidently skiing faster after the collision but that alone doesn't make that person responsible. The camera person may have been actually closing on the other person in the context of a turn to the right, You can see the other person's skis clearly in front of one of the victim's ski tips and victim's ski tip get closer and cloer to other skier's skis. I wonder if this guy didn't actually ski into the other person or at least the tails of other person's skis?

I mean that, if the other person was visible before the collision and in front of the supposed victim, being overtaken the camera guy, doesn't that make the helmet cam person responsible for avoiding the other skier?

I suppose the actual moment of collision is difficult to ascertain, This, as well as other unknowns make this too difficult to call on the basis of what evidence we have, in my opinion.

Don't know....I have been trying to come up with a scenario that fits that footage and where the cam guy would be at fault....cant come up with one....seems to be just reckless behaviour on the part of the girl....

Quote:

Originally Posted by oisin 

Why is it that we can see the ski tips of the other skier, apparently ahead of the "victim's" ski tips before the collision seems to occur? Why then do we begin to see the other skier himself/herself  who appears to get closer and closer to the camera before the collision and only then further and further away. Notice how the camera seems to pan toward the right, relative to the background during the sequence. I'm not so sure that this is as cut-and-dried as the helmet cam person contends. The other skier is evidently skiing faster after the collision but that alone doesn't make that person responsible. The camera person may have been actually closing on the other person in the context of a turn to the right, I wonder if this guy didn't actually ski into the other person or at least the tails of other person's skis?

 

I mean that, if the other person was visible before the collision and in front of the supposed victim, being overtaken the camera guy, doesn't that make the helmet cam person responsible for avoiding the other skier?

 

I suppose the actual moment of collision is difficult to ascertain, This, as well as other unknowns make this too difficult to call on the basis of what evidence we have, in my opinion.

Watch again...you can clearly see from the start of the video to the point of impact....there is no-one in front of this guy...notta, nothing, nobody....she then just appears.....clearly, to me at least, she overtook and then swooped in front.
 

It is to bad she didn't stop to check the other skier out whether in the right or wrong, as karma is a bitch sometimes. I ski with ear buds (music) on all the time, so my head is constantly on a swivel, as I can't hear sh!t. If the old dood had been looking around, she likely would not have sneaked up on him. Lesson to be learned here is, do not count on the up hill skier giving you enough room. Hell, last weekend, coming into the lift area, the boarder in front of me does a hard right. I barely missed him and would have been pissed at him for the sudden move in a limited mobility area if I had hit him. So don't count on the dood behind you. Look around before you change directions is my recommendation.

Watch the slow motion sequence again and you can see the shadows of the two skiers converging. The shadow of the "victim" moves toward the other skier's shadow from the left and from behind until you see their two shadows comverge. This must have been the moment of collision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skidude72 

 

Watch again...you can clearly see from the start of the video to the point of impact....there is no-one in front of this guy...notta, nothing, nobody....she then just appears.....clearly, to me at least, she overtook and then swooped in front.
 

If I understand your point, she positioned herself in front of him and he could not avoid her. I can accept that. She should not have been skiing in such close proximity but then neither should he. What is potentially deceiving though is that we are literally seeing the accident from only one point of view. She seems to appear in from of him and yet he is closing upon her (based upon the convergence of their skis and their shadows). A helmet cam mounted on her head might have  shown nothing at all until she turned her head after feeling an impact upon the tails of her skis. Except for the clear imagery of the skis in relation to one another and the convergence of the skis and the skier's shadows and the fact that these appear to show him approaching from  behind her, the camera would seem to see the same thing whether he was approching her or she approaching him. If, in a turn to the right, a tree suddenly came into the field of view of the camera, the tree itself would conceivably appear to swoop in front of him but of course we know that trees don't swoop. This just points out to me the difficulty of hearing a case that is presented from only one point of view.

Interesting thread!  As stated above the position of the helmet cam is independent of where the skier is looking.  I have not yet been able to successfully aim my cam where I want it in relation to where I am looking.  It is also interesting, as mentioned above, that there is only one perspective.  What I see, from this perspective, is a skier (helmet cam guy) making turns, then cruising more or less straight across the flats while glancing around...  Then moving to his right into the other skiers line with out checking for traffic.  Who is at fault depends on how you define the code.  If as many here on Epic like to believe the downhill skier has the right of way, then helmet cam skier is at fault as it is pretty clear who was in front of who.  The "girl" was in front of him and down hill of him at the time of collision.  Prior to the collision IMO "she" could have seen him as he WAS BOTH the downhill skier AND the skier ahead.  IMO "she" did a poor job of overtaking him being too close and cutting to the left in front of him as he unexpectedly cut to the right.  Technically I suppose that it is his own fault as he ran into her.  However she didn't make a good pass and THAT IMO was the major contributing factor in this collision.  He shares responsibility for not checking before changing lanes.  If he had this wouldn't have happened at all.  Defensive skiing may not be "required", but it is a really good idea if you want to stay safe and uninjured.  I think it's strange how the same posters who on other threads endlessly repeat that "the downhill skier has the right of way" regardless of the behavior of that skier would side exclusively with helmet cam guy.

Regardless of who was actually at fault for the collision, the clear violation was leaving the scene of a collision--the "hit and run" aspect. Even if the other skier wasn't at fault for the collision (although I think she/he was), skiing away from it was itself a violation of the code--and the law. 

Best regards,

Bob

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Barnes 

Regardless of who was actually at fault for the collision, the clear violation was leaving the scene of a collision--the "hit and run" aspect. Even if the other skier wasn't at fault for the collision (although I think she/he was), skiing away from it was itself a violation of the code--and the law. 

 

Best regards,

Bob

I definitely agree with this post.  However, it is not clear to me that the other skier even knew that helmet cam guy went down.  His narrative states "here is the other guy looking back and skiing away".  I didn't see the other skier look back.  It doesn't even look like that much of a collision to me.  The other skier didn't even bobble.  I think the old guy got freaked out by the close proximity and fell.  At most there may have been some ski contact as he says "my skis are swept out".  I would have stopped to apologize to or confront the other skier depending on my perspective.  As for the "Hit and Run Aspect" the person that did the hitting wasn't the person that ran.

From :21 - :32 you can see his skis tracking straight.  The head cam pans to the right, but he continues to track straight.  He then takes a first right turn just as the other skier comes in from the right crossing his line.  So 61 year old cuts into reckless fellow's path who was over-taking with greater speed.

Over-taking skier is still at fault.

Nice wide open area, no reason to crowd in a situation like that.  Reckless fellow's reaction indicates that he knew he hit him and he should have stopped.

She didn't see him crash; he was still upright when she looked.

She was the overtaking skier, she was skiing straight, and he turned into her line.

The collision happened just after her body passed camera guy, but before here skis passed camera guy.

She is at fault.  She should have turned away from him when he turned into her line, and she shouldn't have been skiing so close.

It makes me think of this. If these two drivers had hit, which would have been at fault?

I would estimate that the girl was 20 percent more responsible for the collision and should pay for 20 percent of the helmet man's medical bills. That is my opinion and I am sticking to it. 

Looking at the ski equipment and skiing ability, I would estimate that both skiers were intermediate skiers.   As was pointed out, helmet man cut wide right and may have slowed down a bit.  The girl was obviously going left and was not prepared to make a quick right turn.  I also believe the girl was bracing for a collision prior to the collision.  Helmet man on the other hand had no clue that he was going to collide.

I've rewatched the video several times now, and I actually think the POV guy is at fault.

For me, the video is misleading. You think that the trail continues on straight, which makes you think the girl has skied  into the man's path. But watch it again.

If you look closely from 0:25 onward, you can just see mounds of snow on the right getting closer to the POV man. Also, right at 0:31, you can see a big rock (or some other large, dark object) on the right. To me, that indicates the right edge of the trail is not far away just before the man makes a big right turn. The lack of trees makes it seem the trail goes straight, but it has actually turned to the left. (This is quite common in the Alps, which is why whiteout conditions are dangerous; it's easy to go off the trail when it has taken a turn but you think it keeps going straight.)

Also, just before impact, you can see the girl's skis are not on edge and are pointed almost directly at the red fences at the bottom of the slope, in line with the other tracks in the snow. Lastly, you have to remember that the POV man just made a big turn, so even though it appears the girl is cutting across him, it's actually the man who is cutting across the hill. His POV is not the same angle as the fall line

To me, that indicates that the girl was skiing relatively straight down the fall line over near the edge of the trail. Then, instead of starting with a left turn, where there is more open space, the man makes a big turn towards the right, even though he is already not far from the right edge of the trail.

Any farther to the right, and she would have no room to make right turns. So, I can't really see how she could overtake any farther from the man without going off the trail. Also, even after the guy made his turn, the girl wasn't going all that much faster than him, so it's not like she was flying past him at crazy speeds. I think she got squeezed into a tight spot with nowhere to go but past in a straight line.

The force of impact didn't seem all that big, given that the girl didn't come close to falling, so she probably thought it was no big deal. But, she still should have looked back to see if everything was ok.

The point I would like to make relative to judging this is that, from the point of view of a helmet camera mounted on a moving skier, everything else is moving with respect to it. The girl appears to be moving toward the camera but the helmet camera is just as likely to be moving toward her (and undoubtedly was). A hemet camera mounted on the girl skier likely would have shown nothing at all until she turned her head to see what had hit the tails of her skis and possibly her ski boots, The purported victim may never have been within the field of view of her own helmet cam at all (if she had had one). She is not even in his cameras field of view until she appears ahead of him. She may not even have overtaken him. In fact she may have suddenly appeared in his field of view as he skied up to her from behind. She undoubtely was moving from right to left relative to his trajectory just as he was moving from left to right relative to hers. Appearances, as I'm sure many lawyers have stated, can be deceiving.

Perhaps someday we will all ski with helmet cams so that we can sort out the lawsuits.

I would be very cautious about judging this. I'm pretty certain that I could lead you through the slow motion replay and lead you to an opposite conclusion to the one that most seem to have reached but the reality is that there is more to this than is apparent from the "victim's" biased presentation.