Can you identify this hit-and-run skier? - Page 2

When you watch the slo-mo the guy/girl is ahead of helmet-cam man and he actually hits him/her, not the other way around.

And you're right oisin, it is near the edge of the trail and he is turning right.

It looks to me like the old dood contributed quite a bit to the accident.  He was making slow turns down the trail, then he stood up and just tracked straight, and suckered the other skier into thinking he wasn't going to make any sudden moves.  It does appear he is near the right edge of the trail and a left turn is coming up.

His reactions and thought processes appear to be very slow, because he makes a slow glance to the right, as if he's planning to make a right turn and trying to check for uphill traffic.  But he doesn't turn his head far enough to actually see if there is uphill traffic coming, and probably his hearing is not so good so he can't hear it coming either.  Then, long after the partial glance, he makes a blind right turn towards the rightmost edge of the trail.

The overtaking skier probably saw him tracking along straight, saw the left turn coming up, and judged there was enough space to pass on his right.  If you were guessing which way the old dood would turn, you'd guess he'd turn left for the upcoming turn and not to the right into the edge of the trail.  So the overtaking skier played the percentages and went for a pass on the right.  Old dude then cut into her committed line just as she was completing the pass.

In a way this almost brings in one of the other rules: "Whenever starting downhill or merging into a trail, look uphill and yield to others."  He had practically stopped skiing when he stood up and tracked straight, and then with his sudden and unpredictable right turn he was resuming skiing, but he failed to check for uphill traffic.

Technically the overtaking skier is 100 percent responsible, but when things get into a courtroom, blame and damages are no longer restricted to 100 percent.  I'd fault the overtaking skier for not giving the downhill skier a wider berth, but I think the old guy's actions were the primary cause of the accident.  I'd probably say he's 70 percent at fault and the overtaking skier is 30 percent at fault.

Leaving the scene is hard to judge from the video.  The overtaking skier probably thought he just fell down and didn't want to get a tongue lashing for what seemed like a minor mishap.  If they knew the guy would blame them for what happened and want monetary damages, then they are probably glad they didn't stop to help.  Unfortunately no good deed goes unpunished, so people are less inclined to do the right thing than in days past.

Whiplash - a made up injury for the purpose of getting insurance money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Goldsmith 

We have to bear in mind that there's a crucial difference between the law/code of driving and the law/code of skiing. A driver (at least in the UK - I daresay it's the same in the US) must look in the mirror before changing lane or making some other manoeuvre. You mustn't move into the line of an overtaking driver.

 

In contrast, a skier is not required to look back or to the side. It is solely the responsibility of the overtaking skier to take account of any turns/action that the skier below may make. That keeps things really simple. Fast skiers, or anyone who overtakes, cannot claim "he shouldn't have moved into my path!". 

 

You simply don't have the right to a path, as an overtaking skier, and that's why you have to be really careful to keep very wide of anyone else unless they're clearly turning away from you.

 

Helmet-man was clearly overtaken here, and whatever actions he took were not anticipated by the overtaking skier.

 

As I see it, the overtaking skier is 100% responsible. And, yes, there's also a responsibility to stop and help when an accident occurs. 

 

What that video demonstrates is something that's happening thousands of times every winter - innocent skiers, having a nice time, being injured by careless/reckless skiers.

Watching yet another time, I'd dispute the girl was even trying to overtake the man.

When the guy makes his big turn, he slows down significantly. But despite that  deceleration, when he hits the girl, she is only going marginally faster than him. That tells me that, before the guy's turn, the girl was probably going the same speed as him at most..

The driving equivalent would be two cars going the same speed in separate lanes. Then, the one on the left suddenly turns and hits the brakes, clipping the other car in the back as it passes by.

I'm not sure the girl was even trying to go past. And, given that the camera never really showed anything even directly beside the man, I'd guess the girl was actually beside or only slightly behind the man when he made his turn. But, the turn, and subsequent deceleration, was enough to bring the girl in front of the man by the time his new line crossed hers.

You've got to look at the surrounding objects for perspective on the two skiers.

Again, I think she was squeezed.
 

I just don't see the 'big turn' that he is making or the edge of the trail. He does alter his line by a few degrees to head toward the barrels in the distance. My guess is the other person wanted to make a line between him and the barrels.

The other person is 100% at fault and knew it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dwoof2 

I just don't see the 'big turn' that he is making or the edge or the trail. He does alter his line by a few degrees to head toward the barrels in the distance. My guess is the other person wanted to make a line between him and the barrels.

 

The other person is 100% at fault and knew it.

At 0:29, you can see the camera pointing directly at the gates from the adjacent race course. At 0:31, you can see the rock/dark object between the race course and the groomed trail.

At 0:34, the man turns directly towards the barrels. But, by that time, the trail itself had turned toward the area between the building and the red fences on the left of the screen. Either that or the trail continues straight and leads all skiers into a collision course with the barrels. My money is on the former rather than the latter.

So, that means if the guy turned directly at the barrels, he was skiing across the trail, which indicates a significant turn.

CerebralVortex--

Good observations (post 29), and you raise an important point. If the run was narrow and helmet-cam-man was near the right edge and decided to turn right suddenly after a long straight run without looking over his shoulder...it was a dumb thing to do. Do that often enough, and you're bound to get hit.

But it was still within his rights, and overtaking skiers behind still have the absolute obligation to be able to avoid skiers who do stupid things in front of them. "He turned in front of me" is NOT an excuse! 

Three points from the 10-point FIS International Rules for Conduct are particularly relevant here--and absolutely clear:

There is a good reason why we are not expected to look behind us before turning. You need to be looking where you are going at all times. Skiers do not have rear view mirrors.

Officer: "Why did you run into this person/car/tree ?"

"Victim": "I had turned my head around to look behind me."

Nuff said?

Watching it again, I don't see any fault. It doesn't even appear there was a collision. The older dude tripped over the tails of younger skier's skis when they turned into each other. The younger skier was past him at that point.

I impeach the older skier's testimony on the reckless accusation of the younger skier as "wild". His testimony is further trashed based on this claim of "whiplash". That he is you-tubing it in an effort to extort money out of the younger skier is reprehensible, as is his crappy helmet cam footage.

To bad you got smacked.  Hope you get better soon.  It's obvious who is at fault in the video.

I think that what often seems obvious is incorrect.

If you look closely at the slo mo video you will see her first come into view ahead of him. What is not clear is whether she is moving faster to the left than he is to the right. What is clear is that each of their shadows and skis move toward the other until the shadows converge, evidently at the moment of collision. What is also clear from the slo motion video is that he becomes increasingly closer to the person who has been in front of him from the moment she first appeared. This would seem to refute the argument that she is actually moving faster than he is. Clearly in the moments preceding the collision she is not since he wouldn't be overtaking her as the video indicates. She would actually be moving away from him, that is to say further in front of him and the collision or whatever it was would likely not have occurred.

I would repeat the opinion that the facts of the matter are likely more than would seem immediately apparent.

All of this serves to remind me of the value of a good lawyer and possibly something unflattering about juries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iWill 

Watching it again, I don't see any fault. It doesn't even appear there was a collision. The older dude tripped over the tails of younger skier's skis when they turned into each other. The younger skier was past him at that point.

 

I impeach the older skier's testimony on the reckless accusation of the younger skier as "wild". His testimony is further trashed based on this claim of "whiplash". That he is you-tubing it in an effort to extort money out of the younger skier is reprehensible, as is his crappy helmet cam footage.

What is curious about the moment of his fall is that his hands are still locked rigidly out in front of him as he tumbles. You get a clear view of both hands in front of him as the snow rises up to smack him. He must have literally tumbled head-over-heels. My guess is that he was so far into the backseat that he was unable to react with any kind of lateral movement whatsoever.just a wooden soldier knocked over by the slightest nudge.

It does indeed appear that he tripped over the tails of the other. I'm inclined to doubt whether she was ever even aware that he had fallen.
 

Its hard to agree with either side on this issue when you disagree with skier etiquette "rules."  Laws/rules make generalizations about what is "right" and "wrong," and who is at blame in situations.  I follow these rules as they are applied but I also take my own approach.

My bias- If you are consistantly skiing down a pitch in a uniform way there is absolutely no reason to be looking behind you.  Anyone near you coming down hill will judge your turns and speed and make their way safely around you.  When you are constantly stopping, making non-uniform turns (bombing, stopping, bombing into a full trail traverse, etc....) you should be cautious of your surroundings. 

This is obviously my bias as I am always aware of what is in front of and behind me.  This is an approach that comes from other sports where you always know where everyone is at all times (Whitewater rafting/kayaking, hockey, lacrosse, football, soccer, etc...).  Something tells me if the ("I don't ever look behind me, and I never will, should, or should have to because of the LAW") people would make conscientious efforts to peek over their shoulder they would know if anything is coming. 

I know people disagree with my thoughts. I consider myself aggressive and "wild," but I am always looking out for myself first and foremost by knowing what is around me 360 degrees. I think this approach for me has come mostly from mogul skiing.  I know that when I am skiing the zipper and someone traverses across without even acknowledging the people uphill, I am still going to have to eat my face for their safety and unawareness.  Along with this, I don't go from a stop and cut right in on someone going full boar down a line just because I can, I am patient and courteous.

What happened to the OP is terrible and he wants the other skier to give him money for the accident that occurred.  As for who was right or wrong? Well I'd have to say if their was a rule that made skiers know their surroundings this may not be a discussion at all (i.e. both skiers were aware of each other and no accident occurred).

You may disagree with my approach, but I can honestly say that I have averted personal harm several times because of my own awareness.

Bob,

  I'm pretty sure you won't mind me doing a little surgery on your post in order to offer another explaination.  (If you do....just slap me in the head next time you see me)

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Barnes 

 If the run was narrow and helmet-cam-man was near the right edge and decided to turn right suddenly after a long straight run without looking over his shoulder, ................ it was still within his rights.

 

.................................Overtaking skiers behind still have the absolute obligation to be able to avoid skiers who

 

 

 

 

 

may be skiing to the edge of the trail in order to stop in a safe place where they will least effect the flow of traffic on the trail.

 

You can tell the directions from the shadows.

The girl obviously was behind cam guy and overtook him unsafely causing the collision.

If you cut it close and try and squeeze between a skier an the right edge of the trial, keep an eye on what's off-piste beyond the trail edge, because you may have to ski there if the skier ahead of you suddenly decides to turn right.

I agree with David Goldsmith. The overtaking skier (who WAS clearly overtaking because he/she was not visible for the first 35 seconds of the video) overtook the cameraman so closely that he/she took out his ski tips.
Good luck to oliver7598 in finding the perpetrator.
Won't be easy; his/her skis are a pretty common model (Salomon X Wing Tornado). Probably rentals.
But then again, his/her hat is quite distinctive...

Ski faster so people won't have to try and pass you --- someone had to say it. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Louie 

Bob,

 

  I'm pretty sure you won't mind me doing a little surgery on your post in order to offer another explaination.  (If you do....just slap me in the head next time you see me)

 

may be skiing to the edge of the trail in order to stop in a safe place where they will least effect the flow of traffic on the trail.

 

IMHO making that move without looking over your shoulder is asking to get hit. Code or no code. I have to think that in a court, there would be something about "reasonable". You can't just have the blinders on and go anywhere you want erratically as you want and never be at fault. Since we keep talking about car comparisons. Go and lock up your brakes on a crowded but quickly moving highway and see what happens. I'm not placing blame here, but I don't think that "the code" is perfect and covers every action that could take place. It's not even really right of way rules like "mast abeam". Everybody has a burden not to hit others, but also to not get hit.

 Quote:

 Hey, is that the father of "Angry Dude" from the other video?

I still find it perplexing that people seem to assume the ":girl "was the overtaking skier. It does seem likely to me that there is too little information here to come to a definite conclusion but the available information seems to indicate she was in fact being overtaken.

The camera has a very narrow field of view. That seems evident, thus she  doesn't come into view until they are quite close. They are obviously converging. You have to wonder why he was not aware of her before this point since his field of view must surely be wider than that of the camera. When she (or her ski) does come into view (about frame 50) she is substantially ahead of and to the right of camera guy. you can see the tip  of his ski for a moment  well behind hers and to her Left. In the next few frames you can watch their shadows converge until she becomes visible. Her back is to camera guy and remains so. His ski tip is visible behind and to the left of hers. Her back  becomes closer and closer to camera person until the impact. That would seem to be a clear indication that the camera person is in fact overtaking her and not the other way around. Only after the impact does she turn her head around to look backward at our geezer. At this point he begins to fall and begins to lose forward momentum and she skis away from him.

Its interesting to speculate and try to read all sorts of things not in evidence here into the situation including her location prior to becoming visible. Perhaps in fact she had overtaken him prior to her becoming visible but there is no evidence of that. There just isn't enough information. What we do know is that when she becomes visible to the camera she is ahead of our camera man. That would imply that his responsibility was to try to avoid her. In addition it seems to be clear that his speed down the hill was greater than hers since he does in fact overtake her, resulting in a collision. We just do not know enough to come to any conclusions beyond that. If anything it seems likely that both of these people were skiing too close to one another at speed. Neither seems to have had much situational awareness up until moments before impact.  Its interesting to attempt to assess the situational awareness of camera man during the period leading up to impact. We don't see his camera pan from side to side at all. He appears to be focused straight ahead, his eyes upon his ski tips and his hands. Even when he begins to fall his helmet cam is focused straight ahead toward his hands. He makes no attempt to turn his body even then to roll on his shoulder but instead topples straight ahead onto his fists .I find this extremely odd. It would seem to call into question his general mobility, even perhaps his ability to turn his head at all.  Perhaps it is not surprising that he finds fault with the person who he struck (or whose skis he struck). From his point of view she "came out of nowhere> which curiously seems to be the common refrain among people who hit others from behind. I hear this statement reported  most frequently as a defense along with statements like "He/ she turned right in front of me"  (and he hit him/her). I don't doubt they sincerely believe they are not at fault but this does not absolve them of their responsibility to ski in control and avoid other skiers they are overtaking. To the extent that they both have a responsibility to be aware of others on the slope they share responsibility for the accident  but a person can only be expected to have limited awareness of people skiing up behind them. That is why the responsibility code requires us to avoid skiers we are approaching from behind.

So, at what point does the overtaken skier become the uphill skier and, thus, assume responsibility as such?

There's a good 4 or 5seconds between the HC guy checking a bit (probably not far enough) to his right and the initiation of the turn. Then, there's another 1 or 2 seconds between the initiation of the turn and the collision itself. And, since the younger skier wasn't flashing past at a much higher speed, as can be seen in the way the older guy nearly fell on top of her, she had to have been beside/in front of the guy for at least a couple of seconds (we can't see when because of the narrow view of the camera and the lack of head movement).

Obviously, the HC guy was overtaken at some point. But, at which point does he officially become the uphill skier?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CerebralVortex 

 

Obviously, the HC guy was overtaken at some point. But, at which point does he officially become the uphill skier?

Why obviouis? What evidence of this?

Actually you can see that she was in front of him from frame 50 onward (when she or part of her first becomes visible)

Quote:

Originally Posted by oisin 

Why obviouis? What evidence of this?

Actually you can see that she was in front of him from frame 50 onward (when she or part of her first becomes visible)

For the first 30 seconds of the video, she's not in sight, even when the guy checks his right at 0:29. But, she very well could have been right beside him or very slowly overtaking him in that time, especially on the flats. The camera never shows a good view all the way to the right, let alone uphill.

But, you can see they were going roughly the same speed when they crossed paths. That means the girl couldn't have overtaken from a significant distance behind; otherwise, she would have flashed across the man's path at a much higher speed than him.

So, I'm guessing she slowly overtook sometime in the 4-5 seconds between the guy checking his right and him initiating his turn.

We are guessing. The video shows him actually overtaking her in the moments leading to his falling. I'm guessing she was actually skiing faster than he in a lateral direction (ie turning) but that his speed down the slope at that point was actually slightly greater.

I think the conclusion i have drawn from this is that I do not have enough information to place fault upon the other skier. The camera person's characterization of the other skier as "wild" is also not supported by any information we have. If "she" was aware that he fell she obviously should have stopped and I think it would have been reasonably expected of her to have stopped anyway since she seemed to have become aware that there had been some sort of collision but actually we don't even know for certain that there was any kind of contact between them. We have only the evidence that she passed very close in front of him and that he fell and his assertion that she caused his fall. It is even conceivable that his fall was caused solely by his being startled. I still find it curious that he apparently did not fall laterally at all and that there seemed to be no twisting motion in his fall but I suppose the head-over-heels fall is consistent with his skis having been knocked off.

In summation: pretty cheeky to be demanding money in the absence of more conclusive proof of fault..

If you pause at 1:07, you can see at least one of his tips has hit the left boot. His skis were unweighted, because he was between turns. So, his ski(s) could easily get knocked out from under him without changing his course, making it look like he simply fell forward.

To me, it looks like one person has completed a slow overtake near the edge of the trail. Then, the overtaken skier turns into him/her, not having seen the overtaking maneuver occur.

Hence my question asking when an overtaken skier officially becomes the uphill skier and responsibility shifts from one to the other.

Still, no question that the younger skier should have stopped to see what hit him/her.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CerebralVortex 

If you pause at 1:07, you can see at least one of his tips has hit the left boot. His skis were unweighted, because he was between turns. So, his ski(s) could easily get knocked out from under him without changing his course, making it look like he simply fell forward.

 

To me, it looks like one person has completed a slow overtake near the edge of the trail. Then, the overtaken skier turns into him/her, not having seen the overtaking maneuver occur.

 

Hence my question asking when an overtaken skier officially becomes the uphill skier and responsibility shifts from one to the other.

 

Still, no question that the younger skier should have stopped to see what hit him/her.

I agree completely.  In my mind:

A. There's no question that the hit-and-run skier (HR) is moving significantly faster than the helmet cam skier (HC). 

B. I think HR is a guy, based on body shape and "manner".

C. I think HR was overtaking HC at a relatively higher rate of speed and cut in front of HC, causing the collision.

D. Comparing HC's line of travel to the tracks in the snow (which establish at least some point of reference for how much of a turn HC makes), HC's "big right turn" is no more than about four to six feet across the hill in a fairly flat turn radius.

All this leads me to believe that HC is cruising along on a fairly flat, wide-open, groomed run in good visibility.  He makes a VERY slight course correction to the right and gets clipped by HR.  Just my opinion, but HR absolutely HAD to be going a fair bit faster based on the feel of the relative speeds at the moment of impact.

What's fascinating about this video is that it really does expose the problem related to the question CerebralVortex is asking:

"When does an overtaking skier go from being fully responsible for avoiding the "downhill" skier to suddenly BEING the downhill skier and therefore responsible for nothing?"

If I'm skiing along at a modest speed and someone flashes by my right shoulder from behind and then instantly falls right in front of me, would I be totally at fault if I hit that "downhill" skier who just fell in front of me (giving me zero time to react)?

I've always believed unequivocally that the "uphill" skier is completely responsible for avoiding a collision with a "downhill" skier.  This is one case where I'm not so sure about that. 

Although I believe HR skier is 90% at fault here, I'm thinking the fact that the guy had a helmet on his camera and wanted to make a nice video probably interfered with him looking around more, the way a skier should be looking to the right and left as they go down the hill.  That leads me to think that perhaps these cameras would be better attached to chests or shoulders so that they are not interfering with safe skiing?

In my mind there's no question she's at fault, the simple fact that she came from behind and from the side, giving her plenty of oppty to see and react  and choosing to not maintain a safe "bubble" makes this cut and dry. I ski like i drive, I look before I turn and maintain safe distances between me and the others around me, I am more likely to stop or cut speed to a crawl when I come up on a group of kids skiing for instance and then speed up after I pass through.  Another reason why i try not to ski on the groomed!  Trees don't usually turn erratically.....