If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Your Responsibility Code" Interpretation...Ugh
Hey all,
I'm a level III snowboard and level II alpine instructor and was recently presented with an interesting scenario and asked to give an opinion regarding fault. Here is the scenario: 1) Skier #1 is making consistent meduim radius turns down the middle of a blue run. 2) Skier #2, a faster skier, uphill from Skier #1 is making longer radius turns down the skier's left side of the run. 3) The path of the Skier #2 does not overlap with the path of Skier #1. 4) Skier #2 can see Skier #1 well before passing on the left, notes the consistent turns and continues down the left side to pass. 5) A couple of yards before passing, Skier #1 makes a hard left turn across the hill, perpendicular to the fall line, and makes contact with Skier #2 on the left side of the run. 6) Skier #1 fell hard and suffered a broken ankle. 7) Skier #2 feels that Skier #1 was trying to stop by cutting across and up the hill. 8) Skier#1 claims that Skier #2 was out of control and that, as the "uphill" skier, should have avoided Skier #1 no matter what. 9) Skier #2 claims that he had taken proper precautions could not respond in time to Skier #1's unusual, sharp, maneuver across the hill. The relevant lines from "Your Responsibility Code" are as follows: 1) Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects. 2) People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them. 3) You must not stop where you obstruct a trail, or are not visible from above. Looking at #1 and #2 from the code, it seems as though Skier #1 would win the argument. However, I liken this to an argument similar to that around pedestrians and cars. Say a car is driving the speed limit, or slower, sees a pedestrian on the sidewalk, near a crosswalk. The pedestrian is walking normal down the sidewalk, so the driver of the car continues on cautiously. As the car is just about to pass the pedestrian, the pedestrian runs out in front of the car in a time faster that normal human perception response time. Thus, the driver of the car was being cautious, but had no chance of avoiding the seemingly reckless actions of the pedestrian, who was apparently not aware his/her environment. The text before the code (http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/safety/ know_the_code.asp) reads, "Regardless of how you decide to enjoy the slopes, always show courtesy to others and be aware that there are elements of risk in skiing that common sense and personal awareness can help reduce." Is there some "personal awareness" in play here that Skier #1 should have abided by? Who should be to blame for Skier #1's fall? Any thoughts or comments on the matter would be appreciated. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Your Responsibility Code" Interpretation...Ugh
On Jan 7, 11:57*am, wrote:
Hey all, I'm a level III snowboard and level II alpine instructor and was recently presented with an interesting scenario and asked to give an opinion regarding fault. Here is the scenario: 1) Skier #1 is making consistent meduim radius turns down the middle of a blue run. 2) Skier #2, a faster skier, uphill from Skier #1 is making longer radius turns down the skier's left side of the run. 3) The path of the Skier #2 does not overlap with the path of Skier #1. 4) Skier #2 can see Skier #1 well before passing on the left, notes the consistent turns and continues down the left side to pass. 5) A couple of yards before passing, Skier #1 makes a hard left turn across the hill, perpendicular to the fall line, and makes contact with Skier #2 on the left side of the run. 6) Skier #1 fell hard and suffered a broken ankle. 7) Skier #2 feels that Skier #1 was trying to stop by cutting across and up the hill. 8) Skier#1 claims that Skier #2 was out of control and that, as the "uphill" skier, should have avoided Skier #1 no matter what. 9) Skier #2 claims that he had taken proper precautions could not respond in time to Skier #1's unusual, sharp, maneuver across the hill. The relevant lines from "Your Responsibility Code" are as follows: 1) Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects. 2) People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them. 3) You must not stop where you obstruct a trail, or are not visible from above. Looking at #1 and #2 from the code, it seems as though Skier #1 would win the argument. However, I liken this to an argument similar to that around pedestrians and cars. Say a car is driving the speed limit, or slower, sees a pedestrian on the sidewalk, near a crosswalk. The pedestrian is walking normal down the sidewalk, so the driver of the car continues on cautiously. As the car is just about to pass the pedestrian, the pedestrian runs out in front of the car in a time faster that normal human perception response time. Thus, the driver of the car was being cautious, but had no chance of avoiding the seemingly reckless actions of the pedestrian, who was apparently not aware his/her environment. The text before the code (http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/safety/ know_the_code.asp) reads, "Regardless of how you decide to enjoy the slopes, always show courtesy to others and be aware that there are elements of risk in skiing that common sense and personal awareness can help reduce." Is there some "personal awareness" in play here that Skier #1 should have abided by? Who should be to blame for Skier #1's fall? Any thoughts or comments on the matter would be appreciated. No brainer - I didn't even read your whole post. Skier #1 is an idiot. Never ever ever ever ever make a big change to your line without looking uphill to see what's coming down. That is the same as changing lanes in a car without looking looking next to and behind you. I hope you were not skier #1. -- Marty |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Your Responsibility Code" Interpretation...Ugh
Marty wrote:
On Jan 7, 11:57 am, wrote: ... Is there some "personal awareness" in play here that Skier #1 should have abided by? Who should be to blame for Skier #1's fall? Any thoughts or comments on the matter would be appreciated. No brainer - I didn't even read your whole post. Skier #1 is an idiot. Never ever ever ever ever make a big change to your line without looking uphill to see what's coming down. That is the same as changing lanes in a car without looking looking next to and behind you. Well, surely. Skier 1 IS an idiot - Same deal as pulling in front of a semi truck - if you do something stupid, you're going to get creamed. Still, Skier 2 is at fault. The relevant code reads: 1) Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects. 2) People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them. Pretty dam clear. And no mention of being off the hook just because you're sharing the slope with an idiot. In fact, the only safe way to approach skiing on resort slopes is to assume EVERYONE out there is an idiot trying to kill or injure you. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Your Responsibility Code" Interpretation...Ugh
On Jan 7, 11:16*am, Marty wrote:
On Jan 7, 11:57*am, wrote: Hey all, I'm a level III snowboard and level II alpine instructor and was recently presented with an interesting scenario and asked to give an opinion regarding fault. Here is the scenario: 1) Skier #1 is making consistent meduim radius turns down the middle of a blue run. 2) Skier #2, a faster skier, uphill from Skier #1 is making longer radius turns down the skier's left side of the run. 3) The path of the Skier #2 does not overlap with the path of Skier #1. 4) Skier #2 can see Skier #1 well before passing on the left, notes the consistent turns and continues down the left side to pass. 5) A couple of yards before passing, Skier #1 makes a hard left turn across the hill, perpendicular to the fall line, and makes contact with Skier #2 on the left side of the run. 6) Skier #1 fell hard and suffered a broken ankle. 7) Skier #2 feels that Skier #1 was trying to stop by cutting across and up the hill. 8) Skier#1 claims that Skier #2 was out of control and that, as the "uphill" skier, should have avoided Skier #1 no matter what. 9) Skier #2 claims that he had taken proper precautions could not respond in time to Skier #1's unusual, sharp, maneuver across the hill. The relevant lines from "Your Responsibility Code" are as follows: 1) Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects. 2) People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them. 3) You must not stop where you obstruct a trail, or are not visible from above. Looking at #1 and #2 from the code, it seems as though Skier #1 would win the argument. However, I liken this to an argument similar to that around pedestrians and cars. Say a car is driving the speed limit, or slower, sees a pedestrian on the sidewalk, near a crosswalk. The pedestrian is walking normal down the sidewalk, so the driver of the car continues on cautiously. As the car is just about to pass the pedestrian, the pedestrian runs out in front of the car in a time faster that normal human perception response time. Thus, the driver of the car was being cautious, but had no chance of avoiding the seemingly reckless actions of the pedestrian, who was apparently not aware his/her environment. The text before the code (http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/safety/ know_the_code.asp) reads, "Regardless of how you decide to enjoy the slopes, always show courtesy to others and be aware that there are elements of risk in skiing that common sense and personal awareness can help reduce." Is there some "personal awareness" in play here that Skier #1 should have abided by? Who should be to blame for Skier #1's fall? Any thoughts or comments on the matter would be appreciated. No brainer - Apparently. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Your Responsibility Code" Interpretation...Ugh
"lal_truckee" wrote in message news:rjvgj.86754 idiot. Never ever ever ever ever make a big change to your line without looking uphill to see what's coming down. That is the same as changing lanes in a car without looking looking next to and behind you. Well, surely. Skier 1 IS an idiot - Same deal as pulling in front of a semi truck - if you do something stupid, you're going to get creamed. Still, Skier 2 is at fault. The relevant code reads: 1) Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects. 2) People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them. Pretty dam clear. And no mention of being off the hook just because you're sharing the slope with an idiot. In fact, the only safe way to approach skiing on resort slopes is to assume EVERYONE out there is an idiot trying to kill or injure you. Agreed. Couple of assumptions - Skier 2 was passing. Therefore Skier 1 was moving at a slower rate of speed. If Skier 1 had time to get into skier 2's path then either skier 2 was passing too close or was not in control enough or aware enough to alter his course. Again, the fact that Skier 1 happens to be an idiot is irrelevant to allocation of blame. He was downhill, he had the right to change course. The third responsibility code line quoted is irrelevent as Skier 2 admits that he was aware of Skier 1's presence, therefore he does not appear to have stopped where he could not be seen from above. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Your Responsibility Code" Interpretation...Ugh
On Jan 7, 12:45*pm, lal_truckee wrote:
Marty wrote: On Jan 7, 11:57 am, wrote: ... Is there some "personal awareness" in play here that Skier #1 should have abided by? Who should be to blame for Skier #1's fall? Any thoughts or comments on the matter would be appreciated. No brainer - I didn't even read your whole post. *Skier #1 is an idiot. *Never ever ever ever ever make a big change to your line without looking uphill to see what's coming down. *That is the same as changing lanes in a car without looking looking next to and behind you. Well, surely. Skier 1 IS an idiot - Same deal as pulling in front of a semi truck - if you do something stupid, you're going to get creamed. Still, Skier 2 is at fault. The relevant code reads: 1) Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects. 2) People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them. Pretty dam clear. And no mention of being off the hook just because you're sharing the slope with an idiot. In fact, the only safe way to approach skiing on resort slopes is to assume EVERYONE out there is an idiot trying to kill or injure you. Whoa - I never said that I was correct by "The Code". I simply stated that #1 is an idiot. That IS no brainer. #2 may get sued - but #1 now has a broken ankle and his/her ski season is over. Justice prevails in my book. #2 should look for more room to rip or learn to scrub speed better in a tight situation. But, I bet #1 will learn to look upward from now on. :-) -- Marty |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Your Responsibility Code" Interpretation...Ugh
lal_truckee wrote:
Still, Skier 2 is at fault. The relevant code reads: 1) Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects. 2) People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them. Pretty dam clear. And no mention of being off the hook just because you're sharing the slope with an idiot. In fact, the only safe way to approach skiing on resort slopes is to assume EVERYONE out there is an idiot trying to kill or injure you. Agree with lal here. From a strict interpretation of the skier's code, Skier 2 is at fault. Case closed. However, the skier's code is not the be-all, end-all. Obeying the code is a very good idea, but assuming that others on the hill are going to observe it is rather foolish. Skier 1 got waxed, and a big part of the cause is that he wasn't doing his part to avoid collisions. As I tell my sailing students: when there's a collision, both boats share the blame regardless of the relevant right of way rules. Same here. //Walt |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Your Responsibility Code" Interpretation...Ugh
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Your Responsibility Code" Interpretation...Ugh
On Jan 7, 12:43*pm, Walt wrote:
wrote: I'm a level III snowboard and level II alpine instructor and was recently presented with an interesting scenario and asked to give an opinion regarding fault. It depends on what you mean by "fault". *If you're just going by the skier's code, Skier 2 broke the code while Skier 1 did not. *That means that skier 2 bears some of the blame, but it doesn't absolve skier 1 from all responsibility. Merely following the skiers code is not enough. *For instance, it doesn't say anything about, say, skiing in a suit made of broken glass or with a ferret in your trousers, or any number of other stupid dangerous things you might do. *Such as making a hard left turn into the path of an oncoming skier. Were this to go to court, I'd put the blame roughly 60-40. //Walt Th skier's code is written such that all skiers are responsiblde to avoid and protect what is in front of them. It is too much to ask for skier in motion and in control to look in all directions, including uphill, before making any maneuver. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Your Responsibility Code" Interpretation...Ugh
On Jan 7, 11:45*am, lal_truckee wrote:
Marty wrote: On Jan 7, 11:57 am, wrote: ... Is there some "personal awareness" in play here that Skier #1 should have abided by? Who should be to blame for Skier #1's fall? Any thoughts or comments on the matter would be appreciated. No brainer - I didn't even read your whole post. *Skier #1 is an idiot. *Never ever ever ever ever make a big change to your line without looking uphill to see what's coming down. *That is the same as changing lanes in a car without looking looking next to and behind you. Well, surely. Skier 1 IS an idiot - Same deal as pulling in front of a semi truck - if you do something stupid, you're going to get creamed. Still, Skier 2 is at fault. The relevant code reads: 1) Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects. 2) People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them. Pretty dam clear. And no mention of being off the hook just because you're sharing the slope with an idiot. In fact, the only safe way to approach skiing on resort slopes is to assume EVERYONE out there is an idiot trying to kill or injure you. That's the way I handle it. The slower they are moving, the wider a berth they get. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
burton's "twin-like" vs "directional twin" | TacoJohn | Snowboarding | 0 | December 21st 07 02:46 AM |
Seeing Reference to "Backcountry Magazine" article on Bill Briggs | [email protected] | Backcountry Skiing | 0 | April 27th 07 04:45 PM |
Another old Post of Scott lobbing "Insane Whacko" names at people | Yabahoobs | Alpine Skiing | 6 | March 2nd 07 04:37 PM |