"Your Responsibility Code" Interpretation...Ugh

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 17:06:45 -0800 (PST), Marty
wrote:

On Jan 7, 4:57*pm, "Bob F" wrote:
"ant" wrote in message

...





Walt wrote:
Marty wrote:

Look at #4:

- Whenever starting downhill or merging into a trail, look uphill and
yield to others.

The "Code" is better than I thought.

To me, trail is the same as line. *#1 is at fault.

I think you'll find that you're in the minority with that
interpretation.

My oath! And it's scary that there are people on the hill who can read those
very clear rules, and from them say that skiier 1 was at fault!

Person uphill MUST avoid the person downhill/ahead of them. *The overtaker
MUST avoid the person they are overtaking. The skiier MUST be in control to be
able to stop or avoid hitting things/people.

trail and line are totally different. *Once you start getting into definitions
of line, you hit so many problems. For instance, boarders and skiiers see
"line" totally differently. *And who is to say a line is a line? A beginner
carefully turning is quite different from a racer, or an intermediate.

And by the proposed definition, I should make sure to randomize my turns so the
overtaking skier cannot determine my "line", thereby making me responsible for
him running into me.

Bob F- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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.


If it were *possible* for skier 1 to do that, then skier 2 was passing
far too close, because in the time it takes skier 2 to move "a couple
of yards", skier 1 could not have come close to turning through 90
degrees.

This is not a case of random turn shape IN the fall line.

Totally irrelevant.


This is a
case of #1 coming across the fall line with a skier right behind him.
Huge difference.

ZERO difference.


Look at the way it was stated - #1 makes contact
with #2 - who hit who? Is that how you drive a car? Do you abruptly
swerve from the left lane to the right without looking behind you or
to your left.

Is that supposed to be relevant?

Roads have defined lanes, ski trails don't. Cars have turn indicators,
skiers don't.

Cars are expected to continue in the same lane unless they are
indicating otherwise. Skiers are *expected* to turn. And there is NO
requirement for those turns to be predictable.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Man who run behind car get exhausted.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:36:31 -0800 (PST), Marty
wrote:

On Jan 7, 11:57*am, wrote:
Hey all,

snip...

Here is another version that is numbered:

http://www.nsc.org/mem/youth/ski/nsaa4.htm

4. Whenever starting downhill or merging, look uphill and yield.

Merging from where to where? Merging trails or merging lanes? I say
they are the same.


You are wrong. Fact.

It means merging trails.

There is no such thing as a "lane" on a ski trail, so there cannot be
any such thing as "merging lanes".
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Quasimodo is a dead ringer.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 13:51:20 -0800 (PST), Marty
wrote:

On Jan 7, 7:04*pm, "Richard Henry" wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message

...
On Jan 7, 5:18 pm, wrote:

snip...

So, it seems that the Responsibility Code would indeed place blame for
the collision on Skier #2. However, it seems that there is an
unwritten "safety" code that says, if you are skiing defensively, like
driving (hopefully), you'll be aware of the environment all around you
(i.e. uphill, downhill, side, etc.).

Yes.

From the OP:

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.

Why would anyone abruptly change line (down the fall line to across
the fall line) without taking a quick look uphill? *That's crazy.

It's one thing to be skiing down the fall line or even across the fall
line (any combination of turn shape) and get hit by somebody from
behind. *That IS the uphill skiers fault. *It's completely different
if you abruptly change your line from say the side of the hill to the
center coming across the fall line. *There is plenty of time to look
up and make sure somebody else is not coming down at a higher speed to
the place that you want to go. *You may cut into the path of a really
good skier that is about to overtake you and they MAY be able to miss
you. *Maybe not. *Why take the chance? *If the uphill skier is right
behind you (as the OP had stated), then there is a far greater chance
that you'll get hit - no matter the skill of the uphill skier. *Also,
speed is not a factor here. *The uphill skier may be travelling only a
few mph faster than the downhill skier - well within the limits set by
the Yellow Jackets. *The speed difference does not have to be great to
cause great harm in the collision and fall.

I'm not saying to look uphill with every turn. *Look uphill when
making a significant change in your line or your turn shape (from
narrow to wide).

Common sense, not utter crap at all. *I wish more people would
practice this "sort of" unwritten rule. *Like I said, it would have
prevented this situation.
--

Utter crap. *#2 being in control would have prevented this situation.

My whole argument in this case really has nothing to do with what
skier #2 did or did not do according to the code. My argument is that
#1 IS an idiot. Even if not at fault by the code, skier #1 has a
broken ankle and is done for the season.

While this is *possibly* true, it is nothing to do with the original
question.

It is by no means certain that it is even true though. As others have
pointed out, there may have been reason for his sudden change of
direction, which would mean he wasn't an idiot.

Looking uphill to check the
situation before such a move would have prevented the accident.
Because I'm a safe skier that ALWAYS looks for lots of room to pass -
I'll never hit anyone - no matter what kind of dumbass move the
downhill skier may make.


And THAT is the real point. That is what skier 2 *should* have done
and did NOT do.

And THAT is why it is *mainly* the fault of skier 2.



BTW, this morning I asked my 12 and 14 year old daughters what they
would do if they were skier #1 in this situation. They both said,
"Look up".

Utter common sense.


IF you have the time (and ability) to do so.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
My favourite mythical creature? The honest politician.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:34:14 -0800 (PST), Marty
wrote:

On Jan 8, 4:44*pm, "Bob F" wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message

...
On Jan 8, 3:45 pm, "Bob F" wrote:

"Marty" wrote in message news:8ae3a1ce-4364-4370-aea1-
My whole argument in this case really has
nothing to do with what skier #2 did or did
not do according to the code. My argument is that
#1 IS an idiot.

The first statement is clearly false. The second may be true, but that does
not
affect the fact that the first statement is false.

Let me simplify:

Because of skier #1's lack of common sense while skiing, he now has a
broken ankle. *He assumed that skiers above him would be able to avoid
him no matter what kind of move he made on the hill.

Bob, do you think it is a good practice to look or glance uphill when
making a significant change in direction while skiing?
--

Sure, why not? That does not change the responsibility of the second skier
however.

Agreed. But, are you willing to take the chance that skier #2 is
responsible?

Do you do as you say EVERY TIME. Even when trying to avoid just seen rocks, etc?

Yes. Rocks? Oh, that's why the bases and edges of my free skis look
like that.

I'm sorry, but to me, that makes *you* the idiot here. If you are more
willing to take the risk posed by hitting a rock than the risk of
making an "unexpected" turn without looking, then you are (I would
expect) far more likely to come to grief than if it were the other way
around.

But frankly, I don't believe you. I do not believe there is a skier
alive who has *never* made a sudden change of direction without
looking uphill first.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Things working well, no problems. Time to upgrade.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:18:46 +0100, BrritSki
wrote:

wrote:
Thanks to all for the great discussion....

I think Skier 2 is 100% to blame.

However, when I first started making big fast wide-radius carved turns I
found that I had a couple of collisions with people who were neither
ahead or behind, just doing the same shape turns as me in the opposite
direction, including a SLF at Killington a few years back - boy did he
bounce


I almost had one of those on Friday at Zell am Ziller.

We both turned at more or less the same time from opposite directions,
saw each other, and both tried to adjust to pass uphill of the other -
twice :-) By this time, we had slowed enough to be able to laugh at
each other, but were still on a collision course. Eventually, I
indicated she should pass below, and we both carried on our ways.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I will defend to your death my right to my opinion.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

In article ,
Alex Heney wrote:

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:31:16 -0800 (PST), 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:

Jeremy, here is the entire code:

National Ski Patrol Responsibility Code

- Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or
objects.
- People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility
to avoid them.
- You must not stop where you obstruct a trail, or are not visible
from above.
- Whenever starting downhill or merging into a trail, look uphill and
yield to others.
- Always use devices to help prevent runaway equipment.
- Observe all posted signs and warnings. Keep off closed trails and
out of closed areas.
- Prior to using any lift, you must have the knowledge and ability to
load, ride and unload safely.

Notice that they are not numbered. But, lets assume 1 through 7.

Look at #4:

- Whenever starting downhill or merging into a trail, look uphill and
yield to others.

The "Code" is better than I thought.

To me, trail is the same as line. #1 is at fault.

trail is NOT the same as line.

While there is undoubtedly fault on both sides, the *main* fault lies
with skier 2.

If another skier is moving, and you want to pass them, then you should
always pass far enough away that they *can't* move into your path by a
sudden direction change.

And even when they are not moving, this is a good idea, as I found out
to my cost last week :-(

I was about to pass in front of a standing skier, when she started
moving without looking. I managed to miss *her*, but couldn't avoid
hitting the front of her skis and crashing badly, pulling a calf
muscle in the process.

Actually, the responsibility code is unambiguous in that situation. She
was responsible for keeping clear when she started moving.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Dave Cartman wrote:
In article ,
"ant" wrote:


It was always interesting, being in a group of instructors from all
over the world, all of whom could discuss all kinds of things in
complete understanding of the words used or subjects discussed.
Invariably, an American would demand to know what X word was, or
what was this thing we were talking about?

My first guess is that the American is more likely to admit he doesn't
know everything in a group of pretentious ski instructors who believe
that they can "discuss all kinds of things in complete understanding
of the words used or subjects discussed."

But I'm guessing your pint is it's because the Norteamericano ski
instructors aren't as smart or educated as the European ones. Does
that say more about the American education system or the European job
market? (Quick question: Are Australians considered European, or do
they just lump themselves with them when it suites them?)

Another possible explanation might be the phenomenon of
"ethnocentrism." A comparison: if a group from the US were discussing
American football (a bit of trivia, American football is actually
known as "American soccer" in the other 15% of the world and played
with racquets shaped like pool skimmers) and the conversation shifted
to "safetys." You might ask "Oi! Wat's a soiftee!!!" (Because all
Australians precede all statements with an excited "Oi!") and the
American might think, "wow! what a poorly educated and uncultured
individual, this Australian doesn't even know what a "safety" is.
Similar examples could be provided using apple pie, baseball, and
American Idol.

You do realise "American Idol" is a version of a British program "Pop Idol"
don't you?


--

Chris *:-)

MoonMan wrote:
Dave Cartman wrote:
In article ,
"ant" wrote:


It was always interesting, being in a group of instructors from all
over the world, all of whom could discuss all kinds of things in
complete understanding of the words used or subjects discussed.
Invariably, an American would demand to know what X word was, or
what was this thing we were talking about?

My first guess is that the American is more likely to admit he
doesn't know everything in a group of pretentious ski instructors
who believe that they can "discuss all kinds of things in complete
understanding of the words used or subjects discussed."

But I'm guessing your pint is it's because the Norteamericano ski
instructors aren't as smart or educated as the European ones. Does
that say more about the American education system or the European job
market? (Quick question: Are Australians considered European, or do
they just lump themselves with them when it suites them?)

Another possible explanation might be the phenomenon of
"ethnocentrism." A comparison: if a group from the US were discussing
American football (a bit of trivia, American football is actually
known as "American soccer" in the other 15% of the world and played
with racquets shaped like pool skimmers) and the conversation shifted
to "safetys." You might ask "Oi! Wat's a soiftee!!!" (Because all
Australians precede all statements with an excited "Oi!") and the
American might think, "wow! what a poorly educated and uncultured
individual, this Australian doesn't even know what a "safety" is.
Similar examples could be provided using apple pie, baseball, and
American Idol.

You do realise "American Idol" is a version of a British program "Pop
Idol" don't you?

Sssshhhh. we just don't mention things like that. It upsets them.

--
ant
Don't try to email me!
I'm using the latest spammer/scammer's
email addy.

In article ,
"ant" wrote:

MoonMan wrote:
Dave Cartman wrote:
In article ,
"ant" wrote:


It was always interesting, being in a group of instructors from all
over the world, all of whom could discuss all kinds of things in
complete understanding of the words used or subjects discussed.
Invariably, an American would demand to know what X word was, or
what was this thing we were talking about?

My first guess is that the American is more likely to admit he
doesn't know everything in a group of pretentious ski instructors
who believe that they can "discuss all kinds of things in complete
understanding of the words used or subjects discussed."

But I'm guessing your pint is it's because the Norteamericano ski
instructors aren't as smart or educated as the European ones. Does
that say more about the American education system or the European job
market? (Quick question: Are Australians considered European, or do
they just lump themselves with them when it suites them?)

Another possible explanation might be the phenomenon of
"ethnocentrism." A comparison: if a group from the US were discussing
American football (a bit of trivia, American football is actually
known as "American soccer" in the other 15% of the world and played
with racquets shaped like pool skimmers) and the conversation shifted
to "safetys." You might ask "Oi! Wat's a soiftee!!!" (Because all
Australians precede all statements with an excited "Oi!") and the
American might think, "wow! what a poorly educated and uncultured
individual, this Australian doesn't even know what a "safety" is.
Similar examples could be provided using apple pie, baseball, and
American Idol.

You do realise "American Idol" is a version of a British program "Pop
Idol" don't you?

What!? Next you'll be claiming that the process of mixing apples and
sugar in a pastry isn't a unique American invention either! Why not lay
claim to all our original ideas like "Who Wants to be a Millionaire,"
"Friends," and "The Office." Hell, you may as well try to claim "The
Star Spangled Banner" as your own too.

Reply when you people have an original idea!

U S A! U S A!

Dave

PS "sputter, incoherent rage... more sputtering."

Dave Cartman wrote:
In article ,
"ant" wrote:

MoonMan wrote:
Dave Cartman wrote:
In article ,
"ant" wrote:

It was always interesting, being in a group of instructors from all
over the world, all of whom could discuss all kinds of things in
complete understanding of the words used or subjects discussed.
Invariably, an American would demand to know what X word was, or
what was this thing we were talking about?
My first guess is that the American is more likely to admit he
doesn't know everything in a group of pretentious ski instructors
who believe that they can "discuss all kinds of things in complete
understanding of the words used or subjects discussed."

But I'm guessing your pint is it's because the Norteamericano ski
instructors aren't as smart or educated as the European ones. Does
that say more about the American education system or the European job
market? (Quick question: Are Australians considered European, or do
they just lump themselves with them when it suites them?)

Another possible explanation might be the phenomenon of
"ethnocentrism." A comparison: if a group from the US were discussing
American football (a bit of trivia, American football is actually
known as "American soccer" in the other 15% of the world and played
with racquets shaped like pool skimmers) and the conversation shifted
to "safetys." You might ask "Oi! Wat's a soiftee!!!" (Because all
Australians precede all statements with an excited "Oi!") and the
American might think, "wow! what a poorly educated and uncultured
individual, this Australian doesn't even know what a "safety" is.
Similar examples could be provided using apple pie, baseball, and
American Idol.
You do realise "American Idol" is a version of a British program "Pop
Idol" don't you?

What!? Next you'll be claiming that the process of mixing apples and
sugar in a pastry isn't a unique American invention either! Why not lay
claim to all our original ideas like "Who Wants to be a Millionaire,"
"Friends," and "The Office." Hell, you may as well try to claim "The
Star Spangled Banner" as your own too.

Reply when you people have an original idea!

Strictly Come Dancing (aka Dancing with the Stars).
Len & Bruno are all ours you know...