"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.

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

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.

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.

"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.

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

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

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

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.

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.