"Your Responsibility Code" Interpretation...Ugh

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:11:25 -0500, VtSkier
wrote:

wrote:
Thanks to all for the great discussion. As an instructor, the code has
been deep-rooted in my mind for a long time, so, my original
interpretation is that, when passing or overtaking anyone, the person
being overtaken has the right-of-way, regardless of their line or
change in line. However, as an instructor, I am responsible for the
safety of my students first and foremost. In that role, I would say
that I look up the hill and across the hill just as much as I look
down the hill and toward my students. On any given run, I feel as
though I know exactly where everyone is at all times, both below and
above me...sort of an inherent personal and class safety code. I very
much inherently behave as Marty stated above, "4) If you are going to
make a line change, look up the hill to make sure that: a) an out of
control dumbass isn't heading down that same line while heading for
the trees or lift pole, or b) a good skier that just happens to be
going faster than you isn't about to pass you in that line."

Interestingly, I found the following in the Colorado "Ski Safety Act
of 1979" (revised in 2006):

33-44-109(2) - Each skier has the duty to maintain control of his
speed and course at all times when skiing and to maintain a proper
lookout so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects. However,
the primary duty shall be on the person skiing downhill to avoid
collision with any person or objects below him.

The wording here does not seem to pin down all the blame on the uphill
skier, just places a majority of the responsibility on the uphill
skier. The line, "...maintain a proper lookout so as to be able to
avoid other skiers..." could be interpretted to mean that people
should even check over their shoulder once in a while for people
coming down behind them.

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.). Finally, the Colorado Statute,
actual law, seems to lend more ambiguity to the problem to the
scenario...very interesting.

Where did all of this occur?
What was the rating of the trail?
From the rating of the trail is it just possible to judge the rating of
the skiers on it?

In other words, the stated problem doesn't give enough
information.

I *assume* that this a green or blue because skier #1
IS an idiot. No question.

That's a key point for assigning real-world blame (as opposed to "who
violated the written code?" which would be skier#2). If this were a
green run, I would hold skier #1 pretty much blameless; asking a
beginner to remember all the bizarre bits of instruction and advice
while actively managing four edges and two poles is already a lot to
ask Forget about asking them to also be aware of what's coming up
behind them. If you're going to rip a green run or an easy blue, you
should be able to avoid all other skiers even if they're actively
trying to get hit. If you can't do that, you''re ripping the wrong
slope at the wrong time. But on anything marked "advanced" or higher,
it's reasonable to expect a minimal level of competence, awareness and
predictability from those downhill.

bw

bdubya wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:11:25 -0500, VtSkier
wrote:

wrote:
Thanks to all for the great discussion. As an instructor, the code has
been deep-rooted in my mind for a long time, so, my original
interpretation is that, when passing or overtaking anyone, the person
being overtaken has the right-of-way, regardless of their line or
change in line. However, as an instructor, I am responsible for the
safety of my students first and foremost. In that role, I would say
that I look up the hill and across the hill just as much as I look
down the hill and toward my students. On any given run, I feel as
though I know exactly where everyone is at all times, both below and
above me...sort of an inherent personal and class safety code. I very
much inherently behave as Marty stated above, "4) If you are going to
make a line change, look up the hill to make sure that: a) an out of
control dumbass isn't heading down that same line while heading for
the trees or lift pole, or b) a good skier that just happens to be
going faster than you isn't about to pass you in that line."

Interestingly, I found the following in the Colorado "Ski Safety Act
of 1979" (revised in 2006):

33-44-109(2) - Each skier has the duty to maintain control of his
speed and course at all times when skiing and to maintain a proper
lookout so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects. However,
the primary duty shall be on the person skiing downhill to avoid
collision with any person or objects below him.

The wording here does not seem to pin down all the blame on the uphill
skier, just places a majority of the responsibility on the uphill
skier. The line, "...maintain a proper lookout so as to be able to
avoid other skiers..." could be interpretted to mean that people
should even check over their shoulder once in a while for people
coming down behind them.

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.). Finally, the Colorado Statute,
actual law, seems to lend more ambiguity to the problem to the
scenario...very interesting.
Where did all of this occur?
What was the rating of the trail?
From the rating of the trail is it just possible to judge the rating of
the skiers on it?

In other words, the stated problem doesn't give enough
information.

I *assume* that this a green or blue because skier #1
IS an idiot. No question.

That's a key point for assigning real-world blame (as opposed to "who
violated the written code?" which would be skier#2). If this were a
green run, I would hold skier #1 pretty much blameless; asking a
beginner to remember all the bizarre bits of instruction and advice
while actively managing four edges and two poles is already a lot to
ask Forget about asking them to also be aware of what's coming up
behind them. If you're going to rip a green run or an easy blue, you
should be able to avoid all other skiers even if they're actively
trying to get hit. If you can't do that, you''re ripping the wrong
slope at the wrong time. But on anything marked "advanced" or higher,
it's reasonable to expect a minimal level of competence, awareness and
predictability from those downhill.

bw

It's been a while since I posted what you
are responding to. While you are correct, I
do wish you hadn't snipped what I wrote to
look like I was blaming Skier #1.

It was quite clear in the REST of what I
wrote that I felt ALL the blame rested with
Skier #2, if for no other reason than he
didn't assume Skier #1 was an idiot.

This is pretty much what I was getting at
when I said the problem as stated didn't
have enough information.

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:40:11 -0500, VtSkier
wrote:

bdubya wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:11:25 -0500, VtSkier
wrote:

wrote:
Thanks to all for the great discussion. As an instructor, the code has
been deep-rooted in my mind for a long time, so, my original
interpretation is that, when passing or overtaking anyone, the person
being overtaken has the right-of-way, regardless of their line or
change in line. However, as an instructor, I am responsible for the
safety of my students first and foremost. In that role, I would say
that I look up the hill and across the hill just as much as I look
down the hill and toward my students. On any given run, I feel as
though I know exactly where everyone is at all times, both below and
above me...sort of an inherent personal and class safety code. I very
much inherently behave as Marty stated above, "4) If you are going to
make a line change, look up the hill to make sure that: a) an out of
control dumbass isn't heading down that same line while heading for
the trees or lift pole, or b) a good skier that just happens to be
going faster than you isn't about to pass you in that line."

Interestingly, I found the following in the Colorado "Ski Safety Act
of 1979" (revised in 2006):

33-44-109(2) - Each skier has the duty to maintain control of his
speed and course at all times when skiing and to maintain a proper
lookout so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects. However,
the primary duty shall be on the person skiing downhill to avoid
collision with any person or objects below him.

The wording here does not seem to pin down all the blame on the uphill
skier, just places a majority of the responsibility on the uphill
skier. The line, "...maintain a proper lookout so as to be able to
avoid other skiers..." could be interpretted to mean that people
should even check over their shoulder once in a while for people
coming down behind them.

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.). Finally, the Colorado Statute,
actual law, seems to lend more ambiguity to the problem to the
scenario...very interesting.
Where did all of this occur?
What was the rating of the trail?
From the rating of the trail is it just possible to judge the rating of
the skiers on it?

In other words, the stated problem doesn't give enough
information.

I *assume* that this a green or blue because skier #1
IS an idiot. No question.

That's a key point for assigning real-world blame (as opposed to "who
violated the written code?" which would be skier#2). If this were a
green run, I would hold skier #1 pretty much blameless; asking a
beginner to remember all the bizarre bits of instruction and advice
while actively managing four edges and two poles is already a lot to
ask Forget about asking them to also be aware of what's coming up
behind them. If you're going to rip a green run or an easy blue, you
should be able to avoid all other skiers even if they're actively
trying to get hit. If you can't do that, you''re ripping the wrong
slope at the wrong time. But on anything marked "advanced" or higher,
it's reasonable to expect a minimal level of competence, awareness and
predictability from those downhill.

bw

It's been a while since I posted what you
are responding to. While you are correct, I
do wish you hadn't snipped what I wrote to
look like I was blaming Skier #1.

Sorry - intent was to snip to put the focus was on the trail type,
i.e. the context of the incident, not to misrepresent your stance.
Also because I don't think it's fair to call skier #1 an idiot if this
happened on an easily accessible green run where you'd expect to find
a lot of people with no clue what they're doing.

bw

On Jan 16, 5:40*am, VtSkier wrote:
bdubya wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:11:25 -0500, VtSkier
wrote:

wrote:
Thanks to all for the great discussion. As an instructor, the code has
been deep-rooted in my mind for a long time, so, my original
interpretation is that, when passing or overtaking anyone, the person
being overtaken has the right-of-way, regardless of their line or
change in line. *However, as an instructor, I am responsible for the
safety of my students first and foremost. In that role, I would say
that I look up the hill and across the hill just as much as I look
down the hill and toward my students. *On any given run, I feel as
though I know exactly where everyone is at all times, both below and
above me...sort of an inherent personal and class safety code. *I very
much inherently behave as Marty stated above, "4) If you are going to
make a line change, look up the hill to make sure that: *a) *an out of
control dumbass isn't heading down that same line while heading for
the trees or lift pole, or b) *a good skier that just happens to be
going faster than you isn't about to pass you in that line."

Interestingly, I found the following in the Colorado "Ski Safety Act
of 1979" (revised in 2006):

33-44-109(2) - Each skier has the duty to maintain control of his
speed and course at all times when skiing and to maintain a proper
lookout so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects. However,
the primary duty shall be on the person skiing downhill to avoid
collision with any person or objects below him.

The wording here does not seem to pin down all the blame on the uphill
skier, just places a majority of the responsibility on the uphill
skier. The line, "...maintain a proper lookout so as to be able to
avoid other skiers..." could be interpretted to mean that people
should even check over their shoulder once in a while for people
coming down behind them.

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.). Finally, the Colorado Statute,
actual law, seems to lend more ambiguity to the problem to the
scenario...very interesting.
Where did all of this occur?
What was the rating of the trail?
From the rating of the trail is it just possible to judge the rating of
the skiers on it?

In other words, the stated problem doesn't give enough
information.

I *assume* that this a green or blue because skier #1
IS an idiot. No question.

That's a key point for assigning real-world blame (as opposed to "who
violated the written code?" which would be skier#2). *If this were a
green run, I would hold skier #1 pretty much blameless; *asking a
beginner to remember all the bizarre bits of instruction and advice
while actively managing four edges and two poles is already a lot to
ask *Forget about asking them to also be aware of what's coming up
behind them. *If you're going to rip a green run or an easy blue, you
should be able to avoid all other skiers even if they're actively
trying to get hit. *If you can't do that, you''re ripping the wrong
slope at the wrong time. *But on anything marked "advanced" or higher,
it's reasonable to expect a minimal level of competence, awareness and
predictability from those downhill. *

bw

It's been a while since I posted what you
are responding to. While you are correct, I
do wish you hadn't snipped what I wrote to
look like I was blaming Skier #1.

It was quite clear in the REST of what I
wrote that I felt ALL the blame rested with
Skier #2, if for no other reason than he
didn't assume Skier #1 was an idiot.

This is pretty much what I was getting at
when I said the problem as stated didn't
have enough information.

I ski like I drive - I assume that everyone else is an idiot.

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.


I think you missed some, but luckily Holywood remembers them for you, for
example capturing an enigma machine first.


--

Chris *:-)