"Your Responsibility Code" Interpretation...Ugh

Marty wrote:
On Jan 7, 7:55 pm, "Norm" wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message news:96c76cf5-4864-4887-8628-

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.

=======================

I wouldn't say your entirely wrong, Marty, but you are looking at it from
the point of view of an experienced, capable skier. If they gave everybody a
common sense test before they let them ski we would all still be riding
rickety fixed grip double chairs and packing brown bag lunches. Whether
that would be a good or bad thing is a different thread.

People change direction erratically all the time. They do it on the ski hill
and they do it on the sidewalk.
If Skier 2 was not able to spot the change in direction in time to adjust
his own path then he was Too Close, or Too Fast, or Not In Sufficient
Control. It was stated Skier 1 was traveling slower than skier 2. Do you
think there is any likelihood skier 1 increased his speed by turning across
the hill? If Skier 2 was, lets say, 25 feet away from Skier 1 at the point
just above where he would have passed could Skier 1 have turned quickly
enough that he would have run directly into skier 2's path?
As the up hill skier it was Skier 1's responsibility to avoid the skier
below him. If there was not enough room to pick a path sufficiently far away
from Skier 1 then he should have been checking his speed before he became
close enough that Skier 1 was able to veer that quickly into his path. If
that meant he was unable to pass, then so be it. A safe and courteous skier
will adjust for conditions, one of which is how crowded the run is.

Any idea why your posts do not create a when people respond to them?
What do you post from?

Strange. I use Google groups - no news server. When I reply to a
post, I get the prefix. What are you using?
--
Marty

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?
--
Marty

"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.

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

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.
--
Marty

On Jan 7, 4:48*pm, "MG" wrote:
wrote in message

...





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.

Whatever happened to the quaint custon of yelling "ON YOUR LEFT"? * Seems
like that would have solved the problem.

I have really gotten cautious about skiers downhill of me. *And boarders
take lines so strange sometimes, I give them a really wide berth.

And sometimes the bear gets you...

One of my most spectacular falls occurred near the bottom of Snow
Summit. In the last steep, wide pitch before the bottom, I found
myself skiing beside another skier at a similar spped and apparent
ability. We made eye contact and started doing synchronized short-
swing parallel turns. Unfortunatley, he fell, his bindings released,
and one of his skis flew across and landed on my skis, upside down and
perpendicular to myu intended motion. Luckily both of my bindings
released properly when my skis stopped.

On 08 Jan 2008 02:25:32 GMT, "M" wrote this crap:

they are the same.
Whatever happened to the quaint custon of yelling "ON YOUR LEFT"?
Seems
like that would have solved the problem.

I usually yell, "OUT OF THE WAY, DUMBASS!"

The dumbass usually stops, and looks behind him, while I zip past.

Then I do a maneuver throwing snow in his face.






My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

VtSkier wrote:

Having done speed control, I can say that chasing
someone down is a fools errand. The way you catch
speeders (!) is by the observe and catch in lift
line method.

The observer in the "slow" area radios the other
"cop" in the lift line with the "perp's" description
who then confronts the perp with whatever
consequences the area is promoting that day.

Yep, I agree, that's a good approach. Used it on a disgusting boarder who
smacked me from behind at Keystone, actually. It was first run of the day,
and I was amusing myself on the big green (Schoolmarm) making turns on the
right edge, staying in one groomer track. This thing just cleans me up
from behind, I turned to find him lying on the ground, abusing me, saying
that I turned right front of him. Hmm. Schoolmarm is massively wide, it'd
just been groomed, I was doing short turns inside the same groomer track....
wow. He was large and belligerant so I didn't try to get his pass (one of
my female colleages had tried it with someone and got belted to the ground
and kicked), but followed him down to the mid-mountain chair, got them to
load him single, and radioed up to Patrol who live up at the top station.
They were waiting for him at the top!

Very satisfying.


Our usual approach is a warning first time with
a marking of the ticket. Loss of privileges second.
No compromise on that second violation. Actually
the ski area says loss of privileges on the first
violation, but hey...

I like the ski area's attitude. I too-often see them want to pretend to
care about safety, but really they don't want to upset anyone by taking
their tickets.


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

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

So when I start doing those sort of turns I alsways have a glance behind
to see if anyone else has the same idea...

MoonMan wrote:
ant wrote:
IF someone's passing someone else, the onus is on them to complete the
manouvre safely.

I think too many snow users have a very deficient understanding of
the word "control" though.

I can't believe this got so much discussion, skier 2 is at fault. there can
be no argument. The 'Skiway code' or whatever it is called in your country
is as far as I am aware universal and specific.

It nearly happened to me last week, I was the uphill skier and the downhill
skier turned into my path and almost pushed me off the piste, but if he'd
hit me it would have been my fault.


I was stood still at the side of the piste yesterday and some idiot hit
me from behind. If it hadn't been my wife I'd have smacked her

BrritSki wrote:
MoonMan wrote:
ant wrote:
IF someone's passing someone else, the onus is on them to complete
the manouvre safely.

I think too many snow users have a very deficient understanding of
the word "control" though.

I can't believe this got so much discussion, skier 2 is at fault.
there can be no argument. The 'Skiway code' or whatever it is called
in your country is as far as I am aware universal and specific.

It nearly happened to me last week, I was the uphill skier and the
downhill skier turned into my path and almost pushed me off the
piste, but if he'd hit me it would have been my fault.


I was stood still at the side of the piste yesterday and some idiot
hit me from behind. If it hadn't been my wife I'd have smacked her

Now come on that was obviously your fault

--

Chris *:-)