 Poster: A snowHead
|
That incident is incredibly sad.
Casting no aspersions at anyone, but I have an observation that some parents are just downright irresponsible.
I was in Soelden last week, which is a cruisy, blue sort of resort. It was empty on Saturday.
There is a black run there, skiied mostly by pretty competent folk. On it, I found some absolute idiot of a father guiding two tiny kids down who clearly could not ski it, and clearly were terrified. This wasn't teaching - this was a selfish git who wanted to ski a black run cajoling two terrified, well out of depth (think 4yrs old, barely able to snowplough) children down a run they should never have been on. And of course, as he led them slowly under a crest, someone came flying over it and nearly brained one of the children.
Now, the uphill rider's fault had he hit that child, sure. But, frankly, I had been sessioning the run all day and working on some fast turns, knowing that it was fairly empty and that intermediates were staying off it. People were intentionally using that crest to get air. And suddenly, there's a Dad with two tiny beginners on a run that advanced folk had been using all day, to get away from those cruisy blues so they could open the taps a little.
Both sides would have been at fault. But that father was not doing the right thing by those children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| Suddenly turning without warning in such a fashion that it's simply not possible for the uphill rider to avoid you breaks rule 1. |
The FIS rules rightly assume that there is no circumstance in which an uphill rider couldn't avoid a downhill rider because an uphill rider should know that a downhill rider may be prone to 'suddenly turning without warning'. The same applies to colliding with people over the lip of a blind summit, whether those people are just sitting in the middle of the piste, or whether they're there because of a mishap, if you ski into them, the fault rests firmly with you because you could have avoided the collision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
@moffatross, that's why, to my eye, rule 1 takes precedence. Because I can think easily of geometries where an appropriate spacing (esp. given we are generally referring to pistes, which are not all big and wide) and where suddenly turning without looking could result in a collision with someone technically if not practically above you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
All I'm saying is that universal observation of rule #1 would avoid most collisions.
Rule 4 doesn't give you licence to do exactly as you please on the grounds that anyone above should avoid you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Not sure that some esf people help. Les Menuires last week on a green/blue (can't remember which) there was a sharp left turn with appropriate on piste warnings. Esf took a sizeable group of ski club kids through it at full speed. On the one hand it was great to watch but on the other hand potentially very dangerous. Hardly a responsible example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Harry Flashman wrote: |
That incident is incredibly sad.
Casting no aspersions at anyone, but I have an observation that some parents are just downright irresponsible.
I was in Soelden last week, which is a cruisy, blue sort of resort. It was empty on Saturday.
There is a black run there, skiied mostly by pretty competent folk. On it, I found some absolute idiot of a father guiding two tiny kids down who clearly could not ski it, and clearly were terrified. This wasn't teaching - this was a selfish git who wanted to ski a black run cajoling two terrified, well out of depth (think 4yrs old, barely able to snowplough) children down a run they should never have been on. And of course, as he led them slowly under a crest, someone came flying over it and nearly brained one of the children.
Now, the uphill rider's fault had he hit that child, sure. But, frankly, I had been sessioning the run all day and working on some fast turns, knowing that it was fairly empty and that intermediates were staying off it. People were intentionally using that crest to get air. And suddenly, there's a Dad with two tiny beginners on a run that advanced folk had been using all day, to get away from those cruisy blues so they could open the taps a little.
Both sides would have been at fault. But that father was not doing the right thing by those children. |
I went down the Swiss Wall (a steep black if you are not familiar) a couple of weeks ago, I've looked at it twice and on those occasions thought no, but the conditions were OK a fortnight back and went down it with my son (23), he made it down without falling. I however got a kid of about 10 go flying into me (I was stationary, taking a breather). He clearly couldn't handle it (moguls top to bottom), he couldn't even put his ski back on and I helped him with it. His parents were further up the slope, God knows what they were doing.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Tue 21-03-17 21:19; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Richard_Sideways wrote: |
| "PISTE OF DOOM!" does seem to be this years trope |
Maybe because of it I've been watching from the lift more closely. I did see on an otherwise empty piste the only 2 skiers come within a whisker of hitting each other. Muppetry certainly doesn't seem to be a recessive gene. |
It's like when you are waiting near the edge of an empty piste, in full view and then the only other skiers on the piste stop right next to you (and often immediately below or in front of you) or when you take a seat on an empty bus and the only other passenger takes the seat next to you - I'm sure this is some sort cognitive bias / phenomenon (e.g. the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@king key, the Wall's a trophy run. I actively discouraged clients from it when I was guiding, back in the day. If they wanted steep and bumpy I could show them steeper and bumpier, with no gravity propelled missiles to avoid.
Mind you, I've done it on a monoski, just so I could say I had. Which makes me just as daft I s'pose 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
All I'm saying is that universal observation of rule #1 would avoid most collisions.
Rule 4 doesn't give you licence to do exactly as you please on the grounds that anyone above should avoid you. |
Yeah sure, but rulez is rulez innit, and the faster skier/boarder catching the slower one ought to be the wiser and more experienced one. As an aside (but loosely related in principle), fifteen years ago, I rolled into the back of a pupil under driving instruction at a roundabout in Aberdeen with a closing speed of about 2 mph. The roundabout was perfectly clear, the L-driver in front was proceeding smoothly but suddenly stopped for no apparent reason and I didn't. I thought nothing of it, I barely felt the bump and there was certainly no visible damage, but on the instructor's request and being a good citizen, exchanged details. I found out later that the driving instructor pursued my company's insurer for whiplash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
rulez is rulez innit
|
"10. Identification
Following any accident, every skier and snowboarder, whether a responsible party or witness, must exchange names and addresses."
I wonder how many people actually follow that if they witness an accident? Does someone have to be hurt for it to count? I'd consider any collision to be an 'accident'. So if I'm half way up a chairlift and see a collision where it's obvious nobody has been hurt, the people involved get up and ski off, I'm obliged to chase after them both and give them my name and address 'cos 'rulez is rulez innit'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
@moffatross, I am agreeing that rulez is rulez. But I am pre-suming that the rules re a bit like the laws of robotics... as in, 1 beats 2 beats, ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
@king key,
You stop in the zip line, you take the consequences 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
I feel an on-piste version of "You are the umpire" coming on...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| swiftoid wrote: |
| Quote: |
rulez is rulez innit
|
"10. Identification
Following any accident, every skier and snowboarder, whether a responsible party or witness, must exchange names and addresses."
I wonder how many people actually follow that if they witness an accident? Does someone have to be hurt for it to count? I'd consider any collision to be an 'accident'. So if I'm half way up a chairlift and see a collision where it's obvious nobody has been hurt, the people involved get up and ski off, I'm obliged to chase after them both and give them my name and address 'cos 'rulez is rulez innit'? |
Probably not. But if you see an accident from a chairlift and someone is lying there not moving, maybe you should ski down to where you saw the accident?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| under a new name wrote: |
Rule 4 doesn't give you licence to do exactly as you please on the grounds that anyone above should avoid you. |
Good luck with that given that many members of the ESF among others seem to believe the opposite. (& instructors elsewhere are guilty of the same).
It might seem logical to you and I that it takes 2 people to have a collision (even when one is static) and often the victim has not helped themselves but given that it seems so hard to get people to understand Rule 4 let alone the others (& I believe the lack of a specific precedence) the idea of some utopia where no-one above or below makes jackass moves seems pretty distant. Unless you move to Red Mountain, BC where everyone is a great skier and because they are Canadian are modest and polite too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, quite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| @moffatross, that's why, to my eye, rule 1 takes precedence. Because I can think easily of geometries where an appropriate spacing (esp. given we are generally referring to pistes, which are not all big and wide) and where suddenly turning without looking could result in a collision with someone technically if not practically above you. |
The thing you're forgetting is that not all changes in direction or speed are intentional. Sometimes, people change direction because they catch an edge, hit a rock, etc. Sometimes, they suddenly stop because they've crashed. Sometimes, they change direction or stop suddenly in order to avoid someone else who has stopped, lost control, or crashed.
The only appropriate spacing anywhere is one that allows you to avoid hitting anyone ahead of you. If they can't change direction or speed without you hitting them, then you're putting them in danger, which means you're breaking rule 1.
Also, if you're on a crowded piste and think it's your responsibility to look uphill before changing direction, you have to remember that looking uphill only puts those downhill from you in danger. If someone topples over or turns in front of you while you're looking uphill, then you're going to ski right into them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@cerebralvortex, that's fine in theory but as I say, I can imagine geometries where it's just not true.
Also, modern skis (and always snowboards) can readily carve uphill... so if I carelessly engineer a collision while skiing too fast by carving uphill into a beginner who is carefully making their way downhill in full control, but is the uphill skier, whose fault is it?
I appreciate that I'm stretching the point.
More seriously, the other dimension of course is speed. I can think of many pistes which don't have enough space to avoid even simple mistakes from riders in front, but there of course, one should never be skiing faster than the speed that allows a hard stop before hitting any conceivable obstacle.
I disagree with your uphill glance point completely however. If I'm so close to skiers downhill that a glance over my shoulder (e.g. as one should do when changing lanes on a motorway) is going to endanger anyone then I am any or all of: too fast, too close or too unaware.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I have to admit I did exchange a "WTF- seriously?" with a guy on a cross slope cattrack whose clear purpose was to enable skiers and snowboarders to gather enough speed to cross a flat area to a lift (given said track didn't go anywhere else and it was a deadend valley). Everyone else seems to grasp this concept and straightlines in an orderly fashion. Douchetard decides that it is better to cut from extreme left to right to take a small hit off the right hand side and then skew laterally across the middle of the track. I was in no danger of hitting him but wondered what selfish thought process was going through his head. (at no point did he look uphill until he was stopped dead in the middle)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@under a new name, glancing uphill when it's safe to do so is not in itself a problem. The problem is when people expect everyone in front of them to look uphill before changing speed or direction. That expectation leads to people skiing too close and not paying attention to what those below them are doing. And that leads to collisions and near misses where the uphill skier blames the downhill skier when, in reality, the uphill skier was at fault for breaking rule 3 or 4.
All of the geometries you're imagining are nothing more than examples of people breaking 1 of those 2 rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@cerebralvortex, actually, you said this already. Everything is just a violation of rule #1 tbh. Rules #2 thru #5 at least are just refinements of #1.
I don't think your context was clear on the glancing uphill. I expect everyone downhill to do something stupid. At precisely the wrong moment. I try not to do anything stupid.
As an old friend's father said, "assume everyone else on the road is an idiot, then you won't be surprised when someone behaves like one".
And my driving instructor, "rule 1. Don't do anything that makes anyone else have to react".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave of the Marmottes, sshhhhhhhh don't tell everyone 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
I would submit that rule
1. Respect for other skiers and snowboarders
A skier or snowboarder must behave in such a way that he or she does not endanger or prejudice others.
Trumps rule
4. Overtaking
A skier or snowboarder may overtake another skier or snowboarder above or below and to the right or to the left provided that enough space is left for the overtaken skier or snowboarder to make any voluntary or involuntary movement.
Suddenly turning without warning in such a fashion that it's simply not possible for the uphill rider to avoid you breaks rule 1.
Anyway, snowboarders are invariably to be found sideslipping all the snow off a mountain facing downhill or sitting with their grungy mates just over a blind summit. |
Nothing trumps rule 4, no matter how ignorant and prejudiced you may be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@bar shaker, rule 1 patently does.
That's why it's rule 1 not rule >1.
As I say, the rest is refinement (for the hard of thinking).
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Well we seem to have a few differing factions here, doubt that will change so let's all be aware of that.
Me i think rule 4 is clear and righteous (and not trumped by anything). Your milage may vary but don't expect me to be looking over my shoulder for you before i move.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
@essex, @bar shaker, logically, you can violate rule 1 while following rule 4 (or 3, etc.) but not the other way around.
I.e. You can always overtake perfectly but always leap straight into a crowded piste without looking. Rule 4 obeyed, rule 1 broken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tiesto wrote: |
| swiftoid wrote: |
| Quote: |
rulez is rulez innit
|
"10. Identification
Following any accident, every skier and snowboarder, whether a responsible party or witness, must exchange names and addresses."
I wonder how many people actually follow that if they witness an accident? Does someone have to be hurt for it to count? I'd consider any collision to be an 'accident'. So if I'm half way up a chairlift and see a collision where it's obvious nobody has been hurt, the people involved get up and ski off, I'm obliged to chase after them both and give them my name and address 'cos 'rulez is rulez innit'? |
Probably not. But if you see an accident from a chairlift and someone is lying there not moving, maybe you should ski down to where you saw the accident? |
Without doubt I would do so in that scenario but rule 10 says I should do so following 'any accident' I witness. I witness loads of 'accidents' every trip. People catching an edge and falling over, people crossing their tips and falling over, people spilling their beer, people accidentally taking a wrong turn and taking their other halves down something too difficult for them. Obviously I'm being flippant here but that rule could do with some clarity as to what an 'accident' is. If it means a collision with another slope user it should say that. It's perfectly possible to have an inconsequential accident involving nobody else after all and if I had a 'little sit down' by accident the last thing I'd want was everyone who saw me coming over and demanding my name and address 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
surely it's not rocket science? You exchange when there is injury or significant damage to property?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I was stood at the side of a piste next to a family that had stopped.
Snowboarder cam flying down the piste and went straight into the family's young daughter, he went right through her ending up on top of her, she must have been 8 years old.
The Snowboarder was about 25. The young girl did not see the Snowboarder coming as she was talking to her parents.
The Snowboarder said sorry, checked his board and off he went.
The girl was in shock, but somehow unhurt.
Other people are the biggest danger when skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| @cerebralvortex, actually, you said this already. Everything is just a violation of rule #1 tbh. Rules #2 thru #5 at least are just refinements of #1. |
I don't like the way that rule 1 is worded in the FIS version of the rules, because I think it can be misconstrued to mean that the downhill skier has a responsibility to look out for uphill skiers at times when they really shouldn't. Also, it's completely unnecessary given that rules 2-6 cover pretty much everything you need to do on the mountain (ski under control, give people ahead of you the right of way, overtake safely, check uphill before merging or starting again after you've stopped, and not stopping in bad places).
I think rule 1 is at best pointless and at worst misleading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I think rule 1 conveys the general spirit of what the rest of the rules are trying to convey and as such has interpretative power but I definitely don't believe the same as UANN is postulating that it somehow trumps other rules. I definitely don't believe rule 4 trumps 5 &6 as many seem to as it would make a nonsense of the rules re endangerment if setting off or joining point blank into someone's path were never the responsibility of the setter offer or joiner.
The signs one is kinda openly disobeyed in Europe too though culturally i.e. warning signs are taken as advisory rather than mandatory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| rossyl wrote: |
I was stood at the side of a piste next to a family that had stopped.
Snowboarder cam flying down the piste and went straight into the family's young daughter, he went right through her ending up on top of her, she must have been 8 years old.
The Snowboarder was about 25. The young girl did not see the Snowboarder coming as she was talking to her parents.
The Snowboarder said sorry, checked his board and off he went.
The girl was in shock, but somehow unhurt.
Other people are the biggest danger when skiing. |
Which is why if I need to stop at the side of a piste, if at all possible I stop just on the downhill side of a snow cannon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
one thing that no one has mentioned is that sometimes people do a quick turn towards the edge of the piste because they need a rest and their legs are shot
If all had consideration for others it would be much more pleasant with less collisions but sadly human nature being what it is people will always put their own pleasure before others
Totally agree that some form of piste patrol should be in place with powers to confiscate lift passes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@gazza330, no one has mentioned this because they know that the uphill skier would be at fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@gazza330, that'd be me. I don't know how I compare to others but compared to my husband and children I need to stop far more frequently than them, and often without much notice! However, regardless of who would be to blame, I don't want the rest of my holiday ruined so I usually try and check uphill first if it's at all physically possible. It's also why I only set off when the piste is as clear as possible when I know it's likely I'll need to stop again soon. Basically, I don't trust anyone no matter how in the right I am! It shouldn't be that way, but it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jedster wrote: |
| surely it's not rocket science? You exchange when there is injury or significant damage to property? |
There's the problem. The rule states you should exchange after ANY accident you witness. I guess most people would consider that daft if no apparent harm was done. However, what's your definition of injury? A broken leg? Unable to ski off the mountain unaided? A bit of a strain? A black eye where someone collided with you? What's your definition of 'significant damage'? Your new skis/board topsheet gets scraped? Your pole gets snapped? You were knocked over and your gopro mount busted? Are your definitions the same as the people involved? It's all very ambiguous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@sparklies, +1
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
@swiftoid, if i witnessed an accident I'd want to offer help or my details. If in doubt, do what you feel is right, rather than what you feel is your right. Turning the rules into a 3 inch thick tome that defines all possible scenarios won't help anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@sparklies, @motyl, + another 1
When I was taught to ski I was taught to use the full width of the piste on anything vaguely steep and look for the best snow/place to turn in. This may not be visible from a distance and does not usually allow for even, rhythmic turns. At the same time it was hammered into us that it is always the responsibility of the uphill skier to avoid collisions!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
