# Whos fault?



## polariso (Dec 20, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AId9S-RVJPw


----------



## drjeff (Dec 20, 2010)

The boarder is overtaking the skier (or atleast attempting to), and thus based on the skier/rider responsibility code, the over taking person has the responsibility to avoid the downhill person.  Boarder to blame


----------



## powpig2002 (Dec 20, 2010)

no way. that skier was turning and taking up way too much of the slope. when i'm scooting on a board, skiis, bike or car, anyone going faster is an idiot. anyone slower ia a moron


----------



## vonski (Dec 20, 2010)

Boarder looks like he was up hill. So, I go with boarder, but had either one hit the brakes after the first initial almost collision the whole thing would have been avoided looks like to me.


----------



## puckoach (Dec 20, 2010)

powpig2002 said:


> no way. that skier was turning and taking up way too much of the slope. when i'm scooting on a board, skiis, bike or car, anyone going faster is an idiot. anyone slower ia a moron



While a tounge in cheek comment, to our regret, it's true thought, for way too many.

IMHO, it will continue, until area's actually start enforcing rules, and pulling passes.  

I have been coaching for a long time.  Some are only controled by discipline.  A small minority, will never get it, and need to be dismissed.

Also, consider when approaching a slower person,  not only should it trigger thoughts of lesser skills, but a higher degree of reactions - possibly based on panic.   

A lift ticket provides an opportunity to share a mountain.  Not own it....


----------



## tjf67 (Dec 20, 2010)

No ones.  It was a accident.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 20, 2010)

drjeff said:


> The boarder is overtaking the skier (or atleast attempting to), and thus based on the skier/rider responsibility code, the over taking person has the responsibility to avoid the downhill person. Boarder to blame


 
Agreed, but if the SB was in a closed racecourse, the skier should have avoided the course.


----------



## polariso (Dec 20, 2010)

puckoach said:


> while a tounge in cheek comment, to our regret, it's true thought, for way too many.
> 
> Imho, it will continue, until area's actually start enforcing rules, and pulling passes.
> 
> ...


amen


----------



## tjf67 (Dec 20, 2010)

puckoach said:


> While a tounge in cheek comment, to our regret, it's true thought, for way too many.
> 
> IMHO, it will continue, until area's actually start enforcing rules, and pulling passes.
> 
> ...



What type of coach?


----------



## MMP (Dec 20, 2010)

considering the snowboarder ran over the tails of the skiers boards, it is not even close who is at fault. 

Imagine the nerve of that skier not getting the tails of his skis out of the boarder's way


----------



## SIKSKIER (Dec 20, 2010)

Not even close.Not only does the boarder almost hit her once,he comes back and finishes the job.


----------



## WWF-VT (Dec 20, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> Not even close.Not only does the boarder almost hit her once,he comes back and finishes the job.



The boarder is at fault...twice


----------



## jaywbigred (Dec 20, 2010)

drjeff said:


> The boarder is overtaking the skier (or atleast attempting to), and thus based on the skier/rider responsibility code, the over taking person has the responsibility to avoid the downhill person.  Boarder to blame



DrJeff ftw. I mean, there is no real gray area there. 

Morally, is it sometimes the downhill person's fault? Yeah, sometimes. But the rule is written the way it is for a reason. And I think it is a good rule.


----------



## tmcc71 (Dec 20, 2010)

*boarders fault,  no question*

I work ski patrol.  This is clearly the boarders fault,  no question.  I would have pulled his pass without fail.   He did not use proper caution approaching and overtaking downhill  trail user.   He had several choices:  slow down and fall in behind her,  pass giving a safer margin of error, or stop.   This is an easy one to read.  there really is no argument to defend this boarders actions.


----------



## polariso (Dec 20, 2010)

tmcc71 said:


> I work ski patrol.  This is clearly the boarders fault,  no question.  I would have pulled his pass without fail.   He did not use proper caution approaching and overtaking downhill  trail user.   He had several choices:  slow down and fall in behind her,  pass giving a safer margin of error, or stop.   This is an easy one to read.  there really is no argument to defend this boarders actions.



 We have a winner !!!


----------



## tjf67 (Dec 20, 2010)

tmcc71 said:


> I work ski patrol.  This is clearly the boarders fault,  no question.  I would have pulled his pass without fail.   He did not use proper caution approaching and overtaking downhill  trail user.   He had several choices:  slow down and fall in behind her,  pass giving a safer margin of error, or stop.   This is an easy one to read.  there really is no argument to defend this boarders actions.



These people were not going that fast.  He went over the back of her skis so yeah I guess it was his fault.  They both came back together.  Neither of them were in control and they crashed again.   No one got hurt, lesson learned, be careful have a nice day.


----------



## dmc (Dec 20, 2010)

tjf67 said:


> These people were not going that fast.  He went over the back of her skis so yeah I guess it was his fault.  They both came back together.  Neither of them were in control and they crashed again.   No one got hurt, lesson learned, be careful have a nice day.



Exactly..  No harm - no foul..


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 20, 2010)

tjf67 said:


> These people were not going that fast.  He went over the back of her skis so yeah I guess it was his fault.  They both came back together.  Neither of them were in control and they crashed again.   No one got hurt, lesson learned, be careful have a nice day.



very true.......but is it really necessary for folks to ski/ride that close to one another?

I'm someone who typically waits a considerable amount of time uphill to make sure I have a lot of clearance of others around me.


----------



## wa-loaf (Dec 20, 2010)

tjf67 said:


> These people were not going that fast.  He went over the back of her skis so yeah I guess it was his fault.  They both came back together.  Neither of them were in control and they crashed again.   No one got hurt, lesson learned, be careful have a nice day.



Try not to bring any reason into these threads. Thanks


----------



## dmc (Dec 20, 2010)

tmcc71 said:


> I work ski patrol.  This is clearly the boarders fault,  no question.  I would have pulled his pass without fail.



Blue Mountain?  Camelback?


FREE GSS!!!!


----------



## polariso (Dec 20, 2010)

We are now in the generation of "Ignorance is bliss".


----------



## dmc (Dec 20, 2010)

polariso said:


> We are now in the generation of "Ignorance is bliss".



As opposed to your generation?


----------



## polariso (Dec 20, 2010)

dmc said:


> As opposed to your generation?


 Correct


----------



## dmc (Dec 20, 2010)

polariso said:


> Correct



Nice private attack on me...   

Rot in hell...


----------



## Smellytele (Dec 20, 2010)

I call ski off!!! Polariso vs. dmc


----------



## polariso (Dec 20, 2010)

dmc said:


> Nice private attack on me...
> 
> Rot in hell...


 Right.. and you can stop following my posts.. thanks gay guy


----------



## dmc (Dec 20, 2010)

polariso said:


> Right.. and you can stop following my posts.. thanks gay guy



Don't flatter yourself..


----------



## polariso (Dec 20, 2010)

dmc said:


> Don't flatter yourself..


 What happened to all your swear words?


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 20, 2010)

dmc said:


> Nice private attack on me...
> 
> Rot in hell...


 


polariso said:


> Right.. and you can stop following my posts.. thanks gay guy


 
ENOUGH!  Stop it BOTH OF YOU!


----------



## dmc (Dec 20, 2010)

polariso said:


> What happened to all your swear words?



I don't want this thread to close.


----------



## darent (Dec 20, 2010)

dmc said:


> As opposed to your generation?



" lets move on, don't look back"   no one got hurt. does that make it OK!!  truely a teaching moment some want to ignore.I don't like it when a skier or a sb use me as a slalom gate , lots of room out there, use it


----------



## tjf67 (Dec 20, 2010)

polariso said:


> We are now in the generation of "Ignorance is bliss".



Who r U?


----------



## Geoff (Dec 20, 2010)

Great caption on the clip:


> This happened at an education camp for snowboard instructors. The 2nd hit by the skier was intentionally. Stupid skiers.



I didn't realize snowboarders actually got "run them down like a dog" lessons in their education camp.  It now starts making sense.


----------



## dmc (Dec 20, 2010)

Geoff said:


> Great caption on the clip:
> 
> 
> I didn't realize snowboarders actually got "run them down like a dog" lessons in their education camp.  It now starts making sense.




It's innate for most of us..  Part of the "dark side" conversion..


----------



## mondeo (Dec 20, 2010)

tjf67 said:


> Who r U?


Someone who doesn't like My Generation's excessive use of The Who references.


----------



## andrec10 (Dec 20, 2010)

Snowboarder DEFINITELY was at fault! Its the ones like him that give the rest a bad name. Moron! Skiing in the training course...:flame::flame:


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Dec 20, 2010)

This incident has *nothing* to do with how many planks are underfoot. As stated when overtaking a skier/rider, unless they have eyes in the back of their heads, the overtakee has the right of way over the overtaker. When entering a trail you must look uphill before getting on the trail as the uphill skier/rider has the right of way


----------



## 2Planker (Dec 21, 2010)

Just another 25 year patroller chiming in....   The Boarder is 100% at fault in this case.  

 Disregard the name --  I ride more than I ski, both working and off days....


----------



## mondeo (Dec 21, 2010)

At fault or responsible? Different questions.

Responsible? The boarder, cut and dry, per The Code.

At fault? Boarder, skier, and whoever put that training course there. There's a reason race courses get fenced off, when you're training or racing the natural tendancy is to focus less on your surroundings than normal. There should at least be signage warning approaching skiers to stay clear of the course. If there was nothing, then ok, beginner skier doesn't know any better, pretty much off the hook, but somone screwed up in not providing warning. If there was some signage, then the skier didn't pay attention to it, but there still could have been more done to seperate the training course from the general skiing public.

Reality isn't as black and white as The Code might suggest.


----------



## polariso (Dec 21, 2010)

*Hmmm*

Says it happened at an education camp.. nothing about a closed course.


----------



## tjf67 (Dec 21, 2010)

polariso said:


> We have a winner !!!



Who made you the judge anyway?


----------



## mondeo (Dec 21, 2010)

polariso said:


> Says it happened at an education camp.. nothing about a closed course.


Who said it was?


----------



## wa-loaf (Dec 21, 2010)

mondeo said:


> Who said it was?



The person who posted the video on youtube.


----------



## mondeo (Dec 21, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> The person who posted the video on youtube.


I try to avoid reading anything on Youtube. It makes Facebook and internet forums look like the Paris salons of old.


----------



## snafu (Dec 21, 2010)

Funny how the real issue here gets clouded by rider/skier biases, generational gaps etc. Just who's fault is it? Well, just looking at the video in and of itself with no other context(which in of itself is ridiculous, but hey I'll play along) its the person who was in back's fault.


----------



## Geoff (Dec 21, 2010)

mondeo said:


> At fault or responsible? Different questions.
> 
> Responsible? The boarder, cut and dry, per The Code.
> 
> ...



This is nonsense.   Resorts don't rope off areas for instructor clinics.   You should see Killington midweek in December when all those clinics are going on.   The ski instructor clinic is giving standing around lessons.   The snowboarder instructor clinic is giving sitting around lessons.   They totally ignore any rules of the road and are a complete menace.   There is no barrier to entry to taking an instructor clinic other than the clinic fee.   An awful lot of them don't have the skills of the average midweeker recreational skier.   They come from feeder hills and are logging the clinic week so they can go back to their home hill and teach never-nevers.   Little surprise that some people in a snowboard instructor clinic lack the basic skills to avoid somebody below them.


----------



## snafu (Dec 21, 2010)

snafu said:


> Funny how the real issue here gets clouded by rider/skier biases, generational gaps etc. Just who's fault is it? Well, just looking at the video in and of itself with no other context(which in of itself is ridiculous, but hey I'll play along) its the person who was in back's fault.



Actually after seeing who started this thread I change my mind. It was the skiers fault. Trolling troll is a f'ing troll.:smash::uzi::flame:uke::evil:


----------



## mondeo (Dec 21, 2010)

Geoff said:


> This is nonsense. Resorts don't rope off areas for instructor clinics. You should see Killington midweek in December when all those clinics are going on. The ski instructor clinic is giving standing around lessons. The snowboarder instructor clinic is giving sitting around lessons. They totally ignore any rules of the road and are a complete menace. There is no barrier to entry to taking an instructor clinic other than the clinic fee. An awful lot of them don't have the skills of the average midweeker recreational skier. They come from feeder hills and are logging the clinic week so they can go back to their home hill and teach never-nevers. Little surprise that some people in a snowboard instructor clinic lack the basic skills to avoid somebody below them.


Let's say there was a serious injury, and this went to court. Do you really think it would result in a summary judgement for the skier with the snowboarder being held 100% at fault? No way. There would be suits against the resort from both parties, and originally a suit against the boarder by the skier with a counter suit against the skier. Likely, the snowboarder would be deemed to bear the brunt of the fault, possibly with resort gettiing some fault for not setting up reasonable protections for an event like this. But the skier also wouldn't get 100% of the damages (depending on state law, as I understand it,) because they would be somewhat at fault. Maybe only 10% at fault, but the collision could have been easily avoided if the skier was not on the training course.

Let's go to a car analogy. Say you've got three cars, one going 150mph, one going 60mph, and one going 55. The 150 car comes screaming along, and a second before it's about to pass the other two, the 60 moves into the passing lane and gets creamed. The guy going 150 is going to get nailed, and hard. But if justice is fully carried out, the guy going 60 will be assigned some small amount of fault for an unsafe lane change.

At Whistler this summer, the set up was, coming onto the glacier, some groomer space, a couple bump lanes for the Canadian national team and another camp, our freeride lane, and then our bump lanes. The racer camps would be there bright and early, with gates set up, and sometimes the other bump camps would be going already. Going over to our lanes was a long, shallow traverse, so technically we were the downhill traffic as we crossed. But only the completely inexperienced or idiotic would cross the lanes without waiting for the guys uphill. By The Code, had there been a collision, the other party would be responisible. Practically, the guys coming down their lanes should be somewhat aware, but in fairness the fault would be shared.

Everyone wants to point the finger at someone else, no one wants to accept that accidents almost always can be avoided by any of the parties involved paying a little more attention to what's going on around them.


----------



## mondeo (Dec 21, 2010)

snafu said:


> Actually after seeing who started this thread I change my mind. It was the skiers fault. Trolling troll is a f'ing troll.:smash::uzi::flame:uke::evil:


 Duh.


----------



## wa-loaf (Dec 21, 2010)

mondeo said:


> Let's go to a car analogy. Say you've got three cars, one going 150mph, one going 60mph, and one going 55. The 150 car comes screaming along, and a second before it's about to pass the other two, the 60 moves into the passing lane and gets creamed. The guy going 150 is going to get nailed, and hard. But if justice is fully carried out, the guy going 60 will be assigned some small amount of fault for an unsafe lane change.



Really? You're going to go with this analogy? Is this on a racecourse or something? Because in the real world, and even on the autobahn, the dude going 90mph faster than the flow of traffic is going to be at fault. No way someone going 60 is even going to see the dude going 150 before he starts to pull out.


----------



## drjeff (Dec 21, 2010)

mondeo said:


> At Whistler this summer, the set up was, coming onto the glacier, some groomer space, a couple bump lanes for the Canadian national team and another camp, our freeride lane, and then our bump lanes. The racer camps would be there bright and early, with gates set up, and sometimes the other bump camps would be going already. Going over to our lanes was a long, shallow traverse, so technically we were the downhill traffic as we crossed. But only the completely inexperienced or idiotic would cross the lanes without waiting for the guys uphill. By The Code, had there been a collision, the other party would be responisible. Practically, the guys coming down their lanes should be somewhat aware, but in fairness the fault would be shared.
> 
> .



The only problem with that logic and the code, is that you as the person crossing the lane, would be responsible for checking uphill before you cross.  

In that video, with both headed downhill, its the overtaking person who has the responsibility to avoid the downhill person, reguardless of the status of the hill their on.  Heck, there's plenty of times on a "closed" course (bumps/gates/etc) that there are others inside the ropes on the hill, and from having spent years gate training on "closed" courses it basically went without saying that you still had to pay plenty of attention more than just the gates on the hill


----------



## hammer (Dec 21, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> Really? You're going to go with this analogy? Is this on a racecourse or something? Because in the real world, and even on the autobahn, the dude going 90mph faster than the flow of traffic is going to be at fault. No way someone going 60 is even going to see the dude going 150 before he starts to pull out.


The key on the Autobahn is to try to go 150 yourself...

Actually, in my limited experience, you didn't travel in the left lane unless you could do at least 200 KPH.

Going back on topic...I'd say that the snowboarder was "at fault" for the collisions but it did look like the skier cut over in front on the second collision.  Fail on both.


----------



## mondeo (Dec 21, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> Really? You're going to go with this analogy? Is this on a racecourse or something? Because in the real world, and even on the autobahn, the dude going 90mph faster than the flow of traffic is going to be at fault. No way someone going 60 is even going to see the dude going 150 before he starts to pull out.


You can't see a car 150 feet behind you?


----------



## mondeo (Dec 21, 2010)

drjeff said:


> The only problem with that logic and the code, is that you as the person crossing the lane, would be responsible for checking uphill before you cross.


But there's only one trail. I'm just travelling slowly downhill on the trail, mostly across the hill. The code doesn't distringuish between between what I was doing every morning and a beginner skier crossing a race course that isn't fenced off or someone going completely out of control plowing into the back of someone travelling a moderate pace. That's the problem with trying to apply it rigidly. In the video, the snowboarder absolutely should have avoided the collision. But that doesn't mean that with proper information and awareness, the skier couldn't have avoided a dangerous situation.


----------



## wa-loaf (Dec 21, 2010)

mondeo said:


> You can't see a car 150 feet behind you?



That guy going 60 doesn't know how fast you are going. Having done my fair share of Autobahn driving Germans are really good about only being in the left lane if they are passing, but they still will pull out and pass if they need to even if someone is coming. And unless it's a totally flat section someone driving 90+ faster than the rest of the traffic is going to come up really fast and will not likely be seen. If you are driving that fast it's fully your responsibility to be aware of what the people in front of you are doing. Assume they will pull out on you.

Now a more realistic analogy would be overtaking someone going 85 while you are going 120. The guy pulling out does have some personal responsibility to look before pulling out, but if there's an accident and you came up behind him, the law is going to be against you.


----------



## polariso (Dec 21, 2010)

*Merry Christmas*

And thanks for all the insults..really shows the mentality of some people.. Quite a few here see a grey area or just dont get it at all!! My point for starting the thread..
 If you dont like the message you shoot the messenger..right?
 Wow hopefully some of you wake up and realize that going fast or being in a line or whatever the excuse de jour might be, does not make it right!


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 21, 2010)

polariso said:


> Wow hopefully some of you wake up and realize that going fast or being in a line or whatever the excuse de jour might be, does not make it right!



No doubt.  There are a lot of crazies out there with this mentality......



polariso said:


> My girlfriend (snowboarder) and I will be heading over to the hill around noon.
> Watch out because Im fast and I own the mountain!


----------



## tjf67 (Dec 21, 2010)

polariso said:


> And thanks for all the insults..really shows the mentality of some people.. Quite a few here see a grey area or just dont get it at all!! My point for starting the thread..
> If you dont like the message you shoot the messenger..right?
> Wow hopefully some of you wake up and realize that going fast or being in a line or whatever the excuse de jour might be, does not make it right!




There is a grey area that you ignore.

I am going to guess you live in New Jersey?


----------



## polariso (Dec 21, 2010)

Cannonball said:


> No doubt.  There are a lot of crazies out there with this mentality......


 You probably didnt get the sarcasm since you quoted my post out of context...nice try though.


----------



## polariso (Dec 21, 2010)

tjf67 said:


> There is a grey area that you ignore.
> 
> I am going to guess you live in New Jersey?



 Whats with the personal stuff?


----------



## tjf67 (Dec 21, 2010)

polariso said:


> Whats with the personal stuff?



Just asking a question, is that not allowed?


----------



## snafu (Dec 21, 2010)

polariso said:


> And thanks for all the insults..really shows the mentality of some people.. Quite a few here see a grey area or just dont get it at all!! My point for starting the thread..
> If you dont like the message you shoot the messenger..right?
> Wow hopefully some of you wake up and realize that going fast or being in a line or whatever the excuse de jour might be, does not make it right!



Glad you took it upon yourself to teach us of the lowly Ignorant Generation or whatever you call it. I genuflect toward your priceless teachings and only hope my ignorance will one day be cured by enlightened beings such as yourself. 

GTFO


----------



## polariso (Dec 21, 2010)

tjf67 said:


> There is a grey area that you ignore.
> 
> I am going to guess you live in New Jersey?


 This is a question?


----------



## polariso (Dec 21, 2010)

snafu said:


> Glad you took it upon yourself to teach us of the lowly Ignorant Generation or whatever you call it. I genuflect toward your priceless teachings and only hope my ignorance will one day be cured by enlightened beings such as yourself.
> 
> GTFO


 Merry Christmas


----------



## snafu (Dec 21, 2010)

polariso said:


> Merry Christmas



Better watch out how you deal with the "Ignorant Generation", they will be the ones changing your bedpan and wiping the drool off your chin before you know it. And they will be so grateful to the generation before them who were the most spoiled and had everything -until they squandered it all and piled the debt onto future generations. So be VERY careful on how you deal with them.

Now back to your regularly scheduled trolling...lol...sorry just thinking on how differently this thread would be if we were in the same room together...


----------



## mondeo (Dec 21, 2010)

polariso said:


> And thanks for all the insults..really shows the mentality of some people.. Quite a few here see a grey area or just dont get it at all!! My point for starting the thread..
> If you dont like the message you shoot the messenger..right?
> Wow hopefully some of you wake up and realize that going fast or being in a line or whatever the excuse de jour might be, does not make it right!


I fully invite you to dress up in a deer costume and wander around the woods during hunting season. I assure you the hunter that shoots you will be found to be at fault.


----------



## mondeo (Dec 21, 2010)

snafu said:


> Glad you took it upon yourself to teach us of the lowly Ignorant Generation or whatever you call it. I genuflect toward your priceless teachings and only hope my ignorance will one day be cured by enlightened beings such as yourself.
> 
> GTFO


Also, I'm not a spelling and grammar Nazi, but if you're going to insult people's intelligence you better know the difference between who*'*s (note the apostrophe) and whose. I mean, that's just trolling 101.


----------



## mondeo (Dec 21, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> Now a more realistic analogy would be overtaking someone going 85 while you are going 120. The guy pulling out does have some personal responsibility to look before pulling out, but if there's an accident and you came up behind him, the law is going to be against you.


Point being missed. Both are at fault, but the guy going 120 will bear the lion's share of it. It does not absolve the guy pulling out in front of faster traffic of any responsibility. The actual laws may vary depending on state, but here's a summary:

http://www.1personalinjurylawyers.com/injury_center/partial-fault.html


----------



## polariso (Dec 21, 2010)

mondeo said:


> I fully invite you to dress up in a deer costume and wander around the woods during hunting season. I assure you the hunter that shoots you will be found to be at fault.



 In CT for sure.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Dec 21, 2010)

*I am the overtaking skier 99% of the time but*

The car analagy is total crap and does not compare at all.Roads have lanes and before one pulls into that lane you must look in your rear view mirror to see if there is oncoming traffic and yield to it.We don't have lanes to stay in on snow and certainly don't wear rear view mirrors to check for overtaking skiers.Do I ski in a consistant line,yes.Do beginers toatally stay in there line,no.It's not hard to see who you need to avoid and take appropriate action before.The only time an overtaking skier is not totally responsible is when a skier enters a trail without looking uphill and having enough time to react.Really is comman sense.


----------



## bobbutts (Dec 21, 2010)

ban polariso and reinstate gss


----------



## bvibert (Dec 21, 2010)

Polariso, you certainly aren't making many friends here with your posting style.  Also, I deleted your political post earlier in this thread, and you've already been warned at least once to knock off the personal attacks.  Please try a little harder to follow the forum rules.

Thanks


----------



## 2knees (Dec 21, 2010)

just because his name has been brought up in a long time.


beswift?


----------



## powhunter (Dec 21, 2010)

Free the  Beloved Dis also!


----------



## darent (Dec 21, 2010)

mondeo said:


> But there's only one trail. I'm just travelling slowly downhill on the trail, mostly across the hill. The code doesn't distringuish between between what I was doing every morning and a beginner skier crossing a race course that isn't fenced off or someone going completely out of control plowing into the back of someone travelling a moderate pace. That's the problem with trying to apply it rigidly. In the video, the snowboarder absolutely should have avoided the collision. But that doesn't mean that with proper information and awareness, the skier couldn't have avoided a dangerous situation.



seems like common sense that the skier would have stayed where he was after getting clipped the first time, not turning back toward trouble, a lot to be said for anticipation


----------



## mlctvt (Dec 21, 2010)

bobbutts said:


> ban polariso and reinstate gss



I was just thinking the exact same thing. 
He does remind me of gss though. 

mmm maybe he is? ... nah can't be


----------



## wa-loaf (Dec 21, 2010)

mlctvt said:


> I was just thinking the exact same thing.
> He does remind me of gss though.
> 
> mmm maybe he is? ... nah can't be



Nah, gss went over the line a lot, but he had a sense of humor.


----------



## mondeo (Dec 21, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> The car analagy is total crap and does not compare at all.Roads have lanes and before one pulls into that lane you must look in your rear view mirror to see if there is oncoming traffic and yield to it.We don't have lanes to stay in on snow and certainly don't wear rear view mirrors to check for overtaking skiers.Do I ski in a consistant line,yes.Do beginers toatally stay in there line,no.It's not hard to see who you need to avoid and take appropriate action before.The only time an overtaking skier is not totally responsible is when a skier enters a trail without looking uphill and having enough time to react.Really is comman sense.


I'm not saying people have to stay in a lane; it's not that direct of an analogy. The point is that everyone has responsibility for safety, not just the uphill skier. If you put yourself in a dangerous situation, you're saying there's nothing you could have done to avoid whatever ends up happening to you? You chose to put yourself in that situation, live with the consequences.

Forget the damn video. It was hand picked by a troll to show a situation where a single party clearly had the majority of the blame. Reality is a lot of situations aren't clear cut. The responsibility of the uphill skiers is to yield to downhill skiers. The responsibility of someone not moving is to yield to uphill skiers, and to not stop in a position that obstructs the trail. You people think these are strong definitions? Define yield, obstruct, starting downhill, etc. How far away counts as yielding? Skiing bumps, I stay far enough away from people so that if that at the point where it would be too late to change my line, it doesn't matter if they start moving because I'll be past them before they're actually in my line. Might only be a few feet (and it varies based on conditions, run difficulty, control level approaching them, etc.,) but there isn't a chance in hell I'll hit them.

Who's to blame in this situation?: two skiers skiing about 15 feet apart on medium pitch bumps. Dead even, both position and speed. Bumps end, both people turn to stop. Turn into each other and collide. Skinny guy bends the other's pole.

Obviously The Code has all the answers.


----------



## mondeo (Dec 21, 2010)

darent said:


> seems like common sense that the skier would have stayed where he was after getting clipped the first time, not turning back toward trouble, a lot to be said for anticipation


Beginner skier, probably panicked. Not going to blame him for that, just putting himself into a dangerous situation. Which he may not have realized was dangerous, so maybe no blame to him.


----------



## dmc (Dec 21, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> Nah, gss went over the line a lot, but he had a sense of humor.




Difference is.  GSS was not malicious. Just goofy.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 21, 2010)

dmc said:


> Difference is.  GSS was not malicious. Just goofy.



disagree 

he was more goofy than malicious, I will give you that.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Dec 21, 2010)

polariso said:


> We are now in the generation of "Ignorance is bliss".



Just curious, what generation are you from?  Just a particular decade or two will do.

Going by what was posted in the video, it was clearly the boarders fault.  Normally accidents happen, but man this boarder has all the time in the world to do any number of things.  At the very least just take a nice long carve and clear out of the area, that is what I would have done.  Not that the skier was required to do a thing, but after getting hit and looking back I would think he would have stopped, but again he may not have been a seasoned skier and just not know what to do.  Seriously though, as a boarder, this guy is a tool for hitting not just once, but twice.

Polariso, what was your point of posting this?  Couldn't you decide for yourself?  Were you the skier?


----------



## caddis (Dec 21, 2010)

Can someone tell me where all the confusion is? 


If you look closely the skier looks like a girl to me and the boarder dude was just trying to get her attention and ask her out.  Therefore no one is at fault.  A little bumping on the slopes never hurt anyone.  Fact is that’s how babies are made.


----------



## tjf67 (Dec 21, 2010)

Polaro what hill do you frequent most?  Also r u from Jersey?


----------



## mondeo (Dec 21, 2010)

AndyZee?


----------



## mlctvt (Dec 21, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> Nah, gss went over the line a lot, but he had a sense of humor.



You're right polariso is no gss.

I skied with gss once and he was funny as hell and not mean. I guess he reminded me of gss because of the heated posts, that's all.


----------



## campgottagopee (Dec 22, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> disagree
> 
> he was more goofy than malicious, I will give you that.



You would, disagree that is....FREE GSS


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 22, 2010)

campgottagopee said:


> You would, disagree that is....FREE GSS



sorry, telling Greg to 'eat a dick' on his facebook page, something that is viewed by his family, is a bit more malicious than goofy in my book.  I won't even get into the awful things he posted on Andyzone about another forum members family here.

but keep up the good fight mr. rebel.  we know how you love it


----------



## campgottagopee (Dec 22, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> sorry, telling Greg to 'eat a dick' on his facebook page, something that is viewed by his family, is a bit more malicious than goofy in my book.  I won't even get into the awful things he posted on Andyzone about another forum members family here.
> 
> but keep up the good fight mr. rebel.  we know how you love it



So, you've never made a mistake Mr. Perfect while you were pissed off??? Prolly not.

I think the kid is entertaining, that is all.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 22, 2010)

sure I have, but I also learned how to sincerely apologize and realize that what I might not find offensive, others do.  when I cross that line, I apologize.  In my view, he's never learned that very simple life skill.

and you know where to find him if he entertains you so


----------



## campgottagopee (Dec 22, 2010)

My understanding is he did apologize....just sayin'


----------



## Kerovick (Dec 22, 2010)

The code says that the uphill skier has to avoid the downhill skier.  There is no debate here, the snowboarder caused the  incident because they failed to do that.


----------



## Bobt2ski (Dec 22, 2010)

Kerovick said:


> The code says that the uphill skier has to avoid the downhill skier.  There is no debate here, the snowboarder caused the  incident because they failed to do that.



"This is correct!"


----------



## dmc (Dec 22, 2010)

Kerovick said:


> The code says that the uphill skier has to avoid the downhill skier.  There is no debate here, the snowboarder caused the  incident because they failed to do that.



If thats the case....  And work with me here...

Why does the code also state a skier needs to look uphill before starting out?


----------



## SIKSKIER (Dec 22, 2010)

dmc said:


> If thats the case....  And work with me here...
> 
> Why does the code also state a skier needs to look uphill before starting out?



Oh come on DMC,now your just stiring the pot.Here is how I'll bend it then.A skier is one that is in the act of skiing.One about to start is not skiing yet.With your experience Im sure you look uphill and yield.I hope.


----------



## wa-loaf (Dec 22, 2010)

Just be aware of your surroundings, look out for your fellow snow slider, and we'll all be OK. Big Hug everyone!


----------



## tt431 (Dec 22, 2010)

Skier going too slow, skier's fault.


----------



## dmc (Dec 22, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> Oh come on DMC,now your just stiring the pot.Here is how I'll bend it then.A skier is one that is in the act of skiing.One about to start is not skiing yet.With your experience Im sure you look uphill and yield.I hope.



I'm not stirring the pot...  I'm being serious..

Why should I look up hill if it's always the uphill skier responsibility to yield?


----------



## campgottagopee (Dec 22, 2010)

dmc said:


> I'm not stirring the pot...  I'm being serious..
> 
> Why should I look up hill if it's always the uphill skier responsibility to yield?



I know why I do.....common sense. I don't want to get hit, it friggin hurts.


----------



## Beetlenut (Dec 22, 2010)

dmc said:


> I'm not stirring the pot... I'm being serious..
> 
> Why should I look up hill if it's always the uphill skier responsibility to yield?


 
Do you just stop at a stop sign without looking before you start? It's called common sense.


----------



## dmc (Dec 22, 2010)

Beetlenut said:


> Do you just stop at a stop sign without looking before you start? It's called common sense.




Of course I do.  please don't patronize me. 

 if I blow through a stop sign and get hit by an on coming car -  whos fault is it?


----------



## dmc (Dec 22, 2010)

campgottagopee said:


> I know why I do.....common sense. I don't want to get hit, it friggin hurts.




But you do that because it makes sense.   Not because of a code or rules.


----------



## Beetlenut (Dec 22, 2010)

dmc said:


> Of course I do. please don't patronize me.
> 
> if I blow through a stop sign and get hit by an on coming car - whos fault is it?


 
You know, I just looked up "Pot Stirer". It said, "see DMC"! :wink:


----------



## gmcunni (Dec 22, 2010)

dmc said:


> I'm not stirring the pot...  I'm being serious..



Surely, You Can’t Be Serious


----------



## Beetlenut (Dec 22, 2010)

gmcunni said:


> Surely, You Can’t Be Serious


 
Oh but he is!!  And it's DMC not Shirley!


----------



## dmc (Dec 22, 2010)

Beetlenut said:


> You know, I just looked up "Pot Stirer". It said, "see DMC"! :wink:



Iwhatever.  

The codensucks.  It contradicts itself.  And people that don't understand thenphysics of speed hide behind it


----------



## campgottagopee (Dec 22, 2010)

dmc said:


> But you do that because it makes sense.   Not because of a code or rules.



Of course....Truthfully, I've never read the bloody "code" nor do I plan on it. Too many "codes" any-a-ways.


----------



## dmc (Dec 22, 2010)

campgottagopee said:


> Of course....Truthfully, I've never read the bloody "code" nor do I plan on it. Too many "codes" any-a-ways.



Just dont slam into one of the gapers from here - they'll come after you...


----------



## campgottagopee (Dec 22, 2010)

dmc said:


> Just dont slam into one of the gapers from here - they'll come after you...



;-)


----------



## Beetlenut (Dec 22, 2010)

dmc said:


> Iwhatever.
> 
> The codensucks. It contradicts itself. And people that don't understand thenphysics of speed hide behind it


 
The code should require mandatory helmets too!


----------



## dmc (Dec 22, 2010)

Beetlenut said:


> Oh but he is!!  And it's DMC not Shirley!



I'm Lavern...


----------



## Beetlenut (Dec 22, 2010)

dmc said:


> I'm Lavern...


 
Ah yes,... I see that now!

View attachment 4125


----------



## Kerovick (Dec 22, 2010)

dmc said:


> If thats the case....  And work with me here...
> 
> Why does the code also state a skier needs to look uphill before starting out?



To avoid getting hit by the snow sport enthusiast that is already in motion.  

The stop sign analogyis a good fit here actually:
Q: If you blow through a stop sign and get creamed who's fault is it
A:  Yours!  cause you didn't look for the other cars before starting out. Those are the rules of the road.

If you not in motion down(or even across) the hill then your the car at the stop sign. It's your responsibiliy to make sure it is safe to proceed.

Of course if you wished to nitpick, you could (and probally will) say that once you are in motion that the up hill skier needs to avoid you.

 Which is true but common sense would dictate that you'd attempt to avoid a collision by 
A)allowing yourself enough room 
b) get up to speed  
c)wait for them to pass and become the uphill skier 

The car analogy still works.  Your a car traveling in the fast lane (uphill skier) and another car is stopped at a stop sign attempting to turn onto the 2 lane high way your traveling on.

Their options are:
a)leaving theirselves enough room, turn into the slow lane (aka the one ypu aren't in)
b) gun it and get up to speed before you get there 
c)wait till you go by and then pull out to any lane you want to.


----------



## dmc (Dec 22, 2010)

Kerovick said:


> The stop sign analogyis a good fit here actually:
> Q: If you blow through a stop sign and get creamed who's fault is it
> A:  Yours!  cause you didn't look for the other cars before starting out. Those are the rules of the road.



Agreed...  
You just proved my point that the "code" is subjective and not as black and white as some make it out to be...

The guy at the stop sign(downhill skier) should stop and look before entering traffic.  Because the guy flying by(Uphill skier) could smash into you.


----------



## gmcunni (Dec 22, 2010)

dmc said:


> Agreed...
> You just proved my point that the "code" is subjective and not as black and white as some make it out to be...
> 
> The guy at the stop sign(downhill skier) should stop and look before entering traffic.  Because the guy flying by(Uphill skier) could smash into you.



not that i really care but doesn't "the code" say that?



> National Ski Patrol Responsibility Code
> 
> 
> Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.
> ...


----------



## dmc (Dec 22, 2010)

gmcunni said:


> not that i really care but doesn't "the code" say that?



I was paraphrasing...


----------



## Kerovick (Dec 22, 2010)

dmc said:


> Agreed...
> You just proved my point that the "code" is subjective and not as black and white as some make it out to be...
> 
> The guy at the stop sign(downhill skier) should stop and look before entering traffic.  Because the guy flying by(Uphill skier) could smash into you.




Exactly, that's what the code says to do


----------



## mondeo (Dec 22, 2010)

Kerovick said:


> The car analogy still works. Your a car traveling in the fast lane (uphill skier) and another car is stopped at a stop sign attempting to turn onto the 2 lane high way your traveling on.


 Why are you in the fast lane? Ignoring keep right except to pass laws?


gmcunni said:


> not that i really care but doesn't "the code" say that?


Yeah, but A. a lot of people are ignoring that part and the one that says you shouldn't block the trail; B. at some point the line blurs between someone yielding to the moving skier and the uphill skier yielding to the downhill skier.

Back to the car analogy: say you have someone waiting at a stop sign, another person approaching. The approaching car is going 60 in a 50, the car at the stop sign will be travelling 40, and take 15 seconds to get there. If the person at the stop sign assumes the approaching car is also going 40, they can pull out when the other car is 450 at least feet away and not slow them down. In reality, after about 8 seconds, if there is no change in the faster car's speed, there's a collision. The faster car had time to adjust, but the slow car didn't yield right of way. They're both at fault.


----------



## caddis (Dec 22, 2010)

......:-o  I hated these types of problems in school. I think polariso's argument made more sense to me.


----------



## Beetlenut (Dec 22, 2010)

polariso is no more!


----------



## caddis (Dec 22, 2010)

Beetlenut said:


> polariso is no more!



I was kidding that guy was a real piece of work, and I kinda figured after his blowup last night he was gone.  although i'm not sure if we have seen the last of him


----------



## Kerovick (Dec 22, 2010)

I'll simplify the code.

Do what ever you can not to get hurt.


----------



## Kerovick (Dec 22, 2010)

Errrr, better yet

Don't be stupid.


----------



## wa-loaf (Dec 22, 2010)

Kerovick said:


> I'll simplify the code.
> 
> Do what ever you can not to get hurt.



And try not to hurt anyone else ....


----------



## 〽❄❅ (Dec 22, 2010)

"Snowboard Ski collision
"This happened at an education camp for snowboard instructors.The 2nd hit by the skier was intentionally. Stupid skiers.
"by rira66 | 3 years ago | 26,395 views"

My initial impression was of seeing a boarder came out of his 360 sliding downhill then under control set his edge propelling into her. 
Prior to that the boarder looks like way off line running gates. 
I also don't think shes as close to the gates as that five and dime dollar store video camera makes it look.

I'm inclined to think rira66's take on English say's it all.

 ...serenity now, serenity now ...seriously restraining myself not to say what i think of that production company duo!


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 13, 2015)

guess the rider ignored the SLOW sign


----------



## BBMF (Feb 14, 2015)

gmcunni;
guess the rider ignored the SLOW sign[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> Your video? F'n one plankers.....j/k
> But really on a open trail like that, uncrowded and no real warning. A simple "on your right" as they close in would likely avoid such accidents. That and slowing the f#ck down if you can't figure out what those downhill are doing


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 14, 2015)

BBMF said:


> Your video? F'n one plankers.....j/k
> But really on a open trail like that, uncrowded and no real warning. A simple "on your right" as they close in would likely avoid such accidents. That and slowing the f#ck down if you can't figure out what those downhill are doing



no, not mine. story that was posted with it was the rider was doing 60 MPH and "slowed" to 45 before taking out the skier (according to the gps the rider was carrying)


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 14, 2015)

The rider looks like he was hurt or took a hit to the head. I'm surprised that folks didn't lose their temper.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## IrekJanek (Feb 14, 2015)

Boarder, no ifs, ands or buts. With this much room on the slope it almost seems deliberate.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Feb 15, 2015)

Where did that guy even come from? Is this even a question?


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 15, 2015)

This one is lame.....


----------



## MadMadWorld (Feb 15, 2015)

There was some seriously awesome skiing going on in that video. I desperately wanted the skier with the pack and no hat to get hit. But the dude tucking on a beginner trail is a nice consolation prize. It was the snowboarders fault but I completely understand why he did it.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Jun 15, 2015)

This is a tough one






Per skiers code, it's completely red coat's fault. In reality I think it's 50/50. I think most skiers who've been around long enough have had this happen. You're trying to pass someone slower who's in front of you, and then they make a completely random and hard turn, forcing you to turn even harder or else hit them as a result.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 15, 2015)

skiNEwhere said:


> This is a tough one
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It happens a lot to me.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Jully (Jun 15, 2015)

I think there are very similar situations where the fault question is not clear, but in this one I think red coat is completely at fault. He just didn't appear to be looking to the right as he passed the other skier who was skiing rather normally. Red coat had a significant amount of room on his left to move and avoid the downhill skier


----------



## dlague (Jun 15, 2015)

Jully said:


> I think there are very similar situations where the fault question is not clear, but in this one I think red coat is completely at fault. He just didn't appear to be looking to the right as he passed the other skier who was skiing rather normally. Red coat had a significant amount of room on his left to move and avoid the downhill skier




That is hard!  You are skiing along watching someone following a path then all of a sudden they veer to right or the left in this case to the left and the reaction time may not be enough, I think the one that veered tried to slow down bat leaned back rather than braking hard.  The red coat looks like he could have slammed the brakes on and avoided it.   However while in motion it probably happened fast.

I had a collision where a kid seemingly was skiing toward the lift and then skied up a trail right in front of me - he was small enough where I was able to pick him up while we crashed.  I also have a few near misses this past season that could have went terribly wrong.


----------



## Abubob (Jun 15, 2015)

skiNEwhere said:


> This is a tough one
> 
> Per skiers code, it's completely red coat's fault. In reality I think it's 50/50. I think most skiers who've been around long enough have had this happen. You're trying to pass someone slower who's in front of you, and then they make a completely random and hard turn, forcing you to turn even harder or else hit them as a result.


I agree that this is a tough one. A similar situation I caught on my Gopro this past January. Skip to 1:15 and you see that I'm about to turn left when this kid starts to cut across my path. I'm moving at Tuna Speed 1 so in a split second I had to decide whether to cut back to the right on just stop. I can't think that fast so I slammed on the brakes - Which I suppose is what skier in red should have done - still it's a tough call.

Btw: wide angle makes it look like I have a lot of room but I just barely stopped in time.


----------



## dlague (Jun 15, 2015)

Abubob said:


> I agree that this is a tough one. A similar situation I caught on my Gopro this past January. Skip to 1:15 and you see that I'm about to turn left when this kid starts to cut across my path. I'm moving at Tuna Speed 1 so in a split second I had to decide whether to cut back to the right on just stop. I can't think that fast so I slammed on the brakes - Which I suppose is what skier in red should have done - still it's a tough call.
> 
> Btw: wide angle makes it look like I have a lot of room but I just barely stopped in time.



Hope you gave the kid the evil eye look!


----------



## ss20 (Jun 17, 2015)

skiNEwhere said:


> This is a tough one



Looks like very edgable conditions.  Slower skier ran Red Coat to the side of the trail but gave room to pass.  If you have enough momentum to slide 50 feet down the trail after hitting someone then you're going too fast.  

Slow skier is an idiot.  Needed to look uphill.  I still put more blame on Red Coat though.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jun 18, 2015)

ss20 said:


> If you have enough momentum to slide 50 feet down the trail after hitting someone then you're going too fast.


What?I guess I ski too fast.Most of my crashes are more that 50 ft.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 18, 2015)

No way the red coat was at fault.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Jun 18, 2015)

Even though per skiers code it's red skiers fault, I'll reiterate that I think the other skier is just to blame just as much.

I think a driving scenario is a good analogy. If you're in the #3 lane going 55, and you want to go into the number #2 lane where the driver is going 75, you need to yield or at least make sure that you can change lanes cleanly. If the driver in the #3 lane goes into the #2 and cutoffs off the driver so bad that he doesn't have time to slow down to 55, and rear ends the driver previously in lane #3, it would be the fault of the driver that was rear ended for cutting off the other driver.

While there are no actual lanes so to speak of on the hill, I do believe that each skier has a responsibly to stay in their imaginary lane. If you've been making 20 foot turns, and then want to carve a huge 100 foot arc perpendicularly across the slope, you should look back uphill. 

If you cause an accident by making a completely random turn that an uphill skier wouldn't be able to anticipate, you're just as much at fault in my book.


----------



## Not Sure (Jun 18, 2015)

A TCAS or FLARM system for skiers with a heads up display on you Goggles


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 5, 2019)

apparently Gwyneth is at fault


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1iAggtNDUM


----------



## shwilly (Feb 5, 2019)

From descriptions of the incident (she blindsided a guy who was standing still), it certainly sounds like GP was at fault by the "code," but it also sounds like she didn't know how to ski and was taking a beginner private lesson on a green trail.

Everyone starts out as a beginner. Sometimes novices get in over their head and get out of control. If a beginner is taking a lesson to try to get better, can you really call them negligent? Just another reason to keep your eyes peeled on green trails.

On the topic of passing and so forth, my pet peeve this year is groups of goobers congregating at a rise or turn who look uphill, see me about to pass them, and _then drop in in front of me anyway_! I don't mind passing these folks far closer than I ever pass otherwise.


----------



## dlague (Feb 8, 2019)

shwilly said:


> From descriptions of the incident (she blindsided a guy who was standing still), it certainly sounds like GP was at fault by the "code," but it also sounds like she didn't know how to ski and was taking a beginner private lesson on a green trail.
> 
> Everyone starts out as a beginner. Sometimes novices get in over their head and get out of control. If a beginner is taking a lesson to try to get better, can you really call them negligent? Just another reason to keep your eyes peeled on green trails.
> 
> On the topic of passing and so forth, my pet peeve this year is groups of goobers congregating at a rise or turn who look uphill, see me about to pass them, and _then drop in in front of me anyway_! I don't mind passing these folks far closer than I ever pass otherwise.


I agree about beginner skiers! They do not have the skill to take corrective action.  They look at an obstacle when they should look where they should go to avoid the obstacle whether it is another skier or an object.

My wife got hit by a beginner out of control resulting in her breaking her shoulder ( humerus and humerus ball compression). 

The real question is - would there be a lawsuit if it was not a celebrity?


Sent from my SM-G930V using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Not Sure (Feb 8, 2019)

dlague said:


> I agree about beginner skiers! They do not have the skill to take corrective action.  They look at an obstacle when they should look where they should go to avoid the obstacle whether it is another skier or an object.
> 
> My wife got hit by a beginner out of control resulting in her breaking her shoulder ( humerus and humerus ball compression).
> 
> ...



Recently? Hope she heals up fast. Almost have to have an eye up the hill when we stop anymore .


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 20, 2019)

gmcunni said:


> apparently Gwyneth is at fault



or not . . . 
https://unofficialnetworks.com/2019/02/20/paltrow-countersuit-ski-crash/


----------



## thetrailboss (May 23, 2022)

The latest on this one.....









						Utah judge rules ski collision with Gwyneth Paltrow was not a 'hit-and-run'
					

A judge dismissed some claims filed by a retired optometrist against Gwyneth Paltrow after the two collided at a ski resort, ruling that it was not a




					www.ksl.com


----------



## NYDB (May 24, 2022)

I guess he won't be getting a This smells like my vagina candle from her as a consolation prize


----------



## Edd (Sep 13, 2022)

Here’s one. Seems open and shut to me that it’s the boarder’s fault but when I saw it I thought it’d be good for this thread. 









						@fuzzypossum18 on Instagram: "My idea of being taken out,  is for dinner not at the knees   #winter #ski #nz #snowboarding #slammed #snow #funny #sayhello"
					

@fuzzypossum18 shared a post on Instagram: "My idea of being taken out,  is for dinner not at the knees   #winter #ski #nz #snowboarding #slammed #snow #funny #sayhello". Follow their account to see 114 posts.




					www.instagram.com


----------



## NYDB (Sep 13, 2022)

That’s tough.  Probably shouldn’t be charging gs turns on a crowded slope, but she was uphill skier, no?  And it looks like she was looking at him in the beginning of the clip.

he was trying to avoid the slower skier in front.  It’s best to just straight line those situations.  His line was straight down skiers left next to the lift towers.


----------



## Edd (Sep 13, 2022)

She MAY be slightly uphill, hard to tell for sure but her line was much tighter than his. He was even facing her direction, should have seen her sooner, IMO.


----------



## cdskier (Sep 13, 2022)

I wouldn't really say she was uphill at the point where the boarder hit her. They weren't that far apart from each other in terms of who was more uphill from the other one. At the start she was likely a bit more uphill, but the boarder was nowhere near her at that point. Also don't think the uphill factor matters much here. With the angle the boarder took to avoid the other person, she may have been too far downhill at that point for her peripheral vision to have seen him coming. She was maintaining a nice tight line and the boarder seems to have made a substantial deviation from his original line (although the video is too short to know exactly what kind of line he was riding earlier on that trail). If you're going to deviate from your line and cut across the trail that much, you need to look at who is around you. Same as if you were driving on a highway and there was debris in your lane that you wanted to swerve to avoid. You can't just swerve into the next lane without making sure it is empty first.


----------



## Abubob (Sep 13, 2022)

She clearly provoked him.


----------



## ss20 (Sep 13, 2022)

If you strictly follow how the code is written, she's at fault, imo.  He's downhill of her and she has 1.5-2 seconds where he should be in her peripheral vision on the left but she does nothing to adjust her line.  He may be travelling at excessive speed or in an unpredictable fashion- but that's bad etiquette, unfortunately there's nothing about that written in the skier's responsibility code.


----------



## MidnightJester (Dec 26, 2022)

Here is a interesting video that the article says the Skier has right of way to the boarder(other rider). Isn't the skier coming across the trail after landing should yield some to the same trail jump bypass he is crossing regardless if he was slightly ahead. He made a almost 90 degree turn,  Hmmmmm









						VIDEO: Downhill Skier Nearly Gets Clobbered After Landing Jump @ Woodward Park City
					

Downright scary near miss at Woodward Park City where a skier almost got t-boned by a snowboarder blasting full speed down a groomer next to the jump line. Obviously the downhill skier right of way…




					unofficialnetworks.com
				




Bad trail and trail, side by side set up. Looking at the video there is a 3rd trail side by side in the background behind the jump.


----------



## Abubob (Dec 26, 2022)

MidnightJester said:


> Here is a interesting video that the article says the Skier has right of way to the boarder(other rider). Isn't the skier coming across the trail after landing should yield some to the same trail jump bypass he is crossing regardless if he was slightly ahead. He made a almost 90 degree turn,  Hmmmmm
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If he cut over to lift access then it’s a grievous design flaw. Too much snow to move so they’ll probably just put poles up to stop folks from cutting over so abruptly. Yeah, they’re gonna get a lot of grief over that.


----------



## ThatGuy (Dec 26, 2022)

100% skiers fault imo. No reason ever to fly across a blind spot like that.
Terrible trail design either way.


----------



## darent (Dec 26, 2022)

IMO it's the skiers< fault, he cut across a run and should have slowed and looked uphill. Bad layout though


----------



## SteezyYeeter (Dec 26, 2022)

this would have never happened at mad river glen...


----------

