# Snowboarder hits kid, kids father punches snowboarder (video)



## Nick (Dec 5, 2013)

Skip to around 4:10 marker. Here is the commentary from the video uploader, the snowboarder's mother: 



> As the mother of a 17-year-old son, I try to teach him how to be respectful of people. I want him to learn to be kind and caring and to keep his anger in check. That is a hard goal to accomplish in this world, but I believe it is possible.
> On Black Friday, I allowed my son to go snowboarding with friends at Snowbasin Ski Resort. While there, an unfortunate accident occurred. My son was boarding slightly faster than the younger kids on the slopes, which wasn't that fast, although I can't say how fast. But a young girl skied in front of my son from the side. In order to avoid hitting her, you can see how he puts his hand out to guide himself off her shoulder to go another direction. It appears that he is in the clear, but an adult male who is stopped on the slopes appears to have his small son ski out from behind him at the last moment My son couldn't avoid the unfortunate collision that happened. They appear to hit pretty hard and end up sliding down the hill together. The video is long, but the accident happens at about 4:16. I uploaded the whole thing for perspective.
> 
> I am proud of my son's initial response, which was to turn all the way around and ask "are you ok, buddy?" The boy wasn't crying initially. The next thing that happened was the boy's father went after my son. The profanities ensued as he called my boy a name, then proceeded to punch him in the head.
> ...





I'm betting this goes viral pretty quick.


----------



## emmaurice2 (Dec 5, 2013)

From what I can tell, the rider had no options and he doesn't appear to be going that fast.  Little kid that got knocked down just made the wrong move at the wrong time.   I can understand a parent being upset watching his/her kid getting knocked down, but he shouldn't have hit the rider.  Total short fuse.


----------



## Nick (Dec 5, 2013)

In watching this again I see a few things. For one, the snowboarder wasn't really traveling that fast. he was turning to avoid the kid coming from the left when the little girl he hit comes out from the right in front of the father. In the video, you can't even really see the girl until she emerges from in front of the father. It seems like just an unfortunate alignment of the stars for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

On the flip side, the father is probably rightfully angry,  I think I would be too. But, he shouldn't have hit the kid. short fuse is correct. That said, the kid was wearing a helmet and it's hard to gauge how hard the hit was, if it was just a dopeslap, or what. Still, that could come back to bite him in the ass.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Dec 5, 2013)

If anyone hit me with a ski, regardless of who's fault the collision was, there would be repercussions for that man.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Dec 5, 2013)

Nick said:


> But, he probably shouldn't have hit the kid.



"probably shouldn't have"???

That's assault and can't be justified. Angry father card doesn't fly in court.


----------



## WoodCore (Dec 5, 2013)

Snowboarder was in the wrong. End of story.


----------



## Nick (Dec 5, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> "probably shouldn't have"???
> 
> That's assault and can't be justified. Angry father card doesn't fly in court.



Actually I was editing it when I reread my comment to remove the "probably".


----------



## Nick (Dec 5, 2013)

WoodCore said:


> Snowboarder was in the wrong. End of story.


----------



## Tin (Dec 5, 2013)

Snowboarder was wrong as was the father. Just a clusterf*ck.


----------



## DPhelan (Dec 5, 2013)

Disregard slow sign>crash into small kid but don't bother helping him get up or seeing if he's ok>snowboard away and stop a few more times directly below a cat track before going home to upload 4 minutes of unwatchable gopro footage!


----------



## spring_mountain_high (Dec 5, 2013)

little kids are unpredictable...i try to give a super-wide berth when they are around...i get that i have just as much right to the trail as them, but i like to be nice to the little shavers and avoid incidents if at all possible...when i'm sharing a trail with a little kid and a parent i will stop and let them go ahead, or speak to the parent if possible to ask which side of the trail they want or how the kid skis...i think the snowboarder was a nice kid that unfortunately exercised questionable judgment by trying to thread a needle instead of slowing or stopping to chart a safe way through the anklebiters...i was 17 once too and this could probably have happened to any of us

having said that the dad should not have hit the kid...totally in the wrong there...it seems the little kid didn't get upset until his dad freaked out


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Dec 5, 2013)

WoodCore said:


> Snowboarder was in the wrong. End of story.



Technically the snowboarded would be to blame for the collision but that's not the issue here.

It's what happens after that puts the father in the hot seat.


----------



## Nick (Dec 5, 2013)

spring_mountain_high said:


> having said that the dad should not have hit the kid...totally in the wrong there...it seems the little kid didn't get upset until his dad freaked out



I was wondering the same thing, if the kid was crying because she got hurt or if it was because the dad was blowing up. Or a combo.


----------



## spring_mountain_high (Dec 5, 2013)

Nick said:


> I was wondering the same thing, if the kid was crying because she got hurt or if it was because the dad was blowing up. Or a combo.



if there's one thing i've learned since having a kid, they will react in kind to your reaction when something happens...if you freak out when they fall, they will freak out


----------



## SnowRock (Dec 5, 2013)

Snowboarder was definitely cutting things to close for comfort, but isn't part of the code to look uphill when starting and yield? Not saying the boarder wasn't at fault (he was) but dad doesn't appear to check uphill at all. 

I am super conscious about never wanting to collide with people on the hill, but the closest I came was when a father sent his kid out almost directly into my path without looking uphill, so I may be a bit hypersensitive to that behavior.


----------



## Nick (Dec 5, 2013)

The dad definitely did send his kid right into the path.


----------



## catherine (Dec 5, 2013)

Unfortunate but as a parent I would have probably smacked the kid too.  You can see in the shadow that he pushes the kid out of the way.  As far as the language, PLEASE, he's never heard/used that language!  I hope this doesn't lead to court.  Shit happens, everyone's ok, get over it.


----------



## ss20 (Dec 5, 2013)

This is one of those "perfect storm" type-of-deals where everything came together to make a bad situation 100x worse.
1. If you look 5 seconds before impact, you'll see the snowboarder had to change his course to avoid another skier.  Said skier sorta held her line.  It's hard to tell.  It seems she didn't know the boarder was their.
2. The boarder should've been able to stop, or at least change his course.  He was not in control.  You can see him flailing his arms.
3. The father and son should not have been stopped in the middle of an icy, crowded trail.  
4. The Father must have severe mental issues.  Instead of checking to see if his 5-year-old son who just got completely mowed over by a snowboarder is OK, he goes passed his son to yell at the snowboarder.  Not a parent, but I think it's pretty f'd up that the "dad" would rather hit the snowboarder than check to see if his son is okay.

Final Verdict: Snowboard is responsible and must have really bad luck.  The "father" is a total dick and should not be a parent.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Dec 5, 2013)

ss20 said:


> Final Verdict: Snowboard is responsible and must have really bad luck.  The "father" is a total dick and should not be a parent.



Boom. close thread.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 5, 2013)

Idiot dad is at fault for negligently failing to make sure it was safe for his kid to proceed from a stand still on an icy, crowded trail.


----------



## Abubob (Dec 5, 2013)

WoodCore said:


> Snowboarder was in the wrong. End of story.



Yeah, I have to agree. The snowboarder was coming in a bit too hot in a crowded area and was funneled into a no win situation. So the father was justifiably angry. Cursing and cuffing the snowboarder was not right either. If it came to civil action the father would be the one fined for assault and battery.


----------



## mriceyman (Dec 5, 2013)

Edit out the first 2:30 .. Sometimes this stuff happens and you cant do anything about it


Sent from my iPhone


----------



## Chinalfr (Dec 5, 2013)

No brawl?  

As a father, I might react the same.  I might not hit the kids as that is a bit overboard.  I will curse and ask the kid to slow down.  

That little youngster get a big whack by the snowboarder.  Felt sorry for him.  I don't felt sorry for the snowboarder as he is clearly going a bit faster on a crowdy slope.


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 5, 2013)

Here is the skier's code:



> [h=3]Seven Points to Your Responsibility Code[/h]
> 
> Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.
> People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them.
> ...



After reviewing the video several times, the snowboarder is properly observing points 1 & 2 of the code.  He is able to navigate a long stretch of trail with mixed ablity traffic by giving others enough room and slowing down as needed, while also avoiding the kid who skis into him from the left, which he is not overtaking.  He is traveling at an appropriate speed for conditions and traffic, about the same as most traffic, around 15-20 mph.  He is in a controlled braking manuver at the time of the collision.

The "father" is can be observed from 4:15 until the collision as NOT properly observing points 3 and 4 of the code, nor is his child.  They are stopped in the middle of a trail, and the pair are not visable from above the rollover.  Even worse, the father is blocking the view of the child.  They do not turn around and look up hill before the father allows the child to move perpendicular to the fall line and into the path of the snowboarder.

I'm not a lawyer, but common sense says that this is 90%+ the fault of the father.

How would I handle this situation if I was one of these people?  As the father, I would avoid taking my small child out on a high traffic trail in early season conditions, period.  I see people stopped in dangerous spots at Killington, and I go as far as stopping to talk to people and ask them to move to a safer stopping location.  As the snowboarder, I would be a bit more careful at rollovers and choke points, while making sure my board was well tuned and I could edge with it effectively.  

If I was skiing this trail, I would probably come to a full stop off the side of the trail, at the top of the rollover and look at traffic, similar to how I would deal with the lower bittersweet rollover at Killington.


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 5, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> Technically the snowboarded would be to blame for the collision but that's not the issue here.
> 
> It's what happens after that puts the father in the hot seat.



No, not technically.  The dad is technically at fault here.  Know the code.


----------



## planb420 (Dec 5, 2013)

If that were me and I was forced into that situations and did everything I could to avoid hitting that child and still did I would feel terrible. But if the dad were to have approached me in that fashion thats where that feeling would end and the ass kicking would ensue. Its not like the kid that hit him was outta control, crazy fast, disrespectful, or worse yet tried to run (I'd bet it was ,mostly ignited because he was young and on a snowboard)....so why the need to hit him? Thats where in that situation it would have turned into a outright brawl on the mountain if it were me, the fathers reactions would have been tolerable if the kid was an asshole or disrespectful but he was neither. IMO that didnt look like a trail suited for a child that young and that inexperienced on the slopes anyhow...if you watch back he was taking VERY WIDE and extremely FLAT turns, IDK about anyone else but I HATE when skiers take turns from edge to edge on a trail. Its super unpredictable where and when they might turn, especially if they are using most of the available trail space. I try to stick to one side or the other on busier days (which this clearly was). People need to take a step back and evaluate situations like this, especially when its a fast paced, bang-bang style situation happening. Way to set the example and like the mother would have said "way to act your age sir..."   I love kids, dont want any of my own but love em none the less....however as a parent maybe be a better gauge of your childs skill level and maybe dont bring them on really busy days down trails that are a bit beyond them. (I see this tons of times throughout the season) Actually witnessed this Oct 26 this season at Killington, there was a mother there with a 5-6 year old girl (who was clearly very early in the learning stage) on a day where 3 trails were open and none of which were "greens". Here she was buzzing around her daughter like an angry wasp constantly snapping at ANYONE who got within 10 yards of them. Now any sane person that has been at Killington on opening weekend with limited trail space you know just how impossibly crowded/congested it can get there, and yet she expected EVERYONE to cut a wide clear path just for her and her daughter. Now this i could almost be ok with...IF they were sticking to the edges of the trials or that the VERY LEAST to one side or the other...BUT OH NO she felt the need to traverse completely from edge to edge.....IMO just an asshole move on her part. Most parents are great...some just need more work LOL


----------



## BackLoafRiver (Dec 5, 2013)

I do have to give the boarder props for checking to see if the kid was ok. I do wonder if the arm-flailing was a result of him seeing what was about to be a bad situation.



ss20 said:


> The "father" is a total dick and should not be a parent.


 
I don't think the father has severe mental issues. I do think has questionable anger management practices but, I am not sure how I would react if someone plowed into my own kid. I would like to think I would keep a clear head but, who knows. Hitting someone solves nothing and I am glad the teenage kid didn't overreact and take the punch further. (in fact, he just boards away without a word) 

The random snowboarder who interjected, while I am sure had only the best intentions, didn't help anything and could have exacerbated the situation.

All in all, a bad situation made worse by some pretty poor decisions by all parties.


----------



## planb420 (Dec 5, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> No, not technically.  The dad is technically at fault here.  Know the code.



Couldn't have said it better, great job using the "Code" to rationally explain this! Father=WRONG  Snowboarder=could have used a bit better judgement


----------



## jlboyell (Dec 5, 2013)

i had a collision with someone once back when i was a teenager.  it was definitely accidental.  i was carving left (blind side) and an older "gentleman" on skis turned right and we kinda steered into each other.  for that to happen we were at one time parallel, so neither was uphill of the other, just a consequence of perfect timing and bad luck.  well of course he starts reading me the riot act and that i better get moving and out of his face, and i can only surmise this was a combination of ego and me being a "punk kid on a board."  
if the son had been hit by a smaller kid or an older adult i think it would have turned out differently.  also, ive been ran into before, its not the end of the world.  
i hate those end of the line runs where everything starts to get funneled together to get back to the lift.  this always happens in these places


----------



## BackLoafRiver (Dec 5, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> Here is the skier's code:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well put.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Dec 5, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> No, not technically.  The dad is technically at fault here.  Know the code.



Thanks code master.

I think fingers could be points at both these guys but to me this isn't an issue of who's fault it was for the collision. It's all about that father *striking *the snowboarder with a ski. Something he has absolutely no right to do regardless of what happened in the moments prior. The footage shows no ill intent from the snowboarder. Infact the snowboarder seems more concerned about the little kid than the father does.


----------



## dlague (Dec 5, 2013)

Well I empathize with the father to some degree but ......  The father and son were in a standing still position and the father did not look up hill prior to continuing!  The snowboarder was trying to move out of the way of the other girl heading towards him and technically the kid he ran into sort of came out of nowhere.

That being said - it seemed like a heavier traffic location and caution should have trumped negotiating around people.  The fathers actions of hitting the guy was uncalled for though!  The kid started crying after the father got into a confrontation - probably was scared more by his dads actions then the incident itself.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 5, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> The footage shows no ill intent from the snowboarder. Infact the snowboarder seems more concerned about the little kid than the father does.



Idiot dad probably struck his son with the ski next for crying.


----------



## Nick (Dec 5, 2013)

I should chime in. I don't care who was on a snowboard or skis. It could have been reverse, a skier hitting  a little girl on a snowboard. I'm only interested in that for the purposes of identifying who we are talking about. I don't think it's really pertinent to care about what the person was sliding on.  (i.e. making this into a snowboard vs. skier thing).


----------



## HowieT2 (Dec 5, 2013)

imho-the snowboarder is at fault for the collision.

i'm going to look at the video again, but I dont see where the father hit the kid with a ski and or punched him.  definitely hit him someway, but im not sure it was a punch or with a ski.


----------



## Nick (Dec 5, 2013)

HowieT2 said:


> imho-the snowboarder is at fault for the collision.
> 
> i'm going to look at the video again, but I dont see where the father hit the kid with a ski and or punched him.  definitely hit him someway, but im not sure it was a punch or with a ski.



 I actually thought it was a slap on the side of the head at first. Still inappropriate.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2013)

Yet another incident at Snowbasin.  Remember this was the scene of this two years ago:


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 5, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> Idiot dad is at fault for negligently failing to make sure it was safe for his kid to proceed from a stand still on an icy, crowded trail.



For crying out loud, the kid was barely moving.  How hard was it to avoid him ???  Count me strongly in the 'snowboarder is an idiot -  dad is an idiot' camp.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Dec 5, 2013)

HowieT2 said:


> imho-the snowboarder is at fault for the collision.
> 
> i'm going to look at the video again, but I dont see where the father hit the kid with a ski and or punched him.  definitely hit him someway, but im not sure it was a punch or with a ski.



Maybe I am misinterpreting the hit or the severity.

@ 4:26 there is def an impact. Looks more like a hand now that I am analysing it again. Either way. No right to hit him.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 5, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> Here is the skier's code:
> 
> 
> 
> After reviewing the video several times, the snowboarder is properly observing points 1 & 2 of the code.  He is able to navigate a long stretch of trail with mixed ablity traffic by giving others enough room and slowing down as needed, while also avoiding the kid who skis into him from the left, which he is not overtaking.  He is traveling at an appropriate speed for conditions and traffic, about the same as most traffic, around 15-20 mph.  He is in a controlled braking manuver at the time of the collision.


How was he following point 2 ?????  He plowed into a kid moving at 2 miles per hour !!!


----------



## Gilligan (Dec 5, 2013)

Snowboarders fault 100%.

The Snowboarder clearly violated the first 2 rules of the code. He was 1) not able to stop in time to avoid other people and 2) he did not yield to the skiers below him. The fact that he hit 2 little kids only makes it worse.

The dad should have taken the boarders name and photo. Hitting him served no purpose.


----------



## HowieT2 (Dec 5, 2013)

Nick said:


> I actually thought it was a slap on the side of the head at first. Still inappropriate.



Agreed.  upon further review, father was rightfully pissed, because the boarder creamed the kid, but not justified in striking the boarder.
fwiw-think the boarder should have gotten up and apologized to the kid, made sure he was ok, before taking off.


----------



## Mullen (Dec 5, 2013)

Gilligan said:


> Snowboarders fault 100%.
> 
> The Snowboarder clearly violated the first 2 rules of the code. He was 1) not able to stop in time to avoid other people and 2) he did not yield to the skiers below him. The fact that he hit 2 little kids only makes it worse.
> 
> The dad should have taken the boarders name and photo. Hitting him served no purpose.



After he himself violated rule 3 and 4 and then punched the boarder??
3. You must not stop where you obstruct a trail, or are not visible from above.
4. whenever starting downhill or merging into a trail, look uphill and yield to others.


FK should have gotten that guys name and picture that I just assaulted

Both are equally to blame


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2013)

OK, a few things.  

First, at 2:56 there was a SLOW sign on the trail, but it was pretty far upslope from where the accident happened.  I'm quite surprised that there was not a sign in the area where the accident occurred because it seems like a pretty obvious choke point to me...very much akin to the one on Deathspout at Lincoln Peak (Sugarbush).  I HATE that trail in early season.  It's very hard to tell, but I did not see the snowboarder slow down for the sign or the obvious clusterf&*k that was ahead of him.  

That leads me to the second point and that is that he should have slowed down because that choke point is pretty obvious and he did not have enough time to react to the skier who cut in front of him.  Though she did come out from the corner of his view, she was slightly ahead of him so she did have the right of way.  I don't think that she was starting off.  That said, I have had this happen so many times to me that it scares the shit out of me.  I would have instantly slammed on the brakes....it looked like he pushed off her and straightlined into the kid.  

As to the Dad...as a relatively new Dad with a two year old daughter that kid's cry really set me off and made my blood boil.  It's pure instinct.  I would be floored and probably would have reacted the same way...sans the punch I would hope.  Dad and son seemed to be pretty stationary and on the middle or side of the trail.  Hindsight is 20/20, but I would have tried to be on the edge but then again with a kid you stop where you stop.  He was pretty obvious from above and not in a blindspot...just in the wrong spot at the wrong time.  

So I think that the boarder was just going too fast.  Maybe it's hindsight, maybe not.  Teens just don't really understand or appreciate how fast they are going.  I bet that he will slow down from now on.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2013)

HowieT2 said:


> Agreed.  upon further review, father was rightfully pissed, because the boarder creamed the kid, but not justified in striking the boarder.
> fwiw-think the boarder should have gotten up and apologized to the kid, made sure he was ok, before taking off.



I reacted the same way.  I did hear him ask if the kid was OK, but I understand why he did not stick around and it was because he got belted.


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 5, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> How was he following point 2 ?????  He plowed into a kid moving at 2 miles per hour !!!



2. People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them.

There is at least a minute of video which clearly shows the "snowboarder" following this rule to the standards of any reasonable person.  The "father" egregiously violates points 3 & 4, causing the collision.


----------



## Glenn (Dec 5, 2013)

Tough call. The dad didn't help his cause by belting the guy over the head with a ski.


----------



## C-Rex (Dec 5, 2013)

As I've said before, sometimes accidents just happen.  Everyone is always trying to assign blame when sometimes both parties have respectful intentions but unforseen things lead to an incident.  I think that's the case here.  The snowboarder was forced to avoid the girl and in doing so found himself in a situation where he wasn't able to stop or turn in time to avoid the kid.  It's hard enough to try to predict the actions of a persons next move, but predicting 2 or 3 moves ahead is near impossible.  I'm sure the snowboarder will be more careful in the future but I don't think he was being negligent in this case.  The dad is a pure dickhead.  He should have looked up hill and waited for a more clear time to let his kid go.  If you're teaching your kid to ride a bike, you don't just push him into traffic and expect the cars to stop, even if they're going slow. I could understand his reaction if the snowboarder acted like a punk, but he didn't.  He tried to see if the kid was ok, and given the chance probably would have apologized.  The dad had no right to lay hands on him.  Were I in the snowboarders place, I would have been apologetic up until he hit me, then it would have been, as they say, ON.


----------



## snoseek (Dec 5, 2013)

Just another day on the WROD. What I would do to trade a month in the fall for a month in the spring. Everybody fucked up, the dad took being an asshole to a whole new level, he's lucky he was dealing with nice kids or he would have gotten his ass whooped right in front of his kid.


----------



## SnowRock (Dec 5, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> How was he following point 2 ?????  He plowed into a kid moving at 2 miles per hour !!!



Thats the thing.. when I am first to pull out at a red light on any of the major local highways, I usually look to see if cars in both directions are in fact stopping. My wife sometimes doesn't and I get on her for it all the time. They have the red light but what does that mean?

Should uphill yield to downhill and should skiers/boarders always be in control... YES. But I never would assume that is the case. Starting a kid out from a dead stop in the middle of a busy trail and sending him directly into the path of someone is kind of dumb. I don't think that the intent of the code.. to test someones ability to avoid a collision by sending your kid out directly in front of his path. I still think the boarder was cutting things a bit to close but find as much fault with the dad for the incident.


----------



## HowieT2 (Dec 5, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> 2. People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them.
> 
> There is at least a minute of video which clearly shows the "snowboarder" following this rule to the standards of any reasonable person.  The "father" egregiously violates points 3 & 4, causing the collision.



with all due respect, I dont know what video you're watching.  the little kid is inarguably downhill from the boarder and is barely moving, if he's moving at all.  
just because the boarder didnt hit anyone in front of him in the minutes before the incident, doesnt in any way absolve him of responsibility for plowing into a little kid in his way.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2013)

HowieT2 said:


> with all due respect, I dont know what video you're watching.  the little kid is inarguably downhill from the boarder and is barely moving, if he's moving at all.
> just because the boarder didnt hit anyone in front of him in the minutes before the incident, doesnt in any way absolve him of responsibility for plowing into a little kid in his way.



Agreed.  Was going to say the same thing.


----------



## Sky (Dec 5, 2013)

My two cents....Sorry the little boy got smucked...the amount of traffic in what appears to be a "choke point" in the trail, the various speeds of the participants (to include the little girl coming in from the left), and the Dad/son combo stopped on the narrowed trail ALL scream caution to the uphill participants (was ther a "slow" or "caution" sign as well?).

DOwnhill skier has the right of way (tha accounts for the little girl) and the snowboarder "probably" could have seen her (his cam was on the right of his helmet...peripheral vision should have given him (and us) more info).  Dad should have realized he (and son) were stopped in a really bad spot (choke point) and definitely should have looked uphill for a safe time to restart (too lazy to check, but pretty sure there's a code point to be made here...like trail merge or something).

Judging from (and accounting for video interpretation) the clip...the snowboarder wasn't traveling that fast (fortunately).  Still, the crowding and the choke-point etc scream (to me) slow down to a crawl.  Does the trail sign indicate GREEN?  Pardon my ignorance, maybe this trail is "carrying" multiple trails' worth of traffic (and ability).  If so, even more caution is warranted.

Sort of reminds me of skiing with my wife and daughter on Nor'easter @ Killington.  Carrying so much other traffic, crossing trails of higher difficulty...just a bad mix.


Beyond that, what I would have done..or any of us I suppose...it our business.  Angry Dad card doesn't play in court...funny and true.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2013)

And maybe it's just me, but it looks like his intended path would have taken him right into the kid and Dad regardless of the girl cutting in front of him.


----------



## dlague (Dec 5, 2013)

SnowRock said:


> Thats the thing.. when I am first to pull out at a red light on any of the major local highways, I usually look to see if cars in both directions are in fact stopping. My wife sometimes doesn't and I get on her for it all the time. They have the red light but what does that mean?
> 
> Should uphill yield to downhill and should skiers/boarders always be in control... YES. But I never would assume that is the case. Starting a kid out from a dead stop in the middle of a busy trail and sending him directly into the path of someone is kind of dumb. I don't think that the intent of the code.. to test someones ability to avoid a collision by sending your kid out directly in front of his path. I still think the boarder was cutting things a bit to close but find as much fault with the dad for the incident.



sending him directly into the path of someone is kind of dumb .... Correct!  The dad in this case - being older and wiser (maybe not) should have looked back before continuing his son.  I clicked through it frame by frame and the father and child were clearly stopped.  If you are not looking back to see traffic, then at least start your kid down hill in front of you!

Maybe the dad was upset at himself and took it out on the snowboarder?  Is the dad afraid that his wife will rip him a new one and never let the kid go skiing again?  The assault should not have happened!


----------



## DPhelan (Dec 5, 2013)

the part where he swings the ski reminds me of that old volant ad(scene in something about mcconkey) where mcconkey slices everybody in front of him for 1st chair with a ski


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 5, 2013)

On a side note.....that was a pretty awesome flip at 1:06


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Dec 5, 2013)

Didn't hit him with a ski... pretty plain to see in fullscreen, switched the ski from left to right hand and smacked him open palm. The 2 girls on his left (turquoise top/white pants, pink top/white pants) coming down the trail were slightly ahead of him most of the way down going about the same speed. You can see where they came back to the right after just passing the Patroller pulling the sled @ 4:10, to the center of the trail, when they were mostly skiing on the left side most of the way down. Definite choke point there right as they all passed the Patroller, probably should have been another Slow sign just above that drop. I'm thinking that the little boy was already slightly moving, not starting from a dead stop... but that's just the way it looks to me. I say the kid took off before Patrol pulled up for whatever reason.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2013)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> Didn't hit him with a ski... pretty plain to see in fullscreen, switched the ski from left to right hand and smacked him open palm. The 2 girls on his left (turquoise top/white pants, pink top/white pants) coming down the trail were slightly ahead of him most of the way down going about the same speed. You can see where they came back to the right after just passing the Patroller pulling the sled @ 4:10, to the center of the trail, when they were mostly skiing on the left side most of the way down. Definite choke point there right as they all passed the Patroller, probably should have been another Slow sign just above that drop. I'm thinking that the little boy was already slightly moving, not starting from a dead stop... but that's just the way it looks to me. I say the kid took off before Patrol pulled up for whatever reason.



I was wondering what happened after he left since there was a patroller right there.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 5, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> For crying out loud, the kid was barely moving.  How hard was it to avoid him ???



Whether or not the snowboarder could have avoided the collision has no bearing on idiot dad's negligence.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 5, 2013)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> I say the kid took off before Patrol pulled up for whatever reason.



Probably because he didn't want idiot dad to assault him again.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Dec 5, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> Whether or not the snowboarder could have avoided the collision has no bearing on idiot dad's negligence.



Absolutely. No need of that, check make sure everyone is all right, argue later.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2013)

Domeskier said:


> Whether or not the snowboarder could have avoided the collision has no bearing on idiot dad's negligence.



Are you saying that you think Dad sent the kid out without looking?  From my viewing, I can't see enough to decide whether that was the case.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 5, 2013)

A few points:

That was a terrible place to stop. You should probably not stop on a section of trail like that unless absolutely necessary. And if you do, stop on the side.

If you do have to stop, the child should always be below you. 

The accident was the snowboarders fault. You can't blame the father/child who were stationary. And the girl didn't make any crazy movements. 

The snowboarder might have been responsible but the father was a complete ass hat. The accident was a mistake. It was something that could happen to anyone.


----------



## mriceyman (Dec 5, 2013)

Yea and you definitely cant hit a kid with a ski  


Sent from my iPhone


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 5, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Are you saying that you think Dad sent the kid out without looking?  From my viewing, I can't see enough to decide whether that was the case.



From the moment he becomes visible on camera standing in the middle of the trail with his son standing in front of him, he does not appear to look up hill once.

Edit: Watched it again.  I agree the video is not entirely clear on this point.  However, if he did look uphill, I'm not sure how he could have missed the snowboarder heading toward them and how he could have failed to react when his kid started to move.


----------



## Nick (Dec 5, 2013)

mriceyman said:


> Yea and you definitely cant hit a kid with a ski
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone



Unless you have been really, really misbehaving :lol:


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> A few points:
> 
> That was a terrible place to stop. You should probably not stop on a section of trail like that unless absolutely necessary. And if you do, stop on the side.



Agreed.  And as I said, when you're with a little kid I can imagine that a kid is going to stop in bad places.  It is what it is.  



> If you do have to stop, the child should always be below you.



From what I saw, the kid was below the Dad.  And I still don't see enough to convince me that he was encouraging the kid to go ahead. It looks like they're just standing there.  



> The accident was the snowboarders fault. You can't blame the father/child who were stationary. And the girl didn't make any crazy movements.



Agreed.  



> The snowboarder might have been responsible but the father was a complete ass hat. The accident was a mistake. It was something that could happen to anyone.



I agree to some extent, but just being a Dad I know that if someone hurt my kid watch out.  I would hope I would not hit someone but when your kid has been plowed over you have a right to be very upset....just instinctively.  It's really easy for us to be Monday Morning Quarterbacks from our offices and living rooms while watching this in replay over and over again.  But in the moment is there any Dad here who will tell me that they would not be ripped?  I think not.  Doesn't justify punching the guy.


----------



## Nick (Dec 5, 2013)

I'm a new dad. I would be instantly thinking did my kid break a leg? Worse? I would definitely freak out. Again, I HOPE I wouldn't hit the kid.


----------



## mister moose (Dec 5, 2013)

Many of you appear to have the facts wrong.

The kid on skis in the teal jacket is visible ahead of the boarder well before the collision.  Like 30 seconds before. Relative position changes, but at 4:05 teal is clearly below and ahead of boarder.
4:09 Teal ahead and off to left of Boarder.
4:13 Teal ahead on left of Boarder.
4:14 Dad becomes visible ahead on right.  Boarder clearly has heelside and back to teal.
4:15 Teal ahead, converging.  Boarder passes several people, including patrol with a sled.
4:16 Imminent collision with Teal, Dad clearly visible ahead on right, child visible on right of Dad, moving right to left.
4:17 Fending off Teal, child is now to left of Dad.
4:17.5 Teal is now behind and shadow is visible close on left still.  Collision imminent with Dad/child.  Shadow shows boarder is on heels with board across the hill but going straight ahead, and not braking hard over the last 2 seconds.  
4:18 collision with child.
4:22 Boarder still moving, trying to stop while on ground.  Child is up hill with ski released.
4:24 Dad arrives with child's ski in left hand.
4:28 Dad moves ski to right hand, strikes Boarder on head with left.
4:40 Boarder now stays quiet, leaves scene of accident.


I really have to disagree with Dad being at fault for collision.  He is shielding child, who is in motion.  The child was not stopped.  Boarder does not stop, not even slow down appreciably before, during or after encounter with Teal.  There is no warning issued to Teal, ie "On your right!"

The only thing you can say in defense of Boarder is that he was distracted by the (near)collision with Teal and this led to collision with Child.  This is a good defense???

Kudos to the Boarder for keeping his cool and not escalating.  (Dad struck Boarder with hand, not ski)  It's a lot to ask given the strike by the Dad, but he still should not have left the scene, that is a criminal act, isn't it?

I know it was congested, I know Boarder's speed wasn't excessively high, but he failed to travel at a speed slow enough to avoid a collision, twice.  Boarder failed to warn downhill Teal of proximity.  Dad and child is visible 4 seconds before impact.  (Remember POV camera makes things appear further than they are)  Boarder's fault for collision.  Dad guilty of assault.

Yes, this was clearly an accident, and yes, accidents happen.  But until I see a sign that says "minimum speed 15mph" you can't fault the child/Dad.


----------



## HD333 (Dec 5, 2013)

How is "The Code" working out for all 3 of these folks?

Sucks the little guy got run over, also sucks that the Dad punched/hit the boarder, nice example for your kid.

Who is at fault? That will end up like the who's hotter Julia or Lindsay debate (Julia obviously for the record).

I don't get how the Dad let that kid go without looking uphill?  My kids are 10 and when we stop I still look uphill for them.  For that fact I say the dad is_ more _at fault because he could have prevented the little guy from going.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Dec 5, 2013)

I agree with Moose, in that the boy was already moving, which is why in the short time you can see Dad, he doesn't appear to look uphill, Dads skis are pointing right, as if Junior had just completed his turn, and was traversing back across to Dad, when the camera picks him up, he has just reached Dad. If they were stopped, and Dad was just starting Junior out, if would be more probable that his skis would be pointing in the direction that Junior was about to travel.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 5, 2013)

mister moose said:


> I really have to disagree with Dad being at fault for collision.  He is shielding child, who is in motion.  The child was not stopped.



Child is in motion at 4:16.  Child was not in motion when idiot dad first appears on camera at 4:14.  A reasonable parent on that slope, in those conditions, with that kind of traffic would have looked up hill before letting his kid proceed.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2013)

mister moose said:


> Many of you appear to have the facts wrong.
> 
> The kid on skis in the teal jacket is visible ahead of the boarder well before the collision.  Like 30 seconds before. Relative position changes, but at 4:05 teal is clearly below and ahead of boarder.
> 4:09 Teal ahead and off to left of Boarder.
> ...



Gotta agree.


----------



## Nick (Dec 5, 2013)

Some more info: 

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=27909656&ni...s-caught-on-camera&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-2

You know I read that and I really feel like the kid is milking it a little bit ... 

statements like 



> Poulsen said he still wants to find out who the man is and make sure he doesn't do this to anyone else."It surprised me that the man didn't talk, didn't ask his son if he was OK before he came to get in my face. I wish he would have done that," Poulsen said.
> He said he's not sure if he wants to press charges if he's able to identify the man who hit him.
> 
> Read more at http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=27909656#uGTe2YcbIOBH38VA.99


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 5, 2013)

mister moose said:


> The only thing you can say in defense of Boarder is that he was distracted by the (near)collision with Teal and this led to collision with Child.  This is a good defense???


Here's food for thought, if not for the hand check of the skier in teal by the snowboarding kid, does the teal skier hit the little kid instead?


----------



## C-Rex (Dec 5, 2013)

mister moose said:


> Kudos to the Boarder for keeping his cool and not escalating. (Dad struck Boarder with hand, not ski) It's a lot to ask given the strike by the Dad, but he still should not have left the scene, that is a criminal act, isn't it?



No, it's not. It's not a car accident, and I wouldn't expect him to stick around when the Dad is going off on him and being physically violent.  He wasn't trying to avoid responsibility as he stopped and asked if the kid was ok.  The boarder seemed more concerned with the kid's condition after the crash than the dad.  As others have said, hitting the boarder was just stupid.  He's lucky the kid didn't have a bunch of nutjob friends with him.  He could have gotten his head caved in by some psycho right in front of his son.  He could still end up facing assault charges.  There is just no excuse for that behavior, and that is coming from someone with a pretty short fuse himself.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 5, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> Here is the skier's code:
> 
> After reviewing the video several times, the snowboarder is properly observing points 1 & 2 of the code.  He is able to navigate a long stretch of trail with mixed ablity traffic by giving others enough room and slowing down as needed, while also avoiding the kid who skis into him from the left, which he is not overtaking.  He is traveling at an appropriate speed for conditions and traffic, about the same as most traffic, around 15-20 mph.  He is in a controlled braking manuver at the time of the collision.
> 
> ...



Damian?


----------



## Dickc (Dec 5, 2013)

Ugly situation.  Snowboarder ultimately at fault as he allowed himself to be squeezed out.  He _Should_ have slowed and gone to the left of the girl instead.  Would have avoided collision completely.  As for the Dad.  He should be criminally charged.  I am a parent of four, and grandparent of two.  You have to control yourself at all times.  Self control has been in decline in the country for a few decades.  Not good.

By the way, had boarder gone to to left of girl, it looks like she might have hit Dad or the child instead.  Bad spot on trail that should have another warning sign.

Lastly, I feel that the code is written with the most important rules first.  Makes rule 3 & 4 less relevant _if_ Dad was stopped.


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 5, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Agreed.  Was going to say the same thing.





HowieT2 said:


> with all due respect, I dont know what video you're watching.  the little kid is inarguably downhill from the boarder and is barely moving, if he's moving at all.
> just because the boarder didnt hit anyone in front of him in the minutes before the incident, doesnt in any way absolve him of responsibility for plowing into a little kid in his way.



Both of you clearly did not watch the video from the beginning.  The group starts down the hill around the 3:00 mark and successfully avoids multiple people at a very reasonable speed.  The snowboarder slows up at 3:55 for two kids, one of which later cuts into him at 4:15.  I didn't day this before, but the kid who cuts in from the left was not following point 4 and should have looked over their shoulder before merging into the trail.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 5, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Agreed.  And as I said, when you're with a little kid I can imagine that a kid is going to stop in bad places.  It is what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm a dad of 2 young skiers myself and yea I would be pissed. But if I went over to the kid (after checking on my own) and he seemed genuinely concerned about my kid and didn't brush me off then I would hope I would be a lot more reasonable. Think about if that snowboarder was your own kid. My kids have fallen and slid into other people before and thankfully they have never been treated that way. It seemed like a genuine mistake and the dad didn't even give him a chance.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Abubob (Dec 5, 2013)

planb420 said:


> when its a fast paced, bang-bang style situation happening.



This is the problem right here. On a crowded beginner slope there should be no "bang-bang style situation happening". That's why I had said the snowboarder was going too fast. You have to expect erratic behavior when you've large numbers of beginners. You just CANNOT go buzzing right through. The driving of cars analogy is essentially correct. You don't go through what is basically a parking lot without expecting to come to a complete halt. At any moment. Without warning.

Still think the father could be sued for assault and battery though.


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 5, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> Damian?



Welcome to 2006...........:roll:


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> Both of you clearly did not watch the video from the beginning.  The group starts down the hill around the 3:00 mark and successfully avoids multiple people at a very reasonable speed.  The snowboarder slows up at 3:55 for two kids, one of which later cuts into him at 4:15.  I didn't day this before, but the kid who cuts in from the left was not following point 4 and should have looked over their shoulder before merging into the trail.



Good point for something completely unrelated to what I was saying.  I was saying that from what I saw the young boy was downhill from the snowboarder and barely moving if at all.


----------



## Newpylong (Dec 5, 2013)

If you're going through a slow zone with kids all over you slow down and give people a wide margin, simple. A kid that small does not "come out of nowhere" and should have been avoided.

Does not make up for father going off deep end though.


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 5, 2013)

Newpylong said:


> Wow, it is scary to read people think the snowboarder was in control. He was going too fast through slow zone and tooclose to those people, end of story. If you're going through a slow zone with kids all over you slow down and give people a wide margin, simple.
> 
> Does not make up for father going off deep end though.



You clearly did not watch from 3:00 onwards.  He slows down several times.  He first slows down for teal jacket kid around 3:50, and is then traveling at an equivalent speed for around 20 seconds.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 5, 2013)

Tough situation.  If I was the guy wearing the helmet cam, I would've dropped almost all my speed when I saw the little girl coming from the left.  Even if the little boy hadn't come out from Dad where he unfortunately got hit, the guy would've had to buzz by the dad anyways with not much room for error. The guy clearly chose to try and overtake the little girl.  Not a wise decision in those traffic conditions. Then again, I ski way more defensively than most when I'm on the slope with lots of little kids or beginners; they're too unpredictable.

I'd be furious if I was the father too, but you can't strike someone (even a slap across the face like that) unless they pose a threat to you or others.  A non-defensive strike is assault.  

Hope the kid heals quickly and has a short memory.  Hope the boarder never forgets and rides more responsibly in the future.


----------



## crank (Dec 5, 2013)

Accidents happen.  My kid was wiped out he he was 7 by a boarder who was unable to stop.  I did not get pissed off and was just concerned that my kid was OK.  The boarder was a polite teenager and actually picked my kid up and hugged him to his chest as they went sliding down a very steep slope... nothing I could do but watch it happen.

I this case I think the little kid may have fallen there and his dad was shielding him from uphill traffic.  You really can't see the kid until he appears from behind his dad.  Dad was/is a douche.  

Could the boarder have been a little more cautious, sure he could have.  However, the green jacket coming in from the left forced him into a narrow lane that got suddenly cut off when the little kid emerged from behind dad.

And the code is more of a suggestion.  It ain't gonna keep anyone from hitting you.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2013)

Nick said:


> Some more info:
> 
> http://www.ksl.com/?sid=27909656&ni...s-caught-on-camera&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-2
> 
> ...



KSL is probably the worst media outlet I have seen.  I watched the video and it was very one sided...probably because they did not like the "cussing" (KSL is owned by the LDS church and they have a lot of editorial discretion).  Kudos that the snowboarder was straight up and admitted that he was wrong and it was a mistake.  But they did not get into the fact that it is pretty clear that he was going too fast for the conditions.  They did say that (somehow) the two did meet up later and exchanged apologies.  

I don't condone the battery by the Dad, but I do have some understanding of where that is coming from.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 5, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> No, not technically.  The dad is technically at fault here.  Know the code.



So you are basically condoning the behavior of the snowboarder because they broke a skier "code"? I'm not saying this kid deserved what he got but deflecting blame for the accident is ridiculous. The snowboarder shouldnt get off just because the father and child broke the "code". The car argument has been used a million times but I can't just rear end someone because they have a tail light out or side swipe someone because they passed me on the right. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 5, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> So you are basically condoning the behavior of the snowboarder because they broke a skier "code"? I'm not saying this kid deserved what he got but deflecting blame for the accident is ridiculous. The snowboarder shouldnt get off just because the father and child broke the "code". The car argument has been used a million times but I can't just rear end someone because they have a tail light out or side swipe someone because they passed me on the right.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app



The snowboarder was riding in a very reasonable manner consistant with the skiers code and is not at fault.  Teal jacket kid and the father both were NOT following the code, and are at fault.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> The snowboarder was riding in a very reasonable manner consistant with the skiers code and is not at fault.  Teal jacket kid and the father both were NOT following the code, and are at fault.



Didn't realize that the code requires eyes in the back of one's head.


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 5, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Didn't realize that the code requires eyes in the back of one's head.



No, they just require you to read them, comprehend them, and put them into practice.  How's that working for you, get run into much...?


----------



## HowieT2 (Dec 5, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> The snowboarder was riding in a very reasonable manner consistant with the skiers code and is not at fault.  Teal jacket kid and the father both were NOT following the code, and are at fault.



you're entitled to your opinion, but I think you are way off base.  I hope you dont ski/board with that attitude.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 5, 2013)

HowieT2 said:


> you're entitled to your opinion, but I think you are way off base.  I hope you dont ski/board with that attitude.



he's a top 20 skier at Killington.  He clearly doesn't have these problems


----------



## dlague (Dec 5, 2013)

Made me think about how dangerous beginner trails might be.  We had a friend who was snowboarding for the first time ever.  She took a private lesson and was doing pretty well until they decided to do one more run and when heading toward the lift line a father and his son (4-5 ish) skied by her and the instructor then stopped.  He panicked and tried to stop quickly and landed on her bottom with the board up in the air and as a result she gashed the kid on the forehead.  The father in this case was cool about it since he realized they cut her off.  But she was sick to her stomach thinking about how much worst it could have been.  A trail full of people that do not know what they are doing while it is the run out for those who do (technically).   Same case for trails that get pinched - people all vying for the same path and the ability, experience and knowledge level varies greatly.

in the case of this thread, more caution by the snowboarder and better attention by the father in protecting his kid would have produced different results!


----------



## billdee (Dec 5, 2013)

Some of the earlier comments probably are unfair to the father.  What struck me is just how quickly the hit happened and then the dad reacted instantaneously.  There's no question the boarder is at fault -- he and his buddies are faster than everybody else on a mixed use trail, they're weaving in and out and need to be on the side and slower.  You MUST be in control -- full stop.  They weren't being crazy, but more caution was called for.  This happens all the time when speed and skill differential is great...the margin of safety is so small.

I am sympathetic to the Dad who just saw his kid whomped -- no question he shouldn't have hit the kid and I bet he regrets it hard, but when your child is hit like that most any Dad would flip.  The surge of anger and adrenaline just cannot be underestimated when you see your child needlessly hit.  The hit was a big deal and the teenager, no matter how considerate immediately afterwards, did deserve a chewing out.  Doesn't happen enough these days, from what I see on the slopes and in life.  I agree that teenagers, especially boarders, are often unfairly stereotyped, but spend a day at Killington and it doesn't take long to see boorish and risky behavior.  Every parent would assume it was the older teen's fault and be ripped.

Nobody feels good about what happened, but I will have my teens watch this and think about how to handle themselves better on the slopes.


----------



## Stache (Dec 5, 2013)

HowieT2 said:


> you're entitled to your opinion, but I think you are way off base.  I hope you dont ski/board with that attitude.



He does. That is why he posted this and is tying to preemptively build his defense for when he has the collision with someone in front of him.

Two wrongs don't make a right. In fact it usually makes something twice as bad. Dad is (justifiably) guilty of assault.

Boarder is guilty of "Speed too fast for conditions." Way too often folks pass other folks at speed far in excess of the 110% rule. You should only be travelling 10% faster than the person you are overtaking. In an area with multiple threats (targets) not more than 10% faster than the slowest one.
Rule #1 is #1 for a reason, it is the most important. It very clearly puts the responsibility on folks to slide in a manner that they do not crash into anything. 
Rules #3 & #4 are more for self preservation than assigning blame.

What I preach and teach to my ski school students, "There is a WORLD of difference between 'not meaning' to do something and MEANING NOT to do something."


----------



## mister moose (Dec 5, 2013)

RE leaving scene of accident:




C-Rex said:


> No, it's not. It's not a car accident, and I wouldn't expect him to stick around when the Dad is going off on him and being physically violent. He wasn't trying to avoid responsibility as he stopped and asked if the kid was ok. The boarder seemed more concerned with the kid's condition after the crash than the dad. As others have said, hitting the boarder was just stupid. He's lucky the kid didn't have a bunch of nutjob friends with him. He could have gotten his head caved in by some psycho right in front of his son. He could still end up facing assault charges. There is just no excuse for that behavior, and that is coming from someone with a pretty short fuse himself.



I'm pretty sure it is in most ski states.  I couldn't find VT or Utah (where it happened) in a few minutes of googling, but here is California's law:

 c​CAL. PENAL CODE​§ 602(q) (West 2001), provides that it is a misdemeanor to ski on aclosed ski trail, and §§653(i) makes leaving the scene of a skiing​accident punishable by a fine of up to $1,000.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2013)

HowieT2 said:


> you're entitled to your opinion, but I think you are way off base.  I hope you dont ski/board with that attitude.





deadheadskier said:


> he's a top 20 skier at Killington.  He clearly doesn't have these problems



Watch out for someone doing mandatory GS turns.  



Highway Star said:


> No, they just require you to read them, comprehend them, and put them into practice.  How's that working for you, get run into much...?



I understand them quite fine, thank you.  And I don't cause any problems on the slopes personally.


----------



## dmc (Dec 5, 2013)

I refuse to even watch this bs... Surprised you even posted this...

This place is weighted way too heavy with skiers to even get involved.....  
F that...


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Dec 5, 2013)

Stache said:


> He does. That is why he posted this and is tying to preemptively build his defense for when he has the collision with someone in front of him.
> 
> Two wrongs don't make a right. In fact it usually makes something twice as bad. Dad is (justifiably) guilty of assault.
> 
> ...



Stache you have a page on your site perfect for this discussion!

http://thestache.tripod.com/id14.html


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> Stache you have a page on your site perfect for this discussion!
> 
> http://thestache.tripod.com/id14.html



Seems simple and to the point.  Makes sense to me.  

And I think the real danger is not just beginner trails, but trails that have others funnel into them and in which there are folks of varying degrees of skill on them.  That's where you have to be careful.  A lot of trails have beginner slopes/learning areas at the bottoms of them such that advanced skiers coming down the mountain have to go through that area.  Think Jay's Interstate/Metro Quad area.  It is just the runout from the terrain above.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 5, 2013)

dmc said:


> I refuse to even watch this bs... Surprised you even posted this...
> 
> This place is weighted way too heavy with skiers to even get involved.....
> F that...



chill

not a skier vs snowboarder debate

unless you choose to elect it one


----------



## mriceyman (Dec 5, 2013)

Nick said:


> I'm a new dad. I would be instantly thinking did my kid break a leg? Worse? I would definitely freak out. Again, I HOPE I wouldn't hit the kid.


I'm hoping that you/I would at least see if my kid is ok first before catching a ski and bashing the kid with it.


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 5, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Watch out for someone doing mandatory GS turns.
> 
> I understand them quite fine, thank you.  And I don't cause any problems on the slopes personally.



Well, since I haven't hit anyone nor been run into in 800+ ski days, I'd have to say I'm doing pretty well, thank you very much.  I also ski very fast pretty often, on weekends, at a mountain that can get pretty busy at times.  I see lots and lots of people not observing the code, and I will stop and point it out to them as needed.  Or just yell "Don't stop in the middle of the &*%$@# trail!!!" as I ski by.


----------



## GNU 4 LIFE (Dec 5, 2013)

Snowboarders fault no control as for the dad the boarder was wearing a helmet and he made his point. 

Sent from my DROID3 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## andrec10 (Dec 5, 2013)

I have to say the snowboarder was in the wrong, but still does not give the father the right to hit the kid!


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2013)

mriceyman said:


> I'm hoping that you/I would at least see if my kid is ok first before catching a ski and bashing the kid with it.



Again, not that it changes much, but the Dad slapped the kid with his hand, not a ski.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> I see lots and lots of people not observing the code, and I will stop and point it out to them as needed.  Or just yell "Don't stop in the middle of the &*%$@# trail!!!" as I ski by.



Who made you the Sheriff?


----------



## skiberg (Dec 5, 2013)

Pretty obvious snowboarder was wrong. He almost took out the young girl skier as well just prior to hitting the kid. I think what caused the accident is that the kid was obscured by the father and you cant really see him until last second. But they were downhill, its the uphill skiers job to use caution especially on a crowded slope


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 5, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Who made you the Sheriff?



It is perfectly within my rights as a skier to make people aware that they are not following the code.


----------



## Edd (Dec 5, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> chill
> 
> not a skier vs snowboarder debate



Seriously, it's not even close to that. The form of transit is irrelevant. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> It is perfectly within my rights as a skier to make people aware that they are not following the code.



That's interesting!  So you're kind of like this woman:



FWIW the Code is meant to be aspirational more than anything else.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 5, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> Well, since I haven't hit anyone nor been run into in 800+ ski days, I'd have to say I'm doing pretty well, thank you very much.  I also ski very fast pretty often, on weekends, at a mountain that can get pretty busy at times.  I see lots and lots of people not observing the code, and I will stop and point it out to them as needed.  Or just yell "Don't stop in the middle of the &*%$@# trail!!!" as I ski by.



You are the hall monitor of skiing.


----------



## Edd (Dec 5, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> That's interesting! So you're kind of like this woman:




Couldn't finish watching that for various reasons, not the least of which is that it's shot in portrait mode, which is a more heinous crime than driving slow in the left lane.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> You are the hall monitor of skiing.




:lol:

Yeah, exactly!


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2013)

Edd said:


> Couldn't finish watching that for various reasons, not the least of which is that it's shot in portrait mode, which is a more heinous crime than driving slow in the left lane.



I just listened to it and it is so damn funny.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 5, 2013)

You learn something new every day......George Zimmerman = the head of the moral police.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> You learn something new every day......George Zimmerman = the head of the moral police.



I was going to say that it sounds like our buddy HS is a mandatory GS turnmaking George Zimmerman of Killington.  Watch out...there might be a citizen's arrest if you don't look over your shoulder to be sure that he is not coming up behind you on the flats.....


----------



## WoodCore (Dec 5, 2013)

CSI - Snowbasin, UT


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Dec 5, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> I was going to say that it sounds like our buddy HS is a mandatory GS turnmaking George Zimmerman of Killington.  Watch out...there might be a citizen's arrest if you don't look over your shoulder to be sure that he is not coming up behind you on the flats.....



Haha I was just about to post a citizen's arrest joke!


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 5, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> I just listened to it and it is so damn funny.



Ohhhh..............so you mean that's not you in the video?


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 5, 2013)

I'm still trying to find an instructional video on how to do slow GS turns...anyone? Seems a bit tricky.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Nick (Dec 5, 2013)

Edd said:


> Couldn't finish watching that for various reasons, not the least of which is that it's shot in portrait mode, which is a more heinous crime than driving slow in the left lane.



My biggest pet peeve

Sent from my Nexus 7 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> Ohhhh..............so you mean that's not you in the video?



I think it's your girlfriend actually.

And tell me do you ski with handcuffs in your blue jeans as you do your mandatory GS turns in case you come across any code violators?


----------



## dmc (Dec 6, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> chill
> 
> not a skier vs snowboarder debate
> 
> unless you choose to elect it one



I tend to not read threads based on titles...
This is the title..  
"Snowboarder hits kid, kids father punches snowboarder (video)"

Based upon this thread i drew the conclusion that it was indeed a guy punching another person.  With no hint that it's anything but on slope violence..     Where people are obviously not chill... 

And really.. this place is weighted to skiers...  Don't even try to say it isn't...   Snowboarders have to continually defend themselves during pile on threads...   

carry on...


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 6, 2013)

dmc said:


> I tend to not read threads based on titles...
> This is the title..
> "Snowboarder hits kid, kids father punches snowboarder (video)"
> 
> ...



Anyone else carry the opinion that this thread was even remotely a skier vs snowboarder thread and the mode of transport mattered?  Anyone?

You're being defensive over nothing DMC.  

Like I said.  Chill.  You bring that debate into things more than anyone.  You need to get over it.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 6, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> Anyone else carry the opinion that this thread was even remotely a skier vs snowboarder thread and the mode of transport mattered?  Anyone?
> 
> You're being defensive over nothing DMC.
> 
> Like I said.  Chill.  You bring that debate into things more than anyone.  You need to get over it.



Agreed. In fact, I think people were irritated at the dad for wacking the snowboarder than the snowboarder hitting the kid.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Abubob (Dec 6, 2013)

dmc said:


> I tend to not read threads based on titles...
> This is the title..
> "Snowboarder hits kid, kids father punches snowboarder (video)"



So the title made it seem like it was about the "snowboarder". Suggest another title that doesn't make it sound like its about the mode of riding.


----------



## Abubob (Dec 7, 2013)

uphillklimber said:


> And what would you suggest? Can't say on skier hits another, as that just isn't accurate. This like trying to call a car hits a biker by any other term. It's purely descriptive that a snowboarder hit a kid. Do we start saying winter recreationalist hits another winter recreationalist?



"Teen hits little kid on slopes - punched by kid's father". See, by merely describing the teenager as a "snowboarder" you make it about snowboarding. Dmc's objection is justifiable when you label someone a snowboarder rather than what they really are - in this case - a somewhat out-of-control teen.


----------



## Savemeasammy (Dec 7, 2013)

Abubob said:


> "Teen hits little kid on slopes - punched by kid's father". See, by merely describing the teenager as a "snowboarder" you make it about snowboarding. Dmc's objection is justifiable when you label someone a snowboarder rather than what they really are - in this case - a somewhat out-of-control teen.



Right.  The relevant fact here is that it was a teenager who collided with a young child.  This same teen could have been involved in the same (or similar) collision had he been on skis.  He may not have the same "blind spot" issue on skis, but he would still have the same lack of caution that an adult - particularly a parent - would have.  We were all teens once.  Hopefully both of these kids learned a valuable lesson that will serve them well for the future.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mister moose (Dec 7, 2013)

Abubob said:


> "Teen hits little kid on slopes - punched by kid's father". See, by merely describing the teenager as a "snowboarder" you make it about snowboarding. Dmc's objection is justifiable when you label someone a snowboarder rather than what they really are - in this case - a somewhat out-of-control teen.



All you've done is shift from one stereotype to another. All teens are not 'somewhat out of control'. I agree that hypersensitivity has been in play here. The heelside visibility I think was a contributing factor with the teal jacket kid, and boarder hits skier is just as relevant as SUV hits Tractor-trailer or waterskier hits swimmer. Should we say the snow slider was male? Why blame men? Why was the Mom absent? Was the father gay? Why was the child moving so slow? Was he handicapped?

I think the title should be 

_Future movie director snowboarder strikes slowpoke scaredy-cat cry baby while filming and gets sucker punched by can't get a date single dad with anger issues after bouncing off fashion challenged skier.

_See? You don't even notice the snowboarder part now.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 7, 2013)

Abubob said:


> "Teen hits little kid on slopes - punched by kid's father". See, by merely describing the teenager as a "snowboarder" you make it about snowboarding. Dmc's objection is justifiable when you label someone a snowboarder rather than what they really are - in this case - a somewhat out-of-control teen.



So, we're not allowed to discuss mode of transport because some people are overly sensitive and might perceive the intent of the thread to be a bunch of skiers ragging on snowboarding?

There's an early life lesson that apply here:

"Don't judge a book by it's cover".  In other words, read the thread before snapping to judgment.  DMC did not.  He just came in said 

_"_I refuse to even watch this bs... Surprised you even posted this...

This place is weighted way too heavy with skiers to even get involved..... 
F that..."

If the title was "Skier hits kid, father punches skier" and someone came in and posted:

_"_I refuse to even watch this bs... Surprised you even posted this...

This place is weighted way too heavy with snowboarders to even get involved..... 
F that..."

The collective response would be the poster was being irrational and overly sensitive to a topic (skiing vs snowboarding) not even being discussed.


----------



## Abubob (Dec 7, 2013)

mister moose said:


> _Future movie director snowboarder strikes slowpoke scaredy-cat cry baby while filming and gets sucker punched by can't get a date single dad with anger issues after bouncing off fashion challenged skier.
> 
> _See? You don't even notice the snowboarder part now.



Yes! That is awesome!


----------



## mulva (Dec 7, 2013)

Had to check on 14 page thread.  Why does mom have to post this?  It's perpetuating hate haha!

Anyway I hope the little kid was okay, I'm pretty sure he was, as he only got upset once dad slapped the teen on the helmet and yelled a little.  The little kid came out of nowhere because the father was shielding him.  The kid on the snowboard just got caught up in a bad situation on a crowded trail.  Dad loses temper and gave the dude a little love tap on the helmet.  Teen's mom looking to start trouble.  Not a big deal.  Mom of a 17 year old should cut the cord already.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Dec 7, 2013)

If you read this entire thread, you'll see two *GENERAL* consensuses. 

The snowboarder was going too fast, and shouldn't have tried to thread the needle
The dad was completely out of line in punching the teen(the snowboarder!!) 

So what is your take on this DMC??!?




Does AZ need to get a political correctness filter????? :roll:


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 7, 2013)

We've had three or four threads over the last couple weeks about snowboarding in general.  The *wide, wide majority* of the conversation has been civil, respectful, and entertaining.  I've only seen two, maybe three posts, like the one above complaining about bias or "snowboard hate".  Sorry, I just don't see it.  I think folks here have been pretty chill.

And I think that the consensus, as said, has been that both these guys were idiots for one thing or another irrespective of what they had on their feet.


----------



## AdironRider (Dec 7, 2013)

Two thoughts. If the boarder was a skier I can pretty much guarantee everyone would be more apt to rail the dad for not following the code ala Damian Sanders here. Just the nature of this board really. Second, for all the dads in this thread that find it reasonable, or at least could understand why he hit him. Are you fucking retarded? This is assault on a minor, inexcusable in every way. 
Also of note is the boarder on the video can be heard asking if the kid is ok before they even stop sliding. Boarder pretty much did all he could, and there is absolutely no reason for him to stay there when within 3 seconds the dad has committed assault. That's the crux right there. Dad didn't even care about the kid, his only thought was regulate on the boarder. That's all the evidence I need to prove douche dad played the critical role. He never looks uphill, doesn't check on his kid, etc.


----------



## Abubob (Dec 7, 2013)

uphillklimber said:


> Abubob, good response, but now are dumping all over teens? Again, the term you use is descriptive. Personally I see nothing wrong with either one. A more accurate statement may be" A somewhat out of control teen snowboarder." Any part of that not accurately descriptive? Sometimes people have to give up that they think people are always dogging them.



What should I say "age challenged"? Perhaps "youth" or "yute". Why is that as derogatory? Why is "snowboarder" derogatory? Maybe we shouldn't say "father" because all fathers are deranged snowboard slapping skiers!

Out of control youth that just happened to find himself on a snow riding device comes in close physical contact with rug rat and is assaulted by deranged paternal skier. Yes, skier, because they are all imbalanced.

Maybe we do need a PC filter.


----------



## dmc (Dec 8, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> So, we're not allowed to discuss mode of transport because some people are overly sensitive and might perceive the intent of the thread to be a bunch of skiers ragging on snowboarding?
> 
> There's an early life lesson that apply here:
> 
> ...




Look SOOORRRRY!!!
I read titles...  thats what i do...  And if i think it's BS - I skip it rather that confront people...So shoot me.... uuuugh...

I've walked into these traps that skiers set up all the time... I'm done with it...

If it makes you happy - I'll crack open the MAC and watch it...


----------



## dmc (Dec 8, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> We've had three or four threads over the last couple weeks about snowboarding in general.  The *wide, wide majority* of the conversation has been civil, respectful, and entertaining.  I've only seen two, maybe three posts, like the one above complaining about bias or "snowboard hate".  Sorry, I just don't see it.  I think folks here have been pretty chill.
> 
> And I think that the consensus, as said, has been that both these guys were idiots for one thing or another irrespective of what they had on their feet.




DUDE IT WAS THE FKCING TITLE!!!!
I'm trying to be good and not get involved in what has been a historically BS debate here...

get off your freaking high horse...


----------



## dmc (Dec 8, 2013)

skiNEwhere said:


> So what is your take on this DMC??!?




Why does everyone look to me?  

I haven't had a chance to watch it...  Just commented on the title..  Which made me NOT want to watch it and get involved...


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 8, 2013)

uphillklimber said:


> Do we start saying winter recreationalist hits another winter recreationalist?



Thanks for the laugh.  Political correctness has hit this forum...


----------



## dmc (Dec 8, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> Thanks for the laugh.  Political correctness has hit this forum...




You guys are starting to get lame again...


----------



## dmc (Dec 8, 2013)

Abubob said:


> "Teen hits little kid on slopes - punched by kid's father". See, by merely describing the teenager as a "snowboarder" you make it about snowboarding. Dmc's objection is justifiable when you label someone a snowboarder rather than what they really are - in this case - a somewhat out-of-control teen.



I don't care who his whom....
I only didn't want to post in a thread that would turn out... Well... Like this..
And I made this decision based upon the thread title..

And i felt i needed to comment on it...  Because I am getting sick and tired of the 1990 attitude surfacing again..
And it does tnd to bubble up here with some of you guys... And frankly I just don't want to hear the BS from the usual sources...

i don't actually care as much as i did in the past...


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 8, 2013)

dmc said:


> I've walked into these traps that skiers set up all the time... I'm done with it...



So, sorry you feel AZ is full of evil skiers out to get you by setting traps.  Tough world out there. 

Seriously?  I think that's the first time I've heard ANY snowboarder on here make that grievance known.




dmc said:


> You guys are starting to get lame again...



People are lame because their sense of humor differs from yours?  wow


----------



## dmc (Dec 8, 2013)

Edd said:


> Seriously, it's not even close to that. The form of transit is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Read the title..


----------



## Nick (Dec 8, 2013)

dmc said:


> I tend to not read threads based on titles...
> This is the title..
> "Snowboarder hits kid, kids father punches snowboarder (video)"
> 
> ...



The only reason it's pertinent is so it's easier to see identify who is who in thevideo. Like , the guy in the Honda civic vs the guy in the Volkswagen

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Nick (Dec 8, 2013)

So if we have a thread like Skier does  X that is biased towards snowboarders? Good to know. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## dmc (Dec 8, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> So, sorry you feel AZ is full of evil skiers out to get you by setting traps.  Tough world out there.
> 
> Seriously?  I think that's the first time I've heard ANY snowboarder on here make that grievance known.



it happens... Sorry - I've been here a while and have taken shit from tons of skiers here...
And I've seen a TON of disrespect from both sides and i don't want to participate and feel offended when it bubbles up - especially when posted by the person that runs this place...   

Maybe i did overreact - but it was based on the title of the thread and how based upon the past it would become anti this or that...

I don't expect you to understand...



deadheadskier said:


> People are lame because their sense of humor differs from yours?  wow



No because it's not about political correctness..
I just want respect...  whatever I'm doing..

Look - Just drop it...  Or continue..


----------



## dmc (Dec 8, 2013)

Nick said:


> The only reason it's pertinent is so it's easier to see identify who is who in thevideo. Like , the guy in the Honda civic vs the guy in the Volkswagen
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app



i didn't watch that video either...


----------



## Nick (Dec 8, 2013)

It was hypothetical

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## dmc (Dec 8, 2013)

Nick said:


> So if we have a thread like Skier does  X that is biased towards snowboarders? Good to know.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app



Whatever Nick... Really...  

just look at the title that you posted... 

And tell me that you can't possibly see why it would send a red flag up to someone that doesn't want to get involved in more of the skier/rider BS....  And cringes when he reads it...


----------



## dmc (Dec 8, 2013)

Nick said:


> It was hypothetical
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app



What was?


----------



## dlague (Dec 8, 2013)

dmc said:


> Whatever Nick... Really...
> 
> just look at the title that you posted...
> 
> And tell me that you can't possibly see why it would send a red flag up to someone that doesn't want to get involved in more of the skier/rider BS....  And cringes when he reads it...



My family is made up of skiers and snowboarders and I did not read much into the title!  That being said - I do not fault the snowboarder.  Could he have used a little more caution - sure but hind sight is alway 20-20!  The father in the other hand did a poor job both before and after and was wrong to charge up and smack the kid!

The fact is a snowboarder did run into a kid and the father did hit the snowboarder!  How else would this be described - it does not place fault!  I find some posters are reading to much in written word!  A verbal conversation would not yield the same tensions!


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 8, 2013)

dmc said:


> it happens... Sorry - I've been here a while and have taken shit from tons of skiers here...
> And I've seen a TON of disrespect from both sides and i don't want to participate and feel offended when it bubbles up - especially when posted by the person that runs this place...



So, what do you do?  YOU try and turn it into a skiers vs snowboarders thread.  No one else was trying to do that in this thread, only YOU. 



dmc said:


> Maybe i did overreact - but it was based on the title of the thread and how based upon the past it would become anti this or that...
> 
> I don't expect you to understand...
> 
> .



Then stop living in the past and get over it.  It's been YEARS since there's been much if any of the 1990 era skiers vs snowboarders crap on here.  99% of the time they pop up, it's usually YOU bringing the fight.  You're like a snowboarding Al Sharpton sometimes when it comes to this issue. You try and create an issue when none is present.




dmc said:


> No because it's not about political correctness..
> I just want respect...  whatever I'm doing..



and this thread's existence disrespected you how again?

YOU, more than anyone need to get over the skier vs snowboarder thing.  Sorry, it's been such a long, hard "fight" for you.  Let it go......


----------



## spring_mountain_high (Dec 8, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> You're like a snowboarding Al Sharpton ..



dmc on the slopes at hunter:


----------



## twinplanx (Dec 8, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> So, what do you do?  YOU try and turn it into a skiers vs snowboarders thread.  No one else was trying to do that in this thread, only YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The AS reference literally made me lol Internet Gold!! 

The visual reference just elevated this thread to "Classic" status!! 

Just want to say, that for the record, I think the snowboarder is the victim here.  Shit happens.  Dad lost it!! 
Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 8, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> You're like a snowboarding Al Sharpton



Quotes like this are one of the reason I hang in here.  So funny.


----------



## dmc (Dec 8, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> So, what do you do?  YOU try and turn it into a skiers vs snowboarders thread.  No one else was trying to do that in this thread, only YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dude... why are you pushing me into a fight...??

I won't have any of it...     

Look - i'm sorry for acting badly...


Ok.. done.

Merry Christmas...


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 8, 2013)

Not trying to pick a fight dmc.

If you perceive it as such, I am sorry.

Was just illustrating a point that sometimes you create an issue out of nothing.  It's okay, we're all guilty of it sometimes; especially me.

Merry Christmas to you as well


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 8, 2013)

There are many in this nation who now sadly spend their days "searching" for ways to be offended.   

I don't pander to these people, and I make a conscious effort to stamp out political correctness whereever I encounter it.


----------



## Abubob (Dec 8, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> There are many in this nation who now sadly spend their days "searching" for ways to be offended.
> 
> I don't pander to these people, and I make a conscious effort to stamp out political correctness whereever I encounter it.



I'm offended at your political incorrectness and your use of the word "pander" is an obvious stab at middle lower class blue collar antidisastablishmentarialismic views. I fart in your general direction!


----------



## octopus (Dec 8, 2013)

Run DMC!   

Jk.  I Like this forum but it is more skier friendly to be sure, at least that's the vibe I get.  Maybe it's just me.  


Happy new year!!!!


----------



## Abubob (Dec 8, 2013)

Didn't anyone get outside today?


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 8, 2013)

Abubob said:


> Didn't anyone get outside today?



Snowboarded a few laps (not trying to offend with the use of that word).  And hiked a few miles with the dog.  No collisions.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Dec 8, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> Two thoughts. If the boarder was a skier I can pretty much guarantee everyone would be more apt to rail the dad for not following the code ala Damian Sanders here. Just the nature of this board really. Second, for all the dads in this thread that find it reasonable, or at least could understand why he hit him. Are you fucking retarded? This is assault on a minor, inexcusable in every way.
> Also of note is the boarder on the video can be heard asking if the kid is ok before they even stop sliding. Boarder pretty much did all he could, and there is absolutely no reason for him to stay there when within 3 seconds the dad has committed assault. That's the crux right there. Dad didn't even care about the kid, his only thought was regulate on the boarder. That's all the evidence I need to prove douche dad played the critical role. He never looks uphill, doesn't check on his kid, etc.



Dad may be a douche, but he wouldn't have had to reveal is douchiness if the idiot boarder isn't trying to play slalom with kids in a slow skiing zone.  This is not an assessment about whether the Dad reacted inappropriately - that should be self-evident.  The question is who is at fault for the initial incident - a little kid getting steamrolled.  I'm not sure how anyone in their right mind can blame the little kid or his father.   They were downhill.  On a wide open slope in plain view of anyone coming from uphill.  Boarder nearly hits one kid who was also in plain view and, due to his emergency maneuvers, ends up running over another kid nearby.  Stop right there, and any ski patrol in the land will find the boarder 100% at fault.  I don't even understand how there can be a question on this.  I can certainly understand why the Dad would be utterly pissed.  If you can't, then you've got to put down the pehote.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 9, 2013)

And to be clear since folks are just joining in without reading the first umpteen posts: it looks as if the son was moving the entire time before the collision, albeit slowly.  Either way the POV video is really inconclusive.  I would not assume that the kid, who was maybe 4 or 5, was in fact starting from a stopped position.


----------



## Nick (Dec 9, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> And to be clear since folks are just joining in without reading the first umpteen posts: it looks as if the son was moving the entire time before the collision, albeit slowly.  Either way the POV video is really inconclusive.  I would not assume that the kid, who was maybe 4 or 5, was in fact starting from a stopped position.



That was my first impression , almost like the dad just pushed him off into the kid, but in re-watching it you are right, you definitely cannot tell. 

Wow this thread had some legs.


----------



## tnt (Dec 9, 2013)

Snow boarder avoided first collision, but not the second.  Most important thing in my mind is, he appeared to be in control, and theoretically able to stop to avoid other skiers or obstacles.  He just got blind sided here.

Just rotten luck there, I think.  He was in control.  Perhaps the only fault you could find in his reaction here is not stopping when almost hitting the girl. IOW, instead of trying to slip past her with a little push, why not just come to a stop?  But really, impossible to tell if that would have been better or worse.

And yeah, MAYBE you could say he was trying to hard to thread a needle here, with a dad and young son toward the middle of the trail and a girl skiing from left to right….MIGHT be viewed an imprudent to try to go between them, but that seems pretty strained….

Regarding the reaction, the parent lost his temper and should apologize to that kid and he should talk to his son about why he is sorry for what he did.  He should have made sure his son was psychically OK, then made sure the boarder was psychically OK, then, shared his thoughts on why the boarder was wrong to hit his kid.

But hitting that boarder…no, that's way wrong.

I have to say, I thank the parent for posting this, because as a parent, I know I have let my temper get ahold of me when my kids we endangered by what I perceived to be out of control skiers and boarders.  This reminds me that what we see in the second where our kids are in danger good forbid hurt, isn't the whole story.  I understand adrenaline and concern turning to anger, and this reminds me not to let the anger guide your actions, because it may be unjustified.

Tough situation.  Sorry it happened.  Hope the young skier isn't afraid of getting back out there.  Hope the dad thinks about he actions.  Hope the boarder thinks about what he could have done differently, and forgives the dad for whacking him.

accidents are tough.


----------



## tnt (Dec 9, 2013)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Dad may be a douche, but he wouldn't have had to reveal is douchiness if the idiot boarder isn't trying to play slalom with kids in a slow skiing zone.  This is not an assessment about whether the Dad reacted inappropriately - that should be self-evident.  The question is who is at fault for the initial incident - a little kid getting steamrolled.  I'm not sure how anyone in their right mind can blame the little kid or his father.   They were downhill.  On a wide open slope in plain view of anyone coming from uphill.  Boarder nearly hits one kid who was also in plain view and, due to his emergency maneuvers, ends up running over another kid nearby.  Stop right there, and any ski patrol in the land will find the boarder 100% at fault.  I don't even understand how there can be a question on this.  I can certainly understand why the Dad would be utterly pissed.  If you can't, then you've got to put down the pehote.



I think that is exactly how the dad saw it, and might in fact be the case.  A little hard to know the whole truth from the video.

Watching the collision twice, seems to me like a little rotten luck.  The boarder didn't seem to be taking crazy risks or boarding out of control.

but hey, who knows.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 9, 2013)

tnt said:


> Snow boarder avoided first collision, but not the second.  Most important thing in my mind is, he appeared to be in control, and theoretically able to stop to avoid other skiers or obstacles.



I'm not following you here.  Barely avoiding a first collision and plowing into the next kid epitomizes 'not being in control'.


----------



## LiquidFeet (Dec 9, 2013)

I've been following this thread, lurking. 
Two girls with white pants are skiing at boarder's left, same speed, for a good while.
Note the time on the video.


Notice one of the two girls is still visible on left as boarder approaches guy in camy on right. 









The site won't allow me to get rid of the pic below.


----------



## LiquidFeet (Dec 9, 2013)

As boarder and two girls continue along, boarder passes camy guy and dad appears.
View attachment 9713View attachment 9714
Notice on of the two girls are still skiing along at left of boarder, at about his speed as they have been all along. He's catching up with them, since they used to be more ahead. That's one girl's shadow on boarder's left.


----------



## LiquidFeet (Dec 9, 2013)

Impending impact with girl.  Boarder is approaching dad in black.

She turns away after impact.  Boarder wobbles as he approaches dad in black,
and whoops, look who's there with dad.  Girl's shadow on left as she moves away.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 9, 2013)

LiquidFeet said:


> As boarder and two girls continue along, beyond the camy guy appears the dad.
> View attachment 9713View attachment 9714View attachment 9715
> Notice on of the two girls is still skiing along at left of boarder, at his speed as she has been all along.



It doesn't matter what the camera sees. It's responsibility to scan the slope for anyone downhill of him. And fbrissette is right, there is no way you can be in control if you are not able to stop yourself from colliding into someone.


----------



## LiquidFeet (Dec 9, 2013)

I agree.  It's the boarder's fault all the way, no matter how stupid the dad was.  The girl did nothing stupid.
The boarder needed to act more responsibly on a crowded slope like this.
He needed to be moving along with the safety of those ahead of him first up in his mind, not his personal pleasure.
Empty or nearly empty slopes are when we can indulge in ourselves, not crowded trails like this.


----------



## tnt (Dec 9, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> I'm not following you here.  Barely avoiding a first collision and plowing into the next kid epitomizes 'not being in control'.



Ha.  When you say it like that….

What I mean is, he swerved to avoid the first collision, which caused the second.  So he was in control enough to avoid #1, but that caused #2.

I agree, at the end of the day, he is to 'blame' for the collision, but it's not like he was wildly out of control.  But ultimately, the uphill skier is the only one who can really control the outcome, and so, has an added responsibility to ski slow enough or far away enough to avoid collision.


----------



## tnt (Dec 9, 2013)

I think those pics show the small boy was not visible as the board intended to ski between dad in black and girl on left.  Second to last frame - can't really see the little guy.

Also, those pics suggest the boarder was trying to thread a very tight needle there.  Even if he got passed girl on left, he was going to be very close to dad in black - even if the boy wasn't there.

But regardless, I don't get the impression he was maniacally out of control.  Again, the crash is his responsibility though.


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 9, 2013)

LiquidFeet said:


> I agree.  It's the boarder's fault all the way, no matter how stupid the dad was.  The girl did nothing stupid.
> The boarder needed to act more responsibly on a crowded slope like this.
> He needed to be moving along with the safety of those ahead of him first up in his mind, not his personal pleasure.
> Empty or nearly empty slopes are when we can indulge in ourselves, not crowded trails like this.



Thank you for taking the time to post all the screen caps.  However, you are not correct about who is at fault.  Please re-read what I wrote earlier in the thread:

Here is the skier's code:



> *Seven Points to Your Responsibility Code*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



After reviewing the video several times, the snowboarder is properly observing points 1 & 2 of the code.  He is able to navigate a long stretch of trail with mixed ablity traffic by giving others enough room and slowing down as needed, *while also avoiding the kid who skis into him from the left, which he is not overtaking*.  He is traveling at an appropriate speed for conditions and traffic, about the same as most traffic, around 15-20 mph.  He is in a controlled braking manuver at the time of the collision.

The girl in the teal jacket is not observing point #4, by merging across a trail without looking, and sking directly into someone from the side.

The "father" is can be observed from 4:15 until the collision as NOT properly observing points 3 and 4 of the code, nor is his child.  They are stopped in the middle of a trail, and the pair are not visable from above the rollover.  Even worse, *the father is blocking the view of the child.* *They do not turn around and look up hill before the father allows the child to move perpendicular to the fall line *and into the path of the snowboarder.

I'm not a lawyer, but common sense says that this is 90%+ the fault of the father.  The snowboarder is following points 1 & 2 as well as can be as reasonably expected.


----------



## WoodCore (Dec 9, 2013)

I smell a ski-off brewing! :beer:


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 9, 2013)

tnt said:


> I agree, at the end of the day, he is to 'blame' for the collision, but it's not like he was wildly out of control.  But ultimately, *the uphill skier is the only one who can really control the outcome,* and so, has an added responsibility to ski slow enough or far away enough to avoid collision.



Actually, this is not true.  If you are observing points 3 & 4 of the code, it is extremely unlikely that you will be hit by an uphill skier.

Here is the skier's code:



> *Seven Points to Your Responsibility Code*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 9, 2013)

tnt said:


> But regardless, I don't get the impression he was maniacally out of control.  Again, the crash is his responsibility though.



I fully agree with you here.  In the end, it is a commonplace type of incident, and it would have stayed that way if the idiot dad had reacted normally.


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 9, 2013)

This is totally going to be the inspiration for Oliver Stone's next film.  I only hope he chooses a less controversial title.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 9, 2013)

Too bad boarder didn't have enough reaction time (or skill?) to take out the dad instead.


----------



## Gilligan (Dec 9, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> 1. Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.


Even after the vast majority of people in this thread have said that the collisions were the teenage snowboarder's fault, you still blame the little kids? I think you are missing a learning opportunity here.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Dec 9, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> Thank you for taking the time to post all the screen caps.  However, you are not correct about who is at fault.  Please re-read what I wrote earlier in the thread:
> 
> Here is the skier's code:
> 
> ...


This is comedy.  First, you thank someone for posting the screen caps and then proceed to blatantly ignore them in your subsequent response.  Two points here which render most of you post irrelevant:
1) Girl in the teal jacket was not merging onto the trail - she was on it the entire time, as can clearly be seen from the screen caps.  There is no such things as "merging across a trail".   There is merging onto a trail from another, but that's clearly not the case here, even if Ms. Teal was swerving L and R across the trail.  Pls look up merge in the dictionary and let us know if that fits the definition.

2) Regarding the bolded text about "not overtaking" Ms. Teal.  This is also demonstrably false.  Ms. Teal is clearly visible in the video higher up on the trail skiing well out in front of the boarder.  By approaching and then hitting her, the snowboarder BY DEFINITION had to have been overtaking her.   Unless of course he is able to beam directly to her location like Captain Kirk - maybe you can clarify on this point?


----------



## jaalvarezjr (Dec 9, 2013)

They should have smashed the father across the head w a ski

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 9, 2013)

Tin Woodsman said:


> This is comedy.  First, you thank someone for posting the screen caps and then proceed to blatantly ignore them in your subsequent response.  Two points here which render most of you post irrelevant:
> 1) Girl in the teal jacket was not merging onto the trail - she was on it the entire time, as can clearly be seen from the screen caps.  There is no such things as "merging across a trail".   There is merging onto a trail from another, but that's clearly not the case here, even if Ms. Teal was swerving L and R across the trail.  Pls look up merge in the dictionary and let us know if that fits the definition.
> 
> 2) Regarding the bolded text about "not overtaking" Ms. Teal.  This is also demonstrably false.  Ms. Teal is clearly visible in the video higher up on the trail skiing well out in front of the boarder.  By approaching and then hitting her, the snowboarder BY DEFINITION had to have been overtaking her.   Unless of course he is able to beam directly to her location like Captain Kirk - maybe you can clarify on this point?



I'm pretty sure you're not following my arguement.  Are you wearing blinders?  Do you ski with blinders on?  Do you drive with blinders on?  

1.  Please allow me to define merge, again.....



> merge
> 
> (mûrj)_v._*merged*, *merg·ing*, *merg·es*
> _v.__tr._*1. * To cause to be absorbed, especially in gradual stages.
> ...





> 4. Whenever starting downhill or *merging into* a trail, look uphill and yield to others.



*Now, in this case, "miss teal" is  very clearly merging into the main fall line traffic.*  She comes from the far left side of the trail, before the turn and rollover, to crossing into the middle of the trail and the main fall line.  She had plenty of space to continue her path down the left side of the trail, and should not have merged without looking.  The snowboarder is proceeding directly down the fall line, he is the flow of traffic.  Here is a good diagram explaining the concept:



Do you merge onto the highway without looking?  Do you change lanes (another type of merge, btw) without looking?   I'm going to recommend that those of you claiming fault of the snowboarder should try merging into the highway without looking next time, and see where that gets you!

2. Miss Teal is clearly ahead of the snowboarder for about 20 second starting at 3:55, and in fact, they are matching speeds very well.  The snowboarder is not making to any effort to pass.  I think at this point we should stop and define "overtake":



> o·ver·take
> ˌōvərˈtāk/
> _verb_
> gerund or present participle: *overtaking*
> ...



Miss Teal makes one or two turns on the rollover on the left side of the trail, then cuts right, in an effort to merge with the center of the trail - without looking.  In the last second before contact, she is traveling 45 degrees to the fall line, while the snowboarder is going straight down it.  Not the same direction, and *not overtaking at all*.  The snowboarder is very, very slowly passing her, however, at contact, Miss Teal is coming at the snowboarder at an angle.

This reminds me of the last time I had contact with someone skiing, sometime in the late 90's at mount snow.  I was near the bottom, fairly flat, making consistant small slalom carves on some demo atomic sl:9's. Someone actually skied into me from mostly the side, a bit rear, at an angle......not sure exactly what they were thinking since the carves were small and I had made them consistantly.  They fell, I didn't.   Since then, I've stopped making turns on flats or runouts.  This would be exact opposite of miss teal, where she is not making a consistant turn, which is actually a merge, and should be looking.


----------



## tnt (Dec 9, 2013)

Not that any of this really matters, but I disagree with that line of thinking.  "merging" IMO means from one trail onto another - not from the left part of the trail to the center, or center to right etc....

Not only would 'merging from the left to the center' be impossible to define legally, it leads to an impossible slippery slope argument.  What about from left, left of cetner to center left, etc...  And also, just how wide are these trails within a trail?

and really, if that becomes the standard for down hill skier having to look up and yield, no one is gonna get to teh bottom of the hill because we're all going to be stopped looking up hill all day.

I really can't say that the boarder here was out of control, but I am quite sure the girl was not out of control, nor did she appear to do anything wrong.  If dad and the boy did anything wrong, it's not to look uphill before starting to ski.  At the end of the day, I think a cop would call this a no fault accident.  

But again, it doesn't really matter.


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 9, 2013)

tnt said:


> Not that any of this really matters, but I disagree with that line of thinking.  "merging" IMO means from one trail onto another - not from the left part of the trail to the center, or center to right etc....
> 
> Not only would 'merging from the left to the center' be impossible to define legally, it leads to an impossible slippery slope argument.  What about from left, left of cetner to center left, etc...  And also, just how wide are these trails within a trail?
> 
> ...



Personally, I always look uphill before making a completely random direction change, but then again I don't like to get run into....!


----------



## tnt (Dec 9, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> Personally, I always look uphill before making a completely random direction change, but then again I don't like to get run into....!



Do you think the girl made a really random turn?  It didn't look that way to me, but I only watched it twice.  

And what you are describing above - 'merging' from the left part of the trail to the center - doesn't require a random direction change.  You could be making nice long GS turns that take you from the center of the trail to the right edge, for example.  Your definition of merge would require you to look at yield at every turn into the center, and then out of the center back to the right, no matter how predictable and smooth and steady your turns are.  Likewise, making a series of predictible turns, but moving from one side of the trail to the other.

anyway, just arguing to argue really


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 9, 2013)

tnt said:


> Do you think the girl made a really random turn?  It didn't look that way to me, but I only watched it twice.
> 
> And what you are describing above - 'merging' from the left part of the trail to the center - doesn't require a random direction change.  You could be making nice long GS turns that take you from the center of the trail to the right edge, for example.  Your definition of merge would require you to look at yield at every turn into the center, and then out of the center back to the right, no matter how predictable and smooth and steady your turns are.  Likewise, making a series of predictible turns, but moving from one side of the trail to the other.
> 
> anyway, just arguing to argue really



Well yes, if I was going to make the move the girl made, crossing into traffic, I would certainly look up hill.  Just like I did several times last time I skied.  If I want to make GS turns and use the whole trail, I make sure it is clear, there is no one behind, straightline to get up to high speed, then start turning.  If you want to make slow, predictable GS turns on a busy trail, there is nothing technically wrong with that, but you will be hit from behind eventually if you do it enough.


----------



## fbrissette (Dec 9, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> 1.  Please allow me to define merge, again.....



Your definition of merging requires looking up and yielding every frickin turn you make.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 9, 2013)

This thread has become so ridiculous.


----------



## xlr8r (Dec 9, 2013)

I have notice more resorts (I think Sunday River was the first I saw) put up "Go With The Flow" signs.  This seems like a good idea IMO as it is trying to stop people from being erratic in their movements on the mountain.  In this case the kid was clearly not going with the flow of the trail, and the flow of the skiers and boards on that trail.  He was moving perpendicular to the flow of traffic.  IMO wait until it is clear before skiing perpendicular to the direction of the trail and other skiers on trail.  

I'm not trying to place blame on anyone as I think this was a equal share between the Father, Child and boarder in this case.  Accidents happen on the mountain that really are no ones fault.  They happen so quick people cannot react in time.  As a motor racing fan, this is what we call a racing incident.


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 9, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> Your definition of merging requires looking up and yielding every frickin turn you make.



If I'm going to make an erratic move across the fall line, or am stopping, I take a quick look behind me.  I normally look behind myself several times per run if I'm not skiing very fast or am hunting for good snow.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 9, 2013)

tnt said:


> I really can't say that the boarder here was out of control, but I am quite sure the girl was not out of control, nor did she appear to do anything wrong.  If dad and the boy did anything wrong, it's not to look uphill before starting to ski.  At the end of the day, I think a cop would call this a no fault accident.
> 
> But again, it doesn't really matter.



I am a police officer and there is no such thing as a no fault accident. There is no fault insurance coverage for medical bills but that really has nothing to do with who's to blame in an accident. The only thing that removes responsibility from drivers in Massachusetts are "acts of god"....a deer smashes into your vehicle, a tornado destroys your car, etc. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 9, 2013)

tnt said:


> Not that any of this really matters, but I disagree with that line of thinking.  "merging" IMO means from one trail onto another - not from the left part of the trail to the center, or center to right etc....
> 
> Not only would 'merging from the left to the center' be impossible to define legally, it leads to an impossible slippery slope argument.  What about from left, left of cetner to center left, etc...  And also, just how wide are these trails within a trail?
> 
> ...



Agree.  Merging, as used in HS's own diagram and the code, implies that one is coming from one trail onto another.  Not that she is on one trail and traverses from side-to-side.  If she was coming off of a side trail then yes, it's a merge.


----------



## mister moose (Dec 9, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> 1. Please allow me to define merge, again.....




Dear Killington;

Please paint dashed lane lines on Superstar, Skyelark, Double Dipper, Lower East Fall, and any other High Speed Highway Star environs.  Also any slow speed runouts with mixed ability traffic.  And the lunch line.  And Bay 2 and 3.

Thanks.

Yer pal,

M Moose.


----------



## xlr8r (Dec 9, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> I am a police officer and there is no such thing as a no fault accident. There is no fault insurance coverage for medical bills but that really has nothing to do with who's to blame in an accident. The only thing that removes responsibility from drivers in Massachusetts are "acts of god"....a deer smashes into your vehicle, a tornado destroys your car, etc.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app



I get that for purposes of insurance and Law that all auto accidents do place blame on somebody in the end, but IMO there are cases where it can be too tough to determine blame.  There are also situations where both parties should accept partial blame rather than putting all or nearly all blame on a single party and make them pay for the consequences of everyone involved.  That's what I mean by my use of "Racing Incident".  When a racing crash or incident happens were both vehicles/drivers are partially to blame for the cause of the incident.  Therefore it makes no sense to penalize one driver/race car in addition to the immediate effects of the incident probably has negatively affected both drivers/teams chances of winning.

IMO our society is too caught up in placing blame instead of owning ones self up to their own mistakes.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 10, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> Your definition of merging requires looking up and yielding every frickin turn you make.


Exactly what I was thinking. H.S. might as well just be riding down the mountain backward.


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 10, 2013)

Ever consider that when you get hit from behind, you might have done something that helped cause it........................?


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 10, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> Ever consider that when you get hit from behind, you might have done something that helped cause it........................?



Fair point. But there is a difference between putting yourself in a bad position and being responsible for the accident. There is something to be learned by all parties involved. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 10, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> Ever consider that when you get hit from behind, you might have done something that helped cause it........................?



I remember when my brother in-law was 16 and first got his license.  He rear-ended somebody, totaling their vehicle.  His defense was "they were driving too close in front of me".


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 10, 2013)

xlr8r said:


> I get that for purposes of insurance and Law that all auto accidents do place blame on somebody in the end, but IMO there are cases where it can be too tough to determine blame.  There are also situations where both parties should accept partial blame rather than putting all or nearly all blame on a single party and make them pay for the consequences of everyone involved.  That's what I mean by my use of "Racing Incident".  When a racing crash or incident happens were both vehicles/drivers are partially to blame for the cause of the incident.  Therefore it makes no sense to penalize one driver/race car in addition to the immediate effects of the incident probably has negatively affected both drivers/teams chances of winning.
> 
> IMO our society is too caught up in placing blame instead of owning ones self up to their own mistakes.



And that is true with insurance companies as well. In Massachusetts, whoever is more than 50% at fault is the responsible party. Doesn't matter if it's split 55/45 the responsible party pays up for the damages. It's probably not the best way to deal with it but it's been the most effective. Otherwise, things get dragged out in legal battles and everyone loses.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## spring_mountain_high (Dec 10, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> And that is true with insurance companies as well. In Massachusetts, whoever is more than 50% at fault is the responsible party. Doesn't matter if it's split 55/45 the responsible party pays up for the damages. It's probably not the best way to deal with it but it's been the most effective. Otherwise, things get dragged out in legal battles and everyone loses.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app



this is true only in some states...depends on their comparitive negligence laws


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 10, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> Ever consider that when you get hit from behind, you might have done something that helped cause it........................?



I hear what you are saying and I look around. I count 17 times that I glance sideways or behind myself in the video below. I'm especially cautious when "changing lanes" on crowded trails to make sure I'm not traversing into someone else's path (notice I didn't say "merging" :lol.

The problem is, how many skier and riders are confident enough in their ability to be able to look over their shoulder when moving? Looking uphill before starting to move is easy, but doing that when moving is more difficult and it can be scary for beginners AND intermediates. It takes a lot of confidence to take their eyes off of their own line.






I suppose if it were up to H.S., only advanced and expert skiers/riders should be allowed on mountains. Everyone else is too dangerous to be around.


----------



## dlague (Dec 10, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> I hear what you are saying and I look around. I count 17 times that I glance sideways or behind myself in the video below. I'm especially cautious when "changing lanes" on crowded trails to make sure I'm not traversing into someone else's path (notice I didn't say "merging" :lol.
> 
> The problem is, how many skier and riders are confident enough in their ability to be able to look over their shoulder when moving? Looking uphill before starting to move is easy, but doing that when moving is more difficult and it can be scary for beginners AND intermediates. It takes a lot of confidence to take their eyes off of their own line.



Case and point!

We were skiing with some friends at Bretton Woods and one of their teenagers who was still learning for the most part was skiing ahead of everyone.  About mid way down, I think in his own amazement, decided to look back to see how far ahead he was.  In doing so, lifted the ski on the same side that he was looking back on, caught and edge and proceeded to take a huge digger.  It is very common for less experienced skiers to do this!

The best thing to do is haul ass - beat everyone to the bottom so you never have to look back! HAHAHA!

Just kidding!


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 10, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> I hear what you are saying and I look around. I count 17 times that I glance sideways or behind myself in the video below. I'm especially cautious when "changing lanes" on crowded trails to make sure I'm not traversing into someone else's path (notice I didn't say "merging" :lol.
> 
> The problem is, how many skier and riders are confident enough in their ability to be able to look over their shoulder when moving? Looking uphill before starting to move is easy, but doing that when moving is more difficult and it can be scary for beginners AND intermediates. It takes a lot of confidence to take their eyes off of their own line.
> 
> ...



I was going to compliment you on how safely you skied that trail, but you really should work on your floppy pole planting.


----------



## dlague (Dec 10, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> I was going to compliment you on how safely you skied that trail, but you really should work on your floppy pole planting.



How many really pole plant, I mean technically pole plant on a run like this!  And frankly, who cares how someone pole plants anyhow!  I have been skiing a long time and I could care less what some one thinks about technique!  Why do people have to go there?  Looked like a nice run to me!


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 10, 2013)

Careful dlague

you might get called out by Highwaystar for a ski off!!!  :daffy


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 10, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> I was going to compliment you on how safely you skied that trail, but you really should work on your floppy pole planting.



When do we get your video to critique?


----------



## Savemeasammy (Dec 10, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> When do we get your video to critique?



There's one somewhere in a recent post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 10, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> I was going to compliment you on how safely you skied that trail, but you really should work on your floppy pole planting.



Can you show me a GoPro POV video where pole planting looks good? The distortion at the edge of the screen caused by the fish eye lens makes it look like the poles look more floppy than they really are. 

I'm ready for a ski off!


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Dec 10, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> I'm ready for a ski off!



This can only be settled with a Chinese Downhill!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qe3HBqFhTU


----------



## bigbog (Dec 10, 2013)

The lack of concern for the little girl's safety on the behalf of the teen is on video.  The "I'm so sorry", after the fact, is such BS(I can't wait for him to have a driver's license).
Trying to exploit one's "Right of Way", pending some previous case(I'm clueless) is total BS.  The teen needed to be punished for not using good judgement and the father seemed to have done what the teen's parents have Failed To Do = instill the spirit of using one's good judgement to maintain safety on the mountain...which should be done the first day on the mountain with dad, obviously not.  The teen needs to be banished from the mountain for months...maybe that would get some bit of info into his brain.  To whine that the teen will now be subjected to deep, psychological trama throughout life via a punch or two is such BS.
The little girl is the victim...the teen is the guilty party.  Looks on video like today's teen/20-something's idea of jokes uploaded to YouTube, which it was...lol(Right).


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 10, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> Can you show me a GoPro POV video where pole planting looks good? The distortion at the edge of the screen caused by the fish eye lens makes it look like the poles look more floppy than they really are.
> 
> I'm ready for a ski off!



Don't sweat it if that's the worst thing he could pick out. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 10, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> This can only be settled with a Chinese Downhill!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qe3HBqFhTU



Is that from Killington last weekend???  Looks like a pretty normal GN -> mouse trap -> bunnybuster run.


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 10, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> Don't sweat it if that's the worst thing he could pick out.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app



I was being nice about the skiing.....and nobody likes floppy poles.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 10, 2013)

H.S. doesn't have to worry about floppy poles...


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 10, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> This can only be settled with a Chinese Downhill!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qe3HBqFhTU



What te feck is a Chinese downhir? 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Dec 10, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> What te feck is a Chinese downhir?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app



Haha. God I love that movie.


----------



## Savemeasammy (Dec 10, 2013)

I've driven by the infamous motel in Tahoe City countless times.  I never bothered to stop in.  I'm sure that whoever was behind the counter would have been sore disappointment.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 10, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> H.S. doesn't have to worry about floppy poles...



Highwaystar's pole technique here was awesome:


----------



## C-Rex (Dec 10, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> Haha. God I love that movie.



"I had sunny side up, sunny side down, sunny side all ze way around!"

BTW, ski ballet is gayer than Elton John.


----------



## Nick (Dec 10, 2013)

mister moose said:


> Dear Killington;
> 
> Please paint dashed lane lines on Superstar, Skyelark, Double Dipper, Lower East Fall, and any other High Speed Highway Star environs.  Also any slow speed runouts with mixed ability traffic.  And the lunch line.  And Bay 2 and 3.
> 
> ...



:lol:

Not specificaly at HStar but just the idea of a high and low speed lane on the slopes ...


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Dec 10, 2013)

C-Rex said:


> BTW, ski ballet is gayer than Elton John.



Thank god that event died out.


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 10, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Highwaystar's pole technique here was awesome:



Massively better skiing than anything you've ever done....


----------



## DPhelan (Dec 10, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> The problem is, how many skier and riders are confident enough in their ability to be able to look over their shoulder when moving?


i point my gopro backwards and use the phone app to watch what's going on behind me


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 10, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> Massively better skiing than anything you've ever done....



HS - that video is of you?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 10, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> HS - that video is of you?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app



Yep - great, isn't it?


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 10, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> Thank god that event died out.



Don't speak too soon.  I just bought a pair of 150cm poles and was about to challenge the next person who defends the idiot dad to a ski ballet dance-off.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 10, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> Yep - great, isn't it?




Actually some pretty decent turns on what looks like some variable heavy snow.
I could ski it better, but then again, I'm the best skier on the mountain.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 10, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> Yep - great, isn't it?



Looked good on the top half. Weight over your skis and carving your turns with nice pop. The lower half you were too far in the back seat and you had to force your skis a lot more. Overall, not bad but definitely not in a place to judge NEK.


----------



## twinplanx (Dec 10, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> This can only be settled with a Chinese Downhill!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qe3HBqFhTU



What movie is this from? 



Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Dec 10, 2013)

twinplanx said:


> What movie us this from?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk




Hot Dog The Movie!

Do yourself a favor and drop everything you are doing right now and watch.

Full movie here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epr8xFCbDMk


----------



## dlague (Dec 10, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Highwaystar's pole technique here was awesome:



Not going to be one to judge!


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 10, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> Looked good on the top half. Weight over your skis and carving your turns with nice pop. The lower half you were too far in the back seat and you had to force your skis a lot more. Overall, not bad but definitely not in a place to judge NEK.



The irony here is that you or anyone else in this thread couldn't even dream of skiing that terrain in those conditions even half as well!  Anyone attempting to ski that snow at that speed with their weight centered would be replacing their teeth, face, or worse.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 10, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> The irony here is that you or anyone else in this thread couldn't even dream of skiing that terrain in those conditions even half as well!  Anyone attempting to ski that snow at that speed with their weight centered would be replacing their teeth, face, or worse.



Lol you have never seen me ski and to be honest I'm sure plenty of people could have skied that section as well if not better. It really wasnt that difficult of a section. Just saying that if you nitpick someone about pole planting you better be able to back it up yourself. You obviously are a good skier but you definitely have your own flaws.


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 10, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> Lol you have never seen me ski and to be honest I'm sure plenty of people could have skied that section as well if not better. It really wasnt that difficult of a section. Just saying that if you nitpick someone about pole planting you better be able to back it up yourself. You obviously are a good skier but you definitely have your own flaws.



LOL.....noob.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Dec 10, 2013)

At least there was nobody merging into the trail with Highway Star when he got into the back seat there. That could have been ug-ly.

(when is that Chinese downhill scheduled for again?)


----------



## Highway Star (Dec 10, 2013)

Seriously....?



MadMadWorld said:


> Lately, I have been having to work a lot on my technique in tight trees and other narrow chutes. What advice do you guys have?
> 
> When I ski, I try to look at only the spaces in between the trees and when I get in a tight spot I find that it's important to always keep your skis moving, even if it's just a side slip as odd as that might sound.





MadMadWorld said:


> For me it's a few things:
> 
> From a technical standpoint, I always seem to fall on to the habit of being in the backseat when skiing a fast/icy bump line. Most of the time I don't even realize what I am doing until I get launched in the air ackwardly because I was too far back.
> 
> ...



Seriously............beat it, noob.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 10, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> Seriously....?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Come on.....I was just starting to learn so much from you!

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## WoodCore (Dec 10, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> The irony here is that you or anyone else in this thread couldn't even dream of skiing that terrain in those conditions even half as well!  Anyone attempting to ski that snow at that speed with their weight centered would be replacing their teeth, face, or worse.




;-)


----------



## Savemeasammy (Dec 10, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> The irony here is that you or anyone else in this thread couldn't even dream of skiing that terrain in those conditions even half as well!  Anyone attempting to ski that snow at that speed with their weight centered would be replacing their teeth, face, or worse.


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 10, 2013)

twinplanx said:


> What movie is this from?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk



" I want my $2".

Best John Cussaic movie ever.


----------



## Domeskier (Dec 10, 2013)

Scotty said:


> " I want my $2".
> 
> Best John Cussaic movie ever.



Although that movie contained one of the best ski-offs ever to be filmed, I'm pretty sure it did not include a Chinese downhill.


----------



## Brad J (Dec 10, 2013)

Not to be a downer , but back to the thread , It is clear that the snowboarder was not in control, because if he was he would have done two things. stopped, or really crazy gone to the right of the dad. with that said it was not the place for the dad and his son to stop, and for the dad not looking up the slope. The dad was totally wrong with his response. and should step up and do some explaining why he should not be charged with assault and battery. The snow boarder was concerned and polite after the collision , he certainly wasn't totally negligent just needs to work on his skills.


----------



## Savemeasammy (Dec 10, 2013)

There are lots of people commenting on where dad and kid were stopped.  As someone who skis with a 6 year old child, I am happy to share this well kept secret with you:  sometimes kids stop in random places.  And sometimes they crash. For no reason.    It may have not have been the ideal spot to be stopped, but their location wasn't particularly relevant.  They were in plain view and should have been easily avoided by someone traveling in a reasonable fashion on a busy trail.  As a dad, I would have been pretty upset, but I like to think that the rider's remorseful reaction would have tempered my reaction.  My kid would also have received a lecture!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nick (Dec 10, 2013)

phew.


----------



## twinplanx (Dec 10, 2013)

Scotty said:


> " I want my $2".
> 
> Best John Cussaic movie ever.



Thats,  Better Off Dead, I've seen that one.  Hot Dog The Movie, has bobbies within the first 15 minutes and a wet t-shirt contest that turns into full frontal nudity not much after.  I only got through about 1/3rd on my phone. Will probably watch the rest later. There must have been some reason my parents never rented this one from the video store... 

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## twinplanx (Dec 10, 2013)

Oh and you all the angry dad's, watch the video again.  Douche dad clearly says "you took out my SON" a lot of you keep referring to "the daughter" and it's getting annoying After the punch the child starts screaming like a girl. So your confusion is excusable, but I wonder what else your missing... 

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## Newpylong (Dec 10, 2013)

dlague said:


> Not going to be one to judge!



Get in the back seat that far on the old straight boards and you would be picking pieces of your a$s off the rocks!


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 10, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> Actually some pretty decent turns on what looks like some variable heavy snow.



:lol:


> I could ski it better, but then again, I'm the best skier on the mountain.



No, no.  The quote is "ready to go, right?  I'm the best fuc&*ng skier on this Goddamn mountain!  Watch me rip this shit!"  :lol:  



And beware: that is the "Biggest Cliff in the East".  :roll:


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Dec 10, 2013)

Brad J said:


> Not to be a downer , but back to the thread ,



25 + pages of discussing this collision isn't enough for you? I was personally glad things had derailed.



thetrailboss said:


> :lol:
> 
> And beware: that is the "Biggest Cliff in the East".  :roll:



That gave me a nice chuckle =)


----------



## dlague (Dec 10, 2013)

Highway Star said:


> The irony here is that you or anyone else in this thread couldn't even dream of skiing that terrain in those conditions even half as well!  Anyone attempting to ski that snow at that speed with their weight centered would be replacing their teeth, face, or worse.



Are sure that you tag name shouldn't be High Horse!  Shit is getting deep! May you should ski with guy and learn a thing or two!



http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...ch?v=fh2C_6gQD-c&feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## Bene288 (Dec 10, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> H.S. doesn't have to worry about floppy poles...



Good reception on those things?


----------



## twinplanx (Dec 10, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> Hot Dog The Movie!
> 
> Do yourself a favor and drop everything you are doing right now and watch.
> 
> ...



Thanks Huck, I just finished watching the entire thing(on my phone lol) and in a word, epic. Don't know how I missed this one, glad you suggested it  

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Dec 11, 2013)

twinplanx said:


> Thanks Huck, I just finished watching the entire thing(on my phone lol) and in a word, epic. Don't know how I missed this one, glad you suggested it
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk



Haha Nice! You're welcome!


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 11, 2013)

twinplanx said:


> Thanks Huck, I just finished watching the entire thing(on my phone lol) and in a word, epic. Don't know how I missed this one, glad you suggested it
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk



It is a classic. I want my $2. In todays times it would be 20$.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Dec 11, 2013)

Scotty said:


> It is a classic. I want my $2. In todays times it would be 20$.



Haha. Scotty you are too much. Wrong movie buddy!


----------



## Abubob (Dec 12, 2013)

See? He was doing wrong.


----------

