bumpyride

My personal feelings on this are If your cortex isn't fully attached, you have an innate survival challenge, and anything that adds a degree of difficulty in processing information is often ignored. "If you build it they will jump." So you better build it right, because you will be held responsible. There is an expectation (correct or not) that if something is built, it was built correctly. It is society's duty to protect those that are susceptible to harm, because society will eventually have to pay for it in medical costs. People and business will carry on with business as usual, unless you get their attention. It is difficult to get someone's attention unless a really big bat is used. Something Titanium that costs around 14 Million dollars and is made by Tinkler. Cases you should think about. Swimming pools with diving boards that break teenagers necks (they weren't about to change standards till they were sued) Cribs that allow infants to stick their heads through the bars and choke to death. Pinto's that blow up on impact. (Remember that Ford calculated how much it would cost to fix the problem vs. the cost to settle lawsuits-the cost of the lawsuits was less so they didn't fix it-they just let them burn). Toy companies that manufacture toys that infants can choke on. Cigarette companies that produce a product that kills. Decks on houses that fail because they were attached with nails. The list goes on and on. Say what you want about inherent risks, but we all bear the burden of people that get injured. Yes, I think lawyers are often times the scum of the Earth, but then again they have helped us all. When you take a look at the success rate of insurance companies in defending ski areas and their terrain parks, I detect a sense of invincibility had set in and they were content with status quo. If they end up paying through the nose, maybe they'll insist on better engineering or planing or perhaps a set of guidelines that should be followed and thus preventing more injuries, which cost us all. It wouldn't be all that hard to have standards to follow in the terrain park. With fewer lawsuits it would stand to reason that rates may go down or not increase as the insurance companies pay out less in claims (of course that never happens the rotten scumsuckers). We have safer cars, houses, toys, appliances that were all harming people in some way previous to lawsuits. Yeah they suck (lawsuits), but it does no good to look at an individual case and use it as a blanket statement. Obviously good people get sucked up in the mix and that isn't right. Good people need to be aware of ramifications of their actions, and also should be exempted when not the actual cause of the problem. I Board the Summit at Snoqualamie and hold a season pass. I think the world of this area and do not want to see any harm come to them. I also don't want to see injuries that could be prevented. They advertise their terrain parks and take pride in them, and if you're promoting and reaping monetary rewards from them, you need to assess any potential risks and minimize them to the best of your ability. (This does not include "Duh, close enuff!) I believe in thinning the gene pool. It's a good thing overall. The problem is that sometimes we lose some of our best genes when those that haven't had enough time to fully develop are lost simply because of that-they haven't had time to develop. Then there's the cost of those that didn't quite succeed in completing the thinning process and we're left with a $23,000,000 bill to take care of them for the next 60 years. Who should pay for that?

I do have an edge card, so that will pay off if I head on up. Fischer

How about some details on the Whistler "Spring Pass"? Thanks

Before anyone renders judgement on the merits of the case they should read more what it's about. Natural hazards are your own risk, but if you build something for someone to use and people are continually getting hurt, you have a problem. Jury gives $14 million to skier paralyzed at Snoqualmie By Sara Jean Green Seattle Times staff reporter After a five-week trial, a King County jury on Friday awarded $14 million to a 27-year-old skier who was paralyzed after dropping 37 feet from a ski jump at the Summit at Snoqualmie. Kenny Salvini, of Lake Tapps, was 23 years old when he went off the jump at the Central Terrain Park at Snoqualmie Central and landed on compact snow and ice in February 2004, said his attorney, Jack Connelly. During the trial at the Regional Justice Center in Kent, "information came out ... that the man who built [the jump] eyeballed it with a Sno-Cat" rather than engineering a design, Connelly said. Engineers and an aeronautics professor from the University of California, Davis, testified that the jump was improperly designed and featured a short landing area, Connelly said, adding that ski jumps are supposed to be sloped so that energy from a vertical jump is transferred into a skier's forward motion on landing. "Going off this jump was the equivalent of jumping off a three-story building," Connelly said. "If you're going to be throwing kids 37 feet in the air, these jumps need to be engineered, designed and constructed properly." Officials from the Summit at Snoqualmie on Friday afternoon wouldn't answer questions about the incident but released a statement. It said risk is inherent in snow sports, but, "that said, any time there is an incident, our genuine thoughts and prayers are with our guests and their families." The statement said Summit officials "are disappointed but respectful of the [trial] process." According to Connelly, other people were injured on the same jump in the weeks before Salvini's accident, including a snowboarder who broke his back. A week after Salvini was injured, 19-year-old Peter Melrose of Bellevue died going off a different jump at the same terrain park, he said. "There were 10 accidents with eight people taken off the slope in a toboggan" in the weeks before Salvini was hurt, landing on what Connelly said was a flat surface. In all, he said, evidence of 15 earlier accidents was admitted into evidence but "nothing was done" by ski operators to fix or close the faulty jumps. The full jury award was for about $31 million, Connelly said, explaining that the amount was decreased to $14 million after calculating "the comparative fault" of his client and "the inherent risk of the sport." Before he was injured, Salvini, now a quadriplegic, was captain of the wrestling team at Central Washington University in Ellensburg, where he graduated in engineering technology, Connelly said. His mother is now his full-time caregiver. Over the course of his life, Salvini's medical needs are estimated to cost between $23 million and $26 million, Connelly said.

What are the boundaries, and do these include taking the "Lords name in vain"? "Christ" Actually I could care less, I'm an reformed agnostic, I am now an atheist. Thank God you didn't say Mohammed. I guess a lot of things could be construed to be offensive, but this ain't the Church. Unless you make an "Imus" mistake should you be thrown off? Is what we do off the forum now grounds for booting us off the forum? Let he who is without sin, enjoy his miserable life. I think maybe we should take a poll on what constitutes grounds for banishment to "Imuslovakia". No offense to the Eastern Europeans who are wonderful climbers, riders, and all around good folks, it's just had a very catchy ring.

There's never any guarantees that any pair of anything is going to be exact. Fit the bindings to the boot, and never the boot to the bindings unless there's no alternative. I'd always want to keep up as much toe and heel on the boots as I could unless there was a molding issue, or the shape of the bail doesn't quite match the boot, and then I'd try to take it out of the shell above the sole of the boot. The bindings generally all have micro adjustments to make them work on the boots, and the reason for this is that boots all have tolerances, and different molds and the binding manufacturers recognize this, and further you even have to take into consideration about how temperatures affect boots. Have fun. It was a blast today in the slop at Alpental.

Dinner is no problem unless there's a decision involved. Looking at the menu in a restaurant is like "Gitmo" hell, so I'm pretty reticent about even picking up the menu, and then I have to decide on when to do it. Don't even talk to me about opening up the refridgerator. Consequently my body fat is pretty low, which is a good thing, I think? Sometimes we're forced into decisions in order to survive and luckily some of those decisions rely on instincts and fight or flight and not the decision making process. No broken bones, no sprains, no serious abrasions in a dozen or so years, so not thinking is sometimes good, but only when forethought is without merit. Actually, I told my wife I loved her on our first official date. That was over 5 years ago and we got married last year. I think the planning was 4 months in advance so a 3 month plan time would be a better option. I only make decisions when I have to, and then I certainly can delay that until the last minute, unless someone else need the decision earlier. This year the boys trip didn't happen because we waited for 1 guy to see when he was able to make it, and it just didn't happen. Still managed to get in 30 days and counting. It also helps to be self-employed and no set work schedule.

Being an indecisive person on occasion, but not always, I find that 6 months is too long unless, it's not, and 1 month too short, unless it isn't and 3 months to be just right, sometimes. So I couldn't make up my mind whether or not to write and suggest a 3 month category, so I did, but not without reservations, which can be made anytime except at a resort, sometimes. So I didn't vote, but I thought about it.

David, Figured I should write you back and note where opinions may diverge. Anything that helps bring out a discussion that makes it safer for everyone is a plus. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but feel it's important to point out that others may, depending on the situation. Glynn Bummpyride. Can't get the smiles to work but with the risk of sounding offensive I've got to say: You can take all your lawyer crap and put it where all the other lawyer crap should go right next to the devil's advocate crap and.................. Me. I can't remember who signs off with "Strangling the last lawyer with the entrails of the last priest", but cudo's to him, because with lawyers still around, we may have to face some very unpleasant ramifications if we are involved in a collision. Actually all the lawyer crap is just what a person would have to face if they found themselves even "in the right", and being sued. I understand the code, but lawyers can really twist any situation, just ask Gonzales the Attorney General. The code is just too vague to have it address every situation, as has been evidenced by many of the comments in the thread. As we all know lawyers are beholden only to their clients whether they're right or wrong. Glynn Again if you hit someone from behind it is your fault whether they cut you off by traversing or by a deep heelside carve. The uphill rider has the responsibility to avoid those below them period. Me, If you were being sued, I can just imagine the charts, graphs, measurements, biased eye witnesses, and claymation figures on a snowboard that the plaintiffs attorney would parade out. Then here comes the parapalegic in the wheel chair, well anyway you can get the picture. Glynn So, as the uphill rider, slow down and give others room. Come to a stop if you have to, what's so wrong with that? Set a good example. Maybe if people understood the code they would understand how to ride. Me This is dead on. The problem is people don't understand. Glynn My feelings are that we all should ride and ski with caution and respect for everyone that is up there sharing such a wonderfull thing as the snow/gravity experience and not pin everything on the "CODE". Ride for survival both yours and their's. Me Dead on! This is one of the motives for the thread. Me, Lastly, no offense taken. This kind of discourse is good for making people more aware of their own actions. Well now really lastly. I just don't want to see anyone needlessly hurt, not that anyone needs to get hurt, but you can see how words can be twisted. PS. Bumpyride has only 1 m in it. Otherwise people might think that I'm riding my ass (bumm) all the way down the hill.

Me. Yes we can be courteous and cautious, but if we don't look at every opportunity we run the risk. We have to make our choices and suffer the consequences whether we are right or wrong. Again I wouldn't like this thread to deteriorate into arguing what's right and wrong point by point. It's the timbre of the thread that is important. I encourage everyone to carefully reread the whole thread and see what everybody thinks and how many different interpretations there are and just be overly careful. This thread was made to get a wider perspective on how we ride, and how we can ride more safely.

The purpose of this thread was to get people to think. We get pidgeonholed into our own beliefs far too easily. There are areas of grey, and the sooner everyone recognizes this, the better off we will all be. Laws, Religions, Nationalism all tend to become draconian when interpreted in black and white. There needs to be some grey or you run the risk of an 80 year old starving widowed woman stealing a loaf of bread having her hand cut off for the offense. I think the same holds true in our Code of Responsibility, though not nearly as important as the former 3. After reading the thread "Impact hit from behind" and other "Injured" threads where it involved collisions, I thought it might be time to introduce some personal responsibility aspects into the discussions to maybe prevent some injuries to Bomber members as well as others. I shudder to think of some of those past threads talking about using slow skiers as gates. After rereading the whole thread a couple of times, I think that it has progressed well. It went from: "bumpyride said the carver bears some responsibility for being hit from behind. That's just wrong. Sure, it's smart to look uphill if you think there's traffic. And I usually just stop and wait if a big bubble of people descends upon me. Or I don't start down a hill until there's a lull in the crowd. But no matter what, it's not your fault if you get hit from above. You really need to read the skier's and rider's responsibility code. http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/safety/know_the_code.asp The downhill person is the downhill person. Period." to some pretty interesting interpretations of the Code's ambiguity in different scenarios. It appears to me that the people that are the most aware of other traffic and implications of that traffic, are the ones that are most likely to ignore "Who's in the right", and concentrate on "What might happen" are likely to be the safest riders. We are different riders performing unusual movements. This is evidenced from just the comments on "Heard on the Slopes" and the lack of numbers of hardbooters on the slopes. I do feel that you also have to take into consideration beginner boarders and skiers that have hardly been on the slopes much less seeing a low flying UFO on an eliptical half orbit warping at close to the speed of light going down a hill they're terrified of being on. So do we have some culpability? Yes! In all cases? No! Do we have a responsibility to realize what we do may be totally unexpected by another on the slope? Yes! Should we care who is right? Hardly! What's the differnece between Dead Right and Dead Wrong? The surviving family of Dead Wrong has to pay for both funerals! In athletic endeavors, especially those involving speed and traffic there are absolutely no absolutes. Everything is variable and anything can change is the blink of an eye. It's our responsibility to make allowances for an ever changing environment, and to do anything less is inviting a problem with possible serious consequences. If we keep our eyes and ears (ipod) open and take into consideration of shortcomings of other people we'll be a lot safer. The Code is just a guide. Simplified to make it easier to understand. It isn't an answer to all the different scenarios we face on the slope. The final results of you boarding days lies with what you do, not the code. __________________

1. Always stay in control. 2. People ahead of you have the right of way. 3. Stop in a safe place for you and others. 4. Whenever starting downhill or merging, look uphill and yield. 5. Use devices to help prevent runaway equipment. 6. Observe signs and warnings, and keep off closed trails. 7. Know how to use the lifts safely. Let's look at the code. 1. Always stay in control. If you hit someone-you're not in control. 2. People ahead of you have the right of way. If you're warping across the slope and a skier crosses your plane and you hit his hind quarters who has the right of way? 4. Whenever starting downhill or merging, look up hill and yield. If you're warping across the slope and you're technically going up hill till the transition and you hit a skier you've failed at "starting downhill" Here's the deal. We're adding to the confusion and we know it. If we don't take actions to deal with it we're culpable. Those of you that fall back on the responsiblity code (in some cases) may in fact find that you are in fault because of that same code. Can anyone say "LAWYERSPEAK". You'll have to forgive me, but when people try to justify their actions "by the rules", I find have have little tolerance, especially when they know their actions may cause harm. 7 year old little girl dressed in pink doing pizzas down the hill and suddenly catches an edge and straightlines at the edge of the trail just as you're going into transition. She's 66 lbs and cute as a button. You're 210 and decrepit wearing a helmet and body armor. She's now not so cute and the pizzas are now her brains on the oak tree 15 feet off the run. You get to say "Skiers Responsibility Code" and guess what-you could be wrong. How do you feel. BOARD SAFE, BOARD AWARE OF EVERYTHING.

As the anomaly on the slopes, shouldn't the carver be at the very least somewhat responsible for many of the collisions that take place (notice I didn't say all) I do believe that if you're driving on a 5 lane highway and people normally change one lane at a time, anyone that would decide to change 5 lanes would freak out most drivers behind them. Let's face it, when going downhill at a fairly robust speed and then driving into a full carve the downhill speed decreases inversely to the steepness of the angle across the fall line, and throws everyone uphill off. Some skiers ski fast and in control, and don't expect to have someone sideswipe them on the slope. In cases it's almost like merging from an arterial and not looking in your side view mirror, or turning to look over your shoulder. In situations like that whose fault is it? We're the ones that are disrupting the flow, the normal traffic pattern is going along just like normal and some low flying UFO comes along and is threatening to perform surgery on some poor unsuspecting earthling. So when I read about someone who's in the middle of a deep carve and all of a sudden hit, I have to think that often there is some degree of culpablility simply because they're out of the norm that is expected, and perhaps they should be not as oblivious to the obvious--we're pretty weird.

How to get ahold of Russ Marin in Duluth Minnesota? If he asks who, tell him the guy he boarded with earlier in the year on the black & white boards, Fischer

Dr. D says "two excited jibber girls drag their collective boyfriend" What gives? Before I got married I could hardly collect 1 girl much less 2. We might be in the wrong side of the sport. Looks like I need to get rid of the neon 1 piece and get some really baggy pants.

"Fishbonics" as in fishing reel instead of real? Or "yupbonics" for the more "affluent" class of fisherman, or for that matter would it be for the "effluent" class who drive up the prices on just about anything fun.

Or would we call it "Gabonics" for Gangsta speak?

"WHACK". But I did thououghly enjoy Congressman's paige.

My sentiments exactly on the Burton Fish

Pat, Been rounding to .039 for mm to inches. Maybe should have carried a few more decimal places out, but close enough for my product. Here's the pictures of the F2 Aluminum plates (4x4) converted to 3 hole Burton. Also listed in another thread. I was able to get 6 positions with minimal material removal. 4 positions have 4 screws into the Burton pattern and 2 positions have 3 screws into it. Could have had 2 more positions, but couldn't go either forward or back so it seemed silly to do.

Here's the finished product on the F2 Aluminum 4 x 4 plates being converted to fit the Burton 3 hole pattern. With minimum material removed, I get 6 different binding positions, 4 of which have 4 screws into the Burton pattern, and the remaining 2 positons have 3 screws. I could have opted for 2 more spots, but considering I wouldn't have been able to go further forward or back, and there's only a 1/2" difference in all of the positions, it seemed a little silly.