Erratic behavior

[Jrobb]

I'm on both sides here. When I ride and turn I generally look uphill prior to carving to see what's up there. Every few turns I look up, especially if I'm going to attempt a deep carve. Mostly I am the one overtaking others as I'm carving on easy blues right now, but carve/slide on everything else.

The 5 lane analogy is incorrect because it implies the as cars (they are obliged to maintain their lanes unless turning. And it is illegal to do otherwise as well as 3lane changes with signal or no signal) are expected to behave so are carvers. That's false as EVERYONE on the hill is expected to turn back and forth to maintain speed and control...it's ingrained in our equipment to do so. If it werent' we would have boards with straight edges like non-carving skis of yore.

I agree that if we know a system fails to be upheld we can't knowingly and blindly be the only ones adhering to it and use it as our "protection" when things do go wrong. It's that same philosophy as to why in driving school they say to stay out of another car's blind spots. If they hit us it's still their fault but what good does that do since we "knowingly" put ourselves in harm's way. By our sport's constitution (carving/hardbooting) we are essentially in the "blind spot" of all other skiers and boarders whether we like it or not and can't rest on the "downhill's got right of way". It's been my observations that it takes two people unaware of what's going on to result in an incident...except for the ones where it's obvious the other person was creamed.

It's this philosophy that has allowed tme the virtue of beign reasonably injury free both on the hill, on the water (Windsurfing/sailing/kiting has similar right of way issues which many don't understand or give a rat's ass about), and on the road. I can't count the number of times a numbskull has come close to hitting me but due to my awareness I've averted catastrophe...both on hill and on the road.

J

[John E]

I doubt that we're as far apart as this thread would indicate. The analogy to a highway isn't that good because there are no "lanes" on a slope. When I ski, I often make slalom turns and maybe only take a 20 foot wide path down the slope. I rarely get overtaken by anyone. I'm learning to carve. I'm slower and I often try to take the whole slope. I get overtaken often. In both cases, I try to be predictable in my motion. I think one of the problems in this thread is the title - "Erratic behavior". That is bad anytime you are sharing the slope with others.

In any event, the overtaking (uphill) rider is "responsible". This may be relevent only in court and then only if there are witnesses. I still realize that it is my responsibility for my own safety and I try to ride accordingly.

[Bullwings]

I always yield to the downhill person AND the uphill person. I'm all about self-preservation. This season, I've only hit 2 people, and it's because I fell about 10-20 yards up slope and could do nothing but slide into the person down slope.

I've had a few near misses, but I have yet to be hit from behind. I usually catch small peak of what's up hill while on my toeside and have taken preventive action to assure I don't get creamed.

Now flying off the runs and into the trees because I get distracted or spooked with people down slope... haha, that's happened at least 3 times now. Luckily I haven't hit any trees yet.

I'm with bumpyride and philfell on this one.

Driving analogy: my brother got hit by a guy who ran a stop sign. When the cops came, the other guy denied it. My bro's word against the other guy's word... No win situation, for my bro at least. The other guy got off with just having to fix his car instead of both cars. Case in point - defensive driving, not exerting the "I'm right and have the right of way" mentality.

[bjvircks]

There is enough space for everyone.

this is usually the case but not always true. in a thread started by Pat Donnelly, July 4, 2006 ( Snowboarder to plead guilty . . . ) I posted the following

Does anyone see any possible way of assuring some level of basic competence before a lift ticket is sold to a person going higher than the bunny slope???

I'm getting really tired of people picking the worst possible places to stop. When you try to clue them in (courteously, of course) they blow a gasket and almost always respond ' I'll stop where ever I da** well please ' I'm certain that almost all the people who do this have absolutely no idea how dangerous they are.

On skis several years ago I was faced with a split second choice. I could choose to hit a rock face straight on at moderately high speed, hit a kid, hit his parents or lay it over and tumble a bit before going off the trail and dropping 15 ft into trees.

I was above a familiar wide shallow chute with steep rugged rock on both sides for a bit. About 1/3 down the right side opened to trees in a drop-off. About 2/3 down the chute narrowed and a rock outcrop from the right pinched off the chute to passage of about 15 ft. I scoped things out before dropping in. I saw the family standing around at the outcrop near the pinch-off, and I know they saw me. I figured where to make my turns and how to approach the exit passage.

Then I went for it.

It was just awesome until I was 3 turns from the exit. I saw the family starting to move. No problem yet, just had to be more careful. By the next turn the family 1/2 blocked the exit and one of the kids fell over, completely blocking it. I used my last turn to scrub as much speed as I could before laying it over and going off into the trees.

IT REALLY ****ES ME OFF THAT THEY SAW ME COMING AND STILL DID THAT!!!

my point with the above post is that some folks act as if they are the center of the universe and everyone else must yield to them, no matter how stupid and self centered their actions. Some people remain completely oblivious to the social contracts civilized people try to adhere to for the benefit and safety of all.

Brad

edit: oops... way off topic, but I just had to rant

[Erik J]

My personal Snow Responsibility Code

1) Have Fun.

2) Don't Get Hit.

3) Don't hit anything I didn't mean to hit.

4) Don't be a D!ck.

If I follow these four rules, I usually have a pretty good day.

I believe that if I take responsibility for my own actions (and even the actions of some others), I'll think-analyze-review the situation to avoid it in the future if I didn't like the results.

And on the subject of sporadic movements, beginning skiers in a snowplow can turn on a dime with no logical pattern. Beginning snowboarders can face plant and stop VERY quickly. I stay away from these situations above all others.

If I see something foreign on the slope that I can't predict, I'll keep my distance and ride defensively (sp?) no matter where they are on the slope in relation to me. After a while you pick up "mountain sense" and learn to see patterns that others may not notice. I think that's my responsibility. It's also my responsibility to understand that others don't think that way.

Bottom line - I cover my @ss.

[bumpyride]

The 5 lane analogy is incorrect because it implies the as cars (they are obliged to maintain their lanes unless turning. And it is illegal to do otherwise as well as 3lane changes with signal or no signal) are expected to behave so are carvers. That's false as EVERYONE on the hill is expected to turn back and forth to maintain speed and control...it's ingrained in our equipment to do so. If it werent' we would have boards with straight edges like non-carving skis of yore.

The idea for the analogy is not to discuss what is legal or illegal, but to simply discribe what zone the skiers may concentrating their attention in. Doesn't matter who's in the right, it does matter what the other skier is anticipating, and whether an unexpected maneuver by a carver is going to result in a crash.

The focus for this discussion is to get people to think about what they are doing, and not necessarily find fault in the details of the discussion.

Congrats on not being involved in any on slope or on water mishaps, which leads me to say that you are doing exactly what I'm advocating, anticipating what the other may or may not do, whether it's "legal or illegal".

[pebu]

Yes... The guy with the "Erratic Behavior" is bad and probably caused the accident.

Is carving erratic?

–adjective

1.deviating from the usual or proper course in conduct or opinion; eccentric; queer: erratic behavior.

2.having no certain or definite course; wandering; not fixed: erratic winds.

3.Geology. noting or pertaining to a boulder or the like carried by glacial ice and deposited some distance from its place of origin.

4.(of a lichen) having no attachment to the surface on which it grows.

Definition 1: This all depends on whether Carving is Proper. Around here, hell yeah it's proper. IT's the only way to go. On the hill I'd say prettymuch anything goes. It shouldn't, but unfortunately that's the way it goes. I'm sure some people think that carving is not proper, but I'd say that a majority of the people don't think that. And the people that do? Well they can just go to hell.

And I don't know about you, but I'm not queer.

Definition 2: Having no certain or definite course? The carvers almanac said it great. Look back up the hill. You see that? Left, then right, then left, then right, then left... That seems pretty predictable to me.

Definition C:

Well, I'd say origin was the bottom of the chairlift, then I guess at the top of the lift you'd be erratic. But then again the glacier didn't deposit you at the top, it deposits you at the bottom, which is origin... Hmmmm... I'll have to think about that one.

Definition 4:

Are you lichen?

[bumpyride]

My personal Snow Responsibility Code

1) Have Fun.

2) Don't Get Hit.

3) Don't hit anything I didn't mean to hit.

4) Don't be a D!ck.

Here's a really good place to start.

Fill in the blanks

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

and lucky 13.

Let's see what happens and what we can come up with.

[queequeg]

I'm not trying to be antagoinstic here, but if we're going to split hairs, lets get it right.

It seems to me that many of the people pointing out the skiers code of responsibility have not actually read it. At no point in the skiers responsibility code does it say "The downhill skier has the right of way", what it DOES say is "People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them". Those two statements are very different, particularly as they apply to us carvers, who are regularly moving uphill at the end of our carves, because at that point the people who are ahead of us (EG: those who have the right of way) are (slightly) UPHILL from us and across the slope, not downhill. For 99.9% of the population that rule roughly translates to "the downhill skier has the right of way", because most people are only ever moving downhill.

I'm refering to this document:

http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/safety/know_the_code.asp

People, the point of this rule is to compensate for the fact that our eyes are in the front of our heads, and not the back, and that you can only avoid what you can see. It means "you must not hit what is directly in front of you." It does not necessarily mean "you must not hit what is downhill from you" It only means "you must not hit what is downhill from you," when you are moving downhill.

Consider this scenario:

You're carving quick little cross-unders with little to no angulation along the side of the slope while trying to gather speed (basically weaving a straightline), and someone slightly uphill is passing on the other side of the slope, with say 12 meters between you. Say you suddenly switch from the little toesides to a massive heelside carve, and find yourself careening towards a target. According to the skiers responsibility code, it is YOUR responsibility to avoid this person because this person is ahead of you, and you are not ahead of them. Even if they are slightly uphill from you.

Being an excellent, and capable carver who rides well within his/her abilities, you take evasive measures and everyone observing the near-collision is left in awe of your supreme carving skills and quick reactions.

I think there are two things to take from this: people should leave a wide berth between themselves and other bodies. People should not ski/ride above their ability levels. The greater your expertise, the greater your responsibilities become.

I agree that many, many skiers ski out of control, in the sense that they ride faster than they can stop or turn. I also agree that if a skier is uphill from you and they see the size of your arcs and the speed at which you execute them, they need to plan a safe route of descent and not hit you from behind.

The most important thing in the skiers responsibility code is "this is not a complete list" and "Always stay in control".

[Jrobb]

The idea for the analogy is not to discuss what is legal or illegal, but to simply discribe what zone the skiers may concentrating their attention in...

I didn't bring that up as a legality but merely a state of mind. Cars on a multilane hwy for the most part go straight and everyone on the road expects that. On the hill, skiers and boarders and carvers are expected to turn and the mindset is essentially different than driving on a hwy.

I'm in agreement on your outlook on collisions. We need less:sleep: and more:eek: when riding.

J

[Allee]

You're carving quick little cross-unders with little to no angulation along the side of the slope while trying to gather speed (basically weaving a straightline), and someone slightly uphill is passing on the other side of the slope, with say 12 meters between you. Say you suddenly switch from the little toesides to a massive heelside carve, and find yourself careening towards a target.

And let's be honest, we've all done this! I've lost count of the number of times that my other half has whistled by me, because I've suddenly gone from a consistent line to pulling a big digger for the hell of it ...

When I'm riding with other carvers, I give them acres of room for precisely this reason ...

[wavechaser]

My personal Snow Responsibility Code

1) Have Fun.

2) Don't Get Hit.

3) Don't hit anything I didn't mean to hit.

4) Don't be a D!ck.

Bottom line - I cover my @ss.

I like it!!

The only times I ever hit anybody were both on skis years ago. first time at Breck I was "straightlining" in a tuck and hit a woman who came at me from 90 degrees but on the same trail - but it WAS my fault...I jumped left at the last minute to miss her and my left ski went on the other side of a 6x6 wood mid-station area post and I went airborne, but thankfully only glanced off her. I busted a Look toepiece clean off - sheared the post - and bent a pair of Fischer C4's for good. Someone on the hill should NEVER straightline unless the trail is fully in view and clear, or roped off and cleared for racing. She WAS the downhill skier. The second time was at Burke and I was GS'ing the liftline and this Joey shot out of a cat track 90 degrees right in front of me (merging trail) and I hit him full on - happened in a millisecond - he broke ribs and sheared my right pole clean at the grip and broke my thumb...lucky big time! His fault that time though because he came flying into a main trail from a cat track. I've never hit anyone since and don't plan to. Those two incidents taught me to ALWAYS expect people to do something stupid and/or unexpected, just like defensive driving. That's the great thing about racing on a closed course - you can let it roll there...except for the kid in Maine this year that ducked a rope and almost took out an Open Class rider in his GS run...we are never REALLY safe I guess. :)

[Thumper]

Another aspect to the problem is a physiological/geometric one caused by what you and the other guy see or don't see just prior to a collision. When two airplanes (or cars, or snowboarders) are on collision vectors, there is no relative visual motion. Regardless of how the aircraft are maneuvering in 3 dimensional space, once the collision vector is established, the other aircraft stays frozen in the same position within your field of view and just keeps getting bigger until the collision occurs. We respond to relative motion, it gets our attention -stationary things do not. So the first indication a straightliner has of a conflict with a carver (or vice versa) is the carver going from a small, stationary peripheral object to a large and rapidly growing stationary object. So, following a natural instinctive response, the responsible (?) straightliner checks away from us to give us more room. This response may actually increase the likelihood of a collision occuring because, if our velocity vector is greater than his (surprise, surprise) we eat up the "buffer" he is trying to create faster than he can create it. (And then of course blame him for not following the code.)

Rules of thumb:

1. Always clear your flight path

2. Work bubbles of free space between crowds.

3. Always clear your flight path.

4. If possible, leave enough space on either side of your line to allow somebody to pass you without going off into the trees

5. Always clear your flightpath

[Buell]

This is a great thread.

The skier's and rider's responsibility code is extremely vague, and as we see here, open to fairly wide interpretation. More importantly, it is often unknown / ignored by many people on the hill.

Be safe out there.

[Guest jrsp12]

It all comes down to being aware of your surroundings and anticipating what others are going to do around you.

[philfell]

queequeg, you nailed it. That was what I was trying to say in my previous post, but you did a MUCH better job at it than I did.

[lonerider]

And let's be honest, we've all done this!

True... and to be honest... every time we do this without looking we are not being responsible.

I try to check behind me twice each carve - at the beginning and end of each turn.

[Buell]

queequeg and philfell,

As I mentioned before, there are obviously many interpretations of the responsibility code. I ponder the code often and there is some great food for thought in this thread.

I do have some issues with, if I understand your interpretation correctly, the fact that someone could carelessly pass me at a high rate of speed and turn it into my fault when I hit them from the side as I come out of my carve. I am not talking about carving back up hill, as this scenario could easily happen with turns that are less than C carves. As you said queequeg, rule #2 is meant to compensate for the fact that we do not have eyes in the back of our head, yet in this situation, we have almost no hope of knowing the person is there until we hit them. They, on the other hand, know that we are there.

Taken to the extreme, I was trying 360s and I certainly considered it my absolute responsibility to avoid any dangerous situations with other riders.

[FTA2R]

for the record i agree with point on both sides.

1. relatively easy to have an accident on our local 600 -1000 ft mountain on the weekend, esp. if you're on a blue. Those big turns you make out there are a little harder here. DC and NYC psychos all over the slopes. ski/ride like they drive - no etiquette or consideration.

2. "Always stay in control. If you hit someone-you're not in control."

do you mean "if you hit a stationary person" or "if you and another moving person collide." if the latter, well, you're wrong, to be blunt. Accidents happen. People come out of nowhere, riders with backs to each other hit each other, idiots stop (and sometimes sit of even lay sprawled out) in the middle of the trails and in jump landings and it's not always possible to avoid them.

3. 40 years and no collission- congrats, sounds like your skilled and lucky if you ask me. do you ride out west? if so, well, chances are a LOT less. I think it's pretty common, too, for riders/skiiers in motion to just hit other skiiers/riders standing still or barely moving.

4. 1st day out this year i was in a season ending collision. per the code, not my fault, but it was in my blind spot and i really don't know exactly what happened. i know that i learned my lesson, be extremely careful turning wide-and I was my soft 156 setup. we're the freaks (cool!) b/c not only do we actually turn, but most of us turn wide. unless you're making very wide turns, however, i think generally one should be able to see you with periperhal vision.

it's not Black and White, as previously mentioned. there are way too many factors, and for someone to even say a blanket statement about collisions is ridiculous.

5. "There is enough space for everyone." amount of rideable terrain and number of riders may vary hugely.

[utahcarver]

Near the end of last season, my buddy and I were enjoying wonderful spring conditions at my local area and were pushing each other a bit to milk the last little bit out of a great season.

I was in the lead making cross-under turns when out of nowhere to my right and my blindside (I'm a goofy-footer; Dammit, I mean HEELSIDE), a male cub on skis enters my flightpath followed by his Papa Bear dad. I was able to miss the tyke by an evasive action of going hard right on my heelside and ollie-ing over the cubs' ski tips.

After I was able to come to a stop downhill and look up, I listened to a pissed off dad saying things his little cub shouldn't be hearing. I immediately apologized for the closeness of our encounter and let the dad know that it was my mistake. At that, the dad relented and moved on.

As the day wore on, I became more enraged by what had happened earlier. I kept thinking that I hadn't done anything wrong. I didn't think that I was in error by simply riding down the fall-line with a clear trail IN FRONT OF AND DOWNHILL OF ME. Sure enough it came to me: the young one, with dad in tow, had not bothered or known to look uphill when entering the trail to make sure it was clear to begin down the trail. The mistake should have fallen on the guy who was giving me hell for almost clocking his offspring.

What still makes me mad is that I was the one who was willing to back down and accept blame when, according to the Responsibility Code, Papa Bear was in error and could have gotten his boy hurt or killed because of his negligence. It scares me to think that this man and his kid now think its okay to enter a trail and not be responsible for anyone who collides with them due to their lack of responsibility.

Since when did self-preservation and defending one's young take a backseat to on-hill Alpa Male arrogance? BTW, the fact that they were on skis doesn't make any difference to me. In fact, I'm more concerned with being hit by a snowboarder than a skier. In my experience, the skiing public, as mindless a group that can be found sans cell phones, excels far beyond the simpleton-mindedness of the dirtbagging, chain-smoking, STD-riddled snowboarding hordes who scrape away every vestige of groomed snow on their way to sit their non-wiped rearends down on the snow to wait for a chance to bail off of the ramp just before the rails and ledges at our hills' McJib Park. Placed firmly on, formerly the best carving run that could be had, now only to be blocked off like a bowel obstruction by a bad diet of noodle boards.

Okay, my slip is showing now.

Mark

[Gecko]

I have stayed out of this discussion a while but every time I see another post I get a bit more pissed about it. The Code exists...in many (probably most) states it's a legal and binding document, violate the code and you can and will be held legally liable for any damage to yourself and/or others that you cause. The Snowboarder killing a skier at Jackson a season or two ago is a perfect example. Control is the key after the uphill downhill equation is worked out and straight-lining has never been considered in control by any patroler that I have ever shared a trail with. That said there is also the CYA thing, pain sucks and hindsight being what it is I would have avoided the situation that cause my big crash this year even though it wasn't even close to my fault, my choice of board and timing were. Just because we are on snowboards and ride the hill a bit different than the average slope scraper doesn't mean we are at fault in a collision. I regularly slowdown and ask to slope campers to move out of junctions in an attempt to make the hill safer. The fact that my jacket looks just like the hospitality folks helps I'm sure but many times folks just aren't paying attention to the fact that they are siting in the middle of a hiway

[Dr D]

HAving recently returned to the mountains after a ten year stint elsewhere I feel I may have a unique insight on the problem. I see every time I am up on the hill a blatant disregard for the code by almost everyone. ten yrs ago if you straightlined you got your pass pulled. simple as that. I don't understand the impulse myself but maybe its fun who knows:freak3: Anyway I don't see the code anywhere except for the fine print on the back of the pass. I don't see patrollers very often unless they are rolling out to pick up the wounded. IT appears in my area at least that the ski patrol has become a glorified ambulance service. We used to have some problems on race weekends with "racers and wannabees" bombing everywhere but now it seems to be everyday.

My answer is to go midweek, wear body armour and a helmet, not start a run until no one is uphill of me, and stop in the middle or at least frequently and do a paranoid check of my 6.

I guess that passes for my code. like we have already heard it isn't much consolation being dead right. I have had as many near misses with straightlining park monkeys as with skiers so its not an us vs them thing its an institutional change in enforcement of the rules.

[philfell]

I'm not saying it is always the carvers fault. I just dissagree with the black and white reasoning that a guy downhill is ALWAYS in the right and can do whatever the hell he wants to because he is downhill.

This is another example I see often. A freestyler going straight on a cat track, decides to hit a natural jump on the side of a cat track does a heel side turn in order to hit the jump. He cuts off a skier about to pass them and they collide. Is it the skiers fault because the snowboarder was downhill or the snowboaders fault for not looking uphill before he decide to make the turn to the jump?

I probably spend more days on snow than just about anyone on this site. Plus most of the time I'm on snow I'm standing next to a race course. This makes for many, many hours of people watching between my athletes runs. I've seen tons of near misses, many hard hits, and many aware people who avoided putting themselves in the situation before they got nailed. Not everything comes down to it's my fault/your fault, keep your head on a swivel and don't expect the public to be able to avoid you just because they should.

[Buell]

I'm not saying it is always the carvers fault. I just dissagree with the black and white reasoning that a guy downhill is ALWAYS in the right and can do whatever the hell he wants to because he is downhill.

We are probably thinking almost the same thing. I am just having trouble with the interpretation of "ahead" in rule #2 to mean "in front." I think "ahead" could, and likely does, also refer to "ahead on the trail."

Personally, I think the jibber on the cat track falls under common sense, but between the rules of responsibility. I would love an argument otherwise as we all deal with that on a regular basis. I usually yell at them that they have to yield when they come back on without looking and half out of control.

Dr. D, I live by some of your philosophy. Uncrowded mountains, uncrowded days . Rule interpretations aside, you hit on one of the biggest issues: No enforcement and hardly any posting of the rules where they will be read.

It's like driving through a big parking lot. Technically there are rules, but you can't count on being safe because you know what is in front of you.

[bumpyride]

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.

__________________