License to ride.

[bumpyride]

Hadn't seen this before. Can't say that I don't think this is a bad idea. Makes some sense to let kids know what might happen to them (not to mention old kids). Hope they continue on this track and have the park safely constructed. Obviously done in order to stave off additional lawsuits, and hopefully injuries.

Mission Ridge and Stevens Pass will require safety course before using terrain parksPosted by Craig Hill @ 08:29:53 am Stevens Pass and Mission Ridge are following the lead of the Summit at Snoqualmie this season and will require safety training before using their terrain parks.

To get a season pass to the terrain park you will have to:

- Watch a safety video.

- Sign a waiver or, for youth, get a waiver signed by your parent or guardian.

- Pay a $5 per season for your season terrain park pass.

Click here for more details and to download a copy of the waiver.

[xy9ine]

reminds me of the old days @ baker when you had to get certified to ride a snowboard outside of the one designated bunny slope.

terrain park waiver/passes do make sense due to the additional liabilities. really big stuff w/ unforgiving surfaces.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Thank you, lawyers! :D

[Allee]

This was in effect at the RCR parks here last season. I don't know about the safety video, but the waiver and the extra charge were in place.

[b0ardski]

Alpental has required backcountry passes for 20 yrs, which was a patrol evaluation. So requireing certifcation to use inherently more dangerous terrain than normal inbound runs seems nomal to me. Park matinence can get expensive. I think $5 is a nominal fee for a seasons park pass.

[queequeg]

I seriously wish all black terrain and blue terrain was restricted on the basis of skills and knowledge evaluation to make sure skiers/riders understood that downhill people have the right of way and skiing in control does not mean skiing upright, but being able to stop and turn hard under control and on a moments notice.

[bobdea]

that would be a issue for destination resorts.

my local hill does it and I like it but for say, killington to do it people would be pissed.

[loopback]

In '87-88 you were required to take a lesson at Stowe and be deemed lift worthy by the instructor after the lesson. They gave you a picture pass similar to a season pass which the lifties checked each time you went up. I still have it......

Most resorts around Ottawa require waivers and park passes now, there is no associated education, it's a pure liability thing.

//Paul

[Hotbeans]

hmmm. Since the lawyers now have succeded in licensing common sense, isn't it about time they slap a license on having children?

Jeez.

Bola, I'm ready to disappear in Argentina now..

[Steve Prokopiw]

snowboard license at 49 Degrees North in 84/85.I tried to find it recently since I never throw out that stuff but it is still hidden deep in the packrat depths of my belongings.After I turned left,turned right,and stopped,I was good to go for my picture ID as proof of snowboarding proficiency.

[jp1]

Hotbeans: If the lawyers have licensed 'common sense' seems to me they wasted their time! Their doesn't seem to be much, IF any of it left in this country (US).

[Jack M]

As others have said, you used to have to get certified to snowboard at a lot of mountains. And you couldn't get certified until you were deemed "good enough" by an instructor. I got certified at Stowe in '88.

A couple years later this disappeared from all resorts almost overnight. I had heard it was because someone sued, or threatened to sue, or a lawyer pointed out that someone <i>could</i> sue when a certified snowboarder got hurt. The basis for suit would be that the mountain said the rider was good enough when they were not.

So I don't see that form of certification or license coming back. But a simple waiver could work. Something extra you sign that says you accept the risk. Which is kind of dumb because this is the agreement you make when you purchase a lift ticket.

jp1: don't bash. It's everywhere.

[Hotbeans]

Of course! Lawyers have been defining "common sense" and "personal responsibility"... We all see where that's getting us.

(uh-oh.. I see a new thread..)

[NateW]

Stevens and Snoqualmie both had this policy last year too. At Stevens the enforcement is rigorous but the class is basically huck/jib porn with voiceovers telling you to be careful. The message was lost and the kids just oohed and ahhed at the riding. Snoqualmie didn't enforce their pass policy (there were signs, but I never saw anyone actually checking), but ironically their class was a lot better. The video was actually instructional, and the presenter would pause it periodically to elaborate or quiz the audience or whatever. People seemed to pay attention.

The park at Stevens was definitely safer for it though. Just weeding out the clueless people (who were only there to look around, or by mistake) made a big difference. I only went to Snoqualmie a few times last season but it didn't seem any different than previous years.

[Neil Gendzwill]

So I don't see that form of certification or license coming back. But a simple waiver could work. Something extra you sign that says you accept the risk. Which is kind of dumb because this is the agreement you make when you purchase a lift ticket.

The waiver on the back of the ticket is worth nothing. There's no proof that you read it. According to my lawyer friends, even signing a waiver is no guarantee of accepting liability. There's an obligation to prove that you really understood the risk you were accepting. I think that might be part of the deal with watching the video. The biggest thing waivers do is make people think they can't sue. They can always sue.

[JoeK.inVt]

A couple years later this disappeared from all resorts almost overnight. I had heard it was because someone sued, or threatened to sue, or a lawyer pointed out that someone could sue when a certified snowboarder got hurt. The basis for suit would be that the mountain said the rider was good enough when they were not.

I had heard it was because someone had argued that if snowboarders had to be certified, then so did skiers.

I had to get certified at Bromley in '87, but I threw it out almost immediately because everyone knew me and would never check my pass because I worked there.

[rhaskins]

about a ladder. I don't have the cert for it, but it was LIKE this:

A farmer purchased a extension ladder, one of those really big, heavey and long ones that extend out for 25 feet or so, and was using it on his farm to scrape the paint on the side of his barn. Now the ladder had all types of warnings on the side, stating not to get close to the electrical and all the other stuff that those warning stated.

It was in the spring of the year, and the farmer set the ladder up against the side of the barn early in the morning, south side. On the bottom he had it set into a lot of frozen cow manure. frozen cow patties. whatever. So, as it warms up due to SUNLIGHT and radiant energy from the SUN, the ground starts to THAW, and one foot of the ladder starts to sink into the ground. Yes, the ladder fell over and the farmer was hurt.

AND HE SUES THE LADDER MANUFACTURER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WARNING ABOUT FROZEN COW PATTIES ANYWHERE ON THE LADDER.

So, just who did away with common sense? Chicken, egg? Egg, Chicken? Sun, thaw, soft ground, new concepts?

I see people hauled off the ski/snowboard hill all the time for doing stuff beyond their experience level. Having a timeout where they are forced to acknowledge that some of the things they do on the hill can be dangerous seems fairly reasonable. I personally don't think that common sense has a lot to do with it. It is more like monkey see, monkey do, especially at younger ages that don't have a basis to build judgement of risk assessment on. Making an in-your-face of risk presentation may instill the proper amount of fear to resepect the possibilities. The older you get, the more you realize that those mortgage payments don't pay themselves. That, and experience, tends to reign in the need to get big air in the park. So does a realistice assessment of your skills and talents.

Just my 2 cents.

Rick

[Paulk]

Hadn't seen this before. To get a season pass to the terrain park you will have to:- Watch a safety video.- Sign a waiver or, for youth, get a waiver signed by your parent or guardian.- Pay a $5 per season for your season terrain park pass.Click here for more details and to download a copy of the waiver.

Stratton Vt has been doing something similar over the past few years...with the exception of the $5 fee..I just took the "class" online last night. I would be angry if they started charging for this. I'm surprised to hear that some of you guys are thinking the fee is a good idea.

http://www.stratton.com/mountain/parks-and-pipes/safety-education-session/overview.htm

[LeeW]

well, that makes sense considering the lawsuit regarding snoqualime few years ago leaving a dude paralyzed for life cuz he overshot the kicker. whose fault is that? his, not the ski resort. but they gotta do something to cover their ass.

[Hotbeans]

I agree. Facilities, individuals, companies....everyone needs protection from lawyers who take (and some seek out/promote) these cases. My point is that the lawyers who feel that some jack$#@ has a case against whoever owns the property that they hurt themselves on, need to be given a lesson on common sense.

Unfortunately, our country is run by lawyers. So, we're stuck with this moronic definition of "responsibility" until we change them out...

[Gecko]

In '87-88 you were required to take a lesson at Stowe and be deemed lift worthy by the instructor after the lesson. They gave you a picture pass similar to a season pass which the lifties checked each time you went up. I still have it......

//Paul

As others have said, you used to have to get certified to snowboard at a lot of mountains. And you couldn't get certified until you were deemed "good enough" by an instructor. I got certified at Stowe in '88.

Gee my certification came from Stowe in 88 as well and I have carried it in my wallet ever since just because:AR15firin:flamethro

[carvedog]

The waiver on the back of the ticket is worth nothing. There's no proof that you read it. According to my lawyer friends, even signing a waiver is no guarantee of accepting liability. There's an obligation to prove that you really understood the risk you were accepting. I think that might be part of the deal with watching the video. The biggest thing waivers do is make people think they can't sue. They can always sue.

Agree with Neil here, waivers are worthless. ( re" the United States anyway )

When I guided river rafting, my boss hired a good attorney and they even changed the name of the "waiver" to an acknowledgement of risk" form. Which, apparently, is the more common name used among higher risk forms of recreation now.

In terms of liability and negligence, neither form can give away or abrogate, your rights. Negligence is negligence. Although the lawyers specialize in making all kinds of crap some kind of negligence. The ladder company was not negligent for failing to warn about frozen terrain. Sending someone down the river without a life jacket would be, regardless of what they signed.

[bumpyride]

You know if it makes just one kid think about the consequences and saves him from crippling himself-it's worth it.

As far as lawyers go-depends on which side you're looking from, but they are parsitical in nature just in the way they assess fees to "Help you".

[Hotbeans]

"You know if it makes just one kid think about the consequences and saves him from crippling himself-it's worth it."

At the risk of adding fuel to this discussion, could you define 'worth it'?

IMO, there is relative worth. The individual, the family, the friends, the state, the nation? There is the individual's potential earnings and local, state, federal taxes paid. And, if the individual is crippled for life, eg: life support, quadrapalegic, etc, then there are the medical bills, insurance, stress to family. Lawyers will have precedent to successfully argue other "at fault" suits and make some $$. Individuals, companies, organizations will have to have an attorney (and insurance co.)review their relative risk. The fee's will benefit both. The next person to consider taking on the half-pipe without a clue will at least have the comfort knowing that there may be a chance for a huge reward if they get injured.

Certainly not all-inclusive, the above situation represents the negative aspects of a bad decision. Are there positives? I don't know.. The chance of reproduction will be somewhat limited. The individual will take the brunt of the responsibility for his/her actions, and, if not crippling, will take home a very important lesson.

Should we as a society be protecting those individuals whose thought process short circuit when attempting to assess risk?

[carvedog]

"You know if it makes just one kid think about the consequences and saves him from crippling himself-it's worth it."

At the risk of adding fuel to this discussion, could you define 'worth it'?

IMO, there is relative worth. ........

I think Bumpy was saying if one kid has to sit in the class and saves him and his family a life of pain - that would be worth it.