Jump to content
Note to New Members ×

Snowboarder headed to jail for speeding


biggerwrangler

Recommended Posts

Hmm this can't be good...

Associated Press

DURANGO, Colo. - Daniel Steaves is going to jail for speeding - on his snowboard.

Steaves, 22, of Durango, was convicted of third-degree assault for crashing into a ski patroller and breaking the man's leg at Durango Mountain Resort last season.

He was sentenced Monday to two days in jail and 75 hours of community service. He also was banned from the resort for this season and must pay restitution for the victim's medical expenses, Deputy District Attorney Sarah McCutcheon said. The amount has not been determined.

Steaves collided with volunteer ski patrolman William Bussard on Jan. 11. Bussard and witnesses said Steaves was traveling 30 mph to 35 mph in a slow-skiing zone at the time.

Steaves' lawyer, Robert Duthie, told jurors the accident was a result of bad timing, bad luck and mistaken judgment, not recklessness. He declined to comment after the verdict.

"We're not trying to limit anyone's ability to have fun or enjoy the sport of snowboarding. What we're saying is you have to do that in an appropriate manner," McCutcheon said Tuesday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for curiosity...

For our traffic rules, what punishment a driver get if the driver was in high speed and have an accident? My guess is JSUT a 'Reckless driving' record and a slight change of suspending license (depends on how fast you were going over speed limit). not to jail. I don't think.

that was my thought.... makes you wonder what doesn't make the news.:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Steaves was a real prick about the whole thing and made things worse for himself? I know that if someone broke my leg and behaved appropriately afterward I would be less inclined to prosecute. Was it the resort that prosecuted or the patroller William Bussard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is not going to jail for speeding. He is going to jail for RUNNING INTO THE GUY AND BREAKING HIS LEG!!!!!

SO, you guys are saying if a dude hits you and breaks your leg this would be too severe?????:eek:

Third degree assault does not = speeding. Bad headline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is not going to jail for speeding. He is going to jail for RUNNING INTO THE GUY AND BREAKING HIS LEG!!!!!

SO, you guys are saying if a dude hits you and breaks your leg this would be too severe?????:eek:

Third degree assault does not = speeding. Bad headline.

Also, speeding in a slow zone is sort of by definition reckless. If you speed in your car through a slow children zone and hit somebody (an adult even), yeah, you are probably going to jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, speeding in a slow zone is sort of by definition reckless. If you speed in your car through a slow children zone and hit somebody (an adult even), yeah, you are probably going to jail.

I'm with kjl and MUD on this one. The article actually indicates he was convicted of third degree assault. If the idiot had hit a little kid, instead of someone near his mass, the situation would have been much worse.

This guy was travelling beyond either his own ability, or the ability of his equipment, to turn or stop quickly hence he was out of control. He was in a marked slow zone which is typically either a beginner area or a high volume traffic area so at the speeds was travelling he was eventually going to hit and seriously injure someone.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this a different version of the keystone resort fiasco?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

Perceived vs. actual <o:p></o:p>

It is an inherently dangerous sport right? Thus expecting not to get injured anywhere on the mountain would thought to be foolish? Or am I am completely of my rocker?<o:p></o:p>

This was just brought to me by a friend.

I am just looking for opinion... I have been hit and injured, I have slid into people, althou not in years.

the CODE is here

http://monarchskiguide.com/ski-guide/safety-code

I say both are at fault. Patrols fault for being in the way, not to mention should be good enough to get out the way.

the other for skiing beyond ability.

Does the law say more or less its no fault issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 mph in a slow zone, then hit a patroller and broke his leg? I say throw the book at this guy. If that's not reckless riding, I guess I don't know what "reckless" means. If people start to realize there's some legal teeth behind the Skier's Code, maybe they would make more thoughtful decisions on the hill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that a lot of posters are jumping to conclusions without having the facts. I am all for punishing someone who intentionally rides recklessly and causes injury to another. But:

1) What exactly is the speed limit in a slow zone. I have never seen one posted. Perhaps the accused is capable of extremely high speeds and 30 mph seems slow to him. (Not that I do 30mph in a slow zone) But more importantly....

2) Who exactly clocked the accused at 30-35 mph. Was the ski patrolmen also certified to rate speed by eye or did they have radar guns installed on the trees.

3) Was the accused intentionally speeding or did something happen to make him lose control making this merely an accident.

Without knowing all the variables I would find it hard to pass judgement. Given the proper circumstances I would see the punishment as just, but I would need some hard proof of negligence or reckless behavior. I am sure that many of us have been involved in situations (wether recent or long ago while we were learning) where someone was, almost was or could have been (a close call) injured in a situation involving us. Think about it. Would you want to go to jail for an accident on the slopes. I am sure that an on slope investigation is not going to be as thorough as one involving a MV. Would you want your future on the line based on what someone said you did. Yes we all have a responsibility to stay in control, but we're supposed to do the same things in cars and look how any accidents there are when the rules are clear and concrete with strict enforcement. The skiier code is fairly vague as are the rules of the hill (ie. what does slow entail) Until there are speedometers, cameras and other safety devices installed on our hills and boards this is all left to an individuals perception. Again, if he was really being careless then a punishment is fitting, but is this really where we want the future of snowboarding to go. I for one like to enjoy my time on the slopes; responsibly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Softcarver: I agree in general with what you say. However, I would argue that the presence of a "slow skiing" sign (indicating beginner merging, high traffic areas, etc., etc.) removes most mitigating factors in a crash. Yes, sometimes things happen out of the blue that might cause an accident, but the whole point of the caution/slow skiing signs is to get you to ski at a slow enough speed so that they either don't happen or the consequences are less severe. e.g. if you get into a high speed car crash in a school area, it doesn't really matter what happened - maybe you thought you were being safe driving fast, but a dog jumped in the road and you swerved and lost control: but the whole point of the slow school area speed limit is to get you to drive at a speed where the consequences of having to swerve are not as critical. The only thing I can see being a reasonable defense is: 1) he wasn't actually riding that fast and the patroller just happened to break his leg in a freak fall or 2) gear failure that occured before entering the slow speed area.

Also, he's going to jail for two days. That's not going to ruin his life.

Also worth noting: when they assign blame for auto accidents they don't usually have "patrollers calibrated to judge speed by eye" or radar guns - they take witness accounts and assess the damage of the crash. I do not have the full facts of the case, but the fact that they tried him and put him in jail indicates to me that the patroller was probably pretty messed up, and thus clear that the guy was going pretty fast/reckless.

Again, if he was really being careless then a punishment is fitting, but is this really where we want the future of snowboarding to go. I for one like to enjoy my time on the slopes; responsibly.

I agree - I don't want a police state on the hill. However, if I enter a slow zone and slow down for a bunch of kids, I would be very, very angry if some bozo steamrollered me at 35 mph. That's not responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know everything, but it looks like a fine verdict to me. Actual consequences in a resort for reckless actions and causing injury to another rider? A mountain that pays more than lip service to actual safety on the slopes? Promising. This has nothing to do with anything a responsible carver or any other rider does while at the resort.

30 to 35 in a designated slow zone is reckless and it sounds easy enough to determine he was going well over a safe speed even if it was not exactly 30 to 35.

I would be happy to ride at Durango Mountain Resort, though I doubt I will ever make it down there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree - I don't want a police state on the hill. However, if I enter a slow zone and slow down for a bunch of kids, I would be very, very angry if some bozo steamrollered me at 35 mph. That's not responsible.

I agree with this statement as well as other points you have made.

I do admit that it is most likely that the accused did recklessly cause the injury by traveling at a high rate of speed for that area. I am sure the criminal court would not have sentenced him if he didn't rightfully deserve it. (Unless of course he had a hack attorney. LOL. ) I was just pointing out a few things that it seems some did not consider. And although a misdemeanor conviction may not ruin ones life it may prevent them from entering or staying in certain professional fields thereby greatly affecting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless Steaves was going uphill, he ran into someone downhill of him, violating the second rule of the skiers responsibility code. If he was under control, then it clearly was a deliberate assault and two days in jail is a slap on his wrist. If he was out of control, he was violating the first rule of the skiers responsibility code, and thereby being negligent and at least recklessly endangering others in a public place. His conviction was based on the accounts of both the victim and "witnesses". Even if it was entirely accidental, it was clearly his fault, and he should bear the responsibility for his own actions. If Bussard was deliberately trying to block him, he might have a case, but if that's what happened it seems pretty plausible that there was a good reason under the circumstances.

Ski resorts offer a venue where we can indulge in a sport that can be risky, exhilarating and remarkably free (in terms of the range of movement we can experience). There's almost nothing that compares - maybe hang-gliding, kiteboarding and windsurfing. Anyone who endangers others by acting recklessly and stupidly as Steaves apparently did should be banished from the sport altogether - he's a danger to the rest of us in person and to our sport. If the public can't be trusted to behave ourselves on the slopes, you can bet that someone will show up to start supervising.

If Steaves had lost control or had suffered an equipment failure a long ways up the hill, fallen down and was trying to stop, one could argue that maybe he should get off without being punished. We all lose control and fall down now and then. Responsible riders don't tend to do it at speed right above a slow sign, but it's certainly possible that one could have a binding fail just as you start to do a speed check. I'd expect that his lawyer would have taken advantage of any such mitigating factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article said, " DURANGO, Colo. - Daniel Steaves is going to jail for speeding - on his snowboard."

" Bussard and witnesses said Steaves was traveling 30 mph to 35 mph in a slow-skiing zone at the time."

How do they (Bussard and witnesses) know he was traveling 30mph to 35mph :confused:

What is the Speed Limit in a "slow-skiing zone" :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:confused:

What is the Speed Limit in a "slow-skiing zone" :confused:

I think you have to understand the limits of journalism. As someone suggested , you can't tell if you weren't in the court. But if people want to go around breaking people's legs, irrespective of the circumstances it's hardly surprising they have to pay the price, is it? Personally I'd be delighted to visit a resort which actually locks up leg breakers - that's a huge improvement on "sorry dude".

If you want to get annoyed at your legal system, well there are a few other things which happen in your courts which you may want to take a look at before getting your knickers in a knot about a bit of assault. If you watch Fox TV then you'll probably need a list, but then you may well have difficulty reading it.:AR15firin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Steaves was a real prick about the whole thing and made things worse for himself? I know that if someone broke my leg and behaved appropriately afterward I would be less inclined to prosecute. Was it the resort that prosecuted or the patroller William Bussard?

My thoughts exactly...

Anyone else remember the episode Fin had with the Yellow-Jackets??????

I'm 'seasoned' enough to know to be a bit skeptical about what I'm being sold by the "authorities".

until I get a chance to see if his toyota snowboard was REALLY running away on its own or not....:lurk:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If what I found via google is correct, the collision occured in 2002 and the judgement in 2003. Steaves evidently was from Ohio.

This is old news, but the concept is always current.... be responsible in all ways. Steaves was not.

Like I mentioned earlier, I wonder if Steaves was beligerant before, during or after the collision. Perhaps someone who was with him testified "Yeah, he's always being a jerk and riding stupid". However, if anyone knowing him DID testify it would most likely be something like "He's always totally cool. Like, what's the problem, lawyer dude? He's bitchin' fast, but like, NEVER out of control. So, what's the problem? That patrol dick didn't get out of his way."

Could someone with some expertise in court proceeding pull up the trial transcript since it would be a matter of public record? I for one would be interested in seeing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been hit by a skier at what I would say is 30 mph while standing still and the skier was looking at her boots. She was lucky not to be seriously hurt and that she was not male and near my size. My concern could have been rage. :boxing_sm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...