The code

[BobD]

It's important not to shift the onus of responsibility away from the up hill slider and the traditional interpretation of downhill has the right of way. For us it's like crossing the road at a pedestrian crosswalk. Sure you have the right to cross, but you still keep looking anyway.

[Corey]

Okay, this gem was part of the snow report today:

The downhill skier has the right-of-way, ONLY when skiing fall-line.

I bolded the key part. I assume the head of ski patrol wouldn't also be in charge of the snow report. It's probably somebody who thought they were smart to combine the 'downhill skier has the right of way' part with the 'look uphill before merging' part, and got something they didn't intend.

[Beckmann AG]

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

Granted. However, you may notice the tenets are listed in a particular order of priority for greatest effect. Line 1 takes priority over line 2, which supercedes line 3 and so forth.

If you opt not to yield while entering a trail below me, that does not absolve me of the responsibility to be operating in a manner such that I can avoid you. If I must avoid you, this is more or less a requirement that I yield ground to you, so long as you are 'in front' of me.

Which suggests that you do, in fact, hold the right of way.

[Jack M]

I've never heard or read that they were in any particular order of importance.

Cool, so I can hit that air onto lower Sluice from lower Gondi with impunity, is what you're saying?

[Beckmann AG]

I've never heard or read that they were in any particular order of importance.

That may be the case, but it's apparent that ignoring the last point is far more likely to injure only yourself, while ignoring the first point may injure yourself as well as another party. And that the chance of injury is far greater in violation of the first, and less so with the last. So there is an implied hierarchy based on personal responsibility and the possible outcome of its absence. It seems unlikely then, that the order, which has been the same and with only minor word alteration since at least as far back as the '70's, is an accident, so to speak.

Cool, so I can hit that air onto lower Sluice from lower Gondi with impunity, is what you're saying?

No, and no. See post #17.

You may have the right of way based on your location relative to mine, but that is not license for what could be considered reckless behavior.

If I am overtaking from the Sluice side, point 1, 'control', implies that I should be aware of what lies ahead of me (in this case a trail junction/merge), and point 2, I still have to avoid you. In this case, though your daredevil behavior poses a serious challenge, if I am following the code, we should come away unscathed.

If, however, you were injured due to your decision, then our collision, I suspect you would be held largely accountable for your actions, based in part on your rather self-serving motivations and clear violation of the code.

[Jack M]

That was basically my point. Of course everyone has the responsibility to avoid an accident if possible. But you can't just merge onto a trail or start downhill willy nilly without yielding to traffic above. You do not have the right-of-way in those cases.

[GeoffV]

That was basically my point. Of course everyone has the responsibility to avoid an accident if possible. But you can't just merge onto a trail or start downhill willy nilly without yielding to traffic above. You do not have the right-of-way in those cases.

I took somebody out who failed to yield to up hill traffic merging into a trail

About 16 years ago I was riding at Cannon on my PJ6, there was a cut over trail below me. As I approached the cut over I slowed down a little as I could sees a group coming to the trail merge, they all stopped except on person who just kept on skiing across right into my path. I had no time to react and hit him with my hip knocking him off the trail into the woods. I felt terrible because he was an older man. The group he was with immediately laid into my cursing me out and yelling at me for being a punk snowboarder.

To my luck I had a ski patrol that had been following me down the trail who came to my rescue. After we pulled the skier out of the woods the ski patrol laid into them for failing to yield to up hill traffic. They group started yelling at the ski patroller and he immediately threatened to pull their tickets. I rode with the ski patroller for a few runs and found out he was following me and just enjoyed my riding style.

That is the only time I took someone out in my 24 years of riding and I hope I don't have to go through that experience again.

We had a discussion about this last season I recall. We are in the minority on the slopes and need to take even more precaution when we are carving. The most dangerous people on the slopes for me are ski racers because of their high level of speed and straight-lining. They catch up to you very fast.

Be safe and make it a habit to look up hill constantly.

[Guest]

I dont know if this adds anything: "the downhill skier NEVER has the right of way UNLESS he or she is skiing the fall line."

I think BlueB's comment is right on, which was, essentially, don't f* with the code.

Why? Because it's simple and can be applied rapidly and accurately. If you start changing words or adding things like "fall line," now you need to define them. Fin said it, "how do you define fall line?" If I'm doing "S" carves, aren't I in the fall line? (that's not a rhetorical question :) I'm curious to see what people think). If I'm doing "C" carves, do I suddenly lose my downhill right of way because there's a point where I'm travelling across the slope, not following the "fall line"?

At the end of the day - and I forget who said this - you still look when you cross the street. I wear a helmet, I wear upper body armor with a spine protector, shoulder pads and elbow pads. I've been slammed before a few times and made it out OK, but I've learned to wait my turn and constantly look up hill. It's just the sad fact.

I say we all pool our money together and buy a small mountain somewhere with only a few trails (doesn't have to be anything crazy) and close it to everyone but carvers:biggthump

[jburrill]

While ripping toeside just check uphill for a moment. Then proceed with more ripping without impunity. Repeat.

[CarvingScooby]

All in the Code:

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

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

3. Do not stop where you obstruct a trail or are not visible from above.

4. Before starting downhill or merging onto trail, look uphill and yield to others.

5. ....

[John Gilmour]

So, Mammoth, I suppose on flat ground.... its just a frickin' free for all?

What about areas with double fall lines? Or where two fall lines feed into each other? In that case each skier skiing his fall line claims right of way until they collide.....and then..technically it is no ones fault.

Nice job Mammoth....you totally f'ed it up for everyone. BTW Mammoth has hills like this with two fall lines that feed towards each other.

What I do find interesting in the skier responsibility code is that it refers to the skier ahead of you having the right of way.. Meaning... if you are heading towards a skier ...you should avoid them- if you are looking where you are going (as you should) ...you will see people ahead of you (they might have their backs to you). So if two skiers are coming across a flat areas...heading towards each other.... both have equal responsibility to avoid each other.

In the case of an skier who carves a half circle and heads up hill...and a skier is coming downhill... here's the logic.

It involves a collision I had with a skier Jan 3rd 1998.

Dec. 27th 1997 I was at Killington Vermont testing boards for the Nagano games. I had a 50 mph crash involving some snowmaking gear and a mogul field where I blew out both knees, and cracked the crowns on both ankles and punched a Catek disc clear through a special Madd 170- the impact was so much that a die cut of the catek bail block about 3/4 inch deep was made through the vibram sole of my boot. A girl I was about to date witnessed it and thought I had died. I got nerve damage which to this day lets me fire only about 40% of my leg muscles. Sucked.

So a few days later I get back into soft boots to assess the ligament damage to my knees. I wait until nearly 4pm when the slopes are clear. No one is down hill of me- and only a single skier is above me...wayyy above me. I start carving gently down the hill. Madd Mike and Tina are below watching me. I can't skid to a stop very well without pain so I am carving my speed to zero on every turn. I got a bit faster and deeper into the heelside (testing for ligament pain at deeper flexion) eventually carving up hill at about 15-20 mph. I am under the Rams head quad a wide trail.

A skier is coming towards me- at 35+ mph... he is the last skier on the hill above me... like a magnet. Idiot... stupid idiot. He has the entire trail to avoid me and I am the downhill skier. I now have about 5mph of speed and dropping fast and nearly no maneuverability . I brace for the impact.

Well even an injured snowboarder going 5mph balanced and braced in a carve..is nearly immovable. This guy hits me ..he is going 35mph. He fractures both bones in his left arm, splits his chin in half and bites through his tongue. I tweak my rear knee again...

Blood is everywhere.

By the time we get to the bottom- ski patrol comes towards us.

Ski Patrol chews him out- I walk him over to first aid. The guy was all skied out for the day ...about 45 years old... a lame skier at that..who thought it was ok to let it rip for the last run. Turns out...he can't turn or stop very well.

The skier carving uphill is facing the reality of losing his ability to maneuver as he begins to stop. The uphill skier has no loss of maneuverability.

Let's remove "fall lines" from the equation first to try to get a more fundamental understanding right of way in regards to avoiding a collision. Let's use logic that has worked for much longer than ski resorts have been around.

In Nautical law...(a place typically DEVOID of fall lines unless your craft is a surfboard, sailboard, jet ski in waves, foilboard, paddle board, bogey board,- or you are a white water kyacker or rafter---IE ALL THE FUN STUFF) a sailboat has right of way over a power boat.. because simply... the powerboat has better maneuverability to avoid the collision. good logic. Same for the uphill skier..

One exception to this rule would be a sailboarder and a super tanker. Where the super tanker has very limited ability to avoid the sailboarder (it can take miles for a super tanker to turn). Even through the rule flips the rule of right of way -of powerboat vs sailboat...the logic that made the rule (of the more maneuverable boater being responsible to avoid collision) is intact.

So again even though I was carving up hill- there is a skier whose position on the hill...ie uphill dictates that it is his responsibility to avoid the downhill skier... so the downhill skier has right of way whether he is following the the fall line downhill or even going perpendicular against the fall line (ie losing speed and maneuverability) or going uphill on the fall line (ie losing speed and maneuverability).

The exception to this rule would be concerning one of maneuverability of the two skiers. (but the logic still holds) A stopped skier has nearly no instantaneous maneuverability (unless he is standing on a cliff).

So a skier -carving uphill, who hits an uphill skier who is stopped is at fault even though the collision is by a downhill skier and an uphill skier. Simply... the stopped skier has no maneuverability and can not avoid if he tried.

What if both are moving??? Case in point... you pass a stopped skier at 40mph (the skier now immediately starts his descent incorrectly assuming you have passed and.... are not coming back ...and are no longer a collision threat...

You start your uphill carve to dump speed to stop.

Again you the downhill skier- skiing uphill at 25 mph who hits a skier uphill who is going 4mph or less.... and you the carver would have passed the uphill skier very recently (within a second or two.... in this scenario) and has the responsibility to avoid the less maneuverable skier. This is the super tanker case scenario.....(the logic is intact). ***

In the case of both of you heading towards each other... say both of you are going 4mph... you, the uphill carver, no longer will have maneuverability in about a second. The Uphill skier is still constantly gaining maneuverability - and it is his responsibility to avoid you. If the uphill skier panics and stops first... I think you are on the hook for the collision. similar to you rear ending a stopped car. This has happened to me once..a collision of about 1 mph (skid.......tapppp.) in a 360 carve...where the faster moving uphill skier stopped abruptly in front of me. no injury to either of us but I was on the hook for the collision despite the fact I was the downhill skier.

Best thing..assume everyone else on the hill is an idiot and put a big bubble around you and people, trees, lift towers, snowmaking gear, and grooming machines. I find the only time a collision happens is when I do not follow this rule. Stay in the open with nothing to run into.

You can not expect a new skier (or even an experienced skier who has not skied in 20 years) to understand an uphill carver... so you have to assume only YOU know the rules if you want to avoid a collision ...even if...technically...according to maneuverability...you are not at fault.

If you are doing a banked 360 carve around a moving skier....(by definition you are the idiot).... but it would be interesting as your right of way would change according to where you were on the carve. Something I thought about on the chairlift while learning to do 360 carves. I would however say.... that in the case of a person competent of doing a banked 360 degree carve, his maneuverability will be very good ..except... at the top of 360 degree carve and at very end.

***to mitigate confusion..as this post may have caused... Riding a board called a super tanker ie.. a RAD Air Supertanker uphill will not always give you right of way despite its less manueverable side cut..lol... The uphill carver...is not unlike a moving powerboat that has cut his engines off. His maneuverability will decrease rapidly.

[ursle]

Dec. 27th 2001 I was at Killington Vermont testing boards for the Nagano games. I had a 50 mph crash involving some snowmaking gear and a mogul field where I blew out both knees, and cracked the crowns on both ankles and punched a Catek disc clear through a special Madd 170- the impact was so much that a die cut of the catek bail block about 3/4 inch deep was made through the vibram sole of my boot. A girl I was about to date witnessed it and thought I had died. I got nerve damage which to this day lets me fire only about 40% of my leg muscles. Sucked.

Dr Who?

Where's your phone booth?

Nagano was in '98

Salt Lake was 2002 but I bet those Mormons wouldn't let a player like you in the state :rolleyes:

Love your fiction

You lost me with the vibram soles of your boots (soft boots?) and Catek bails (hard boots?) Wondering if you were on a madd 170 with softboots, must be an interface problem;)

[John Gilmour]

Dr Who?

Where's your phone booth?

Nagano was in '98

Salt Lake was 2002 but I bet those Mormons wouldn't let a player like you in the state :rolleyes:

Love your fiction

You lost me with the vibram soles of your boots (soft boots?) and Catek bails (hard boots?) Wondering if you were on a madd 170 with softboots, must be an interface problem;)

in regards to the year...correct... in regards to the "interface problem". ....uhhhh wrong....

I was wearing Nordica TR-9 boots (wore them for about 6 years) a firmer Durometer Nordica, with walk ski mode and full lace up liner, with bail retainers on the top buckles, and canting adjustment- than it's close Nordica relative .... the much softer less expensive Nordica-SBH (no lace up liner, softer, etc...)

The Nordica SBH (snowboard hard boot) was derived from Nordica's Randonee series of ski boots which had vibram soles.

Both the TR-9 and SBH had vibram soles and were compatible with Bombers (if you shaved the nose of the boot or got special wider toe bails from Fin, they were directly compatible with Cateks needing no modifications).

Lots of people loved the SBH boots... I loved my TR-9's

http://www.llsportsandmore.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=96_67_68&products_id=187&language=en

vs

http://www.bomberonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=35438

I bought about 45 pairs of these when I ran a shop on Newbury Street in Boston...one of the few shops where you could buy complete hard boot set ups in Massachusetts in the 1990's. Later that year I bought about 20 pairs of SBH for the shop on close out for $50 each...so I had both pairs for sale at the time and regularly contrasted their features for my customers. The full length Vibram sole was a big selling point as they were very easy to walk in...in fact ...easier to walk in than a lot of firm non articulating cuff soft boots of today. They were however... much heavier- though also a lot warmer than softboots of the day like the Airwalk Advantage, and Airwalk (I forgot the model...was it the "Airwalk Comp" with the built in heel cinch strap.. what was it...anyone????) which cost more than what I was selling SBH's for.

Regardless... it took about 3 years to sell down that inventory of hardboots. The SBH's closeouts allowed me to lower the price overall as I averaged the pricing for the hard boot department so I could sell my remaining TR-9's at a more reasonable price (still $100 higher than the SBH).....otherwise I would have never bought the SBH. This I believe was 1990-1993

That the following year with close out F2 bindings made a great performance durable complete hard boot set up price competitively with the soft boot set ups.

In comparison to other Massachusetts dealers at the time (..ie..now defunct Ski Market) that carried Burton hard boot set ups ...Burton bindings bails broke, the boards they sold could not compare to my F2 and Aggression Stealth, and Mistral decks for performance.

Only one other dealer in NH (began with an "L" c'mon usrle its local to you- who was it???) carried the F2 which was the most expensive Alpine board you could buy on the East Coast before we premiered the Madd boards for $1000. I think we had a Carbon fiber Beamer for a bit... The F2 binding (before Bomber came out was the strongest (bails broke but more rarely) ..then came the Catek Rhino binding (you needed a hack saw for these to adjust them) ..these are all pre- 4 x 4 pattern bindings - we used these with retention plates and aggressive screws.(F2 helped to 4x4 make popular as these two choices in the market for retention plate boards ..ie Aggression..Checker pig, Rossignol existed for a short period of time) followed later by Bomber which used 4 x 4 pattern.

My memory for athletic event dates from over a decade ago might be lacking...but not so bad for snowboard gear. back then if you didn't carry Burton...(we didn't) you HAD to carry Airwalk...

[John Gilmour]

whoops spin the way back machine back 4 years...no wonder my knees feel better.

I'll go back in the phone booth and fix it. I tend to do sports rather than watch them. I don't even read the mags.

[ursle]

Take notes, it'll be a good read.

[jimcheen]

Airwalk (I forgot the model with the built in heel cinch strap.. hat was it...anyone????)

Extreme? I think? I have a pair in the basement. They've been there, untouched, about 15 years

[John Gilmour]

Take notes, it'll be a good read.

The other place that carried F2 was Lahout's took a bit but I remembered as people would price shop between us.

[John Gilmour]

Extreme? I think? I have a pair in the basement. They've been there, untouched, about 15 years

AHHHHH now I know Airwalk Freeride and Airwalk Freeride II.

[BlueB]

No need to complicate the things by unneccessary case studies. The rules are quite simple and well defined, all that's needed is common sense. It boils down to: do not hit other people, do not put yourself into a situation to be hit. Period.

As for the marine stuff, tanker/sail boat observation is correct only in a restricted channel. At open sea sail boat has the advantage. However, any sailor in right mind would do precautions to give ample space to the tanker - the odds are that they are sleeping, or not really paying attention, while autopilot is driving. Basicly, same as above: do not hit other vessels, do not put yourself into a situation to be hit.

Cptn BlueBeard

[John Gilmour]

No need to complicate the things by unneccessary case studies. The rules are quite simple and well defined, all that's needed is common sense. It boils down to: do not hit other people, do not put yourself into a situation to be hit. Period.

As for the marine stuff, tanker/sail boat observation is correct only in a restricted channel. At open sea sail boat has the advantage. However, any sailor in right mind would do precautions to give ample space to the tanker - the odds are that they are sleeping, or not really paying attention, while autopilot is driving. Basicly, same as above: do not hit other vessels, do not put yourself into a situation to be hit.

Cptn BlueBeard

Actually it makes things less complicated because you remove the variable of the fall line.

[dantheman0177]

Except that's not always true. (post 17)

You're right. I guess there's always going to be exceptions to every rule.

[icebiker]

AHHHHH now I know Airwalk Freeride and Airwalk Freeride II.

Yep, that's them! I still have my pair...use them with my soft boot board and Torque 3-straps.

[Cuban Carving Gooding]