Carvers WORST NIGHTMARE!!!

[piusthedrcarve]

Well.. I do agree with Rob Steven.

Most of alpine snowboarding accidents happens when we make a wide arc to a direction, which will cross almost entire (or at least significant amount) width of trail.

Let's compare it with a driving a car. On 6 lane highway, I'm cruising 55 mph on far left lane at 4 a.m. A ferrari is on the far right lane, just ahead of me, switching lane back and forth constantly (far right and one that next) at 55 mph. Suddenly the ferrari crosses all lanes and hits my right side. Whose fault is that? The Ferrari driver will get a reckless ticket and bills from my insurance company that claims my necks, spine, other crap I decide to claim, and repair cost of my Tico, which will be just about same cost of his fog lamp repair. :)

I had an accident early last season that I was downhill rider. In order to get away from a obstacle, I had to cut cross the trail and hit a 5 years old girl who was coming straight down. She got thrown forward good 15 feet. Luckly, her parent knows Skier's codes and apologized to me. Although I was a downhill rider, she was good 30-40 feet away from me. I should look uphill before I make that turn. I quit riding right after the accident and went home for that day. The skier's code covered my ass but as I think of it every time, it was my fault. I don't think she or anyone could get away without collision because I know how tight and sudden the turn was... and I don't think I could call myself as a downhill rider at the moment.

We should look up as much as we can....

Edited February 11, 2012 by piusthedrcarve

[glenn]

I have to respectfully take exception to the argument that in a court of law a "good lawyer in the employ of someone rich" could defend against a suit involving an overtaking rider...A good lawyer with funding can defend against anything, just or unjust. Anyone here can name a case where an obviously guilty party was found innocent.

No matter how you pose it, how you spin it, the overtaking party has responsibility to the one he/she is overtaking.

A "t-bone" is the same as running someone down from behind...The uphill/behind/overtaking rider/skier has responsibility to the downhill one. They should reasonably be able to see, or at least assume, on their approach that the downhill person could use more of the slope than anticipated and take precautions to avoid a collision.

I've never heard a restriction on the amount of slope a skier/rider was expected to use and I think any reasonable/thinking person should expect a skier/rider to traverse and take precautions in case that person traversed more than they anticipated. It's just common sense/courtesy..

The Ferrari switching lanes is, in my opinion a completely different scenario. A person operating a motor vehicle wouldn't reasonably be expected to swerve. Snowboarding/skiing is built on the principle of the "swerve".

Don't mean to be argumentative but "I been hit my brutha' "

Edited February 11, 2012 by glenn

[BobD]

Well.. I do agree with Rob Steven.

Most of alpine snowboarding accidents happens when we make a wide arc to a direction, which will cross almost entire (or at least significant amount) width of trail.

Looking up hill in that situation is a no brainer.

It is looking up hill on every turn when carving regular two or three cat width linked carves that I don't think is a reality. Look at all the carving videos and have you ever seen anyone do that? Maybe the reason some people are taking up all the hill on a transition is because they trying to look behind them.

[lafcadio]

Someone else quoted it on here, but the "Carvers Responsibilty Code" (#8?) says something to the effect of yielding to those uphill when you are "traversing between carves" (Like the OP, most intermediates, selfish experts, or anyone on the EC program).

I just wanted to clarify a point about rule #8. There is no such official rule in the Skier's Responsibility Code. Scott Firestone describes this as a rule that carvers should follow for safety reasons to reduce the risk of being hit or hitting others.

EDIT: To reiterate my previous posting regarding context: I brought this rule up in response to a question about not carving a predictable line. Basically, if you deviate from a predictable pattern, then your risk of being hit increases since fast moving uphill traffic may try to overtake you (right or wrong) based on your previous carving pattern.

Edited February 11, 2012 by lafcadio

[lowrider]

In over fifty years on the slopes i have yet to see a predictable line. Closed course included (all racers attempt to go around the gates but deviate at times ) If you think you can guess where the person in front of you is going to be at all times you are very gifted. I try to overtake another rider after they have made their turn but i do notice with the increased density on hills today that having enough room to do that is challenged by the fact that like that safety zone we try to keep while driving there always seems to be someone coming out of nowhere to fill in the void. Buying a lift ticket today only means you get a seat to ride up,it doesn't say anything about having a path down the hill and resorts only measure how many lift tickets they sell now how enjoyable your ride down was. We all have a duty of care. Play safe !

[Rob Stevens]

When I wrote this before, the thread was deleted because my log-in had timed out while I was writing. I talked about the "rich guy being able to defend himself with the right lawyer", I also added "If he had a good case, it wouldn't hurt either". I certainly didn't want to suggest that the rich person was guilty, but got away with it. Rather, that the charged party had a case and was wealthy enough to pursue it. It's just that kind of person that gets things changed, be they "Codes" like ours, or even Constitutions.

The fact that both sides in this debate present compelling arguments should be proof enough that fault could be unclear, if it were to go "all the way" and need to be proven.

One little piece of evidence introduced might just be point 8 of our own little code. "Why is that written as it is?" would come the question.

You could also argue, Glenn, (respectfully) that an average hill users expectation of what a "swerve" is could be important to their being able to judge your future line. People operating cars "swerve" all the time. The argument happens when the one in front cries "that was a controlled lane change!" and the party who couldn't avoid a rear end collision has a different take. Direction at impact is also important; If I'm hit in the side, or "t-boned" by someone who is travelling straight, that is not the common pattern seen, where if I was overtaking, I'd generally t-bone them. At the very least, it would raise a question.

Look folks... all I'm saying is that hiding behind this rule is going to result in continued accidents. I will also say that the safest rider will be hit from behind, out of nowhere. Continuing to say "It doesn't matter. I was downhill", more likely shows that you haven't experienced the full capabilities of your chosen ride. Someone who can really hook would have more care and rely on the quick thinking of others less.

If you honestly don't see how you could be at fault, or share blame (which is the real danger here, to someone downhill, who thinks they'll get their medical bills paid, no questions asked), as a rider of arguably the most incredibly capable device to ever slide, one surface on another, you're not seeing both sides clearly.

One day, this issue will come up in a court and I'll be a very curious onlooker, or sitting on one side of the dock, I suppose.

[glenn]

Fair enough Rob...I can see your point. It DOES make good sense to protect yourself in spite of what the rules say and yes, you could make a reasonable arguement that alpine turns may not be anticipated by every one, I agree...It Is prudent to look, and if possible, avoid congestion...For my part, I try to stick with...if somebody is down hill from me, I'll do my best to give them the right of way and trust that they will for me 'cause I can't watch everything...AND temper that with I'll look as often as I can...Maybe I'll regret that one day, I don't know...

[Shred Gruumer]

Just happened to have my helmet cam operating on a run last weekend. Could have ended MUCH worse. Skier did not fare as well... From what I hear, he ended up with a broken nose and separated shoulder. I walked away with a sore jaw and a big chip out of my board about 2" ahead of my front binding!!!!!

action is around 0:40 mark....

Headed to SES tomorrow, good thing I am not on crutches.....

Finally watched this... dang you candians are so Fricken nice!! Ill throw u a bone across the lake!!

[philw]

It is looking up hill on every turn when carving regular two or three cat width linked carves that I don't think is a reality. Look at all the carving videos and have you ever seen anyone do that? Maybe the reason some people are taking up all the hill on a transition is because they trying to look behind them.

It depends precisely what you mean. If I'm carving down one cat-width, I generally don't look behind because I'm essentially straight-lining. That's one end of the spectrum.

If I'm taking wider carves, well I have some video somewhere of me riding with an early goggle video camera for a TV crew. The footage is garbage, because I'm always looking behind. I'm looking where I'm going, because if I'm about to take a swing across the hill, there could be someone over there heading down, and I need to know about it.

The "I'm below them" argument doesn't wash, irrespective of people's legal/ religious views on it. If you're carving, then you would effectively control the whole slope, as no one behind you could be sure you weren't going to randomly swing across the whole slope in front of them. That way lies the banning of "carving" from our slopes.

I look behind before I move over to another part of the slope. If you don't do that, and you randomly ride into my path without looking, well that's just rude. I'll probably not hit you, and your lawyers may or may not be better than mine. Why not just ride carefully and avoid it all?

[hyak.net]

So this afternoon I was snowboarding with my daughter and her friend. I pulled ahead on a run then stopped along the side, dropped to my knees and was getting my camera out to snap some pic's (there were very few people out on the runs today). I all of a sudden hear my daughter yell 'dad', I turn to my right and see a black blurr then 'whack'....a freak'n out of control 13 yr old girl going at high speed smacks into me then all of her gear flies..... I yelled out asking if she was ok, then commented about her high rate of speed and that she needs to stay in control, blah blah blah. I was lucky I had my board behind me and she struck that instead of ramming her ski's in to my back, side or legs.. Lucky in the end, nobody was injured, but that was a close call.

[John Gilmour]

In regards to Rob Stevens crash...

First off it sucks that anyone who contributes to snowboarding should get hit.

In regards to the original writers of the code not accounting for carving.... well as I see it.... not matter what the person is doing, carving or just skiing completely erratically (but in control enough to avoid others) I see the downhill skier as having the right of way merely exercising their right to enjoy their lift ticket. The world is full of idiots. Or as one person said.... "It's a crazy world out there, and we are the ones that make it crazy".

I ride Ruthies...all the time..... (I figure a bunch of people have ridden this here..the day after SES) and every so often I see the amazingly annoying ski instructor who is taking their low intermediate clients down what was once a World Cup Downhill. It just blows me away. Same thing for the Dad who takes his kid of the same low level down that same run, (actually the guy who hit me on Ruthies takes his kids down it- and he is proud to say his kids can ski/snowplow Ruthies ...errr....when should be saying his kids won the lottery for not dying for having a parent that puts his kids in harms way and creates a hazard for others. Sadly he is the same guy who played football on the slopes ignoring ski patrols warnings....and by now should really know better....especially with how many accidental deaths his family has experienced.)

People are obstacles----->sometimes padded like lift towers...you must stay far away.

SO what do I do? I typically pull over and wait.... give them as much time as they need to be out of my way so our paths NEVER have the possibility to cross.

Now I understand at Hunter Mountain you would be waiting all day long. Been there done that. And crowded slopes push people to modify or ignore part of the code for their own intent - which typically leads to accidents.

If I am overtaking someone from above, and they suddenly change direction and are moving laterally across the slope. Before I am hit by them... I still WAS above them.... just before we hit.

And in my mind just before impact (or close call) ........ I would likely think... "Oh Crap..... I didn't give this guy enough bubble space when I planned to pass him. He WAS/IS ABLE TO HIT ME."

I don't like granting people below me... the ability... to hit me.

I don't trust others... and if I am above I can determine whether or not I will grant some idiot BELOW ME the ability to hit me, whether they see you or are "as blind as a bat with fogged over eyeglasses under goggles."

(People above you ALWAYS have the ability to hit you until they pass you...not much you can do about that...if you see an idiot coming for you...it's quite possibly too late to avoid being hit- BUT by looking uphill every so often, I can gauge whether there is a person who is too close or is starting to compromise my safety bubble- I pull over and let those people pass...and if they are going to pass I always make sure I do not take up more than 3/5 of the slope so they can pass safely (if you hog the entire slopes they will inevitably at some juncture..... pass too close)....if they are still getting to close and not working the edge to pass..I'll pull over.....LUCKILY for me ...typically I'm going fast enough that I rarely get passed and have my safety compromised. )

Before making the decision to overtake someone, you have to decide if you are "granting" the person below you the ability (not the right) to hit you, in their wildest spastic attempt to hit you seen or unseen.

If you don't grant people the ability or possibility to hit you... you won't get hit. Rob did give this guy the ability to hit him if he was not seen.

Certainly if Rob is going 10mph, and the HB guy was going 30mph....and came laterally across the slope at 30 mph... Rob is at a disadvantage to avoiding being hit because he will likely be less maneuverable at that speed. But the likelihood is that Rob was going faster and tried to pass. And granted the guy the ability to hit him (not the right to hit him...but the ability) , if the downhill HB'er were to make a sudden carve.

As a SB'er for the time being....when I see anyone with race skis or a carving set up..I am wary of their ability to make a sharp turn and pass accordingly... typically giving a bit more breadth of room than normal.

I'm not saying Rob would lose in a court of law or was even wrong in his actions - he was most likely right- ... I'm just saying he willingly gave someone the ability to "Reach out and Touch him" if the downhill skier exercised the most spastic of moves. (I was going to say "perhaps not knowingly" but knowing RS's a carver and head of CASI certainly Rob has enough experience to gauge whether a fellow HB'er can carve- and even likely could glance at the guy's board and predict the fellows SCR to within 2 meters).

When you give others below you ...while passing... the possibility to hit you (even if remote)....eventually you will get hit.

As an experienced snowboarder..I trust my own abilities and judgement more than others on the slope. So when I overtake someone, I also make sure I have a nice big bubble....and if that bubble looks like it will get temporarily compromised (like on a crowded day) ......I MAKE CERTAIN I have the maneuverability and alertness to be able to dodge ANY and ALL skiers I pass during that short duration. (yes, it is a bit like Asteroids™‚ - a video game which dates me- out there at times). As likely the superior skilled slider..when passing...I always make sure that either the other person does not have the ability to hit me... or if I grant them this ability.....I make sure I am on my "a-game" to avoid them even if they want to play "chicken" unexpectedly.

OR-

I just wait.

A minute waiting on the slope make seem like a long time.... but assuredly its a lot shorter than the line at the Emergency Room.

And to keep this on topic...

I missed SES this year because I hurt my back ..and also was really sick with a cold. So I was bummed not to be able to ride with people. Wishing I had been able to hook a few solid turns with the bro's.... figuring..oh well wait until next year... :( I had just bumped into Ray and Frank D. earlier with Klug, and took the day off to play DJ at the top of Aspen Ajax.

I was walking into the Little Nell using my secret way to avoid the stairs- snag a hot cider- and get into Apres ski and passed by a Green coiler in the rack... thinking hmmmm Bruce V. only makes a couple hundred a year...and how many are green??? and recent???...I paused and saw a slight nick on the right side.

Aha!

The room number was on claim sticker on the board- called the front desk at the Little Nell...and...I'm going to meet him 3 hours... unfortunately I'm up at 5am because my back hurts.

-now that is investigative reporting. My life is an inexplicable series of unusual fortunate coincidences

Edited February 12, 2012 by John Gilmour

[Rob Stevens]

I have to respect what John says. His points are very well thought out.

As riders who can pretty much make a board turn how we want, the idea that getting hit as the rider above has to be "allowed" is correct. If you don't give the rider below space to accomodate for erratic moves, you're exposing yourself. If I got sued, in pretty much every case I can think of, (with the exception of the case I cited that happened to me, where the rider below was a racer on green terrain) I'd be at fault.

Here's a "nightmare scene"... Reverse the roles of who is above and who is below. Take an expert carver, who should know to be on "swivel mode" when shredding around like he / she does, because they know what the gear is capable of, taking out an intermediate making a pass on blue or easier terrain. Expert carvers often find themselves on flatter terrain because it allows that person to hold it in the fall line more and skid less. This rider will often go from a turn close to the fall line, where the novice could never pass, to doing some EC'ey thing, where suddenly the downhill ground covered is chopped in half and the lateral terrain eaten up doubles.

If the person above does not have the experience to analyse the situation like John, or the other experts on here taking part in this conversation, it puts an arguably greater share of responsibility on the downhill expert hooking around all over the shop.

Again, I'm not saying that the downhill rider might ever be found to be solely at fault; That's not likely going to happen. However, if blame is found to be shared because of the circumstances, it could change the landscape for carvers - ski or snowboard - everywhere.

PhilW made a great statement about the responsibilty of downhill carvers and the result of careless actions. Something to the efferct of "That way lies the banning of carving". That's scary... The ski hill operators don't change the code, they just "manage" the way you ride, through enforcement, or outright exclusion.

Like John moving to bigger resorts, I have removed this risk from my life by going "further afield". I usually don't have to worry about getting hit from behind by anything less than an avy.

[John Gilmour]

I think the worst case scenario.... is a well accepted court precedent set where the downhill carver is found at fault. Without the uphill skier "thinking" he will be found responsible in an accident 100% of the time- the uphill skiers would be more emboldened to pass and ski agressively with less respect for the novice or intermediate. I could see it now in court..the expert uphill skier argueing that he could not be at fault because the other guy was a beginner.

a few days ago I was reading through the carvers almanac...and I agree if you are the one carving it is in your best interest to look around and yield to others (just as I mentioned watching for people with poor judgement passing you from above) but I do not think it should be a rule which should be used to establish a court precedent. If it could ...maybe they could modify the wording in the almanac so it can not be used..

I'm no lawyer... I don't understand all these worldly things and flying chairs, I'm just a caveman, but I do know this... if you start changing right of way rules that have been around for decades you will have more injuries. (SNL tribute)

The United States Virgin Islands is a place where people drive on the left side of the road....with American cars with left hand drive. simply imbecilic..... we bought the islands from the Dutch...who might have had British driving habits...or perhaps it was the donkey carts before cars were in use. But they did try to change right of way at one point.... reversed everything... and there were a zillion accidents (keep in mind in the USVI it is completely legal to drive with an open beer in your hand).

I don't think a ski resort could ever ban carving.. it would be too hard to enforce. They can ban snowboards (like Alta, Mad River Glen, Deer Valley) because they suck, and are not willing to modify any terrain. This is a bad precedent for skiing. Because I certainly could imagine resorts banning skiing. For instance Mountain High in California is predominantly snowboarders ...so much so that they could likely reduce accidents by banning skiers. I don't think people really want this...

I would like it (skiers don't add value to my snowboard experience unless they are in bikinis )... but I don't think people in general would like this.....unless they mandate that all skiers don bikinis....(we will assume the men will give up skiing instead of wearing bikinis).

Edited February 12, 2012 by John Gilmour

[Rob Stevens]

I don't see a mountain banning snowboards, just the alpine kind.

If resort management really thought about it, they'd see the numbers weren't anything to worry about losing and that it's only the alpine rider who can hook a blind heelturn like the kind softbooters generally don't, because they don't run that kind of angle in the rear.

John... You'd be the exception, where like the dude going up Alta on the split and snowboarding down, the liftie would see your softboots and let you on. He'd never give a thought to your binding angles.

You Sir, are one day, in an alpineless world, going to jail as a convention-ignoring scofflaw, gaming the rules with your alpine-softbootery.

[John Gilmour]

can we pursue this thought about making all skiers wear bikinis?

...uh...ok.

I remember ski resorts...testing the water about showcasing snowboarding.... They would first show a photo with skis and snowboards in the rack together in the background.

Then they would have snowboard lessons in their catalogs.

They did not want to show snowboards getting air... mom's were worried about their kids getting landed on...or hanging out in pipe and ending up in the ER.

So they showed snowboards carving. I remember a great Bretton Woods catalog from about 1995 with some red haired guy carving up a storm on a Madd 170. The skiers saw a guy in ski clothes , in a skier type turn, in control, on the ground, and wearing familiar looking plastic boots...non baggy pants, and facing forward down the fall line instead of sideways. (anyone know who this guy was?)

In Aspen, top of the Sundeck, there is only one really large wall sized poster in a place where you can see it from every table. It is a shot of Chris Klug cutting a nice line on a carving set up, and a side by side shot of him in pow on soft boots.

I think the resorts like the carvers- because they look more like skiers. Aspen cooperates with Joerg's carving groups, even at times has closed off runs for the carvers to specifically use (prior to SES with Pure Carve) .

When I find myself flanked by skiers...closed out narrowly on both sides.... I say.."If you can't beat'em join'em" and I just do short radius ski turns- facing forward, cross under turns- to mimic skiers and make my movements more understandable to them and predictable. And skiers, when I ski with skiers....often say they like my carving style and wish other snowboards would do that instead of scrape. So I would be really surprised if they were to ban carvers...and their gear. because historically, they have liked us. I do feel that there seems to be less emphasis of late on people riding SL boards when learning..and they seem to go to some Freecarve/GS length deck...and they try to learn with 175-181cm sticks on green trails... which.....I can see becoming problematic. SL riders look more like Skiers are are more understandable.

I just don't see enough people on shorter Alpine set ups save for Joerg and his crew.

I just want a nice set of comfortable hardboots again... UPZ's are next on my list.

I'm here at snowmass, waiting for the sun to come out to ride with the OP. I want to show him my technique for looking up hill prior to turning.

instead.. I think I'm stuck making a Whitney Houston remix.

Edited February 12, 2012 by John Gilmour

[BobD]

It may be that where some people board (in touristy resorts) few skiers carve, but in the last five years around here, every Tom, Dick, and Harry is railing some sort of carved turn on skis. The two to three cat width turn is the norm. Are all these people, boarders and skiers supposed to looked up hill on every turn. PSIA will have to totally rethink their models to incorporate this new movement.

[BlueB]

it's only the alpine rider who can hook a blind heelturn like the kind softbooters generally don't, because they don't run that kind of angle in the rear.

One could argue that a softbooter (of a current prevailing stance) has way blinder heel side then an alpine rider, or a BX style rider...

As for John's SL comment, yeah sounds right, short turn sounds like a safer option for busy resorts/learning. Funny enough, one of our guys who rides almost exclusivelly SL radius, was the only guy to get hit this year, multiple times... Another chappy who likes high speed long radius, used to be hit at least once a year. Now he got so paranoid/cautious that he's one of the safest guys to ride with. I'd still prefer to see him riding tighter, though...

And then, (s)hit happens... The only time I got hit this seaon, I was on skis, riding backwards (you cant ask for more up slope obsevation than that ;) ) in front of my kid, slow speed turns, not more then 1.5m radius. Softbotter girl missed my kid (thanks heaven) and crushed into me. I was watching the whole thing happening and couldn't do anything...

Code is good, doesn't need to be changed. There are so many variables, that we can not start flirting with "if, but, case" scenarios... Imagine this ugly one: I'm ECing down an icy black, with some big rollers. I see a small kid leying down on top of roller and his dad further down. I carve around the kid. Already fully locked, over the roller I see his little brother also laying down under the roller, in my path! Split second decission - if I tried to hit the brakes, I'd slide into the kid, I thightened the turn as much as I could, tail still slipped a bit and clipped tips of the junior's skis. All ended up good, but could have been very, very ugly :( The Code would say that I was in contravention of the clauses 1 and 2, while the dad/kids were violating the clause 3 and probably 7. In front of a judge, that would make me about 50 to 75% guilty. If we went to "if, but, in case..." it could go 100% either way...

Finally, to Cous and Scooby: When carving a 270* or a circle, you are effectivelly putting the people uphill "ahead of you" just as you are ahead of them - it's a head-to-head collision, thus 50% error.

[WASMAN]

John, unfortunately our meeting and day was cut short due to the flat lite and snow. Perhaps we can hook up next time we are in ASpen....

[b0ardski]

This

"I don't like granting people below me... the ability... to hit me.

I don't trust others... and if I am above I can determine whether or not I will grant some idiot BELOW ME the ability to hit me, whether they see you or are "as blind as a bat with fogged over eyeglasses under goggles."

(People above you ALWAYS have the ability to hit you until they pass you...not much you can do about that...if you see an idiot coming for you...it's quite possibly too late to avoid being hit- BUT by looking uphill every so often, I can gauge whether there is a person who is too close or is starting to compromise my safety bubble- I pull over and let those people pass...and if they are going to pass I always make sure I do not take up more than 3/5 of the slope so they can pass safely (if you hog the entire slopes they will inevitably at some juncture..... pass too close)....if they are still getting to close and not working the edge to pass..I'll pull over.....LUCKILY for me ...typically I'm going fast enough that I rarely get passed and have my safety compromised. )

Before making the decision to overtake someone, you have to decide if you are "granting" the person below you the ability (not the right) to hit you, in their wildest spastic attempt to hit you seen or unseen.

If you don't grant people the ability or possibility to hit you... you won't get hit."

I try hard to avoid granting the ability, pulling over to the side whenever I see skiers or high speed skidders coming down above me (I look uphill almost every toeside even on dead midweek days). Assigning blame is totally irrelevant to possible injury; guess the movie quote "the only way to win is not to play".

I like to laydown carves past standing skiiers but I've had them start downhill right after passing them and catch up to me in 2 turns. I've now taken to stopping near them and if they don't start down shortly I'll verbally warn them that I plan to take up the whole run. When riding with people I've just met I warn them that I might pull a sharp turn or 360 and check all my speed so don't follow too close.

After a head to head collision with another carver I've gone into self preservation mode (bought my 1st helmet right after) and prefer to start down last Knowing I will not overtake/intersect their path.

Edited February 12, 2012 by b0ardski

[lafcadio]

Assigning blame is totally irrelevant to possible injury; guess the movie quote "the only way to win is not to play".

I believe that's a slight misquote from the 1983 movie, WarGames. At the end of the movie the computer (Joshua) says about Global Thermonuclear War, "A strange game; the only winning move is not to play."

[leeho730]

Assigning blame is relevant.... But I let insurance company take care of it. Fortunately didn't have to claim for anything yet..

[b0ardski]

blame is not relevant to physical injury, only to compensation thereof

Thanks for the correction lafcadio

[sic t 2]

... in the last five years around here, every Tom, Dick, and Harry is railing some sort of carved turn on skis.

honestly, I have never seen a skier make a hard turn (including ski racers). ever.

all they can do is "banana turns" at speed. true, they often consume the entire slope but you can easily get on a side of them and shout "left/right, etc" and they slowly banana turn the other way. I don't see how a skier could possibly be relevant as a downslope hazard. As an upslope hazard they are the perfect storm.

[k2slopesurfer]

honestly, I have never seen a skier make a hard turn (including ski racers). ever.

all they can do is "banana turns" at speed. true, they often consume the entire slope but you can easily get on a side of them and shout "left/right, etc" and they slowly banana turn the other way. I don't see how a skier could possibly be relevant as a downslope hazard. As an upslope hazard they are the perfect storm.

I ski in much the same manner as I board, so i guess that's why I follow mostly the same lines. I usually attack the slope the same way. Though, I must say, I usually go midweek, and I generally slide with instructors, and they usually let me go first, being "the girl." I generallly have only been hit while instructing, either by students going pretty slowly, or by the idjits who refuse to take lessons and decide to hit the greens instead. Those collisions usually involved me trying to protect my students by being upslope from them. Luckily, since I was a supervisor, I was armed with a pair of wire cutters and "red cards." Red cards were pretty cool, as the offenders could get their pass back by watching a safety video in the office and reciting the code after. Generally okay reactions, except for the father of the 14 year old who slammed into my skiwee class of 5 year old skiers. The father chased down my class and cursed me out in front of them!

[pow4ever]

Glad to hear you are not seriously injure.

I guess there is no more common courtesy left in the world. No one want to get hit or hit someone.

A fellow carver got hit and those throw in comments like you should look more up hill is way out of line IMHO.

It's in the same category as drive by a car accident scene and offer the advice "you should slow down!". Very classy.

From a novice point view; there are so many things to think about while carving:

Is my weight in the right spot?

Am I rotating enough?

Trees!!

Please cut us some slack about looking up hill for every single turn.

--

David