Carvers WORST NIGHTMARE!!!

[RideGuy]

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

WASMAN is not a novice snowboarder. He's carving wide turns and coming across the hill with more speed then the average skier or snowboarder. People coming down the hill are not ready for this even if that has been WASMAN's path for the entire run up until that point.

People are just trying to look out for the safety of their fellow carvers. The truth is the more you look up the hill the safer you will be. I don't look up every turn, but I do take a peak every 2nd or 3rd toe turn, the start of a new transition, trail merges, etc. I've had a few near misses, and they would have been REALLY bad if we had actually made contact.

[leeho730]

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

True but several million dollars for compensation also definitely hurts... Not physically but socially and psychologically....

And let's face it people won't lift a finger unless money is involved.... Like giving people fines for using cell phones in a car or not wearing seat belts or speeding....

I for one really hope that an individual (preferably skier... well i ski as well but I'm a bit biased) would get blamed, sued, found guilty and fined for a very large amount of money for hitting someone below and causing serious injuries...

Then people will actually start to pay attention to the codes. Sad but that's the reality....

[carvedog]

Jail and fines awarded in multiple cases.

http://www.skilaw.com/cases.html

Doesn't seem to slow the idiots down.

[leeho730]

True, car accidents still happen. Thanks for the link, BTW.

At least your link above will make some people here twice before trying to overtake others at high speed.... I read the cases and it seems that 1) the code DOES have authority 2) the definition of "uphill" is broader than I have previously thought, not just at the time of collision but how accident happened. In Colorado, such code is in fact in the law.

There was no dispute that Haynes crashed into Nancy Morgan from behind. The National Ski Areas Association Skier Responsibility Code has been referred to repeatedly in Colorado skier collision cases. The code states that “People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them.” The code is ubiquitous, and is seen on maps, napkins, signs and lift tickets. Haynes acknowledged it’s authority, and noted in deposition that the Code is on the trail map. The Responsibility Code had it’s origins in the National Skier's Courtesy Code which stated that "when skiing downhill and overtaking another skier, the overtaking skier shall avoid the skier below him." Otto Werlin, general manager of Loveland Ski Area, was permitted to testify as to the elements of the code in LaVine v. Clear Creek Skiing Corp., 557 F.2d 730, 733 (10th Circ. 1977).

That is, if we start to carve (or traverse the slope) while being "downhill" then uphill skiers have to yield no matter the turn shape. Juries are not going to accept the argument that the plaintiff was carving an unpredictable turn since it is uphill skier's responsibility to spot and overtake safely downhill skiers or carvers; we carvers simply traverse across the slope more often than others. 270-degree carve case is tricky but if you do that in a visible spot and skier is on the uphill it's still mostly skier's responsibility. Several cases do emphasise uphill and downhill terms. There are a few case where the term "ahead" was used and that was the case where a skier, at high speed, collided with the skier who was waiting near the lift line. Exception is when we carvers traverse at the high speed and collide with the skiers below. Also if one is stationary and another skier is already moving and both are very close to each other then the stationary one should only move once safe to do so.

An example of uphill skier hitting downhill skier who was traversing across the slope:

Both Mr. Thompson and Mr. Hall were “skiers” pursuant to the Colorado Ski Safety Act. C.R.S. § 33-44-103(8). Defendant had the primary duty, as the uphill and overtaking skier, to avoid the collision with Plaintiff pursuant to C.R.S. § 33-44-109(2).

The Forget Me Not ski run is located in the Parsenn’s Bowl section of Winter Park Ski Area. The first half of the Forget Me Not ski run is located above timberline and thus is comprised of wide-open, bowl-like terrain. The Forget Me Not ski run continues down past timberline where it becomes a narrow, gladed run, comprised of groups of trees commonly referred to as “tree islands.”

Bernard Thompson, was traversing slowly across the Forget Me Not ski run, just below timberline, when he was suddenly hit from uphill and at high speed by Joel Hall as Mr. Hall entered the gladed portion of the run from the open bowl above.

It is undisputed that Mr. Hall was the uphill skier at the time of the collision, and he gave a written statement to the Ski Patrol following the accident where he described himself as skiing “pretty fast” and only “mostly” in control.

A skier hits another skier who was making a medium radius turn:

On March 6, 2002, plaintiff Roger Affa, age 62 was skiing down Emperor's Choice, a groomed intermediate run in the China bowl at Vail Mountain, Colorado. Affa was involved in a high speed collision with the defendant Jamie Nejezchleb. Affa was skiing in control, making medium radius turns. Witness testimony established that the defendant was sitting back on his skis, skiing straight down the fall line at a high rate of speed and collided into Affa from above. Patti Stoppi, from Reading, Pennsylvania, witnessed the accident from the nearby Teacup Express chairlift. Stoppi testified in a video preservation deposition that she worked as a volunteer National Ski Patroller at the Blue Marsh ski area, a 250' vertical drop ski area located in eastern Pennsylvania, in the Poconos Mountains. Ms Stoppi gave an admissible lay opinion that Affa was the downhill skier, and that the defendant's high speed, failure to lookout, and failure to avoid the downhill skier were the causes of the accident.

I agree that we should stop and let those straight line-loving skiers pass, look uphill more often not because it is our responsibility but because it's a part of defensive skiing for self-preservation. Since no matter how safe we play there will always be someone who runs close to you no matter how wide and empty the sope is, like the skier in the OP. In most of cases, the defendants were skiing or boarding at high speed, straight.

Play safe!

Disclaimer: my post does not constitute a legal advice, and I will not held responsible for anyone acting based on my post. Legal opinions differ depending on the states. Some states, such as Colorado, do have skiers codes in the law while others, such as Michigan, do not accept liability for accidents occurred on the ski slope. Anyone who are involved in an accident or have inquiries should seek legal advice. If in doubt, following the skiers code is generally the safest way to avoid accident or liability in case of accident. Settlements range from 90,000 to over two millions. Totally not worth it.

Edited February 14, 2012 by leeho730

[OhD]

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? ...:)

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.

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

Roads have lanes. Cars have mirrors and turn signals. Some drivers have brains and don't get anywhere close to someone driving erratically. What are you doing driving 55 in the far left lane, anyway? You're not one of those guys who starts passing semis in the rain and freezes in formation right behind the tractor's bow wave, are you?

IMHO, It wasn't your fault, unless you were riding at the raggedy edge of control, into an area of limited downhill visibility (of said obstacle) on a busy run. Sounds like you might have been cutting it a little fine on several counts, but the most biased witness one might imagine called it the other way. Both of you probably learned a few things, and your attitude about the whole experience certainly is admirable. Let's hope it didn't put the girl off of skiing forever (assuming she learned the right things).

[Rob Stevens]

Rusnak v. Walker.

Ziiing.

[leeho730]

True, but...

While skiing at Boyne Mountain Ski Resort, Matt Walker, the uphill skier, collided with Toni Rusnak, the downhill skier. Defendant Walker contended that under Michigan's Ski Area Safety Act (""SASA"), MCL 408.321 et seq., he could not be held liable because skiers assume the risk of a skier-skier collision. Plaintiff Rusnak claimed that Walker should be liable because the SASA also imposes on each skier a duty "not to act or ski in a manner that may contribute to his or her injury or the injury of any other person."

The Court resolved this contradictory language by striking a balance. It recognized that while skiing, "sometimes accidents happen." However, "if it can be shown that the collision resulted from a violation of the Act [by breaching a prescribed duty], than the violator is to be held liable." Thus, a skier in Michigan assumes the risk of being hit by an uphill skier, but if the uphill skier was negligent, he or she may still be liable.

Future litigation from Michigan will likely clarify the extent to which this case will limit liability of uphill skiers who collide with skiers below. Until then, this case tends to indicate the courts will be willing to entertain the affirmative defense that an uphill skier was skiing in control and at his ability level, despite the fact of a collision.

Other states such as Colorado has code etched into the law, i.e., if one breaks the code she breaks the law.

Also...

Snowboarding in a “tuck” may be reckless

Counsel for Plaintiffs: Sands & Associates

Court: Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District

Civil Action No. / Case No. CO47061

Facts

Cassidy North plowed into Teri Lackner when she was skiing at Mammoth Mountain in Mono County, California. Lackner v. North, 135 Cal. App. 4th 1188 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).

was injured when high school racer and expert snowboarder, North collided with her at the bottom of an expert ski trail, Cornice Bowl. Id. at 1194. North, skiing at Mammoth for a high school championship ski race, struck Lackner after descending Cornice Bowl in a “tucked” position and at high speed. Id. at 1195. Lackner was standing still at a flat area used by Mammoth skiers as a meeting place. Id. Lackner’s injuries were extensive, including a shattered ankle, tibia and pelvis fractures, and torn thigh tendons. Id.

Lackner, an expert skier and long time patron of Mammoth Mountain, alleged that North acted recklessly by skiing in a tucked position. Id. North filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that Lackner assumed the risk of collision by participating in skiing and that he did not ski recklessly while descending Cornice Bowl. Id. North asserted that an expert skier, skiing on expert terrain and at a high rate of speed is part of the sport of skiing. Id. at 1198-99. The court held that a triable issue of fact existed because North was an expert snowboarder, aware of the fact that skiing fast into a flat area where people congregate is likely to create a dangerous condition. Id. at 1201.

Additionally, Lackner alleged that Mammoth Mountain “created a dangerous and defective condition that increased the risks inherent in skiing [] by failing to enforce and supervise [race participants using ski runs] and by failing to warn patrons that race participants were permitted to train on ordinary ski runs.” Id. at 1201. Mammoth argued that it had no duty to “eliminate or protect [skiers] from [] collisions.” Id. at 1202. Ruling for Mammoth, the court held that ski areas do not have a duty to protect skiers from collisions, which are an inherent risk of skiing. Id. at 1201. Further, the court stated that Mammoth allows racing on its expert trails and that Mammoth employees have no duty to ask skiers to slow down. Id. at 1202. “That he may have been reckless at the bottom of the run does not alter Mammoth’s duty of care in the absence of evidence mammoth knew or should have known North or other race participants were reckless.” Id. at 1203.

Skiing fast into a resting area may be reckless conduct. Expert skiers may be held to a higher standard because of their knowledge of skiing.

In the end...

The judgment in favor of Cassidy Bodine North on plaintiff's cause of action for negligence is reversed. The appeal from the judgment in favor of Oroville Union High School District is dismissed. In all other *[*52]* respects the judgments are affirmed. Lackner is awarded her costs to be paid by Cassidy Bodine North. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 27(a)(1).) Defendants Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, Darryl Bender, and Chico Unified School District are awarded their costs on appeal. (Ibid.)

http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bcddi&searchTerm=eKee.gUIa.aadj.ebEU&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

Play safe!

Edited February 14, 2012 by leeho730

[Rob Stevens]

Did you even read those cases?

The one I mention makes responsibilty about as ambiguous as David Bowie and totally allows for the downhill person to share the blame.

All the ones you mention aren't comparable. A case from 77? Nobody even know how to turn yet! A guy traversing slowly who gets hit by an overtaking skier? Slam dunk win for the plaintiff. A straight-liner hits a skier, moving at a moderate pace in a predictable turn? Another bad comp. The last one? Yeah right. A guy in a TUCK hits somebody.

They're all so clearly the fault of the uphill skier, I don't know why you'd even bother mentioning them.

"Juries are not going to accept the argument that the plaintiff was carving an unpredictable turn since it is uphill skier's responsibility to spot and overtake safely downhill skiers or carvers".

Says you, Bro.

You don't need the disclaimer. Nobodys going to confuse you for a lawyer!

Faaaak! This is frustrating! If you're an expert, shredding a green or blue run and you cut wildly in front of some rich lawyers 10 year old, breaking them off, I wouldn't want to be you!

[leeho730]

Says the codes, Colorado law, legal cases found on the link. I'm merely stating what they say. In no cases do defendant claim that the plaintiff below was skiing or boarding in an unpredictable fashion. But if you find a case that support your view please post it here. The case you mentioned was because Michigan state law usually do not permits plaintiff seek compensation from the defendants.... But even in the case you mentioned:

http://www.a-mlaw.com/Michigan.shtml

On December 19, 2006, the Conflict Panel of the Court of Appeals issued its opinion for publication in Rusnak v Walker.* The Conflict Panel in Rusnak reversed the Trial Court grant of summary disposition for Defendant and issued a two part holding: (1) Rusnak held that under the plain language of MCL 408.342(2), Plaintiff assumed the risk of being injured by a collision with another skier because the Assumption of Risk provision precisely states as such, without exception.* However, the Rusnak Panel also held that (2) because Plaintiff had produced evidence that Defendant may have violated his duty under the SASA, as well as evidence that those violations may have caused Plaintiff’s injuries, Defendant may still be liable to Plaintiff for “that portion of the loss or damage resulting from that violation” MCL 408.344.* In so holding, the Rusnak Conflict Panel adopted the reasoning in Dale II (also a Conflict Panel interpreting the RSSA) which held that the factually conflicting sections of the RSSA could be read together whereby the skater assumes the risks sets forth in the RSSA Assumption of Risk subsection, but does not assume the risk that another person or entity would violate the RSSA.*

Noteworthy, the Rusnak Conflict Panel noted, “. . . we hold that the SASA Assumption of Risk provision contains clear and unambiguous language, providing in no uncertain terms that a collision between skiers is an obvious necessary danger that adheres in the sport of skiing* [i.e. having noted earlier “without exception”].* The Conflict Panel goes on to state, however, that in a case where a Plaintiff can establish that a Defendant violated one of the specific duties imposed by the SASA, the Plaintiff can still recover damages to the extent that the Defendant’s violation caused the Plaintiff’s injuries.* In further explaining their adopting the Dale II Court analysis, the Rusnak Conflict Panel stated “Hence, the Dale II Court did not rule that a specifically enumerated inherent danger was not “obvious and necessary” if it resulted from another skater’s violation of the Act.* It simply, and we believe correctly, ruled that being injured by another person’s violation of the Act was not an assumed risk.”

In short, if one skies in Michigan and injures someone, she can still be held liable if she is found guilty of skiing unsafely. So I'm afraid this case does not support your argument that downhill person can also share the blame.

No I'm not a lawyer but having two relatives as well as a friend as a lawyer and having me own lawyer do rub on... ;)

Yes you wouldn't want to hit me :)

Edited February 14, 2012 by leeho730

[Rob Stevens]

(Groan)

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

New Zealand??

I thought it was nearly impossible to sue someone there? One of the things I liked about the country (when I was there in the late eighties?

Canada. I certainly hope you are not here to show the USA how to be litigious???

Sorry, I find it odd that the two participants getting the most worked up over this thread are not even in the USA??

[www.oldsnowboards.com]

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.....

Happened in CANADA right? How did this end up a USA Legal bitch fest?

[leeho730]

Rob,

We both have valid points, we just differ in opinions ;) heck, I'm not even sure I'm entirely right, hence disclaimer.

New Zealand??

I thought it was nearly impossible to sue someone there? One of the things I liked about the country (when I was there in the late eighties?

True, the country has universal indemnity insurance called ACC (accidental compensation corporation). It covers sportsmen, doctors, labourers and even military personnel. Sunsurfer will know better than me.

Basically, the state will pay for medical fee as well as other compensations such as loss of income and permanent damages but on the condition that the injured cannot sue anybody, unless the nature of the accident is serious enough to warrant an exemplary damage. One case I know was the rugby player who injured his back while playing sports. His was injured by another player and ended up being paralysed below the waist. No one got sued. Actually he was very cool about it.

I have injured my left shoulder while skiing and ACC said they would cover for the surgery... But I had medical insurance back in Aussie so I had it done in Aussie instead.

I lik the system because in most cases lawyer do not have a chance to get themselves involved. All that is required is the injured to see the doctor (all major commercial ski fields have one) and fill out the form. Simple as that. I like lawyers but I do not like to pay them. One of the main reasons why I ski in NZ instead of Aussie (plus better snow, more ski fields, cheaper lift fees and accommodation and food, although Aussie girls are hotter than Kiwis).

Edited February 14, 2012 by leeho730

[OhD]

Who ever you are...when you behind / uphill follow:

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

Hook a turn on your race board, crossing the entire slope in a high-speed traverse, where you have completely transformed your downhill movement into the cross-slope, without looking and you could be reasonably seen as contravening this point. You have effectively put yourself "behind" in terms of your established direction. This direction change is not momentary, but sustained. This is extremely material!

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

When you create a situation like this, you have put the skier / rider safely trying to pass (as opposed to "blowing by" you), which is allowed, and you have arguably put them ahead of you. In my case, the carver WHO HIT ME, had twice the pace, covered twice the ground and easily had momentum equal to those two factors. You could say he "T-boned" me, as I was hit in the side, while he hit me head on....

"As the "Appallingly ignorant" President of CASI, I would be happy to present this information in a court setting and back in the day, My GM and I would have willingly defended ourselves based on the above. Carvers have to realise that our equipment creates a hazard the writers of the Code did not forsee and which has not been fully expressed in its rules. ..."

--- According to the Canadian Ski Council (http://www.skicanada.org/index.cfm?DSP=Page&ID=91):

"Snowsports can be enjoyed in many ways. At ski areas you may see people using alpine, snowboard, telemark, cross country and other specialized ski equipment, such as that used by disabled or other skiers. Regardless of how you decide to enjoy the slopes, always show courtesy to others and be aware that there are elements of risk in skiing that common sense and personal awareness can help reduce. Observe the code listed below and share with other skiers the responsibility for a great skiing experience.

Always stay in control.

People ahead of you have the right of way...."

Simple. Clear. General - applies to everyone, particularly given the introduction. The site also says "This is a partial list. Be safety conscious." I'd take that to mean that you shouldn't go carving across a whole busy slope, behind rollers, and completely ignoring traffic above you. I object to that meaning that we have to skid downhill in a straight lane so anybody else capable of nothing more sophisticated than that doesn't have to do anything to avoid us. There are certainly times when that is the only smart thing to do (and hope you aren't skidding much slower than somebody much less smart), and that's when it might be best to just HANG IT UP and go hit the bar preparatory to the drive home (..dark humor, just in case anybody didn't get it). If the runs aren't crowded, visibility and conditions are good and one can carve hard while maintaining reasonable control and observe the right of way of anyone downhill, one has a perfect right to do so. If someone comes up behind and wants to pass the onus is on the OP to do so safely. If someone can T-bone you while you are passing them, you clearly didn't plan your maneuver very well or get their attention.

"OhD, if you want to volunteer statements like "Practically, we do indeed have to watch our back" you really put a bullet in your whole presentation, as you recognize that you are doing something different, that is potentially unsafe and requires extra vigilance. Vigilance against what? Again, if I have to answer that, you too need to HANG IT UP."

Everyone needs to watch their back these days. Sure, carvers get hit from uphill, but so do daunting numbers of skiers, boarders, patrollers, instructors, people standing in liftlines, and on and on. It's risky out there for anyone doing anything, and while the Code clearly places the onus on the overtaking party to avoid collisions it can't protect you from people who aren't aware of their responsibilities, who don't care to observe their responsibilities, who have screwed up in spite of good intentions and lost control (who hasn't?), or who think they are sufficiently hot, important or well connected that they can simply yell and demand the right of way when overtaking, and haul anyone who objects before their boss to have the local interpretation of the code explained by someone who could clip their pass and banish them from the hill to protect his/her staff.

I got hit from behind twice in as many weekends a couple of seasons back, both times in perfect visibility, good grooming, wide open runs (at least 50 yards to the nearest tree in any direction, on the big open face above the base lodge at White Pass) while doing a series of big carved GS turns (not at all hooky). In both cases witnesses said the skier who hit me was going fast ( I knew that...) didn't appear to be under very good control, and had plenty of opportunity to see me and avoid me. The second hit (by a teenaged boy) cost me a serious shoulder rebuild. If I were a litigious a-hole (and he hadn't been apologetic, stayed to confer with the responding patrol, and been pretty shaken up by the experience himself) his parents might have had to contend with my insurer, and the accident reports we filed would have left them without a leg to stand on. I don't know why my insurer didn't go scouting around for someone to help with the bill, but they didn't. Anyway, the year of pain has somewhat colored my attitude about the issue and I don't think it is at all constructive to try qualifying a perfectly clear and succinct Code. More enforcement of it might be a good idea (or not, depending on whether the enforcers take it upon themselves to qualify it).

Turning used to be considered good style, and the NSAA video on the Code (

) states that "We control our speed by making lots of turns." Maybe it's different in Canada, or at least in Banff. (For the record, I've ridden or skied at 14 resorts in BC and AB, not including Banff, over the last 40 years without any memorably unpleasant encounters and with innumerable pleasant ones.)

Sorry about the rant and a degree of flaming, but this thread is NOT lame - it is a serious subject and useful to keep us all conscious of safety. The subject comes up repeatedly in the Forum, and at 109 posts in a week it is clearly a matter of considerable interest to many of us.

It might be a good idea to open a discussion of how to safely pass another carver, or a fast or erratic rider/skier. Anybody have any good ideas or know of a relevant thread?

[philw]

It might be a good idea to open a discussion of how to safely pass another carver, or a fast or erratic rider/skier. Anybody have any good ideas or know of a relevant thread?

I thought it was done to death, but you're suggesting looking at it from the other perspective, which may have more life in it.

Clearly some people will cut in front of you as you're trying to overtake, for whatever reason.

Some ideas for avoiding those who believe they have the right to cut across your path without looking:

- If you see anyone carrying a rule book, do not under any circumstances let them get in front of you.

- Ride really fast, so that they will bounce off you if they try to knock you off track. This works in swimming pools, where side-to-side swimmers often forget to check for those of us doing laps. The stronger swimmer usually wins. I start polite, but if they really want to swim through me, then I'm a strong swimmer, so stay away. I have had various people bounce off me on cat tracks, so there's mileage in this.

- Obviously try to get as far away from people who ride like this, carvers or otherwise, as possible. Thinking about it, it'd be dangerous to ride with a friend with this attitude - do any of the "by the rules" people ride with friends, and how does that work for you?

- Carry a fog-horn, and use it prior to the overtaking move. The problem with this is that even though they'll know you're there, they may insist on their constitutional rights to turn in front of you, so this may in fact be counter productive.

- Try to track them from behind, and as they make a turn in one direction, straight line in the other. This is in fact the standard approach for ski-schools or novices who insist on traversing side to side down black runs. The catch is that they often never turn, just reaching the opposite side of the slope in order to fall or stop. My success at navigating past these people is not good. Sometimes you can cut the ski-school line, although that feels rude.

Perhaps I'm not trying hard enough. But really the chaps who do this "cut across the slope without looking" thing need to help - how do people overtake you?

[Zone]

For Canadian travelling to US resorts: how do you cover yourself against all those lawyers above? Do you buy extra insurance?

[leeho730]

how do people overtake you?

With lots of money, just in case ;) 2.4 millions for career ender!*

*based on US dollars, in 1993, not adjusted for inflation.

[kieran]

- Try to track them from behind, and as they make a turn in one direction, straight line in the other. This is in fact the standard approach for ski-schools or novices who insist on traversing side to side down black runs. The catch is that they often never turn, just reaching the opposite side of the slope in order to fall or stop. My success at navigating past these people is not good. Sometimes you can cut the ski-school line, although that feels rude.

welcome to cairngorm.

fortunately the snakes are rarely so large that a class is a full sine wave in length, so with some judicious timing, one can sweep around the outside of the tail as they make their inward turn and by mostly following the fall-line, safely make it past the snake without cutting off its head.

[softbootsurfer]

When you start! anyone or thing Downhill from You, is your responsibility to avoid... End of Conversation!If you do not agree with this statement for any reason, Stay Home! or at least away from the local Ski Areas and especially away from MeThank You

[dano]

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.....

I say keep it simple: CARVE PARANOID. I always assume everyone else on the hill is a complete fool.

Regarding the video: (I'm usually on BOL from a server with no sound at work)

It sure looked like that dumbass skier was staggering over to the carver to finish him off with a double tap!

I would have been swinging my board like a battleaxe!

[lonbordin]

Add gyroscopically controlled turn signals to this jacket... good to go!

Click on the image for the flashy effect!

:D

Important Note: I ride with this under my jacket...

Two reasons: 1) Just had my shoulder put back together 6 months ago (Separation Type 3, Torn labrum, damage head of bicep) 2) All the out of control folk at my local hill... there are far too many of them!

Edited February 14, 2012 by lonbordin
added reality

[carvedog]

Add gyroscopically controlled turn signals to this jacket... good to go!

Click on the image for the flashy effect!

:D

I like.

[sic t 2]

Important Note: I ride with this under my jacket...

Two reasons: 1) Just had my shoulder put back together 6 months ago (Separation Type 3, Torn labrum, damage head of bicep) 2) All the out of control folk at my local hill... there are far too many of them!

hmmm.. nice.

I guess, from motocross, I'm more concerned with my femur sticking out of my riding pants (seen more than my fair share of those accidents on the track). that's why I look uphill A LOT if I am riding like a jerk (ie; consuming the whole slope with no regard to anyone upslope of me).

one thing I have learned from this complex thread... deny, deny, deny and deny again. "I was just riding down the slope sir and I was hit from behind:.

2nd thing I have learned: if the victim has a GoPro on his helmet. smash it! its the only thing that could make you lose in court.

[lafcadio]

WASMAN,

I share your pain (literally). Today I had practically the same thing happen to me. I felt like I was tackled from behind by the skier. Never saw him coming, not even a split second before impact. And I must be one of the most paranoid carvers out there -- to the point where I suspect that constantly looking over my shoulders has affected my ability to progress.

Luckily I was not hurt (although hours later my neck is now really stiff); neither was the skier. What really bothers me is that it's so incredibly obvious that people either do not know the code or do not understand it. I used to remember seeing the Skier's Responsibility Code printed on the back of lift tickets, on signs in the lodge, and even on lift towers. Not anymore. Do they even teach it to beginning skiers/snowboarders?

The skier who hit me (45-50 year old man) charged me with "turning right in front of [him]." He also admitted that the only way he could have avoided me was to vere off into the mogul field. To which I told him he could have waited 30 seconds for me to clear the trail before starting downhill.

Just before this incident, I waited at the top for about two minutes for an 8 year old girl on skis to make her way down the steep section... very slowly and transitioning across the whole trail width. I was not bothered by waiting, but I was holding my breath because I knew others would not be so patient. Lucky for her nobody else was around but me. That is until I took my turn.

[EVLCarver]

Killer video Buddy. Sure is a good advertisement for the camera. You never know when video like this could come in handy. See you on the slopes