digger jr Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Can someone post a larger pic of the responsibility code to read. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Guy... Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 See, now we're getting into the legal side of things. This varies from state to state and especially country to country, but here in the US, most states have civil codes that charge individuals with the duty to use due care to avoid injuring others, and they may be held liable if their careless actions injures another person or damages property. That's where the code will come in to play. It is not binding law, but it is backed up by laws on the books and by precedence. Many years ago, a friend of mine was studying law and had an interest in personal injury, and was studying skiing cases. We talked at great length about this subject and as I remember, the things to keep in your head are this: The downhill skier always has the right of way and if you, as someone coming from uphill, hit them, you are liable. Unless... -They enter a trail and fail to yield to you -They are stopped behind an obstacle that would prevent someone traveling at a reasonable speed for the conditions the time to avoid them once seen. -They are traveling perpendicular to the fall line of the trail. That last one applies to us because if we're out nailing C turns and get drilled at the transition, it's our fault. I remember those points specifically because those are the ones that he said have held up in court and are the most common in cases. They're also the most common situations you'll encounter with other skiers. He talked about trails merging some and as I recall, if there is a trail merge, the right of way is defined by which way the "trails merge" sign is pointed. If it's readable from the trail you're on, you need to yield to anyone coming down the trail you're merging into. Signage is the responsibility of the resort. If there is no sign and something happens, the resort can be held liable, but there have been some cases where the skier was held liable. Liability extends beyond personal injury and also covers equipment. Example- the current thread on here where the fellow had his brand new (and I must say, stunning) Virus damaged by a drunk skier. Had he taken the skier to small claims court (I would have, given the skiers lackadaisical attitude and the expense, rarity and age of the board), he probably would have gotten a new board out of it. I find law moderately interesting when it applies to things I enjoy, but the more I read about it, the more it pisses me off that we live in such a litigious society. Then again, with the ever prevalent "not me" mentality, I understand why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Guy... Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Can someone post a larger pic of the responsibility code to read. Thanks I just clicked on it and it went full screen. Does it not do that for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teach Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 If you turn unexpectedly in front of me then I'll have to avoid you. Yup. And this happens ALL THE TIME. If you were to treat this any other way in an alternative "skiers' code" you'd have to distinguish "expectedly" from "unexpectedly". I could think "wait up, does this person have the 'right; to do that, and then crash into you or not depending on what the 'rules' say is 'right'. The same goes for driving; your point being what? How do I tell if you just started off (in which case I can mow you down), or if you're doing a long slow carve (in which case I can't). It's just irrelevant. Just like driving: you avoid a collision if you can. The question is whose pass gets pulled, who pays for the damage in case there was a collision, etc. So yes, it's irrelevant to your decision-making in the heat of the moment. Again, your point is what? If I turn unexpectedly in front of you, or if you're just not great, then you'll crash into me. Yes, if the Skiers' Code is not something you've thought about. Hence this thread and the others like it. This is why the Skiers' Code exists, I imagine. The problem is to get people to think about it. They won't do that if they've never seen it. II could wave these boy scout rules at you from my hospital bed, but I reckon it's actually easier to look where I'm going. Total straw man here. No one advocates "not looking where you're going". That would be like crossing the street in the crosswalk without looking. Even though the law says a pedestrian in the crosswalk has the right-of-way, even though there are signs to that effect RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET, you still don't do it. It's the same as driving a car. You could drive as if all the other drivers obeyed all the rules all the time. I think I did that when I was 17. Now I know better, and I'm much safer for it. My mum would be pleased I finally grew up, in some respects at least. Driving a car in a crowded parking lot, maybe. There the "rules" are a lot less well known. Think about how much less safe driving would be without "rules of the road". For example, I don't stop or even slow down for green lights. I trust the crossing traffic to stop at their red light, allowing me to continue. That works because all are aware of this rule, and everyone knows that everyone else follows it. What if you didn't believe that? Have you ever been at an intersection where the traffic lights didn't work? That's a great way to spend a half hour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael.a Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 The downhill skier always has the right of way and if you, as someone coming from uphill, hit them, you are liable. Unless... -They are traveling perpendicular to the fall line of the trail. This was specifically brought up when I was doing my instructor course. According to the FIS Code of Conduct (adopted by many resorts) the downhill skier has the right of way no matter what direction they are moving in, including uphill. FIS had to specify in minute detail what they meant with #3 and #4 in the code due to a variety of lawsuits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b0ardski Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 the look on the face of someone uphill of me when I carve uphill at them... priceless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) 23 years of hardbooting, never been hit. I wait for breaks in the traffic before starting downhill. I point with my hand before making an irregular turn, or I don't make irregular turns if I know people are right behind me. Probably also has something to do with the generally somewhat higher caliber of skier/rider that is willing to spend the extra time in the car to drive past other resorts in order to get to the one I ride. Lots of skiers here are carving round turns now, it's great. I do wonder though, it seems like in a carver vs. skier-from-above collision, the carver usually wins? We are already low and coiled for a good hockey check. I admit I am morbidly curious to have this happen to me to see how it plays out. I did once have an old-timer yell at me from behind to "get out of the way", heh. Edited March 3, 2015 by Jack Michaud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 That last one applies to us because if we're out nailing C turns and get drilled at the transition, it's our fault. Wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) the look on the face of someone uphill of me when I carve uphill at them... priceless Actually in that situation it's on both of you to avoid a collision. The code says "people ahead of you have the right of way", not "people downhill of you". Since you're both ahead of each other, you're both bound by rule 1, stay in control, you must be able to stop or avoid other people or objects. Edited March 3, 2015 by Jack Michaud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordmetroland Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Since you're both ahead of each other, you're both bound by rule 1... Is this the quantum mechanics addendum to The Code? This makes my head hurt. I think part of the aggravation is that even when people know they were responsible for a crash or are informed they were responsible for a crash, they often refuse to take responsibility for the crash. That's an altogether different issue from interpreting the fine points of The Code. A couple years ago, I nearly bisected an older skier. I was going very fast, hugging the left hand side of the run. There was only me and her. She was making predictable, slow speed slalom turns near the edge, but not against the trees. I had plenty of room to pass on the left and was tracking her turns to time my pass, but she completely deked me out by not transitioning out of her leftward turn back to the right. She keep drifting toward the left and I did too, trying to squeeze between her and the trees. I had one of those third person experiences where I'm watching this happen and saying to myself, "when is she going to turn? When is she going to turn?" She didn't. I hit the brakes hard, just before going through her like a pavement saw. Startled by the sound, she turned around and fell over. I skidded on my rear, ending up in a tree well. Being uphill from her, I knew it was my fault. At the same time, I was angry and embarrassed and wanted to chuck some of the blame on to her (I mean, honestly, after making such a string of nice turns, what possessed you to erratically fling yourself over to the edge?). I meekly apologized and asked if she was alright, but could not wait to remove myself from the scene. I suspect adrenaline got the better of me, and probably does with most people who "protest too much" when they're clearly in the wrong. Happily, she lived! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowrider Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) Most of these situations seem to be on sparsely populated slopes by adrenalin junkies. Glad I don't include (I mean admit ) myself as one. At least not publically. Have fun and stay safe everyone only a few weeks left of the season. Edited March 3, 2015 by lowrider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwavedave Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Code says "people ahead", but in the video on the NSA website the narrator says "downhill". I think "ahead" implies "downhill" as that is the direction we are generally going. It certainly acknowledges that we do not have eyes in the back of our heads. I am always cranking my head around to look uphill for people coming up on me as well as trying watch where I'm going. http://www.nsaa.org/safety-programs/responsibility-code/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b0ardski Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) when carving uphill speed is rapidly decreasing and it's easy enough to avoid the oncomer, you can see'em coming. the crouched stance is a power position; the one major collision I've been in was with a good friend and fellow carver at an impromptu gathering. He's regular, I'm goofy, I started 1st, laid a toeside over a roller and around a tree, he was faster and toeside the other side of the tree. We saw each other too late , I moved my head toward the heelside to avoid breaking my nose on his helmet, causing him to smash his nose on my shoulder and we slid 20yrds down the hill entwined. fricken scary seeing bloody snow when we stopped. This made me quite nervous carving around others for some time and prompted me to espouse the 3 turn rule at NICE and when riding in a group. 3 turn spacing = no collisions. Edited March 3, 2015 by b0ardski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Guy... Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Wrong. How? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe T Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 when carving uphill speed is rapidly decreasing and it's easy enough to avoid the oncomer, you can see'em coming. I think a simple shoulder check would have been a good idea here! (@ 2:53) http://youtu.be/3sdCZ4L6usQ?t=2m53s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queequeg Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) Regarding the whole "well if you turn suddenly in front of my it's not my fault because I wasn't expecting you to turn" argument: sorry, no. 1. Traveling at a speed in excess of your ability to stop, maneuver or react to new circumstances on the slope immediately and as they develop is the very definition of being out of control. Many skiers/snowboarders confuse the ability to remain upright with actual control ... this has bit me in the ass in the past more than once. I've since learned my lesson. 2. If you are following so closely behind somebody that you are unable to react to a sudden change of direction loss of momentum or other change: you are following too close, or moving too fast for your ability. Most likely: both. Yes it's true that if there are many people who don't play by the rules. And many of us forget how quickly things can go wrong by getting into the habit of taking little risks that eventually culminate in a nasty accident. Despite the rules you have to be defensive and check uphill as often as possible ... but that doesn't excuse careless people from the fact that they are ignoring common sense and known safety rules when they collide with people. Edited March 3, 2015 by queequeg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwavedave Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 I think skiers have an unwritten code where they look at the hill as having lanes, like on a highway, and everyone stays in their own lanes. We look at the hill divided horizontally, leaving space between uphill and downhill riders giving folks lots of room to use hill as they wish below you. Passing only with care and enough room for the unexpected move. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 How? Because everyone must yield to people ahead of them. Any skier/rider who is underway and downhill of another skier/rider has the right of way, no matter what shape/size turns they are making. More and more skiers are carving round turns these days, so it behooves everyone to know this. I actually witnessed a near collision between a skier and a carving skier just last weekend. (yes, as I mentioned in another post, in the extreme case where the downhill person is traveling uphill, then it can be argued that both are ahead of each other, and then rule 1 takes precedence.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael.a Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 That Guy, you mentioned your friend studied case law or individual cases in this regard, I'd be very interested in reading any case briefs related to on-slope accidents and determining fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allee Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) There was only me and her. She was making predictable, slow speed slalom turns near the edge, but not against the trees. I had plenty of room to pass on the left and was tracking her turns to time my pass, but she completely deked me out by not transitioning out of her leftward turn back to the right. She keep drifting toward the left and I did too, trying to squeeze between her and the trees. I had one of those third person experiences where I'm watching this happen and saying to myself, "when is she going to turn? When is she going to turn?" She didn't. I hit the brakes hard, just before going through her like a pavement saw. Startled by the sound, she turned around and fell over. I skidded on my rear, ending up in a tree well. Being uphill from her, I knew it was my fault. At the same time, I was angry and embarrassed and wanted to chuck some of the blame on to her (I mean, honestly, after making such a string of nice turns, what possessed you to erratically fling yourself over to the edge?). Honestly, if you'd done this to me, I'd have asked what possessed you to try and squeeze through that gap, when there was an entire run free on the other side. Really, why did you have to do that? If people are going to slow, stop and wait for others or take a break, where are they going to stop? Not in the middle of the run. They're going to pull off to the side of the trail, which is what they're supposed to do. Shooting the line between a rider close to the trees is always a really dumb idea. One, because eventually they're likely to drift that way, and two, because your margin for error has just decreased to zero when there's forest involved. I've had this happen to me a couple of times, where I've been carving and then pulled over, and had a skier blow right by me on the blindside yelling abuse. Not kosher. Edited March 3, 2015 by Allee 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 IMHO Phil, it does exactly Define what is required to Ski or Snowboard safely. If that was true then we would not need courts and lawyers. Worst, we could ride in a way which is inconsiderate and dangerous to others, so long as we're the downhill rider". That would be absurd, which is why we have those courts and stuff, because "rule" things aren't enough. If these rules defined things, why are there so many internet debates about who is to blame in snow sport video collisions? Regarding the whole "well if you turn suddenly in front of my it's not my fault because I wasn't expecting you to turn" argument: sorry, no. My own point was that the concept of "fault" itself is leading people into an approach which is not sufficiently defensive. If I'm making wide turns, I look over my shoulder. There's no rule which says I have to do that, but if I don't, I'll end up whining here about the fault of other people. I'd rather just ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordmetroland Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) Honestly, if you'd done this to me, I'd have asked what possessed you to try and squeeze through that gap, when there was an entire run free on the other side. Which would have been a completely valid question and you'd have been right to ask it. In fairness, there was more than enough room to pass. Until there wasn't. At the time, I didn't feel it was a high risk move but clearly it was because I hadn't accounted for all the variables. I'm not defending my choice; had there been a collision it would have been my fault. My point, however poorly articulated, is that even though I knew I would be at fault, I wanted to pass some of the blame onto her for "being unpredictable," probably as a self-protective move. I'm a bit horrified by it, but I'm sure I was embarrassed and scared and a bit angry with myself for doing something stupid, but in the moment, some of that was directed - at least in my head - at the near-victim. I don't trust my ability to predict people's movements quite as much as I used to. By the way, I watched my 7 year-old daughter nearly get smeared in a similar situation just this past week. I try to be very clear with her about making predictable turns, but the guy nearly took her out anyway. Had he come any closer, it would have been his last run. Edited March 3, 2015 by lordmetroland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Most people hate to be wrong, and of those who actually recognize that they are wrong, only a handful have the courage to admit it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allee Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) Which would have been a completely valid question and you'd have been right to ask it. In fairness, there was more than enough room to pass. Until there wasn't. At the time, I didn't feel it was a high risk move but clearly it was because I hadn't accounted for all the variables. I'm not defending my choice; had there been a collision it would have been my fault. My point, however poorly articulated, is that even though I knew I would be at fault, I wanted to pass some of the blame onto her for "being unpredictable," probably as a self-protective move. I'm a bit horrified by it, but I'm sure I was embarrassed and scared and a bit angry with myself for doing something stupid, but in the moment, some of that was directed - at least in my head - at the near-victim. Sorry, maybe that did come across as a bit harsh. But as I said, I've had a couple of close calls with this one, and it just always amazes me why people would take the high-consequence side when there's 100 feet of clear run available one turn away. Maybe staying away from the treeline is my own personal phobia, but it just seems way safer to me. Having said that, I have been hit from behind, hard enough to knock me 50 feet down the slope and half-stupid, and I totally consider it my fault. I started in to a slope, looked over, and saw that my friends were going to head down the joining run to the right, and not straight ahead where I thought we were going. So without checking, or thinking, I threw a heelside turn and headed that way - and got clocked by a skier straightlining off the lift. He was super apologetic, and in theory, he was totally in the wrong - but apart from the fact that I still can't figure how he was going that damn fast only 100 feet from the unload, I take full responsibility for that crash. So the law might be on your side, but sometimes that doesn't tell the whole story. Edited March 3, 2015 by Allee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softbootsurfer Posted March 4, 2015 Report Share Posted March 4, 2015 Philw... where does the Safety Code state what you have said, above in post #46 about a disregard of Others or their Safety is OK ? Here is the Code we use Here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.