carver vs non carver perspective

[icebiker]

Thankfully, despite riding mainly on the crowded ice coast, I have had few such encounters. This is largely because if I sense oncoming traffic I pull aside, let the crowd by, then carry on.  However, as with most things in life, education is key.  Sadly no one reads the code...they buy their ticket, hit the lift and go rip.  Given that people in the lift line are a captive audience, often staring in front of them as they watch the line inch forward,  me thinks we could facilitate the education process by a simple sticker on the back of of our helmets that addresses the core aspect of the code in this case and reads "Know the code: Riders downhill of you have right of way"   

 

[softbootsurfer]

Charlie don't Surf...

[Eboot]

So this is a different perspective.  Was on a lift with a softbooter who was complaining about incompetent riders in his track when he was riding fast and a near miss he had just had coz a ski instructor suddenly pushed backwards on his poles (must have been pretty close when trying to pass). I discussed the code and up mountain responsibility which he agreed to after some thought but then added this: " ... but it's Darwinism.  If you get hit from behind when you are on a slope that you shouldn't be on, you have it coming, and I don't have any sympathy."

[John E]

This may be off topic but has anyone employed a "dash cam" device like on the back of their jacket or helmet? This wouldn't prevent a collision but might help establish fault in the event of a collision. There are several billboards along I-70 advertising "ski lawyers". I'm sure that if one could provide proof of fault (better than he-said / she-said) to one of them, they would gladly take the case. Another possible side benefit would be that if everyone knew that there would likely be evidence of their bad behavior, they might think twice about doing stupid stuff. The dash cams are getting really cheap. 

[Aracan]

Okay, I'll bite:

Quote

If you get hit from behind when you are on a slope that you shouldn't be on,

So if I get hit from behind it's my fault because getting hit shows I shouldn't have been there? What kind of rationalization for being an * is that?

[Eboot]

15 minutes ago, Aracan said:

Okay, I'll bite:

So if I get hit from behind it's my fault because getting hit shows I shouldn't have been there? What kind of rationalization for being an * is that?

I completely agree, was just quoting.  The different perspective i referred to was that this wasn't really ignorance, this was kinda deliberate / indifferent.

[jburk]

4 hours ago, Eboot said:

" ... but it's Darwinism.  If you get hit from behind when you are on a slope that you shouldn't be on, you have it coming

this just seems to be self-justifying logic for being an a**hole: "if I hit you, you shouldn't have been on the slope in the first place, and it's OK that I hit you".  That's both breathtaking and frightening...