Beware of straightlining skiers

[Aracan]

11 hours ago, slapos said:

couldnt agree more - and one would hope that at a ski club a certain etiquette should be taught.

I waved goodbye to that illusion two years ago. I came down a narrow, winding part of the run - a groomed forest road, really, just a connector to the lift. I turned a corner, and in the middle of that run, where it was maybe 15' wide at most, there stood four members of a lokal skiclub, handily identified by their identical outfits, side by side.

I have stopped wondering about people.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

That’s merely an opportunity to lay out a ripping heelside right in front of them to toeside right around them along with a vicious Ric Flair WHOOOO. You needed to carpe that diem

[Jack M]

6 hours ago, Aracan said:

I waved goodbye to that illusion two years ago. I came down a narrow, winding part of the run - a groomed forest road, really, just a connector to the lift. I turned a corner, and in the middle of that run, where it was maybe 15' wide at most, there stood four members of a lokal skiclub, handily identified by their identical outfits, side by side.

I have stopped wondering about people.

shoulda sprayed them.  just kidding.  sort of.

[Jack M]

On 1/12/2024 at 3:54 PM, Rob Stevens said:

This won’t be a popular take, but that’s a decent example of “shared responsibility”.

 If you don’t know that after 2 turns someone pinning it in the fall line will catch up to you, you need to increase your alert level. 

 I can see why he might have thought that was your fault… he was on edge, watching you and trying to steer away. If you had eyes in the back of your head, you would have seen him. My answer is to grow eyes there, rather than have him act for both of you. 
 

 If you don’t know what’s behind you every time you go to the heel edge, you’re asking for it. 

You're right in the sense that carving across the trail is risky if anyone else is above you, kind of like walking through a rough neighborhood wearing a nice suit and a Rolex is risky.  Not looking over your shoulder if there is any amount of traffic is asking for it.  However at the end of the day it is 100% on the people above you to avoid you, and it is 100% on the people in the rough neighborhood to leave you alone.

I've never been taken out from above I believe because I have OCD about timing my starts with lulls in traffic.  I think I'm very good at it.  I will wait several minutes if necessary.  One uncrowded weekday I had a near miss where I looked uphill before starting and there was not a soul except for a skier about 200 yards up.  Every other time that is more than plenty of space.  So I started doing my thing.  Knowing the huge gap I had and that the skier had clear line of sight to me, I did not think I had to shoulder check.  About 100 yards later the skier clips my tail and goes flying past me making a miraculous save on one ski.  I chased.  Turned out to be a young woman, maybe highschool or college age.  She was scared that I had chased her but she apologized. 

I'm not seeing any shared responsibility there.  I think this was a similar situation as @slapos's.

[Rob Stevens]

One day, someone in a heelside turn who can really arc, but either isn’t looking or gets caught by surprise, will get cleaned up like either all of us have had done, of come really close to being. 

In the aftermath, the wrecked party will sue the uphill skier. If the uphill skier has a knowledgeable lawyer, they may have a challenge to make against a law that in this case might have more nuance than the law has previously had applied. 

Our ability to cover an unheard of amount of lateral distance, combined with our blind spot, might make for an interesting case. 

I doubt it’s a win for the uphill skier, but there’s a case in there which at the least, will make lawyers some $. 

Ride on swivel my Friends! Being in the right doesn’t get you your body and mind back if you get destroyed. 
 

 

[Neil Gendzwill]

1 hour ago, Rob Stevens said:

Ride on swivel my Friends! Being in the right doesn’t get you your body and mind back if you get destroyed. 

As my father is fond of saying about driving, "you'd be right.  Dead right."

[Jack M]

We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that case.  I don't think there is one at all.  Clear violation of the NSAA Responsibility Code items 1 and 2.  (Same in Canada)

This reminds me, I was at Winter Park last month for my daughter's mogul competition, and I was kind of surprised by all the billboards on the drive there for lawyers specializing in ski accident injuries.  I don't remember noticing them the last time I was in Colorado.

30 minutes ago, Neil Gendzwill said:

As my father is fond of saying about driving, "you'd be right.  Dead right."

Yeah.  Or, "Sometimes you can choose to be right or you can choose to be happy, but not both."

[softbootsurfer]

3 times in the last 6 years, always the same, twice knocked out, the 1st neck injury took 1.5 years pf PT, home exercises and finally Direct pain shots to fix...People straightening on Wes B, seriously or last one One on Ridge trail...Beginners trails All, the one on WesB maybe 50 ft. wide

 

Each time, twice after waking up, told "You Have No Right to Turn like that"   

I literally Snowboard down looking back uphill every other turn, yet, when they Go Straight down next to the trees no less, guessing which way you are gonna go next, then finding out their Guess was wrong...then Blaming You for Turning in their Way...2 of them, the Patrol said, do it again, we pull your ticket, you are a Hazard!!!  

[Jack M]

24 minutes ago, softbootsurfer said:

the Patrol said, do it again, we pull your ticket, you are a Hazard!!!

They said that to you?  If so I would escalate that.

[softbootsurfer]

Sorry No, I called for the Ski Patrol, that was their remark to the Skiers straightlining…

[Odd Job]

Lindsey Vonn likes it near the trees

[Aracan]

I was hit from above only once. It was a low-viz day and there was literally nobody else on the mountain except me and the missus. Or so I thought.

After passing over an edge into the steeps, it turned out that there was at least one other person, a young skier, who was also convinced that he had the mountain to himself. Of course he took advantage of that and the edge at speed. It was a loud crash, and I am still surprised that no one got hurt and nothing got destroyed.

[fluxgame]

On 1/15/2024 at 12:30 PM, MNSurfer said:

Oh, and Ski Team 'liners are terrifying.

Especially when they’re in packs. I got dive-bombed by half a dozen of them the other day. Had no choice but to pull up in the middle of the trail and I still nearly got taken out. 

[Deuxdiesel]

I got hit from behind last weekend at a local area.  The skier was just enough uphill of me on my toe side that I didn't see him until too late.  I was turning to the lift on the right side of the run and he was heading towards the left side and we tangled up.  I ended up with a broken 5th metacarpal, putting the already slow season start to a crawl.  He was very apologetic and helpful, so it was hard to be too mad.  

[Rob Stevens]

17 hours ago, Jack M said:

We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that case.  I don't think there is one at all.  Clear violation of the NSAA Responsibility Code items 1 and 2.  (Same in Canada)

This reminds me, I was at Winter Park last month for my daughter's mogul competition, and I was kind of surprised by all the billboards on the drive there for lawyers specializing in ski accident injuries.  I don't remember noticing them the last time I was in Colorado.

Yeah.  Or, "Sometimes you can choose to be right or you can choose to be happy, but not both."

If you’re plainly disregarding 1 and 4…

[Jack M]

1 hour ago, Rob Stevens said:

If you’re plainly disregarding 1 and 4…

4, yes, you must look uphill before starting downhill.  I'm assuming that.

1, not sure I understand you?

[Rob Stevens]

4 hours ago, Jack M said:

4, yes, you must look uphill before starting downhill.  I'm assuming that.

1, not sure I understand you?

So you get 4… If it’s argued you can’t or didn’t look uphill, then you may have a problem. 
 

With 1, it’s tied to 4… it could be argued that you couldn’t avoid people because you couldn’t or didn’t look uphill. 
 

 Again, I’m not saying the uphill skier would absolutely win the decision, but if I as the defence lawyer had that video and the defendant had the time and money, you might wind up defending yourself at great cost in both money and time. 

[lafcadio]

On 1/16/2024 at 1:58 PM, Jack M said:

I will wait several minutes if necessary. 

This is me also. To the point where I can sometimes (often times?) be annoying to anyone I happen to be riding with. I don't care. I detest wasting the hill on skidding around traffic. I'd rather wait so that I can carve turns the way I want to. 

[Jack M]

5 hours ago, Rob Stevens said:

So you get 4… If it’s argued you can’t or didn’t look uphill, then you may have a problem. 
 

With 1, it’s tied to 4… it could be argued that you couldn’t avoid people because you couldn’t or didn’t look uphill. 
 

 Again, I’m not saying the uphill skier would absolutely win the decision, but if I as the defence lawyer had that video and the defendant had the time and money, you might wind up defending yourself at great cost in both money and time. 

Sure, if you don't look uphill before starting downhill, and then you get plowed very shortly after starting downhill, all bets are off.  But that was not the case in @slapos 's or my situation.  We looked uphill.  But even if we did not look uphill before starting, the collision happened well after we were "established" as the downhill person under way.

 

56 minutes ago, lafcadio said:

This is me also. To the point where I can sometimes (often times?) be annoying to anyone I happen to be riding with. I don't care. I detest wasting the hill on skidding around traffic. I'd rather wait so that I can carve turns the way I want to. 

[philw]

The newest version of the FIS rules (2016) includes a specific clause for those who like to carve uphill. From page 4, paragraph 2:

Quote

The development of carving skis and snowboards allows their users to carve and turn upwards on the slopes. Hence they move opposite to the general downhill traffic. They must, therefore, make sure in time that they can do so without endangering themselves and others.

That seems clear enough.

 

 

If you read the full text you can see the detailed rules are derived from the first rule:

Quote

A skier or snowboarder must behave in such a way that they do not endanger or prejudice others.

As far as I can see that rule still applies even if someone else ignores all the rules.

[Jack M]

2 hours ago, philw said:

That seems clear enough.

Except for a few things.  1, these FIS rules have not been adopted by the NSAA (US resorts) and it seems to me not by Canadian resorts either.  Are they the offical rules in Europe?  Actually I had never seen them until now, because I've never been to a resort that promoted them.  FIS is the governing body of competition, not of the entire sports. I believe FIS enacted these rules so that FIS can take action against a competitor for bad behavior at or adjacent to an FIS event and representing FIS badly.

2, that tertiary comment on rule 5 is contradicted by all 4 rules above it.

3, it's completely vague and open ended.

Are you telling us you look uphill before every carve?

[philw]

21 minutes ago, Jack M said:

Except for a few things.  1, these FIS rules have not been adopted by the NSAA (US resorts) and it seems to me not by Canadian resorts either.  Are they the offical rules in Europe?  Actually I had never seen them until now, because I've never been to a resort that promoted them.  ...

If you read the text of the FIS rules they're explicitly intended as "guidelines" for other organisations to base their rules on. I'm not sure how the FIS and national organizations are structured - perhaps someone here will know that?

To be clear, are you claiming that the FIS rules do not apply in the USA? I have no idea if that's true or not, but it seems unlikely. I'll ask them, but only if you're making an issue of that. 

Most people think they know what "the rules" [of the sport] are, but from the attitudes I see around such things, I'm unconvinced by that. 

Obviously there are contradictory "rules", but the text provides a clear context for people to deal with that, which is not to endanger or prejudice others. It's a much more humble concept that those brandishing their rules like clubs in a fight.
 

21 minutes ago, Jack M said:

Are you telling us you look uphill before every carve?

I didn't say anything about what I personally do. 

If you're asking for advice, I'd say that it's not safe to turn into a space if you don't know what's about to enter it. That's not a rules issue, it's just that I don't want to be hit.

[Rob Stevens]

2 minutes ago, philw said:If you're asking for advice, I'd say that it's not safe to turn into a space if you don't know what's about to enter it. That's not a rules issue, it's just that I don't want to be hit.

If your observation on the above is the following, you may have just lost the case.

Are you telling us you look uphill before every carve?

[dhamann]

[Rob Stevens]

21 minutes ago, philw said:

If you're asking for advice, I'd say that it's not safe to turn into a space if you don't know what's about to enter it. That's not a rules issue, it's just that I don't want to be hit.

This, being “the above”.

So yeah… there’s an argument to be made about having to look before “every” turn. 

It’s only when I stop making that effort (and it is an effort, but that’s what we take on when we ride something so asymmetrical) that this kind of thing happens. 

It’s also in situations like this that precedent is set. While you might argue that the FIS guideline speaks to turning uphill, if it can be shown that the traversing was as or more dangerous (you could argue that once turned uphill, you might now actually spot someone and be able to avoid them), the “code” may be found to not address the reality. 

Hey… just sayin’

Edited January 18 by Rob Stevens