Snowboarder hits kid, kids father punches snowboarder (video)

[Highway Star]

I agree. It's the boarder's fault all the way, no matter how stupid the dad was. The girl did nothing stupid.
The boarder needed to act more responsibly on a crowded slope like this.
He needed to be moving along with the safety of those ahead of him first up in his mind, not his personal pleasure.
Empty or nearly empty slopes are when we can indulge in ourselves, not crowded trails like this.

Thank you for taking the time to post all the screen caps. However, you are not correct about who is at fault. Please re-read what I wrote earlier in the thread:

Here is the skier's code:

Seven Points to Your Responsibility Code

1. Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.
2. People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them.
3. You must not stop where you obstruct a trail, or are not visible from above.
4. Whenever starting downhill or merging into a trail, look uphill and yield to others.
5. Always use devices to help prevent runaway equipment.
6. Observe all posted signs and warnings. Keep off closed trails and out of closed areas.
7. Prior to using any lift, you must have the knowledge and ability to load, ride and unload safely.

KNOW THE CODE: IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

After reviewing the video several times, the snowboarder is properly observing points 1 & 2 of the code. He is able to navigate a long stretch of trail with mixed ablity traffic by giving others enough room and slowing down as needed, while also avoiding the kid who skis into him from the left, which he is not overtaking. He is traveling at an appropriate speed for conditions and traffic, about the same as most traffic, around 15-20 mph. He is in a controlled braking manuver at the time of the collision.

The girl in the teal jacket is not observing point #4, by merging across a trail without looking, and sking directly into someone from the side.

The "father" is can be observed from 4:15 until the collision as NOT properly observing points 3 and 4 of the code, nor is his child. They are stopped in the middle of a trail, and the pair are not visable from above the rollover. Even worse, the father is blocking the view of the child. They do not turn around and look up hill before the father allows the child to move perpendicular to the fall line and into the path of the snowboarder.

I'm not a lawyer, but common sense says that this is 90%+ the fault of the father. The snowboarder is following points 1 & 2 as well as can be as reasonably expected.

 

[WoodCore]

I smell a ski-off brewing! :beer:

 

[Highway Star]

I agree, at the end of the day, he is to 'blame' for the collision, but it's not like he was wildly out of control. But ultimately, the uphill skier is the only one who can really control the outcome, and so, has an added responsibility to ski slow enough or far away enough to avoid collision.

Actually, this is not true. If you are observing points 3 & 4 of the code, it is extremely unlikely that you will be hit by an uphill skier.

Here is the skier's code:

Seven Points to Your Responsibility Code

1. Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.
2. People ahead of you have the right of way. It is your responsibility to avoid them.
3. You must not stop where you obstruct a trail, or are not visible from above.
4. Whenever starting downhill or merging into a trail, look uphill and yield to others.
5. Always use devices to help prevent runaway equipment.
6. Observe all posted signs and warnings. Keep off closed trails and out of closed areas.
7. Prior to using any lift, you must have the knowledge and ability to load, ride and unload safely.

KNOW THE CODE: IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

 

[fbrissette]

But regardless, I don't get the impression he was maniacally out of control. Again, the crash is his responsibility though.

I fully agree with you here. In the end, it is a commonplace type of incident, and it would have stayed that way if the idiot dad had reacted normally.

 

[Cannonball]

This is totally going to be the inspiration for Oliver Stone's next film. I only hope he chooses a less controversial title.

 

[Domeskier]

Too bad boarder didn't have enough reaction time (or skill?) to take out the dad instead.

 

[Gilligan]

1. Always stay in control, and be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.

Even after the vast majority of people in this thread have said that the collisions were the teenage snowboarder's fault, you still blame the little kids? I think you are missing a learning opportunity here.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

Thank you for taking the time to post all the screen caps. However, you are not correct about who is at fault. Please re-read what I wrote earlier in the thread:

Here is the skier's code:



After reviewing the video several times, the snowboarder is properly observing points 1 & 2 of the code. He is able to navigate a long stretch of trail with mixed ablity traffic by giving others enough room and slowing down as needed, while also avoiding the kid who skis into him from the left, which he is not overtaking. He is traveling at an appropriate speed for conditions and traffic, about the same as most traffic, around 15-20 mph. He is in a controlled braking manuver at the time of the collision.

The girl in the teal jacket is not observing point #4, by merging across a trail without looking, and sking directly into someone from the side.

The "father" is can be observed from 4:15 until the collision as NOT properly observing points 3 and 4 of the code, nor is his child. They are stopped in the middle of a trail, and the pair are not visable from above the rollover. Even worse, the father is blocking the view of the child. They do not turn around and look up hill before the father allows the child to move perpendicular to the fall line and into the path of the snowboarder.

I'm not a lawyer, but common sense says that this is 90%+ the fault of the father. The snowboarder is following points 1 & 2 as well as can be as reasonably expected.

This is comedy. First, you thank someone for posting the screen caps and then proceed to blatantly ignore them in your subsequent response. Two points here which render most of you post irrelevant:
1) Girl in the teal jacket was not merging onto the trail - she was on it the entire time, as can clearly be seen from the screen caps. There is no such things as "merging across a trail". There is merging onto a trail from another, but that's clearly not the case here, even if Ms. Teal was swerving L and R across the trail. Pls look up merge in the dictionary and let us know if that fits the definition.

2) Regarding the bolded text about "not overtaking" Ms. Teal. This is also demonstrably false. Ms. Teal is clearly visible in the video higher up on the trail skiing well out in front of the boarder. By approaching and then hitting her, the snowboarder BY DEFINITION had to have been overtaking her. Unless of course he is able to beam directly to her location like Captain Kirk - maybe you can clarify on this point?

 

[jaalvarezjr]

They should have smashed the father across the head w a ski

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[Highway Star]

This is comedy. First, you thank someone for posting the screen caps and then proceed to blatantly ignore them in your subsequent response. Two points here which render most of you post irrelevant:
1) Girl in the teal jacket was not merging onto the trail - she was on it the entire time, as can clearly be seen from the screen caps. There is no such things as "merging across a trail". There is merging onto a trail from another, but that's clearly not the case here, even if Ms. Teal was swerving L and R across the trail. Pls look up merge in the dictionary and let us know if that fits the definition.

2) Regarding the bolded text about "not overtaking" Ms. Teal. This is also demonstrably false. Ms. Teal is clearly visible in the video higher up on the trail skiing well out in front of the boarder. By approaching and then hitting her, the snowboarder BY DEFINITION had to have been overtaking her. Unless of course he is able to beam directly to her location like Captain Kirk - maybe you can clarify on this point?

I'm pretty sure you're not following my arguement. Are you wearing blinders? Do you ski with blinders on? Do you drive with blinders on?

1. Please allow me to define merge, again.....

merge

(mûrj)v.merged, merg·ing, merg·es
v.tr.1. To cause to be absorbed, especially in gradual stages.
2. To combine or unite: merging two sets of data.

v.intr.1. To blend together, especially in gradual stages.
2. To become combined or united. See Synonyms at mix.

4. Whenever starting downhill or merging into a trail, look uphill and yield to others.

Now, in this case, "miss teal" is very clearly merging into the main fall line traffic. She comes from the far left side of the trail, before the turn and rollover, to crossing into the middle of the trail and the main fall line. She had plenty of space to continue her path down the left side of the trail, and should not have merged without looking. The snowboarder is proceeding directly down the fall line, he is the flow of traffic. Here is a good diagram explaining the concept:



Do you merge onto the highway without looking? Do you change lanes (another type of merge, btw) without looking? I'm going to recommend that those of you claiming fault of the snowboarder should try merging into the highway without looking next time, and see where that gets you!

2. Miss Teal is clearly ahead of the snowboarder for about 20 second starting at 3:55, and in fact, they are matching speeds very well. The snowboarder is not making to any effort to pass. I think at this point we should stop and define "overtake":

o·ver·take
ˌōvərˈtāk/
verb
gerund or present participle: overtaking

• 1.
  catch up with and pass while traveling in the same direction. (direction - the line or course along which a person or thing moves.)
  "the driver overtook a line of vehicles"

Miss Teal makes one or two turns on the rollover on the left side of the trail, then cuts right, in an effort to merge with the center of the trail - without looking. In the last second before contact, she is traveling 45 degrees to the fall line, while the snowboarder is going straight down it. Not the same direction, and not overtaking at all. The snowboarder is very, very slowly passing her, however, at contact, Miss Teal is coming at the snowboarder at an angle.

This reminds me of the last time I had contact with someone skiing, sometime in the late 90's at mount snow. I was near the bottom, fairly flat, making consistant small slalom carves on some demo atomic sl:9's. Someone actually skied into me from mostly the side, a bit rear, at an angle......not sure exactly what they were thinking since the carves were small and I had made them consistantly. They fell, I didn't. Since then, I've stopped making turns on flats or runouts. This would be exact opposite of miss teal, where she is not making a consistant turn, which is actually a merge, and should be looking.

 

[tnt]

Not that any of this really matters, but I disagree with that line of thinking. "merging" IMO means from one trail onto another - not from the left part of the trail to the center, or center to right etc....

Not only would 'merging from the left to the center' be impossible to define legally, it leads to an impossible slippery slope argument. What about from left, left of cetner to center left, etc... And also, just how wide are these trails within a trail?

and really, if that becomes the standard for down hill skier having to look up and yield, no one is gonna get to teh bottom of the hill because we're all going to be stopped looking up hill all day.

I really can't say that the boarder here was out of control, but I am quite sure the girl was not out of control, nor did she appear to do anything wrong. If dad and the boy did anything wrong, it's not to look uphill before starting to ski. At the end of the day, I think a cop would call this a no fault accident.

But again, it doesn't really matter.

 

[Highway Star]

Not that any of this really matters, but I disagree with that line of thinking. "merging" IMO means from one trail onto another - not from the left part of the trail to the center, or center to right etc....

Not only would 'merging from the left to the center' be impossible to define legally, it leads to an impossible slippery slope argument. What about from left, left of cetner to center left, etc... And also, just how wide are these trails within a trail?

and really, if that becomes the standard for down hill skier having to look up and yield, no one is gonna get to teh bottom of the hill because we're all going to be stopped looking up hill all day.

I really can't say that the boarder here was out of control, but I am quite sure the girl was not out of control, nor did she appear to do anything wrong. If dad and the boy did anything wrong, it's not to look uphill before starting to ski. At the end of the day, I think a cop would call this a no fault accident.

But again, it doesn't really matter.

Personally, I always look uphill before making a completely random direction change, but then again I don't like to get run into....!

 

[tnt]

Personally, I always look uphill before making a completely random direction change, but then again I don't like to get run into....!

Do you think the girl made a really random turn? It didn't look that way to me, but I only watched it twice.

And what you are describing above - 'merging' from the left part of the trail to the center - doesn't require a random direction change. You could be making nice long GS turns that take you from the center of the trail to the right edge, for example. Your definition of merge would require you to look at yield at every turn into the center, and then out of the center back to the right, no matter how predictable and smooth and steady your turns are. Likewise, making a series of predictible turns, but moving from one side of the trail to the other.

anyway, just arguing to argue really

 

[Highway Star]

Do you think the girl made a really random turn? It didn't look that way to me, but I only watched it twice.

And what you are describing above - 'merging' from the left part of the trail to the center - doesn't require a random direction change. You could be making nice long GS turns that take you from the center of the trail to the right edge, for example. Your definition of merge would require you to look at yield at every turn into the center, and then out of the center back to the right, no matter how predictable and smooth and steady your turns are. Likewise, making a series of predictible turns, but moving from one side of the trail to the other.

anyway, just arguing to argue really

Well yes, if I was going to make the move the girl made, crossing into traffic, I would certainly look up hill. Just like I did several times last time I skied. If I want to make GS turns and use the whole trail, I make sure it is clear, there is no one behind, straightline to get up to high speed, then start turning. If you want to make slow, predictable GS turns on a busy trail, there is nothing technically wrong with that, but you will be hit from behind eventually if you do it enough.

 

[fbrissette]

1. Please allow me to define merge, again.....

Your definition of merging requires looking up and yielding every frickin turn you make.

 

[MadMadWorld]

This thread has become so ridiculous.

 

[xlr8r]

I have notice more resorts (I think Sunday River was the first I saw) put up "Go With The Flow" signs. This seems like a good idea IMO as it is trying to stop people from being erratic in their movements on the mountain. In this case the kid was clearly not going with the flow of the trail, and the flow of the skiers and boards on that trail. He was moving perpendicular to the flow of traffic. IMO wait until it is clear before skiing perpendicular to the direction of the trail and other skiers on trail.

I'm not trying to place blame on anyone as I think this was a equal share between the Father, Child and boarder in this case. Accidents happen on the mountain that really are no ones fault. They happen so quick people cannot react in time. As a motor racing fan, this is what we call a racing incident.

 

[Highway Star]

Your definition of merging requires looking up and yielding every frickin turn you make.

If I'm going to make an erratic move across the fall line, or am stopping, I take a quick look behind me. I normally look behind myself several times per run if I'm not skiing very fast or am hunting for good snow.

 

[MadMadWorld]

I really can't say that the boarder here was out of control, but I am quite sure the girl was not out of control, nor did she appear to do anything wrong. If dad and the boy did anything wrong, it's not to look uphill before starting to ski. At the end of the day, I think a cop would call this a no fault accident.

But again, it doesn't really matter.

I am a police officer and there is no such thing as a no fault accident. There is no fault insurance coverage for medical bills but that really has nothing to do with who's to blame in an accident. The only thing that removes responsibility from drivers in Massachusetts are "acts of god"....a deer smashes into your vehicle, a tornado destroys your car, etc.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[thetrailboss]

Not that any of this really matters, but I disagree with that line of thinking. "merging" IMO means from one trail onto another - not from the left part of the trail to the center, or center to right etc....

Not only would 'merging from the left to the center' be impossible to define legally, it leads to an impossible slippery slope argument. What about from left, left of cetner to center left, etc... And also, just how wide are these trails within a trail?

and really, if that becomes the standard for down hill skier having to look up and yield, no one is gonna get to teh bottom of the hill because we're all going to be stopped looking up hill all day.

I really can't say that the boarder here was out of control, but I am quite sure the girl was not out of control, nor did she appear to do anything wrong. If dad and the boy did anything wrong, it's not to look uphill before starting to ski. At the end of the day, I think a cop would call this a no fault accident.

But again, it doesn't really matter.

Agree. Merging, as used in HS's own diagram and the code, implies that one is coming from one trail onto another. Not that she is on one trail and traverses from side-to-side. If she was coming off of a side trail then yes, it's a merge.