Snowboarder hits kid, kids father punches snowboarder (video)

[Gilligan]

Snowboarders fault 100%.

The Snowboarder clearly violated the first 2 rules of the code. He was 1) not able to stop in time to avoid other people and 2) he did not yield to the skiers below him. The fact that he hit 2 little kids only makes it worse.

The dad should have taken the boarders name and photo. Hitting him served no purpose.

 

[HowieT2]

I actually thought it was a slap on the side of the head at first. Still inappropriate.

Agreed. upon further review, father was rightfully pissed, because the boarder creamed the kid, but not justified in striking the boarder.
fwiw-think the boarder should have gotten up and apologized to the kid, made sure he was ok, before taking off.

 

[Mullen]

Snowboarders fault 100%.

The Snowboarder clearly violated the first 2 rules of the code. He was 1) not able to stop in time to avoid other people and 2) he did not yield to the skiers below him. The fact that he hit 2 little kids only makes it worse.

The dad should have taken the boarders name and photo. Hitting him served no purpose.

After he himself violated rule 3 and 4 and then punched the boarder??
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.


FK should have gotten that guys name and picture that I just assaulted

Both are equally to blame

 

[thetrailboss]

OK, a few things.

First, at 2:56 there was a SLOW sign on the trail, but it was pretty far upslope from where the accident happened. I'm quite surprised that there was not a sign in the area where the accident occurred because it seems like a pretty obvious choke point to me...very much akin to the one on Deathspout at Lincoln Peak (Sugarbush). I HATE that trail in early season. It's very hard to tell, but I did not see the snowboarder slow down for the sign or the obvious clusterf&*k that was ahead of him.

That leads me to the second point and that is that he should have slowed down because that choke point is pretty obvious and he did not have enough time to react to the skier who cut in front of him. Though she did come out from the corner of his view, she was slightly ahead of him so she did have the right of way. I don't think that she was starting off. That said, I have had this happen so many times to me that it scares the shit out of me. I would have instantly slammed on the brakes....it looked like he pushed off her and straightlined into the kid.

As to the Dad...as a relatively new Dad with a two year old daughter that kid's cry really set me off and made my blood boil. It's pure instinct. I would be floored and probably would have reacted the same way...sans the punch I would hope. Dad and son seemed to be pretty stationary and on the middle or side of the trail. Hindsight is 20/20, but I would have tried to be on the edge but then again with a kid you stop where you stop. He was pretty obvious from above and not in a blindspot...just in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

So I think that the boarder was just going too fast. Maybe it's hindsight, maybe not. Teens just don't really understand or appreciate how fast they are going. I bet that he will slow down from now on.

 

[thetrailboss]

Agreed. upon further review, father was rightfully pissed, because the boarder creamed the kid, but not justified in striking the boarder.
fwiw-think the boarder should have gotten up and apologized to the kid, made sure he was ok, before taking off.

I reacted the same way. I did hear him ask if the kid was OK, but I understand why he did not stick around and it was because he got belted.

 

[Highway Star]

How was he following point 2 ????? He plowed into a kid moving at 2 miles per hour !!!

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

There is at least a minute of video which clearly shows the "snowboarder" following this rule to the standards of any reasonable person. The "father" egregiously violates points 3 & 4, causing the collision.

 

[Glenn]

Tough call. The dad didn't help his cause by belting the guy over the head with a ski.

 

[C-Rex]

As I've said before, sometimes accidents just happen. Everyone is always trying to assign blame when sometimes both parties have respectful intentions but unforseen things lead to an incident. I think that's the case here. The snowboarder was forced to avoid the girl and in doing so found himself in a situation where he wasn't able to stop or turn in time to avoid the kid. It's hard enough to try to predict the actions of a persons next move, but predicting 2 or 3 moves ahead is near impossible. I'm sure the snowboarder will be more careful in the future but I don't think he was being negligent in this case. The dad is a pure dickhead. He should have looked up hill and waited for a more clear time to let his kid go. If you're teaching your kid to ride a bike, you don't just push him into traffic and expect the cars to stop, even if they're going slow. I could understand his reaction if the snowboarder acted like a punk, but he didn't. He tried to see if the kid was ok, and given the chance probably would have apologized. The dad had no right to lay hands on him. Were I in the snowboarders place, I would have been apologetic up until he hit me, then it would have been, as they say, ON.

 

[snoseek]

Just another day on the WROD. What I would do to trade a month in the fall for a month in the spring. Everybody fucked up, the dad took being an asshole to a whole new level, he's lucky he was dealing with nice kids or he would have gotten his ass whooped right in front of his kid.

 

[SnowRock]

How was he following point 2 ????? He plowed into a kid moving at 2 miles per hour !!!

Thats the thing.. when I am first to pull out at a red light on any of the major local highways, I usually look to see if cars in both directions are in fact stopping. My wife sometimes doesn't and I get on her for it all the time. They have the red light but what does that mean?

Should uphill yield to downhill and should skiers/boarders always be in control... YES. But I never would assume that is the case. Starting a kid out from a dead stop in the middle of a busy trail and sending him directly into the path of someone is kind of dumb. I don't think that the intent of the code.. to test someones ability to avoid a collision by sending your kid out directly in front of his path. I still think the boarder was cutting things a bit to close but find as much fault with the dad for the incident.

 

[HowieT2]

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

There is at least a minute of video which clearly shows the "snowboarder" following this rule to the standards of any reasonable person. The "father" egregiously violates points 3 & 4, causing the collision.

with all due respect, I dont know what video you're watching. the little kid is inarguably downhill from the boarder and is barely moving, if he's moving at all.
just because the boarder didnt hit anyone in front of him in the minutes before the incident, doesnt in any way absolve him of responsibility for plowing into a little kid in his way.

 

[thetrailboss]

with all due respect, I dont know what video you're watching. the little kid is inarguably downhill from the boarder and is barely moving, if he's moving at all.
just because the boarder didnt hit anyone in front of him in the minutes before the incident, doesnt in any way absolve him of responsibility for plowing into a little kid in his way.

Agreed. Was going to say the same thing.

 

[Sky]

My two cents....Sorry the little boy got smucked...the amount of traffic in what appears to be a "choke point" in the trail, the various speeds of the participants (to include the little girl coming in from the left), and the Dad/son combo stopped on the narrowed trail ALL scream caution to the uphill participants (was ther a "slow" or "caution" sign as well?).

DOwnhill skier has the right of way (tha accounts for the little girl) and the snowboarder "probably" could have seen her (his cam was on the right of his helmet...peripheral vision should have given him (and us) more info). Dad should have realized he (and son) were stopped in a really bad spot (choke point) and definitely should have looked uphill for a safe time to restart (too lazy to check, but pretty sure there's a code point to be made here...like trail merge or something).

Judging from (and accounting for video interpretation) the clip...the snowboarder wasn't traveling that fast (fortunately). Still, the crowding and the choke-point etc scream (to me) slow down to a crawl. Does the trail sign indicate GREEN? Pardon my ignorance, maybe this trail is "carrying" multiple trails' worth of traffic (and ability). If so, even more caution is warranted.

Sort of reminds me of skiing with my wife and daughter on Nor'easter @ Killington. Carrying so much other traffic, crossing trails of higher difficulty...just a bad mix.


Beyond that, what I would have done..or any of us I suppose...it our business. Angry Dad card doesn't play in court...funny and true.

 

[thetrailboss]

And maybe it's just me, but it looks like his intended path would have taken him right into the kid and Dad regardless of the girl cutting in front of him.

 

[dlague]

Thats the thing.. when I am first to pull out at a red light on any of the major local highways, I usually look to see if cars in both directions are in fact stopping. My wife sometimes doesn't and I get on her for it all the time. They have the red light but what does that mean?

Should uphill yield to downhill and should skiers/boarders always be in control... YES. But I never would assume that is the case. Starting a kid out from a dead stop in the middle of a busy trail and sending him directly into the path of someone is kind of dumb. I don't think that the intent of the code.. to test someones ability to avoid a collision by sending your kid out directly in front of his path. I still think the boarder was cutting things a bit to close but find as much fault with the dad for the incident.

sending him directly into the path of someone is kind of dumb .... Correct! The dad in this case - being older and wiser (maybe not) should have looked back before continuing his son. I clicked through it frame by frame and the father and child were clearly stopped. If you are not looking back to see traffic, then at least start your kid down hill in front of you!

Maybe the dad was upset at himself and took it out on the snowboarder? Is the dad afraid that his wife will rip him a new one and never let the kid go skiing again? The assault should not have happened!

 

[DPhelan]

the part where he swings the ski reminds me of that old volant ad(scene in something about mcconkey) where mcconkey slices everybody in front of him for 1st chair with a ski

 

[MadMadWorld]

On a side note.....that was a pretty awesome flip at 1:06

 

[MEtoVTSkier]

Didn't hit him with a ski... pretty plain to see in fullscreen, switched the ski from left to right hand and smacked him open palm. The 2 girls on his left (turquoise top/white pants, pink top/white pants) coming down the trail were slightly ahead of him most of the way down going about the same speed. You can see where they came back to the right after just passing the Patroller pulling the sled @ 4:10, to the center of the trail, when they were mostly skiing on the left side most of the way down. Definite choke point there right as they all passed the Patroller, probably should have been another Slow sign just above that drop. I'm thinking that the little boy was already slightly moving, not starting from a dead stop... but that's just the way it looks to me. I say the kid took off before Patrol pulled up for whatever reason.

 

[thetrailboss]

Didn't hit him with a ski... pretty plain to see in fullscreen, switched the ski from left to right hand and smacked him open palm. The 2 girls on his left (turquoise top/white pants, pink top/white pants) coming down the trail were slightly ahead of him most of the way down going about the same speed. You can see where they came back to the right after just passing the Patroller pulling the sled @ 4:10, to the center of the trail, when they were mostly skiing on the left side most of the way down. Definite choke point there right as they all passed the Patroller, probably should have been another Slow sign just above that drop. I'm thinking that the little boy was already slightly moving, not starting from a dead stop... but that's just the way it looks to me. I say the kid took off before Patrol pulled up for whatever reason.

I was wondering what happened after he left since there was a patroller right there.

 

[Domeskier]

For crying out loud, the kid was barely moving. How hard was it to avoid him ???

Whether or not the snowboarder could have avoided the collision has no bearing on idiot dad's negligence.