Whos fault?

[tjf67]

We have a winner !!!

Who made you the judge anyway?

 

[mondeo]

Says it happened at an education camp.. nothing about a closed course.

Who said it was?

 

[wa-loaf]

Who said it was?

The person who posted the video on youtube.

 

[mondeo]

The person who posted the video on youtube.

I try to avoid reading anything on Youtube. It makes Facebook and internet forums look like the Paris salons of old.

 

[snafu]

Funny how the real issue here gets clouded by rider/skier biases, generational gaps etc. Just who's fault is it? Well, just looking at the video in and of itself with no other context(which in of itself is ridiculous, but hey I'll play along) its the person who was in back's fault.

 

[Geoff]

At fault or responsible? Different questions.

Responsible? The boarder, cut and dry, per The Code.

At fault? Boarder, skier, and whoever put that training course there. There's a reason race courses get fenced off, when you're training or racing the natural tendancy is to focus less on your surroundings than normal. There should at least be signage warning approaching skiers to stay clear of the course. If there was nothing, then ok, beginner skier doesn't know any better, pretty much off the hook, but somone screwed up in not providing warning. If there was some signage, then the skier didn't pay attention to it, but there still could have been more done to seperate the training course from the general skiing public.

Reality isn't as black and white as The Code might suggest.

This is nonsense. Resorts don't rope off areas for instructor clinics. You should see Killington midweek in December when all those clinics are going on. The ski instructor clinic is giving standing around lessons. The snowboarder instructor clinic is giving sitting around lessons. They totally ignore any rules of the road and are a complete menace. There is no barrier to entry to taking an instructor clinic other than the clinic fee. An awful lot of them don't have the skills of the average midweeker recreational skier. They come from feeder hills and are logging the clinic week so they can go back to their home hill and teach never-nevers. Little surprise that some people in a snowboard instructor clinic lack the basic skills to avoid somebody below them.

 

[snafu]

Funny how the real issue here gets clouded by rider/skier biases, generational gaps etc. Just who's fault is it? Well, just looking at the video in and of itself with no other context(which in of itself is ridiculous, but hey I'll play along) its the person who was in back's fault.

Actually after seeing who started this thread I change my mind. It was the skiers fault. Trolling troll is a f'ing troll.:smash::uzi::flame:uke::evil:

 

[mondeo]

This is nonsense. Resorts don't rope off areas for instructor clinics. You should see Killington midweek in December when all those clinics are going on. The ski instructor clinic is giving standing around lessons. The snowboarder instructor clinic is giving sitting around lessons. They totally ignore any rules of the road and are a complete menace. There is no barrier to entry to taking an instructor clinic other than the clinic fee. An awful lot of them don't have the skills of the average midweeker recreational skier. They come from feeder hills and are logging the clinic week so they can go back to their home hill and teach never-nevers. Little surprise that some people in a snowboard instructor clinic lack the basic skills to avoid somebody below them.

Let's say there was a serious injury, and this went to court. Do you really think it would result in a summary judgement for the skier with the snowboarder being held 100% at fault? No way. There would be suits against the resort from both parties, and originally a suit against the boarder by the skier with a counter suit against the skier. Likely, the snowboarder would be deemed to bear the brunt of the fault, possibly with resort gettiing some fault for not setting up reasonable protections for an event like this. But the skier also wouldn't get 100% of the damages (depending on state law, as I understand it,) because they would be somewhat at fault. Maybe only 10% at fault, but the collision could have been easily avoided if the skier was not on the training course.

Let's go to a car analogy. Say you've got three cars, one going 150mph, one going 60mph, and one going 55. The 150 car comes screaming along, and a second before it's about to pass the other two, the 60 moves into the passing lane and gets creamed. The guy going 150 is going to get nailed, and hard. But if justice is fully carried out, the guy going 60 will be assigned some small amount of fault for an unsafe lane change.

At Whistler this summer, the set up was, coming onto the glacier, some groomer space, a couple bump lanes for the Canadian national team and another camp, our freeride lane, and then our bump lanes. The racer camps would be there bright and early, with gates set up, and sometimes the other bump camps would be going already. Going over to our lanes was a long, shallow traverse, so technically we were the downhill traffic as we crossed. But only the completely inexperienced or idiotic would cross the lanes without waiting for the guys uphill. By The Code, had there been a collision, the other party would be responisible. Practically, the guys coming down their lanes should be somewhat aware, but in fairness the fault would be shared.

Everyone wants to point the finger at someone else, no one wants to accept that accidents almost always can be avoided by any of the parties involved paying a little more attention to what's going on around them.

 

[mondeo]

Actually after seeing who started this thread I change my mind. It was the skiers fault. Trolling troll is a f'ing troll.:smash::uzi::flame:uke::evil:

Duh.

 

[wa-loaf]

Let's go to a car analogy. Say you've got three cars, one going 150mph, one going 60mph, and one going 55. The 150 car comes screaming along, and a second before it's about to pass the other two, the 60 moves into the passing lane and gets creamed. The guy going 150 is going to get nailed, and hard. But if justice is fully carried out, the guy going 60 will be assigned some small amount of fault for an unsafe lane change.

Really? You're going to go with this analogy? Is this on a racecourse or something? Because in the real world, and even on the autobahn, the dude going 90mph faster than the flow of traffic is going to be at fault. No way someone going 60 is even going to see the dude going 150 before he starts to pull out.

 

[drjeff]

At Whistler this summer, the set up was, coming onto the glacier, some groomer space, a couple bump lanes for the Canadian national team and another camp, our freeride lane, and then our bump lanes. The racer camps would be there bright and early, with gates set up, and sometimes the other bump camps would be going already. Going over to our lanes was a long, shallow traverse, so technically we were the downhill traffic as we crossed. But only the completely inexperienced or idiotic would cross the lanes without waiting for the guys uphill. By The Code, had there been a collision, the other party would be responisible. Practically, the guys coming down their lanes should be somewhat aware, but in fairness the fault would be shared.

.

The only problem with that logic and the code, is that you as the person crossing the lane, would be responsible for checking uphill before you cross.

In that video, with both headed downhill, its the overtaking person who has the responsibility to avoid the downhill person, reguardless of the status of the hill their on. Heck, there's plenty of times on a "closed" course (bumps/gates/etc) that there are others inside the ropes on the hill, and from having spent years gate training on "closed" courses it basically went without saying that you still had to pay plenty of attention more than just the gates on the hill

 

[hammer]

Really? You're going to go with this analogy? Is this on a racecourse or something? Because in the real world, and even on the autobahn, the dude going 90mph faster than the flow of traffic is going to be at fault. No way someone going 60 is even going to see the dude going 150 before he starts to pull out.

The key on the Autobahn is to try to go 150 yourself...

Actually, in my limited experience, you didn't travel in the left lane unless you could do at least 200 KPH.

Going back on topic...I'd say that the snowboarder was "at fault" for the collisions but it did look like the skier cut over in front on the second collision. Fail on both.

 

[mondeo]

Really? You're going to go with this analogy? Is this on a racecourse or something? Because in the real world, and even on the autobahn, the dude going 90mph faster than the flow of traffic is going to be at fault. No way someone going 60 is even going to see the dude going 150 before he starts to pull out.

You can't see a car 150 feet behind you?

 

[mondeo]

The only problem with that logic and the code, is that you as the person crossing the lane, would be responsible for checking uphill before you cross.

But there's only one trail. I'm just travelling slowly downhill on the trail, mostly across the hill. The code doesn't distringuish between between what I was doing every morning and a beginner skier crossing a race course that isn't fenced off or someone going completely out of control plowing into the back of someone travelling a moderate pace. That's the problem with trying to apply it rigidly. In the video, the snowboarder absolutely should have avoided the collision. But that doesn't mean that with proper information and awareness, the skier couldn't have avoided a dangerous situation.

 

[wa-loaf]

You can't see a car 150 feet behind you?

That guy going 60 doesn't know how fast you are going. Having done my fair share of Autobahn driving Germans are really good about only being in the left lane if they are passing, but they still will pull out and pass if they need to even if someone is coming. And unless it's a totally flat section someone driving 90+ faster than the rest of the traffic is going to come up really fast and will not likely be seen. If you are driving that fast it's fully your responsibility to be aware of what the people in front of you are doing. Assume they will pull out on you.

Now a more realistic analogy would be overtaking someone going 85 while you are going 120. The guy pulling out does have some personal responsibility to look before pulling out, but if there's an accident and you came up behind him, the law is going to be against you.

 

[polariso]

Merry Christmas

And thanks for all the insults..really shows the mentality of some people.. Quite a few here see a grey area or just dont get it at all!! My point for starting the thread..
If you dont like the message you shoot the messenger..right?
Wow hopefully some of you wake up and realize that going fast or being in a line or whatever the excuse de jour might be, does not make it right!

 

[Cannonball]

Wow hopefully some of you wake up and realize that going fast or being in a line or whatever the excuse de jour might be, does not make it right!

No doubt. There are a lot of crazies out there with this mentality......

My girlfriend (snowboarder) and I will be heading over to the hill around noon.
Watch out because Im fast and I own the mountain!

 

[tjf67]

And thanks for all the insults..really shows the mentality of some people.. Quite a few here see a grey area or just dont get it at all!! My point for starting the thread..
If you dont like the message you shoot the messenger..right?
Wow hopefully some of you wake up and realize that going fast or being in a line or whatever the excuse de jour might be, does not make it right!

There is a grey area that you ignore.

I am going to guess you live in New Jersey?

 

[polariso]

No doubt. There are a lot of crazies out there with this mentality......

You probably didnt get the sarcasm since you quoted my post out of context...nice try though.

 

[polariso]

There is a grey area that you ignore.

I am going to guess you live in New Jersey?

Whats with the personal stuff?