I go around 130 days and on one of those someone is going to run into me...
I look uphill at least on every other turn, especially on Aspen Mt.
Last Season a 50 something straightline Snowboarder came up super fast from behind and just took my legs right out from under me...
He then proceeded to scream at me that I was nuts and was doing these crazy across the hill turns and should be thrown off the mountain as I was a complete hazard! He then jumped up and took off...well I went after him and tackled him from behind to the ground, he looked totally bewildered as to what I was doing... I yelled to a Ski Patrolman who was around 100ft. away luckily... He came over and I explained exactly what had taken place and that he should explain to the SOB about avoiding Downhill skiers and or Boarders when using the slopes.
The fact of the matter is there are people out there who try and guess where you are going to be next on the hill, so that they do not have to slow down while passing...and then when they hit you they blame you for being in the way. These are usually the same people that drink and drive and have never done a Wrong Thing in their life...in the End I have decided I have to look for such people...
but of course, I use the Pseudomorph Style of Snowboarding
I say that because it's so obvious what you should be doing when you're taking up the whole trail. Look uphill on every turn.
Sound hard? It's not, when you're in each turn for the kind of time the OP was.
Truthfully... I'm just so sick of this in the HB world. When you can cover that much lateral distance in such a short period of time AND you're not looking every time, you're asking for it. Expecting your average skier or rider to know what is possible for even the most average HB'er to do is asking too much.
In every case I've ever seen where a HB'er gets hit from behind they were doing a big sweeper, perpendicular to the fall line and had a chance to look, but didn't.
Having ridden both hard and soft boots for awhile now, I can say I've never been hit in SB's. I chalk that up to a more predictable turn shape that isn't surprising to your average snow-slider and my paranoid disposition while shredding.
I have hit a guy in HB's while SB'ing, interestingly enough. I called out from the right 50% of the trail and he hammered his heelside right after. The hook in his turn was stunning... Really nice form, from which I tried to escape, but stood no chance. After we picked ourselves up, he came out of his skin at me. As the director of the SB school, I invited him to come with me to visit the GM, who, with lots of SB race teams training on the hill at the time, saw my side of it more than his. The responsibilty code aside, his view and mine was that it was NOT written with hooky carvers in mind.
This has been said before in this thread and props to those who said it, but what some of you need to understand is that you're carrying as much, or more, speed out of the fall line than when you were in it and can carry that speed across alot of lateral distance. Do this without looking and you're as big a danger as the straight-liners, but get to be indignant about it because you think you have the code on your side.
IMHO, just because someone utilizes more slope space doesn't mean the guy from the above has a right to overtake at the expense of both.
Just slow down or stop. I let others pass and look up before carving and stop when I get close to somebody (whether above me or below me), even during mid-carve. Never had nasty collision. It's really simple to avoid most collisions: be patient. Don't predict the path of the guy below, for we never know how he's gonna behave in the next few seconds. Slow down and observe.
One of the prime example is the guy doing falling leaf turn. Sure, that guy eats up a lot of space, slow and annoying as hell but does that mean if I hit such guy while trying to overtake him the blame goes to both him and I? Nope, the blame should go on me, so I should "man up" and admit my guilt. He paid the lift fee, so he has as much right as me in terms of using the slopes in whichever way he wants as long as he sticks to the code.
Just slow down or stop to give the person below more breathing space. Is it such a hard thing to do? If the guy below takes time to go down, slow down or stop or overtake only when he can be overtaken safely, not because we can go faster than him but because there's a plenty of space. If one cannot overtake safely, then he's probably not as good as he thinks he is.
Just because someone thinks he is better than the others doesn't give them rights to compromise others' right to use the slope. Patience and respect.
However, I agree, that the phrase "the skiers ahead of you" is quite ambiguous and was not made with snowboarders in mind. I believe the term "the skiers below you" is less confusing since that means I have to yield to everyone who is on lower altitude than I. (New Zealand Snow Responsibility Code:http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/id...lowInterrupt=1)
Last edited by leeho730; February 10th, 2012 at 07:45 PM. Reason: Provided link to snow responsibility code
Just two weeks ago I was riding at my local resort. There was a guy in softies who was doing some sort of spin/turn/riding tip thing...I don't know what it was but it WAS the most erratic thing I had ever seen done on a snowboard. The guy was obviously accomplished and it was beautiful to watch BUT, I had NO idea where he was going to go next. Absolutely NO discernible pattern to his turns (?) BUT he was below me. As annoying as it was, I slowed until I was certain I could get by safely...That's how it's supposed to be done. There's really no excuse if you hit someone from behind in my opinion...
Ride fast/take chances :)
The code is simple and clear. The downhill slider has the right of way and it is the responsibility of the uphill rider to avoid the person who is downhill. The downhill person has two responsibilities: Don't stop where one can't be seen from above and don't enter a trail without checking for traffic from above - both of which hinge upon the practical assumption that the uphill slider can't reasonably be expected to avoid someone who is not visible.
The code was written with everyone in mind, by experienced skiers who knew quite well that anyone can make an unpredictable move and that lots of skiers (in the day) regard the ability to turn as an admirable skill that is to be encouraged and cultivated, not regarded as a hazardous nuisance. They were smart enough to realize that in an uncontrolled environment, where parties are traveling fast, between any two parties one has to have the right of way and the other has to avoid the person with the right of way, and it is not reasonable to expect anyone to be looking behind all the time. If you think this is wrong, go play something else. It is the code, and it is simple and unambiguous for very good reasons. Complicated provisional case-based rules or negotiated right of way simply do not work when there is no reliable communication between the parties, things happen fast, either or both parties may be under less than perfect control and/or making physical commitments they cannot correct.
Yelling at someone from behind does not give you any right of way - they may not hear you over the noise of their board and the wind (or their earbuds), and if they do hear you they might do something quite unpredictable. Hailing someone from behind is a fine idea, as long as you make sure that the downhill person hears you, understands you and acknowledges that they will do what you want them to do before you blow past. Good luck with that... Even if you've hailed them and think you've made eye contact, expect them to do something unpredictable and probably inconvenient. If they had to look back to see you they may well misinterpret your motion (based on a glance) and they may well get a little unbalanced and disoriented from looking back (possibly causing them to hook an unintended turn in the direction they looked), not to mention irritated at being yelled at by somebody who is too dumb to grasp the simple fact that they have the right of way.
As director of a snowboard school, you have a professional responsibility to not only understand the code but to train students in it. The GM might think you have a point, but had you injured the guy you hit you might have had a very difficult time convincing a court that the code is at all ambiguous. The GM might have been a lot less sympathetic if he, other staff, patrollers and other customers got dragged into court to testify that you were not actually being selfish, careless and appallingly ignorant of the rules governing your profession.
Your point that the average snowsports enthusiast is unaware of the capabilities of a good snowboarder or skier is, unfortunately, perfectly correct. The hordes of occasional sliders, newbies and drunks at the other (fat) end of the distribution are even less aware. Practically, we do indeed have to watch our back, and if we want to bomb down the hill do so on a closed course.
Technically, you're probably right. And funny. With the right audience...
Haha, true! Good point! Tricky!
But yes, you still have the right of the way because you are the one below. People above should be able to stop and avoid other people (code number 1). And in general should keep the safe distance with the people below.
Let's cite other examples. Sometimes you see ski patrollers going up the hill for rescue operation, and some boarders and skiers walking up the hill to pick up equipments or help their friends/children. Even though they move up against the downhill traffic, they still have the right of the way if you happen to be above them.
Who ever you are...when you behind / uphill follow:
#1. Always stay in control. You must be able to stop or avoid other people or objects.
Hook a turn on your race board, crossing the entire slope in a high-speed traverse, where you have completely transformed your downhill movement into the cross-slope, without looking and you could be reasonably seen as contravening this point. You have effectively put yourself "behind" in terms of your established direction. This direction change is not momentary, but sustained. This is extremely material!
#2. People ahead of you have the right-of-way. It is your responsibility to avoid them.
When you create a situation like this, you have put the skier / rider safely trying to pass (as opposed to "blowing by" you), which is allowed, and you have arguably put them ahead of you. In my case, the carver WHO HIT ME, had twice the pace, covered twice the ground and easily had momentum equal to those two factors. You could say he "T-boned" me, as I was hit in the side, while he hit me head on.
Someone else quoted it on here, but the "Carvers Responsibilty Code" (#8?) says something to the effect of yielding to those uphill when you are "traversing between carves" (Like the OP, most intermediates, selfish experts, or anyone on the EC program).
As the "Appallingly ignorant" President of CASI, I would be happy to present this information in a court setting and back in the day, My GM and I would have willingly defended ourselves based on the above. Carvers have to realise that our equipment creates a hazard the writers of the Code did not forsee and which has not been fully expressed in its rules. I would suggest that a good lawyer in the employ of someone rich and charged with this offense, could successfully defend his or herself. A precedent might be found in the enforcement of the TSA, where insurance companies have defended "following" drivers who "rear-ended" some gaper who merged, or changed lanes in a dangerous manner.
Let's get personal... Leeho and Valsam; Don't compare your actions to those of novices performing a "falling leaf", or a child traversing the slope. Damn Leeho... You even mention people WALKING on the hill. How are you different from them?! If I need to explain this, you need to hang up the hard gear.
OhD, if you want to volunteer statements like "Practically, we do indeed have to watch our back" you really put a bullet in your whole presentation, as you recognize that you are doing something different, that is potentially unsafe and requires extra vigilance. Vigilance against what? Again, if I have to answer that, you too need to HANG IT UP.
Cousin of Beagle... You're trying to be "ridiculously funny" but make a point that needs to be examined. At what point has your track created a hazard that the "uphill" skier could not be reasonably expected to ski defensively against?
This type of case has never been in the courts anywhere, or I'd know about it. With enough money on the side of the defense, well-framed arguments on behalf of the same and I think you'd find that the "downhill" rider might not have such a slam dunk case to present.
Last edited by Rob Stevens; February 10th, 2012 at 10:19 PM.
2013 17 Days
2012 46 Days
2011 60 Days
2010 60+ Days
Lots of ambiguity. All because of a single word. The term "people below you" instead of people ahead of you takes care of a lot of ambiguity, since its more absolute and objective and measurable. And KISS. Applies to hooky carvers as well.
Every rule has exceptions but with the term "below you" there is less.
Humans are one of many obstacles, carving or moving or walking or stationary. Irregardless of what they are doing. If they are below me, it is my responsibility to avoid them, not theirs, and if I cannot avoid them, then essentially I am violating code number I as well because I'm not in control. Avoiding them also means maintaining a very safe distance, say more than 20 meters, stopping and waiting for the path to clear before carving not just using evasive manuveurs and speed control. If there is someone below and he's, say 20 meters, away from me, then no matter how unpredictable his turn is going to be or even if he makes any sudden movement, I will be able to adapt and avoid collision. Should I want to overtake him, then I should make sure he is well away from me in terms of distance perpendicular to the fall line before attempting to overtake. Keeping a safe distance prevents a lot of collision and is an important strategy in avoiding skiers below. If it is not possible to keep a safe distance, then slowing down will either prevent collision or injuries.
Being on the regular slope is about having safe and fun experience whereas being on SBX courses is about being competitive. Those are two different environments, and different rules and skills apply. For example, being crazy fast and able to overtake competitors just by a few inches is an impressive and even necessary skills for SBX courses but will it be appropriate for everyday use on the average slopes where not everyone is following a set path and there are a lot more variables?
I respect your skills, but we, mere mortals, are different
Last edited by leeho730; February 11th, 2012 at 12:17 AM.
do the math:
on the right side the uphill skier has a speed of 40 mph, downhill rider a speed of 35 mph, = 5 mph closing
on the left side the uphill skier has a speed of 40 mph, downhill rider a speed of 15 mph, = 55 mph closing
does anyone on this site seriously think you could escape ? if so, you need to sit down and think about "55 mph" for a few more minutes.
Well.. I do agree with Rob Steven.
Most of alpine snowboarding accidents happens when we make a wide arc to a direction, which will cross almost entire (or at least significant amount) width of trail.
Let's compare it with a driving a car. On 6 lane highway, I'm cruising 55 mph on far left lane at 4 a.m. A ferrari is on the far right lane, just ahead of me, switching lane back and forth constantly (far right and one that next) at 55 mph. Suddenly the ferrari crosses all lanes and hits my right side. Whose fault is that? The Ferrari driver will get a reckless ticket and bills from my insurance company that claims my necks, spine, other crap I decide to claim, and repair cost of my Tico, which will be just about same cost of his fog lamp repair.
I had an accident early last season that I was downhill rider. In order to get away from a obstacle, I had to cut cross the trail and hit a 5 years old girl who was coming straight down. She got thrown forward good 15 feet. Luckly, her parent knows Skier's codes and apologized to me. Although I was a downhill rider, she was good 30-40 feet away from me. I should look uphill before I make that turn. I quit riding right after the accident and went home for that day. The skier's code covered my ass but as I think of it every time, it was my fault. I don't think she or anyone could get away without collision because I know how tight and sudden the turn was... and I don't think I could call myself as a downhill rider at the moment.
We should look up as much as we can....
Last edited by piusthedrcarve; February 11th, 2012 at 01:38 AM.
I have to respectfully take exception to the argument that in a court of law a "good lawyer in the employ of someone rich" could defend against a suit involving an overtaking rider...A good lawyer with funding can defend against anything, just or unjust. Anyone here can name a case where an obviously guilty party was found innocent.
No matter how you pose it, how you spin it, the overtaking party has responsibility to the one he/she is overtaking.
A "t-bone" is the same as running someone down from behind...The uphill/behind/overtaking rider/skier has responsibility to the downhill one. They should reasonably be able to see, or at least assume, on their approach that the downhill person could use more of the slope than anticipated and take precautions to avoid a collision.
I've never heard a restriction on the amount of slope a skier/rider was expected to use and I think any reasonable/thinking person should expect a skier/rider to traverse and take precautions in case that person traversed more than they anticipated. It's just common sense/courtesy..
The Ferrari switching lanes is, in my opinion a completely different scenario. A person operating a motor vehicle wouldn't reasonably be expected to swerve. Snowboarding/skiing is built on the principle of the "swerve".
Don't mean to be argumentative but "I been hit my brutha' "
Last edited by glenn; February 11th, 2012 at 05:45 AM.
Ride fast/take chances :)
It is looking up hill on every turn when carving regular two or three cat width linked carves that I don't think is a reality. Look at all the carving videos and have you ever seen anyone do that? Maybe the reason some people are taking up all the hill on a transition is because they trying to look behind them.
EDIT: To reiterate my previous posting regarding context: I brought this rule up in response to a question about not carving a predictable line. Basically, if you deviate from a predictable pattern, then your risk of being hit increases since fast moving uphill traffic may try to overtake you (right or wrong) based on your previous carving pattern.
Last edited by lafcadio; February 11th, 2012 at 07:51 AM.
In over fifty years on the slopes i have yet to see a predictable line. Closed course included (all racers attempt to go around the gates but deviate at times ) If you think you can guess where the person in front of you is going to be at all times you are very gifted. I try to overtake another rider after they have made their turn but i do notice with the increased density on hills today that having enough room to do that is challenged by the fact that like that safety zone we try to keep while driving there always seems to be someone coming out of nowhere to fill in the void. Buying a lift ticket today only means you get a seat to ride up,it doesn't say anything about having a path down the hill and resorts only measure how many lift tickets they sell now how enjoyable your ride down was. We all have a duty of care. Play safe !
When I wrote this before, the thread was deleted because my log-in had timed out while I was writing. I talked about the "rich guy being able to defend himself with the right lawyer", I also added "If he had a good case, it wouldn't hurt either". I certainly didn't want to suggest that the rich person was guilty, but got away with it. Rather, that the charged party had a case and was wealthy enough to pursue it. It's just that kind of person that gets things changed, be they "Codes" like ours, or even Constitutions.
The fact that both sides in this debate present compelling arguments should be proof enough that fault could be unclear, if it were to go "all the way" and need to be proven.
One little piece of evidence introduced might just be point 8 of our own little code. "Why is that written as it is?" would come the question.
You could also argue, Glenn, (respectfully) that an average hill users expectation of what a "swerve" is could be important to their being able to judge your future line. People operating cars "swerve" all the time. The argument happens when the one in front cries "that was a controlled lane change!" and the party who couldn't avoid a rear end collision has a different take. Direction at impact is also important; If I'm hit in the side, or "t-boned" by someone who is travelling straight, that is not the common pattern seen, where if I was overtaking, I'd generally t-bone them. At the very least, it would raise a question.
Look folks... all I'm saying is that hiding behind this rule is going to result in continued accidents. I will also say that the safest rider will be hit from behind, out of nowhere. Continuing to say "It doesn't matter. I was downhill", more likely shows that you haven't experienced the full capabilities of your chosen ride. Someone who can really hook would have more care and rely on the quick thinking of others less.
If you honestly don't see how you could be at fault, or share blame (which is the real danger here, to someone downhill, who thinks they'll get their medical bills paid, no questions asked), as a rider of arguably the most incredibly capable device to ever slide, one surface on another, you're not seeing both sides clearly.
One day, this issue will come up in a court and I'll be a very curious onlooker, or sitting on one side of the dock, I suppose.
Fair enough Rob...I can see your point. It DOES make good sense to protect yourself in spite of what the rules say and yes, you could make a reasonable arguement that alpine turns may not be anticipated by every one, I agree...It Is prudent to look, and if possible, avoid congestion...For my part, I try to stick with...if somebody is down hill from me, I'll do my best to give them the right of way and trust that they will for me 'cause I can't watch everything...AND temper that with I'll look as often as I can...Maybe I'll regret that one day, I don't know...
Ride fast/take chances :)
They say that the best weapon is the one you never have to fire. I respectfully disagree. I prefer the weapon you only have to fire once. That's how Dad did it, that's how America does it, and it's worked out pretty well so far.
If I'm taking wider carves, well I have some video somewhere of me riding with an early goggle video camera for a TV crew. The footage is garbage, because I'm always looking behind. I'm looking where I'm going, because if I'm about to take a swing across the hill, there could be someone over there heading down, and I need to know about it.
The "I'm below them" argument doesn't wash, irrespective of people's legal/ religious views on it. If you're carving, then you would effectively control the whole slope, as no one behind you could be sure you weren't going to randomly swing across the whole slope in front of them. That way lies the banning of "carving" from our slopes.
I look behind before I move over to another part of the slope. If you don't do that, and you randomly ride into my path without looking, well that's just rude. I'll probably not hit you, and your lawyers may or may not be better than mine. Why not just ride carefully and avoid it all?
So this afternoon I was snowboarding with my daughter and her friend. I pulled ahead on a run then stopped along the side, dropped to my knees and was getting my camera out to snap some pic's (there were very few people out on the runs today). I all of a sudden hear my daughter yell 'dad', I turn to my right and see a black blurr then 'whack'....a freak'n out of control 13 yr old girl going at high speed smacks into me then all of her gear flies..... I yelled out asking if she was ok, then commented about her high rate of speed and that she needs to stay in control, blah blah blah. I was lucky I had my board behind me and she struck that instead of ramming her ski's in to my back, side or legs.. Lucky in the end, nobody was injured, but that was a close call.
Hyak Ski and Snowboard Adventure
In regards to Rob Stevens crash...
First off it sucks that anyone who contributes to snowboarding should get hit.
In regards to the original writers of the code not accounting for carving.... well as I see it.... not matter what the person is doing, carving or just skiing completely erratically (but in control enough to avoid others) I see the downhill skier as having the right of way merely exercising their right to enjoy their lift ticket. The world is full of idiots. Or as one person said.... "It's a crazy world out there, and we are the ones that make it crazy".
I ride Ruthies...all the time..... (I figure a bunch of people have ridden this here..the day after SES) and every so often I see the amazingly annoying ski instructor who is taking their low intermediate clients down what was once a World Cup Downhill. It just blows me away. Same thing for the Dad who takes his kid of the same low level down that same run, (actually the guy who hit me on Ruthies takes his kids down it- and he is proud to say his kids can ski/snowplow Ruthies ...errr....when should be saying his kids won the lottery for not dying for having a parent that puts his kids in harms way and creates a hazard for others. Sadly he is the same guy who played football on the slopes ignoring ski patrols warnings....and by now should really know better....especially with how many accidental deaths his family has experienced.)
People are obstacles----->sometimes padded like lift towers...you must stay far away.
SO what do I do? I typically pull over and wait.... give them as much time as they need to be out of my way so our paths NEVER have the possibility to cross.
Now I understand at Hunter Mountain you would be waiting all day long. Been there done that. And crowded slopes push people to modify or ignore part of the code for their own intent - which typically leads to accidents.
If I am overtaking someone from above, and they suddenly change direction and are moving laterally across the slope. Before I am hit by them... I still WAS above them.... just before we hit.
And in my mind just before impact (or close call) ........ I would likely think... "Oh Crap..... I didn't give this guy enough bubble space when I planned to pass him. He WAS/IS ABLE TO HIT ME."
I don't like granting people below me... the ability... to hit me.
I don't trust others... and if I am above I can determine whether or not I will grant some idiot BELOW ME the ability to hit me, whether they see you or are "as blind as a bat with fogged over eyeglasses under goggles."
(People above you ALWAYS have the ability to hit you until they pass you...not much you can do about that...if you see an idiot coming for you...it's quite possibly too late to avoid being hit- BUT by looking uphill every so often, I can gauge whether there is a person who is too close or is starting to compromise my safety bubble- I pull over and let those people pass...and if they are going to pass I always make sure I do not take up more than 3/5 of the slope so they can pass safely (if you hog the entire slopes they will inevitably at some juncture..... pass too close)....if they are still getting to close and not working the edge to pass..I'll pull over.....LUCKILY for me ...typically I'm going fast enough that I rarely get passed and have my safety compromised. )
Before making the decision to overtake someone, you have to decide if you are "granting" the person below you the ability (not the right) to hit you, in their wildest spastic attempt to hit you seen or unseen.
If you don't grant people the ability or possibility to hit you... you won't get hit. Rob did give this guy the ability to hit him if he was not seen.
Certainly if Rob is going 10mph, and the HB guy was going 30mph....and came laterally across the slope at 30 mph... Rob is at a disadvantage to avoiding being hit because he will likely be less maneuverable at that speed. But the likelihood is that Rob was going faster and tried to pass. And granted the guy the ability to hit him (not the right to hit him...but the ability) , if the downhill HB'er were to make a sudden carve.
As a SB'er for the time being....when I see anyone with race skis or a carving set up..I am wary of their ability to make a sharp turn and pass accordingly... typically giving a bit more breadth of room than normal.
I'm not saying Rob would lose in a court of law or was even wrong in his actions - he was most likely right- ... I'm just saying he willingly gave someone the ability to "Reach out and Touch him" if the downhill skier exercised the most spastic of moves. (I was going to say "perhaps not knowingly" but knowing RS's a carver and head of CASI certainly Rob has enough experience to gauge whether a fellow HB'er can carve- and even likely could glance at the guy's board and predict the fellows SCR to within 2 meters).
When you give others below you ...while passing... the possibility to hit you (even if remote)....eventually you will get hit.
As an experienced snowboarder..I trust my own abilities and judgement more than others on the slope. So when I overtake someone, I also make sure I have a nice big bubble....and if that bubble looks like it will get temporarily compromised (like on a crowded day) ......I MAKE CERTAIN I have the maneuverability and alertness to be able to dodge ANY and ALL skiers I pass during that short duration. (yes, it is a bit like Asteroids™‚ - a video game which dates me- out there at times). As likely the superior skilled slider..when passing...I always make sure that either the other person does not have the ability to hit me... or if I grant them this ability.....I make sure I am on my "a-game" to avoid them even if they want to play "chicken" unexpectedly.
I just wait.
A minute waiting on the slope make seem like a long time.... but assuredly its a lot shorter than the line at the Emergency Room.
And to keep this on topic...
I missed SES this year because I hurt my back ..and also was really sick with a cold. So I was bummed not to be able to ride with people. Wishing I had been able to hook a few solid turns with the bro's.... figuring..oh well wait until next year... I had just bumped into Ray and Frank D. earlier with Klug, and took the day off to play DJ at the top of Aspen Ajax.
I was walking into the Little Nell using my secret way to avoid the stairs- snag a hot cider- and get into Apres ski and passed by a Green coiler in the rack... thinking hmmmm Bruce V. only makes a couple hundred a year...and how many are green??? and recent???...I paused and saw a slight nick on the right side.
The room number was on claim sticker on the board- called the front desk at the Little Nell...and...I'm going to meet him 3 hours... unfortunately I'm up at 5am because my back hurts.
-now that is investigative reporting. My life is an inexplicable series of unusual fortunate coincidences
Last edited by John Gilmour; February 12th, 2012 at 04:43 AM.
One good turn deserves another.
I have to respect what John says. His points are very well thought out.
As riders who can pretty much make a board turn how we want, the idea that getting hit as the rider above has to be "allowed" is correct. If you don't give the rider below space to accomodate for erratic moves, you're exposing yourself. If I got sued, in pretty much every case I can think of, (with the exception of the case I cited that happened to me, where the rider below was a racer on green terrain) I'd be at fault.
Here's a "nightmare scene"... Reverse the roles of who is above and who is below. Take an expert carver, who should know to be on "swivel mode" when shredding around like he / she does, because they know what the gear is capable of, taking out an intermediate making a pass on blue or easier terrain. Expert carvers often find themselves on flatter terrain because it allows that person to hold it in the fall line more and skid less. This rider will often go from a turn close to the fall line, where the novice could never pass, to doing some EC'ey thing, where suddenly the downhill ground covered is chopped in half and the lateral terrain eaten up doubles.
If the person above does not have the experience to analyse the situation like John, or the other experts on here taking part in this conversation, it puts an arguably greater share of responsibility on the downhill expert hooking around all over the shop.
Again, I'm not saying that the downhill rider might ever be found to be solely at fault; That's not likely going to happen. However, if blame is found to be shared because of the circumstances, it could change the landscape for carvers - ski or snowboard - everywhere.
PhilW made a great statement about the responsibilty of downhill carvers and the result of careless actions. Something to the efferct of "That way lies the banning of carving". That's scary... The ski hill operators don't change the code, they just "manage" the way you ride, through enforcement, or outright exclusion.
Like John moving to bigger resorts, I have removed this risk from my life by going "further afield". I usually don't have to worry about getting hit from behind by anything less than an avy.
I think the worst case scenario.... is a well accepted court precedent set where the downhill carver is found at fault. Without the uphill skier "thinking" he will be found responsible in an accident 100% of the time- the uphill skiers would be more emboldened to pass and ski agressively with less respect for the novice or intermediate. I could see it now in court..the expert uphill skier argueing that he could not be at fault because the other guy was a beginner.
a few days ago I was reading through the carvers almanac...and I agree if you are the one carving it is in your best interest to look around and yield to others (just as I mentioned watching for people with poor judgement passing you from above) but I do not think it should be a rule which should be used to establish a court precedent. If it could ...maybe they could modify the wording in the almanac so it can not be used..
I'm no lawyer... I don't understand all these worldly things and flying chairs, I'm just a caveman, but I do know this... if you start changing right of way rules that have been around for decades you will have more injuries. (SNL tribute)
The United States Virgin Islands is a place where people drive on the left side of the road....with American cars with left hand drive. simply imbecilic..... we bought the islands from the Dutch...who might have had British driving habits...or perhaps it was the donkey carts before cars were in use. But they did try to change right of way at one point.... reversed everything... and there were a zillion accidents (keep in mind in the USVI it is completely legal to drive with an open beer in your hand).
I don't think a ski resort could ever ban carving.. it would be too hard to enforce. They can ban snowboards (like Alta, Mad River Glen, Deer Valley) because they suck, and are not willing to modify any terrain. This is a bad precedent for skiing. Because I certainly could imagine resorts banning skiing. For instance Mountain High in California is predominantly snowboarders ...so much so that they could likely reduce accidents by banning skiers. I don't think people really want this...
I would like it (skiers don't add value to my snowboard experience unless they are in bikinis )... but I don't think people in general would like this.....unless they mandate that all skiers don bikinis....(we will assume the men will give up skiing instead of wearing bikinis).
Last edited by John Gilmour; February 12th, 2012 at 09:41 AM.
One good turn deserves another.
I don't see a mountain banning snowboards, just the alpine kind.
If resort management really thought about it, they'd see the numbers weren't anything to worry about losing and that it's only the alpine rider who can hook a blind heelturn like the kind softbooters generally don't, because they don't run that kind of angle in the rear.
John... You'd be the exception, where like the dude going up Alta on the split and snowboarding down, the liftie would see your softboots and let you on. He'd never give a thought to your binding angles.
You Sir, are one day, in an alpineless world, going to jail as a convention-ignoring scofflaw, gaming the rules with your alpine-softbootery.
can we pursue this thought about making all skiers wear bikinis?
I remember ski resorts...testing the water about showcasing snowboarding.... They would first show a photo with skis and snowboards in the rack together in the background.
Then they would have snowboard lessons in their catalogs.
They did not want to show snowboards getting air... mom's were worried about their kids getting landed on...or hanging out in pipe and ending up in the ER.
So they showed snowboards carving. I remember a great Bretton Woods catalog from about 1995 with some red haired guy carving up a storm on a Madd 170. The skiers saw a guy in ski clothes , in a skier type turn, in control, on the ground, and wearing familiar looking plastic boots...non baggy pants, and facing forward down the fall line instead of sideways. (anyone know who this guy was?)
In Aspen, top of the Sundeck, there is only one really large wall sized poster in a place where you can see it from every table. It is a shot of Chris Klug cutting a nice line on a carving set up, and a side by side shot of him in pow on soft boots.
I think the resorts like the carvers- because they look more like skiers. Aspen cooperates with Joerg's carving groups, even at times has closed off runs for the carvers to specifically use (prior to SES with Pure Carve) .
When I find myself flanked by skiers...closed out narrowly on both sides.... I say.."If you can't beat'em join'em" and I just do short radius ski turns- facing forward, cross under turns- to mimic skiers and make my movements more understandable to them and predictable. And skiers, when I ski with skiers....often say they like my carving style and wish other snowboards would do that instead of scrape. So I would be really surprised if they were to ban carvers...and their gear. because historically, they have liked us. I do feel that there seems to be less emphasis of late on people riding SL boards when learning..and they seem to go to some Freecarve/GS length deck...and they try to learn with 175-181cm sticks on green trails... which.....I can see becoming problematic. SL riders look more like Skiers are are more understandable.
I just don't see enough people on shorter Alpine set ups save for Joerg and his crew.
I just want a nice set of comfortable hardboots again... UPZ's are next on my list.
I'm here at snowmass, waiting for the sun to come out to ride with the OP. I want to show him my technique for looking up hill prior to turning.
instead.. I think I'm stuck making a Whitney Houston remix.
Last edited by John Gilmour; February 12th, 2012 at 12:25 PM.
One good turn deserves another.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)