Initiative in Colorado to Require Ski Areas to Report Injuries / Death

[martyg]

I meant to ask my ski law professor (a defense attorney) about this last night but forgot. I'll try to remember next week because I'd be curious to hear his opinion.

Also follow Jim Moss's blog.

 

[James]

Article shows just how dangerous skiing is when you take someone to terrain they cannot yet handle. It's a good reminder to myself to never try to teach a beginner how to ski.

Not sure more signage would have helped in this case. The "longtime skier" should have noticed the waivers you need to sign to get a lift ticket these days. Maybe there's too much signage? So many signs that no one reads them anymore?

What a terrible story.

Yeah it’s very sad. But, “I didn’t know...”
What’s the difference if you took a young kid who can’t ride a bike to a steep hill? Or someone who can’t swim very well to the ocean, etc. You don’t know that?
I’m not buying it.
Also the assumption that everywhere is close to saving your life. It’s America. Many, most? “Rural” ER’s don’t even have docs but PA’s.

 

[Johnny V.]

ea, that article used a bad example that could get torn apart;

but Consider this hypothetical if instead the example is a known merge where say 300 people/season collide and get seriously injured(require hospital) and sledded off, or a similar extreme place where there are a couple deaths every year from a similar situation. They have the records, and what if the records show the resort isn't able to reduce those acccidents at that intersection. If there is a historical record, yet they don't reduce, then this then borders on negligence.

Once people start dying, you've used up the strikes of we didn't know. If there is a pattern of people are dying in an extreme area, then you got to start putting up ropes and gates or even consider closing the area if you can't reduce the deaths.

I think this is similar of the Mcdonalds Hot Coffee case, (if you go research all the perspectives of that case, not just the Jokes); Both the surface view that this is an isolated incident of single stupid behavior; Or to dig deeper and there is a huge established pattern and a Business Decision to decide to not reduce injury but instead just paying off the injured as cost of business.

Yes, very true.

Where do you draw the line on skier ignorance (I'll be nice and won't say stupidity) and near or real negligence on the part of the resort? I certainly don't have the answer. My concern is that either the non-skiing public or a grandstanding legislator decides "We NEED to do something about skier safety" and pushes through laws that sound good but really do nothing for safety but increase costs (and raise prices) to the resort.

 

[James]

Does every road with a hill need a warning sign saying “Don’t teach kids to ride bicycles here” ?
Every road nets to keep kids from crossing?

 

[François Pugh]

If there is a pattern of people are dying in an extreme area, then you got to start putting up ropes and gates or even consider closing the area if you can't reduce the deaths.

NO!
I'm all for them putting up a warning sign telling me X people died skiing this ridge/chute/whatever over the last Y years. I have no problem with that, but that's not what will happen. Instead, they will close that area and forbid me from skiing it. I'm old-school. I call the tune; I pay the piper. I am responsible for deciding what risk I will take and won't take. And I like it that way. If you're stupid enough to do something that results in your death, well then, that's called natural selection, and I'm all for chlorinating the gene pool.

 

[scott43]

I mean let's not lose the plot here. There's a lot of sensationalism and extremes but really you just have to do what is reasonable and you will likely be fine.

There is a cliff face 100' high in one of our main MTB areas near here. The trail is in spots very close to the edge. Someone rode right of the cliff and died after something of a misadventure. There were signs, warnings and that trail is actually closed to bikes. What else can you do? Nothing will come of it and nobody expects it to.

 

[pais alto]

Yup, while we’re at it we should get rid of chairlifts. For safety sake.

And grooming.

The problem with writing stuff down is..you've written stuff down. I'm sure 100% of ski resorts try their best every day to save people from the dangers of skiing and save them from themselves. It's impossible to mitigate risk 100%. And if you start writing stuff down..well..that's just ammunition for lawyers when something doesn't go well. Just make it a one-liner: "We endeavour to take every reasonable step to mitigate risk."

Where I patrolled every injury and even the refusals were documented and recorded in a data base. The only extra thing that act would require would be data entry into whatever system was developed.

But I believe there would be little effect outside of the legal and nerd worlds. Since the ski area pays for the primary treatment (and lawsuits) from injuries, they work pretty hard to eliminate hazards. People may not believe that, but ambulance chasers will be looking hard at the data to try and drum up business. No offense meant to other types of attorneys.

 

[wyowindrunner]

“Rural” ER’s don’t even have docs but PA’s.

Just to echo James- took an injured co worker to the ER in a rural western North Dakota town - 8-9 pm. Waited an hour or so for the doc to show up. Just one person on duty. The place serves as an old folks home also.
The kid's death is a sad thing - and another example of not "Knowing the code" (always be in control). We taught beginners to "pick a hip and fall!" Some did. Some didn't.
Natasha Richardson's death comes to mind. Said she was fine after fall-
Patrollers maybe can answer this- What are the requirements for Paras and Emt's to report encounters or treatment rendered? The guys I worked with had to report same to the state we were in.
Will areas need to issue a license?- "you can ski this run on this length of ski and under these conditions but you are not qualified to ski it under this condition with this ski'(actually this would be kinda beneficial- restrict this to boarders also-preserve the powder!)
Francis is right- "You pays your money and you takes your choice". (Aldous Huxley-Brave New World- though I think Yogi Berra's is more to my liking)

 

[James]

The way people drive, all of this stuff is really secondary. So many people just up their risk level enormously and put others at risk. Tailgating at 80 when there's no place to go, cutting in, swerving across multiple lanes to make an exit. Dicing it up with semis.

 

[Eric@ict]

I’ve seen a number of people on blacks wedging down the run. They had no business being there yet had to do it. Bragging rights?
Unexpected loss of life is a tragedy, but we can’t continue to try and protect everyone from hurting themselves. I think the end goal of this bill could be good, but worry it will be used against resorts and equipment manufacturers.

 

[raytseng]

NO!
I'm all for them putting up a warning sign telling me X people died skiing this ridge/chute/whatever over the last Y years. I have no problem with that, but that's not what will happen. Instead, they will close that area and forbid me from skiing it. I'm old-school. I call the tune; I pay the piper. I am responsible for deciding what risk I will take and won't take. And I like it that way. If you're stupid enough to do something that results in your death, well then, that's called natural selection, and I'm all for chlorinating the gene pool.

I’ve seen a number of people on blacks wedging down the run. They had no business being there yet had to do it. Bragging rights?
Unexpected loss of life is a tragedy, but we can’t continue to try and protect everyone from hurting themselves. I think the end goal of this bill could be good, but worry it will be used against resorts and equipment manufacturers.

The injury stats though will reveal though what really are the areas of concern.

Because of the "scariness" of expert feature, the general public may just assume the expert runs are "dangerous"; so getting the stats to light might be what you want.

In the absence of any other info, "they" could assume the worst and just push for closures based on single sensational event and gut feelings; so not sharing may actually cause more of your worst nightmare to come true.
Stats can lie/ but they won't be as twisted up as much as single events that leak out; especially if there is a upset parent that has some media savvy and can make a campaign out of it to close down your resort over 1 incident.
If the stats may show that the high level of accidents are slips and falls in the Parking Lot and Intermediate intersections, and not the expert terrain, and you can show a particular incident really was a 1-off, then you get to keep your expert terrain.

Yes perhaps there is a guy wedging down a black run, yea they're overterrained and not skiing well, but maybe they're not who is getting hurt/injured.

 

[mikel]

It didn't make it out of committee. Went down 4-1 with the 1 for was a co sponsor of the bill.

Colorado skier safety bill fails to make it out of committee vote

EAGLE — A bill that would require Colorado ski areas to share safety strategies as well as statistics revealing injuries and fatalities didn’t make it out of a committee vote Thursday in Denver after hours...

www.summitdaily.com

 

[François Pugh]

This is the bit that I wouldn't vote for either; too slippery a slope.

" It would have also required each ski area to adopt and publish, in printed form and on the ski area’s website, a safety plan specifying the governance, management and operational roles, responsibilities and practices of the ski area to prevent accidents and reduce the frequency and severity of injuries."

Now if they had left it as just reporting information, they may have had more success. On the other hand maybe the nay voters would have seen that as the first step down the slope.

 

[Tahoma]

Yeah it’s very sad. But, “I didn’t know...”
What’s the difference if you took a young kid who can’t ride a bike to a steep hill? Or someone who can’t swim very well to the ocean, etc. You don’t know that?
I’m not buying it.
Also the assumption that everywhere is close to saving your life. It’s America. Many, most? “Rural” ER’s don’t even have docs but PA’s.

This.

Even in the city where I practice, with two tertiary care hospitals and a good EMS system, severely injured people die before they get to hospital. The article only says that the kid had a "badly injured" arm, but my suspicion is that anyone who ran into a tree at speed should be presumed to have head/spine/internal injuries until proven otherwise. And if the road for evac (I-70?) was "snowy," I wouldn't be surprised if airlift choppers couldn't fly due to weather.

Very tragic. But a first-timer who just skied a few laps on a bunny hill has no business on intermediate or harder slopes.

 

[sparty]

And grooming.


Where I patrolled every injury and even the refusals were documented and recorded in a data base. The only extra thing that act would require would be data entry into whatever system was developed.

But I believe there would be little effect outside of the legal and nerd worlds. Since the ski area pays for the primary treatment (and lawsuits) from injuries, they work pretty hard to eliminate hazards. People may not believe that, but ambulance chasers will be looking hard at the data to try and drum up business. No offense meant to other types of attorneys.

My experiences are, thankfully, fairly limited, but every time I've been close enough to observe, there's been a form filed recording the details of the injury. I'd expect it to be standard practice and required by the insurance companies (who, even more than the ski areas, have a very vested interest in risk management). I suspect your last line has a lot to do with the insurance companies keeping the overall stats close to the chest.

I'd be interested to see the stats, but I doubt it would have much effect on my behavior unless there were really unexpected trends included. As a coach, and formerly as a patroller, I'm already actively looking for, considering, and oftentimes mitigating risks; at the same time, I'm damn well aware that this is an inherently risky activity.

 

[Marshall]

Great idea in theory, but not in reality. It would lead to (bad) unintended consequences.

 

[Cols714]

I don't really understand why this would be a bad thing. If there are particularly dangerous areas of a ski resort then it would be good to know about it.

 

[skix]

I don't really understand why this would be a bad thing. If there are particularly dangerous areas of a ski resort then it would be good to know about it.

Best I can figure is that it bad to require ski areas to report injuries because individual skiers are supposed to know how to stay safe already and take all risk upon themselves. There's no longer an assumption that we look out for each other so we just need to assume no precautions for your safety have been made. That way you are safer. Or something. Also, slippery slopes and unintended consequences supposedly ruin all attempts at corporate accountability and responsibility for their customers. Buyer beware.

Also, people are assumed to be too apathetic and/or ignorant to be able to make use of the reported safety records of ski areas. So why bother?

Do I buy any of that? No. One example is that there sure seem to be alot of intermediate and young skiers killed at Keystone Resort. How many? I don't know. More than Arapahoe Basin just up the hill? I don't know. Would it be safer to take my daughters and grandchildren to Keystone or Arapahoe Basin? I have no idea because that information is secret.

 

[martyg]

What are the requirements for Paras and Emt's to report encounters or treatment rendered? The guys I worked with had to report same to the state we were in.

In CO there is zero requirement. That is the issue. When I run into an accident that was caused by another skier I urge the injured party to dial the county sheriff, so there is recond.

 

[martyg]

Do I buy any of that? No. One example is that there sure seem to be alot of intermediate and young skiers killed at Keystone Resort. How many? I don't know. More than Arapahoe Basin just up the hill? I don't know. Would it be safer to take my daughters and grandchildren to Keystone or Arapahoe Basin? I have no idea because that information is secret.

Perfect response. If there was public record of accidents and deaths the smart consumers - i.e., the ones who made appropriate life decisions, built wealth, own stupid expensive sports cars, and can afford to to servers and ski instructor in hundreds, would chose the safer hills. They did not become successful by taking uncalculated risks.

Ski areas could use that as a point of leverage, and craft their messaging accordingly. That is the customer everyone wants. Not the beater living in the truck in a parking lot. Will ski areas use that data? No. With the exception of a few notables, they are too wrapped up in how things have been done. They are not evolving, crafting the product and purchase experience to what the buying public has become accustomed to.

The one exception might be Jackson. Jerry Blann did an awesome job there.