Interesting article about current lawsuit regarding slide above Eisenhower Tunnel

[pais alto]

Here’s a thread that includes comments from many avy professionals and highly experienced backcountry skiers with knowledge of the area. Rather than me trying to cover all the nuanced and complex issues and discussions, read the thread through.

Snowboarders cited for triggering avalanche at Eisenhower tunnel

che-near-eisenhower-tunnel/?fbclid=IwAR1a9nAOTaT3yOOMZN6MzQaUv5Ncrf5-m_Teh4dt3HgLrVdhN7JwDeizAuI

www.tetongravity.com

Also for the tl;dr people here’s a summary written by an avy pro TGR maggot.

Settlement Pending in Court Case of Men Who Triggered Avalanche at Eisenhower Tunnel, CO in March 2020 - SnowBrains

Related Article: Update on Court Case of Men Who Triggered Avalanche at Eisenhower Tunnel, CO March 20, 2020 Evan Hannibal and Tyler DeWitt, two Summit Country backcountry snowboarders who triggered an avalanche last year that buried a CDOT maintenance road and damaged avalanche mitigation...

snowbrains.com

 

[SBrown]

Seems like this just leaves all the important questions unanswered, and doesn’t really change anything about the optics of the case.

What were the charges they plead to? Why did this become a criminal issue in the first place? Right now, most of what I’m seeing is a whole bunch of reasons for Colorado skiers not to report avalanches and especially not to provide any evidence to the CAIC, and that’s not good.

Since I’m not a legal expert, my instinct would also be to apply any lessons from this case to other states and reporting centers as well.

Well, yeah, sort of. But this is a pretty unique case, luckily. Realistically? Perhaps it will make people think twice before skiing lines that could slide and damage something besides trees. That could be a good outcome, balancing out any "chilling effect" that may come to pass. If you don't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about, right? So making reports should be not a big deal. (CAIC was hamstrung, as the Snowbrains article points out. They had no choice but to hand over the video.) I'm not sure how often "things" are damaged in slide paths. I mean, stationary "things" shouldn't be in slide paths (normal ones, not 500-yr ones) anyway.

I haven't read the entire tl;dr thread up there yet; is there any mention of the Seven Sisters? I imagine the terrain above the tunnel will be similarly closed soon, if it isn't already.

(I found a good article that mentions the Sisters ... describing other places you shouldn't backcountry ski and why.)

 

[tball]

I haven't read the entire tl;dr thread up there yet; is there any mention of the Seven Sisters? I imagine the terrain above the tunnel will be similarly closed soon, if it isn't already.

Driving by, I've keep thinking what an easy point for the defense that would have been. Why is that area right over there closed, but this one wasn't? If it's so dangerous, shouldn't it be closed too?

That plus the argument that it shouldn't slide because there is avalanche mitigation equipment that should have prevented the slide seems like it would be tough to get a conviction. Glad these guys got off without paying restitution.

 

[pais alto]

I haven't read the entire tl;dr thread up there yet; is there any mention of the Seven Sisters?

Yes. It’s mentioned in a few posts. Search jong!

Why is that area right over there closed, but this one wasn't? If it's so dangerous, shouldn't it be closed too?

I’m not real familiar with that particular spot, but in the western US there must be thousands of potential avy locations above roads that aren’t ‘closed.‘ Closing every potential avy location above a road would be an insanely huge task.

 

[tball]

I’m not real familiar with that particular spot, but in the western US there must be thousands of potential avy locations above roads that aren’t ‘closed.‘ Closing every potential avy location above a road would be an insanely huge task.

For sure, no way to close all potential slide paths above roads.

In this particular case, though, the locations are in close proximity and CDOT has mitigation exploders in both locations. Why is one area marked as closed while the other isn't would be an easy point for the defense. Here's a map of the two locations:

 

[tball]

Stupid on both sides.... you'd think CDOT would close all paths leading down to mitigation exploders so they accidentally explode some backcountry user. You'd also think backcountry users would avoid areas with mitigation equipment so they don't get exploded or caught in the resulting slide.

 

[pais alto]

Driving by, I've keep thinking what an easy point for the defense that would have been. Why is that area right over there closed, but this one wasn't? If it's so dangerous, shouldn't it be closed too?

That plus the argument that it shouldn't slide because there is avalanche mitigation equipment that should have prevented the slide seems like it would be tough to get a conviction. Glad these guys got off without paying restitution.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Seven Sisters is a very active avy spot, adjacent to an active ski area. I don’t think the spot above the tunnel is either.

 

[doc]

Pretty sure I heard today the two defendants took a plea deal - haven't heard the terms yet.

 

[tball]

^^^ Yeah, the easy access from the ski area is a big difference, and Seven Sisters is super active. I think the other side of the tunnel is pretty active too. It's an easy argument they wouldn't have invested in the mitigation equipment if it wasn't an active risk.

Also, I bet if the defense could get testimony from the firm that engineered the mitigation equipment, they'd say that slide should have never happened if the mitigation equipment was properly operated.

 

[pchewn]

If you don't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about, right?

Absolutely positively false. Plenty of people who haven't done anything wrong are:

1. Falsely put to death and later cleared
2. Falsely imprisoned for years
3. Falsely arrested, charged, tried.
4. Falsely searched and seized.

 

[SBrown]

Yes. It’s mentioned in a few posts. Search jong!


I’m not real familiar with that particular spot, but in the western US there must be thousands of potential avy locations above roads that aren’t ‘closed.‘ Closing every potential avy location above a road would be an insanely huge task.

That is very true, but the spot above the tunnel is easy access, as well. That was my reason for thinking about the Sisters (which are much more aesthetic lines than that above the tunnel exit). That said, I don’t think there is a legal backcountry gate right there, not sure. (Sisters are easy to get to from a gate.)

 

[SBrown]

Absolutely positively false. Plenty of people who haven't done anything wrong are:

1. Falsely put to death and later cleared
2. Falsely imprisoned for years
3. Falsely arrested, charged, tried.
4. Falsely searched and seized.

Well, it was a bit of a rhetorical question — of course those things happen, but I am just speaking about knocking down some snow on top of something you shouldn’t. The illegal seizure aspect of this case was dismissed, I think.

 

[James]

From that Snowbrains non tl;dr article. But, it’s just a summary, so writing by an “avy professional” is meaningless as there’s no opinion.

Settlement Pending in Court Case of Men Who Triggered Avalanche at Eisenhower Tunnel, CO in March 2020 - SnowBrains

Related Article: Update on Court Case of Men Who Triggered Avalanche at Eisenhower Tunnel, CO March 20, 2020 Evan Hannibal and Tyler DeWitt, two Summit Country backcountry snowboarders who triggered an avalanche last year that buried a CDOT maintenance road and damaged avalanche mitigation...

snowbrains.com

“We charged them with reckless endangerment because it was foreseeable they were putting other people at risk of serious bodily injury in that they recognized the potential for a slide and they could obviously see, right below their skis, I-70, where 100,000 cars go by each week,” Brown said. “They knew if there was a slide, it could end up on the roadway, endangering the traveling public.”

— Bruce Brown, District Attorney, Colorado 5th Judicial District
—————————-

Well it was foreseeable there would be a slide outside of their avy mitigation “machine” (wtf) so maybe CDOT should be charged?

Maybe they should build a deflector? Like tbe one in the mountains above Aspen that protected that house from a 100 yr avalanche. Or was it 500 years?

 

[SBrown]

From that Snowbrains non tl;dr article. But, it’s just a summary, so writing by an “avy professional” is meaningless as there’s no opinion.

Settlement Pending in Court Case of Men Who Triggered Avalanche at Eisenhower Tunnel, CO in March 2020 - SnowBrains

Related Article: Update on Court Case of Men Who Triggered Avalanche at Eisenhower Tunnel, CO March 20, 2020 Evan Hannibal and Tyler DeWitt, two Summit Country backcountry snowboarders who triggered an avalanche last year that buried a CDOT maintenance road and damaged avalanche mitigation...

snowbrains.com

“We charged them with reckless endangerment because it was foreseeable they were putting other people at risk of serious bodily injury in that they recognized the potential for a slide and they could obviously see, right below their skis, I-70, where 100,000 cars go by each week,” Brown said. “They knew if there was a slide, it could end up on the roadway, endangering the traveling public.”

— Bruce Brown, District Attorney, Colorado 5th Judicial District
—————————-

Well it was foreseeable there would be a slide outside of their avy mitigation “machine” (wtf) so maybe CDOT should be charged?

Maybe they should build a deflector? Like tbe one in the mountains above Aspen that protected that house from a 100 yr avalanche. Or was it 500 years?

That thing was nuts! It worked!

And yes, I would have been very interested to hear CDOT’s testimony about the placement of their machinery.

On a tangent, a friend was telling me recently about going up for spring skiing in a convertible one day (many years ago, before highway mitigation was organized by CAIC), and was hit by a small slide as they were exiting the smaller tunnel near Idaho Springs. It got them literally a foot behind their heads, and I think they just kept going, ended up at ABasin regardless. Marijuana may have played a part in this.

 

[Ken_R]

^^^ Yeah, the easy access from the ski area is a big difference, and Seven Sisters is super active. I think the other side of the tunnel is pretty active too. It's an easy argument they wouldn't have invested in the mitigation equipment if it wasn't an active risk.

View attachment 134111

Also, I bet if the defense could get testimony from the firm that engineered the mitigation equipment, they'd say that slide should have never happened if the mitigation equipment was properly operated.

All that zone is just bad news. Bad skiing, high risk /consequence. Definitely NOT worth skiing. North of that there is some decent skiing with easy access without the risk of harming people (other than you and your party) and infrastructure.

 

[scott43]

Marijuana may have played a part in this.

The slide? Or the indifference to the slide...

 

[James]

The slide? Or the indifference to the slide...

She once got a car unstuck in the mountains by using beer. It’s all coming together now.

 

[dbostedo]

Pretty sure I heard today the two defendants took a plea deal - haven't heard the terms yet.

See post #18: https://www.skitalk.com/threads/int...ide-above-eisenhower-tunnel.22900/post-616050

and the subsequent discussion.

 

[tball]

All that zone is just bad news. Bad skiing, high risk /consequence. Definitely NOT worth skiing. North of that there is some decent skiing with easy access without the risk of harming people (other than you and your party) and infrastructure.

Even more reason to just close that area. I'd think mitigation equipment is a lure for some small percentage of dumb asses thinking it's safer to ski where it's been mitigated. Given these areas are necessarily at high risk of harming people, I'd think CDOT should consider closing them. I wonder if there's a location where the impact on backcountry users would exceed the public benefit?

 

[François Pugh]

Seems like this just leaves all the important questions unanswered, and doesn’t really change anything about the optics of the case.

What were the charges they plead to? Why did this become a criminal issue in the first place? Right now, most of what I’m seeing is a whole bunch of reasons for Colorado skiers not to report avalanches and especially not to provide any evidence to the CAIC, and that’s not good.

Since I’m not a legal expert, my instinct would also be to apply any lessons from this case to other states and reporting centers as well.

Yup. Lesson learned from their mistakes: don't report, don't provide any evidence, make use of your constitutional right not to incriminate yourself and just stfu. It's a legal system; not a justice system.