On hill collisions

[KingGrump]

I want to agree with this, based on gut and some other things. However, it doesn't address my personal bugbear situation, which is this:
I'm heading toward the trees on skier right - left-footed turn, with the center of the slope on skier left, directly behind me. I transition to a right footed turn and start to look back toward the center of the run, on my left. No one there. (But note that I can't see the center of the run uphill of me from this position, because my skis are still pointed slightly toward the trees on skier right, early in my right-footed turn.) I collapse my left leg to tighten the radius of my turn and increase edge angle, accelerating left back toward the center of the run. SUDDENLY there is some dude directly ahead of me. Why? Because he was coming straight down the hill so fast that he wasn't visible to me a moment before. (He was WAY uphill at that point, where I couldn't see.) He just appears in my line of travel. But under the new rule it's MY fault if I hit him, because at this moment he's "ahead." See the issue? I don't have answers for this one.

Very similar to starting off from a stop sign in a 30 mph zone and get clocked by someone doing 75 mph down the road. WTF dude.

 

[ThomasD]

Uphill skier failed to yield to downhill skier (you), failed to leave enough space when overtaking. The code is good as is.

Again I'm going to argue that downhill has nothing to do with it.

Imagine a similar situation to what he describes except both skiers are traversing the slope. They are both headed skier's right, but with the faster skier actually being slightly lower on the slope. Tony, on the uphill, turns to his left dropping down the slope and into the path of the overtaking skier resulting in a collision.

Relative to the slope the situations are different, but relative to the motion of the involved parties the situations are quite similar.

In both cases I say that the faster skier bears the majority of the blame. Mostly because he was passing too close - relative to the disparity in speed - to safely avoid the person ahead of him.

 

[James]

Separated speed traps a good idea? Don’t think I’ve ever seen one in the US, but maybe pretty common in Europe? Switzerland at least.

 

[LiquidFeet]

Separated speed traps a good idea? Don’t think I’ve ever seen one in the US, but maybe pretty common in Europe? Switzerland at least.

Never seen this. Good idea. If there's room, of course.

 

[Andy Mink]

Separated speed traps a good idea? Don’t think I’ve ever seen one in the US, but maybe pretty common in Europe? Switzerland at least.

The first kid down is in the video is an interesting look. Even though he's in a tuck and straight lining, he never does pass the guy on the right in the yellow coat who was making short turns, then one or two long ones. He certainly *looks* faster. I think sometimes we may see something and recognize it as something else, speed being one. For example, skier A is carving aggressive turns and skier B recognizes it as A is going fast. Turns out A ISN'T going that fast, B misjudges, and they end up in the same place at the same time.

 

[Tony S]

For example, skier A is carving aggressive turns and skier B recognizes it as A is going fast. Turns out A ISN'T going that fast, B misjudges, and they end up in the same place at the same time.

Leaving the speed trap video out of it, this is EXACTLY my bugbear scenario. There are different flavors of "going fast." There is how fast you are going over the snow, and then there is how fast you are closing on the base lodge. Two totally different things. In your scenario skier A is going fast over the snow. Skier B mistakenly assumes that also means that skier A is closing fast on the lodge, which s/he is not.

 

[wiread]

The verbiage has changed. Uphill and downhill are not the operative consideration. It's who is ahead of you that matters. And ahead is always determined by your direction of travel not your height on the slope.

I get that many of us are conditioned by a long pattern of thinking about what is below, but that needs to change.

The wider your turn, or the faster you traverse a slope the more you become responsible for looking up the slope at people who might be in your intended path.

only if you want to add confusion. Responsible of what is downhill and everyone is good, even if you're screaming across it because everyone above you should have seen you long before they cross your arc and have adapted accordingly. and even in this case, the boarder was clear "ahead" until someone from above skied down into his path.

Downhill should always be the operative consideration because its the direction we're all going and I don't care if a guy on some tele or xcountry around here is training and going straight up, i'm uphill, i'm adapting to where they are until i'm past them, then i'm not. It's easy, it works. It should have worked in this situation, except the skier wasn't aware of what was downhill in the least.

 

[François Pugh]

Agree with @wiread , we need to change the code back.
Or just have your across the snow speed fast enough that your downhill speed is faster than the straight-liner despite your arcing back and forth across the run. The faster you go the slower the other skier's appear and the easier it is to avoid them; it's like they're all sloths.....

 

[fatbob]

The verbiage has changed. Uphill and downhill are not the operative consideration. It's who is ahead of you that matters. And ahead is always determined by your direction of travel not your height on the slope.

I get that many of us are conditioned by a long pattern of thinking about what is below, but that needs to change.

I think this is horseshit, not least because I NEVER see a single class of skiers doing it. And if instructors aren't drilling it then those most responsible for teaching the code aren't interpreting it your way.

I know because when I'm busy slopes I often stop to let traffic pass and very rarely see anyone checking the uphill when skiing across the slope. And I do carefully look to see who has clocked me when I'm skiing closer to the fall line.

 

[fatbob]

No, I haven't. I said nothing about straight lining, or priorities. Staying in control is a priority. I stated moving with the flow of traffic, which is what the skier was doing, including turns, and the boarder was not, at the point of collision, moving with the flow of traffic. Now if these skiers and boarders were in a ski/board cross course, the flow of traffic would be very different.

And your hypothetical situation of coming up from behind and then cutting in front and claiming to be the victim isn't what happened here.

I just gave an extreme example of what flow of traffic might mean - on a gentle bunny outrun from the rest of the hill it might mean straightrunning back to the base of the lifts. - it certainly would on a busy cattrack which would put the nervous and the slow at a distinct disadvantage. You don't have to be breaching speedzone sensible speeds to be progressing significantly faster than the slowest cross sloper.

My hypothetical situation was meant to say you can't attribute blame based on the immediate moment of impact you have to look at behaviours leading up to it. If he hadn't braked likely she'd have hit him, so you can't turn awareness and attempted mitigation when she had none into proof of his fault.

 

[fatbob]

Separated speed traps a good idea? Don’t think I’ve ever seen one in the US, but maybe pretty common in Europe? Switzerland at least.

Pretty common all over Europe. Good excuse for BMW or Audi or whoever to sponsor it and for assorted blue run heroes to pop up their antennae and put in a call to mars. No idea if it reduces the number of idiots on the hill, there still seem to be plenty. Rarely seems anyone queuing at a speedtrap anyway. That one looks pretty steep and long compared to most.

 

[martyg]

I think this is horseshit, not least because I NEVER see a single class of skiers doing it. And if instructors aren't drilling it then those most responsible for teaching the code aren't interpreting it your way.

CO Skier responsibility Code, #2:" Anyone ahead of you has the right of way so it is your responsibility to avoid them;'

#!: "Stay in control so that you are able to stop and avoid a collision with other people or objects;"

 

[Paul Lutes]

I think this is horseshit, not least because I NEVER see a single class of skiers doing it. And if instructors aren't drilling it then those most responsible for teaching the code aren't interpreting it your way.

I know because when I'm busy slopes I often stop to let traffic pass and very rarely see anyone checking the uphill when skiing across the slope. And I do carefully look to see who has clocked me when I'm skiing closer to the fall line.

I call BS on your HS
If I'm crossing he fall line I routinely check uphill. Basically, a slider is responsible for the 180 degrees in front of them - 90 degrees on either side of the direction they are proceeding in (as in "I was proceeding in a northerly die-rection, yer honor, when ......"). So, if your crossing the fall line 90 degrees includes uphill. When proceeding down the fall line, not so much.

This horse has been beaten to it's composite molecules.

 

[fatbob]

I call BS on your HS
If I'm crossing he fall line I routinely check uphill. Basically, a slider is responsible for the 180 degrees in front of them - 90 degrees on either side of the direction they are proceeding in (as in "I was proceeding in a northerly die-rection, yer honor, when ......"). So, if your crossing the fall line 90 degrees includes uphill. When proceeding down the fall line, not so much.

This horse has been beaten to it's composite molecules.

Yebbut people ( in general) do not do this. Period. Only higher awareness people are actively scanning uphill of their line. And we know the reasons why - they are focused on their line down the hill and if we are lucky anticipating and avoiding those down there. I refer again to my sketch no one there is ahead on the linevof the other until collision.

 

[Tony S]

I refer again to my sketch

Wait. There is a sketch? How did I miss that?

Or do you mean like a comedy sketch?

 

[Tony S]

Wait. There is a sketch? How did I miss that?

Or do you mean like a comedy sketch?

Found it

 

[ski otter 2]

I think a lot of collisions are unavoidable, for at least one of the skiers/boarders. And boarders have a bigger "blind spot," since they are less pointed towards where they are going, and unpredictable turning is just part of the deal/fun for them - like a surfer taking a sharp cut on a wave.

Responsibility for a collision is different than skiing a bit defensively, safely. I like the code simplicity of the uphill skier - and skier coming up from behind - being responsible to watch for those below or ahead (who don't have eyes in the back of their heads, don't you know).

Skiing defensively, safely, is another, related matter. To me, that is one of the things that makes a better skier safer, often (not counting the high angle yahoo who takes up most of the slope without looking anywhere but waaay downhill.)

To me, that is where lanes come in - not over ultimate responsibility, but just in terms of safety. I always try to ski predictably on a crowded slope, so that anyone fast behind me can predict and avoid me (and so I can avoid folks ahead of me pretty much myself). And I appreciate skiers who stake out a lane in front of me, to let me know how to avoid them, and let me have other lanes to choose from to stay safe, whether I'm faster or slower.

What goes along with that is I always aim to leave options for other skiers from behind and ahead: I leave ample space to the left and to the right, and I try to usually leave a good "lane" open between me and the edge of the run, and between me and other skiers on the other side, so that a faster skier has options around me in both directions - and I've not inadvertently "trapped" or "pinched off" him or her.

I don't make full high angle turns to hog too much of the run, but instead tailor my turns to fit the hill and other skiers, to have me taking up only a modest, appropriate width of hill, not preventing others from skiing. The dude taking up two-thirds of what looks like a green slope is just oblivious, to me. And dangerous, unless the slope is really empty.

Surprise turns are not a good idea on a crowded hill either: just stay rhythmic and predictable, for the most part, when it's crowded. To me, this is why other racers and former racers are so safe for me: I can tell where they are going to be, and they can tell where I will be, whatever their speed. No unpleasant surprises.

For the same reason, I have to be extra careful to make allowances with boarders: that sudden cut many of them love to make, quite naturally, might sweep them right in my path, if I don't allow for it.

On a crowded slope, slalom-like (or short turn carver) skis are a good idea also: they take up a more narrow lane, control speed more easily in less space, and can maneuver more precisely, more readily. You will end up the hero in a lot of otherwise near collisions, seems like.

I'm sure there are other such ways of defensive, safe skiing when that is called for.

 

[Brad J]

Found it

assuming the same speed? the video shows other wise

 

[James]

Watch closely the guy in the light blue jacket standing to the right. He looks right at us then instead of letting us pass, he goes. Of course now my attention is drawn to him & off the small hole in my path almost causing me to go over the bars!
View attachment 170469

That’s a sweet uphill on the left! Where is that? Need a field trip.

Now, if you go up there, he’ll be downhill of you but you’ll be ahead and downhill of him.

 

[fatbob]

assuming the same speed? the video shows other wise

The point of my simplified sketch was not to capture the facts and circumstances of the video but to provide a geometric illustration that the definition of "ahead" being defined by each individual's chosen line as fundamentally flawed. That it also showed that skier B was ahead by reference to the direction of the slope and thud the direction of skier A at t0 was a useful secondary point.