# PSA: Snowboarder found guilty in crash in Breckenridge



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

Well, that certainly sucks,.. for both parties. 

Just going off of the limited details given in those stories, it does sound as if the boarder was at fault. Just the fact that he broke his ankle trying to stop would seem to indicate he was in fact freakin' flying thru that "slow zone!"


----------



## Lamps (Sep 3, 2011)

Good result. There are so many dickheads flying through slow zones. 

The article said this was a Blue run. 

Any body else find that the highest percentage of too fast/out of control riders is on the Blues?


----------



## tanscrazydaisy (Mar 11, 2013)

Lamps said:


> Good result. There are so many dickheads flying through slow zones.
> 
> The article said this was a Blue run.
> 
> Any body else find that the highest percentage of too fast/out of control riders is on the Blues?



If you look at the trail map, that trail is a slow zone from top to bottom


----------



## deagol (Mar 26, 2014)

There are slow zones on blue runs

edit: you are also responsible to avoid the skier/rider below you.


----------



## vajohn (Jan 12, 2014)

That is definitely sad for everyone involved. He was absolutely going too fast in a designated slow area if he broke his ankle trying to stop. However, I did not see whether she was wearing a helmet, which could have prevented her from being 'knocked out'...it does not indicate whether she was otherwise injured. If she was not wearing a helmet, it could be argued that the parents also allowed her to ski with "substantial and unjustifiable risk"and were not attending to their toddler who fell in a very dangerous location with large people potentially about to run over her at any moment. 

I have been on those trails at breck and I do slow down, never straightline when there are yellow slow signs. Obviously 'no jumping' means no jumping...plenty of other places to do that. Out of control and inexperienced is one thing, but what is 'slow' and what is 'fast'? Ski patrol usually only gives warnings unless you are obviously out of control and doing something completely reckless. They were very aggressive about enforcing the no jumping signs at the very same rollers where this incident occurred. They should also be giving official warnings for doing stupid things like stopping under rollers, so people learn never to do such a thing and remove themselves as quickly as possible if they fall in that type of area. 

I ride very fast on steeper blues where there are no signs and have never been at fault in a serious collision on any trail in many years of riding. The slow, unpredictable people doing stupid things like stopping under rollers, or going straight across and almost up the hill without looking, on trails above their skill level are more dangerous than highly skilled people riding fast. I have had a skier collide into me from behind on a black diamond and I got pretty pissed off...I flew past him giving him plenty of room and he must have tried to catch up to me only to crash into me from behind at the bottom when I was stopping at the slow down sign where you are supposed to stop/slow down. He completely knocked me down and tangled his skis between my legs, pushing me 10-15'...left some nice bruises and ruined my day. Would have caused a concussion if my head hit ice instead of soft snow.


----------



## Toecutter (Oct 11, 2009)

vajohn said:


> That is definitely sad for everyone involved. He was absolutely going too fast in a designated slow area if he broke his ankle trying to stop. However, I did not see whether she was wearing a helmet, which could have prevented her from being 'knocked out'...it does not indicate whether she was otherwise injured. If she was not wearing a helmet, it could be argued that the parents also allowed her to ski with "substantial and unjustifiable risk"and were not attending to their toddler who fell in a very dangerous location with large people potentially about to run over her at any moment.


The facts and arguments have already been presented to a jury and they've found him guilty. 

Trying to blame a 6 year-old girl for getting clobbered and knocked unconscious from behind would be lame.


----------



## vajohn (Jan 12, 2014)

Toecutter said:


> The facts and arguments have already been presented to a jury and they've found him guilty.
> 
> Trying to blame a 6 year-old girl for getting clobbered and knocked unconscious from behind would be lame.


In no way blaming the kid. This guy was clearly at fault and I agree with prosecuting him for it. But the parents putting their toddlers in dangerous situations and not staying right there with them to help them up and move them out of the way when they fall is lame.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Well since none of you live hear why don't you just spout off. 

The "roller" he hit her on is not a roller it's actually the start of a downward pitch that sits in the shade predominately all season till about late March. That run on that side is icy, now anyone that knows down hill plus ice, plus shade = recipe for disaster. Then throw in a kid that can barely ski in a blind area. Shit happens. 

I've nearly hit idiots in that exact spot. "Oh but you were going super fast and reckless", oh was I? What's bullshit is the charges. Assault? This is similar to me rear ending you on the highway because you were stopped in a blind over a hill and I came over it and was like "Oh fuck" skidded and hit you. 

If anyone is to blame it's the father. Fuck him for his shitty parenting and then for lawyering up. I can almost guarantee it was Vail that pushed for this because they want to further continue pushing their "family friendly" atmosphere that isolates anyone that doesn't fit their mold. They've been on a conquest to pull passes for "speeding" which by the way is judged by the lowest level snow carnies. They watch a 20 minute video and poof they're capable to now tell you that you don't know how to ride. These are the idiots that move here that don't own their own equipment, have less than 20 days on a hill in their life, and couldn't get a job as a lifty or in the cafeteria. We're talking the bottom of the bottom. 

I fucking hate all this bullshit.


----------



## Kevin137 (May 5, 2013)

Toecutter said:


> Trying to blame a 6 year-old girl for getting clobbered and knocked unconscious from behind would be lame.


I agree, but the parents ARE responsible for her, and if she was not capable of riding that particular hill, then the parents should of been behind her, not in front of her having to look back when she fell over...!

Nanny state blaming everyone else and not accepting that you may be partly to blame...!

I agree the bloke was almost definitely going to fast, but with the parent standing behind her if she fell, then HE would of been seen and the accident would not of happened...!


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Kevin137 said:


> I agree, but the parents ARE responsible for her, and if she was not capable of riding that particular hill, then the parents should of been behind her, not in front of her having to look back when she fell over...!
> 
> Nanny state blaming everyone else and not accepting that you may be partly to blame...!
> 
> I agree the bloke was almost definitely going to fast, but with the parent standing behind her if she fell, then HE would of been seen and the accident would not of happened...!


While I agree with the nanny state comment. 

I've seen people slide slipping hit each other right there. That whole section is a death trap, plus if you want to hit a good roller you go skiers left down the side of the mogul field and then under the lift tower is a great cut out, you can send that fucker a solid 20 feet no problem. WAY BETTER than that blind start to the down hill.


----------



## Toecutter (Oct 11, 2009)

vajohn said:


> In no way blaming the kid. This guy was clearly at fault and I agree with prosecuting him for it. But the parents putting their toddlers in dangerous situations and not staying right there with them to help them up and move them out of the way when they fall is lame.


For clarification a toddler is a kid who's just learning to walk (aka, toddle), which is usually around 1 year of age. By age 6 a kid is in first or second grade and can potentially ski as fast as many adults, so asking a parent to always be within arm's reach of a 6 year-old is like asking you to be within arm's reach of your riding buddies. Usually the parent is just below their child, who is following along. I didn't see in either article anything that mentioned how far away the dad was from his daughter. It just said "I was in front of my daughter so when I turned around she was airborne and I saw the other gentleman airborne." I don't fault the dad either.

Edit: How are you guys determining that the girl "can't ski?" Because she fell on an icy spot? Have you guys never fallen?


----------



## deagol (Mar 26, 2014)

BurtonAvenger said:


> ....is judged by the lowest level snow carnies. They watch a 20 minute video and poof they're capable to now tell you that you don't know how to ride. .....


are these the ones at Breck in the yellow jackets you are talking about?


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

deagol said:


> are these the ones at Breck in the yellow jackets you are talking about?


Yep the fucking banana gestapo. Fucking hate these no talent ass clowns. There's a reason there's a 98% turn over rate in that position.


----------



## Argo (Feb 25, 2010)

I agree. I was writing a response and BA popped up. They won because they had the money to pay for their legal team. The dude lost because he was likely using public defense. That kid should not be there, the parents shouldn't have their beginner child there. I wasn't there to know how fast he was going but you can break an ankle rolling it off a curb, that means nothing. 

Everyone arguing "slow" zone.... Wtf is slow? Even at what I consider slow, I'm passing through the masses of tourists that are "intermediate or advanced". Fortunately for us, this year we have alot of returning safety people on vail and the patrol knows most of us, last year was crazy. Even with that, fast to them isn't very fast and it is all relative to who is watching. Had a coworker get slammed at the base area by a guy going like 2 miles an hour, broke her ribs and concussion. 

I feel bad for both parties involved but Wtf, you have your kid on an intermediate run with barely beginner ability. This is an action sport not finger painting hour.

We see it here like BA sees it in Breck and it's bullshit. I have come really fucking close to clobbering some jack ass on black+ runs that can barely open their eyes long enough to slide sideways down it. Then they want to bitch at me. 

This sets a horrible precedent.


----------



## deagol (Mar 26, 2014)

BurtonAvenger said:


> Yep the fucking banana gestapo. Fucking hate these no talent ass clowns. There's a reason there's a 98% turn over rate in that position.


I thought so and would have to agree with you. They yelled at and threatened my former ski patroller friend (who does live there) last year who has skied more days than god. He was totally in control coming into the Peak 7 base area, but someone wanted to feel important. They have them at Copper as well.

edit: for those of us unfortunate enough to have to drive I-70, there is a billboard I hate that you see somewhere near Downieville on the way back to Denver that basically encourages suing. They call it Skilaw.com and they are encouraging people to sue if they get in an accident.


----------



## vajohn (Jan 12, 2014)

Yeah, they just hang out and yell at you to 'slow down' or 'no jumping', but they have the authority to give official warnings and pull your ticket. I know because one of my friends riding on my swaf pass got an 'official warning' from one of those characters last week out there for doing a little 180 in one of those 'no jumping' areas. He is a very advanced rider and was not being reckless, not even going that fast. We were only going through that area to get from peak 6 side back over to where we were staying. I try to avoid those stupid slow areas whenever possible. 

And yes the Dad is a jerk for not doing a better job. Glad to hear some of you have the same opinion as me on this and not jump on with all this crap about 'riding too fast on a blue'. If the kid was seriously injured, I think there should have been some consequences for the Dad also like go to parenting class or some crap. Maybe they should require parents of toddlers to be certified to take their kids off the bunny slopes if they are going to enforce all this other crap like 'no jumping'.


----------



## KansasNoob (Feb 24, 2013)

The nanny state laws and bullshit of California are coming to Colorado. You guys who live there have gotten to see it come closer and closer. The ambulance chasers are the lowest of the low. 

What it comes down to, is sliding down a mountain on a piece of wood/plastic is dangerous, especially with hundreds of other people doing the same thing basically on top of you. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be on the mountain. There are lots of experienced riders on this site who have been in collisions and close calls, they understand the danger and accept it. If someone doesn't accept that, I don't understand why they would take their kid! Shit


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

deagol said:


> I thought so and would have to agree with you. They yelled at and threatened my former ski patroller friend (who does live there) last year who has skied more days than god. He was totally in control coming into the Peak 7 base area, but someone wanted to feel important. They have them at Copper as well.


Have to love the "I know more than you because I have this jacket" mentality. I've had it out with them on the hill, in the bar, in the shop, on the streets, and on the bus. Fucking stupid rent a cops with a chip on their shoulder. If you're not NSP you're nothing.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

KansasNoob said:


> The nanny state laws and bullshit of California are coming to Colorado. You guys who live there have gotten to see it come closer and closer. The ambulance chasers are the lowest of the low.
> 
> What it comes down to, is sliding down a mountain on a piece of wood/plastic is dangerous, especially with hundreds of other people doing the same thing basically on top of you. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be on the mountain. There are lots of experienced riders on this site who have been in collisions and close calls, they understand the danger and accept it. If someone doesn't accept that, I don't understand why they would take their kid! Shit


There's an ad on the free bus in Breck for Skilawyer.com or something like that. It's slogan is "hurt on the slopes, don't be a dope! Lawyer with us" 

I'm waiting for the day tree skiing is outlawed because someone got hurt on it. I found a guy sprawled out in the trees on six yesterday not moving. So roll up and see if he's OK, few minutes of yelling at him finally guy turns his headphones off and looks at me and says something stupid. I inform him hey these are really tight trees and you're in a blind where you could get hit you might want to move. No sooner do I say that then he almost gets run over, but he yells at me that it's none of my business. Then leaving the exact same trees a chick with a gopole and camera runs right into a tree on the only run out. Eats shit because she was staring at her camera and not the tree in front of her. Guarantee if she was dead or injured someone would sue because the tree was in her way.


----------



## BoardChitless (Mar 11, 2013)

BurtonAvenger said:


> Well since none of you live hear why don't you just spout off.
> 
> The "roller" he hit her on is not a roller it's actually the start of a downward pitch that sits in the shade predominately all season till about late March. That run on that side is icy, now anyone that knows down hill plus ice, plus shade = recipe for disaster. Then throw in a kid that can barely ski in a blind area. Shit happens.
> 
> ...


Nailed it! 

Feel bad for the injuries, but I feel more bad for injustice. And, I have to agree, the Poppa Bear should understand that he made his child susceptible in that position. Poppa Bear needs to be more objective, and aware of his environment.

This suit is so subjective, and downright fn wrong.

Is it true, Park City and Canyons got bought out by Vail corp? I'm headed there next month, and this bothers me that chit like this happens with such subjective claims.


----------



## tanscrazydaisy (Mar 11, 2013)

Maybe things are different in Colorado...

If the parents lawyered up, then the court preceedings would be a civil suit, not a criminal suit.

Grannell was brought up on Criminal charges.

In a civil suit, Grannell can counter sue for damages also.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

BoardChitless said:


> Nailed it!
> 
> Feel bad for the injuries, but I feel more bad for injustice. And, I have to agree, the Poppa Bear should understand that he made his child susceptible in that position. Poppa Bear needs to be more objective, and aware of his environment.
> 
> This suit is so subjective, and downright fn wrong.


We have this belief that tourists that come here just check their brain at the tunnel and forget all survival instincts. 

This shit pisses me off to no end because in the long run it's going to ruin the Breckenridge experience. 

Fuck I could go on forever on what is wrong with this, the resort, and the town policies. I think next year I'm running for mayor on a hookers and blow platform. Bring back the old school mining town days!


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

tanscrazydaisy said:


> Maybe things are different in Colorado...
> 
> If the parents lawyered up, then the court preceedings would be a civil suit, not a criminal suit.
> 
> ...


I will put money on this more than anything, the resort pressured the family to press charges and follow it through. I also guarantee there will be a civil suit real soon. Our court system here is backed up about 6 to 8 months with civil suits so we'll see it late summer. The court case sets the precedent, now this guy is 1. fucked with having a record for a non malicious accident and 2. will probably get raked over the coals.


----------



## ShredLife (Feb 6, 2010)

if i hit you underneath a blind landing in the backcountry i just bury your body in the snow and continue on with my day.



this is shit.


----------



## Psi-Man (Aug 31, 2009)

The criminal charges here are disturbing. This has the potential to definitely open some flood gates.


----------



## speedjason (May 2, 2013)

Another sue happy parent. Hope their daughter grow up normally.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

speedjason said:


> Another sue happy parent. Hope their daughter grow up normally.


They'll probably sue her when she clips the garage with dads Beemer when she's 16.


----------



## deagol (Mar 26, 2014)

I don't claim to know all the details of this, but to me "criminal" implies some sort of intent to harm, where this was clearly an accident. I don't know ...:shrug:


----------



## jjz (Feb 14, 2012)

BurtonAvenger said:


> Well since none of you live hear why don't you just spout off.
> 
> The "roller" he hit her on is not a roller it's actually the start of a downward pitch that sits in the shade predominately all season till about late March. That run on that side is icy, now anyone that knows down hill plus ice, plus shade = recipe for disaster. Then throw in a kid that can barely ski in a blind area. Shit happens.
> 
> ...


Just want to state my agreement.


----------



## tanscrazydaisy (Mar 11, 2013)

deagol said:


> I don't claim to know all the details of this, but to me "criminal" implies some sort of intent to harm, where this was clearly an accident. I don't know ...:shrug:


there's degrees of criminality. Third degree assault does not require intent, but can be charged when you *recklessly caused bodily injury to someone* or negligently used a deadly weapon to cause injury.

2nd degree is more serious, there's intent or recklessly caused injury with a deadly weapon.

1st serious is intent to cause serious injury with a deadly weapon.

.....
it sounds like someone wanted to make an example of him.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

So it would appear that along with the news report's lack of certain pertinent details, and the addition of other details from people who live near and ride those runs,..? This situation is not nearly as black and white as some would try and have us believe!

Several people have asked,.. "what is slow?" Personally, I think that is a good question. I certainly don't know what the resort considers "Slow" for their slow zones. Is there an official speed limit or standard given for that? And If it is not officially stated in the trail maps and/or safety literature of the resort? Then it is a piss poor warning and requirement with no objective standard with which to judge anyone's behavior. "No Jumping" on the other hand seems pretty clear. I don't recall if the article stated that the snowboarder got airborne coming over that roller or not. If he did,..? I would tend to accept & believe that he was probably going too fast in a slow zone. 

And while Argo is absolutely correct in that you can break your ankle stepping off a curb,.. I believe the article also claimed that the child was knocked another 20-30 ft down the hill by the collision? That is another factor that would seem to confirm the assertion that the boarder was going too fast.

But once again I would ask, are there *any* set, subjective standards for what constitutes "Slow" in a slow zone? I mean, 10-15 mph is certainly slow as shit if you're in a car! But for an unprotected person doing 10-15 mph on skis or snowboard? That is _plenty_ fast enough to potentially cause some serious injuries. (_…as Argo clearly pointed out after his friends injury in a meager 2 mph collision._)

So, after BA's traffic accident comparison? One thing that I began ruminating on in this whole discussion of fault vs skill vs rules vs parenting etc,..? The entire blue/black/green run vs skill situation that continually comes up here on the forum really got me thinking! What if someone opened up a public road racing course then allowed _anyone_ with a car, *regardless of age, skill or experience* onto the track? :blink: 

Then without having any posted speed limits or any subjective rules or standards, you tell Dale Earnhardt Jr. that "He's" responsible after he hits the dumb ass 15 year old kid with only a learners permit who stalled out behind a blind turn!  :facepalm1: That would seem to be utterly ridiculous to me! :shrug: 

Obviously this is not a perfect analogy,.. If he had gone roaring into that blind turn over some _posted_ speed limit or while under an official caution flag,..? Then Yeah, he would sure as shit be at fault and suing his reckless ass would seem more than appropriate. But here? There doesn't seem to be any set, official subjective rules and standards to govern these situations while on the slopes. And just as in my imperfect analogy, _anyone_ can go _anywhere_ on the slopes, regardless of their age, skill or ability!!  :facepalm1: 

Then when an accident happens, It appears to be judged solely on 20/20 hindsight & "monday morning quarterbacking" after the fact! 

The whole situation seems to totally suck for everyone,..! _*Except of course for the lawyers!*_ :facepalm1:


----------



## f00bar (Mar 6, 2014)

Without any sort of real insight as to what was presented there is really no way of knowing if this guy is getting the shaft or what he deserves. We all know shit happens and there is an inherent danger that people need to be more aware of when they get on the slopes. We also have all seen people hauling ass in areas they shouldn't be with zero regard to where they are and who may be around them.


----------



## tanscrazydaisy (Mar 11, 2013)

in a slow zone... I would picture a noob that graduated from bunny slope and somewhat capable on a green.


----------



## ZacAttakk (Oct 20, 2014)

This story enrages me. Shit happens on the slopes. Especially when you let your kid stop on the back side of and icy roller in the middle of traffic. Yea maybe he was going a little fast but is that a reason to ruin some ones life. Shame on the family for taking it that far. It was a simple accident. That family is gaining nothing from pressing those charges but ruining his life if he is found guilty.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

Oh,..! And I might also add that while the resort claims _YOU_ are solely and completely responsible for your own safety if you get your ass seriously hurt or killed on their property,..? That they are In No Way liable or responsible if you choose (…whether by accident or design,) to venture into an area that you do not have the skill or experience to navigate safely,..?

…Somehow, after the resort clearly states _their_ waivers and denials of *any* and *all* responsibility? _I'm_ to be held liable & responsible for _everything_ some dumb assed fucking NooB boarder/skier, or parent with a child in tow does to get in my way or contribute to causing an accident?? Even if they are on a run that based on their abilities they have _NO_ business being on,…??????

You _really_ have to love the logic in that, eh??


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

chomps1211 said:


> Several people have asked,.. "what is slow?" Personally, I think that is a good question. I certainly don't know what the resort considers "Slow" for their slow zones. Is there an official speed limit or standard given for that? And If it is not officially stated in the trail maps and/or safety literature of the resort? Then it is a piss poor warning and requirement with no objective standard with which to judge anyone's behavior. "No Jumping" on the other hand seems pretty clear. I don't recall if the article stated that the snowboarder got airborne coming over that roller or not. If he did,..? I would tend to accept & believe that he was probably going too fast in a slow zone.
> 
> And while Argo is absolutely correct in that you can break your ankle stepping off a curb,.. I believe the article also claimed that the child was knocked another 20-30 ft down the hill by the collision? That is another factor that would seem to confirm the assertion that the boarder was going too fast.
> 
> ...


This is the problem. There is no true definition of slow. Now if you ask the Yellow Jackets you basically want to be going so slow you're skidding turns, on your heel edge, and unable to control yourself. That's what SLOW is for them. My definition of slow keeps me in control, but by their standards I'm "wildly out of control and being reckless" because yes pencil thin carves and staying on edge are out of control.

The other problem is they're standing their with their thumbs in their ass facing up hill with a mass coming at them, it looks faster than they're going. Logic is out the window on this one.


----------



## tanscrazydaisy (Mar 11, 2013)

Do you expect ski patrol to have radar guns?


----------



## vajohn (Jan 12, 2014)

Yeah, I changed my mind also after reading BA's analogy. I was groggy earlier when I responded about blaming the kid. I don't like the verdict or the charges. It was an accident, he had no willful intent to cause harm. This is bullshit. I had a couple close calls coming over rollers at high speed up there myself recently because of idiots doing stupid crap, but not in slow zones. I guess the 'slow zone' factor is really something to think about. 

I will add about the slow speed injuries. Some guy clipped my friend's board on a cat track going really slow...he fell and shattered his wrist bad. He was yelling and wanted to track the guy down. Maybe I should have chased him down, but it was clearly an accident. Should that guy have faced criminal charges for causing my friend serious injury and big hospital bills? These charges open up all kinds of bad possibilities. The guy out there can probably counter sue for breaking his ankle trying to avoid someone hanging out in a blind area that he could not avoid despite his best attempts.


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

*Sorry u guys who have to ride Vail resorts.*

Four years ago a yellow jacket at Copper tried to tackle me. He started yelling as soon as I could hear him. I speed checked like 4 times to the point where I was within 5 feet of him so he could talk to me, but he just kept yelling and then tried to tackle me.

I snowboarded around him and he fell on his face.

The next day I went to find someone to ask wtf cuz I like to shred Copper alot and want no troubles. Lady at the sign said it was that dudes first and last day.

The legal precedence set is frightening. If these cases start to pile up I bet we see a weird skier to shredder ratio. Not to mention a disturbing amount of it at Vail resorts and families vs single guy.

BA, don't know why u don't just ride Copper.

I get it you live across the street, same with Argo and Vail. Hell I love the LUV but there is an unset date to get the fuck off i70 forever.

You probably SHOULD mayor up.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

tanscrazydaisy said:


> Do you expect ski patrol to have radar guns?


If they are going to hold me "criminally" liable?? Yeah! Why not? If they set a standard they should be required to provide the means for *proving* I exceeded those standards! Then there would be no question of responsibility or blame.


----------



## deagol (Mar 26, 2014)

This does suck all the way around, no doubt about it.

I echo BA's point that "slow" does not necessarily mean "in control" and fast doesn't necessarily mean "out of control". This is where those yellow jackets (or whatever color at other resorts) fail, IMO. That must be a very boring job, so perhaps that is why they are so overzealous. 

But Chomps, to answer your question, I don't think there is a definite speed equating to "slow". I hope there never is one either because some people's idea of "slow" is not other people's idea of "slow". I will ride faster through a slow zone if it is not crowded, but I stay in control always.


----------



## ZacAttakk (Oct 20, 2014)

vajohn said:


> I will add about the slow speed injuries. Some guy clipped my friend's board on a cat track going really slow...he fell and shattered his wrist bad. He was yelling and wanted to track the guy down. Maybe I should have chased him down, but it was clearly an accident. Should that guy have faced criminal charges for causing my friend serious injury and big hospital bills? These charges open up all kinds of bad possibilities. The guy out there can probably counter sue for breaking his ankle trying to avoid someone hanging out in a blind area that he could not avoid despite his best attempts.


Riding off after making some one fall is just plain being an asshole. If its an accident that's fine but at least stop and see if the person is ok. I would have given that guy an ear full if I saw him at the bottom. And you are right those charges are terrible. Not only did this guy have to probably pay out the ass for lawyer fees and court fees but now every time his moves some where or applies for a job they could look and see that he has an assault charge. They will see him as a criminal for something that wasn't completely his fault and not even that big of a deal. This world is sick.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

tanscrazydaisy said:


> Do you expect ski patrol to have radar guns?


 Lets get something straight here real quick. Yellow jackets are not ski patrol. They do not have to do the same training, they do not do the same job, they are glorified mall cops who watched a 20 minute video and passed a basic riding competency skill test. They want to enforce speeds they need to know how to back it the fuck up. 





snowklinger said:


> Four years ago a yellow jacket at Copper tried to tackle me. He started yelling as soon as I could hear him. I speed checked like 4 times to the point where I was within 5 feet of him so he could talk to me, but he just kept yelling and then tried to tackle me.
> 
> I snowboarded around him and he fell on his face.
> 
> ...


Because I literally live 2 blocks from the base of peak 8. I'm probably going to end up buying my condo. Plus I love this town and the true locals that live here. It's one of the few ski towns I totally feel at home at. Plus it's not a I 70 truckstop, it's a real town. 

Plus Copper is just one mountain, I like having options.


----------



## deagol (Mar 26, 2014)

I have never seen "yellow jackets" at Copper, they wear red and are somewhat overzealous, but not as much as Breck- or so it seems from my experience. YMMV. 

That's wild that one of them tried to tackle you... ^&*% crazy.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

deagol said:


> I have never seen "yellow jackets" at Copper, they wear red and are somewhat overzealous, but not as much as Breck- or so it seems from my experience. YMMV.
> 
> That's wild that one of them tried to tackle you... ^&*% crazy.


You get those wily ones every now and then. Had one at Breck do the same shit. It's amazing how they react when you name drop the head of HR and then inform them you have their direct line and will be calling that day.


----------



## Kevin137 (May 5, 2013)

I would like to see the views on others for what is considered slow...

You have to be subjective, and as we all know, the capabilities of some are always going to rule the rest of us, and that is just a fact of life...!

If you look at what is considered to be a "slow moving vehicle" then that would be 40kmh/25mph which for me, is not fast, so i would suggest that people try to find out what is considered SLOW by way of asking the resorts...!!!

If everyone on the website emailed the resort, they surely have to give a definitive answer, and once you have that answer, then it really is something they have to deal with...

IE for them to say you where going to fast, the simple answer is, no i wasn't, the resort has a "speed guide" for slow, and you now need to prove i was exceeding this...!!!

Maybe that is the answer to solving the problem, would be an interesting thing to try and nail down though...


----------



## BoardChitless (Mar 11, 2013)

BurtonAvenger said:


> We have this belief that tourists that come here just check their brain at the tunnel and forget all survival instincts.
> 
> This shit pisses me off to no end because in the long run it's going to ruin the Breckenridge experience.
> 
> Fuck I could go on forever on what is wrong with this, the resort, and the town policies. I think next year I'm running for mayor on a hookers and blow platform. Bring back the old school mining town days!


You are so right.. It is the Hookers and blow platform, from the good ol' industrial days!

...sounds about right. The bartenders know this more than anyone. Always tip the tenders!

It's like people like to create me against you, or black vs. white for no objective reasons.. They just do it, because they can. Vail corp and this family are garbage.

And chit, I do want you to Mayor up. Seems you actually care about the town, people, and mountain. I do believe Vail corp may have pushed this, or waiting for the opportunity to push this, especially with the land grab at Park City. They are spending close to 200mil all said & done on Park City/Canyons. Why wouldn't they somehow get caught up in a suit if they can. It's a great coupling..

Bro, you are spot on. This is disgusting on the short-term, but the precedence for the latter, is what is just wrong and not cool, and could really hurt the town even tho Vail Corp may sees this as a cash grab with the current circumstances.


----------



## tanscrazydaisy (Mar 11, 2013)

BurtonAvenger said:


> Lets get something straight here real quick. Yellow jackets are not ski patrol. They do not have to do the same training, they do not do the same job, they are glorified mall cops who watched a 20 minute video and passed a basic riding competency skill test. They want to enforce speeds they need to know how to back it the fuck up.


Regardless of mall cops on skis, it's about personal responsibility.

You heard the old saying: Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should.

If you want to bomb down a trail... and ignore the various warning signs telling to ride at a safe speed relative to everyone else on the slow trail.... you can. But there can be consequences if things take a turn for the worse.

But as well, pick a different trail.

What's next, using RFID and placing various sensors, for big brother to determine your speed? So, if Big Brother determines that you're speeding in a slow zone... they'll deactivate your lift ticket or season pass the next time you try to get on a lift?

Imagine the tantrum a skiier/snowboard will throw if it ever comes to this!


----------



## F1EA (Oct 25, 2013)

When you waive your rights to the resort.... aren't you also waiving them to 3rd parties?

I think it's bullshit you sign a waiver not to sue a resort for their negligence, but can prosecute someone else... especially when culpability is not so straight forward.

I go real slow in slow zones... I could go faster, but what for? There's plenty other places to go fast and enjoy.

and I hate skiers. The way they ride sucks and the way they mogul-out everything sucks too. But i also hate dumbass snowboarders... I guess i'm a hater.


----------



## boarderaholic (Aug 13, 2007)

tanscrazydaisy said:


> Regardless of mall cops on skis, it's about personal responsibility.
> 
> You heard the old saying: Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should.


And personal responsibility goes both ways. In this case, the snowboarder SHOULD have slowed down, but the parents were also massive numb nuts for letting their child stop under a roller. 

Just because someone can stop in a blind spot, doesn't mean they should.


----------



## f00bar (Mar 6, 2014)

There's almost zero real info in those articles. Because of the impact it appears speed was an issue, but possibly not the only. 

For all we know he was reading the NY Times while cruising through the area, or more than realistically (s/t)exting, mucking with his tunes, adjusting his undies, or whatever. 

Simply not enough info to damn or exonerate.


----------



## vajohn (Jan 12, 2014)

Kevin137 said:


> I would like to see the views on others for what is considered slow...
> 
> You have to be subjective, and as we all know, the capabilities of some are always going to rule the rest of us, and that is just a fact of life...!
> 
> ...


Similar to vehicle speeds actually. 55-65 mph and occasionally higher is bombing speed, but hit close to that on the regular. 25 mph is probably slow enough when I see slow signs, but probably not slow enough to be considered slow to some.


----------



## RidgeRider (Jan 12, 2015)

BurtonAvenger said:


> Well since none of you live hear why don't you just spout off.
> 
> The "roller" he hit her on is not a roller it's actually the start of a downward pitch that sits in the shade predominately all season till about late March. That run on that side is icy, now anyone that knows down hill plus ice, plus shade = recipe for disaster. Then throw in a kid that can barely ski in a blind area. Shit happens.
> 
> ...


If the girl was black I'm sure there'd be some racial disagreement imposing that the man committed a hate crime. All this fighting just so that the pussy father could get a little extra coin.
Jury would've found him innocent if it wasn't a little girl, whether she had a helmet on or not.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

tanscrazydaisy said:


> Regardless of mall cops on skis, it's about personal responsibility.
> 
> You heard the old saying: Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should.
> 
> ...


I'm just going to call you a fucking moron because we've hit this point. 

Here's something for everyone to chomp on straight from Vails responsibility code which is on the back of EVERY FUCKING TICKET EVER!

*3. You must not stop where you obstruct a trail or are not visible from above.*

THIS! THIS IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW!



RidgeRider said:


> If the girl was black I'm sure there'd be some racial disagreement imposing that the man committed a hate crime. All this fighting just so that the pussy father could get a little extra coin.
> Jury would've found him innocent if it wasn't a little girl, whether she had a helmet on or not.


Where you going with this dipshit? Why did you have to go throw a race card in there, it does nothing. Why don't you go kindly fist yourself.


----------



## RidgeRider (Jan 12, 2015)

It's just an opinion bud, don't go get a raging hard-on now. :jumping1:


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

RidgeRider said:


> It's just an opinion bud, don't go get a raging hard-on now. :jumping1:


You'd like my raging hard on in you.


----------



## RidgeRider (Jan 12, 2015)

BurtonAvenger said:


> You'd like my raging hard on in you.


Ahahaha, yeah.


----------



## Kevin137 (May 5, 2013)

So the official stance is that the speed is not necessarily slow, but...

Slow Zones: Certain areas (indicated on the map in yellow) are designated as SLOW ZONES. Please observe the posted slow areas by *maintaining a speed no faster than the general flow of traffic*. Space and speed are especially important in these areas. Fast and aggressive skiing will not
be tolerated.

That says it all really... If everyone is going the same speed, then that is slow enough...


----------



## f00bar (Mar 6, 2014)

I still can't figure out what the defense was

"Grannell's attorney said in court that his snowboarding was done with substantial and unjustifiable risk on his part, but prosecutors convinced the jury that he was riding recklessly."

Crappy lawyer. He needed the one that IS a criminal


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

f00bar said:


> I still can't figure out what the defense was
> 
> "Grannell's attorney said in court that his snowboarding was done with substantial and unjustifiable risk on his part, but prosecutors convinced the jury that he was riding recklessly."
> 
> Crappy lawyer. He needed the one that IS a criminal


I was confused by that as well. It does read as tho his lawyer hung him out to dry!  If he admitted to riding with "substantial and unjustifiable risk?" I would say he just admitted to being "Reckless!"

If I can't justify whatever risk I took,..? Then I would have to say I acted recklessly! Sounds like his lawyer was pretty shitty. :dunno:


----------



## larrytbull (Oct 30, 2013)

BurtonAvenger said:


> . I can almost guarantee it was Vail that pushed for this because they want to further continue pushing their "family friendly" atmosphere that isolates anyone that doesn't fit their mold.


BA Time to Find yourself a woman and push out a few BA Jr's to fit the mold
or at least rent a family of snow carnies during the season :hairy:


But have to agree parent should have been out there getting the kid out of the way
I see that alot in park where kid is barely pizza-ing and stops right in front of roller.

when my kid went down, I made sure my riding friends were on top of roller to stop anyone till we could get him out of the way


----------



## jdang307 (Feb 6, 2011)

BurtonAvenger said:


> Lets get something straight here real quick. Yellow jackets are not ski patrol. They do not have to do the same training, they do not do the same job, they are glorified mall cops who watched a 20 minute video and passed a basic riding competency skill test. They want to enforce speeds they need to know how to back it the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OFF TOPIC. Is Aspen worth making the trek from Denver or is Breck better. Looking for mountain and town after (we really liked Breck, the energy and amount of people around town, quite fun).


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

larrytbull said:


> BA Time to Find yourself a woman and push out a few BA Jr's to fit the mold
> or at least rent a family of snow carnies during the season :hairy:
> 
> 
> ...


I'm 3 grand short of a vasectomy. 



jdang307 said:


> OFF TOPIC. Is Aspen worth making the trek from Denver or is Breck better. Looking for mountain and town after (we really liked Breck, the energy and amount of people around town, quite fun).


I wasn't sold on Aspen, but that's just me.


----------



## vajohn (Jan 12, 2014)

BurtonAvenger said:


> Here's something for everyone to chomp on straight from Vails responsibility code which is on the back of EVERY FUCKING TICKET EVER!
> 
> *3. You must not stop where you obstruct a trail or are not visible from above.*
> 
> THIS! THIS IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW!


Yeah, no shit...another good point. Did the guy's stupid ass lawyer not force the jury to read that? This guy got screwed, must have had a public defender of something.


----------



## f00bar (Mar 6, 2014)

vajohn said:


> Yeah, no shit...another good point. Did the guy's stupid ass lawyer not force the jury to read that? This guy got screwed, must have had a public defender of something.


The resort can put anything it wants on there. It's not going to change the requirements to reach a 'wreckless endangerment' verdict any more than the verbage they have won't protect them from being sued if one of their cats goes all Maximum Overdrive and kills half the resort.


----------



## Karpediem (Aug 29, 2007)

BurtonAvenger said:


> I'm 3 grand short of a vasectomy.


Have insurance? $100 and 15 minutes later = no more kids!


----------



## mojo maestro (Jan 6, 2009)

BurtonAvenger said:


> I'm 3 grand short of a vasectomy.


I can do vasectomies in my garage. Pretty simple really......incision and a couple snips.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Karpediem said:


> Have insurance? $100 and 15 minutes later = no more kids!


Insurance won't cover that as it's an elective. I found this guy that will do it in his garage though!


----------



## BoardChitless (Mar 11, 2013)

Karpediem said:


> Have insurance? $100 and 15 minutes later = no more kids!


BA's too cool to let the gov't know whether his gems can reproduce or not.

As already stated, could see him going under the knife in a basement or secret underground layer. 

Some people just see things differently I guess.

Garage and 3G's works tho..


----------



## BoardWalk (Mar 22, 2011)

mojo maestro said:


> I can do vasectomies in my garage. Pretty simple really......incision and a couple snips.


Do you do Colonoscopies?


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

BurtonAvenger said:


> Insurance won't cover that as it's an elective. I found this guy that will do it in his garage though!


Well just be careful there BA! While as a man you may be a strking example of snowboarding masculinity,..? If the garage guy slips? I'm not sure you'd make it as a Gnargoyle! :eyetwitch2: :rofl4:


Well,.. maybe with enough booze n mascara! :shrug: :hairy:


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Just taking the venom out of the ole rattlesnake, not the shake and the bite.


----------



## Bones (Feb 24, 2008)

f00bar said:


> I still can't figure out what the defense was
> 
> "Grannell's attorney said in court that his snowboarding was done with substantial and unjustifiable risk on his part, but prosecutors convinced the jury that he was riding recklessly."


Yeah, I gotta think that the reporting on this article was as weak as this guy's lawyer.

I think what the defense was arguing was that all snowsports are risky activities for both the snowboarder and the kid that was hit. Essentially that even being on the slopes means accepting risk. 

After reading the article, I still have no idea what happened: don't know if the boarder was reckless, don't know how he broke his ankle, don't know if the kid had fallen in a bad place or was building a snowman, don't know if the kid flew thru the air 20 or 30 feet from the impact or just slid down the slope after losing balance. Don't know if there were other witnesses, don't know what evidence there was to charge him with a crime in the first place. 

To play devil's advocate, if there were witnesses who said that the kid flew 20 feet thru the air after impact and the snowboarder broke his ankle during the impact, then I could see a jury deciding that he was reckless. Just as easily, he could have caught an edge, broke his ankle, slid into the kid at 5mph causing her to fall over, hit her head and slide 30 feet down the hill and the article would still read the same.

No point in getting too wound up, this article only seems to report one real fact: the kid was convicted.


----------



## mosf88 (Mar 1, 2013)

BurtonAvenger said:


> Insurance won't cover that as it's an elective. I found this guy that will do it in his garage though!


Insurance generally WILL cover it because it means you won't be adding a pregnant wife and kiddos and all the resulting covered expenses to your policy. 

CO law supersedes resort policies. I took a moment to look at CO law and came across this "Under Colorado law, a person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if:
• The person knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another person"

Also "Warning Under Colorado law, a skier assumes the risk of any injury to person or property resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing and may not recover from any ski area operator for any injury resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing including: changing weather conditions; existing and changing snow conditions; bare spots; rocks; stumps; trees; collision with natural objects, man- made objects or other skiers; variations in the terrain; and the failure of the skiers to ski within their own abilities"

The way that clause is worded, it looks like it could apply to EITHER skier/boarder in the collision....and a 6 year old is not old enough to assume risk. Reckless is open to interpretation but breaking your ankle from trying to stop sounds really really bad to me. I typically ride at 20-25 mph and just can't see that happening on those speeds. 

Vail may or may not have been involved. Doesn't matter because this conviction might lessen the liability of all resorts in the state by placing it on the skier/rider in motion, when colliding with a young child. Look for this to be appealed.


----------



## BoardChitless (Mar 11, 2013)

Bones said:


> Yeah, I gotta think that the reporting on this article was as weak as this guy's lawyer.
> 
> I think what the defense was arguing was that all snowsports are risky activities for both the snowboarder and the kid that was hit. Essentially that even being on the slopes means accepting risk.
> 
> ...


Hear you on devil's advocate part, but everyone is getting wound up, because false conviction isn't cool.

And, peeps care, because we can all relate... I've been in one accident when I was a kid(got a concussion in Breck actually - my fault tho as I shot off a side lip and some burly man smoked me, my 2 bro's wanted to kick his @ss but they yelled at me instead. They were right, I was wrong. Guess I should have been sued??? No way Jose!), and not one since, knock on wood. But, a lot more close encounters, because the sport is just a risk.

I think most of the times they are in the wrong, and hardly I, but no matter what, we both know the risk.

It's the elements, and a conviction like this probably has some ulterior motive than the average joe doesn't always grasp. I'm sure Vail corp helped the father/daughter, and told the boarder to f himself. Am I 100% sure, chit no!

Now Vail corp patrols have an excuse(or reason???) to yell at people, who are out there to enjoy the elements.

We all can relate, because we've all been close to an accident... Because we all choose the risk. Conviction on a mountain is somewhat ridiculous know matter how you put it, unless, there was true intent. Or some type of motive.

It's just a risk. Knew this since I was 9 or 10.


----------



## mojo maestro (Jan 6, 2009)

BoardWalk said:


> Do you do Colonoscopies?


Yep.......but polyp removal is extra.


----------



## Karpediem (Aug 29, 2007)

mojo maestro said:


> Yep.......but polyp removal is extra.


You sound like you know your stuff, I would trust you.


----------



## Bones (Feb 24, 2008)

BoardChitless said:


> I'm sure Vail corp helped the father/daughter, and told the boarder to f himself. Am I 100% sure, chit no!


I'm sure that the resort is happy that blame has been assigned to someone else. Had there not been a criminal charge or conviction, I wonder if that would increase the odds that Vail would be named in a civil suit for knowingly having "unsafe" areas and yet not having employee monitoring those areas during operating hours? Like operating a for profit aquatic facility but depending on signs instead of having a lifeguard.


----------



## JH84 (Nov 30, 2014)

What's this breaking ankle business? 

I've had to slam hard on the brakes at 60-70 mph, I don't see how you can possibly break an ankle! If the kid was a blind spot it's just terrible parenting..IMO. No clue what really happened but criminal charges is a little overboard, esp if is she is perfectly fine for the most part. 

I've seen it too much. The idiot ski school instructors take class through the park at keystone and Breck. You see close calls from morons sitting on landings of large jumps every once in a while when you're riding up the lift. 

I almost smoked a little girl last year that popped out of the trees out of nowhere. They were double black glades and the run was a black too. Kid couldn't hardly ski and I got my ass chewed for almost hitting their kid. Really wanted to punch the parents. I just threw a wall of snow at her and knocked her down. She was perfectly fine and laughing before the parents showed up a min later. They were trying to get ahold of ski patrol...


----------



## BoardWalk (Mar 22, 2011)

mojo maestro said:


> Yep.......but polyp removal is extra.


Don't want them removed, just want to name them. I'm a lonely old man.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

BoardWalk said:


> Don't want them removed, just want to name them. I'm a lonely old man.


Cats!!! You want to get a bunch of cats then! :rofl4:


----------



## BoardChitless (Mar 11, 2013)

F1EA said:


> and I hate skiers. The way they ride sucks and the way they mogul-out everything sucks too. But i also hate dumbass snowboarders... I guess i'm a hater.


Totally missed this post earlier.. Holy chit!!

That beautiful paragraph should be the moto of this forum.. That's sweet chit right there! 

...we snowboarders are haters. The untold/unwritten truth.

This thread indeed has given the chuckles, but those are true well-respected words of wisdom.

Bless you.


----------



## Mel M (Feb 2, 2012)

Shit happens, I know, but I hear a lot of knee jerk BS on this thread.

Half the people that are posting here make it seem like the kid parked a chaise lounge in the middle of the slope while sipping her Coronitas watching the sunset. The only thing we know from the statements given is that she fell before the collision and he broke his ankles to stop.

If in fact he wasn't bombing it and tried stopping on conditions that resemble the Rockefeller ice rink, then fine, shit happens and move on. But if a jerkoff is blasting 50 mph on a slope, through what's clearly a low visibility slow zone, and smokes the shit out of my kid... then you better believe there'll be hell to pay. You guys are right, it's a risky sport, but that doesn't mean condone moronic behavior.

I live in the ice valley (aka east coast). From my visits out west to CO and UT, what you guys call "busy" I almost call having the mountain to myself. I feel the chances of it being icier and having more snowboarders/skiers per acre is much greater out here, so I've had way more than my share of close encounters and collisions, especially people bombing it through slow zones.


----------



## Bones (Feb 24, 2008)

JH84 said:


> What's this breaking ankle business?
> 
> I've had to slam hard on the brakes at 60-70 mph, I don't see how you can possibly break an ankle! If the kid was a blind spot it's just terrible parenting..IMO. No clue what really happened but criminal charges is a little overboard, esp if is she is perfectly fine for the most part.


Yeah, I don't really get the "ankle break trying to stop" either unless he somehow caught an edge. In which case, you'd think his lawyer would be going on and on about it if it offered any proof that he wasn't being reckless. On the other hand, if he hit the kid hard enough to break his own ankle in the impact, then he must have been flying.

From other internet things I'm reading (ie as likely to be factual as anything on the web), it seems that kid had fallen in the blind spot, ie not much time for the parents to do anything, the impact was pretty significant and despite wearing a helmet, was unconscious for quite a while.

None of which prove anything about recklessness, but you got to admit, don't make the snowboarder look very good.

Oddly enough, a few of the ski forums that I looked at aren't that comfortable with criminal charges being laid. Quite a few examples of "what if it was a skier hitting a snowboarder sitting in a blind spot" being discussed and, aside from the occasional off tangent potshot at boarders, quite a few people maybe remembering how they occasionally straightline a blue.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Mel M said:


> Shit happens, I know, but I hear a lot of knee jerk BS on this thread.
> 
> Half the people that are posting here make it seem like the kid parked a chaise lounge in the middle of the slope while sipping her Coronitas watching the sunset. The only thing we know from the statements given is that she fell before the collision and he broke his ankles to stop.
> 
> ...


You clearly have never been to CO during a busy day if you think the mountain is to yourself. When the mountain hits 27,000 people that's a busy fucking day.


----------



## Bones (Feb 24, 2008)

BurtonAvenger said:


> You clearly have never been to CO during a busy day if you think the mountain is to yourself. When the mountain hits 27,000 people that's a busy fucking day.


My friends actually did a quick math exercise dividing several mountains published skiable terrain by their published lift capacity per hour. And the east loses big time.

One of the east's biggest resorts, Tremblant, has 27000 people per hour lift capacity and very few less than full chairs go up on a Saturday. All this to share a mere 662 acres. Seems like you can never get more than 20 feet away from anybody anywhere at any time.


----------



## wrathfuldeity (Oct 5, 2007)

Bones said:


> My friends actually did a quick math exercise dividing several mountains published skiable terrain by their published lift capacity per hour. And the east loses big time.
> 
> One of the east's biggest resorts, Tremblant, has 27000 people per hour lift capacity and very few less than full chairs go up on a Saturday. All this to share a mere 662 acres. Seems like you can never get more than 20 feet away from anybody anywhere at any time.


holy shit...bad as a hotel hot tub on spring break :eyetwitch2:


----------



## Extazy (Feb 27, 2014)

I think father is responsible in this situation. 

It's fathers responsibility to realize that there are stupid people that go crazy and if your child cant ski/snowboard terrain why are they there?


----------



## Bones (Feb 24, 2008)

wrathfuldeity said:


> holy shit...bad as a hotel hot tub on spring break :eyetwitch2:


By comparison Breck has lift capacity of 46800 people per hour (including carpets and surface lifts which Tremblant doesn't have) to service 2908 skiable acres. So slightly less than 2x the lifts to serve 5x the terrain and about 2x the vertical and way less ice 

So even on the busiest day, Breck is theoretically less than half as crowded

Small wonder that us Easterners on our annual western trip think you're making a joke when you say that it is busy. Freaking paradise to us!


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Bones said:


> By comparison Breck has lift capacity of 46800 people per hour (including carpets and surface lifts which Tremblant doesn't have) to service 2908 skiable acres. So slightly less than 2x the lifts to serve 5x the terrain and about 2x the vertical and way less ice
> 
> So even on the busiest day, Breck is theoretically less than half as crowded
> 
> Small wonder that us Easterners on our annual western trip think you're making a joke when you say that it is busy. Freaking paradise to us!


That's taking in that all the lifts are running which is never the case and that all terrain is open, which once again is never the case.


----------



## tpaairman (Jan 12, 2015)

Boy is this thread full of responses. 

One thing I've noticed that I'd like to clarify - there have been several responses about maybe the resort pushed the parents into hiring an attorney. That would not be the case here being it was a criminal case. The parents didn't sue (yet - that could still come.) He was on trial for breaking the law. 

Let me be clear, I'm not saying the kid was not in any way at fault or the parents are in no way at fault. All I'm saying is this was not a civil case, therefor the resort trying to maintain an image or push the parents to sue is not the case here.

I will also say that either there's a lot we are not begin told or the guy had a crappy public pretender.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

tpaairman said:


> Boy is this thread full of responses.
> 
> One thing I've noticed that I'd like to clarify - there have been several responses about maybe the resort pushed the parents into hiring an attorney. That would not be the case here being it was a criminal case. The parents didn't sue (yet - that could still come.) He was on trial for breaking the law.
> 
> ...


You ever lived in a town with a Vail owned resort? If you did you would understand where we're all coming from.


----------



## Bones (Feb 24, 2008)

BurtonAvenger said:


> That's taking in that all the lifts are running which is never the case and that all terrain is open, which once again is never the case.


Same thing happens out here. And people don't spread evenly around the mountain either. But, half of Breck's lifts would have to be closed and only the 600 acres of groomers open for it to be the same. 

In the context of this thread, I'm just concerned if an incident like this, and specifically the criminal charges and conviction, are going to change the way some resorts handle their customers as in putting cops on the hill to be the judges of "speed" and "recklessness". I don't know who called the cops in this case, but somebody did, and in the eyes of the law that call was justified since the kid was charged and convicted.

And if there was ever a place that needed a slopeside cop, it would be a eastern resort near New York on a long weekend.


----------



## SkullAndXbones (Feb 24, 2014)

crazy. i didn't even know you could press charges against someone for something like this. i feel bad for both the rider and the little girl. on a side note, i think it's almost only a matter of time before a resort is held accountable for letting too many people on the mountain at once. especially here in the east. a couple years ago my local mountain was turning people away on MLK weekend because it was too crowded which is insane considering how packed it gets while they continue to let people in.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

tpaairman said:


> ….there have been several responses about maybe the resort pushed the parents into hiring an attorney. That would not be the case here being it was a criminal case….
> 
> ….All I'm saying is this was not a civil case, therefor the resort trying to maintain an image or push the parents to sue is not the case here.


This was essentially an accident that occurred on "private property!" The _ONLY_ way the police get involved is someone, either one of Vail's employees or the parents called the police to report a "crime" and filed a complaint. 

If Vail wasn't the party putting _that_ idea into the heads of the parents? Then they had to be the party to call the police! Short of the father being ivolved in some sort of law enforcement or legal profession himself,..? I really don't see parents jumping straight into calling something like this an "Assault??" Civil suit? Sure, but aside from that, Vail reporting this as a _crime_ is really the only other way I see for the police becoming involved!

You ever had someone crash into your car in a parking lot? If the accident occurs on private property and there's no injury,.. you can't even get the police to show up!

Granted the complete lack of detailed information in any of those articles make any conclusive assessment of the initial situation impossible. But, I'll bet BA's not far off!



BurtonAvenger said:


> You ever lived in a town with a Vail owned resort? If you did you would understand where we're all coming from.


I presume they are the largest source of local employment? (..I really have no idea how big the town is there!) :blink: :dunno:


----------



## Noreaster (Oct 7, 2012)

Overheard today on the mountain, so no idea if true or not: the guy is not that young, yes there were witnesses, yes he was flying.


----------



## Argo (Feb 25, 2010)

Call the mountains you talk about on the east coast and ask what a busy day is in head count. It doesn't matter what the lift capacity is. It matters how many people are actually there. A busy day at snowbird or Jackson Hole is 6500 people on 2500 acres. Their lift capacity is way more. A busy day at Breck and Vail is 25/27000 people on the mountain. I can almost guarantee you that the bigger east coast mountains are nowhere near those numbers that we get even if you do the correct math. Aside from that, 80% of those people stay in the same areas of Breck and Vail and don't venture off to the further reaches of the mountain making it extremely congested at these and the base areas.


----------



## SkullAndXbones (Feb 24, 2014)

but you need to account for the density too. 100 people on one acre of land would be less elbow room then 1,000 people on 11 acres of land.


----------



## SkullAndXbones (Feb 24, 2014)

i just did some math here, and if it's flawed then my mistake but breck gets around 1.6 million visitors a year (according to this America's Most-Visited Ski Resorts- Page 3 - Articles | Travel + Leisure) and is open for around 170 days per year. that's about 9,416 visitors per day. and with 2,908 acres, that would be about 3 people per acre.
where as my local mountain had 350,000 visitors last year (according to this Ski season: N.J.'s largest resort had a rough December, but snow being made 'around the clock' | NJ.com) and was open for 106 days last season. so that would be about 3302 visitors per day. but the resort only has 167 acres so that would be about 20 people per acre.

again though, if my math is flawed then that's my mistake but you get my point.


----------



## tpaairman (Jan 12, 2015)

chomps1211 said:


> This was essentially an accident that occurred on "private property!" The _ONLY_ way the police get involved is someone, either one of Vail's employees or the parents called the police to report a "crime" and filed a complaint.


I understand that. My point is there have been several responses here saying that the resort must have pushed the parents in to hiring a lawyer, which I'm saying couldn't have happened. That would mean that parents sued the guy, which was not the case.


----------



## Bones (Feb 24, 2008)

Argo said:


> Call the mountains you talk about on the east coast and ask what a busy day is in head count. It doesn't matter what the lift capacity is. It matters how many people are actually there.


Well, if the lifts all have 20-40 minute lines all day long and every chair is loaded, then it you're at maximum capacity or close to it. If there are less people than that, then the lines shrink or the chairs go up with empty seats which is often what happens after the initial load of the mountain in the morning.

It's just a simple calculation of the how fast you could put how many people into how many skiable acres from 2 easily obtainable figures from most mountains websites. Off the top of my head, I don't even think there's a place in the east with 1000 skiable acres which would be a pretty small hill by western standards. Breck has almost as many acres in groomers as Tremblant does in total (glades and all)!

Yet when it comes to lift capacity, some eastern resorts actually have more lift capacity than western resorts: Kicking Horse only has 14000 people per hour capacity: one gondola, 2 quads and an old double, but over 2800 acres! Sure, there may be lines, but once you're on the slopes, there's so much room!


----------



## mikeLA (Dec 28, 2014)

If you fall in a area where you cant see uphill, you better start crawling your way to safety like a soldier would on a battlefield. You have to be responsible for you. And thats where the child/parent went wrong.

The snowboarder could have been going 5 mph or 40 mph. Injuries can happen at any speed. Its not like they were sitting in the middle of the run, in the open trying to gather themselves together.

Im sure the snowboarder broke his ankles from the impact to the child. Its unfortunate for all involved. Nobody is a winner here.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Bones said:


> Same thing happens out here. And people don't spread evenly around the mountain either. But, half of Breck's lifts would have to be closed and only the 600 acres of groomers open for it to be the same.
> 
> In the context of this thread, I'm just concerned if an incident like this, and specifically the criminal charges and conviction, are going to change the way some resorts handle their customers as in putting cops on the hill to be the judges of "speed" and "recklessness". I don't know who called the cops in this case, but somebody did, and in the eyes of the law that call was justified since the kid was charged and convicted.
> 
> And if there was ever a place that needed a slopeside cop, it would be a eastern resort near New York on a long weekend.


Cops on the hill already happens here. 



chomps1211 said:


> I presume they are the largest source of local employment? (..I really have no idea how big the town is there!) :blink: :dunno:


Largest source of seasonal labor. Real locals known not to work for them. Town is about 2,700 true year round residents, about 10,000 seasonal. 

I'll guarantee the civil suit isn't far behind. Vail most certainly called the police, they do this every time there is any form of an altercation on their property. They pressure people to press charges and try to live by the whole we made an "example" out of them. They really like to play big dick swinger and think they run the town.


----------



## f00bar (Mar 6, 2014)

Civil suits have their place. The kid could have easily racked up several grand in medical bills. Especially now with people being pressured into high deductible plans. If I go under the assumption he actually was being a total asshat I have no problem with a civil suit to recoup costs. The majority of civil suits you never hear about because they are actually pretty legit and handled correctly.


----------



## larrytbull (Oct 30, 2013)

Argo said:


> Call the mountains you talk about on the east coast and ask what a busy day is in head count. It doesn't matter what the lift capacity is. It matters how many people are actually there. A busy day at snowbird or Jackson Hole is 6500 people on 2500 acres. Their lift capacity is way more. A busy day at Breck and Vail is 25/27000 people on the mountain. I can almost guarantee you that the bigger east coast mountains are nowhere near those numbers that we get even if you do the correct math. Aside from that, 80% of those people stay in the same areas of Breck and Vail and don't venture off to the further reaches of the mountain making it extremely congested at these and the base areas.


for some entertainment factor
Click on the below link during a weekend. a video of the lines is worth a thousand words.
Camelback gets out of control crowded
after watching this, you guys will realize how good you have it in so many ways


livecam Tannersville, weather Tannersville, webcam Tannersville


----------



## Oldman (Mar 7, 2012)

Much discussion here on what is right and what is wrong.

Regarding the discussion about "Bad Parenting"; we all simply have to get our heads around the fact that there is no definition of what is "Bad Parenting" and there are certainly no rules against it on a ski hill. 

Lord knows we have all seen it. :facepalm3:

Riders Beware.


----------



## Argo (Feb 25, 2010)

larrytbull said:


> for some entertainment factor
> Click on the below link during a weekend. a video of the lines is worth a thousand words.
> Camelback gets out of control crowded
> after watching this, you guys will realize how good you have it in so many ways
> ...


Here are a couple of non-holiday powder day lift lines..... Multiply this across all the lifts on the mountain for that given day. 























Either way, it doesn't matter how much capacity, how many people or where this happened. This criminal case should have never happened. The resort can and does push this sort of thing when they want to, the more money you have in your bank account, the more likely you are to get a positive result for what you want, the less money you have the more likely you are to get fucked.

When riding with my young kids I always stayed behind them as cover. April is a busy time of year with all the Mexicans coming for holy week and the spring breakers finishing off the final rounds.


----------



## Bones (Feb 24, 2008)

Argo said:


> Here are a couple of non-holiday powder day lift lines..... Multiply this across all the lifts on the mountain for that given day.
> View attachment 60561
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, that's Tremblant on a Saturday, but 20% of the acres. It's not the line-ups, it's the density on the slopes


----------



## larrytbull (Oct 30, 2013)

but at least the runs last for more than 2 minutes


----------



## f00bar (Mar 6, 2014)

The East just seems a lot worse because we pack so much more down below. Can't even turn sideways to try to squeeze through.


----------



## Argo (Feb 25, 2010)

Bones said:


> Yeah, that's Tremblant on a Saturday, but 20% of the acres. It's not the line-ups, it's the density on the slopes


Im sure everything is 10x worse there. :blahblah:

I will repeat.....

Either way, it doesn't matter how much capacity, how many people or where this happened. This criminal case should have never happened. The resort can and does push this sort of thing when they want to, the more money you have in your bank account, the more likely you are to get a positive result for what you want, the less money you have the more likely you are to get fucked.

When riding with my young kids I always stayed behind them as cover. April is a busy time of year with all the Mexicans coming for holy week and the spring breakers finishing off the final rounds


----------



## larrytbull (Oct 30, 2013)

Argo said:


> Im sure everything is 10x worse there. :blahblah:
> 
> 
> When riding with my young kids I always stayed behind them as cover.


I agree 1000%, you have to parent when riding, and not rely on anyone else to ensure your childs saftey, as well as prevent your child from being a saftey impediment to others


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

Argo said:


> Here are a couple of non-holiday powder day lift lines..... Multiply this across all the lifts on the mountain for that given day.
> View attachment 60561
> 
> 
> ...


:dropjaw: I know someone who will lose his head... Those pics are scary :eyetwitch2:


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

Argo said:


> Here are a couple of non-holiday powder day lift lines..... Multiply this across all the lifts on the mountain for that given day.
> View attachment 60561
> 
> 
> ...


*NO FREAKIN' WAY???????*  
Seriously,..?? That is _really_ what you have to contend with on a regular basis?? How long is the wait in something like that??

There is no fucking way I would wait around in lines like that! Please tell me that's only on the weekends!! Something like that would _seriously_ effect any decision I might make on where to go and ride!! :eyetwitch2:

(_…you *really* need to stop posting how good conditions are out there!_)


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 24, 2013)

I was boarding Vail this weekend and the lift lines were no where close to being that crazy at those lifts (think 1/20th of what's in those pictures), and it was a holiday weekend. I think the not so great snow conditions kept people at bay.

The place didn't seem that crowded, but goddamn stay off those blue square groomers. I feel like everyone who rides Vail is fucking terrible or something. I have a much easier time avoiding people on narrow crowded East Coast slopes than on the wide open blues at Vail. I'm not sure if the extra space makes people ride like morons, or if there were just a bunch of shitty skiers/snowboarders out there last weekend.

My girlfriends mother got hit by a boarder this weekend and tore her ACL and MCL in one of her knees. She didn't take down the girls name, but reading over the laws she probably would have been able to sue her ass pretty easily. The Vail safety patrollers were definitely pushing for her to take the girls information down.


----------



## deagol (Mar 26, 2014)

holy mother of Gollum, those lift lines are horrible... 

I've seen pics of Vail like that before (not saying Vail is unique in this regard), but it is still shocking. I even waited in a line at Vail that seemed at least an hour. 

overpopulation

the last "powder" day at Copper I was there for was almost as bad as this, and the powder was tracked out before most people even got up for their first run. some guy was road raging on the shuttle bus to get to the super long lift line to wait aa long time to get on the lift to ski "powder" that has probably already been tracked out by hundreds of people


----------



## mojo maestro (Jan 6, 2009)

Every resort in Colorado is always crowded.......every day......all the time. Fuckin' sucks balls. I recommend to anybody wanting to travel here......that they go to Utah.


----------



## f00bar (Mar 6, 2014)

Not to make light that it is bad, but I'm assuming that is the early morning rush to a lift that isn't open, or just opened.

I will say that CO probably has more people close to the mountains who care about the powder dumps than the East. If you are that passionate then you probably don't make the east coast your home in the winter.


----------



## Mel M (Feb 2, 2012)

I didn't mean for this to become an east coast, west coast battle for all time shittiest lift lines and/or mountain crowds, so I apologize for getting that started.

And for all the people saying the parent should stay in front of the kid, all that means is the boarder may have slammed right into the parent and probably cracked his/her legs. This whole case may have happened regardless, especially if the people that say Vail pushed the issue are right.

Cases involving children are particularly sensitive. I'm sure there was things that could have been done, but the reality is we're all here taking guesses about what really happened.

I hate to be the antagonist here, but I'm not totally against taking it to court if a truly wreckless skier/rider, sometimes simultaneously drunk and high, slams into my kid because they fail to heed the signs on the mountain. Especially if I'll have to foot any medical expenses not covered by insurance. I'm sure that was the point of taking it to court. From what I read, the kid got a serious concussion and any case with serious head trauma can often have nasty side effects for years to come depending on the severity of the injury. Again, no one here knows how truly bad it was.


----------



## Kevin137 (May 5, 2013)

The thing i'm having the biggest problem understanding, is that with the amount of action cams on the mountain nowadays, how was this not caught on video...!

I thought EVERYONE was using them now...


----------



## spino (Jan 8, 2013)

unfortunate accident, and very interesting read.
all things considered, one question still comes to mind: how much time went by between the kid's fall and the accident?
had she just fallen or had she been laying down there unattended for, say, a minute or two?

in my view, this information is absolutely necessary to get a good grasp of the accident as the two possibilities really change the whole scenario.


----------



## Toecutter (Oct 11, 2009)

spino said:


> unfortunate accident, and very interesting read.
> all things considered, one question still comes to mind: how much time went by between the kid's fall and the accident?
> had she just fallen or had she been laying down there unattended for, say, a minute or two?
> 
> in my view, this information is absolutely necessary to get a good grasp of the accident as the two possibilities really change the whole scenario.


I read elsewhere that she had _just_ fallen when the snowboarder struck her from behind and sent her airborne. I also read that he's in his early 30's and was hauling ass by eyewitness accounts.


----------



## KansasNoob (Feb 24, 2013)

mojo maestro said:


> Every resort in Colorado is always crowded.......every day......all the time. Fuckin' sucks balls. I recommend to anybody wanting to travel here......that they go to Utah.


I agree, crowds in southern CO are the worst of all, stay away, far away.


----------



## jtg (Dec 11, 2012)

Does nobody understand the difference between at fault in a collision, and criminal charges vs civil suits? 

This would be like criminal charges for assault because you got rear ended in a car. That doesn't happen unless you're driving drunk. 

This guy now fails a criminal background check. That is insane.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

jtg said:


> Does nobody understand the difference between at fault in a collision, and criminal charges vs civil suits?
> 
> This would be like criminal charges for assault because you got rear ended in a car. That doesn't happen unless you're driving drunk.
> 
> This guy now fails a criminal background check. That is insane.


FUCKING LOGIC! Johnny we have a winner here. Thank you!


----------



## f00bar (Mar 6, 2014)

Get in an accident going 120, or blow a red light and you'll likely be slapped with assault charges. Heck, look at a cop the wrong way and he can slap you with it, and legally.

"Third degree assault occurs when a person knowingly, recklessly, or through criminal negligence causes bodily injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon; or when they knowingly threaten, annoy, harass or injure a peace officer or other protected employee with a dangerous substance. Third degree assault is a Class 1 misdemeanor. However, if the crime is directed at a peace officer or other protected employee, harsher penalties can be imposed, up to twice the minimum sentence and/or fine."


----------



## cerebroside (Nov 6, 2012)

Stuff like this is why I try to restrict my travel to the US to business only.


----------



## deagol (Mar 26, 2014)

so, is a snowboard now considered a "deadly weapon"? 

I know it probably could be used to kill someone, but that seems off from the definition, especially where intent is involved.


----------



## f00bar (Mar 6, 2014)

deagol said:


> so, is a snowboard now considered a "deadly weapon"?
> 
> I know it probably could be used to kill someone, but that seems off from the definition, especially where intent is involved.


weap·on
ˈwepən/
noun
a thing designed *or used *for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.

In this case not deadly as nobody died, but that isn't in the charges either.

It's pretty unlikely any of this would have happened without the element of the snowboard.


----------



## Banjo (Jan 29, 2013)

Argo said:


> Here are a couple of non-holiday powder day lift lines..... Multiply this across all the lifts on the mountain for that given day.


Are you f'n kidding me? :eyetwitch2:

I'm sorry and I will stop complaining forever.:embarrased1:


----------



## Mel M (Feb 2, 2012)

jtg said:


> Does nobody understand the difference between at fault in a collision, and criminal charges vs civil suits?
> 
> This would be like criminal charges for assault because you got rear ended in a car. That doesn't happen unless you're driving drunk.
> 
> This guy now fails a criminal background check. That is insane.


No, I'm not a lawyer, but yes, I do have a base understanding of the differences between civil and criminal cases.

And yes, you can in fact be charged with both reckless endangerment and assault when operating a vehicle WITHOUT being under the influence of alcohol. Actually, reckless endangerment and vehicular assault are common charges placed against street racers involved in accidents. Continuing on with the car analogy, we can often assume street racers often don't heed the signs on the road and place passerbies at incredible risk.

And no. I actually don't think it's insane that you can nearly kill someone and have to face criminal charges. It's due process that's used to decide whether the person at fault is truly responsible.

Take home message: Don't be a dipshit on the mountain and avoid kids with rich skier parents.


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

Mel M said:


> Take home message: Don't be a dipshit on the mountain and aim the sharp bits of your gear at the rich skier parents.


fixed it for ya


----------



## Mel M (Feb 2, 2012)

snowklinger said:


> fixed it for ya


Haha, good one


----------



## Ashcampbell (Mar 14, 2014)

I dont know about that cause I spent all day...over 10 mins...once or twice with ketchup trying to cut my wrists on my snowboard edge. /emo

As a parent, I'm behind my novice and helmet wearing kid. IMO anything else is irresponsible. 

I'd love to see the reasoning behind 3 charges. Throw enough shit at the wall and maybe something will stick?


----------



## Toecutter (Oct 11, 2009)

Any updates?


----------



## SkullAndXbones (Feb 24, 2014)

something similar almost happened to me today. i was flying down a trail and there was a little kid on skis up ahead and he was traveling at a moderate speed and as i got close, out of nowhere, he just slams on the breaks and comes to a dead stop right in the middle of the trail. luckily i had enough time to avoid hitting him. and this was not a "slow" area. i don't really put much blame on the kid because he was like 10 years old but parents need to teach their kids how to be safe on the mountain and tell them the dos and don'ts. especially on crowded mountains. if i had hit that kid i would've felt terrible but i wouldn't take any blame for it.


----------



## Toddler (Sep 21, 2010)

Interesting thread. 

We went to Wintergreen last weekend in VA. I have ridden for 20 years now, but my 98 lb son was on day 2. Was doing well, skidding linked slow turns and in control. We were all on a blue slope because the main lift on the green runs was broken, and the kids were doing fine on that run. Blue here is pretty easy. Unfortunately, my daughters friend's rented flow binding wouldn't close when we got off the lift, so I stopped to help her. My son, being the slowest in our group, decided to go ahead a few hundred yards.

It was only 9:30 am so he was on a nearly empty slope, and he stopped and turned to wait maybe 30 feet down and off to the side of the smaller caution/slow signs they put up. He was waiting down on his knees and resting. He stopped long before some guy in his late 20's, bit over 6' tall riding with with his buddies decided the snow pile around the caution sign would be a nice jump. Somehow, he missed seeing the kid wearing black and fluorescent orange right in the middle of an empty white slope, and plowed through my son. My son yelled when he saw the guy turn towards him after he landed, which may have helped, but it was still the end of my son's riding day. Knee to chest, and probable chostochondral separation that will take a few weeks to heal. 

The question of whether launching yourself off a caution sign and hurting someone is criminal seems pretty obvious to me, but at this point, I'm just glad my son is OK. I didn't even report it to the ski patrol since my son was able to limp to a friend's condo on that slope, and yeah, the guy who ran him over felt horrible.

The point to be taken from all of this is that legally, you do have a responsibility to follow certain rules. If you aren't, and someone gets hurt because of it, yeah, it's criminal, but seriously don't avoid doing stuff like that because it's criminal. Avoid doing it because hurting people when you can avoid it is mean and stupid. Don't ride like an @hole

When I started riding, the joke was, "What's the difference between a vacuum cleaner and a snowboard?" That shouldn't be the case anymore.

-Todd


----------



## ShredLife (Feb 6, 2010)

Toddler said:


> Interesting thread.
> 
> We went to Wintergreen last weekend in VA. I have ridden for 20 years now, but my 98 lb son was on day 2. Was doing well, skidding linked slow turns and in control. We were all on a blue slope because the main lift on the green runs was broken, and the kids were doing fine on that run. Blue here is pretty easy. Unfortunately, my daughters friend's rented flow binding wouldn't close when we got off the lift, so I stopped to help her. My son, being the slowest in our group, decided to go ahead a few hundred yards.
> 
> ...


not criminal.


----------



## Mel M (Feb 2, 2012)

ShredLife said:


> not criminal.


Seriously??? Kid sits quite a distance away BEHIND a slow sign on the side of a trail while some douchebag decides to ollie said sign and nearly impales him.

Sounds pretty fucking reckless to me. Maybe I'll start driving my car through stop signs and when I side swipe someone I'll tell the cop to treat the incident like a local resort mountain and just be cool with the whole thing.


----------



## ShredLife (Feb 6, 2010)

he might be liable, but good luck proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it maliciously, good luck proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he could even see the kid. sounds like he didn't leave the scene and showed concern. where is the criminal act? what is the crime? accidents happen.


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 24, 2013)

I don't think it should be labeled a criminal offense either, unless the person who caused the accident intended to cause the accident on purpose. I highly doubt that anyone intends to hit someone else on the slope.

You can try to compare this to driving and state that reckless driving can be considered a criminal offense, with jail time involved, but that analogy doesn't really work for me. 

Driving is a means of travelling from point a to point b, hopefully safely, while snowboarding/skiing is almost purely a recreational activity. You are supposed to be pushing your limits while snowboarding, you try not to hurt anyone in the process, but that's the whole point of being out there. Would you try to charge someone with reckless driving if they caused an accident while driving recreationally in a race?


----------



## Argo (Feb 25, 2010)

I agree, not criminal. If the guy was drunk or did it with intent and it was able to be witnessed as such, sure then criminal.

Accidents happen, I have been hit, my wife has been hit, my son has been hit..... It happens, the more you ride the more chances you have for an accident. That is an inherent part of being on a slope on a resort with 29000 other people. Accidents are also a part of being off a resort in avy terrain, they happen. 

In other parts of the world there is litigation in certain countries that make these accidents a crime, not in the US. An accident caused by innocent negligence is still an accident. If I yelled out to everyone that I was gonna ram some motherfucker and try to break his legs, do it, then its criminal.....


----------



## Toddler (Sep 21, 2010)

ShredLife said:


> he might be liable, but good luck proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it maliciously, good luck proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he could even see the kid. sounds like he didn't leave the scene and showed concern. where is the criminal act? what is the crime? accidents happen.


Liable for what? 

The court in Denver decided that even when there's decreased visibility, it's criminal if you ignore a caution sign and injure somebody. The guy who hit my son was not paying attention to others, was going faster than he could control, and ignored the slow signs. Heck, he launched off it and basically broke a couple of ribs in a little kid who was easily visible. 

Criminal doesn't mean malicious. There were enough witnesses that saw it from the slope-side condos that we could have charged him and probably proven what happened. But why would we do that? This was a nice guy who felt horrible about being an idiot. He stayed and helped me get my son's board off him, waited while I checked to make sure he was safe to move. 

Charging someone with something, or proving they're guilty in court is not what makes an act criminal or wrong. You arguing what he did wasn't criminal is so inane it's funny. A court already said it is criminal, and I'm pretty sure the guy who ran into my son would have agreed with that. He apologized. I'm confident he'll be much more careful in the future. I never once considered reporting the event, much less suing him. 

That said, if he had tried to downplay it like you are, and said "Hey dude, we're out here to push our limits. It happens", my guess is half the people who saw it would have reported him and he'd have been kicked off the mountain. Riding at a resort with other people is a privilege, not a right. We pay for the privilege, but we still need to respect that's all it is, and to respect the people around us more.


----------



## Mel M (Feb 2, 2012)

ShredLife said:


> he might be liable, but good luck proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it maliciously, good luck proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he could even see the kid. sounds like he didn't leave the scene and showed concern. where is the criminal act? what is the crime? accidents happen.


Yes, I agree it's not black and white, but this is where you get into layers of intent. There's direct or oblique intent. What you're describing as malicious is direct intent. Yes, he wasn't on a search and destroy mission to obliterate this kid, but he hurt him indirectly. This is where oblique intent falls into. He intentionally ignored a public safety sign that caused unintended consequences. This can most definitely be argued as a criminal act in court.

Is this taking it a little too far for someone that got a few bruises and the person at fault showing remorse, maybe, but Toddler already mentioned he wasn't going after his guys life savings after the accident. That's not the point. Some people keep acting like dipshits on the mountain because they think the greatest consequence they face is losing a day pass.

I'm not advocating speed-check Nazi's like what BA mentioned in a previous post, but if it's publicly known that you can get in a whole shitload of trouble for riding like an asshole in a slow zone and seriously injuring someone, then I'm totally for it.

Another poster mentioned "pushing ourselves". Please, don't give me that shit! Everyone here loves a nipple burning carve or rampaging through that tree run, but there's places on a resort mountain that are inherently more prone to people crashing into each other, hence, the warning signs.

Listen, last time on a mountain, I got hit twice by skiers coming from behind me. It wasn't in a slow zone or anything, it was just busy. We didn't get pissed at each other in both instances, just made sure we were okay and moved on. So I'm not a sue-happy rider. I mentioned it in a previous post... yes, accidents happen, just don't be an ignorant asshole to the warning signs on a mountain.


----------



## Mel M (Feb 2, 2012)

SkullAndXbones said:


> something similar almost happened to me today. i was flying down a trail and there was a little kid on skis up ahead and he was traveling at a moderate speed and as i got close, out of nowhere, he just slams on the breaks and comes to a dead stop right in the middle of the trail. luckily i had enough time to avoid hitting him. and this was not a "slow" area. i don't really put much blame on the kid because he was like 10 years old but parents need to teach their kids how to be safe on the mountain and tell them the dos and don'ts. especially on crowded mountains. if i had hit that kid i would've felt terrible but i wouldn't take any blame for it.


Unfortunately, you're still responsible for people downhill, but I get you're point. I know all about skiers and riders making hard braking turns to get in your way. Thankfully you were good enough and in enough control to avoid it. I do believe if you're making that type of stop/turn, you should be aware of the uphill traffic.

This brings up the point I was trying to make. If you were to slam and severely injure the kid and the parents bring up charges, then this wouldn't be classified as criminal by any means. You were in a non-slow zone, so you weren't intentionally ignoring the safety signs on the mountain. This would strictly be a liability case.


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 24, 2013)

Toddler said:


> Liable for what?
> 
> The court in Denver decided that even when there's decreased visibility, it's criminal if you ignore a caution sign and injure somebody.


Liable for damages, similar to a vehicular accident. If you cause an accident you/your insurance company is responsible for paying for any property or personal injury.

I know that a Denver court decided that this was a criminal offense, but I was under the impression that this whole thread was a debate about whether or not that was the correct determination. I am pretty sure that this is somewhat of a precedent setting case, hence the debate, but I'm not positive.

Personally, I think that there is very little value in a caution or slow speed sign, and in some instances I think that they actually make people act like idiots. People should never stop in low visibility zones, but I think signs like these make them feel safe enough to do so. I do not think that someone should ever be held at fault for hitting someone who was stopped on the other side of a berm, even if they were going fast. How slow would you actually need to be going to avoid hitting someone who suddenly appears 5-15 feet in front of you? Where is the rationale that someone who stops in a blind spot isn't partially at fault if an accident happens? If you are were driving you would never stop your vehicle just anywhere and expect not to get hit, you would pull over in an area where you knew that you would be safe.

This is not to say that I don't think people should ride the same everywhere, but I think it is pretty obvious that if you are on a green you should be aware that most of the people around you are beginners. I just don't think that a slow sign provides any benefits, just a false sense of security and an excuse for people to stop in stupid places. 

I also think that slow/caution signs are waaay overused on intermediate terrain. I think that if you are riding intermediate terrain you should be able to go as fast as the terrain allows without consequences, as long as you are riding in control. You should also be able to expect other people on intermediate terrain not to stop in blind spots. In my opinion the word intermediate means that people have enough skill and knowledge to be able to ride that terrain, knowledge that says "don't stop in blind spots".

I don't mean any of this to apply in your child's case. As it seems pretty clear that they were stopped in clear view, in which case it is inexcusable that they were hit. However, I still don't think this is criminal, just a civil liability case. I think he would be guilty of causing an accident, thus liable for any bodily/property harm that he caused, but not at risk of being charged with a criminal offense going to jail and having a record.


----------

