OFFICIAL I70 BITCH THREAD....

[summit]

This is where I fall, somewhere in the middle. $200K restitution seems steep if it didn't cause any actual damage to the tunnel, but I guess you could rack up $200K pretty fast if it caused even very minor damage. In that case, I think that he should have to pay for it. I don't think that he should be fined if it just meant that CDOT had to plow the snow off access road.

I believe it damaged an O'bellx, not sure what else got broken...

But with this guy's history, he should probably just go hang out with David Lesh and see if he can get a Virtika sponsorship.

Fo sho

[adrenalated]

CDOT has an obligation to provide reasonable efforts to mitigate against avalanches. By that I mean natural avalanches, and at least considering the possibility that people might recreate on some slopes.

However I do NOT think they have any obligation to mitigate to the point where anyone can ski things above the road with no regard for avalanches. For one very simple reason: they aren't going to do that. Putting the number of charges that would be required for that, on every avalanche path that threatens a highway in the state, would just be too expensive and time consuming. It's not going to happen. Instead, they are just going to permanently close all that terrain.

So if we, as a backcountry skiing and riding community, want to prevent things from being closed, we have a responsibility to hold ourselves to an exceptionally high standard. We judge risk every time we choose to travel in avalanche terrain. Everyone has their own risk tolerance, and that's fine. But when your choices directly impact infrastructure and the general public (rather than yourself, your friends and family, your partners, etc). you need to think about risk differently. Our risk tolerance for triggering avalanches above infrastructure should be as near to zero as possible. End of story.

If we can't self police within the community, someone else will do it for us. And they'll do it by closing terrain.

[summit]

^exactly

[Soups]

Well said

[simple]

Nice summary again Jefe. Sisters are off limits until June for a reason.

[ASmileyFace]

Well said adrenalated. I will be following this case closely as the implications of this idiot winning could mean sweeping changes in the way we are able to recreate in backcountry all over the state.

[Danno]

yeah, that's as simple an explanation as one could get.

[fastfred]

I really hope this is in jest.

CDOT is responsible for protecting the road from natural hazards. Not from humans being idiots.

EDIT: Think of the equivalent while on the road. CDOT does a decent job of plowing. Some jabroni drives recklessly fast, crashes in the tunnel and cause a fuckton of damage. That's not CDOTs fault, that's an idiots fault.

I just like the word JABRONI
reminds me of being a kid on the east coast
no one can post anymore tonight unless they use the word JABRONI in the post please and thank you

[Soups]

It really is a great word

Edit: sorry...Jabroni

[bendtheski]

[doebedoe]

This jabroni's season goal is to drink beer with FastFred somewhere.

Angry James?

[skiracer88_00]

Look, I’m not saying this guy is not an idiot in general. I have no idea who he is or what he did in the past. I just don’t think that his behavior in this instance even approaches gross negligence or even general negligence, which should (in my opinion) be the only way he should be charged with reckless endangerment.

I remember being surprised to hear about a deep slab avalanche on that aspect on that day. Rating was moderate and wind slabs on north to east to southeast slopes were the only listed avalanche problem. The deep slab was triggered on a west aspect just above tree line.

https://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/a...=754&accfm=inv

Could he have done a better assessment on his own to identify the problem on that slope? Maybe, but identifying a DPS problem in the field and quantifying the probability of being the trigger isn’t exactly easy.

If it is negligent to ski that line on that day based on the CAIC forecast, when is it not negligent? Only during melt-freeze? If it’s always negligent, they really should just close the area to recreation like they do with the sisters.

He may be an idiot in general, I don’t know. The Facebook post was a bit dumb. I just don’t agree with the tar and feather on this one based on the facts I do know.

[skiracer88_00]

I really hope this is in jest.

CDOT is responsible for protecting the road from natural hazards. Not from humans being idiots.

EDIT: Think of the equivalent while on the road. CDOT does a decent job of plowing. Some jabroni drives recklessly fast, crashes in the tunnel and cause a fuckton of damage. That's not CDOTs fault, that's an idiots fault.

This is a false equivalence.

Triggering a DPS avalanche, i.e., a low probability high potential consequence event is not the same as driving like an asshat on an icy road.

This is particularly true when CAIC hasn't documented large avalances beaking on old snow anywhere in Colorado for the prior 4 weeks. This is more akin to hitting a random patch of ice and crashing into the tunnel while driving the speed limit after it hasn't snowed for weeks. It's an accident.

If avalanche danger was extreme or high, with DPS avalanches listed as a primary avalanche problem, I would possibly agree with you.

[fastfred]

This jabroni's season goal is to drink beer with FastFred somewhere.

Angry James?

I never leave breck, maybe I can make an acception

I thought this thread was a bout bad driving jabroni's? not clowns in the back country?

[Name Redacted]

I never leave breck, maybe I can make an acception

I thought this thread was a bout bad driving jabroni's? not clowns in the back country?

Well, the clowns almost took out the jabroni's main thoroughfare, so I guess it applies.

[simple]

The only thing that avy screwed up was the Summit County bros access to Coon Hill. One of the busiest spots in the BC last year. Everyone knows that spot now because social media whores blew it up. Too bad a summit county bro screwed the other bros. Such drama.

[hatchgreenchile]

no one can post anymore tonight unless they use the word JABRONI in the post please and thank you

IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT YOU SAY
Jabroni is good for the summer crowd. I stick with punters and Jerry for winter.

[hawkgt]

yout's fuckin jabronis take this shit to slide zone......

this is for bitching about getting stuck behind a boat in a snowbank, passing in the right lane, 3 fucking lanes wide traffic metering snow plowing pricks, NY tagged tricked out WRX tailgating trust fund wanabe's, bald tire spinning hatchback knuckle draggers, and frontrangers (guilty) hold up the fucking line towing a camper 10 mph under the limit up hill in left lane.

focus people.

[summit]

I remember being surprised to hear about a deep slab avalanche on that aspect on that day. Rating was moderate and wind slabs on north to east to southeast slopes were the only listed avalanche problem. The deep slab was triggered on a west aspect just above tree line.

This is a false equivalence.

Triggering a DPS avalanche, i.e., a low probability high potential consequence event is not the same as driving like an asshat on an icy road.

This is particularly true when CAIC hasn't documented large avalances beaking on old snow anywhere in Colorado for the prior 4 weeks. This is more akin to hitting a random patch of ice and crashing into the tunnel while driving the speed limit after it hasn't snowed for weeks. It's an accident.

If avalanche danger was extreme or high, with DPS avalanches listed as a primary avalanche problem, I would possibly agree with you.

Deep Persistent Slab? You keep mentioning this... what accident are you talking about? Consider reviewing the definition of that term and reading the CAIC report you linked to:

Rider 1 was traversing when he triggered a small avalanche. The slide was 4 to 6 inches deep and broke in wind-drifted snow. It was a small avalanche initially. As it ran down the slope the avalanche stepped down to a layer about 18 inches deep. Cracks shot widely across the slope and the avalanche gained more volume. As the debris continued to run down and through the chute it stepped down to a deeper layer, a foot or more above the ground. The slide eventually eroded into the very weak basal facets (depth hoar layer), removing the entire snowpack. This created a very large avalanche that rumbled down onto the Loop Road.

Now that this point is cleared up... this is a case of someone with a history being quite unrepentant and ultimately is going to be asked to pay some restitution for the costs caused as a consequences of avalanche his group initiated. He probably could have avoided that by taking a different tact, but he has refused by saying that he isn't responsible for causing an avalanche, but the government is responsible for allowing an avalanche hazard to exist. Therefor, if he isn't held responsible, then the government action on the area will be to change from "ski at your own risk" to "closed" and this effect will likely extend to other BC areas.

Here is the thread dealing with this incident: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...enhower-tunnel

[skiracer88_00]

Deep Persistent Slab? You keep mentioning this... what accident are you talking about? Consider reviewing the definition of that term and reading the CAIC report you linked to:





Now that this point is cleared up... this is a case of someone with a history being quite unrepentant and ultimately is going to be asked to pay some restitution for the costs caused as a consequences of avalanche his group initiated. He probably could have avoided that by taking a different tact, but he has refused by saying that he isn't responsible for causing an avalanche, but the government is responsible for allowing an avalanche hazard to exist. Therefor, if he isn't held responsible, then the government action on the area will be to change from "ski at your own risk" to "closed" and this effect will likely extend to other BC areas.

Here is the thread dealing with this incident: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...enhower-tunnel

Not really cleared up, but I obviously have less avalanche education than you. I have always thought of a hard slab avalanche that breaks on facets near the ground as a deep persistent slab avalanche, but maybe that is not technically correct.

The definition of deep persistent slab from CAIC is the following:

Release of a thick cohesive layer of hard snow (a slab), when the bond breaks between the slab and an underlying persistent weak layer, deep in the snowpack or near the ground.

https://www.avalanche.state.co.us/fo...rsistent-slab/

Is the hangup that the snowpack in this area was not deep enough to be considered a deep slab? Is it that the slab wasn't sufficiently cohesive and the slide needed to step down to the basal facets? I'm genuinely curious and want to learn (not just trying to be an asshole). I know that you have much more experience and avalanche education than I, I just don't really understand why you are digging in on this one. I have a feeling you just don't like this guy and that is coming into play on your ability to objectively judge this specific incident.

Either way, avalanche danger was moderate and the only listed problem on the avalanche report that day was wind slabs on N-E-SE slopes. I'm pretty sure this wasn't a wind slab avalanche on a north, east, or southeast slope. We can go back and forth all day on whether it is ever OK to ski avalanche terrain above infrastructure. The fact of the matter is that it was legally accessed open terrain and there was no specific concern in the avalanche forecast calling out significant (or any) concerns for slopes at the aspect and elevation that the avalanche occurred. With those known facts, I don't see how anyone could make the case that skiing the slope warrants a criminal charge of reckless endangerment.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if CDOT closes that area to recreation in the winter, and maybe they should to be honest. There is much better terrain in the area that doesn't threaten infrastructure and no one really needs to be up on that slope.

[wkd-rdr]

There is a small motorboat, laying next to (not in) its trailer between the onramp of exit 240 and the EB highway. Its barely off the road, sitting at a weird angle, and looks damaged..
Wish I had time to loop back and snap a shot.

[summit]

Not really cleared up, but I obviously have less avalanche education than you. I have always thought of a hard slab avalanche that breaks on facets near the ground as a deep persistent slab avalanche, but maybe that is not technically correct.

While some might specify a particular depth, specifically deeper than 1.5m or 1.8m or even 2.0m, generally the idea is an old buried persistent weak layer that is often hard (unpredictable but catastrophic) to activate due to a generally supportive upper snowpack. DPS may come into play when new loads are placed or when activated by force, such as an avalanche in the upper snowpack. But my beef is not avalanche problem nerdery. I'm talking broad strokes that I think you are familiar with... I will explain:

Is the hangup that the snowpack in this area was not deep enough to be considered a deep slab? Is it that the slab wasn't sufficiently cohesive and the slide needed to step down to the basal facets? I'm genuinely curious and want to learn (not just trying to be an asshole). I know that you have much more experience and avalanche education than I, I just don't really understand why you are digging in on this one.

Either way, avalanche danger was moderate and the only listed problem on the avalanche report that day was wind slabs on N-E-SE slopes. I'm pretty sure this wasn't a wind slab avalanche on a north, east, or southeast slope.

This is where you'll want to read the report and see that this avalanche occurred in the upper pack, only about 15-25cm from the surface in wind drifted snow, then stepped immediately into a shallow slab about 60cm deeper. Only then did that mass gouge into the basal facets. So this was shallow avalanche activity that was wind related, not a deep persistent slab. Thus what I strenuously disagree with is the idea that this was an unforecasted, unexpected, "black ice" freak accident DPS as you characterized in your post. I also strenuously disagree with the idea that the aspect took it outside the forecast. The winds bend negative 90 degrees on the regular at the tunnel/coon hill valley junction causing west winds to be effectively from the south at the surface across that face. Those that ski there know this, and Mr. Dewitt claims to be very familiar with the area and that he had been watching this, so he should have expected this microclimate wind effect to be present.

The avalanche was of the type expected by the forecast and no surprise to those who know that area and slope. It was unlikely to natural, but with a trigger which that group provided, they generated an expected result.

[adrenalated]

While some might specify a particular depth, specifically deeper than 1.5m or 1.8m or even 2.0m, generally the idea is an old buried persistent weak layer that is often hard (unpredictable but catastrophic) to activate due to a generally supportive upper snowpack. DPS may come into play when new loads are placed or when activated by force, such as an avalanche in the upper snowpack. But my beef is not avalanche problem nerdery. I'm talking broad strokes that I think you are familiar with... I will explain:



This is where you'll want to read the report and see that this avalanche occurred in the upper pack, only about 15-25cm from the surface in wind drifted snow, then stepped immediately into a shallow slab about 60cm deeper. Only then did that mass gouge into the basal facets. So this was shallow avalanche activity that was wind related, not a deep persistent slab. Thus what I strenuously disagree with is the idea that this was an unforecasted, unexpected, "black ice" freak accident DPS as you characterized in your post. I also strenuously disagree with the idea that the aspect took it outside the forecast. The winds bend negative 90 degrees on the regular at the tunnel/coon hill valley junction causing west winds to be effectively from the south at the surface across that face. Those that ski there know this, and Mr. Dewitt claims to be very familiar with the area and that he had been watching this, so he should have expected this microclimate wind effect to be present.

The avalanche was of the type expected by the forecast and no surprise to those who know that area and slope. It was unlikely to natural, but with a trigger which that group provided, they generated an expected result.

Only one thing to add to this excellent post.

The forecast for 3/25 DID specifically call out slopes like this one as deserving additional care. Specifically, the Forecast Discussion page included the following:

On a regional scale, areas with a deeper snowpack will handle the new wind load better. Weaker portions of the Front Range and Vail/Summit County are more concerning and you should use extra care in any area where the snowpack is less than about 4 feet deep. Southwest winds often contribute to an increase in Persistent Slab avalanche activity as new slabs form on the typically colder, weaker and thinner northerly aspects.

The location where the CAIC did their snow profile was a bit deeper (180cm, just under 6') but as Summit said, the photos clearly show that the snowpack where they triggered the avalanche was much thinner. It was clearly conveyed in the forecast discussion that triggering a persistent slab avalanche was possibly in these sort of areas. Additionally, while not a northerly aspect, being very high elevation it was definitely a "colder, weaker, thinner" slope and this should have been easy for any experienced backcountry traveler to identify.

Forecast for 3/25/2020 (use links at bottom to get archive): https://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/p....php?zone_id=2

[I've seen black diamonds!]

The winds bend negative 90 degrees on the regular at the tunnel/coon hill valley junction causing west winds to be effectively from the south at the surface across that face.

From the incident report:


Pretty easy to see.

[skiracer88_00]

While some might specify a particular depth, specifically deeper than 1.5m or 1.8m or even 2.0m, generally the idea is an old buried persistent weak layer that is often hard (unpredictable but catastrophic) to activate due to a generally supportive upper snowpack. DPS may come into play when new loads are placed or when activated by force, such as an avalanche in the upper snowpack. But my beef is not avalanche problem nerdery. I'm talking broad strokes that I think you are familiar with... I will explain:



This is where you'll want to read the report and see that this avalanche occurred in the upper pack, only about 15-25cm from the surface in wind drifted snow, then stepped immediately into a shallow slab about 60cm deeper. Only then did that mass gouge into the basal facets. So this was shallow avalanche activity that was wind related, not a deep persistent slab. Thus what I strenuously disagree with is the idea that this was an unforecasted, unexpected, "black ice" freak accident DPS as you characterized in your post. I also strenuously disagree with the idea that the aspect took it outside the forecast. The winds bend negative 90 degrees on the regular at the tunnel/coon hill valley junction causing west winds to be effectively from the south at the surface across that face. Those that ski there know this, and Mr. Dewitt claims to be very familiar with the area and that he had been watching this, so he should have expected this microclimate wind effect to be present.

The avalanche was of the type expected by the forecast and no surprise to those who know that area and slope. It was unlikely to natural, but with a trigger which that group provided, they generated an expected result.

I don't know. Maybe I really need to take a hard look at my own knowledge and practices, but there is no way I would look at an avalanche forecast that points out only the potential for relatively small wind slab avalanches on N-E-SE aspects and think that the forecast actually means that I should expect to trigger a wind slab on a W aspect that would step down to the ground and entrain enough snow to take out a roadway. If this is such an obvious exception, maybe it should be spelled out for us layman in the report.