Results 8,401 to 8,425 of 11614
Thread: OFFICIAL I70 BITCH THREAD....
-
09-17-2020, 04:57 PM #8401
-
09-17-2020, 05:04 PM #8402
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.
-
09-17-2020, 05:08 PM #8403
^exactly
Originally Posted by blurred
-
09-17-2020, 05:09 PM #8404
Well said
-
09-17-2020, 05:14 PM #8405
Nice summary again Jefe. Sisters are off limits until June for a reason.
-
09-17-2020, 05:28 PM #8406Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
- Location
- SW, CO
- Posts
- 1,612
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.
-
09-17-2020, 06:25 PM #8407
yeah, that's as simple an explanation as one could get.
"fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
"She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
"everybody's got their hooks into you, fuck em....forge on motherfuckers, drag all those bitches across the goal line with you." - (not so) ill-advised strategy
-
09-17-2020, 08:02 PM #8408Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
- Location
- your vacation
- Posts
- 4,744
-
09-17-2020, 08:27 PM #8409
It really is a great word
Edit: sorry...Jabroni
-
09-17-2020, 08:38 PM #8410
-
09-17-2020, 09:25 PM #8411Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Location
- Gaperville, CO
- Posts
- 5,852
This jabroni's season goal is to drink beer with FastFred somewhere.
Angry James?
-
09-18-2020, 12:57 AM #8412
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.
-
09-18-2020, 08:17 AM #8413
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.
-
09-18-2020, 08:35 AM #8414Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
- Location
- your vacation
- Posts
- 4,744
-
09-18-2020, 08:39 AM #8415Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,675
-
09-18-2020, 08:48 AM #8416
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.
-
09-18-2020, 08:55 AM #8417Rope->Dope
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
- Location
- I-70 West
- Posts
- 4,684
-
09-18-2020, 11:33 AM #8418
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.
-
09-18-2020, 12:42 PM #8419
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:
Originally Posted by CAIC
Here is the thread dealing with this incident: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...enhower-tunnelOriginally Posted by blurred
-
09-18-2020, 02:08 PM #8420
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.
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.
-
09-18-2020, 02:15 PM #8421
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.the drugs made me realize it's not about the drugs
-
09-18-2020, 02:46 PM #8422
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.
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.Originally Posted by blurred
-
09-18-2020, 02:57 PM #8423
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.
Forecast for 3/25/2020 (use links at bottom to get archive): https://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/p....php?zone_id=2
-
09-18-2020, 03:31 PM #8424
-
09-18-2020, 03:35 PM #8425
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.
Bookmarks