Results 26 to 50 of 417
-
05-22-2020, 10:28 AM #26
-
05-22-2020, 10:37 AM #27Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,612
-
05-24-2020, 10:46 AM #28Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Location
- Colorado
- Posts
- 2,071
I think you'll a lot more restriction in the west side of the Ike Tunnel area next winter. CDOT and USFS don't always get along but when it comes to dropping avalanches on highways they do tend to work together.
"True love is much easier to find with a helicopter"
-
05-24-2020, 11:49 AM #29
Interesting on the cooperation.
CAIC is neither USFS nor CDOT?I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.
"Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"
-
05-24-2020, 02:41 PM #30Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Location
- Colorado
- Posts
- 2,071
-
09-18-2020, 12:10 PM #31
Well Mr. DeWitt has polled the facebooks for legal advice to fight the charges. Hilarity ensues...
https://www.facebook.com/groups/COBackcountry
Sure seems like his problem would have been best solved with humility, a lawyer, and a plea deal... but responsibility doesn't seem to be his thing. Ski at your own risk, unless it goes bad, then eschew responsibility... that is the attitude that will make the government close terrain.
The vocal ones seem to think they are the raddest skiers around and anyone who doesn't love their shit must be an inexperienced wuss who can't ski and is skeered of going outside.
"But muh risk tolerances!"Originally Posted by blurred
-
09-18-2020, 01:10 PM #32
everyone should read that FB thread, "hilarity ensues" indeed.
"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
-
09-18-2020, 01:39 PM #33
I do not think if this guy wins or loses makes a difference other than to him. If the parking is on the hwy right of way the state should just close it. Seems like a sign saying emergency parking only unattended vehicles will be towed and the problem goes away.
off your knees Louie
-
09-18-2020, 03:21 PM #34
-
09-18-2020, 04:03 PM #35Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Location
- Colorado
- Posts
- 2,071
Summit, when is the trial date, do you know?
"True love is much easier to find with a helicopter"
-
09-18-2020, 05:23 PM #36
Arraignment, which is the first hearing where one enters a plea (99% of the time not guilty) is on 9/23/20 8:30 AM DEWITT, TYLER
You can look up CO court hearings by people name at the link below
https://www.courts.state.co.us/Court...?District_ID=5
-
09-19-2020, 11:00 PM #37
Responding from the I70 thread:
It is always a good time to self-evaluate.
That appears to echo the position that this situation was a failure of the State to adequately forecast and perform avalanche reduction, and therefor the riders bear no responsibility for the accident caused by the state's supposed failure to remove and advise risk. The basis of that argument is factually incorrect. Interested parties must make that argument to avoid the true issue: consequences (as a component of risk) and personal responsibility. I'll come back to that.
The state’s intent and responsibility in mitigation have already been well addressed in previous posts.
If the forecast needed to cover all eventualities, then there would be no need for an avalanche problem rose. The forecast is a starting point and made to cover a zone. Zones contain several mountain ranges, or many… especially when faced with the late March 2020 situation of all the ski areas having closed on March 15 cause all their observations to cease. It is the job of BC skier to read the forecast, then use their knowledge and observations to look at specific conditions on the part of the slope of a mountain of a mountain range within a forecast zone. Local weather and terrain effects cause deviations from the expectations of the forecast.
This isn't rocket surgery. Microclimates: cross loading and valleys redirecting surface wind patterns is part of day 1 and 2 of a Level 1 Avalanche course. Observing for and identifying the wind effect problem noted in the forecast is a basic part of a Level 1 toolchest. The party involved in this slide claims to have more advanced education, many years of experience, familiarity with this zone, and to have been making regular observations on the particular mountain they skied. So, they should have been familiar with the snowpack. Even sinking a ski pole full depth would have revealed the nature of a snowpack as far as slabs and basal facets. A Level 1 knowledge base would inform the capability of an avalanche.
Clearly the problem encountered was part of the forecast. Identification of the problem and its potential consequences were well in the wheelhouse of this party. This was not a bolt from the blue. Was it a “dumb choice” or was it an unfortunate negative risk encounter with consequences by a group with a supposed “high risk tolerance?” We can certainly debate, but it is besides the point.
Also part of an Level 1 Avalanche course is this simple discussion of components of risk, which includes the consequence. Skiing a path that runs out into a public thoroughfare, whether that is a trail, road, cat track, or whatever, automatically creates a consideration of higher consequence and thus higher risk. Consideration for what is in the runout is a Know Before You Go level concept.
If consequences (hazard) go up, exposure must go down in order to maintain risk acceptance. This is a Level 1 concept.Originally Posted by blurred
-
09-19-2020, 11:54 PM #38
well said
I didn't believe in reincarnation when I was your age either.
-
09-20-2020, 07:47 AM #39
A group of skiiers parked on an access pullout on Monarch and skiied an adjacent aspect. CDOT officials had planned a demonstration of their "new" avy mitigation equipment on an opposite aspect. They were quite miffed and cancelled the demo. That pullout has never seen slide activity from the opposite aspect or the one skiied. I'm not saying I know who the skiers were but it was a rippin good pow day! ; )
-
09-22-2020, 07:43 AM #40
Bah!!
Charges won’t stick. High Danger, Considerable Danger, maybe, but reckless endangerment for skiing non closed terrain on Moderate Danger, no way. Guy may be a dufus, but no way I’d convict.
If skiers shouldnt ski it, then close it.
-
09-22-2020, 09:39 AM #41
I'm surprised this group hasn't been posted yet:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/COBackcountry
DeWitt started a thread on it.www.dpsskis.com
www.point6.com
formerly an ambassador for a few others, but the ski industry is... interesting.
Fukt: a very small amount of snow.
-
09-22-2020, 03:41 PM #42Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Location
- Colorado
- Posts
- 2,071
When and where is the trial going to be? It might be interesting to attend.
"True love is much easier to find with a helicopter"
-
09-22-2020, 03:49 PM #43
How did they get caught? Was CDOT waiting for them?
-
09-22-2020, 05:40 PM #44
Any lawyer types looked at this? exactly what are the charges and what are the elements of that crime?
"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
-
09-22-2020, 07:28 PM #45
They should have denied, denied and claimed the ski track doesn’t fit, gotta acquit!
-
09-22-2020, 07:29 PM #46
-
09-22-2020, 08:27 PM #47
Possible that the fact that this occurred during a the height of "stay at home" contributed to consideration of reckless along with the general "not my fault, it's the government's fault" attitude... I'm not a law talkin' guy...
I personally hate the idea of skiing being criminal as it wasn't a closure, but I'm in favor of responsibility. Since they caused financial damage, then seems they should be civilly dealt with for restitution and (law talkin' guys help me out) then they might be covered by insurance if they have any liability coverage that would apply like homeowners, umbrella, whatever liability?Originally Posted by blurred
-
09-22-2020, 08:40 PM #48
Lol like Tyler has insurance! Sorry man but you must be used to dealing with normal adults and not hardcore ski bums.
-
09-22-2020, 08:59 PM #49
Oh I get it, but what I am thinking about precedent that would be established affecting normal people in the future. Criminal restitution... it doesn't seem right?
Originally Posted by blurred
-
09-22-2020, 09:35 PM #50
My thoughts as a dentist conflict with my thoughts about this DB.
Bookmarks