Snowboarders cited for triggering avalanche at Eisenhower tunnel

[Kinnikinnick]

Stop it with the fire analogies. Fires can run much further than avalanches. And a piece of $168k equipment installed directly under a starting zone is a world away from a forest that could burn naturally from a random lightening strike. py analogy.

I am no mitigation expert but if the equipment was taken out by a skier triggered slide, I’d be inclined to say that it was likely to be taken out by a natural slide at some point. They may have gotten lucky that these skiers set it off so the installers didnt have to shoulder the blame.




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[I've seen black diamonds!]

Did they know, or should they reasonably have known, that their actions could have had consequences?

Should they reasonably have know that their actions would damage the O'Bellx? I'm not sure sure about that one.

[MiddleOfNight]

Should they reasonably have know that their actions would damage the O'Bellx? I'm not sure sure about that one.

well, perhaps not specifically that one piece of hardware .. but they reasonably know that avalanches cause damage, and they said 'that's what i was afraid of' or something.
They're not being charged with the intent to damage anything, rather careless or reckless actions - which I think is a relevant distinction.
Far as I know, the issue of potential restitution upon conviction is a separate issue.

edit: I think that video (and that one quote) is really damaging to their case.

[MiddleOfNight]

Stop it with the fire analogies. Fires can run much further than avalanches. And a piece of $168k equipment installed directly under a starting zone is a world away from a forest that could burn naturally from a random lightening strike. py analogy.

sort of.
Years ago, someone with a firework started a fire in a dry field near my house. Only burned a handful of acres, but some of those acres were on my property and it almost burned our / the neighbors houses down. Firefighters got pinned down up here, but they saved all the structures. That fire could have been caused by lighting, sure. But it wasn't - it was some moran with a book of matches and a firework.
My house is built 'directly in a fire zone' (evidently), every single house up here is. but that didn't excuse the person from acting carelessly.

I think these guys could easily get convicted of reckless endangerment but not be on the hook for the value of damage to the thingy for the reasons you and others mention. I understand that if they are convicted, the judge can make whatever determination they want about restitution, all or none or anywhere in between.

[MakersTeleMark]

If you lose at trial you are 100% on the hook for restitution.

But that doesn't matter in this case, because they don't have it.

The only way to get a dime is to strike a plea that includes a payment plan, that is why the D.A. offered a reduced amount to try to get some reimbursement. Now that that is likely off the table, both sides are pot committed. I don't see this going well for the prosecution. They are so backed up right now (as is the entire 5th) and are basically bleeding more money than the oblix settlement offer.

The media, and the involvement of the A.G. has basically just added fuel and focus to this shitshow.

[adrenalated]

We had a separate discussion on this. The CAIC report has a photo that shows the Obeelx if you zoom in. You can see one undamaged unit and one damaged. They were installed in 2018.

It can easily be argued that they were not installed in a suitable location for potential overhead risks. Those risks were likely estimated was extremely low....until someone decided to ski the line.

Let's go ahead and post these images here because this is TGR and I'm sure nobody is going to be bothered to search for them.

Here's the overview of the accident area with the O'Bellx locations and rider locations annotated.

Figure 3: A view of the avalanche from the Loop Road. Rider 1 triggered the avalanche in the snowfield below the rock knob on the ridgeline (A). The avalanche stepped down to deeper weak layers as the slope steepened (B) and in the middle of the chute (C). Remote avalanche control systems (blue ovals) are used to mitigate the avalanche hazard to the Loop Road and tunnel infrastructure. The red oval marks the damaged unit.

And then here is an image looking up the path. If you zoom in and look closely; you can see an intact O'Bellx unit in the upper right, and the damaged unit on the middle right. From what I can see, it looks like the main unit was knocked off it's stand,

Now with that out of the way, this is kinda of where I stand:

Because it got damaged from the avy, everyone seems to assume that it was poorly/improperly placed. And I get the logic. But it also seems like a bunch of TGR dentists may not be as knowledgeable and skilled with that equipment as cdot and the caic. It seems weird that they would simply install it in the wrong place.

I think I understand the general placement of the units. The primary infrastructure hazards are large slabs releasing on the lower slopes. So the units are placed at the top of the lower slopes, near margins of the typical snow coverage and in rocky areas, where those type of large slabs would be easier to trigger. So I think I understand the general placement and why they were relatively low on the slope. The slopes above this (where the snowboarders triggered the thin wind slab) rarely hold very much snow.

I don't fully understand how the O'Bellx got knocked off it's stand. I doubt just the hard slab releasing around it would have done that. My best guess is the smaller slab the snowboarders released spilled over the cliff above it and directly impacted the O'Bellx unit. I'm also guessing they aren't designed for that type of impact. Does that mean it was installed in a bad spot? Would a natural wind slab have eventually released in that area and come over the cliffs and damaged the unit? I don't know, I'm not a forecaster so I don't know how to accurately predict natural avalanches, but like I said those slopes don't hold very much snow very often. Does the fact that a small wind slab avalanche triggered a large persistent slab mean that CDOT did inadequate control work on that slope? Again I don't know, and it probably comes down to a forecaster's interpretation of how likely a natural avalanche doing the same thing actually was. It will be interesting to see the actual experts explain the placement of the unit.

Like makers and danno said, it's a really fascinating case, lot of ins and outs and what have yous, lotta threads in the old duder's head. Add in the spectacle of a jury trial and I have no clue how this is going to turn out. These guys are definitely getting the book thrown at them, and they definitely shouldn't have been skiing that line, but not a clue how that's going to all shake out in the end. I mostly hope that a precedent for closing terrain is not the result.

[Bunion 2020]

Thanks for posting those.

I mostly hope that a precedent for closing terrain is not the result.

One way or another that will probably be a result.

[MakersTeleMark]

But the rub is that J. Casias stated that it would be unlikely that the prosecution would have any CAIC EE's as experts, so none of that is going to come in.

[MakersTeleMark]

One way or another that probably should be a result.

FIFY.

[Danno]

The media, and the involvement of the A.G. has basically just added fuel and focus to this shitshow.

Since the AG's involvement has already been misrepresented in some of the articles, just want to point out that the AG's involvement here is not voluntary. They represent the CAIC and have been forced into it because of that.

[adrenalated]

But the rub is that J. Casias stated that it would be unlikely that the prosecution would have any CAIC EE's as experts, so none of that is going to come in.

I definitely might have misread the article (or it might have been reported badly). I thought the ruling was that CAIC is going to be required to testify as expert witnesses for the prosecution, over their objections? But that they were not expected to testify on whether or not the snowboarders broke the law - just on the factual information about the avalanche? I would think placement of the O'Bellx would come up in questions to them.
I'm legitimately curious, I definitely might be misunderstanding and you would know.

[MiddleOfNight]

If you lose at trial you are 100% on the hook for restitution.

Interesting. Fair enough, I wouldn't know .. but it just seems like there would be a 'mitigating circumstances' consideration at sentencing.

[whipski]

rather than scrolling 15 pages when is the trial date?

[~mikey b]

today

[kathleenturneroverdrive]

I'd like to be at the trial just to ask why the hell, in a state with a million good lines, they wasted their time skiing windswept garbage above I70?

[seano732]

I'd like to be at the trial just to ask why the hell, in a state with a million good lines, they wasted their time skiing windswept garbage above I70?

Well that's a solid opening argument. (Disclaimer. I am not a legal dentist.)

[kathleenturneroverdrive]

If their lawyer doesn't claim insanity based purely on their terrible choice of a line then they need to find new representation (disclaimer: I am a rocket surgeon lawyer)

[fastfred]

https://www.summitdaily.com/news/cri...valanche-case/

didn't get my summons kinda pissed
bet the lazy gov't employees didn't realize the us post office sucks and they needed to go out a month ago, sure they will all show up at everyone's po box in a week or so

[Jethro]

I could see having charges filed if a motorist or structure were damaged. It’s a bit ironic that the equipment designed to set off avalanches, was damaged by an avalanche. It’s not inconceivable that the device could eventually have triggered a similar slide to the one these guys set off.

[snoqpass]

I could see having charges filed if a motorist or structure were damaged. It’s a bit ironic that the equipment designed to set off avalanches, was damaged by an avalanche. It’s not inconceivable that the device could eventually have triggered a similar slide to the one these guys set off.

Deterring people in the future from doing things like what they did by making an example of them is part of the system

[~mikey b]

I updated my SnowBrains story this afternoon to reflect today’s news.

https://snowbrains.com/mistrial-decl...nhower-tunnel/

[Jethro]

Deterring people in the future from doing things like what they did by making an example of them is part of the system

I agree with you. And without seeing any testimony, I’d bet a jury finds them guilty

[snoqpass]

I agree with you. And without seeing any testimony, I’d bet a jury finds them guilty

Fortunately for them not enough people bothered to show up for jury duty

[MakersTeleMark]

Knock knock, Ed....

Who's there?

All the COVID kiddies and us locos waitin for our vax, should we come in?

We're all downstairs at Eric's smokin blunts and waiting for the webex feed, yo.

The court was hoping to put together a jury of six community members, but after the second wave of prospective jurors was questioned, and several were released for cause, only nine remained.

While nine would have worked, Casias noted that the defense and prosecution would have been allowed up to four peremptory challenges each in subsequent interviews, meaning they could excuse prospective jurors without explanation. Casias ultimately decided to declare a mistrial.

With the amount of resources already spent by CO taxpayers, that oblex or whatever could have been replaced 10x.

Good job Heidi. Way to pick up Bruce's shit on your first day. I'm really sorry for you.

And to let you know how backed up the docket is, trial date in June, it's fucking March. Think the jury pool might change much? Think fucks will be given much? This will be a blister on his docket. And I really like the guy, and the prosecutor, but what did you really expect?

This whole case is a full #facepalm on every side.

Case dismissed. See you in traffic in the summer.

[fastfred]

Knock knock, Ed....

Who's there?

All the COVID kiddies and us locos waitin for our vax, should we come in?

We're all downstairs at Eric's smokin blunts and waiting for the webex feed, yo.



With the amount of resources already spent by CO taxpayers, that oblex or whatever could have been replaced 10x.

Good job Heidi. Way to pick up Bruce's shit on your first day. I'm really sorry for you.

And to let you know how backed up the docket is, trial date in June, it's fucking March. Think the jury pool might change much? Think fucks will be given much? This will be a blister on his docket. And I really like the guy, and the prosecutor, but what did you really expect?

This whole case is a full #facepalm on every side.

Case dismissed. See you in traffic in the summer.

This
what's the deal with the new da? obviously its business as usual no changes

imagine a new plea deal is on it's way before June for a slap on the wrist? but no everyone needs to keep course or the da's office looks like the idiots they are if they start back tracking

again way to call a jury when half the county is on spring break
only calling 40 people? wtf? they know that only 30-40% of the people called show up anyways and half the people walk out the door because they have either have run ins with the law or they already no too much about the case to be a good jury small town shit