Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 166
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    https://recreation-law.com/2018/01/0...t-injured-her/

    2017 group a and b ski the same line, group a said well wait for your call to droo, group b downclimbs choke, group a gets impatient and flushes the line injuring a girl in b.

    Rad line. A very fine mag was seriously hurt on that line back in 2003.

    Here is another pending Telluride situation. Group a ducks a closure rope into bear creek slides a chute and smokes a solo hiker. Potentially criminal and civil. https://coloradosun.com/2019/03/22/s...ort-telluride/

    I'll have to find the Teton Pass incident later.
    Thanks for sharing those, I was aware of both avalanches but never followed up with the legal ramifications.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    9,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    It's a not a head scratcher when you realize this guy is an aggro dolt. He puts together "extreme riding comps" in the Summit alpine midwinter. This year someone was seriously injured on Kitchen Wall and another person was partially buried in a slide.

    A few years back a snowboarder in his "comp" was slid in the alpine above Deer Creek, popped her airbag, it was on video, and it made the national news.

    He demonstrates poor critical thinking, bad risk management, and no sense of responsibility... exemplified well in the article by his common heuristic trap thinking while believing he is going "by the book" and yet he knows more than CAIC about avalanche control.
    I thought I recognized the name. Met their group a few times and they think they are pretty cool. That kind of shit just doesn't work in places with a continental snowpack.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,815
    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"

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,710
    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.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunion 2020 View Post
    Interesting on the cooperation.

    CAIC is neither USFS nor CDOT?
    CAIC "works for" CDOT. CDOT supplies a major hunk of CAIC's budget.
    "True love is much easier to find with a helicopter"

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    18,441
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Name Redacted View Post
    I thought I recognized the name. Met their group a few times and they think they are pretty cool. That kind of shit just doesn't work in places with a continental snowpack.
    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!"
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    PRB
    Posts
    23,770
    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
    "I'd eat a bag of Dicks and wash it down with a Coke any day." - iceman

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    cordova,AK
    Posts
    2,881
    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

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    6,722
    Quote Originally Posted by BFD View Post
    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.
    There's very good, safe touring, that does not in any way threaten the highway that is commonly accessed from that parking lot. Closing the lot cuts off access to that terrain as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    All ye punterz! Leave thine stupid heavy skis in the past, or at least in the resort category, for the age of lightweight pussy sticks is upon us! Behold! Keep up with the randocommandos on their carbon blades of shortness! Break thine tibias into spiral splinters with pintech extravagance!

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,815
    Summit, when is the trial date, do you know?
    "True love is much easier to find with a helicopter"

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    1,383
    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

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    18,441
    Responding from the I70 thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by skiracer88_00 View Post
    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.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    the Low Sierra
    Posts
    13,240
    well said
    I didn't believe in reincarnation when I was your age either.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Salida, CO
    Posts
    1,235
    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! ; )

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,598
    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.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Carbondale
    Posts
    10,817
    I'm surprised this group hasn't been posted yet:

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/COBackcountry

    DeWitt started a thread on it.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,815
    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"

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the swamp
    Posts
    7,931
    How did they get caught? Was CDOT waiting for them?

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    PRB
    Posts
    23,770
    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
    "I'd eat a bag of Dicks and wash it down with a Coke any day." - iceman

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the swamp
    Posts
    7,931
    They should have denied, denied and claimed the ski track doesn’t fit, gotta acquit!

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    6,722
    Quote Originally Posted by The SnowShow View Post
    How did they get caught? Was CDOT waiting for them?
    They called the authorities and reported the avalanche.
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    All ye punterz! Leave thine stupid heavy skis in the past, or at least in the resort category, for the age of lightweight pussy sticks is upon us! Behold! Keep up with the randocommandos on their carbon blades of shortness! Break thine tibias into spiral splinters with pintech extravagance!

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    18,441
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,922
    Lol like Tyler has insurance! Sorry man but you must be used to dealing with normal adults and not hardcore ski bums.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    18,441
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    13,488
    My thoughts as a dentist conflict with my thoughts about this DB.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •