Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well at Happone it's clearly stated that sking out of bounds is dangerous and done at your own risk. They're not liable and they don't seem to want the aggro of stopping the inevitable-very simple.

 

Arai seems like a special case in some ways, that being so just take their passes and ban them from the resort. Either that or just put up signs like they do at Happone. Cover your legal angles and let them ski off a cliff.

 

Bottom line is, don't go out of bounds if you don't know what you're doing, and don't expect help from the resort if you come undone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Don't really want to get sucked into this discussion too much, just lurking a bit.

When i was 18 i climbed a condemned chimney, it was 60 meters high. when i came down the fire department and the police was waiting for me.

I remember the calm officer explaining me that i would really have ruined his day if he had to scrape me off the asfalt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's what I thought happyhappy. I was getting the impression that people were arguing about whether they had the legal right to deny access to something from their property but perhaps going outside of it. But looking back on the posts I think you're right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we sure that this cliff is what the argument is even about?

 

I know I'm talking about it and wondering if it's skiable

 

But is that the area that Arai is having it's problems?

I was thinking that it was people going into conditional zones when they are closed for supposed avy danger

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Quote:
Originally posted by Toque:
[QB]
I have skied in a few permanently closed areas in W/B and experienced amazing runs of deep powder, pillows and cool straightlines. I do so at my own risk.[QB]

Not dissin’ ya Toque - I agree with the sentiment of less restrictions/legislation, but having said that, so-called ‘common sense’ isn’t that common is it.

Having been a search & rescue member (wilderness areas, not just snow) for years I get mad when people assume they can do what they want without taking responsibility or, more importantly, use the tact that they’re responsible for their own actions – which is full-bottomed crap.

Although it’s all about risk minimisation, I wish people would think about the rescuers who place themselves at unnecessary risk trying to extricate others who have fallen foul because of stupidity, recklessness, and arrogance. (Rescuers have families too!)

We’ve all witnessed it - if one person is seen ducking the proverbial rope, others will follow like lemmings. (Wouldn’t it be interesting if the initial infringer got charged with manslaughter if a death occurred because someone followed their ‘illegal’ lead?)

Back on topic – if the cliff is on private property, the owner has the right to close it off and hand out suitable penalties to those that infringe.
Link to post
Share on other sites
 Quote:
Originally posted by Toque:
I did SAR work for 6 years dude ... Which doesn't really mean anything except that you can't call me out on that SubZero and that I know the process all to well of the resources that go into a SAR call
You’re a beginner then – not to blow a trumpet, but been doing it for almost twenty years here, so can make comment on something that I do have much experience in – from retrieval of both injured and dead, to seeing the rescuer become one of the victims.

Again, no animosity intended.
Link to post
Share on other sites
 Quote:
Originally posted by Toque:
Not all of us can be as old as you are \:D
Indeed, Sonny. :p

But like me old Dad says: ‘I’ve got here Son, you’ve yet to’ … wise, and hard to argue against, words them.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive skied my fair share of closed runs in Canada and in Japan. I do take the risks but I dont ski closed areas that would ever put another person at risk. That said I never really thought about the SAR or patrol guys for rescue and it is a good point. I get have gotten tired of the catch me if you can game and rarely play it anymore really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Four “off-piste” zones encompassing 55 hectares located on the upper regions of the mountain. These areas are opened when there is both a sufficient amount of snow and it is determined to be safe to do so on the day."

 

from the arai website. now, i suppose the issue that concerns me regarding when "it is determined to be safe" is, who is making this decision? given that there is no such thing as a national or even prefectural governing body that oversees and maintains a level of standard in terrian management in this country,(one has just been proposed this year in the diet in response to all the incidents this year, about time!) where are these authorities gaining the required knowledge and experience to make these types of safety assessments? what sorts of things are they actually doing to maitain a safe enviroment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Dyna8800, a bit late to answer, but yes I scuba dive. So does number9 as well I guess from his avatar.

 

I did hear that the scuba diving waiver may be considered an abusive clause, but I guess it may also depend on the country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Quote:
Originally posted by SerreChe:
Looks like this week's giveaways are at Arai. Toque, you've entered? ;\)
You bet Serre ;\)
I entered 10 times


 Quote:
Originally posted by mumbojumbo:
 Quote:
i suppose the issue that concerns me regarding when "it is determined to be safe" is, who is making this decision?
Is it so difficult to guess?
The resort.
Then they take responsibility.
You're missing the point there though MJ
Who at the resort is qualified enough to make that decision
And what qualifications do they have to make an educated decision on safety
Link to post
Share on other sites
 Quote:
You're missing the point there though MJ
Who at the resort is qualified enough to make that decision
No, I think you're missing the point.

I don't know who is qualified to make that decision, but that doesn't matter. But if the resort is willing to take the responsibility to make the decision (and any consequences that arise from said decision), then it's totally up to them what they do.
Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...