Page 3 of 3

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:15 am
by Jorts
k_fergie wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:58 am
For the freedom to reap the rewards, one must accept the potential consequences. And why do people get hung up on signage? Here's a slippery slope for ya. Why not just install boundary ropes to guide you and groomers to smooth out the snow while you're at it? For the SKY chutes, and really any potential slide, you can measure the alpha angle and come to the conclusion that 91 is easily in a risk zone. So yeah if you triggered a consequential slide across it, you should have to answer for it in some way, ignorance doesnt hold up in court
I was posting hypotheticals just to encourage critical thought about the whole situation instead of landing squarely on one side or the other. I would not ski the Y chute with high avy hazard where it could potentially hit the road.

Anyway, this fatal incident also comes to mind. A side country party left the resort boundary legally, presumably through a gate. Then they triggered a slide that buried a man a couple thousand feet below. Are the side country skiers responsible... should they be prosecuted for wrongful death? Or did the guy below, John Q Public, have personal responsibility? This incident was really tragic. It's not always cut and dried where responsibility lies.

https://www.avalanche.state.co.us/caic/ ... &accfm=inv

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:18 am
by bergsteigen
Jorts wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:46 am
bergsteigen wrote:
Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:31 pm
2. CDOT has learned a lesson that maybe there should be signs prohibiting/warning against skiing above sensitive and critical areas of the tunnel. Maybe this is a new zone they didn’t know about yet. It’s west facing, and usually wind scoured.

3. WY Teton pass has very strict rules about triggering an avalanche onto the highway. Same with the 7 sisters above Loveland Pass. There are certain known spots that should not be skied during avy season because of highway use. Period.

4. Submitting video/photo evidence is at your own risk. Helped CAIC and future prevention. But screws the boarders. I wouldn’t have supplied any documentation (within the statute of limitations time period).
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody's around to hear it...

I do not think prosecuting these guys will discourage others from reporting avalanches - unless others are skiing somewhere they're not allowed to like Seven Sisters, Stanley, etc.

So I guess that's the crux question: was there clear signage near entry to this terrain warning skiers not to enter? And if there was not, are skiers required to innately know terrain that is go or no go from a public safety perspective?

It's a slippery slope; I've skied the SKY chutes many times. In March 2019 the Y slid to the road and hit vehicles on 91. If I had triggered that slide would I be prosecuted? I'd plead ignorance noting that I had never heard of it jumping the creek and hitting the road, and further there is no signage. How could I have known I was putting the public at risk?
I have never skied around Coon Hill so I don’t know about signage. I think signage should be in high traffic areas like this, where damage to interstate highways and CDOT equipment is located. Only because you can’t fix stupid.

As for other areas like Sky Chutes, that’s a lot trickier. You can’t and shouldn’t sign everything. As k_fergie mentions, alpha angle would tell you it *can* slide that far. This should be part of ones avy education. I’ve skied there too, but only on days where avy conditions were low - not on historic March 2019 conditions! I drove past that zone right before it slid, and was inbounds at Copper waiting for them the blast the front side. The front side.

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:00 am
by k_fergie
Jorts wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:15 am
k_fergie wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:58 am
For the freedom to reap the rewards, one must accept the potential consequences. And why do people get hung up on signage? Here's a slippery slope for ya. Why not just install boundary ropes to guide you and groomers to smooth out the snow while you're at it? For the SKY chutes, and really any potential slide, you can measure the alpha angle and come to the conclusion that 91 is easily in a risk zone. So yeah if you triggered a consequential slide across it, you should have to answer for it in some way, ignorance doesnt hold up in court
I was posting hypotheticals just to encourage critical thought about the whole situation instead of landing squarely on one side or the other. I would not ski the Y chute with high avy hazard where it could potentially hit the road.

Anyway, this fatal incident also comes to mind. A side country party left the resort boundary legally, presumably through a gate. Then they triggered a slide that buried a man a couple thousand feet below. Are the side country skiers responsible... should they be prosecuted for wrongful death? Or did the guy below, John Q Public, have personal responsibility? This incident was really tragic. It's not always cut and dried where responsibility lies.

https://www.avalanche.state.co.us/caic/ ... &accfm=inv
I guess I'm just triggered by this case, its been beaten to death on all of my channels. I tend to agree with tornadoman, why not settle out of court and save everyone time and money? You destroyed someone's property, work with them and make it right.

That telluride accident is a tragic and interesting case, but I think fundamentally different than this tunnel one or a hypothetical SKY chutes one. I believe that the skier implicitly accepted a level of risk by venturing out into the BC, overhead hazard is part of that risk calculation. Whereas drivers on roads and stationary infrastructure have not implicitly accepted this same risk, thats where I draw the line, but you're right that its definitely not cut and dry