RCR removes all jumps

[Johnny Law]

I knew eventually someone was going to do this, by the way RCR runs Fernie, Lake Loiuse, Kimberly and Nakiska.

 

http://www.snowboard-mag.com/node/28059

 

 

Article if your lazy

 

 

Resorts of the Canadian Rockies Focuses on Terrain Park Safety with an Industry-Leading Initiative

Calgary, AB

[Glenn]

All jumps? Small jumps just aren't that dangerous and can still be a ton of fun...

 

Bizarre.

[Ski]

Wow, deja vu...I was playing in a poker tourny and there was a lawyer at my table who was talking about skiing and how there were some upcoming class action lawsuits being put together against at least two eastern (he wasn't sure which) ski areas regarding big jumps.

 

A class action is when there are multiple complainants who agree to combine their suits into one generally against a single party.

 

 

His opinion was that the next big change in the ski industry was to do away with jumps and even most rails and other features. He believed even the filing of the suit will begin the process.

 

 

If anyone thinks it's crazy, go ask an oldtimer about the "Jumping Forbidden" signs that used to be posted everywhere. Or, I guess, read that story. Jeez, am I right about freakin' lawyers?

[Glenn]

It's incredibly frustrating that there isn't some formal process that can be done to protect high risks activity producers. It's what the back of tickets are supposed to do...

 

The alternatives for those of us who don't lawyer up at all opportunities are much more dangerous. I'd rather break myself at a resort where there is emergency staff readily available.

 

I think the same people who complain about the prospect of park passes are the ones who end up suing the resorts as well.

[toast21602]

that is like trying to demote the sport and not use innovation as a way to get people to your mountains. good-bye business.

[Johnny Law]

It's incredibly frustrating that there isn't some formal process that can be done to protect high risks activity producers. It's what the back of tickets are supposed to do...

 

The alternatives for those of us who don't lawyer up at all opportunities are much more dangerous. I'd rather break myself at a resort where there is emergency staff readily available.

 

I think the same people who complain about the prospect of park passes are the ones who end up suing the resorts as well.

 

The main problem with that is that in many states in the US (I don't know anything about CAN legal system) you can't sign away your right to sue regarding negligence. Which makes perfect sense right, imagine you sign a waiver and then park is filled with shrapnel and land mines, under a system in which you could sign away negligence you couldn't sue regardless of what the mountain did. It is an extereme scenario but I think you get the point. Colorado has a pretty good system in which lawsuits are very very tough to bring.

 

With class actions, even in the best case in which the class is decertified, discovery is short and you win on summary judgment or its dismissed, the costs can still be in millions. Resorts will decide that its too much to risk and simply remove the parks.

 

Even if you have never even looked at a park it has definitely revitalized skiing and snowsports in general, next time you are at your local mountain check out the younger generation and what they are in to. Unfourtunently, this is more of a legal issue than a snowsports issue and unless the industry as a whole gets together and plunks down for a war chest this could get nasty.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Johnny Law

[Ski]

There's an entire culture of people who search out wet spots on grocery store floors to slip and fall, then cash in. People who make a living at it and---in many cases---the fact that they've filed prior similar lawsuits is not admissible.

 

 

It's a little surprising that it hasn't reached the ski industry as much as it could have...just take a look at the things that line slopes and every one is a potential multi-million dollar suit. Last year, a kid on a group school trip hit some snowmaking gear just off a slope and was killed. Instant lawsuit.

 

 

Okay, enough of this buzz kill.

[Papasteeze]

The silliest part of that is that they are increasing thier focus on rails. Hello? you have to hit a small jump to land on the steel sideways. oh thats real smart.. jump onto steel sideways or jump onto the snow with your skis forward. hmmmm

 

 

yeah.. lets jumps sideways onto some steel, that is so much safer.

[Ski]

I suppose they are looking at where the severe injuries are happening.

 

 

It's almost like the parks, in a way, are catching up to what race slopes have to go through when it comes to fencing.

[Dan-]

Because the huge cliffs and so forth that are apart of those mountains aren't anywhere near as dangerous as a manicured jump.. Stupid move on there part, There goes all of the park riders from all of those resorts.

[rgrwilco]

i think its more like, the park riders will be forced to deal with it. the resorts up there are really spread out no? i assume its not like here where i can go to boulder when blue puts a bus in their park, or go to spring because bear couldnt make snow, with a small difference in drive time. i could be wrong though.

[Schif]

im just glad the mtns are looking out for our safety

They must have heard about CB and the cold weather safety program :tinfoil:

[poconoceancity]

Wow, deja vu...I was playing in a poker tourny and there was a lawyer at my table who was talking about skiing and how there were some upcoming class action lawsuits being put together against at least two eastern (he wasn't sure which) ski areas regarding big jumps.

 

A class action is when there are multiple complainants who agree to combine their suits into one generally against a single party.

His opinion was that the next big change in the ski industry was to do away with jumps and even most rails and other features. He believed even the filing of the suit will begin the process.

If anyone thinks it's crazy, go ask an oldtimer about the "Jumping Forbidden" signs that used to be posted everywhere. Or, I guess, read that story. Jeez, am I right about freakin' lawyers?

How long has it been since you practiced law?

[Ski]

How long has it been since you practiced law?

I never took the bar, Poc. I fell in love with journalism and went to work for newspapers. I did become involved with a law firm in Trenton around 1989 for a couple of years, spending most of my time filing motions on behalf of fathers (for free) in family court. I bet Judge Feinberg still remembers me...and not in a good way. There are a lot of dumb lawyers, Poc, but I wasn't smart enough to be a good one.

 

 

Why? Are you in trouble again?

Edited November 10, 2007 by ski

[poconoceancity]

I never took the bar, Poc. I fell in love with journalism and went to work for newspapers. I did become involved with a law firm in Trenton around 1989 for a couple of years, spending most of my time filing motions on behalf of fathers (for free) in family court. I bet Judge Feinberg still remembers me...and not in a good way. There are a lot of dumb lawyers, Poc, but I wasn't smart enough to be a good one.

Why? Are you in trouble again?

I have stayed out of trouble in my 30's...

[method9455]

This is my take:

 

1) I'll never go to any of their resorts now, just on principle. When I travel I spend 95% or more percent of my time free riding, but just on principle, and with so many other choices, I'm out.

 

2) I also agree jumps are much safer to the riders and skiers using them than rails. I've gotten hurt so many more times on rails, but it is always break a nose, or a wrist, or hit your tailbone, smack your head. Generally those injuries don't get reported to the mountain. If you get hurt on a jump, it happens a lot less often but it is probably more catastrophic. Death, concussion, serious bone break, neck injury - but at a much lower frequency than rails. I think anyone who knows what they are doing would agree with that. Unless you are spinning, a jump is basically go fast enough to clear the knuckle and you are safe. If you are spinning you can catch an edge and hit your head or break and arm and I've seen that happen, but its not bad. On a rail, you could do it perfectly and if the kid before you nicked the box top you can catch an edge and hit your head completely out of the blue. (Or if you are at camelback and there is a screw head sticking up through the plastic ARGH)

 

3) However this isn't about the safety of the rider and skier using the jump, it is about the people in the way. Just read it they want to "protect the safety of our guests" by guests they mean non park riders, if they wanted to protect the park rats they wouldn't be investing in new crazier rails. The way I see it, the danger zone for guests and rails is incredibly small, and there are few blind spots. For jumps the danger zone is basically the entire jump's deck and landing, and the whole landing is a blind spot.

 

In our engineering classes they always tell us to solve the "real problem" and not the "supposed problem", the supposed problem here is that people are getting hurt in the park - and there will be lawsuits. The real problem is that there are a lot of people uneducated about park safety in the park. A real solution would be to have park passes, and not with little videos before hand, but an hour or two class with a test to get a pass. That would eliminate a lot of injuries - but it costs too much. Instead they eliminate the jumps which elminates the costs of making and grooming them, while getting rid of the possibility of a lawsuit and also giving them free PR.

 

So its spend a lot of money to make jumps safe, versus save money and get free PR while screwing the people interested in learning how to jump. It has nothing to do with safety, only money.

 

 

--Oh and I believe Colorado has a law against sueing the mountains except in cases of extreme negligence but I believe that would be hard to pass in PA, our economy doesn't depend on these resorts like CO depends onthe tourism out there.

[Ski]

I think you're absolutely right, Method, but the twist in the liability issue with park passes is this: if someone gets instruction and guidance from a mountain, then is deemed competent to take certain risks, the mountain is then liable on a whole new level.

 

 

I've read a couple of judge's decisions and the expectations put on ski areas for safety are almost insane. It's no wonder so many small areas went broke from insurance premium raises.

 

 

If Ty had gotten hurt by the out-of-control boarder at BB on Saturday---and if we were the suing sort of people---we'd have had a pretty good case for partial liability against BB. Everyone witnessed a kid unable to stop, taking laps through a crowded space, and not once did a BB employee or ski patrol take action. I'm sure there's case law to refer to, since it happens a lot.

[Papasteeze]

A real solution would be to have park passes, and not with little videos before hand, but an hour or two class with a test to get a pass.

 

I worry that freestyle jumping might progress to the way ussa aerials competitors are certified.

[Glenn]

I worry that freestyle jumping might progress to the way ussa aerials competitors are certified.

 

There is no reason a relative n00b should be on a 50+ foot jump... ever. For pro size parks, would it be such a bad thing?

 

At the same time, for little intro jumps the relative danger is WAY smaller, and there is little reason these should be of much concern to anyone.

 

 

I'm pretty confident this has everything to do with what the insurance companies feel are safe, and a lot less with what on the hill his actually safe/not. Likely the law suits that are easy to win are those involving jumps, and insurance ponies up for that. It's also interesting that at least at CB the insurance companies have a say in how jumps are built, and repeatedly the specs that they have are considered unsafe by the skiers/riders.

 

So it's not so much, what will give you bumps and bruises, but what will cause serious injury and result in successful lawsuits.