Friday, February 14, 2014

fuckin' Call-a-Rat-Oh!

First they shove everyone out of the way to prove they can commercialize cannabis better than AK, CA, WA.

(but fail there, because they chose tax-and-regulate, thanks to Jewish Progressives being a driver in the state's social fabric)

Here's a true landmark, though.  And I say that because of the Jewish Progressives in the state's mix, who tend to want to pacify and pave over every rough point in the human or physical landscape.  The JPs tend to not like things rough-and-tumble, they prefer fresh asphalt, lots of street lights, fancy eateries, and other ways to one-up your neighbor through consumerist habit and experiment.

I wonder if that's at play here?  JPs who grew up soft and mushy in Philadelphia, NYC, Bethesda, or Bergen County and have now moved to Boulder for the Outdoor Lifestyle Competition Every Waking Moment, they can brag to their JP friends who haven't yet Made the Move, telling them that they live where it's Rugged and Rough.

With asphalt, lights aplenty, fancy eateries & boutiques, etc.

***************

Avalanches within the boundaries of open runs at Colorado ski resorts are an inherent danger, and operators do not have to warn skiers or close runs, even when risk is high, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

From the Denver Post.**

 ***************

That's a good decision.  Skiing is risky.  Nobody should head out for a day of skiing or snowboarding in the alpine (rather than nordic) context, and assume that someone else is handling all the risks or some significant part of the risks.

If you're riding on snow, you have to know that snow-riding is risky.

The standard should be that assumption of all risk related to the actual sliding on snow, it falls on the skier/snowboarder.

Ski areas might be liable for failure of a lift and resultant injury, but they're not liable for the snow itself nor the terrain on which the snow falls.

It's your job, Outdoor Lifestyler, to assess the risks associated with sliding on snow.  YOUR JOB.  Not someone else's.

Good job, Colorado Court of Appeals.  Thank you for laying down a half-decent opinion.

_______________________________

** I changed the link embedded in the quote, from a link to another Denver Post article, to a link reaching the actual opinion of the CO Ct of Appeals.

1 comment:

Harold Caidagh said...

The dissent by Judge Jones is wimpy, teary-eyed, tugging-at-heartstrings nonsense.

Chris Norris went skiing. Avalanches happen in snow-covered mountains. Snow-covered mountains are where people ski, and where ski areas operate their facilities. Therefore Chris Norris accepted the risk of avalanche happening where he skied.

I've skied terrain at my home mountain that was ready to slough if I'd stayed on it and tried to ski down it. It sloughed on me as I began my traverse. I turned around and exited that slope and headed for a gentler slope.

If you're going to ride snow, you need to know that it can slide. You need to know that alpine terrain is susceptible to avalanche.

If you can't handle that risk, then you should ski somewhere that the snowpack is entirely man-made and therefore blown onto and packed onto slopes in a way that is designed to eliminate, or maximally mitigate, the slide risk.

FYI: manmade snow rarely slides because (1) it's warmer and wetter and therefore bonds much easier; and (2) typically is laid down on pitches where sliding isn't a factor.