Most important safety feature

freeheeln wrote

just the facts maam  http://www.reliableracing.com/category2.cfm?category=730

45 miles of trails, $170 per 45", quick calculation says it will cost about $10,771,200. But wait, that's only 1 side of the trail. $21 million? For those dinky little fences that someone could ski through, hit a tree and die anyway?

Sounds like a good investment.

mattchuck2 wrote

what is PowAss's end game here?

He's just trolling us, and we are bored enough to take the bait.The comedy factor here has been pretty high so it's been good entertainment.

While there have been deaths and serious injuries at Whiteface off of the very blue type trails that PA mentions, his solution of netting the mountain is unpractical, difficult, expensive and will certainly result in law suits that will ultimately break the bank.  

Certain trails at WF have the hardware in place for nets for WC races.  You can see the hardware at the bottom of Upper Sky, on the turn to Lower Sky...putting up these nets takes considerable time, effort, man power and requires constant upkeep.

The nets are not forgiving when you hit them. They may save lives, but they also can lead to injuries, and of course more law suits.  

But a few years ago a famous actress died on a green trail in Quebec.  She wasnt wearing a helmet.  She slipped, fell, and hit her head.  She wasnt going fast when she fell.  In fact, the report was she was standing, slipped and fell.   Should we ban beginners from skiing because if might be dangerous?

what about cycling...should we ban anyone from cycling where they might hit trees, or get hit by a car?

PA certainly likes to tell all of us a lot...that VT is too expensive, and that all the folks at Bromley built trails facing in the wrong direction, and that skiing is dangerous.  I think he is amusing.

I for one am more concerned about protecting my grill..someone might ski into it...or steal a lambchop..and what about the rocks at Whiteface.  I hiked WF two weeks ago and was struck by the large rocks that are everywhere.  I am really worried that one of them might jump out at me, or my friends...and I wont have any netting.

Yeah, but usually trolls have an underlying point where you say "Okay, I can see where you're coming from. You're wrong, but I can see why you'd believe that." PowAss's posts aren't even like that.
Also, he posts in spurts during the day, almost as if it's between classes in a high school. I feel like this is all going to end like this:

mattchuck2 wrote

freeheeln wrote

just the facts maam  http://www.reliableracing.com/category2.cfm?category=730

45 miles of trails, $170 per 45", quick calculation says it will cost about $10,771,200. But wait, that's only 1 side of the trail. $21 million? For those dinky little fences that someone could ski through, hit a tree and die anyway?

Sounds like a good investment.

and that is just fencing . add poles and  bungys. add labor $ . powass your arguement is full of holes.

The poet Robert Frost eloquently stated "risk in the final analysis is an essential ingredient."

 

mattchuck2 wrote

freeheeln wrote

just the facts maam  http://www.reliableracing.com/category2.cfm?category=730

45 miles of trails, $170 per 45", quick calculation says it will cost about $10,771,200. But wait, that's only 1 side of the trail. $21 million? For those dinky little fences that someone could ski through, hit a tree and die anyway?

Sounds like a good investment.

Plus....no one mentioned this yet, during pro ski races, they usually have 2-3 layers of fencing in high impact areas. So, multiply by 3!

ScottyJack wrote

The poet Robert Frost eloquently stated "risk in the final analysis is an essential ingredient."

sj for the win

Grillman wrote

While there have been deaths and serious injuries at Whiteface off of the very blue type trails that PA mentions, his solution of netting the mountain is unpractical, difficult, expensive and will certainly result in law suits that will ultimately break the bank.  

Certain trails at WF have the hardware in place for nets for WC races.  You can see the hardware at the bottom of Upper Sky, on the turn to Lower Sky...putting up these nets takes considerable time, effort, man power and requires constant upkeep.

The nets are not forgiving when you hit them. They may save lives, but they also can lead to injuries, and of course more law suits.  

But a few years ago a famous actress died on a green trail in Quebec.  She wasnt wearing a helmet.  She slipped, fell, and hit her head.  She wasnt going fast when she fell.  In fact, the report was she was standing, slipped and fell.   Should we ban beginners from skiing because if might be dangerous?

what about cycling...should we ban anyone from cycling where they might hit trees, or get hit by a car?

PA certainly likes to tell all of us a lot...that VT is too expensive, and that all the folks at Bromley built trails facing in the wrong direction, and that skiing is dangerous.  I think he is amusing.

I for one am more concerned about protecting my grill..someone might ski into it...or steal a lambchop..and what about the rocks at Whiteface.  I hiked WF two weeks ago and was struck by the large rocks that are everywhere.  I am really worried that one of them might jump out at me, or my friends...and I wont have any netting.

I never said that about bromley. I like bromley and s facing trails = wind protection which is a positive.
I'm not trolling anyone. I'm telling the OBVIOUS TRUTH about many topics.

PeeTex wrote

Let's get real, assume they opt for the netting. Do you realize most of it will need to come down when they groom the trail, and definitely when snow making. Snow makers need access to the hydrants and the blown wet snow will pull the fences down. If the groomers have to maintain a safe distance from the fences you will end up with a berm that will launch skiers.

No one wants anybody to get hurt, that's insane. However, society cannot protect everyone from all risks. If you think the trail is too risky, go some place else. Take some responsibility for your  own actions and stop asking society to protect you from yourself.

That's a really good point and I did not consider that.

This past year at Blue Mountain (Ontario), a snowboarder got separated from his friends.  He was snowboarding on a blue towards the end of the hill.  Anyway he hit tree and was in the forest for the next 7-8 hours.  No one knew he was there.  His friends started to get worried when he did not show up at the condo (Blue Mountain has night skiing).  At 1am they finally called 911 and the search began.  They found him at 2am still alive.  He died later that night.  It breaks my heart to hear stories like this.  I know speed as part of the sport but its awful and I wish there was some way to prevent things like this.  I cannot imagine being the parents of that 20 year old young man.  

Claude

PowderAssassin wrote

I never said that about bromley. I like bromley and s facing trails = wind protection which is a positive.
I'm not trolling anyone. I'm telling the OBVIOUS TRUTH about many topics.

you are not telling the obvious truth about s facing you moron!  south facing gets the sun which melts the snow.  

ScottyJack wrote

PowderAssassin wrote

I never said that about bromley. I like bromley and s facing trails = wind protection which is a positive.
I'm not trolling anyone. I'm telling the OBVIOUS TRUTH about many topics.

you are not telling the obvious truth about s facing you moron!  south facing gets the sun which melts the snow.  

Great for spring skiing!

Marcski wrote

mattchuck2 wrote

freeheeln wrote

just the facts maam  http://www.reliableracing.com/category2.cfm?category=730

45 miles of trails, $170 per 45", quick calculation says it will cost about $10,771,200. But wait, that's only 1 side of the trail. $21 million? For those dinky little fences that someone could ski through, hit a tree and die anyway?

Sounds like a good investment.

Plus....no one mentioned this yet, during pro ski races, they usually have 2-3 layers of fencing in high impact areas. So, multiply by 3!

Not necessarily. You'd have to do testing to figure out how much you need. You're not going 70mph on a public trail so you need less fencing to be able to stop someone going 30mph.

You don't need to remove fencing to groom snow. People are skiing inside the fences. Also, snow making equipment can be put inside the fences obviously and lines can be run through holes in the netting.

if you are into your season ending in feb!

PowderAssassin wrote

You don't need to remove fencing to groom snow. People are skiing inside the fences. Also, snow making equipment can be put inside the fences obviously and lines can be run through holes in the netting.

snow making equipment inside the fences sounds like danger!  danger ranger danger ranger!  let's make the trails narrower and fill them w/ blunt force trauma obstacles!  

BigK75 wrote

This past year at Blue Mountain (Ontario), a snowboarder got separated from his friends.  He was snowboarding on a blue towards the end of the hill.  Anyway he hit tree and was in the forest for the next 7-8 hours.  No one knew he was there.  His friends started to get worried when he did not show up at the condo (Blue Mountain has night skiing).  At 1am they finally called 911 and the search began.  They found him at 2am still alive.  He died later that night.  It breaks my heart to hear stories like this.  I know speed as part of the sport but its awful and I wish there was some way to prevent things like this.  I cannot imagine being the parents of that 20 year old young man.  

Claude

It may be that you cannot fathom the feelings of his parents. I am sure they must hurt quite a bit. I have lost friends to the mountains and I take their memory with me as I go forward. But the risks involved in skiing are inherent.

Who is at fault in this situation? The mountain for not having netting, or the mountain for offering night skiing without netting? Night skiing at all? How about his friends, I'm sure they feel at fault, they surely could have stopped midpoint during that run and noticed. Or perhaps on the next run looked harder for tracks. What if he was simply out skiing out of control? What if he was in control and just messed up?

Of all of these scenarios, there is probably a mix of truth in them. Ultimately, there are billions of people in this world that make many decisions each day, some of which will result in negative actions. Why is it that we have so much trouble accepting that bad decisions simply get made? Or that sometimes bad things happen anyway?

Just a few serious thoughts before I go back to pointing out that putting up tens of thousands of miles of netting across the NE (and beyond?) is absurd. Also, I am not saying don't put up a fence on a blue slope with a hairpin curve by a cliff -- or a highway for that matter. But you still can't protect everyone from themselves and their unique ability to make choices at any and all times, for all situations, in every aspect of life.

PowderAssassin wrote

Marcski wrote

mattchuck2 wrote

freeheeln wrote

just the facts maam  http://www.reliableracing.com/category2.cfm?category=730

45 miles of trails, $170 per 45", quick calculation says it will cost about $10,771,200. But wait, that's only 1 side of the trail. $21 million? For those dinky little fences that someone could ski through, hit a tree and die anyway?

Sounds like a good investment.

Plus....no one mentioned this yet, during pro ski races, they usually have 2-3 layers of fencing in high impact areas. So, multiply by 3!

Not necessarily. You'd have to do testing to figure out how much you need. You're not going 70mph on a public trail so you need less fencing to be able to stop someone going 30mph.

To quote Scotty Jack....You're a moron.  That picture is Jimmy Cochran skiing a slalom race.  Even the pros don't go 70 in a slalom and there are still multiple layers of fencing.    

Well said ML.  

I look at where mountains do put up orange netting and almost* always agree that it's a wise use where they do.  Foxlair at Gore is and example like you mention. Narrow blue trail (even worse a borderline black that is rated blue for "practical" reasons) with a cliff on one side.

PowderAssassin wrote

You don't need to remove fencing to groom snow. People are skiing inside the fences. Also, snow making equipment can be put inside the fences obviously and lines can be run through holes in the netting.

You have no freak'n clue do you.
How do snow makers get to the hydrants, how do they walk back and forth to test snow quality?
If the groomers can't get to the side of the trail the snow builds up, they can't risk getting the tillers in contact with the fencing. So just admit it is not a well thought out idea and that you a simpleton.