RCR Focuses on Terrain Park Safety by Removing Jumps
|
Submitted by simon on Sat, 10/11/2007 - 9:48am.
|
|
 Joined: 24-11-2005 |
RCR's press release tells us that they're removing jumps for our saftey. Yet at their Mont-Sainte-Anne resort, they're boasting: "Mont-Sainte-Anne’s snowpark will undergo major modifications this winter. It will offer even more possibilities and thrills to riders: more jumps, more rails, more boxes...and of course, the mega Wall-ride will still be available along with the slopestyle course from the summit." So, do they care about us more? I don't know. I'd hazard a guess that this move has more to do with insurance premiums than safety. Another contributor pointed out that a skier was recently awarded US$14million. (http://www.denverpost.com/skiing/ci_5682314) The skier was left paralyzed after a jump which numerous other skiers and snowboarders had been hurt earlier in the season. He claimed that despite the injuries sustained by skiers and snowboarders, the ski hill did nothing to modify the jump or to warn others of the dangers associated with it. While this case should be concerning to resort operators, the award was clearly made because of negligence, not because the resort had provided a feature that by it's nature had increased the risk of the sport. In fact, ski resorts remain relatively immune from litigation. Most accidents fall under the "Inherent risks of skiing" and existing case law does not require operators to warn of every possible danger, nor does it require them to eliminate natural hazards. In only a few cases since the 1970's have ski areas been held liable, primarily for failing to give adequate warning of hazards that are not readily apparent or are visually deceiving, like ledges, blind zones, and semi-concealed gullies. So, one would think that by following industry-recommended signage (such as from the Canada West Ski Areas Association, http://www.cwsaa.org/do-freestyle.htm) and by frequent safety reviews, then RCR would not be increasing their liability risk. I'm not familiar with how liability insurance works for ski resorts but I bet that RCR's insurance company has become worried. Unlike Colorado and other regions, Western Canada doesn't appear to have a limit on the damages that can be awarded in ski accidents. I wonder if this is different in Quebec or if RCR simply uses a different insurance company? At Mont-Sainte-Anne, helmets are now required and everyone must sign a waiver. Minors must have a parent or their guardian sign. It's clear that something other than safety is behind these different policies. If it was about safety, RCR would have announced that helmets were now mandatory in Fernie's terrain park too. |
Joined: 04-06-2006
RCR's Safetey decision is completely bogus. If you look at the history of why terrain parks were created it was to create a SAFE, CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT for (at that time) snowboarders to hit jumps and progress their sport.
Removing of the jumps from the terrain parks controlled environment is a complete disregard for the safetey of the entire mountain. Now we are going to have everyone building kickers all over the place in bounds and out of bounds in uncontrolled environments... people hucking off into the middle of a busy main run.. big backcountry booters will incur costly rescues.
If I was an insurance company I would be more concerned about the removing of the jumps from the controlled environment.
Joined: 04-06-2006
let Mr. Mosteller (the guy who wrote the press release) know how you feel
MMosteller@skircr.com
or call:
Matt Mosteller 403 209 3323
and then let TELUS (the major park sponsor) know how you feel
http://about.telus.com/cgi-bin/tcontactus.cgi
Joined: 04-03-2007
I am truly at a loss for words at these sad, sad tidings.
Seriously, what has the world come to ?
Joined: 30-01-2007
I agree with rnelson, this will obviously not stop people from making jumps that are into freestyle riding. It's like asking them to stop doing what they pay $1000 per year to do. Should I be getting a refund on my money I spent on a pass expecting a terrain park? In half of the photos I see posted on RCRs website people are "taking air". This seems like false advertising to me.
I think this is obviously one of the worst business decisions in the history of ski resorts. It is a disgrace to the progression of freestyle skiing and snowboarding everywhere. I think this deserves to be put in the Canadian Ski Museum in Ottawa.
Soon I will be forced to wear a helmet just walking down the street to buy a coffee. Yikes.
Joined: 10-11-2007
I'm not much of a park rider but this still leaves me concerned about the future of resort riding. If RCR is supposed to have 'world class resorts', shouldn't that include a decent terrain park? I think that the $$ and man power that would be required to bring the jumps up to standard is just too much and RCR doesn't want to be bothered to deal with this issue. It's kind of ironic that they care deeply about the safety of their guests but are still willing to make a full on rail park - like they can't be as dangerous or something. It obviously purely a financial issue. There reasoning is just all wrong and it comes off as a poorly covered excuse for the real reasons they are wiping out the jumps in the terrain park. It's just another reaon for us to lose respect for RCR and the little they do for their riders. I am so glad I chose not to work for them this winter, even though they keep jacking up the price of season pass as wrender discussed. It just makes me wonder, how far will they go, and what are we going to do about it?
Joined: 11-11-2007
thats probly the worst thing they could do. I bought a season pass to naksika just for the terrain park, now i find out there isent even going to be jumps! WOW. Soo many people go to these places for their parks.. SUCKS SOO BAD
Joined: 11-11-2007
This is absulutely devastating. I just arranged to spend the season in Fernie with a group of friends. We're all travelling over from the UK. Rented a house, bought season tickets, everything and now one of the most important features on the hill gets pulled.
I feel absolutely cheated. This should have been made announced a long time ago so people like myself could have arranged to go somewhere that was existing in the 21st century.
Several of us had hoped to take a CASI course for Park instructor. That's a farce now. Thank God we didn't book that in advance too.
As mentioned, a well maintained terrain park provides the best and safest environment for people to progress. It will be a nightmare when folk are trying to make all their own jumps onto sketchy landings off-piste.
Completely gutted.
Joined: 17-06-2007
It's hard to know all of the factors that went into the decision to eliminate jumps from the terrain park. Does anyone have stats on how many injuries occurred over the past few seasons in terrain parks? Without this information how can we know if safety is indeed behind the decision? Anecdotally, I've witnessed a lot of bloodied snow and several people being transported out the the terrain park area by patrols. But do a greater number of serious injuries occur in the terrain park vs the rest of the ski area? I don't know. As for the liability insurance question, the waiver on the back of a day ticket may not be worth the paper it's written on unless it can be proved that the skier/boarder read and understood it. Have a look here for a legal opinion. Personally, I would rather have lower ticket prices than pay an extra few bucks a day to cover increased insurance premiums for terrain park jumps. If terrain park users want to pay extra to use that facility then that's OK with me, but I'd rather not subsidize a high risk activity that I don't participate in. At the end of the day, the ski operator has to pass on any increased insurance costs to the customers.
Joined: 23-10-2007
so we should now be expecting lower pass prices now that we don't have jumps.... but they raised prices across the board this year...... so much for that idea.
Joined: 12-11-2007
Safety, safety, safety. Watching the show the RCR puts on reminds me of Dumb and Dumber. I've skied by and thru the terrain park. It is well set up and thought out and very safe. Loads of room, good site lines, and away from other runs, skiers and boarders. It's been a few years but having been to Blackcombs park where injury can pretty well be guaranteed RCR has had a reasonably tame animal. Taking it out makes little sense . As someone already mentioned :we'll have more boarders/skiers popping jumps from treed areas onto groomers, over access trail roads, and seeking the more uncontrolled features. We all know these types love to build under chair lifts so we'll see an increase in that. I'm sure many of us have seen boarders nailing other riders under the white pass chair. Why not increase those numbers? Giving the "air seekers" a safe venue has always made sense and I think thats a major reason behind the terrain park evolution. Backward steps. Dumb and dumber!