"Little call for change after skier's death"

Stupid.

It sounds like the person writing the article was looking for something to talk about, something to prove what they WANTED to write about - which seemed to be that it's "too dangerous"

Cry me a river.

People are competitive. Pro riders like doing double flips and competing in big comps for the SAME REASONS people like practicing till their kfed or 2 on is dialed and competing at the local rail jam on their home hill. It's just a different level - a higher level - with more consequences.

The tone of that article just seemed bitter that they couldn't figure out a legit reason or a reputable enough source to try and make the argument that we're too X-TREME.
 
First of all, I compete in the top levels of pipe skiing so don't think that the thought of changing anything doesn't annoy me as much as anybody.

With that having been said, don't suggest that the guy doesn't have a legitimate point. Sarah died doing a trick that carries a fraction of the danger of what the top guys are doing; can't you see how it might look like we take unnecessary risk to an outsider of the sport? I don't know what can be done to mitigate the risks of freeskiing, but do you really propose that we shouldn't at least consider trying?

What I love about the freeskiing culture is that it pushes me to take risks and have fun. However, in the wake of the death of an icon, I think it is appropriate to examine the risks of our favorite pastime and, even if there is nothing to be done, take a moment to appreciate the dangers of park skiing more fully.
 
No, I totally agree with you!

Of course I can see how it could look like we take unnecessary risk... sometimes a lot of people do. A lot of my friends take risks I see as unnecessary all the time.

EVERY effort should always be made to mitigate the risks... but being an extreme sport, shit will still happen... Sarah's accident was something that could essentially happen to anyone catching an edge at high speed... similar to how CR's death could have happened to anyone skiing in that area. I'm sure there's plenty of people that have hit their heads harder (much harder, shattered helmet harder) at different angles and have walked away with mere concussions. However, that's what you don't hear about, and that's often what makes these things so much a tragedy.

I think that it's important to examine the dangers of park skiing, or skiing in general on a daily basis.

My point in the response above was that the article seemed to be written from a perspective of digging to find some sort of support of that viewpoint, finding none from within the sport, and still assuming there's something "wrong" there that they just can't figure out. Digging for something to blame accidents, injuries and deaths on any more than the inherent evil isn't necessary, unless there is a real and apparent issue that can be addressed.

However, I re-read the article, and it is pretty objective. I don't like the end of it, or the way the bulleted points are suggested, but it's not as terrible an article after looking at it more closely.

 
wow, reading that whole thing was like listening to a long joke with a weak punchline.

What was her stance?

The hockey/football vs skiing saftey measure comparisons were weak.

In hockey, the main goal of the game isnt to hit each other as hard as they can and see who can demolish everybody. Its to put a puck in the net. yes it is a high contact sport, but its alot easier than say, skiing amplitude, to create rules. Its easy to say "no intentional hits to the head...period," because that is clearly justified. Try telling a skier "we are docking you 10 pts for exceeding our 15' limit."

Skiers are going for the big technical tricks that you need 15+ feet to get around. Once this can of ballin pipe tricks has been opened theres no way that restricting the airtime and technicality would be well recieved.
 
sarah burke's death is nothing short of a tragedy. That being said, as hard as it is to deal with, we as skiers accept the fact that we could very well die when we click our skis on. Entire article is irrelephant.
 
This. We all know the risks.

When I go out in the backcountry I know no matter how careful I am, I could die in an avalanche.

When I drop in to a jump I know I could break my neck/back. When I hit a rail I know I could hit my head and die. This is true of all extreme sports, the risk and the rush is why people love them.

There is a lack of understanding of the above by the general populace. The result of which seems to be the prevailing nanny state philosophy in the states. Stopping people from doing things for 'their own good'. Mandatory helmet use, no inverts and backcountry access only through gates are some examples. The fact is all these things are in their own way a good idea. It is a good idea to use a helmet, inverted tricks are generally more dangerous and it is a good idea to use comparatively safe backcountry access points. However people should be allowed to make their own decisions when it is their personal well being in question. If you don't want to wear a helmet and you want to go in to the backcountry with no knowledge in high risk conditions, that should be your own decision. Introducing new rules and regulations would defeat the point of what we do.
 
key word in your comment: FREEskiing

yes we should respect the dangers of the sport, but it is what it is, and we gonn keep pushing it cuz like CR said "it's worth dying for"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top