Following last year’s law making avalanche safety gear a legal requirement in the Piemont the Italian government is in the process of approving a law which could lead to prison for anyone triggering an avalanche which results in death and leading to fines of up to 5000 euros for anyone going off piste if the conditions are considered dangerous. The idea for the law has come from the Civilian Rescue Services who lost four of their number at the end of December while engaged in a search and rescue operation in the Trentino area for two snow shoers. Climber Reinhold Messner has called the law “a hysterical reaction” and said this kind of legislation “was killing mountaineering”. Other critics point out that the Criminal code already covers anyone causing injury, death or damage and the civil code can be used where backcountry travellers are imprudent.

9 people died and a dozen other off piste skiers, snow shoers and ski tourers were injured in the Italian mountains over the weekend. The law requires approval from the Italian senate.

See also:
http://pistehors.com/news/ski/comments/0900-italy-make-avalanche-safety-gear-mandatory/
http://www.corriere.it/cronache/10_febbraio_08/valanghe-weekend-sette-morti_6f9de5a4-149b-11df-95c9-00144f02aabe.shtml?fr=box_primopiano

When they say they will fine “off-piste” skiers 5000 EUR when dangerous, does this mean a skier who accesses off-piste areas using resort lifts only? Or does it also concern ski touring outside of ski areas?

I understand the concept of threatening “off-piste” skiers with prison if they cause avalanches that kill innocent “on-piste” skiers, but how often does that really occur? I doubt it even ranks in the top 10 of primary causes of injury/death on ski slopes. But I guess it makes great tabloid news…

I google translated the Italian link and it seems the fine is for anyone going outside secure areas on high risk days. How they will inform people when it is ok or not I’ve no idea. It might be one of those laws that gets left on the backburner to be brought out to make the odd example. It would be interesting to see the details as it seems to have been drafted by the rescue services so they must have some idea of what the risk must be for the law to be inforce?

This is very stupid, if the law is involved and the liability for determining, what days are “safe” and what days are “dangerous” then simple prudence dictate that all days are “dangerous” if only to avoid counter litigation. Stupido!

alpanian - 10 February 2010 10:04 AM

I understand the concept of threatening “off-piste” skiers with prison if they cause avalanches that kill innocent “on-piste” skiers, but how often does that really occur? I doubt it even ranks in the top 10 of primary causes of injury/death on ski slopes. But I guess it makes great tabloid news…

there’s been at least one instance in Switzerland this season and I’ve personally witnessed a small slide onto piste triggered by people above this season as well.

I think they’ll encounter practical difficulties at some point as well, in a court the defense is probably going to ask how stable the slope in question was and then ask that if it could be triggered by small loading why the piste security hadn’t secured the slope or closed the piste and I’m sure that’s going to be a hard question to answer in some cases. I’m sure it’s not all going to be as clearcut as ducking under a rope, ignoring some signs and jumping up and down on a cornice above a piste.

In western USA ski resorts, the terrain is divided into zones, and the ski patrol and management decide whether it’s safe or not to ski each zone on a particular day or time. If a zone is closed for avalanche danger, that’s clearly marked at all reasonable entry points by signs and ropes.

In many western USA states with a significant amount of lift-served skiing, entering a zone which is currently closed for avalanches is a criminal offence subject to immediate arrest (whether or not the offender actually causes any avalanche).

Also different in most western USA states: There’s no distinction between piste as safe, off-piste as uncontrolled. In any zone the ski patrol and resort management choose to open, they are responsible for controlling avalanches both on the pistes and off-piste.

Key to all this might be that most USA ski resorts have much smaller terrain than lots of French ski stations.

Ken

Lets hope these ideas stay the right side of the pond…

Strikes me that the key missing thing in the “culture” of European ski resorts is the legal concept of a ski station boundary.

The advantage of a defined boundary is that station management can then clearly claim, “If you go outside that marked boundary, we’re not responsible for avalanches or anything else that happens to you—even though you got in there by skiing down from one of lifts.”
You draw the boundary so that it contains only terrain for which management has the desire and ability to do good avalanche-control—and declare the terrain which management can’t do good avy control, to be “outside the boundary”.

So then if you like to do off-piste skiing while feeling secure, just stay on the off-piste slopes which are inside the station’s boundary markers (except those zones marked temporarily closed). Most off-piste skiers visiting Alta + Snowbird + Jackson Hole like that system just fine.

Orelle - which had one of the few off-piste avalanche accidents in Les Trois Vallees: Presumably the terrain underneath their GAZEX and bomb lines would be in-bounds (anyway they have to control most of that to protect their pistes underneath); while the Combe Sans Nom would be marked outside the boundary. So if a party skies down into Combe Sans Nom and gets avalanched, it’s not a big legal issue for station management or other skiers (or politicians).

My entirely uninformed suspicion is that ski stations in France don’t want to try to define a “boundary” because that would raise all kinds of other cultural / historical / legal issues.

Ken

tpod - 11 February 2010 04:56 PM

Lets hope these ideas stay the right side of the pond…

Don’t you mean the left side of the pond?

Where we drive on the right side of the road.

And have a favorite national song that says
“Land of the Free”?

Ken

My guess is that more piste skiers die from crashing into each other than from skier-triggered slides. So if the Italians want to babysit piste skiers then clearly the best solution is to outlaw piste skiing entirely.

Next case, please.