Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Terrain Parks BAN Tabletops

profile picture
east
Posts: 1073 - Karma: 94

So, as many have heard RCR (owners of both Stoneham and Mont Saint-Anne) have issued a press release saying they are removing jumps from all of their terrain parks effective this year.  I know many of us here have enjoyed the parks at both of these hills for training and fun purposes.  I was just throwing this out there as it may be an industry sweeping decision in the months or years to come, affecting alot more resorts closer to home.  With such marginal seasons anyway it would be ashame if this would ever happen in the Maritimes.  I definitely understand the 'due diligence' factor that ski hill operators face and the legal responsibilty to keep guests safe.  With that said, and there are many ski hill employees who regulary acess these sites, what are your takes on the issue and the probabilty of it becoming more of an issue for Maritimers?  Lets try and keep this one to a serious discussion...Cheer,  MF

Nov 9 2007 4:48PM
0 0
profile picture
skiP.E.I.
Posts: 7604 - Karma: 20,092

that is going to destroy so much good at those places. I feel for you guys in Quebec. MAkes me feel better about going to school in Nef instead of there.

Nov 9 2007 6:42PM
0 0
profile picture
JollyJ
Posts: 166 - Karma: 14
It's not a good precident for terrain parks across Canada.  Insurance companies will probably jump all over this.
Nov 12 2007 8:40AM
0 0
profile picture
Jodi
Posts: 4215 - Karma: 745
it suprises me because as with all "adventure sports" there is an assumed inherant risk that the participant takes on. in the transaction procedure of buying a lift ticket or a season pass, the participant waives their rights to sue. furthermore.....some resorts (blue mountain included) chose NOT to enforce a helmet law in the terrain parks because by forcing participants to wear helmets makes the resort more vulnerable in their insurance...think of it as the resort ultimately owning up to the fact that you may get a brain injury here.....forcing participants to wear a helmet raises the insurance rates in some policies.
anyway - i cant see this lasting. many SIA's have talked about this - some have implemented and pulled this half way through the season. the big question really is...where do they draw the line? tabletops or rails or pipe? what has more inherant risk. a quad is valued at 4 million right now. can that only happen on a jump?
Nov 12 2007 9:05AM
0 0
profile picture
JollyJ
Posts: 166 - Karma: 14
http://www.denverpost.com/askamy/ci_5682314

Here is the link to the lawsuit that more than likely broke the camels back.  In this case the rider started way to high and took way to much speed into the jump.  He overshot the landing.  When riding parks check your jumps out first.
Nov 12 2007 6:41PM
0 0
profile picture
east
Posts: 1073 - Karma: 94

Intersting article....

Correct me if I am worng but do insurance companies issue ski hill operators specific engineered dimensions for jumps?  I know the CFSA has stringent jump standars as far as takeoff/landing angle and distance are concerned and this is tied in with their insurance. ..It sounds like it is going to be very easy for insurance compaines to charge insane rates based on such an unregulated aspect of the business....maybe we will see park features as actually spec'd in the future, at resorts that can afford the price tag of course....

Nov 13 2007 12:53PM
0 0
profile picture
jjjibs
Posts: 684 - Karma: 85
would that mean we would have good jumps in the east ferg?  or can we not affort them?  i want another 60ft talbe that is like 6ft high.  similair to the ones i watch davis and thor flip all four ways on like 10 yrs ago....shit i am old.
Nov 13 2007 1:40PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)