Rafters ignored danger warnings prior to fatal capsizing - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Ne7en · 07-04-2012, 01:00 PM

Maybe i'm a little naive, but when i lived here 5-6 yrs ago you were not capable of crossing the weir. Since I have moved back recently I had heard that you could cross the weir and it was safe. I have not done any reasearch into it, although I haven't desired to go out rafting either... but I think there may be some misconception out there that the weir was safe? Or am I alone on this...

Zee · 07-04-2012, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Most likely on the fine print on the back of your lift ticket, I'm sure I've seen it there saying you are on the hook if you choose to ski/board out of bounds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Are you serious?
Maybe the one about not going out of bounds?
You know, the one that's posted all over every ski hill in existance.

Yes I'm 100% serious.

The lift ticket agreement just absolves the ski hill of responsibility so they don't get sued. There is no "rule" against back-country skiing/snowboarding.

Also, some people don't buy a lift ticket at all, they just drive to their chosen location, slap on some skins and head into the back-country that way. Thousands of people are in the back-country over the winter. There is no rule against it.

chemgear · 07-04-2012, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Are you serious?
Maybe the one about not going out of bounds?
You know, the one that's posted all over every ski hill in existance.

Maybe he is this guy (I kid) who sued Search and Rescue after going outbounds unprepared and killed his wife:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...e-lawsuit.html

GP_Matt · 07-04-2012, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ne7en

Maybe i'm a little naive, but when i lived here 5-6 yrs ago you were not capable of crossing the weir. Since I have moved back recently I had heard that you could cross the weir and it was safe. I have not done any reasearch into it, although I haven't desired to go out rafting either... but I think there may be some misconception out there that the weir was safe? Or am I alone on this...

They have redesigned the weir to both make it safe to run and more exciting for whitewater enthusiasts. I haven't run it yet, but it now looks like a great spot to spend a sunny afternoon on the river.

Zee · 07-04-2012, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chemgear

maybe he is this guy (i kid) who sued search and rescue after going outbounds unprepared and killed his wife:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...e-lawsuit.html

nm...

DownhillGoat · 07-04-2012, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zee

Thousands of people are in the back-country over the winter. There is no rule against it.

If you're on land leased/owned by the ski hill and go out of bounds to land that is still leased/owned by the ski hill, there most certainly is a rule against it. Obviously not talking about going into back-country well away from resorts.

fleuryisgod · 07-04-2012, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

They have redesigned the weir to both make it safe to run and more exciting for whitewater enthusiasts. I haven't run it yet, but it now looks like a great spot to spend a sunny afternoon on the river.

They have redesigned it to make it safer...not safe. I have a feeling that this misconception will lead to more injuries and death compared to the old weir. It is only recommended for expert paddlers and currently not recommended for anyone.

The Yen Man · 07-04-2012, 01:15 PM

Am I a bad person for not having much sympathy for people who die from these 100% preventable accidents? It's the same whenever I hear people being buried by avalanches in the back country even though they've been repeatedly warned not to go there. My reaction has always been "sucks to be them, guess they should have listened to the warnings."

DownhillGoat · 07-04-2012, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Am I a bad person for not having much sympathy for people who die from these 100% preventable accidents?

Nope.

Bigtime · 07-04-2012, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fleuryisgod

They have redesigned it to make it safer...not safe. I have a feeling that this misconception will lead to more injuries and death compared to the old weir. It is only recommended for expert paddlers and currently not recommended for anyone.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the rapids and pools on the south side be pretty safe for most able bodied people (with life jackets) when the river returns to a normal level and flow rate? As in it shouldn't kill you in a scenario when you find yourself in the water there.

Barnes · 07-04-2012, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

If you're on land leased/owned by the ski hill and go out of bounds to land that is still leased/owned by the ski hill, there most certainly is a rule against it. Obviously not talking about going into back-country well away from resorts.

You are free to come and go between the hills boundary as long as you do not cross any closed avalanche areas within the boundary.

Poaching avalanche closed areas is not allowed.

Zee · 07-04-2012, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

If you're on land leased/owned by the ski hill and go out of bounds to land that is still leased/owned by the ski hill, there most certainly is a rule against it. Obviously not talking about going into back-country well away from resorts.

This is only if the land is within their lease. Generally, these areas are referred to as "permanently closed" and is marked as such. Also, skiers must obey any trail closures.
You can actually leave the ski boundary without penalty, so there is no rule against leaving the ski boundary. When you do so, it is at your own risk, and you absolve the resort of any responsibility. We use Kicking Horse, Lake Louise and Sunshine all the time to access the backcountry around these areas, half the time we're talking to patrol before leaving anyways to get a sense of conditions etc.

All BC users should know the risks must be prepared, and be aware that S&R could be at their own cost. The BC is beautiful, but it will kill you if you're an idiot about it.

I'm just trying to clear some misconceptions about backcountry access, unfortunate some have stooped to personal attacks.

Ne7en · 07-04-2012, 01:31 PM

I think the city needs to send a clear message.
Is the river unsafe because of the current high water level?
Is the weir unsafe?
Are the rapids unsafe?
Or is it a combination of the above?
Don't have people thinking its safe just because they see someone kayaking over the rapids.
Clairify. I agree with what fleuryisgod said, this is only going to lead to more injuries/deaths due to the misconception out there.

calf · 07-04-2012, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

So why do hikers get charged for a STARS rescue? I don't see a difference between somebody being an idiot on a mountain vs. being an idiot on water.

STARS isn't a government agency.

Zee · 07-04-2012, 01:37 PM

I think it's a combination. From what I am reading, the rapids are not all that safe, they are meant for experienced rafters/kayakers.

I do think signing has to improve before we lose more people.

Ultimately, it does come down to personal responsibility, I really hope they don't try to sue the city.

GGG · 07-04-2012, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fleuryisgod

They have redesigned it to make it safer...not safe. I have a feeling that this misconception will lead to more injuries and death compared to the old weir. It is only recommended for expert paddlers and currently not recommended for anyone.

At normal water levels it is designed not to have any keepers so if you are wearing a helmet and a life jacket you should live if you capsize. So it is a relatively safe class 3 rapid for the main run and a very safe class 2 rapid on the side passage.

So I wouldn't say you need to be an expert kayacker to go through but you certainly need more experience than a six pack of beer and a raft from Walmart.

As soon as the water level goes down I am planning on spending a day there playing in the rapids.

Zee · 07-04-2012, 01:40 PM

No one deserves to die to learn a life lesson.

GP_Matt · 07-04-2012, 02:18 PM

As far as I know they did make specifically for white water users with the cheat on the south side for those to get around. That said though it is still 100% safer than the previous weir as this setup will not hold a person in the feature and will instead push any swimmers straight through. I think a helmet and life jacket are a necessity for the rapid though.

chemgear · 07-04-2012, 02:23 PM

http://harviepassage.ca/ has some info

ken0042 · 07-04-2012, 02:32 PM

Fotze- how would you recomend building a small dam so that water can be diverted down a canal; but make it so that water doesn't speed up going downhill and down stream?

I'm actually shocked at the number of people who thought the passage was now "safe." Every news story I have seen about it talks about how it is now safer for experienced white water rafters; but still quite un-safe for your average person. Also, aren't there signs everywhere as you approach it?