Quote:
u may be at the top of the Mountain you are in an area that has been set aside for sports use (Patrolled area) and you may not have the rights you think you have.

Wrong, completely wrong. The only time the relevant clauses in the LRA would apply would be when a race course is set and live.

The Snowsports Areas would be on a sticky wicket if they tried to change the letter and/or spirit of the law, not least because the LRA provides them a degree of legal protection that people partaking in outdoor / mountain sports are legally responsible for their own actions and safety.



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 13.02hrs Thu 15 Dec 11 by alan.

Depends on the circumstances, you maybe told that it's fine to go and ski it. One particular issue that pops up on CairnGorm particularly is when runs are posted closed only because there is no uplift. Where people choose to ski the Ciste Gully, knowing they'll have to either walk out to the carpark, back over to the Daylodge or skin back up.

Last year they had a narrow gate at the top of the gully to try and force people through one place where info could be displayed. Rather than closed or esp 'Keep out' signs which should be kept for dangerous conditions, there could just be a big sign saying 'STOP! NO UPLIFT BEYOND THIS POINT' and/or end of patrolled area.

I would caution anybody from being so definite about this. If you read the entire act, it is at best contradictory on this. Although the original exclusion intent may have been for things like football pitches, etc. this is not sufficiently specific in the act. If this was tested in court relating to marked and prepared pistes (even more so if artificial snow involved), there is a reasonable probability that such marked and prepared pistes would be classed as excluded areas by a judge.

If you want ski lifts, and snow fences, and grooming machines, and snow cannon, and ski patrol - and the right to sue the ski area if it has failed in its duty of care (and the fact is that people do sue ski areas, ski schools, tour operators etc, every year) ...

... then you're bound to submit yourself to a controlled skiing environment. The general message of this forum over the years is that skiers want a greater and greater degree of manufactured quality control to the experience - grooming and snowmaking in particular. If it's semi-artificial it's bound to be tied up in health and safety legislation, and recognised industry operating procedures.

On one hand, ski patrollers won't want to be hauling a bloodwagon down the Ciste Gully to achieve a very tricky rescue of an untrained skier who ducked a rope because others (more competent maybe) were doing the same. On the other hand, Cairngorm won't want to receive a writ from someone paralysed because they slid on a steep icy run that maybe should have been closed.

That last example, by the way, comes direct from a case I was involved in an overseas English-speaking country. The skier concerned was paralysed from a fall where she lost control, slid sideways down a steep fall-line and hit a hard obstacle. Disclosure of the operating company's records showed that the resort was aware of the extreme conditions, and on that particular run they'd wrongly classified the run according to widely accepted international norms regarding run gradients (blue, red, black etc).

Very detailed expert witness reports are conducted into ski accidents these days, and skiing operators are particularly exposed to litigation.

On the other hand (and there are very few examples internationally - La Grave (France), Mad River Glen (USA) and - I think - Alagna (Italy)) - a wild natural ski area can be run with a few strategic lifts, no snowmaking, very little signposting (hairy when the fog/whiteout comes down), no grooming, very little patrolling or responsibility for rescuing you etc. etc. You ski at your own risk ... and probably get the best experience that skiing can ever offer.

I guess, of the five Scottish areas, Glencoe comes closest to the latter model. And long may it continue in that vein.

But Cairngorm is bound to be run on a much tighter and controlled basis. It's part of a substantial Speyside tourism industry. And the vast majority of holidaymakers want theme-park style quality and predictability. They've paid lots of money to be there, there's probably a family - kids on school holiday - involved, and don't want nasty experiences - or loons skiing too fast - smashing into them.

I think we have to be a little respectful of Cairngorm management and mountain personnel etc, on that basis (my remark about a comms person being shot out of the snow cannon was meant in jest, BTW).

Hipennine, the exclusion from the right to roam only applies to playing fields, when the marked play area is in use for say a game of football. As I expanded on it above, a live race course would fall within the restrictions.

More specifically a Scottish Ski Area is not land set aside for a specific purpose to the exclusion of others, the provision of uplift is no different from provision of a bus service in this regard.

This point has been legally accepted by HIE who agreed that they were in breach of the LRA with their policy of attempting to ban bikes from CairnGorm Mountain.

Quote:
and the right to sue the ski area if it has failed in its duty of care

The right of participants in mountain sports to sue land owners and land managers is explicitly restricted in the LRA.



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 13.11hrs Thu 15 Dec 11 by alan.

I cross-posted with alan.

His example of the sign, and roping off the Ciste Gully to form a 'gate' is a good one ... except the sign concerned (which serves a different purpose) is a bit 'scrawled'!

Good signage and communication is a large part of the solution. But, on the other hand, a bit of mystery and a lot of eccentricity (Glencoe) has got to be worth celebrating too.

It's down to the deal between the skier being properly informed by the ski area (particularly if it's a 'ski at your own risk' situation).

But remember that the law hangs over everything. Creating valid disclaimers and indemnities is not straightforward, from the ski area's point of view.



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 13.14hrs Thu 15 Dec 11 by David Goldsmith.

Should point out that the example sign I put in the post above, was at the top of the Traverse and applied to the Coire Cas side of the mountain last weekend.

Prior to the LRA there was an attempt to sue Nevis Range by a skier who skied off the Cornice and plunged down Coire Dubh in whiteout conditions while attempting to use Lemming Ridge to reach the Warren's Run. The case was thrown out. It's been discussed before here at some length IIRC. Try a search!

I'm not doubting you, but do you have anything to back that up? I'd be genuinely interested in seeing it as so far I hadn't seen anything which defined the "land set aside for a specific recreational purpose" issue. I really wish there was clear wording

A point of accuracy - there is no "right to roam" in Scotland, this is an English term being increasingly applied in Scotland.

Not followed the detail above but one of the main things about access in Scotland is to use common sense and you can then pretty much go anywhere.

-----------------------------------------------------------
For campervan hire in Scotland visit [www.albacampervans.com] - Bhanaichean Campachaidh ann an Alba

A previous discussion with some relevant sections of the Act:

[www.winterhighland.info]

Also from the 2010 CairnGorm Mountain Ranger Service Report:



[www.google.co.uk]

See page 9 for a photo and further info.



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 13.56hrs Thu 15 Dec 11 by alan.

Sorry if this is off topic and in a way very wrong but the thot of that skier at Nevis looking for warrens and then finding the short/ quickest way in to corie dubh did make me have a shameful wee laugh
No doubt I will receive some abuse for this but I can just imagine his thots when wondering where does this go ? Ach what's the worst can happen ........

Anyway carry on with the gorm bashing

Yes you are right, that is cruel and just a tiny bit hilarious!!!

Maybe the runs were closed to create a consolidated base. (and they did reduce the ticket price)

From CML website

A fantastic day with excellent cover across the mountain. Great skiing conditions from top of mountain to the base at car park level. All runs that are open now have a consolidated base. Upper Cas has wide cover and the Gunbarrel is two machine widths wide. Tomorrow we hope to piste out the white lady.



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 19.03hrs Thu 15 Dec 11 by daveski.

I am actually very surprised that the people on Winterhighland are treating ski patrol with such contempt. When you have fractured your femur or sustained a severe head injury or have an unstable spinal fracture, when you have purposefully ducked a rope to ski a run - that is probably to difficult for you in the first place - there are only a few trained people who can get you out of that sticky situation and potentially save you life. Yet you have the audacity to treat them with such disdain.

What gives?