Major Ski Resorts to Make Helmets Mandatory

Post by **silencertalk** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:54 pm

Major Ski Resorts to Make Helmets Mandatory

Thursday, October 01, 2009

Six months after actress Natasha Richardson died following a fall at the Mount Tremblant ski resort in Quebec, the company that operates the facility has announced helmet requirements at its North American resorts.

Richardson, the 45-year-old wife of actor Liam Neeson, died in March after falling during a skiing lesson and suffering a head injury at Mount Tremblant.

Post by **silencertalk** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:55 pm

Ya gotta admit, it is strange that skiing has gone on for so long without a trend toward helmets.

renegade · Post by **renegade** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:01 pm

rsilvers wrote: Six months after actress Natasha Richardson died following a fall at the Mount Tremblant ski resort in Quebec, the company that operates the facility has announced helmet requirements at its North American resorts.

Vancouver-based Intrawest said Thursday it will recommend all skiers and snowboarders wear helmets when the ski season begins in a few weeks.
.

WTF?

Is it required or is recommended?

NFW I would ever wear a helmet while skiing.

ArevaloSOCOM · Post by **ArevaloSOCOM** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:03 pm

No thanks.

Post by **silencertalk** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:05 pm

I would. Sonny Bono and Michael Kennedy also got killed.

renegade · Post by **renegade** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:07 pm

rsilvers wrote:I would. Sonny Bono and Michael Kennedy also got killed.

They suck at skiing, I don't.

Post by **silencertalk** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:35 pm

I am good at driving and wear a seat belt (but no helmet).

ArevaloSOCOM · Post by **ArevaloSOCOM** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:53 pm

rsilvers wrote:I am good at driving and wear a seat belt (but no helmet).

Your usual logic is lacking.

You drive much more than you ski, if anything you should wear a helmet when you drive if you are going to when you ski.

Especially in light of the big name deaths you named.

Post by **silencertalk** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:58 pm

I am not sure that is logical. All that matters is hours of protection as a percentage of your total time doing that event.

So if you take precautions while driving 100% of the time, you should take precautions while skiing 100% of the time.

As for helmet while driving, I will consider it. Does anyone have any statistics on what that would offer?

ArevaloSOCOM · Post by **ArevaloSOCOM** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:59 pm

rsilvers wrote:I am not sure that is logical. All that matters is hours of protection as a percentage of your total time doing that event.

So if you take precautions while driving 100% of the time, you should take precautions while skiing 100% of the time.

As for helmet while driving, I will consider it. Does anyone have any statistics on what that would offer?

Google: Dale Earnhardt

j.k.

Nascar drivers wear helemts for a reason, they work.

I expect you to post pics........

rob_s · Post by **rob_s** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:02 pm

rsilvers wrote:I am not sure that is logical. All that matters is hours of protection as a percentage of your total time doing that event.

So if you take precautions while driving 100% of the time, you should take precautions while skiing 100% of the time.

I agree. Percentage of time doing one vs. the other is irrelevent.

I may only push you out the door of an airplane once in your life. Do you want a chute, or are you good without one because it's the only time you've done it?

ArevaloSOCOM · Post by **ArevaloSOCOM** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:06 pm

In an unprecedented decision the Commonwealth of Massachusetts voted yesterday to institute legislation that would make it mandatory for drivers of any motor vehicle to wear approved protective headgear at any time while in motion. Gov. Jane Swift has vowed to sign the bill into law.
Arti Shiesa, spokesperson for the Commonwealth, hailed the outcome as, "One giant step closer to the ideal function of state-level government." The state senate passed the legislation in a near unanimous manner. The one contrary vote was from State Senator Ricky T. Tavi (R) who said he voted against the proposal because he felt the law would give "too many people too equal of an opportunity to survive too wide a range of accidents."

Shiesa held a press conference today that celebrated the victory. Former President Bill Clinton phoned during the televised conference and congratulated the state saying, "I feel like the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, more than any other state, finally understands what I was trying to accomplish during my fruitless years in the White House."

During the press conference, Mic Farenz, a reporter from the Washington Times asked Shiesa, "Explain to me why this move is not just 'one step closer' to Big Brother?" Shiesa replied, "I don't see how this legislation or the function of this state can, at all, be compared to a television show. And besides, I don't think they wear helmets on that show, although that may be our next legislative mission. Some of those contestants obviously have soft spots on their skulls that need to be protected."

The law will not take effect until next year. Helmet regulations must be specified, helmets designed and then manufactured. Since the law contains a clause requiring all helmets to be made in Massachusetts, it is expected that over 1,000 jobs state- wide will be created by this legislation.

"The head injuries sustained in most car accidents are dangerous but trivial when compared motorcycle accidents," says Jon Mitchel, spokesperson of Bell, a major helmet manufacturer and the main lobby behind the law. "In motorcycle crashes the helmet must keep the head from being splattered like a watermelon dropped from fifty feet. In driving accidents the main concern is keeping the head from being crushed: and there is the difference; splattered or crushed. That why we have to develop a new helmet and charge a lot of money for it." Mitchel went on to explain that the helmets would not only be larger than normal bike or motorcycle helmets, but would be four to five times as expensive to produce. "I don't think you can put a price on this kind of safety."

Unfortunately for taxpayers there will be a price put on this kind of safety as taxes are expected to rise due to the new law.

"It's true that we will be saving some tax dollars due to fewer emergency services and road repair," said Shiesa, "but we have included into the law a major program to provide suitable helmets not only to our lowest income residents but also full time students and proudly, our richest corporations."

Senator Ted Kennedy (D), in an official statement praised the law as "a swift and promising move toward evolutionary excellence." Senator Orin Hatch (R) however, argued, "Evolutionary excellence would be better served by letting bad drivers die, allowing their genes to rot on the pavement and no longer be available for procreation."

"Actually, there is some truth to that," reports genetics researcher Dr. Sheila Wird, director of gene mapping at the Wilder Gene Mapping Institute, in Bethesda, MD. "My team has been working for the last year on isolating the 'bad driver' gene, and we are very close to doing just that. You can imagine we are very excited as the implications are very far reaching." Such a discovery would raise a wide scope of questions. "Quite possibly the biggest question bioengineering the 'bad driver' gene would raise is how we would deal with an entirely male population," said Wird. "On second thought, maybe we don't want to find this gene."

California is expected to vote on it's own helmet law next week. Governor Gray Davis has vowed to "up the ante" by adding a NASCAR style harness system to the California law. He is already meeting severe resistance of helmets from the Hollywood Hair Stylist Union and the addition of the harness system should bring the wrath of the Rodeo Drive Boutique Owners Coalition. Both groups are very concerned about the appearance of the nation's movie and television stars not only in regards to how the helmets and harnesses will muss their hair and clothes but also with respect to stars safely growing old.

"We can't have our stars running around all old and wrinkled," said hairstylist to the stars, Richard Marin. "And we certainly can't just force every actor to not die young in an automobile accident. Where will this industry get its heroes? From great performances? I don't think so! What's next? Helping the music industry get a handle on its heroin problem? I don't think they'd stand for that, so why should we stand for this?"

renegade · Post by **renegade** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:06 pm

rob_s wrote:
rsilvers wrote:I am not sure that is logical. All that matters is hours of protection as a percentage of your total time doing that event.

So if you take precautions while driving 100% of the time, you should take precautions while skiing 100% of the time.
I agree. Percentage of time doing one vs. the other is irrelevent.

I may only push you out the door of an airplane once in your life. Do you want a chute, or are you good without one because it's the only time you've done it?

No. Risk has to be factored in as well. Otherwise we should all wear helmets while we sleep since we do that for 1/3 of our lives.

pneumagger · Post by **pneumagger** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:08 pm

People should be allowed to ski and assume the risks to themselves.
Wearing or not wearing a helmet is not a risk to others on the slopes.
I do not agree with mandatory safety equipment as long as skiers acknowledge and accept the risks.
In fact, I'm surprises libtards call for restrictions such as this in the name of protecting people... and allow things like smoking/drinking.

I feel too much gear both detracts from the experience and makes it more difficult to actually ski.
Some of the best skiing I've ever done was wearing jeans, a hoodie, and some sunglasses.
No gloves, no coat, no padded ski pants. It was pretty exhilarating and much easier.
Only reason I usually dress up heavily is because you freeze your ass on the lifts... otherwise you're getting a good workout.

ArevaloSOCOM · Post by **ArevaloSOCOM** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:08 pm

renegade wrote:
rob_s wrote: I agree. Percentage of time doing one vs. the other is irrelevent.
No risk has to be factored in as well. Otherwise we should all wear helmets while we sleep since we do that for 1/3 of our lives.

I agree, risk factors must be calculated.

Driving vs sking vs sleep.

Not all equal risk of injury.

Driving > skiing > sleep IMHO.

Thus is makes no sense to say you'd wear one when you ski, but not when you drive...........

pneumagger · Post by **pneumagger** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:13 pm

ArevaloSOCOM wrote:
renegade wrote:
rob_s wrote: I agree. Percentage of time doing one vs. the other is irrelevent.
No risk has to be factored in as well. Otherwise we should all wear helmets while we sleep since we do that for 1/3 of our lives.
I agree, risk factors must be calculated.

Driving vs sking vs sleep.

Not all equal risk of injury.

Driving > skiing > sleep IMHO.

Thus is makes no sense to say you'd wear one when you ski, but not when you drive...........

skiing > driving > sleeping

Millions of people drive everyday and do not get hurt - even in minor accidents
I would bet more people get hurt per hour of skiing than hour of driving.

Post by **silencertalk** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:16 pm

ArevaloSOCOM wrote:I expect you to post pics........

Stu · Post by **Stu** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:17 pm

Whenever I ski, if I get going too fast, I call 911 just in time to tell the operator that I'm going to fast right before I slam into a wall.

Those resorts are just going lose a LARGE amount of customers to other resorts that don't have dumb requirements.

Post by **silencertalk** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:19 pm

A private ski hill can require helmets just as a racing track does. Of course it is lamo to require helmets for skiing on your own property or to wear a sealt-belt or helmet while driving on a public road.

Blaubart · Post by **Blaubart** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:32 pm

Stu wrote:Those resorts are just going lose a LARGE amount of customers to other resorts that don't have dumb requirements.

I don't think so. When I look around on the ski hill, probably 75% of the people are already wearing helmets, especially when it's below zero. Ski helmets are much more comfortable than motorcycle helmets and even bike helmets. The only time they become a nuisance is when you're spring skiing and it's sunny and 60+ degrees on the hill.

pmercer · Post by **pmercer** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:52 pm

I am a good boarder and I'd say I can get down any slope accident free, if I go slow, if there's no hidden ice, if no-one cuts me up, if some newbie doesn't hit me, if I dont fancy going faster, if I don't see a jump I want to try, if I don't start concentrating on my Camcorder.....

I think helmets are a great idea and won't board without one. Well maybe if there was 2meters of fresh powder I may, lol.

Gr4Ever · Post by **Gr4Ever** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:22 pm

[quote="Stu"]Whenever I ski, if I get going too fast, I call 911 just in time to tell the operator that I'm going to fast right before I slam into a wall.

These are just the type of intelligent comments that bring so much money and joy into your life. Everytime you say something witty like this..your bank account gets fatter and your relationships improve. Time on the internet must be so productive.

nitram · Post by **nitram** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:58 pm

the helmets will increase neck injuries...

wragarand · Post by **wragarand** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 4:05 pm

So why is someone's lack of coordination/skill now my problem?

smcharchan · Post by **smcharchan** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 4:09 pm

renegade wrote:No. Risk has to be factored in as well. Otherwise we should all wear helmets while we sleep since we do that for 1/3 of our lives.

Truth.

In the .mil we assess risk based on two factors: probability and severity. The two together help to determine if one should make an effort to mitigate the risk.

Major Ski Resorts to Make Helmets Mandatory

Major Ski Resorts to Make Helmets Mandatory

Re: Major Ski Resorts to Make Helmets Mandatory