Helmet Law?

[Greg]

This article is a bit old, but still interesting. What are your thoughts on a helmet mandate for kids?

Originally Posted by www.iberkshires.com

Ski areas: Use heads on helmets
By John Hitchcock - September, 10 2003

Ski area operators throughout Massachusetts are rushing on two fronts as they work on improvements and programs to attract more visitors this winter.

The second campaign is to defeat a proposed state law which would require helmets for all kids 12 and under.

Brian H. Fairbank, president and CEO of Jiminy Peak, admits that he is in a perhaps contradictory position. He is overseeing construction of the $5 million Village Center, with one of the two buildings featuring facilities for up to 350 children.

On the other hand, he is working with other Bay State resorts to prevent passage of Senate Bill 1376.

“The helmet law would not improve safety on the slopes, but it would hurt Massachusetts ski areas and the local communities which depend on them,” said Fairbank, past chairman of the National Ski Areas Association.

The bill is also being opposed by the national ski association, as, if passed in Massachusetts, similar action could be taken in the rest of the nation.

Michael Berry, executive director of the Denver-based association, said, “One of our best arguments against a helmet mandate is, of course, that mandates are not needed, as the ski industry is already proactive on helmets for kids.”

Fairbank said the statistics show that only 2.5 percent of ski and snowboarding accidents involve the head, unlike in biking.

Jiminy, and virtually all winter resorts, have helmets for sale and for rental use.

“Our staff will advise parents to use their own judgment on helmets, but we will provide relevant information on their use,” said Fairbank, who suffered a major knee injury when hit by a 7-year-old girl on the slopes a few years ago.

Fairbank said the helmet mandate would see groups heading to adjacent New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine to avoid the $100 to $200 cost of helmets.

In addition, the mandate would require extensive training of ski area personnel, with the resort being liable if a child wearing a helmet were injured.

“A helmet mandate would be counter productive,” said the association’s Berry. “The primary safety consideration for all skiers and boarders should be responsible conduct.”

He said there were 37 accidental deaths on the slopes in the United States last winter, down from 45 the previous season.

By comparison, Berry said, there were 800 bicycle deaths and 1,200 swimming deaths in 2001, as well as 701 recreational boating deaths in 2000.

And he said, while helmets are increasingly used in biking, head injuries have actually increased in the past 10 years. He also said ice hockey studies have suggested a link between the wearing of helmets and the sudden rise in aggressive behavior and neck injuries.

Berry also stressed that the nation’s most prominent student of alpine sports injuries, Dr. Jasper Shealy, has statistics on the sport covering more than 20 years and does not support helmet mandates.

Not all resorts follow the ski association’s line, however, as the nation’s most favored resort, Vail in Colorado, last winter announced that all kids 12 and under must wear helmets while in ski school.

At Okemo Mountain in Ludlow, Vt., one of the East’s top resorts, there are no requirements for helmets, although all publicity photos of kids shows them with helmets.

“We don’t discourage helmet use, but we are against a mandate,” said Okemo public relations director Pam Cruickshank.

In other ski safety news, the National Ski Area Association Journal reports that shorter, shaped skis could be linked to the sharp decline in recent years of knee injuries.

On the other hand, the rate of lower-leg injuries has increased in the last 10 years.

Despite various improvements in release (not safety) bindings and a major increase in price (up to $400), there are still risks in skiing.

And while Dr. Shealy reported that present helmets are not effective at speeds over 12 miles per hour, a recent study shows the average speed for adult skiers and boarders was 27 mph.

The NSAA Journal for August also reported that the past season was the best ever, with 57.6 million skier/snowboarder visits. The Northeast count was up 14.8 percent.

Fairbank stressed that the ski industry is not against helmets but opposes helmet mandates.

The helmet bill was filed by state Sen. Charles Shannon, D-Winchester, on behalf of the parents of an 11-year-old Medford girl who suffered brain injuries after hitting her head on the frozen granular surface at Nashoba Valley Ski Area four years ago.

The National Ski Patrol has a “fairly neutral” stance on the subject and feels “it’s a matter of personal choice.”

Source

Helmet law should be a mandate. I was at Sugarbush last season doing photography, swung by the little kiddie terrain park and some kid had just went flying off a jump. New skier, no helmet and went uncon. His mother and father, sister were there. Mother freaking out. She's about to do CPR because he isn't breathing, the mother turned out to be a Doctor herself.

I called in to the emergency med guys over the 911 channel on handheld. Finally kids wakes up and is screaming his head off in fear.

I have a 7 year old daughter and she's skied the last two seasons always with a helmet. Afterward I see the parents in the lodge and they see my daughter with the helmet on. They said there would be no doubt they would be making their kids were helmets.

I don't always wear a helmet, although I should. I don't go crazy down the mountain. Different story with kids, especially young boys in terrain parks.

[Greg]

Hi Jon - I tend to agree with you. But with any other topic like this, there will be those that feel our civil liberties are being violated. Many will say to leave it up to the parents, but we all know how that goes. You need a license to drive a car, but any jackass can be a parent.

I think many of the arguments in the article against it are pretty weak. "Fairbank said the helmet mandate would see groups heading to adjacent New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine to avoid the $100 to $200 cost of helmets."? Come on, look at the prices of lift tickets and equipment these days. Skiing is a privledge not known to many folks without money. Consider the cost of travel, lodging, dining, and lift tickets for a family of four, and the cost of helmets which will last for many seasons is certainly negligible. Perhaps the only argument in the ariticle that holds any water is the hockey helmet analogy. I suppose there is a possibility that a helmet will provide a false sense of security and young skiers and riders will try trails and tricks they are not ready for.

If you had asked me this question a year ago before my daughter was born, you may have gotten a different answer. Funny how parenthood changes your perspective on some thing. Regardless, when my daughter is ready to attempt skiing, she will do so with a helmet. I don't think helmets should be required by adults. If an adult decides to ski without a helmet (I don't), it's their prerogative.

Civil liberties is a good point. Same deal with seat belts really. I don't see how child ski helment would be enforced. Ski cops now? Ski helment companies probably love the idea and I'm sure politicians do as well. Seems like libertarian types usually have a harder go against these kind of things. The argument that people will ski elsewhere is very weak. This issue also seems very similar to life jackets on boats.

I think big bold SKI HELMETS MUST BE WORN BY CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 12 would simply be a good thing to scare parents or at least get them thinking if not for anything else. I think there are some parents that just don't want to spend the money or just don't think about it and the kid suffers. Nothing about civil liberties. Sure you want to have a choice in the matter, but when it comes down to it the parents are not opting now to use it because they want to have a free choice. And enforcement of such thing is pretty stupid. What, fine them after they are hurt and in the hospital? Like that will do any good. Parents are likely to have them wear a helmet anyway. What is the motivational factor here, you're child is hurt and in hospital or you have to pay a fine. So prevention would only work to scare them or notify them with more signs.

But then what happens when your kid forgets their helmet or something and you know you're kid isn't a crazy hill bomber. As with most things, these issues go both ways. Going to ticket a parent for a child skiing without a helmet and not getting hurt?

Argument could be that they might get hurt by someone else. But then you're making someone pay for protection against someone that can't control their skiing/boarding when you should be enforcing rules of the road on the reckless skier/boarder.

Hell... with seat belts, I was in TN with my daughter visiting Grandma. We went fishing in my truck with a few other people. Not alot of room, so my daughter was sitting on Grandma's lap for a 5 minute trip to the boat launch. I got pulled over for child restraint with even though my home state doesn't have such a law. Not to mention my daughter always wears her seatbelt. End up being legal for two adults sit in the back of the truck, oh yea much more safe.

I end up getting a $30 ticket (I thought was a warning). Then a few months later I get my license suspended for an unpaid $30 ticket, I was not informed of this. I get pulled over for a broken headlight in my truck and find my license is suspended. I get arrested and pay $30 bail, $100 for my truck our of storage and for towing, then $30 to TN for the stupid ticket that caused it all, then $100 to reinstate my license, then at court a few months later I get fined $250 dollars. All over a $30 ticket that was unnecessary.

So the enforcement of this type of thing doesn't seem to be all that effective, but simply having it there as a strong reason to think about prevention is a good idea. Of course, I know the argument against that would be nobody would care without the threat of enforcement. Doesn't make sense either way. Why make people care more about the threat of enforcement to force them into something. It would be better to just get them to truely care about the reason for doing something or at least think about it.

Then if there are those parents that truely disregard their child's safety and neglect them, don't watch them and let them run around with no helments, maybe you have good cause and laws on the books to jump in and do something because they're truely bad parents.[/b]

[riverc0il]

i take the liberty side on this. don't tell me what to do please, the government that governs least governs best. i honestly don't think helmets would have much of a statistical dent in head trauma for kids... nor adults that ski on piste. would some heads be saved. sure. so would a motor cycle helmet in new hampshire i bet! if people enjoy not wearing a helmet for what ever reason, fine. i think there's a lot of scare mongering going on right now and helmet companies are laughing all the way to the bank.

not saying helmets don't occasionally save a life. but should we all not drive to reduce the death rate?

any ways. if ski area insurance would decrease if this rule was implemented, i'd be all for it. but i bet insurance rates would not go down, because the companies would not see it as decreasing risk. any one have any stats on that?

i'm flexible on the under 12 thing, although i prefer parents being parents. there's too much of this "the state" parenting kids and taking away parent responsibilities. parents aren't responsible partly because they rely on the state to be so for them. just don't be touching an over 12 helmet law.

for the record, as soon as i can scrape together the cash, i'm getting a helmet. i don't ski the woods without one, which has been limiting me lately.

[Greg]

Originally Posted by riverc0il

there's too much of this "the state" parenting kids and taking away parent responsibilities. parents aren't responsible partly because they rely on the state to be so for them.

You make an interesting point here, Steve. Perhaps it's true that all these safeguards imposed by govenrment and society make some parents complacent about being parents.

Originally Posted by Greg

You make an interesting point here, Steve. Perhaps it's true that all these safeguards imposed by govenrment and society make some parents complacent about being parents.

You think it makes them feel complacent? As in satisified that they will be better parents with the state watching over them? I would think it be somewhat the opposite.

People thinking about being a parent should be worried not only about the process of raising a child and the part of your life that gets dedicated to this goal, but also should be worry if they mess up... the state is going to do xyz or fine them. It would be a more interesting factor if true that the number of parent were decreasing due to regulation and fear of government involvement.

Maybe a little scare and wake up call is a good thing for some.

[Greg]

Originally Posted by jlangdale

You think it makes them feel complacent? As in satisified that they will be better parents with the state watching over them?

Here's an example of what I mean. My wife is in major baby-proofing mode around the house now that our daughter is learning how to crawl; you know installing electical jack covers, cabinet latches, etc. My father-in-law sometimes scoffs at the idea. He's like, "we never had any of that when you kids were growing up". Things like this, as with laws that are designed to protect kids, perhaps make parenting more 'convenient' for some. The fact is though your kids should still be taught not to stick their finger in an electrical socket. Likewise, your kid should be taught not to race like a madman through the glades. Kind of a weak analogy, I know.

All that aside, irresponsible parents will be irresponsible parents anyway...

Everything is about balance. There maybe some benefits to a change in parenting, they are probably some disadvantages. There are also more than likely some advantages and disadvantages to the old 'walking fifty miles in the snow to school' days we are losing. Hard to tell if things are generally better or worse.

[Greg]

Originally Posted by jlangdale

Everything is about balance. There maybe some benefits to a change in parenting, they are probably some disadvantages. There are also more than likely some advantages and disadvantages to the old 'walking fifty miles in the snow to school' days we are losing. Hard to tell if things are generally better or worse.

Agreed. You need balance in just about every aspect of life. I firmly believe that. I also feel that 'modern parenting' can be very successful and fulfilling provided an 'old school' foundation is present. Much of it comes down to basic common sense, which unfortunately some parents lack. I wonder if common sense was more prevalent in the "old days". Perhaps it's not something that's easy to quantify.

Boy, is this topic evolving...