Should ski patrollers be required to wear helmets???

[dmc]

I would disagree with that. I have personal experience.. Ice can be just as hard as a rock.

Fair enough... But my point is.. a fall off a bike is a lot worse then a fall skiing.. Most of the time..
think about what racers wear when they ride dh on a MTB... Total Kevlar body armor..

Why would they do that? And why do you not wear body armor while skiing some of the same exact trails at Killington?

 

[jaywbigred]

Of course, its silly for this thread just to devolve into another helmet v. no helmet thread.

That being said, it always comes back to seatbelts for me. I would wear a seatbelt even if it were not a law. It just makes sense. And I would respect other motorists' decisions not to, if it weren't for the costs associated with same (uninusred motorist issues, cost of private car insurance, etc...).

I would apply the same formula to wearing a helmet. I have to imagine that, for example, a mountain that was brave enough to require customers to wear a helmet (and offer them for cheap rental) might also see some insurance premium benefits from their carrier, which could be translated into cheaper lift tickets.

And I'd guess the flip side is also true, the insurance and litigation involved in skiing is probably worst in relation to the most severe injuries, i.e. serious head injuries. Thus, to me, every person who chooses to not wear a helmet is, in a small way, costing me (and the industry as a whole) money.

Lastly, I don't think it is a slippery slope at all; though a broken wrist or an ACL tear is a painful enough injury, people do not routinely die from them, and thus they do not have the attendant litigation/insurance trickle down cost effect on my wallet.

 

[dmc]

Lastly, I don't think it is a slippery slope at all; though a broken wrist or an ACL tear is a painful enough injury, people do not routinely die from them, and thus they do not have the attendant litigation/insurance trickle down cost effect on my wallet.

Seatbelts are for restraint.. helmets are for protection.. I don't want to be restrained while skiing... i don't wnat to wear a helmet while driving...

don't people die from head injuries while driving a car? maybe we should all wear helmets then as well...?

What about spinal injuries? Face injuries? A broken leg can kill if the artery is broken you know...

 

[Beetlenut]

It's my way of interjecting caution into the debate.....

Not its not. It's a total hijack of the original question. We've had the mans freedom debate ad nauseam! This thread, correct me if I'm wrong GSS, had more to do with Ski Patrol wearing helmets in order to set a good example, or for safety's sake, or because they're compensated by the mountain, etc... Simple fact is we all know why we wear helmets.

Natural selection requires genetic changes to a species.

Genetic changes also include intelligence, new ways of thinking, expanded consciousness, etc...

 

[RootDKJ]

I think the intent of the thread was if you're on the job, should a helmet be required?

 

[dmc]

Not its not. It's a total hijack of the original question. We've had the mans freedom debate ad nauseam!

You are so one dimensional it nauseates me...

how can things be so "cut and dry" and binary in your world?

Yes/no... thats all I get to say???

Come on... this goes a lot deeper then yes or no... And you know it... You just don't like me messing up you little lame thread... WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

 

[dmc]

I think the intent of the thread was if you're on the job, should a helmet be required?

No - because... Oh wait.. Beetlenut doesn't want to hear it... wow...

 

[dmc]

Genetic changes also include intelligence, new ways of thinking, expanded consciousness, etc...

It's still genetic genius...

 

[Moe Ghoul]

So... what you want is a YES of NO answer or a debate that suits you with no outside ideas...

Didn't we just go through 8 years of that crap?

Yes or no and a reason would suffice. Doesn't matter what I want, frankly everyone can take this thread over the cliff, imo.....with or without a helmet.

True about the last 8 years, but that goes back to exercising choice.....like voting.

 

[Beetlenut]

It's still genetic genius...

No - because... Oh wait.. Beetlenut doesn't want to hear it... wow...

You are so one dimensional it nauseates me...

how can things be so "cut and dry" and binary in your world?

Yes/no... thats all I get to say???

Come on... this goes a lot deeper then yes or no... And you know it... You just don't like me messing up you little lame thread... WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

Wow! Can I get some of what you're smokin? Cause based on this thread, its got to be some ass-kickin stuff!!

 

[dmc]

Wow! Can I get some of what you're smokin? Cause based on this thread, its got to be some ass-kickin stuff!!

Well it doesn't make me myopic so you'd probably hate it...

 

[dmc]

True about the last 8 years, but that goes back to exercising choice.....like voting.

Exactly but the difference is.. it really is my choice or a Ski Patroller's choice to wear a helmet... And a vote you either win or you don't...

Now you all can organize and contact your representatives to have laws created to force people to wear helmets and this debate would end...

 

[dmc]

http://www.birf.info/prevent/prev-articles/prev-ski-helmet.html

Interesting article with quotes from a Patroller

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

So they are going to genetically have babies that have hard heads and can withstand a hit to a tree?

Natural selection requires genetic changes to a species.

Yes they will have babies with horns...

 

[Beetlenut]

Well it doesn't make me myopic so you'd probably hate it...

How does me answering the original question ONLY, make me myopic? Because I choose not to go down your rabbit-hole or drink your "Come on... this goes a lot deeper then yes or no" koolaid, I'm one dimensional and living in a binary world? What kind of crackinise are you talkin dude? You're obviously pretty bitter about the government, and rightly so, but no need to project that into this thread and onto the thread contributors. It was just a question about a narrow subject. I think most people that answered got that. Personal insults a side, it's about choice, the ski patrollers, the mountain that employs them, us.

 

[Marc]

I'm no expert in the subject of how, and by how much a helmet would protect a ski patroller in the course of doing his required duties but let me say this much-

On the one hand, I'm with d on the choice to wear helmets at ski areas, as well as government mandated use of seatbelts, MC helemts, etc. ad naseum.

On the other hand, I see the ski patrollers as a completely separate issue. Coming from a background in public safety- I'm a pretty fit 26 year old, and I'm required to have a full physical, including pulmonary function, vision and ecg yearly to continue to voluntarily enter a burning building. Not only am I required to prove on an annual basis I'm healthy enough to do the job without dropping dead of a heart attack, I'm required to wear NFPA approved turnout gear, boots, helmet and gloves and an OSHA/NFPA approved SCBA for atmospheres commonly found in burning buildings (elevated temperatures, levels of particulates, SO-x, NO-x, CO and a host of other nasties).

On a medical call I'm required to don appropriate body substance isoluation protection which can include nitrile gloves on up to splash mask and smock.

Emergency services these days have regulations coming out the a hole. And for the most part, combined with better training for any new equipment, have shown in dramatically reduce line of duty deaths and injuries.

So, if (and this is the 'big if') donning a helmet protects a ski patroller such that they can perform their job better and not become a vic- yes, a requirement from the appropriate governing entity, whatever that is, should exist.

As far as setting a good example- I could see how the argument could be made. Patrollers for the most part are required to ski in control, at reasonable speeds, stop in safe places and generally set good examples in all other facets of on mountain behavior.. no?

 

[dmc]

How does me answering the original question ONLY, make me myopic? Because I choose not to go down your rabbit-hole or drink your "Come on... this goes a lot deeper then yes or no" koolaid, I'm one dimensional and living in a binary world? What kind of crackinise are you talkin dude? You're obviously pretty bitter about the government, and rightly so, but no need to project that into this thread and onto the thread contributors. It was just a question about a narrow subject. I think most people that answered got that. Personal insults a side, it's about choice, the ski patrollers, the mountain that employs them, us.

Myopic in the sense that you want me to narrow the subject...

It's not a narrow subject.. Unless it become law...

 

[catskills]

......On the other hand, I see the ski patrollers as a completely separate issue. Coming from a background in public safety- I'm a pretty fit 26 year old, and I'm required to have a full physical, including pulmonary function, vision and ecg yearly to continue to voluntarily enter a burning building. Not only am I required to prove on an annual basis I'm healthy enough to do the job without dropping dead of a heart attack, I'm required to wear NFPA approved turnout gear, boots, helmet and gloves and an OSHA/NFPA approved SCBA for atmospheres commonly found in burning buildings (elevated temperatures, levels of particulates, SO-x, NO-x, CO and a host of other nasties).

On a medical call I'm required to don appropriate body substance isoluation protection which can include nitrile gloves on up to splash mask and smock.

Emergency services these days have regulations coming out the a hole. And for the most part, combined with better training for any new equipment, have shown in dramatically reduce line of duty deaths and injuries.

So, if (and this is the 'big if') donning a helmet protects a ski patroller such that they can perform their job better and not become a vic- yes, a requirement from the appropriate governing entity, whatever that is, should exist.

As far as setting a good example- I could see how the argument could be made. Patrollers for the most part are required to ski in control, at reasonable speeds, stop in safe places and generally set good examples in all other facets of on mountain behavior.. no?

Ask yourself what is the biggest killer of firemen. Answer heart attack. Maybe the reason for that is all that damn hot gear they are wearing and the added stress to their bodies. Maybe ski patrollers should have to wear full turn out gear with an air pack when responding to an accident. Most patrollers are a lot older than the age of interior fire fighters.

 

[dmc]

Ask yourself what is the biggest killer of firemen. Answer heart attack. Maybe the reason for that is all that damn hot gear they are wearing and the added stress to their bodies. Maybe ski patrollers should have to wear full turn out gear with an air pack when responding to an accident. Most patrollers are a lot older than the age of interior fire fighters.

No doubt.. they can carry a lot of gear..
Didn't a patroller die a Mammoth from asphyxiation when a volcano vent opened? Wonder if they carry O2 now...


Keep it going.. I can hear my new buddy mumbling about the highjack...

 

[Creakyknees]

Really no beards allowed at Hunter..next thing you know ski resorts will be drug testing employees...then all the liftees will lose their jobs..lol

Snowbird has random drug testing for all their employees, and yes we did lose a few liftees after a random drug tests. Random drug testing causes lower insurance rates. Snowbird is one of the only ski areas that all liftees are able to ski when they are working; one hour bumping chairs next hour to ski, it was a great deal.:wink: