N.J. Senate approves bills requiring helmets

[campgottagopee]

You kiddin me? My grandma was teacher in 30-60s. Kids coming to school with black eyes was a normal occurrence. Mental abuse was basically undiagnosed, and sexual abuse was never discussed, let alone treated...but if you don't think it was happening at at least the same incidence rate as it is today, then that is pretty naive.


And let the record be clear, I am not talking about "when I grew up", I am talking about the last few hundred years. My point being that parenting, and laws effecting same, have both generally improved over the years.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree......my father taught during the 50's thru the 80's and what your saying wasn't the "NORM", that is my point. If a kid had a black eye it was because he got in a fight (that was the norm), not stabbed, not shot, not burned to death, etc, etc.....that's the part that has changed. There are friggin cops, metal detectors, drug sniffing dogs in school now....wtf, the same??? I think not. If that's an improvement then so be it.

 

[catskills]

This might work except who is going to enforce this law, who pays for the enforcement, who is going to collect the fines, does the parent have to go to court like a speeding ticket, and does the person who enforces the law have to spend time in court. One more thing, what computer system is going to record how many helmet law fines a parent has?

I personally don't think Ski Patrol should be expected to enforce this law. You don't want ski patrol enforcing helmet laws, which would be a serious conflict with patient care. Patient care is far more important than enforcing a helmet law. The would be like asking ambulance EMTs to enforce DWI laws.

From what I understand the bill now reads like this.
SCS for S130 A.R.BUCCO, PENNACCHIO
2
AN ACT concerning the act 1 ivity of downhill skiing and
2 supplementing Title 5 of the Revised Statutes.
3
4 BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State
5 of New Jersey:
6
7 1. a. A person under 18 years of age engaged in the activity of
8 downhill skiing or operation of snowboards, including the use of ski
9 tows, lifts and tramways, shall wear a securely fitted protective
10 helmet. As used in this act, “helmet” means a type of molded
11 headgear equipped with a neck or chin strap specifically designed
12 by the manufacturer to be used while engaged in the activity of
13 recreational downhill skiing.
14 b. The parent, legal guardian, or adult acting in a supervising
15 position of a person under 18 years of age shall ensure that the
16 person wears a protective helmet as required by subsection a. of this
17 section. A parent, legal guardian or adult acting in a supervising
18 position who does not comply with this requirement shall be fined a
19 maximum of $25 for the person’s first offense and a maximum of
20 $100 for a subsequent offense. Local law enforcement agencies
21 shall have exclusive authority to enforce this section and the penalty
22 imposed shall be collected and enforced by summary proceedings
23 under the “Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999” P.L.1999, c.274
24 (C.2A:58-10 et seq.).
25 c. Nothing in this act shall be construed to extend liability to
26 the ski area operator.
27
28 2. This act shall take effect on the first day of the seventh
29 month after enactment.

 

[gmcunni]

I personally don't think Ski Patrol should be expected to enforce this law. You don't want ski patrol enforcing helmet laws, which would be a serious conflict with patient care. Patient care is far more important than enforcing a helmet law. The would be like asking ambulance EMTs to enforce DWI laws.

how different is it from the bartender who takes your keys and calls you a cab?

i don't think the mountain should be enforcing the law... but based on my many years of legal studies (starting with LA Law and continuing with Hill Street Blues, NYPD Blue and all the Law and Order shows) i'm worried that the mountains will get screwed regardless.

yes, parents are legally accountable to ensure helmets are used but what about civil court? the mountain mgt knows the law, probably has signs up reminding parents it is their responsibility to put a helmet on the kid.

scenario - 10 year old kid skis without a helmet and gets hurt on the head. (i pick 10 YO because it is near impossible to mistake a 10 YO for 18 )

how hard an argument would it be to say the mountain was negligent in allowing a kid on the slopes without his helmet. a liftie at the bottoms sees the kid every run, a liftie at the top sees a kid every run. if the kid skis most of the day and gets hurt towards the end there is a high likelihood that he's skied by ambassadors, ski partrollers or other mountain employees.

had any 1 of the mountain employees pulled the kid over and sent him to his parents the accident would never have occurred.

could a lawyer make that arguement? could a jury of our peers see the mountain as having some part of the blame? the poor kid will be hurt for ever and the mountain has insurance for this stuff right?


(note - yes, i know this is pretty ignorant and assuming on my part)

 

[RootDKJ]

how different is it from the bartender who takes your keys and calls you a cab?

i don't think the mountain should be enforcing the law... but based on my many years of legal studies (starting with LA Law and continuing with Hill Street Blues, NYPD Blue and all the Law and Order shows) i'm worried that the mountains will get screwed regardless.

yes, parents are legally accountable to ensure helmets are used but what about civil court? the mountain mgt knows the law, probably has signs up reminding parents it is their responsibility to put a helmet on the kid.

scenario - 10 year old kid skis without a helmet and gets hurt on the head. (i pick 10 YO because it is near impossible to mistake a 10 YO for 18)

how hard an argument would it be to say the mountain was negligent in allowing a kid on the slopes without his helmet. a liftie at the bottoms sees the kid every run, a liftie at the top sees a kid every run. if the kid skis most of the day and gets hurt towards the end there is a high likelihood that he's skied by ambassadors, ski partrollers or other mountain employees.

had any 1 of the mountain employees pulled the kid over and sent him to his parents the accident would never have occurred.

could a lawyer make that arguement? could a jury of our peers see the mountain as having some part of the blame? the poor kid will be hurt for ever and the mountain has insurance for this stuff right?


(note - yes, i know this is pretty ignorant and assuming on my part)

WTF, no Matlock? :smash:

 

[gmcunni]

WTF, no Matlock? :smash:

nah, couldn't get him as a lawyer, he will always be sheriff to me.

 

[catskills]

how different is it from the bartender who takes your keys and calls you a cab?

Extremely different. Ski patrol has to do patient care which requires patient confidentiality. Bartender doesn't do patient care. Someone goes unconscious in a bar, the bartender calls 911. Ski patrol has to determine mechanism of injury (MOI) as part patient assessment. For example, was patient wearing a helmet and patient shows him a helmet with no dents in it. There is no dents in the helmet because the patient wasn't wearing the helmet. Kids lie all the time now about head injuries without the helmet laws. With helmet laws it will be even more difficult to get a straight answer out of a child with a head injury if ski patrol is also going to be handing out the fines for no helmets. Like I said EMTs don't enforce drug laws and DWIs. Ski patrol should not be enforcing helmet laws because it conflicts with patient care.

 

[bvibert]

This might work except who is going to enforce this law, who pays for the enforcement, who is going to collect the fines, does the parent have to go to court like a speeding ticket, and does the person who enforces the law have to spend time in court. One more thing, what computer system is going to record how many helmet law fines a parent has?

I personally don't think Ski Patrol should be expected to enforce this law. You don't want ski patrol enforcing helmet laws, which would be a serious conflict with patient care. Patient care is far more important than enforcing a helmet law. The would be like asking ambulance EMTs to enforce DWI laws.

It says right in what you quoted the local law enforcement agencies will have exclusive authority to enforce it. Ski patrol is not local law enforcement the last time I checked.

That doesn't mean that ski areas won't require their patrollers to keep an eye out, but they wouldn't have any official capacity to fine people. It would be between the patrol director and the mountain management as to whether having patrollers go after kids for not wearing their helmets or not.

Local law enforcement agencies
21 shall have exclusive authority to enforce this section and the penalty
22 imposed shall be collected and enforced by summary proceedings
23 under the “Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999” P.L.1999, c.274
24 (C.2A:58-10 et seq.).