New helmet rules from Canada...will they start a trend?

[Smellytele]

Here are my thoughts (that mean nothing). Anyway If you don't wear a helmet fine but if society has to pay for you for the rest of your life then it does hurt everyone. Even if you have insurance then it will make everyones insurance increase. I hope states never make it a law. It should be the insurance companies that should make it so. If you decide you don't want to wear a helmet, pay more for your insurance and get that coverage. If you don't and get a head injury while skiing then your insurance doesn't have to pay. Kind of like flood insurance. It will be insurance companies as well that at some point will require ski areas to make everyone wear one. Maybe when we have Obamacare.

 

[Glenn]

Let's just say you do hit the tower and it does some permanent debilitating injury, preventing you from earning a wage like you had previously. What is your ability to live with the consequences?

The "own occupation" clause of my insurance policy. :wink:

 

[jbs1677]

Lord Helmet ROCKS!!!!!11

 

[andrec10]

At my Mtn all kids in the race program are required to wear helmets. When racing it is a USSA requirement to wear a helmet. I have been wearing a Helmet since Sonny Bono split his Melon on a tree in 1997. I know everyone has a right to choose, but do not for a Seat belt. I think a Helmet is like a seat belt. IMO...

 

[ta&idaho]

This article contains an interesting summary of the scientific data on helmets: http://www.telemarktips.com/Helmets.html

Some interesting snippets:

One of the most common criticisms of ski and snowboard helmets is that they supposedly only protect the wearer from impacts occurring while skiing in the range of 11 to 14 mph (17.7 to 22.5 km/h), while studies have shown that skiers typically average around 27 mph (43.5 km/h). This conclusion is derived from the specified impact velocities in the CE, ASTM and Snell tests. It is often used as part of a highly misleading argument against the efficacy of current ski helmets. In a word, it's a myth.

Under the ASTM and Snell standards, ski helmets are tested in 2 meter drops that achieve about 14 miles per hour (22.5 km/h) at impact, onto a flat anvil. Motorcycle helmets are routinely tested using 3 meter drops which acheive about 17 mph (27.36 km/h), yet it is widely accepted that motorcycle helmets have proven to provide substantial protection against brain injury at much higher speeds. It should be noted that the differential between motorcycle helmet drop rig test speeds and the average speed of motorcycle riders is far higher than the differential between the ski helmet test speeds, and average skier speeds. And yet no one seriously questions the efficacy of motorcycle helmets, there is simply too much data proving their effectiveness.

Yet in a landmark ski helmet study published in 2004, Brent Hagel, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of Calgary, found that helmet use did not lead to riskier behavior or increase the risk of severe injury while skiing and snowboarding. In fact, Hagel discovered that wearing a helmet out on the slopes may reduce the risk of head injury by as much as 29 to 56%.

 

[Smellytele]

Dark Helmet Rules -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjSYfwZpj3U&feature=related

 

[campgottagopee]

Here are my thoughts (that mean nothing). Anyway If you don't wear a helmet fine but if society has to pay for you for the rest of your life then it does hurt everyone. Even if you have insurance then it will make everyones insurance increase. I hope states never make it a law. It should be the insurance companies that should make it so. If you decide you don't want to wear a helmet, pay more for your insurance and get that coverage. If you don't and get a head injury while skiing then your insurance doesn't have to pay. Kind of like flood insurance. It will be insurance companies as well that at some point will require ski areas to make everyone wear one. Maybe when we have Obamacare.

That's a lame argument---so the dude who doesn't go to the dentist when he should is also hurting society---common, just say you think everyone should wear helmets and leave it at that.

 

[vonski]

I got a helmet when my son started skiing 5 years ago. I looked around awhile for one that fit right. I got a fat melon. when I did find one it was light and comfortable. I wear it when I mountain bike as well as I can take off the ear flaps. It has saved my head from the branches when ducking. Smacked it a few times on those. Would have been some real damage with out it. So, I have found mine to be comfortable, warm and cool when need be and it has protected me.

I personally get a kick out of the adults yelling at their kids for not having their helmets with them when on the shuttle bus to the mountain. Had one guy really pissed at his teenager who was snowboarding. (more need for snowboarders in my opinion as I often see them vertical and next second horizontal). I chimed in as I could not resist and asked him how he being the chief expects his Indians to follow without him wearing a helmet. He got real pissed and ignored me for the most part. Oh well made his kids day for sure.

My suggestion is try one if you want, but find one that fits right and has vents that can open. (GIRO) like I said very comfortable and I won't ski with out it. just my .02. THINK SNOW!!!!

 

[HowieT2]

I am a helmet wearer having started when my kids started skiing. Without getting into the merits of the issue, I personally feel it is analogous to seat belt use in cars.
When wearing a seat belt was first mandated, I was adamantly opposed. I felt I didn't need a seat belt, didn't like wearing a seat belt and chafed at being forced to do something I didn't want to do. I felt it was my body and I shouldn't be told what risks to take or not. That lasted for awhile. Now, I reflexively put my seat belt on and it doesn't bother me at all. It's no big deal and might come in handy someday. I have to concede with hindsight, that mandatory seat belt laws are a good thing. I feel the same way about helmets.

FWIW-recent advances in brain imaging technology and studies on the long term effects of head trauma (like the NFL study that came out this week) should give everyone second thoughts about wearing a helmet.

 

[speden]

FWIW-recent advances in brain imaging technology and studies on the long term effects of head trauma (like the NFL study that came out this week) should give everyone second thoughts about wearing a helmet.

Well it's all about playing the percentages. If you play football, you know your head is going to collide with things, so everyone wears a helmet. If you didn't you'd be dead or paralyzed after a few games. When you ski, your chances of hitting your head are much much lower, but given the higher velocities, and that you might be hitting an immovable object, it could be a really bad day.

Also in football the helmet liners are resilient and transmit a lot more impact force to the brain than a ski helmet should since it's designed to absorb energy by crushing itself like a motorcycle helmet.

Those studies of the NFL should spur more research into football helmets, like gel liners or something better than hard rubber foam or the inflatable liners. And better coaching to teach players not to use their heads as weapons.

 

[speden]

Why should kids be "required" to wear helmets. I didn't, and look at me I'm fine :dunce:

Good point.

Automatically releasing bindings should be optional for kids as well. Only the ones that plan on crashing actually need those, and the few who guess wrong, well that's what knee surgery is for. ;-)

 

[HowieT2]

Well it's all about playing the percentages. If you play football, you know your head is going to collide with things, so everyone wears a helmet. If you didn't you'd be dead or paralyzed after a few games. When you ski, your chances of hitting your head are much much lower, but given the higher velocities, and that you might be hitting an immovable object, it could be a really bad day.

Also in football the helmet liners are resilient and transmit a lot more impact force to the brain than a ski helmet should since it's designed to absorb energy by crushing itself like a motorcycle helmet.

Those studies of the NFL should spur more research into football helmets, like gel liners or something better than hard rubber foam or the inflatable liners. And better coaching to teach players not to use their heads as weapons.

I don't disagree. If it was up to my mother-in-law my kids would be wearing helmets 24/7. That's obviously over the line.
But my point was that there is mounting evidence that permanent brain injury can occur as the result of relatively minor force and that concussions, once considered to be no big deal, can have life long implications.

 

[bvibert]

Awesome---nuther helmet debate

Nah, it's not a real helmet debate until some clown calls it a helmut..

 

[catskills]

This guy was wearing a helmet for a slip and slide. :blink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=lkwh4ZaxHIA

 

[campgottagopee]

Nah, it's not a real helmet debate until some clown calls it a helmut..

Friggin LOL

 

[campgottagopee]

Good point.

Automatically releasing bindings should be optional for kids as well. Only the ones that plan on crashing actually need those, and the few who guess wrong, well that's what knee surgery is for. ;-)

Yes, forgot about the bindings----personally I think we should go back to the "strap thing", I really liked getting swatted in the head with a flailing ski after a good crash.

 

[riverc0il]

That's a lame argument---so the dude who doesn't go to the dentist when he should is also hurting society---common, just say you think everyone should wear helmets and leave it at that.

Smellytele's argument is VERY sound. Insurance is a paid for profit subsidy system. People who pay into the system and never have an accident or need for insurance monies subsidize those that do. Often times, insurance payments are based on risk. This is especially true with automobiles and home insurance (and buy more expensive and valuable things, it costs more to insure them, especially in certain areas). But not with health. You work for a company, everyone pays the same based on the health care package you select. So someone that smokes and will eventually be a financial burden on the insurance system (receiving more than they paid in) will be subsidized by those that are healthy, paid in all their lives, and rarely got sick and never catastrophically (minus deductibles).

Yes, someone that does not have regular check ups IS hurting society in the long run. Why do you think preventative check ups are paid for free annually by most plans? And there is a greater and greater emphasis being placed on preventative care. Consumer driven health care is trying to reduce health care costs by getting people to take better care of themselves (though, while this is good for the consumer, it is also good for business by increasing insurance rates while also lowering pay outs. but an acceptable win win for now).

I wonder where the insurance industry stands on head injuries from motorcycle accidents when the victim is not wearing a helmet. Personally, I doubt insurance companies will ever take on the issue of charging certain populations more for doing risky behaviors (for those that would even report accurately).

Ultimately, I don't like these rules and I don't want to see legislation. But I also value the role helmets play and I am surprised there is still so much resistance to wearing them.

 

[campgottagopee]

Smellytele's argument is VERY sound. Insurance is a paid for profit subsidy system. People who pay into the system and never have an accident or need for insurance monies subsidize those that do. Often times, insurance payments are based on risk. This is especially true with automobiles and home insurance (and buy more expensive and valuable things, it costs more to insure them, especially in certain areas). But not with health. You work for a company, everyone pays the same based on the health care package you select. So someone that smokes and will eventually be a financial burden on the insurance system (receiving more than they paid in) will be subsidized by those that are healthy, paid in all their lives, and rarely got sick and never catastrophically (minus deductibles).

Yes, someone that does not have regular check ups IS hurting society in the long run. Why do you think preventative check ups are paid for free annually by most plans? And there is a greater and greater emphasis being placed on preventative care. Consumer driven health care is trying to reduce health care costs by getting people to take better care of themselves (though, while this is good for the consumer, it is also good for business by increasing insurance rates while also lowering pay outs. but an acceptable win win for now).

I wonder where the insurance industry stands on head injuries from motorcycle accidents when the victim is not wearing a helmet. Personally, I doubt insurance companies will ever take on the issue of charging certain populations more for doing risky behaviors (for those that would even report accurately).

Ultimately, I don't like these rules and I don't want to see legislation. But I also value the role helmets play and I am surprised there is still so much resistance to wearing them.

I understand the "logic" behind that arguement but I just don't buy into it. Using that logic, the dude who J walks should pay a higher insurance premium because he's more likely to get hit by a bus than the guy who uses the cross walk. Bah, I can't be bothered with that, that's all I'm saying.,

 

[speden]

I wonder where the insurance industry stands on head injuries from motorcycle accidents when the victim is not wearing a helmet. Personally, I doubt insurance companies will ever take on the issue of charging certain populations more for doing risky behaviors (for those that would even report accurately).

Give the insurance companies an inch and they'll take a mile, and soon be denying valid claims. I wouldn't like to see an insurance environment where they could tell you what you could and couldn't do for sporting activities. Skydiving accident, no we won't pay to fix your broken leg. Concussion from skiing without a helmet, not our problem. People that engage in risky behaviors do drive up costs, but unless it's something almost guaranteed to drive up costs, like chronic smoking, I don't think the insurance companies should be allowed to discriminate.

Ultimately, I don't like these rules and I don't want to see legislation. But I also value the role helmets play and I am surprised there is still so much resistance to wearing them.

Sad as the celebrity accidents are, I think they do a lot to reduce the resistance to wearing helmets. The pointless death of Natasha Richardson on a green trail from catching an edge with no helmet on got a lot of publicity. In Europe there was the case of Dieter Althaus skiing the wrong way up a trail to slow down and colliding with an unhelmeted woman. He survived major head trauma that probably would have been fatal without the helmet, while she died (from cardiac arrest I think, so not clear if a helmet would have saved her).

 

[faceplant]

the kids in Saratoga Springs should have to wear helmuts whilst they walk to school
....i meant helmets

no seriously i heard Belleyare was gonna make employees wear em last year then backed off.....not sure why tho