Should there be a helmet law?

[Kerovick]

No.

 

[eastcoastpowderhound]

Ben Franklin, actually.

And I say no to the question.

That's right, Ben Franklin...my bad, thanks for the correction.

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

It's all about the Benjamins baby..what you wanna be wanna be ballers shot callers brawler who be dippin in the benz with the spoilers...It's all about the Benjamins what I get a 50 pound bag of oommh for the month...3 course meal spaghetti fettacinee and veal...Holla

 

[boston_e]

No Law.
I didn't need one when I was a kid learning to ski and dont need one now.

 

[Mark_151]

I wear a helmet, and am against a helmet law. However, if you don't wear one and get your brain case collapsed, I don't think health insurance should cover it. No way I want government dictating to me that I HAVE to wear a helmet. No way **I** should foot the bill for someone else's stupidity for not.

 

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

I say yes and no....

Yes for helmet laws if we (as a society) have to pay health care /insurance cost for those who are injured.

No for helmet laws if those who are injured pay for their own cost.

Couldn't agree more with this post.

Liberty comes with responsibility (and costs). People who don't wear helmets should pay for their decision not to.

If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine, but you should then be made to pay more for ski tickets (to help cover liability insurance of ski areas) and for insurance (to help cover the cost of the preventable hospitalization you might eventually need).

And please don't raise the slippery slope argument. There is statistical proof that wearing helmets while riding a motorcycle or skiing reduces the risk of injury. Also, not wearing one is a pure lifestyle choice.

 

[deadheadskier]

Couldn't agree more with this post.

Liberty comes with responsibility (and costs). People who don't wear helmets should pay for their decision not to.

If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine, but you should then be made to pay more for ski tickets (to help cover liability insurance of ski areas) and for insurance (to help cover the cost of the preventable hospitalization you might eventually need).

And please don't raise the slippery slope argument. There is statistical proof that wearing helmets while riding a motorcycle or skiing reduces the risk of injury. Also, not wearing one is a pure lifestyle choice.

I agree with this in principle. I won't raise the slippery slope arguement regarding helmets, the statistics speak for themselves. But what about the more common injuries; broken wrists for snowboarders, torn up knees for skiers? Why do such injuries get a free pass in this theory? The bigger issue to me is whether or not someone chooses to have health insurance.

I don't wear a helmet, but more than likely will at some point this season. Once I purchase one, I will probably wear it 90% of the time, but I still see situations, such as spring mogul skiing where I won't want to wear one.

Should I have to pay more for a lift ticket even though I have health insurance and am able to pay for costs associated with injury? Would presenting my health insurance card be a reasonable alternative for not having to pay a higher premium to ski? How would you enforce ths with season pass holders?

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with what is being said in principal, but there are a lot of variables that would be left unaccounted for.

 

[millerm277]

If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine, but you should then be made to pay more for ski tickets (to help cover liability insurance of ski areas) and for insurance (to help cover the cost of the preventable hospitalization you might eventually need).

You shouldn't be made to pay more for ski tickets....a required waiver should eliminate the risk of a lawsuit in theory. As for insurance, as long as I caused the accident, I wouldn't expect them to pay for it if it was deemed preventable by wearing a helmet and I caused it. (I'm sure they could put something like that in as a case where you aren't covered).

And please don't raise the slippery slope argument. There is statistical proof that wearing helmets while riding a motorcycle or skiing reduces the risk of injury. Also, not wearing one is a pure lifestyle choice.

I am not saying that it doesn't help at all by any means, but a helmet is much less useful on skis than on a bike/motorcycle for accidents where it's just you causing it (not getting hit by someone), because typically, accidents that are fatal/life-threatening don't occur by hitting your head on the slopes, they occur from people hitting things at speed, like trees. In that situation, if you're hitting hard enough to cause head trauma without a helmet, you are also likely hitting hard enough to cause trauma to the rest of you as well, and that helmet doesn't protect your chest.

Furthermore, the odds of someone being severely injured on skis are incredibly low, so a helmet probably doesn't reduce them by much. It's about 3 injuries of any kind that require medical attention per 1000 skier days. The death rate is about 1 per 1.4 million skier days overall.

 

[MRGisevil]

I have many opinions about this topic, however do not have a yes or no answer.

I agree with those who are in favor of a law if head injuries caused by skiing directly affect insurance costs. I live by the mantra "Your freedom stops at my nose", therefore, I shouldn't be paying higher premiums for a risk you willingly took. You, in turn, shouldn't be paying for mine.

However, introducing a law such as the helmet law leaves an open window for more rules in the same regard. Before you know it, it will be illegal to ski without body armor, then possibly illegal to ski without a shield, illegal to ski without taking brain stimulants that prevent you from going within 20ft radius of trees, poles, buildings, etc. etc. etc.

Some people seem just fine without a helmet, and while my personal opinion is that they should be wearing one, my husband's personal opinion is that I should be wearing body armor when mountain biking (which I do not do). If I were to solidly say yes I'd be a hypocrit, because in other sports I don't actively adhere to the advice I'm given.

So, here's my proverbial rock and hard place: while I like the idea of wearing a helmet & others wearing helmets, I don't like the idea of the potential ramifications that accompany a helmet law and also don't feel that my personal beliefs should be inflicted on those who do not feel the same way.

But if one of you crazy fall guys cracks your head open and your icky brain goo causes my premiums to go up I'm going to be really really, really mad :angry:

 

[bvibert]

But if one of you crazy fall guys cracks your head open and your icky brain goo causes my premiums to go up I'm going to be really really, really mad :angry:

I'd be more worried about the ski area's premiums going up causing higher lift tickets or, even worse, the closure of smaller hills.

That would make me REALLY REALLY REALLY MAD!!

 

[BeanoNYC]

I'm against any law that infringes on someone's personal rights, such as this or seatbelt laws. These kind of laws don't protect anyone but the "violator." Either way, I wear a helmet and my seatbelt. I think some sort of "Helmet Discount" on lift tickets would go a long way.

 

[bvibert]

I think some sort of "Helmet Discount" on lift tickets would go a long way.

I tend to agree, however that would be hard to enforce. If there was a discount you know everyone would be borrowing their buddies helmet when they buy their ticket, that doesn't mean they would be wearing it on the hill...

 

[ctenidae]

Did I say "no" yet?

If not,

NO.

 

[SKIQUATTRO]

for kids yes, adults, no

 

[bvibert]

No.

Did I say "no" yet?

If not,

NO.

Yes

 

[Greg]

for kids yes, adults, no

So, what, anyone under 13 has to wear one? How do you enforce that?

 

[ctenidae]

Yes

Okay, good.
Just want to be sure to get my NO vote in there.

/not a fan of the nanny state. You want to pass a law protecting people? Pass one that protects ski areas from getting sued by people who are victims of their own stupidity.
//no, I don't wear a helmet.
///yes, I'd be the victim of my own stupidity.

 

[dmc]

I think it's more important to wear pants..

 

[ctenidae]

I think it's more important to wear pants..

For some people, yes.

Others, I think, should be required to go pantless.

 

[orsonab]

I think the notion that those who don't wear a helmet should pay for their own medical costs seems attractive in principle but where would it end? Should a non-skier have to have his premium raised 'cos of all us skiers out there who throw themselves down snowy, icy mountains and break their legs? Surely sking is an inherently dangerous and avoidable activity? Come to think of it - why should I, as a non-smoker, have to pay for the medical costs of people who choose to take up smoking? Surely that's a lifestyle choice?

Should it be illegal to not wear a helmet? No. Is it a good idea? Yes.

As a PS - I wonder how ski areas liability would be affected by a helmet law?