Interesting press release from Vail Resorts today.
http://www.9news.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=113681&catid=346
http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20090413/NEWS/904139934/1078&ParentProfile=1062
All children taking group lessons will have to wear them too.
I teach snowboarding and pegger ski biking at Winter Park Resort.
What's pegger ski biking? Glad you asked!
Ski biking at Winter Park on a powder day...ahhhh.
Burton Freeride Team at Winter Park
I think it's a great idea. I'm very happy to see a resort "setting an example". :) Nice job VAIL! I know they don't prevent all injuries but I was a witness to a horrible head injury this season on a little 10-year-old boy and even after being a trauma nurse for years it literally was the most emotional thing I've ever been involved in. :( A $50 helmet would have saved him from one of his most serious injuries. Thankfully he survived and is on a long recovery.
Then after seeing the Natasha Richardson ordeal. Wow. $50. That's all I can think. :( Most likely would have saved her life with not a scratch on her. :(
About time.
...i will think twice next time before i post ...this is the last time i will say it GOODBYE
and this time i dont mean it as a joke!!!
Should magazines start requiring helmets to be worn in all their photos? In just the advertising?
Discuss.
Should magazines start requiring helmets to be worn in all their photos? In just the advertising?
Discuss.
I don't think so, only ski patrol, instructors and kids.
Besides, I wanna see those ski bunny shots...my wife actually thinks I'm reading the articles.
...i will think twice next time before i post ...this is the last time i will say it GOODBYE
and this time i dont mean it as a joke!!!
I don't think so, only ski patrol, instructors and kids.
Because? Seems to me people get their cues from magazines at least as much as patrollers...actually probably a lot more, IME.
Besides, I wanna see those ski bunny shots...my wife actually thinks I'm reading the articles.
I interviewed Vail's rep about it today for an article. 6,500 of their 14,000 employees will receive helmets (i.e. for the employees that ski/ride as part of their job)
The kid's ski/board rental packages at VR owned and operated stores will include helmets now. They haven't figured out if/how much the price will go up for the rental gear. They also aren't sure how many rental helmets they'll need yet.
She said it was all in the works way before the Natasha Richardson accident.
That's the gist of it, my full article is at http://tinyurl.com/skiexam
I'd love to have had a mike on the patrol meeting.
Good PR for Vail given their target audience, even if spending the same $$ elsewhere could have gotten more head injury prevention bang for buck. Keeping all those rental helmets clear of all the things kids can pass around meanwhile will be a significant and unfun task. Since anyone doing a vaca at Vail likely does have the spare $$, they probably really want to come with.
There will be a divergence of mags, mainstream mags may in fact come to require helmets in their photos and less mainstream-oriented mags may actually come to refuse any photos or ads with helmets.
Should magazines start requiring helmets to be worn in all their photos? In just the advertising?
Discuss.
I don't know, but for sure, to publish an ad for ***** which depict a skier without helmet and then putting a caption "John Doe wears a border brasco helmet"..is, pretty close to...no, not fraud but, to think that people can't use their eyes and think their thoughts...
Yes, this edict from the Ivory Towers in Broomfield was dropped on us yesterday when we had our morning meetings.
"Every employee who has skiing, snowboarding or operating a snowmobile in their job description will be required to wear a helmet while on the job next season."
I can attest that the reaction among the ski/board instrs was very mixed. Many of those who already wear helmets on a regular basis either agreed with the order or were ambiguous. But a larger percentage who disagreed with this edict (both helmet wearers and not), disagreed on the basis of personal choice, not just about some mandated safety measure. Some felt that wearing a helmet actually may put them at even greater risk, by virtue of more limited field of vision and hearing.
I happened to ride up the gondola alone with 2 ski patrollers yesterday morning. Obviously, this topic was the primary discussion. And to say the least, they and the rest of the patrol were extremely unhappy about this order. And they made their unhappiness VERY clear....
I asked what types of calls they had been getting, relative to the use/non-use of helmets... They told me that since the Richardson incident, that calls for "suspected" head injuries had more than DOUBLED! Except that the number of ACTUAL head injuries was still extremely low and had not increased at all. They explained this away as a reaction to the Richardson incident.
This edict is a knee jerk reaction on the part of Vail Resorts. There was a "Focus Group" meeting last night regarding skis/snowboard school operations and the topic of the new helmet mandate was not even allowed to be discussed. The claim was made in an earlier post by some Vail Resorts mouthpiece that this mandate was in the works prior to the Richardson incident, but not a single instr, patroller, or other skiing employee was ever asked for their input on this issue. This makes it an edict vs. a well thought out policy.
Personally, sometimes I wear a helmet, sometimes I do not. I believe it should be MY CHOICE. But I doubt that Vail Resorts will allow me to sign a waiver stating no claim should I rack myself while not wearing a helmet while working.
By the way- not a single claim of a head injury has been filed by any instr or patroller on Workmen's Comp in more than 4 years in Vail /Beaver Creek.
Do we really anticipate a sudden increase in head injuries? And if so, why?
As a comment, children in ski/ boarding school have been required to wear helmets for many years now, unless the parents specifically signed a waiver that they not. So this was not really part of this new mandate.
I see how you would like to make it your choice but I have had to explain to my kids why their instructors (in MI) aren't wearing a helmet WAY too many times. I think it's a great way for the resort to set an example. The employees still have the choice not to wear them on their own time but while working it's no different than employees being required to wear steel toed boots or other like safety equipment.
In terms of magazines I would like to see them advertise more with helmet usage but I'm sure the idea will be blocked as how do you see the lovely, long flowing locks of the superhot model with a helmet on? 
.... The claim was made in an earlier post by some Vail Resorts mouthpiece that this mandate was in the works prior to the Richardson incident, but not a single instr, patroller, or other skiing employee was ever asked for their input on this issue. ...
Did they ever look at potential communicable health issues associated with those rental helmets?
I agree with Marge that the helmets are no different than the countless PPE worn by employees in other industries. People hate change. Helmets are such a minor issue, and are pretty damn comfy when it's cold.
The near complete lack of helmets in ski magazines has been baffling me for a couple of years. The whole safety example thing aside, I would just think the magazines would be trying to sell more helmets for their advertisers.
I once had a job in a cabinet shop that utilized a large number of air guns (staplers and nailers) in addition to table saws and other implements of mass destruction. Safety goggles were highly recommended/required, 
but it was only enforced when the regional tool reps showed up. We also always had the safetys disabled on the guns. The owner set the example and fact is, it is easier to see what you are doing without the glasses.. really good ones weren't provided and since we didn't have to wear them few folks invested in good goggles or glasses. In the three years I worked there I saw folks lose a finger on three seperate occasions, but I never saw someone lose an eye.
It will be interesting to see what level of enforcement takes place. Are there certain types of helmets that wouln't count? Is the penalty for not wearing one immediate termination? What if you are skiing on your lunch break but wearing your instructor jacket? I would think that they could require it for everyone that isnan employee with free or discounted skiing as a benefit and not just folks that are actually "working".
Smell that? Winter's coming!
Did they ever look at potential communicable health issues associated with those rental helmets?
Lice and ring worm! seriously, my kids hemlets (both hardly used, not a scratch) cost less than $20.00 each on eBay. Just get your kid a helmet folks.
Smell that? Winter's coming!
Did they ever look at potential communicable health issues associated with those rental helmets?
Do you mean like head lice? It's not like rental helmets are a totally new concept. Has that been an issue in the past? People rent boots all the time-- that seems like more of a bacteria heaven than a helmet.
One issue I did just think of regarding really any rental helmet is that they need to get the multi-impact kind. Many, if not most, on the market are supposed to be replaced after one serious blow. Seems like it would be hard to depend on previous renters making the shop aware of something like that.
and staph and strep. Some antibiotic resistant.
Not saying they haven't looked at it and figured out how to clean the helmets appropriately, but if you're proposing mandating a large pool of people adopt a certain type of shared athletic equipment in the name of "safety" it's a good think to definitely look at. MRSA for instance sucks.
The claim was made in an earlier post by some Vail Resorts mouthpiece that this mandate was in the works prior to the Richardson incident, but not a single instr, patroller, or other skiing employee was ever asked for their input on this issue.
(Actually, didn't helmets come up when we had dinner with Prosper etc earlier this year?) The Vail VP of corp comm that I interviewed definitely referred to a "pilot program" that was going on before Richardson where select people in different jobs, patroller, instructor, etc. wore/tested helmets with an eye toward this policy. http://tinyurl.com/skiexam (I specifically asked about Richardson as a possible factor-- that's when she answered that it was in the works beforehand. I'm guessing Richardson came up in the recent meetings by the powers-at-be, but that's just a logical guess.)
Now, I know you can't always believe what's said by "corporate america" but I don't know if she'd just totally make that up. With about 6,500 employees now required to wear helmets and 14,000 total across five resorts, it's pretty hard to make the claim that not a single employee was asked unless you surveyed A LOT of people.
As far as those who complained about vision and hearing, they either have never worn a helmet or need to get a different kind. When I've worn one, I haven't noticed any problems in those areas. I generally forget I'm wearing it.
All that being said, I do think helmets are a bit overblown as a panacea to all ills. I did another article back at the time of Richardson http://tinyurl.com/helmetdebate
that went into Shealy's research etc. They really don't do much in the serious crashes. They're OK preventing minor injuries and freak stuff like Richardson's.
Personally, sometimes I wear a helmet, sometimes I do not. I believe it should be MY CHOICE.
I agree 100%. I know you have a lot invested in Vail, but you see were VR's going.
Sorry, but I think it's time to move on.
If they really wanted to reduce injuries they would go back to not having terrain parks open to all comers and require they only be skied under coaches or instructors supervision. They would also close off the chutes and wicked terrain and make them OB. This is obviously a PR move and not really a saftey campaign otherwise they would be willing to forgoe the $$$ that come with offering potentially dangerous terrain to anybody at any age that acquires a ticket.
Smell that? Winter's coming!
I'm glad I don't work for Vail Resorts.
Unfortunately, now that they've set the precedent, can most other resorts be far behind?
Bah! Humbug!
Bob Peters Jackson Hole, WY
North40 Realty
Me on twitter - http://twitter.com/bobpetersjh
Making employees wear helmets is reasonable. While Vail may not have a head injury workers comp claim recently, the potential for one is nonetheless significant. Bad head injuries can easily cost $1M or more. I would not be surprised if savings on worker comp rates offsets the costs of the employee helmets in the first year.
But a larger percentage who disagreed with this edict (both helmet wearers and not), disagreed on the basis of personal choice, not just about some mandated safety measure. Some felt that wearing a helmet actually may put them at even greater risk, by virtue of more limited field of vision and hearing.
I feel that I can still hear fine in my helmet (Giro with soft ear covers, not a full helmet that comes down over the ear) but I can't deny that I can hear better without it. However, field of vision? Seriously? Apparently I must already have dangerously poor peripheral vision, because when I put on my helmet I can't even see the helmet. It in no way at all compromises my vision. I hope these people never wear goggles, that would extremely dangerous. 
I work with Work Comp claims all the time in my day job and agree with hoody about the costs and insurance premimums. I have also seen what happens to a family when someone is severely injured or killed on the job. It is especially sad when it could have been prevented by wearing the proper safety equipment. I hear from family members who say "why wasn't he wearing his helmet, safety belt, or fill in the blank" and it breaks your heart. I have yet to hear them say "boy I am glad he exercised his free choice and didn't wear it". Sorry but this seems like a very reasonable safety measure for an employer to take. There may only be one severe head injury every few years in the industry but that is one too many if it could have been prevented with such a simple safety measure. You always have a choice - you can work somewhere else if it means that much to you
Hey Saltlick,
With your day job it seems like you would have access to all kinds of research & numbers on injury rates. Maybe others could pitch in with this data also.
Can you find data on the risk/injury rate while traveling in a car? I'd like to compare risk for different activities. How many kids/people die each year while swimming, bike riding, riding in a car etc.?
Wearing helmets while bike riding has gone from zero when I was a kid to a substantial number today. Has there been a corresponding decrease in deaths and serious injury per? (what's the appropriate unit of measure?) I know the number for drowning in pools is substantial. How does it compare?
Reading the article linked in Wags' post it looks to me like serious injury and death of all types from skiing works out to 1.56 per million skier visits. How might the numbers change if we exclude events in terrain parks? NSP should be able to provide data on how many of those injuries happen in terrain parks vs else where. How does this 1.56# compare to other activities?
It's been my suspicion for a long time that I'm at greater risk driving to the ski area then I am while skiing.
If I need to wear a helmet skiing shouldn't I wear one while traveling?
Knowing that I'm not part of the high risk segment of skiers influences my decision. Having experienced a concussion from a car accident while in a funeral procession plays a role also. Who would have thought Funerals were risky activiteis? Until I see numbers from some one like Jasper Shealy that show significant reductions from helmet use for all skiers I'll remain sceptical that this is an issue requiring mandates as opposed to individual choice.
bikes are interesting, in that while the rate of helmet use has gone way up, so has the incidence of head injuries. Bike helmets are definitely SOMEWHAT effective at protecting riders, depending on the type of impact, etc.etc., from any one specific impact. (They could be more effective at protecting against lower-impact, non-crippling type concussions, for instance, but eveyrthing's a comprormise.) The risk compensation that everyone says never happens, seems to happen.
Always a fun debate. In all seriousness in 4-5 years I wouldn't be surprised to hear some safety nut saying my kids HAVE to wear spine protection to freeski because of some unfortunate injury somewhere. Did the patrol @Vail hear that groin cups will also be required? J/k.
I've always understood that when my employer says "you shall" I have a choice of saying "yes sir/mam" or heading for the door.
Sounds like a lot of whining to me.
I slide.
This shoud almost be sufficient. Whether skiing, biking riding skateboards, whatever.. the key to kids not getting killed is learning to respect the terrain, obstacles, and their capabilities. If you try to make them completely safe, they will believe they are invinciable.
Smell that? Winter's coming!
This shoud almost be sufficient. Whether skiing, biking riding skateboards, whatever.. the key to kids not getting killed is learning to respect the terrain, obstacles, and their capabilities. If you try to make them completely safe, they will believe they are invinciable.
Hear, hear.
My dog loves the bumps too.
-melpark
Let those who ride (or ski) decide....
Sadly this sort of thing often rides the tide of the news/media circus and may spread to other areas.
Better stop having the employees drive to the mountain each day as some could be involved in accidents. The walk from the Admin building to the main lodge could produce slips, trips and falls.
No showering on the premises either. And forget about a lunch break too, you could choke.
Damn the ski resort work is dangerous.....
