Update on Mandatory Helmet Controversy

I'm stoked.

I just found out that the Jackson Hole Mountain Resort will not - repeat NOT - require me to wear a helmet while working as an instructor.

If I'm instructing in the park or pipe I do have to wear it, but elsewhere on the mountain it's not required.  Interestingly, anyone WORKING while riding out of bounds is also required to wear a helmet.  As near as I can tell, this applies to the guides and patrollers only.

That IS good news!

But you know once these "people who know best" get a toe hold there will surely be more to follow. And it has begun.....

STOP, LOOK, READ....See how happy Bob is.. Those who need to preach, espouse, lecture or chastise regarding the cranium, mortality and the general welfare of others go elsewhere.

Let this breath awhile.....

Our mountain had insisted this season  on mandatory helmets for instructors then when faced with the unanticipated response they backed off and now only suggest we wear them . We're considering a voluntary use per the needs of the instruction . In the park we will encourage all to wear helmets and do so by example and same for back\side country  and tree skiing . As far as being forced at this point  to use them everywhere like they tried to we have escaped but the pressure is on by insurers and their consultants that we be helmeted as soon as they can muster the force to make it happen.

Eventually Everyone will wear one.....

Wanna bet?

I didn't wear one for years, then hit a tree.  Woke up bleeding from the side of my head and didn't know where i was.  Now i wear one all the time.

I can see if you are teaching kids on a bunny hill you wouldn't need one though. 

JHMR is the definition of a bunny hill. ;)

Thank you OSHA!

"Thank you lawyers", would be more appropriate.  Ski areas get sued all the time for ridiculous crap.  Employers get sued for countless reasons which is why PPE of all types are required.  How about no helmets for construction workers?  I completely understand the freedom of choice thing but, for employees, mandatory helmets are inevitable.  A few high profile lawsuits are all it's gonna take.  Buy your helmets now folks.  There are better battles to fight.

In the case of Jackson it is because of OSHA.

I don't know the specifics of the Jackson issues but fear of lawsuits, believe me, figures in here somewhere. 

This is EXACTLY the reason this type of crap gets passed. People just roll over and take it.
Vote with your skiing dollars......

OSHA idiots.

Re:  Jackson, amusingly its pipe is a fun, medium-size pipe that generally catches the sun pretty nicely and, when I've been there, has been pretty well-maintained.  So relative to even some of the very nearby terrain (and yes, I know where the pipe is) it probably ranks pretty low on the head injury risk scale. 

OSHA efficiency and quality judgment, coming soon to the rest of your life...

That is good news.  I don't very much like the mandatory helmet policies being batted around these days.  This coming from a person who always wears his helmet.  As far as guides and ski patrol having to wear them when going out of bounds.  This is probably a good thing.  Especially with guides.  It's so easy to take a fall and crack your noodle on a rock buried just under the snow.  If this happens to a guide with clients who know nothing about BC safety.  Then what?  I know a helmet won't prevent everything, but in the bc it's all about minimizing your exposure and risk.  

I work for Guest Services at Breckenridge.  We were issued Giro G9 helmets and are required to wear them while skiing.  I don't like it as much as my Leedom as the hard shell of the Giro doesn't cover my ears and they got cold when I tried it.  So I will wear the Giro on warmer days and the Leedom on colder ones. 

My next-door neighbor bought a helmet after he fell and hit a tree without one.  He had to buy a larger size when he earned Level 2 instructor certification though.. 

I wear a helmet most of the time, I just don't want to be forced to wear one.

The traffic in the shop looking for helmets has been heavy.  The Smith Variant Brim is clearly in the lead over the Giro models.

People are interested in the Giro Maze, but the lack of vents is keeping people away.

Yes.

I did a little digging after hearing a CBC news story on pending helmet legislation. I sent this to:
The Right Honourable John Weston:
Dear Sir:
If you are seriously persuing this helmet legislation it had better be based on the statistical sciences and not on anecdotal mothers...( or others who may have 'guilt' issues )
There are many more things to worry about - like getting to Whistler on half-gone all-season tires, while talking on a cell phone.
Perhaps,more could be gained by movies in the day-lodges showing titles like "Bad physics " for snow-sports 'enthusiasts' - big,bad,sick air and landings on-top of turkeys stopped under that roller... " Hucks Gone Bad ".
My other question is " Does the honourable member ski ?" If so you will know what I am talking about when I cite and real - not imagined - objective and subjective dangers.Perhaps legislating against ear-phones and autism would be more effective at making 'us' safer.
Lastly- skiing is about getting out and maintaining total awareness - and not caving in to politically-correct and semi-autistic imaginations.

HERE IS A LINK WITH J. SHEALY'S C.V.

http://www.rit.edu/kgcoe/ise/people/CVs/shealyCV.pdf
Jasper Shealy's paper...
 Do Helmets Reduce Fatalities or Merely Alter the Patterns of Death?
Shealy, Jasper E.
Professor Emeritus,Rochester Institute of Technology,NY,
Johnson, Robert J.
Professor,University of Vermont College of Medicine,VT,
Ettlinger, Carl F.
President,Vermont Safety Research,VT,
(Received 5 November 2007; accepted 2 October 2008)
Abstract
The use of helmets has been proposed as a means of reducing the incidence of fatality in skiing and snowboarding. This paper presents results that suggest that while helmets may be effective at preventing minor injuries, they have not been shown to reduce the overall incidence of fatality in skiing and snowboarding even though as many as 40 % of the population at risk are currently using helmets. The results indicate that the use of a helmet will indeed influence the primary cause of death, but perhaps not the ultimate outcome.

( PERHAPS THIS EXCERPT WILL OFFER SOME PERSPECTIVE - NOTE THE 1992-2005 TIME-SPAN )
A TOTAL of 8019 in 7252 injured skiers and boarders were recorded. ( sounds like a lot, don't it ? )
THIS IS FOR A TOTAL OF 4.884 MILLION SKIER/BOARDER VISITS DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS STUDY - 1992-2005 - THIRTEEN YEARS.

 "... resulting in an injury rate of 1.5 injured skiers/boarders per 1000 skier/boarder days. "   ( These injuries INCLUDE head trauma...)
" Most injuries occurred during alpine skiing (49% ) and snowboarding ( 43 % ).Telemarking skiboarding accounted for only 4 % ...

“There is no evidence they reduce fatalities,” said Dr. Jasper Shealy, a professor from Rochester Institute of Technology who has been studying skiing and snowboarding injuries for more than 30 years. “We are up to 40 percent usage but there has been no change in fatalities in a 10-year period.”[6][7] There is evidence that helmeted skiers tend to go faster.[8)

( This next bit was from a web-site that wants to sell helmets:)
http://www.jasminalpine.co.uk/ski_helmets_id16.html

" Each year, between 12,000 and 16,000 skiers and boarders leave the slopes with head injuries, which account for about 14 percent of all snowsliding injuries, reports the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).|

( Where did they get that 'statistic '- perhaps some of the mothers saw it... I will track this one down...if it exists )

SKI CANADA MAGAZINE http://www.skicanadamag.com/Features/2008/12/05/7646556.html

The Science Behind Helmets
Jasper Shealy is Professor Emeritus, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY. This article includes material from Robert Wilson, Professor, University of Vermont College of medicine, Burlington VT and Carl Ettlinger, President, Vermont Safety Research, Underhill Centre VT

EDITOR’S NOTE: Articles on ski helmets, especially in the mainstream media, regularly use first-person anecdotes, lift-line opinions and arguments about mandatory helmet laws to discuss the subject. You’ll find none of this in the following report which was first presented at the International Symposium on Ski Trauma and Skiing Safety in Avemore, Scotland in May 2007 and published in the Journal of ASTM International. Jasper Shealy et al simply stick to the facts to explain what we can, and can’t, expect from our helmets. Although the data collected for the paper is from south of the border, the authors see little reason to believe results would vary significantly if Canadian skiers and snowboarders were included in the study.

( here IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT POINT: SKI HELMETS DO NOT PROTECT AT 'NORMAL' SKIER SPEEDS - OFTEN 40 TO 60 KPH)

For example, for the ASTM F2040 Recreational Snow Sports helmet standard, the impact on a flat steel anvil is at 22.3 kph, and the impact on an edge anvil is at 16.2 kph. Under each of those circumstances, the peak straight-line acceleration on impact cannot exceed 300 g as registered by an accelerometer embedded in the head-form. Rotational acceleration is not measured or considered.
Keeping in mind the above figures, most snowsports fatalities due to head impact with solid fixed objects such as a tree take place at speeds of 44 kph or more. That speed is the average maximum speed seen by 650 consecutive skiers and snowboarders at three different resorts on wide, groomed blue-square trails—the sort of trails where most fatalities occur. Skilled young adult male skiers and snowboarders tend to go even faster than the rest of the population. This group is also the most commonly fatally injured. A review of most fatality reports shows that the typical fatality occurs to an experienced male between late-teens and late-30s in age, while travelling at a relatively high speed on the margins of intermediate runs.

I hope you will consider these points and perhaps find Shealy's original book or paper.

I have been ski-bumming for over 25 full-time seasons and every year the sport seems to get a little more dummed down. As does our society. I hope I have spent this brief time on this helmet point well - and that I am talking to an adult who owes more to his considered objective opinion than his more pressing societal constructs.

Skiing my ass off in the first 3-meter week Whistler has ever seen

'wear a helmet on yer knee '

Google  " Skier Injury Statistics "   I picked this one... I feel safer now.

http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/press/0506/facts-about-skiing-and-snowboarding.asp

Skiing/snowboarding (11/05)

• 2004 number of fatalities*45
• Number of participants (in millions)**12.2
• Fatalities per million participants3.69
• Days of participation (in millions)*56.9
• Fatalities per days of participation rate (per million).79

Swimming

• 2004 number of fatalities***2,900
  (Drowning: Includes drownings of person swimming or playing in water, or falling into water, except on home premises or at work. Excludes drownings involving boats, which are in water transportation)
• 2004 Number of participants (in millions)**53.4
• Fatalities per million participants54.3
• Days of participation (in millions)**2294
• Fatalities per days of participation rate (per million)1.26
•  

Bicycling (resulting from collisions with motor vehicles)

• 2004 number of fatalities***900
• Number of participants (in millions)**40.3
• Fatalities per million participants22.3
• Days of participation (in millions)**2,379
• By days of participation rate (per million).38

Statistics are always misleading it seems if not viewed properly. In this one, biking is less dangerous than skiing.

Just wondering

All, Does the area you work at require the wearing of a helmet and do they furnish the helmet or at least a credit toward one?
Bob, does the forest service require the use of a helmet for out of bounds or is this requirement only on public land leased by JHMR ?

The area I patrol at does not require the employee's to wear one yet, but it is recommended. The only exception's are:  the race course and terrain park, where guests and employees are required to wear helmets while participating in that activity.

So far the area has not provided the employee's helmets for these 2 areas, but employee's are now questioning why not.

+1

How do you see biking being less dangerous than skiing based on those statistics?

In skiing there are 3.69 fatalities for every million people.

In biking there are 22.3 fatalities for every million people.

Looks like you have a better chance of being killed riding a bike than you do skiing. And the biking statistic does not even include the people that die from just crashing on there own. You cannot dismiss statistics because someone does not take the time to read and understand them.


Back to Jackson and the patrol having to wear helmets. In the history of Jackson A patroller has never had a head injury until the one that caused everything happening now.


As some others suggested above. If the people making these rules and the ones supporting it are so insistent in looking out for our safety why are they not making ways to protect our knees mandatory?


Something else to think about with helmets. I am all for saying someone is stupid for riding a bike without a helmet. Skiing not so much. This has to do with the way in which you fall in each situation. On a bike a majority of the falls your head is one of the first things to hit the ground. It is the simple mechanics of how crashes happen when on a bike. With skiing the mechanics of a fall do not involve the head hitting the ground very much. In snowboarding head injuries are a more common. Again the mechanics of a typical fall on a snowboard it is more likely your head will hit the ground.

It all comes down to the chances of it happening to you. For some people a .000001%(I made this up) chance is enough for them to always no matter what wear a helmet skiing. Others it takes a much higher percentage. It is personal choice as to what chance of injury it takes for a person to consider wearing safety gear. In the work place it changes since OSHA thinks even the smallest most microscopic chance is cause for action. And ultimately they are the ones that make that decision.

Well you have to take into account the amount of days spent on each. In biking there are 2379 according to the report while skiing there are 56.9 days spent skiing. Divide 2379 by 56.9 and multiply by 45 and you get 1881.46 fatalities for skiing in that amount of days compared to 900. THis is seen the rate at which people are killed, for skiing it is much higher. All of this of course is according to that one statistic that may not even have a credible source or numbers.

Hey, Stephen.

I have a question for you.  I'm not trying to be argumentative in any way, I'm just curious because I know your situation.

Is it fair to assume that at some point your helmet-wearing was an outgrowth of acting as a role model for your kids?  Also wrapped up in that is your obligation and responsibility to stay as healthy as possible to continue to help and support your family. 

In other words, if you didn't have that wonderful family, do you think you would wear a helmet as much?

I'm honestly curious. 

I know that personally I *do* wear a helmet on the very rare occasions when I'm teaching kids.  That and a race course or the park/pipe are about the only times I do wear one.

Since I don't have kids of my own and I figure my wife has put up with me plenty long, there's normally no voice in the back of my conscience telling me I need to protect myself for the benefit of someone else.  I'm just wondering if you (or anyone else) ever give any thought to how you might feel if your family weren't part of the equation.

Thanks,

  Thank you Bob, a welcome voice of Logic and reason among all the hysteria

Submit
( and before the thought police grow legs again, I actually wear one most of the time, since I have it on for training BUT it is through choice, not dictat)

As much as I like to bash lawyers, this isn't one that can't be blamed on them. In terms of ski patrol/instructors having to wear a helmet its not the lawyers that should be blamed its the patrollers and instructors who employed the lawyers to sue for them. Sue happy people and OSHA are at fault for this one, not lawyers (unless they work for OSHA)

I wear a helmet most days because it is warmer than a hat. On nice days, I wear a hat becuase it is fun to ski that way. On really nice days, I don't make my kids wear one either. I am definitely not part of the "helmet nazis". A helmet is no substitute for sound judgement and a keen awareness for self preservation. Sure it can prevent a nasty accident where the cards mat be stacked against me, but does that mean I need to wear one in my car or walking down the street? In the grocery store?