- 5,429 Posts. Joined 3/2008
- Location: Northeast US
- Select All Posts By This User
Because having a person in a helmet on the cover would be consistent with the position of the author/poster:
I have no issue with it. (The first time I was in Colorado I did a double take when I saw someone on a bike without a helmet)...
Our politicians periodically make laws to protect us against our own stupidity when the safety measure is extraordinarily effective and the inconvenience is minor. Personally none of these laws feels burdensome to me. The ski helmet law? I think it fits that description. Personally I have had 2 crashes that have convinced me of the value of a helmet, and from a comfort perspective, mine is fantastic - keeps my noggin nice and warm.
Further, I actually think that it's only a matter of time before insurance companies require ski hills to mandate helmets. I think that will happen before more provinces or states adopt helmet laws.
There is a value in logical consistency between views and actions.
I have to remove my helmet when entering certain federal buildings and once a female guard fondled my head to make sure there wasn't a bomb in the cycling cap I wear under my helmet.
Chuckling thinking of the Spinal Tap airport scene...
Logic in a helmet thread?
I've looked into Nova Scotia's research on this legislation a bit more...
In Canada last year, there were four skiing deaths. All of the deceased were wearing helmets at time of death. 7.6% of injuries on hills are closed head injuries. Helmets have previously been assessed at reducing trauma in 15-60% of head injuries, but helmet-wearing skiers ski faster and experience a higher incidence of head injury. I'll leave you to determine how small a percentage of people are actually helped by helmets.
Opinions in the presentation supporting this legislation concluded that educating the public isn't sufficient--despite 75% of NS skiers already wearing helmets.
The "research" and opinions supporting this legislation were offered by a group of neurosurgeons and an intern from Health Promotion NS. No information was gathered from within the ski industry surrounding the efficacy of helmets. The "research" also didn't consider the following:
The research also didn't consider other activities that involve head falls. E.g. half of all traumatic brain injuries are caused by motor vehicle accidents. In reality, the government would get more results by legislating everyone in cars to wear helmets.
So all told, epic fail by the Nova Scotia government.
(I ski with a helmet, but that's my choice. I believe in letting adults make informed decisions.)
The main difference in the argument for Canadians and Americans is that the government in Canada pays for health care. Since they pay Canadians give up some of their freedoms. Why should a non-skier or biker have to pay for head trauma injuries.
Mind you, everyone has to pay for fat, inactivity and obesity related illnesses. Fat, sugar and processed food taxes will likely be going up in the years to come.
No, the different isn't about the Canadian government. It's that many Canadians (like their American counterpart) wants to tell others how to live their life!
The rest of the Canadian population, having been so conditioned to give up any of their personal choice, allows it that view to be turned into law.
She's not my type.