In your haste to compile all the data to make your argument, you failed to actually read what I said, or more accurately you failed to read what I didn't say. I was addressing the fallacy of Seth's claim that teenagers will not take lessons. At no point did I make the argument that it would reduce overall injury rates. However, it may reduce the type of injury addressed here, namely the out of control "meat missle" type that Seth notes. But that's besides the point. Your straw man was very meticulously constructed, but a straw man nonetheless.
My only point is that trying to use lessons to change people's behavior on the mountain is so much more complicated than some of these posts suggest. Why is that even part of the conversation? I believe it was some sort of distraction like if out of control skiers are such a problem why not lower lesson prices. Or, somehow there's this implication that these problems can be solved easily other ways, so no need to focus on fat skis. Perhaps the discussion about lessons was just completely irrelevant. But, I believe Seth with his superior experience and critical thinking in the matter rightly was replying that it's not practical to use lessons to have a significant change in behavior of the skiing population. If you apply critical thinking to the matter, you'll realize that first you have to get people into the lessons, and then the lessons have to change people's behavior. One problem with getting people into the lessons is that many people come from out of town just for a few days. There isn't some local peer pressure dynamic to create word of mouth to get people into the program. You need to have a fair number of people go through the program to have an effect. Do you make these programs mandatory? If not then you need to set up effective advertising that will appeal to the target group. You need to prepare for lots of people in the program with staff and resources on hand, but then you might not get much interest. So, there needs to be money spent with risk of no return. Then you have to design the content of the program. It's possible you would spend all the money and effort to set it up only to find that in the end behavior wasn't changed and injury rates on the mountain have not changed. Also, does the program add or take away from the mountain experience? Decisions like this to spend money for possibly non-productive ends can make or break a company. As Seth said, and I agree, long lasting programs for locals could have an effect to make those kids responsible skiers, but at a vast resort like Vail with people coming in from all over the country it's just not a practical solution to have a significant effect on the general skiing population. Given that many injuries are behavior related, and ski lessons have not been shown to have a dramatic effect on injuries, this also shows it's not having a dramatic effect on behavior. The data shows that merely dropping lesson prices is unlikely to have a significant effect on skiing behavior relating to injuries. In summary, I agree with Seth that dropping prices is unlikely to attract many in this target group we are discussing, and any other program created to have some cool attraction will be quite difficult to implement for the vast out of town crowd. I'm adding that changing their behavior is much more complicated than just giving them a lesson, and for someone staying for a few days there's not much time to do much else. Also, I don't think any critical thinking is likely to have much effect on your behavior either. We should set up a forum program full of the opposite sex to attract you, so that you can join it and learn how to treat people with more respect.