or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Poll: Wear a Helmet, Get Discounted Lift Tickets?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Poll: Wear a Helmet, Get Discounted Lift Tickets?

post #1 of 48
Thread Starter 
I started wearing a helmet a few seasons ago(I'm a 47 year old male) because I'm a fast skier and started thinking that I've been pretty lucky to have never been in a serious accident. For those of you who don't wear a helmet, if you received a 5-10 dollar discount on a lift ticket, would you start wearing a helmet regularly?
post #2 of 48
That will never happen (the discount that is)....
post #3 of 48
If liability premiums for the resorts are lowered as the number of helmet wearers increases, this will flow directly to the bottom line, and if giving a small discount either from lift tickets or concessions will drive it, I absolutely believe they will. I have to believe the liability insurance these mountains have to carry is a huge cost which is fixed even in years of low snow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Euclide
That will never happen (the discount that is)....
post #4 of 48
I'm not familiar with cases involving ski resort liability.

Are resorts ever found liable for skiier accidents involved head injuries? I was under the impression that the only liability would arise out of something like lift failures/negligence (even though they try to disclaim it away). A skiier falling and killing themselves on a tree or lift tower, would they even have a case against the resort? I thought it's too bad because you assumed the risk and a reasonable person should understand and expect the danger/risk factors.

Just wondering under what circumstances resorts/insurance have to pay out under (in Canada/US).
post #5 of 48
how about you pay more if you don't wear one? like drinkers and smokers should pay more for health care premiums...
post #6 of 48
I find it hard to believe resorts would see a savings and then offer a discount for wearing a helmet. I'm still trying to come to terms with how much my lift ticket subsidizes terrain park construction, injury response costs, extra liability premiums all because the injuries occuring in some of the massive 'trauma parks'. I would certainly balk at a savings for wearing a helmet unless trauma park users paid a premium for their premium services.

Intrawest had a big pay out last year due to a novice skier (or boarder I don't remember) on a school trip who was goaded into going off one of the biggest jumps by his school buddies. The kid had only skied/boarded about 3 times but was coaxed into it and permanent paralysis ensued. The kids taunting him weren't held liable and the guy who made a dumb choice was assessed little to no blame but the school board had to buck up and Intrawest was the big loser. I don't know if the kid wore a helmet nor do I think it matters. Apparently Vancouver school board no longer allows school ski trips and many small hills are taking a hit when that market dried up instantly.
post #7 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by L7
Apparently Vancouver school board no longer allows school ski trips and many small hills are taking a hit when that market dried up instantly.
Sad, soooo sad!!!!!!
post #8 of 48
I'm not a law expert but if they didn't need or worry about such things then they wouldn't need insirance companies who specialize in this, such as:

http://www.richardsongroup.com/skiprogram.html

or big law practices who handle litigation such as:

http://www.preti.com/industry/resort_services/index.asp

But if you're interested here is a link I found to a variety of case law on ski-related matters:

http://www.skisafety.com/jimart-survey.html

A friend who knows a lot about these issues says that the emerging risk is where skiers/riders collide and injury results. What liability will a resort bear for inadequate "policing" or where promotional events push people beyond what might be legally considered a release of liability. Given the size of a single jury award for the one or two cases that make it through the system and survive appeal all resorts will bear the cost EVEN if in the end they have no liability -- remember insurance is to protect against something and its the insurance company that sets the cost of that protection against THEIR assessment of that risk.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gramboh
I'm not familiar with cases involving ski resort liability.

Are resorts ever found liable for skiier accidents involved head injuries? I was under the impression that the only liability would arise out of something like lift failures/negligence (even though they try to disclaim it away). A skiier falling and killing themselves on a tree or lift tower, would they even have a case against the resort? I thought it's too bad because you assumed the risk and a reasonable person should understand and expect the danger/risk factors.

Just wondering under what circumstances resorts/insurance have to pay out under (in Canada/US).
post #9 of 48
I don't remember the particulars, but back in the very early 80's when Ralston Purina owned Keystone they were sued buy the family members of someone who had died on the slopes and the plaintiff won which resulted in a near doubling of lift ticket prices due to liability insurance. Lawyers will be the end of this country as we know it unless PEOPLE start taking responsibility for their own actions! Right now it's always someone else's fault for most people. Forgive the rant, but I'm 6 beers into it and can only digress from here GO BODE!!!
post #10 of 48
Real skiers don't wear helmets!
If you need a helmet get off the mountain.
post #11 of 48
Isn't that discrimination?

In the same vein, why not give discounts to people wearing flouro-orange. Give prorated discounts to folk who have completed instruction courses. Give discounts for years experience.
post #12 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloxy
Real skiers don't wear helmets!
If you need a helmet get off the mountain.
If you don't need a helmet you're not skiing hard enough to test your abilities. People who don't test their abilities are posers.

Back in the late 70's or 80's Stevens Pass removed padding from chair towers and utility poles throughout the area. The buzz was that the insurance company made them do it because to have padding to protect skiers who might slide into the poles meant that the ski area was assuming liability if someone hurt themselves doing it. Insurance drives a lot of the decisions of ski areas.
post #13 of 48
Sure, if the discounts paid for the helmet.
post #14 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by pheft
If you don't need a helmet you're not skiing hard enough to test your abilities.
How hard I ski has nothing to do with helmets. I ski harder faster and steeper than most of the gapers out there. I take a risk of injury every time I drop into a serious line. Serious skiing is supposed to be dangerous. Skiing has nothing to do with helmets. You guys just wear helmets to look hard whilst you try to carve the blue runs. I hope you wear the full body armour as well then you could be really hard core! Go out to the back country on real mountains like Jackson or Chamonix you won't see many helmets there.

Helmets are the worst thing to hit skiing, they remove large ammounts of sensory information due to hearing imparement and reduction in periferal vision. Plus helmet wearers have a distorted sense of their own safety but end up endangering everyone else because of it. Helmet wearers are dangerous gonks who have no place on a ski slope. Helmet wears cause accidents and should pay a surcharge.

Ski resorts should not have any liability apart from for the safety of their lifts, once you hit the snow it's you responsibilty and you should have to insure yourself for rescue, medical attention etc. Personal responsibility not third party liability. That would cut lift ticket prices.
post #15 of 48
Once again the self proclaimed expert from the noted alpine nation of Britain gives an opinion to trump all those lesser opinions.

You know I even agree with you about the loss of sensory input and by the way I don't wear a helmet which has saved my butt more than once. But the rest of your post if not actually nonsense is certainly related in a way that makes me dismiss it as nonsense. Maybe you're just trying to stir the pot like some say Gonzo would do but it might be better if you chilled a bit and realize there are a lot of other opinions with as much or more merit. Stating it in stronger language doesn't make it any more right. Why not just let your point stand on their own merit instead of calling everyone else dangerous gonks who have no place on a ski slope. I don't think that statement has any place in a civil discussion.
post #16 of 48
Loss of sensory input? I don't get it. I can't see any part of my Giro 9.9 when I'm wearing it. The only thing that cuts any of my vision is my goggles or sun glasses, which wouldn't change if I was wearing a hat. As far as hearing, I don't notice any loss there either. I have cloth covering my ears, which I did when I used a hat. If anything my sensory input is BETTER because on those cold, windy, snowy days I'm not messing with a hood to try to keep my head warm. The helmet does it all.

Wearing a helmet doesn't give me any more sense of safety than not wearing one. I wear one becase of what I know, not because of what I feel or what I look like. I know that they will help me if I smack my noggin on something. I don't think about it when I have it on and I don't figure it into my skiing.
post #17 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloxy
Helmets are the worst thing to hit skiing, they remove large ammounts of sensory information due to hearing imparement and reduction in periferal vision. Plus helmet wearers have a distorted sense of their own safety but end up endangering everyone else because of it. Helmet wearers are dangerous gonks who have no place on a ski slope. Helmet wears cause accidents and should pay a surcharge.
Bloxy,

1995 called. It wants it's anti-helmet argument back!
post #18 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloxy
Real skiers don't wear helmets!
If you need a helmet get off the mountain.
Not bad, not bad.
Let me try: A priest, a rabbi, and a penguin walk into a bar...
post #19 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by L7
Once again the self proclaimed expert from the noted alpine nation of Britain gives an opinion to trump all those lesser opinions.
We may not be an Alpine nation but we did invent the sport of Alpine skiing, that is climbing up a hill just to ski down it as oposed to the long practiced form nordic skiing. The first down hill races were organised by a Briton Arnold Lunn. We were downhill skiing before there were even ski resorts in North America. The majority of the pioneering Alpine asents of European peaks were made by Britons during the victorian era. Many Himalayan assents were also made by Britons. For a non Alpine country we have a rich Alpine tradition. Admitedly our succes in Alpine racing since we invented it has been pretty poor but there you go. That doesn't make me an expert and whilst by the normaly accepted classification of skiers I fall into the Expert catargory I am not an expert on skiing. I do believe however that 24 years experience, teaching, racing and lots of skiing just for fun puts me in a postion to make informed opinions on the sport.

Yes it,s fun to stir the hornets nest a little.

But my point on helmets is a sincere one. The only time I have been imperiled by other skiers is by those wearing hemets who are oblivious to those around them apart from their narrow field of forward vision. Helmets are a retrograde and dangerous addition to skiing and have not been widely accepted in the rest of the skiing world apart from North America where coincidentaly many of the helmet companies are based. They have a place in racing and in terrain parks but not in free skiing. I am aware of no scientific research that shows the incidence of head injury to have reduced with the increased wear of helmets. Marketing has triumphed once again!
post #20 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmthmtskier
I started wearing a helmet a few seasons ago(I'm a 47 year old male) because I'm a fast skier and started thinking that I've been pretty lucky to have never been in a serious accident. For those of you who don't wear a helmet, if you received a 5-10 dollar discount on a lift ticket, would you start wearing a helmet regularly?
Slow down, you ski too fast. The helmet is to protect YOUR head in the event you collide with something. What about the guy you run into!? You wear a helmet because you ski fast, so don't give me the argument that you are protecting against someone else running into you. If you are wearing it to avoid crashing into trees or rocks, those are easier to avoid than moving obstacles. I would say that you are a liability, sir. You should pay more!
post #21 of 48
Hey Bloxy...you are aware of no scientific evidence that helmets reduce injuries?

Then go buy last month's Lancet (THE premier medical publication in the UK).
It has just the evidence that you are not (yet) aware of. Proper peer-reviewed statistical stuff.

I am a late convert to helmet. I can honestly say there is 0% loss of peripheral vision or hearing compared to my old hat.
post #22 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by janek
Then go buy last month's Lancet (THE premier medical publication in the UK).
It has just the evidence that you are not (yet) aware of. Proper peer-reviewed statistical stuff..
I'm always willing to be influenced by proper scientific evidence and would like to read the paper you mentioned. I've searched the journal section of the lancet website for "helmets & skiing" but can't find the paper to which you refer. Could you give me the reference for it?
post #23 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmthmtskier
For those of you who don't wear a helmet, if you received a 5-10 dollar discount on a lift ticket, would you start wearing a helmet regularly?
No
post #24 of 48
I don't have scientific evidence that helmets statistically reduce injuries, but I do have anecdotal evidence that it saved me from injury. Last year I was skiing on a slope covered with death cookies and got caught up on one. I was not going fast. It slammed me to the surface like a wrestling take-down and I smacked my head on the concrete-hard ice surface. It rang my bell good, but I skied away after the birdies quit singing. If I hadn't had a helmet on I would have probably sustained a serious injury.

Helmets do not reduce sensory input. Helmets do not make you ski like an idiot. Helmets are comfortable, more so than hats. Helmets are so light you don't notice them. Helmets protect your brain. The only real reasons I can imagine that people choose not to wear them are: 1) they are unaware of the above, 2) to cut costs, 3) vanity.
post #25 of 48
I have unfortunately had a few friends die and others who have had serious concussions from skiing related accidents. They all were wearing helmets. For those who died (I've gotten over it), it did make it easier for the ski patrol to clean the scene, and they woul dhave died without a helmet too. Those who had concussions could have died, but they also may not have had a worse condition.

I have no problem with others wearing helmets, I have a problem with mandating laws requiring skiers to wear one. In all honesty, those of you who say helmets saved your life in a collision or fall can ultimately make proof of that statement? The only way is to re-enact the scenario, and if you die, your assumptions are proof. If you don't sustain any more injuries, your test and logic has failed.

I do wear a full coverage helmet when in a race environment. I do not wear it because I might fall and injure myself (because surely I will then). I wear it because gates hurt when smacked against my skull, and it helps against that. I have crashed many times and had my bell rung in some of those, with or without a helmet. Other than constant ringing in my ears and constant drooling, I'm fine. Just kidding, I have a tic. Joking, I'm fine (though others may disagree).

The real issue is not to excede ability and not put oneself in situations where being hit from others is prevalent.
post #26 of 48
I'm actually relatively on the fence regarding helmets, so -- by some inclination, anyway -- relatively receptive to bloxy's arguments.

That is, if most of them weren't pretty poor.

Helmet's do not restrict peripheral vision. That is readily demonstrable. Just put one on with your goggles. As noted, you can't see any part of the helmet. Now, I suppose it's just possible that goggles restrict your vision. So that's an argument against goggles, not helmets.

They don't impair hearing.

What seems to be the most successful helmet company in the US - Giro - is based in Italy. Briko is based in Italy. Boeri is based in Italy. Salomon is based in France. Uvex is based in Germany. Marker is based in Germany. Acerbis is based in Italy. Jofa is based in Sweden.

The fact that a handful of Britons did various Alpine things (including inventing ski racing) has nothing to do with anything. It's still a ski country in much the sense that Alabama is a ski state. Yale and Harvard invented football, too.

You could debate how much good helmets do. But they don't really do any harm. At worst, they're a wash.
post #27 of 48
They are warmer than a hat on those windy days.

I have yet to judge anyone on the slope or in the liftline because they are wearing a helmet. I don't regard them as posers, it is a personal choice and is hardly representative of skiing ability.

Helmets are *required* at Masters events, and it's not just because they make everyone look racier.
post #28 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjjohnston

The fact that a handful of Britons did various Alpine things (including inventing ski racing) has nothing to do with anything.
I agree except L7 was suggesting because I come from Great Britain I can't be an expert skier or hold an opinion on skiing related subjects. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of the suggestion that just because we don't have real mountains or real skiing in the country that we don't produce real skier or alpinists.

Regardles of where the parent companies are based it is the US divisions of those companies that are resposible for the proliferation of ski helmets, they simply don't have that market in europe where their core products are cycling and climbing related. Helmets have been sold on the back of marketing campaigns where all of these companies get "extreme" sking stars to wear them in their movies. Suddenly everyone wants to look lke their extreme heroes, The North Face did the same and it made the company, remember all those yellow and black jackets and suits after Scott Shmidt in The Bizzard of AHHHs. Helmets are the marketing success of the last 10 years.

I agree for racing, I even have a slalom helmet and face guard (haven't worn it for years since I gave up racing) for exactly the reasons you said. I have leg guards and hand protectors and I don't wear them for free skiing either!

Helmets do affect hearing I've tried them. Built in headphones and cell phones are just plain crazy.

Goggles do affect your visual field, even the best ones, which is why I only wear them when absolutely necessary same goes for hats & hoods (I hate hats but since my hair's thinning I have to wear one more often these days). Hemets almost mandate that you wear goggles, I have seen very few wearers without goggles.

As an aside I am always suprised by the number of skiers in the US (and I genuinely love skiing in the US) who wear goggles all of the time (without helmets) even the bluebird days when they are just cruising groomers. What's wrong with sunglasses?:

I think I've stirred things up enough now, with my unresearched ranting but it's fun to get things warmed up a little.

The big thing is it's personal choice and that is what skiing is about; the freedom to enjoy the mountains in your own way without imposing petty restriction on others or endangering others. I pay my insurance and I take responsibility for myself I don't want other people trying to take responsibility for how I enjoy the great outdoors.
post #29 of 48
Scientific evidence?

check this out from a previous thread originally posted by Spat

http://www.ski-injury.com/helmet.htm...0and%20helmets

some common sense and analytical data in the debate which supports Bloxy's points, rather than subjective/hearsay evidence.

One interesting quote from this study

"To give a stark example, biomechanics have demonstrated that in order to protect the head against a direct impact blow at 30 mph, with currently available materials, a helmet would need to be at least 18cm thick, 50cm wide and weigh 5kg+. "

Quote:
Originally posted by BetaRacer
I have unfortunately had a few friends die and others who have had serious concussions from skiing related accidents. They all were wearing helmets. For those who died (I've gotten over it), it did make it easier for the ski patrol to clean the scene, and they woul dhave died without a helmet too. Those who had concussions could have died, but they also may not have had a worse condition.

I have no problem with others wearing helmets, I have a problem with mandating laws requiring skiers to wear one. In all honesty, those of you who say helmets saved your life in a collision or fall can ultimately make proof of that statement? The only way is to re-enact the scenario, and if you die, your assumptions are proof. If you don't sustain any more injuries, your test and logic has failed.
Excellent points BetaRacer, if even 1% of the claimed near-death experiences quoted here that were avoided because people were wearing helmets were typical the annual skiing death toll/serious impairment across North America from head injuries would be in the thousands!

Incidentally, if people believe that a helmet provides such huge safety advantages and should be essential then why would you wear a 3/4 or cut away one rather than a fuller coverage, race type which provides a greater area of protection? Just a thought.... :
post #30 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmthmtskier
For those of you who don't wear a helmet, if you received a 5-10 dollar discount on a lift ticket, would you start wearing a helmet regularly?
I haven't purchased a lift ticket in 4 years, but if I had to I guess I'd consider it.

Two observations:

I think resorts might find this annoying because what happens if you sell a special ticket, then the person ditches their helmet in a locker or their car? You then need to have your ticket scanners check to make sure the special ticket is wearing a helmet. And what happens if your mid-mountain lodge has lockers? Do you then need to have helmet checkers at the mid-mountain lifts? Everyone who's worn a helmet has had one of those annoying days where it's too hot to wear it.

Second, resorts would never decrease the cost of the lift ticket. They'd simply raise the cost of the one for those without brain buckets.

Neat idea though. Especially good for kids.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Poll: Wear a Helmet, Get Discounted Lift Tickets?