or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Mandatory Helmet Law close in NJ
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mandatory Helmet Law close in NJ

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
There will be a bill in the NJ assembly this week requiring that all kids on the slopes be required to don a helmet.

The bill has been forwarded by a local physician. His daughter died after being hit by another skiier at Mountain Creek, NJ last year.

He has vowed a fight to the grave until this bill is passed.

Source was the Newark Star Ledger.... Friday or Saturday.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ December 09, 2001 09:47 AM: Message edited 1 time, by yuki ]</font>
post #2 of 36
Horrible about his daughter, if my kid died in an accident I can't say I'd act differently. But - looking from the outside my first reaction is "more life in the *land of the lawyers*" Other M.D's have expressed that the risk of neck injuries seems to go up in young children wearing helmets. Is this true? Who knows, its a circular argument so lets not bother - but I do worry about such precidents because after all - shouldn't we require airbags in childrens ski suits then? How about just making it illegal for them to do anything dangerous at all (like be born?!).
post #3 of 36
How about making it illegal for more than one person to be on the hill at one time?
post #4 of 36
I think that instead of focusing on reactions to the initial problem, they should trace this to its source... which is reckless skiing. Granted skiing is a somewhat dangerous sport, but you should not have to worry about getting hit and being killed, regardless of whether youre wearing a helmet or not, no skier should have that concern while they are enjoying a day ont he slopes. A better solution would be harsher fines or penalties for out of control skiing, and by out of control i do not mean fast skiing. Certainly there are skiers that go twice as fast as those who are often deemed out of control but they remain in control. Ski patrol forces should be able to spot, recognize and end this type of skiing, because hwne it comes right down to it, it isnt skiing, its starting at the top of a black hill pointing it and holding on for dear life until you slow down at the bottom. Also, vice versa, those who are too cautious to be on a certain hill can be just as dangerous as those who are speeding down it without turning. Skiers should not have to pad themselves up because others are irresponsible.

I do support helmets, but not if a skier does not want to wear one, they should be a skiers preference, because many skiers do not need helmets nor will they ever need a helmet because their skiing ability will never require that the need one. these skiers should not be forced to wear a helmet as a result (almost as a penalty) of other skiers on the hill.

post #5 of 36
hmmmmmmmm... i wonder...
did the father make his daughter wear a helmet?

if he did, then he should realize a helmet did not prevent death and the cause was a reckless skier. now we face the arguement (see legal case last year) should skiers be held criminally responsible for reckless skiing.

if he did not have his daughter wear a helmet, than he has no one to blame but himself. i am so sick of the state having to implement laws that prevent dumb parenting. and you know what? parents still won't follow those laws, and ski areas will lose money if they enforce them. we have to protect kids from their own parents cause the parents do not protect the kids!?

in either of the above cases, the solution to the problem is not legal crap, it's safe skiing and proper parenting. kids have soft mellons, so it's a good idea for them to wear a helmet. but more laws? okay, let's also pass laws that kids must be inside when the street lights turn on, must eat everything on their plate, finish all their homework before playing with friends/x-box, and every other thing that individual parents should be monitoring themselves?

oops! sorry, i'll get off my damn soapbox now

besides, isn't it said that helmets generally will not protect the skiier in high speed collisions that result in death?
post #6 of 36
Helmet laws are rediculous.
Do we really need the skiing police to enforce helmet laws? Any law that requires me to wear a helmet while on my motorcycle, bicycle, skis, rollerblades, whatever is rediculous. I think the same of seatbelt laws too. Is this what we vote for and pay our lawmakers to do? NO.

Do I need my government to tell me I have to wear a seatbelt? NO. I still wear one though. A motorcycle helmet? NO. I wear one every time I ride.

My sympathy goes out to the man who's daughter was killed, but he is an idiot to think that another unenforcable law will do anyone any good.

As an intelligent human being, the father should have known that a helmet would have helped his daughter. Why didn't he bother to put one on her?
The one to BLAME for the daughter not wearing a helmet is the FATHER. Not the lack of any law. I did not say that the father is responsible for his daughter's death.
I hate to see people not taking responsibility for their own actions. This man thinks that a law should be responsible for every child to wear a helmet. This is not what laws are to do.

Anyone agree?
Speak up!
post #7 of 36

Well said. It is all about everyone taking responsibility for their own actions. Adults need to take responsibility for their kids. Heard yesterday about the push for a law in Washington State for helmet requirements for kids on rollerblades and scooters. Where is it going to end?

Todd's commment about neck injuries from helmets was particularly valid years ago. With the new lighter helmets today, I do not know if it is as valid.
post #8 of 36
allthough i agree, i think i would have put it a bit more lightly :P.

Skiing is all about freedom. After a hard week when i get on the slope i finally feel free. Nobody can tell me what to do as long as im not trying to kill somebody, and i dont want that to change! To make a helmet law would take away a significant chunk of the reason anyone goes skiing. :
post #9 of 36
Ok heres my 2 cents worth. I can see why a law for kids mite help, heres why. Even if a parent buys a helmet for there kid, they mite still not were it because i see many young girls who wont even were a hat so they dont mess up there hair. Another reason boys mite not were one is because of peer pressure of not being cool. So if they must were a helmet and it is enforced then they will were one. Helmets should come with rental ski's.

So even if a parent is responsable and buys a helmet they still may not wear it unless they must wear it. Heck peer pressure makes kids smoke, so if they can do somthing that stupid they need all the help they can get.
post #10 of 36
Don't think laws are going to save anyone's life. Who's going to enforce it? Lift operators, ski patrol, yellow jackets? we had a fun discussion last year on Vail actually having armed cops on the slope.....

We've got a M.D. in Boise who is purchasing a helmet for every patroller. I think his time and money are putting more helmets on kids and adults than the doc from Jersey.
post #11 of 36
: Damn lawyers : :

Just what we need, more f*'n laws and regulations.


It's a good thing that the little girl died before she was able to pass the moron gene to another generation.
Is it too late to give the same treatment to the father?
post #12 of 36
For Geoff and the rest of the self centered people of the world, it's never a good thing when a little girl, or anyone dies from the result of a skiing accident or any kind of recless act, be it drunk driving etc. You should be ashamed of yourself. Don't blame it on the Lawyers either. They didn't run over her. You can't blame a grieving Father who just lost the jewel of his life. He is just concerned about other Fathers out there who may end up like him.

As much as i'm not an advocate for helmet use, I do recommend that all children that ski or ride use a good fitting helmet. My children have never skied without one because of my concerns for their safety. Children are not as visible on the slopes as adults are. Their heads and necks are not as strong as adults and can't take a blow without causing some kind of dammage. As a patroller, maybe the first thing I think about is safety and protection. That's not a bad thing. Do I advocate a helmet law? Do I think everyone should wear one? Do I think there should be a law requiring all children to wear a helmet? My answer to these questions is "NO" but lets use some common sense here. I have a 13 year old and a 17 year old, both boys, they have been skiing since they could walk and always wore a helmet. More so for my peace of mind than theirs. It's not about laws, it's about "love"

Protect your children!
post #13 of 36
well said Lars.
My two cents is "lets make a new law, that will solve any problem!" :
post #14 of 36
Since when do Americans take responsibility for their actions?

Helmets are good. But only if they fit properly. If a helmet is too big because a cheap parent is trying to save $50 and get a helmet that lasts a few seasons, it will not do its job! Parents, if you are going to insist, or even if your kid askes for you to buy a helmet for them, please do so, but make sure it fits properly, or you may be doing more harm than good. A helmet that is too big will increase the chances of a severe neck injury.

Lawyers are not all bad, often a necessity. But people, please keep in mind that skiing is one of the most risky sports that you can take place in. Some professional athletes have it in their contracts that they will not go skiing. If you are a skier, chances are you will be hurt someday. But when you are hurt, don't inflict your agony on everybody else. Don't make laws forbiding the freedoms that you enjoyed. It is my decision to ski, don't mess with that. Out of control skiing is stupid, but we all know that it exists on our mountains everytime we go skiing, and we all except that risk when we buy a lift ticket. If you cannot except the risks of skiing, stay home and watch NASCAR or something!

I wear a helmet, when I have kids, they will wear helmets, but that will be my decision, not yours.
post #15 of 36
Surgeon General's Warning - Living is hazardous to your health.

For all the 'but think of the children' emotion I think little kids are vastly underestimated by adults. Little kids are remarkably resiliant, I have seen kids have huge crashes and get up smiling.

Of all the risks in childhood, head injury while skiing is insignificant compared to road accidents, burns and drowning. We don't get kids to wear helmets while a passenger in cars but it would probably do a lot more good than making them wear one skiing.

Everyone wants to be a good parent and keep their kids safe but putting emotion aside what is the actual risk of injury while skiing and how often will wearing a helmet reduce the severity of an injury.

The best reason I can think of for wearing a helmet is protection from overprotective parents who lower the safety bar before your feet are off the ground and smack you over the head with it.
post #16 of 36
To all you lawyer bashers:

<img src= "http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/brdflick.gif" HEIGHT=100 WIDTH=100>

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ December 10, 2001 04:38 PM: Message edited 2 times, by Herman ]</font>
post #17 of 36
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herman:
To all you lawyer bashers:

<img src= http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/brdflick.gif HEIGHT=200 WIDTH=200>

Your point is taken:

[img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] : [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]
post #18 of 36
Sorry...my HTML skills leave a lot to be desired.
post #19 of 36
It's laughable when common sense has to be regulated.

The last few helmet posts you have brought up the point that head injury makes up a small percentage of ski injuries. Maybe you should consider the nature of those injuries, I would guess that they are of the more serious kind of injury. You can't protect yourself from breaks, tears, etc., but you can reduce the effects of a possible head injury with a helmet.
I know that when I crash my head usually contacts something. When little kids wipe out they almost always hit there head. If for no other reason than to prevent a tearful episode that may give a kid a negative view of skiing, why would you not make your kid wear a helmet.
post #20 of 36
>>To all you lawyer bashers:<<

Oh yes, THAT helps get rid of the stereotypes!
post #21 of 36
While helmets can reduce the severity of some injuries, which tend to be severe, the feeling of security from wearing one changes the behaviour of people, negating some or all of the benefit from wearing a helmet. Children, especially those who have always worn a helmet may be immune from this effect. I just think we need to be careful of the attitude that wearing a helmet is all you need to do to be safe on a mountain. Do you also teach your kids the mountain safety rules, teach them to fall correctly and make sure their gear fits and is properly adjusted? Helmets are one piece of the puzzle but too many people think they can make skiing perfectly safe alone.

As for the lawyers, we have to give them credit where it is due. Why, without lawyers we wouldn't have disclaimers on the back of lift tickets, ski patrollers not touching a patient for fear of getting sued or excessive liability and insurance premiums. :
post #22 of 36
The day of reckoning is soon to come for all those who have taken on titles of nobility(Esquire),and entangled the workings of this great Constitutional Republic! In the mean time, everyone has their place, and maximized personal safety is the issue of choice. It seems that freedom to 'choose' is the greatest goal for most of us. Let them all rave about their lofty goals, but we can't let them subvert our own individual freedoms!
post #23 of 36
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by feallen:
The day of reckoning is soon to come for all those who have taken on titles of nobility(Esquire),and entangled the workings of this great Constitutional Republic! In the mean time, everyone has their place, and maximized personal safety is the issue of choice. It seems that freedom to 'choose' is the greatest goal for most of us. Let them all rave about their lofty goals, but we can't let them subvert our own individual freedoms!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gawd.... here come the libertarian whackos. The next thing you know there will be ravings about the authority of the posse comitatus, the unconstitutionality of the income tax and how the Second Amendment guarantees the right to have anti tank weapons.
post #24 of 36
Call it what you want, but the time for bullying is just about over. Stand by and watch the ill gotten power vanish. --- Enough Said!!!!! [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #25 of 36
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by feallen:
Call it what you want, but the time for bullying is just about over. Stand by and watch the ill gotten power vanish. --- Enough Said!!!!! [img]smile.gif[/img]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ugh. So when you get charged with whatever it is you're going to get caught doing I guess you'll be pro se? Gotta love those pro se litigants. Again I say "Ugh."

It's funny how ppl seem to think lawyers are out there just doing stuff left and right. Lawyers do not work independently - individuals hire them. It's the ppl that hire them that you should have an issue with - they are the ones pushing their interests on you. True there are those who work for a cause such as equal rights but what we are talking about here is different.

On the other hand perhaps you'd be happy if lawyers never stepped in and helped you enjoy some of the many rights and protections that are afforded you.

Everything is a two way street.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ December 11, 2001 03:48 PM: Message edited 1 time, by Sugar Snack ]</font>
post #26 of 36
Such as the right to drive down the road in a military vehicle, getting two miles to the gallon with automatic assault rifles and handguns hanging in gun racks behind the driver.
post #27 of 36
Still, for somebody who should be schooled in good winning debate tactics, the "finger" graphic displayed something of a lack in class! At least it certainly doesn't do much to support any argument for what "great guys" said profession attracts! :

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ December 11, 2001 09:04 PM: Message edited 1 time, by Todd Murchison ]</font>
post #28 of 36
Thread Starter 
Let me guess. With the "classy" graphics......... This has all the hallmarks of.... criminal defense or ACLU..

Funny how some jumped on the lawyers here. The distraught parent is an M.D.?

Come the revolution..... start with the lawyers........ :
post #29 of 36
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yuki:
[QB]Come the revolution..... start with the lawyers......../QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I came to the revolution and started with myself.
post #30 of 36
You miss the point on the use of the graphic. It is not argument but a succinct expression of my feelings about lawyer bashing. It was also done, and I think recognized by most people on the board, in an intentional "over the top" manner and while perhaps in questionable taste had some element of humor or good natured ribbing to it. If it really offended anyone (which I doubt), then please accept my most sincere condolances; having such fragile sensibilites in today's world must be very difficult. I feel your pain.

And BTW... I am a card carrying member of the ACLU and proud of it. You'll be happy we're around when Ashcroft tries to send one of your friends or relatives to a concentration camp.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ December 12, 2001 10:33 AM: Message edited 2 times, by Herman ]</font>
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 › Mandatory Helmet Law close in NJ