or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Vail employees - now required to wear helmets while on duty starting 09/10 season
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vail employees - now required to wear helmets while on duty starting 09/10 season - Page 6

post #151 of 282

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post

Actually, I'm thinking more along the lines of who is Vail's perceived greatest competition in CO???

 

I'd go try and get a job there......


Steamboat?  Cool uniforms there


 

I don't think this is where TR15 worked..


Edited by crgildart - 4/17/2009 at 01:11 am GMT
post #152 of 282

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

 


Uhh, the phrase was bike riding and some related sports, the context of helmet (and in some cases pad) mandates and motion sports is clear.  Since you're witty enough to crack about spandex you should have wits enough to figure it out on your own I suppose. 
 

 

 

 

No the phrase you used was "bike riding and some related sports."  So I'm just asking, what is a bike riding related sport?

 

Besides skiing, what other sport do people bitch so much about helmet use?  I've never seen ww kayakers complain about it, and I like wearing my ski helmet much more than my ww helmet. But when my head bumps off some rocks while I'm setting up for a roll in shallow water, I'm darn glad I have my helmet.

 

post #153 of 282

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by vail snopro View Post

Yes, this edict from the Ivory Towers in Broomfield was dropped on us yesterday when we had our morning meetings.

 

"Every employee who has skiing, snowboarding or operating a snowmobile in their job description will be required to wear a helmet while on the job next season."

 

 

I can attest that the reaction among the ski/board instrs was very mixed. Many of those who already wear helmets on a regular basis either agreed with the order or were ambiguous. But a larger percentage who disagreed with this edict (both helmet wearers and not), disagreed on the basis of personal choice, not just about some mandated safety measure. Some felt that wearing a helmet actually may put them at even greater risk, by virtue of more limited field of vision and hearing.

 

I happened to ride up the gondola alone with 2 ski patrollers yesterday morning. Obviously, this topic was the primary discussion. And to say the least, they and the rest of the patrol were extremely unhappy about this order. And they made their unhappiness VERY clear....

 

I asked what types of calls they had been getting, relative to the use/non-use of helmets... They told me that since the Richardson incident, that calls for "suspected" head injuries had more than DOUBLED! Except that the number of ACTUAL head injuries was still extremely low and had not increased at all. They explained this away as a reaction to the Richardson incident.

 

This edict is a knee jerk reaction on the part of Vail Resorts. There was a "Focus Group" meeting last night regarding skis/snowboard school operations and the topic of the new helmet mandate was not even allowed to be discussed. The claim was made in an earlier post by some Vail Resorts mouthpiece that this mandate was in the works prior to the Richardson incident, but not a single instr, patroller, or other skiing employee was ever asked for their input on this issue. This makes it an edict vs. a well thought out policy.

 

 

Personally, sometimes I wear a helmet, sometimes I do not. I believe it should be MY CHOICE. But I doubt that Vail Resorts will allow me to sign a waiver stating no claim should I rack myself while not wearing a helmet while working.

By the way- not a single claim of a head injury has been filed by any instr or patroller on Workmen's Comp in more than 4 years in Vail /Beaver Creek.

Do we really anticipate a sudden increase in head injuries? And if so, why?

 

 

 

As a comment, children in ski/ boarding school have been required to wear helmets for many years now, unless the parents specifically signed a waiver that they not. So this was not really part of this new mandate.


I would agree that it should be your choice but, should you choose NOT to wear a helmet, I would very much like to be given the same choice about whether I should help you pay for your head injury. The big misperception Americans have about health insurance is that they pay for their injury coverage with it. Not true. You contribute to a huge risk pool and the amount of your contribution is determined by the actuaries who determine what the insurance companies' risk of paying out for a claim in your behalf. The truth is the cost of a head injury can be multiple millions of dollars and the cost gets paid out of the huge pooled collection of money from purchased policies. So, if a helmet on your head minimizes my contribution to your health care cost, I'm all for it....I feel the same about drivers and seat belts and cancer/heart disease/COPD and smokers

 

post #154 of 282

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Lee View Post

 

The difference being, there's a demonstrably good reason to wear a uniform.  


You're acting as if the helmet and uniform have to be two separate things.  When ordering helmets on that large of a scale, I'm sure they could get graphics or even a certain color to go with the employee uniform.  Having distinguishable helmets would increase their visibility on the slopes.  For example, if someone were to need ski patrol, they could tell the difference between a skier that unfortunately chooses to wear bright orange and a patroler from a distance. 

post #155 of 282

I'm wondering...since I haven't bothered to read Vail's statement...is there a minimum spec that the helmet must meet?  Does it have to be a "ski" helmet, or just a helmet?  Does it have to cover the ears with the shell, or be a shorty?

 

Can it be homemade?

 

Can it be made of wood (don't laugh, there are kayakers wearing wood helmets out there -- not many, but they are out there)?

 

 

 

 

 

post #156 of 282

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by billyymc View Post

 

 

No the phrase you used was "bike riding and some related sports."  So I'm just asking, what is a bike riding related sport?

 

Besides skiing, what other sport do people bitch so much about helmet use?  I've never seen ww kayakers complain about it, and I like wearing my ski helmet much more than my ww helmet. But when my head bumps off some rocks while I'm setting up for a roll in shallow water, I'm darn glad I have my helmet.

 



pm'd
post #157 of 282

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

 



pm'd

 

Boo!  That takes all the fun out of this.

post #158 of 282

 Quote:

Originally Posted by redcash View Post


You're acting as if the helmet and uniform have to be two separate things.  When ordering helmets on that large of a scale, I'm sure they could get graphics or even a certain color to go with the employee uniform.  Having distinguishable helmets would increase their visibility on the slopes.  For example, if someone were to need ski patrol, they could tell the difference between a skier that unfortunately chooses to wear bright orange and a patroler from a distance. 


post #159 of 282

 

Originally Posted by redcash View Post


You're acting as if the helmet and uniform have to be two separate things.

 

Well said.

 

Here's the difference:

 

Case 1: resort requires instructors to wear helmets, but doesn't issue them = technically just a requirement, but arguably is part of the uniform if the intent is to portray a certain image (as many here have agreed is the true motivation with Vail).

 

Case 2: resort requires instructors to wear helmets, and issues them = uniform, plain and simple.  And this IS the actual case with Vail.

 

I'd be tickled if the helmet was emblazoned with giant, day-glo "Vail" and "Instructor" text.

 

post #160 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by vail snopro View Post

 
Rio- this has already happened! VR cut instr wages by 2.5% for next seaon, with no COLA/ annual merit increases. So basicly, we are going to start next season 5.5% behind.
 

As a full time instr, I was also cut back to 4 days a week on the schedule, instead of the normal 5. But we are still required to make our points by the end of the season.

 

But these are the results of hard economic times. And these are issues which we as employees have no say in either, though they do impact us directly. The idea of being treated like uneducated little children, unable to make our own choices is the sticking point over this issue. It is merely to make YOU, the skiing public, happy that Vail is supposedly doing something in the interests of safety.

 

Again, as Phil said , and I agree- its all about image!

 

This is what I find most annoying about the whole thing. It's style and looks. Not much difference than if they'd chosen a different color for the uniform - who cares?

 

Here's a chance for a major ski industry player, with let's say 6,500 employees, to actually have an impact on the industry. They could actually demand of the industry a helmet with some sort of standards. This might actually educate the public who ski only one week per year and don't spend their time on ski websites. But no, they'll just be left with helmet good, no matter how crappy, no helmet bad.

 

The situation is like if car safety right now were just about having a closed vehicle - no seatbelts or airbags.  Hey, at least you've got some steel around you., that's better than riding with no doors and a roof right?

 

So take a proper sized watermelon, cut in half, hollow it out, and dehydrate it.  Then attach a string and cut out some ear holes. - There's a ski helmet. Hey, it's safer than a hat! Want to make it even safer? Vacuum form a sheet of styrene over it, or if you really want to go all out, form a thin sheet of polycarbonate over it - that'll be better than a lot of "$50" helmets, and about as good as many 3 times that.

 

So we're left with yeat another dumb a** thread arguing the merits of how good helmets are vs nothing.

In other news....

Difficulties today at Stowe, VT....

Since there are only two types of people in the world, "those who sign the front of the check" and "those who sign the back of the check" no one at Stowe Resort can get paid.  Since AIG 'owns' Stowe, and no one knows who owns AIG, there's nobody to sign the checks - front or back.

...Ben and Jerry's has offered free ice cream to all employees of Stowe till the situation is resolved.  Flavors available, "Fossil Fuel", or "Dublin Mud Slide", no signatures required.

post #161 of 282

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DtEW View Post

 

 

Well said.

 

Here's the difference:

 

Case 1: resort requires instructors to wear helmets, but doesn't issue them = technically just a requirement, but arguably is part of the uniform if the intent is to portray a certain image (as many here have agreed is the true motivation with Vail).

 

Case 2: resort requires instructors to wear helmets, and issues them = uniform, plain and simple.  And this IS the actual case with Vail.

 

I'd be tickled if the helmet was emblazoned with giant, day-glo "Vail" and "Instructor" text.

 


Introducing the new Vail Ski School Director;

post #162 of 282

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

 


Introducing the new Vail Ski School Director;


Dang, I was about to post that

post #163 of 282

The S in PSIA os for "Shwartz"! 

post #164 of 282

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by vail snopro View Post

 


 

Here, once again, public perception is supporting a statistically unsupported theory of helmets reducing injuries which do not exist anyway!

 

It will never be known how many injuries have been avoided due to helmets. Because they do not get reported, because there is no way to accurately ascertain if the injury would have happened, helmet or not. But even if a helmet is worn, there is no assurance that an injury will not occur. Some will say the chances are greater....

 


Really? Here's just one study.  http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/8/919

 

 

post #165 of 282

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

 

This is what I find most annoying about the whole thing. It's style and looks. Not much difference than if they'd chosen a different color for the uniform - who cares?

 

Here's a chance for a major ski industry player, with let's say 6,500 employees, to actually have an impact on the industry. They could actually demand of the industry a helmet with some sort of standards. This might actually educate the public who ski only one week per year and don't spend their time on ski websites. But no, they'll just be left with helmet good, no matter how crappy, no helmet bad.

 

The situation is like if car safety right now were just about having a closed vehicle - no seatbelts or airbags.  Hey, at least you've got some steel around you., that's better than riding with no doors and a roof right?

 

So take a proper sized watermelon, cut in half, hollow it out, and dehydrate it.  Then attach a string and cut out some ear holes. - There's a ski helmet. Hey, it's safer than a hat! Want to make it even safer? Vacuum form a sheet of styrene over it, or if you really want to go all out, form a thin sheet of polycarbonate over it - that'll be better than a lot of "$50" helmets, and about as good as many 3 times that.

 

So we're left with yeat another dumb a** thread arguing the merits of how good helmets are vs nothing.

In other news....

Difficulties today at Stowe, VT....

Since there are only two types of people in the world, "those who sign the front of the check" and "those who sign the back of the check" no one at Stowe Resort can get paid.  Since AIG 'owns' Stowe, and no one knows who owns AIG, there's nobody to sign the checks - front or back.

...Ben and Jerry's has offered free ice cream to all employees of Stowe till the situation is resolved.  Flavors available, "Fossil Fuel", or "Dublin Mud Slide", no signatures required.


You one funny man. 

post #166 of 282

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by billyymc View Post

 


Dang, I was about to post that


FYI - speaking of ratings, that helmet is rated for Ludicrous Speed. Smoke 'em if you got 'em...

post #167 of 282

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

 

This is what I find most annoying about the whole thing. It's style and looks. Not much difference than if they'd chosen a different color for the uniform - who cares?

 

Here's a chance for a major ski industry player, with let's say 6,500 employees, to actually have an impact on the industry. They could actually demand of the industry a helmet with some sort of standards. This might actually educate the public who ski only one week per year and don't spend their time on ski websites. But no, they'll just be left with helmet good, no matter how crappy, no helmet bad.

 

The situation is like if car safety right now were just about having a closed vehicle - no seatbelts or airbags.  Hey, at least you've got some steel around you., that's better than riding with no doors and a roof right?

 

So take a proper sized watermelon, cut in half, hollow it out, and dehydrate it.  Then attach a string and cut out some ear holes. - There's a ski helmet. Hey, it's safer than a hat! Want to make it even safer? Vacuum form a sheet of styrene over it, or if you really want to go all out, form a thin sheet of polycarbonate over it - that'll be better than a lot of "$50" helmets, and about as good as many 3 times that.

 

So we're left with yeat another dumb a** thread arguing the merits of how good helmets are vs nothing.

In other news....

Difficulties today at Stowe, VT....

Since there are only two types of people in the world, "those who sign the front of the check" and "those who sign the back of the check" no one at Stowe Resort can get paid.  Since AIG 'owns' Stowe, and no one knows who owns AIG, there's nobody to sign the checks - front or back.

...Ben and Jerry's has offered free ice cream to all employees of Stowe till the situation is resolved.  Flavors available, "Fossil Fuel", or "Dublin Mud Slide", no signatures required.

 

post #168 of 282

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

 


Introducing the new Vail Ski School Director;


Damn! You owe me for a new keyboard! I just spewed lemonade all over mine when I saw this!
 

 

Now this is a helmet I could get into!  "Lonestar, I am your father...'s cousin's college roommates brother"

 

post #169 of 282

Here are a couple links to the kind of information I was looking for.

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

 

www.nspgvr.org/region/Helmet%20Research%Overview%0202003.ppt#19

 

www.lidsonkids.org/ski-or-snowboard-as-if-youre-not-wearing-one.asp

 

While I don't think it will change many minds I do think it helps put skiing risk into perspective.


Edited by KAZOOSKI - 4/17/2009 at 04:04 pm GMT


Edited by KAZOOSKI - 4/17/2009 at 04:14 pm GMT
post #170 of 282

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by vail snopro View Post

 


Damn! You owe me for a new keyboard! I just spewed lemonade all over mine when I saw this!
 

 

Now this is a helmet I could get into!  "Lonestar, I am your father...'s cousin's college roommates brother"

 


New keyboard eh?  Might be willing to trade.  What size helmet is still in the box?

post #171 of 282

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by KAZOOSKI View Post

Here are a couple links to the kind of information I was looking for.

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

 

www.nspgvr.org/region/Helmet%20Research%Overview%0202003.ppt#19

 

www.lidsonkids.org/ski-or-snowboard-as-if-youre-not-wearing-one.asp

 

While I don't think it will change many minds I do think it helps put skiing risk into perspective.


Edited by KAZOOSKI - 4/17/2009 at 04:04 pm GMT


Edited by KAZOOSKI - 4/17/2009 at 04:14 pm GMT

 

Quote:

For me, until I see statistical evidence showing that head injuries are a real and significant risk, that out ways the increased risk of wearing a helmet, I object to mandates and decisions that convey the idea that this is a dangerous activity. I'm pretty sure I saw a report a few years ago indicating there are more head injuries from playing basketball then skiing. Skiing was about #20 on the list of sports in terms of serious injury.

 

Personally, wearing a helmet, by adding weight to my head, does increase my risk of further neck injury. I gave up racing after 4 neck injuries and being told "the ligaments in your neck will be of no use for holding up your head the rest of your life". If my ski school makes helmets mandatory I will stop working for them. Increasing my risk of neck injury in an effort to sell more helmets or "set a good example" or in response to a belief not supported by actual data doesn't cut it for me.

 

Throughout this thread, and those that preceded it, I'm still looking for legitimate evidence and statistics to support positions on either side. Lets discuss facts as opposed to anecdotal experience and unsupported belief. I'm open to changing my position if provided convincing facts.

 

 

Here is the thread from last year where I dug up some research papers on helmet safety:

 

http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/67090/helmets-are-for-stupid-smart-people

 

(see post #26 for most of the details/links)

 

My conclusion then:

 

Quote:

The main conclusion seems to be that helmets help -- a lot -- in low-speed and glancing collisions, but you're screwed if you slam your head into a tree or lift tower at 30mph+ either way. They definitely lower the rate of brain injury if you do survive a bad collision. There might be an increase in neck injury rates, but not all studies have seen it. But I don't think that anyone is suggesting that wearing a helmet makes you more likely to die.

I couldn't find any scientific studies that addressed whether helmets make people ski more recklessly. Some studies around motorcycles showed that people who wore motorcycle helmets tended to have lower-speed collisions and be less likely to drink and drive. But that is probably just self-selection to a large extent; the people less concerned about safety don't wear helmets, and also engage in other risky behavior!

re: neck injuries in particular -- some (not all) studies looking at helmet use saw a small increase in neck injury rates, but none of the ones I saw attempted to look at neck injury severity.  There are many issues with trying to look at those sorts of numbers and draw conclusions.  For instance, maybe without a helmet someone would have had a serious head injury, but with the helmet they got a minor neck injury and a minor head injury instead.  That's probably a much better overall result, but if all you look at is neck injury rates, it looks worse.  I'm also not sure if there are consistent standards for deciding what is a "neck injury" -- I got in an auto accident last month, and I had a sore neck for a couple days (along with other general soreness).  Is that a "neck injury"?  Also, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to correct for accidents that cause both head and neck injuries (ie, where they would have had a neck injury anyway, and the helmet was incidental) unless you have a huge number of samples.

 

That said, none of the studies saw a large increase in neck injury rates when comparing "people who had accidents while not wearing a helmet" to "people who had accidents while wearing a helmet".  Personally, I would not consider this a meaningful factor in terms of choosing whether to wear or not wear a helmet.

 

(You may now return to your regularly scheduled bitching about nanny states and personal freedom.)

post #172 of 282

 Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthias99 View Post

 

(You may now return to your regularly scheduled bitching about nanny states and personal freedom.)

 

You forgot the part about insulting the intelligence of people that don't choose to wear helmets.  That part seems mandatory.  

post #173 of 282

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Lee View Post

 Quote:

 

You forgot the part about insulting the intelligence of people that don't choose to wear helmets.  That part seems mandatory.  


C'mon, Bob.  You know perfectly well that the underlying message is that people who don't choose to wear helmets don't HAVE any intelligence to insult.

 

That's why I'm feeling so uninsulted. 

post #174 of 282

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Lee View Post

 Quote:

 

You forgot the part about insulting the intelligence of people that don't choose to wear helmets.  That part seems mandatory.  


This is my biggest issue with helmet debate ^^^^

I've skied with some pretty amazing people(amazing individuals as well as amazing skiers) who choose to not wear a helmet.  The implication that they are stupid based on this choice is preposterous.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post

 


C'mon, Bob.  You know perfectly well that the underlying message is that people who don't choose to wear helmets don't HAVE any intelligence to insult.

 

That's why I'm feeling so uninsulted. 


Bob, you ski?

Bob, you feel?

 

Hmmmm, imagine that 

 

Helmet or no helmet........hese two Bob's are folks I have not had the pleasure of skiing with, but hold in very high regard.

post #175 of 282

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

 

Helmet or no helmet........hese two Bob's are folks I have not had the pleasure of skiing with, but hold in very high regard.

 

Oh my, thanks but that's a compliment and association I don't deserve.  However I'd love to ski with the both of you sometime.  We'll have to make that happen.  

post #176 of 282

Anyone here required to wear a tie to work?  Heck, they're DANGEROUS!  You could catch yours in a copier and strangle.

 

Stupid employers requiring employees to dress to a standard. 

post #177 of 282

Actually....., ties can be 'dangerous' to your health. A study decided that they had the potential to be a big spreader of germs for doctors.

from:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn5029-doctors-ties-harbour-diseasecausing-germs.html


[bold added]

19:00 24 May 2004 by Shaoni Bhattacharya

Doctors may be harbouring disease-causing bugs in their ties that could potentially be transmitted to patients, a new study has found.

Nearly half the neckties worn by 42 doctors at the New York Hospital Medical Center of Queen's (NYHMCQ) contained bacteria which can cause dangerous conditions like pneumonia and blood infections, the researchers found.

"This study brings into question whether wearing a necktie is in the best interest of our patients," says NYHMCQ's Steven Nurkin, who led the team.

 

"Being well-dressed adds to an aura of professionalism and has been correlated with higher patient confidence," he says. "But while there is no direct evidence to implicate neckties in the transmission of infection to patients, the link between contaminated necktie and the potential for transmission must be considered."


 

Clearly the tie is stupid for doctors but will continue to be worn because it 'looks good'.

Though not in Britain....

 


from:

http://health.yahoo.com/experts/healthnews/13263/no-neckties-for-british-docs/

 

No Neckties for British Docs

 

By Simeon Margolis, M.D., Ph.D. - Posted on Tue, Oct 23, 2007, 8:45 pm PDT
 

Beginning next year, British hospitals will not allow their doctors to wear neckties when seeing patients. It's not clear whether this ban applies to bow ties as well as four-in-hand ties.

 

The new rule also aims for a "bare below the elbow" dress code, so that jewelry, watches, the traditional white coat, and artificial nails will also be forbidden for all doctors and other hospital staff who attend to patients


 

so much for the necktie argument.....

 

ps: this new post editor blows..............

 


Edited by Tog - 4/18/2009 at 04:42 pm GMT
post #178 of 282

Been wearing a helmet two seasons now... I never think about, other than when I go to answer a cell phone. And I avoid that while skiing, anyhow. And I'm glad to have it when the branches swipe at me in the trees.

 

There is a lot of myth and wishful thinking about helmets. Absolutely lives and minds have been saved. No argument. But whenever I hear someone, especially a more intermediate skier or a parent say things like, "wear a helmet in case you hit a tree," I shudder. The over expectation of what helmets can do has hit mythic proportions.

 

That said, I also know medical folks are better understanding the long term results of even the smallest concussion, much less the accumulative effects. And especially on kids, and their capacity to learn. Is it worth the gamble... well, I'm wearing a helmet.

 

As for Vail's policy? We live in a world where demonstrating safety is often as important legally as actually being safe. Until people are willing to suspend their right to sue, I am not sure that we individuals will be able to retain the right to choose our own degree of safety (aka wearing a helmet).

 

Jen

post #179 of 282

Vail employees should set the standard high and go with a DOT approved helmets. 

 

Here is the smallest DOT approved helmets on the market.

 

 

post #180 of 282

I find it kind of interesting that Blue Mountain in Ontario (that had the rule prior to Vail) is owned by Intrawest. I'm kind of surprised that it's not the same at all Intrawest Resorts-- at least I don't think it is in place at Copper or Winter Park, correct? My bet is that it's coming soon at all the Intrawest Resorts though.

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 › Vail employees - now required to wear helmets while on duty starting 09/10 season