or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Après-Ski › Proposed Mandatory Helmets in California
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Proposed Mandatory Helmets in California - Page 2

post #31 of 46
One observation about compliance and enforcement.  Durham opened a new public skatepark downtown last year.  Here is the sign at the entrance.  Note it says helmets and pads are required.


In the days I've been there are usually about 20-30 people there.  Upon occasion I see some older folks wearing a helmet in the pool.  Other than, that NOBODY wears them at all.  Since the last time I went the local news did a taddle tale story about it showing the sign and showing all the kids skating without helmets. Part of me thinks a state wide ski helmet law would be complied to and enforced about as much as a state wide bike helmet law.   I realize that enforcement would be easier at a resort where staff can prevent people from riding the lifts without them.  The question is.why would they if it is the patron that gets fined for infractions and not the resort.
post #32 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post

I just cracked my helmet today - landed forward off a cliff and slammed into a tree (hardwood about 1' diameter - tree did not move at all). I still think manditory helmet laws or even rules at particular hill are stupid.
Jer,
We've already established you can't ski - I guess this confirms you don't think very well either....... LOL
At least the state isn't having to provide you life long support for a TBI - You know like paying someone to wipe your butt when you crap your diaper and didn't know you s**t or it might require wiping afterwards. Then pay someone to spoon feed you because you don't know what the food is for; let alone the spoon is for. Then you can start all over agan.
Oh yeh, it's the state that pays that bill, not the people. Wonder where the state gets the money.
post #33 of 46
^^^^ Yeah - sorry I like to make my own descisions. Aren't you the morbidly obese guy (I can't remember - I get you fellows confused sometimes)? Maybe The State should put you on a celery only diet to save you from yourself. 
post #34 of 46
Boy am I glad I got a helmet this year!  Just think, I was a poser for several decades, but now that I have a helmet I'm hardcore.
post #35 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

Boy am I glad I got a helmet this year!  Just think, I was a poser for several decades, but now that I have a helmet I'm hardcore.
 

Actually you're too late.  The past few years the hardcore trend has been to wear a knit hat.
post #36 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post

^^^^ Yeah - sorry I like to make my own descisions. Aren't you the morbidly obese guy (I can't remember - I get you fellows confused sometimes)? Maybe The State should put you on a celery only diet to save you from yourself. 

I think you may be confusing him for me
post #37 of 46
Quoted from cgrildart:  One observation about compliance and enforcement.  Durham opened a new public skatepark downtown last year.  Here is the sign at the entrance.  Note it says helmets and pads are required.

Note all the kids lying around with severe head injuries in that picture.  Most of the time concrete is as hard as snow.  Mandatory bike helmet laws (or mandatory pad laws) seem to result primarily in kids in low-income areas getting ticketed -- don't see too much enforcement in La Jolla or Rancho Santa Fe in CA. 

CA does enough to feed OSHA bureaucrats and plaintiff's attorneys already.  If they want to reduce the incidence of head injuries at ski resorts, they could shut down all terrain parks and eliminate grooming,  Let anyone who wants a good park move to Utah, CO, etc.  They've done that to enough industries already, anyway; at least driving a substantial part of the ski vacation market away, too, would be consistent.  

Or, they could bypass the middle-man and just impose an extra tax on ski areas.  The proceeds from the tax would be randomly distributed among the plaintiff''s bar every year, with one or two lucky attorneys taking 70% of the proceeds and the rest the crumbs.  The attorneys sadly then would not be able to impose all the hidden costs of litigation that occur along with the financial cost (the disruption to work schedule, the psychological trauma, the uncertainty and inability to plan) but for those with a strong atavistic streak that drives them to  want to impose those hidden costs, they I am sure could find a few extra slip and fall cases somewhere to make up the difference. 
post #38 of 46
Re complaints about finding big hrelmets....

i've got a big noggin.   Leedom is about the only brand I've found that fits.
post #39 of 46
A 24 year old woman from Fort Collins via Chicago died yesterday at Copper. Fractured skull and broken neck and the helmet she was wearing did nothing to save her life.

My thoughts to her family.
post #40 of 46
Two things:

1) no offense to those who ski without, but what I was saying is that the PERCEPTION at Red is that serious skier wear helmets.  I'm sure you are the best frickin' skier in California and don't wear a helmet, but that has little to do with what I posted.

2) Appreciate the data about Leedom, but they don't sell the race-legal version on their website, and I can't find any online delaers who have the Scream in XXXL.  Giro seems ot be the only maker who actually has race-legal XXL helmets in stores.
post #41 of 46
Excuse my ignorance...what defines "race legal"?
post #42 of 46
The most popular Leedom models that are widely available have soft ears.
Race Legal:  no soft ears allowed (except for SL racing as of this year).
post #43 of 46
Sorry Mogulmuncher (great nick BTW) but race legal still means hard ears in Canada.
FIS now allows soft ears for Slalom as you note, but not the Great White North.
post #44 of 46
bchunter, you're correct -- soft ears is the FIS rule (2008 ICR).  League rules, then PSO rules, then NSA rules take precedence, and in our area, all League rules (NG, K1, K2, J, Masters) still explicitly state that soft ear helmets are not allowed.

However, in Ontario, FIS rules apply for FIS-level competitors, so this means that a local FIS athlete could race a local SL event in a soft ear helmet. 

In the absence of explicit local rules, FIS ICR + precisions are supposed to be applied, so for our Individual programs soft ears should be allowed.

PSO rules vary, so anyone going out of province would have to check to see what rules are applied.  (Sounds like BC is a "no" to soft ears.)  And even if they might be allowed, I have not yet seen any competitor actually using a soft ear helmet.
post #45 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morrison Claystone View Post

Another enforcement issue. Some 15 year-olds look 20+. Some of 25 year-olds look 17. A lot of 18 year-olds don't have drivers licenses yet. (A recent trend I read about in a news article) They gonna check ID's for everyone between 15 and 30 before they get on the lift to make sure the under 18's all have helmets? How old is that person underneath those goggles and balaclava?

If this passes, the Law of Unintended Consequences is gonna have a field day.


That's why here in Italy the law has put the bar at 14 y.o...
Surprisingly enough, I haven't yet to hear, see or read about someone under that age who doesn't accept to wear an helmet while skiing/boarding. Somehow, an helmet on snow is cool to the "teen tribe"...
post #46 of 46
Thread Starter 
This is the REAL story behind the story.  given where this proposal came from, the intention is in fact to remove liability protections for ski areas with the express intent of transferring individual liability to the facility operators, exposing them to liability suits of all kinds.

That aside, I hope what you were drinking was as good as the spelling it produced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irul&ublo View Post

A couple of observations...

As to mandatory helmets, the industry is not really balking too much.   I am surprised that thier workers comp carriers don't require all on the clock employess to be wearing them.

The safety regs are a different issue.   Implementation of such regs would likely create a situation hwere failure to comply would remove protections afforded areas by California's recognition of the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, which isulates a provider of recreational facilities from liability where an injury is caused by a danger inherent in the activity.  It would also weaken protections offered by the liability releases printed on the back of day tickets or contained in applications for season tickets.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Après-Ski
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Après-Ski › Proposed Mandatory Helmets in California