Print

Print


Research regrding helmets appears to be somewhat sketchy and has been
covered ad nauseam on this list. This months Ski has a sidebar entitled
Safety: Shattering Myths?: "According to Researcher Jasper Healy (from RPI)
Head injuries account for 2 out of 3 deaths at ski areas but there's no
proof that helmets reduce the fatality rate much. The lifesaving effect of
helmets ends at about 15mph a speed regularly exceeded on the slopes. ( No
mention of head on vs glancing impact here)

In addition to perhaps providing a false sense of security, helmets also cut
down on some of your speed perception by decreasing noise. They also make it
harder to hear others around you. So helmets are not necessarily the answer
to reducing serious injuries or deaths.

>>that
wouldn't stop large corportations from considering it.  I think legal
departments at many corporations tend to be quiet conservative when it
comes to the possiblity of getting sued.<<

The legal departments of corporations are often the last ones to recommend
any type of safety measures be implemented and in fact often discourage them
because that then becomes an admission that there is a problem that needs
correcting.

Reckless behavior has been a problem in this sport for a long long time. And
when it involves individuals smashing into trees, I really couldn't care.
However sometimes they hit other people. I wonder how many people on this
list have buzzed through slow skiing or learning areas at Mach 10 or weaved
there way through a crowded intermediate hill ay a high rate of speed. It
doesn't take much for those kinds of situatuons to turn tragic.

Instead of madatory helmets, I would suggest mandatory safety education.
Nobody knows what "The Code" means. Nobody knows what "skiing in control
means". Nobody knows how slow to ski in a "Slow zone". They need clear
visual examples and guidelinees. The NSAA should produce a short 15 minute
film that shows what reckless behavior is and what the real life
consequences of that behavior are. They should clearly demonstrate the
responsibility code and show examples of in and out of control skiing. They
should also interview the families of those who have died and been seriously
injured as well as those that were responsible. Everyone under the age of 30
would be required to watch the film every year before skiing. Parents of
children would also be required to watch it (I see an astounding number of
parents skiing with kids who are way too fast and out of control and they do
nothing about it).  The NSAA can easily get this funded by the equipment
manufatcurers. The problem is that they are worried that this would cut down
on their numbers. At this point I don't think that's possible.

My biggest safety concern as a parent is other skiers.

I agree with many of the points that Roger Klinger made regarding the
article that started this thread especially that we should be clear that
this is not a skier vs boarder problem.



-----Original Message-----
From: Vermont Skiing Discussion and Snow Reports
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Chris Henry
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 12:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SKIVT-L] follow-up: Danger on the slopes


Yup, must have missed that thread, work and all.  Minnewaska State Park
was the place I was refering.  So I'm a little skeptical about claims that
helmets don't provide any more protection.  Not that I doubt you, but can
you actually document any of those claims Skip?

I'm also curious, I know resorts have been sued (and lost) for other
reasons contributing to a skiers death, but are you aware of any resorts
that have been sued due to a skiers death which was caused by a collision
with another skier?

Finally, not that I expect resorts to ever require helmets, but I would
contend that just because something is completely irrational, that
wouldn't stop large corportations from considering it.  I think legal
departments at many corporations tend to be quiet conservative when it
comes to the possiblity of getting sued.  And if not resorts, then perhaps
their insurances companies.

Either way, someones probably made the joke already, but why did
Killington choose NH?  NY also borders VT and it seems to make much more
sense.  Heck, I'm surprised it hasn't been suggested that the NYC metro
area could succeed from upstate NY and form its own state with Killington.

Regards,
Chris

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html