# Helmet Nazi's and so it begins



## roremc (Oct 25, 2009)

I like the idea but having the cops enforce it is a waste of resources IMO. 

I don't have kids but I imagine a 16 year old wouldn't wear one if they didn't want to?


----------



## grafta (Dec 21, 2009)

I'm not surprised, kinda thought it may have happened sooner. I always hear a helmet riding and it doesn't bug me at all, my choice. Funny thing is I grew up not wearing one riding bmx and mtb and hate having to now... but do. Go figure


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

Dumb. We do way too much in this country to fight the efforts of natural selection. You don't want to wear a seat belt? Fine. You don't want to wear a helmet? Great. Why should any of that be forced on us? Let natural selection run it's course!


----------



## gauntlet09 (Feb 15, 2011)

linvillegorge said:


> Dumb. We do way too much in this country to fight the efforts of natural selection. You don't want to wear a seat belt? Fine. You don't want to wear a helmet? Great. Why should any of that be forced on us? Let natural selection run it's course!


This ^^^^^^^


----------



## SimonB (Oct 13, 2010)

I agree with this law. And I honestly don't understand people who don't wear them. Where I ride, the helmet-less people are the one looking weird.

I have yet to hear a valuable reason not to wear one. And about the "it's my choice" logic, I would compare it to wearing a seatbelt, which is mandatory almost everywhere...


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

IT's a freedom of choice that's being taken away. I rode in the mid to late 90's with a helmet I looked odd man out, dog ate the helmet went back to riding without one, got another helmet later on broke it, been helmetless now for a while, probably go back to one next season cause I"m sick of almost hitting my head on rocks. It's a choice and I understand that I could die from it but so be it. 

But oh no the fucking fluffy bunny huggers need to make sure we're always safe. Yeah cool put a cop on the hill just what I want my tax dollars for. Fuck this god damn country I'm moving to that floating island of garbage and calling it angryastan and sit around floating up and down in waste cause it seems better than this shit hole country.


----------



## ShredLife (Feb 6, 2010)

does Angryastan have a surf break?


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

ShredLife said:


> does Angryastan have a surf break?


We only have a Point Break!


----------



## ShredLife (Feb 6, 2010)

sounds like paradise brah!


----------



## HoboMaster (May 16, 2010)

I don't even know why their bothering, helmets have gained so much popularity that there are typically more people with them then without nowadays... even the kids think they're cool.

It will probably become a big fucking deal for the ice-coast, similar to the way binding leashes are. Out west it's more about riding and less about crowd-control, probably why no one cares...


----------



## SimonB (Oct 13, 2010)

The cop thing is ridiculous though... It would be quite easy to enforce, you have a junior ticket and not helmet, you can not get on the lift.

I understand what you guys are talking about personnal freedom of choice and all. But you also got to understand that in most cases, a head injury will not kill you (sorry natural selection...) but can get you severely injured and possibly disabled. Where I live the whole health care system is public, and we also have public welfare programs. If someone gets injured and disabled everyone is paying for him... and possibly for the rest of his life. I also understand that snowboarding is a dangerous sport and that shit happens. I just don't want to pay for someone who hit his head and did not have a helmet just because that is "his choice".

BA, props for wearing a helmet in the mid 90s. I boarded at that time and I honestly would not have worn one... ever. But in 2011, I just cannot justify not wearing one.


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

^^^^^
Well, someone that just sits around their house all weekend because they're scared shitless to go out there and LIVE probably doesn't want to pay to keep you up if you snap your fucking spine on a snowboard and are paralyzed. 

I live in a country that used to value personal responsibility. I wish I still did.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Well this law does pertain to minors and therefore I think most if not all of the people responding on this thread would not be affected. I am not really for or against this. With Minors it's a tough call, as decision making isn't all that great. Of course it forces a burden on parents and so on. It can also be seen as a stepping stone and that's no bueno.


----------



## KahWhyC (Nov 10, 2010)

> He became a proponent of the helmet issue following lobbying from Dr. Norman San Agustin whose daughter Nicole died in *1988 *after she was struck in the head by another skier at Hidden Valley Ski Resort near the Pennsylvania border.



I forgot when you wear helmets you become immortal.


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

killclimbz said:


> Well this law does pertain to minors and therefore I think most if not all of the people responding on this thread would not be affected. I am not really for or against this. With Minors it's a tough call, as decision making isn't all that great. Of course it forces a burden on parents and so on. It can also be seen as a stepping stone and that's no bueno.


I think the law is probably more likely to cause the kids not to want to wear a helmet due to the whole rebellious nature of most kids. I know when I was a kid, half the time I just wanted to do shit simply because someone was telling me not to or vice versa.


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

I dont see why this would really be an issue, i mean lets be honest if you do happen to fall and smack your head you will do considerably less damage wearing a helmet. will it prevent all injurys? no but it may be the difference between death or a concussion. Now as far as imposing on you rights and freedom of choices, cmon man give me a break anyone who still believes that the US is a "free do what i want" country is kidding themselves. It shouldnt be either, i am an Aussie who lived in the states for 5 years and loved every minute of it, my wife is from there and we go back every year but i seriously dont get why people are so ANTI rules and regulations. while the helmet issue may not save hundreds of lives if it saves someones child then why would it not be worth it? as for seat belts and helmets on bikes, why shouldnt they be compulsory? what possible reason could you give me that would argue against something making you and your family safer? and how could anyone use the argument that being forced to wear a seatbelt is an infringment on your rights? you still have the right not to drive if you dont like the law, how bout we just say that we can kill people because it is our right? I know thats a bit extreme but where does the line start or stop?


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

You're not from here so shut the fuck up. I could live in Australia for 5 years doesn't mean I know the ins and outs of the country. It's the fact that this country is consistently giving control of choice over to the government and becoming a police state. We have become a country of satiated fucks that spend too much time watching reality tv and consuming foods that are killing us while the government tells us what we can and can't do. 

Personally if I want to take my life into my own hands that is my choice no one elses. Have I nearly hit my head on rocks riding? Yes, does that mean I should wear a helmet probably but it is my choice. Choices are what made this country great now it seems every day we have less and less choices. Now come back with some witty response about how the 5 years you lived here you know all about our country or that the woman you fuck is from here. Unless you were born and raised with freedoms like we had in this country you don't know fuck all.


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

Benjamin Franklin said it a lot better than I could, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

well after reading heaps of shit on this forum i know there is no point in arguing with a fuckwit like yourself who think he is the be all and end all of snowboarding and snowboarding knowledge, apart from the fact you try and belittle other people who dont share the same ignorant views as you, you write on this forum like someone who has little man syndrome and cant be an arrogant prick anywhere else but online. As far as your own choices an liberty etc etc IF you have ever been to Australia you would know that not only are we raised with more freedom and rights than the US but we live a considerably more comfortable and crime/violence/probem free life than someone of comparable age and background in the US. As for Franklin, i believe when he said that (a long time ago) he would have been referencing problems and/or situations in his immediate time and surely it does not pertain to the present issue of keeping people safe when possible. Apart from BA's lame response i still hear no legit argument as to why wearing a helmet or seatbelt is something that infringes on your rights? Anyone who has something productive to say without trying to act like some wanna be alpha male feel free to respond. Cheers


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

Rights = freedom of choice. Anything that removes that freedom of choice is impacting rights.

I think you greatly underestimate just how highly the American founding fathers and early Americans in general valued freedoms and rights. They were willing to die for them and they were willing to kill for them. Today we all but beg for them to be taken away in the nane of safety because by and large this country now consists of a bunch of pussies.


----------



## Chef Jer (Apr 3, 2011)

linvillegorge said:


> Rights = freedom of choice. Anything that removes that freedom of choice is impacting rights.
> 
> I think you greatly underestimate just how highly the American founding fathers and early Americans in general valued freedoms and rights. They were willing to die for them and they were willing to kill for them. Today we all but beg for them to be taken away in the nane of safety because by and large this country now consists of a bunch of pussies.


Plus fucking ONE!!!!!!

I think everyone should wear a helmet...... I do not think it should be mandated that everyone should wear a helmet. It's my mellon and it should be my right to split it!!!!! at the same time - you should have no right to sue if said mellon becomes split without helmet


----------



## HoboMaster (May 16, 2010)

Chef Jer said:


> Plus fucking ONE!!!!!!
> 
> I think everyone should wear a helmet...... I do not think it should be mandated that everyone should wear a helmet. It's my mellon and it should be my right to split it!!!!! at the same time - you should have no right to sue if said mellon becomes split without helmet


And that's probably the root of the problem right there.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

cjcameron11 said:


> well after reading heaps of shit on this forum i know there is no point in arguing with a fuckwit like yourself who think he is the be all and end all of snowboarding and snowboarding knowledge, apart from the fact you try and belittle other people who dont share the same ignorant views as you, you write on this forum like someone who has little man syndrome and cant be an arrogant prick anywhere else but online. As far as your own choices an liberty etc etc IF you have ever been to Australia you would know that not only are we raised with more freedom and rights than the US but we live a considerably more comfortable and crime/violence/probem free life than someone of comparable age and background in the US. As for Franklin, i believe when he said that (a long time ago) he would have been referencing problems and/or situations in his immediate time and surely it does not pertain to the present issue of keeping people safe when possible. Apart from BA's lame response i still hear no legit argument as to why wearing a helmet or seatbelt is something that infringes on your rights? Anyone who has something productive to say without trying to act like some wanna be alpha male feel free to respond. Cheers


Aww is someone upset because I have a strong opinion and don't give a fuck if it offends people? Don't be pissed I know more about snowboarding than you ever will. If you want to step into that arena of argument and debate bring your man pants and a good understanding of google. 

You are not from here so it is not your tax dollars being rolled into paying the police to go enforce this. California tried to do this a year or two ago and the bill didn't pass. Helmets might save lives but when it's our choice as to whether or not we will inherently risk ourselves that is the issue. Would you like it if the government suddenly said hey you know what you've been doing one way your whole life and we've never bothered you for it? Well now we want that to change because one person who had a bad ordeal suddenly feels the need to push their agenda on a whole state or even country. That's what we're dealing with. 

Why would I want a police officer on the hill ticketing kids for not wearing a helmet when they could actually be doing something of real value? It's like this countries war on drugs we've lost it yet they keep shoving money at it thinking they'll fix the problem. 

Your country is fucking desolate like to the point what 80% of it doesn't house people? Ours on the other hand is just urban sprawl with too many half wits taking up space eating high fructose corn syrup and letting t.v. drain their thought process. You're comparing your country which is a turd to ours which is an apple. Both might be round, ours might turn brown, but yours is still excrement.


----------



## Chef Jer (Apr 3, 2011)

HoboMaster said:


> And that's probably the root of the problem right there.


I'm hoping its the sue part that you are agreeing with and not the rest of my logic?


----------



## Chef Jer (Apr 3, 2011)

Speaking of helmets... I just bought a Smith Variant - hoping to have it when I ride this weekend


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Chef Jer said:


> I'm hoping its the sue part that you are agreeing with and not the rest of my logic?


It's definitely the sue logic he's agreeing with. That's become one of the biggest issues in this country is everyone just thinks they'll make a quick buck by suing people. Oh no my hot coffee was hot, oh no the wet floor was wet, oh no the disease infested hooker gave me herpes. People are becoming too scared to live because they'll get sued. I remember when I was a kid my friend fell in the neighbors yard and twisted his knee, the people that owned the house made my friends parents sign a piece of paper to not sue them. This was like in 87 now it's even more common place. 

Hell work in a tune shop and mount skis the liability release forms are fucking huge sign in three spots, initial here, tech signature there, tech initials there, blah blah blah basically its to cover everyones ass so you can't be sued. I remember when the legalities of working in a tune shop changed and people could not only sue the shop but the individual that worked on the skis/snowboard. A few years ago I remember a chick coming in who just bought a full set up at Sports Authority and they sent her to my shop to have us set it up because they didn't have anyone that could do it and they were afraid they'd get sued. Sued over 8 frigging screws. Funny thing was a year after that one of the other shops owned by that company I worked for got sued for that exact reason.


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

cjcameron11 said:


> Apart from BA's lame response i still hear no legit argument as to why wearing a helmet or seatbelt is something that infringes on your rights?


Most people are referencing "negative rights" which IIRC was part of this country's philosophical foundation under Jefferson, et al. A negative is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group. Whether the negative theory of rights is supported in practice, deed, or action by those drafting & enforcing the laws is not really consequential.

People will say, about seatbelts, for example, that without them our insurance rates would be higher or our health care costs would be higher (negative externalities) and therefore to keep one man from imposing these "costs" on others, it is necessary and justifiable to make everyone wear the seatbelt. Well there may not be any evidence to suggest insurance rates would be higher (they didn't go down in the mid 1980s when seatbelt laws gained traction in the US) and as for health care costs, a case could be made that this argument is untenable as question-begging.


----------



## roremc (Oct 25, 2009)

BurtonAvenger said:


> Aww is someone upset because I have a strong opinion and don't give a fuck if it offends people? Don't be pissed I know more about snowboarding than you ever will. If you want to step into that arena of argument and debate bring your man pants and a good understanding of google.
> 
> You are not from here so it is not your tax dollars being rolled into paying the police to go enforce this. California tried to do this a year or two ago and the bill didn't pass. Helmets might save lives but when it's our choice as to whether or not we will inherently risk ourselves that is the issue. Would you like it if the government suddenly said hey you know what you've been doing one way your whole life and we've never bothered you for it? Well now we want that to change because one person who had a bad ordeal suddenly feels the need to push their agenda on a whole state or even country. That's what we're dealing with.
> 
> ...


Some good trolling right there. I'm still amazed that so many people buy into your shit. Trolling 101.


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

Not upset mate, just no reason to be the way you are no matter if you give a fuck or not about what people think, there is such a thing called tact, google it. And as far as snowboarding knowledge, no doubt you know more than me and i couldnt care less my life remains the same. As for our country well maybe you need to google some more mate as 80% of our country not being populated is by choice not by nessecity, and also it may have to do with the fact that we have less than 10% of the US's total population, so why wouldnt we live on the coast in our non over populted cities. Do yourself a favour and make a trip down here before making retarded statements about a country you know nothing about. 

Back to the topic, i understand that sometimes you dont want to change things you have done all your life but are you saying that as times change then we shouldnt adapt? As life goes on we make new discoveries and gain knowledge so are we supposed to just live the way we used to? I could give a shit if you crack you head open if you know the dangers but why should we not try and protect our children and youth? As far as how much new legislation and laws cost only a lengthy (20+ years) study will probably show the savings or extra cost of enforcing helmet use vs medical cost related to head injuries. Im not going to get into the tax discussion (even though the US is taxed very low compared to most other western countries) and im not suggesting police need to monitor the new rule, i agree with whoever posted that the lift guys enforce it, if you hvae a ticket and no helmet = no ride. But for anyone to simply say that change is infringing against their rights is wrong, change is going to happen no matter what you want/do and no amount of complaining will change this, its how life works, we grow older, get wiser, and put in place systems to help protect our countries future.


----------



## roremc (Oct 25, 2009)

No really you're wasting your time. He's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to angry to listen.


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

laws will happen no matter what you want and no matter what logic is used to refute them


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

The laws I have a problem with are the laws that do nothing to protect others. Wearing a helmet only protects the wearer. It's a personal choice. Someone not wearing a helmet is not going to cause unnecessary injury to someone else. So, why make a helmet law? If a choice is only going to cause possible injury to the person making the choice, then leave them the fuck alone.

As long as a choice isn't impacting the rights of others, then leave people the fuck alone. There's too much goddamn meddling going on in this country right now. Most people just want to be left the fuck alone. Then you have a small percentage of people that try to force their views on everyone else. That's when people like me get pissed off and start pushing back.


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

^^^^

LOL! That was fucking awesome.


----------



## MistahTaki (Apr 24, 2010)

YouTube - You spilled my coffee


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

MistahTaki said:


> YouTube - You spilled my coffee


what the fuck??!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

Most people just want to be left the fuck alone. Then you have a small percentage of people that try to force their views on everyone else.[/QUOTE]

^^^^Isnt that exactly what you are doing now? and what im doing? 

I think the reason that governments enforce rules to protect iindividuals is so that they are not having to answer questions everyday as to why yet another motorist has been killed by not wearing a seatbelt, biker not wearign a helmet etc etc. The entire reason that a government puts laws in place like this is to protect their citizens? i mean we all know that police are there to "protect and serve" well think of some the laws the same way they are put in place so people in a functioning socity are not just dying left right and centre, no one physically forces you to comply with the laws, but if you dont and are caught doing so then there are consequences. If there is no law and no policies in place then how can a society function at all? 

I do understand that you are talking about specific laws and i do not expect everyone in this world to think alike as it would be shit boring, but (talking about seatbelts now) when a law is in place that is PROVEN to save peoples lives and significantly reduce injuries, then why would you have a problem with that? What if in 20 years it is "proven" that putting a law in place for minors to wear helmets, would it still be an issue or would you welcome it? those 2 are serious questions im not having a go at you


----------



## MistahTaki (Apr 24, 2010)

i dunno why but that seatbelt commercial reminded me this hilarious vid


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

cjcameron11 said:


> ^^^^Isnt that exactly what you are doing now? and what im doing?
> 
> I think the reason that governments enforce rules to protect iindividuals is so that they are not having to answer questions everyday as to why yet another motorist has been killed by not wearing a seatbelt, biker not wearign a helmet etc etc. The entire reason that a government puts laws in place like this is to protect their citizens? i mean we all know that police are there to "protect and serve" well think of some the laws the same way they are put in place so people in a functioning socity are not just dying left right and centre, no one physically forces you to comply with the laws, but if you dont and are caught doing so then there are consequences. If there is no law and no policies in place then how can a society function at all?
> 
> I do understand that you are talking about specific laws and i do not expect everyone in this world to think alike as it would be shit boring, but (talking about seatbelts now) when a law is in place that is PROVEN to save peoples lives and significantly reduce injuries, then why would you have a problem with that? What if in 20 years it is "proven" that putting a law in place for minors to wear helmets, would it still be an issue or would you welcome it? those 2 are serious questions im not having a go at you


The difference is that I'm saying to leave others alone as well as myself, not arguing about the merits of limiting others rights.

By your logic, we should just outlaw vehicles altogether. Studies have shown that those damn things are dangerous. Just think about all the lives that could be saved if we didn't have those things around.

I will never welcome laws limiting the rights of individuals to make choices on matters that only impact themselves. Ever.


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

I think you may need to re-read what i wrote, what i said has nothing to do with outlawing anything or trying to make the world wrapped in cotton wool so no one gets hurt. shit will happen no matter what measures are put in place and no matter how many regulations are put in place there will be people who get hurt anyway, the point i am trying to make that i think is being missed is that where does it stop? where does limiting the rights of someone while still doing what is best for individuals and society start and stop? How can you progress as a nation (i dont mean the US specifcally) and a world if we do not put measures in place that protect individuals (even if it is from themselves). Im not trying to tell you how to live your life, chances are what you do will never affect me and vise versa, all im trying to say is somethings that are put in place are for the greater good no matter if you agree with it or not.


----------



## Music Moves (Jan 23, 2009)

Someone should address the little tots that ride through the park and wind up in front of large hits (sometimes while the parents just watch and giggle!). This seems to be a more important issue because if I come over a 30+ ft jump and land on a kid, the helmet may help a little but there are definitely no guarantees that the helmet will keep the kid alive in this situation.

EDIT: And I'm not against the helmets for kids, but taking the time to make this a law seems a bit much... I think the parents have a right to make their own decisions, however agreeable or disagreeable they may be to anyone.


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

cjcameron11 said:


> laws will happen no matter what you want and no matter what logic is used to refute them


so therefore we should just let them run roughshod over our lives & what remains of our freedom, because they will happen no matter what. 

blech that's a terrible apology.


----------



## sb60 (Oct 5, 2010)

This year Copper had a rule that any kids taking lessons had to wear a helmet. Don't know what other resorts are doing. I think that's good because I've taken big groups of kids skiing or riding and it can't hurt. That way there's no decision about being cool, etc. 

But different state always have different laws. I moved to Colorado with no helmet laws for motorcyclists from Massachusetts where they have helmet laws. But when I wanted to get a new pair of glasses from my old ones, Colorado has a law against using the same prescription after a year! Very protective about your eyes here. I didn't know New Jersey had ski resorts. Maybe they're so small and crowded there are more accidents. Like the white ribbon of death all winter.


----------



## sook (Oct 25, 2009)

BurtonAvenger said:


> It's definitely the sue logic he's agreeing with. That's become one of the biggest issues in this country is everyone just thinks they'll make a quick buck by suing people. Oh no my hot coffee was hot, oh no the wet floor was wet, oh no the disease infested hooker gave me herpes. People are becoming too scared to live because they'll get sued. I remember when I was a kid my friend fell in the neighbors yard and twisted his knee, the people that owned the house made my friends parents sign a piece of paper to not sue them. This was like in 87 now it's even more common place.


On the way into work this morning, we saw a Beamer license plate that said "Ill sue". The moments that I like living in LA are becoming fewer and further between.


----------



## AcroPhile (Dec 3, 2010)

Didn't New Jersey make it a law that makes you put down the safety lap bars on chairlifts? Sounds like more of the same over regulation by NJ. They are making safety rules that sound good but there has been no real demonstrated need for them. IDK about New Jersey but I think most deaths that occurred in Colorado this season involved people that were already wearing helmets, sustained injuries that a helmet wouldn't of helped prevent, or died an avalanche or snow related death. Given the hundreds of thousands, or millions (idk) of people that went to skiing/boarding this season, you are actually pretty safe statistically. If you don't ride off piste or a lot of park your chances are even smaller. I'm glad that I live CO now and avoid idiotic over regulation and in general a lot of 'big government' policies that plague the Eastern half of this country and California. If you have kids, it's YOUR job as a parent to keep them safe and out of trouble. Make them wear a helmet if you deem necessary but don't make my tax dollars do it for you!


----------



## East§ide (Mar 14, 2011)

I don't feel like reading through this entire thread, but I think this is a much less complicated issue than everyone seems to be making it

On the most basic level, this is about the infringement of rights versus what most people on this forum would agree is a smart law. The problem lies in the fact that there is more to it than just black and white. I think everyone would agree, whether they wear a helmet or not, that wearing a helmet is a smarter decision than not wearing one. You all seem to have a problem with your rights being infringed upon, which is fine - but aren't there bigger issues to complain about than a state making it mandatory to wear a helmet under a certain age? I think it makes perfect sense - these kids are minors, are often dropped off by their parents, and are given the option to not wear their helmet, even if they have one. As a teenager, looking cool takes priority over safety or function, and their maturity isn't at the level where they can make an intelligent decision concerning their own safety. 
When I was a teenager, I was a dumb asshole, and I did alot of things that could've left me seriously injured - I was lucky, but many people aren't, and if forcing kids to wear a helmet while snowboarding because they're too stupid to understand that they should be wearing one anyway is the only way to protect them, then I don't see anything wrong with it. As minors, their freedoms are limited anyway - they can't vote, drive, buy cigarettes, drink, look at porn, buy a lottery ticket, get married, etc...so who gives a shit if they have to wear a helmet? It's for their own good.

You're all acting as if the mean old government is coming to each and every house and supergluing a helmet to your head. If you're an adult, then this rule doesn't even apply to you. And if you're a teenager, wear your helmet so you're not a braindead moron before you're old enough to decide if you want to wear a helmet or not.



AcroPhile said:


> Didn't New Jersey make it a law that makes you put down the safety lap bars on chairlifts? Sounds like more of the same over regulation by NJ. They are making safety rules that sound good but there has been no real demonstrated need for them. IDK about New Jersey but I think most deaths that occurred in Colorado this season involved people that were already wearing helmets, sustained injuries that a helmet wouldn't of helped prevent, or died an avalanche or snow related death.


All it takes it one person man. If forcing every kid to wear a helmet saves one kid's life, then it's worth it. Liam Neeson's wife hit her head, and 4 hours later she was dead... I didn't wear a helmet for awhile riding, and I hit my head..and it took that one hit to make me realize id rather wear a helmet every time just in case i fall that ONE time.


----------



## InfiniteEclipse (Jan 2, 2009)

Why do you need laws when you can have resort policy?


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

InfiniteEclipse said:


> Why do you need laws when you can have resort policy?


Just to play devil's advocate here: very, very few resorts have a "helmets mandatory" policy, even for kids under 18. So, the response to your question would be: "We need the law to do what the resorts can't or won't do on their own."

Of course this presupposes that helmets ought to be mandatory, so it's kind of circular argument...


----------



## InfiniteEclipse (Jan 2, 2009)

david_z said:


> Just to play devil's advocate here: very, very few resorts have a "helmets mandatory" policy, even for kids under 18. So, the response to your question would be: "We need the law to do what the resorts can't or won't do on their own."
> 
> Of course this presupposes that helmets ought to be mandatory, so it's kind of circular argument...


Fair enough.. Good answer :thumbsup:


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

One thing I dislike is the fiery debate that this topic starts.

It's a law put on minors, but everyone begins to talk about their own freedom when they aren't even minors. Then it spills over to something like, "This is how it starts".

Well, it's already started and has been this way for a very long time. We can vote all we want and nothing will change. I'm not being pessimistic, just being realistic. What is all this finger pointing and complaining going to change? Nothing. The law has passed and that's that.

I don't care as long as it doesn't spill over to a mandatory helmet law for adults. I think it's good that minors are being forced to wear it. Screw the argument, "it should be up to the parents". No parent is perfect and far more are just "I don't give a flying F" types. Besides, what determined kid is honest? What's stopping them from acting like they are listening to their parents only to take the helmet off while they are riding? Do you seriously expect parents to ride with their kids 24/7? Minors (and many adults mind you) live with their parents. If they get hurt, guess who has responsibility for medical bills? First the parents. If they can't afford it, it's the tax payers'. This helmet law costs me nothing in comparison to what it is going cost me when kids get injured in a manner that otherwise wouldn't have happened had they been forced to wear a helmet. And in the end, kids aren't exactly known to make good judgment calls. Hell, I'm pushing 30 and still have a tough time with that haha.

Do I think there should be cops? Hell no. That's silly. Just revoke their passes.

And really guys, it's a helmet law. There's a lot more effed up stuff about our government. As for freedom? We are all free to move out of this country. You can't call people sheep if you yourself voluntarily choose to stay in a country that you feel is enslaving their citizens.

Honestly, what can you or I do about any of this? Is it really intruding on your life? Are you not going to snowboard anymore because a helmet law was passed? Did this ruin your dinner plans tonight? It's not going to affect me in any way. I was going to make my kid wear one anyway when the time comes to ride.

By the way, the seatbelt thing... I have no argument against that law. You only think it only affects you. If you get in a high speed crash on the freeway and your body flies out the window, you're body becomes a missile or at least a road obstacle. Now you're affecting other people. Mainly, you're affecting your passengers that choose to wear theirs. What's the point of me wearing my belt if a human projectile is flying around in the car during a crash?


----------



## InfiniteEclipse (Jan 2, 2009)

Leo said:


> One thing I dislike is the fiery debate that this topic starts.
> 
> It's a law put on minors, but everyone begins to talk about their own freedom when they aren't even minors. Then it spills over to something like, "This is how it starts".
> 
> ...


tl;dr






/troll


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

InfiniteEclipse said:


> tl;dr
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I love you too baby.






/nohomo


----------



## East§ide (Mar 14, 2011)

Leo said:


> One thing I dislike is the fiery debate that this topic starts.
> 
> It's a law put on minors, but everyone begins to talk about their own freedom when they aren't even minors. Then it spills over to something like, "This is how it starts".
> 
> ...


this is more or less the point i was trying to make.
im as liberal as the rest of you, but quit bitching about your rights being taken away when this law affects only the people whose rights are already limited by their age and idiocy.
even if this doesnt somehow infringe upon your rights, there isn't a single person on here or anywhere else that could convince me this law won't in some way benefit someone who would otherwise have hurt themselves had they not been wearing a helmet.


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

@Leo "We are all free to move out of this country. You can't call people sheep if you yourself voluntarily choose to stay in a country that you feel is enslaving their citizens."

Not really. The US still tries to tax expats for 10 years, a very draconian North Korea-esque policy also severely limits or excludes your ability to return to the US even as a 'tourist' to visit friends & family. So people choose the lesser of two evils, preferring to stay with their friends & family and in the land where they were born & raised. You can't fault them for that, and it's certainly not fair to say that "If you don't like it, you have an obligation to get the fuck out!" the country was founded on principles like freedom of association and freedom of expression, so it saddens me when people say things like, "If you don't like it, move somewhere else!" that's just a defeatist mentality.

But yeah I do agree that this is just not much of an issue and it's tough to get really riled up about "my freedom" in this regard. However, the historical record demonstrates that the "slippery slope" or the "ratchet effect" is not just a bogey-man dreamed up by tin-foil hat wearing libertarians to troll arguments on the internets, it's real. 

There are certainly far more pressing concerns though with the US government, and how it impacts your freedom. Like a never-ending capacity to kill brown people in poor countries. That's your tax dollars hard at work. Or the revelation that the government is totally owned by big corporations - some people had been warning this for years but it took that 2008 crash to really bring it all to light. Or the "war on drugs" that costs life & liberty in real terms. Etc.

kids' snowboard helmets simply isn't on the radar of things I can give a shit about.


----------



## East§ide (Mar 14, 2011)

i hardly think this issue applies to your "slippery slope" theory.. this is just a bunch of far left,apocalypse crying people freaking out over a nonissue. kids have to wear a helmet while snowboarding..big fucking deal, just one more shitty thing about being a minor. on the upside, kids have no real responsibility, bills, or worries..they can deal with wearing a helmet


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

My example was extreme to match the extreme "you are all sheep" comments.

I don't really go around telling these people to get the eff out. All I'm pointing out is that if your belief is strong enough to call me, someone who doesn't give two fish sticks about a stupid helmet law, a "blind sheep", then there is an extreme solution available to you.

And the way these extremists talk, there's nothing worse than staying here so again I present that option. 

Trust me, I hate when people say get out of this country as it's been done to me plenty of times. There's a difference in the way they use it than the way I'm meaning to use it here.


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

Leo said:


> My example was extreme to match the extreme "you are all sheep" comments.


I missed that one. Sorry!



Leo said:


> Trust me, I hate when people say get out of this country as it's been done to me plenty of times.


Yeah but you were probably asking for it :cheeky4:


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

david_z said:


> Yeah but you were probably asking for it :cheeky4:


I will neither confirm nor deny that kind sir.


Honestly, you and I see eye to eye on this. If we want to talk about how the government is corrupt, lets use the thousands of other, much better examples out there rather than a helmet law.

Also I think the logic behind the "It should be up to the parents" argument is very flawed.


----------



## Music Moves (Jan 23, 2009)

Leo said:


> Also I think the logic behind the "It should be up to the parents" argument is very flawed.


"Very" is a word of conviction. I'm not saying I disagree, but I'm curious why you would think this...


----------



## East§ide (Mar 14, 2011)

Music Moves said:


> "Very" is a word of conviction. I'm not saying I disagree, but I'm curious why you would think this...


I'd say its VERY flawed because the parents influence only extends so far, especially in a setting like this. I'd say that a vast majority of kids (well over 90%) are probably dropped off at the mountain in the morning and picked up at the end of the day. It would be hard (read:impossible) for a parent to ensure that their child wears the helmet after they drop them off. My parents used to drive me to the skatepark when I was a kid..I had my helmet on just long enough for me to see their tailights disappear into the distance.


----------



## Music Moves (Jan 23, 2009)

Please don't get worked up because I'm :cheeky4: here... just playing the "rights of the parent" side. Is it ok for Chicago to decide what a kid eats in school? 

Chicago school bans homemade lunches, the latest in national food fight - Yahoo! News

"Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," principal Elsa CarmonaÂ told the paper of the years-old policy. "It's about ... the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke."

I think we all agree that the health of minors should be maintained, but where is the line drawn? I understand and fully support approaches to having healthier children, but to revoke the rights of a parent to decide for him/herself is VERY questionable unless that parent has been deemed unfit to make decisions regarding the child's health and safety. 

The law will no doubt help many kids along the way... it's just that I see this school lunch situation and now the helmet law and can't help but think, "where does it stop?"


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

@Music Moves pretty soon the kids will have to wear helmets when they go sledding in their backyards and they will be required to wear crampons if they walk to school during the winter months. Where it goes from there is anyone's guess


----------



## Music Moves (Jan 23, 2009)

david_z said:


> @Music Moves pretty soon the kids will have to wear helmets when they go sledding in their backyards and they will be required to wear crampons if they walk to school during the winter months. Where it goes from there is anyone's guess


Haha.. I laugh, but you never know d_z... you never know...


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

Music Moves said:


> "Very" is a word of conviction. I'm not saying I disagree, but I'm curious why you would think this...


I touched on why and EastSide described it in further detail.

Aside from the technicalities, the train of thought in that reasoning is what bothers me.

Based solely on that logic, then it should also follow that it's up to the parents not to raise criminals. Some circumstances cannot be feasibly controlled unless the parent/guardian is there next to their kid 24/7. Even then, it's not full-proof. Some people are just bastards no matter how good a family raises them.

Now that is a pretty extreme example, but it's for the sake of trying to relay my reasoning. It's the parents responsibility to make their children wear helmets then it's also their responsibility to make their children abide by the law. 

I believe we humans as a whole need some sort of guidance through rules. For every 1 person who can function just fine without laws, there are probably hundreds or thousands more who wouldn't. Look at riot situations. I'm sure a lot of those people who loot during a riot normally wouldn't otherwise. They see a moment of lawlessness and go for it. I'm sure at least some of these people came from a good home. 

Group mentality is hard to battle. Minors are especially susceptible to group mentality. Peer pressure. Your kid is surrounded by others not wearing a helmet. What can you possibly do as a parent to ensure they keep that helmet on their head? What makes you a good parent in this situation? If there is a mandatory law requiring your kid to wear a helmet, wouldn't you as a parent welcome that said law if you have exhausted all other resources? I guess you can lock your kid up in the house to prevent them from riding at all, but come on... this can go right back to the "Yes mom, I'll use it (lies)".

That's not such a far fetched scenario either. I've lied to my parents plenty of times growing up to do what I wanted without them knowing. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone on that.

I probably wasn't very clear with a lot of this as I'm rushing to post it haha.


----------



## East§ide (Mar 14, 2011)

Music Moves said:


> The law will no doubt help many kids along the way... it's just that I see this school lunch situation and now the helmet law and can't help but think, "where does it stop?"


it stops when:
a.parents decide that they'd rather fight the system collectively than just bend over and allow the schools to make these decisions
b.children can be trusted to do what their parents say when their parents aren't around
c.children somehow learn to do what's best for themselves over what they WANT for themselves

ie. never

the sad truth is that most schools probably DO offer healthier food for children than their parents make - parents are in charge of parenting their child full-time and sometimes nutrition falls by the wayside, whereas the people making the decisions about school lunches are doing THAT full-time.

I'm just saying, until parents are collectively willing to step-up and take on all of these issues head-on, there is no end.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

cjcameron11 said:


> Not upset mate, just no reason to be the way you are no matter if you give a fuck or not about what people think, there is such a thing called tact, google it. And as far as snowboarding knowledge, no doubt you know more than me and i couldnt care less my life remains the same. As for our country well maybe you need to google some more mate as 80% of our country not being populated is by choice not by nessecity, and also it may have to do with the fact that we have less than 10% of the US's total population, so why wouldnt we live on the coast in our non over populted cities. Do yourself a favour and make a trip down here before making retarded statements about a country you know nothing about.
> 
> Back to the topic, i understand that sometimes you dont want to change things you have done all your life but are you saying that as times change then we shouldnt adapt? As life goes on we make new discoveries and gain knowledge so are we supposed to just live the way we used to? I could give a shit if you crack you head open if you know the dangers but why should we not try and protect our children and youth? As far as how much new legislation and laws cost only a lengthy (20+ years) study will probably show the savings or extra cost of enforcing helmet use vs medical cost related to head injuries. Im not going to get into the tax discussion (even though the US is taxed very low compared to most other western countries) and im not suggesting police need to monitor the new rule, i agree with whoever posted that the lift guys enforce it, if you hvae a ticket and no helmet = no ride. But for anyone to simply say that change is infringing against their rights is wrong, change is going to happen no matter what you want/do and no amount of complaining will change this, its how life works, we grow older, get wiser, and put in place systems to help protect our countries future.


You ever think less people = less crime plus more open land without over crowding = less crime? I know hard concept to understand but maybe that gaping hole in the Ozone layer is frying your brain. Comparing your country to ours just doesn't work it's not one and the same.


----------



## East§ide (Mar 14, 2011)

Snowolf said:


> Again, this a simple concept. It really is as simple as letting people make personal decisions about things and that gies for allowing parents to actually raise their children instead of the state. If little Johnny cracks his noggin open because his parents let him ride without a helmet, how in the hell does that affect little Billy and his parents who make Billy wear one??? Again, some of you people seem to want to have the state do your job of being a parent.
> 
> I teach at Mt. Hood Meadows and Meadows has now required kids under 16 in a lesson to wear a helmet unless the parent declines. They have a policy but leave the ultimate decission up to the parent as it should be. The feel good knee jerk reactionary types have tried to get Oregon and Washington to pass laws but neither state sees wasting time and tax dollars in such a stupid manner.


It's all a matter of perspective. The sad truth is that some parents CAN'T be trusted to do their jobs, or simply don't realize the risk their children are putting themselves into. You think every parents realizes little Billy is hitting 70ft gaps in the terrain park? Or that they're riding rails where a good slip and a tap to the head could be lights out for them? Maybe they do,maybe they don't... but what does happen is that the state, the tax payers, and sometimes the resorts end up losing money through lawsuits, reforms, etc.

Lets be honest, there's as many shitty parents in this world as good ones, and sometimes you just can't leave it up to them. 

Besides, maybe it'll set a precedent... it's like wearing a uniform in a private school. The kid isn't worried about looking cool, having the newest or most stylish clothing, and can focus instead on the important things. Beyond that, if all the kids have to wear helmets, maybe the younger up and comers will be even more accepting of them, and itll become commonplace not because of law but because it's the standard.


----------



## Music Moves (Jan 23, 2009)

Very simple indeed... 

More regulations = less freedom


----------



## East§ide (Mar 14, 2011)

so what?
it's not like they're restricting your freedom to : speech, press, arms, liberty,justice, fair trial, etc.
they're restricting the freedome of minors whose freedoms are already wholly restricted anyway in a way that can only serve to protect them.


----------



## Music Moves (Jan 23, 2009)

The right to make our own decisions regarding our families is more important than many of those that you mentioned, imo.


----------



## t21 (Dec 29, 2010)

if they enforced that rule to protect the kids then its cool with me.i wear one anyways and so does my 7 year old niece because its "my rules".i know in some resorts if you have no leash on your board you cannot ride the chairlifts,guess not all are the same.making it standard on all resorts for minors in certain ages might do the trick.


----------



## East§ide (Mar 14, 2011)

you do have the right to make nearly every decision regarding your family.
and if you really don't want your kid to wear a helmet, then either a.dont let them snowboard or b.dont bring them to resorts. i can't think of a single responsible parent who wouldn't encourage their child to wear a helmet anyway, and now when they say "i dont want to, its not cool" you say "it doesnt matter because its against the law not to" in the same way they must wear a seatbelt, in the same way they must be a certain height to ride a roller coaster, etc.


----------



## Music Moves (Jan 23, 2009)

East§ide said:


> you do have the right to make nearly every decision regarding your family.
> and if you really don't want your kid to wear a helmet, then either a.dont let them snowboard or b.dont bring them to resorts. i can't think of a single responsible parent who wouldn't encourage their child to wear a helmet anyway, and now when they say "i dont want to, its not cool" you say "it doesnt matter because its against the law not to" in the same way they must wear a seatbelt, in the same way they must be a certain height to ride a roller coaster, etc.


Already stated that I don't mind the helmet law *directly to you*. It's not the helmet law specifically. It's the fact that they use time and money add regulations such as this and since you seem to not understand why, I'll help.

Banks and financial firms have been having regulations lifted for decades now and once they blow everything, not only are they neither taxed nor any of the people punished, but they are given billions of dollars. Laws will be passed to add more trivial regulation on individuals and they will nickel an dime the hell out of people over these insignificant (as far as widely affected population is concerned) "infractions" of the law. There have been HUGE infractions of the law that have affected the entire world and no one is held accountable. But they'll fine Johnny when Johnny Jr isn't wearing his helmet. AND they won't let little Johnny eat what he wants for lunch.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

My question still remains: What about the good parents that raise their kids right and want them to wear a helmet? Like I said, minors (adults too) are very susceptible to peer pressure. Billy sees all his friends not wearing one (usually not the case anyway), so he feels compelled to not wear one no matter how well he was taught and raised.

That doesn't mean the parent is not doing their job or that the kid is bad. There were just other variables involved. That parent might appreciate this rule.

But I do agree with the tax payer thing. Cops on the hill are BS. I like the one Wolfie mentioned. It's enforced for them to wear one and it's up to the parents to decline. That's a great way to do it.

At any rate, my dislike towards the law is not the act of forcing kids to wear one... it's the penalties and basically making it a crime. That part is BS. And it sets a precedent.

The type of argument against the law I don't see eye to eye on is the whole "it's up to the parents". I already pointed out why.

The food rule is Flaming BS. However, it's very different from the helmet law. They are enforcing the diet on all their students. This includes those that already eat healthy meals at home. On top of all that, they are intruding in on the families' culture be it ethnic or family traditions.

As a parent, it would be nice to know that a resort has some sort of helmet rule (not law) in place to compliment my enforcement of it. 

Although in reality, I plan on shredding together with my son haha.


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

Its nice to see this tread has gone to some logical responses, i agree on the food in school issue, while the best intentions may be to help kids eat healthier the fact remains it is a very different issue from wearing a helmet while participating in an "extreme" sport. Education is probably the key in both situation along with more choices (for the food, give education then give options) And as far as the food issue, i for one was shocked when i went to Uni over there and went to the cafeteria and there was pizza, hotdogs, burgers then the other choice was on little old ass looking salad bar and a quizno's. Not reall what i was expecting from a University caf. 

As far as many people have said i think police enforcing this on the mountains is BS and i agree they should be doing something more productive like fining people for having a broken tail light or maybe doing 2 miles over the speed limit jk. I agree with snowolf in saying that tort law needs to be revised as i think that one of the biggest messed up laws throught the western world (albeit more in the US) is that anyone can sue for anything, i think i read an article of someone robbing a house cut themselves on the broken window they used to get in and sued for damages for having an unsafe property or something like that. Regardless of all this i think a few people have hit the nail on the head saying that we as a responsible society need to sometime make rules to protect our youth who can make somewhat questionable decisions from time to time


----------



## East§ide (Mar 14, 2011)

@Music Moves - sorry, I must have missed that comment about the helmet law.

What I want to know is this: The argument seems to have changed from "they're infringing on our rights, when will this ever end?!?!?wtfwtf" to "it's not about the law, it's about the wasted money and resources" because cooler minds have prevailed in reasoning that overall, while this law somewhat infringes on people's rights, it is inarguably for the greater good. My question is : how much money and resources are really being used to enact a law like this? It's not as if they need to supply every potential snowboarded with a helmet. It would seem to me that it wouldn't require more than a memo to resorts, some signs posted up, and maybe some other small details - which, ironically, would probably be paid for pretty quickly if there was some sort of ticket or something for NOT wearing a helmet.
I agree, parents should be left to raise their children however they see fit, but if a parent doesn't insist on their kid wearing a helmet, and that kid gets hurt, it's no longer just a burden on the parent - it may become a legal issue for the resort,a massive payout by an insurance company, perhaps erroneous other lawsuits on equipment manufacturers,etc.
What it would cost enact this law is probably less than what the cost would be to do two operations to alleviate brain swelling and bleeding in a head trauma patient.



Snowolf said:


> Totally legit point. I think the answer is much simpler than government intervention. Let the resorts handle it with policies. If a resort does not have a mandate, then just like anything else, it is up to the parent to be a good parent and control their kids. Most parents don`t want their kids smoking pot or drinking and in all states it is illegal. That does not stop kids from smoking pot or drinking. Helmet laws will not really solve the concerns you raise in my opinion.


Yes, but I would think that that goes on in 2 situations:
a. the children are unsupervised, which would not be the case on a resort mountain or
b. the parents are negligent and irresponsible, in which case the parents may ignore the helmet law, but it won't change the fact that their kid can't right at a resort regardless of what the parents think.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

Snowolf said:


> Totally legit point. I think the answer is much simpler than government intervention. Let the resorts handle it with policies. If a resort does not have a mandate, then just like anything else, it is up to the parent to be a good parent and control their kids. Most parents don`t want their kids smoking pot or drinking and in all states it is illegal. That does not stop kids from smoking pot or drinking. Helmet laws will not really solve the concerns you raise in my opinion.


Yea, nothing ever will completely resolve issues like these. However, it's just nice to have the rules there. You know, my son enjoys snowboarding so much that he's unwilling to get his pass revoked for something stupid like not wearing a helmet.

Doesn't mean that will be the case 100% of the time, but it certainly gets you closer to it. Plus now it also doubles as doing two things wrong aside from the danger aspects:

1) Not wearing a helmet when I want him to

2) Breaking the rules which I'm certainly going to teach him against doing

I do feel I will have more control over the drinking and pot issue. This is mainly because I was that kid. Really bad into it actually so I'm very in tune with the signs. Believe it or not, there are plenty of people out there that do not even know what pot smells like. A friend of mine from Vegas planted some pot in his yard. His parents and grandma used to water it with the rest of the garden. They had no clue. 

I'm not saying I'm going to be able to prevent it from EVER happening, but I feel more educated towards the matter in order to help me prevent it. I think that's the major issue when it comes to parenting... lack of education. You don't have to be an ex druggie to get educated on it especially in this day and age. The Internet is full of resources. It's up to the parent to spend some time learning about this stuff. There's no excuse for not knowing what a marijuana plants or drug paraphernalia looks like.

But yea, I don't want a helmet law for skiing/snowboarding. I want resort policies for children. Adults can think for themselves. Revoke the pass if the kid isn't wearing a helmet. Give parents ability to decline that rule for their children. It could be stated on their lift ticket or season pass. Simple solution that doesn't involve the law or police. It only makes use of the ski patrol that's already there.

Maybe this means the parents have to buy the ticket for the minors. So be it. If they can't buy their own ticket for an R-rated movie, then why should they be allowed to buy a ticket for a relatively dangerous sport?


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

East§ide said:


> while this law somewhat infringes on people's rights, it is inarguably for the greater good. My question is : how much money and resources are really being used to enact a law like this?


This is probably a case where any amount is "too much". Because there literally hundreds of much bigger problems in society which affect many more people, towards which tax dollars and legislative resources would be better or more equitably spent. You can't reasonably argue that this is the _most efficient_ use of legislative time & effort, or tax dollars while people are still starving and homeless and poor and can't find jobs or feed their families etc.

Just to put it in perspective, do you have any idea how many people die each year while skiing/snowboarding?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


FORTY. That's it. And most of them (over half) are wearing helmets, and most of them are 18+.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

I'd be more interested in a study about how many people were saved due to the use of helmets. The death count tells me very little regardless of helmet use. A helmet only does so much for riders. 

I'm not interested in helmet use so I can go beyond my skillset. I'm more interested in keeping my head safe from the small stuff. I don't want my season to end because I caught an edge on an ice patch.

That's why I want my kids to wear one. Stats show only 40 deaths occur in skiing/snowboarding. But how many deaths and injuries DIDN'T occur due to helmet use. 

That's a stat that would matter, but it's also a stat that can't accurately be recorded. No way to tell if a helmet did in fact save me from injury or death the last time I smacked my head. I can only make assumptions that it did. The only way to know for sure is if doctors and physicists were watching my fall and were able to see exactly how I impacted with the ground. Even then, it's just an educated guess lol.

Damn, I must be bored haha.


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

the proxy stat for what you're looking for, Leo, is the fact that there has been no measurable decline in the number of fatalities even though helmet use has been steadily increasing over the last 10 years - meanwhile skier days remains flat. So we have the same number of participants and the same number of deaths, but twice as many helmets as a decade ago. 

_I'm not interested in helmet use so I can go beyond my skillset._

I think a lot of people do use a helmet this way and so they take bigger risks. This is well-documented form of moral hazard. Seatbelts and airbags and insurance policies suffer from this, too. Basically when you think you are being protected, you take more risks, which in some cases can negate or mitigate the protection!

And you probably succumb a bit to moral hazard even if you're not chucking yourself off 40-footers. The beginner rider or intermediate is going to feel safer, and as a result subconciously might take more risks than otherwise.


----------



## Donutz (May 12, 2010)

With bike and motorcycle helmets and seatbelts, you can compare the stats between jurisdictions that require their use and jurisdictions that don't. Interestingly what you get is a splitting of risk clusters. For most of the population, the introduction of the safety equipment reduces overall injury and death. But there's a subgroup for whom the stats move slightly towards increased fatalities at higher speeds. Turns out this subgroup figures they're safer now so take even more risks.

Overall though, they decrease injury and death.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

I thought the number of snowboarders is rising? At any rate, it's not just fatalities I want to know about. Head related injuries.

And eh, I have been taking less risks since my helmet use. But I'm one of those guys that was hell bent on finding one after an injury. The injury is what is keeping my risk taking down lol. 

I think I'm back to normal after this season though. I can't wait until next season to try more stuff again. Soooo looking forward to more Crystal mountain runs. We're also likely doing our trip to Colorado.

It's still dumping there. Lucky ass Coloradians.


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

Leo said:


> I thought the number of snowboarders is rising? At any rate, it's not just fatalities I want to know about. Head related injuries.


Snowboarders were rising, skiers declining. Total number of participant-days is flat over 30 years or so.

Serious injuries (paralysis, serious head, and other serious injuries) occur at the rate of about 43 per year, according to the NSAA. In the 2009/10 season, there were 39 serious injuries. Sixteen of these serious injuries were skiers (11 male, 5 female) and 23 were snowboarders, (16 male, 7 female). Among the serious injuries, 18 of those involved were reported as wearing a helmet at the time of the incident. The rate of serious injury in 2009/10 was .65 per million skier/snowboarder visits...

[R]ecent research has shown that the use of helmet reduces the incidence of any head injury by 30 to 50 percent, but that the decrease in head injuries is generally limited to the less serious injuries such as scalp lacerations, mild concussions (Grade I) and contusions to the head, as opposed to more serious injuries such as concussions greater than Grade II, skull fractures, closed head injuries and the like. There has been no significant reduction in fatalities over the past nine seasons​



Leo said:


> I think I'm back to normal after this season though. I can't wait until next season to try more stuff again. Soooo looking forward to more Crystal mountain runs.


I got my season pass for Crystal. $219. Solid.


----------



## East§ide (Mar 14, 2011)

All I'm going to say in regards to your statistics is this:

1. if the law stops even one kid from having a serious or fatal head injury, it's worth it
2. just because "only" 40 people per year are injured doesn't mean that that's entirely accurate - many people may have injuries they don't report (ie. concussions where they are not treated, like mine)
3. i played competitive paintball for years - super serious, super hardcore. and i believe there are less injuries in paintball than even in bowling. Guess what? We still wear protective gear, including goggles/face protection, knee pads, elbow pads, etc. 

I just think this whole thing has been way overblown. Sure, there's tons of bigger issues the government could be spending money on..however, this is a state government law, not a federal law, so if you aren't in the state that demands it, it has little to no bearing on you. In addition, there are a MILLION wasteful ways the government spends money... I can think of a lot that are way stupider and unnecessary than insisting that minors wear helmets while snowboarding.


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

Although as empathizing humans, we abhor the idea of putting a price tag on a human life, we need to be honest with ourselves and everyone else and admit that there _are_ prices which would be too high. And I think that's what people are saying: you can't just keep piling on taxes on top of taxes eventually people have had enough.

Everything in life is about tradeoffs. If you want to add helmet laws, then you've gotta be willing to give up one of the other frivolous government expenses (and I'll totally concede that for every real problem that the government doesn't spend money on, there is probably a frivolous issue on which they do spend money) but even if you do that, I still submit that there are more pressing concerns that need to be addressed, than some grandstanding attempt to save rich white people from their own ignorance.


----------



## Donutz (May 12, 2010)

about 10-15 years ago, some nutbar in the BC Legislature suggested they should pass a law making seatbelts mandatory on motorcycles. Not kidding.


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

Donutz said:


> about 10-15 years ago, some nutbar in the BC Legislature suggested they should pass a law making seatbelts mandatory on motorcycles. Not kidding.


that's right up there with "screen doors on submarines" and "ejection seats in helicopters". And snowboard leashes.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Will no one think of the children? This seems to be the rally cry of people that want to bubble wrap the youth of tomorrow. Seriously the youth of tomorrow are the scariest sacks of shit I've ever had to deal with, but that's another story. 

Now don't get me wrong I'm not against helmet use for kids or adults. I'm advocating that it's a choice and if the state wants to make it a law it's a waste of time and money. Now if the resort wants to make it a policy go for it that's fine. I live in Breck best park in the world hands down (anyone can try and argue that with me but it's fact) we have jumps ranging from 3 feet to almost 100. Do you need a special pass? Helmet? or training? Nope you just need a lift ticket and you can go in the park and that's that. Do people get broken in the park every year because of this? Yes, could some of it be prevented? Definitely. But at the end of the day its the persons choice to venture into Freeway and Parklane it is there choice to hit the jumps and jibs. 

Now are kids a lot stupider than adults? Well some are but helmet use is a lot different than it was when I was 16. Back then I had a helmet I knew what it would do and I charged harder and got more concussions then than I do now without one yet I'm actually hitting bigger features now. My parents when I was that age never saw me hit a jump or ride the pipe, they never forced me to wear a helmet, I just decided it was a good thing to have. Some of my friends followed suit some didn't we all survived, granted a bunch of us got concussions. 

Moral of the story people will get hurt, people will die, people will get maimed, but let it be their or their families decision not the governments. Just like if I wanted to go fly down mainstreet on a crotch rocker in Breck I can do it with or without a helmet in this state because it's my choice. Is my life in my hands and ability? Hell yeah and that's what it should come down to.


----------



## labowsky (Sep 28, 2010)

if someone wants to put their life at risk, let them do it, if they die well that sucks but whose fault is it? the persons.
if a kid wants to ride without a helmet let him, are we really trying to force something a trivial as a helmet?? guess they don't know it only protects your head. 
really making a law will make kids wear a helmet even less cause the police wants the, to do it.
but im sure this has been said i was just to lazy to read through all these pages :laugh:


----------



## Karasene (Oct 20, 2010)

I also disagree with this law. Most of what I believe has already been said.. so there's no need for me to re-type anything. I just think enforcing this law is a waste of time and money especially when I would guess a good 75% of people on the hill these days wear helmets on their own already. 

What I am curious to know is how would they punish those caught not obiding by this law? Say its a 13 year old boy who isn't riding with his parents.. what are they going to do? detain him until they get in contact with an adult and hand out a fine? Or hand out fines to the minor themself? 

anyway.. The government needs to readjust the way they spend our money and focus more on areas that will actually improve our country (or state) and it's stability. Personal safety shouldn't be on the radar when we are struggling with keeping the US on its own two feet.


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

The Us gov' needs to stop printing so much money, its hurting the strength of your $$$$ but thats another issue. All i know is the Aussie $ is worth $1.09 USD which means my new t rice is actually cheaper to buy in Aus than it is to buy in the US where it is made, go figure


----------



## fattrav (Feb 21, 2009)

cjcameron11 said:


> The Us gov' needs to stop printing so much money, its hurting the strength of your $$$$ but thats another issue. All i know is the Aussie $ is worth $1.09 USD which means my new t rice is actually cheaper to buy in Aus than it is to buy in the US where it is made, go figure


Well, if it wasn't for the freight, it'd probably be cheaper to buy online and ship from the states. By the way, double lame about that whole NS not being able to frieght to other countries.


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

i know man i was keen on the NS heritage X but ahh well the t rice will have to do, and im getting the 2012 t rice hp for 500AUD, steal!


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

labowsky said:


> if someone wants to put their life at risk, let them do it, if they die well that sucks but whose fault is it? the persons.*
> if a kid wants to ride without a helmet let him*, are we really trying to force something a trivial as a helmet?? guess they don't know it only protects your head.
> really making a law will make kids wear a helmet even less cause the police wants the, to do it.
> but im sure this has been said i was just to lazy to read through all these pages :laugh:


Kids don't make the best judgment calls. My roof, my rules. Like I said, it would be nice to know that ski patrol would revoke my kids' passes if they disobey me and the resort's policy. That doesn't just stop at helmets, that goes for all other policies on the slopes including proper etiquette. 

I'm not for this law. I like the idea of it and as Wolfie and others pointed out, there are better ways to do this without the mighty hand of the law. I don't want to sit next to a cop on skis. Although it would be fun to watch how much they get sprayed and see how they handle the situation. 

I'm also fully aware that a lot of people, including adults, use helmets for the wrong reasons. And whether or not it does something subconscious to us is both debatable and impossible to prove. All I know is, I'm going to make it very clear that a helmet is not going to save them from injury altogether.

On a related note, I find it very interesting to see Kevin Pearce fiercely defending this law on Twitter.


----------



## JeffreyCH (Nov 21, 2009)

East§ide said:


> 1. if the law stops even one kid from having a serious or fatal head injury, it's worth it


If one terrorist attack is averted by tapping everyone's phone then it's worth it  



East§ide said:


> I just think this whole thing has been way overblown. Sure, there's tons of bigger issues the government could be spending money on..however, this is a state government law, not a federal law, so if you aren't in the state that demands it, it has little to no bearing on you. In addition, there are a MILLION wasteful ways the government spends money... I can think of a lot that are way stupider and unnecessary than insisting that minors wear helmets while snowboarding.


The thing you are failing to realize in most of your posts is that it does affect everyone. Something that has to be considered is that each state has a certain budget, when it falls short they have to apply for federal money to make up for it. There is not only the time and money wasted by passing this law. There is enforcement of the law, The collection of the fines, the processing of each court case, and a ton of paperwork behind it all. Have you ever had a speeding ticket? Sure no big deal to you, minor inconvenience, you go home, write a check for the fine and mail it, done for you. On the other side of that, the officer has to write a report, store the video file(dash cam) and log it into evidence. Then there is a court date set, a case file generated, a clerk that has to rubber stamp the resolution of said case once it's paid. Now say you forget to pay the fine, a warrant is issued that has to be signed by a judge, executed by a police officer, and a bed in a cell that has to be open to accommodate you when you are arrested on said warrant. I know this law is just one example of a frivolous waste of law enforcement and court resources, however if you add them all up it is a considerable drain on the whole economy. 

While I agree that children should wear helmets, how are they going to enforce this law? Station a police officer at each resort? Have ski patrol detain the offender until a cop can come issue a citation? The first option is a horrible waste of manpower. Not to mention, do you really want a real cop stationed at your hill? If you walk by a (ski) patrol reeking of kind bud, none of us care, if you walk by a real cop reeking of bud...well you get it. The second is a waste of safety personal time. If I'm babysitting little Billy and his parents until a cop can get there, guess what, I'm not on the hill doing what I'm supposed to be doing. Which is keeping you safe, issuing first aid, and dragging you down the hill if you break yourself. So my time is better spent babysitting some brat rather then splinting your broken leg? 

To me it's a matter of resorts being so far released from liability that the insurance companies don't put any pressure on them to make this a policy. Think about mandatory drug testing for employment. If a company doesn't have a drug testing policy then their insurance goes up. To me (and others) this should be a resort policy, simple enough, if a kid is getting on the lift with out a helmet, guess what, they don't get on, and/or have their pass jerked. How many times do you think it would take of little Billy calling his parents to come back and pick him up would it take before they bought him a helmet? My guess would be about once. Or in order to even purchase a lift ticket for a minor you would have to show that said minor has a helmet, issue a different color pass to minors so the lifties know exactly who has to have a helmet to get on the lift.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

You just used some of my ideas Jeffrey!

Sorry to be a grammar nazi, but it's AFFECT not EFFECT! RAWRASAURUS!



... and phone tapping is an entirely different matter. I for one do say it's alright so long as it's working. 

Terrorist threat averted > big brother listening to my phone sex convos

If you're going to rob me of my privacy, do it for a reason like this.

Same goes for those airport body scans (as long as it actually doesn't physically harm me). You can't win either way. We get attacked, security gets blamed. We up the security, people complain about invasion of privacy.

Uh oh, did I just start another potential debate topic?


----------



## JeffreyCH (Nov 21, 2009)

Leo said:


> You just used some of my ideas Jeffrey!


Whoops, I was typing that in between phone calls, took about an hour to type out :laugh: so we were posting at the same time....great minds think alike :laugh::laugh: 



Leo said:


> Sorry to be a grammar nazi, but it's AFFECT not EFFECT! RAWRASAURUS!


You sir are correct, edited 




Leo said:


> ... and phone tapping is an entirely different matter. I for one do say it's alright so long as it's working.
> 
> Terrorist threat averted > big brother listening to my phone sex convos
> 
> ...


Slippery slope my friend :cheeky4:


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

JeffreyCH said:


> Slippery slope my friend :cheeky4:


I know, but to that I say... WEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!


----------



## JeffreyCH (Nov 21, 2009)

Leo said:


> I know, but to that I say... WEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!


A great leader once put his whole country under surveillance, had citizens keep an eye on each other, and had a lot of frivolous laws. No one cared because he was so awesome, turned the economy around, unified the nation, and built one hell of an industrial complex. He was even named Time magazines man of the year....in 1938 :laugh:


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

*Meet the Fockers style* Eye C U Jeffrey o_o


----------



## East§ide (Mar 14, 2011)

JeffreyCH said:


> If one terrorist attack is averted by tapping everyone's phone then it's worth it
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First of all, the cell phone tapping is entirely different - and for what it's worth, if tapping my cellphone would've stopped 9/11, then yes, tap my cell phone. Whatever I'm trying to hide isn't as important as saving people's lives.

And in regards to how to police this - it's very simple. You normally have someone stationed at the tops and bottoms of lifts right? Well, if someone gets off the lift and takes their helmet off, the operator at the top of the lift could easily radio down to the person at the bottom of the lift. When that rider gets down there, the lower lift operator can ask them to see ID if they're of questionable age, or otherwise tell them they can't get onto the lift until they've got a helmet on. It's pretty damn simple. Resorts would be able to enforce the rule pretty easily, and would need to since it's not just policy but law. If a minor was to get hurt on resort property without a helmet on, it could end up negatively for the resort.


----------



## JeffreyCH (Nov 21, 2009)

East§ide said:


> First of all, the cell phone tapping is entirely different - and for what it's worth, if tapping my cellphone would've stopped 9/11, then yes, tap my cell phone. Whatever I'm trying to hide isn't as important as saving people's lives.


I don't believe that any organized terrorist cell would use a phone for much, I believe they discuss these things face to face. So maybe we should have surveillance cams and microphones in every house. :dunno:



East§ide said:


> And in regards to how to police this - it's very simple. You normally have someone stationed at the tops and bottoms of lifts right? Well, if someone gets off the lift and takes their helmet off, the operator at the top of the lift could easily radio down to the person at the bottom of the lift. When that rider gets down there, the lower lift operator can ask them to see ID if they're of questionable age, or otherwise tell them they can't get onto the lift until they've got a helmet on. It's pretty damn simple. Resorts would be able to enforce the rule pretty easily, and would need to since it's not just policy but law. If a minor was to get hurt on resort property without a helmet on, it could end up negatively for the resort.


Ummm if it's a law, then a citation has to be issued somehow. If no citations are issued the law becomes moot and no one respects it. So what is the point of wasting any (public) time, money or other resources on it? IMO if we got rid of stupid shit like this we wouldn't be in the economic situation we are in. If it's a policy then the resort is solely responsible for enforcing it. Then it would be as you stated. 

**On a side note. Who the hell would take their helmet off at the top of the lift? What are ya gonna do, carry it while you ride so you look cool not wearing a helmet :laugh: And if you have enough room in your backpack for a helmet, then why are you wearing a backpack to begin with :cheeky4: ....I know to carry your helmet down the hill so you look cool :laugh:


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

so now, the lift operators earning $7/hour are going to be responsible for monitoring every person (and identifying potential minors from a distance) who gets off the chairlift and play snow-security? And the guy at the bottom is he going to stop the chairlift from running so he can chase down some kid and ask for ID? How will he know who to ask? What if the kid has his helmet back on by that time? What if the kid traverses and goes to a different chairlift? I do not think it is nearly as "simple" as you want it to be.

Also, on a related note: where I'm from, snowboard "leash" is also required by law. Only one of the 5 or 6 ski areas that I visit regularly makes _any_ effort to enforce this, sure a helmet is far more prominent than a leash, but it just shows that just because something is codified as "law" doesn't mean that the resorts really will do a diligent job policing it.


----------



## East§ide (Mar 14, 2011)

look, you can keep coming up with reasons why this doesn't work...and maybe it won't, but really it sounds like alot of people whining and bitching about a law that has little to no effect on them whatsoever. find an issue worth complaining about and complain about it. a state making a law that makes it mandatory for kids to wear helmets really isn't worth the bitching.


----------



## JeffreyCH (Nov 21, 2009)

East§ide said:


> look, you can keep coming up with reasons why this doesn't work...and maybe it won't, but really it sounds like alot of people whining and bitching about a law that has little to no effect on them whatsoever. find an issue worth complaining about and complain about it. a state making a law that makes it mandatory for kids to wear helmets really isn't worth the bitching.


Your right, it is just one of hundreds(maybe thousands) of stupid laws on the books, and more then likely only a few(10's, 100's?) million dollars has been wasted on said laws. Who cares right...what's a couple mill here or there :dunno: This one just happens to gain attention here because we are all snowboarders. I do see your point, however if we as a nation keep looking the other way on stuff like this because it doesn't directly affect us, then what? We end up with a bunch of useless laws that do nothing, can't be enforced, cost millions, and in the end what have we accomplished? Errr wait, we are already there, so trust the gov't to do what's in your best interest, spend YOUR money however they want, it'll be okay. Blind faith in our gov't is a wonderful thing, enjoy it while you can.


----------



## JeffreyCH (Nov 21, 2009)

david_z said:


> so now, the lift operators earning $7/hour are going to be responsible for monitoring every person (and identifying potential minors from a distance) who gets off the chairlift and play snow-security? And the guy at the bottom is he going to stop the chairlift from running so he can chase down some kid and ask for ID? How will he know who to ask? What if the kid has his helmet back on by that time? What if the kid traverses and goes to a different chairlift? I do not think it is nearly as "simple" as you want it to be.


Pretty simple really. Every lift I've ever been on the liftie looks at or scans my pass. When you buy a lift ticket if you are under 18 you have to show ID to prove it, and have a parent sign the liability waiver. Why not have the counter person check for a helmet at that point? Simply issue different tickets for minors, or add one more check sum to the code for scanners.



david_z said:


> Also, on a related note: where I'm from, snowboard "leash" is also required by law. Only one of the 5 or 6 ski areas that I visit regularly makes _any_ effort to enforce this, sure a helmet is far more prominent than a leash, but it just shows that just because something is codified as "law" doesn't mean that the resorts really will do a diligent job policing it.


Yup, another idiotic law that does nothing, wasted taxpayers money, and legislators time to enact. I bet if you ask any lawyer they would tell you these aren't the only 2 laws on the books like that


----------



## East§ide (Mar 14, 2011)

lol there's so much I disagree with that it doesn't even make sense to reply - we obviously have very different view points on our government and on these laws. If this law cost a million dollars to instate, I'd be shocked - now compare salaries of government employees, or money wasted on private jets or dom perignon in air force one or tax write-offs or oil kick backs or a million other things. We as a country are incredibly wasteful with our money, and day to day people generally keep their mouths shut and continue on with their daily lives. Now, because this law was put into place and it is brought to your attention simply because it pertains to the sport you;re interested in, you have a qualm about government spending? How about instead of bitching and moaning about a law meant to protect people who aren't mature enough to make a decision about protecting THEMSELVES, you bitch and moan about government bailouts, free healthcare on the backs of the american people, and the abomination that is our president now.. who is a product of YOUR votes.


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

Now, because this law was put into place and it is brought to your attention simply because it pertains to the sport you;re interested in, you have a qualm about government spending?"

Nah I have a qualm about pretty much everything else you listed, too. I thought I made that obvious. It is retarded to spend _more money_ when you're already mismanaging and overbudget on the money that you do spend.

"How about instead ... you bitch and moan about government bailouts, free healthcare on the backs of the american people, and the abomination that is our president now."

I've done more than my fair share of that. And you know what people say? It's like fucking clockwork bro, as sure as the Swiss trains run on time, I get a response that rarely deviates from:


"It only costs a few $$$ and compared to XYZ that is practically nothing so why bother?"
"If it saves the life of one person then it's worth it!"
"It's for the greater good!"
"It doesn't affect you so why do you care?"
"'mericah fuck yeah!"
"It's not like you can change anything so why care?"


----------



## sb60 (Oct 5, 2010)

This does seem like a stupid law. I think when resorts require kids to wear helmets for lessons or require their instructors to wear them, it is a more positive way to promote them. This law came about because a doctor's daughter died in an accident in 1988 and he has been trying to pass it in NJ for years:

“When Nicole went on the school trip as a novice skier, we thought she would be throwing snowballs and playing in the snow in a very safe place. We had no idea how dangerous the sport is until we went down and saw the place where she had the accident.”
Nicole was skiing on a beginner slope with two classmates, when they accidentally wandered onto a more advanced slope made bumpy by snow moguls, her father recounted. The three slipped and fell. As Nicole started to get up from behind a mogul, she was struck in the head by the skis of an airborne skier.

“She immediately fell and was unconscious, indicating the severity of her injury,” San Agustin said. An ambulance took Nicole to a small hospital in Rockland County, N.Y., which didn’t have the surgical staff or diagnostic equipment to deal with her brain injury, San Agustin said. She died three days later."

“One of the things my wife and I believe in is that things happen for a reason,” San Agustin said. “When this bill becomes law, what it will mean to us is that Nikki would not have died in vain. If this law saves one life and prevents a family from experiencing what we have gone through over the years, them again she would not have died in vain.”

Earlier the law held ski area's responsible for injuries to minors without helmets. That version did not pass. This one did has

".... new language that relieves resorts of liability. Under the law, the burden of enforcement will be on police, not resort personnel. The parents or guardian of youths who fail to wear helmets will be fined $25 for the first violation and $100 for subsequent infractions."

I cannot imagine the police at lifts or on the mountain finding the parents and handing out fines. I think this just passed to satisfy the family.


----------



## JeffreyCH (Nov 21, 2009)

East§ide said:


> lol there's so much I disagree with that it doesn't even make sense to reply - we obviously have very different view points on our government and on these laws. If this law cost a million dollars to instate, I'd be shocked - now compare salaries of government employees, or money wasted on private jets or dom perignon in air force one or tax write-offs or oil kick backs or a million other things. We as a country are incredibly wasteful with our money, and day to day people generally keep their mouths shut and continue on with their daily lives. Now, because this law was put into place and it is brought to your attention simply because it pertains to the sport you;re interested in, you have a qualm about government spending? How about instead of bitching and moaning about a law meant to protect people who aren't mature enough to make a decision about protecting THEMSELVES, you bitch and moan about government bailouts, free healthcare on the backs of the american people, and the abomination that is our president now.. who is a product of YOUR votes.


I'm not exactly sure why you are on the side of the debate you are on? Fundamentally we are pretty close, if you ask me the whole government should be impeached, and a complete overhaul of the system done. So maybe this ONE law didn't cost millions, if fact I would guess maybe around 100k, I can't see anything getting done by the government for less then that. I do agree that this is a drop in the ocean of corrupt and wasteful things our government does. I'm just pointing out that all those drops make up the ocean. This just happens to be the topic of discussion, and I found a flaw in your reasoning that it doesn't matter.


----------



## East§ide (Mar 14, 2011)

JeffreyCH, it's not that I disagree with you, but I guess this is my issue:

I feel like all I ever hear in reference to our government is bitching - bitching about wasted money, or not enough money, or impeding on our rights, or how we aren't doing enough to stop terrorism, or about how the government is wasteful, or how it is too stingey, or how we're taxed too much, or how we can't afford to fix roads, keep athletic departments open in schools, etc. Everyone is bitching about every thing, and every topic has it's converse angle that's also being bitched about, and the truth is, not a goddam thing is being done about any of it but more noise pollution and more bitching.. so, when a law like this comes up, which is clearly unnecessary but, in relation to the seemingly neverending stream of nonsensical spending and stupid laws, is actually a fairly GOOD idea and really isn't that much of a drain on our economy, I don't see the point in complaining about it.
This law doesn't infringe on your rights as an adult citizen, it doesn't change your day to day life, and if we estimate that it would cost 100k to implement a law like this (i think less, but whatever), that comes to roughly 0.00028571428571428573 dollars per person in this country, or 2 one hundredths of a cent? I really don't think that's a major drain on our economy. I easily waste a penny a day .


----------



## Ttam (Jan 20, 2010)

Wow read two pages and had enough. Im sure all the rest are the same. 

Big deal. If minors are forced to wear helmets what are you going to do about it? Oh thats right. Nothing. Also who cares if someone thinks they are cool or not? I dont see dirtbike riders not wearing helmets. I dont see nascar or formula 1 drivers not wearing helmets. Shit even pro snowboarders wear helmets at competitions. If it wasnt a good idea then people wouldnt wear helmets.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Leo said:


> On a related note, I find it very interesting to see Kevin Pearce fiercely defending this law on Twitter.


Kevin Pearce is a douche bag. Fuck him what has he done for me or snowboarding? Nothing yet everyone is all I ride for Kevin because he smashed his face on the lip of an icy pipe. Hmm where was he when I blew my spleen apart was he all I ride for angry? Fuck no the media over sensationalized another pipe jock rider that is about as cookie cutter as they come. Yeah it sucks he got brain damage but you know what shit happens now he's the poster child using the over sensationalized clout the media has given him to be the spokesperson for safety in snowboarding. 



Leo said:


> ... and phone tapping is an entirely different matter. I for one do say it's alright so long as it's working.
> 
> Terrorist threat averted > big brother listening to my phone sex convos
> 
> If you're going to rob me of my privacy, do it for a reason like this.


Thinking like this is why I had to have two senators, a congressmen, and numerous other people help me get a passport. My parents give me an arabic sounding name and suddenly I'm a terrorist. Without fail when I fly typically 4 to 5 times a year I have to go through extra screening. The terrorists have won because we have phone taps now. But that's another story. Lets all just give up all liberties. 



East§ide said:


> First of all, the cell phone tapping is entirely different - and for what it's worth, if tapping my cellphone would've stopped 9/11, then yes, tap my cell phone. Whatever I'm trying to hide isn't as important as saving people's lives.
> 
> And in regards to how to police this - it's very simple. You normally have someone stationed at the tops and bottoms of lifts right? Well, if someone gets off the lift and takes their helmet off, the operator at the top of the lift could easily radio down to the person at the bottom of the lift. When that rider gets down there, the lower lift operator can ask them to see ID if they're of questionable age, or otherwise tell them they can't get onto the lift until they've got a helmet on. It's pretty damn simple. Resorts would be able to enforce the rule pretty easily, and would need to since it's not just policy but law. If a minor was to get hurt on resort property without a helmet on, it could end up negatively for the resort.


As others have stated this isn't going to work. On top of the fact I constantly have people question my age when I ride. I don't deal well with minimum wage snow carnies getting in my face about shit. I have a pass it scans that's enough. It's me on there I don't need them asking me my birthday, to show them that it's me on my pass, etc. etc. And yes at nearly 30 I have been id'd for pg 13 movies both at the theater and in stores.



sb60 said:


> This does seem like a stupid law. I think when resorts require kids to wear helmets for lessons or require their instructors to wear them, it is a more positive way to promote them. This law came about because a doctor's daughter died in an accident in 1988 and he has been trying to pass it in NJ for years:
> 
> “When Nicole went on the school trip as a novice skier, we thought she would be throwing snowballs and playing in the snow in a very safe place. We had no idea how dangerous the sport is until we went down and saw the place where she had the accident.”
> Nicole was skiing on a beginner slope with two classmates, when they accidentally wandered onto a more advanced slope made bumpy by snow moguls, her father recounted. The three slipped and fell. As Nicole started to get up from behind a mogul, she was struck in the head by the skis of an airborne skier.
> ...


You're right that this law is just to make a bunch of butt hurt parents happy. 

1988 to now a lots changed with how injuries are treated. Protocols at resorts have changed a shit ton as well. Shit sucks your kid died but don't force your loss on me I don't give a fuck. 

People need to look at this helmets save lives so now the law says we have to wear them. OK most common injury in snowboarding is broken wrists next we'll have a law for mandatory wrist guards, then elbow pads, then knee pads, finally full compression suits. Where does it end thats the issue? I'm not debating that this stuff saves/protects us except wrist guards those do more damage than good snowboarding. But I am saying why does it have to be a legal issue that our police have to enforce and not something that resorts can say helmet mandatory for this terrain park, or park video required to ride this park, etc. etc. The money thats going into this could be better used on an educational initiative. 

Jeff makes another valid point as a patroller he's now got another job added to his list of more important tasks. I'm probably the only person here that's laid face down in the snow bleeding to death internally without a patroller around to check on me and almost died at the resort. I got lucky that someone saw I was fucked and got ski patrol, but the fact is with them not on the hill to administer first aid and do their tasks because they're dealing with something as bullshit as this someone could die? Who gets blamed? Patrol and that's fucking bullshit.


----------



## East§ide (Mar 14, 2011)

BurtonAvenger said:


> As others have stated this isn't going to work. On top of the fact I constantly have people question my age when I ride. I don't deal well with minimum wage snow carnies getting in my face about shit. I have a pass it scans that's enough. It's me on there I don't need them asking me my birthday, to show them that it's me on my pass, etc. etc. And yes at nearly 30 I have been id'd for pg 13 movies both at the theater and in stores.
> 
> 
> Jeff makes another valid point as a patroller he's now got another job added to his list of more important tasks. I'm probably the only person here that's laid face down in the snow bleeding to death internally without a patroller around to check on me and almost died at the resort. I got lucky that someone saw I was fucked and got ski patrol, but the fact is with them not on the hill to administer first aid and do their tasks because they're dealing with something as bullshit as this someone could die? Who gets blamed? Patrol and that's fucking bullshit.


So you don't like my alternative simply because it'll inconvenience you in an incredibly small, nitpicky way? Like someone else said, it'd be as easy as a resort issuing a pass that designates that they're a minor. 

And what happened to you sucks, for sure...but it was also just posted that the burden of upholding this law wouldn't fall on the shoulder of the ski patrol, it would fall on the shoulders of the police. This wouldn't require more than 2 seconds from ski patrol either..its as simple as "put your helmet on" and if they don't, then it's "let me see your pass." the end, game over.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

BurtonAvenger said:


> Thinking like this is why I had to have two senators, a congressmen, and numerous other people help me get a passport. My parents give me an arabic sounding name and suddenly I'm a terrorist. Without fail when I fly typically 4 to 5 times a year I have to go through extra screening. The terrorists have won because we have phone taps now. But that's another story. Lets all just give up all liberties.


And everyone automatically assumes I'm good at math and Leo isn't my real name (I'm omitting the more offensive stuff)... but point taken lol. So what you're saying is it isn't working which I have no argument against. The second we do hear an attack being prevented due to phone tapping, would it then make your situation worth it?

I guess it's all subjective.

But I do agree it's an invasion of my privacy as I said. Honestly, call me a sheep or whatever... I just don't care. It's not ruining my day and there is nothing I can do about any of this. If people find a way to get some changes in motion that I can realistically contribute to, then I'm all game.


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

BurtonAvenger said:


> Jeff makes another valid point as a patroller he's now got another job added to his list of more important tasks. I'm probably the only person here that's laid face down in the snow bleeding to death internally without a patroller around to check on me and almost died at the resort. I got lucky that someone saw I was fucked and got ski patrol, but the fact is with them not on the hill to administer first aid and do their tasks because they're dealing with something as bullshit as this someone could die? Who gets blamed? Patrol and that's fucking bullshit.


Brilliant point. The seen vs. the unseen a little Frederic Bastiat for ya! It's easy to say "Well my kid wouldn't have got broke with a helmet" just like it's easy to say "A seatbelt saves lives" even though - in certain types of collisions - seatbelts increase the risk of serious injury or death (in certain circumstances, you have better likelihood of surviving if you get ejected). 

It's harder to identify the hidden costs like these and even more difficult to put a number on them.


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

I don't think the issue is an "inconvenience" to Jeff and the other patrollers. The problem is that it's distracting them and taking them away from their primary objective as first responders, and turning them in to hall monitors on skis.



East§ide said:


> Sit would fall on the shoulders of the police. This wouldn't require more than 2 seconds from ski patrol either..its as simple as "put your helmet on" and if they don't, then it's "let me see your pass." the end, game over.


Do you really think that the state of NJ is going to hire additional police officers to patrol the slopes? 

If not, then the burden _is_ going to fall on the ski patrol, the lifties, the resort management, etc.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

East§ide said:


> So you don't like my alternative simply because it'll inconvenience you in an incredibly small, nitpicky way? Like someone else said, it'd be as easy as a resort issuing a pass that designates that they're a minor.
> 
> And what happened to you sucks, for sure...but it was also just posted that the burden of upholding this law wouldn't fall on the shoulder of the ski patrol, it would fall on the shoulders of the police. This wouldn't require more than 2 seconds from ski patrol either..its as simple as "put your helmet on" and if they don't, then it's "let me see your pass." the end, game over.


Your logic is so flawed on this I could argue it to death. Minor passes do exist but you still see power tripping snow carnies going above and beyond. Signage, stewards of the community, and the fact we're just better educated make this law null and void. Leave the decisions up to the people not the police.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

david_z said:


> Brilliant point. The seen vs. the unseen a little Frederic Bastiat for ya! It's easy to say "Well my kid wouldn't have got broke with a helmet" just like it's easy to say "A seatbelt saves lives" even though - in certain types of collisions - seatbelts increase the risk of serious injury or death (in certain circumstances, you have better likelihood of surviving if you get ejected).
> 
> It's harder to identify the hidden costs like these and even more difficult to put a number on them.


Wouldn't the seatbelt be the lesser of two evils scenario? All stats that I've seen show seatbelts saves more lives than it takes. 

Also, how many seatbelt related deaths are from improper usage? What's the seatbelt injury vs potential injury if they didn't have one on?

I can see how being ejected in certain situations could be the better option, but that's highly dependent on multiple factors. The speed and severity of the crash and things like how they were ejected (head first through windshield, out of the side of an open window, etc...). Was the person sleeping or intoxicated? Studies have shown relaxed bodies take less damage and this is why you consistently see drunk drivers surviving bad crashes. They aren't tensed up.

I actually enjoy this thread. Lots of good info is coming out of it :thumbsup:


----------



## East§ide (Mar 14, 2011)

david_z said:


> I don't think the issue is an "inconvenience" to Jeff and the other patrollers. The problem is that it's distracting them and taking them away from their primary objective as first responders, and turning them in to hall monitors on skis.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


well, since we're already being wasteful, what's hiring a few more cops cost? lol


BurtonAvenger said:


> Your logic is so flawed on this I could argue it to death. Minor passes do exist but you still see power tripping snow carnies going above and beyond. Signage, stewards of the community, and the fact we're just better educated make this law null and void. Leave the decisions up to the people not the police.


Meh,there's no accounting for someone else on a power trip. Just because some jerkoff thinks a STAFF jacket makes him kind doesn't completely nullify whether or not it would be a viable option. If everyone is so much better educated, then why arent they already wearing helmets?

Im just playing devils advocate here since a.im 25 and i wear a helmet, this law doesnt apply to me and b.i think this issue has been blown way out of proportion


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

East§ide said:


> well, since we're already being wasteful, what's hiring a few more cops cost? lol
> 
> Meh,there's no accounting for someone else on a power trip. Just because some jerkoff thinks a STAFF jacket makes him kind doesn't completely nullify whether or not it would be a viable option. If everyone is so much better educated, then why arent they already wearing helmets?
> 
> Im just playing devils advocate here since a.im 25 and i wear a helmet, this law doesnt apply to me and b.i think this issue has been blown way out of proportion


You look at the mid 90's and helmet use and you look at helmet use today it's something like 300 plus percent growth in people using helmet. Helmets have consistently seen 50 to 100% sales growth every year.


----------



## JeffreyCH (Nov 21, 2009)

How long to you suppose it will be before some rich douche bags 19 y.o. kid dies and they go on a crusade? It's already okay to have a helmet law for kids, so why not adults? Next would be as B.A. said it will be wrist guards, and a bunch of other BS. I for one want the CHOICE of wearing a helmet. The main reason I wear mine is because it is warmer then a beanie lol. On those bluebird spring days cruising soft corn I don't wear it. If I crack my head, so be it, if I wanted a safe hobby I'd take up golf or bowling  

**Please note: the following paragraph is not directed at anyone in particular**

The fact of the matter is, people need to take responsibility for themselves and their kids. If you need the government to make a law so your kid will obey your own rules then you are to stupid to breed. The real key here (as has been said before) is education....PERIOD!! Like the idiot that crusaded for this law, he "thought" skiing was safe, and his daughter was just gonna goof off and throw a few snowballs?? REALLY?? MORON!!! What if one of those snowballs had a chunk of ice in it that put out her eye? Should snowballs be outlawed too? If they were going to make a law to reduce injuries I think it would have been better to have a mandatory safety classes, before a minor can get a pass. That right there would reduce a lot of the accidents, since they would not only learn the limitations of helmets, but also proper etiquette.


----------



## East§ide (Mar 14, 2011)

i dont disagree with many of the points on this page, i really dont. theyre all valid in their own right.

just answer me this :

is this really that big a deal? like.. should this really merit 13 pages of debate?
I would suppose itll be a very long time before some rich douchebag's 19 year old dies and there's a law that makes it mandatory for adults. As an adult himself, the dead teenager's rich dad has no recourse and no room to complain. BUT..perhaps that rich 19 year old has had to wear a helmet since he was 16 since its the law, and because of that, when he's 19, he's still wearing a helmet.and so that day when he hits his head on a rock and wouldve otherwise checked out of this world, hes still there, being some rich douchebags son.



Like I said, I think you all make valid points..I just find it hard to argue that this is really an issue worthy of your points, as complicated as you're all making it to be, and why, if we can all agree it's safer to wear helmets, that it even deserves a debate. I get the whole "we should be able to choose for ourselves and let the parents be parents" argument, but what about this : Lets say your 15 year old son and his friend are going snowboarding. You're a good parent, and you've taught your son well..he knows to wear his helmet while riding..and not to just say he will, but to actually do it. Except he goes out with his friend one day who's parents consist of a mom popping percs like tic-tacs and a dad who's always staring at the bottom of a bottle and who DON'T make him wear a helmet..they get to the mountain, and your son sees his friend not wearing his helmet..and even though he knows better, he's still a 16 year old kid who makes bad decisions sometimes, so he takes his helmet off too. The next day, your son is in a hospital bed with tubes up his nose and down his throat, machines monitoring his heartbeat and vital signs because his brain is a bowl of jello from smashing his head on a rail. Guess what? Your right to choose, and your quality parenting, are worth approximately dick now.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Because the law sets a precedent.


----------



## East§ide (Mar 14, 2011)

the precedent is that in this case, the safety of a teenagers brain is worth more than his right to choose to protect it, since by definition he is a minor who is incapable of making the smart decision to begin with.


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

Leo said:


> Wouldn't the seatbelt be the lesser of two evils scenario? All stats that I've seen show seatbelts saves more lives than it takes.


Either way, the question is whether the individual has the _right_ to make decisions regarding his/her own well-being. Clearly the law answers that question in the negative.

Sure, statistically that is probably the case. Then again after they mandated seatbealts in the mid-1980s, I'm pretty sure the statistics didn't show a significant decrease in fatalities. I'm not saying "don't wear a seatbelt" but that law is a good one to see the path that the law takes as it metastasizes; originally it had to be a secondary violation where you could not be pulled over simply for not wearing a seatbelt. 20 years later we have "click it or ticket" campaign. 

So this starts with minors in NJ and then spreads to other states and the next thing you know it's everywhere and everyone has to do it.


----------



## East§ide (Mar 14, 2011)

it took well over 10 years for this law to pass in NJ.. you really think it'll spread with any kind of quickness anywhere else? As many people have said, this is directly in response to placating that guy about his daughter. I don't exactly envision this spreading like wildfire.


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

East§ide said:


> the precedent is that in this case, the safety of a teenagers brain is worth more than his right to choose to protect it, since by definition he is a minor who is incapable of making the smart decision to begin with.


1. By this logic, a teenager is unable to make any decision regarding his health, safety or well-being. So they shouldn't be allowed to drive at all. They also shouldn't be allowed to eat unacompanied by an adult since they aren't capable of making healthy decisions. Etc.

2. The argument implies that there is a _correct_ decision so any adult who opts out is clearly incapable of making the smart decision to begin with. Is not the safety of an adult's brain worth more than his right to make poor decisions? Therefore, adults should also be subject to this law which will force them to make the correct decision!


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

david_z said:


> Either way, the question is whether the individual has the _right_ to make decisions regarding his/her own well-being. Clearly the law answers that question in the negative.
> 
> Sure, statistically that is probably the case. Then again after they mandated seatbealts in the mid-1980s, I'm pretty sure the statistics didn't show a significant decrease in fatalities. I'm not saying "don't wear a seatbelt" but that law is a good one to see the path that the law takes as it metastasizes; originally it had to be a secondary violation where you could not be pulled over simply for not wearing a seatbelt. 20 years later we have "click it or ticket" campaign.
> 
> So this starts with minors in NJ and then spreads to other states and the next thing you know it's everywhere and everyone has to do it.


Well I already brought a point up about the seatbelt thing not being one's personal liability. Not having your seatbelt on endangers your passengers and other motorists.

Wearing a helmet on the other hand is strictly your own personal safety and in no way endangers other people.


----------



## East§ide (Mar 14, 2011)

david_z said:


> 1. By this logic, a teenager is unable to make any decision regarding his health, safety or well-being. So they shouldn't be allowed to drive at all. They also shouldn't be allowed to eat unacompanied by an adult since they aren't capable of making healthy decisions. Etc.
> 
> 2. The argument implies that there is a _correct_ decision so any adult who opts out is clearly incapable of making the smart decision to begin with. Is not the safety of an adult's brain worth more than his right to make poor decisions? Therefore, adults should also be subject to this law which will force them to make the correct decision!


1. Actually, in NJ (since this is where the helmet law applies) you must be 17 to get your PROVISIONAL license (cannot drive between 11pm-5am, cannot drive with more than one person in the car not in your family, etc.) and you dont receive your license until the ripe age of 18..lets not get into semantics, but 18 is generally considered the age by which you are old enough and mature enough to be considered an adult and to make serious decisions regarding your own health and future. Think about it - think about how you can't get your own health insurance until you're 18, you can't sign yourself out of school (even if you're sick), you can't do pretty much anything..

2. No this argument implies that a teenager isn't old enough to maturely weigh his options and make a smart decision one way or the other. As an adult, it is assumed that you are smart enough and mature enough to weigh the benefits of wearing a helmet vs. whatever cons you might feel there are, and make an educated decision based on that and assume the responsibility that accompanies that risk.

You're grouping adults and minors together when they shouldn't be - if the government and the country viewed adults and minors as having the same levels of cognitive reasoning to determine what is and is not the correct course of action, then there wouldn't be age restrictions on many things.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

I'm all for teenage head injuries where do you think donor organs come from? Just saying! I need me some bone marrow!


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

Hey! I said it sets a precedent too. Where's my credit dammit!?


----------



## JeffreyCH (Nov 21, 2009)

BurtonAvenger said:


> I'm all for teenage head injuries where do you think donor organs come from? Just saying! I need me some bone marrow!


BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA hells yeah!! I could use a new liver :cheeky4:


----------



## Deviant (Dec 22, 2009)

Leo said:


> Hey! I said it sets a precedent too. Where's my credit dammit!?












There you go.

Plain and simple, not wearing a helmet is (and should be) personal choice. This isn't like speeding a car, you're not hurting anyone but yourself by not wearing one. What's next, you have to wear long sleeves and jeans when riding a bike so you don't scrape up your arms and knees? Our so-called "government" can stay the fuck out of personal decisions.


----------



## david_z (Dec 14, 2009)

East§ide said:


> 18 is generally considered the age by which you are old enough and mature enough to be considered an adult and to make serious decisions regarding your own health and future.
> 
> ... if the government and the country viewed adults and minors as having the same levels of cognitive reasoning to determine what is and is not the correct course of action, then there wouldn't be age restrictions on many things.


The age of majority is essentially an arbitrary number (as a thought experiment I'm sure we all know 17 year olds who are very smart and capable, and we all know 30 year olds who are fucking morons). It is this way because it is simply _easier_ than if the courts & laws had to be judged on their own merits for each individual case.


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

Anyone in any county that thinks they are totally free are kidding themselves anyway


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

While I agree with most of that I think the difference is that as times change and the world changes, rules and laws aswell as precedents set all must change with the times. I understand the US's history aswell as constitution as I have studied them in depth but I think the founding fathers were, and the constitution were written in a time that could not foresee how the world would change, that's not to say you throw the basic constitution and concepts out the door but I do believe there are some extenuating circumstances that warrant a change here and there to what was written 200 years ago. I'm not questioning the importance of this all but I am saying that there comes a time when you must address changing times, think of the knowledge and changes the world has advanced in the last 50 years let alone 200, while the constitution remain the same. Btw I am not suggesting the constitution be changed at all.


----------



## cjcameron11 (Feb 5, 2011)

No neither do I I guess I was talking about more serious issues than helmets on snowboarders, but in principal it has to do with the overall argument/discussion


----------



## Donutz (May 12, 2010)

For those who compare ski helmet laws to seat belt laws (which includes me, btw  ), let's remember that driving a car is _not_ a right. It's a licensed privilege, and the gov't can set any kind of requirements for the granting of that license. Skiing or snowboarding (or riding a bike) are not licensed activities and therefore fall under the category of personal freedoms. Notwithstanding demurrals by denialists, seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws _do_ reduce injuries and deaths overall, and quite significantly, so a case can be made that your 'personal choice' is costing other people money for an activity that the government is legitimately mandated to oversee for the good of the general public. No such mandate exists for things like skiing, snowboarding, or walking down the street.

I do believe that ski helmets reduce injury overall (I wear one and I will continue to do so), but I have a problem with passing laws to shove your own neuroses down someone else's throat. Let's be clear on this -- the question of whether helmets help and the question of whether they should be mandated are two separate issues.


----------



## Deviant (Dec 22, 2009)

Donutz said:


> Notwithstanding demurrals by denialists, seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws _do_ reduce injuries and deaths overall, and quite significantly, so a case can be made that your 'personal choice' is costing other people money for an activity that the government is legitimately mandated to oversee for the good of the general public. No such mandate exists for things like skiing, snowboarding, or walking down the street.


I hope to god it never does. If it's done by specific resort rules, ok, but not by our government and as a whole across a state or nation. This is why I believe it's another step towards insanity. If they mandate helmet laws, then why not wrist guards, ass pads, knee pads and the rest. All of which, if injured, could possibly be a very serious injury. Where does it end?


----------



## Punkulf (Dec 11, 2012)

Here in Canada, i can't wait for our government to make ski helmets mandatory to everyone on every mountain.
Why? Simply because if you get a concussion or other, the doctor treating you will be paid by MY taxes. So you better spend some money on protection to keep me from spending money on you.

As for the argument of creating a precedent (if we accept the helmet is mandatory, then it will be knee pads, then wrist guards...), it has never been and never will be a reason to stop a law. It's actually a very stupid way of thinking and everyone with minimal law studies will tell you so. It's one of the first myth that gets debunked in law classes. This is like people telling we should stop gay marriage becuz then, we will have no choice but to allow marrying a pig or a cow. 

As for american friends, then it's completely different becuz if I understand correctly, no one is paying medical expenses for the concussion but the person who has it...


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)




----------



## BoardWalk (Mar 22, 2011)

Punkulf said:


> Here in Canada, i can't wait for our government to make ski helmets mandatory to everyone on every mountain.
> Why? Simply because if you get a concussion or other, the doctor treating you will be paid by MY taxes.


Wouldn't the symptoms be gone before you could see a doctor in Canada? 




snowklinger said:


>


Come on it's alive let's roll with it........


----------



## Donutz (May 12, 2010)

BoardWalk said:


> Wouldn't the symptoms be gone before you could see a doctor in Canada?


Last night my wife had to go to Emergency to get x-rays after a ski accident. Total time from walking in to walking out: 3 hrs. Total cost: zip.

Get over this republican rant that the Canadian medical system sucks.


----------



## wrathfuldeity (Oct 5, 2007)

Punkulf said:


> As for american friends, then it's completely different becuz if I understand correctly, no one is paying medical expenses for the concussion but the person who has it...


incorrect....we are just jumping off the cliff because we are unwilling to lynch the heath insurance companies/industry, lobbyist and politicians. We are instead willing to be lemmings and have chosen to commit suicide instead.


----------



## ComeBack_Kid (May 27, 2009)

linvillegorge said:


> Dumb. We do way too much in this country to fight the efforts of natural selection. You don't want to wear a seat belt? Fine. You don't want to wear a helmet? Great. Why should any of that be forced on us? Let natural selection run it's course!


I could not agree more. As long as people aren't hurting others, I don't give a flying f*ck what they do with their lives.

Wear a helmet or don't, strap on a seatbelt or don't, whatever... the consequences are on you, and the government shouldn't have a say in it. Period.


----------



## BoardWalk (Mar 22, 2011)

Donutz said:


> Last night my wife had to go to Emergency to get x-rays after a ski accident. Total time from walking in to walking out: 3 hrs. Total cost: zip.
> 
> Get over this republican rant that the Canadian medical system sucks.


Just kidding it doesn't matter to me. Out of curiosity, if you blew your knee out tomorrow and needed it fixed but it wasn't an emergency, how long would you have to wait before you could get in for the operation?


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Out of curiosity, how long do you have to wait in America if you don't have health insurance to get your knee replaced? Until you come up with the funds personally. American health care pretty much sucks.


----------



## BoardWalk (Mar 22, 2011)

killclimbz said:


> Out of curiosity, how long do you have to wait in America if you don't have health insurance to get your knee replaced? Until you come up with the funds personally. American health care pretty much sucks.


Good question...I personally think American health care is great, it's just the cost that sucks...


----------



## Donutz (May 12, 2010)

BoardWalk said:


> Just kidding it doesn't matter to me. Out of curiosity, if you blew your knee out tomorrow and needed it fixed but it wasn't an emergency, how long would you have to wait before you could get in for the operation?


No idea. Never been there.


----------



## BoardWalk (Mar 22, 2011)

Donutz said:


> No idea. Never been there.


:thumbsup:To healthy knees


----------



## hikeswithdogs (Sep 23, 2011)

linvillegorge said:


> Dumb. We do way too much in this country to fight the efforts of natural selection. You don't want to wear a seat belt? Fine. You don't want to wear a helmet? Great. Why should any of that be forced on us? Let natural selection run it's course!


While i agree with this kind of Sentiment overall(keep the f'ing govmnt out of my way) let me play devils advocate for a minute.

It's a well know fact that drivers who don't wear seatbelts and motorcyclers who don't wear helmets drive up overall insurance rates for everyone......how is that fair?

Also I'd imagine that if a resort has a helmet policy it would decrease their liability insurance rates and has a real impact food\drink\ticket prices.

As with most things in life there's allot of in and outs as the dude would say, do I give a fuck if anyone wears a helmet or not......no I could give a shit less.



killclimbz said:


> Out of curiosity, how long do you have to wait in America if you don't have health insurance to get your knee replaced? Until you come up with the funds personally. American health care pretty much sucks.


I don't think most people without insurance don't have 30K sitting around for knee surgery


----------



## Arlen (Dec 28, 2012)

*New rul*

According to me this is a good rule because every year a number of teenager looses it life or get severe injury due to the absence of proper gear such as helmets. It all depends upon the the teenagers that what types of BMX helmets they choose.....


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

Arlen said:


> According to me this is a good rule because every year a number of teenager looses it life or get severe injury due to the absence of proper gear such as helmets. It all depends upon the the teenagers that what types of BMX helmets they choose.....


I'm not entirely sure about this, and if I'm wrong I'm sure someone will stomp my ignorant ass for it! But I think the issue that's bugging the veteran riders is the possibility that a law requiring "minors" to wear a brain bucket will be expanded to include all adults as well! _(...BTW, a law like that will never shave a single penny off lift prices!! It's designed simply to put more profit in the "fatCats" pockets by once again limiting our freedom!!)_

You guy's don't have an issue with _minors_ being required, do you?
I ride helmet less on motorcycles when the law allows, but I would *never* let a kid get on the bike with me without one!!!

Minors, by definition aren't mature or experienced enough to understand the consequences of making that "Choice"!!

Now Adults?? :thumbsup: Natural selection should rule!! It would rid the world of a lot of the dumbass and douchebag genes!


----------

