California Considering Law that Requires Ski Helmets for Kids
By Rocky Thompson on January 15th, 2010
A child psychologist and state senator from San Francisco has introduced legislation that would require kids under age 18 to wear helmets when skiing in California. It’s an idea that’s tough to argue with, even if you hate paternalistic laws. The only real logical stance you could take is that people who are dumb enough to send their kids onto the hill without helmets should have their children weeded out of the gene pool. I would have a problem with it if they made adults wear helmets, but now that I’m over 18 I care little for the rights of kids. Still, no one’s going to tell me to protect my brain.
I have to disagree with you Rocky. It’s very easy to argue with this legislation. It doesn’t matter what my reason is for not wanting/forcing my kids to wear helmets it’s none of the State’s business. What’s next? You must wear a helmet to cross the street?
The California legislators should spend ways trying to save money instead of creating more pointless laws.
Insurance companies can provide discounts/penalties for helmet use if they feel that they significantly affect payouts.
Todd you actually proved argued the opposite point with the last two sentences. Say two skiers both get in similar accidents where they smack their head on a tree, but one is wearing a helmet and the other is not. The one wearing his helmet is seeing stars but gets back up and continues skiing/spending money at the resort. The other one is either out for the day, has a concussion, or major brain damage. The latter two conditions requiring ski patrol/medevac/hospitalization.
In a broader economic sense, injuries cost more money. The medevac and hospitalization costs can end up costing the state money (MediCal) if the person has no private health insurance. As well, the fact that a adult is injured means they are not working or spending money and contributing to the state via income and sales tax.
Albeit this law only pertains to kids (who don’t pay income taxes), the overarching idea is similar. Legislating safety (ie. motorcycle helmets, seatbelts, hardhats, etc.) saves money because injured people do not contribute to the economy/tax base. The only money made is by the medical fees, and they are not taxed the same.
Additionally, the act of parents buying helmets for their kids will generate sales tax revenue. The cost of implementing this legislation to the state, minimal, likely falling on the backs of the resorts themselves.
Helmet laws? Over my braindead body.
Only while skiing? I’d say they ought to be required while snowboarding. Ski patrol will tell you that it’s snowboarders who bung up their brains, not skiers so much. Big wide boards flip riders onto their heads with more leverage; skis don’t do that. Shaped and fat skis do it more than skinny skis did, but not nearly as much as snowboards. Add to that the park activity and you have a strong case for mandating helmets. Resorts already strongly encourage helmets, but skiers and riders both ignore it, especially the casual riders and skiers who only go a few times a year, are learning, and really need them the most!
NSP really should be consulted thoroughly on this issue. I don’t think that people should be free to do what they like and then expect others to foot the bill - uninsured, helmetless riders who ride rails and half-pipe are an irresponsible drain on us all.
Gary: The issue is with the state medical program and not with helmet legislation. All medical payments for an individual should come from the individual or their private insurance company. Other taxpayers should not be held responsible for someone else’s actions.
If this passes, it’s just one more reason not to visit California.
BTW: I wear a helmet EVERY time I ski, and that is a personal choice.
Forcing helmets on skiing kids?! Far more kids die from car crashes on the way to the ski slopes in a car. We should force all kids to wear helmets in the car on the way to skiing.
BTW- A woman died yesterday in Telluride while helicopter skiing. Her helmet actually wedged her head underwater (in a face plant into a creek). The helmet seems to have contributed to her death.
You helmet-mandating nazis need to get a life!
Oh, for the days before Sonny Bono, America’s boon to the helmet industry.
Got to hate those Nazis, with their love of safety and concern over public health (the arian ones anyway.) Todd I’m assuming it chaps you to no end that you are required to wear a seatbelt in most if not all states. Where does the government get off telling me whether or not I can be a projectile in the instance of an accident? I wear a helmet everytime I’m on a bike and I look with dismay on the families out riding whose little ones are weaving all over with exposed noggins. If my state legislated a mandatory helmet requirement for people under 18 I would have no problem with it. You say it’s your choice whether or not you protect your head–but shouldn’t it be different for kids? I understand, but disagree, if your argument is against all safety laws–all laws that really only impact the individual. I would disagree on children under the legal adult age (though also on legal adults.) Do you also take issue with the states that have requirements for age and size before kids can be allowed to sit in the front seat of cars?
If you’re opinion is that helmets do not improve safety enough to be considered a nearly universal and therefore aren’t something that should be required even if a parent doesn’t think it’s necessary then that’s a sepreate issue.
Rambling.
Last year while skiing in Vail, my friend and I were taking the Poma at the top as we’ve done numerous times before. But this time, when she released the Poma, it swung in such an odd way that it flipped and struck her head. Luckily she was wearing a helmut. It really knocked her for a loop and her helmut had about a 4-5″ dent. I wonder what her head would have looked like had she not been wearing a helmut?