Should helmets be manditory?

[NMU Alpine Boarder]

Well, I believe 100% in helmets. I always wear a full face helmet that has saved me several times.... I believe that it is up to the individual to make that choice though. If they are stupid enough to ride with out one, so be it...

[Gecko]

Originally posted by NMU Alpine Boarder

Well, I believe 100% in helmets. I always wear a full face helmet that has saved me several times.... I believe that it is up to the individual to make that choice though. If they are stupid enough to ride with out one, so be it...

Here here, I beleive that seatbelts and helmets are required however I believe that each individual needs to make that choice for themselves. If you choice is to protect yourself then you deserve to be covered medically...if you don't then we won't waste our money trying to save someone who didn't have the comon sense to protect themself. We really need to stop legislating comon sense and let the stupid people die...Do I wear a helmet? I own/use 2 motorcycle helmets, 2 bicycle helmets (1 DJ, 1 street/trail) 1 snowboard helmet and 1 Skateboard helmet (that needs replacing soon). I don't wear a seatbelt but I haven't owned a car/driven a car in like 7 years...I will when I finally do buy a car as I do not consider myself stupid

[Enzo]

I'm not a motorcyclist, but just to clarify....NH does require eye-protection but not helmets.

While snowboarding, I wear a helmet and feel much safer and secure with it on especially when I'm screaming down hard pack slopes or narrow tree lined trails. I also like my helmet while cruising powder stashes in the trees. It protects my head from thick brush and stray branches.

Just keep in mind that you can still receive serious injuries even with a helmet on. At Loon last year a 21 year old boarder died while wearing a helmet. He flew off a huge kicker then caught an edge on his landing and slammed his head on the snow.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2004/01/07/man_dies_after_snowboarding_accident_at_loon/

[Baka Dasai]

Everybody is assuming that a mandatory helmet law would reduce injury and/or reduce the state's health care costs. It's not that simple.

Take mandatory helmet laws for bicycles. In Australia and NZ, these caused an immediate (and very large) drop in the number of cyclists. This has had two effects:<ol><li><p>The remaining cyclists are at far greater risk of injury. This is because cyclist numbers are one of the prime determinants of cyclist safety - the less cyclists there are, the more that car drivers start to "not see" them and therefore crash into them.<li><p>Health care costs have risen, because the positive health benefits of cycling massively outweigh the dangers.</ol><p>After a couple of decades of these laws the statistics show that head injuries per cyclist are unchanged between the pre-mandatory helmet era and the mandatory helmet era. Mandatory helmets did nothing to reduce head injury, but they did a lot to reduce overall health and safety.

Now snowboarding/skiing is not cycling, but my point is that well-intentioned laws can have unintended consequences. Snowboarding is already conceived of as a dangerous sport by most people - imagine how that perception will be furthered if the government decides that it is so dangerous that you have to wear a helmet to do it.

I also have my doubts as to whether ski/snowboard helmets actually reduce injury. Is there some unbiased evidence to indicate this? In the case of bicycle helmets this question was never answered because it was "common sense" (of course helmets are effective!), yet the statistics seem to show they have no positive effect other than to reduce skin abrasions to the head, and that they may even slightly <i>increase</i> the likelihood of more serious head injury.

The helmet industry will be doing everything they can to see mandatory helmet laws brought in. Opportunistic politicians will jump at the chance to be seen to be doing something "for the children" (I think children get picked on for these laws simply because they don't have a political voice to say "NO"). Thankfully I doubt the resort owners will want mandatory helmet laws, so hopefully we'll be spared these laws.

Disclaimer: I wear a helmet while snowboarding.

[Zone]

Here are some hard data read at your leasure:

Within the framework of a bicycle helmet research program, we have set up a database of bicycle accident victims, containing both accident and clinical data. The database consists of a consecutive series of 86 victims of bicycle accidents who underwent a neurosurgical intervention in our hospital between 1990 and 2000. Data were obtained from police files, medical records, computed tomography head scans and a patient questionnaire. In only three victims, the wearing of a helmet was documented. In this study, the head injuries are analysed and the relation between the different types of head injuries and outcome is assessed. Forty-four accidents were collisions with a motor vehicle and 42 accidents were falls. Most impacts occurred at the side (57%) or at the front (27%) of the head. The most frequent injuries were skull fractures (86%) and cerebral contusions (73%). Age was negatively correlated with outcome (P = 0.0002 ) and positively correlated with the number (P = 0.00002) and volume (P = 0.00005) of contusions and the presence of subdural haematomas (P = 0.000001). The injuries with the strongest negative effect on outcome were: subarachnoid haemorrhage (P = 0.000001), multiple (P = 0.000005) or large ( P 0.0007) contusions, subdural haematoma (P = 0.001) and brain swelling (P = 0.002). A significant coexistence of these four injuries was found. We hypothesise that in many patients the contusions may have been the primary injuries of this complex and should therefore be considered as a main injury determining outcome in this study. We believe that such findings may support a rational approach to optimising pedal cyclist head protection

: On August 15, 1999, Louisiana's mandatory motorcycle helmet law was repealed. Our primary objective was to determine if the repeal resulted in an increase in motorcyclist morbidity and mortality. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the frequency of helmet use and morbidity and mortality before and after the repeal of the law. Fatality statistics for Louisiana were obtained through the National Highway Safety Traffic Association between 1994 and 2002. Injury statistics were totaled for motorcyclists admitted to Medical Center of Louisiana New Orleans during the same period of time. RESULTS: Statewide, helmet use decreased 21.2% (p < 0.001, chi-square) after repeal of the helmet law, while locally, helmet use decreased 34.7% (p < 0.001). Fatalities significantly increased after the repeal, both statewide (3.0%-3.9%, p < 0.05) and locally (3.8%-5.8%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Motorcycle helmet use decreased significantly and motorcyclist fatality rates increased significantly after repeal of the Louisiana mandatory helmet law.

On July 1 2000, the State of Florida exempted adult motorcyclist and moped riders from wearing helmets provided they have medical insurance of 10,000 US dollars. Monthly time series of motorcycle occupant deaths are examined from 1/1994 to 12/2001. The interrupted time series analysis estimates a 48.6% increase in motorcycle occupant deaths the year after the law change

[Zone]

Here are some snowboarding ones: note that a relative risk of >2 pulled Vioxx out of the market...

To evaluate whether helmets increase the incidence and/or severity of cervical spine injury; decrease the incidence of head injury; and/or increase the incidence of collisions (as a reflection of adverse effects on peripheral vision and/or auditory acuity) among young skiers and snowboarders. METHODS: During one ski season (1998-99) at a world class ski resort, all young skiers and snowboarders (<13 years of age) presenting with head, face, or neck injury to the one central medical facility at the base of the mountain were identified. On presentation to the clinic, subjects or their parents completed a questionnaire reviewing their use of helmets and circumstances surrounding the injury event. Physicians documented the site and severity of injury, investigations, and disposition of each patient. Concurrently, counts were made at the entry to the ski area of the number of skiers and snowboarders wearing helmets. RESULTS: Seventy children were evaluated at the clinic following ski/snowboard related head, neck, and face injuries. Fourteen did not require investigation or treatment. Of the remaining 56, 17 (30%) were wearing helmets and 39 (70%) were not. No serious neck injury occurred in either group. Using helmet-use data from the hill, among those under 13 years of age, failure to wear a helmet increased the risk of head, neck, or face injury (relative risk (RR) 2.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 4.12). When corrected for activity, RR was 1.77 and 95% CI 0.98 to 3.19. There was no significant difference in the odds ratio for collisions. The two groups may have been different in terms of various relevant characteristics not evaluated. No separate analysis of catastrophic injuries was possible. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that, in skiers and snowboarders under 13 years of age, helmet use does not increase the incidence of cervical spine injury and does reduce the incidence of head injury requiring investigation and/or treatment.

. The incidence, type, severity, and costs of crash-related injuries requiring hospitalization or resulting in death were compared for helmeted and unhelmeted motorcyclists. METHODS. This was a retrospective cohort study of injured motorcyclists in Washington State in 1989. Motorcycle crash data were linked to statewide hospitalization and death data. RESULTS. The 2090 crashes included in this study resulted in 409 hospitalizations (20%) and 59 fatalities (2.8%). Although unhelmeted motorcyclists were only slightly more likely to be hospitalized overall, they were more severely injured, nearly three times more likely to have been head injured, and nearly four times more likely to have been severely or critically head injured than helmeted riders. Unhelmeted riders were also more likely to be readmitted to a hospital for follow-up treatment and to die from their injuries. The average hospital stay for unhelmeted motorcyclists was longer, and cost more per case; the cost of hospitalization for unhelmeted motorcyclists was 60% more overall ($3.5 vs $2.2 million). CONCLUSIONS. Helmet use is strongly associated with reduced probability and severity of injury, reduced economic impact, and a reduction in motorcyclist deaths.

etc etc....

So mandatory maybe not but you've got to be stupid not to wear one (very costly consequence for looking cool in my opinion, but that's just my opinion).

Common sense....

[kipstar]

Dr Zone

This is all excellent factual based stuff.

However, the sample size of 70 is mighty small, and the circumstances surrounding each injury are probably far more important than whether a helmet was worn or not. Since you asked this question - circumstances surrounding each injury - please outline so we can learn more. I doubt we could then do much deeper analysis, since we'd be dealing with samples of like 10 people or less, which is starting to send the error right up. 17 people wearing helmets? What if most helmet wearers tended to be more advanced riders, and thus better able to know how to fall? I work in marketing database management and market research - if I presented stuff like this, the first comment would be - are we to believe just 17 people and make decisions based on this?

But I am not a statistician...maybe medical studies can somehow factor this away.

Back to the issue of what the root cuase of the problem is: for instance if all injuries were sustained in the park, irrespective of wearing a helmet or not, then logically, one could say "not riding the park makes snowboarding a whole lot safer than riding the park" - am I understand this correctly?

I think helmets make a whole lot of sense in the park, race courses and for big jumping. But for carving? Just don't see that is serves any point - especially in somewhere like Tahoe or Mammoth where it is almost impossible to find something hard to run your head against - well excluding some of the himbos from LA with them big pecs and arnold style musselly dussellies.

Kip

[Jack M]

Originally posted by kipstar

Back to the issue of what the root cuase of the problem is: for instance if all injuries were sustained in the park, irrespective of wearing a helmet or not, then logically, one could say "not riding the park makes snowboarding a whole lot safer than riding the park" - am I understand this correctly?

Exactly. 10 years ago if there was a bump or roll on a trail that you might be able to get 2 feet of air off of, it would be barricaded with bamboo poles. Now we have snowcat sculpted table-tops, halfpipes, launchers, gaps, rails, funboxes, etc. That's a good thing - it's freedom baby, yeah!

Notice the sign at the top of every park - it says "at your own risk". It also says that on the back of your LIFT TICKET. Those stats are fine and good and indisputable, but the fact is that the decision is up to the individual.

-Jack

(helmet wearer, able to think for himself)

[Guest jeremiah]

Kipstar--I'm not going to tell anyone they have to wear a helmet, but I know my helmet has saved me from at least 2 concussions while carving. I didn't wear a helmet until I started carving, and realized that I was going significantly faster than I had been while freeriding. I'm looking to replace my current helmet because it has a physical dent where I landed on an ice chunk. (Does anyone recommend foam one thunk and junk helmets?)

I spent 10 years not wearing a helmet, and was lucky to not get seriously hurt. I had a couple close calls, and decided that it was stupid to continue tempting fate. I wear a helmet every time I go out now, and I recommend them to most of my friends. I don't see much reason for intermediates who never leave the groomers to wear them, just like I don't see a real reason for people riding motorcycles in parades to wear helmets.

I prefer that helmet choice be left to the individual, but that won't stop me from recommending that anyone riding alpine gear, the park, or trees wear a helment. Hell, I even recommend them for skiiers.

Jeremiah

[Gecko]

Helmets tend to prevent injuries in lesser accidents that often don't get reported because there was no serious injury. Where as many injuries that are reported in which a helmet was worn the Helmet may not have had any relation to the injury. I.E. I totaled my motorcyle when I was rear-ended by a car...I bruised my shoulder, some ribs and cracked my helmet but because I was able to walk away HPD didn't file/generate an accident report (thank god for my leathers and helmet). If I hadn't been wearing a helmet (not a requirement in hawaii) I would have been carted away in a bodybag (I flew 50-60 feet on impact). There are accidents that a helmet won't help you with, the Snowboarder at Loon is an example, Dajiro Katoh in MotoGP is another, but I honestly beleive that wearing are helmet is a safety measure that everyone should make the choice to adhere to.

[terror]

Jeez, I'm participating again. MANDATORY HELMETS? HELL NO! I never wear one. Call me stupid, call me whatever, but in my estimation, it's about freedom of choice. If I make a bad choice, and it effects no one other than myself, what's the problem. If I make a choice, and it effects someone else, I expect to be held accountable. Where do helmets and my choice of wearing them, come into play? I don't want my government protecting me from myself. I choose to ride without a helmet, 'cause I like hats and goggles. I'm insured, pay taxes, and I've read the back of my lift ticket. If I don't want to wear a damn helmet, I'm not gonna. And I don't care about Sonny Bono or anything like that. Parents: You can make your children wear helmets, not me. Canadians: I live in the USA, see above. Helmet lovers: call me what you like, tell me I'm stupid. I don't care, don't ride with me, don't ride the chair with me. I don't wanna hear it. You wanna wear one? Great, good choice for you. IT'S YOUR CHOICE! Me? No. I'll be the guy riding carving boards with a blue hat and VonZipper goggles, just so ya know.

[Jon Dahl]

I credit helmets for saving my daughter and 2 step-daughters from concussions in the learning process. I have 2 saves for myself, one on a cat track on my hame mountain when in flat light I missed a rut that bit me hard. You won't catch me on my SV1000 w/o a helmet either, with or without helmet laws. I may not look as "cool" but I value the ability to think for myself, and not having to wear a colostomy bag to take care of my functions is pretty cool, too.

[Jack M]

There is a general theme to this thread that I find astonishing - that you've got to be stupid not to wear a helmet.

Stupidity has nothing to do with it. What it is, is everyone has a different threshold for acceptible risk.

There are probably plenty of people who think that you've got to be stupid to do something as absurd as slide down a snow covered hill strapped to a plank at high speed with trees and lift towers and other people around.

And I know there are plenty of people who don't just think it's stupid to motorcycle without a helmet, they think it's stupid to motorcycle <i>at all</i>. When you study the stats of motorcyclist injury per accident compared to car stats, it's easy to write off motorcycling altogether as "stupid". It's not, it's just someone else's idea of acceptible risk.

[Jon Dahl]

NO! To many laws already, and laws do not help. Of course, I don't want to pay for someone elses stupidity in higher insurance, but it's a risk I have to take. Oh, and seatbelts have saved me once or twice in race cars, and I believe in them, too, if you know how to wear them properly. Worn wrong, I think the potential for injury may increase.

[philfell]

My view, I think it should be a persons choice weather to protect themselves or not, ie helmets, seatbelts. I don't think the government should regulate it. That being said keep in mind that I do live in the U.S. and my view would be drasticlly different if I lived in a place where there was a state run healthcare.

On a slightly different thought.... Should ski areas require safty inspections for equipment, like states have for cars? Like requiring binding checks for skis, and making sure your edges are properly sharpened when it's icy out. A person riding with dull edges have less control than if their edges were sharp. This could cause a higher risk of a collision or an injury. Mandatory wrist gaurds? Most snowboard injuries are of the hand and wrist, this would lead someone to think that these are way more important than helmets, especially when it comes to cost of health care.

[Jack M]

This goes along with what Phil said.

Many people here have been riding long enough to remember snowboarder certification - you had to pass a riding test in order to be "certified" to snowboard at a particular resort.

This concept promptly died when some lawyer pointed it out to a resort that they could be sued if a snowboarder injured themself at the resort after having been issued a certification that they were good enough to ride there.

Policies and laws like this are a real slippery slope because they take the responsibility off the individual and place it on the entity making the policy.

If a ski resort mandated helmets, it would then be their fault if someone slipped past the lifty without one and then injured themself.

A resort would also have to provide helmets either for sale or rent for people ignorant of the policy, and that becomes a humongous liability. "The helmet they made me buy/rent wasn't good enough. Give me a million dollars."

-Jack

(helmet wearer)

[Gecko]

I still carry my Stowe Snowboarder Certification card from 87/88....anyway though I do feel that not wearing a helmet is irresponsible I am not in favor of government restrictions which only perpetuate the lack of personal responsiblity. I have worn a helmet for all my risky activities for years though I have been known to not wear a helmet when skating a backyard pool, I will never ride MTB with someone who's not wearing a helmet, it only takes one time carrying an unconcious person 10 miles out of the backcountry (thankfully there were a lot of us) to make helmets a requirement. I consider snowboarding somewhere between these two activities

[Guest Thomas_S]

I wear a helmet when snowboarding, have for a good 3 seasons. There's no doubt that it really saved me when I got nailed by a renegade snowboarder with absolutely NO skills who just thought it would be cool to straight-line the diamonds. Needless to say, I managed to do a nice little flip and nail my head on the ground.

Now, while I personally wear a helmet whenever I'm mountain biking, skiing and snowboarding, and when I'm kayaking/white water river rafting, I don't think we should mandate it on the slopes.

While it might not be "cool" to have that helmet on, and that octopus on your head is, what's more important? The cool little tentacle-thing hat, or your life? For me, it's obvious. I take risks, no doubt, however I don't plan on taking stupid risks. No helmet is one.

Yeah, people laugh. I mean really, what kind of idiot would wear a helmet! They're like, so totally ghey. Dude....

Of course it's not what kind of equipment you ride, or what kind of clothes you wear. It's your skill. I've had people say stuff for my wearing one, however I'm the one with more skills. I'm the one pushing the envelope. Pushing what I do, what I can do. They're just sitting up there, rotting, in the park, never venturing out.....

Coolness, or lack thereof, is no excuse.

Yes, it depends on what you feel what kind of risk is acceptable, however one must consider the others on the slopes, and not their own ability along with that acceptable risk. I wear a helmet on the slopes to protect myself from others.

Besides, why over-litigate our lives even more? Passing more bills does nothing to help. All it does is clog up our legal system and permit the real criminals to walk free. However that's a debate I doubt we should get into...

In the end however, it's your choice. It's your life. Do with it what you want.

[jp1]

No, but 'common sense' should !

[mirror70]

Originally posted by philfell

My view, I think it should be a persons choice weather to protect themselves or not, ie helmets, seatbelts. I don't think the government should regulate it.

I agree about helmets, but NOT about seatbelts.

Seatbelts should be mandatory because they keep other drivers on the road safe from you. What many people don't realize about seatbelts is that they keep you in your seat. This is important when you: panic brake, hit something and don't stop, hit something on a hill, hit something hard enough for your airbags to go, hit something and don't want to be killed by one of your passengers hitting you, etc etc. As shown by this thread, these are things that even responsible people don't know/think about, and are very important from the "I can take care of myself" standpoint because they make you a danger to others. Not wearing a helmet doesn't make you any more dangerous to other people on the slope.

[Guest Frappe]

My 2 cents:

I don't think helmets should be mandatory. I wear one. They've saved my skull more than once. The only mandatory enforcement of them that I could support is for young children and in racing.

More so in racing, where speeds are higher and the racer's focus is on getting the best time, with little to no attention left for making sure they don't wreck themselves in a fall.

[Guest boogieman]

i think everybody should have the choice weather you want to wear a helmet or not, i personally dont wear one i have crached a lot bot never hurted my head becouse naturally you always protect your head so your wrists, elbows, shoulders wil break before you hit your head and you can stil break your neck with a helmet wich i think would be more probable then having a skull injurie from falling on you head on the snow

on the other hand if you fall and you slide down and you hit someone else against his boots with your head your in trouble

or if you hit a tree so its in any way wiser to wear a helmet then not

i think eventually they will just oblige you to wear a helmet for insurance then it will still be up to you if you want to be insured or not wich sounds fair to me

[mtnpig]

Regardless of the responsibility, any injury cost will eventually trickle down to the general public's pocket. The bicycle industry has initiated a mandatory helmet use for kid's under a certain age. If this is done on the mountain more kid's would accept the fact over time and it would be a standard item of equipment or style. Educating the young will remove the stigma for future generations. Helmets are not as geeky looking as they used to be and will be more widely accepted as they become more "fashionable". Helmets = common sense. Did anyone ever read the "Darwin Awards" books? Some excellent examples of common sense gone awry and why people need to be protected from themselves.

[Guest wally sipes]

lets go with this! if you have a crash and dent your skull, and you were not wearing a brain bucket, no matter who is at fault, any medical cost comes out of your wallet. no insurance will cover a head injury when not wearing a helment. this should a seatbelt rule also.

[philfell]

Wally your wrong. I know people who have had head injuries while skiing and weren't wearing a helmet. Their health insurance covered it. Your probably right about the seatbelts though because it is the law that you wear one, but it isn't the law that you wear a helmet while skiing/snowboarding so the health insurance have no right to refuse coverage.