Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums banner

Vail Requires helmets for employees who ride/ski on duty.

6K views 64 replies 10 participants last post by  Grizz 
#1 ·
Don't know how I feel about this one. I can sort of understand it for people who teach in ski school. Especially when kids are required to where a helmet. On the flip side, ski area employees are notoriously under paid. So now you have to buy a helmet when you are already living on Mac 'N Cheese and Ramen?

9NEWS.com | Colorado's Online News Leader | Vail requires helmets for staff who ski on duty

BROOMFIELD (AP) - Vail Resorts says its employees will be required to wear helmets while skiing or snowboarding on the job starting with the 2009-2010 season.
Vail also will require helmets for all children age 12 and under who take group lessons through its schools, and helmets will be part of the resort's children's rental packages unless parents or guardians sign a waiver.
Click the link for the rest...
 
G
#2 ·
Kinda sucks they don't have the money, but I'm sure they can scrape buy if it is a priority. Don't they get some kind of discount? Can't all ski/snowboarded related stuff be a tax write-off? I wonder how many employees are aware all this stuff can be written off.

IMO everyone should be required. What are the legit reasons for not? I can't think of one. With that said I need to make it a habit of wearing my helmet.
 
#3 ·
Don't know how I feel about this one. I can sort of understand it for people who teach in ski school. Especially when kids are required to where a helmet. On the flip side, ski area employees are notoriously under paid. So now you have to buy a helmet when you are already living on Mac 'N Cheese and Ramen?

9NEWS.com | Colorado's Online News Leader | Vail requires helmets for staff who ski on duty



Click the link for the rest...
as i mentioned in one of the 'helmet threads', i think it is only a matter of time before all resorts require patrons to wear one.
 
G
#4 ·
I have a friend who works at Vail as a lifty. He said a lot of the local shops are throwing RIDICULOUS deals at them for last years helmets. Like over 50% off. He got a Giro Omen for $90. I paid almost $200 for mine. I think the shops are definitely aiming for some loyalty on this one, but it's awesome that they recognize that helmets are pretty expensive for them.
 
#5 ·
I don't see resorts requiring patrons to wear a helmet for a long time. People will just take their dollars elsewhere. Even the requirement for kids in ski school to wear one can be circumvented by the parent signing a waiver. If helmet use gets above 90% of the general skier/rider using them, then you might start to see resorts making their use required. Any less than that, and it's a lot of money for a resort to lose by taking that gamble.
 
#17 ·
4 dirty thirtys and a fifth of burnetts...thats quite a lot to give up:laugh:i had to do it when i went on a trip to canada so i could go in the park and this was a completely unexpected cost that was hard for me to pay for at the time. helmets are not cheap for us youngsters, and spending that much on something you dont want sucks even harder. although now im glad i got it..
 
#10 ·
The resorts can't swing the cash and get them helmets? :rolleyes:

For insurance reasons, I can understand wanting your employees to wear helmets, but I don't think it is right to require them to buy gear that may not fit into their budgets. I assume the resort doesn't give them a couple weeks to sit around watching Brociety for a $30 helmet...
 
#15 ·
On the other hand, if they spring for the helmets themselves, they can assure uniformity, which I hear is important to Nazis. They can also have the piece of mind that their employees are buying $10 Schwinn junior helmets at Target.
 
#16 ·
Vail resorts are greedy douche bags they won't pony up. They'll tell every new hire that they get their 20% off the sale price at Mountain Sports Outlet in Silverthorne and push them that way. For insurance reasons it's a great idea. Look at the testers of the terrain park, most are my friends and they don't wear a helmet. Sorry but if it's 6 a.m. the sun hasn't come up and you're jumping a 100 footer of doom I'd wear a helmet.
 
#18 ·
Vail resorts are greedy douche bags they won't pony up. They'll tell every new hire that they get their 20% off the sale price at Mountain Sports Outlet in Silverthorne and push them that way.
I'm sure the "greedy douche bags" is probably correct but the rest is wrong.;)

Vail Resorts to require helmets for all on-mountain staff when skiing, riding next season
By realvail.com

April 13, 2009 — Vail Resorts today announced that, beginning with the 2009-2010 winter season, the Company will require all employees to wear helmets when skiing or riding on the job at each of its five mountain resorts: Vail, Beaver Creek, Breckenridge, Keystone and Heavenly.

Helmets will be provided to every employee next fall as part of their standard uniform for working on the mountain. This new initiative is part of Vail Resorts’ overall commitment to skier and snowboarder safety programs.

“At Vail Resorts, the safety of our employees and guests is a top priority and we believe the time has come for us to take our commitment to safety to the next level. Our employees will set the example next year for all who enjoy skiing and riding our slopes,” said John Garnsey, co-president of Vail Resorts’ Mountain Division and chief operating officer of Beaver Creek Resort.

The Company also announced that it will require all children, ages 12 and under, who participate in a group lesson through one of its five resorts’ ski and ride schools to wear a helmet.

Furthermore, a helmet will become a required part of any child’s (ages 12 and under) ski and snowboard rental package offered at all of Vail Resorts’ retail and rental outlets, unless a parent or legal guardian signs a waiver to decline use of the equipment.

“We firmly believe when children are participating in our ski and ride school programs that we must provide them with the proper equipment that promotes enjoyment of the sport while also reducing the possibility of injury. Even though we will now require children in our ski and ride schools to wear helmets and make them a mandatory part of every child’s rental package, we strongly recommend the use of helmets for all of our guests, regardless of their age or ability level,” said Blaise Carrig, co-president of Vail Resorts’ Mountain Division and chief operating officer of Heavenly Mountain Resort.

In addition to the preceding press release, Garnsey and Carrig issued the followed statement to all employees:

Message from John Garnsey and Blaise Carrig, Co-Presidents Mountain Division

To All Employees:

Today our company is announcing that beginning in the 2009/2010 season, all employees will be required to wear a helmet while skiing, riding or snowmobiling during work. This was not an easy decision and both of us are intimately aware of the wide range of reactions that will likely result. However, we can assure each of you that this decision was not made lightly and was made after extensive discussion amongst the leadership team with input from numerous parts of the company including our guests. We have also been watching the behavior of our guests, the views of numerous doctors and the usage of helmets in other sports. While we are not sure there is one “answer”, we are very confident that this is the right decision for our company at this time.

The first question you will likely have is why? First and foremost, this decision is all about safety. One of our core values is protecting both our employees and our guests from injury. While there can be much debate about to what extent helmets offer protection, we have concluded that people are safer, at least to some degree, when wearing a helmet. And our conviction is even stronger about kids, where helmet usage is becoming almost universal. For many years, resorts have allowed employees to prioritize personal preference and comfort over the additional protection a helmet provides. We strongly believe that adult skiers should continue to have that right, including our employees when they are skiing or riding for recreation. However, we believe the time has come for our company to take a higher and more visible position when we are at work. Therefore, we will require our employees to set aside some of their own personal preferences to improve their overall protection and, equally important, to set an example of safety for our guests of all ages.

While many of us still remember the NHL implementing mandatory helmets in the early 80s, the cycling industry is probably a better comparison for our sport. We have all watched over the past 20 years as helmet usage has grown to the point where it is uncommon to see anyone riding a bike without one. Does that mean cycling is dangerous? No, but it does mean that people can have fun while being smart about it. Even at the professional level of cycling, where riders sometimes spend 5 hours in blistering heat, helmets have become required. We believe the race organizers both care about the riders themselves and are sending a message to cycling fans about the importance of helmet use. This is the same responsibility that all of us have as role models to the kids and adults that visit our resorts. As a Vail employee, wearing a helmet while skiing or riding in uniform will make a significant positive impression upon our guests.

There are many details that will continue to be worked out that relate to this new policy. For now, everyone should know that the Company will be covering the cost to ensure that anyone who is required to ski, ride or snowmobile for work will have the use of a helmet.

Employees will also be able to purchase and wear their own helmet, so long as it is approved for skiing.

Finally, we realize this is a significant policy change and felt that it was very important that we communicate this news before many of you depart for the off-season. While change is never easy, we strongly believe that it is the right thing to do and hope that each of you will embrace our decision in an attempt to create the safest possible environment for both our employees and our guests.

Best Regards,

Blaise Carrig and John Garnsey
It's cool that they allow them to wear their own if they desire, instead of the uniform one.

For myself one of the main reasons for not wearing a helmet was finding one with the correct fit. I used 2 different brands before finding "SWEET" :thumbsup::thumbsup: that fit me perfectly. I've probably worn a helmet more this season than all the others combined.
 
#21 ·
You just wait and sooner than you can imagine it will become required of everyone. Most likely some silly organization dedicated to some victim of a skiing accident, all wearing some silly symbolic ribbon, will lobby the state government to enact a bill named in honor of "the fallen".
Richardson's Richeous, Bono's Boners?

I am willing to bet this has something to do with Workman's Compensation in the state of Colorado. Some bean counter made the determination that the resort would get a break on their insurance premiums by requiring helmet use. This is how it starts.
I'm sure it does. Blame the insurance and law industries. Funny how they go hand in hand. VR is trying to increase the bottom line and stay in business.

I resent deeply some do gooder poking their nose into my personal freedoms and choices; even if their intentions are good. I am getting sick and tired of busy body people in this country who have nothing better to worry about, legislating or otherwise trying to regulate all risk out of life. This is a slippery slope issue and it will just keep getting worse and worse.
Slippery in the other direction too. Should we got rid of the FDA, EPA, and NHTSA for poking their noses into our safety? Just playing devil's advocate.

There has to be a line somewhere. For me it's kids. We have to protect those too young to protect themselves. As an adult do what ever you like as long as you are only putting yourself in danger.

Helmets (motorcycle, bike, snowsports) for adults should be by choice, for children under 12 they should be required by law. Kids can't really assess risk, while adults can.

I'd make the same argument for seat belts and car seats.
 
#22 ·
Point C, you gave up a certain amount of "personal freedom" when you bought your lift ticket, season pass, agreed to be an employee. Though most resorts operate on public land, they are not public domain for us to set the rules on how we want them to operate. Well at least in the conventional sense. The only way you can change their attitude is to vote with your dollars. Fact is, they'll be able to do this sort of thing because Americans are too fat and lazy to seek out alternatives to using resorts, for that which I am thankful for.

If you don't like this, the best thing you can do is to not spend any money at Vail (Vail, Beaver Creek, Keystone, Breckenridge, Heavenly) resorts and let it be known why.

I also still don't see patrons being forced to wear helmets.
 
#25 ·
Ski areas will not directly mandate the use of helmets for patrons. If helmets are required it will happen through law passed by state government, similar to bike and motorcycle helmet laws.

Your voting dollars won't have an effect unless you avoid entire states. I could see the ski area lobby putting pressure on the state to pass helmet law, so they don't look like individual bad guys.

Broad strokes on the fat lazy Americans comment. AT gear and splitboards are selling at an all time high. If they're actually used in the BC, who knows for sure.
 
#23 ·
Scenario B:

I, as an adult with the capital to pay my own medical insurance, make the decision to ride without a helmet and I crack my melon open hitting a tree. This act, while seen as pretty dumb by most people only affects me and does not endanger the safety of anyone else nor does my medical care cost the taxpayer. In this case, the state or the resort has no right to countermand my own personal freedom of choice even if it seems dumb to the majority of people.
Playing DA again. If you are uninsured I should be able to force you to wear a helmet, because after hitting the tree, I (as a tax payer) will have to pay for treatment and long term care of your brain damaged carcass?
 
#24 ·
This is just that first step that I have been talking about for years. We live in a society where someone else always wants to protect you from every risk in life. I have said in the past that there are real "Helmet Nazis" out there who are not happy just promoting helmet use, they want to force helmet use on everyone. These people are as bad as the anti gun crowd who because they don`t like guns, want to take them away from everyone else. These types of people need to get a life and worry about their own shit and stay out of other people`s personal business.
OK, I'll finally bite since you made me laugh, Wolf.

So, government is taking over our schools, our corporations, our healthcare, our personal liberties (so sayeth the right). Scary. And while President Bush was the one who started the bailout, nationalized insurance companies, added $17 trillion drug entitlement program had a governement mandated public school initiative literally titled "No Child Left Behind", wiretapped citizens without warrants, created secret internment camps in international waters beyond the reach of our justice system, allowed his Vice President to live in a nether world that exists between executive and legislative branch, where his house did not exist on Google Earth, only now with the advent of helmet laws has tyrrany come to our shores (Due thanks to Daily Show). :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

If an employee doesn't want to wear a helmet, then quit. If you don't like a resort's helmet rules, bitch all you want and then go somewhere else. They have to look out for themselves, that's what being a business is all about. Frivolous lawsuits are a big problem in this country and have put a number of innocent legitimate businesses under. Even if there's obviously no ground for said lawsuit, defense attorny's are pretty damn expensive.

Are you a socialist or not? You brag about it, but then you want to pick and choose where you want the government taking an active hand. Have your cake or eat it, but not both. If you want nationalized healthare, you better be ready to accept the government doing what it can to limit healthcare expense, and this includes helmet laws. Sounds to me like you want a socialist government, unless they infringe on Snowolf's rights to tote around a 9mm penis or win a Darwin award. If you're going to climb on a soapbox and foam at the mouth with righteous indignation, at least make sure your views are consistent. :laugh:
 
#26 ·
Well I disagree that your Dollars wouldn't have an effect on the states. If the Colorado ski industry saw a dramatic drop in skier visits because people weren't coming here since they didn't want to use helmets. It would change. The ski industry here is the number two cash cow for the state of Colorado right behind hunting and fishing. The state coffers rely quite a bit on the tourist dollar for this, so if people went elsewhere and they knew why, you bet it would change.
 
#27 ·
Right. This is what I said, "Your voting dollars won't have an effect unless you avoid entire states."

Or put another way, If you avoid entire states it will have an effect.

If Utah and Colorado passed helmet laws would people be willing to travel outside of these top two ski states, or would they give up and buy a helmet?
 
#29 · (Edited)
Just want to point out to you boys that Vail Resorts is not Colorado. They are 4 locations in Colorado that give you other options to go to. Vail Resorts has already seen a decline in skier visits this year, Keystone being the worst (anyone want to guess why there?). They're lying about the number of visits they're down because no one wants to admit they're screwed in the pooch. This will be another reason families will flock there and individuals will go elsewhere.

As mentioned when the visits drop below a certain percentage they will rethink this. The big thing to look at is who is a steward to the public? These are people that are setting an example and they should be giving helmets a positive image, park crews, instructors, ski patrol, and my personal favorite mountain babysitters. I don't think it's fair to make a minimum wage liftee out here for a season be forced to wear a helmet when he's going from one lift to another that dudes out there in the elements and shouldn't be hindered by the lack of warmth in some helmets.

Now rest assured Vail Resorts will go with whomever gives them the best deal this will probably be Red or Boeri. Two entirely different helmets one of which only has limited fits. There in lies the problem you have a limited fit. This also poses the question of do they use them for one year then toss them or are they going to reuse them as if they were a rental helmet? Anyone with half a brain knows that a helmet is only good for one impact really then it's time for another one, but are they now going to have a helmet inspector?
 
#30 ·
Wow, you guys make a big deal out of this. I think the resort should be allowed to make the employees wear whatever they want. If you don't like it, you don't work there. Every job I've had required a dress code. Since they did not involve physical risk I never had to wear helmets, but I would if I worked at a resort. Am I cattle? :dunno:
 
#34 ·
Another can of worms here....Say an instructor (for example) is wearing a resort issued helmet and still recieves a head trauma. Now there is the real possibility for a lawsuit based on faulty equipment. I think this is going to fuck them far worse than they expect in th long term.
Good luck with that one. They would have to prove that the injury was a direct result of the faulty helmet and not because the rider was attempting some silly ass trick that they had little to no chance of pulling off. I don't know many lawyers who would take that to trial. I know a few worms that would try to squeeze a settlement out of it though. Now, if the resort KNEW the helmet was no good, you may have something.
 
#36 ·
I know more than a few people that would take them to court. You could go so far as to actually base it on the claim that they were forced by circumstances to wear a helmet that didn't fit their head properly and were injured. Let alone they could very well just be riding along and poof by some form of karmic ass kicking fall on their head.
 
#37 · (Edited)
If you re read my post, that is exactly what I said I would do, I would quit working there. If Mt. Hood Meadows for example did this, I would turn in my uniform and employee pass that day and would do as Killclimbz suggest and vote with my pocket book by boycotting them.
That's great. Where did I ever suggest you said they should change the rules?
That does not hold water. No where in the history of ski resorts has a resort ever been sued for not requiring helmets.
Well of course not. That would entail someone hring a lawyer and handing a resort a lawsuit that says: We want $X because you don't require helmets. That's like suing McDonald's for not having a whopper. In the end, that statement says nothing about frivolous lawsuits lodged against ski resorts for injuries while on the slopes. That's a number I'd actually like to see. I found one by using the googles on the interwebs: Injured Skier Allowed to Sue Ski Resort - Law Firm Arthur West & Associates, P.C. Attorneys at Law Attorneys Glenshaw, Pennsylvania While I'll grant you that the above trial had nothing to do with helmets, it shows that the fine print on the back of a lift ticket doesn't do shit to stop lawsuits.
Almost every state in the union has laws on the books that clearly state the skier/rider accepts all responsibility. I can pull up the exact RCW from Oregon and Washington if you want more details.The only law suits ever even allowed to go to trial are cases where the resort was negligent in maintaining their equipment, not the natural environment or public behavior. Sorry, but this is all about getting breaks on their workers comp insurance.
RE: Dry Cleaners late with judge's pants in D.C.. The defense attorney fees and bad PR put the cleaners out of business. Frivolous or not, it went to trial. It may get thrown out in the first 3 seconds by the judge, but it goes to trial. I can sue you for pain and suffering if you fart around me, and if we both pressed hard enough, it would go to trial. I'd lose, but it'd go to trial.
Yes I am. You are putting the cart before the horse. When we have national health care, THEN we can have this debate NOT before.
Sounds like you'd expect to get a business loan before you told the bank your business plan. There's going to be a LOT of debate BEFORE any nationalized healthcare, including helmet laws. You going to put forth a case and then answer the tough questions with "Uhh yeah, you see we were planning on talking about that AFTER you approved this massive multi-hundred-billion-dollar change to our healthcare system and simultaneous tax increase."?
By the way, I carry a separate rider policy through AFLAC for recreational trip insurance that covers me for injuries and search and rescue costs if I ever need it.
Golf clap.
My views are very consistent; you are just are not listening....:D I clearly defined my criteria for those "lines in the sand" Besides, I support Socialism which is an ECONOMIC system and Representative Constitutional Democracy which is a governmental system.
And I repeat, if you want socialized healthcare, be prepared for the system to slap down some laws to keep costs down, and be prepared for that kind of shit to get ironed out BEFORE anything that massive gets green-lit. Splitting hairs and going off on a tangent about ideologies doesn't change the practical considerations that helmet laws are just one of a gazillion points that will have to be settled on BEFORE the healthcare system is nationalized.

Don't get me wrong Wolfie, I'm a fan of Democratic Socialism too. It's a good happy medium between the inadequacies of pure communism and the idiocies of pure capitalism.
By the way, my exercise of my rights and responsibilities to carry a firearm has nothing to do with my penis, it is solely about having the means to self defense from animal predation and human violence when in remote areas without any human backup. For me, a firearm is a tool; nothing more....but nice slam anyway....:cheeky4::rolleyes:
Yes.. slam, that's what I was thinking when I typed it, "I'll show everyone what a big man I am by insulting a total stranger's dick over the internet." :rolleyes:

Say Wolfie, you know, you sound like a guy who likes to minimize the risk of danger to himself while boarding. Just between you, me, and the world, there's an additional way to reduce your risk of danger when snowboarding too...... :laugh:
Flick Montana said:
I'm slowly coming to the realization that 90% of decisions made in this country are based purely on the fear of a lawsuit...
You're right, because: Faces of Lawsuit Abuse.org
 
#38 ·
I found one by using the googles on the interwebs: Injured Skier Allowed to Sue Ski Resort - Law Firm Arthur West & Associates, P.C. Attorneys at Law Attorneys Glenshaw, Pennsylvania While I'll grant you that the above trial had nothing to do with helmets, it shows that the fine print on the back of a lift ticket doesn't do shit to stop lawsuits.
You should have read that one before using it as an example.

In this case, the injured skier avoided the liability limits of the Act by focusing on the snowboarder's alcohol consumption. The skier claimed that the snowboarder was part of a high school group whose drinking in the parking lot and on the slopes was obvious and should have been controlled or prevented by the resort. Moreover, the injured skier maintained that the resort was generally aware of alcohol abuse by high school groups at the resort.
He's attempting to prove that the resort was negligent in allowing drunks to ride. This isn't an example of the fine print failing or state laws failing. Again, there's a big difference between negligence and people being able to sue for damn near anything. Had the snowboarder that hit this guy been a stone cold super christian, he'd have no case against the resort.

Still, he's going to have one hell of a time showing that the resort knew they were drunk and failed to take steps to protect others from the drunks.
 
#61 ·
Have you thought about giving Alyeska a try for a season or two? Washington is great, but nothing here compares to the Chugach Range...:thumbsup:
ak, baker, wy back country and ut are the g-spot for me. alyeska is fun as shit, especially in the spring, spinning for days of their cat tracks, riding right onto the bar's deck for a road soda, stunning views... man, i need to go back.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top