I completely disagree. I am a commercial driver and I typically put 1500-2000 miles in a week on the company vehicle. This does not include the miles I put on my personal vehicle. Combined, I am racking up about 150K a year so I know something about highway statistics.
In just your drive to the hill ( not talking entire yearly driving ) you are far more POTENTIALLY likely to be involved in an accident that injures you. I am talking about POTENTIALLY. There are so many factors present that if the slightest thing goes wrong at the precise right time, bam! You're involved in the accident. On the hill, you are not passing oncoming skiers at 60 MPH that weigh 1,500 pounds. You are not typically operating around people skiing and texting like you are on the road. The potential is so much greater driving even if you drive the same distance as you ride in a day.
It's just like the person who is shitting their pants in fear of flying. Same thing, they are in far greater danger driving to the airport than on the plane yet you can't convince them of that. No matter how you look at statistics, the fact remains that you are in fact in more potential danger driving to the mountain than you are once you get there.
I am not saying the driving is that dangerous either. In 23 years of commercial driving with well over 2 million logged miles. I have only been involved in two minor fender benders neither my fault involving drunk people swerving into me. But the potential exists at all times and every oncoming vehicle on a 2 lane highway could be "the one". What I am saying is that the potential on the mountain is so ridiculously low that in essence, people are worrying themselves sick over something that barely exists. The risks certainly do not justify legislative action.
IMO you should compare with driving say...a dirt bike, where you're exposed completely. Not a truck or a car where you already are inside a...metal helmet
2015/16 -9- Kirkwood days
Arbor A-Frame 158 2009-10
Jeremy Jones Hovercraft 156, 2011/12
Subaru WRX 06