To wear or not to wear a Helm? - Page 24 - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
SnowboardingForum.com is the premier Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-18-2013, 04:10 PM   #231 (permalink)
-PREMIUM MEMBER-
 
CassMT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Whitefish MT
Posts: 1,849
Default

i think that is why its so much easier for kids today to accept helmets for everything...biking, riding, skating, walking down the street

i've got a skate helmet, but i hate it, never wear it...not advocating anything probably a good idea for skating...i just think that regardless any arguments for social good, etc..it still comes down to a choice
CassMT is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-18-2013, 04:17 PM   #232 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
KIRKRIDER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 2,488
Default

I propose a simple effective test:

TEST 1 - Put a helmet on, slam your head on the nearest wall as hard as you can. Write down the results.

TEST 2 - Remove the helmet and slam your head on the nearest wall as har as you can. Write down the results.

Compare the results and damage. Decide which option is better.
__________________
2013/14 -12- Kirkwood days
Arbor A-Frame 158 2009-10
Jeremy Jones Hovercraft 156, 2011/12
Burton Driver-X
K2-Cinch-CTX
Subaru WRX 06
KIRKRIDER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 04:52 PM   #233 (permalink)
-PREMIUM MEMBER-
 
CassMT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Whitefish MT
Posts: 1,849
Default

took

test

rezultsss

inconclusiveve
CassMT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 05:10 PM   #234 (permalink)
Member
 
The Jake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 70
Default

It's definitely a choice and I'm cool with it being a choice while it remains un-regulated.

One day, however, it may become regulated. The health insurance companies might say "enough is enough," and lobby Congress and state legislatures and push to get mandatory helmet laws passed in the states that have ski resorts. And if that day comes, it's not a loss of "freedom" or "control" by the government. A loss of freedom would be if the government kidnapped you, transported you to a prison camp and made you break bricks 20 hours a day, subsisting on food and rice mush. See, e.g., North Korea.

I think people get a bit melodramatic when it comes to the erosion of our "freedoms." Freedom doesn't mean the ability to do anything you want, damn all the consequences to yourself and to others. Freedom is about doing what makes you happy, but while also being responsible to yourself and to others.
__________________
62" 2008 Burton Royale
Burton Cartel bindings
Salomon Synapse boots
The Jake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 05:24 PM   #235 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
KIRKRIDER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 2,488
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CassMT View Post
took

test

rezultsss

inconclusiveve


Repeat the test until results are conclusive or enlightenment is achieved.
__________________
2013/14 -12- Kirkwood days
Arbor A-Frame 158 2009-10
Jeremy Jones Hovercraft 156, 2011/12
Burton Driver-X
K2-Cinch-CTX
Subaru WRX 06
KIRKRIDER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 06:07 PM   #236 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
KIRKRIDER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 2,488
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
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
__________________
2013/14 -12- Kirkwood days
Arbor A-Frame 158 2009-10
Jeremy Jones Hovercraft 156, 2011/12
Burton Driver-X
K2-Cinch-CTX
Subaru WRX 06
KIRKRIDER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 06:12 PM   #237 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
East§ide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 922
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Welp, at least the focus is off of me :-)

But honestly, now this is becoming political. In NJ it's state law for children under 18 to wear helmets on the mountain. I haven't heard any sort of backlash that has come from this. Another aspect to consider is that requiring helmets may lower insurance premiums for the resorts themselves allowing them to operate with less liability and cost. I don't know if its true or not, but that's another angle to look at.

I do think it should be personal choice for adults who are smart enough and considered mature enough to make their own decisions, but I also see nothing wrong with requiring children to wear helmets and hopefully setting a precedent where that will become the norm for them once they turn 18.


On a smaller side note, it'd be nice if we could stop referring to it as nazism .. Nazism exterminated 6 million Jews along with millions of others and really shouldn't be used to describe something like this. Just my opinion of course !
__________________

Never Summer Evo 153/Restricted ReFlex Cartel
Gnu Danny Kass 156 BTX

Last edited by East§ide; 03-18-2013 at 06:14 PM.
East§ide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 06:18 PM   #238 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
KIRKRIDER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 2,488
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
Driving includes motorcycles. Doesn't matter whether you are in a "metal helmet", two vehicles colliding at highway speeds, you are getting injured. Not specifically talking about getting a head injury in a car crash, talking about statistical odds of being injured in a car accident.

My only point is regarding legislating helmet use to address a problem that statistically does not exist. This energy and government money could be put to more productive use.
My point was about exposure and protection... when riding we are exposed as bikers on a dirt road... we have safety measures and technology, why not use it?
__________________
2013/14 -12- Kirkwood days
Arbor A-Frame 158 2009-10
Jeremy Jones Hovercraft 156, 2011/12
Burton Driver-X
K2-Cinch-CTX
Subaru WRX 06
KIRKRIDER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 06:25 PM   #239 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
MarshallV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Golden, CO
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRKRIDER View Post
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
Point is..

Recreational activities are at the bottom of the list for a Nation to worry about. With the medical issues and injuries sustained in the US, recreational sports hardly contribute.

I wear a Helmet 80% of the time, I like the fact it's my choice and I can go riding without getting hassled about it.

Nothing pisses me off more than the seatbelt law. The statistics on those are also stupid. If you say no you get a ticket. I wear a seatbelt most the time, but got a 250 dollar ticket in TX driving around the block to the post office near the hotel I was staying at. I never went over 15 MPH.
Fuck you Texas.

Live and let live, please.

Last edited by MarshallV82; 03-18-2013 at 06:32 PM.
MarshallV82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 07:28 PM   #240 (permalink)
Member
 
The Jake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 70
Default Simply put

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
Where do you draw the line with this? At what point do you say this is too much?

So, we get mandatory helmet laws and as is the case, people are still getting traumatic brain injuries because the protection that a helmet offers is very limited at the speeds skiers and riders typically ride. People are still getting injured in the park or riding trees. So, with your model, we then outlaw park riding to reduce this insurance cost burden. Well, shit! People are still getting hurt riding in the trees with broken legs, arms, ribs and some are paralyzed from neck and spine injuries. So, for the greater good, we now ban tree riding. Oops! We see speed is the big factor here so here comes the friendly insurance lobby and now we institute speed limits on the mountain; after all speed limits on the highways saved lives too and while we are on that subject, the 55 MPH speed limit saved a lot of lives so lets go back to that. Which then leads to this; you are required to carry liability insurance on your car so that in the event you injure someone, you have the ability to pay their damages. Well, since many of the skier and rider injuries are the result of collisions, lets mandate that every skier and rider carries personal liability insurance!

Now take this "progress" as you call it and go across the board with it in all recreation from ATV's, motorcycles, rafting, rock climbing, parasailing, kite boarding, snowmobiling, horseback riding, kayaking, etc, etc. Because we don't want anyone getting hurt out there and affecting our insurance costs we need to pass laws restricting people. I am a back country rider and every year people are injured or die in avalanches, so lets ban all backcountry riding.

Sorry, you call it progress all you want, to me it is Fascism and Nazism and I reject it utterly and will fight it every step of the way. The fact is that right now, the actual number of annual head injuries are so low as to make no negligible impact on the overall cost of insurance or medical care for the society. Move to universal single payer health care and the costs are even more spread out without a need for insurance company profit and it becomes even less significant.

There are far more important thing that could be addressed that is affecting your health care costs that a few people each year receiving traumatic brain injuries from skiing and snowboarding. Obesity is probably number one. So, pass a law requiring mandatory exercise programs for people above a certain weight like the military does. You could get all the fatties up on the hill skiing and riding and getting healthy and even without helmets, that would have a bigger impact on your health care costs.

See? We could go down this road of government intrusiveness for ever and call it progress. So tell me, just how far are you willing to go? At what point is there enough regulation? Where exactly is that line between "progress" and Fascism? I know where it is at and I have stated it; we are on that line right now in America. I want to know where that line is at for you.
Simply put, I draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable. To me, it's reasonable to require helmets because they're substantially safer, not uncomfortable and not intrusive. You know, sorta like seatbelts.

But rest assured, I don't believe banning the park or banning tree skiing or requiring insurance is reasonable, so there's no need to refute the absurdity of that slippery slope argument.
__________________
62" 2008 Burton Royale
Burton Cartel bindings
Salomon Synapse boots
The Jake is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:21 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums