Originally Posted by CassMT

took

test

rezultsss

inconclusiveve

Originally Posted by Snowolf

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.

Originally Posted by Snowolf

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.

Originally Posted by KIRKRIDER

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

Originally Posted by Snowolf

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.