Vail Requires helmets for employees who ride/ski on duty. - Page 3 - 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 04-13-2009, 07:25 PM   #21 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Grizz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Junction of 84 and 35
Posts: 1,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Grizz is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-14-2009, 09:05 AM   #22 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
killclimbz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Front Range
Posts: 10,757
Default

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.
killclimbz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2009, 09:07 AM   #23 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Grizz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Junction of 84 and 35
Posts: 1,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
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?
Grizz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2009, 09:08 AM   #24 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
MunkySpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Berkshires
Posts: 3,212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
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).

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.
MunkySpunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2009, 09:22 AM   #25 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Grizz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Junction of 84 and 35
Posts: 1,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killclimbz View Post
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.
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.
Grizz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2009, 09:36 AM   #26 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
killclimbz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Front Range
Posts: 10,757
Default

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.
killclimbz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2009, 09:48 AM   #27 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Grizz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Junction of 84 and 35
Posts: 1,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killclimbz View Post
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.
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?
Grizz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2009, 10:03 AM   #28 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Mooz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Your pants
Posts: 1,589
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by COtoUT View Post
i am basing my answer off personal experience-when i was growing up all the vert ramps were getting torn down because parents and/or insurance companies were suing the people with the ramps in their backyards to recover for 'damages'.

to try and curb these suites, a lot of skaters' parents would require a visiting skater to sign-off on a waiver (before skating the a ramp in the backyard, for example), thus removing the onus of the property owner(s).

of course, visiting skaters would sign these... then-like yourself-the visiting rollerblader would try to drop in on vert and and get face fucked. later the visiting skater's parents would sue, the ramp owners would present waiver in court, the judge says that it does not hold up, visiting skater is awarded damages, ramp gets torn down.

i am sure this is all based of off state-by-state laws, or intrastate laws (or whatever they are called).

ps-emoticons are really fucking lame.
Clearly you weren't actually in the courtroom because this explaination of "personal experiance" is the kind I would expect someone with down syndrome to use when describing "what the bad priest did". Kids can't sign waivers which would be why a judge tossed those out. It needs to be signed by the parent. This however does not absolve the property owner of all injury claims.

He still has an obligation to provide a reasonably safe ramp. If it's flawed, he's negligent. There are three components to a negligence suit. Duty, breach of duty, and damages. Duty would have been to provide a sound ramp with reasonable expectations of quality and safety (I say reasonable because it is by definition a dangerous activity). Breach of duty could be a flaw in design, too high, too steep, being open during bad weather etc etc etc. Damages would be the face fuckage.

And if the owner only had a minor's signature on a waiver as his defense, he's a moron.



and yes emotes do blow but it was the best way to convey that I wasn't being serious in my post.
__________________
I have a word limit on my cynicism
Mooz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2009, 10:20 AM   #29 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mountains
Posts: 9,503
Default

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?
__________________
Angry Snowboarder Because someone has to call it how they see it!

Last edited by BurtonAvenger; 04-14-2009 at 10:24 AM.
BurtonAvenger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2009, 12:30 PM   #30 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Flick Montana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Beech Grove, Indiana *sigh*
Posts: 4,168
Default

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?
__________________
Zombie Nation
Gear:
Rome Design 165 / Rome Arsenals
Rome Anthem 158
Flick Montana 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 12:51 AM.



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