I have to agree with Snowolf and CheeseForSteeze. Although I do advocate helmets and wear one myself, I generally hate laws that seek to protect people from themselves (children excepted). As is often argued, I believe it is a slippery slope. If the interest is saving lives and healthcare costs, why not just ban skiing and snowboarding? Of course, you shouldn't leave out other dangerous activities: sky diving, SCUBA diving, motorcycles, rock climbing, mountain biking, even driving personal cars isn't nearly as safe as public transit. Think of the savings if we eliminated all those!
Even if you accept mandatory helmets for just this case, they haven't presented nearly enough evidence that this will even accomplish saving healthcare costs. Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning that helmets offer much protection (there have been plenty of studies to confirm this), the problem I have is with their cost-savings argument. First off, what about those without helmets who die immediately from their injuries? Their costs are no doubt less than those wearing helmets who suffer a TBI. How about those wearing helmets who avoid a TBI, but suffer massive spinal chord injuries? Are those much cheaper? Or those wearing poorly-fitting helmets that suffer an injury because of it? Furthermore, what about the costs related to enforcement of this law? Even with the argument that resorts will enforce it, they only will if they know they will face a penalty. In other words, it requires some level of government enforcement. There would likely be inspections or at the very least court cases resulting from this law. Even if they have done their homework (and just failed to mention it in the article), have they seriously looked at other activities similarly to weigh the cost-benefit of mandatory safety requirements in those?
I say leave adults to their own judgement. I'll be wearing my helmet.