Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Veteran Member
Joined
·
11,553 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Senate OKs Child Ski Helmet Bill - Politics News Story - KCRA Sacramento

Mis-guided at best. At worst, could cause a whole bunch of increases for resort users as it's probably going to force the resort to monitor this. Maybe cops on the slopes, but I doubt that one.

The bullshit is getting neck deep out there. If you live in Cali, time to start bitching at your local representatives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
699 Posts
Cops on the slopes wouldn't even be necessary. I bet the lifties will be required to not let anyone under 18 ride the lift without a helmet or the resort could face massive penalties.

I agree the bullshit is getting neck deep. How about the senate figures out next years budget instead of wasting precious time on some bullshit helmet law
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
I think this will come in Canada soon. Whistler already has mandatory helmets for all children in ski school under 19, but it does provide them for free.Good to know if your bringing a young family here.

I don't think its necessarily a bad thing every year we have a death or 2 here that would have been avoided buy wearing a helmet. Very sad when they are young...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,525 Posts
I think this will come in Canada soon. Whistler already has mandatory helmets for all children in ski school under 19, but it does provide them for free.Good to know if your bringing a young family here.

I don't think its necessarily a bad thing every year we have a death or 2 here that would have been avoided buy wearing a helmet. Very sad when they are young...
Worlds already over populated one less person is just keeping things in check.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,967 Posts
$$$$$ for Cali is what it boils down to imo
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
2,316 Posts
Here in Idaho, it's legal to drive a motorcycle without a helmet. If you eat shit and die, that's your own responsibility. California's biggest problem is that they have to try save everyone from themselves. I can understand when it effects others, but when it's individual liability, it should be up to the individual to decide. Oh wait I forgot, lawyers have made it so that no ones responsible for their actions anymore, creating lawsuits, (and lawyer jobs) at every corner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
At lest one area on Hood is going to require helmet use for employees next season.

I wonder how much this saves on insurance for a ski area?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,169 Posts
At lest one area on Hood is going to require helmet use for employees next season.

I wonder how much this saves on insurance for a ski area?

This is what it all comes down too. If it means less chance of getting sued the hills will do it. A time is coming when everyone will have to wear one. I think any parent not giving their kid a helmet is a douche anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Here in Idaho, it's legal to drive a motorcycle without a helmet. If you eat shit and die, that's your own responsibility. California's biggest problem is that they have to try save everyone from themselves. I can understand when it effects others, but when it's individual liability, it should be up to the individual to decide. Oh wait I forgot, lawyers have made it so that no ones responsible for their actions anymore, creating lawsuits, (and lawyer jobs) at every corner.
I think the main difference between motorcycle helmet laws and resort helmet laws is that the mountain resorts are private entities that are easier to sue if some person can find any little thing that may show negligence(or what a lawyer can twist and twist to pass for it).

And as someone else said this might end up being something that might help the resorts in a way if it can lower insurance rates. And if that is so, I can see many resorts begin to mandate helmet usage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
564 Posts
I support this legislation, but I do think they could be spending their time deciding other things that are significantly more important. You know, like the budget?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
564 Posts
I don't have a kid. If I did I would make him or her wear a helmet. I support the legislation because there are lots of shitty parents out there who don't know how to raise a child. Whose responsibility it is is irrelevant because in the end the kids are the ones who pay for the mistakes of the parents.

So, while I regret that legislation is necessary to "help" parents manage their kids, it's better than just letting kids get hurt, maimed, killed or whatever because their parents suck.

In the end it's a choice of two evils, and I feel that legislating safety for kids is better than relying on negligent parents.






Why do you need the state to do your job of being a parent to your child? Take responsibility for your own life and that of your child`s and don,t make the state your personal nanny......:dunno:
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
2,316 Posts
You do know that the more responsibility you take from each generation, the more moronic the next generation will be. People need to realize that there are serious concequences for all their actions, and that they need to think things through first.

Do most people do this nowadays? No. But is it ok to just "Protect" them from themselves while they breed an even more moronic generation? I say no. We're interfering with natural selection and these people need to see the full concequences of their actions. Law is really what has screwed up this whole system, because now everyone has to save everyone else out of fear of a lawsuit.

When you go snowboarding, you are accepting the fact that you are doing a dangerous sport, which can lead to injury or even death, and if you don't want that then don't do it. I fail to see in 80% of lawsuit cases where it's the "enjoyment" supplier's fault. Just stupid greedy people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
564 Posts
Natural selection? Are you serious? You realize social Darwinism is a useless idea in today's society? There is nothing natural about human life today, therefore there is no way for natural selection to actually work as nature intended.

Do you work, or have connections to the legal industry, in any capacity? If not, then don't comment on it. Quite frankly, most people don't have a clue what they're talking about as it regards the US legal system.



You do know that the more responsibility you take from each generation, the more moronic the next generation will be. People need to realize that there are serious concequences for all their actions, and that they need to think things through first.

Do most people do this nowadays? No. But is it ok to just "Protect" them from themselves while they breed an even more moronic generation? I say no. We're interfering with natural selection and these people need to see the full concequences of their actions. Law is really what has screwed up this whole system, because now everyone has to save everyone else out of fear of a lawsuit.

When you go snowboarding, you are accepting the fact that you are doing a dangerous sport, which can lead to injury or even death, and if you don't want that then don't do it. I fail to see in 80% of lawsuit cases where it's the "enjoyment" supplier's fault. Just stupid greedy people.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
2,316 Posts
Exactly, there is nothing natural about human life today. Maybe we should change that.....

Go back 40 years ago and tell me people were suing everybody they could over any misfortune like they do today. They weren't, shit happened and you dealt with it. My biggest beef is just the simple idea that we have to protect all the retards from themselves. I understand that for resorts the simple act of someone hurting themselves regardless is an inconvience, but it does not fix that fact that if you keep cutting up your kids food for them, they will always just rely on you to do it for them. I'm drifting more into social stigmas in general, rather then anything to do with resort insurance, so feel free to flame me I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
564 Posts
So would you propose that we return to a strict native state? What exactly do you mean? In what way could humans live where social darwinism is actually relevant?

The burden of proof is on you. You are making claims which I doubt you can validate or verify. I also suspect you don't really know what you're talking about regarding the law.

Disclaimer: I am not directly involved in the law either, but I'm also aware that the law is far beyond the comprehension of most people who haven't been specifically trained in it (including myself), so I don't go around making asinine comments about it.


Exactly, there is nothing natural about human life today. Maybe we should change that.....

Go back 40 years ago and tell me people were suing everybody they could over any misfortune like they do today. They weren't, shit happened and you dealt with it. My biggest beef is just the simple idea that we have to protect all the retards from themselves. I understand that for resorts the simple act of someone hurting themselves regardless is an inconvience, but it does not fix that fact that if you keep cutting up your kids food for them, they will always just rely on you to do it for them. I'm drifting more into social stigmas in general, rather then anything to do with resort insurance, so feel free to flame me I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,452 Posts
Disclaimer: I am not directly involved in the law either, but I'm also aware that the law is far beyond the comprehension of most people who haven't been specifically trained in it (including myself), so I don't go around making asinine comments about it.
Bullshit. Understanding legalese is about recognizing the contextual meaning of the phrases used to write a law. Not all laws are steeped in legalese, and even most of the ones that are still get the point across to a layperson just fine.

You don't need a law degree to understand the ramifications, effect, or enforcement of a law. Having half-a-brain and paying attention in social studies/civics/history class goes a long way, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
564 Posts
I don't disagree in principle with your first paragraph, however the practical application of that doesn't quite work out as you describe. You're oversimplifying things and giving more credit to people than they deserve.



Bullshit. Understanding legalese is about recognizing the contextual meaning of the phrases used to write a law. Not all laws are steeped in legalese, and even most of the ones that are still get the point across to a layperson just fine.

You don't need a law degree to understand the ramifications, effect, or enforcement of a law. Having half-a-brain and paying attention in social studies/civics/history class goes a long way, though.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top