On Wednesday, the state senate passed SB880 by a 21-11 vote, and the assembly approved AB1652 by a 43-19 vote.

SB880 — introduced by Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco — would require skiers and snowboarders under 18 to wear helmets at all California winter resorts; according to the bill, violators would be fined up to $25.

Heavenly Mountain Resort fully supports both bills and commended California legislators for spearheading the way to safer slopes, said spokesman Russ Pecoraro.

“We absolutely support the law and we think it’s a great way for California to show leadership,” said Pecoraro. “We think it’s a positive story to tell.”

Pecoraro said like many other resorts in the region, Heavenly has taken the initiative in safety planning by requiring all employees and those participating in their ski school to where helmets. As a resort, he said safety has always been the underlying priority.

“At Heavenly we’ve taken a leadership stance early on,” he said.

Pecoraro preferred not to speculate on what financial impacts the bills might raise for California ski resorts but reaffirmed safety as fundamental in the resort community.

Sean Kristl, marketing manager at Squaw Valley USA, said the resort supports helmet requirements, and it already requires the use of helmets by all race team members and ski school participants.

“As a ski resort we are safety-oriented,” Kristl said. “We’re supportive of any type of safety initiatives.”

Michael Gross, Squaw Valley’s risk manager, said he is familiar with both bills but is still reviewing their wording and fine print — especially that of the assembly bill — before offering the resort’s official stance.

Rachael Woods, public relations manager at Alpine Meadows and Homewood Mountain resorts, shared a similar stance, in that the resorts support the helmet bill but still need time to review AB1652 before an official comment can be made.

At Northstar-at-Tahoe Resort, Public Relation Manager Jessica Van Purnis said their resort willingly supports the state’s decision to use bicycle helmet legislation as the model for its ski helmet mandate for children under the age of 18.

Tweet This Page Delicious Facebook

Here are a few other articles you might like:

1. Another Bill in CA would require Ski Helmets for employees

New Jersey is also making great progress on their bill (S130). The legislation is very similar to the California bill and was passed with a staggering 33-2 vote. Once again, this bill is now waiting for approval from the State Assembly.

Both bills would require children 17 and under to wear a ski helmet while skiing on any California or New Jersey slopes. Fines will range from $25 for first offenses all the way up to $100 if caught again being unsafe. One of the finer points that we at SkiHelmets.org applaud in both of these bills is the fact that the penalties (fines) for non-compliance is not only for parent and legal guardians, but for any supervising adult, which we assume means schools, church groups, travel groups etc. There truly are No More Excuses in these two states (assuming that both bills will eventually pass).

This news is fantastic news in our opinion but it does make us ask some additional questions. For example, who were the 20 people who opposed the vote in California? Did they fall prey to the lobbyists from Ski Associations? Do they not want to make skiing and snowboarding a safer sport? We know that there is massive debate on the safety of ski helmets, but in the end it has never been proven that Ski Helmets are not as safe and we have seen countless reports demonstrating that Ski helmets are safer in many situations. We know that ski helmets are not going to prevent fatalities on the slopes. Skiing and Snowboarding are dangerous. It’s a fact. Just like driving a car. The idea of not wearing a helmet to us is about a absurd as driving a race car without a seat belt. It’s just plain stupid. (please feel free to comment away below, we know there will be LOTS of opinions on that last statement.)

We are curious to know what kind of accommodations will be made for people that are not able to wear a ski helmet. While there may not be many, we have seen heads that are honestly too large to fit in even the biggest ski helmet as well as people that have medical issues (like cochlear implants) that prevent wearing ski helmets. So far, we have not seen those issues addressed in these bills though we are sure it will come up in the news eventually.

Additionally, we are very curious as to why states like Colorado have not taken such bold and progressive action. When we think of skiing, our minds immediately move to Colorado and their rich powder days and crisp blue skies. Why has Colorado been so quiet about this movement? It might be time to write your senators if you live in CO and ask them why they are waiting so long to take action. Colorado should be leading this charge, it’s a shame they haven’t jumped in this game yet.

Congratulations to both California and New Jersey for your progressive and public safety focused efforts. We applaud you from SkiHelmets.org.

Tweet This Page Delicious Facebook

Here are a few other articles you might like:

1. Heavenly Supporting the Ski Helmet Bill

The 1st Senate District in which they are running contains the largest single concentration of the state’s ski slopes and the ski industry has endorsed the measure, Senate Bill 880, which would require helmets for those 17 years old and younger.

Gaines, of Roseville, spoke for and joined most Democrats in voting for the measure, Senate Bill 880, while Niello, of Fair Oaks, denounced and joined other Republicans in voting against it. The final vote was 41-20, returning the measure, authored by Democratic Sen. Leland Yee of San Francisco, to the Senate for final action.

The two are rivals in a Nov. 2 special election to fill the seat of Cox, who died last month. If no one receives an outright majority, the top Republican vote-getter will face a Democratic candidate in a Jan. 4 runoff.

The district has a strong Republican registration and former Assemblywoman Barbara Alby is also weighing whether to enter the race. Ken Cooley, the mayor of Rancho Cordova, is likely to be the Democratic candidate in the runoff, if one occurs.

PHOTO CREDIT: Shaun White competes during the snowboard slopestyle portion of the Alli Dew Tour on Feb. 20, 2009, at Northstar Resort in Truckee. (Photo by Jed Jacobsohn/ Getty Images)

Tweet This Page Delicious Facebook

Here are a few other articles you might like:

1. Heavenly Supporting the Ski Helmet Bill

Masters student Mary Ondrusz hopes to uncover the reasons why some skiers and snowboarders choose not to wear helmets.

Ondrusz writes, “There is evidence to suggest that the use of helmets may reduce the risk of serious head induries by as much as 50 percent. Nevertheless, use of helmets varies widely across regions with uptake as low as 12 percent in some areas.”

Ski helmets laws are a hot topic across ski areas worldwide. Austria was the first to bring in mandatory helmet use for under 14s in January 2009. California is currently considering mandatory ski helmet laws: two bills have been introduced, one requiring minors to wear a helmet while skiing or snowboarding and the other to extend to resort operations with sign posting, safety planning, and injury reporting. California would have the tightest helmet laws in the U.S. if the bills pass.

As part of her research project, Ondrusz has compiled a questionnaire asking skiers and snowboarders about their helmet use, with questions such as: do you wear a helmet when skiing/snowboarding or do you hate the idea of them? Do you think helmets are over-hyped or under-promoted? The full questionnare can be found here.

Tweet This Page Delicious Facebook

Bills would require children to wear helmets, resorts to publish safety reports

SACRAMENTO – Today, the Assembly Judiciary Committee approved (7-2) legislation to safeguard children who enjoy California’s alpine sports: skiing and snowboarding.

SB 880, authored by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), would require all children under age 18 to wear helmets while skiing and snowboarding. The bill would also require resorts to post signs about the law on trail maps, websites, and other locations throughout the property.

Following the lead of California’s bicycle helmet law, SB 880 would impose a fine of not more than $25 on the parents of a child who fails to wear a helmet while skiing or snowboarding.

In addressing ski safety, Senator Yee is teaming up with Assemblyman Dave Jones (D-Sacramento) who is authoring AB 1652, which would require ski resorts to develop and publish safety plans as well as submit a report to Cal-OSHA after any fatality occurring at the resort. AB 1652 will be considered tomorrow in the Senate Health Committee.

“California’s ski slopes are perhaps the last area of recreation where we do not have basic safety standards in place for children,” said Yee, who is a child psychologist. “Despite repeated warnings from public health experts, professional athletes, and ski resorts, each winter brings news of hundreds of unnecessary tragedies for the failure to wear a helmet. With this legislative package, we can significantly reduce instances of traumatic brain injury or death for such a vulnerable population.”

In April, the Dr. Phil Show focused on the need for greater helmet use by children while skiing and snowboarding. On the show, Dr. Phil McGraw also announced his support for Yee’s SB 880.

“I think this is a very timely and important issue to address as kids do dangerous things, and as adults, we have to use our foresight to protect them from themselves,” said McGraw.

Half of all skiing deaths are caused by a head injury. Recent studies show that when helmets are used, the incidence of traumatic brain or head injury has been reduced 29 percent to 56 percent. The Federal Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) has found that more than 7,000 head injuries per year on the slopes in the U.S. could be prevented or reduced in severity by the use of a helmet. The CPSC study also showed that “for children under 15 years of age, 53 percent of head injuries (approximately 2,600 of the 4,950 head injuries annually) are addressable by use of a helmet.

In March 1999, Shelby Ganitch was not wearing a helmet when she lost control of her snowboard and her head hit the packed snow. She was knocked unconscious and airlifted to San Bernardino Trauma Center where she laid in a coma for 3 ½ weeks.

“I had to relearn how to do everything,” said Ganitch. “If I had been wearing a helmet, my injuries would not have been nearly as severe.”

“The passage of SB 880 out of the Senate is a big step toward reducing head and brain injuries experienced by young skiers and snowboarders,” said Dr. David Lechuga, a neuropsychologist.

“We are very pleased to be working with Dr. Yee on this important public safety measure for children in California,” said Dr. Jo Linder-Crow, Executive Director of the California Psychological Association. “The tremendous research coming from the growing field of neuropsychology made this an issue of utmost importance to our members and the public that we needed to tackle head on. The lives lost and public health costs are too high to ignore any longer.”

“When the data is so conclusive that helmets save lives and reduce severity of injuries, California should set minimum standards for safety,” said Yee. “We correctly do not allow parental choice for car seats and seat belts or basic vaccinations for children attending schools; nor should a helmet for kids on ski slopes be optional.”

In addition to the California Psychological Association, SB 880 is supported by the American College of Emergency Physicians, California Brain Injury Association, California’s Children’s Hospital Association, California Chiropractic Association, California Hospital Association, California Medical Association, California Nurses Association, California Psychiatric Association, California Travel Industry Association, Children’s Advocacy Institute, and the National Academy of Neuropsychology, among others.

SB 880 must be approved by the full Assembly before consideration by the Governor.

For Immediate Release:
June 29, 2010

Contact: Adam J. Keigwin,
(916) 651-4008, (916) 256-5758

Tweet This Page Delicious Facebook

Here are a few other articles you might like:

1. Ski Helmet Law in CA makes another move forward
2. OPINION: Ski Helmet Legislation Arrives, While Freedom of Choice Slowly Evaporates

For Immediate Release:
April 14, 2010

Contact: Adam J. Keigwin,
(916) 651-4008, (916) 256-5758

Dr. Phil Helps Pass Yee’s Child Ski Helmet Bill

Committee Approves Legislation to require children wear helmets while skiing

SACRAMENTO – Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) got a big boost from talk show host Dr. Phil McGraw for his bill to safeguard children who enjoy California’s most popular alpine sports: skiing and snowboarding.

Yesterday, the Dr. Phil Show focused on the need for greater helmet use by children while skiing and snowboarding and today Yee’s SB 880 to require all children under age 18 to wear helmets while skiing and snowboarding was approved by the Senate Health Committee. SB 880 is modeled after existing law that requires minors to wear helmets while riding a bicycle.

“I think this is a very timely and important issue to address as kids do dangerous things, and as adults, we have to use our foresight to protect them from themselves,” said McGraw.

Since the show aired, Dr. Phil’s viewers have been writing to Legislators in support of the bill through his website, www.drphil.com.

“California’s ski slopes are perhaps the last area of recreation where we do not have basic safety standards in place for children,” said Yee, who is a child psychologist. “Despite repeated warnings from public health experts, professional athletes, and ski resorts, each winter brings news of hundreds of unnecessary tragedies for the failure to wear a helmet. With this legislation, we can significantly reduce instances of traumatic brain injury or death for such a vulnerable population.”

In March 1999, Shelby Ganitch was not wearing a helmet when she lost control of her snowboard and her head hit the packed snow. She was knocked unconscious and airlifted to San Bernardino Trauma Center where she laid in a coma for 3 ½ weeks.

“I had to relearn how to do everything,” said Ganitch. “If I had been wearing a helmet, my injuries would not have been nearly as severe.”

“The passage of SB 880 out of Committee is a big step toward reducing head and brain injuries experienced by young skiers and snowboarders,” said Dr. David Lechuga, a neuropsychologist.

Half of all skiing deaths are caused by a head injury. Recent studies show that when helmets are used, the incidence of traumatic brain or head injury has been reduced 29 percent to 56 percent. The Federal Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) has found that more than 7,000 head injuries per year on the slopes in the U.S. could be prevented or reduced in severity by the use of a helmet. The CPSC study also showed that “for children under 15 years of age, 53 percent of head injuries (approximately 2,600 of the 4,950 head injuries annually) are addressable by use of a helmet.

“We are very pleased to be working with Dr. Yee on this important public safety measure for children in California,” said Dr. Jo Linder-Crow, Executive Director of the California Psychological Association. “The tremendous research coming from the growing field of neuropsychology made this an issue of utmost importance to our members and the public that we needed to tackle head on. The lives lost and public health costs are too high to ignore any longer.”

“When the data is so conclusive that helmets save lives and reduce severity of injuries, California should set minimum standards for safety,” said Yee. “We correctly do not allow parental choice for car seats and seat belts or basic vaccinations for children attending schools; nor should a helmet for kids on ski slopes be optional.”

Following the lead of California’s bicycle helmet law, SB 880 would impose a fine of not more than $25 on the parents of a child who fails to wear a helmet while skiing or snowboarding. The bill will next be considered by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

—

San Francisco Child Care Bill Approved

Today, the Senate Education Committee approved Yee’s legislation to extend a subsidy program that allows San Francisco child care facilities to serve thousands of children from low-income families. Without Yee’s Senate Bill 1225, the program that serves an additional 6,500 children would terminate at the end of this year. San Mateo County has a similar program that extends until 2013.

Due to the high cost of living in San Francisco, the program consists of two main components. Under SB 1225, the ongoing eligibility for subsidized childcare is raised from the 75 percent of the state median income to 85 percent of the state median income. For a family of four, this change increases the maximum income eligibility from $49,620 per year to $60,108 per year.

SB 1225 will also continue the program’s ability to provide for higher contract reimbursement rates – approximately an additional $2 to $5 per a child served per a day. The normal daily reimbursement rate is $34.38, but under the program San Francisco’s rate is $35.63 and for San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) the rate is $39.52. SB 1225 would extend the San Francisco subsidized child care program until 2016.

“For low-income parents trying to maintain employment or attend school, this child care program is the most needed resource in their lives,” said Yee. “Without SB 1225, many San Francisco child care providers will be in serious fiscal danger and run the real risk of going completely out-of-business.”

Tweet This Page Delicious Facebook

Here are a few other articles you might like:

1. New Ski Helmet Bill Proposed in California by Senator Yee
2. CA: Gaines & Neillo butt heads over ski helmet bill
3. Heavenly Supporting the Ski Helmet Bill

Last week, the California legislature advanced a bill that could make helmets mandatory for junior skiers. The bill would require all skiers and snowboarders under age 18 to wear helmets, but doesn’t place the enforcement burden on parents. Instead, Sacramento Assemblyman Dave Jones’ bill looks to ski resorts for compliance. The bill also requires “all California ski resorts to report every injury and fatality on the slopes, coordinate with other resorts to adopt standardized safety signs and equipment, prepare annual safety plans and make all that information available to the public,” according to an Associated Press story.

Doing what we can to encourage young skiers and snowboarders to protect their developing brains is, pardon the pun, a no-brainer. After all, states require parents to strap small children into safety seats in motor vehicles, and California law already requires kids under 18 to wear helmets when they’re riding bicycles. The government has decided that they need to play a role in overseeing children’s safety on the slopes, and California has decided to take the lead. Most parents already make sure their children wear helmets. According to a study done by the National Ski Areas Association, 77 percent of children 9 years old or younger and 66 percent of children between 10 and 14 wear ski helmets.

While the intention is admirable, asking ski resorts to take on the role of helmet police is ridiculous. What if a kid decides to strap his helmet to his backpack and not wear it? Are ski patrollers going to be forced to chase down teenagers who aren’t wearing helmets? Suddenly, it’s no longer a parental responsibility, but a responsibilty of the business operator.The impracticalities of enforcement hasn’t escaped notice of the California Ski Industry Association which voiced their opposition to the proposal and has pointed out its an invitation to lawsuits.

How about taking California’s law a step further? I didn’t imagine it would happen so quickly, but New York Assemblyman Felix Ortiz hasn’t hesitated, apparently feeling that it’s in society’s best interest to legislate adult helmet usage. He’s proposing that New York state require ALL skiers and snowboarders, including adults, to wear helmets while on the slopes. Ortiz doesn’t ski or snowboard, but he sure is concerned about the safety of adults who choose to take part in this risky activity. Ortiz has developing quite the reputation in New York. Earlier this month, he proposed a bill that would have banned all forms of salt from the preparation and cooking of restaurant food.

Once upon a time (about 30 years ago), no one wore ski helmets except for downhill racers. Skiers who launched the freestyle movement with inverted aerials in the 1970s didn’t wear helmets. In 1984, Phil and Steve Mahre wore ski hats while winning Olympic medals in slalom. When I purchased my first ski pass at Jackson Hole Mountain Resort in 1996, the only helmets visible in the tram line were worn by kids. Over time, helmet design improved and there was a shift in public opinion. Now, helmetless skiers like myself are in the minority, amazingly without any government intervention at all.

Ortiz’ legislation isn’t addressing some massive public health crisis­. According to the National Ski Areas Association, there were 39 fatalities and 44 serious injuries to skiers and snowboarders each season over the past 10 years. Both injury and fatality rates are less than 1 per million skier or snowboarder visits. It’s wonderful to want to protect children, but I don’t envision the California law wll have significant impacts if enacted, except for raising the sky-high liability insurance rates ski areas pay even higher.

I do own a helmet and strap it on periodically. I started wearing it when I learned to snowboard, because the type of falls I was taking frequently involved me smashing into the snow headfirst. I wear a helmet when I’m ski mountaineering to protect me from falling rocks or ice chunks, or when descending a route where a fall would likely result in an uncontrollable slide that would involve pinballing off of rocks. I won’t argue the scientists and physicians who point out the benefits of helmets, and I encourage anyone concerned about safety to choose to wear one.

The majority of the time I’m resort or backcountry skiing, I choose to go helmet free, as I have for the more than 30 years I’ve spent on skis. I accept the risk of skiing in trees, just as I accept the risk of skiing slopes that have the potential of avalanching. Skiing symbolizes freedom to me, and I want to continue to have the right to decide whether I need head protection when I’m on the slopes. In states like Wyoming or Montana, I doubt a law like this will ever be forced down my throat. In California, it may only be a matter of time before someone like Felix Ortiz is forcing adults to strap on helmets. I have no idea if New York’s legislature will decide it needs to take the lead in extending the nanny state concept to the ski slopes, but I hope not.

Tweet This Page Delicious Facebook

Here are a few other articles you might like:

1. Ortiz (NY) pushes ski helmet mandate
2. Ski Safety Legislation Moves Forward Again in CA

Felix Ortiz makes no apology for wanting to require the protective headgear at ski areas.

Government mandated health insurance is just the latest example in a long-running debate pitting arguments of public good versus personal liberty.

Ortiz has an issue not as dramatic, but still controversial.

Those who favor mandatory ski helmets in New York argue it will reduce the number and severity of head injuries.

Those against the law include the president of Ski Areas of New York. Scott Brandi says the accident rate is below 2.6 per thousand visits that Ortiz claims. He says the 39 deaths nationwide every year means you’re twice as likely to be killed by lightning than by a ski crash.

The Democratic assemblyman has never skied, but believes very strongly everyone who does should wear a helmet.

The helmet law would provide a $1,500 fine to the ski area for each customer without protective headgear and a $500 fine against the individual. Ortiz says the law would be enforced by officers with the Department of Parks and Recreation.

Ortiz thinks all the other so-called “big brother is watching issues” are valid — like listing calories on menus, banning and taxing sugared soft drinks, barring salt or transfats, regulating cell phone use and texting while driving, requiring seat belts and of course motorcycle helmets.

The ski area president argues requiring mandatory helmets places a financial and regulatory burden on ski areas.

The mandatory helmet bill has been pending in the Legislature in previous years without passing. Ortiz was not making any predictions of better success today.

Tweet This Page Delicious Facebook

The legislation would require resorts to “make available” helmets for public use, including through rentals, and would require that individual skiers and snowboarders must wear one on the slopes. The measure is being sponsored in the Senate by Toby Ann Stavisky, D-Queens.

Skiers or riders needn’t worry about getting pulled over for a ticket midway down a mogul run: The penalties for violating the measure would be borne by the ski resorts, which would face fines of $100 for a first violation and $200 for a second, with a provision that repeat violations could result in a three-day license suspension. The bill also requires that resorts post educational material about injury prevention. (In his news conference this morning, Ortiz mistakenly gave much stiffer penalties of $500 for individuals and $1,500 for resorts.)

The measure, Ortiz said, would be enforced by the state Department of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation. [corrected]

The trade group Ski Areas of New York Inc. has issued a memo of opposition to the bill. “It does not consider the operational impact on our resorts and customers,” according to an e-mail from SANY President Scott Brandi.

“The bill is seriously flawed. … The ski industry has a long history of taking a proactive approach to safety on our slopes and trails. With close to 60 million skier visits our accident rate is below 2.6 per 1,000 visits, in fact with a national average of 39 deaths annually you are two times more likely to be struck and killed by lightening then to suffer a fatal injury while skiing and riding,” Brandi wrote.

Ortiz’s detractors often cast him as the chief matron of the Nanny State for his legislative attempts to curtail everything from cell phone use while driving to, more recently, the use of salt in food — all salt in food. Ortiz is also a $10-per-customer surcharge on strip-joint patrons, a measure that was dubbed the “pole tax.”

For this morning’s press conference, he came flanked by advocates for the prevention of brain injury, including Dr. Brian P. Rieger of SUNY Upstate Medical University, who laid out the latest data on prevalence of head injuries in skiing and snowboarding.

An observed increase in brain and spinal injuries at winter resorts in recent years, he noted, has been ascribed by many to the increase in terrain parks featuring halfpipes, rails and jumps.

The risks of head injuries are slightly greater in this part of the nation: “The snow’s a little harder here in the Northeast than it is in Colorado, and the leading cause of head injury is hitting your head on the snow,” said Rieger, who presented data that suggests that loss of consciousness from such an industry is more prevalent in New York and Vermont than it is in Colorado. Also more likely in those two states: Collisions with fixed objects such as trees — likely due to generally narrower resorts at eastern hills.

Traumatic brain injury — the most serious kind of head injury — is the leading cause of death in skiing and snowboarding injuries. Concussion is one form of TBI.

Reiger and other experts noted that while helmets won’t prevent all brain injuries, its presence will reduce the frequency and severity of the injury. Overall, the use of a helmet reduces the risk of a potentially debilitating or even fatal head injury by 35 percent.

Ortiz first pushed a ski helmet mandate in 1998, following the skiing deaths of Congressman Sonny Bono and Michael Kennedy. A measure that would require helmet use by people under age 18 is currently moving through California’s legislature.

There are currently no ski helmet laws — for adults or children — on the books in any state. New York does, however, require children under age 14 to use helmets while using a bike.

Tweet This Page Delicious Facebook

Here are a few other articles you might like:

1. NY Legislator pushes mandatory ski helmet law
2. VIDEO: Assemblyman proposes ski helmet law

He’ll be speaking to the media during an event Thursday morning.

His bill would also require ski area operators to make available injury prevention literature and make helmets available to the public (and make sure they’re used). Ski area operators who don’t follow the law would be penalized.

“The objective of this legislation is to promote safety and protect lives,” according to Ortiz’s office. “Because of the dangers involved in this high-speed activity, it is vital that skiers of all ages and skill levels be made aware of the risks involved and be equipped with the proper safety equipment.”

Ortiz has a history of proposing bills he admits feature a differing opinion or different perspective. He recently introduced a bill — which brought him national attention — to ban restaurants from using salt while preparing food.

He told CBS 6 these kind of bills act as a can opener and spark debate.

Tweet This Page Delicious Facebook

Here are a few other articles you might like:

1. Ortiz (NY) pushes ski helmet mandate

Besides the air pump, the helmet is getting great reviews for its easily adjustable venting, small and removable visor brim, durable goggle clip, and comfortable chin strap

Tweet This Page Delicious Facebook

If it’s signed into law, the helmet requirement would be the most restrictive in the nation, mandating helmets for all skiers and snowboarders under the age of 18 and imposing stricter safety rules on California ski resorts.

The bill by state Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, also would require ski resorts to file annual safety plans and issue monthly reports about injuries and deaths.

Those requirements have been opposed by some in the ski industry, who call the measure extreme and unnecessary. Jack Bruner, a doctor who spoke against the bill, called it a “minefield” and said the law would be unenforceable.

“We view these as a possible invitation to lawsuits,” Michael Dillon, representing the California Ski Industry Association, testified before the Assembly Health Committee.

Jones, the committee’s chairman, agreed to amend the bill to clarify that it would not undermine the assumption of risk taken by a skier or snowboarder when visiting a ski resort.

Alanna Lungren, a skier who competed on the Squaw Valley Ski Race Team and in the Extreme Games qualifier races, testified that she suffered deep injuries after crashing into a tree while wearing a helmet.

“I was told my ski helmet saved me from serious head and brain damage,” Lungren said.

The committee ended up passing the measure, but some lawmakers on the panel expressed concern about the requirement that the industry adopt standardized safety signs and report injuries and deaths.

“I think that what we’re doing here is to try to over-regulate an industry to set up an unenforceable law,” said Assemblywoman Audra Strickland, R-Thousand Oaks.

Bill sponsors countered that the bill would not regulate resorts and that it includes no inspection or enforcement mechanisms.

“There’s nothing in the bill that changes the fact that when you walk on the slopes, you’re assuming the risk,” Jones said. “It merely says ‘provide information, provide the safety plans, provide fatality information.’”

Jones added that making it a crime to not wear a helmet, which is a provision in a similar bill introduced by Sen. Leland Yee, was not the best approach.

After the committee’s vote, ski industry representatives said that despite Jones’ offer to amend the bill, they would not change their position. Instead, they would support Yee’s bill, which would require minors to wear a helmet but would not require them to track safety plans, injuries and deaths.

“It would not stop litigation,” Bob Roberts, executive director of the California ski association, said after the hearing. “The language is still rife with legal pitfalls in its current state.”

Tweet This Page Delicious Facebook

Here are a few other articles you might like:

1. Another Bill in CA would require Ski Helmets for employees
2. Ski Safety Legislation Moves Forward Again in CA
3. Father Continues His Fight for Safety Improvements to Prevent Injuries and Deaths at California Ski Resorts

The 45-year-old actress died from bleeding in her skull caused by a fall during a lesson. She was not wearing a helmet.

A year on and her untimely death appears to have triggered a dramatic rise in the number of ski helmets sold in the UK.

Although sales have been rising steadily for the past few years, winter outfitter Ellis Brigham says it has seen a spike of 58% this season, while another snow sports company, Snow and Rock, says its sales have tripled.

On the slopes, many skiers and snowboarders say they have been struck by how commonplace helmets have become.

Mark Greenwood, from Rugby, is skiing with a group of 12 friends in the Portes du Soleil region of the Alps. He says that, for the first time, every single member of the group is wearing a helmet – apart from his wife, and that is only because she didn’t get round to buying one.

“Others have died,” he says – “Sonny Bono died crashing into a tree. I had a few crashes and thought, ‘Now’s the time to get a helmet – before it’s too late.’”

Bono, who shot to fame as part of US singing duo Sonny and Cher before going on to become a Republican congressman, died in a skiing accident in 1998 aged 62.

‘Like concrete’

Phil and Sue Tetley, from Cambridge, are also sporting helmets this season. As former snowboarders, they were already converted. Take-up of “lids” has traditionally been higher amongst boarders, as some think they are more prone to head injuries than skiers.

“If you’re wearing a helmet, it affects your hearing and it makes people ski beyond their abilities, because they think that they’re safe”
Ray Zdanovich

“It’s just like concrete underneath when it’s really icy,” says Phil. “You wouldn’t ride a bike without a helmet, so I wouldn’t ski without one.” His wife Sue adds that it makes her feel far more secure and confident. She says she’s seen the benefits of wearing a helmet at first hand:

“A friend of mine, if she hadn’t been wearing one, she’d have had a really nasty injury – she was incredibly lucky, as she’d only bought it the day before.”

It isn’t just safety concerns – and a high-profile death – that have made wearing a helmet more appealing.

Many resorts have made it compulsory for children to wear helmets during their lessons and it’s now rare to see anyone under the age of 14 without one. Vail Resorts in Canada, has made helmets compulsory for all its employees this season.

Lower Austria made them compulsory for all children under 14 after the death of a woman in a high-speed collision in January 2009.

Helmets are also compulsory for child skiers in Italy and many ski schools across the Alps insist on them.

New technology means that the latest helmet models are very light.

There are many different styles and colours. Some have a space for your iPod or MP3 headphones; others come equipped with head cams.

Prices have come down and one of the best-selling models can be bought for around £50. Whereas helmets were once seen as being a bit geeky, that is not so much the case any more.

But many remain unconvinced. Another holidaymaker in Les Portes du Soleil, Ray Zdanovich, from Slough, says that in 30 years of skiing, he’s never seen a reason to wear one:

“For children it’s fine but for adults, I think they cause more injuries than they save. If you’re wearing a helmet, it affects your hearing and it makes people ski beyond their abilities, because they think that they’re safe.”

The debate is set to continue, with brain injuries association Headway in discussion with MEPs about how to introduce legislation at European level to make helmets compulsory.

Head injuries

However, medical opinion is divided about how effective they can be in preventing serious injury. Dr Mike Langran, who’s a GP in the Scottish resort of Aviemore, has been researching snow sports injuries for 20 years.

He says that although helmet uptake has increased during that time – from around 2% to 60% – there’s been no significant decrease in the number of head injuries seen.

“They do protect you well against minor head injuries but there’s no conclusive evidence that if you hit a tree or another skier, that it’s going to save your life.”

He says the overall risk of a serious head injury is so low that to make helmets mandatory is over-the-top.

“A helmet is not a panacea and it doesn’t protect you against everything.”

Tweet This Page Delicious Facebook

Some experts are calling for a mandatory helmet law, one year after the death of British actress Natasha Richardson following a ski lesson at Mont-Tremblant.

Richardson, the wife of actor Liam Neeson, was taken off of life support and died last March 19th, two days after she hit her head during the beginner lesson.

She was not wearing a helmet.

While her death was shocking at the time, trauma experts say there are 200 to 250 cases of brain injury a year in Quebec.

And while helmet-use on ski slopes is up, experts including neuropsychologist Dr. Alain Ptito want governments to make them mandatory.

“It seems obvious to me,” Ptito told CTV’s Caroline Van Vlaardingen.

“It seems obvious to me that if you’re going at a certain speed and there is a risk of impact — the obvious thing is to protect yourself as best you can.”

Dr. Ptito, who works at the Montreal Neurological Institute, has been studying the effects of head injuries on memory and the thought process.

He has scanned the brains of athletes with and without head injuries to compare their brain function.

“What we see is the more severe the symptoms, the less the activation patterns.”

Financial costs

He said that the effects can last months and even years and that if public safety doesn’t prompt governments to act, politicians should be motivated by the financial costs.

“If the government wants to save money I think they should make (helmets) mandatory because it’s very expensive to treat a head injury,” said Ptito.

Think First, a Quebec group that promotes brain-injury awareness, says it could cost $8.2 million to care for a healthy 20-year-old who’s unable to work after a head injury.

Stats

Quebec ski hill operators say helmet use on the province’s slopes has grown from just over 10 per cent to close to 80 per cent over the past decade.

But that still means one in four skiers and boarders aren’t wearing them.

Human cost

Benoit Ballard knows first-hand the effect that head injuries can have on quality of life.

On April 15, 1999, Ballard was snowboarding down a beginner’s run called Cameron’s Trail at Lake Louise, Alta. when something happened.

“They said I was screaming . . . ‘cause I hit my head very hard on the ice, I guess,” said Ballard, 31.

He was not wearing a helmet.

Ballard spent the next 40 days in a coma and he awoke with only limited use of his left side.

He can move his right hand but it takes effort to open the left. The toes on his left side are always in a curled position.

“Every step I take from morning ‘till night, I have to think of the step I’m going to take,” he says “That’s my life.”

Ballard spends several hours a day in a rehab centre. He says he’s lucky to be alive but still has regrets.

“I’d give anything I have just to go back on April 15th because I’d be wearing a helmet, that’s for sure.”

Tweet This Page Delicious Facebook

The death of this young girl is a sad reminder that a Ski Helmet alone is not the only form of protection on the slopes. At SkiHelmets.org we urge all of our visitors to exercise control and awareness while skiing and to always wear a ski helmet. Our hearts go out to Taylors’ family, friends and readers.

Taylor Storch, 13, of Coppell was declared brain dead on Monday after an accident while skiing Sunday on the intermediate Latigo trail at Beaver Creek Resort in Avon, Colo.

Storch lost control and fell over backward, slide off the run and collided with a tree. She was wearing a helmet.

After the accident Storch was taken to the Vail Valley Medical Center and later transferred to St. Mary’s Hospital in Grand Junction. She was pronounced brain dead at the hospital early Monday afternoon.

The Storch’s arrived in Coppell late Tuesday where friends, neighbors and Taylor’s classmates released blue and purple balloons in memory of Taylor.

“The community embraced the family in an amazing way,” said Terry Storch, a spokesperson for the family. “They couldn’t have been more respectful and receptive of the family coming, and we are just so thankful.”

Storch and his wife Tara have decided to have Taylor’s organs donated to others in need.

“Funeral arragnements have not been finalized as of yet,” Terry Storch said

Tweet This Page Delicious Facebook

Here are a few other articles you might like:

1. Dalton teen dies in snowboarding accident
2. Arapahoe teen-ager dies in Keystone ski accident
3. Skier dies in accident at Belleayre