Natasha Richardson died from ski accident

Skiing lessons without headgear is a gamble. Her fall was not one that is rare on a beginners learning curve. The helmets are so much better and smaller today than the Old Snell gadgets I used in past years.
I knew a ski patroller who got swiped by a beginner on a wrong hill on a Pa slope called ELK MOUNTAIN. The ski patroller died in a similar fashion. These type accidents arent that rare and Ill bet a few people die each year from this kind of trauma and contra coup trauma. I always worry about me or the family slipping on ice in a stupid parking lot and suffering such trauma.
When I fall, I try to twist on my side so I dont land with a smack to my head. That way my hips and side take the shock and we can roll out.(Your clothes will suffer but hey, at least they wont bury you in em)

quite a debate in canada's ski-community : should helmets be mandatory when skiing ?
trauma physicians cite numerous cases of skiers not wearing helmets dying after hitting the ground , others are saying : "i'm the one to decide whether or not to wear a helmet ! " .

now that a prominent person has died , it seems that the focus is being shifted away from her not wearing a helmet . instead , emergency services are being blamed - ever so slightly at the moment - for not having a helicopter on standby to immediately whisk her away to a new york trauma hospital .

deadly skiing , snowboarding and snowmobiling accidents are not that infrequent during the winter season in canada .
in the rockies several people have been killed by avalanches when they decided to ignore the DO NOT ENTER signs in avalanche prone areas .
plenty of those people ignoring the signs say : "it's taking all the fun out of it by having restricted areas ! " . of course , rescuers are expected to put their own lifes' on the line when retrieving the bodies .
hbg



and there have been more deaths since then ... and march is often one of the deadliest months when it comes to avalanche deaths . the snow starts to lose density and an avalanche can be set off easily .

not much chance of survival when buried under an avalanche ...



bow valley near calgary/alberta

Many years ago I was at a conference at Banff and , as part of the field trips they sponsorede, we went with an avalanche team to inspect several (not so dangerous) ice and snow "navee" areas. These were areas where the tops of snow lines were lying atop more dense snow pack. The less dense areas were the target of closer inspection and possible shooting , in order to start smaller avalanches that ostensibly would head off any larger ones. Lotsa inspection was going on for snow pack monitoring for highways and recreational area safety.

As far as the head injuries, Its a shame that, once there is available gear that is shown to be fully protective, people still dont wear it. Hell, I have biker friends who still refuse to wear helmets. They have a fatalistic attitude . They wear hankies on their heads but never a "brain bucket. Pa removed the helmet laws 2 yers ago and weve had a minor surge in biker deaths and major head trauma. (There are a bunch of 50 and 60 year old guys who drool and talk like babies because they didnt wear helmets. I dont care what they do, but Jesus, If someones gonna be purposely stupid, why must we have to support their vegetable existence with our insurance?

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8857056

Please, let's not encourage the nanny state.

hawk wrote :



i wonder if hawk is happy to see more of these walking vegetables ... ...



there must be something wrong with being "sensible" i assume .
hbg

ps perhaps we should also discourage rescue units from going out to rescue people that got hit by an avalanche - and we certainly should NOT ask them to bring back "bodies" .
and while we are at , we may want to permit cruiselines from eliminating the unnecessary expense of providing life jackets and having a "mandatory" lifeboat drill upon starting a cruise .
it's all part of the "nanny state" .

I wonder how much a Rambo State costs us each year for all kinds of preventable accidents on slopes or bikes?

Id be happy if Insurnce Claims were nulled if its found out that people WERE NOT wearing helmets when skiing or biking. LETS LET THE MARKETPLACE DECIDE EH?

farmerman :

what really bothers me is , that after an "avoidable" accident (such as : out of bounds skiing - or snowmobiling on a lake where the ice is beginning to thaw) , relatives are often complaining that "rescue services" were not immediately dispatched to go into dangeous areas to rescue some foolish adventurers (or bring back their bodies ) .
one has to wonder ...
hbg

there are great many people running around who will tell you that it is sensible to avoid all alcohol and fast food, and to eat a bowl of oatmeal everyday. By your reasoning the state should do what it can to make this happen. I think not. The state in extreme cases only should regulate or outlaw, but otherwise the theory of freedom of the individual dictates that the strongest action the state can take is to make sure that everyone knows the risks to the best degree that knowledge allows. Seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, and should it happen ski helmet laws for adults are a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

A soft life free of risk would make every individual a weak individual, so forgive me if I am not all hot to trot about eliminating risk. Also, the future of the species depends upon strengthening the mental facilities of individuals, and nothing sharpens the mind like looking death in the face. For both reasons the nannies are a danger to the human race.

Then you would like my idea to let the marketplace deal with this. If insurance companies just refused to pay out via "stupid human acts" clauses, then Id be satisfied that we would have no "nanny" state, instead, wed have a state wherein the market exacts control over irresponsible behavior. This would fall in line with the previous admins attempts to place a ceiling on med malpractice suits.

.**** the state, lets get back to what the GOP wants in everything, keep the govt out and let insurance companies write their clauses that limit or eliminate payments (Its quite common in many areas of insurance law now)

The market place does not work very well, however if it could price out the cost of the risk and make the risk taker pay the premium I would not mind. Failing that freedom trumps iron clad economic fairness so the state and private sector must be restrained. Some of the worst abuses of the individuals freedom are work place drug testing absent evidence of a drug problem, the use of credit checks in hiring for employment, and the refusal of health insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions. As you fairly point out, the Government does not do these things, the capitalists do with the consent of the government.