If there’s one thing I’ve learned from hosting a ski forum, a sure way to get an argument going is to start a thread on ski helmets.
It’s like starting a fire. For some reason, people feel very strongly one way or the other, and no amount of persuasion is going to change anyone’s mind.
I’m not going to go into the pros or cons here. I’m sure we’ve heard all the arguments before, so why waste valuable blog space?
The only reason I bring it up is because California’s Governor Jerry Brown recently vetoed the legislature’s bill to require ski helmets in children under 18. “While I appreciate the value of wearing a ski helmet, I am concerned about the continuing and seemingly inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state,” he wrote. “Not every human problem deserves a law. Parents have the ability and responsibility to make good choices for their children.”
Ironically, last year the previous governor, Schwartzenegger, voiced support for a ski helmet law but vetoed it due to its ties to legislation requiring ski resorts to develop and implement formal safety plans.
All this indicates government’s total confusion over what to do in this matter. Still, government has been down this road before. We protect children from alcohol by passing age requirements on drinking. We have laws that require car seats for babies, and we don’t allow people under a certain age to drive. So Governor Brown’s argument, while I agree in some measure, doesn’t really hold up. Then again, do we want to live in a nanny state? Should government be responsible for every aspect of our behavior, down to how we behave on the ski slope? Who’d be responsible for enforcement? And would it even make a difference?
So what’s the solution?
Darned if I know. But one thing is certain. No matter what the law, if I had a kid skiing, I’d put ’em in a helmet. No helmet, no skiing. It’s the Law of The Mom. Simple as that. Because despite all the arguments for and against, it certainly couldn’t hurt. And a head injury certainly could.
I agree with Governor Brown…at some point, parents MUST take responsibility for their kids. “Nanny state” can only lead to worse things. In our house, it’s “no helmet, no ski” and we’ll all be over 18 in 2 weeks when DS turns 18. DS, of course, has taken it to the extreme and his ski helmet looks like a motocross helmet!
There is a big difference in the examples you provide and the ski helmet law. The helmet choice only affects the individual skier as opposed to innocent by-standers. They’re only going to harm themselves based on their own choices (or the parents choice in this case).
Driving ages and seat belt laws protect innocent by-standers as well. I think this difference is an important distinction. You’re not comparing apples to apples.
No helmet = no skiing is the rule of our house, but sadly not the rule of everyone in my family. My older sister refuses to wear a helmet. The year I broke my back skiing (and put a major dent in a helmet, might I add – they DO save lives) our family went on a ski trip to Le Massif. My sons friend, at 15 years old, pointedly asked my sister why she didn’t wear a helmet. Her response was, “Because I’m not going to put myself in a situation where I need one.” Max’s brilliant reply, which I agree with 100%, was, “That’s just stupid. That’s like driving without a seat belt on because YOU don’t think YOU’RE going to cause an accident. What about everyone else around you that has the power and potential to do serious damage to YOU while you ski?”
Why do we leave it up to the individual to decide that THIS risk is more acceptable than not wearing a seat belt? Each is for your own safety, nanny state or not, and by going out on that slope you are already putting your life at risk. There’s no reason, beyond the cost of legislation and accountability, to NOT regulate the use of ski helmets. Saying the only life you’re putting at risk is your own is a scape-goat, and by that logic I should be able to drive without a seat belt on.
Riding in a car, even WITH a carseat/seatbelt, is significantly more dangerous for kids than skiing without a helmet, but we let kids ride in cars. I like the Law of the Mom. I find it interesting that almost every single government body manages to find MORE things to legislate than less. Government rarely looks at its past and says, “Gee, let’s loosen things up a bit.” I suppose it’s because government gets smarter and smarter while we get dumber and “more dumber.” That must be the reason.
I don’t like the idea of legislating helmet use – but that won’t stop me from being judgy when a parent doesn’t make their kid wear a helmet.