On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:32:00 +0000, Champ wrote:

On 10 Jan 2005 12:46:12 GMT, Switters wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 21:45:17 GMT, "John Ricketts"
allegedly wrote:

Nice picture!....granted, I wouldn't contemplate racing without one,
but isn't this just the nanny state philosophy kicking in yet again? I
reckon its less about protecting the individual than about minimising
the risk of litigation!

It's interesting that in the more litigious USA, helmets are not
compulsory but are certainly more common. The ski areas haven't mandated
their use out of fear of being sued, yet the majority appears to wear
them.

That's cos yanks are weenies :-)

Waiting in the queue for lift 10 at Kirkwood to open a few days ago,

Hey, I thought you were at Squaw. What did you reckon to Kirkwood then
(apart from the five feet of powder you texted me about)? We were
muchly impressed when we skied there in November, and that was with
only the middle four chairs running. Loads of off-piste stuff, both
open and in the trees, and quite a lot of it pretty steep too.

there were about 50~60 diehards - all up early, and prepared to queue
to get first tracks (on a run that hadn't been open for 36 hours, with
lots of fresh).

Which run?

Me and Iain, both British, didn't have helmets. Of
the rest (all American, as far as I could tell), around 90% wore
helmets. Maybe those guys *really* rip, but I couldn't see their
justification, myself.

I guess it becomes so automatic they wouldn't think of _not_ wearing
them.

--
Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.