About 6 years ago one of the lifites at Kirkwood (Seth) spun out racing
down to chair 4 (ask Iain about that..). Seth died from side impact on
his head. Since then helmets have been acceptable and proper at
Kirkwood. Like you said, almost everyone wears them.

Especially snowboarding where we are vulnerable to catching an edge a
helmet is more valuable. I know it has saved me from at lesst a
serious headache more than few times.

You, Champ, don't ride that fast or jump so I suppose you are less
vunerable to impact.

Other reasons for wearing a helmet:

1. Prevents head from sticking to the snow while sliding (neck injury)
2. Suspends goggles so the don't squeeze your head.
2. keeps you warm so you don't need a goofy head gaitor.

"Ride for Seth"
"Let Seth Ride"







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,
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). 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.
--
Champ