 |
| National Post online photo |
Helmet laws always get people excited – certain people anyways. For the reportedly 80% of downhill skiers that already wear helmets it will likely pass unnoticed. For the write-in-to-the-newspaper type of people, this is a big deal.
Nova Scotia is poised to be the first jurisdiction in the world to legislate ski helmets for all ages.
They are a helmet happy province, as they mandated cycling helmets for all ages in 2007 (with a drastic fall in cycle use to follow, especially among teens[1], and a commensurate drop in cycling head injuries i.e. fewer riders = fewer falls). Nova Scotia is not exactly a ski mecca, either, although according to a government spokesperson there have been 11 ski related head injuries since 2000[2]. I make that one a year, which as one commentator put it, is “either statistically insignificant or one awful injury too many”[3]. The predictable arguments fall to the sides of ‘thin edge of the wedge/we can’t bubble wrap life/freedom of choice’ vs. the ‘if we can save one life/society pays for your personal choice/what’s the big deal most already wear helmets’.
I’m all for helmets, but my take on this issue? Skiing is a commercial activity. It happens at privately owned resorts. Therefore, they are in the best position to make this decision. Intrawest has required children and teens to wear helmets since 2009 at their Quebec resorts (why this policy is not consistent across all of their resorts in the country is unclear to me). Ontario ski resorts require all school groups to wear helmets. So where is the real leverage point in the ski helmet law ‘debate’? Insurance companies. When they decide they have had enough of paying head injury claims, ski resorts will require them. Realistically, that day is not too far away.