California looking to over regulate another industry out of the state

[dead0man]

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Sbane]

Ugh

[segwaystyle2012]

Glad I don't live there but wearing a helmet is a good idea. Shouldn't be forced though, it's not the government's business.

[memphis]

Glad I don't live there but wearing a helmet is a good idea. Shouldn't be forced though, it's not the government's business.

It becomes the government's business when they have to pay for twenty years of care at a skilled nursing facility because somebody sustains a traumatic brain injury.

[k-onmmunist]

Ugh. Stupid.

[Lunar]

How's this any different from a seatbelt law?

And Dead, you can't extrapolate an anecdote like this.  Very,  very few people are willing to travel an extra two to six hours to ski somewhere where you don't have to wear helmets. 

[cinyc]

Glad I don't live there but wearing a helmet is a good idea. Shouldn't be forced though, it's not the government's business.

It becomes the government's business when they have to pay for twenty years of care at a skilled nursing facility because somebody sustains a traumatic brain injury.

I'm sick of this nanny state sh it.  It will only become worse with health care "reform".  Get ready for nanny state government to tell you how to live your life.  You get what you vote for.

[TheGreatOne]

It certainly effects me.  Some asshole might have the same health insurance as me.  He goes down the hill and sustains a brain injury.  The health insurance company has to pay for his hospital bills and possibly his medical care afterwards.  Now my premiums rise because the insurance company has to payout money to idiots like this as well as people who develop diseases and other various health defects because they are obese or abuse drugs.  As risk spreading increases within the private health insurance market, your decision will eventually effect me.  This law easily addresses one of those issues, and it won't hurt the snowboarding business. 

I don't get why people are such babies.  Helmets and seatbelts are uncomfortable.  Boo friggen hoo.  Are people really this immature?

[segwaystyle2012]

Glad I don't live there but wearing a helmet is a good idea. Shouldn't be forced though, it's not the government's business.

It becomes the government's business when they have to pay for twenty years of care at a skilled nursing facility because somebody sustains a traumatic brain injury.

I'm sick of this nanny state sh it.  It will only become worse with health care "reform".  Get ready for nanny state government to tell you how to live your life.  You get what you vote for.

Me too. People shouldn't be forced to wear helmets and the government certainly shouldn't be paying for their self-inflicted injuries under any circumstances.

[cinyc]

It certainly effects me.  Some asshole might have the same health insurance as me.  He goes down the hill and sustains a brain injury.  The health insurance company has to pay for his hospital bills and possibly his medical care afterwards.  Now my premiums rise because the insurance company has to payout money to idiots like this as well as people who develop diseases and other various health defects because they are obese or abuse drugs.  As risk spreading increases within the private health insurance market, your decision will eventually effect me.  This law easily addresses one of those issues, and it won't hurt the snowboarding business. 

I don't get why people are such babies.  Helmets and seatbelts are uncomfortable.  Boo friggen hoo.  Are people really this immature?

The only people who are immature are those who want to force people to do things that don't hurt anybody but themselves against their will under penalty of prison.  The people who want to turn us into a wussy European-sytle socialist nanny state where risks are shunned and innovation stifled.

Live your own damn life.  Don't tell me how to live mine.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Lol this isn't going to regulate and industry out of business, and will probably just increase the consumption of helmets.

[TheGreatOne]

CiNYC,  I just provided you an example of how it effects my life.  Don't tell me it doesn't when I know from years of research that the bad decisions of others hurts me.  You clearly know nothing about health insurance cost spreading, which is a reason why your premiums keep increasing each year.  If a person doesn't wear a helmet and injures himself because he hasn't worn a helmet, I have to pay for him and so do you.  This is something very easy to control and won't significantly effect anyone. 

[cinyc]

Lol this isn't going to regulate and industry out of business, and will probably just increase the consumption of helmets.

Johnny takes his helmet off on the slopes.  The ski resort doesn't catch it - they can't be everywhere.  Johnny skis into a tree and gets hurt.  Never mind he would have gotten hurt anyway - skiing into a tree is dangerous.  Nevertheless, Johnny's parents sue the ski resort for failure to make Johnny wear his helmet.  Idiotic California jury finds for poor little Johnny and awards him millions.  This happens over and over again, because no ski resort can check what's happening everywhere at every time.  Resort closes, because it can no longer pay for insurance or hiring the hundreds of workers that it would require to enforce this unfunded mandate.

[TheGreatOne]

Lol this isn't going to regulate and industry out of business, and will probably just increase the consumption of helmets.

Johnny takes his helmet off on the slopes.  The ski resort doesn't catch it - they can't be everywhere.  Johnny skis into a tree and gets hurt.  Never mind he would have gotten hurt anyway - skiing into a tree is dangerous.  Nevertheless, Johnny's parents sue the ski resort for failure to make Johnny wear his helmet.  Idiotic California jury finds for poor little Johnny and awards him millions.  This happens over and over again, because no ski resort can check what's happening everywhere at every time.  Resort closes, because it can no longer pay for insurance or hiring the hundreds of workers that it would require to enforce this unfunded mandate.

I'm not saying that should happen.   I beleive that resorts should have a sign out front stating, "Anyone not wearing a helmet will be ejected," and I think they should enforce the rule.  I don't, however, think they should be liable for anything if a person takes off their helmet and injures themselves. 

[Sbane]

What bothers me about this bill is that the ski resorts are forced to enforce these laws when it should be the government. Moreover ski resorts have to fill out tons of paperwork if someone dies at their resort. The problem is that many times they don't even die until they are at a hospital somewhere. So now the ski resort has to track them down, get all the info, then make a pretty little report for the government. I have nothing against wearing helmets, or even the government enforcing it, but don't make the ski resorts do it. The government should just send "ski patrols" out fining people up the wazoo if they don't have helmets on. Furthermore don't make the ski resorts more uncompetitive by making them do useless paperwork.

[TheGreatOne]

What bothers me about this bill is that the ski resorts are forced to enforce these laws when it should be the government. Moreover ski resorts have to fill out tons of paperwork if someone dies at their resort. The problem is that many times they don't even die until they are at a hospital somewhere. So now the ski resort has to track them down, get all the info, then make a pretty little report for the government. I have nothing against wearing helmets, or even the government enforcing it, but don't make the ski resorts do it. The government should just send "ski patrols" out fining people up the wazoo if they don't have helmets on. Furthermore don't make the ski resorts more uncompetitive by making them do useless paperwork.

[dead0man]

How's this any different from a seatbelt law?

It's not really, they are stupid too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because everybody that skis in California is from California.

No, these nanny laws aren't going to kill winter sports in California, but it's not doing them any favors either.

[dead0man]

..and it's official.  link

[Mint]

How's this any different from a seatbelt law?

And Dead, you can't extrapolate an anecdote like this.  Very,  very few people are willing to travel an extra two to six hours to ski somewhere where you don't have to wear helmets. 

The difference is that with seatbelts, you're not just endangering yourself if you don't wear one you're also threatening other's safety since you could be flung out into incoming traffic.

Now personally I'm skeptical about how effective helmet laws actually are, but I don't oppose this on principle. Certainly not if they actually do save money.

[Holmes]

The last time I skied, I wasn't wearing my glasses and didn't see a jump so I took it, panicked, bailed and went sliding down the hill and stopped by smashing my wrist against a thick tree stump. Hurt like hell but I'm glad I didn't go head first. But I know a lot of people who have hit their head and got concussions or other injuries.

That said, of the deaths I know about at the nearby ski hill, they weren't caused by head injuries. Still, it is a good idea to wear a helmet and I should've worn one since I wasn't experienced at all. Complaining that the government is controlling your life because you have to be safe and wear a helmet if you're a minor is borderline pathetic.

[Lunar]

How's this any different from a seatbelt law?

And Dead, you can't extrapolate an anecdote like this.  Very,  very few people are willing to travel an extra two to six hours to ski somewhere where you don't have to wear helmets. 

The difference is that with seatbelts, you're not just endangering yourself if you don't wear one you're also threatening other's safety since you could be flung out into incoming traffic.

Now personally I'm skeptical about how effective helmet laws actually are, but I don't oppose this on principle. Certainly not if they actually do save money.

Do you really think the danger of you being flung out into incoming traffic is the driving motivation & justification for seatbelts?  Why not allow people to not wear them in the backseat then?

[opebo]

There's something slightly sad about the state of an economy that has to call skiing an 'industry'.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The last time I skied, I wasn't wearing my glasses and didn't see a jump so I took it, panicked, bailed and went sliding down the hill and stopped by smashing my wrist against a thick tree stump. Hurt like hell but I'm glad I didn't go head first. But I know a lot of people who have hit their head and got concussions or other injuries.

That said, of the deaths I know about at the nearby ski hill, they weren't caused by head injuries. Still, it is a good idea to wear a helmet and I should've worn one since I wasn't experienced at all. Complaining that the government is controlling your life because you have to be safe and wear a helmet if you're a minor is borderline pathetic.

     Saying that the government is "controlling your life" over this is something of an overreaction, but it is these sorts of invasions into our personal decisions that I believe ought to be opposed as a matter of principle.

[Mint]

Do you really think the danger of you being flung out into incoming traffic is the driving motivation & justification for seatbelts?  Why not allow people to not wear them in the backseat then?

I'm not saying that at all, just that you could make an argument for seat belt laws that doesn't involve minimizing/avoiding unnecessary medical costs.

[Lunar]

Do you really think the danger of you being flung out into incoming traffic is the driving motivation & justification for seatbelts?  Why not allow people to not wear them in the backseat then?

I'm not saying that at all, just that you could make an argument for seat belt laws that doesn't involve minimizing/avoiding unnecessary medical costs.

Eh, it's not really a persuasive argument though.  Because it takes up police resources and countless hours of citizen and legal time to enforce, not to mention the enforcement on the completely negligible backseat passengers under this framework....all to prevent flailing bodies from disrupting traffic?