Ski slope to review policy on helmets (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Southampton Ski Centre to act after Natasha Richardson tragedy
4:01pm Friday 20th March 2009 in News
By James Maden, News and Video Reporter
A child at Southampton Ski Slope
BOSSES at Southampton’s ski centre will review their crash helmet policy following the death of actress Natasha Richardson.
But managers at The Alpine Centre in Bassett have ruled out making all skiers wear hard hats.
Instead they may extend the range of special activities for which the safety helmets will be mandatory.
The movie star’s accident has renewed debate on whether helmets should be made obligatory for people taking to the slopes.
Current policy at the centre means it is only compulsory for those tackling ramps and rails or practising race-training through poles.
Ms Richardson, star of films including The Parent Trap and Maid in Manhattan, died after a seemingly innocuous knock to the head while skiing on a nursery slope in Quebec, Canada.
Keith Diaper, manager of the dry ski slope at Southampton Sports Centre, said: “We constantly review policies here and no doubt when I meet with my staff we will review it in light of this accident, but you can’t force someone to wear one and it will still be a choice.
“We do say to parents, particularly those with youngsters in the kids’ club, that we advise them to get their children to wear helmets, but at the end of the day it’s the parents’ decision.”
Keith, who has worked at the centre for six years and as manager for four, believed major accidents, particularly on artificial slopes, were rare.
“I would say for the majority of our business we deal with beginners and I haven’t come across a head injury since I have been working here. If we have certain injuries then we assess what needs to be done and act on it.”
Comments(10)
housewife
says...
4:54pm Fri 20 Mar 09
Wearing a helmet may make you feel like a twonk but you are more of a twonk if a minor accident leaves your children orphans.
Same with cyclists. One kerbsone can equal parentless children.
downfader
says...
5:06pm Fri 20 Mar 09
housewife wrote:Right skiing helmets: Fair enough if you're on the piste and relatively new and inexperienced... on a supervised training area there should have been no problem
Miles, No. She was just unlucky to be hit where it caused a bleed under her skull. Wearing a helmet may make you feel like a twonk but you are more of a twonk if a minor accident leaves your children orphans. Same with cyclists. One kerbsone can equal parentless children.
Its the same with cycling helmets though - your chances of actually sustaining a head injury are extremely small. You chances of sustaining a head injury that will result in death are even less.
With regards cycling helmets: The vast majority of stats taken from accidents over the past 10-15 years seem to suggest that being a pedestrian is waaay more dangerous than being a cyclist. The issue with that is that many motorists fail to risk-assess the road properly and this leads to the higher chance of pedestrian-motorist accidents.
Oh just remembered. One of the calls for helmets on the piste came from a recent accident where a man was killed after another skier's knee came into contact with his head. The man almost died instantly. The thing is the man who died wasnt actually on the piste but by some restaurant seating seemingly tying his daughters shoelace.
I think we over-emphasise what danger is at times, and this puts many off trying a healthy activity
housewife
says...
5:22pm Fri 20 Mar 09
But the potential for a life threatening outcome if you do is very high.
Therefore it makes sense to make the unpleasant outcome even more unlikely.
A chap I knew was cycling to work past a queue of traffic. Somehow he toppled over sideways and hit his head on the pavement. He died two days later.
A helmet would certainly have saved his life - the head injury was the only one.
Precautions are only that. But if you deliberately do not take
them, should your family expect full sympathy when you are gone?
Miles Sway
says...
5:44pm Fri 20 Mar 09
housewife wrote:That doesn't mean a helmet would have saved her though.
Miles, No. She was just unlucky to be hit where it caused a bleed under her skull.
Wearing a helmet may make you feel like a twonk but you are more of a twonk if a minor accident leaves your children orphans.
Same with cyclists. One kerbsone can equal parentless children.
My point about a particular weakness in her is that her accident would likely not be the same result for someone else (or we'd be see skiing banned altogether as too dangerous) - take rugby players, frequent bangs to the head, probably much harder then NR experienced yet fortunately death is incredibly rare.
I appreciate your story about the cyclist - whether or not a helmet would have changed anything is highly debateable; he could have landed differently and walked away unscathed (as I fortunately have) or just as easily broken his neck and been left paralysed.
Whatever we do carries some element of risk, especially sport, my concern is a knee-jerk reaction that will affect everyone on the back of this extremely rare, albeit tragic, accident.
wilsamsaints
says...
6:24pm Fri 20 Mar 09
Boris Remmington
says...
6:38pm Fri 20 Mar 09
Condor Man
says...
9:17pm Fri 20 Mar 09
downfader
says...
8:59pm Sat 21 Mar 09
Condor Man wrote:Laugh his socks off.
what would Eddie The Eagle do?
downfader
says...
9:09pm Sat 21 Mar 09
housewife wrote:I'm sorry but you havent really read what I wrote, have you. The chances of sustaining a life threatening injury from a bang to the head is minimal. Velocity and force have to come together in exactly the right part of the skull to do damage. The adult skull is actually very good at protecting the brain.
I totally agree that the chances of sustaining a head injury are very small. But the potential for a life threatening outcome if you do is very high. Therefore it makes sense to make the unpleasant outcome even more unlikely. A chap I knew was cycling to work past a queue of traffic. Somehow he toppled over sideways and hit his head on the pavement. He died two days later. A helmet would certainly have saved his life - the head injury was the only one. Precautions are only that. But if you deliberately do not take them, should your family expect full sympathy when you are gone?
Your friend may well have died from the result of a congenital or hereditary problem, or he could have been one of the 0.01% of those who sustain head injuries.
A helmet may not have saved his life as the temples and chin are often exposed.
And its slightly insulting to suggest that my family would deserve no sympathy if I wore no helmet. If you smoked and died of cancer I would never suggest or encourage a similar outlook.
Miles Sway says...
4:25pm Fri 20 Mar 09
Re helmets for all, I remember some research on cyclists which suggests cyclists wearing helmets felt more invulnerable and therefore cycled less cautiously - those not wearing them were much more careful as they were aware of the lack of protection.
Being a cyclist myself it makes sense - I usually wear a helmet but if not, I'm much more careful.