Neff Zone Column -- February 16, 2008

Print Edition: February 16, 2008

SKI HELMET LAW WRONG HEADED

Proposed legislation in the Michigan House could have a dampening effect on northwest Michigan’s winter tourism industry. House Bill 5628 seeks to amend the Ski Area Safety Act to include this: "A skier shall wear a helmet…while on a ski slope. If the skier is a minor, the minor’s parent shall ensure that the minor wears a helmet while on a ski slope…A skier, passenger or operator who violates this act is liable…A skier or, if the skier is a minor, the parent of a skier who violates…is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be ordered to pay a fine of not more than $100."

Now, if you are not a skier you might wonder why this legislation should be of concern to you. After all, on the surface it seems to make sense that skiers should wear helmets. What’s the big deal? I’ll answer that later.

Let me preface everything I’m about to say by making it clear that I’m a firm believer in helmets. I ski in one and bike in one, as do all of my family members. It’s my choice.

That said, I also believe that legislation singling out skiing specifically as a recreational activity that should require mandatory helmet use is misguided (even if well-intentioned). This whole movement is a reaction to the death of a 13-year-old girl at a northern Michigan resort this winter, a terrible tragedy in which a helmet may have saved her life. The price of a helmet rental at the resort is $8, so that option was available but not taken. Unfortunate, but that does not mean "there ought to be a law."

I’m a logistics guy, so I always wonder about how something will be accomplished. This law raises so many questions I almost don’t know where to start.

Who provides the helmets? Will skiers have to prove they have a helmet in order to purchase a lift ticket or will the ski areas be on the hook to provide helmets for all? If ski areas provide the helmets, that’s a huge capital outlay for thousands of pieces. Then they have to figure out how to get each helmet to fit correctly on each skier, because a poor fitting helmet can be as dangerous as helmet at all. Then they have to have a way to instantly dry and disinfect each helmet before the next user because no one want’s to put on a damp, smelly helmet that’s just been used by another person.

Even if that’s solved, who enforces this law on the slopes? If someone isn’t wearing a helmet does the lift operator stop the ski lift until the offender complies, thereby stranding other skiers already riding the lift? Will the ski patrol, volunteers for the most part, be required to haul the offender off the slopes? Then who writes the ticket? Will the State Police be called in (which seems like an unwise use of taxpayer resources)? If the offender is a minor, will the parent have to be summoned to the ski area?

I could go on, but you get the idea. This is legislation that has a high feel-good quotient, but in practice it will be a nightmare to enforce.

I’d also like to point out that if helmets are required for downhill skiing, it only makes logical sense to legislate mandatory helmets for a wide range of other recreational activities. I use Cadillac as an example.

We have a skateboard park made of concrete and steel with features designed to encourage flights of "big air" and the inevitable chance of crash landings, which seems like a prescription for a catastrophic head injury. Yet, you rarely see any boarder wearing a helmet in the park. Helmets are optional.

We have a bicycle path around Lake Cadillac that is separated from vehicular traffic by a painted white line. All summer you can watch unhelmeted families, pre-schoolers included, bike just inches away from cars and trucks. On the south side of the lake, the speed limit is 40 mph and semi-trailer trucks are part of the mix. Helmets are optional.

On area golf courses missiles are launched, literally every minute, by people who have no idea in the world where their shots are going. (Several years ago at a resort north of here a man shanked his drive so severely that it hit his wife in the head and killed her as she sat in a cart next to the tee.) Helmets are optional.

We have a cross country ski pathway with steep downhill sections and massive trees on both sides of the trail. Helmets are optional.

My point is simply that pure logic would tell you that mandatory helmets should be the law for all of these activities, but they are not. Gee, we even live in a state where the majority of legislators want to repeal mandatory helmets for motorcycle riders and only a veto by the governor derailed that. And now skiing is being singled out?

I told you this affects you, even if you are not a skier, and here’s how. Running a ski resort is a tough business. Operators are at the mercy of the weather, travel trends, the amount of disposable income is available to families, as well as competition from warm weather destinations. In 1985 there were 727 ski areas in the country, now there are only 485. In Michigan there were around 50 ski areas in 1985, now only 30 are left (and that’s a very liberal count). In northwest Michigan, you’re only talking about 9 resorts: Boyne Mountain, Boyne Highlands, Caberfae Peaks, Crystal Mountain, Homestead, Mt. Holiday, Nub’s Nob, Shanty Creek/Schuss Mountain, and Treetops. Long gone are places like Big M, Sugar Loaf, Timberlee, Mt. Mancelona, Thunder Mountain, Walloon Hills, Tyrolean Hills, and others.

Still, according to the latest report (which is at least five years old) from Michigan State University, Michigan ski resorts are responsible for $146 million travel dollars (probably more like $200 million now) and 45% of that is in northwest Michigan. The bottom line is that downhill skiing is a monetary catalyst for all sorts of businesses in our area. They are already doing some pretty heavy lifting, so adding to their burden by making them the helmet police for what should be a matter of personal and parental responsibility is unwarranted. Legislation that discourages tourists from coming to our area is a detriment to the entire local economy.

Add to that, the taxpayer funds that will be used in draining precious law enforcement and court resources needed to facilitate this proposed law and it has all the makings of a situation that has not been given proper due diligence.

The odd thing is that if you ask any skier he or she will tell you that helmet use has increased dramatically is the past half-decade and that more skiers and snowboarders are added to the helmet head ranks every day. Education is already doing a remarkably effective job of getting skiers and riders into helmets. That’s where the focus should be.

Jim Neff is a local columnist. Comments to neffzone@gmail.com. Read Neff Zone columns online at www.neffzone.com/cadillacnews.