One of these tragedies, that of a six-year-old from Florida in a ski school lesson in February, galvanized the town. It helped lead to Aspen’s decision on March 23 to require all ski school students ages six and younger to wear a helmet (see related story, page 24).
Mike Kaplan, vice president of mountain operations for Aspen, was the individual responsible for making the call. What convinced him?
“Three things,” Kaplan said. “The first was our string of tragic accidents. We were looking at how they happened and how to prevent them.
“Second, we were getting a lot of feedback from the medical community to get more people in helmets. The local coroner at AVH [Aspen Valley Hospital] went out on a limb and said helmets might have prevented a few of these deaths.
“And third, we have been talking to our employees about what they think. We looked at the research, but mostly, we asked ourselves, ‘How many of us have kids, and how many of us have them in helmets?’ The answer was 100 percent. We decided if it’s good enough for our own kids, it’s good enough for the kids who are under our supervision.”
Response from the Aspen community has been “very positive,” Kaplan said. “You know how you can think about a decision for a long time, then know right away if you made the right decision? That’s what we’ve found.” Implementation of the policy went smoothly this spring, he said, because many six-and-unders are using helmets already.
Still, Kaplan does not expect many areas to follow Aspen’s example. Since making the decision, he said, “I’ve heard from people as far away as Perisher [Australia]. But nobody’s firmly committed.” At presstime, only Vail was considering a helmet requirement for kids.
Research Notes
Should it be otherwise? Jasper E. Shealy, a long-time ski injury researcher, sees no strong evidence that helmet use will significantly reduce serious head injuries, which are the leading cause of death on the slopes. He notes that helmets offer little protection in head-on collisions with stationary objects, such as trees or lift towers, at typical skiing speeds of 25 to 40 miles per hour.
While Shealy acknowledges that helmets can reduce the severity of concussions resulting from glancing blows, he points out that helmets do not seem to reduce head injuries. In a study conducted two years ago, he found that riders wearing helmets were 66 percent more likely to sustain a serious head injury than the non-helmeted. The reason? Risk homeostasis, the theory that a helmeted rider simply ups the risk ante, negating the protective benefit. While helmets would reduce the incidence of serious head injuries if skiers and riders didn’t take greater risks, the evidence in the ski injury data, and from other sports and activities, suggests they will. “Beyond any reasonable doubt, people who wear helmets ski faster, and we think it’s that extra speed that gives rise to more severe head injuries,” Shealy told the Denver Post in late March. “If you think helmets would greatly reduce the number of serious head injuries, the data suggest you will be greatly disappointed.”
Dr. Stewart Levy, a neurosurgeon at Denver’s St. Anthony Central Hospital, has been compiling his own statistics and comes to an opposite conclusion. He has studied the skiers and snowboarders sent to St. Anthony’s with serious head injuries and conducted skier counts at three Colorado resorts to determine the percentage of skiers and riders who wear helmets. He believes his data show that helmeted skiers and riders reduce their risk of serious head injury by 74 percent, and that most injuries they incur are lessened by a helmet. He sees little or no evidence of increased risk-taking leading to more serious head injuries.
Levy and Shealy agree on one major point: The best way to avoid a serious injury, to the head or otherwise, is to ski responsibly. “A helmet can’t absorb all impacts,” Levy said. “You slide into a tree at 40 miles per hour and the head takes all the impact, you are definitely going to get a brain injury.”
The Final Word
Where does this leave ski areas? “We have to look at the facts we’re seeing and make our own decision,” Kaplan said. “Each area operates in its own way, for its own reasons. We feel that, operationally, we can separate the younger skiers from older ones. And we’ve got a different mix of terrain, vertical, and skiers and riders than other places. What’s right for Aspen may not be right for others.”
And what’s right for kids may not be right for adults. “Adults have to be responsible for their own choices,” he said. “But for kids under our supervision, we feel we have to help them make the right decision.”
