PDA

View Full Version : Gore Death



Greg
02-21-2006, 10:08 AM
http://news.alpinezone.com/8094/

Greg
02-21-2006, 11:41 AM
Updated Information (FEB 21)

Sheriff's Office investigators attended the forensic examination conducted
at the Glens Falls Hospital. At that time it was determined the cause of
death resulted from blunt force trauma to the chest. The death has now been
classified as accidental, and no criminal charges will be filed.



Officials from the NYS Department of Labor and the NY Olympic Regional
Development Authority are continuing their inquiries into this accident.

Wa
02-21-2006, 11:59 AM
Ouch... accidents happen, probably more often on the highway than skiing- but its always pretty disturbing when things like this happen. When was the last time someone died at Gore prior to this?

kcyanks1
02-21-2006, 03:12 PM
Ouch... accidents happen, probably more often on the highway than skiing- but its always pretty disturbing when things like this happen. When was the last time someone died at Gore prior to this?

I seem to remember one in the past couple years. Very sad when these things happen, which unfortunately seems to be a couple times a season just in the east.

chez
02-21-2006, 06:13 PM
Unfortunately the last death was on the same spot on Lies...

When Lies turns right about 1/2 way down the trail the fall line goes left. So anyone who slips on the headwall ends up being a rocket ship into the woods on skiers left...

I've had 2 friends go in there and get SERIOUSLY hurt, now 2 fatalities...It all could be prevented by just putting up 100' of safety fence on the left side of Lies, don't know why they haven't done it yet....

redalienx11
02-21-2006, 08:12 PM
I saw the ski patrol attending to what looked like a serious accisent on Lies around that time on Monday. Both Rumor & Lies were in bad shape all day.

The victim was a co-worker with my friend's father..apparently a really nice guy. Best wishes to his family.

mattchuck2
02-23-2006, 05:21 PM
Unfortunately the last death was on the same spot on Lies...

When Lies turns right about 1/2 way down the trail the fall line goes left. So anyone who slips on the headwall ends up being a rocket ship into the woods on skiers left...

I've had 2 friends go in there and get SERIOUSLY hurt, now 2 fatalities...It all could be prevented by just putting up 100' of safety fence on the left side of Lies, don't know why they haven't done it yet....

Not to be a dick, but maybe people who aren't experts shouldn't be skiing it. It's clearly marked on top as a diamond . . . in fact, it might even be a double diamond on the trail map. I don't know why people don't take that stuff seriously. When they see a diamond they think it's a good chance to "test themselves". What they should think is "wow, this trail might be above my ability level."

I assume you've been to Gore before. Why would you take your friends on the trail if it was beyond their ability? And don't tell me that they are actually good skiers, they just made a mistake. I've skied that trail hundreds of times and I've never even come close to the area you are talking about. If you know the mountain, you are just as responsible as your friends for their injuries.

chez
02-24-2006, 08:10 AM
I too have been on Lies many a time, my friends who were hurt there even more...You just don't know how icy the headwall is until you're on it...Ask Ski Patrol how many people they've pulled out of the woods on skiers left on Lies, they'll tell you...

Son of Drifter
02-24-2006, 08:44 AM
Not to be a dick, but maybe people who aren't experts shouldn't be skiing it.

I assume you've been to Gore before. Why would you take your friends on the trail if it was beyond their ability? And don't tell me that they are actually good skiers, they just made a mistake. I've skied that trail hundreds of times and I've never even come close to the area you are talking about. If you know the mountain, you are just as responsible as your friends for their injuries.[/quote]

Too late for that. How do you know that the guy that died wasn't an expert skier? Expert skiers don't get hurt? Stuff happens. That guy could have been a great skier but just got a little careless and hit an icy path that maybe he didn't notice until it was too late. Don't assume things. When you assume you make an ass out of you and me. :twisted:

mattchuck2
02-24-2006, 09:44 AM
Sorry . . not buying it. If you don't think you can ski that trail on the worst, iciest day, then you should stay off of it. It's true, you don't know how icy the headwall is going to be until you get on it. If you don't think you can handle it, why would you risk life and limb in a feeble attempt to ski Lies?

And the comment wasn't really about the guy that died (you're right, I don't know the circumstances). The comment was about chez and his buddies. I'm pretty sure if two of them went into the woods and were "seriously injured" it's not Gore's fault, it's theirs.

chez
02-24-2006, 11:30 AM
I can tell you my two friends who were injured on Lies are "expert" and spent many days on Rumor and Lies...

But regardless of how good the skier is or whether they are qualified to be on Lies my only point in this whole discussion is that the left side of Lies has had numerous injuries, and unfortunately casualties, and with a little safety fence they all could have been avoided...

mattchuck2
02-24-2006, 12:22 PM
Right, and my point is that they don't need the safety fence and that people should take responsibility for their own actions. Just because you can get down a trail does not qualify you as an expert.

AdironRider
02-26-2006, 09:43 PM
Dude your retarded to take that stance. Even the best skiers in the world fall, often on trails they think they know the best. Your going to get yourself hurt. Anyone can slip on a piece of hidden ice.

mattchuck2
02-27-2006, 08:28 AM
Yeah, but are we going to start putting fences on every trail? Requiring people to wear helmets? Requiring people to wear body armor? When does it end?

I'm aware that everybody falls. But we take that as a given when we choose to go skiing. In fact, it says it on the back of your ticket (or season pass). "Skiing is an inherently dangerous sport" or something like that.

I just picture everybody skiing down in those Sumo fat suit thingys, bright orange, with huge helmets on - skiing one at a time - desperately trying to stick to the middle of the trails, not daring to venture into the woods. THAT would be a funny sight.

kcyanks1
02-27-2006, 07:52 PM
Yeah, but are we going to start putting fences on every trail? Requiring people to wear helmets? Requiring people to wear body armor? When does it end?

No, only on trails that seem to have an especially high rate of injuries due to skiing off the trail in specific places. Lies might be such a trail. As to helmets, no, because that is paternalism and impeding on personal decision in a way that a fence is not. (I do support mandatory seatbelts, at least for drivers, because I believe they can save others not just the wearer .. helmets can't.)


I'm aware that everybody falls. But we take that as a given when we choose to go skiing. In fact, it says it on the back of your ticket (or season pass). "Skiing is an inherently dangerous sport" or something like that.

If a ski area can take a very inexpensive action that will help save people, and not take away any freedom from them, why shouldn't they do it?

mattchuck2
02-28-2006, 08:40 AM
You can't make the argument that "It could happen to anybody on any trail" and then say that we should only put fences on "trails that seem to have an especially high rate of injuries". Besides, when you put a fence on one trail, there will be another spot where people get injured, and you'll have to put a fence there. When that spot is safe, there will be injuries at another point on the mountain . . . eventually there will be fences all over the place.

Also, you are very quick to defend the personal decision to ski without a helmet. Would you also agree that it is a personal decision to ski down Lies? Now, given that these are both personal decisions, why should the mountain be at fault? If you were to fall on a normal trail and hit your head on the ice and get a concussion, maybe next time you'd make the personal decision to wear a helmet. If you were to get hurt on a trail that has icy conditions, maybe next time, you could take some personal responsibility and not ski the trail under those conditions.

As for the question of why shouldn't the ski areas put a fence up, let me give you a few reasons off the top of my head:

1. Detracts from the visual appeal of skiing
2. May encourage people to ski the trail who would normally not ski it ("don't worry, there's a fence if you fall")
3. Eliminates a potential "bail out" spot in case of a collision with another skier
4. Sometimes when something is bright orange on a mountain it seems to draw people towards it, I don't know how many times I've seen this with slow signs, lollipops and orange plastic barrels on the mountain. I also don't know why this occurs, but for some reason, it's like moths to a light.
5. In a sense, it does take away a freedom from them. I've been on that trail when it's really icy. Sometimes the best snow is in those trees on the left. I want to be able to ski in there if I need to.

I'm sure there are other reasons that I haven't thought of, but number 2 alone should be enough to convince people this is not a good idea. There's enough yahoos on that trail already. We don't need people dragging their inexperienced buddies up there just to watch them slide down the headwall into a fence because somehow that's funny to them.

Finally, have you people ever skied in Europe? That would wake you up real quick to the idea of personal resposibility.

chez
02-28-2006, 08:58 AM
I too would not like to see safety fences all over the hill, but for that one small area where there have been numerous accidents, for whatever reasons, it I feel it would be appropriate...

And my reasons for doing so are:
1) It would save lives and serious injuries
2) It would save lives and serious injuries
3) It would save lives and serious injuries

And as a father, whose kids are much better skiers than I will ever be, I'm afraid they'll make a mistake there, like teenagers do, and kill themselves...I've ordered them off Lies but like you said there are others up there who shouldn't be there and if the ski area can take a small measure of prevention to insure their safety I think they should...

mattchuck2
02-28-2006, 10:59 AM
Well, we both have our opinions, and we're not going to change each other's opinions, so it doesn't really matter. I say they don't need a fence, you say they do . . .

In the grand scheme of things, who really cares? If you feel strongly about it, I'd suggest you email the mountain with your 3 points that you've clearly established and present your case.

There's no use in arguing with me - I have no control over what the mountain does or does not do. I'm merely a person conveying his opinion.

kcyanks1
02-28-2006, 11:51 AM
You can't make the argument that "It could happen to anybody on any trail" and then say that we should only put fences on "trails that seem to have an especially high rate of injuries". Besides, when you put a fence on one trail, there will be another spot where people get injured, and you'll have to put a fence there. When that spot is safe, there will be injuries at another point on the mountain . . . eventually there will be fences all over the place.

Yes, you can. Same areas are statistically more likely to cause injuries than others. You can choose to put a fence in some places not others. Perhaps drawing a line isn't easy or there isn't an obvious place, but it's very easy to stick a fence in one place and not others. You're argument doesn't make sense to me.


Also, you are very quick to defend the personal decision to ski without a helmet. Would you also agree that it is a personal decision to ski down Lies? Now, given that these are both personal decisions, why should the mountain be at fault? If you were to fall on a normal trail and hit your head on the ice and get a concussion, maybe next time you'd make the personal decision to wear a helmet. If you were to get hurt on a trail that has icy conditions, maybe next time, you could take some personal responsibility and not ski the trail under those conditions.

I always wear a helmet. I started doing so about 2.5 years ago. Of course it's my decision to ski down Lies. But if one area is particularly dangerous, I don't see why a ski area can't put up a fence.


As for the question of why shouldn't the ski areas put a fence up, let me give you a few reasons off the top of my head:

1. Detracts from the visual appeal of skiing
2. May encourage people to ski the trail who would normally not ski it ("don't worry, there's a fence if you fall")
3. Eliminates a potential "bail out" spot in case of a collision with another skier
4. Sometimes when something is bright orange on a mountain it seems to draw people towards it, I don't know how many times I've seen this with slow signs, lollipops and orange plastic barrels on the mountain. I also don't know why this occurs, but for some reason, it's like moths to a light.
5. In a sense, it does take away a freedom from them. I've been on that trail when it's really icy. Sometimes the best snow is in those trees on the left. I want to be able to ski in there if I need to.

I agree with #1 and #5. While #2 is a typical sort of argument that deserves consideration, my hope would be it isn't empirically true in these cases, but neither of us knows for sure. You could be right. #3 I'll disagree with - you don't want to bail out by falling off the side of the trail like that. In any case, I completely agree with you there are reasons not to have the fence, and I'm not necessarily saying Gore *should* put the fence there. I just think it's a legitimate option, and does not lead to a slippery slope of lots of other changes as you have suggested.

I'm sure there are other reasons that I haven't thought of, but number 2 alone should be enough to convince people this is not a good idea. There's enough yahoos on that trail already. We don't need people dragging their inexperienced buddies up there just to watch them slide down the headwall into a fence because somehow that's funny to them.


Finally, have you people ever skied in Europe? That would wake you up real quick to the idea of personal resposibility.

No, I haven't. And I am actually very pro-personal responsibility. I love boundary-to-boundary policies and the freedom to ski off trails. As I said above, I am merely only disagreeing with your logic in other posts arguing against the fence (i.e., if they do this, what will they do next, it will never end, etc.). I don't think those arguments are valid. Beyond that, I am not disagreeing there are reasons not to have the fence. It would be a difficult decision for me, and I'd have to know more about the number of injuries there compared to other trails (especially those of similar difficulty). If that area really has much more injuries, I'd probably go with the fence, despite the downsides. If not, I won't.

mattchuck2
02-28-2006, 02:21 PM
Like I said, in the grand scheme of things, who cares? Nothing like a 6 day internet argument where nothing is decided.

I agree there should be fences on some trails (the right side of foxlair - on the steep section - comes to mind). That's not what I was arguing.

I was saying on a double diamond trail that is appropriately labeled as such, there is no reason to put a fence in that particular place. I expanded the argument because I figured that if we put fences on the hardest of trails, the next logical step would be to put fences on the trails that aren't as hard, where skiers who aren't as good would most likely be skiing. I was especially mindful when people mentioned that it can happen to any skier at any time on any trail. THAT is why I cautioned that it can be taken too far. I then used hyperbole to drive home the point by saying I imagined people in those sumo body suits.

Perhaps it is not valid as an argument, but it does force you to think about your favorite trail, and how it would look with a bright orange fence in place of snowcovered trees.

Anyway, I think we agree with each other more than we disagree with each other . . . perhaps we should find the common ground we can all agree on:

1. There is a dangerous section of Lies that has caused severe injury and even death
2. There is a case for a fence in that location
3. There is a case against a fence in that location
4. Just because they put a fence there does not mean the whole mountain will have to be covered in fences
5. People should be held personally responsible for decisions that they make
6. When conditions are icy, people should use extra caution, even on trails that they know very well

kcyanks1
02-28-2006, 03:20 PM
Like I said, in the grand scheme of things, who cares? Nothing like a 6 day internet argument where nothing is decided.

What better is there to do? It's not like we could be skiing in some fantastic new powder or anything :-)

<snipped>


I was especially mindful when people mentioned that it can happen to any skier at any time on any trail. THAT is why I cautioned that it can be taken too far. I then used hyperbole to drive home the point by saying I imagined people in those sumo body suits.

I would disagree here. There have been times when I've lost an edge and had to recover ... what if I didn't recover? While that might happen more often on easier trails where I might be more aggressive than harder trails where I might be more careful, it certainly crosses my mind that I could slip and get seriously hurt. I do think it can happen to any time on any trail. But I agree with you that that alone isn't reasoning to place a fence in any given place. The fact that it may happen a lot at one spot on one particular trail might be.

<snipped>


Anyway, I think we agree with each other more than we disagree with each other . . . perhaps we should find the common ground we can all agree on:

1. There is a dangerous section of Lies that has caused severe injury and even death
2. There is a case for a fence in that location
3. There is a case against a fence in that location
4. Just because they put a fence there does not mean the whole mountain will have to be covered in fences
5. People should be held personally responsible for decisions that they make
6. When conditions are icy, people should use extra caution, even on trails that they know very well

Yes, I agree with all of that. Points 2-4 are especially the points I was trying to make.

mattchuck2
02-28-2006, 04:06 PM
Oh, and the Yankees Suck! ;-)

kcyanks1
02-28-2006, 07:18 PM
Oh, and the Yankees Suck! ;-)

We can agree to disagree on the fence thing, but now ... Seriously, though, it wouldn't be as much fun as a Yankees fan if there weren't fans of the losing teams too :-) (And no, I'm not a front runner. I started following the Yankees in the late 1980s around the beginning of elementary school, and have been avidly following them since to a point of obsession.) Are you a Sox fan? Mets?

mattchuck2
02-28-2006, 07:22 PM
Mets . . . here's to another subway series . . . hopefully it turns out differently

kcyanks1
02-28-2006, 07:55 PM
Mets . . . here's to another subway series . . . hopefully it turns out differently

Another subway series ... with the same outcome ... would be great :-) Though getting to the WS would be fun in itself. It's been so long :-)

Son of Drifter
03-01-2006, 10:09 AM
Oh, and the Yankees Suck! ;-)

This helps explain why you're suck a jerk. You're a hater. Probably a whiny met or boston fan. :twisted:

SKIdds
03-01-2006, 12:03 PM
Hey, the Mets will give the Yankees a run for their money as THE New York team if Beltran comes around and Delgado performs as advertised.......and Pedro's foot isn't a problem......and they have a closer worth a darn.......and..........ok, Met's fan shutting up now.

AdironRider
03-01-2006, 12:05 PM
As a Boston fan Im content for my lifetime, its not going to get better than what happened in 04.

I think that the fences shouldnt be put up. Anyone can lose an edge at anytime, the only person or thing that should be held responsible is the person themself.

SKIdds
03-01-2006, 12:27 PM
As for fences, I agree they shouldn't have to be there......but that doesn't always mean it doesn't make sense to put them in. It be a very litigious society we live in.

I agree with all the sentiments about skier responsibility and such, but the ORDA doesn't have Vail type pockets to defend all the warnings about who's responsibility is whose. Given that, I can see where a good argument can be made to erect a fence in an isolated area that, for whatever reason, poses above average risk.....even if I don't personally agree with the fence being there.

All it takes is one lawyer to string together a couple of fatalities at the same spot to at least raise reasonable doubt that reasonable action was taken to prevent a fatality, regardless of the warings and inherent risks.

Of course you can put up the fence and then the skier who would have crushed his chest sliding into a tree breaks his neck sliding into the fence, and then what do you do.............just another good argument for no fence.

Son of Drifter
03-01-2006, 12:33 PM
As a Boston fan . You should be tard and feathered. And not allowed to breed either. The mets are like pork, the other NY team. :twisted:

freeheelwilly
03-03-2006, 10:20 AM
Not to be a dick, but maybe people who aren't experts shouldn't be skiing it.

I assume you've been to Gore before. Why would you take your friends on the trail if it was beyond their ability? And don't tell me that they are actually good skiers, they just made a mistake. I've skied that trail hundreds of times and I've never even come close to the area you are talking about. If you know the mountain, you are just as responsible as your friends for their injuries.

Too late for that. How do you know that the guy that died wasn't an expert skier? Expert skiers don't get hurt? Stuff happens. That guy could have been a great skier but just got a little careless and hit an icy path that maybe he didn't notice until it was too late. Don't assume things. When you assume you make an ass out of you and me. :twisted:

I couldn't agree more. Mattchuck, dude: you're taking this "personal responsibility" thing waaay too far. How about some "responsibilty" from the mountain to protect its PAYING CUSTOMERS from an area that management is ON CLEAR NOTICE is dangerous? Particularly when the suggestion here to ameliorate that danger is so simple and inexpensive. Does the mountain have ANY responsibilty to its customers after it collects the cost of the ticket? C'mon, be real. People who go skiing are definitely assuming a risk and surely don't have a right to expect to be held completely harmless when they assume that risk. But I think they can justifiably expect that the mountain will have taken all reasonable afforts to protect them from known dangers; the key words here being "reasonable" and "known". That's just common sense.

"Responsibilty" flows both ways - doesn't it? My suggestion: Lighten' up on the insurance industry kool-aid. That shit's bad for ya'.

mattchuck2
03-06-2006, 07:21 PM
Willy,

I gotta say, I'm not some republican crackjob who tells bums to get a f'-in job and rips public money from poor single mothers, but I do feel as though this is one case where a little personal responsibility is in order. You know what you're getting into when you ski Lies: a steep trail that, more often than not, is icy and demands that you ski at an expert level.

It's just a personal opinion. I don't speak for the mountain and I don't really care what the mountain does. I do, however see a lot of people on that trail that probably shouldn't be on there. I'd hope that if these people fall and hurt themselves they don't try to blame the mountain for their injuries, but rather, they see the error in their ways and make a mental note to pay attention to signage and to ski trails within their ability level.

The best thing Gore has done is let Lies bump up since the accident. Everyone on that trail is now controlling their speed, and I've seen people hiking from the top of the headwall back towards Cloud because they looked down and thought that they might not be up to the challenge.

I recognize that lots of people ski a groomed steep trail and assume that they can ski it well, but that's where Lies is dangerous. There's a double fall line, and there are spots on the trail that have caused severe injury and death.

At this point, I don't care if they put a fence there. I just hope it doesn't encourage even more reckless behavior on a trail that is every bit as hard as Rumor.

adkman656
03-18-2006, 03:37 PM
I've been around the ski industry as a skier and a person employed at a few different resorts. The death of a guest at a ski area is incredibly hard to deal with for everyone. The family and friends as well as the resort employees go through all sorts of tough times. A lot of what I have read in this forum is based on rumors and non truths. First, this is the only skier or rider fatality ever on Lies. There was a skier fatality 2 years ago on another black diamond trail at Gore, but it wasn't Lies, it was Uncas. Thats a verifiable fact Secondly, Lies is a double black diamond trail and should be skied or snowboarded by experts only. The problem with the fence idea is a major liability issue for a resort. The best way to think of this, is to look at every chairlift or gondola tower at a resort where there is a trail going by it. Each tower has been padded. A while ago in the industry resorts started padding just those towers that represented true problem areas that someone could hit. Our sue happy friends took advantage of this and sued several resorts around the US because ALL towers weren't padded, and if one had to be than they all had to be... Can you see where this goes...if you decide that one trail needs a fence on the side (mind you this isn't at an intersection being used to control access at a merge or anything), then who is to say that one isn't needed somewhere else, and pretty soon, since all trees are hard, we would be forced to fence everything. It's not far fetched, and the tower padding is a prime example of it. The fact is our legal system makes it harder to mark real hazards without also having to mark every possible spot someone could get hurt on a mountain. Its a true dilema for a resort.

The comments about the skiers ability are not relevant. Michael Fitzgibbons, the gentlemen who died at Gore was a passholder who skied there often. He had good skills and certainly was experienced on Lies. He recently retired as a Swim Coach and Phs Ed teacher and was in shape to be skiing up there. It was, by all accounts just a bad accident.

The person who stated that Lies has had lots of accidents is speaking without true knowledge unless he is a Gore patroller with access to accident reports. The mountains maintain very good records of what accidents they have had, where they have occurred and the level of injury. According to Gore officials I spoke to, Lies has not had more accidents of any level than any other trail on the mountain, and far less than most.

Lastly...since I'm on a role here. For those folks that think helmets are the answer, please do some research as there are many studies showing that helmets do not protect skiers/riders in accidents above 12-15mph. This is fairly slow and anyone over intermediate level skis faster than that routinely.

OK...really lastly.... as for deaths in skiing, take a look at some of the sporting goods studies on fatailities in sports. Skiing ranks far below activities like Bicycling, Swimming, etc. There are statistically only about .75 deaths per million skier visits, compared to 19 per million for bicycling and 44 per million for Swimming. These are sporting good industry estimates, not the ski industries.

The most important thing to make skiing and riding safer is to teach some basic etiquette and the rules of the road. People are buzzing each other, cutting them off, not letting someone know they are passing them, starting up from the side of a trail in front of an approaching skier/rider... we need to change that to make this sport safer.

whew....

Lbtchnlgs
03-19-2006, 11:41 AM
I've been around the ski industry as a skier and a person employed at a few different resorts. The death of a guest at a ski area is incredibly hard to deal with for everyone. The family and friends as well as the resort employees go through all sorts of tough times. A lot of what I have read in this forum is based on rumors and non truths. First, this is the only skier or rider fatality ever on Lies. There was a skier fatality 2 years ago on another black diamond trail at Gore, but it wasn't Lies, it was Uncas. Thats a verifiable fact Secondly, Lies is a double black diamond trail and should be skied or snowboarded by experts only. The problem with the fence idea is a major liability issue for a resort. The best way to think of this, is to look at every chairlift or gondola tower at a resort where there is a trail going by it. Each tower has been padded. A while ago in the industry resorts started padding just those towers that represented true problem areas that someone could hit. Our sue happy friends took advantage of this and sued several resorts around the US because ALL towers weren't padded, and if one had to be than they all had to be... Can you see where this goes...if you decide that one trail needs a fence on the side (mind you this isn't at an intersection being used to control access at a merge or anything), then who is to say that one isn't needed somewhere else, and pretty soon, since all trees are hard, we would be forced to fence everything. It's not far fetched, and the tower padding is a prime example of it. The fact is our legal system makes it harder to mark real hazards without also having to mark every possible spot someone could get hurt on a mountain. Its a true dilema for a resort.

The comments about the skiers ability are not relevant. Michael Fitzgibbons, the gentlemen who died at Gore was a passholder who skied there often. He had good skills and certainly was experienced on Lies. He recently retired as a Swim Coach and Phs Ed teacher and was in shape to be skiing up there. It was, by all accounts just a bad accident.

The person who stated that Lies has had lots of accidents is speaking without true knowledge unless he is a Gore patroller with access to accident reports. The mountains maintain very good records of what accidents they have had, where they have occurred and the level of injury. According to Gore officials I spoke to, Lies has not had more accidents of any level than any other trail on the mountain, and far less than most.

Lastly...since I'm on a role here. For those folks that think helmets are the answer, please do some research as there are many studies showing that helmets do not protect skiers/riders in accidents above 12-15mph. This is fairly slow and anyone over intermediate level skis faster than that routinely.

OK...really lastly.... as for deaths in skiing, take a look at some of the sporting goods studies on fatailities in sports. Skiing ranks far below activities like Bicycling, Swimming, etc. There are statistically only about .75 deaths per million skier visits, compared to 19 per million for bicycling and 44 per million for Swimming. These are sporting good industry estimates, not the ski industries.

The most important thing to make skiing and riding safer is to teach some basic etiquette and the rules of the road. People are buzzing each other, cutting them off, not letting someone know they are passing them, starting up from the side of a trail in front of an approaching skier/rider... we need to change that to make this sport safer.

whew....

ADKman. Thank you for the best post I have seen on this forum.