The Ski Helmet Debate

OK - for discussion. Did a search for ski armour and this came up;

" border="0" class="mpimg" />

Views as to suitability??
:mrgreen:

pro: no need for goggles (as you wont be able to see anything anyway)

Con - Brasso is expensive, plus you could get overcome by the residual fumes whilst skiing.

Reconsidered - On the other hand the fumes could enhance your experience...

Pro - You'd probably not come across much resistance if trying to get to the front of the queue for lifts. Everybody standing slack jawed. Would be like the parting of the waves. Carrying some kind of historical spear might be a good idea, to reinvigorate stunnation of other people once the initial shock wore off.

Reconsidered - helmet and spear would take up all baggae allowance meaning you'd have to wear ALL toher stuff you want to take.

Spears could double up as ski poles - if you got those extendable ones?
:thumbup:

HERE IT COMES

Telegraph 27th Feb 2011

In a move likely to enrage many flocking to the slopes, a leading British insurer has signalled that it will become the first to insist skiers wear helmets if they are to be covered for head injuries.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/8350224/No-ski-helmet-No-ski-insurance.html

Anyone know which insurer? While I choose to wear a helmet, I do think that people should have the choice, this is the start of a very slippery slope

Exactly as was predicted many, many pages ago! Not good for personal freedom, but inevitable, I fear.

surfarthur wrote:Anyone know which insurer? While I choose to wear a helmet, I do think that people should have the choice, this is the start of a very slippery slope

It's in the link :D

Stuart Bensusan, the co-founder of Essential Travel, told The Sunday Telegraph he was working to make his company the first to adopt a policy of ''no helmet, no head injury cover''.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/8350224/No-ski-helmet-No-ski-insurance.html