A skier who bears the cost will then not spend that money on something else. In the end, the cost is spread around. Helmet manaufacturers will make a lot of money.

But you need to do a cost/beneift analysis and I am sure that the benefits will not outweigh the costs. It's not like skiers are droppping dead like flies left, right and center with head injuries.

And then we shall mandate helmets for bicycles, running, jogging, ice-skating, rugby, soccer, tennis, table-tennis, Wii ... :)

Sadly, life has a price.


>Other than policing their usage and the disposing of the old helmets, all the other costs would have to be assumed by the skier, which is OK by me.
>
>I agree with you that it may lead to more reckless skiing for some skier, but I think that on the whole, the number of injuries/deaths will fall. We did enforce the wear of the safety belt here a while ago (in the '70s?) and I didn't see many drivers drive faster because of that. The ones who drive recklessly would have done it safety belt or not.
>
>>Forcing everyone to wears helmets is a simple cost/benefit decision. How much money would helmets save soceity vs. how much money would it cost to produce those helmets, buy them, carry them around, police their usage, and the cost of disposing of all those old helmets, etc, etc. Think it through…
>>
>>Furthermore, the wearing of helmets, like the driving of large 4x4 trucks, can actually lead to more reckless skiing (driving) in the belief that we are safer and hence can go faster.