Today's Press has a front page headline, after a woman had a huge fall at Mt Hutt yesterday, and died in hospital. "Call for helmets after ski deaths" says the paper, and the story goes on to interview ski area staff, doctors, and an accident survivor, who all agree that helmets will help prevent such deaths.
Then I read this sentence in another report on the accident; "Rescue Helicopter spokesman Simon Duncan said the mother suffered serious head injuries, despite wearing a helmet."
How will The Press explain this?
I agree that skiing is a sport where the risk of head injuries are quite high. Even if you don't ski among rock outcrops on the border of a ski area, a simple fall can bring a skier's head in contact with hard snow and ice. Wearing a helmet is becoming much more common; I'd wear one myself if I skied enough days each season to justify the expense, but I'm afraid that a day skiing is an occasional treat. I should have had one in the 80s and early 90s, when I skied 30-40 days a year at Treble Cone.
But the story is a beat-up, a lot of fuss with only a vague notion behind it. The victim WAS wearing a helmet - so what's the headline about?