AboveTopSecret.com Video and Media Portal.Books, posters, and more.T-shirts, mouse pads, cups, and bags.Member podcasts.Conspiracy theory wiki.Alternative news headlinesBelowTopSecret.com - off topic and general chit chat.AboveTopSecret.com - conspiracy theories and


 

 

This topic is in the Global News Discussion discussion forum.  (rss)


Could a ski helmet have saved Richardson?


<<  1    2  >>



reply posted on 20-3-2009 @ 11:29 AM by king9072


Originally posted by Irish M1ck
Did anyone ever read what exactly killed her? I have searched many stories and haven't found anything yet.



What happened is she fell and bumped her head which hemmoraged her brain. At that point the person usually feels completely normal, but as blood continues to rush from the brain and get trapped between your brain and skull the pressure continues to build. Then the symptoms set in over the next couple hours, thats why she felt -ok-, went to her room and within a couple hours was in critical condition. The blood had built up to a point where it was already too late.

The incident happened on monday, and by tuesday reports of her being brain dead were surfacing. This highlights the brain hemorrhage theory, and Wednesday the family decided to end her life by removing life support.

Other forms of head injuries can result in mini cracks to form and blood slowly trickles out. Ultimately leading to the aforementioned situation, but over a longer period sometimes upto a couple days after the original incident before real signs start to appear. Doctors agree that only early recognition of brain hemorrhaging can save the person from brain damage or death.

On topic, I believe that a helmet would have saved her life. I am an avid snowboarder, and I was thinking about this incident while I was up in whistler wednesday, I heard reports of her actual death that morning on my way up for the day. I used to wear a helmet, and I have no problem with wearing a helmet, I simply don't anymore because I no longer have one but I think I am going to invest.

On the mandatory topic, I believe its a wise idea to make them mandatory and I am normally against practically anything that's mandatory. But here's my reasoning; almost all 'cool' people and avid boarders and skiiers that push the envelope ALREADY voluntarily wear helmets and no one requires them to.

So who would mandatory helmet laws really effect? Amateurs and people that do not actually partake in the activity often, the exact people who are most ignorant to the risks, and are the most likely to lose control and fall. People like Richardson. Experienced boarders/skiiers have had their share of falls to get them used to protecting themselves in that event. Additionally their skill helps them avoid falls and spills through much better control of their movement.

The odd thing is, is even though I never seen what happened to her, I am quite sure that I have witnessed hundreds of much more severe incidents on the slopes in which all parties were ultimately ok, or at least, not dead.



   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 20-3-2009 @ 11:48 AM by elfie


It's just so heartbreaking. My deepest sympathies go out to all of Natasha's family and friends.

To demonstrate how long it's been since I've been skiing--helmets were not offered as part of the rental equipment. Only ski jumpers wore them with any frequency. I'm hoping they are now being offered from comments in the news and posters comments here.

My son flipped over the handlebars on his bike after hitting a rock when he was nine. Thank goodness he was wearing his helmet. He still managed to fracture his collarbone. I can't imagine what else might have occurred had he not been wearing the helmet.

Very sad news anyway to bring attention to the subject.



   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 20-3-2009 @ 06:33 PM by Irish M1ck


Is there no chance that this was just an accident waiting to happen? Perhaps there was a weak area and it didn't take that much to cause it?



   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 20-3-2009 @ 06:36 PM by CaptainCaveMan


Yep I think a helmet might have saved her.
I know im only alive today, because of the motorbike helmet I was wearing.
Best $500 investment I ever made.
If you look at the Olympic ski stacks.
They have some fairly violent smashes down those hills.
And survive.



   copyright & usage 
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.


reply posted on 20-3-2009 @ 06:59 PM by Kruel


Could a ski helmet have saved Richardson? Maybe. Does that mean we should force everyone to wear a helmet? Absolutely not!

I'm against any kind of rules which force adults to protect themselves.

It's simple. If you would like extra protection on the slopes, then wear a bloody helmet. You don't need rules or regulations to make that choice. Me personally, I'll take my chances without one. Maybe my life will end sooner, but it's my life, it's my CHOICE!

I'm also against mandatory wearing of seatbelts (except for children), mandatory helmet wearing on motorcycles, and other similar laws. I'm an adult and I can look after myself. I don't need some government (or anyone else) to parent me. If there's one thing I'd ask of the rest of the world it is this: Please don't impose your will on me.



   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 20-3-2009 @ 10:37 PM by questioningall


reply to post by imd12c4funn



A helmet would almost certainly had saved her, but I don't think the govt. needs to make them mandatory.

People have been skiing for years and years without one, and don't have a problem.

Also people fall and hit their heads on the ground just walking - some die - does that mean everyone needs to wear a helmet when walking?

The point is....... accidents happen - sometimes they are fatal sometimes not.

It is a shame she died, but regulations to what people do or don't do, need to stop at some point.



   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 22-3-2009 @ 09:38 PM by Muaddib72


People should be made aware, but not making this mandatory, because then more, and more laws will make everything mandatory.

Should there be a law, or laws to wear helmets, and full body protection, and even bullet proof vests when just going out? Because people have also died when they were hit by cars, or something fell on them, or some innocent person or child was in the way of a drive by shooting or something similar, and then some kind of protection could have also save them.

Should there be laws for this too then?


[edit on 22-3-2009 by Muaddib72]



   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 25-3-2009 @ 01:08 AM by zooplancton


it's weird that she died under the guidance of a ski instructor. (and please, i am not familiar with the story in its entirety)

generally in this scenario, your going at very low speeds to get used to the activity and equipment; and your not "on the slopes" yet, your on a training slope which is almost flat and uneventful.

the mandatory issue doesn't sit well with me, but if we the tax payers are paying for victims like motorcycle casualties, then sometimes it weighs in. helmet laws here in california have shown that it they have had a positive effect on the head-injury / head trauma victims/survivors that we are paying (less) for. (in amount of dependent injuries and having less of them)

i've recently noticed a big trend in the snow-sport helmet market. one of the biggest injuries in the past in snowboarding were head injuries and wrist injuries. -- head injuries from "bonking" -- getting your head whiplashed into the ground after catching an edge and getting catapulted to the ground, front or back edge.

mandatory is never good. smart decisions/responsibility is best on behalf of the user.



   copyright & usage 


<<  1    2  >>


















































ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Powered by AboveTop:Board v2.3
Header data processed in 0.002 seconds
Page processed in 0.042 seconds
6 total database queries (1)

(:)








The Below Top Secret General Discussion Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownershipwho maintains
strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.






It looks like you're using some kind of software designed to block advertising while surfing our site.

We work very hard to provide an efficient Internet presence that services over 200,000 daily visits from people and automated web spiders. A large web site like this, that can handle that amount of traffic, is increasingly expensive to operate. Our only viable source of revenue (for now) are the ads displayed on each page.

If you enjoy our content, please enable our domain in your ad-blocking package.

more information       contact us

[hide this message]