It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Could a ski helmet have saved Richardson?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 11:29 AM

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.

posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 11:48 AM
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.

posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:33 PM
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?

posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:36 PM
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.

posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:59 PM
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.

posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:37 PM
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.

posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 09:38 PM
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]

posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 01:08 AM
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.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in