California's Nanny State?

[Zeriel]

@Blake

OK, so to use a previous example. Children raised on a Vegan diet are ate risk of being malnourished in the sense that most children have a diet below the medically determined guidelines for several micronutrients and for calories overall. This is reflected objectively in Vegan children being stunted.

So, while I assume you would be leery of a law that banned a vegan diet for children, would you accept a law mandating, say, one meat meal per week for for a person who doesn’t have a fully developed ability to appreciate the consequences of its lack? Would that bother you?

This sort of thing was really the point of the examples I used above. All sort of choices made by parents have associated risks that chilren can not fully appreciate. Most of them can be easily alleviated by mandating small changes in behaviour while permitting the activity. So a primarily vegan diet with one steak meal/week is just as practical as skiing whiel wearing a helmet.

To me the more pertinent point is that in both cases the risk can be eliminated almost (though never completely) if the parents are adequately educated, committed to their child’s welfare and involved. A vegan parent who takes detailed note of how many calories their child consumes, administers supplements and monitors weight gain carefully could certainly eliminate 99% of the risk of their choices. But then again, a parent who chooses the ski slopes their child uses, ensures they have adequate training and so forth could also eliminate 99% of the risk of their choices. And in both cases the same outcome could be achieved without that much involvement by legislating minor changes.

So I guess the question is, why shouldn’t we force vegan parents to provide one meat meal a week to their children? I feel instinctively that we shouldn’t. But I have to question whether someone who believes in mandating protective measures for a person who doesn’t have a fully developed ability to appreciate the consequences would feel the same way, and if they do, why.

To address your specific example: it strikes me that “mandating one meat meal a week” would be similar to “children aren’t allowed to ski”–that is, it prevents the possible injurious behavior entirely rather than mitigating the risks. The analogy isn’t perfect either way.

I’d be more on board with something like mandatory doctor checkups to screen for malnutrition on a regular basis, or provision for mandated caloric measurement and proper supplementing.

[GreasyJack]

@randomface

If it really was that dangerous,companies that had ski areas would require helmets. When I went biking down Pike’s Peak in Colorado, helmets were required. When asked about it, the company that rented the bikes and shuttled people to the top said that mandatory helmets were the only way to keep insurance costs down.

I’m not familiar with the laws in every state, but in most of the big skiing states the laws are written in such a way that it’s virtually impossible for ski areas to be held responsible for any sort of skiing injury. For example in my state (Montana), those “sign away your right to sue” liability waivers are completely unenforceable… unless you’re a ski area (the only exception).

I’m not familiar with the laws in Colorado, but in Montana ski hills that do summer activities have to be far, far more concerned about safety then because they actually could be sued for accidents that happen then. I would bet if they were similarly exposed to legal liability during ski season, they would definitely require helmets.

(BTW, I’m not saying the above is a bad thing since if you could sue ski areas for skiing accidents, their insurance costs probably would be prohibitively high. If anything, I wish similar rules would be passed about other riskier outdoor activities.)

[randomface]

I didn’t know there were specific exemptions for skiing. I wonder when/how these exemptions came about? If they are skipping all liability for injuries, I don’t see why imposing helmet limits is a problem. I mean, the ski areas already benefit from governmental restrictions on lawsuits and the hand that gives can take away as well.

[Muffin]

It is very much state by state.

Usually waivers protect from liability when there is negligence, but not when there is gross negligence. The difference between negligence and gross negligence is something that would be fact specific for each case.

Some states have specifically relieved ski areas of liability to a much broader degree. For example, the Colorado Ski Safety Act relieves ski areas of liability from dangers inherent in skiing. What constitutes a danger inherent in skiing would be fact specific for each case, but I expect that it would start carving a chunk out of what otherwise would be considered to be gross negligence.