With the tragic news of Natasha Richardson's freak accident and untimely death, I'm reminded of the importance of helmets (bicycle, motorcycle, skiing, contact sports).
I don't know why Ms. Richardson didn't, or wasn't required to wear a helmet, but for whatever reason, this "simple" oversight cost the life of a notable actress, wife (Liam Neeson), mother of two sons, and daughter (her mother, Lynn Redgrave survives).
I've heard the "not so logical" arguments that helmets are confining. "I like to feel the wind in my hair, on my face, stinging my eyes..." etc., but this is all ignorant hogwash, as far as I'm concerned.
Please understand, I'm not trying to place blame on Natasha Richardson or the ski resort. Far from it. This was a fluke, but I'm still left wondering. Why wasn't she wearing a helmet?
What do you think? If this is not a requirement, should it be?
Check out this CNN article about how skiers can cut risk by wearing a helmet.
Or this Time Health & Science Article: Could A Helmet Have Helped?
How do you feel about this argument? Have you read articles to the contrary; that helmets are unnecessary? Please let us know your opinion.
Mary Cunningham
Quake - Shakin' Up Young Readers!
Mary Cunningham Books
Cynthia's Attic Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment