The fear in all of this, I think (and as I brought up before in this thread), is not the reporting and data gathering, but what places do with the data, and possible unintended consequences. The extreme example is, what if, based on the data, the government (or, say, lobbiest parents) wanted a 15 MPH speed limit at all resorts? Or closure of some terrain that's currently open as just being too dangerous?Perfect response. If there was public record of accidents and deaths the smart consumers - i.e., the ones who made appropriate life decisions, built wealth, own stupid expensive sports cars, and can afford to to servers and ski instructor in hundreds, would chose the safer hills. They did not become successful by taking uncalculated risks.
Ski areas could use that as a point of leverage, and craft their messaging accordingly. That is the customer everyone wants. Not the beater living in the truck in a parking lot. Will ski areas use that data? No. With the exception of a few notables, they are too wrapped up in how things have been done. They are not evolving, crafting the product and purchase experience to what the buying public has become accustomed to.
The one exception might be Jackson. Jerry Blann did an awesome job there.
And of course I think a lot of resorts are hesitant to gather, or at least share, that kind of data for fear of that increasing their liability. But they may also fear dealing with a public/PR problem, even if they feel they are doing everything right.
The data in and of itself should be collected and people should be knowledgeable - but it could be easy for it to get out of hand, IMO.