Maybe it was convoluted the way I said it, so I'll explain this clearly.
If someone gets hurt in a high-risk activity and are hurt entirely due to not using a piece of safety equipment knowing full well the risks involved in not using that particular piece of safety equipment the I will have less sympathy for them than someone getting the same injury from not wearing that specific piece of safety equipment in an activity that is not considered high risk.
Fill in with whatever examples you want. Helmets in skiing, seat belts with driving, condoms with sex, a flack jacket/bulletproof vest in a firefight.
The only difference with skiing is it is not a blanket statement for all skiers since where skiing some mellow BC for one skier may be a nice relaxing afternoon, it may be a test on the skill level of another making it far more risky for them due to the increased possibility of crashing.
But when you're pushing the limits of your skill in the most injury prone aspect of the sport and are not wearing a helmet, you are asking for a head injury.
And like was said, the person who says 'well he should have been wearing a helmet' when one of the Stept guys gets a preventable head injury is going to be called an ignorant and disrespectful piece of shit.