 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| If serious head injuries (Michael Schumacher's being an example) are not declining then the case for lids isn't proven at all. |
Comedy Goldsmith, I'm genuinely intrigued. You're clearly a well-read, intelligent bloke - albeit a wilfully belligerent one  - so I'm interested to know why you'd make such a remark. Do you genuinely believe that you can prove that helmets are ineffective by looking at a simple correlation between helmet wearing and serious head injuries? Or were you trolling?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| emwmarine wrote: |
Mr Quincy said the probe would take time to establish whether the area where he was skiing could be classed as an "official piste" in French law.
|
Did he really say that, I was only half paying attention to the press conference today but he said that the accident happened off piste, the piste markings were in compliance with law and Meribel had no case to answer.
All medical staff at the CHU got an email today telling them to stop leaking information about Schumacher's condition. Some have consulted the computerized patients records database and they will be disciplined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Comedy Goldsmith,
| Quote: |
If ski helmets really made sense you can be sure that people would have worn them 35 years ago (around the time we were selling hundreds of helmets to parents of skateboarders, or skateboarders themselves, from a famous ski/skate shop in South Kensington - Alpine Sports).
The big irony is that skateboarders don't seem to wear helmets much any longer, be they teenagers or adults.
Head injuries are a very low risk in skiing.
When the weather's nice in spring - often over zero, when the snow goes humid and granular to spring snow - nothing's nicer than having your head in the open air (no hat either) and the wind flowing through your hair.
People seem to have forgotten that pleasure!
|
..and long may you continue to do so, just don't go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on ...about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
In the stats of skiing accidents you can chalk Schumacher up in the "Serious Head injury" Column instead of "Death" Column simply because of his lid. (At least for now)
Just to put that in for the case of lids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Jonny Jones wrote: |
| Do you genuinely believe that you can prove that helmets are ineffective by looking at a simple correlation between helmet wearing and serious head injuries? Or were you trolling? |
I won't answer the second question, as it's for you or anyone else to make their own judgment as to whether I communicate in good faith.
As for the first question, the epidemiology has to be the key indicator - yes, I do genuinely believe that they're ineffective on the basis of that epidemiological evidence.
I twice attended the International Symposium on Safety in Skiing, where epidemiology dominates proceedings. It's how we discovered the enormous contribution of the effective release binding and ISO-standard plastic ski boot sole in reducing leg fractures.
But the high-backed boot and modern ski (quicker turning) have combined to produce an "epidemic" (the word used by at least one scientist) of knee ligament injuries. Against, the statistical evidence has been compelling.
If helmets were essential to skiing we'd have seen a substantial fall in serious head injuries by now.
Ski instructors, and other professionals (guides etc.), who are normally very proactive in promoting kit, joined the helmet club very late. I don't know what proportion of them are now wearing helmets and whether they continue wearing them in the spring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Comedy Goldsmith,
| Quote: |
I won't answer the second question, as it's for you or anyone else to make their own judgment as to whether I communicate in good faith.
As for the first question, the epidemiology has to be the key indicator - yes, I do genuinely believe that they're ineffective on the basis of that epidemiological evidence.
I twice attended the International Symposium on Safety in Skiing, where epidemiology dominates proceedings. It's how we discovered the enormous contribution of the effective release binding and ISO-standard plastic ski boot sole in reducing leg fractures.
But the high-backed boot and modern ski (quicker turning) have combined to produce an "epidemic" (the word used by at least one scientist) of knee ligament injuries. Against, the statistical evidence has been compelling.
If helmets were essential to skiing we'd have seen a substantial fall in serious head injuries by now.
Ski instructors, and other professionals (guides etc.), who are normally very proactive in promoting kit, joined the helmet club very late. I don't know what proportion of them are now wearing helmets and whether they continue wearing them in the spring.
|
A fair point re the ski boots and how now they cause knee ligament injury. But knee ligament injuries don't generally pose a significant risk of death, were as head injuries do so I'm not convinced its a fair comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| If helmets were essential to skiing we'd have seen a substantial fall in serious head injuries by now. |
Recreational skiers can now ski faster on-piste than racers from 30 years ago. Could it be without helmets the figures would be much worse?
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| Ski instructors, and other professionals (guides etc.), who are normally very proactive in promoting kit, joined the helmet club very late. I don't know what proportion of them are now wearing helmets and whether they continue wearing them in the spring. |
Ski instructors / guides don't tend to fall over or lose control - they are generally skiing well within their ability/comfort zone.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Wed 8-01-14 16:54; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm starting to preach and I don't want to do that.
However if some can actually come up with a case where the following isn't the case then i'd be amazed.
| Quote: |
I'm sure others can recall incidents where wearing a helmet has either prevented a death and / or reduced or prevented an head injury vs not wearing a helmet.
I'm sure no one can recall incidents where wearing a helmet has caused the wearer of the helmet to die or receive a more serious head injury vs not wearing a helmet.
|
So can anyone with come up with a case where a helmet made a head injury worst than if the injured party wasn't wearing a helmet?
Until someone can I really rest my case.
Choose wisely on whether to wear one or not based on that and not a figures based on head injuries..... you can still injury your head wearing a helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Comedy Goldsmith, in that case I'll take your statement at face value and explain why I think your claim is wrong and why I think that the statistics are actually silent about the efficacy of helmets.
Properly constituted epidemiological studies use a raft of complex statistical techniques in an attempt to identify a range of problems that can occur if you search for simple univariate correlations in data sets. Some of these issues include:
- Confidence levels: how confident am I that the measured effect (or lack of effect) is real rather than a statistical fluke?
- Sample bias: is my sample genuinely representative of the type of events that are likely to occur in the future population that I'm trying to model?
- Cross-correlations: if I'm considering multiple variables (eg changes in the incidence of off-piste skiing as well as helmet usage), have I properly compensated for correlations between my variables?
- Simpson's Paradox: do hidden variables explain the correlation that I've observed? For example, are changes in grooming practice leading to higher speeds and increasing the injury rate? Do overcrowded pistes lead to more head injuries? Does modern equipment change the way that people ski?
- Effect strength: if I find a correlation, how effective is it at explaining the variation that I see in the population?
I'm no statistician, and, although I have a professional awareness of some of these techniques, I'm certainly insufficiently skilled to analyse the scant data that's publicly available on skiing injuries. If someone can point me in the direction of a statistical study on helmet usage that's appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, I'll pay attention to it. Even then I'll be sceptical: the non-technical ebook Statistics Done Wrong shows that many professional researchers fail to understand the statistics of correlation and, sadly, many lives have been lost as a result of inappropriate medical treatment being applied on the back of bad science.
The simple fact is that there does not appear to be any good scientific evidence to either support or deny the efficacy of helmet wearing. As a result, we have to fall back on anecdote (not terribly helpful) or a bottom-up analysis of causal factors in injuries (almost impossible to get right). There can be no 'winners' in this debate until someone properly qualified has looked at the data.
In the meantime, I'll wear a helmet. Not so much because it's safer - as you rightly say, the risk is very low in any case - but because I find it much more practical and comfortable. From a risk perspective, I wouldn't hesitate to ski without one; from a practical point of view, I couldn't conceive of leaving my helmet behind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
impingu,
I disagree with your logic (despite the fact that I now always wear a helmet except for ski-touring). Helmets cost money and some people find them uncomfortable (not me unless I'm doing uphill work). To justify that, it is not enough to establish that they do no harm, they actually need to make a material benefit. I to have seen no data that suggests that they do make a material benefit at the population level.
My feeling is that helmets are seldom lifesavers but can lessen the impact make some potentially quite nasty falls (avoid concussion, facial cuts, etc). To me that benefit is worth having, partciularly because I ski offpiste where the risk of hitting a rock or a tree is higher. Unlike some helmet wearers, I don't dismiss the issue of risk compensation. I am a bit more cautious (slower) on skis or on a bike if I don't have a helmet on. But I'm not reckless and I enjoy the extra speed so that is actually a benefit to me - perhaps the population level data reflects people having a bit more fun at slightly faster speeds for the same risk?
Anyway, my take is that this is certainly an "each to his own" issue - the case for and against is not so compelling that it is worth lecturing people about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Comedy Goldsmith,
| Quote: |
As for the first question, the epidemiology has to be the key indicator - yes, I do genuinely believe that they're ineffective on the basis of that epidemiological evidence.
|
I've been coming round to that point of view but I think there's still a lot of research to be done. My gut feel is that helmets are a good idea for some skiers but not for others. Personally I like to concentrate on reducing the risk of being involved in an incident in the first place and choosing not to wear a helmet prevents me skiing those "I wouldn't ski that without a helmet" runs. For young children though, where serious injury is more likely to be caused by other's than their own behaviour, helmets are probably a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Jonny Jones wrote: |
| Properly constituted epidemiological studies ... |
... are obviously best avoided, as you say. I think Robert Johnson, Carl Ettlinger and Jasper Shealy (or combinations of these experts) have run the world's longest-running study of ski injuries, in Vermont, beginning in the winter of 1972-3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonny Jones,
I'm a professional data analysis (not in medical stats I accept) and Database Dev. Give me a Dataset and I can make it illustrate any point you want to make in a statistical analysis without cooking the books.
That's why I ask for an actual case in which it stated the helmet made a head injury worse. Cos I can find plenty in which the opposite is true. Schumacher being one.
Many stats show a compelling case for something, but analysis of the dataset may show it's not as compelling as it sounds. It's why I'm a massive cynic of any MP etc using stats to back any argument, If labour say something is good the tories will say it's bad etc.
A great example would be the point that head injuries haven't decreased without looking at if it's possible they would increase if people still didn't wear helmets taking into account the increase in speed of skiers during the same period.
jedster,
| Quote: |
I disagree with your logic (despite the fact that I now always wear a helmet except for ski-touring). Helmets cost money and some people find them uncomfortable (not me unless I'm doing uphill work). To justify that, it is not enough to establish that they do no harm, they actually need to make a material benefit. I to have seen no data that suggests that they do make a material benefit at the population level.
My feeling is that helmets are seldom lifesavers but can lessen the impact make some potentially quite nasty falls (avoid concussion, facial cuts, etc). To me that benefit is worth having, partciularly because I ski offpiste where the risk of hitting a rock or a tree is higher. Unlike some helmet wearers, I don't dismiss the issue of risk compensation. I am a bit more cautious (slower) on skis or on a bike if I don't have a helmet on. But I'm not reckless and I enjoy the extra speed so that is actually a benefit to me - perhaps the population level data reflects people having a bit more fun at slightly faster speeds for the same risk?
Anyway, my take is that this is certainly an "each to his own" issue - the case for and against is not so compelling that it is worth lecturing people about.
|
jedster, I don't think we are actually far apart on the issue, I feel a helmet will lessen a lot of injuries, but you can still die wearing a helmet of course. In the Schumacher case without his helmet he would be dead as his doctors have said, with his helmet he could still make a full recovery. So I bet (if he does make a full recovery which is a big IF) he will be happy he wore one.
I agree it's each to his own which I've stated earlier, if someone makes an informed choice to not wear one I'm not going to preach to them, but I'm not going to let someone say it's stupid to wear one cos of they found a random study on the internet and your wrong to wear one, it makes no difference etc.
Anyway...
I stated earlier on I didn't want to post again and I really didn't want to come across as preacher from the church of lids, which I have been doing, I got dragged in cos of personal experience which I have outlined. Apologies for all that.
It's each to their own. Whatever people do just try to be careful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| impingu1984 wrote: |
I don't want to get sucked in to an argument but i'm intrigued. Are you saying you can recall an incident where someone had a head injury that would have been prevented or less serious if they HADN'T wore a helmet? Either through personal experience or a documented case (link please if so) |
I posted a link to a scientific paper several pages ago.
(I don't care, wear one, don't wear one. I've worn helmets for things, I've not worn them for things. I do care about people posting rubbish and claiming it to be "obvious".)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| impingu1984 wrote: |
...
Many stats show a compelling case for something, but analysis of the dataset may show it's not as compelling as it sounds. It's why I'm a massive cynic of any MP etc using stats to back any argument, If labour say something is good the tories will say it's bad etc.
... |
That's exactly my point. Everyone understands a headline number - "We implemented this policy and now 53.76% of puppies are able to run faster than before our far-sighted policy was introduced" - but important questions about confidence intervals, sampling, etc aren't soap-box friendly.
Comedy Goldsmith's simple statistic that skiing fatalities have not fallen at a time when helmet use has increased is one of those soap-box moments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
The best summary of the available studies that I'm aware of is on ski-injury.com. To summarise a lengthy page: the evidence is scant; the biggest study is of poor quality; almost all studies are flawed in some way or another; most studies show some benefit from helmets but it doesn't add up to much; most of the objections raised by the anti-helmet brigade are nonsense; and the risk of head injury is so small that it doesn't really matter what you do. Despite this, the author chooses to wear a helmet. As do I.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
the risk of head injury is so small that it doesn't really matter what you do.
|
This little gem should end all further debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Quote: |
I've been coming round to that point of view but I think there's still a lot of research to be done. My gut feel is that helmets are a good idea for some skiers but not for others. Personally I like to concentrate on reducing the risk of being involved in an incident in the first place and choosing not to wear a helmet prevents me skiing those "I wouldn't ski that without a helmet" runs. For young children though, where serious injury is more likely to be caused by other's than their own behaviour, helmets are probably a good idea.
|
Now here's someone that speaks some sense!
My sister in law is someone who really should wear a helmet (she does), she is oblivious to risk eg she will go and sit in the middle of a piste to put her snowboard on, she, and others feel it is their duty to lecture me for not wearing a helmet and this is what really annoys myself and other non helmet wearers and why threads such as this get so heated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
Did he really say that, I was only half paying attention to the press conference today but he said that the accident happened off piste, the piste markings were in compliance with law and Meribel had no case to answer.
|
That's what I heard in the translation on the BBC news channel this morning. Also that MS' skis were in perfect condition (presumably before they hit the rock) and that there was a mark on them which indicated that he had hit a rock.
I did get a bit confused because at one point he said that MS didn't slow down but that he was turning (my word not the translators) as if to slow down. It's probably moot really.
The Flying Gooseberry I'm not sure there is anything new to say on the H debate (can't even bear to type the full word) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
halfhand, Although it was a few hours ago that was what the MSN story said - that piste signage was appropriate and within the law. The way they described MS was that the footage gave no indication of his speed, but they believed he was trying to slow down. Doesn't really tell us a great deal but I'm not sure what difference it would make anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DB wrote: |
| Recreational skiers can now ski faster on-piste than racers from 30 years ago. |
This sounds a bit unlikely. Isn't hitting 100kmh on the iPhone ski app the holy grail of the frustrated Franz Klammers? Fast, to be sure, but some way short of the speeds the downhill racers were going in the days of Mueller, Zurbriggen etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| halfhand wrote: |
| Also that MS' skis were in perfect condition (presumably before they hit the rock) and that there was a mark on them which indicated that he had hit a rock. |
I'll bet his skis had some illegal modifications to them.
And presumably the rock was unable to complete the course, thus gifting victory to Schui.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| The Flying Snowplough wrote: |
| DB wrote: |
| Recreational skiers can now ski faster on-piste than racers from 30 years ago. |
This sounds a bit unlikely. Isn't hitting 100kmh on the iPhone ski app the holy grail of the frustrated Franz Klammers? Fast, to be sure, but some way short of the speeds the downhill racers were going in the days of Mueller, Zurbriggen etc. |
Damn you, my max is a mere 99!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| homers double wrote: |
| The Flying Snowplough wrote: |
| DB wrote: |
| Recreational skiers can now ski faster on-piste than racers from 30 years ago. |
This sounds a bit unlikely. Isn't hitting 100kmh on the iPhone ski app the holy grail of the frustrated Franz Klammers? Fast, to be sure, but some way short of the speeds the downhill racers were going in the days of Mueller, Zurbriggen etc. |
Damn you, my max is a mere 99! |
I wouldn't worry - the measurement of instantaneous speeds via GPS is notoriously inaccurate. My Garmin clocked me at nearly 70kmh on my bike sprinting on the flat, which would be a good pace for Mark Cavendish to achieve, and I get scared at this sort of speed (measured via a traditional speedo) going downhill, so I doubt my Garmin reading was correct!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| The Flying Snowplough wrote: |
| DB wrote: |
| Recreational skiers can now ski faster on-piste than racers from 30 years ago. |
This sounds a bit unlikely. Isn't hitting 100kmh on the iPhone ski app the holy grail of the frustrated Franz Klammers? Fast, to be sure, but some way short of the speeds the downhill racers were going in the days of Mueller, Zurbriggen etc. |
yes your 100kmh figure is too high. I was thinking more recreational skiers v regional racers. The point is that todays skis enable the recreational skier to go a lot faster than he/she did 30 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| DB wrote: |
| The point is that todays skis enable the recreational skier to go a lot faster than he/she did 30 years ago. |
Gotcha. I got "better" from 2002 to 2008 despite not skiing purely down to better ski technology and being able to afford hire skis further up the range than previously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
stanton, it's in foreign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
| Wer in der Schweiz wohnt, hat Glück im Unglück: Vom Ort des Geschehens bis zur Einweisung ins Spital verstreichen durchschnittlich nur 46 Minuten – bei Michael Schumacher dauerte es drei Stunden, bis er von der Skipiste über ein lokales Spital in die Universitätsklinik Grenoble eingewiesen war. Die schnellen Rettungszeiten in der Schweiz tragen dazu bei, die Sterblichkeit vergleichsweise tief zu halten. In manchen Ländern überleben bis zu 60 Prozent der Betroffenen die ersten 14 Tage nicht. |
I saw a program on French TV focusing on piste rescue on Saturday. They attended a guy with a head injury in Val Thorens and it took an age to get him loaded onto the helicopter and off to hospital. The doctor was faffing around. At least they took him directly to Grenoble, around a 20 to 30 minute helicopter flight. I understand it is French medical procedure to stabilize patients at the scene (this was heavily criticized in the case of Diana Spencer).
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Mon 13-01-14 21:15; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Not sure if this is the best way of going about things, but copy & paste above link into Google. It will (of course) be top of the search engine list...then you will be offered 'translate this page' and you will get an auto translate (which won't be in proper English, but understandable).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Basically says that on average, the time from the accident scene to the hospital is 46 mins, in comparison to MS which was 3 hours.......
Typical Swiss efficiency!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
The link basically says it took the French 3 hours to get Schumacher into the hospital but in Switzerland it normally only takes 46 mins on average. This fast Swiss response maintains a low fatality rate when compared to other countries where the fatality rate can be as high as 60%.
Edit KenX beat me too it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I've not read the entire thread so someone may have made these observations already:
Anyone who thinks in terms of a head injury as "only concussion" as if it's not potentially life-threatening is sadly mislead.
Concussion ALWAYS needs prompt and proper medical attention; it can be a killer.
Any fall onto a hard surface, including ice, involving the head can (although not always) give rise to a concussion injury, the signs and symptoms of which can be found in any basic first aid book (or Google it...).
Wearing a suitable safety hat will in most circumstances reduce the level of injury sustained (because they're designed to absorb impact) but will not save the wearer from all and any injury.
Whether one chooses to wear or not to wear is, frankly (because I'm not a "people" person), their decision - it's not that I don't care, more that it's not my problem. I used not to wear one; I do now - my view is you're a long time dead and I'd rather delay that experience for a while yet.
So, Herr Schumacher was unlucky - but hopefully not as unlucky as Natasha Richardson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| DB wrote: |
The link basically says it took the French 3 hours to get Schumacher into the hospital but in Switzerland it normally only takes 46 mins on average. This fast Swiss response maintains a low fatality rate when compared to other countries where the fatality rate can be as high as 60%.
Edit KenX beat me too it. |
Only by 4 mins 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Mick_Br wrote: |
I've not read the entire thread so someone may have made these observations already:
Anyone who thinks in terms of a head injury as "only concussion" as if it's not potentially life-threatening is sadly mislead. |
Blx. Concussion is not often fatal or even have any long term effects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The Flying Snowplough wrote: |
| - the measurement of instantaneous speeds via GPS is notoriously inaccurate. My Garmin clocked me at nearly 70kmh on my bike sprinting on the flat, which would be a good pace for Mark Cavendish to achieve, and I get scared at this sort of speed (measured via a traditional speedo) going downhill, so I doubt my Garmin reading was correct! |
The major problem a GPS device faces on land is "clutter" from trees, buildings, mountains, bodies - anything in fact that stops the device gaining optimal trigonometric conditions because it can "see" only a limited range of satellites. Ideally it wants signal "fixes" from multiple angles and elevations in a hemispheric space, as you'd get at sea - there they work quite well most of the time.
A traditional bike speedo (correctly calibrated and set up) will always be correct - providing the wheels are revolving freely at "road-speed"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| allanm wrote: |
| Mick_Br wrote: |
I've not read the entire thread so someone may have made these observations already:
Anyone who thinks in terms of a head injury as "only concussion" as if it's not potentially life-threatening is sadly mislead. |
Blx. Concussion is not often fatal or even have any long term effects. |
Yeah, you're right. Perfectly OK not to worry about it whatsoever 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
No. I said 'Concussion is not often fatal or even have any long term effects.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| impingu1984 wrote: |
So can anyone with come up with a case where a helmet made a head injury worst than if the injured party wasn't wearing a helmet?
Until someone can I really rest my case.
|
How many of the pro helmet people wear a full face motorcycle helmet when driving a car? How much safer would driving be if everyone wore a helmet? What if you wore a full face motorcycle helmet when skiing. That would be safer than a flimsy ski helmet???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
