 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
I would argue that it's your shoulder that will soak up the initial thump.
|
I think you would be hard pressed to prevent credible evidence to support that!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Fattes13, Just an opinion based on my own experience. And since when have you ever produced credible evidence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Fattes13, prevent or present?
Most people initial reaction to a straddle event (or something similar) as suggested is to put their hands/arms out to try to 'catch' the tree, arms outstretched with a locked elbow. This'll actually push the shoulders backwards, bringing the legs and pelvis and head forwards, so actually a forhead strike is quite likely - most people in car crashes break their nose as the arms they put out in front of them are forced backwards and hit them in the face.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Fri 29-11-13 16:33; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Here you go!
Skiers warned: use your head, wear a helmet
A skiing collision at 30KPH without a helmet could be fatal1
In a skiing collision at 20KPH without a helmet on, the head experiences a force of nearly two tonnes2
The g-force on the head is around three to four times higher in a skiing collision without a helmet on than one with a helmet on
The average cost of a winter sports medical claim is £8643
With the number of skiers heading off to the slopes increasing for the first time in five years4, new scientific research5 into the damage caused by skiing collisions has revealed to what extent wearing a helmet reduces the risk of suffering a serious head injury, and how it reduces the severity of head injuries in higher-speed crashes.
The study by Direct Line travel insurance and the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), simulated six collisions with a crash test dummy hitting a tree at 10, 20 and 30 kilometres per hour (KPH), both with and without a ski helmet on6. Three key areas of the body were monitored for the force of the impacts and likely injuries; head, neck and chest.
The results revealed that skiers wearing helmets experience at least two thirds less g-force than skiers without helmets, which means a greatly reduced risk of suffering a serious head injury7, such as a brain contusion. Results across the tests showed that the g-force on the head was around three to four times higher in the collisions without a helmet on than those where the dummy was wearing one.
The compression force on a skier’s neck during a collision was reduced when wearing a helmet, although not enough to significantly decrease the risk of serious neck injuries8, such as fractured vertebrae, at 20 or 30 KPH.
The risk of a serious chest injury9, such as multiple rib fractures or a lung laceration, was low in the tests at 10 and 20 KPH, but at 30 KPH was moderate.
Figure 1: Direct Line’s table showing the summary of head, neck and chest injuries in simulated skiing crashes
Helmet KPH Force (in g) on the head Risk of serious head injury Compression force on the neck (kN) Risk of serious neck injury Chest deflection (mm) Risk of serious chest injury
Yes 10 36 Very low 3.9 Low 0 Negligible
No 10 106 Low 3.8 Low 0 Negligible
Yes 20 110 Low 8.4 High 22 Low
No 20 425 Very high 9.6 High 5 Negligible
Yes 30 323 Moderate 15 Very high 40 Moderate
The test at 30 KPH without a helmet on was not conducted, as the pattern of results from the previous tests indicated that the risk of damaging the dummy was too great, and suggested that this crash would be fatal for a human.
Mark Riddell, group testing manager at TRL said: “Head injuries can be life-threatening when they occur. When you consider that during the collision at 20 KPH, the head experienced a force of nearly two tonnes, this is an incredible amount of strain to be put under. This research certainly supports the argument to wear an approved ski helmet on the slopes from a safety perspective.”
Tom Bishop, head of travel insurance at Direct Line said: “Although we do not enforce the use of helmets when taking part in winter sports, the safety of our customers on the slopes is paramount to us. This is why we strongly encourage the use of approved helmets when skiing or snowboarding, especially in light of this illuminating research. We deal with around 3,000 winter sports claims per year, the majority of which will be medical, and unfortunately three or four of these per year will be fatalities. Even one fatality is one too many."
Bishop continues: “Winter sports injuries can be very costly, and even when treated in a hospital which accepts the EHIC, a skier could face thousands of pounds in charges for mountain rescue, ambulances, new flights and additional accommodation. For example, a helicopter piste rescue to a local hospital will typically cost around £2,000, and if you need to be brought home from an Alpine resort by stretcher on a commercial flight, or on an air ambulance, this can cost at least £10,000. This is why taking out appropriate travel insurance is so crucial.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| geepee wrote: |
| laundryman wrote: |
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| US ski resorts will end up padding all trees |
Would that be a fir coat? |
That should spruce them up. |
Maybe Eider should branch out into high end tree wear?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shimmy Alcott, so we'll have to watch Ikea as well as Aldi and Lidl from now on?
Or will be all just buy from Treespass?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to a report I literally made up this morning, scientists have found that statistically you are literally 350x safer if you wear a helmet at all times, and that in a collision with a tree your brain will literally be subject to 3000kgs of pressure. That's about 3 tonnes! There is also a growing body of evidence to suggest that skiing with your bits and bobs literally in a cricket box helps prevent various diseases and improves fertility for both men and women. Literally!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
I'm rather concerned that they spared the dummy rather than completing the tests - is that the state of today's world even crash test dummies have to have their risks mitigated? It's Political correctness/elfen safety gone mad I tell you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fatbob, I'm afraid so. And the tree got counselling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Post Traumatic Trees disorder?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
These tree-huggers - if they're environmentalists - should do it more slowly with more obvious care for the tree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can understand that people aren't terribly impressed by the reporting of this research, but I'm struggling to see any reasons why people would disagree with either the methodology or the conclusions.
I'm pleased that wearing a helmet is optional, not compulsory, but I fail to see why people get so aerated about the subject. It all reminds me of the arguments before seat belt wearing was made compulsory in cars back 1983.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
Fattes13, Just an opinion based on my own experience. And since when have you ever produced credible evidence?
|
There is a different between opinion and fact, the reality is if you make contact with a tree no matter how you do it, your head will probably suffer some impact, be it from the ground, the tree or other sources, stray poles skis etc. The impact will cause a force to be excerted on your neck and head also, see Sir Isaac Newton for confirmation.
There is tons of research and evidence out there form the past 5-10 years in relation to head injuries and skiing, rather than the outdated long since discredited stuff some people refrence here. The American, Swiss and Canadian medical associations have all published papers or statements showing in their expert medical opinion it is preferred if people were helmets while skiing, in the event of them suffering a head impact. http://www.cmaj.ca/content/182/4/333.short
But you can either act like a petulant child or engaged in reasoned evidence based debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I can understand that people aren't terribly impressed by the reporting of this research, but I'm struggling to see any reasons why people would disagree with either the methodology or the conclusions.
I'm pleased that wearing a helmet is optional, not compulsory, but I fail to see why people get so aerated about the subject. It all reminds me of the arguments before seat belt wearing was made compulsory in cars back 1983.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
foxtrotzulu, I am of the school of you are an adult and it is your choice, that said people who activley lobby or campaign to try and say there is no benefit really confuse me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
| ... I've never seen anyone hitting a tree while still upright. So can't say if they actually have enough body control to dictate which part of their body contact the tree. ... |
The Monashees are my back yard, so I've seen a fair few skiers there hit trees. The ones I remember were facial injuries. So yeah, you need a full face helmet or a good dentist, or some perspective.
The issue is not "would wearing a helmet reduce trauma from impact", which is easy to prove and not contended; it's a combination of:- why has increased helmet usage not reduced fatalities?
- what level of risk reduction do you get from wearing a partial-face helmet, and it it worth it (corollary: is it worth wearing it also when walking to the pub)?
But most people are hysterical on this subject, so those questions won't be addressed here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Fattes13, I said:
| Quote: |
| I would argue that it's your shoulder that will soak up the initial thump. |
That is stating an opinion. Clear to everyone but you that I wasn't claiming it as fact.
And then, ignoring your own advice, you go on to say:
| Quote: |
| the reality is if you make contact with a tree no matter how you do it, your head will probably suffer some impact |
which, of course, isn't a reality at all it's a guess. The word "probably" kind of gives it away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I have only ever hit one tree, but fortunately for me my plums absorbed all of the impact. I wear a helmet, but have no issue with those that don't. I don't see it as a major safety issue on the slopes. I have far more fear of people who get very drunk and then ski. All of the people I know who have been injured whilst skiing (3) where in collision with drunken skiers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
The word "probably" kind of gives it away.
|
It covers the fact that circumstances are different for every fall so I cannot say definitively that every fall will have a head impact but more often than not the probability is high that your head will experience some kind of force or stress. Especially in circumstances with impacting a tree, even if you impact ski first chances are your head will be on the ground or very close to it!
In fact most falls at speed on a pair of skis will have a high probability of involving either impact or forces on your head and neck that are detrimental. That is not an opinion that is the laws of physics & the human anatomy.
Bode Swiller, You are entitled to an opinion I merely stated you would find it difficult to back it up with hard evidence? Not sure what you are finding difficult to understand about that? You can come on here and attempt to argue why people should not wear helmets but most medical experts disagree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Fattes13 wrote: |
| In fact most falls at speed on a pair of skis will have a high probability of involving either impact or forces on your head and neck that are detrimental. That is not an opinion that is the laws of physics & the human anatomy. |
You're trolling, no? The vast majority of falls I see have no injury what so ever. It's most unlikely that you'll hurt yourself if you fall in back country powder, it's, well, soft and powdery. You're at more risk of NARSID than head injury. But that's assuming you assess risk, which most helmet users clearly don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fattes13, where have I ever said that people shouldn't wear helmets?
I might question the way the media and the helmet lobby (manufacturers, retailers etc) use "facts" or celebrity death to scare people into thinking they must wear a helmet. None of these people talk about strategies to avoid accidents by the way.
Have you ever read back through any of your posts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| philwig wrote: |
| The vast majority of falls I see have no injury what so ever. |
Too true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
foxtrotzulu, have you seen the study actually published anywhere? I don't think anyone is in a position to talk about the quality of it based on news reports! Would be an interesting read though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These tree threads on snowHeads are great. They usually run to about 38 rings, and then another one pops out of the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| philwig wrote: |
| Fattes13 wrote: |
| In fact most falls at speed on a pair of skis will have a high probability of involving either impact or forces on your head and neck that are detrimental. That is not an opinion that is the laws of physics & the human anatomy. |
You're trolling, no? The vast majority of falls I see have no injury what so ever. It's most unlikely that you'll hurt yourself if you fall in back country powder, it's, well, soft and powdery. You're at more risk of NARSID than head injury. But that's assuming you assess risk, which most helmet users clearly don't. |
Hmm.... who's trolling now - most helmet users are unthinking dumbasses? I suspect given where you ride you aren't in the biggest section of the bellcurve when it comes to environments where falls occur.
It's perfectly possible to be a helmet user because of the low opportunity cost/hassle of wearing vs the potential benefit in a number of situations but not feel that those who don't wear helmets are stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
philwig, "The vast majority of falls I see have no injury what so ever. It's most unlikely that you'll hurt yourself if you fall in back country powder, it's, well, soft and powdery. You're at more risk of NARSID than head injury."
Would you like to point out where you seen me use the word "Injury" I clearly stated falls at speed and used the words Forces and impact. Neither you or I can corrupt the laws of physics or established research in relation to human anatomy and impact research
The discussion was in relation to impacts in trees in particular at the point in he thread. I would conjecture more people are injured in resort villages than on the slopes. But anyone trying to claim a helmet is of now benefit probably could be convinced the world is flat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Fattes13 wrote: |
| I would conjecture more people are injured in resort villages than on the slopes. |
I think you would be hard pressed to prevent credible evidence to support that!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Bode Swiller, actually brother in law ran a large insurance brokers in Ireland and claimed 70% of his ski holiday claims happened in resort! Including our own Irish President
Conjecture; an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| Fattes13 wrote: |
| I would conjecture more people are injured in resort villages than on the slopes. |
I think you would be hard pressed to prevent credible evidence to support that!! |
I suspect I could do a scientific study by observing people exiting the Kandahar, Piccadilly or the Londoner and plotting the number of slips & slides against the same number of people skiing off from the top of a lift. Now where will I get the funding for such a noble endeavour?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Fattes13 wrote: |
Bode Swiller, actually brother in law ran a large insurance brokers in Ireland and claimed 70% of his ski holiday claims happened in resort! Including our own Irish President
Conjecture; an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. |
Of course, your brother in law's convention-shattering, paradigm-shifting, peer-reviewed study into freakin' eejit behaviour. Where can I find a copy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
the funding for such a noble endeavour?
|
Diagio will be happy to oblige!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Helmets are of course going to make you safer while skiing, but how much safer is definitely a big question. Fattes13, sorry mate but your just wrong. Everyone reading this has fallen loads of times, but almost all of them didn't bang there heads while doing it. Laws of Physics..... My back bottom.
Bode Swiller has it right I think. I wear a helmet, he doesn't, but I bet he's never gelded himself with a silver birch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| thecramps wrote: |
| Helmets are of course going to make you safer while skiing, but how much safer is definitely a big question. Fattes13, sorry mate but your just wrong. Everyone reading this has fallen loads of times, but almost all of them didn't bang there heads while doing it. Laws of Physics..... My back bottom. |
Indeed, I can't think of an occasion when I've hit my head when I've fallen while skiing.
I have, however, been knocked unconscious by an errant T-bar, and been knocked to the ground by an out of control skier resulting in an egg-sized bruise on my forehead. I suspect a lid would have minimised the effects of both of those incidents.
I do wear a helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
thecramps, where did I say "bang head" I said forces and impacts, a helmet shell could be as simple as keeping your face off the snow on certain falls and avoiding abrasion injuries.
When your body has a fall there is an initial impact and a number secondary internal impacts as you get bounced around. That in turn causes potential body movements that you have no control over. It's as simple as for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction & energy can not be created or destroyed. So when you fall or make contact with something there is an opposing force and the energy you were carrying has to be transferred somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| fatbob wrote: |
... most helmet users are unthinking dumbasses? ...
It's perfectly possible to be a helmet user because of the low opportunity cost/hassle of wearing vs the potential benefit in a number of situations but not feel that those who don't wear helmets are stupid. |
I accused some people of failing to assess their risk, which I think has been demonstrated repeatedly here.
10 years ago no Brit wore a helmet, and their death/ injury rate was the same as it is today. So wearing plastic hats makes it no worse, which is excellent news. But apparently not relevant if we actually want to reduce those accident statistics, which in any case aren't at all as bad as some here would seem to believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| philwig wrote: |
10 years ago no Brit wore a helmet, and their death/ injury rate was the same as it is today. So wearing plastic hats makes it no worse, which is excellent news. But apparently not relevant if we actually want to reduce those accident statistics, which in any case aren't at all as bad as some here would seem to believe. |
well, no.. we can't easily quantify nor qualify that statement unless we can, categorically also state that: The number of falls where the head impacts an object has remained the same.
Considering the changes in skiing over the last ten years, and the increase in park and freestyle skiing and whatnot, can we really state that the number of bumps on the head has remained the same?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Fattes13, I did o level physics too. Maybe we'd all be safer if we wore dayglo vests as well. And steel toecapped ski boots. The list of types of accident I can make up in my head could also require full body armour
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have hit several trees: 1 with chest 1st - that hurt & I was out for the count for several mins but head was fine as I avoided nutting it. 1 going backwards - backpack took the impact but I was still winded for couple of mins. 2 occasions I got board up so tree between bindings and I bounced off, thought the board would break but it didn't. Wasn't wearing a helmet for any of those but often do wear one these days, particularly if I intend trees skiing as helmets are very useful when ducking under branches, plus ofcouse the unintended trip on a root etc which is the usual cause of the above near catastrophes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
