 Poster: A snowHead
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, Personally I ski a narrow path down tracks and try and leave passing space on one side. That's just my personal choice, I don't expect others to do that for me.
People skiing courteously would be the icing on the cake. At the moment not enough people even have a clue about skiing safely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Interesting that rule 6 doesn't mention stopping at the side of the piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Wow - read the topic about Skier death in La plagne. We were there over xmas and due to conditions we limited the runs we chose and opted to miss a couple of days. It was icy , crowded and full of bad boarder and skiers. I board and my wife skis so no bias either way. So sad that life was lost and its a risk we all take when donning our winter sport gear. Currently in Flaine and enjoying better conditions after a heavy dump on Saturday and Sunday. Still got crazy skiers n boarders so the sad news doesnt seem to get thro to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| T Bar wrote: |
| Quote: |
I am sorry but I just don't at all see the necessity of the pole tap or any other indication that you want to pass.
|
As pointed out it can be a courtesy.
| Quote: |
In my experience, most pole tappers DO see it as a way of warning slower skiers that they are coming through pretty much regardless.
|
To be honest I do not know thew motives of most peoples actions on the slopes, I am not sure how you determine them.
Some people are badly behaved but in my general view the majority are not and that includes those who declare their presence and those who do not. What their individual motives are I do not know but most peoples actions appear reasonable though some do not. I have seen people jump and startle when passed by skiers when in no actual danger of being hit,(It happened to me recently when a pedestrian on a footpath being overtaken by a cyclist) this is what I personally am trying to avoid. |
I do not at all doubt your intentions and motivations, you seem very genuine and considerate.
The fact is I have challenged quite a few pole tappers who have ended up actually touching my kids as they squeeze past, and I am equally certain of their motivations as each time the miscreant made some complaint about being help up, skiers going too slow, or using up too much of the track. So I am not just guessing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| T Bar wrote: |
| Quote: |
I am sorry but I just don't at all see the necessity of the pole tap or any other indication that you want to pass.
|
As pointed out it can be a courtesy.
| Quote: |
In my experience, most pole tappers DO see it as a way of warning slower skiers that they are coming through pretty much regardless.
|
To be honest I do not know thew motives of most peoples actions on the slopes, I am not sure how you determine them.
Some people are badly behaved but in my general view the majority are not and that includes those who declare their presence and those who do not. What their individual motives are I do not know but most peoples actions appear reasonable though some do not. I have seen people jump and startle when passed by skiers when in no actual danger of being hit,(It happened to me recently when a pedestrian on a footpath being overtaken by a cyclist) this is what I personally am trying to avoid. |
I do not at all doubt your intentions and motivations, you seem very genuine and considerate.
The fact is I have challenged quite a few pole tappers who have ended up actually touching my kids as they squeeze past, and I am equally certain of their motivations as each time the miscreant made some complaint about being help up, skiers going too slow, or using up too much of the track. So I am not just guessing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Pruman wrote: |
| Quote: |
Now we are all helmet wearers
|
 I don't wear one. Do they make you deaf? Do they make you less aware of what's going on around you? It sounds like it. Pole manufacturers may need to think about tuning the sound so that the tapping is on a different wavelength to the edge scraping and general screaming. What a bunch of utter utter nonsense. |
Actually, it's not really the helmet that makes a significant difference, although a few designs may cut down your peripheral vision and those with earpads may reduce hearing. The 'problem' is that along with the increase in helmet wearing has come an increase in goggle wearing and they massvely restrict your peripheral vision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a glasses wearer I always use goggles, even before I started using a helmet, it makes things a lot easier going into dark cafes etc, and it prevents my eyes watering while skiing. It certainly isn't a fashion thing as anyone who has seen me in my ski attire would attest  I am aware they constrain my vision so I try to look left and right especially when starting/joining/at other danger points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@Pruman, interesting, makes sense that those searching for the bigger thrill would be more at risk.
Although the headline on helmets is skewed. The report says that 80% of all skiers/boarders wore helmets. However of the fatalities only 60% of them were wearing helmets. That would suggest that risk of fatality is higher if you're not wearing a helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Pruman,
That characterisation rings true to me - particularly as US resorts are avalanche controlled so that mode of death is precluded. Afterall, unless you are very unlucky you need a certain amount of kinetic energy to kill yourself. Beginners tend to be pretty slow. And I would guess a lot of people reach peak speed on "intermediate runs" - more challenging runs and unpisted snow often drives a bit more speed control. Of course ski helmets are not remotely designed to save you if you hit your head squarely against a hard object at 30mph!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
@jedster, smacking a tree chest on can kill you at 30mph, and all the more likely if no immediate medical assistance is on hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@Richard_Sideways, 30mph?! I think half that would probably be enough to either kill or have you being fed via a tube.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SnoodyMcFlude wrote: |
@Pruman, interesting, makes sense that those searching for the bigger thrill would be more at risk.
Although the headline on helmets is skewed. The report says that 80% of all skiers/boarders wore helmets. However of the fatalities only 60% of them were wearing helmets. That would suggest that risk of fatality is higher if you're not wearing a helmet. |
Correlation does not indicate causality.
To put it another way. Experienced male skiers are the most likely to die. Experienced male skiers may ski faster. Experienced male skiers may be less likely to wear a helmet. It is not possible to prove (from those statistics alone) that the increase in mortality is due to speed, or not wearing a helmet, or both, or neither.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
@Richard_Sideways, 30mph?! I think half that would probably be enough to either kill or have you being fed via a tube.
|
Maybe but I think you'd be unlucky. This is about cycle helmets but I think the standards are similar:
"Cycle helmets are specified by their manufacturers as meeting one or more of the international standards for this equipment. All of the standards test the helmet's protection of only a decapitated headform, (i.e. one with no body attached); and all tests involve only low speed impacts. Impact speeds are less than 6.6 m/s (24 km/h or 15 mph), and in some cases, barely 5 m/s (18 km/h or 11 mph)".
So they are tested at 11-15mph depending on the exact standard. Given an engineering tolerance I think you'd have a good chance of avoiding serious brain damage at 15mph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
@jedster, smacking a tree chest on can kill you at 30mph, and all the more likely if no immediate medical assistance is on hand.
|
Agreed - the point I was making is that 30mph (which isn't very fast) can be easily enough to kill you if you balls things up seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@Oceanic, bit of an assumption that "experienced skiers may be less likely to wear a helmet".
Agree that those statistics don't prove anything, which is why I had an issue with the headline which implies that they do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Cycle helmets are EN1078, ski helmets EN1077. Both standards test drop onto the anvil from 1.5m. There are also tests to ensure that hearing and peripheral vision are not significantly impaired either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
There is also the question of impact and abrasion injuries. Helmets are designed to deform under some force in order to help absorb and dissipate forces on impact. Your head doesn't do that so well. And when it does deform, that's not a good thing either.
A year ago a mate of mine posted this photo of his helmet, occurred whilst snowboarding in resort. It just completely baffles me that anybody would sooner this happen to their head than put a helmet on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@dp, The accident only happened *because* he was wearing a helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I started wearing a helmet a few years ago. On the second day of wearing one I was behind a woman at a chairlift, she pushed forward to get onto the chair, but lost her balance, trying to regain it she whipped her ski pole round in a full arc, the tip of the pole hit me squarely on the forehead at high speed. My helmet saved me a very nasty cut to the head, which could of cost me skiing time. So money well spent in my view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Magic - new assertion that goggles are the problem. I just don't believe this - the head is mounted on a wonderful pivot and can turn and look in various directions. The field of vision of a particular pair of goggles, not that most modern designs are particularly restricted has little to do with a wearer's ability to observe and maintain situational awareness.
Besides - in North America helmets and goggles are almost ubitquitous i.e. you actually notice when someone is just wearing a hat and sunnies because they are rare and I don't think their stats would suggest any causation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
30mph (which isn't very fast)
|
Well it is (if you smack into something) but as we know from tracking apps, some people are regularly hitting 70/80/90 kmh. At those speeds all bets are off. Kind of pointless wearing a helmet designed to save you at 15mph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Well it is (if you smack into something) but as we know from tracking apps, some people are regularly hitting 70/80/90 kmh. At those speeds all bets are off. Kind of pointless wearing a helmet designed to save you at 15mph.
|
I utterly disagree. Just because I am initially travelling at say 40mph doesn't mean that my head will hit a hard object directly at that speed. Friction may well slow me down, I may hit something softer than a tree, I may strike with a glancing blow that makes the effective impact speed a fraction of my velocity. There are many ways that a 15mph protection could make a real difference to the outcome even if you fell at 40mph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@Pruman, you *do* understand that they don't just stop working at 15.1mph, they work to abate the force of an impact at whatever speed its hit at, but it's about the amount of force its able to dissipate before you start taking injury is where the difference lies.
CEN 1077 is the cause of pretty much every "issue" with helmets. It's the basic safety standard to pass for a rating sticker. Why do you have to throw the helmet away after 1 impact? Because the test only tests the helmet once. Why does it only work up to 12mph? because thats the speed it'll hit the floor at from the 1.5m static drop test. CEN1077 sets out the minimum performance of a helmet, NOT the maximum, NOR does every manufacturer build only to just pass CEN1077.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Richard_Sideways wrote: |
| @Pruman, you *do* understand that they don't just stop working at 15.1mph |
I must admit that's exactly what I thought. So glad I brought the subject up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| jedster wrote: |
| Quote: |
Well it is (if you smack into something) but as we know from tracking apps, some people are regularly hitting 70/80/90 kmh. At those speeds all bets are off. Kind of pointless wearing a helmet designed to save you at 15mph.
|
I utterly disagree. Just because I am initially travelling at say 40mph doesn't mean that my head will hit a hard object directly at that speed. Friction may well slow me down, I may hit something softer than a tree, I may strike with a glancing blow that makes the effective impact speed a fraction of my velocity. There are many ways that a 15mph protection could make a real difference to the outcome even if you fell at 40mph. |
Agreed. I wouldn't like to slide down a rocky sparsley covered slope banging my head as I go along without a helmet!
First day I wore a helmet I tried to come to an emergency stop where a load of my mates had stopped - hit ice, powder, ice and then catapulted myself - it was only on my last roll that I smacked my head hard on the ice. Got pretty bad whiplash for the week - but could have been a lot worse.
So it's not the initial impact that I'm looking to be saved from, it's the aftermath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| zikomo wrote: |
I do not at all doubt your intentions and motivations, you seem very genuine and considerate.
The fact is I have challenged quite a few pole tappers who have ended up actually touching my kids as they squeeze past, and I am equally certain of their motivations as each time the miscreant made some complaint about being help up, skiers going too slow, or using up too much of the track. So I am not just guessing. |
Jeez mate I think you must be skiing in more aggressive places than I do.
My kids are now at Uni but I have skied with them since they were three and can only recall a single occasion where I have had cause to get angry with people skiing to close, which was an idiot doing BASI training who had my daughter in tears as he blasted past and then proceeded to tell me that she was to little to be on that slope.
You've obviously come across a lot more aggressive skiers than I have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am always amazed how after many years of not wearing one new helmeters immediately have an incident that would have resulted in serious head trauma without it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
| The fact is I have challenged quite a few pole tappers who have ended up actually touching my kids as they squeeze past, |
What does "touching" mean? Was the child knocked, did they fall over? And this is happening on a regular basis?
I've skied with my kids since they were 3/4 - they are now 9 and 11 - and I can't say it's a phenomena I recognise.
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Wed 18-01-17 17:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
First day I wore a helmet I tried to come to an emergency stop where a load of my mates had stopped - hit ice, powder, ice and then catapulted myself - it was only on my last roll that I smacked my head hard on the ice. Got pretty bad whiplash for the week - but could have been a lot worse.
|
The issue there is the 'emergency stop' rather than just stopping in a controlled manner. Helmets can't fix the basics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Layne wrote: |
| I am always amazed how after many years of not wearing one new helmeters immediately have an incident that would have resulted in serious head trauma without it. |
and there's always a picture of a broken helmet as evidence. Post purchase reinforcement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@Layne, I'm always amazed at how people that don't wear helmets feel the need to comment on those that do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| SnoodyMcFlude wrote: |
| @Layne, I'm always amazed at how people that don't wear helmets feel the need to comment on those that do. |
Come on now, you're not really are you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Pruman wrote: |
| Quote: |
First day I wore a helmet I tried to come to an emergency stop where a load of my mates had stopped - hit ice, powder, ice and then catapulted myself - it was only on my last roll that I smacked my head hard on the ice. Got pretty bad whiplash for the week - but could have been a lot worse.
|
The issue there is the 'emergency stop' rather than just stopping in a controlled manner. Helmets can't fix the basics. |
Whatever.
If I had not had the helmet I would have been quite seriously hurt. It makes no difference whether I was skiing outside of my ability. It was the classic "oh, there they all ah, wait, oh, arggh"... I make no apology for the helmet saving me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@Layne, Possibly not amazed, definitely baffled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
On a cable car in Zermatt i sat down listening to music. A guy stands almost next to me and rests his and wifes skis on the bar. Slight movement in the gondola and the skis have slipped hitting me in the side of the helmet and frame of my goggles. He actually said at least youre wearing a helmet. Yeh cheers. Its not just on the slopes you need to protect yourself from morons it seems. I probably could have ended up with a bad cut with 2 skis falling in to the side of my head/ eye brow area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My mate fell and got his head skied over by his girlfriend. There was a lovely 3 inch cut right across the back of his helmet. Now that one would have been nasty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SnoodyMcFlude wrote: |
| @Layne, I'm always amazed at how people that don't wear helmets feel the need to comment on those that do. |
It works the other way actually due to simple mathematics. When I go skiing I'm often the only one without a lid and people like to take it in turn to question my sanity even though I've been lidless yet intact for over 40 years. It gets a bit tiresome. Of course, most have war stories about hitting their heads but I put that down to their idiotic decision making which I often witness at close hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Pruman wrote: |
| It works the other way |
Of course it does, never suggested that it didn't. Baffling though ain't it? What's it to them whether you wear a helmet or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| eblunt wrote: |
| @dp, The accident only happened *because* he was wearing a helmet. |
How did you work that out?
His view going forward is... Never going out without a helmet. That's a funny view for somebody to take that's just had an accident caused by it, don't you think?
I am all ears as to how a helmet *causes* an accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
