 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| Even with a helmet, a really hard smack of the bonce on a tree would probably have the same end result. |
Errr ?? I thought the point of a helmet was to reduce the impact of a 'really hard smack' or have I missed something? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
have I missed something?
|
FoofyNoo, no you didn't miss, you smacked your nut straight into it. I have no idea how people manage that. The tree isn't moving but you are therefore, it stands to reason, you need to avoid it especially with your head. Why do people wear a helmet "in case they hit a tree"? The logic is backwards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
I'm worried I might get attacked by a low flying ping pong ball
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| no you didn't miss, you smacked your nut straight into it. I have no idea how people manage that. The tree isn't moving but you are therefore, it stands to reason, you need to avoid it especially with your head. Why do people wear a helmet "in case they hit a tree"? The logic is backwards. |
.
Hi Bode [great name by the way]
Joking aside ... Unfortunately there are circumstances that are sometimes out of your control. In my case there was a tree branch just under the snow that was totally invisible. This directed my ski tips into the tree that was less than a meter to my left. I might not be the best skier in the world but I don't believe I could have done anything to avoid it without having previously developed X-ray vision. I must admit that it is very easy for me to choose to wear a helmet, as now, after excellent surgery, I have an almost perfectly re-constructed left knee rather than being '6 foot under'.
Anyway ... it keeps my big ears warm!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
| Why do people wear a helmet "in case they hit a tree"? The logic is backwards. |
Ha, ha excellent. The tree reference I used should maybe have read branches etc. Together with goggles, a helmet offers protection from small knocks and scratches that a wooly/no hat and glasses could ever do, allowing me to concentrate on not hitting the immovable stuff. But you knew that.
I guess I need to go to one of those well manicured euro places that makes all this redundant, not those red neck Canadian hills that offer wannabes like me easy accessible tree riding.
And in many ways I wish I didn't wear a helmet, so I could crow from the sidelines about all these lunatics screaming around outside their ability, endagering other slope users, eventually and inevitably doing a "Bono".
Horses for courses, each to their own, mind that tree, and all that................
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Helmet or not to Helmet who really gives a f*** two small points though,
1. All those people who say I fell over and hit my helmet on the ground, its becuase your helmet is much bigger than your head.
2. All those people who say I've never needed a helmet in x weeks skiing, maybe next year you will.
But really people, arguing over something like this on the internet with people with entrenched views is like sex with a fat bird, something you can do, but shouldn't do, and ultimately kind of pointless and not that enjoyable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| adie wrote: |
.
But really people, arguing over something like this on the internet with people with entrenched views is like sex with a fat bird, something you can do, but shouldn't do, and ultimately kind of pointless and not that enjoyable. |
and quote of the week goes to....... ADIE!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| Why do people wear a helmet "in case they hit a tree"? The logic is backwards. |
Does this mean I should wear a tree to avoid being whacked by a helmet? Perhaps I should stay still for a very, very long time and let the trees move round me...
Now my head hurts trying to work out all the backwards logic tree / helmet possibilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| FoofyNoo wrote: |
| ..I must admit that it is very easy for me to choose to wear a helmet, as now, after excellent surgery, I have an almost perfectly re-constructed left knee rather than being '6 foot under'.... |
Why don't you wear a helmet on the other knee as well? It too could be at risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| A Lurker wrote: |
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| Why do people wear a helmet "in case they hit a tree"? The logic is backwards. |
Does this mean I should wear a tree to avoid being whacked by a helmet? Perhaps I should stay still for a very, very long time and let the trees move round me...
Now my head hurts trying to work out all the backwards logic tree / helmet possibilities |
My point was actually very simple and I ran it by my 7 year old and the cat just to make sure... big solid trees don't move much. Honestly, they don't, some of them hardly at all and many of them are made of wood. Skiers, on the other hand, mainly made of a soft jelly/kebab mixture, do move about a lot so it is entirely in the power of the skier to do what's necessary to avoid the tree. Trees always win if you don't. Geddit? Helmet somewhat protects your head but that leaves your face, your limbs, chest, vital organs, wedding tackle etc all basically in the way of the impact as well. There are loads of great ways of screwing up your day with a tree. Helmet or not, giving your head a good shake up isn't a great idea. So, the idea that a helmet might save you is an illogical way of looking at it. Avoid the trees if you think that you are not capable of missing them. Same goes for pylons, rocks, walls, doors, car parks, people etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Bode Swiller, Nice work - what about the stealth trees and rocks that you don't know are there?
Personally I ski like a ninja to out stealth them and have never ever been flipped by a baby Xmas tree lurking under the surface.*
*Ok maybe a little bit, possibly the same tree 3 years apart in one instance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
fatbob, and barbed wire fences of course  - I've skied over a few of those. I don't know the answer other than if you're not sure go ski somewhere where you are sure. There's more than one way down and it all adds up to the same fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was always told to ski gaps not trees, that tip does seem to have worked for me - 'ski trees' and sure as 'ell you'll need that helmet.
I do hit my head [helmet] more when wearing a helmet... also.... just having removed and replaced [big] engine in my boat lately I have 'hit' my glasses on numerous occasions and ruined them. Been wearing contacts since and after same task (don't ask why) my eyes are completely unscathed. Is it possible that [some] humans have a problem with 'unnatural addons'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| allanm wrote: |
| Is it possible that [some] humans have a problem with 'unnatural addons'? |
Nnnngggg... must... resist...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I wear one because I want to - I don't give a toss about anyone else's opinion. I've been wearing one for about 8 seasons now I think.
It keeps my ears warm when I need them kept warm and does not fly off like my hat used to. I'll continue to wear one for as long as I want to. I also wear sunglasses with mine when the occasion merits them - if others are so vain that they consider other peoples opinions are more important than their own, that's their problem, not mine
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| Helmet somewhat protects your head but that leaves your face, your limbs, chest, vital organs, wedding tackle etc all basically in the way of the impact as well |
I wear a full body helmet (similar to a dalek suit). This has the added advantage of people not commenting on my poor technique. It is, however, quite hard to get it to fit in my hand luggage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| BCjohnny wrote: |
I guess I need to go to one of those well manicured euro places that makes all this redundant, not those red neck Canadian hills that offer wannabes like me easy accessible tree riding.
|
Loads of good accessible tree skiing in European resorts. In general I would have thought European resorts were less manicured than across the pond. We are following the US lead I suppose in getting more manicured - though off-piste (including all tree skiing) remains totally wild in all respects, like North American Out of Bounds.
I've been skiing trees for decades and never hit my head even lightly (though small twigs have taken my woolly hat off a few times. I prefer goggles to ski trees for that reason.)
I am, however, considering buying a helmet for next season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
| In general I would have thought European resorts were less manicured than across the pond. |
Nope, at least judging by the ones I've been to, compared to the stuff I've ridden in europe. In Ca a lot more is left fallow, but feel free to disagree.
fatbob I once rode into an eight foot baby spruce in KH, which was no mean feat as it was the only one around. Hit it square at about 15mph, bent it back until it almost snapped, at which point it recoiled and threw me through the air, back from where I'd come, about six feet. Was picking the needles out of my jacket for several days after, smelt nice though. Pre helmet days too. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Loads of good accessible tree skiing in European resorts. In general I would have thought European resorts were less manicured than across the pond.[/quote]
European resorts are always more manicured if you consider what is marked inbounds terrain. I can think of very few places (although I haven't skied in Austria extensively) where glades or tree skiing would constitute "on piste", within insurance definitions, while large acreages of the same in N America i'd happily ski without thought as to whether my insurance covered me. Admittedly there is artificial glading conducted to make areas skiable by thinning out trees and marking of some hazards on high traffic "tourist" runs but there are usually plenty of sharks, stumps, snagging branches and ditches to fall foul of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
'cos I'm old, ugly and a c rap skier and trees dont move for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| fatbob wrote: |
European resorts are always more manicured if you consider what is marked inbounds terrain. I can think of very few places (although I haven't skied in Austria extensively) where glades or tree skiing would constitute "on piste", within insurance definitions, while large acreages of the same in N America i'd happily ski without thought as to whether my insurance covered me. |
There is no such thing as inbounds in Europe - just piste and off piste. Are European Pistes more manicured than Canadian pistes? Canadian off-piste (inbounds), including tree skiing, is avalanche controlled so of course you would be happier skiing it and it is therefore more tracked. Going to Jackson Hole made me realize that American "out of bounds" type off piste (which is like all our off-piste) is less skied than European off piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The big difference between the two is that in Canada if you're within the boundry tape, and not in a specifically zoned off area that is closed, everything is fair game, and is reflected in the insurance company's cover, at least in those I've used. And a lot of the terrain that is declared open, is covered by caution signs declaring 'be aware of hazards, avalanche etc', so not as controlled as you would think. Triggering small slides in such areas is not uncommon with fresh snow.
In europe sometimes you don't know where you can ride, if you'll have your pass pulled, if you're covered by insurance.....
But the second issue is most places I've been to in europe, mainstream places like the ones I'm comparing them to in Canada (ie excluding places like La Grave), are always more completely pisted than over the pond. F'rinstance, in Panorama earlier this season possibly less than 40% was groomed daily, whereas in europe you would expect closer to 80% would have been, save for a few blacks and reds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
snowball, Yep that's why comparisons are essentially redundant. Everywhere does terraforming but it seems much larger scale in Europe. Grooming is in my estimation better on the whole in Europe than N America but then a) its what the public pay for (how many times do you see people refer to km of piste?) and b) probably necessary to preserve snow in light of high traffic. Some places like Squaw face an interesting time under new ownership where management want to attract more destination skiers by improving % of groomed terrain while the hardcore locals (& weekenders) don't give a toss about it. "Out of bounds" somewhere like Jackson I imagine gets a fair seeing to (less than say Grand Montets, more than say somewhere like Val D'Anniviers).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fatbob, actually in Jackson it hadn't snowed for a while and the front had been windblasted. We went up the main tram and through the first Out of Bounds gate onto the back (one of our group had been before) and there wasn't a single track. Even later it was really easy to leave the few tracks behind. The Americans we spoke to on the "Steep and Deep" camp seemed to think we were taking a big risk going out of bounds. Consequently the camp was a big let-down because we never skied powder but we knew there was lots of it on the other side of the hill. (Actually we had skied steeper slopes on our second day on our own than we did on the camp). We skipped the last afternoon of the camp to ski out of bounds in Granite Canyon again. However, apart from the Canyon and the side country which we had explored on our second day, there isn't much out of bounds there unless you are prepared to do a lot of skinning.
I am interested that European pistes are now better groomed (but it doesn't affect me much as I seldom ski pistes). I suppose I'm going more by my memory of years ago when newly groomed pistes were rare.
BCjohnny, Your pass will not be pulled in Europe wherever you ski off piste. If a piste has a rope across and a sign saying it is closed then you usually shouldn't ski there but I've been told by a pisteur I could go down a closed piste in Zermatt, at my own risk, when I had to return quickly to catch a train. A simple rope across off piste is just there so you know you are entering off-piste.
This might seem strange but skiing off piste is always at your own risk but if a piste was not in a safe state and someone was hurt they might take the resort to court.
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Thu 18-08-11 10:16; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| snowball wrote: |
| Your pass will not be pulled in Europe wherever you ski off piste. |
So I guess the signs I've seen over here saying it will, on more than one occasion (Livigno springs to mind as one, Courmayeur another) I can safely ignore. It's the whole inconsistency thing that's the issue, and you don't get that in Canada.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| snowball wrote: |
| The Americans we spoke to on the "Steep and Deep" camp seemed to think we were taking a big risk going out of bounds. Consequently the camp was a big let-down because we never skied powder but we knew there was lots of it on the other side of the hill. |
Probably a cultural/legal issue - if the resort is offering the camp then it will have to be within their terrain similarly the type of people that would take a camp over there probably aren't the same demographic who would explore on their own for the sake of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BCjohnny, I don't know about the resorts in Italy that recently actually have signs saying "no off piste skiing" like I saw a few years ago in the Sella Ronda in 2 or 3 places. We didn't know where it applied to and just ignored it and from what pisteurs said it seemed like it was their way of not having responsibility for your safety - but I could be wrong and it could be our insurance might have been compromised. I must admit I had forgotten that when I wrote the last post. This is a new situation and I didn't know it had spread to other places in Italy. Perhaps we should have a new thread about it in case anyone knows more.
However I can say in Europe a simple rope across some off piste is not a "don't ski" unless they actually say so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Since I managed to put a crack in it last year I am flipping glad I had it on as I doubt my skull would have been in one piece.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| adie wrote: |
Helmet or not to Helmet who really gives a f*** two small points though,
1. All those people who say I fell over and hit my helmet on the ground, its becuase your helmet is much bigger than your head.
|
So helmets are the sole cause of cranial impacts, and no-one without a helmet has ever hit their head on the ground? Cool.
With thinking of that quality, if I was you I'd ask the people I went skiing with last year to ask if I'd cracked my head so hard that I both completely forgot I did it, while at the same time created a completely new parallel universe logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
snowball, like I say, it's the inconsistency, or just not knowing.
When I'm away, lord knows it's not enough of the year anyway, I don't want to be second guessing territory, or trying to argue in different languages the niceties of what I've done wrong, and why he wants my two hundred quid pass.
Jake43, people can honestly ski around in the buff, should I care, let alone be made to wear a helmet. I'm not in the conversion business, each to their own.
But I've had two really hard cracks, once pre-helmet, once after. The first time I saw stars, felt proper sick, had to call it a day, and left under my own steam. The second time I saw stars, felt proper sick, had to call it a day, but left under my own steam, which I very much doubt I would have done had I been wearing the wooly hat from the first instance. It was a much bigger fall, but the consequences came out about the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
BCJohnny,
But I've had two really hard cracks, once pre-helmet, once after. The first time I saw stars, felt proper sick, had to call it a day, and left under my own steam. The second time I saw stars, felt proper sick, had to call it a day, but left under my own steam, which I very much doubt I would have done had I been wearing the wooly hat from the first instance. It was a much bigger fall, but the consequences came out about the same. |
Snap I still had whiplash problems weeks later. Simple fall in the middle of an easy piste - but then I am a crap skier
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Thu 18-08-11 22:45; edited 4 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Would never ride without one. Seen too many stars (skull cracking wipeouts) whilst wearing one.
Never get sweaty, in fact never notice it.
But then I did spend a couple of quid on mine.
If you are just pootling round, never doing anything exciting, I can understand that you wouldn't wear one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| snowball wrote: |
BCjohnny, I don't know about the resorts in Italy that recently actually have signs saying "no off piste skiing" like I saw a few years ago in the Sella Ronda in 2 or 3 places. We didn't know where it applied to and just ignored it and from what pisteurs said it seemed like it was their way of not having responsibility for your safety - but I could be wrong and it could be our insurance might have been compromised. I must admit I had forgotten that when I wrote the last post. This is a new situation and I didn't know it had spread to other places in Italy. Perhaps we should have a new thread about it in case anyone knows more.
However I can say in Europe a simple rope across some off piste is not a "don't ski" unless they actually say so. |
There are some places in Austria where you are not allowed to ski in (some of) the trees - to prevent damage to saplings/shoots under the snow - but they're all clearly marked. You can have your pass taken if caught, and/or be prosecuted... Other than that, it's fair game - ropes show where the pistes stop, not where you can't go. Unless they have signs saying specifically this will avalanche or similar, which are sometimes put up temporarily (which are very different to the normal signs saying 'normal alpine dangers beyond this point, inc possibility of avalanche' that you see a lot of). As offpiste is nothing officially to do with the resort they can't ban you from it, or take your pass - but the flipside is that all responsibility is on your own head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I wear a helmet because?....
It makes sense but I also get less agro from the kids!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| BCjohnny wrote: |
| But I've had two really hard cracks, once pre-helmet, once after. The first time I saw stars, felt proper sick, had to call it a day, and left under my own steam. The second time I saw stars, felt proper sick, had to call it a day, but left under my own steam, which I very much doubt I would have done had I been wearing the wooly hat from the first instance. It was a much bigger fall, but the consequences came out about the same. |
This is what we call confirmation bias.
On the face of it you had two crashes, one with a helmet, one without, and they both had exactly the same outcome. Because of your existing beliefs you have attributed the fact that you were OK without a helmet to being a small crash but being OK with a helmet to it being a large crash but with the help of your helmet.
A neutral observer could quite correctly observe that this is actually evidence that wearing a helmet is pointless as the outcome is the same with and without.
"But... but... It was my head and I know the second crash was bigger" you proclaim. Well maybe, but it may also be your confirmation bias affecting your judgement, and after all you've just had a big bang on the head so you are hardly a reliable witness.
The moral of the story is that all of this anecdotal evidence people provide in these threads is pointless and nothing but conjecture. The only people worth listening to are the people who say "I wear a helmet as its better than a hat at keeping my head warm" or "I wear it because my wife made me". After all, that is why I wear one!
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Fri 19-08-11 10:41; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fletch I'm in that boat - I wear a helmet because my insurance "advises" wearing one for off piste. Don't want to give them any excuse not to pay out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
A neutral observer could quite correctly observe that this is actually evidence that wearing a helmet is pointless as the outcome is the same with and without.
|
Eh? That makes no sense.
A neutral observer, having seen the falls, should be able to tell if one was worse than the other, so the only time they would be able to correctly make that judgement is if they did observe the falls to be very similar... Do you know that they were, or have you just finished a psychology degree or something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| kevindonkleywood wrote: |
| it layed out clearly the reasons why a helmet is a good idea for a number of statistically significant reasons. |
Clearly? And there are other reports that say the opposite for statistically significant reasons (I'll try digging some out if I can be ar53d). Anyway, it's friday, I'm about to consume 60 units of alcohol and, statistically, that's what Doctors do too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
's is the only place where the Helmet thread will not die 
