 Poster: A snowHead
|
Bode Swiller,
| Quote: |
The speeds recorded were the highest speed reached by the skier/boarder while under observation.
|
Which is a lot more believable if on a fast bit of a run and very different from the average speed on a blue run, which was the original quote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I think he meant average between the skiers but it was very ambiguous - I took it to be the average of the averages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| queen bodecia wrote: |
| Good grief. Somebody died in a accident enjoying a sport/hobby which is universally accepted to have some element of danger. People also die from falling down the stairs, eating too much fatty food, smoking, crashing a vehicle, catching a virus, etc. Life is full of risks. We choose which risks we are prepared to take and we deal with the consequences. Personally I'd much rather die from head butting a tree on a ski slope than a slow painful miserable death from cancer, but I expect the latter is far more likely for many of us. |
Hmm. Someone who looked both old and you enough to have an OH and children was cut off in the prime of his life. Not good, however you may wish to rubbish it. Bit of a sobering reminder of what can happen if skiing out of control. Most of us have learnt without paying such a dire price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
fatbob,
My point is if the European resorts do not have trees in between runs as those frequently found across the pond then there could be less possibility hitting a tree. I may be wrong but I seldom heard about a piste user dies after hitting a tree in Europe.
The backcountry skiing, which is just drive to some mountain (not a proper resort) and going down it, isn't a common feature in Europe nor the extreme skiing available in some American resorts. I found skiing in Europe predominantly a recreation sport that people do it as a past time rather to get a kick out of it.
I think there is a general consensus that the skiing speed of the piste users seen in the OP video was excessive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
saikee, There certainly are trees near pistes in Europe. Wengen, Samoens and Val D'Isere (La Daille and Le Fornet) spring instantly to mind. Ski Amadee has them as well. The Drop down from Vujanay. There are lots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
Appologies for being a pedant but the deceleration is what causes the force... Force = mass x acceleration... so we are talking about one and the same thing!
|
Sort of: F=ma is applicable to a point mass, but when you have a collision, you'd have to stop considering the whole body as just one point mass if you want to know exactly what would get injured and how badly. For any single point, F=ma will hold, but not all points will behave the same or be subject to the same forces. Depending on the elasticity and plasticity of the bit you're interested in, energy will be absorbed meaning that potentially other adjoining bits will experience lower forces and decelerations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Check out the guy in yellow at 013 & again at 016... going for help! or....?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
paulio, *sigh* 'cause there is no difference between a fist in a boxing glove and a tree or other solid immovable object.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| uktrailmonster, just a reminder, this thread is about a guy skiing head long into a tree. |
Indeed. Don't know why some people in this thread bother wearing a helmet as they seem to have little inside it worth protecting.
The guy skied head first (pretty much) into a tree and died. Is there anyone in here who thinks he would have survived had he been wearing a helmet?
I wear a helmet, but I understand its limitation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
The guy skied head first (pretty much) into a tree and died. Is there anyone in here who thinks he would have survived had he been wearing a helmet?
|
Just so everyone is clear here, the video in the original post is not the same incident as the Sugarbush death reported from this past weekend http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120204/NEWS02/120204028/Sugarbush-skier-dies-after-hitting-tree?odyssey=nav%7Chead
The video posted was taken at Smuggler's Notch, VT, not Sugarbush. As is reported in the above article the death occurred on the 'Sleeper Run.' There is no lift on the Sleeper Run at Sugarbush.
If this video was taken this past weekend, then I don't believe this skier died as there is no report of any skier death's at Smuggler's Notch from this past weekend. The lift in the video is definitely the 'Madonna Double' chair at Smuggs.
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Wed 8-02-12 16:21; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
achilles,
Sure there are trees among many European resorts but I notice in many America resorts the trees are used as a feature for having funs. They are less dense, shorter, younger and pretty much like those seen in OP's video. There is no attempt to prevent visitors to go inside and indeed I view it as a fun bit of the resort as in sparse formation there is a good snow cover to ski around inside. A lot of them are available between runs in small areas, especially in Colorado, and there is no risk of getting lost inside. After all they are within an in-bound skiing area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| gatecrasher wrote: |
| Check out the guy in yellow at 013 & again at 016... going for help! or....? |
Well, he clocked the incident, then he stopped and looked (maybe the other guy said something), then he appears to push off in a hurry. Give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was raising the alarm. It is quite common though for people to get the hell out when they see something gruesome like that. At road accidents it's normal for loads of people to dial 999 and for none to get out and see if they can save anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Bambi on ice wrote: |
Appologies for being a pedant but the deceleration is what causes the force... Force = mass x acceleration... so we are talking about one and the same thing! |
No we're not talking about exactly the same thing at all, you either haven't read what I said earlier or don't understand it. It's all about how that force is dissipated locally during the impact. The acceleration the force causes in the case of a skier travelling at 15 mph is not critically high. Any talk about brains turning to jelly from the sheer deceleration from 15 mph to zero even in fractions of a second is pure fantasy. It just doesn't work like that and there have been plenty of real life tests to prove it. It was once thought that humans couldn't withstand a deceleration of more than 18G, but after people were found to be surviving all sorts of significantly higher G decelerations in accidents scientists and medics started scratching their heads a bit more and scientfic tests on real humans (not dummies) were carried out. It's now been proven that the real limit is more like 50G. This is totally different to being subjected to a blow on the head where the resultant damage is determined by the force, velocity (i.e. both speed and direction), area and elastic properties of both the impacting object and the target object.
Helmet arguments on public forums always involve bad science and this one is no exception!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| farlep99 wrote: |
| Quote: |
The guy skied head first (pretty much) into a tree and died. Is there anyone in here who thinks he would have survived had he been wearing a helmet?
|
Just so everyone is clear here, the video in the original post is not the same incident as the Sugarbush death reported from this past weekend http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120204/NEWS02/120204028/Sugarbush-skier-dies-after-hitting-tree?odyssey=nav%7Chead
The video posted was taken at Smuggler's Notch, VT, not Sugarbush. As is reported in the above article the death occurred on the 'Sleeper Run.' There is no lift on the Sleeper Run at Sugarbush.
If this video was taken this past weekend, then I don't believe this skier died as there is no report of any skier death's at Smuggler's Notch from this past weekend. The lift in the video is definitely the 'Madonna Double' chair at Smuggs. |
I was wondering that too. The accident in the vid could certainly be survivable if it wasn't his head that actually made the first impact. Obviously would have been injured to some degree though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Bottom line is.
Groomers encourage excessive speed. Clearly the guy ws going to fast maybe he caught an edge but it was his speed that didnt allow him to take evasive action.
Speed and Static objects dont mix with or without Helmet.
In Heaven or Hell he is probably glad he didnt end up hitting someone standing on the slope because he would be doing time for Manslaughter or worse.
Stop the Brutal Grooming. 
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Wed 8-02-12 16:41; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I'm now a helmet convert for the second year because I tried wearing a decent sweet protection helmet and don't see what the down side to wearing it is.
Yeah it might not save me but on the other hand it is going to give a little more protection than a hat so I'm sold but I'm not going to force it on other people. I like my helmet others don't their choice
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| PJSki wrote: |
The guy skied head first (pretty much) into a tree and died. Is there anyone in here who thinks he would have survived had he been wearing a helmet?
|
I don't think anyone is arguing about that really, presuming he really did hit the tree head first and actually died - which has been brought into question above. It's just some of the broad assumptions about the effectiveness of wearing a ski helmet at speeds in excess of 15 mph that wind me up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| farlep99 wrote: |
| Quote: |
The guy skied head first (pretty much) into a tree and died. Is there anyone in here who thinks he would have survived had he been wearing a helmet?
|
Just so everyone is clear here, the video in the original post is not the same incident as the Sugarbush death reported from this past weekend http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120204/NEWS02/120204028/Sugarbush-skier-dies-after-hitting-tree?odyssey=nav%7Chead
The video posted was taken at Smuggler's Notch, VT, not Sugarbush. As is reported in the above article the death occurred on the 'Sleeper Run.' There is no lift on the Sleeper Run at Sugarbush.
If this video was taken this past weekend, then I don't believe this skier died as there is no report of any skier death's at Smuggler's Notch from this past weekend. The lift in the video is definitely the 'Madonna Double' chair at Smuggs. |
Ok, so can you post a link to your evidence? Or do I just have to take your word for it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| PJSki wrote: |
The guy skied head first (pretty much) into a tree and died. Is there anyone in here who thinks he would have survived had he been wearing a helmet?
|
I don't think anyone is arguing about that really, presuming he really did hit the tree head first and actually died - which has been brought into question above. It's just some of the broad assumptions about the effectiveness of wearing a ski helmet at speeds in excess of 15 mph that wind me up. |
If you skied head first into a tree at 20mph, would you die?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
Ok, so can you post a link to your evidence? Or do I just have to take your word for it?
|
Well I ski at Smuggs every weekend, so I know the mountain. I guess I can't prove to you it's Smuggs, but I thought I posted proof that the posted video was not the reported death at Sugarbush. Find 'Sleeper run' on Sugarbush trail map (www.sugarbush.com). No lift runs above that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| farlep99 wrote: |
| Quote: |
Ok, so can you post a link to your evidence? Or do I just have to take your word for it?
|
Well I ski at Smuggs every weekend, so I know the mountain. I guess I can't prove to you it's Smuggs, but I thought I posted proof that the posted video was not the reported death at Sugarbush. Find 'Sleeper run' on Sugarbush trail map (www.sugarbush.com). No lift runs above that. |
Ok, I'll take your word for it, which I would have done had you disclosed your personal connection at the beginning .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PJSki wrote: |
If you skied head first into a tree at 20mph, would you die? |
Yes I would die IF my head was the main part of my body that hit the tree first. But if any other part of my body took the brunt of the impact I may well get away with a few broken bones. It's in this latter case where a helmet (and body armour) could really make a difference if my head was only involved in a secondary impact at a speed below 15 mph - which is quite likely in such an accident. I've had a couple of minor tree encounters in my time and the worst was when I hit one once with my shoulder first. That did hurt and I was probably only doing about 5 mph on actual impact.
Here's a question for you now. If we accept that a typical ski helmet won't save you from a head first impact with a solid immovable object above 15 mph, then at what minimum speed would you be likely to die from a direct impact without 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.
|
uktrailmonster,
| Quote: |
Here's a question for you now. If we accept that a typical ski helmet won't save you from a head first impact with a solid immovable object above 15 mph, then at what minimum speed would you be likely to die from a direct impact without wearing a helmet?
|
Not quite the same thing becuase your legs act as a crumple zone if you manage to land on them but the averagae distance fallen from a building to kill half the people is said to be about 10m or 30 feet or so. This represents a final velocity of around 30mph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| meh wrote: |
| paulio, *sigh* 'cause there is no difference between a fist in a boxing glove and a tree or other solid immovable object. |
The boxing glove is analogous to the helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
paulio,
| Quote: |
The boxing glove is analogous to the helmet.
|
The forces are very different even Ricky Hattons fist has a very different mass from the human body or even the head.
Force =MA and although the decelaration may be similar the mass is totally different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| paulio wrote: |
| meh wrote: |
| paulio, *sigh* 'cause there is no difference between a fist in a boxing glove and a tree or other solid immovable object. |
The boxing glove is analogous to the helmet. |
Sure but the boxing glove isn't the same as the helmet, the level of protection required and offered is very different as are the physics involved in the impact of a persons fist with someones head versus someones head and a tree. The analogy is much too simplistic to be able to draw any conclusions purely based on the velocity of the punch. It's a silly point, either way around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ricky Hatton easily weighs as much as a small tree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| T Bar wrote: |
uktrailmonster,
| Quote: |
Here's a question for you now. If we accept that a typical ski helmet won't save you from a head first impact with a solid immovable object above 15 mph, then at what minimum speed would you be likely to die from a direct impact without wearing a helmet?
|
Not quite the same thing becuase your legs act as a crumple zone if you manage to land on them but the averagae distance fallen from a building to kill half the people is said to be about 10m or 30 feet or so. This represents a final velocity of around 30mph. |
I think that's different enough to be pretty irrelevant to hitting your head on a tree. Unless you landed on the ground horizontal face first, in which case I would suggest the survivable height would be somewhat lower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Also, during a fight, Hatton punches his opponent in the face dozens of times, so it all multiplies up. A boxing match is effectively a collision with a small tree, with your head wrapped in a boxing glove, whilst travelling at an effective velocity of several thousand miles per hour. Think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
paulio,
| Quote: |
Ricky Hatton easily weighs as much as a small tree.
|
But it's his fist which has the deceleration not his body, feel the difference in force of being hit by a pea and a cricket ball at the same speed you will feel a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| paulio wrote: |
| Also, during a fight, Hatton punches his opponent in the face dozens of times, so it all multiplies up. A boxing match is effectively a collision with a small tree, with your head wrapped in a boxing glove, whilst travelling at an effective velocity of several thousand miles per hour. Think about it. |
Sure and there is loads of research linking professional boxing with a much increased risk of brain damage thanks to that. The situation is still miles away from your head hitting a tree so it's pretty irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
uktrailmonster,
| Quote: |
I think that's different enough to be pretty irrelevant to hitting your head on a tree. Unless you landed on the ground horizontal face first, in which case I would suggest the survivable height would be somewhat lower!
|
Yeah I agree butr it was the closest I could think of where the numbers were approximately known, pedestrian collisions with vehicles may have some findable results which are a bit more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| paulio wrote: |
| Also, during a fight, Hatton punches his opponent in the face dozens of times, so it all multiplies up. A boxing match is effectively a collision with a small tree, with your head wrapped in a boxing glove, whilst travelling at an effective velocity of several thousand miles per hour. Think about it. |
There's another key difference in that when someone gets punched, their head deflects backwards which reduces the force of the impact. If you stood with your head right up against a brick wall so it couldn't move and Ricky Hatton then punched you in the face you would almost certainly be dead. Ricky would also probably break his hand as a result of the opposite reaction force.
Still a padded glove makes any impact much less severe than without and the same is true for a helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| tomb wrote: |
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| Quote: |
I'm pretty sure even the most ardent helmet fan doesn't claim it's a universal forcefield
|
fatbob, generally true, but then you get some who say:
| Quote: |
| I'm not really trying to promote the use of helmets or not, personally I've dented two into submission, and also seen (and heard!) someone I was skiing with hit a tree at pretty high speed with one on, so I'll keep using my mightily expensive one. |
Still staggers me that people boast about the number of blows to the head they've had. It just means they are a danger to themselves and probably others. |
I personally don't see how that's boasting... He merely stated he'd bumped him helmet, no hint of arrogance either... |
I think
| Quote: |
| personally I've dented two into submission |
is most definitely boastful. Hey, it's his head, so you might ask why care. Thing is, anyone who is regularly out of control enough to dent two helmets into submission, is probably the same kind of lump that will smash into your kid. |
You really are a being a bit of a tw@t. 
Just because I suggested that your black and white interpretation ignores experience as well as physics and physiology you start accusing me of being a slope menace? 
Have you even got any idea how I dented two into submission, before stating I'm an out of control skier/lump likely to kill all around me? Have you even seen me skiing?
One was probably done hitting an overhanging rock in a rather tricky entrance through a chute you have to straightline - the other I have no idea, but was quite possibly a tree branch (no big hits just sustained little ones, that meant it was time to replace it). All these would at best have stung quite a bit!
Since I am quite able to ski where I like on the mountain, and save my racing for the course/training areas, I really don't need to be blasting round the piste skiing into kids. In fact when I am on the piste I am the person skiing with the kids
I merely stated this because you were trying to present evidence that helmets are no use when I can say from personal experience you are wrong (and the friend who hit a tree on another mandatory straightline was certainly exceeding 15MPH and is certainly alive and well unlike her helmet)
You will note that I also tried to prevent this becoming yet another pro/anti helmet rant by keeping it on topic and suggesting that there are a whole bunch of other factors involved in what was a tragic accident.
let me start throwing out some wild and completely unfounded accusations of my own and suggest that if/when you become good enough at skiing you too might realise the value of helmets and body armour when skiing places that are nowhere near the others I am meant to be a danger to Alternatively you might be right and I'm just not all that good (which is at least partly true), and I am a danger to myself (but never others!) - perhaps if you're in Whistler sometime you can find out 
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Wed 8-02-12 18:11; edited 6 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
uktrailmonster,
| Quote: |
Still a padded glove makes any impact much less severe than without and the same is true for a helmet.
|
Not sure if that is true, I read somewhere that head injuries may be worse in gloved rather than bare knuckle fights because of the greater mass on the end of the arms, though it may be in part due to greater protection of the fists.
Still, looked up the speed at which 50% of pedestrains die when hit by a car and this abstract suggests it is between 30 &40 mph.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/hs809012.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stuarth, it's not compulsory to die at 15mph+, just generally agreed that it isn't a great idea to be hitting trees etc at that speed because the bookies won't be taking bets on your health.
And I don't care how you dented your helmets 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think some of you boys need to go and have a quiet little w@nk to destressed yourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| PJSki wrote: |
| I think some of you boys need to go and have a quiet little w@nk to destressed yourselves. |
PJSki, Pms,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
stuarth, it's not compulsory to die at 15mph+, just generally agreed that it isn't a great idea to be hitting trees etc at that speed because the bookies won't be taking bets on your health.
And I don't care how you dented your helmets |
I think the point
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| Hey, it's his head, so you might ask why care. Thing is, anyone who is regularly out of control enough to dent two helmets into submission, is probably the same kind of lump that will smash into your kid. |
Indicates otherwise. Based on no facts, and the context of this thread, don't you think this is a little offensive?
But I do agree that hitting hard things (or anything else for that matter) at any speed is something best avoided, however because we are all less than perfect, it is something, as seen here, that sometimes happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
