Probably from MS's perspective, the rocks would've been less obvious travelling from above.......
So tragic to see how close to 2 pistes something like this can happen
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@David Goldsmith, trust me, wearing a helmet does not make you any more inclined to headbut rocks.
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?
If MS didn't regularly make "marginal" decisions he would scarcely have become King of F1, would he?
At the time I thought the decision to prolong his life with so much high tech intervention was wrong and that seems more true as every week passes. I have made arrangements to ensure that such a decision is never made on my behalf (especially as I have no private jets to sell).
@David Goldsmith, trust me, wearing a helmet does not make you any more inclined to headbut rocks.
Thanks, clarky999. Sadly the question can't be put to Michael Schumacher, so we'll probably never know whether he would have been better off without a helmet. Wikipedia has this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski_helmet - with references ...
Quote:
It is not known whether helmet use results in risk compensation, i.e. skiers and snowboarders behaving less cautiously when they feel protected by a helmet, as studies give conflicting results. One study found that helmeted skiers tend to go faster[11] and helmet-wearing has been associated with self-reports of more risky behavior.[12] Other studies find that helmet use is not associated with self-reports of riskier behavior[13][14] and does not increase the risk of other injuries.[13]
Interestingly, helmet sales apparently increased following Schumacher's accident, so their purchasers had decided that his life had been saved. The question of whether a naked head might have instinctively avoided that dodgy stretch of off-piste never entered the frame.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Tue 12-05-15 14:11; edited 2 times in total
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Well this thread is only going to descend one way I wear a helmet but barely think about it being on, so it certainly doesn't come into conscious decisions that I make while skiing. Risks that I take are few and far between, but it's not like I think "oh sod it, I'm wearing a hat anyway". There's a possibility that I make decisions on a subconscious level, but I really don't think that's the case.
That decision to risk it would have been made in a second or two, with his brain inside his helmet. I wonder if his naked head would have said 'no'?
I think it's nothing about helmet but about something else. Pretty much every piece of news report was telling how great skier he was. In reality, he was (a bit exaggerating) hardly capable of standing on skis (before someone starts to argue about this, in case you didn't have chance to see him "skiing" in person, please check videos, photos etc. of his skiing), but since it's sort of normal in cases like this, noone around him had guts to tell him. So after years of this, you start to get impression you really ski damn good, if everyone around you are telling you are such a great skier. So decision to get of the track and into ungroomed snow at 60km/h (based on few reports I have seen about him bouncing over those rocks, I actually believe that speed was quite the right), has nothing to do with helmet, but with that, what helmet should be protecting, and it was obviously missing in his case (sorry to say this). So personally I don't think helmet had anything to do with all this, except that current cost of his treatment would be zero, so his wife could keep private jet, as he would be most likely dead on spot without helmet.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
... to have been quite sketchy terrain with snow-covered rocks and exposed rocks, must have been a marginal one. That decision to risk it would have been made in a second or two, with his brain inside his helmet. I wonder if his naked head would have said 'no'?
We'll never know, but the focus on the helmet seems odd:
KenX wrote:
Probably from MS's perspective, the rocks would've been less obvious travelling from above.......
If the photos in that article are anything to go by, then I think the rocks are pretty obvious even if they were snow-covered; all those bumps clearly indicate a rock field. (Of course, perhaps if he didn't have much off-piste experience then he might not have identified it as such.)
Then, once identified as such,
clarky999 wrote:
@David Goldsmith, trust me, wearing a helmet does not make you any more inclined to headbut rocks.
Indeed.
But in fact there's plenty of things that can go nasty wrong in a rock field at speed; head injuries are merely one issue. Personally, I'd have been thinking a lot more about breaking a bone and spoiling the holiday/season than about a head injury. Hence I'm not sure the helmet / risk-assessment question is even relevant to this case.
SnoodyMcFlude wrote:
I wear a helmet but barely think about it being on, so it certainly doesn't come into conscious decisions that I make while skiing.
Same here. I don't ski riskier terrain due to wearing a helmet; I wear a helmet in order to mitigate the risks of skiing riskier terrain. (I don't wear one when on-piste skiing, for example, but do when snowboarding off piste since I almost always end up going through rocky areas or trees as part or all of my route.) Those two statements might sound like they're saying the same thing in two different ways, but they're actually rather different. To look at it another way, there are some routes I wouldn't ski if I'd forgotten my helmet, in the same way as if I had forgotten my avvy kit. But that doesn't mean that when I'm wearing my helmet I'm suddenly blinkered towards risk assessment (to my knowledge at least).
After all it is free
After all it is free
Your brain's telling you you're not taking increased risks because it's inside a helmet.
But isn't that what the subconscious is about - the stuff your brain isn't telling you?
This 2013 report from The New York Times has been referenced before ...
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.
Oh dear, Groundhog Day again...
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
David Goldsmith wrote:
I think about this case quite a lot, because it's a very interesting one in relation to helmets and possible 'risk compensation'. There are plenty of photos of Schumacher skiing without a helmet, but on this occasion he was wearing one.
His decision to divert from a piste to what appears from the photo [if it's correct] ...
... to have been quite sketchy terrain with snow-covered rocks and exposed rocks, must have been a marginal one. That decision to risk it would have been made in a second or two, with his brain inside his helmet. I wonder if his naked head would have said 'no'?
Your campaign against skiing/boarding safety equipment is to continue then?
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Gerry wrote:
Your campaign against skiing/boarding safety equipment is to continue then?
There's no campaign - just a quest for the truth, Gerry.
But I'd strongly advise you personally to ski with a helmet, airbag, transceiver, shovel, probe, whistle, marine flare, satellite phone and fire extinguisher ...
... and to get the Ski Club of Great Britain to promote all these devices with its usual industry-bedding enthusiasm.
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.
David Goldsmith wrote:
Gerry wrote:
Your campaign against skiing/boarding safety equipment is to continue then?
There's no campaign - just a quest for the truth, Gerry.
You've been found out for the fraud and liar you are so it's probably best for you to shut your face.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
@davidof, now look what you've done!
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Gerry wrote:
David Goldsmith wrote:
I think about this case quite a lot, because it's a very interesting one in relation to helmets and possible 'risk compensation'. There are plenty of photos of Schumacher skiing without a helmet, but on this occasion he was wearing one.
His decision to divert from a piste to what appears from the photo [if it's correct] ...
... to have been quite sketchy terrain with snow-covered rocks and exposed rocks, must have been a marginal one. That decision to risk it would have been made in a second or two, with his brain inside his helmet. I wonder if his naked head would have said 'no'?
Your campaign against skiing/boarding safety equipment is to continue then?
I think (i.e. my very humble opinion etc and only added as I see an interesting new development in helmet design..) that the single biggest contributory factor here in complacency was the go-pro camera stuck on the helmet
Conclusion: Motorcycle helmets have made a big difference.
PS doesn't mean I m advocating compulsion etc for skiing - Do Your Research and form your own conclusions!
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Hurtle wrote:
@davidof, now look what you've done!
I was surprised at the cost of his care, 125K/week. To reinforce what Pam says I can't see the NHS forking that out for one of the proles. We'd be the folk with DNR above our beds.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
mishmash wrote:
I see Giro are producing a Go-pro compatible helmet where the Go Pro mount is designed to break before the helmet does. Only really mentioned in the video reviews
Well you wouldn't mention it if it implies the product MIGHT not be safe?! without a similar fitting/helmet type, and they must be awaiting all of the moaning parents complaining about their childs go-pro mount breaking too easily when little Jimmy drops his helmet whilst scoffing strudel at lunchtime.
But I agree should be a decent selling point...
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?
Gerry wrote:
David Goldsmith wrote:
Gerry wrote:
Your campaign against skiing/boarding safety equipment is to continue then?
There's no campaign - just a quest for the truth, Gerry.
You've been found out for the fraud and liar you are so it's probably best for you to shut your face.
That's just a stupid immature incompetent libel. I haven't acted as an expert witness for around 15 years, and certainly make no claims to act in that role.
You are a director of the Ski Club of Great Britain and should not behave like this.
Moderators - you banned 'Gerry' under his previous username 'Tim Brown' because of this sort of abusive rubbish directed at people of known identity. Please address his posting.
Thanks and regards, David.
@davidof, I reckon if Schumi could talk or communicate he would be saying wtf about the costs at keeping himself alive. I sympathise with his wife and family but 125k a week for that kind of life is....extreme.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
AthersT wrote:
mishmash wrote:
I see Giro are producing a Go-pro compatible helmet where the Go Pro mount is designed to break before the helmet does. Only really mentioned in the video reviews
Well you wouldn't mention it if it implies the product MIGHT not be safe?! without a similar fitting/helmet type, and they must be awaiting all of the moaning parents complaining about their childs go-pro mount breaking too easily when little Jimmy drops his helmet whilst scoffing strudel at lunchtime.
But I agree should be a decent selling point...
They aren't leading on it especially with a bunch of other tech in the helmet - MIPS etc - but its an adult not kids helmet so you get to go and complain yourself about how you modded your helmet and then didnt end up with camera in your frontal lobe because the mount snapped under load - mentioned here http://youtube.com/v/aWK8JRMg17E around 1:35
You've been found out for the fraud and liar you are so it's probably best for you to shut your face.
That's just a stupid immature incompetent libel. I haven't acted as an expert witness for around 15 years, and certainly make no claims to act in that role.
You are a director of the Ski Club of Great Britain and should not behave like this.
Moderators - you banned 'Gerry' under his previous username 'Tim Brown' because of this sort of abusive rubbish directed at people of known identity. Please address his posting.
Thanks and regards, David.
First and foremost I am a tradesman/construction worker. People in my line of work generally don't take too kindly to patronising little tossers like you and are quite prepared to deal with you woughly.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Levi215 wrote:
So was the mount the issue or not? If it was, why haven't GoPro gone under yet?
P.S. videos of schumacher skiing some slalom gates suggest he was better than most i saw in Val D the other month...
He looked reasonably skilled to me. I just don't accept the added bravery argument.
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.
He didn't look great to me, and (wasn't there, wasn't my decision to take) but that line between the pistes looks like crap snow anyway and almost certainly a pool of snow sharks.
Which it was, sadly.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
under a new name wrote:
He didn't look great to me, and (wasn't there, wasn't my decision to take) but that line between the pistes looks like crap snow anyway and almost certainly a pool of snow sharks.
Which it was, sadly.
Your definition of 'great' being?
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Quote:
I see Giro are producing a Go-pro compatible helmet where the Go Pro mount is designed to break before the helmet does.
It's not about the helmet breaking, it's all about the rotational forces a camera mount would probably start. Anything that stops a helmet from being able to slide freely is bad in my view and I don't see how a mount can be strong enough to hold a camera at speed and yet breakaway easily. I'm out.
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.
Gerry wrote:
First and foremost I am a tradesman/construction worker
The only one in my experience who comes across like a demolition contractor.
I assume your 10-15 years of character demolition and abuse on here and the SCGB channels ... with offensive material regularly deleted by you or those responsible for moderation ... is because the SCGB officially turns a blind eye. Maybe you're useful in some regards, in maintaining the status quo.
Congratulations, old boy.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
quote]
In reality, he was (a bit exaggerating) hardly capable of standing on skis (before someone starts to argue about this, in case you didn't have chance to see him "skiing" in person, please check videos, photos etc. of his skiing), but since it's sort of normal in cases like this, noone around him had guts to tell him. So after years of this, you start to get impression you really ski damn good, if everyone around you are telling you are such a great skier. So decision to get of the track and into ungroomed snow at 60km/h (based on few reports I have seen about him bouncing over those rocks, I actually believe that speed was quite the right)
[/quote]
Hmm.
1. Don't agree he was rubbish. From what I have seen he was better than 90% of the skiers you see on piste. But he clearly wasn't the "expert" skier that the British media liked to make out. But then again most Brits don't know enough about skiing to judge this
2. Agree that from the detailed description of the accident it looks like he was skiing MUCH to fast for the conditions (saw photos showing he fell on rock and stopped after bouncing of several others, snow cover was thin over rocks so you HAD to be going slow).
3. So, yes, his judgment was poor and he was being rash or alternatively his risk tolerance was very high.
So do we think his risk tolerance was high because he was wearing a helmet? Possibly. However I suspect the fact that he had spent most of life racing cars may have been a more powerful cause of his high risk appetite!!!
All that said, unfashionably I do have some sympathy with DG's point. Loads of research has suggested that risk compensation is a very powerful psychological factor and that safety devices DO encourage us to take more risk. I know they do in my case if I am not careful. So when I read people confidently stating that they are immune to this I am suspicious. They may be genuinely unusual and not react they way that research suggests most of us do. Alternatively they may just not be sufficiently self-aware to realise that they behave like other people.
A thought experiment - would you drive exactly the same way if you were not wearing a seat belt? Or would you be a little more careful to do your breaking early and take an extra split second at junctions?
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Oh BTW - none of that means helmets are useless even if I was to risk compensate completely (and I think I avoid that) I would be getting to ski faster for the same risk and would therefore be having more fun than without a helmet
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
David Goldsmith wrote:
...Maybe you're useful in some regards, in maintaining the status quo...
A thought experiment - would you drive exactly the same way if you were not wearing a seat belt? Or would you be a little more careful to do your breaking early and take an extra split second at junctions?
If it's fitted to the car then I wouldn't drive without a seat belt at all, much in the same way that I don't ski without the hat. I do both for the same reasons, neither have a real negative and take no real effort or discomfort on my part.
Incidentally, I have driven in a car built in the 1930's that had no seatbelts. I didn't drive the same way because it was slow as crap and didn't brake too well, but I still drove it spiritedly. I've also done relatively slow speed motorsport events (not on the roads) without wearing the seatbelt (to give me better movement in the car) and certainly didn't go any slower.
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?
under a new name wrote:
@Gerry, not that.
Define 'great' in the context you put it then.
I said 'reasonably skilled' and I stand by that. He was able to control his speed and direction from what I've seen.
His F1 racing, without and beyond any shadow of doubt, does.
Or, to be generous, Level 11 or above here, http://www.insideoutskiing.com/level.html (I'd suggest he was somewhere level 6-8 on that scale - and without stating the obvious, shouldn't have been where he was. Hey, we all often find ourselves places we probably shouldn't be sometimes, don't we?).
I'm not criticising the poor guy, no way, no how. But nothing I've seen suggests his skiing was anything "great".
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Well, the media exaggerated his ability (what do they know about skiing?) while some BASI members (I assume) in this thread are saying he was early intermediate.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
jedster wrote:
All that said, unfashionably I do have some sympathy with DG's point. Loads of research has suggested that risk compensation is a very powerful psychological factor and that safety devices DO encourage us to take more risk. I know they do in my case if I am not careful. So when I read people confidently stating that they are immune to this I am suspicious. They may be genuinely unusual and not react they way that research suggests most of us do. Alternatively they may just not be sufficiently self-aware to realise that they behave like other people.
Or maybe they are more self aware?
When skiing in rocky terrain I am VERY well aware that my knees, legs, elbows, shoulders, arms, chest, back, face, etc (things that are much more likely to get broken) are not at all protected, and that I very much don't want to bash them off rocks. The helmet genuinely isn't a factor for me skiing at all though - I've been wearing one skiing for almost 20 years (since I was 6) and so it's just a standard piece of ski kit for me. I don't ever ski without it (even mellow touring, where I clip it to my backpack), and it's forgotten the moment it's on my head.
When I ski with a transciever, I am very well area that if I get buried in an avalanche that even in the best case scenario where it gives my buddy a *chance* to find me, I'm still going to have a horrible time being dragged down and smashed off a mountain before being burried under a crushing and suffocating mass of snow. Which frankly really is not appealing.
I'm well aware that when I go kayaking my buoyancy aid doesn't just keep me on the surface in rapids if I swim, and that swimming in grade 4+ alpine whitewater is terrifying and the chance of drowning is a very possibility even with helmet, bouyancy aid, drysuit, etc.
I suggest you'd either have to be an idiot or very reckless to not see that a -off big mountain can smite you down whenever it wants, helmet or no helmet.
Or maybe I'm just too used to assessing actual and real dangers in my chosen sports and their very obviously deadly environments?
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Tue 12-05-15 19:39; edited 2 times in total
After all it is free
After all it is free
@clarky999, good point as usual
What I find really weird, is that having worn a helmet for 3 seasons, I now feel more vulnerable without one. (I have a modest history of minor but bloody head injuries in ski resorts) I may even have to take up wearing it to the pub.
Although it must be said that my appetite for risk is diminishing in general as I age (and I usually ski with my most precious friend).
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.
clarky999 wrote:
I suggest you'd either have to be an idiot or very reckless to not see that a -off big mountain can smite you down whenever it wants, helmet or no helmet.
Exactly. Essentially, Goldsmith dismisses the vast majority of people as idiots.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Gerry wrote:
Essentially, Goldsmith dismisses the vast majority of people as idiots.
That comment from ...
"Gerry's other hobbies include astronomy, creative writing, playing the penny whistle, kittens, embroidery, skipping, pottery, basket weaving and designing shrubberies."
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
I wear a helmet but barely think about it being on, so it certainly doesn't come into conscious decisions that I make while skiing. Risks that I take are few and far between, but it's not like I think "oh sod it, I'm wearing a hat anyway". There's a possibility that I make decisions on a subconscious level, but I really don't think that's the case.
horrible time being dragged down and smashed off a mountain before being burried under a crushing and suffocating mass of snow. Which frankly really is not appealing.
