Have the two of you ever met? If so, are the two of you as polite, tolerant and charming to each other as you are on here?
David Goldsmith wrote:
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."
Cheers!
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
World Champion in a coma, very expensive medical care, his estate can afford.
Usual suspects winning awards for stupidity.
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?
Pruman wrote:
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.
Obviously you either couldn't be arsed to look at or can't comprehend the rest of the link showing that it is a helmet designed to cope with the "rotational forces a camera mount would probably start" and "stops a helmet from being able to slide freely" (i.e. its a MIPS helmet) . Good luck with your "out" whatever that means!. Or perhaps you could be helpful to the community here and tell me your preferred solution to the issue.
This thread as ever is becoming the Snowheads embodiment of the off season !
@emwmarine, whenever they are arguing I can imagine what the perineum feels like.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
@jedster, Your point 2; didn't the French investigator say he was skiing within his ability and was not to blame? Hence not necessarily too fast.
Your point 3; he is an (ex) F1 racing driver FFS. As a 7 time driver's champion his risk tolerance (and ability to assess risk) is likely to be off the scale. It was an accident despite all the risk mitigation, end of.
And another thing; if I was in his condition and worth as much as him I'm pretty sure my wife and family would drain the coffers to provide any medical care that might keep me alive at the minimum and give me any hope of an improvement in my condition at best. 125K is a monstrous amount of money but if it was my husband I'd gladly pay it if I could.
if I was in his condition and worth as much as him I'm pretty sure my wife and family would drain the coffers to provide any medical care that might keep me alive
what does "how much he is worth" have to do with this equation? Would you really want your wife and family to "drain the coffers to keep you alive" or half-alive, whether you were a rich person or a poor one?
Mine have strict instructions to the contrary.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
pam w wrote:
Quote:
if I was in his condition and worth as much as him I'm pretty sure my wife and family would drain the coffers to provide any medical care that might keep me alive
what does "how much he is worth" have to do with this equation? Would you really want your wife and family to "drain the coffers to keep you alive" or half-alive, whether you were a rich person or a poor one?
Mine have strict instructions to the contrary.
Pillow?
After all it is free
After all it is free
@pam w, Maybe yours do. Glad we're not all like you though !-). How much he is worth means that his family have the funds to provide the extensive and expensive care he clearly needs. If I had those funds I'm pretty certain my wife would do the same for me. It's not about what I want since in the condition MS is probably in he has no say in how his wife chooses to not let go or give up hope despite the cost.
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.
Quote:
It's not about what I want
It can be about what you want. You can appoint an attorney to make decisions about your private care. I think you are probably unusual in wanting to be "kept alive" with no quality of life and little or no hope of significant improvement.
It's not about money.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
davidof wrote:
Michael Schumachers health care costs are said to be 125,000 euros / week according to press reports. His wife, Corina, has been forced to sell the couples holiday home in Norway and his private jet. The chalet in Meribel will also be sold according to German magazine Bunte.
He's reputed to be worth $780 million so even with those medical costs he'll have enough cash to see him through. Not a lot of call for holiday homes and jets when you're in his condition.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Is it just me, talking about these things in a abstract way or about oneself is fine, but I feel it's bad taste to do the same about a brave man and his brave wife.
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.
Quote:
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!!!
+1
Quote:
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?
I KNOW I drive exactly the same way.
No need for thought experiment. I did the REAL WORLD experiment for about a year, due to inability to tolerate seatbelt's rub on my broken collarbone. I did not drive any more carefully, despite not wearing a seatbelt.
I was only able to wear seatbelt a few months back. My driving remain the same.
David Goldsmith wrote:
... 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'?
My (occassionally naked) head would still say 'yes'. (assuming my helmeted head would said 'yes' in the first place)
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Wed 13-05-15 5:17; edited 1 time in total
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
pam w wrote:
Quote:
if I was in his condition and worth as much as him I'm pretty sure my wife and family would drain the coffers to provide any medical care that might keep me alive
what does "how much he is worth" have to do with this equation? Would you really want your wife and family to "drain the coffers to keep you alive" or half-alive, whether you were a rich person or a poor one?
For a rich person, that cost of being kept alive would not come anywhere close to "draining the coffer". So it's a moot point.
Whether one wishes to be kept alive with poor quality of life is a different matter, independent of wealth.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
So ... the hills are alive with helmet-wearers who are convinced that their helmets have no subconscious effect on their skiing, in terms of risk-taking.
The head injury data suggests otherwise.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
emwmarine wrote:
Have the two of you ever met? If so, are the two of you as polite, tolerant and charming to each other as you are on here?
Yes, I've met Gerry Aitken on about 3 occasions, only at annual general meetings of the Ski Club of Great Britain.
It's difficult to have conversations of a normal nature with the guy, because his head is agenda-driven and seemingly intent on causing damage to others.
The big question is whether Gerry Aitken's agenda is driven by a lifestyle of expenses-paid skiing (and therefore disruptive to those who might question that expenditure, by a national club) or whether - as he's claimed - he claims no expenses from the SCGB for his skiing.
Gerry Aitken has made numerous election promises to members of the SCGB and considers himself important enough to have stood TWICE (i.e. for two periods - most of the last decade) for directorship of the Club ... therefore denying others the opportunity. He has had ample opportunity to explain what he's done for the SCGB ...
... but has been strangely quiet in addressing these questions.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
I thought this was vaguely a thread about a formula one drivers tragic accident not the DG GA mutual abuse societies ad hoc meeting.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
It's also about helmets
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?
@abc, it was @halfhand who said he expected that his wife and family would "drain the coffers" to keep him alive. I agree that wealth is irrelevant - but even if I had an entire fleet of private jets I'd not want to be "kept alive", thanks.
Whether you would be desperate to hang on as long as possible or not it makes sense to think it through, talk it over with your family and identify someone who understands your viewpoint to act as an Attorney to make decisions about personal care which you were unable to make for yourself.
An attorney cannot force the medics to give you treatments which they do not want to give you. But they can decline treatment on your behalf.
'i guess we have six months of this nonsense until the first flurries arrive in the Alps and people get excited and talk talking about skiing again
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
cameronphillips2000 wrote:
'i guess we have six months of this nonsense until the first flurries arrive in the Alps and people get excited and talk talking about skiing again
No by August we'll have "will there be snow on x date at x resort" then with the first flurries of Autumn we'll get the "whooohooo, season's started" posts. Then the snow will melt and we'll get the "booohooo season's over before it started posts". Rinse and repeat.
It is a shame but there is very little talk of skiing and not that much interest in it. A few resort threads etc but snowheads is more and more dominated by the deranged ramblings of the tin-foil hatters but perhaps commercial interests prevail.
@pam w, I agree, the emotional and physical drain it must put on his family and close circle of friends must be immense. Every day that goes by of little to no improvement must be horrible. I would want my family if I were in the same situation to have closure, but I know my OH would probably do the same as his. I can't imagine how I would feel if my OH was in the same situation.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Quote:
Or maybe I'm just too used to assessing actual and real dangers in my chosen sports and their very obviously deadly environments?
Like I say you might be but you'd be unusual. But I'd argue you have no idea what difference not wearing a helmet would have to your skiing behaviour because.... you never ski without one!
I cycle a lot and wear a helmet 99% of the time. Once in a while I use the bike I have in London when I haven't got my cycling gear with me. I definitely corner a bit slower without my lid. In the 10 years I have been cycle commuting I have twice lost my front when on diesel. Both times were painful and resulted in helmets getting crushed over my temple. I've probably done 4000 trips by bike in that time so it seems a low risk event but I'm pretty sure I'd have had bad concussion at a minimum in those two cases, potentially something a lot worse. Head injuries are, to my mind, a MUCH worse prospect than broken bones and torn tendons. So if I'm not wearing a helmet I back of a bit on the bends.
Don't you think this is a completely natural human response?
Certainly a controversial topic but I think there is more than enough there to challenge anyone's complacency that they never risk compensate.
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.
And a more relevant example - I do ski offpiste without avalanche gear at times. But I'm very strict about slope angle, elevation, terrain features. I will relax that somewhat if I am carrying the gear. That is risk compensation too.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
David Goldsmith wrote:
So ... the hills are alive with helmet-wearers who are convinced that their helmets have no subconscious effect on their skiing, in terms of risk-taking.
The head injury data suggests otherwise.
In what way, exactly?
clarky999 and I, and others, have set out quite clearly on the previous page how our choice of terrain is already "riskier" than your average piste, and we wear a helmet to mitigate that risk, rather than slap a helmet on and then think, "oh, I'm helmeted, I'll suddenly jump off piste and surf that rock field". We also both pointed out that our concerns in such terrain go way beyond head injury; in fact, head injury is quite low down on my list of concerns given that I seem to have bones that break fairly easily.
The argument you're making about helmets is exactly the same argument that can be made about carrying avvy rescue equipment. Sure, the possibility clearly exists that one might ski a line when carrying such equipment that one would otherwise avoid - it's a very well studied and publicised phenomenon (though I'd be very interested to hear your explanation of how head injury data backs that up in the case of helmet use). But most people I know who do off-piste skiing are well aware of this phenomenon and attempt to compensate for it.
Despite the compensation, might there be some subconscious current that still makes us take a tiny bit more risk? Maybe. Who honestly cares? Either you're suggesting that I'm better off without a helmet off piste (despite having been grateful for it on more than one occasion) or you're suggesting that I shouldn't take the lines that I do. Whichever it is, I disagree with you.
Returning to the matter in hand, I don't believe that MS's helmet use motivated him to take a risk of skiing a rock field that we wouldn't have taken had he been unlidded. I really don't. Apparently he bounced a couple of times before hitting the final rock; he can't have been going all that slowly. So he must have being doing other risk calculations beyond simply thinking, "well, I'm wearing a helmet" (and I imagine that MS knows a thing or two about marginal risk decisions). Honestly, your suggestion sounds like some sort of Daily Mail-reject conspiracy theory.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
jedster wrote:
Quote:
Or maybe I'm just too used to assessing actual and real dangers in my chosen sports and their very obviously deadly environments?
Like I say you might be but you'd be unusual. But I'd argue you have no idea what difference not wearing a helmet would have to your skiing behaviour because.... you never ski without one!
I do though, fairly often - especially in spring when it's hot in the Pyrenees. So I'm pretty aware of the difference in feeling.
Quote:
I cycle a lot and wear a helmet 99% of the time. Once in a while I use the bike I have in London when I haven't got my cycling gear with me. I definitely corner a bit slower without my lid.
I can believe it. But I argue that this isn't "risk compensation", or at least, not the non-blatently-obvious one that I assume is what folks are talking about in all these helmet discussions. If you ride faster with a helmet, it's because you like to ride faster, right? And you believe a helmet mitigates the risk of riding faster. So do I. This is not the "risk compensation" that DG is talking about, which is - if I understand his point - about taking uncharacteristic/unconsidered/unexpected risks due to a feeling, subconscious or conscious, of greater invincibility. To reduce the argument ad absurdum, I wear a jacket on top of my T-shirt when skiing because snowburn hurts. Do I ski differently when wearing them? Sure I do! I simply wouldn't ski at all fast without my jacket in terrain where I think I might fall (eg moguls). When I'm wearing my jacket, am I "risk compensating" by skiing normally instead of skiing at a snail's pace? No, I don't buy it, sorry. I'm aware of the risks of what I do, and I mitigate them as I see appropriate. The tail is not wagging the dog.
Quote:
In the 10 years I have been cycle commuting I have twice lost my front when on diesel. Both times were painful and resulted in helmets getting crushed over my temple. I've probably done 4000 trips by bike in that time so it seems a low risk event but I'm pretty sure I'd have had bad concussion at a minimum in those two cases, potentially something a lot worse.
Yup, it's nasty. In my youth I had a downhill biking accident in Chamonix where my helmet unquestionably saved my life. I don't think anyone's arguing that helmets don't mitigate risk.
Quote:
Head injuries are, to my mind, a MUCH worse prospect than broken bones and torn tendons. [...] Don't you think this is a completely natural human response?
Not necessarily. You'd have to compare the rates of unlidded head injury to other injuries. Head injuries are potentially more serious, sure; but what are the probabilities of each type of injury? It also depends on the individual; I'm more worried about other injuries, because I seem to pick them up more easily in cases where other people might walk away with a bruise.
jedster wrote:
By the way, this wiki pages is actually quite good with loads of references to academic research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
Certainly a controversial topic but I think there is more than enough there to challenge anyone's complacency that they never risk compensate.
I don't believe anyone here is demonstrating complacency, frankly - or even that they don't risk compensate (since risk compensation, if it exists, might well be subconscious and hence arguably uncontrollable). I've stated above, though, that I don't care much if I am subconsciously risk compensating. I ride the lines I want to ride (and note that I'm a pretty conservate risk-taker by nature) - and then I make sure I'm equipped to mitigate the risk of doing so as far as possible. I don't think I make poor decisions based merely on what equipment I carry. (I've got far more pressing things to block me riding something, like making poor decisions about more important things like the snowpack, and my technique. Not that I've got into any trouble or anything; I'm merely pointing out that I'm not an expert yet!).
jedster wrote:
And a more relevant example - I do ski offpiste without avalanche gear at times. But I'm very strict about slope angle, elevation, terrain features. I will relax that somewhat if I am carrying the gear. That is risk compensation too.
Yes, it is. I'd argue that you should try to work on that (as indeed we all do/should). This comes back to the subtle but important distinction that I wrote about earlier. Are you skiing the riskier terrain because you think the equipment makes you safer, or are you carrying the equipment because you want to mitigate the risk of skiing the terrain? They sound like the same thing, but I think they're different, psychologically at least.
Perhaps it boils down to this: the "obvious" risk compensation is the idea that if there's a higher chance of harm then we protect ourselves or equip ourselves with rescue tools, and if we're protected then we can accommodate the kind of accident that would bring about that harm if we weren't protected. The non-obvious risk compensation is when we make incorrect judgements about the capability of our protection/tools to protect us. Skiing a line that one wouldn't ski without a rescue system in place just because it is in place doesn't make sense, because the data clearly shows that the rescue system isn't very effective (though airbags perhaps fare better). So the decision you cited is a good example of non-obvious risk compensation. So what we're really aiming to do in the decision making process is correctly evaluate the real risk of the activity and the real ability of the equipment/system to protect us from harm. That's impossible to do perfectly, but it's not impossible to do imperfectly yet sufficiently well (though it is hard). If you'd said, "I want to ski that line, and I understand what the dangers and risks are (and am aware of the non-zero possibility of horrible injury or death) and I want to ski it anyway, but wearing protection and having a rescue system will mitigate a small part of the risk even though it still leaves me rather exposed", then that's not risk compensation at play, in my view.
So it's all about putting the risk before the equipment.
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.
Many many skiers have not invested in ski instruction that will hugely reduce their risk of falling and injury. A reasonably fit skier taking a couple of weeks of intensive instruction from an inspired teacher is making an investment in injury prevention for life.
That investment is far more important than any expenditure on helmets etc.
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
David Goldsmith wrote:
Many many skiers have not invested in ski instruction that will hugely reduce their risk of falling and injury. A reasonably fit skier taking a couple of weeks of intensive instruction from an inspired teacher is making an investment in injury prevention for life.
That investment is far more important than any expenditure on helmets etc.
As it happens, I agree. That issue is completely irrelevant to the points that I, and indeed you, have just been making though.
Last edited by 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 on Wed 13-05-15 11:55; edited 1 time in total
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@David Goldsmith, I don't really get what's your deal with this helmet sh**t. If someone think helmets are useful, it's fine. I don't get it why this bothers you so much. I believe you don't have much to protect but some do. And if they want to do that, it really shouldn't be your issue. And with statistics things are so, that same data can be interpreted one way or the other, so I could dare to bet, I can interpret your data, which shows, as you are saying, helmet use is ridiculous, to show exactly opposite... that helmets are great thing! But since I really don't give a sh**t if you wear helmet or not, I'm not going to bother. But would be still interested to hear, why it bothers you so much if I (or anyone else) wear helmet.
PS: I'm pretty sure best thing to reduce risk and injury, for everyone involved, would be to simply forbid skiers, who come to Alps for one week, to come over here Then we all would be safe... and happy with our helmets
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
@Pyremaniac,
Quote:
As it happens, I agree. That issue is completely irrelevant to the points that I, and indeed you, have just been making though.
+1
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Can't the mod team just trim this thread back to what it was?
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
primoz wrote:
@David Goldsmith, I don't really get what's your deal with this helmet sh**t. If someone think helmets are useful, it's fine. I don't get it why this bothers you so much. I believe you don't have much to protect but some do. And if they want to do that, it really shouldn't be your issue. And with statistics things are so, that same data can be interpreted one way or the other, so I could dare to bet, I can interpret your data, which shows, as you are saying, helmet use is ridiculous, to show exactly opposite... that helmets are great thing! But since I really don't give a sh**t if you wear helmet or not, I'm not going to bother. But would be still interested to hear, why it bothers you so much if I (or anyone else) wear helmet.
PS: I'm pretty sure best thing to reduce risk and injury, for everyone involved, would be to simply forbid skiers, who come to Alps for one week, to come over here Then we all would be safe... and happy with our helmets
I think to settle this DG should do a test as part of his 'Journo' job.
Test 1 DG dons a helmet and runs at speed head first into a lamp post
Test 2 DG runs at speed head first into a lamp post without helmet
If DG could film this, post the results Im sure it would get a rather large hit rate.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Quote:
A reasonably fit skier taking a couple of weeks of intensive instruction from an inspired teacher is making an investment in injury prevention for life.
Hmm. Is there any evidence that injuries are inversely related to the amount of instruction a skier has had? Anecdotally it might seem to be the other way round - World Cup racers routinely get lots of injuries.
Test 1 DG dons a helmet and runs at speed head first into a lamp post
Test 2 DG runs at speed head first into a lamp post without helmet
If DG could film this, post the results Im sure it would get a rather large hit rate.
Thanks, Paul. I'll leave that performance to Dummy Goldsmith, if that's OK with you.
This suggestion is particularly hilarious to me because my BASI trainer back in 1975 was the famed Ali Ross ... who said I "ski like a lamppost" at the beginning of the course. Halfway through the training I asked him if my skiing was improving and he said "You're skiing like a bent lamppost". Luckily my BASI licence didn't include that qualification!
Hmm. Is there any evidence that injuries are inversely related to the amount of instruction a skier has had? Anecdotally it might seem to be the other way round - World Cup racers routinely get lots of injuries.
How often do you see ski instructors fall over?
I'd recommend instructor training to any competent skier, because that level of professional training is also a route to a high assurance of stability and control on skis in most conditions.
Instructors don't, in the main, ski to the limit to achieve a winning speed. That's the essential difference between instructors (and their rate of injury) compared to racers (and their ever-present risk of nasty falls).
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@pam w, dunno, but I'm fairly sure I could prove that blue pistes are the most dangerous places on the mountain. All my injuries have been on blue pistes, caused mainly by thinking about lunch when I should have been thinking about where I was going...
After all it is free
After all it is free
Jesus wept, does every thread on here have to turn into a personal row between DG and Gerry?
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.
@ajpaul, on the evidence, this time of year? Looks mighty like it!
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
David Goldsmith wrote:
So ... the hills are alive with helmet-wearers who are convinced that their helmets have no subconscious effect on their skiing, in terms of risk-taking.
The head injury data suggests otherwise.
I've only ever skied whilst wearing a helmet, so my subconscious has no awareness of the risk being any less if it's got a helmet on.
Gerry wrote:
Pillow?
Or take the TGV to Zurich and jump off the roof of Dignitas
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
Then we all would be safe... and happy with our helmets 
