 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
A study in Bristol measured the average distance between cyclists and cars that were overtaking them. The results were interesting. Helmeted males were passed the closest, with most room and therefore safety being given to non helmet wearing females.
|
That "study" gets loads of coverage because it is entertaining but you do realise it was just one bloke riding about in varying garb and documenting his experiences. It's findings should be taken with a large pinch of salt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Pruman wrote: |
| cameronphillips2000 wrote: |
http://www.east.org/education/practice-management-guidelines/safety-helmets,-efficacy-of-in-reduction-of-head-injuries-in-recreational-skiers-and-snowboarders
I think the summary at the end pretty much says it all. |
Yes, it uses the phrase "The use of safety helmets clearly decreases the risk and severity of head injuries as compared to non-helmeted participants in skiing and snowboarding" when it's far from clear when you read all of the data they quote from Japan, Switzerland etc. It's one I hadn't seen before so thanks for posting. |
As qualified researchers, they looked at a lot of data and then formed their conclusions. It's a very well put together report with a very firm conclusion that helmets reduce the risk of injury. You are choosing to cherry pick the bits you want to prove your point.
The reason that a positive correlation is not always shown is for a number of reasons:
Although helmet use has gone up, people are now far more aware of the dangers of heads injury so are more likely to report it.
There are now better techniques for diagnosing head injuries so more are being diagnosed.
First Aid courses are recommending taking a person to casualty if there has been a blow to the head so teacher etc. are taking children to hospital for checks chen they may not have done before.
To be honest, you don't need a degree in Physics to realise that putting an impact absorbing material around the head will, in most cases, increase the time for any change of momentum in a head collision, thus decreasing force.
Pretty much all sports with speeds above 20mph use helmets -horse riding, motorcycling, cycling etc. This is rather sensible because hitting something hard at these speeds will likely result in the kind of deceleration that requires a large force which is not good for the brain.
For those saying helmets don't reduce the risk of head injury - they are speaking complete dangly bits
For those saying I don't wear a helmet when playing chess - the likelihood of a severe head blow whilst playing chess is far less than when skiing.
For those who say I choose not to wear a helmet, I'm quite happy with skiing with that increased risk - fair play to them, it's their choice.
Some people love internet debating, even when they could not be more in the wrong. What worries me is that someone impressionable may read some of the drivvle on here and think 'Helmets make no difference so I won't wear one' For this reason, can I suggest the 'helmets do no good' brigade join an art forum or something and argue that black is white is it's not going to affect anyone's life chances in a nasty accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 wear a helmet because it hurts like f@#k when I attached my gopro to my head. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| jbob wrote: |
There is a conflict of evidence between outcomes for individuals involved in an accident, and the outcome for a population of wearing or not wearing helmets
The figures I've seen specifically for road cycling suggest that your chances of suffering a serious head injury decrease significantly if you wear a helmet in any given accident. However where countries have mandated helmet wearing for road cyclists, specifically in Australia the number of cyclists with head injuries remained much the same before and after the legislation.
A number of explanations have be proposed for this.
The number of people cycling dropped after the law was passed.
Cyclists wearing helmets for the first time were more reckless.
Other road users were less cautious around cyclists.
A study in Bristol measured the average distance between cyclists and cars that were overtaking them. The results were interesting. Helmeted males were passed the closest, with most room and therefore safety being given to non helmet wearing females.
So for cycling at least a blond wig might be better than a helmet 
And the lesson for skiing, Christ knows. |
I'm not sure that cycling should be compared to skiing in this context, certainly, on the road, 100% of the surrounding environment is very hard, if you fall off your bike and your head hits something, it WILL be hard and the dynamics of cycling suggest to me that your head is more likely to be the first part of your body to hit anything.
There are still lots of hard bits around when you are skiing but even apparently quite hard snow is no harder than the lining of ski helmet
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@tangowaggon, try hitting snow at 100km/h and then tell how nice and soft that white fluff feels  So yes, it can easily be compared to cycling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@mcspreader, use shorter wood screws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| primoz wrote: |
| ...try hitting snow at 100km/h and then tell how nice and soft that white fluff feels So yes, it can easily be compared to cycling. |
Check the standards for both ski and cycle helmets to see how effective would be at those speeds, which I doubt are realistic for resort skiers or city cyclists.
When I cycle past children on my way to work they mostly carry their helmets on the handlebars of their bikes. Although people do die of cycle head injuries, actually those kids are making a realistic assessment of the risks. They're more likely to have their head crushed by parents driving cars than they are to cycle into a wall at 20km/h (the actual effectiveness limitation of their handlebar adornment).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 no, not THIS old chestnut again. CEN 1077 is the cause of pretty much every 'issue' with helmets. It's the basic safty standard to pass for a rating sticker. Why do you have to throw the helmet away after 1 impact? Because the test only tests the helmet once. Why does it only work up to 12mph? because thats the speed it'll hit the floor at from the 1.5m static drop test. CEN1077 sets out the minimum performance of a helmet, NOT the maximum, NOR does every manufacturer build only to just pass CEN1077.
You know it becomes so much more efficient when you can cut'n'paste your responses out of all the previous helmet threads to answer all the same old things...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Why do you have to throw the helmet away after 1 impact? Because the test only tests the helmet once."
Umm, no this is because they are sacrificial safety devices, engineered to be damaged in an impact and for that damage to absorb energy that as a result doesn't get passed to the thing inside the helmet. If the helmet is involved in an impact, even falling off the roof of the car where you'd placed it while packing the roof box it may have taken no damage and may still offer 100% of it's new protection or it may have been conpromised and offer a lower level of protection. As it's impossible to tell which from a visual inspection and the cost of a helmet is insignificant compared to the value of the wearers life the helmet should be binned and a new one bough.
This is the way most impact protection systems are designed, not just helmets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
does it only work up to 12mph? because thats the speed it'll hit the floor at from the 1.5m static drop test. CEN1077 sets out the minimum performance of a helmet, NOT the maximum, NOR does every manufacturer build only to just pass CEN1077.
|
That is correct but coming back to a point made earlier in the thread I don't think anyone should expect a ski or cycling helmet to save them from life changing head injuries if their head hits a hard object at 20mph*. For that you really need something that is more like a motorcycle helmet. Fortunately most incidents that ski and cycling helmets are called on to protect against are not that severe - they are for example falling sideways of a bike (in a way that bike speed does not make the impact worse (i.e.tangential to the fall) or hitting something after sliding and decelerating first.
*which MS's awful situation probably illustrates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
Umm, no this is because they are sacrificial safety devices, engineered to be damaged in an impact and for that damage to absorb energy that as a result doesn't get passed to the thing inside the helmet
|
spot on
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the point of the EPS core is to absorb the energy out of an impact, but in a static unweighted drop, like the one you describe, a good shelled EPS helmet is unlikely to sustain real damage to the core as there isn't enough weight to collapse it, certainly not to the point of degrading performance. Yes, after a good sized incident you should replace a helmet - something I've had to do with one of mine before now - but the knocks which come with everyday wear and tear don't degrade the cores protection to the level that you need to replace after a minor bump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| primoz wrote: |
| @tangowaggon, try hitting snow at 100km/h and then tell how nice and soft that white fluff feels So yes, it can easily be compared to cycling. |
Suit yourself but I remember (just) falling off my bike as a kid and hitting my head on the road, ill for a few days afterwards with concussion, gone a over t countless times on snow, my head frequently making similar contact with the snow and never so much as a headache, I'll take planting my head on snow over tarmac anyday. Hit tarmac at 100 km/h and even with a motorcycle crash helmet on, it's something I would rather avoid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
At higher speed there's not much difference when it comes how soft snow is. There's difference in friction and this brings how your body is rotating after crash, and therefore banging your head to ground. But anyway... as someone please. It's not my problem what someone thinks about helmets and skis/cycles/plays cheese with or without them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
How is Michael? Any news?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Let's see... the victim WAS wearing helmet. So why the need to debate the usefulness of helmet? Oh I see, he got bad brain injury!
| Pruman wrote: |
To be honest, you don't need a degree in Physics to realise that putting an impact absorbing material around the head will, in most cases, increase the time for any change of momentum in a head collision, thus decreasing force.
|
You do need a degree in physics to qualify to say you don't need one!
Especially to come to the rest of the statement. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 wrote: |
Let's see... the victim WAS wearing helmet. So why the need to debate the usefulness of helmet? Oh I see, he got bad brain injury!
| Pruman wrote: |
To be honest, you don't need a degree in Physics to realise that putting an impact absorbing material around the head will, in most cases, increase the time for any change of momentum in a head collision, thus decreasing force.
|
You do need a degree in physics to qualify to say you don't need one!
Especially to come to the rest of the statement. |
Well I do have a degree in Physics - and we teach impact absorption to reduce injury to our GCSE students. It's pretty basic stuff really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
We don't really know what condition he is in though, so is it fair to judge how much is being spent on his healthcare and whether it's worth it or not? He could be making minuscule improvements each day...if that's the case then hell yeah, sell the jet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@Shimmy Alcott, Wholeheartedly agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| PaulC1984 wrote: |
| emwmarine wrote: |
All I can say is that my 78 year old grandfather wore a helmet for the first time last year.
Skiing down to a ski lift he lost concentration and fell at fairly low speed and broke a rib. He also lost a chunk out of his helmet but was fine. Other than being a bit grumbly in the car on the way home whenever we went over a bump.
If he hadn't have been wearing his helmet he would have had a nasty bump to his head. We are both sold on them now. |
And this is the bit I don't get about peoples argument NOT to wear one.
Common sense says to me that if you hit your head on a rock not wearing one, you'd quite simply have one hell of a headache at best - A headache your not as likely to have if you'd had one on.
There is good reason hard hats are used in construction and helmets are used in motorsport/equestrian sports.
It seems to me, people find any reason not to wear one, stating all things like it 'makes you faster'. Im sorry but I don't buy it. Fine if you don't want to wear one thats your choice, but don't spout utter poo-poo for reasons not to wear one - just be manly enough to say I don't want to and leave it at that - its your head and your choice and thats absolutely fine. |
Well said (predictive text edited) that man (who has the biggest helmet i've ever seen).
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Sat 16-05-15 13:56; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ajpaul wrote: |
| Jesus wept, does every thread on here have to turn into a personal row between DG and Gerry? |
I'm quite new to all this infantile mudslinging - is there a grown-ups forum????
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| c44rver wrote: |
| ajpaul wrote: |
| Jesus wept, does every thread on here have to turn into a personal row between DG and Gerry? |
I'm quite new to all this infantile mudslinging - is there a grown-ups forum???? |
you can put DG on "ignore".
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
@smagsmith, I think the news is that there is no news. Everything I've read seems to confirm what the doctoirs said early on... i.e. The longer he is in a coma the less likelihood there is of a recovery. I think all his fans must simply accept that there isn't really much question of any significant sort of 'progress' or 'recovery'. Tragic but true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I spoke to another F1 driver (who knows him quite well) just before Christmas and he said the same really - i.e. not going well, but no details about what that actually meant. What a sad and ironic way to end such a brilliant career.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Well a "no news" press release really - just probably preparing everyone for the inevitable I'd suspect unfortunatley.
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Fri 5-02-16 13:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
What a sad and ironic way to end such a brilliant career.
|
Indeed. I'm so glad my family would have neither the cash nor the inclination to keep me in a kind of living mausoleum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| pam w wrote: |
| Quote: |
What a sad and ironic way to end such a brilliant career.
|
Indeed. I'm so glad my family would have neither the cash nor the inclination to keep me in a kind of living mausoleum. |
I didn't get the impression it was quite like that. More that he just can't remember anything at all and had lost a lot of weight due to being physically inactive. But I don't think he's actually lying unconscious on life support - unless things have taken a really bad turn for the worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Well, if he's not on life support, the suggestion from @Dave of the Marmottes about "preparing everyone for the switch off" is wide of the mark. But that was kind of what I am thinking, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Well I'm pretty sure he hasn't been on life support all this time. But I don't know what has happened to him since Christmas. Maybe he is very ill again now, I really don't know. Or maybe they just think he's not going to recover any significant mental ability? But if it's the latter nobody can just switch him off!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@uktrailmonster, my comment crossed with your 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Yes apologies. I'd maybe over estimated the state of affairs. I must admit that I'd read the no real information of his status on an ongoing basis as an indication that while out of a coma he was still in a severely brain damaged state and probably reliant on some form of life support, but I can see that might be unduly pessimistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking more along the lines of a sort oh vegetative state. His eyes are open but he's not really 'there'. Still probably would significantly shorten his life span I would imagine,even with the best care money can buy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| cameronphillips2000 wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
Let's see... the victim WAS wearing helmet. So why the need to debate the usefulness of helmet? Oh I see, he got bad brain injury!
| Pruman wrote: |
To be honest, you don't need a degree in Physics to realise that putting an impact absorbing material around the head will, in most cases, increase the time for any change of momentum in a head collision, thus decreasing force.
|
You do need a degree in physics to qualify to say you don't need one!
Especially to come to the rest of the statement. |
Well I do have a degree in Physics - and we teach impact absorption to reduce injury to our GCSE students. It's pretty basic stuff really. |
Sorry I know I'm quoting an old post.
One of our ski party was in Moutier hospital due to a torn ACL and was told by the staff who treated Schumacher(on the quiet) that his injury was caused by a metal gopro mount going through his helmet and into his head. It's certainly not an argument for not wearing a helmet, just not wearing a metal gopro mount.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
If this post above is found to be true someone someone is going to face disciplinary procedures as a breach in patient confidentiality. I would think hard about what is written on here as if this is true it sounds like a member of staff is in serious trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@JamesN, I don't think Schumacher was ever in Moutiers hospital. He was taken straight from Meribel to the major trauma centre at Hopital Nord in Grenoble by helicopter and was treated by the same team that treated my husband when he was a patient there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
