Poster: A snowHead
|
Kramer, get a job in the Alps!
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Kramer, thanks for a pretty good summary. Now get yourself to the EOSB, and we can debate this with young Jonpim over a beer
PS best wishes for quiet nightshift.
|
|
|
|
|
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 think we can all agree that the head is a delicate object. So placing it in some protective packaging seems resonable.
Take a look around we package all sorts of delicate items in packaging designed to protect them and we don't doubt the effectiveness (do we?). Sure the protection that works for a 6 foot drop ain't going to make any difference when dropped from 60 foot.
No safety equipment is going to cover every eventuality. I find it incredible that anyone doubts that there will be some benefit from wearing a helmet. As to negatives well that is something that needs looking at.
So lets agree that if anyone wants to wear a helmet thats fine and if they don't thats fine too.
I'm sure there are still plenty of people out there who don't wear a seatbelt, after all they have heard about somebody who lived because they didn't wear a belt (who can say?).
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
antoeknee, Totally agree, however when i wear my helmet, i take way more risks and ski far more aggresivley.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
antoeknee wrote: |
I find it incredible that anyone doubts that there will be some benefit from wearing a helmet. |
But part of the question is whether any benefit from a helmet is likely to be clinically significant, which is a different thing. Yes it may protect you from minor bumps and scrapes, but we're more interested in whether it reduces the risk of fracture skulls and brain haemorrhage, which is not such an obvious answer. Many medical treatments show some benefit, far fewer are actually clinically significant.
Would people be so keen to wear and promote the wearing of helmets if they only protected you from bumps and scrapes and not life threatening injuries?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that when looked at with a medical eye the question is far more complex than most people realise, and the answer is likely to be just as complex.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Fri 24-02-06 23:20; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Kramer wrote: |
Yes it may protect you from minor bumps and scrapes, but we're more interested in whether it reduces the risk of fracture skulls and brain haemorrhage |
You might be, but I'm equally interested in the a bit of protection from the day to day stuff that might mean the difference between spending time in my room nursing a headache, or being out there enjoying the skiing. This kind of stuff won't be life threatening, but a helmet could easily be the difference between an enjoyable holiday and one spoiled by an unnecessary bump/cut to the head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar.org.uk, my thoughts exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Understanding the level of evidence in medical papers is hard.
This one reports a lage study (large studies are good) and the evidence is all one way- (studies often report findings where there is alot of uncertainty as to where the real answer lies- a range of possible results are reported - the 95% confidence interval- sometimes/often this stradldes point at which there is no difference between the 2 options)
I am a doc- I wear a helmet- I think this study provides good evidence to suggest that helmets reduce the risk of head injury in general and some evidence that they reduce the risk of serious head injury
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
edsilva, Ok so I don’t have as much of a life as I thought I had. The level of evidence is at best 3b and probably level 4. We could argue this point till the sun comes up. Either way it is neither conclusive nor irrefutable, and unless you can present level 1 or 2 evidence the use of helmets should remain a matter of personal choice. As Kramer said earlier in this thread it is up to you whether you wear a helmet or not. The decision is yours but don’t delude yourself that your decision to wear a helmet is based anything more then presumption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar.org.uk, however should this level of protection lead to legislation as indicated by the FIS statement?
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Nick Zotov, quiet, the five letter swear word when you are on duty
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Yes, the q-word that dare not speak it's name.
Every major incident in history was precipitated by some junior doctor in a local hospital saying "gosh it's q---- tonight!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
PP wrote: |
rob@rar.org.uk, however should this level of protection lead to legislation as indicated by the FIS statement? |
No. It should be a matter of personal choice.
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Kramer,
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Quote: |
Either way it is neither conclusive nor irrefutable, and unless you can present level 1 or 2 evidence the use of helmets should remain a matter of personal choice. As Kramer said earlier in this thread it is up to you whether you wear a helmet or not.
|
arggh- dear PP I would never uggest that helmets should be a requirement- whatever the level of evidence- personal choice for me all the way..
do you wear one?? your kids??
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
edsilva, I dont wear one. I have thought about it but have yet to convince myself of the benefits. We dont have kids so i can defer that decision till later.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
In some ways this is similar to the global warming debate. Those who are "emotionally" against are waiting for absolute, incontrovertible, unequivocal evidence. In chaotic systems, such as world climate, or people sliding around mountains on two planks, this will never come. How about just going with commonsense?
I do have a lot of agreement with the "it's up to everyone's personal choice, if they want to kill themselves, let them" argument. But then why did we make seatbelts compulsory? (Perhaps because driving is a necessity in today's society, whereas skiing is a luxury...)
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Martin Bell, in general, I'm against people being nannied. I can see a justification for the seat belt law, on the grounds that a driver in an accident may sometimes retain control of the vehicle for longer.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Martin Bell wrote: |
why did we make seatbelts compulsory? |
In part, I suspect, because health care is provided by the state rather than privately.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Martin Bell wrote: |
why did we make seatbelts compulsory? |
...because it sends the message that we really do think it's a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Yet it's illegal to wear a helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
DavidS, it wasn't because of the drop in the number of deaths both predicted and actual?
|
|
|
|
|
|
FenlandSkier,
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Ian Hopkinson, I should have added, 'whilst driving', as it restricts your peripheral vision and hearing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
FenlandSkier, oh, I see!
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Martin Bell wrote: |
..............How about just going with commonsense?... |
As used by Aristotle when he declared that heavier objects fell faster than light ones?
|
|
|
|
|
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 board with a helmet (and cycle with one) but did anyone notice that baxter skiied today without one and seemed to be in the minority?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Zotov, like the way a hammer falls through the air faster than a feather ?
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
FenlandSkier wrote: |
It's illegal to wear a helmet.
I should have added, 'whilst driving', as it restricts your peripheral vision and hearing. |
Haven't seen this in the highway code. Can you point me at the appropriate legislation please?
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
RobW, couldn't find a definitive quote after a quick google but found various mentions of it and a claim that it's to do with preventing the identification of the driver.
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Seatbelts were made compulsory because of the overwhelming statistical evidence that they saved lives. That's not the case (yet?) with helmets when skiing, and it's also not the case with helmets when cycling.
The problem with common sense when it comes to making legislation about health interventions is that often the results of interventions are counter-intuitive. With the new tools of evidence based medicine, we are finding more and more often that things that we have often taken for granted just aren't true, this could be the case with helmet wearing, we just don't know for sure yet, and until we do, people (the FIS in this instance) are premature in calling for helmet use to be compulsory.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
As my daughter said with considerable feeling last night watching a helmetless slalom racer skiding rapidly down the Olympic course on his back, and painfully take out a pole with his head...
"It's his own stupid fault, can't believe how stupid people are. Hope it hurt!"
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Sun 26-02-06 9:08; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Tim Brown, A feather falls slower than a hammer because of air resistance. Strictly, objects can only be said to fall at the same speed within a vacuum. But, for practical purposes, most objects fall at the same speed regardless of weight. The definiing de-bunk of Aristotle's theory is said to have been when Aristotle dropped a cannon ball and a musket ball together from the Leaning Tower of Pisa - but there is some doubt whether he did that.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
The key to this argument is not whether helmets help, obviously if you do bang your head a helmet helps. But should I be forced to wear one as the risks of me doing serious damage withot wearing one is very low.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Nick Zotov, Galileo?
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
But what if helmets reduce the risk of minor bumps and scrapes, at the cost of an increased risk of more serious head injuries, and more serious injuries elsewhere, such as neck injuries?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Bell, Er, yup
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kramer, but logically, aren't impact injuries - irrespective of the force involved - virtually all going to be cushioned to an extent by a helmet? (neck injuries set aside for one moment). If so, isn't there a point somewhere in that spectrum where what potentially would be a middlingly serious head/brain injury will be lessened to a minor shock? If so, the existence of that range - and I have no idea of how narrow/wide that band is - will be reason enough for me to wear a helmet virtually all the time, unless torque injuries are proven to be of equal or more consequence.
That is setting aside the issue of avoiding minor injuries, of course, which to some is reason enough on its own to wear 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.
|
i see dianese the mortorbike specialists now do a line in bodyarmour for skiers n boarders....
people will be kitted out like american footballers soon..
|
|
|
|
|
|
PG, Well put. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|