 Poster: A snowHead
|
| richb67 wrote: |
| TJToms wrote: |
I wonder if a vented cycle helmet is an arguably suitable alternative in front of the piste police wishing to enforce a fine? |
Helmets must be of the relevant CE rating, evidently cycle helmets don’t meet this standard. |
There's apparently a sharp object penetration test that ski helmets must pass that prevents them from having open holes, ski poles?
When I've been on mtb trails, I take my helmet off for the slow, uphill sections to keep my head cool & only put it on for the faster downhill bits. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
In the end it boils down to , we own the infrastructure that enables you to access the area that you are using for your sport , recreation ,transportation etc. Like it or lump it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| prometheus wrote: |
| In the end it boils down to , we own the infrastructure that enables you to access the area that you are using for your sport , recreation ,transportation etc. Like it or lump it. |
Although I agree with the above I do have sympathy for people who don’t like to wear helmets and have booked a trip.
There has not been much publicity about this and as it’s a world first it’s not something people could reasonably expect to check for. Hopefully by 2026/27 the word will be out and people who don’t want to wear a helmet can choose to avoid Italy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| tangowaggon wrote: |
It's when people start throwing direct insults, calling people idiots etc for not wearing a helmet. Personally, I think my overall safety on the mountain is compromised by wearing a helmet. |
Wasn’t directed at you personally. Perhaps the word “you” should have read “one”.
I have a very longstanding friend who refuses to wear a ski helmet claiming just that argument, re looking daft, as well as the fact that he never falls over and so doesn’t need it! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| tangowaggon wrote: |
It's when people start throwing direct insults, calling people idiots etc for not wearing a helmet. Personally, I think my overall safety on the mountain is compromised by wearing a helmet. |
Absolutely fair point; insults not welcome ... opinions, ideally politely expressed, wanted. If we all agreed on everything it would be rather boring.
As I said, my view is that as it's your head then it should be your decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| GreenDay wrote: |
| @TJToms, Not sure if you wear a helmet in the car, but you are / were almost certainly running more of a risk of a head injury driving to the Manchester fridge than when skiing there. |
Well, I've driven to the Tamworth & Manchester fridges a fair few times. Current score since 2018 is zero road crashes v. one damaged ski helmet & another that appears OK after the fall where I saw stars #AnecData
While agreeing that roads are dangerous (just ask the relatives of the 29,537 Killed or Seriously Injured in the UK last year), there are substantial safety features built into cars that make even the most egregious accidents not just survivable but actually walk-away-able (the video is not one for the fainted-hearted road user, vulnerable or otherwise)
I draw your attention to exhibit A, noting the crushed crumple zones & deployed airbags: Both drivers walked, away though the cyclists needed new underwear...
Seems that risk compensation might just be a thing?
| Quote: |
| We cant mandate for every human activity, nor should we. |
Indeed, we can't & ought not to try; but them's the rules in Italy for the 2025/2026 season it seems.
Though 'Give me freedom, or give me suppression of activity by vulnerable road users' doesn't have quite the same ring 
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Sun 16-11-25 10:12; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@tangowaggon, I get your reasons for not wearing one, and the discussion about to what extent a helmet protects people, but claiming that it's detrimental to safety is always what turns themselves threads into an argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SnoodyMcFlude wrote: |
| @tangowaggon, I get your reasons for not wearing one, and the discussion about to what extent a helmet protects people, but claiming that it's detrimental to safety is always what turns themselves threads into an argument. |
I've had one instance where I hurt my neck after a forward roll type of fall, had I been wearing a helmet, my head would have gone 30-40 mm further forward before my shoulders took up the impact, my ski helmet has non removable ear pieces that restrict my hearing, there has been at least one memorable instance where hearing another skier approaching has allowed me to avoid a collision, I could go on.
There is no doubt that if you hit your head on something harder than the impact layer of a ski helmet (which is actually quite hard) wearing a helmet will prevent or reduce any head injury, but I stand by my belief that overall, non head related, safety on the mountain is compromised by helmet use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Eventually, every skier will be legally obliged to wear a Darth Vader helmet with built in virus mask/respiratory filtration, and collision/proximity warning (ski pole clicking sound, internally generated).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ahh, obviously must typo faster on pre-season Sunday mornings - if only to avoid being ninja'd by tangowaggon & his un-removable ear-pieces
| tangowaggon wrote: |
| There is no doubt that if you hit your head on something harder than the impact layer of a ski helmet (which is actually quite hard) wearing a helmet will prevent or reduce any head injury, but I stand by my belief that overall, non head related, safety on the mountain is compromised by helmet use. |
Glad we agree on the first bit, but see below, and the injury stats will confirm or refute your beliefs IDC.
| Crosbie wrote: |
| Eventually, every skier will be legally obliged to wear a Darth Vader helmet with built in virus mask/respiratory filtration, and collision/proximity warning (ski pole clicking sound, internally generated). |
I think the Sith look would quite suit you (sir) !
And I note that off-piste air-bags are a thing...
| SnoodyMcFlude wrote: |
| @tangowaggon, I get your reasons for not wearing one, and the discussion about to what extent a helmet protects people, but claiming that it's detrimental to safety is always what turns themselves threads into an argument. |
I think there's a bit of mileage in the adverse safety aspects of helmet design - being uncomfortable due to over-heating from lack of ventilation (or over-exertion), and reduced hearing due to the (removable) ear protection. It may be there is a market for more open, airy crash-hats - perhaps drop a line to manufacturers?
Personally, I like a helmet with a bit of a peak to reduce glare & give a bit of sun protection, but also having a snow-boarding colleague who had multiple BCCs removed from his ears. Oh, and my much younger self having spent '24 hours in A&E' nil-by-mouth + hourly obs ...after falling helmet-less on ice from my bicycle, means I will now put up with a fair bit of discomfort, open the vents, remove the ear-covers, & take it off whenever possible.
| tangowaggon wrote: |
| I actually think the skiing in Italy is a bit tame, ok for intermediates & old people |
I resemble that comment!
| Quote: |
| the Sella Ronda is one of the few places that I've nearly fallen asleep on my skis. |
Hope you didn't ...ski into anyone ;-?
| Quote: |
| But I,d rather be in Italy with friends, than anywhere else on my own. |
Tho' you don't seem to be on either/or Pre/BB23^H2 this year, so maybe dodged biting the bullet this year 
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Mon 17-11-25 2:36; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a helmet wearer myself, I do think it's an overreach by the Italian Government.
For Children, yes, it should be compulsory but as for adults, it should be left as a personal choice imo
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
For Children, yes, it should be compulsory
|
by what argument? And is this a decision for government rather than parents? And is the age of consent to go bare-headed to be 16?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Origen wrote: |
| Quote: |
| For Children, yes, it should be compulsory |
by what argument? |
Because they (OK, some of them ...mostly boys) don't know any better until after multiple A&E experiences.
| Quote: |
| And is this a decision for government rather than parents? |
Depends on who is paying for the healthcare.
| Quote: |
| And is the age of consent to go bare-headed to be 16? |
That's a fun one - can have sex but can't vote, can pay taxes but can't leave school, can say "you're not the boss of me" but probably still living at home. Yeah, difficult line to draw, but that's what we elect our politicians to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
that's what we elect our politicians to do
|
Absolutely not! I don't want politicians to tell me what I can allow my children to do or what they must wear to go skiing (or cycling).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Origen wrote: |
| Quote: |
For Children, yes, it should be compulsory
|
by what argument? And is this a decision for government rather than parents? And is the age of consent to go bare-headed to be 16? |
There is one valid reason, that children's skulls are not fully fused, and hence may be more susceptible to damage, until late teenage years, sometime not full formed until 20 or so, so there may be some merit to this argument.
I think though that the arbitrary 16 is based on it being the age of consent for many other things, the age at which it's normal (or used to be, perhaps less so these days) for kids to have gone off into the world and be living their own independent lives, no longer subject to parental control. I have always worn a helmet when instructing, solely to set an example, and fully appreciate that this is, or was initially, also the case for many parents, and part of the reason that they have become so prevalent in recent years.
I tend towards the no-mandatory-helmets side of this debate, as i did for years with cycling, where the degree of protection that used to be normal was pathetic and the possible increased risk from skull rotation and risk-compensation were such as to outweigh (IMO) the almost-negliigible protection they offered.
Yes, so levels of protection have got better over the years, and ski helmets are not as much subject to weight and heat factors as their cycling forebears, but there is still very much a risk/benefit balance to be estimated.
The Italian rules are being applied stupidly, with nobody, still, able to point at the actual law that mandates their use (unless something new has come up in the last few weeks that I haven't seen in this thread) just lots of statements about rules that "will be " put in place. If they're going to do it they should do so in a properly controlled fashion, with a definitive law stating exactly what the requirements are, when, for whom, where *and importantly where not) they apply, etc. And enforced by whom? It seems so far that it's being left to individual resorts to implement, with little idea about the penalties for failing to comply, and certainly no nationally controlled policy to control this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Yes, sounds a bit like Italy. Like the (rather more justified, perhaps) regulations about building in areas vulnerable to seismic activity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I get the arguments about children's non-fused skulls - but there's a lot which makes kids vulnerable, and parenthood is about gradually making those decisions about handing over responsibility to them. I'm not arguing that kids shouldn't wear helmets, I'm arguing that we don't (or at least I didn't) elect politicians to make that sort of decision for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
The law is referenced on multiple Italian sites. I really don't think it's a big deal except I guess for the terminally sweaty headed. But I would say that having worn a helmet over 25 years and being very glad of it on at least 1 occasion on snow and twice when on a mtb.
Even last year one sH had cause to be very grateful for their helmet on a generally pretty innocuous piste at the EOSB. Impressive to see how the crumple zones work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| The law is referenced on multiple Italian sites. |
None of which[1], even if you drill down, go as far as an actual law that has been implemented. If it has actually been passed and brought onto the statute books then why do none of them reference it? The links to para x, subpara y, and stuff that were contained were all, at best, official statements of what the law would say, none of them the actual law in itself.
[1] My Italian isn't brilliant, but sufficient that I looked into the various press reports about this when it was first posted here a few weeks ago, so if anyone has done so with greater success since then I'd be grateful to see the actual statute directly posted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Crosbie, Thank you. And the actual law that's being amended, in the new form, is here
As you say, fairly clear now. Although it doesn't give full details of the helmet specification, refers to an EU directive.
1. When practicing alpine skiing, snowboarding, telemark skiing, sledding, and tobogganing, it is mandatory to wear a protective helmet compliant with the characteristics set forth in paragraph 3.
2. Anyone violating the provisions of paragraph 1 is subject to an administrative fine ranging from €100 to €150. Repeated violations, in addition to the administrative fine referred to in the first sentence, will also result in the withdrawal or suspension of the ski lift pass for a period of one to three days.
Ah well, I haven't skied there for a good ten years or more, and even then just popping over to Cervinia from Zermatt side, so it's not going to bother me too much, but I do think it's a shame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
ski helmet , Standards and testing Product certification norms include the European CE standard CEN 1077, issued in 1996, The American Society of Testing and Materials F2040, and the Snell RS-98.[10] CEN 1077 permits an impact speed of about approx 20 km/h, which is far below average skiing speeds.[1] Helmets are tested for effectiveness at about 14 mph (23 km/h), but the typical maximum speed of skiers and snowboarders is approximately twice that speed, with some participants going much faster. At such speeds, impact with a fixed object is likely to be fatal, regardless of helmet use, above taken from the Fédération Internationale des Patrouilles de Ski. European Association for Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion
based on above as my old man would say , about as much use as a chocolate fire guard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I do think it's a shame
|
Most contributors to this thread, helmet-wearers and helmet-deniers, seem to have concluded exactly that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| petedavoski wrote: |
ski helmet , Standards and testing Product certification norms include the European CE standard CEN 1077, issued in 1996, The American Society of Testing and Materials F2040, and the Snell RS-98.[10] CEN 1077 permits an impact speed of about approx 20 km/h, which is far below average skiing speeds.[1] Helmets are tested for effectiveness at about 14 mph (23 km/h), but the typical maximum speed of skiers and snowboarders is approximately twice that speed, with some participants going much faster. At such speeds, impact with a fixed object is likely to be fatal, regardless of helmet use, above taken from the Fédération Internationale des Patrouilles de Ski. European Association for Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion
based on above as my old man would say , about as much use as a chocolate fire guard |
I don't think it's arguable to say that not wearing a helmet is safer. There is a wealth of evidence to demonstrate the positive outcomes of wearing a helmet in sports. Personally, I would almost definitely be dead if I had not used one.
I think the use of them should be encouraged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| petedavoski wrote: |
| based on above as my old man would say , about as much use as a chocolate fire guard |
Worse.
1) emboldened muppets skiing beyond their ability due to 'helmet of invulnerability' syndrome cause a greater hazard to others.
2) Impairment of visual and auditory range reduces ability to evade incipient collision and other hazards.
3) impairment of cranial temperature regulation has knock-on cognitive impairment (critical in fast moving situations).
4) minimal skull impact protection of current helmet regulations will lead to uprating, and ever heavier helmets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| petedavoski wrote: |
ski helmet , Standards and testing Product certification norms include the European CE standard CEN 1077, issued in 1996, The American Society of Testing and Materials F2040, and the Snell RS-98.[10] CEN 1077 permits an impact speed of about approx 20 km/h, which is far below average skiing speeds.[1] Helmets are tested for effectiveness at about 14 mph (23 km/h), but the typical maximum speed of skiers and snowboarders is approximately twice that speed, with some participants going much faster. At such speeds, impact with a fixed object is likely to be fatal, regardless of helmet use, above taken from the Fédération Internationale des Patrouilles de Ski. European Association for Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion
based on above as my old man would say , about as much use as a chocolate fire guard |
Sodding hell, talk about convoluted reasoning. That's a shitty take on speed and helmet use. Why not be honest and just say that you are against wearing a helmet rather than making up some lame excuse?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Crosbie wrote: |
| petedavoski wrote: |
| based on above as my old man would say , about as much use as a chocolate fire guard |
Worse.
1) emboldened muppets skiing beyond their ability due to 'helmet of invulnerability' syndrome cause a greater hazard to others.
2) Impairment of visual and auditory range reduces ability to evade incipient collision and other hazards.
3) impairment of cranial temperature regulation has knock-on cognitive impairment (critical in fast moving situations).
4) minimal skull impact protection of current helmet regulations will lead to uprating, and ever heavier helmets. |
We get it, you hate wearing a helmet, you do you but please don't try make things up to fit your narrative to "win the internet", it's a poor look.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Origen wrote: |
| Quote: |
I do think it's a shame
|
Most contributors to this thread, helmet-wearers and helmet-deniers, seem to have concluded exactly that. |
There is, of course, a third group (of which I am one).
This group advocate choice and say that you are free to wear or not wear a lid as you wish.
Trying to change closed minds is a pointless exercise imv.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
[quote="GreenDay"]
| Origen wrote: |
| Quote: |
I do think it's a shame
|
Trying to change closed minds is a pointless exercise imv. |
I agree, some people can't seem to let it go. They have to be right and don't understand that not everything in the world is about them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
It isn't about the high speed collisions with a stationary object that would be fatal with or without a helmet.
Many of the worst falls for damaging your brain, temporarily or permanently, are slow speed sudden falls where your head whips and smacks the ground hard.
I would have had 2 long stays in hospital if it wasn't for my bike helmets. I'd have had a few bad headaches but for my ski helmet.
And it also isn't just about you if you choose not to wear one.
What about the impact on your loved ones if you end up with permanent concussions, brain damage or die?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Origen wrote: |
| I get the arguments about children's non-fused skulls - but there's a lot which makes kids vulnerable, and parenthood is about gradually making those decisions about handing over responsibility to them. I'm not arguing that kids shouldn't wear helmets, I'm arguing that we don't (or at least I didn't) elect politicians to make that sort of decision for me. |
Unfortunately in this case you don't get an option unless you can vote in Italian elections 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@JDL65, What someone else chooses to do is nothing to do with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| GreenDay wrote: |
| @JDL65, What someone else chooses to do is nothing to do with you. |
Where have I said it is?
I have just suggested that people shouldn't just think there's no impact on others.
Or shall we just close the thread and not express opinions, and let the site die?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
This group advocate choice and say that you are free to wear or not wear a lid as you wish.
|
That's not a third group. That's what the majority have been saying. And if you feel this is an individual choice, as most of us do, that means you agree with @Chaletbeauroc that it's a shame the Italians have made it compulsory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Helmets were virtually never worn for recreational skiing until the 2000's. The incidence of severe head injury was very low indeed.
Clearly it is not zero but nor is it zero from walking on an icy pavement or even slipping getting in and out of the shower.
I certainly wouldn't criticise someone for wearing a helmet but nor would I berate someone for not wearing one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| JDL65 wrote: |
| GreenDay wrote: |
| @JDL65, What someone else chooses to do is nothing to do with you. |
Where have I said it is?
I have just suggested that people shouldn't just think there's no impact on others.
Or shall we just close the thread and not express opinions, and let the site die? |
By the very act of suggesting that people should think that way is - de facto - making it about you.
I rather think that most posters on here have the intelligence to make their own minds up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Origen wrote: |
| Quote: |
This group advocate choice and say that you are free to wear or not wear a lid as you wish.
|
That's not a third group. That's what the majority have been saying. And if you feel this is an individual choice, as most of us do, that means you agree with @Chaletbeauroc that it's a shame the Italians have made it compulsory. |
Yes, I do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
