 Poster: A snowHead
|
Dolomiti Superski, the largest lift pass union in Italy, has this on their website...
https://www.dolomitisuperski.com/it/supporto-e-assistenza/info-utili-e-sicurezza
Regole per la sicurezza sulle piste
1. Casco obbligatorio
A partire dalla stagione invernale 2025/2026 vige l’obbligo di indossare il casco sulle piste per tutti coloro che praticano sport invernali come sci, snowboard, telemark, freestyle e slittino, indipendentemente dall’età.
Google translation:
Rules for safety on the slopes
1. Mandatory helmet
Starting from the winter season 2025/2026 there is an obligation to wear a helmet on the slopes for all those who practice winter sports such as skiing, snowboarding, telemark, freestyle and toboggan, regardless of age.
And as they run the lifts, there'll be no getting around it, as the lifties will likely be instructed to look out for and refuse entry to anyone not wearing one, as they did with masks after COVID reopening in 2022. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| GreenDay wrote: |
| 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. |
The bolded bit is Utter nonsense.
All our actions have consequences, those consequences sometime involve others.
It is up to an individual to make their own mind up, but don't think others may not be impacted. If you are happy with that, then that is your choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| JDL65 wrote: |
The bolded bit is Utter nonsense.
All our actions have consequences, those consequences sometime involve others.
It is up to an individual to make their own mind up, but don't think others may not be impacted. If you are happy with that, then that is your choice. |
The bits I have bolded above are all that are relevant, when all is said and done.
Note that I am not telling you that your posts are "nonsense" - because you are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| JDL65 wrote: |
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? |
Two scenarios
Non helmet wearer has life changing head injury that would have been a temporary injury if they had worn a helmet = better to wear a helmet.
Helmet wearer has life changing head injury (Schumacher) that would have been death without a helmet = better to not wear a helmet, controversial, but, for the sake of my family, I would far rather not survive, than be in the same state as Schumacher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@tangowaggon, ahh, it's come to the Schumacher defense !?
While I entirely agree that helmets are merely one way of avoiding injury & not without their own issues, not least ridk compensation, and that it is only a case of injury reduction/mitigation, but ...surely someone skiing into a tree & being paralysed for life isn't really representative of the majority of incidents?
As previously mentioned, if you dont wish to wear one then just strike Italy off the list. Or see if you can find one with removable ear-pieces? Or maybe drill a few more ventilation holes in your current one ;-?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
I love a helmet thread. Largely unsurprising, oddly comforting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Harry Flashman wrote: |
| I love a helmet thread. Largely unsurprising, oddly comforting. |
Glad to be of service 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Dylan_T42 wrote: |
@tangowaggon, ahh, it's come to the Schumacher defense !?
|
As the thread has mostly descended into bickering and farce, let's all just figuratively headbutt a rock and cut out the middleman!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't advocate choice. People should be made to wear helmets, ski only FIS SL skis and wear team replica clothing from Emporio Armani or Kappa. And never have milk in their coffee after 10am. It is Italy after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| I don't advocate choice. People should be made to wear helmets, ski only FIS SL skis and wear team replica clothing from Emporio Armani or Kappa. And never have milk in their coffee after 10am. It is Italy after all. |
Gets my vote, except change "Emporio Armani or Kappa" to "Decathlon" and "Italy" to "Snowheads". Bingo!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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 |
No, not really. This is a misconception.
The testing speeds are based on the speed with which you are likely to hit THE GROUND. Even Motorcycle Helmets are only tested to similar speeds because if you hit a 'fixed object' even at 30mph there's a high likelihood of death or serious injury ... and you just can't make helmets strong and light enough to protect against this.
This is because the force with which you hit the ground is determined by the height from which you fall ... the lateral/horizontal speed that you are doing is immaterial (unless you hit a solid object of course). I can be doing near 200mph on my bike but if I fall off my head will hit the ground at around 6.2ms-1 (14 mph) if I fall from a 2m height.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Harry Flashman wrote: |
| I love a helmet thread. Largely unsurprising, oddly comforting. |
And remarkably similar to helmet threads in a cycling forum I frequent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| alex_heney wrote: |
| Harry Flashman wrote: |
| I love a helmet thread. Largely unsurprising, oddly comforting. |
And remarkably similar to helmet threads in a cycling forum I frequent. |
Oddly, never seems to be questioned in kayaking circles.
| luigi wrote: |
As the thread has mostly descended into bickering and farce, let's all just figuratively headbutt a rock and cut out the middleman!!  |
Well, someone in our canoe club recently switched from a simple white-water crash-hat to a full-face job after losing a front tooth to a rock a on rapid. Our safety sub-committee looked at the report & adjudged 'No further action' (it's taken over ten years of process optimisation to get to that point, in what is an 'assumed risk' sport)
But then I'm used to spending an hour or three a week in a helmet & face-guard: THe first rule of canoe polo is that it's not called kayak polo...
(And yes, the #2 joke writes itself!)
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Mon 17-11-25 8:21; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Dylan_T42 wrote: |
| Oddly, never seems to be questioned in kayaking circles. |
Not that odd when people are intentionally training rolls on rivers with both natural and man made obstacles in the water and there are hanging gates above the water.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
With two Italian trips booked this coming season, I picked up a cheapo helmet in decathlon. It was the first time I’d ever tried one on in over 45yrs of skiing. From the selection I tried, in various shops and various price ranges, I wouldn’t say any were particularly comfy, neither were they particularly uncomfy either.
I’d rather not wear one at all and would like to be able to exercise that preference when skiing. But Italy is my favourite place to ski and it isn’t a hill I’m going to die on.
My granddaughter is also 2+yrs old now and I want to avoid any potential future histrionics with “I’m not wearing a helmet, I want to be like Grandode!”.
Whenever I’m not skiing Italy, or with her, the helmet will be left at home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@Blackblade,
| Quote: |
This is because the force with which you hit the ground is determined by the height from which you fall ...
|
Not if you're carrying e.g. 70mph of momentum it isn't !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I high sided motorcycling a few years ago, definitely hit the ground at more than 14mph. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I am not an healthy and safety critic. You still see tragic accidents today that could have been avoided if H&S had been better, either by design or by execution. At the same time there is a grey area I feel. Hear me out....
Volleyball is my main sport. The volleyball net is attached to metal posts that are held by a baseplate and screws into the floor. When I started playing 25 years ago, none of them were padded. But slowly post and base plate padding has become a thing. To the point were at a national competition level they have made it mandatory. In all the years I've played I can barely remember an incident with the post/base. Certainly nothing serious. But maybe my memory is deceiving me, I am being to blasé about it, there is definitely potential for someone to hurt themself. But should it be mandatory, should insurance only be valid when in place. Should badminton and netball posts be padded?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| prometheus wrote: |
| I high sided motorcycling a few years ago, definitely hit the ground at more than 14mph. |
How high did you go? The maths is the same, even if you got thrown up to 3m then the maximum vertical speed would be around 17mph.
| under a new name wrote: |
@Blackblade,
| Quote: |
This is because the force with which you hit the ground is determined by the height from which you fall ...
|
Not if you're carrying e.g. 70mph of momentum it isn't ! |
Err yes, it is. There is no mechanism by which your forward momentum is converted into a downward force.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
| There is no mechanism by which your forward momentum is converted into a downward force. |
A fulcrum/hinge/axle is such a mechanism, e.g. if there's a 2" diameter steel pipe a few inches above the hardpack snow that your skis go under when you're pootling along at 30mph, a face plant is going to be a tad more forceful than if you simply fell forward whilst stationary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@Crosbie, Yes, but if you fall off your motorbike and hit the ground there is no such mechanism in play.
The point being made a few posts ago was that motorcycle helmets are tested at speeds slightly higher than the maximum you could get in a vertical fall, but are not designed to protect much against the effects of hitting road furniture at potentially much higher speeds. So examples of injury where someone's hit a tree, for example, are outside the range of what a helmet is designed to protect against.
I had one big 'off' where such effects would have literally decapitated me had i hit the crash barrier 30cm or so higher. As it was I smashed 9 vertebrae and all the ribs on one side (among other injuries). If my helmet had impacted as well then the helmet would have given little protection; had the helmet impacted instead of my back I'm pretty sure I would have been in two pieces; but in either of the latter cases I would have been dead. Obviously I don't know my actual impact speed but I had been doing probably 125mph just before I reached the bend and braked too late, then grabbed the brakes and stoppied the bike, catapulting me into the Armco...
FWIW I haven't ridden bikes since then. After thirty years of riding like a lady's front bottom[*] I took this as a first and final warning.
[*] In it's non-redacted form as I typed it, a term of endearment, almost a compliment, in some biking circles I used to frequent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
As it was I smashed 9 vertebrae and all the ribs on one side (among other injuries)
|
I can't begin to think how painful that was, for so long.
I rode a (tiny little) motorbike for years, on three continents, but entirely lack whatever it is which makes people enjoy even crave, an "adrenaline rush" and dislike having people pass them on the road. I did come off it a few times, obviously - everybody does - but never did any harm, fortunately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
| FWIW I haven't ridden bikes since then. After thirty years of riding like a lady's front bottom[*] I took this as a first and final warning. |
As Dirty Harry used to say "A man's got to know his limitations".
I was recently encouraged to take up motorcycling - several times, in earnest - and I have declined, unwaveringly. However, much I might enjoy it, I know that I'd be highly unsuited to it - my life expectancy would take a big nose-dive.
I also know, that being forced to wear a helmet whilst snowboarding will also increase the likelihood of serious injury, but I think I can just about sanction a week thereof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Origen wrote: |
| Quote: |
As it was I smashed 9 vertebrae and all the ribs on one side (among other injuries)
|
I can't begin to think how painful that was, for so long.
|
T'was but a scratch.
These days it only hurts if I move. Or if I sit in one position for too long.
You just learn to live with it, but also learn to ski with it, which meant getting much more technical with everything I did in order to put less strain through my musculoskeletal system. As I get older I'm very glad I was forced down that avenue while still young enough (I was still in my 40s at the time) to do something about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Crosbie wrote: |
I also know, that being forced to wear a helmet whilst snowboarding will also increase the likelihood of serious injury, but I think I can just about sanction a week thereof. |
Oh I do hope you'll survive.
WALOS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@Chaletbeauroc, it is if you hit a tree ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Crosbie wrote: |
I also know, that being forced to wear a helmet whilst snowboarding will also increase the likelihood of serious injury |
I personally don't care if anyone (apart from my loved ones) wears a helmet or not. It's their choice. However, why do these same people insist on spouting absolute dross? (Like the above for example).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@Chaletbeauroc, and, yes, ouch!!
Personally, I find my helmet is of most use (so far) against idiots carrying skis and paying no attention to where they are. I have avoided quite a few scratches that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Let's recap the 'no brainer' argument:
People can easily see the results of head injuries, and thus
1) Every helmetless skier with a head impact/injury would have been better off wearing a helmet.
2) Every helmeted skier with a head impact/injury would have been worse off not wearing a helmet.
Ipso facto, every skier should wear a helmet. Indeed, it should be a legal requirement to do so.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult for people to see an increase in injuries caused by the wearing of helmets. To appreciate that there can be an increase requires considerable brain power that tends to be in short supply in the general population.
It is thus nigh on impossible to counter the 'no brainer' pro-helmet argument, and anyone who actually has a brain knows they're on a hiding to nothing to even attempt it. So, the pro-helmet-choice, non-helmet wearing minority just puts up with being treated as a bunch of brainless pariahs, by the no-brainer, pro-helmet majority.
And among the pro-helmet majority are plenty of zealots on a mission to convert the last 2% of non-helmet wearing skiers - by legal compulsion if necessary - if evangelical persuasion doesn't cut 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?
|
| Quote: |
And among the pro-helmet majority are plenty of zealots on a mission to convert the last 2% of non-helmet wearing skiers - by legal compulsion if necessary - if evangelical persuasion doesn't cut it.
|
Not clear quite who you are ranting at and insulting here. I don't think anybody has approved and endorsed the Italian ban. All that anger is bad for your arteries you know.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Crosbie wrote: |
Let's recap the 'no brainer' argument:
People can easily see the results of head injuries, and thus
1) Every helmetless skier with a head impact/injury would have been better off wearing a helmet.
2) Every helmeted skier with a head impact/injury would have been worse off not wearing a helmet.
Ipso facto, every skier should wear a helmet. Indeed, it should be a legal requirement to do so.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult for people to see an increase in injuries caused by the wearing of helmets. To appreciate that there can be an increase requires considerable brain power that tends to be in short supply in the general population.
It is thus nigh on impossible to counter the 'no brainer' pro-helmet argument, and anyone who actually has a brain knows they're on a hiding to nothing to even attempt it. So, the pro-helmet-choice, non-helmet wearing minority just puts up with being treated as a bunch of brainless pariahs, by the no-brainer, pro-helmet majority.
And among the pro-helmet majority are plenty of zealots on a mission to convert the last 2% of non-helmet wearing skiers - by legal compulsion if necessary - if evangelical persuasion doesn't cut it. |
 Brilliant post. You've basically won any debate with this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I very much doubt anyone here is on a zealous mission to convert the heathen freeheads. Except where it is someone personally dear to them that they don't want to see suffering from the after-effects of something that might have been mitigated. As we've seen people have a variety of experiences with helmets.
I'm very much fine with the "I find them uncomfortable and I don't want to wear one" from an adult decision maker but it's somewhat comical to see the arguments about how they make things more dangerous which approach at times the ludicrous US anti seatbelt arguments ("if I crash off a bridge I want to be flung clear rather than trapped in my seat and drown"). And none of us are Italian lawmakers who've somehow found it necessary to formalise a law (maybe they are just in the pocket of big helmet or recognise they are short a few neurosurgeons). I'm sure there will always be somewhere for the freeheads to exercise their freedom. Just not Italy for now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
And if you don't like it bight the bullet this season and thereafter Foxtrot Oscar. It's the law!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure if it’s relevant to the argument but I have a rule that I never employ or date anyone with a funny shaped head.
It’s the clearest indication that things will end badly. And when I think back to some of the biggest nightmares I’ve had to deal with, there’s always someone with a funny shaped head right in the middle of the action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@hang11, well, indeed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SnoodyMcFlude wrote: |
It does always amuse and intrigued me what some people say about the whole debate though. I'm particularly interested by those who claim that helmets don't make a difference, but then insist that their kids wear them
|
There is some logic to this -see my earlier comment about kid's heads being more fragile.
| SnoodyMcFlude wrote: |
Oh and I also find it strange that people avoid a whole country for skiing on the basis of not liking to wear a helmet, I really don't see them as being so terribly uncomfortable as some make out...maybe they've got special heads though |
I'm not sure it's so much, or at least not solely, about physical discomfort (I mean, maybe for a few, but not for most) but a variety of other factors in addition.
I've always worn a helmet while teaching, only rarely when I'm not, so do have considerable experience of both sides of the debate.
Factors that influence my choosing not to wear one most of the time include:
Heat regulation. Even with a couple of vents it's difficult to cope with unexpectedly high or changing temperatures, particularly later in the season. With my woolly hat I can just stick it in a pocket and replace it with my peaked headband from said pocket. Or go bareheaded, leave the "long blonde hair flying in the wind" for the ultimate cool.
Goggles/sunglasses. Can be a bit of a faff getting sunnies on comfortably, and the goggles worn around the helmet are very vulnerable to getting knocked, notably on chair lifts, which brings me to...
Getting knocked on chair lifts. I'm no giant, but at around 6'1" the height difference with the helmet is significant, just brings me into range of the safety bar as I'm sitting down on a chairlift.
Hearing. Yes, mine have removeable earpieces, but can only be done with the helmet off. I leave them on when it's cold, of course. It really does make quite a difference to overall hearing of what's going on around, and especially behind you.
Vision restriction. They do indeed slightly restrict my peripheral vision.
So none of these are meant to be arguments as to why you shouldn't wear a helmet, but are factors that influence my decision as to whether to do so. Just for the understanding of those who seem to be accusing non-helmet wearers of being irrational.
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Mon 17-11-25 17:48; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
