 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I bought a helmet this year - but remain unconvinced as to its benefits. Although, even recreational skiers reach substantial speeds, more than a moped rider for many, the moped rider's helmet is a much more substantial thing. So I fail to see the link between the benefits of helmets for motorcyclists, and potential benefits of skiing helmets for skiers. Even the caving/climbing helmet I own has more strength than my skiing helmet, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I have a helmet and wear it when it is not too hot. As previously mentioned i am one of lifes HOT people  My kids have their own helmets and wear them whenever skiing. I do not ski fast, I do not do jumps, I dont do the snow park, I rarely venture off piste wheras the kids lead a far more risky life. If I did what they do i would wear the lid even if too hot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| SimonN wrote: |
Finally, I am interested that the suggestion that any link between helmets and neck injury is b#ll#cks. I haven't seen any figures and I know the helmet is light, but in every other sport it is a factor which is why I wear a HANS device for motorsport. |
Wearing a HANS device to protect your neck is a good idea regardless of the helmet. I do not believe there is any convincing evidence to suggest that wearing a helmet will increase your chances of a neck injury. I'd say helmets are pretty neutral in this respect, but there is plenty of convincing evidence (not to mention common sense) to suggest that helmets reduce head injuries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Thoughts surely have to go to the skier and his family before any debate about the safety issues. This posting has 5 pages of debate, and not until the end of the 4th page does anybody actually offer any sentiment of condolence of any note....
Snowheads, the friendly, community site for people who love the snow and related activities.....
Can't help but suspect that had the guy in question been a regular poster on here, that the thread may have taken a somewhat different path...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Guvnor, The original post was questioning the use of helmets, so the debate was hardly surprising. Personally I would feel a bit odd offering my condolences to the family and friends of someone I'd never met. Had the unfortunate guy been a regular poster on here, I'm sure there would have been more personal messages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| ..............but there is plenty of convincing evidence (not to mention common sense) to suggest that helmets reduce head injuries. |
Depends what you read.
| Quote: |
| ........Jasper E. Shealy, professor emeritus of industrial engineering at the Rochester Institute of Technology in New York, said he doesn’t oppose the use of ski helmets. Bur he said there’s no data that show mandatory use of helmets will reduce deaths or serious injury. “If you don’t want to sustain a scalp laceration, then by all means wear a helmet,” Shealy said. |
And common sense may be common - but it is not always right. Before Galileo common sense said that heavier objects fell faster than light ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every time a skier (or cyclist or motor cyclist) died, SOMEONE always brings up the helmet issue. As though that's any proof that helmet should be worn. How often has anyone bring up incidence when someone hit their head without helmet and LIVED? How about when someone died WEARING helmet? The whole process is non-scientific, and boarderlining sensantionalism. The victim, in essence, is being "used" as an example.
It may be odd "offering condolences to the family and friends of someone I'd never met". Then why doesn't it feel odd to even bring up the death at all? News worthy? To whom?
I echo Guvnor's feeling. I found such "death triggered helmet debate" thread(s) disrespectful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
abc, it's very newsworthy IMHO. It helps raise awareness of risks, however small they may be. Perhaps if you'd never heard of anyone dying in a car crash you might not wear a seatbelt or buy a car with airbags?
achilles, one strong piece of evidence in favour of wearing helmets is their very existence. Another would be head butting a tree with and without one. I don't really care whether they make them mandatory or not. I'm all in favour of natural selection 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| achilles, one strong piece of evidence in favour of wearing helmets is their very existence. |
Isn't that like saying that evidence in favour of fortune-telling is the existence of crystal balls?
Wearing a helmet may or may not be a good thing, but I don't see how their existence can be taken as evidence in favour of either proposition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| achilles, one strong piece of evidence in favour of wearing helmets is their very existence. |
Isn't that like saying that evidence in favour of fortune-telling is the existence of crystal balls?
|
Good point. But it's not really the same thing. I don't think anyone would consider helmets to have any super-natural powers. Helmets exist for a much more practical down-to-earth reason. They protect your head! The only sensible argument (IMV) is to what extent they protect it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
laundryman, given that the existence of fortune-telling necessitates the existence of balls I don't see why not
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| laundryman wrote: |
Wearing a helmet may or may not be a good thing |
So you really have no idea whether or not helmets are a good thing? What would be your gut feeling?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| .......So you really have no idea whether or not helmets are a good thing? What would be your gut feeling? |
Not asked to me I know - but...
I bought a Scott helmet this year. My gut feeling is that is so insubstantial it is not much use. Good for stopping cuts and grazes - but little else. But I really don't know how much use it will be. I bought it having seen a fellow skier fall down a black slope on his back like a rag doll for several hundred feat. I figured that had it might help save a few clonks from rocks if I fell too. However, I am not all that convinced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| laundryman wrote: |
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| achilles, one strong piece of evidence in favour of wearing helmets is their very existence. |
Isn't that like saying that evidence in favour of fortune-telling is the existence of crystal balls?
|
Good point. But it's not really the same thing. I don't think anyone would consider helmets to have any super-natural powers. Helmets exist for a much more practical down-to-earth reason. They protect your head! The only sensible argument (IMV) is to what extent they protect it. |
Now you're on to better territory!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
maybe, but I think in this case "existence" is a sign that many people have independently come to the conclusion they're a good idea. Ok it's not direct scientific evidence, just a collective view. That goes for many other sports too where helmet wearing is generally considered to be a good idea eg mountain biking, motorsport, ice hockey, etc, etc, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
achilles, I have no idea about Scott helmets, but they must at least meet the required safety standards. Maybe you should look for something that goes a little further?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| abc, Perhaps if you'd never heard of anyone dying in a car crash you might not wear a seatbelt or buy a car with airbags? |
No. I don't know of anyone dying in a car crash. Nor do I read such report. I always feel it's distasteful to report such accident in all its glory details.
Nevertheless, I would have still opted to buy a car with seatbels, because I do believe statistics of the chance of survival in a car crash with vs. without seatbelt/airbag.
Such statistics doesn't exist in skiing accidents. Statistics are harder to come by, requires more scientific methodology and less sensational than a case of someone dying.
This kind of thread is more like "fear tactic" than reasoning.
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| I don't think anyone would consider helmets to have any super-natural powers. Helmets exist for a much more practical down-to-earth reason. They protect your head! The only sensible argument (IMV) is to what extent they protect it. |
In that case, I'm happy to see threads of how someone gotten out of a crash with a bang-up helmet but no headach. In fact, many, many snowboarders wear helmet for that "pratical" reason and some skiers are joining them for the same.
Especially since the death of this particular skier may not have been prevented had helmet been worn anyway, what's the point of this thread but sensationalism?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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,
Interesting point about cars, from the published statistics I reckon at my frequency of skiing and driving I am about 10 times more likely to die in a car crash than in a skiing accident and therefore possibly suffer head injury.
Can't say I wear a helmet for either driving or skiing or plan to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I've become a convert to the lids, mainly for dealing with the risk of small knocks from rocks and trees and for playing in the jump parks. I agree that they may well be of little use in preventing major trauma in high speed impacts, but when you roll down a gully in 2 feet of powder it is hard to predict what may lie under the surface. I also flipped once and cracked the back of my head sharply on hard packed snow. Now that hurt... even though a hat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
abc, V8 posted some stats earlier in the thread. I don't think anyone is "sensationalising" this thread or suggesting that the poor guy would have survived with a helmet. We'll never know that for sure. I agree it would have been more positive to start the debate with a picture of a mashed helmet and a guy walking away. But after the first few posts the resulting debate would be identical.
I wear a helmet skiing mainly to protect against minor accidents and collisions with sharp objects. Besides it works better than a hat anyway, so there's no downside for me. As for potentially saving my life, I'm not going to depend on it, but if I'm unfortunate enough to have a huge stack I'd much rather be wearing it than not. No different to any motorcyclist or racing driver.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| SimonN wrote: |
Finally, I am interested that the suggestion that any link between helmets and neck injury is b#ll#cks. I haven't seen any figures and I know the helmet is light, but in every other sport it is a factor which is why I wear a HANS device for motorsport. |
Wearing a HANS device to protect your neck is a good idea regardless of the helmet. I do not believe there is any convincing evidence to suggest that wearing a helmet will increase your chances of a neck injury. I'd say helmets are pretty neutral in this respect, but there is plenty of convincing evidence (not to mention common sense) to suggest that helmets reduce head injuries. |
This doesn't make total sense. Firstly, a Hans device only works with a helmet! Secondly, add any mass to the head increases the chance of neck injury and the amount of weight added by a skiing helmet must make a difference.
It is also obvious that helmets reduce head injuries but the issue is whether they reduce serious head injuries in significant numbers to make wearing a helmet worthwhile. Wearing a helmet anywhere at any time reduces the chance of a head injury. As I have posted already, I think I am far more likely to suffer a head injury doing other things which nobody ever suggests that you should wear a helmet for.
The other thing I would like to understand more is whether the extra size of the helmet makes it more likely that you bang the helmet. For instance, change the size of a bull's horns effects their whole peception and gives bullfighters an unfair advantage. When wearing a helmet, things that would miss your head by 25mm would now hit the helmet.
Finally, I cannot buy into this disrespect thing. I believe that if I lost a loved one, I would gain comfort from knowing that the loss had sparked a debate on safety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ski helmets are rather light though and do not add much additional mass to the head when compared with a motorsports model. IMHO I doubt that there would be any realistic chance of the weight causing neck injury.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
V8 posted some stats earlier in the thread
|
I have learnt that many internet forum folk develop selective blindness when reading replies, instead preferring to espouse their views regardless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
A HANS device is there to restrict the movement of the Head in cases of extreme deceleration, such as hitting a concrete wall. which would cause injury to the base of the skull. The Helmet provides a covenient mounting point for the device, It would do almost the same job if it was mounted to some sort of head harness. The Helmet itself is to cushion and disipate energy exerted through impact, either by deformation or self destruction. Hopefully protecting the contents. As far as I am aware a ski helmet is only good for impacts up to 12mph into a solid object. I wear one for the comfort when wearing goggles, the odd knock on chairlifts, skiing trees and general falls. I wouldn't expect it to save my life. Motorsport helmets are an alltogether different story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SimonN wrote: |
Firstly, a Hans device only works with a helmet!
|
Yes I know that thanks, and your point there is?
| SimonN wrote: |
Secondly, add any mass to the head increases the chance of neck injury and the amount of weight added by a skiing helmet must make a difference.
|
In a whiplash type accident yes, but hardly relevant for ski helmets.
| SimonN wrote: |
It is also obvious that helmets reduce head injuries but the issue is whether they reduce serious head injuries in significant numbers to make wearing a helmet worthwhile.
|
Quite, that's your personal choice. For me any head protection is worthwhile when skiing, mountain biking etc. I take my chances when on foot.
| SimonN wrote: |
The other thing I would like to understand more is whether the extra size of the helmet makes it more likely that you bang the helmet. For instance, change the size of a bull's horns effects their whole peception and gives bullfighters an unfair advantage. When wearing a helmet, things that would miss your head by 25mm would now hit the helmet.
|
If I get within an inch of cracking my head on something, I want the helmet on thanks. I don't think the increase in effective head size is a major downside!
| SimonN wrote: |
Finally, I cannot buy into this disrespect thing. I believe that if I lost a loved one, I would gain comfort from knowing that the loss had sparked a debate on safety. |
At least we agree on something 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
I take my chances when on foot.
|
And some skiers choose to take their chances while on ski. Big difference?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
abc, yes - the difference is what you are doing and the amount of control you have. When on skis (or a bike, etc), you are no longer relying purely on your own muscles/skeleton to make and control movements - there are relatively major items added on which alter how your body would naturally be.
Let me put it another way - your foot is about 30cm long. You put a ski on, and you are now dealing with something which is 5-6 times bigger than your foot. I would suggest that for most people, this will affect their movements and control.
Try walking down the sidewalk in NYC in your skis. Then keep them on as you go down to the subway, etc. Notice a difference to when you are just in shoes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| abc wrote: |
| Quote: |
I take my chances when on foot.
|
And some skiers choose to take their chances while on ski. Big difference? |
I consider myself at slightly higher risk of head injury when skiing, due to the increased speed, proximity of trees and other skiers/boarders. If ski helmets did NOT exist I would still go skiing, no question. In fact I did for many many years. But that doesn't stop me wearing one now they are readily available at relatively cheap prices. I can't think of a good reason not to wear one. If one day while skiing I smash head first into a tree, I'll be wearing a helmet which I'm confident will not make the situation any worse. Maybe, just maybe it will make the difference between life or death? It's a "no lose" situation in my view.
I never said ski helmets should be made mandatory, so it's your own personal choice as far as I'm concerned. If you're happy to ski without one, great, what do I care? Chances are you'll be fine. I only get annoyed with people who say helmets are a total waste of time or even potentially dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Wear The Fox Hat, not to mention you are travelling a lot faster on skis than on foot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| abc, Try walking down the sidewalk in NYC in your skis. Then keep them on as you go down to the subway, etc. Notice a difference to when you are just in shoes? |
Poor example.
The street of NYC is designed for walking, while the slopes of ski resorts are designed for skiing.
I consider the difficulty of walking down the street of NYC with ski no more difficult than walking down the ski slope WITHOUT skis.
"Going down the subway with skis"? Try walking on 3 feet powder WITHOUT ski!
Wannabet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
I agree it would have been more positive to start the debate with a picture of a mashed helmet and a guy walking away. But after the first few posts the resulting debate would be identical.
. |
uktrailmonster, that's very much my point. there's no controvercy over helmet protection against minor bangs and scratches. As you said, "after the first few posts the resulting debate would be identical".
But all the helmet debate threads are over some people claiming "helmet save life". It's not clear it does.
That's why using someone who died, who most likely would NOT have been saved by wearing a helmet, to start another helmet debate thread is, in my view, distasteful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| abc wrote: |
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| abc, Try walking down the sidewalk in NYC in your skis. Then keep them on as you go down to the subway, etc. Notice a difference to when you are just in shoes? |
Poor example.
|
Nope, perfect example - skis are not designed for walking the streets. they are not what we wear on our feet most of the time. We have to adapt to different movements, different muscle strengths etc, to use them.
If skiing was identical to walking in every respect, then I'd agree with those who say there is no need for helmets. For me, it's not the same in every respect - there's the size of the skis, the speed, the terrain, many differences. Do you understand that, or do you think there are no differences at all?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, well if helmets saved even 1 life, they would be worth having. It may not be 100% clear that helmets save lives, but it certainly is not 100% clear that they do not ever save lives. How can you say with 100% confidence that a helmet would not have saved this guy? "Most likely would not" is not quite the same as "100% would not". At least we both agree they prevent more minor injuries, which is another good reason to choose to wear one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Wear The Fox Hat, for me the main difference is speed and direct exposure to hitting hard objects. I class mountain biking (my other main hobby) as a higher risk. Walking on foot much lower.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
Nope, perfect example - skis are not designed for walking the streets. they are not what we wear on our feet most of the time. We have to adapt to different movements, different muscle strengths etc, to use them.
If skiing was identical to walking in every respect, then I'd agree with those who say there is no need for helmets. For me, it's not the same in every respect - there's the size of the skis, the speed, the terrain, many differences. Do you understand that, or do you think there are no differences at all? |
If you're brought up skiing at the age of 3, skiing can be as natural as walking.
Those who didn't start skiing as soon as they walk doesn't have the same control on ski as they do walking down the sidewalk. But that itself is not dangerous as long as they don't exceed their capability by skiing faster than they can turn or stop. There's a saying "don't run before you know how to walk".
Too many skiers "run before they know how to walk" on skis. But no one wants to admit that to themselves. Nor do they want to slow down to take the time to "learn to walk" properly before thye hit that icy black run! To many, adding a helmet may indeed only add a false sense of security.
In the NYC subway, you'll see many signs that says "slip and fall are the most common injuries on subway". People do run a lot, even up and down the stair, in the subway trying to catch that train that's about to close its door. I'd be very curious to see the number of injuries on NYC subway vs. the number of injuries on any ski resort. And how many of them could have been prevented by wearing a helmet!
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Tue 17-04-07 16:17; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| Wear The Fox Hat, for me the main difference is speed and direct exposure to hitting hard objects. I class mountain biking (my other main hobby) as a higher risk. Walking on foot much lower. |
Unfortuantely, speed is what renders bike and ski helmet less useful than what many people WISH to believe.
I've had the misfortune to witness TWO fatality on bike, both of them wearing helmets. So I have no illusion on the usefulness of helmet, skiing or cycling.
I wear helmet both mountain biking and road biking. Mountain biking, I've had plenty of personal experience helmet helped me on "direct exposure to hitting hard objects", mostly overhead branches and occasionally rocks. But I doubt its usefulness on the road. The speed I'm traveling on pavement is so high that helmet may or may not make any difference.
Speed on ski slopes are often comparable to biking on smooth pavement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| A popular criticism of ski helmets is that they do not provide protection in collisions over 12 to 14 mph. This figure is often cited as a reason not to wear or endorse helmets. This figure comes from a laboratory test in which a helmet is secured to a metal test headform and dropped from a height to achieve a specified impact velocity onto a solid steel anvil.11 The reported impact speeds are misleading if interpreted literally, and helmets are felt to provide effective protection against brain injury at speeds beyond the test velocity. For example, motorcycle helmets are tested at flat anvil impacts of 13.4 mph, yet there is overwhelming clinical evidence that they provide substantial protection against brain injury at much higher speeds.15-17 Similarly, impact velocities specified for bicycle helmets range from 10 to 14 mph, yet again clinical experience clearly indicates significant protection in collisions at higher speeds. Thompson and Patterson found that bicycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85%, brain injury by 88%, and severe brain injury by 75%, and that they are just as effective in collisions involving motor vehicles.18 Finally, the helmeted skiers and boarders in our series who made full recoveries despite major mechanisms, provide direct clinical evidence that ski helmets can afford protection in collisions exceeding 12 to 14 mph. Helmets may not prevent every injury, but in all the cases we have seen to date, they have mitigated potentially fatal or disabling head injuries into fully recoverable injuries. |
http://www.thecni.org/reviews/11-1-p27-levy.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
abc, you probably have a stronger case for road biking than for skiing - but for another reason. A recent UK study showed that motorists pass closer to cyclists who wear helmets than cyclists who don't.
The quote from petemillis backs up everything that I have seen, including papers which have shown no increase in neck injury to compensate for reduction in head injury in snow users with helmets. I have had to deal with enough brain injured adults to want to reduce head injury severity.
No one here thinks that helmets are a guarantee that you will live in any of the discussed situations. They do genuinely seem to mitigate in ski head injuries, and that is a good reason for those adults who want to, and all children to wear them. I am having a little difficulty in understanding why you are so vehement about this. Would you ski in the back country without a transceiver, probe and shovel? Would you turn your airbag off because you have seen people die in car crashes despite them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
abc, you probably have a stronger case for road biking than for skiing - but for another reason. A recent UK study showed that motorists pass closer to cyclists who wear helmets than cyclists who don't.
I am having a little difficulty in understanding why you are so vehement about this. Would you ski in the back country without a transceiver, probe and shovel? Would you turn your airbag off because you have seen people die in car crashes despite them? |
Despite not convinced for its effectiveness, I do wear helmet even when biking on the road. I also question the validity of that "study" you mentioned. I do buy the arguement that there's essentially no negative of wearing one. And there's potential positive.
I'm not against wearing helmets. I'm only against using the death of a helmet-less skier as a bait for pushing helmet down the throat (or I should say head?) of those who doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
I've never worn a helmet skiing but I think I am about to get one. mrs b, a competent, not particularly fast and certainly non-reckless skier, had a low speed fall off the side of a gentle blue, uncrowded track, cracked her head on a rock and now has 7 stitches up the back of her head.
She is now the proud owner of a new Giro 10, and apparently I will be too in the near future.
Conversely, I've always made the kids wear helmets. What's the point of being a parent if you can't impose random, arbitrary conditions on the little blighters ? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
