A Californian study determined that nearly 8,000 injuries each season in the state would be reduced or prevented altogether by wearing a helmet. They also said helmets reduced the risk of skin cancer of the scalp in the sunshine state.
A Californian study determined that nearly 8,000 injuries each season in the state would be reduced or prevented altogether by wearing a helmet. They also said helmets reduced the risk of skin cancer of the scalp in the sunshine state.
The source of this story, copy-pasted by the SCGB and SCUK, appears to be snow24.com - which is a news agency operated by long-serving ski journalist Patrick Thorne.
I'm emailing Patrick to find out more about this Californian study. One hopes that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (who will take the final decision this month on mandatory wearing of helmets by under-18s) will only be influenced by peer-reviewed* scientific data on head injuries, and proper scientific research on the protective value of ski helmets.
* 'Peer-reviewed', for those unfamiliar with the expression, means that the research and data has been scrutinised by fellow scientists, before general publication.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
David E Goldsmith wrote:
One hopes that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (who will take the final decision this month on mandatory wearing of helmets by under-18s) will only be influenced by peer-reviewed* scientific data on head injuries, and proper scientific research on the protective value of ski helmets.
I doubt he cares very much as he does nearly all his skiing in Sun Valley,Idaho where he has a home & there is even a ski trail named after him Arnold's Run. There are no helmet laws in Idaho Even for motor cycles if your over 18
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?
Hi y'all, I picked up (ripped off) the 'nearly 8000 injuries study' figure (think actual figure was 7700 as I recall) from a lengthy online Californian news report about the bill going to Arnie (Terminator not Wilson) for his end of Sept decision (He'll be back). I'm now trying to re-find it among the 77 that seem to be online but no luck so far, typical. As I recall it was a sub-division of Californian state government, something like the 'Safety Commissioner' that came up with the stat and I thought they'd carefully worded it so that the 7700 figure might actually refer to ALL injuries in California, not just head injuries. I had real trouble writing that story without adding Arnie references as I find it fairly hilarious (and simultaneously fairly depressing) that The Terminator is making decisions on safety on the slopes. Has the world gone mad? Patrick 'SnowHunter' T
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Ah, I added 7700 to the search and it came up with a load more hits, the one I got it from was:
"The Federal Consumer Products Safety Commission has found that an estimated 7,700 injuries on the slopes annually could be prevented or reduced in severity if snowboarders and skiers used helmets. The study also showed that for children 15 and younger, 53 percent of head injuries could be prevented or reduced in severity if a helmet is used."
Nothing new in this. This 1999 report seems to be an early source document.
Quote:
A CPSC special investigation study of skiing and snowboarding head injuries indicated
that 44 percent -- or an estimated 7,700 injuries -- could be addressed by helmet use.
The study also showed that for children under 15 years of age, 53 percent of head
injuries (approximately 2,600 of the total 4,950 head injuries) are addressable by use of
a helmet. In addition, based upon a review of skiing- and snowboarding-related death
certificates, 11 deaths per year solely attributed to head injuries might be addressed by
the use of helmets.
So, getting down to the nitty gritty, the assessment in 1999 was that 11 deaths/per year might be 'addressed' by helmet use. Looks a bit on the thin side as a case for legislation - though I am sure the proposers won't be asking their readers to bother to look for source material.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Many thanks, Patrick. The reason I emailed was that I'd tried to keyword-source, via Google, a reference to "8000" in relation to "helmets", "injuries", "California" etc.
By changing the figure to 7700, a 1999 report by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission does come up:
The figure 7700 seems to refer to the study's estimated reduction in head injuries nationally, rather than California (executive summary p.3).
The report estimates that "11 deaths per year solely attributed to head injuries might be prevented by the use of helmets".
A decade+ later, and now that helmets are so widely used in the States, one question is whether a reduction in fatalities is being observed? Anyone know?
After all it is free
After all it is free
Bit of cross-posting there!
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.
08.01.09
Austrian ski-lift operators have come out against proposals to make use of helmets by skiers mandatory.
Sounds like the lifties don't want to be the ones to enforce helmet wearing not that they believe helmet wearing is a bad thing.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Whitegold wrote:
Less than 1% of skiers worldwide regularly wore a helmet in 1950.
About 10 - 20% of skiers worldwide are regularly wearing a helmet in 2010.
About 80% of skiers will regularly wear a helmet by 2050.
Like motorcycling, wearing helmets while skiing is on an unstoppable upward trend.
Fabulous stuff. Wild, untamed, mental guff and piffle of stratospheric proportions.
Just a personal chair lift observation, but I haven't seen helmet usage change much over the last few years. If anything, I suspect it's not far short off peaking. It's not an issue like seat belts or air bags or CORGI registered plumbers, the perceived danger is simply far greater than the reality and people (who aren't stupid) manage their own risk accordingly.
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?
peaked sales and the fact that most people inclined to wear a lid will be buying on a replacement only basis now, means the manufacturers will be wanting to push this kind of stuff as much as possible..
CANV CANVINGTON, they'll also push the 3-year life thing. It all makes work for the working man to do - or sales for the retailers to do, in this case.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Jumping states ... from California to Colorado ... the Denver Post has just published this helpful editorial:
No such laws are being proposed here, and many children already wear helmets. But we think the resorts would serve themselves well by taking this step before a state legislator pitches a helmet law.
Quote:
A rule specifically for children recognizes that they lack the perspective and life experience to accurately assess the dangers posed by riding without head protection. If resorts were to make helmets for kids a requirement, there would be no rationale for legislation, or for the state to get involved in resort business.
Whether it's the state imposing the law, or the resort imposing the law, it seems to add up to "You're an irresponsible parent, and we rule that you rule that your child wears a helmet".
I find it surprising that the country that endorses the individual's right to 'bear arms' (but every right not to) should have newspapers that wish such draconian helmet laws.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
Even for motor cycles if your over 18 
