 Poster: A snowHead
|
yes you should,
i've taken 3 knocks to the head over the years - 1 on the piste but ski came off and clobbered me in the back of the head (4x stitches) 1 off piste on a rock under the powder (3x stitches) and 1 bang on the side of the head skiing close gladed trees.
as soon as helmets for recreational skiers became available i bought myself one, i'm now on my 4th and would advise anyone riding the mountain to wear one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Flet©h wrote: |
| clarky999 wrote: |
| Quote: |
Trying to asses risks based on personal experience is a mugs game. You are much better off letting someone else inform you of the true reality.
|
You're joking right??
I really hope you're joking... |
No - I'm deadly serious. Based on personal experience you can judge how comfy a helmet is vs a hat, how nice and snug it is round the ears or how much of a hassle it is trying to fit it in your hand luggage. But risk is an entirely different thing, you have no way of knowing how risky something is if you only use your personal experience of it.
So I suppose what I am saying is:
You are much better of letting someone with all of the available evidence inform you of the level of risk than try to work it out yourself, you can then make a personal decision based on your own tolerance to risk and the rewards of taking that risk.
And I really don't see what people's objection to that is, we do it all the time in other areas.
I already mentioned medicine but pistes are another example, the colour gradings a akin to a risk level, we don't simply stand at the top and look down a gentle gradient if its marked black and ski off assuming it will be gentle the whole way down, we trust the risk assessment of an expert and trade this off against our own risk/reward. Some people know they can ski it safely, some see the reward as blagging they skied a black in their first week and actively seek out a black despite the increased risk they will fall and die! |
I can look at a mountain and see a line. I can see the hazards, I can judge whether my ability is enough to overcome the hazards, I can assess the likelihood of me making a mistake, and the consequences of me making a mistake. Based on this I decide if the risk falls within limits I'm happy with. I don't need to know what's happened to other people there - that's completely irrelevant to me and my ability. I don't need to be told that hitting a tree or rock with my head will do some damage, I don't need to be told that falling may hurt. I am the only person qualified to judge the risks for me, whether they are acceptable to me, whether I ski the line and what protection I feel I need.
The colour gradings show difficulty - the risk someone is at on whatever grade of piste depends on their ability. Only they know their ability, and so only they can make an accurate judgement of the risk, and only they can decide if the risk is acceptable to them.
It's down to the individual to take responsibility for themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
The "authorities" are able to make their decisions based on all of the available data from millions of 'data points', compiled to form evidence, and therefore are able to make the right choice.
|
Except that they don't, do they? They tell you what to do based on political expediency, public opinion and what's likely to be popular at the time.
Personally I like being an adult, which involves making my own judgements based on what I read/see/hear/research for myself and my own personal experience of how/where/in what conditions I ski, data to which 'the authorities' have no access whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Helmets in themselves are a risk to wear see riding accidents with stiff peak helmets breaking necks. Weight of helmet increasing wear and tear on old neck injuries and strains, weight increasing loading on neck in tumbling and twisting high velocity falls on soft surface. Headache is a sign perhaps your helmet is too heavy fanafana. Perhaps a HANS device is the way to go and possibly full face visors but then one could be mistaken for a Km L specialist
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
The other part of the argument I've often wondered about is would the wearing of a helmet save the piste patrol any 'body' recoveries? Wearing a helmet might contribute to you being able to pick yourself up and get yourself off the mountain after a smash whereas not wearing one might involve the stretcher party (an operation which must involve some risk to all involved parties (esp. in poor weather)). Surely then we owe it to the possible rescue party to make ourselves as safe as possible on the mountain and do all we can to limit the possible need to involve them. A bit like going Hill Walking and being requested to carry sensible safety gear such as bivvy bags, first aid kits, choccy and whistles. Why do some folks view helmets as un-necessary yet would take apart anyone who suggested going off piste without avvy gear for similar reasons of being able to self help and keep themselves safe on the mountain?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| andy_snow_web wrote: |
| Flet©h wrote: |
| andy_snow_web wrote: |
Yes you should get yourself a helmet.
Not from a perspective of a retailer.. but simply as a person that has seen enough accidents to know it makes no sense to save your money in this area.
If you have any questions regarding helmets then please feel free to email us at sales@snowtraxstore.co.uk
Thank you |
Anecdote ≠ Evidence
I wouldn't trust any advice on helmets from this guy after those dubious statements  |
Sorry,
I feel that my reply was a helpful response from an honest retailer.
In the past 6 years i have worked within the Ski industry I have personally seen a massive increase in the amount of helmets we sell, and indeed the popularity of Helmets world wide. It is only the UK, in my personal opinion, that has been so slow to pick up on the safety advantages of helmets.
You don't have to buy a helmet. It isn't law for adults to wear them.
As I stated previously, if you would like any assistance with any of the helmets that we stock then please email us. We are always happy to help. |
It was a one sided plug from a salesman with a bit of scaremongering anecdote thrown in for good measure, you even compelled people to by an expensive helmet rather than the right helmet for the job. The sales email link just added to the transparency. And since this is a peer to peer discussion, not a sales pitch I think you deserved to be called on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flet©h,
I'm fully with you. Putting aside your instincts and trusting the data is something I've had to deal with in most of my jobs - I started off doing risk assessments in the nuclear industry and now I'm in computer security. Basing your decisions on what you've seen in your particular experience can't start to be even potentially useful until you've had hundreds of ski days, and even then you'd have to have a consistent way of recording what accidents / near misses you witness to avoid confirmation bias.
Ironically, in the case of ski helmets, I'm not personally aware of any specific data on the effectiveness of helmets overall. I'm fully aware that I wear my helmet because, well, I'm scared not to. I can afford it, it's very comfortable and I ski cautiously so I judge it very unlikely to make the situation any worse, and quite likely to make a lot of falls inconsequential. Plus it's at least credible that it might *just* make the difference between life and death.
But there's no problem deciding personally to accept the risk of not wearing a helmet, because other things may matter more to you.
I'm reminded of the story a former nuclear submariner told me: apparently they calculated that the overall most dangerous thing by far on a nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed submarine is the deep-fat fryer in the galley. But the Navy realised they'd have a mutiny on their hands if the galley couldn't cook chips, so they continue to accept the risk. Note: I never actually saw a report saying this, so the story may well be apocryphal. But it's a good illustration 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clarky,
I'm totally on board with the idea that we should all assess our own risks when we are out and about in the mountains. The self-reliance in making those kind of judgments is one of that attractions of mountain sports IMO.
I do chuckle though when people say "I've never banged my head so I don't see the point in wearing a helmet" - If banging your head hard is a low-incidence, high impact event then one person's experience is unlikely to give a good guide... It's a bit like saying "I've never been caught in an avalanche so I don't see the point in a transceiver". While I'm on that topic, quite a few avalanche deaths involve head injuries rather than suffocation...
J
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 don't think helmets should be made compulsory, perhaps for young children up to a certain age but even that is debatable. However, being on the pro-helmet is the main objection people have to helmets themselves, or being forced to wear one, being advised to wear one? I appreciate some people don't want to wear them, but some replies here from the anti-helmet side have really surprised me. I absolutely agree with your right not to wear one and would argue against compulsory use of them, but I was not expecting this on a ski forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jakejenks,
| Quote: |
but I was not expecting this on a ski forum.
|
Try the search function - it's one of the most contentious and most often discussed subjects on SH's. In fact that fact that this thread hasn't yet disintegrated into derision is what is most remarkable - to have hit page 3 without it happening is not par for the course IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Lizzard wrote: |
| Quote: |
The "authorities" are able to make their decisions based on all of the available data from millions of 'data points', compiled to form evidence, and therefore are able to make the right choice.
|
Except that they don't, do they? They tell you what to do based on political expediency, public opinion and what's likely to be popular at the time.
Personally I like being an adult, which involves making my own judgements based on what I read/see/hear/research for myself and my own personal experience of how/where/in what conditions I ski, data to which 'the authorities' have no access whatever. |
I'm totally with you with regards to whether we have the option to not wear a ski helmet. My point was more addressing your's and clarky999's proclamation that people were always telling you what to do and in England its terrible and getting worse.
I was making the point that quite often people don't know best, adults make stupid decisions that damage other people and do need to be told what to do and modern statistics allow us to better make these choices. Its a more interesting discussion than ski helmet debates!
You could stretch the argument to say that there is a greater good to ski helmets as reduced injuries could lessen insurance premiums for all and reduce the burden on public healthcare services. Whilst this may be true the rates of head injuries skiing are so tiny the benefit wouldn't be worth the cost of enforcement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| galpinos wrote: |
| Quote: |
I've worked in a place where we had to call maintenance to change a lightbulb - Health and Safety considered it too dangerous to do without proper training.
|
That's not due to health and safety legislation though, that's due to your company deciding that it can't trust it's employees to change a light bulb without hurting themselves and therefore causing the company to have to record the accident.
Slightly different.
Having had experience working in the construction industry, I'm amazed how little value a lot of people place on their own safety/health/life! |
No, it's actually due to the fact that if you have an accident while changing the lightbulb, then you can't sue your employer, as you've had the the required safety training, done all the risk assessments, filled out a pre job safety analysis etc. Therefore they've done their bit, covered their backsides, and the accident must have been of your making.
I work in the oil industry, where HSE is the second most important TLA. The most important is of course CYA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Skier from Argentina wrote: |
| I work in the oil industry, where HSE is the second most important TLA. The most important is of course CYA. |
I understood SFA of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Cover Your A*se but WTF is TLA & HSE?
| Chris Wood741 wrote: |
| I've been skiing since the 80s, I think that qualifys me to comment. |
You're far far too over qualified to comment on this forum... no one will take a blind bit of notice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Three Letter Acronym
Health and Safety Executive
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Megamum, ^^ I do have a brain - and I have the use of google Acronyms too . Can't see in context, so what is TLA then - if not a typo?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
allanm, The poster was referring to working in an industry that takes risk analysis very seriously. He pointed out that HSE - basically Health and Safety was very important, though possibly not as important as the other Three (T) Letter (L) Acronym (A) which is Cover Your Ass (which I hope the censor filter will let me get away with). It's just all about hazard and risk analysis and peoples perception of both and is the reason why you shouldn't change a light bulb in an office unless you have been trained for it and it is your job.
| Quote: |
where HSE (Health and Safety Executive) is the second most important TLA (Three Letter Acronym). The most important is of course CYA (Cover Your Ass)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
SLA - CTHTDTB - contributing to helmet threads damages the brain. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
^^ Many thanks for that, especially the detailed explanation, I didn't relate TLA in the context of the rest of the post, sorry to appear so stupid.
Perhaps helmets ought to be banned outright and that would end threads like this on here??
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Skier from Argentina wrote: |
| galpinos wrote: |
| Quote: |
I've worked in a place where we had to call maintenance to change a lightbulb - Health and Safety considered it too dangerous to do without proper training.
|
That's not due to health and safety legislation though, that's due to your company deciding that it can't trust it's employees to change a light bulb without hurting themselves and therefore causing the company to have to record the accident.
Slightly different.
Having had experience working in the construction industry, I'm amazed how little value a lot of people place on their own safety/health/life! |
No, it's actually due to the fact that if you have an accident while changing the lightbulb, then you can't sue your employer, as you've had the the required safety training, done all the risk assessments, filled out a pre job safety analysis etc. Therefore they've done their bit, covered their backsides, and the accident must have been of your making.
I work in the oil industry, where HSE is the second most important TLA. The most important is of course CYA. |
Whatever it's due to is fairly irrelevant - it still seems to be the prevailing culture. Fair enough when playing with explosives on oil rigs, but if someone can't safely screw in a lightbulb it's probably best if they're removed from the gene pool anyway...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
| Whatever it's due to is fairly irrelevant - it still seems to be the prevailing culture. Fair enough when playing with explosives on oil rigs, but if someone can't safely screw in a lightbulb it's probably best if they're removed from the gene pool anyway... |
Have you been reading the Daily Mail? Have you actually encountered over zealous H&S? I'd be very surprised if anyone every got told not to change a light bulb through fear they might injure themselves or the company may get sued, a much more reasonable explanation is that the company don't want someone wasting their time looking for a light bulb and a ladder when they should be working and they already employ someone to do general maintenance.
The H&S gone mad fallacy is just that, its generated by the media as one of their pet stories, they love to peddle this myth almost as much as they love to blow small risks out of all proportion and castigate anyone who dare hurt themselves while perusing a sport whislt ***SHOCK*** ***HORROR***, not wearing a helmet.
Its all the flipping Daily Mails fault!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Megamum,
I had to take the dog for walk, so thanks for explaining those Three Letter Acronyms for me, although at work HSE stands for Health, Safety and Environment (I think). So we can all pretend that Big Oil really does put the environment before profit.
Was that a flying pig that just went past the window?
Back to the OP. Here's two reasons to wear a helmet.
Several years ago my wife was in hospital to have an operation on her head. She had to overnight in intensive care afterwards. Two beds down was a teenager in a coma. He'd been standing still when a snowboarder had hit him. He wasn't wearing a helmet. The boarder was. He never regained consciousness.
Three years ago my wife (again) was queuing for the lift with her instructor when she was hit behind by a snowboarder (again). She was hit so hard that it knocked both her skis off. She got away with a black eye, facial bruising, and having a tooth broken that later had to be replaced by a implant.
It's not so much what you do, it's all the other idiots out skiing that can seriously ruin your day.
Personally I started wearing a helmet this year, not because of what accidents I might have, but to protect me from others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Flet©h wrote: |
| clarky999 wrote: |
| Whatever it's due to is fairly irrelevant - it still seems to be the prevailing culture. Fair enough when playing with explosives on oil rigs, but if someone can't safely screw in a lightbulb it's probably best if they're removed from the gene pool anyway... |
Have you been reading the Daily Mail? Have you actually encountered over zealous H&S? I'd be very surprised if anyone every got told not to change a light bulb through fear they might injure themselves or the company may get sued, a much more reasonable explanation is that the company don't want someone wasting their time looking for a light bulb and a ladder when they should be working and they already employ someone to do general maintenance.
The H&S gone mad fallacy is just that, its generated by the media as one of their pet stories, they love to peddle this myth almost as much as they love to blow small risks out of all proportion and castigate anyone who dare hurt themselves while perusing a sport whislt ***SHOCK*** ***HORROR***, not wearing a helmet.
Its all the flipping Daily Mails fault! |
Did you read my post? I was told not to change a lightbulb (kept in a cupboard 10 metres away, would have taken seconds, and not at a busy time of day) because it was dangerous and against HS policy. And no I don't read the Mail (this is almost becoming a new form of Godwin's Law...), and not something from any other media, but from my own experiences. In trying to make things safer the public are treated as idiots who can't take responsibility for themselves, and then the public become idiots unable to take responsibility for themselves... Hence the American style liability lawsuits, suggestions to put handrails and signs up in the Scottish hills, etc. People are becoming too used to being babysat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skier from Argentina, You and I make good Devil's advocates don't we?
I don't know about more risks, but I have a higher level of confidence when I wear a helmet, I guess due to perceived protection. Mind you I've always done sports requiring helmets and it's second nature for me to wear one. In the case of my skiing though I think I benefit from the increased confidence as I am still not an overly 'brave' skier although I do have more skills to draw on these days and anything that stops me worrying is a good thing. You might argue that a helmet is a safer option for doing this than half a bottle of red wine!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I've skied for about 25 years and have never worn a helmet, despite occasional bouts of gnarly-ish off piste, but I've been giving it some thought recently. I cycle a lot, and usually wear a lid on my bike, more out of convention (I ride with a club and everyone else does), as I'm less convinced of the benefits of wearing a helmet on a bike than some of the "my helmet broke therefore my head would have done" anecdote tellers. The worst of which recently seems to be James Cracknell who has become something of a helmet evangelist despite having brain injuries which would almost certainly have occurred whether he was wearing a helmet or not (truck's wing mirror hit him at 65mph). I never wear a helmet cycling in London (Boris Bike in a suit) and if it's really hot I sometimes don't bother as I weigh up the comfort vs risk and come down in favour of a less sweaty head. Not logical!
I, like many others on here, have never injured my head skiing (although I can recall taking a bit of a whack when I caught an edge at high speed on a very icy piste at Grands Montets one day) - however I'm more convinced by the potential risks from other people wearing helmets and other relatively low speed but pointy impacts like rocks in gullies or trees. So i, like the OP, am undecided - I think I might buy one and try it, but will probably wear a bobble hat as much as a lid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Leaving all this aside (because it's very dull), if you do want to buy a helmet, I can recommend K2 - comfortable, well ventilated, easy adjustment thingy at the back which means you can fine-tune the fit while actually wearing the thing. Decent range of fits/styles. On the other hand, I wouldn't pay extra for one with in-helmet music, because my experience of their speaker system is that it is utterly rubbish.
clarky999, will be along in a minute to tell you Sweet Protection is the way forward and it may well be, but you'll have to take out a mortgage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
There are two other good reasons for helmet use not yet covered:
1. To encourage non-helmet wearers to get angry about the 'helmet culture', thus hurrying them into a stress-induced early grave leaving the world a slightly more calm place.
2. To punish non-helmet wearers who collide with you by increasing the chances that they'll come off worst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Serriadh, that post was nearly as boring and pointless as the ski vs snowboard thing. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Skier from Argentina, I don't take more risks because I wear a helmet, but I wouldn't ski like I do without one. I'm not skiing recklessly with a helmet on, but I wouldn't ski as fast on piste or as big off piste without one. For me it isn't about confidence, it doesn't make me a better or worse skier, its about safety, I want to be skiing 50 years from now and I'll do what I can to make sure I still am 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Lizzard wrote: |
| Serriadh, that post was nearly as boring and pointless as the ski vs snowboard thing. |
That's super. I'm glad you could take the time out to give me this useful feedback.
What ski vs snowboard thing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
| Did you read my post? I was told not to change a lightbulb (kept in a cupboard 10 metres away, would have taken seconds, and not at a busy time of day) because it was dangerous and against HS policy. |
Sorry, I did read your post but there are a lot of posts and I only remember part of the information
| clarky999 wrote: |
| And no I don't read the Mail (this is almost becoming a new form of Godwin's Law...), and not something from any other media, but from my own experiences. In trying to make things safer the public are treated as idiots who can't take responsibility for themselves, and then the public become idiots unable to take responsibility for themselves... Hence the American style liability lawsuits, suggestions to put handrails and signs up in the Scottish hills, etc. People are becoming too used to being babysat. |
I hate to break it too you but a lot of the public are idiots!
But I still stand by the reasoning. The HS policy maker has a lot more information regarding the pros and cons of people changing their own light bulbs than the individual. What may seem a trivial, almost zero, risk at the time is different when viewed at the company/policy/population level. For example, while the risk of hurting yourself changing a light bulb is very low, if you did hurt yourself the cost to the company would be high, costs of time off work, business disruption etc. The company may already employ a maintenance person so the cost to having them change the bulb is marginal. So the risk is small, but impact is large and the cost of avoiding the risk is zero. You would obviously choose to avoid the risk.
The handrails on Scottish mountains are different, the costs here are quite obviously not zero, there is the real cost of installation, the cost of destroying the natural environment, the cost of ruining people's enjoyment of the wilderness and so I doubt this would ever happen for this reason. (Perhaps there is more chance of this being justified on a access for all agenda, this is PC gone mad! rather than H&S gone mad!)
It is interesting the we are very resistant to this type of decision making, deferring our own flawed interpretation of personal experience in favour of statistical advice, in certain areas but in others we accept it without blinking an eye. Medicine is the main area we allow other to make decisions for us based on what is best for the population as a whole, seat belts another.
In skiing we accept we must carry a transceiver, despite never having been in an avalanche, but come up with all sorts of spurious justifications for helmet use based on our own flawed interpretation of risk such as Lizzard's original reasoning as to why she wears a helmet for snowboarding and not skiing, despite the relative risk of snowboarding and skiing being identical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't just about the stupidity of the public (and having spent some time as a member of the public I'm well placed to understand this) but there can be legal and financial repercussions for those who might be seen as not doing enough to reduce risk. It is far, far easier (and vastly cheaper) to engage in some daft back bottom-covering activity in the name of health and safety than it is to do a serious risk assessment and run it past your legal team, even assuming you have such a thing!
| Flet©h wrote: |
| In skiing we accept we must carry a transceiver, despite never having been in an avalanche, but come up with all sorts of spurious justifications for helmet use based on our own flawed interpretation of risk. |
I don't believe that tranceiver use and helmet use are equivalent. The reason being that if someone you are out with gets caught in an avalanche, you need your own tranceiver in order to make use of theirs. Helmets are for personal safety; tranceivers are for group safety.
I do see your point, however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been sk'ing for about 8 years and have this year decided to get a helmet
And the reason i'm getting one is so that I can mount my GoPro on it
If I don't use my GoPro on a certain I probably wont wear it.
If you have felt safe enough skiing without a helmet all these years what has suddenly changed??
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Hutchy wrote: |
I've been sk'ing for about 8 years and have this year decided to get a helmet
And the reason i'm getting one is so that I can mount my GoPro on it |
Brilliant, I hadn't thought of that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hutchy wrote: |
If you have felt safe enough skiing without a helmet all these years what has suddenly changed??
|
Good question actually. For me it's simply that lightweight fit-for-purpose ski helmets are now far more widely available than say 20 or even 10 years ago. I've been skiing for around 30 years or so, of which only the last 5 or so have been with a helmet. I got one to try and found that I preferred it to a hat - warmer, better fit with goggles etc. and of course a degree of head protection. No obvious downside from my point of view.
The one I've currently got is a basic Dainese model from 5 or so years ago. It's not the lightest for sure, but does seem pretty robust. But I've got to say I'm tempted to upgrade to a carbon Sweet lid at some point. I tried them on in the shop, along with a load of other cheaper options and they are certainly the most comfortable of the lot. Very pricey at £200+ but carbon shells are definitely not cheap to manufacture, so there's more to it than pure marketing in this case. Have to say that some of the cheap helmets seem very flimsy and superficial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
