 Poster: A snowHead
|
James the Last,
"Cycle helmets are a complete waste of time too"
Well they are no panacea that's for sure - they won't do much in some crashes and they may lead to risk compensation just as you say but "complete waste of time"? That's taking things way too far.
Twice, cycling helmets have saved me from very nasty bangs on the head. The incidents were quite similar, both involved losing the front wheel on diesel/oil patches which I didn't see until after I had picked my sorry @rse off the road. In both cases, it only took a split second from feeling the loss of traction to hitting the tarmac sideways, arm and thigh then helmet over my temple.
First time the blow to my thigh caused a huge haematoma (was the size of two fists 24 hours later!) and the helmet foam crushed and the plastic cover cracked, I was a bit dazed for a minute or two but no concussion and I didn't even have a headache.
The second time I fractured my thumb and the result on my head was identical - little dazed at first, but the helmet did what it was designeed to do - foam crushed and I didnt have concussion or a headache.
I'm not suggesting you should wear a helmet (you've thought about it and made the right chice for you. good) but I think they provide some useful protection provided you have the self-discipline to manage risk-compensation. To generalise that they are a "complete waste of time" is silly.
Cheers,
J
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| muddewater wrote: |
| I learned to ski donkeys years ago before helmets were on the scene. Over the years I've noticed more collisions on the slopes and in my opinion the majority are caused by out of control helmet wearing snowboarders No doubt that will get the boarders up in arms but it is my honest observation. |
Was having a quick look at safety stats that can be found here -> http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/press/NSAA-Facts-Ski-SnowB-Safety-9-11.pdf
Interesting quote for you: -
Dr. Shealy’s research also confirmed that alpine skiers are three times more likely to be involved in a collision with other people than snowboarders.
So confirmation bias I guess 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Axsman wrote: |
| James the Last wrote: |
| ... I stopped wearing a cycle helmet because it was making me a riskier cyclist. |
No it wasn't the helmet that was doing that. It was what it covers.  |
You are of course absolutely correct. And I know I'm not the only victim of this e.g. TotallyBoard implies here (first paragraph quoted below) that had he not been wearing a helmet he wouldn't have taken the same risks 15 months ago (and in any event he wouldn't take that risk today). So without his helmet, he wouldn't have fallen and bumped his head. Now, maybe it's just me, but I think that taking greater risks because you feel safer with a scrappy bit of plastic that may or may not work (see my next point below as to the chances of his helmet being any use) is pretty good evidence that skiing with a helmet makes you more likely to hurt yourself. Not less.
| TotallyBoard wrote: |
Would I risking having the same fall that I had 15 months ago and not wear a helmet? I'm pretty sure (even with the bump on the head) the answer to that would be a resounding no.
I also got taken out by a novice boarder as I was going up the rope tow in Tam (she came off the box badly out of control), she stacked in to me badly and as we went over the (sharp) edge of her board hit right across my temple\ear area (thankfully all protected by my lid).
This Christmas got taken out by an out of control skier, going much faster than her ability would allow whilst I was stopped (stood to the side of the piste and in clear view before anyone starts ) and banged my head on her, her skis and the ground. |
| TotallyBoard wrote: |
| I've only replaced [my helmet] twice |
There we are. You say you've had three accidents where your helmet has saved you. But you've only replaced the helmet twice. Either the helmet was broken, or you are over-estimating the significance of the impacts.
| TotallyBoard wrote: |
| I don't know where you price your helmets but I don't spend more than £40 a pop |
http://www.snowandrock.com/helmets/ski/fcp-category/list#sortOrder=dsalesLastWeek Up to £350; down to £50. Mostly in the £100ish region. So on the assumption that - as you state - you are taking elevated risks on the basis of wearing a helmet, I rather assumed that like MarkyMark you wouldn't be relying on the cheapest helmets - he spends £150.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Thu 1-03-12 17:46; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Great link http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/press/NSAA-Facts-Ski-SnowB-Safety-9-11.pdf Hurrah, thank you TotallyBoard, , some good-looking science.
| Quote: |
| During the 2010/11 season, 47 fatalities occurred out of the 60.5 million skier/snowboarder days reported for the season. Thirty-one of the fatalities were skiers (24 male, 7 female) and 16 of the fatalities were snowboarders, (14 male, 2 female). Among the fatalities, 21 of those involved were reported as wearing a helmet at the time of the incident. The rate of fatality converts to .78 per million skier/snowboarder visits. |
| Quote: |
| Serious injuries (paralysis, serious head, and other serious injuries) occur at the rate of about 44.6 per year, according to the NSAA. During the 2010/11 season, there were 60 serious injuries. Thirty-six of the serious injuries occurred with skiers (28 male, 1 female) and 24 were snowboarders, (23 male, 1 female). Among the serious injuries, 30 of those involved were reported as wearing a helmet at the time of the incident. The rate of serious injury in 2010/11 was .99 per million skier/snowboarder visits. |
So the risk of death is about 1 in a million days' skiing - and that of serious injury similar. So if you ski 150 days a season for 50 years, that is 7,500 days. Giving you roughly a 1.5% chance of death or serious injury over a lifetime - and presumably if you reach 25 years of age without that, then the risks are substantially lower.
| Quote: |
| recent research has shown that the use of helmet reduces the incidence of any head injury by 30 to 50 percent, but that the decrease in head injuries is generally limited to the less serious injuries. There has been no significant reduction in fatalities over the past nine seasons even as the use of helmets overall has increased. |
So a helmet generally doesn't help at all with preventing either death or serious injury. And the chances of either of those are pretty slim anyway. There were 10 million skiers in resort over the season. If they all wore helmets they had spent between £500m and £1bn on helmets. And this billion pounds of expenditure had no effect on the death rate, and "generally" no effect on serious injuries. I cannot see that this billion pounds achieved anything. But it's great for the helmet manufacturers...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James the Last, even if they may not help prevent death or serious injury I'll take a reduction in minor injuries as a success...
Given that "minor injuries" will include many injuries where the cost of treatment (stitches, doctor's visits etc.) in resort will probably be more than the cost of the helmet anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| Axsman wrote: |
| James the Last wrote: |
| ... I stopped wearing a cycle helmet because it was making me a riskier cyclist. |
No it wasn't the helmet that was doing that. It was what it covers. |
You are of course absolutely correct. And I know I'm not the only victim of this e.g. TotallyBoard implies here (first paragraph quoted below) that had he not been wearing a helmet he wouldn't have taken the same risks 15 months ago (and in any event he wouldn't take that risk today). So without his helmet, he wouldn't have fallen and bumped his head. Now, maybe it's just me, but I think that taking greater risks because you feel safer with a scrappy bit of plastic that may or may not work (see my next point below as to the chances of his helmet being any use) is pretty good evidence that skiing with a helmet makes you more likely to hurt yourself. Not less.
| TotallyBoard wrote: |
Would I risking having the same fall that I had 15 months ago and not wear a helmet? I'm pretty sure (even with the bump on the head) the answer to that would be a resounding no.
I also got taken out by a novice boarder as I was going up the rope tow in Tam (she came off the box badly out of control), she stacked in to me badly and as we went over the (sharp) edge of her board hit right across my temple\ear area (thankfully all protected by my lid).
This Christmas got taken out by an out of control skier, going much faster than her ability would allow whilst I was stopped (stood to the side of the piste and in clear view before anyone starts ) and banged my head on her, her skis and the ground. |
| TotallyBoard wrote: |
| I've only replaced [my helmet] twice |
There we are. You say you've had three accidents where your helmet has saved you. But you've only replaced the helmet twice. Either the helmet was broken, or you are over-estimating the significance of the impacts.
| TotallyBoard wrote: |
| I don't know where you price your helmets but I don't spend more than £40 a pop |
http://www.snowandrock.com/helmets/ski/fcp-category/list#sortOrder=dsalesLastWeek Up to £350; down to £50. Mostly in the £100ish region. So on the assumption that - as you state - you are taking elevated risks on the basis of wearing a helmet, I rather assumed you wouldn't be relying on the cheapest helmets. |
The bit about me taking risks is pish sorry, you've misunderstood (maybe deliberately just to further your argument?). What I said was would I risk having the same fall without a helmet on and the answer was no (as in would I choose to not wear a helmet and have the same crash). I have no idea where you pull the statement 'So without his helmet, he wouldn't have fallen and bumped his head' from (although I have an idea). As I posted I have no idea what happened, other than waking up on my back on a poxy little green run. As I've posted I ride safely and in control, always have and always will but accidents happen. If you can do anything to ameliorate or obviate injury I think you have a responsibility to the people who love you\care for you\count on you to do so. My riding style didn't change when I put a crash helmet on, I'm not that stupid!
I siad that I had 3 accidents where my helmet was useful to me (rather than 'saved' me as you put it, TBH I'm convinced that one did 'save' me). I replaced the one that cracked open like an egg, I also am replacing my current one now that it has had 2 solid knocks (the one in Tam was more of a 'rail would have sliced in to my head and ear' than an impact).
With regards your further ridiculous comments about price, I think it shows you to know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Paying more money for a helmet doesn't necessarily improve the protection it offers. I buy brand new helmets that are from the previous season on Ebay and use K2 and Red mostly (because I know the fit of these brands).
I just love the sentence 'So on the assumption that - as you state - you are taking elevated risks on the basis of wearing a helmet,', I would dearly love to see you explain your deductive process for thinking you can write this line.
Your debating skills are interesting to say the least, most of your arguments are fallacious, presumptuous or just plain daft. Maybe one or two too many knocks on the head eh?
Are you trolling? You must be, or are you a Turing test and I've been suckered in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
It's not the fatal or very serious injuries that are of concern when skiing or cycling. As has been observed, helmets won't do anything to save you in such a situation, and we all implicitly accept the risks of the uncontrollable event accounting for our own risk profile. (I cycle a lot, but choose my terrain carefully and wouldn't go near time-trialling down the A1 on a Sunday morning as some folk do for fear of being wiped out by a carelessly driven car etc.) It's the intermediate level injuries where a helmet can convert a hospital admission, concussion, roadrash on the forehead etc. into a minor inconvenience that's the main concern. FWIW, I'm sure a cycling helmet is more use than a skiing helmet, simply because - in my experience - bike crashes tend to happen faster than skiing crashes, leaving little or no chance to take evasive action. Skiing crashes tend to be relatively leisurely affairs, when you get plenty of warning you're about to hit the deck, giving time to assume a protective position for landing. With road bike crashes, you've landed on your head - if that's what fate has in store for you - before you've even realised you're going down.
Sweeping generalisations acknowledged in advance. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| James the Last wrote: |
Great link http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/press/NSAA-Facts-Ski-SnowB-Safety-9-11.pdf Hurrah, thank you TotallyBoard, , some good-looking science.
| Quote: |
| During the 2010/11 season, 47 fatalities occurred out of the 60.5 million skier/snowboarder days reported for the season. Thirty-one of the fatalities were skiers (24 male, 7 female) and 16 of the fatalities were snowboarders, (14 male, 2 female). Among the fatalities, 21 of those involved were reported as wearing a helmet at the time of the incident. The rate of fatality converts to .78 per million skier/snowboarder visits. |
| Quote: |
| Serious injuries (paralysis, serious head, and other serious injuries) occur at the rate of about 44.6 per year, according to the NSAA. During the 2010/11 season, there were 60 serious injuries. Thirty-six of the serious injuries occurred with skiers (28 male, 1 female) and 24 were snowboarders, (23 male, 1 female). Among the serious injuries, 30 of those involved were reported as wearing a helmet at the time of the incident. The rate of serious injury in 2010/11 was .99 per million skier/snowboarder visits. |
So the risk of death is about 1 in a million days' skiing - and that of serious injury similar. So if you ski 150 days a season for 50 years, that is 7,500 days. Giving you roughly a 1.5% chance of death or serious injury over a lifetime - and presumably if you reach 25 years of age without that, then the risks are substantially lower.
| Quote: |
| recent research has shown that the use of helmet reduces the incidence of any head injury by 30 to 50 percent, but that the decrease in head injuries is generally limited to the less serious injuries. There has been no significant reduction in fatalities over the past nine seasons even as the use of helmets overall has increased. |
So a helmet generally doesn't help at all with preventing either death or serious injury. And the chances of either of those are pretty slim anyway. There were 10 million skiers in resort over the season. If they all wore helmets they had spent between £500m and £1bn on helmets. And this billion pounds of expenditure had no effect on the death rate, and "generally" no effect on serious injuries. I cannot see that this billion pounds achieved anything. But it's great for the helmet manufacturers... |
Did someone in the helmet industry steal your girlfriend at some point in the past? You really have a bugbear about this don't you?
| Quote: |
| recent research has shown that the use of helmet reduces the incidence of any head injury by 30 to 50 percent, but that the decrease in head injuries is generally limited to the less serious injuries. There has been no significant reduction in fatalities over the past nine seasons even as the use of helmets overall has increased. |
This is enough for me to justify it, 30-50% reduction in head injuries. It also says that there has been 'no significant reduction in fatalities', not 'no reduction in fatalities'. I don't need a 'significant reduction' because I don't care about the statistics, I care about my family and me. I hit my head hard enough to knock all of my memory out of my head for 4 hours and crack open my helmet like an egg. I truly believe after that experience that I would very likely have done permanent damage and possibly died (we can't test that theory as I'm not willing to do it again without a helmet as mentioned above), but if I am right I may not be a 'significant reduction in fatalities', but it was certainly significant to my kids, my wife and myself.
Crack on mate if you don't want to wear a helmet, but I think it is reckless of you to try and make out that they are a complete waste of time, you could be persuading someone not to wear one who might end up dead because of it! That's the internet for you tho eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
James the Last, I admire your perseverance in the face of the abuse!
My belief has always been that helmets reduce the chance of serious injury or death from negligible to negligible.
The statistics you quote back that up.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| xyzpaul wrote: |
James the Last, I admire your perseverance in the face of the abuse!
My belief has always been that helmets reduce the chance of serious injury or death from negligible to negligible.
The statistics you quote back that up.
. |
Statistics are all very well until you end up being one. You may very well go your whole life not having a serious injury whilst skiing\boarding. Statistics say more than likely you will, but, and this is the important bit what if you don't? What if you *are* the blip, the rare occurence? No-one knows what will happen in the future but when participating in what is a dangerous activity wouldn't you do everything that could help alleviate that? No? Fine, guess it's just Darwin at work
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TotallyBoard wrote: |
| Statistics are all very well until you end up being one. |
How true. Accidents at home are a common cause of head injury.
| Quote: |
Common causes of head injury include traffic accidents, falls, physical assault, and accidents at home, work, outdoors, or while playing sports.
|
Always wear a helmet about the house - you don't want to be a statistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| TotallyBoard wrote: |
Crack on mate if you don't want to wear a helmet, but I think it is reckless of you to try and make out that they are a complete waste of time, you could be persuading someone not to wear one who might end up dead because of it! |
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| achilles wrote: |
| TotallyBoard wrote: |
| Statistics are all very well until you end up being one. |
How true. Accidents at home are a common cause of head injury.
| Quote: |
Common causes of head injury include traffic accidents, falls, physical assault, and accidents at home, work, outdoors, or while playing sports.
|
Always wear a helmet about the house - you don't want to be a statistic. |
Genius, your sarcastic link includes sports as a common cause and on the 'prevention' section says always wear bicycle helmets when cycling. Doesn't say anything about snowsports but I guess that maybe statistically it's a minority sport.
Nice try at sarcasm but utter fail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| TotallyBoard wrote: |
| I hit my head hard enough to knock all of my memory out of my head for 4 hours and crack open my helmet like an egg. I truly believe after that experience that I would very likely have done permanent damage and possibly died (we can't test that theory as I'm not willing to do it again without a helmet as mentioned above), but if I am right I may not be a 'significant reduction in fatalities', but it was certainly significant to my kids, my wife and myself. |
I think this is the sort of example that doesn't really help the pro-helmet argument - you did some damage to your brain because it hit the inside of your skull pretty hard. Your helmet broke - so your assumption is that the injury would have been even worse had you not been wearing your helmet - why? If (and this is acknowledged by the manufacturers) a helmet makes no difference over 12mph, and your helmet basically failed - why is your assumption that it made any difference at all? I'm quite prepared to accept there are (usually quite traumatic but non-life threatening) incidents where a lid stops cuts or grazes, but unless I've misunderstood the medical stuff a hard bump on the head resulting in concussion is where the helmet is irrelevant. It's the James Cracknell thing - gets hit by a truck and is convinced his bike helmet made a difference - not unless the truck was doing less than about 15mph, matey.
Your example of an edge going over your head is far more of a justification for me - that would have potentially been a nasty cut. But it still raises the question of why you've had three head-injuring crashes in a year and a half and I've never had one in over 20 years of skiing - apart from park type stuff (which I don't do), which I suspect puts you in a bit more danger of falling/colliding, we probably ski/ride similar terrain, so I'm genuinely interested in why your (and it has to be said a lot of other helmet wearers) head seems to attract so much danger and peril.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| andy from embsay wrote: |
| TotallyBoard wrote: |
| I hit my head hard enough to knock all of my memory out of my head for 4 hours and crack open my helmet like an egg. I truly believe after that experience that I would very likely have done permanent damage and possibly died (we can't test that theory as I'm not willing to do it again without a helmet as mentioned above), but if I am right I may not be a 'significant reduction in fatalities', but it was certainly significant to my kids, my wife and myself. |
I think this is the sort of example that doesn't really help the pro-helmet argument - you did some damage to your brain because it hit the inside of your skull pretty hard. Your helmet broke - so your assumption is that the injury would have been even worse had you not been wearing your helmet - why? If (and this is acknowledged by the manufacturers) a helmet makes no difference over 12mph, and your helmet basically failed - why is your assumption that it made any difference at all? I'm quite prepared to accept there are (usually quite traumatic but non-life threatening) incidents where a lid stops cuts or grazes, but unless I've misunderstood the medical stuff a hard bump on the head resulting in concussion is where the helmet is irrelevant. It's the James Cracknell thing - gets hit by a truck and is convinced his bike helmeut made a difference - not unless the truck was doing less than about 15mph, matey.
Your example of an edge going over your head is far more of a justification for me - that would have potentially been a nasty cut. But it still raises the question of why you've had three head-injuring crashes in a year and a half and I've never had one in over 20 years of skiing - apart from park type stuff (which I don't do), which I suspect puts you in a bit more danger of falling/colliding, we probably ski/ride similar terrain, so I'm genuinely interested in why your (and it has to be said a lot of other helmet wearers) head seems to attract so much danger and peril. |
So my helmet cracked open without absorbing any force? That's like magic or something, maybe if we could work how it did it we could harness the mysterious force and get free energy </sarcasm>
If you'd read the previous posts then you'd know that I cannot answer the one where it cracked my helmet as I have no memory of it. Number 2 I was hit from behind by a skier whilst standing in full view towards the side of a piste, the 3rd incident I was taken out while using the rope tow at Tam by a girl who came off the box badly. If you were trying to imply that I was reckless because I was wearing a helmet I don't buy it. One occassion I was stationary, the other I was heading uphill! Can't say for sure with number 3 but it wouldn't fit with how I ride.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| TotallyBoard wrote: |
| Would I risking having the same fall that I had 15 months ago and not wear a helmet? |
OK, what you have now written means you did not write what I thought you wrote. I'm sure you can see how I interpreted it that you were deliberately putting yourself in a riskier position and therefore mitigating the risk with a helmet, and I hope you agree it is the better interpretation of your sentence - or at least see that I wasn't going out of my way to misinterpret you. I am sorry that I did - it doesn't help a discussion if the two parties have misunderstandings.
| Quote: |
| I sad that I had 3 accidents where my helmet was useful to me [but only replaced two helmets and the second time I wore it until the end of the season anyway - words in square brackets my paraphrase] |
A helmet that has been "useful" to you, should be x-rayed or replaced immediately. If you believe in wearing it, of course. That you didn't makes it pretty clear that you wear a helmet because of gut instinct rather than any logical analysis. That's fine. Help yourself.
| Quote: |
| I replaced the one that cracked open like an egg |
Generally helmets that crack open like an egg have failed on account of a glancing blow, and have offered you (almost) no protection whatsoever. The failure mode of a helmet that is failing whilst protecting your head is for the foam to be crushed which will absorb energy as it crushes. This only happens when you get a direct blow - and this is how they are tested. A helmet given a glancing blow will crack open very impressively as yours did, but cracking open in this manner does not involve the absorption of a level of energy that is likely to make any difference to your head. Don't kid yourself that you did anything more than cost yourself the price of a new helmet; sorry.
| Quote: |
| With regards your further ridiculous comments about price, I think it shows you to know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Paying more money for a helmet doesn't necessarily improve the protection it offers. |
So how DO you ascertain the level of protection per pound spent when you decide how to buy a helmet? I claim no knowledge at all, and I was going by Markymark's post - he has put a value on his head.
| Markymark29 wrote: |
| bobmcstuff, Yes I guess your right, but I know I'll be wearing one anyways when I'm skiing............each to their own, but I know my heads worth £150 to me, end of. |
| Quote: |
| I buy brand new helmets that are from the previous season on Ebay |
Ah. So it has travelled through the post to reach you! If I were to wear a helmet, it would have been lovingly walked home from the shop so as to minimise the risk of unseen damage. That really is a prime example of knowing the price of everything but not the value, I'm afraid.
I'm not trying to stop you from wearing one. I'm just trying to persuade you that it's probably not doing much - if anything - to keep you safer and that you should realise that.
Achilles has it spot on - but remember, an even more important place to wear a helmet is inside a car.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Thu 1-03-12 20:30; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| Generally helmets that crack open like an egg have failed on account of a glancing blow, and have offered you (almost) no protection whatsoever. |
Do you make that statement as a result of research you've done yourself, research you've read or is it a part of the CE standard that helmets are tested to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
I think this is the sort of example that doesn't really help the pro-helmet argument - you did some damage to your brain because it hit the inside of your skull pretty hard. Your helmet broke - so your assumption is that the injury would have been even worse had you not been wearing your helmet - why? If (and this is acknowledged by the manufacturers) a helmet makes no difference over 12mph, and your helmet basically failed - why is your assumption that it made any difference at all?
|
Even if travelling at 40+mph, by the time your hands, elbows and shoulders have impacted and slowed you down, your head might well hit at only 10/12mph (assuming you've fallen sideways rather than supermanned forwards). Still don't fancy running into something at 10mph headfirst myself personally, but I know for sure I'd rather do it with lid than without!
It should also be pretty clear that the foam in a helmet is going to have some positive effect on slowing down brain deceleration, the only question is how much. Somewhere there is a line between being fine and being brain damaged (one of my wort fears), doesn't take much to cross it either way...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| TotallyBoard wrote: |
So my helmet cracked open without absorbing any force? That's like magic or something, maybe if we could work how it did it we could harness the mysterious force and get free energy </sarcasm>
If you'd read the previous posts then you'd know that I cannot answer the one where it cracked my helmet as I have no memory of it. Number 2 I was hit from behind by a skier whilst standing in full view towards the side of a piste, the 3rd incident I was taken out while using the rope tow at Tam by a girl who came off the box badly. If you were trying to imply that I was reckless because I was wearing a helmet I don't buy it. One occassion I was stationary, the other I was heading uphill! Can't say for sure with number 3 but it wouldn't fit with how I ride. |
I've read your previous posts - and lots of other stuff about the efficacy or otherwise of helmets, and your example is the type that's often given as one where helmet wearing makes little or no difference to the outcome because the brain hits the skull hard ands the helmet fails - but is often quoted by people as proof that a helmet saved them from certain death or brain damage.
And I am still really interested in what appears to be the case, in that helmeted skiers and cyclists seem to experience far, far more head-injuring situations than those that don't. I cycle between 3 and 5,000 miles every year and I've never, ever bumped my head on the bike - I usually wear a helmet, but not always, as I'm unconvinced of the benefits, but my club and lots of events ask that people wear them so i usually do - however I've never fallen off and banged my head - ever. But if I ever get into a debate on the subject I can almost guarantee that 3/4 of those advocating helmet use (and when they become advocates of the "you're insane if you don't" type, which I realise you're not at all) then every single one of them has multiple examples that they have had personal experience of, where a helmet saved someone from certain death. This can't be random - cycling or skiing with helmet evangelists is clearly dangerous!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, research I have read ; I understand that the CE standard does not test helmets under glancing blows as it causes them to crack open serving no (material) useful purpose, but I haven't read the test standards.
Helmets are designed not to crack, but to crush. If they crack open like an egg then they have failed to perform as they should. I hope you can agree with this. That is why TotallyBoard managed to knock himself out whilst standing still on a green run despite wearing a helmet - you'd have thought that he would have hit the deck slowly enough for the helmet to have protected him; it didn't.
I like to think, however, that it is a fairly logical observation which can be illustrated with a simple (thought) experiment. Put a digestive biscuit and a Victoria sponge cake (ideally with cream and jam in the middle) on the table. Balance the biscuit across two pencils and hit it hard with the side of your hand. It will crack very easily and it will hurt (not very much, I agree!). Repeat with the Victoria sponge*, and you'll make a soggy mess and it won't hurt at all; thus you can see how the energy has been absorbed by crushing a foam - whereas cleaving the biscuit absorbs almost no energy. That way you can see the difference in energy absorption.
* do it with just a thin slice of cake if you think I'm cheating by making it thicker by including the cream and jam. The result will be similar. Bear in mind of course that helmet foam is rather more effective than Victoria sponge...
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Thu 1-03-12 20:51; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
| Even if travelling at 40+mph, by the time your hands, elbows and shoulders have impacted and slowed you down, your head might well hit at only 10/12mph |
Or it might not hit at all - which would sort of bear out my experience of never having banged my head skiing or cycling.
I've only ever had a couple of days' boarding, and I can see that it's possibly more likely that you'll hit your head if you fell backwards, but in my experience my ample buttocks took all the force 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.
|
Have a look at Judgement under uncertainty, heuristics and biases http://www.math.mcgill.ca/vetta/CS764.dir/judgement.pdf
and Prospect Theory http://3xfund.com.cn/images/article008.pdf
as these articles do help understand how different people can take the same information about risk decisions and come to try different conclusions.
What is the problem with spending a few quid on a helmet (try Lidl or Aldi) to reduce the unlikely but high impact risk of head injury even if just a bit (unless of course wearing a helmet makes this more likely / worse- which it doesn't)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| rob@rar, research I have read |
Thanks. If you happen to know any online references to that research I'd be interested to see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| ed123 wrote: |
Have a look at Judgement under uncertainty, heuristics and biases http://www.math.mcgill.ca/vetta/CS764.dir/judgement.pdf
and Prospect Theory http://3xfund.com.cn/images/article008.pdf
as these articles do help understand how different people can take the same information about risk decisions and come to try different conclusions.
What is the problem with spending a few quid on a helmet (try Lidl or Aldi) to reduce the unlikely but high impact risk of head injury even if just a bit (unless of course wearing a helmet makes this more likely / worse- which it doesn't) |
Interesting - but I'm not sure I'm making a decision not to wear a helmet because I don't think it makes a difference. I'll happily admit there are certain circumstances in which I'm certain a helmet will make the outcome better. I'm interested in the apparent anecdotal evidence which suggests people who wear helmets bang their heads more, but I suspect that's all it is - however i choose not to wear a helmet because I believe the downsides (sweaty head, impaired vision/hearing, being unable to wear a jaunty bobble hat) massively outweigh the minuscule risk that it might stop something bad happening. And certainly all the studies suggest that the risk of serious head injury whether you're wearing a helmet or not are tiny, so I'll stick to my bobble hat or bare head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| James the Last wrote: |
rob@rar, research I have read ; I understand that the CE standard does not test helmets under glancing blows as it causes them to crack open serving no (material) useful purpose, but I haven't read the test standards.
Helmets are designed not to crack, but to crush. If they crack open like an egg then they have failed to perform as they should. I hope you can agree with this. That is why TotallyBoard managed to knock himself out whilst standing still on a green run despite wearing a helmet - you'd have thought that he would have hit the deck slowly enough for the helmet to have protected him; it didn't.
I like to think, however, that it is a fairly logical observation which can be illustrated with a simple (thought) experiment. Put a digestive biscuit and a Victoria sponge cake (ideally with cream and jam in the middle) on the table. Balance the biscuit across two pencils and hit it hard with the side of your hand. It will crack very easily and it will hurt (not very much, I agree!). Repeat with the Victoria sponge*, and you'll make a soggy mess and it won't hurt at all; thus you can see how the energy has been absorbed by crushing a foam - whereas cleaving the biscuit absorbs almost no energy. That way you can see the difference in energy absorption.
* do it with just a thin slice of cake if you think I'm cheating by making it thicker by including the cream and jam. The result will be similar. Bear in mind of course that helmet foam is rather more effective than Victoria sponge... |
I can't argue with you anymore as you are just changing stuff I've said and then using this to try and prove yourself right. Nowhere have I said that I was standing still on a green run when my helmet cacked open. I said that I had no recollection but I speculated that I caught my heel hedge and it threw me on to my head (fyi I base this speculation on where I woke up, the position I was in and where the damage was on my lid).
I do feel obliged to thank you for alerting me to an issue. I will be speaking to my doctor to try and get an appointment with a nerologist, if a glancing blow an cause me to wake up not even knowing my own namecI must have a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh and just for your info, the foam all around that quadrant of my lid was crushed flat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| TotallyBoard wrote: |
| I will be speaking to my doctor to try and get an appointment with a nerologist, if a glancing blow an cause me to wake up not even knowing my own namecI must have a problem. |
It's your helmet that received the glancing blow, not your head!
I think it's very unlikely that the helmet made any significant difference to you, even if - as you suggest - the foam was crushed. A helmet that has cracked has been "used" far beyond what it was designed to do. If I were to put myself in your position, on your green run, and have the identical accident, I wouldn't choose to wear a helmet as I don't believe it made any difference to the overall outcome.
And I certainly wouldn't bother to wear your second helmet after its first crash.
There are posters on here who put their helmet into the washing machine.
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Thu 1-03-12 21:18; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Aaaagh can't resist. The helmets I've bought on ebay have been packed in boxes inside bigger boxes with packing material between the two. Did you assume they'd just slapped a sticky label on it and put it in the post? If that's the case please tell me your ebay id so I don't buy anything off you.
With regards the "I read it somewhere' about glwncing blows causing catastrophic failure to helmets, link or it don't exist (ancient internet chatboard rules, oh and make it a peer reviewed paper rather than some idiot spouting in chatroom )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| TotallyBoard wrote: |
| I will be speaking to my doctor to try and get an appointment with a nerologist, if a glancing blow an cause me to wake up not even knowing my own namecI must have a problem. |
It's your helmet that received the glancing blow, not your head!
I think it's very unlikely that the helmet made any significant difference to you, even if - as you suggest - the foam was crushed. A helmet that has cracked has been "used" far beyond what it was designed to do. If I were to put myself in your position, on your green run, and have the identical accident, I wouldn't choose to wear a helmet as I don't believe it made any difference to the overall outcome.
And I certainly wouldn't bother to wear your second helmet after its first crash.
There are posters on here who put their helmet into the washing machine. |
Blimey you talk some gash. Enough now, you win. Hopefully anyone reading your tosh will make up their own mind and protect their noggin.
I think it says it all that if you had to choose how to have my accident (which was very scary not knowing if I'd caused permenant damage btw), that you would purposefully choose to do it without a lid. Pure comedy gold fella, I take my helmet off to you. If someone was going to hit you on the head would you also decline any form of protection too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| andy from embsay wrote: |
| however i choose not to wear a helmet because I believe the downsides..........outweigh the minuscule risk that it might stop something bad happening. And certainly all the studies suggest that the risk of serious head injury whether you're wearing a helmet or not are tiny, so I'll stick to my bobble hat or bare head. |
I think one of the hugh problems is that people are confusing the likelihood of a serious head injury with the risk (which is likelihood x impact). Oh and by the way the plural of anecdote is not evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
You don't need a peer reviewed journal! Just a bit of common sense.
Pick up any degree level book on engineering, and you'll see that fracture doesn't dissipate energy in any meaningful fashion, whereas plastic deformation does.
If you get hold of a cycle helmet without the hard plastic outside they seem to have these days (I don't know if they still exist, I had one once, made of just polystyrene with a fabric cover) you can snap it in two reasonably easily; this mimics the glancing blow to the helmet. Put it on somebody's head (or something head-shaped if you prefer) and see what sort of damage you can do by thumping it with your fist. None. They'll just laugh at you!
Modern helmets have even more ventilation holes so snap more easily. The hard plastic outside, by the way, offers almost no protection for your head though it will make the "snap it in half" exercise rather trickier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| TotallyBoard wrote: |
| If someone was going to hit you on the head would you also decline any form of protection too? |
I assume only if he was taking a square hit, if it was a glancing one the helmet would just crack uselessly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| TotallyBoard wrote: |
| If someone was going to hit you on the head would you also decline any form of protection too? |
No, because I would (presumably) be being hit in a way that I know helmets make a difference.
Edited: Just as Clark says.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| James the Last wrote: |
You don't need a peer reviewed journal! Just a bit of common sense.
Pick up any degree level book on engineering, and you'll see that fracture doesn't dissipate energy in any meaningful fashion, whereas plastic deformation does.
If you get hold of a cycle helmet without the hard plastic outside they seem to have these days (I don't know if they still exist, I had one once, made of just polystyrene with a fabric cover) you can snap it in two reasonably easily; this mimics the glancing blow to the helmet. Put it on somebody's head (or something head-shaped if you prefer) and see what sort of damage you can do by thumping it with your fist. None. They'll just laugh at you!
Modern helmets have even more ventilation holes so snap more easily. The hard plastic outside, by the way, offers almost no protection for your head though it will make the "snap it in half" exercise rather trickier. |
You can't have it both ways here. I am not for one instant claiming that the cracking of the plastic shell prevented brain damage or death. I am saying that the helmet as a whole possibly did. You are saying without even seeing the helmet that the crack in it indicates to you that it was a glancing blow, even though the foam all around the crack was crushed. I am struggling to understand 2 things here 1 how can a glancing blow crush the foam insidecthe helmet, and 2 how can you profer what you are claiming to be fact on an item you haven't even seen. The common sense/degree level engineering approach would require at least a cursory glance at the evidence.
What i think happened is that on catching my heel edge it flicked me backwards in to an icy piste and hit with such force that it crushed the foam inside with such intensity it cracked the outer shell.
I think that you said that you had to stop wearing a cycle helmet to slow you down on your bike, along with saying that you'd purposefully choose not to wear a helmet in an accident involving concussion and memotry loss makes you a very unqualified person to talk about safety.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Thu 1-03-12 22:06; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ed123 wrote: |
| andy from embsay wrote: |
| however i choose not to wear a helmet because I believe the downsides..........outweigh the minuscule risk that it might stop something bad happening. And certainly all the studies suggest that the risk of serious head injury whether you're wearing a helmet or not are tiny, so I'll stick to my bobble hat or bare head. |
I think one of the hugh problems is that people are confusing the likelihood of a serious head injury with the risk (which is likelihood x impact). Oh and by the way the plural of anecdote is not evidence. |
If that was aimed at me then I'm basing it on the stats as I've read them - the numbers of serious head injuries per km skied, or per thousand skiers, or per ski-day are tiny, and I've not seen any studies of any scale that suggest the numbers are coming down since people have started wearing helmets - I've seen a number of studies (one quoted upthread said 0.018%?) that say this - so unnecessarily sarky comments like this aren't really necessary. I know (anecdotally) that I have never bumped my head either skiing or cycling (and actually in 15 years of reasonably high standard rock climbing too, involving a reasonable about of falling off). But that's not what I base my decisions on because this would be anecdotal - I base it on the facts that head injuries in skiing are very, very rare ands for me there are downsides to wearing a helmet. Just as when cycling when it's hot there are downsides so i quite often don't wear a helmet cycling when it's very hot - it's my risk-based decision (and I understand risk, thanks) that for me the downsides outweigh the risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| andy from embsay wrote: |
| ed123 wrote: |
| andy from embsay wrote: |
| however i choose not to wear a helmet because I believe the downsides..........outweigh the minuscule risk that it might stop something bad happening. And certainly all the studies suggest that the risk of serious head injury whether you're wearing a helmet or not are tiny, so I'll stick to my bobble hat or bare head. |
I think one of the hugh problems is that people are confusing the likelihood of a serious head injury with the risk (which is likelihood x impact). Oh and by the way the plural of anecdote is not evidence. |
If that was aimed at me then I'm basing it on the stats as I've read them - the numbers of serious head injuries per km skied, or per thousand skiers, or per ski-day are tiny, and I've not seen any studies of any scale that suggest the numbers are coming down since people have started wearing helmets - I've seen a number of studies (one quoted upthread said 0.018%?) that say this - so unnecessarily sarky comments like this aren't really necessary. I know (anecdotally) that I have never bumped my head either skiing or cycling (and actually in 15 years of reasonably high standard rock climbing too, involving a reasonable about of falling off). But that's not what I base my decisions on because this would be anecdotal - I base it on the facts that head injuries in skiing are very, very rare ands for me there are downsides to wearing a helmet. Just as when cycling when it's hot there are downsides so i quite often don't wear a helmet cycling when it's very hot - it's my risk-based decision (and I understand risk, thanks) that for me the downsides outweigh the risk. |
Imo a good informed decision that doesn't describe helmets as useless or a complete waste of time.
I've never skied so I have no idea how likely it is to bang your head. I do however know that on a board if you catch your heelside edge with any level of speed, it flicks you over on to your back and the likelihood of hitting the back of your head is quite high. This is more a problem when learning but I know from experience it can happen to intermediates.
One thing tho I don't think that because you've never banged your head, that it's very scientific to assume that it should be the same for every person. The people who ploughed in to me could just have easily stacked it in to you and I could be asking how you've been so unlucky (and maybe try and put it down to you *not* wearing a helmet )
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| TotallyBoard wrote: |
| achilles wrote: |
| TotallyBoard wrote: |
| Statistics are all very well until you end up being one. |
How true. Accidents at home are a common cause of head injury.
| Quote: |
Common causes of head injury include traffic accidents, falls, physical assault, and accidents at home, work, outdoors, or while playing sports.
|
Always wear a helmet about the house - you don't want to be a statistic. |
Genius, your sarcastic link includes sports as a common cause and on the 'prevention' section says always wear bicycle helmets when cycling. Doesn't say anything about snowsports but I guess that maybe statistically it's a minority sport.
Nice try at sarcasm but utter fail. |
Sarcastic ? Moi? I think it is only a matter of time that life insurance won't cover you if you don't wear a helmet at home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread is excellent.
Clarky has it right IMHO
| clarky999 wrote: |
| Quote: |
I think this is the sort of example that doesn't really help the pro-helmet argument - you did some damage to your brain because it hit the inside of your skull pretty hard. Your helmet broke - so your assumption is that the injury would have been even worse had you not been wearing your helmet - why? If (and this is acknowledged by the manufacturers) a helmet makes no difference over 12mph, and your helmet basically failed - why is your assumption that it made any difference at all?
|
Even if travelling at 40+mph, by the time your hands, elbows and shoulders have impacted and slowed you down, your head might well hit at only 10/12mph (assuming you've fallen sideways rather than supermanned forwards). Still don't fancy running into something at 10mph headfirst myself personally, but I know for sure I'd rather do it with lid than without!
It should also be pretty clear that the foam in a helmet is going to have some positive effect on slowing down brain deceleration, the only question is how much. Somewhere there is a line between being fine and being brain damaged (one of my wort fears), doesn't take much to cross it either way... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
