 Poster: A snowHead
|
Are snowboarders more likely to hit their heads hard on the piste than skiers?
Of my 60+ weeks on snow I have spent just a few hours on a snowboard, falls tended to be catching the front edge and slamming down on my face, or losing the back edge and landing hard on the back of my head. Falls when skiing tend to be losing both edges and landing on my hip / shoulder with my head rarely coming near the ground.
You cannot really compare motorcycling, mountain biking and skiing for head injury risks, the consequence x probability equation is different for all.
For motorcycling on public roads the probability of hitting your head is very very low, some bikers go a lifetime without so much as a scratch on their lid, BUT the consequences of hitting your head in a fall from a motor cycle usually involve hitting it on something hard at possibly very high speed, ugh!!.
For skiing, the probability is much higher, my head has made contact with the ground more times this year on skis than it has in a lifetime of motorcycling but the contacts have been mostly glancing blows at low speed on a soft material, so the consequences have been nil, even without a helmet.
I would guess that mountain biking is somewhere in the middle, possibly less probability than skiing but with hard and sharp rocks much more numerous than on piste, the consequences of your noddle nutting the deck would be worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
So there I was tootling on my snowboard down a blue cat track. Next stop coffee. All good. Then a little one fell over in front of me. Not sure who was on my blind side so came to stop on my heel edge. Yep, skiers passing on blind side, check skiers, check little one, then BAM. Caught my toe edge and was pole axed. Straight over forward. Hit head, wrenched arm. Was I wearing a helmet? Yes I was.
Do I care about statistics? Only that I am OK to be watching the wigglies for some fresh stuff for my final week of the 2012 snowboard trip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
For those against helmet safety...it's an issue of emotion...
For those in favor...it's an issue of facts...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
ed123,
http://www.thewary.com/files/unfallstatistik-en.pdf
There has been a direct improvement in mortality of avalanche victims due to transceivers something that has not been shown for helmets.
Though the overall incidence is low as with head injuries and recreational skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
For those in favor...it's an issue of facts...
|
For me, personally, the facts are.
If I hit my head, I will be less likely to injure it if I'm wearing a helmet.
I do take more risks if I'm wearing protective equipment, so wearing a helmet WILL increase MY risk of other injuries. (like it or not, this is true for many other skiers)
Conversely, wearing additional protective equipment could allow me to enjoy more risky moves that I would normally be too cautious to do.
When I tried wearing a helmet, I found my peripheral senses and spatial awareness suffered and had more near misses with other skiers compared to wearing just sunglasses.
I once had a very minor neck injury that was caused by wearing a helmet hitting something that my helmetless head would have missed.
If I was comfortable skiing with a helmet I would consider the balance marginally in favour of wearing one but I hated skiing with a helmet so much that if they do become compulsory...........?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| ed123 wrote: |
The really weird thing is that all the arguments against wearing a helmet are amplified many fold for transceivers which if actually needed to find a victim are usually corpse retrieval devices.
But there are almost no proponents of 'transceivers don't bother with them'.
I wonder why?  |
Because wearing a transceiver makes no difference to my skiing experience, and I am absolutely convinced of the value of them in the unlikely even of it being required. In both cases the likelihood of them being required is low (although as we ski quite a bit off piste I guess my chances of collision with out of control skiers is a bit lower than average and my chances of being avalanched are slightly higher). I'm not absolutely convinced of the value of a helmet in reducing serious head injury (I think one of the papers linked to above says they saw no reduction in serious head injury but the effect on minor grazes etc was significant).
So - I wear a transceiver most days (cos you never know where you might end up) and I don't wear a helmet. A perfectly logical decision to my mind - maybe not one you'd make, but it's still logical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T Bar, well if you'r worried about endpoints you should also be worried about a paper with no stats at all, not a P value in sight. But still I'm wearing a transceiver off piste, but really if you need to be found by one then the odds that you are or will shortly be dead are not nice.
ABS?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| T Bar wrote: |
TotallyBoard,
| Quote: |
Given that the largest demographic of skiing/boarding fatalities are males in the 18-43 age group, this being the group that historically have been the most reticent to wear helmets (and also includes the group most likely to crash their car), it's hardly surprising there's been not much change in the statistics regarding fatalities.
Statistics in and of themselves don't have much value, you have to look a bit deeper to try and understand them.
|
I have looked at the statistics and tried to understand them. Two things the statistics refer to America looking at European wearers I would guess it is different .
Also the the wearing of helmets even amongst the demographic group you have quoted has more than doubled since 2002/3 whereas the mortality has remained unchanged.
This suggests if you are looking to alter mortality there are rather more important factors than wearing helmets.
As you are keen to make the comparison with car drivers I have previously calculated that my odds as a standard car driver of dying is over ten times that of skiing, it would make rather more sense for me to wear a helmet in my car than on the slopes.
ed123, Your link does not work for me. |
Yes the % has doubled but they are still the lowest demographic of helmet wearers. People who are naturally inclined to wear helmets are risk averse, people who say I'll take the risk aren't. Risk takers are much more likely to be involved in a serious crash by definition than someone who is risk averse. If the people who are most likely to be involved in a serious crash are not wholly representative of the average increase in the % of helmet wearers then the effect on the number of fatalities is going to change less than if that wasn't the case.
One of the links I put up states that the primary cause of deaths amongst helmet wearers was injuries to chest and torso (as compared to non-helmet wearers where the primary cause was head injuries). Surely if the primary cause is not head injury then we can deduce that a)helmets offer a level of protection to the head that can stop a fatal head injury and b)if the only injury you had from a crash that would be fatal was a head injury, a helmet *would* save your life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ed123,
| Quote: |
T Bar, well if you'r worried about endpoints you should also be worried about a paper with no stats at all, not a P value in sight
|
The end points are hard mortality and the numbers are given. you just have to look at the graphs
I would far rather trust a paper that has a proper end point and numbers than one with rubbish endpoints as most of the helmet studies have however fancily they have crunched the numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
T Bar, sure i like hard end points- like death - an excellent end point, the best in fact. But is it by chance?
But just looking at a graph doesn't always work - have a look at the FTSE!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
T Bar, but I guess the basic questions for all these risk reduction things are more simple than this.
Does x increase injury?
Is x financially acceptable?
Does x detract from skiing (sorry snowboarders) significantly?
I have to say that really I should get myself an ABS but at the current prices and problems with flights I just can't bring myself to. If I have a place in the Alps then I would keep one there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I'm not absolutely convinced of the value of a helmet in reducing serious head injury (I think one of the papers linked to above says they saw no reduction in serious head injury but the effect on minor grazes etc was significant).
|
probably because the number of minor injuries is high enough for stats to be reliable, the number of serious head injuries is so low that stats cannot be reliable. I cannot see how anyone can question the effects of a helmet when a head hits something hard, you go into a rock at 50 mph head first and your'e brown bread, helmet or not. but at lower speeds a death becomes a serious injury, a serious injury becomes a minor one, etc etc.
I only question the probability of a head impact whilst wearing a helmet or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
tangowaggon, fact of the matter is that if everyone wore a helmet, there would be less head injuries...take a look at the literature out there on motorcycle helmets...same arguments both ways but the helmets do save lives...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| tangowaggon wrote: |
| probably because the number of minor injuries is high enough for stats to be reliable, the number of serious head injuries is so low that stats cannot be reliable. |
That's not what the report above said. It just said helmets, over the course of the study, appeared to have no effect on the frequency of serious head injuries. I would have thought they'd have mentioned statistical unreliability, yet they are as positive about this finding as any other. Indeed your own example accepts that there are circumstances in which a helmet will make no difference - the question is where a helmet begins to make a meaningful difference - ie whether 10mm of compressed foam can slow the impact of your brain enough to mitigate a serious impact or not.
However for me my choice is about likelihood - I just don't think the likelihood of me hitting my head outweighs the (for me) negative factors. So whether they work or not is irrelevant to my decision - i'm more likely to hit my head walking round the house or driving to work, so I choose not to wear a helmet skiing. It's not something that affects anyone else (like no transceiver, probe or shovel could be) so until head-banging becomes statistically more likely then i'll stick to my bobble hat.
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Sat 3-03-12 0:41; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| ed123 wrote: |
The really weird thing is that all the arguments against wearing a helmet are amplified many fold for transceivers which if actually needed to find a victim are usually corpse retrieval devices.
But there are almost no proponents of 'transceivers don't bother with them'.
I wonder why? |
Possibly because of one of the more counter-intuitive facts of life: that the more advanced someone is at something, the more capable of understanding their limitations and the dangers inherent in the activity they are undertaking. Given, one would hope, that those straying into the areas for which transceivers are recommended are very good skiers, this adage may hold true. Just a thought. I say this as someone who doesn't venture into transceiver terrain (and as someone who only wears a helmet when racing or coaching - perhaps defeating the point of my own argument).
Actually sod all the above. Sign me up to the "it's their head, they can do what they want with it" brigade. I think helmets are a good idea, and often find myself wondering why I don't wear mine more than I do, but I also think people should make their own minds up. That said, I do agree with the idea that children under a certain age should be required to wear helmets, as some countries have enshrined into law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Bought myself a Smith Maze helmet this year. Supringly I don't feel any loss of sensation and feel just a bit better standing next to pointy rocks I'm about to follow my instructor through! Modern helmets are great pieces of kit! Couldn't care less about stats a helmet protects my head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| ed123 wrote: |
T Bar, but I guess the basic questions for all these risk reduction things are more simple than this.
Does x increase injury?
Is x financially acceptable?
Does x detract from skiing (sorry snowboarders) significantly?
I have to say that really I should get myself an ABS but at the current prices and problems with flights I just can't bring myself to. If I have a place in the Alps then I would keep one there. |
I suspect we are not miles apart in or beliefs. I don't believe that helmets make no difference in a crash and potential head injury, I am just a little sceptical about the data that purports to claim large differences.
I also don't believe that the absolute risk to the average skiers warrants castigating those who choose not to wear one, or explaining why they don't. Nor do I think that making a difference to injury rate on the slopes is primarily a matter of wearing helmets or not, we really should move on from this recurrent discussion which I ma as bad at getting drawn into as anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Do you have to wear a helmet when participating in organised racing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
TotallyBoard,
Probably depneds on who is doing the organising. FIS races I think, so ski school races possiby not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| T Bar wrote: |
| ed123 wrote: |
T Bar, but I guess the basic questions for all these risk reduction things are more simple than this.
Does x increase injury?
Is x financially acceptable?
Does x detract from skiing (sorry snowboarders) significantly?
I have to say that really I should get myself an ABS but at the current prices and problems with flights I just can't bring myself to. If I have a place in the Alps then I would keep one there. |
I suspect we are not miles apart in or beliefs. I don't believe that helmets make no difference in a crash and potential head injury, I am just a little sceptical about the data that purports to claim large differences.
I also don't believe that the absolute risk to the average skiers warrants castigating those who choose not to wear one, or explaining why they don't. Nor do I think that making a difference to injury rate on the slopes is primarily a matter of wearing helmets or not, we really should move on from this recurrent discussion which I ma as bad at getting drawn into as anyone. |
I agree with pretty much all of this and am a firm believer in the right of people to choose. I think that skier/boarder education in the FIS rules would probably make more of a difference than helmets alone. It appears there are 3 types of people in this debate, 1) all people should wear helmets on the mountain, 2) wear one if you want (where the majority are) and 3) they're a complete waste of money and no-one should be allowed to even contemplate buying one.
I think that helmet adoption will get to a point where it becomes mandatory in places, when all the young uns who' ve grown up wearing them (and will probably carry on in to adult life from habit) will mean most people on the mountain will wear them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| T Bar wrote: |
TotallyBoard,
Probably depneds on who is doing the organising. FIS races I think, so ski school races possiby not. |
That is very interesting. I know the helmets of DH skiers are different to mine, but even if they were tested to the same level as motorcycle helmets that would only mean 17mph. Given that pretty much every discipline on the mountain (apart from maybe cross country) is capable of much more than 17mph there's an argument (put forward by some on here) that the wearing of helmets for these sports people is useless and a complete waste of time. Maybe these posters should drop the FIS a line and this obvious propaganda for the helmet industry could be put a stop to 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| skisimon wrote: |
| ed123 wrote: |
The really weird thing is that all the arguments against wearing a helmet are amplified many fold for transceivers which if actually needed to find a victim are usually corpse retrieval devices.
But there are almost no proponents of 'transceivers don't bother with them'.
I wonder why? |
Possibly because of one of the more counter-intuitive facts of life: that the more advanced someone is at something, the more capable of understanding their limitations and the dangers inherent in the activity they are undertaking. Given, one would hope, that those straying into the areas for which transceivers are recommended are very good skiers, this adage may hold true. Just a thought. I say this as someone who doesn't venture into transceiver terrain (and as someone who only wears a helmet when racing or coaching - perhaps defeating the point of my own argument).
Actually sod all the above. Sign me up to the "it's their head, they can do what they want with it" brigade. I think helmets are a good idea, and often find myself wondering why I don't wear mine more than I do, but I also think people should make their own minds up. That said, I do agree with the idea that children under a certain age should be required to wear helmets, as some countries have enshrined into law. |
Ah, yes, the Dunning–Kruger effect.
I like to think that I'm under no illusions about my middle-aged, middling intermediate skiing abilities so I take few risks, for instance I only ski black runs if the conditions are good.
I don't wear a helmet, but if I ever take those off-piste or mogul lessons I've been thinking about then I probably will get one. I've always thought that skiers like me (i.e non racing, snow park, backcountry off piste etc.) look a bit naff and precious wearing helmets to just cruise down the blues and reds; maybe I should think less about appearances.
Boarders are different - my few days experience on a snowboard demonstrated very effectively that boarders fall harder than skiers and are more likely to bash their heads on the piste - I'd definitely get a helmet if I ever tried that again.
Funny how personal experience and feelings trump evidence and statistics isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T Bar, oh no agreement is breaking out!
I agree with Nick!
But I don't think that (Ive) castigated people who don't wear helmets- just their take on 'evidence'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
agw, the only thing missing from your argument is that it doesn't legislate for other people on on those blues and reds. My own personal experience, following which I bought a helmet, was someone skiing into my head! But I'm firmly in the 'wear one if you want - or not' camp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Pedantica wrote: |
| agw, the only thing missing from your argument is that it doesn't legislate for other people on on those blues and reds. My own personal experience, following which I bought a helmet, was someone skiing into my head! But I'm firmly in the 'wear one if you want - or not' camp. |
Yeah - I was going to mention that but I thought my musings were rambling enough anyway.
Thanks for illustrating my last point though! 
btw are you the same "Pedantica" that posts on the Bad Science forums?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One thing which does confuse me is the reluctance of pro snowboarders to wear helmets. With a few notable exceptions (Jeremy Jones, one of the Think Thank crew and a couple of others), you rarely see video parts with these guys wearing lids. You regularly see these guys smacking their heads in to rails, concrete, steps etc but they don't wear lids despite the obvious dangers.
Tam won't let you on the park without a helmet and I've seen some really nasty falls where helmets have certainly made a difference (not being emotive here)
I just wonder whether pros not wearing helmets is to do with the whole 18-43 male group uptake of helmets/not wanting to be seen as weak etc. I remember one video part where they were taking the pish out of one of the crew (Mikey LeBlanc IIRC) being seen with a lid on. I think this is irresponsible because i see park as being the discipline that needs helmets most.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
agw,
| Quote: |
btw are you the same "Pedantica" that posts on the Bad Science forums?
|
Good heavens, there's another one? No, I'm not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Pedantica wrote: |
agw,
| Quote: |
btw are you the same "Pedantica" that posts on the Bad Science forums?
|
Good heavens, there's another one? No, I'm not. |
Pedantry is obviously a popular pastime 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
TotallyBoard, Some of the snowboard stuff is a hangover from old kool skateboarding where is was defitely not cool to wear protection. I bet a lot are wearing armoured shorts and the like under their kecks though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Pedantica, I had a PM the other week asking if I posted as Megamum to any other forums - similarly I had to reply "No, SH's is the only forum I post to" - However, a Google search reveals a huge number of Megamums that do exist! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
