Stupid Skier

[BulletProof]

Love to hear this on the radio:

Enforcing helmets for kids is a good idea, but, for people like me with 25 years experience, it can be dangerous to wear a helmet.

We can't impede on peripheral vision, I keep getting hit in the back by snowboarders, so I think helmets should not be mandatory for adults.

Lets see:

-Good helmets give you the same peripheral vision your goggles give you, then again, he may be wearing sunglases...

-If he's getting hit in the back, which I doubt, he still won't see someone coming at him.

I hope he meets mr. tree trunk one day, showing off in the glades.

[crazyTKDsquirrel]

[ptran11]

Love to hear this on the radio:

Enforcing helmets for kids is a good idea, but, for people like me with 25 years experience, it can be dangerous to wear a helmet.

We can't impede on peripheral vision, I keep getting hit in the back by snowboarders, so I think helmets should not be mandatory for adults.

Lets see:

-Good helmets give you the same peripheral vision your goggles give you, then again, he may be wearing sunglases...

-If he's getting hit in the back, which I doubt, he still won't see someone coming at him.

I hope he meets mr. tree trunk one day, showing off in the glades.

thats funny. They talk like its the first sport to think about adopting helmets. I play hockey and its mandatory and if it wasn't I'd still wear one, even if it impedes my vision. It doesn't impede vision but cranial damage.

[tex1230]

I hear motorcyclists make the same argument - and it's BS. I don't like helmet laws, but for me it's a darwinian thing. If your brain isn't worth protecting, don't wear a helmet.

[Gecko]

agree with the Darwinian thing, but the Skier's opinion that he keeps getting hit by snowboarders in the back so he shouldn't have to wear a helmet is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have heard in a while

[SnowSpeedster]

Years ago, me doing alpine jump turns in powder one day on side of trail.....me catch nose of board.... hit tree....ring bell pretty good...me lay there few minutes....

Guy in red jacket with cross on it stopped to ask if me okay, he want to take me with him...(Me think was Jesus on skis)

Have worn helmet ever since and have exerienced no further dain bramage me know of.

[Steez]

Have worn helmet ever since and have exerienced no further dain bramage me know of.

If you're not drooling on your keyboard I guess you're fine

[crazyTKDsquirrel]

agree with the Darwinian thing, but the Skier's opinion that he keeps getting hit by snowboarders in the back so he shouldn't have to wear a helmet is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have heard in a while

+1

[BobD]

+1

....and all the other silly arguments, like wearing a helmet incites people to take more risk and so increases the number of accidents.

BobD

[bumpyride]

....and all the other silly arguments, like wearing a helmet incites people to take more risk and so increases the number of accidents.

BobD

Well the Pope says using Condoms increases disease so naturally wearing a helmet will increase accidents. How can you refute God's Messenger's Logic? Too bad we pay for the side effects in both cases.

[Dan]

....and all the other silly arguments, like wearing a helmet incites people to take more risk and so increases the number of accidents.

BobD

You know, I think that argument is bunk too. Buuut, I have to admit I wouldn't get on the snow -- or on a bicycle -- without a helmet. Does that mean the helmet is inciting me to take more risk?

[guido591]

Well the Pope says using Condoms increases disease so naturally wearing a helmet will increase accidents. How can you refute God's Messenger's Logic? Too bad we pay for the side effects in both cases.

Perhaps a forum other than this would be more appropriate for such material.

[Gecko]

....and all the other silly arguments, like wearing a helmet incites people to take more risk and so increases the number of accidents.

BobD

The fact remains in september I took a fall riding my motorcycle at 15mph...my ankle was trapped under the bike and was broken. About 2 weeks later I got a good look at my helmet and the damage to it was extensive the shell was scrapped and cracked the visor was split. I however knew none of this because it did it's job and protected me as it was supposed to

[DjulezD]

You here so much crap on the radio these days !

It would be better if a well known and prominent figure of the sport would come out on a spot and say, look, I am out there doing these radical moves and trenching hard, but I would not do it without protective gear !

[dave29]

Classic radio clip. Hopefully that guy does not learn the hard way-uphhh!!!

[C5 Golfer]

My GF used to wear her Boeri helmet when I drove my car-- with the top down... We'd sure get some odd looks.

[philw]

You here so much crap ... (sic)

Indeed, here and there.

The original "quote" is a lame straw man. Some some of you are just about managing to dismantle it, which you seem very satisfied about.

You don't explain what the point is in preserving your grey cells if you don't actually use them. A trivial google will put the lie to the assumption you're making in this thread: here. You have to read the whole page or you'll miss the point and learn nothing; please don't waste your time selectively quoting from that.

I wear helmets for some things and not for others, and I decide which is which based on the risks, which are quantifiable. If you're making those judgements based on something else, that's absolutely fine, but not rational.

[tufty]

please don't waste your time selectively quoting from that.

Oh, you spoilsport. We haven't had a helmet "debate" for ages. Interesting report, btw.

Here's a selective quote.

Recreational ski and snowboard helmets are manufactured to a standard to provide protection at 14 mph or less, while most skiers and snowboarders are easily capable of reaching speeds of 25 to 40 mph or more. Studies establish that helmets are of limited value in preventing or reducing serious head injuries and fatalities in collisions with fixed objects at speeds in excess of 12 mph.

I'm not arguing for or against that, but a little anecdote...

Yesterday I was at Courchevel, boarding with a couple of friends. My board was not waxed due to a certain tit (me) leaving his rucksack at the top of the mountain the preceding day, in said rucksack being his block of wax. Conditions were about 2" of fresh powder on top of recently fallen and bashed snow - a bit too soft for hard carving, to be honest, but hey.

Courchevel have a speed trap. It's on a very shallow slope (no steeper than a "bunny" slope), you go from a standing start, 50m, and are clocked at the exit. I was clocked at over 50kph (more than 30mph). That's 30mph after straightlining 50 yards, from a standing start, through powder, on a slope where it was hard to actually get moving to start with given the unwaxed state of my board.

Later, we checked one of the group's GPS units. It reckoned an average of over 65kph on the slopes; this was on heavily tracked, unbashed pistes (what the locals round my way would call "trafole"; half way between powder and moguls, "mashed potatoes" if you like).

I do not consider myself to be in any way "fast".

And no, I don't wear a helmet. I don't condemn anyone for wearing one, though.

[BobD]

Bottom line is, do helmets help to prevent brain injury ?

Just because no one has definitive stats to show this, common sense and taking clues from other sports with helmet use, makes it obvious that you much reduce the chances of brain injury by wearing a helmet.

To not wear a helmet is a person,s choice, but to justify not wearing one because the statistics aren't yet showing the benefit, is defying common sense.

BobD

[DjulezD]

Indeed, here and there.

The original "quote" is a lame straw man.

Sorry, I was actually referring to the pope, because the analogy was very good.

I come from Europe where we don't wear helmets as much as here in the States.

I decided I would when I was hit in the back while on a heelside EC turn by a snowboarder. The impact on my board and the damage to my jacket made me realize that 50cm more on the left and I would have been hit in the head.

Everybody is free to do what they want, but prominent figures should not get the wrong messages out.

[tufty]

....and all the other silly arguments, like wearing a helmet incites people to take more risk and so increases the number of accidents.

Here's a silly argument taken from a peer-reviewd journal. You know, actual science, as opposed to "I don't believe it therefore it's not true".

The authors measured the speed of some 650 individuals at 3 different ski resorts in the US during the winter of 2002 / 2003 [...] by means of a calibrated radar speed gun. [...] All measures were taken on wide, straight, well-groomed "blue square" (more difficult) trails. the slopes ranged from 16-20° in steepness.

[...]

The average speed for helmet users of 45.8 km/h (28.4 mph) was significantly higher than those not using a helmet at 41.0 km/h (25.4 mph).

[...]

The observed speeds are well above the speeds (22.6 km/h, or 14.0 mph) used for ASTM F 2040 helmet testing protocols for recreational snow sports helmets.

I don't think there's any argument that wearing a helmet reduces the direct effect of head impacts, at least when talking about minor accidents (which, thankfully, most accidents are).

[BobD]

Statistics often don't recognize what's really happening. The people who would previously would have ridden/skied faster are the ones wearing helmets. They where the first to realize the benefits of wearing a helmet. Do racers try to go faster now that they wear helmets ? I carve turns at the speed it takes to carve turns. If I were not wearing a helmet, I could not not go slower or I would fall down. Also the largest group of non helmet wearers are beginners, who will be going slower.

The real question is, do people take other risk when they wear a helmet that they might not have taken otherwise. I would guess the answer to that would be a maybe. I think that is because generally people who wear helmets consider the risk of their actions and so factor the risk of a small bump to the head into that risk calculation. On the very rare occasions when I don't wear a helmet, I am a little more conservative about doing things like catching some air, or even carving near anything hard like trees or lift towers. The fact that I'm constantly weighing the risk of what I'm doing, is in fact likely to lower the chances of an accident. In doing that, I think I'm a typical helmet wearer.

BobD

[tufty]

Statistics often don't recognize what's really happening.

Ummmm - whuh?

The people who would previously would have ridden/skied faster are the ones wearing helmets. They where the first to realize the benefits of wearing a helmet. ... Also the largest group of non helmet wearers are beginners, who will be going slower.

I hate to go all wikipedia on you, but assertations like this are *really* {citation needed}.

On the very rare occasions when I don't wear a helmet, I am a little more conservative about doing things like catching some air, or even carving near anything hard like trees or lift towers.

Helmets are likely to reduce the incidence and severity of minor head trauma, the sort of thing you get from banging your head on the hardpack. There's a lot of studies showing this, and nobody is arguing with that. But when you start talking about major accidents, smacking into trees / pylons at full chat, you're talking about the sort of accident that a helmet is *extremely* unlikely to help with.

You've already stated that you ride at the speed dictated by the carve, and not the other way around. So we'll assume your speed is effectively constant with, or without, a helmet.

Now, without a helmet, you are more conservative about hitting a little air. I'd say that's probably a fairly significant risk reduction, all it takes is one bad landing and you're looking at a wipeout, and the possibility of a bang on the head. Sensible enough. However, you also say youre you're more conservative about carving near hard objects, despite the fact your helmet is unlikely to save you if you do hit one at speed.

Before, you said:

....and all the other silly arguments, like wearing a helmet incites people to take more risk and so increases the number of accidents.

...which is somewhat at odds with the fact you've just stated flat out that you personally *do* take more risk when wearing a helmet.

[BobD]

I make a choice in riding risk when not wearing a helmet because I have the helmet as an option. If I thought helmets made no difference, I would just take the extra risk anyway. If there were no helmets available, I would ride the same way I do now wearing a helmet. So has wearing a helmet increased my risk taking ? No.

Most articles I have read say that it is the experienced skiers/ boarders who are most likely to wear a helmet. Of course this group goes faster. To say that it is the helmets that make them go faster is twisting the reality.

BobD

[bumpyride]

Did actually read the report twice-maybe 3 times and here's what I come up with.

I don't think that I'm taking quotes out of context to support a bias, I'm quoting to eliminate things I think are biased and sometimes misleading.

Quote:

HELMET USAGE IN THE U.S.

As a result of industry safety and educational initiatives, helmet usage in the United States has significantly increased over the past several seasons. According to the 2007/08 NSAA National Demographic Study:

# 43 percent of U.S. skiers and boarders overall wear helmets, up from 40 percent from the year before; in comparison, only 25 percent of skiers and boarders wore helmets during the 2002/03 season;

# 70 percent of children 9 years old or younger wear ski helmets;

# 60 percent of children between 10 and 14 wear ski helmets;

# 59 percent of adults over the age of 65 wear ski helmets;

# The least likely demographic to wear a helmet are men aged 18 to 24 where only 32 percent wear helmets.

Me:

What this report fails to mention here is the percentages of fatalities of the same age groups.

Quote:

Notably, helmet usage increases with the skier's ability level. Only 26 percent of beginners wear helmets, 38 percent of intermediates wear helmets while 55 percent of advanced skiers and riders wear helmets.

Me:

This is part of an explanation of why skiers and boarders that wear helmets go faster-they're more experienced and would likely be going faster and taking more risks anyway. I don't think it's fair to say people are more likely to take more risks because they're wearing helmets in general, but a goodly portion of these people would be doing the same simply because of their skill level. Injuries would of course be hard to quantify if nobody was wearing helmets, because that would be speculative.

Quote:

In comparison, the National Traffic Safety Administration reports only 20-25 percent of bike riders in the U.S. wear helmets.

Me:

This I also find disturbing. We're not dodging 2000lb skiers traveling 40+ mph on an asphalt slope with limited visibility running red lights and stops signs. Naturally your chances of being killed are greater if you're t-boned by a car than if you're hit by a 150 lbs simian snowboarder. In Seattle it's accepted that if you ride in the city, sooner or later you'll be hit by a car. You'd be foolish to ride without a helmet in hazardous conditions, not to mention how many people are riding in the single track and extreme terrains because of the advancement of equipment. In general I'd rather hit a snow covered object than a tree or rock on a single track.

Quote:

SKIING AND SNOWBOARDING REMAIN A REMARKABLY SAFE SPORT

Skiing and snowboarding are no more dangerous than other high-energy participation sports. The sport has some inherent risks, but overall the sport enjoys an excellent safety record. During the past 10 years, about 39 people have died skiing per year on average.

In fact, the number of skiing or snowboarding fatalities (per million participants) is less than the number of fatalities from swimming or bicycling.

According to the most recently available data from 2006, there were 2.07 skiing/snowboarding fatalities per million participants, whereas there were 29.4 bicycling fatalities per million participants, and 72.7 swimming fatalities per million participants(1). We are extremely proud of our industry's safety efforts.

Me:

Here's where the stats are misleading. Per Participant. What you actually need for a breakdown of relative safety is what they use for truckers/cars and that would be miles driven. Same thing would be for skiers/bikers/swimmers/people flying kites in an lightning storm. That is hours on the slopes/on bikes/in the water/seeing if lightning is really electricity. I notice that they don't mention how many injuries are treated at the large resorts e.g. Vail, per day. I've heard mention that 50 to 75 people are seen per day there, but I don't have that fact at hand.

Quote:

Indeed, you are twice as likely to die from being struck by lightning than suffer a fatality from skiing or snowboarding(2).

Me:

I do believe that there's a whole lot more people exposed to potential lightning strikes per year and those are potentially much greater percentages of fatalities (something about hotter than the sun's surface). This is a stupid and self serving analogy.

Quote:

REVIEW OF MEDICAL LITERATURE ON HELMET EFFICACY

While we promote helmet usage, the medical literature indicates that helmets have significant limitations when a skier or rider is involved in a serious accident and the increase in the use of helmets has not reduced the overall number of skiing fatalities. In fact, more than half of the people involved in fatal accidents last season were wearing helmets at the time of the incident.

"Even though the prevalence of helmet utilization is rising by 4 to 5 percent per year in the U.S., there has been no statistically significant observable effect on the incident of fatality." See "Do Helmets Reduce Fatalities or merely Alter the Patterns of Death?" Shealy, J., Johnson, R., and Ettlinger, C., 2008), p. 5.

Me:

This part also disturbs me as I won't disagree on what they're saying, but it's what they're not saying. Sure more than half the people were wearing helmets, but they fail to mention that the more experienced people are the ones that are more likely to wear helmets, and possibly be the ones that would be traveling at higher rates of speed and going where the less experienced ones wouldn't be caught dead (excuse the bad pun). They, I believe are correct that running into a tree at 20 to 30 mph and doing a cross body check into an immovable object and putting your internal organs into a blender with ribs as the blades is not going to help out your chances of surviving with a helmet, or going face first into a tree without the helmet ever coming into contact with a tree,but what about those injuries that are not reported because they are not injuries because a helmet was worn?

Let's look at this another way. Take an egg and lay it on a counter. Take a knife and give it a rap, and see how easy it is to break it. Now take an egg and put a piece of foam underneath it and on top of it. Take the knife and see if the same rap will break it. I think not. By the way this experiment is best done around breakfast time and skip the bacon.

Quote:

Indeed, the most recent review of helmet efficacy in ski accidents concludes that "the salutary effect [of helmet usage] was limited to the less serious head injuries, such as scalp lacerations and mild concussions." Id., at p.3. "[N]o significant effect noted for the more serious head injuries such as concussions more severe than mild, closed head injury, skull fracture and death due to head injury." Id., p. 3.

Me:

What's not mentioned here is really not statistically able to be quantified. How many severe concussions are saved or downgraded to mild because of the use of helmets. We don't have the facts on our recent headline Natasha Richardson. She was taking a lesson on a beginner hill, and that's all we know. Very ugly thing and it may well have happened to me on my worst fall (backwards fall on an icy cat track at about 2 to 3 mph which dented my helmet and rang my bell a bit, but the only serious damage was my sense of humor and reasoning).

Quote:

As the medical literature stresses, "[m]ost fatalities appear to occur under circumstances that are likely to exceed the protective capacity of current helmets designed for recreational snow sports." See "Do Helmets Reduce Fatalities or merely Alter the Patterns of Death?" Shealy, J., Johnson, R., and Ettlinger, C., 2008), p. 8.

It is true that the most common primary injury in ski and snowboarding fatalities is some sort of head injury - approximately 60 percent of ski fatalities are head injuries(3). However, it is critical to place this into its proper context. "While some sort of head injury is usually the first listed cause of death, most of the fatalities also involve multiple, or secondary trauma sites; single causes of death are not common." See "Do Helmets Reduce Fatalities or merely Alter the Patters of Death?" Shealy, J., Johnson, R., and Ettlinger, C., 2008), p. 2.

Me:

Exactly what you should be reading between the lines.

Another thing that they are failing to mention if the number of people killed on piste or off piste. New equipment has now opened terrain for many more people than previously. Fat skies and powder specific boards have accessed the new terrain to a huge number of people that weren't able to go off in those conditions/areas. The ramifications of venturing out in these conditions can be much more severe, and exposing more experienced (and higher percentages of helmet wearers) to potential danger.

So do statistics tell the truth? Yes

Do statistics lie? Yes

Are statistics helpful? Yes

Are statistics harmful? Yes

Should all statistics contain codicils that fully explain the nuances of the study? DEFINITELY YES.

I think this study is deficient in many aspects. It's still a study that can be helpful if you really read between the lines. I feel it's most deficient in the way that it dismisses the ability of helmets to prevent injuries in general. There's a lot of injuries that are not realized when wearing a helmet and it does not address those sufficiently.

What do I take out of this study? Wear a helmet at all times on the slope.

PS, Can anyone tell me how to get multiple Quotes in shaded print into the thread. Never learned that one.