Fatal fall

[lowrider]

Lakeridge resort in Ontario ( Canada) reports the death of a 16 year old male who on Friday failed to complete the landing on a jump in their park. He was wearing a helmet at the time but died of his injuries Saturday. As a parent of a teen who uses terrain parks extensively i am at a loss to express how this boys family would be feeling at this time. Play safe everyone.

[slopestar]

That is terrible to hear. I am no fan of terrain parks. It is not a daily occurrence at Mountain High here in So Cal, but there are at least a couple of ambulance rides. Terrain Parks are places for inexperienced riders to easily venture beyond their abilities.

I am sitting here sidelined from riding after folding the nose on a toeside and taking an ejection seat ride out the back. Another example of riding beyond one's own ability? Snowboarding is dangerous. Walking across the street is dangerous. I feel for the family and friends of this person. Enjoy every turn, it could be your last.

[glenn]

Sad...Really sad...Now if everybody could refrain from judging this kid, it would be nice. I know we had a some extremely disrespectful comments about a certain actress last year...Try to be kind, please...

[Allee]

Quite honestly, I'm amazed this doesn't happen more often. When you're pulling huge speeds and launching yourself the equivalent of a 3 or 4 storey building, the chances that you're going to get really hurt when you screw up are pretty high. I can understand the buzz people get out of doing it, but it's a shame that all the ski movies portray it as easy as pie and consequence-free. They'll show you crashes, but they never show you crashes where anyone, you know, gets hurt or stuff.

I watched Tanner Hall's "Like a Lion" a few nights back, and they showed the footage of the two accidents that pretty much sidelined his career. On the first one he shorted a huge booter, hit the landing ramp about chest high, and then flipped over the top and slid down the landing - on the way pretty much exploding both ankles. The footage of him lying at the bottom screaming was excruciating. They interviewed Jon Olsson, who was sessioning with him that day, and he said seeing that crash screwed him up mentally for the best part of a year. (PS this was one of the best ski films I've ever seen, as far as exploring the lifestyle of a pro skier. No punches pulled. Great movie). As horrifying as it was, it was certainly refreshing to see them put that footage in there ... yes, even these people screw up, and yes, they do get hurt. Take from that what you will.

It's a real shame that these days the thing seems to be to throw your limits out the window. If you're not going big you might as well go home and all that ... when kids heads get filled with it always has to be bigger, harder and gnarlier, that's when you hit trouble. I really shudder to think how many people pay for the extreme sport lifestyle with their health or their lives, all in the name of keeping up.

[philw]

Agreed. It seems to me that you can "win" that game by pushing it to the very limit... which you can only find one way. On the other hand people die on the roads every day.

Usually when someone dies at a ski resort someone will point out that if they'd been wearing a helmet they may not have died. I guess I should therefore take this opportunity to point out what the statistics already clearly show: make a mistake at speed or from height, and all your armor won't save you.

[bonzo]

My condolences go out to the friends and family of the teen.

Working as Ski Patrol I have seen more than my share of incidents in the parks. We respond to nearly 2000 calls every season, but surprisingly, the terrain parks do not represent a disproportionate number of calls; they do however usually involve more severe injuries. Just last week I responded to two head injuries within 30 minutes. Both teens cracked their helmets in the park. Both teens needed an ambulance ride to the level one trauma center because they had concussions. If they were not wearing helmets at least one of the teens probably would have needed to be resuscitated.

The bigger threat is blood loss due to an injury such as a ruptured spleen or liver, broken femur or pelvis. If we can't get the rig there fast enough, we call in the bird.

[lowrider]

My condolences go out to the friends and family of the teen.

Working as Ski Patrol I have seen more than my share of incidents in the parks. We respond to nearly 2000 calls every season, but surprisingly, the terrain parks do not represent a disproportionate number of calls; they do however usually involve more severe injuries. Just last week I responded to two head injuries within 30 minutes. Both teens cracked their helmets in the park.

Another fatality reported in Ontario Canada 45 year old male skier @Blue Mt Collingwood. Last fatality at this resort was i believe in 2009. In my opinion fatalities are rare events. Injuries are not. The debate about helmets is on the front burner again. Unfortunatly many believe helmets provide more protection than they actually do. Call for a helmet that stays together after impact has been proposed and design standards are in place but requires political will to enact. As a Ski Patroler have you seen first hand evidence that such a standard would be helpful to reduce injury. I agree that speed (sudden impact with an stationary object) as well as pushing your personal limits are factors but i'm still wondering if the experts proposing this legislation know something the rest of us don't and why or who could be opposed to better standards?

[Allee]

The debate about helmets is on the front burner again. Unfortunatly many believe helmets provide more protection than they actually do. Call for a helmet that stays together after impact has been proposed and design standards are in place but requires political will to enact. ... i'm still wondering if the experts proposing this legislation know something the rest of us don't and why or who could be opposed to better standards?

Re helmet standards -I watched this video on mountain bike helmets a month or so back. One should always take this stuff with a grain of salt, but it certainly made me think that next time I need to buy a MTB helmet, I'll be looking hard at its certifications.

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/Video-Helmet-Safety-Comparison-2012.html

[Corey]

That's a great video Allee!

Call for a helmet that stays together after impact has been proposed and design standards are in place but requires political will to enact.

You've mentioned this in every helmet thread. Watch the video above, even the non-certified helmet stays together after an impact! This is not an issue with modern helmets.

[lowrider]

That's a great video Allee!

You've mentioned this in every helmet thread. Watch the video above, even the non-certified helmet stays together after an impact! This is not an issue with modern helmets.

I agree i have. Unless you were watching a different video they only tested one non certified bike helmets. I believe the canadian standards require the lids to either withstand a second impact or stay together for a second impact . Something must be behind this particular requirement as it is more stringent than others. I'd like that in a helmet. At least with tougher standards the bottom feeders would be eliminated.

[Allee]

Why would they do a second impact test on a helmet? In case # 1, the guy is likely dead or badly injured, and in case # 2, the implication is that the helmet would be binned immediately, having done its job. it's not like they need to test for bounce, or anything.

I know that some helmets are certified as "multi impact" so maybe they're the ones you're thinking of (and if I'm not mistaken that includes the Protec one that failed that test so spectacularly). But I've never taken a risk with any of my snow or bike helmets. It takes a significant impact, it's in the crusher, I don't care what the manufacturer says about number of impacts.

Regardless, for a helmet to absorb the impact that a crash off a big booter would cause, you'd have to be wearing a moto helmet. Those are the only helmets designed for that level of impact, and even that might not be enough. How many people you see in the park wearing Troy Lee?

[Ian M]

This is very unfortunate, and my thoughts go out to his family. However, there is a view in western society that death is the ultimate failure; failure of technology or social policies to protect each and every person from the danger of ____. Before anyone thinks to call me insensitive, keep in mind that I lost my brother seven years ago in an unexplained helicopter crash.

Allee is right that the proliferation of 'hero footage' encourages sport participants to go too close to or beyond their limits, trying to match or one-up the last guy. I have to wonder though, if people are not perceiving 'the limits' accurately because of the protective equipment.

When it comes to protective gear, there's an issue that is often overlooked. Skydivers call it 'risk homeostasis', and it is the tendency to increase the risk level of the situation to your target 'thrill level'. What this means is that if the helmet makes you feel 20% safer, than you'll ride 20% more riskily to achieve the same excitement. That translates into going faster and going bigger, leading to more serious injuries when things don't go as planned. Add to that the fact that most people seem to over-estimate how much a particular safety product will protect them, and you have a recipe for some ugly incidents.

Last year I forgot my helmet once, and chose to ride anyways. Did I leave myself more margin for error? Absolutely. But, it was more in the neighborhood of 10% as opposed to 30% or 50%. Try riding without whatever safety gear you normally wear, and see if you're correctly valuing its protection.

Call for a helmet that stays together after impact has been proposed and design standards are in place but requires political will to enact. As a Ski Patroler have you seen first hand evidence that such a standard would be helpful to reduce injury. I agree that speed (sudden impact with an stationary object) as well as pushing your personal limits are factors but i'm still wondering if the experts proposing this legislation know something the rest of us don't and why or who could be opposed to better standards?

In terms of protection, helmets that self-destruct on first impact usually absorb more energy in the process, protecting the egg inside better. You have to look at energy absorption, not just whether the helmet survives. The helmet's life is not the most important outcome.

Cheers,

Ian

[lowrider]

Why would they do a second impact test on a helmet? In case # 1, the guy is likely dead or badly injured, and in case # 2, the implication is that the helmet would be binned immediately, having done its job. it's not like they need to test for bounce, or anything.

The point isn't that they do a second impact test, it's that the helmet is still on your head after the first. Statistically it must be a significant factor. To suvive a significant fall or at speed crash ( since impacts don't stop untill you do) it would be helpful if the helmet was still where it needed to be (on your head). Like biking, skiing and snowboarding are becoming more defined disciplines helmets specific to the events are the future. Since one helmet is already proving insufficient for biking so too will be the case in skiing and boarding. The difference between low speed and high speed activities will dictate the type of helmet. The present standards don't reflect that reality. Corey observation that the non certified helmet stayed together on impact isn't valid as a comparison as that helmet was at half the impact of the certified helmet. I would be more assured wearing a helmet that stays together over one that doesn't but at present i have no way of knowing that as the present standards don't include this feature in the standard.

[Ian M]

Corey observation that the non certified helmet stayed together on impact isn't valid as a comparison as that helmet was at half the impact of the certified helmet. I would be more assured wearing a helmet that stays together over one that doesn't but at present i have no way of knowing that as the present standards don't include this feature in the standard.

These are comparable tests, because it is sure that the head inside the certified helmet would experience less than 159 G's if dropped from the lower height.

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

<tbody>[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]1m Fall[/TD]

[TD]2m Fall[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Non-certified[/TD]

[TD]816 G's[/TD]

[TD]Would be more than 816 G's[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Certified[/TD]

[TD]Would be less than 159G's[/TD]

[TD]159 G's[/TD]

[/TR]

</tbody>[/TABLE]

[lowrider]

These are comparable tests, because it is sure that the head inside the certified helmet would experience less than 159 G's if dropped from the lower height.

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

<TBODY>[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]1m Fall

[/TD]

[TD]2m Fall

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Non-certified

[/TD]

[TD]816 G's

[/TD]

[TD]Would be more than 816 G's

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Certified

[/TD]

[TD]Would be less than 159G's

[/TD]

[TD]159 G's

[/TD]

[/TR]

</TBODY>[/TABLE]

I'm wrong i was under the impression the test was half drop for uncertified only. So i'm still left with the understanding that uncertified is lethal . Am i correct ? So if the uncertified is unsafe at half the drop why the hell is anyone selling them?

Edited January 4, 2013 by lowrider

[Corey]

The point isn't that they do a second impact test, it's that the helmet is still on your head after the first.

Red herring. This just isn't a problem with today's helmets. Even if it were common, which it's not, Ian M put it wonderfully:

The helmet's life is not the most important outcome.

FYI: The SNELL SA motorsports helmets are multiple impact helmets. They are designed to take a couple of hits from a rollbar in the same area. Basically the foam is thicker and stiffer, but the helmet is still to be considered destroyed after one impact.

[lowrider]

In motorsport there doesn't seem to be resistance to minimal standards for helmets. In Canada why isn't the same true for snow sports?

[Ian M]

^ Are there really that many uncertified helmets out there? Most of the common brands seem to cite standards, and my Smith is ASTM F 2040.

Lowrider, why should the onus be on a government body to protect your melon when you choose to throw yourself down a ski hill? In any adventure sport, there are factors that cannot be controlled and will endanger the participants. Your safety is best looked after by... you.

Sorry if I'm being argumentative, but I really believe in taking responsibility for our own actions and safety.

[lowrider]

^ Are there really that many uncertified helmets out there? Most of the common brands seem to cite standards, and my Smith is ASTM F 2040.

Lowrider, why should the onus be on a government body to protect your melon when you choose to throw yourself down a ski hill? In any adventure sport, there are factors that cannot be controlled and will endanger the participants. Your safety is best looked after by... you.

Sorry if I'm being argumentative, but I really believe in taking responsibility for our own actions and safety.

Argument, discussion ? all good. My main concern stems from issues that develop as a result of accidents involving kids. Lawsuits that you don't hear about many years after the fact. Ski instructors involved in lawsuits because kids get hurt. The liability may be the responsibilty of the individual but it would seem deflecting it to others is more the norm.When a child is injured on a school trip and the resort has a helmet policy (even though the helmets standards are questionable) they are usually off the hook, next in line is the school board or the instructor who said they were fit to snow plow. The parents of kids rely on advice from others and sometimes one questions the motives and ethics of sales claims. Without gov't standards who do you trust if you are not sure?? I see kids wearing anything and everything in the way of helmets because i frequent places that cater to large numbers of beginners. If the parents aren't skiers or have experience in snow sports they are at a loss reguarding the latest tools. If one agrees that gov't standards should apply to motorcycle helmets that apply predominantly to adults why wouldn't it be acceptable to enact legislation to protect those among us who are most vulnerable? Ski instruction organizations can't burden themselves with issues like this but their young members are often the ones who are tasked with the responsibility involving " duty of care". I agree with you as relating to adults being responsible for themselves but kids are an entirely different issue and perhaps i should have made this clear from the get go. I have experienced first hand an adult being injured and convulsing on the snow fronm a head injury" it is not a pretty sight" but we can justify it because he chose not to wear a helmet. Seeing an injured child who doesn't have the capacity to make such decisions is everyones responsibility.

[lowrider]

If your question was how many helmets aren't Canadian certified the answer would be all of them !

[Jack M]

^ Are there really that many uncertified helmets out there? Most of the common brands seem to cite standards, and my Smith is ASTM F 2040.

Lowrider, why should the onus be on a government body to protect your melon when you choose to throw yourself down a ski hill? In any adventure sport, there are factors that cannot be controlled and will endanger the participants. Your safety is best looked after by... you.

Sorry if I'm being argumentative, but I really believe in taking responsibility for our own actions and safety.

Agreed.

I have to wonder if he was wearing his helmet in the stylish new-school fashion - too loose if buckled at all, perched atop a knit hat, and tilted back to allow for goggle placement on the forehead.

[Ian M]

Fair enough, lowrider, it is a different situation when children are involved. The only legislation that makes sense to me would be a law that for a snow sport helmet to be sold in Canadian stores, it must comply with one of the existing standards. There is no need for Canada to create its own standard when something like the ASTM F 2040 exists, it would be a waste of time and money. This way people don't think they're protected when they are not.

At the end of the day, even if the mountain has a mandatory helmet policy specifying certified helmets, it is up to the parent to ensure that the kid has a lid and that it's fitted and worn correctly as Jack mentioned.

[lowrider]

New lift at the local bump and kids are falling like leaves on the unload. All kinds of head contart with swinging chairs. Any kind of mandatory helmet for kids please!

[bonzo]

Just speaking as the guy who has to clean up the accidents:

No helmet makes you invulnerable, but any helmet made by a reputable manufacturer will provide some level of protection.

If you helmet is fits poorly, is old or cracked, its protection is compromised.

If you are a responsible parent, don't let your kid on the snow without a helmet. Because of they are growing, their brain fits a little "looser" within their skull. They need all the protection they can get.

If you are 18, I believe that it is your choice whether or not you wear a helmet, just like being a smoker. My preference is that you would chose to protect yourself to minimize what I have to do in the case of an accident.

If you chose not to wear a helmet or to smoke, please don't ask me to pay for your medical care if your choice result in a unhappy outcome. You made the choice, not me. You assumed the risks and financial liabilities.

Natural selection applies to all members of the plant and animal kingdom. Humans are not exempt.

[Ian M]

^ Well said bonzo