The Ski Helmet Debate

Interesting discussion that I have seen evolve before in exactly the same way relating to the wearing of Motorcycle helmets.

One of the key reasons that motorcyle helmets became required by law was the increase in accidents and the corresponding increase in head injuries.

The reason for the increase in accidents was because of the increased level of traffic on the road and an overall reduction in the reaction times available to take avoiding action.

The graph of the number of injuries resulting in serious brain injury or death showed a steady climb through the 50s and 60s until a tipping points was reached and legislation was finally passed in 73 making them mandatory in the UK.

The statistics for head injuries on the slopes are showing an increase year on year. There will come a point when the cost of those injuries becomes too high (not to the individuals, but to the support services), and at that point individual resorts will make helmets compulsory.

Those that do not wish to wear a helmet will move to different resorts until there options become so limited that they will succumb to the inevitable and don a lid. (Although it is likely that for a while they will take it off as soon as they reach the top of the lift!).

This is the way it will happen and why it will happen. All that needs to be debated is the time span over which it will occur. )

I agree totally with Eurocard60. In fact thats what I was trying to imply in my first post earlier this week. More traffic on piste is bound to lead to more accidents....even statistical idiots like me can work that one out. I guess the only way around that is to have a In/out system for each piste so there is a limit on each run :wink:

I don't wear a helmet, only worn one a few times whilst racing years ago. But I find this thread very interesting. Sometime someone is going to decide that helmet wearing for adults is compulary, which should be interesting.
Had a bit of a look around and found this "So, whilst helmets may help reduce the incidence of more minor head injuries and lacerations they are less able to protect the foolhardy skier who pushes his or her limits and who (inadvertently) ends up wrapping themselves around a tree. To give a stark example, biomechanics have demonstrated that in order to protect the head against a direct impact blow at 30 mph, with currently available materials, a helmet would need to be at least 18cm thick, 50cm wide and weigh 5kg+. Hhhmm….stylish. Radar data collected from ski areas suggests most intermediate skiers regularly travel at between 24-38 mph."
On http://www.ski-injury.com/prevention/helmet
My view .....
If wearing a helmet seems right to you, great, wear one. If you are like me and don't like them ski sensibly .....

Mind you if I were skiing stuff that I did 20/25 years ago then I
can see that I would wear one some of the time.
:-)

As far as I can see, ski/board helmets protect only the wearer. So why would you want to impose them on somebody who chooses not to?

P.S. I wear one.

I guess it's related to insurance. Head surgery is not an easy or cheap one, so with numbers of head injuries increasing it's becoming a bit expensive for insurers who are used to big profits and don't want to see them fall - which is inevitable if they have to pay more often. Premiums don't provide good enough margins with current rates of injuries. Apart from that (and, how could I foget, the need to protect the minors) it's entirely personal choice. In France, if I am not mistaken, health care is free and provided by the state, which means they should make wearing helmets a law.

verbier_ski_bum wrote:In France, if I am not mistaken, health care is free and provided by the state, which means they should make wearing helmets a law.

Hang on verbier .....
Following that argument then skiing must be banned irespective of helmet wearing as it is dangerous and more people are injured in ways that a helmet would not protect from than are saved by helmet wearing.
Also, don't forget to ban driving, cycling, alcohol, obesity etc. etc. etc.

I love the sensation of skiing free of head gear, but I reluctantly wore a helmet for the 1st time last year.

I was pressured into it by my family (not by media hype) as my husband had a nasty bang and had started wearing one several years before me. I'm not a sheep, but I suppose it made sense.

What I was thinking though was that I would never get on a horse without a hat and I usually wear one on a push bike too.
In neither of those activities is it compulsory in the UK and to my knowledge not in Europe either.

If I were considering helmet laws I'd consider those sports equally (probably more; no stats to back it up of course) dangerous. So maybe it'll be freedom of choice for a while yet. (As in my opinion it should be)

OldAndy wrote:To give a stark example, biomechanics have demonstrated that in order to protect the head against a direct impact blow at 30 mph, with currently available materials, a helmet would need to be at least 18cm thick, 50cm wide and weigh 5kg+.

Andy where did this quote come from? I'm no expert but it doesn't seem to make sense to me. I'm sure technology/materials are more advanced than that because motorbike lids are meant to protect your noggin at higher speeds than this. Just checked the Arai site, and their latest lid is even penetration tested (ooh err). MotoGP riders can travel in excess of 200mph, they have some pretty nasty crashes of all kinds including head impacts. I'm not saying they don't pick up big injuries, but considering some of the offs, serious head injuries are relatively rare. They definitely don't wear lids which are this size. As Bandit said in a previous post, skiing accidents are thought to be becoming more like bike accidents and I can see why. Speed is increasing and pistes are pretty hard (even liquid water is like concrete if you hit it hard enough), so it's not a million miles away.