The Ski Helmet Debate

There is no connection at all between helmets for skiing and for motorbikes.
Bikers ride dangerous machines at breakneck speeds generally, and often recklessly - very recklessly. They are doing 70mph plus an often well over 100mph on the main roads, so they know the risks. They will also fall onto hard tarmac or concrete or probably through the front window of a car if they crash, which probably means a helmet for them is actually useless anyway.
But the 2 things are totally incomparable.
Just my view though.

Tony the point I was making related to Andy's quote about helmets needing to be ridiculously large to offer any protection over 30mph. That doesn't appear to be accurate because clearly helmets can be made which protect against impacts above that speed. When you say that a helmet is probably useless for motorbike accidents that's pretty far out. They have saved lives, there's no doubt about it. From real life situations to videos that have done the rounds, I've seen it with my own eyes. The falls people walk away from are mindblowing. If ski helmets are (arguably) not providing enough protection, they could do worse that to look at helmet designs which do provide protection at greater speed. Seems to make sense.

OldAndy wrote:

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 was talking about specific case of head injuries. Insurers work on the base of statistics, not in general;)As for helmets my friend had a fall, she was taken out, walked away and didn't think much of it until she saw a dent at the back of her helmet. As for 'ban' there is a thing called 'regulation'. And why ban something if they can make you be the one paying everything out of your own pocket if something goes wrong?

When will it all stop, I suppose someone famous will break their backs and then you guys will be running out to buy body protectors and it continues, you guys are a marketing mans dream.

Possibly, with respect Ian, the daftest post on this thread so far.

The fact I wear a helmet has nothing to do with anyone famous or any kind of marketing. I think it improves my safety and security on the mountain - and that's my decision, and mine alone.

Mind you, those back protectors do look cool - especially in the bar after skiing. Think I'll get one for apres ski!!!

LOTA wrote:Possibly, with respect Ian, the daftest post on this thread so far.

The fact I wear a helmet has nothing to do with anyone famous or any kind of marketing. I think it improves my safety and security on the mountain - and that's my decision, and mine alone.

Mind you, those back protectors do look cool - especially in the bar after skiing. Think I'll get one for apres ski!!!

You might think it is daft and you are entitled to your opinion, but the increase in popularity in wearing lids certainly started after that actress Natasha Richardson died the publicity was huge, maybe you're thinking now my post might not be so daft.

Is there a company sellIng helmets using Natasha Richardson's accident I'm their marketing? If so that's pretty sick.

I think there was definitely media hype surrounding her death. Did anyone ever find conclusive evidence that a helmet would have saved her life? From the little I read it seems her refusal of treatment probably sealed her fate. I don't think the media hype can push sensible people into parting with hard earned cash for the sake of it. It will make people consider the options though.

EmmaEvs wrote:Tony the point I was making related to Andy's quote about helmets needing to be ridiculously large to offer any protection over 30mph. That doesn't appear to be accurate because clearly helmets can be made which protect against impacts above that speed. When you say that a helmet is probably useless for motorbike accidents that's pretty far out. They have saved lives, there's no doubt about it. From real life situations to videos that have done the rounds, I've seen it with my own eyes. The falls people walk away from are mindblowing. If ski helmets are (arguably) not providing enough protection, they could do worse that to look at helmet designs which do provide protection at greater speed. Seems to make sense.

I dont agree with this, or to be honest much that you say. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
If you come off a motorbike at 125mph, I dont think it matters if you have a helmet on your head or a slice of cheese, it isnt going to save your life. I once saw a motorbike go under a bus in London, and the helmet was left on the road about 10 metres from the accident scene.......with the riders head still in it.
Anyway, like it should be, its an individuals choice and should be. We dont need people ramming statistics down out throat and suggesting that as a result of some random survey we should all be arrested for not wearing them.