The Ski Helmet Debate

bandit wrote:
Using phrases like "the bottom line" serves to deter further opinion being voiced, as though it's a summing up, and no further points can be valid.

That's a fair point Bandit, and I hereby retract it.

I'm going to get shouted at now but what the heck . . .

I'm not quite sure where the debate is here.

Those that want to wear helmets don't seem to be too worried about how statistically useful they are. Someone on telly banged their head and died, that's enough for me to wear a helmet.

Those that don't want to wear helmets seem to be doing a lot of research to prove to themselves that they don't need to because skiing is perfectly safe.

Yes I'll miss the wind in my hair when I don my new lid in a few weeks time but that's just a small part of skiing. The thrill and excitment will still be there except now when I get wiped out or hit some ice, etc I know that I've done everything I can to minimise the risk.

To say that snow sports are not dangerous is just daft. Why do you think we all love it so much? Pointing head first down a very steep hill covered in snow and ice is not a safe thing to do but its bloomin great fun! I'll enjoy it all the more knowing that I've made even a fraction safe.

Steve

bandit

Of course it adds to the debate ...it shows the scale of the number of relevant incidents in context we are discussing and at least shows a few facts rather than solely stating what people "feel" ...and no one else had seemed to have given us the facts...just feelings

Question moved to Advice on Ski Helmet Safety Levels

daved wrote:bandit

Of course it adds to the debate ...it shows the scale of the number of relevant incidents in context we are discussing and at least shows a few facts rather than solely stating what people "feel" ...and no one else had seemed to have given us the facts...just feelings

you'd have thought wouldn't you? :D

admin wrote:Fact-based arguments always work best - ad hominem attacks never work and will be removed in any case... so keep it polite and state your case!

apparently at least two parts of that aren't true )

ise wrote:Mike Langran has a balanced view I think if you read his comments about Natasha Richardson.

Indeed, and I think the majority of your other observations are spot on... except for...

ise wrote:The problem here is you've got one group of people who are convinced wearing a helmet prevents a likely fatal injury and another group who've correctly assessed that sort of accident is unlikely.

It's clearly possible for intelligent, experienced skiers to do their own risk assessment and come to a decision that's right for them on either side of the debate. What's important is that they have that debate and make their decision based on a sound understanding of the risks.

A skier unaware of the risks of skiing is going to be a danger to themselves and others; regardless of whether they're wearing a helmet or not.

I skied for nearly 20 years without a helmet; I now choose to wear one.

I view it in a similar light to an avalanche transceiver :- if my risk assessment and situational awareness are up to scratch then I'll hopefully never need it.

The probability of an individual skier suffering a head injury (or being buried under an avalanche) is extremely small. But it's not zero, and never can be. So if you bang your head (glancing blow on an icy piste, or a short slip in a rocky couloir)... would you rather be wearing a helmet or not? It's not going to save you from a high-speed impact but it might one day mean you walk away from a minor tumble that could have gone very badly.

How about turning the debate the other way - why wouldn't you wear a helmet?

Modern helmets are almost as light as hats, don't impinge on your peripheral vision or your hearing, are adjustably warm, less sweaty, less itchy and you can park your goggles without them steaming up... really, what's not to like? 8)

But that's all just IMHO - it's personal choice and I hope it remains so; I'd far rather share the piste with a hat-man who's thought about it than a helmet-wearer who hasn't.

ise wrote:

admin wrote:Fact-based arguments always work best - ad hominem attacks never work and will be removed in any case... so keep it polite and state your case!

apparently at least two parts of that aren't true )

Please be more specific, your post lacks your usual clarity.

daved wrote:bandit

Of course it adds to the debate ...it shows the scale of the number of relevant incidents in context we are discussing and at least shows a few facts rather than solely stating what people "feel" ...and no one else had seemed to have given us the facts...just feelings

How would you define a relevant incident?

How many on piste head impacts have not been recorded as statistics, because folks just took some pain killers?

The problem I have with stats, is that they can only convey a picture of the data recorded, which may or not show a true picture of a problem.

I have experienced a head impact on piste. I was left stunned and motionless, after a smacker whilst snowboarding in Nevada. The piste patrol stopped by to see if I was okay, got me to my feet and left me to make my own way down. No-one recorded this, how many simple impacts like this are not logged, and would alter the conclusions from the studies undertaken so far?

For me each adult person should have a choice whether to wear a helmet or not, but where you draw the line for adult age either 16 or 18 is another debate.

I have bought a lid for this year but know it is going to frustrate the hell out of me as I hate wearing hats and having the strap under my chin well that's my idea of hell but overall feel it is the sensible thing for me to doand not based on stats as I am more concerned about injuring a knee normally as I played regular football untill this year.

Perhaps I am getting sensible in my old age!