Natasha Richardson

Interesting discussion about "risk" and the understanding of risk as a concept. What is "risk"?...it is the probability or likelihood of a specified outcome occurring in a specified period. In the context of skiing the risk of fatality to an individual is relatively low. The risk of injury, however, is significantly higher.

The risk of injury or fatality is influenced by a number of factors, many of which we can't control such as the conditions, other clowns, snowboarders ;), etc, but some of which we can control - where we ski, when we ski and how we ski.

There is, however, always going to be finite risk of fatality whilst skiing and the natural reaction to that should be to try and reduce that risk by the application of practical measures.

The risk of fatality due to head injuries whilst skiing can be reduced by wearing a helmet.....it doesn't make skiing safe, and won't stop you from breaking your leg, but it reduces the probability of a head knock resulting in a serious injury or death.

I know of two head injuries causing death on the ski slopes, in one resort in the last 2 years. One on a green slope, fell trying to prevent a collision, forehead pierced by ski. One on a steeper slope, skier fell, was initially unharmed and laughing, but unable to stop herself sliding down the slope headfirst into a tree, hit her head, died.

I don't believe that it should be mandatory to wear a helmet, because everybody should be educated well enough to make their own decisions about managing risk. Unfortunately, that's the bit where we fail as a society...educating people to allow them to take responsibility and make their own decisions.... :)

AllyG wrote:Thanks Dids,
For the tip about buying helmets. I guess you're right, and if I buy one I'd better go to a shop that sells them, and try them on.

I wondered if they have different strengths - like one for recreational on piste skiers, and a different gauge of helmet for e.g. slalom racers who would be going much faster.

Ally

Ally,
Aren't you going to Courcheval next year?

You''ll fit in a treat in this one
http://www.hdickinson.co.uk/public_listings.php?brand_category=Dior

Dids

bandit wrote:

Dids1 wrote:



My son's helmet is 58cm and he is just growing out of it. New last year, it fits my 13 yo daughter & me, but some of the ladies ones on this site are 52 & 54cm...I thought my head was smallish. The women these are for must have weeny heads.

My helmet is a 54cm. Are you calling me a pinhead :lol: It's this one.

http://www.boeri.com/steez.html#

:oops:
I measured my head as 56cm - which leads me to the conclusion that Cebe sizes are waaaay out

Very funny Dids! :lol:

We are going to Courchevel, but only the 1550 one, and we're going ultra cheap DIY staying in a maeva Pierre & Vacances studio apartment, and I don't plan to eat out, etc. etc. In other words, we're going for the ski-ing and window shopping etc. I may admire some helmets like that one - but if I buy one it will be from some bargain basement shop as long as it looks O.K.

I won't be going to that Michelin restaurant at 200 euros a meal, or buying that wine at 2000 a bottle (or whatever it is - something ridiculous like that), or buying that helmet either, thanks very much.

Ally

freobhoy wrote:Interesting discussion about "risk" and the understanding of risk as a concept. What is "risk"?...it is the probability or likelihood of a specified outcome occurring in a specified period. In the context of skiing the risk of fatality to an individual is relatively low. The risk of injury, however, is significantly higher.

The risk of injury or fatality is influenced by a number of factors, many of which we can't control such as the conditions, other clowns, snowboarders ;), etc, but some of which we can control - where we ski, when we ski and how we ski.

There is, however, always going to be finite risk of fatality whilst skiing and the natural reaction to that should be to try and reduce that risk by the application of practical measures.

The risk of fatality due to head injuries whilst skiing can be reduced by wearing a helmet.....it doesn't make skiing safe, and won't stop you from breaking your leg, but it reduces the probability of a head knock resulting in a serious injury or death.

I know of two head injuries causing death on the ski slopes, in one resort in the last 2 years. One on a green slope, fell trying to prevent a collision, forehead pierced by ski. One on a steeper slope, skier fell, was initially unharmed and laughing, but unable to stop herself sliding down the slope headfirst into a tree, hit her head, died.

I don't believe that it should be mandatory to wear a helmet, because everybody should be educated well enough to make their own decisions about managing risk. Unfortunately, that's the bit where we fail as a society...educating people to allow them to take responsibility and make their own decisions.... :)

GPWM.

I was beginining to wonder what ise meant when he said skiing was very low risk.

freobhoy wrote:Interesting discussion about "risk" and the understanding of risk as a concept. What is "risk"?...it is the probability or likelihood of a specified outcome occurring in a specified period. In the context of skiing the risk of fatality to an individual is relatively low. The risk of injury, however, is significantly higher.

The risk of injury or fatality is influenced by a number of factors, many of which we can't control such as the conditions, other clowns, snowboarders ;), etc, but some of which we can control - where we ski, when we ski and how we ski.

There is, however, always going to be finite risk of fatality whilst skiing and the natural reaction to that should be to try and reduce that risk by the application of practical measures.

That's pretty much on the nail. Although, while it's true we can't control some factors we can reasonably predict them in two ways, one, by judging what that outcome will be and, two, from past evidence.

Risk is actually measured by taking a probability of event (based on past occurrence) and consequence. So for skiing, grouping a whole load of things, falls where you're injured are a low likelihood and the consequence isn't serious, by not serious we don't include a few weeks off work or a ruined holiday while as an individual these are pretty adverse outcomes. So that's a low risk.

Incidents with fatal outcomes are vanishingly rare in terms of numbers of days, that's an absolute thing and allows you to make comparison with other activities, ski days, car journeys, air flights etc, so the outcomes are nearly as bad as possible (the worst being multiple fatalities) but it's still a low risk as it's not likely to occur.

Unfortunately, what you get is people confusing outcomes with risk as several posters here have done. That's actually worse than just a misunderstanding, particularly when you start sharing it, because one of the most risky things you can do is not understand the risk you're in. Unless you know the risk you can't act to mitigate it.

That's technical risk, we also have another measure, distinguishing between perceived, real and absolute risk.

Perceived risk is often situations where consequences are actually pretty dire but the likelihood is remote, a good example is a high ropes course, falling from the top would be really bad but there's no real danger if you follow the safety procedures.

Real risk is when something could well happen, a trek up Snowdon for example, you've got all the kit on and have prepared but someone could still slip and fall for example. But, the risk is identified and mitigated, like carrying a rope for security and a first aid kit.

While absolute risk is where there's a high chance of adverse outcomes, so if instead of a qualified leader taking the group up Snowdon it's someone with no qualifications taking people out on a winter mountain without proper equipment. They might get back safely, they might have done so before even but there's still high chances of a problem with highly negative outcomes. Typically there's no mitigation either, the group will be ill equipped and ill prepared to deal with problems.

It's interesting that many members of the public cannot distinguish between those scenarios and can't identify the risk of those activities. There's been some stuff posted on the forum where absolute risk existed and no one noticed.

Mortlock (The Adventure Alternative) suggests four levels :

Stage 1: Play: Characterized by little emotion through relatively easy participation in activities which are below the person's skill level

Stage 2: Adventure: (Characterized by enjoyment and excitement, where a person's is using his her capabilities more fully, but the person maintains control over the situation and his/her self

Stage 3: Frontier Adventure: Characterized by peak experience, which emerges from a person experiencing adventurous challenges very close to his/her limits. If the person succeeds, then generally a peak experience is had, but there is real risk of pushing too far and falling/failing, leading to Stage 4.

Stage 4: Misadventure: Characterized by a person choosing or being forced to participate in challenges beyond his/her capabilities, resulting in negative emotions (fear, hurt, etc.), possibly injury and even ultimately death.

That's a variation on the same theme, you reckon learning or development takes place at stages 2 and 3 or in the real risk level. For learning or development you can substitute challenge which is something most skiers are looking for.

More than anything don't forget this, if you go and stand in the A&E department at a hospital near a ski area and do a poll with injured skiers and ask how many people were involved in their accident the overwhelming answer will be "just themselves"

Top post.

Unfortunately the 'outcome' which prompted all this discussion is the death of a woman who probably perceived the 'risk' to be pretty minimal.

I agree that the apocryphal tales of 'I know a bloke who...' warp the reality of the serious events per day of injury-free skiing.

Now, no-one wants to take a risk assessor with them on holiday. So we either trust the bald stats that, on any given day, the risk of what we do is acceptable; or we over-compensate with bits of plastic and padding...