I was up there that day and didn't even know anything happened until I spoke with one of the patrollers. Initial reports doubt if a helmet would even have helped, must have been quite the impact. A big bringdown after two great days of skiing, the base is in excellent shape for this time of year but there's a lot of rock to watch out for. I guess it takes just one bad turn.
I started wearing a helmet a couple of years ago and will never ski without it, there's definitely been a big increase in the last few years of people wearing helmets around here.
For the most part, helmets don't work when needed. Too early to tell in this case.
Condolences to family and friends.
Uhh, helemts work, you can ask my wife who is alive because of one.... _________________ The new face of tele: The ability to drop a knee if you really have too.
Joined: 25 Jan 2005 Posts: 143 Location: Bristol Hills NY
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 12:07 am Post subject:
Clyde wrote:
For the most part, helmets don't work when needed...(
Clyde why dont you give us some valid reasoning here?
I have had a helmet save my ass in a motorcycle crash and I had a helmet cause a crash on a mountain bike. I saw a branch coming my way and I ducked to go under it and it caught smack in the vent hole of my mtn bike helmet and threw me like I was ragggedy Andy. Either way where rocks are concerned I think I would rather I impact them with a helmet on then direct skull on rock contact.
anywho... The ski helmet standards are pretty much all over the map and confusing to say the least.
Here is a link to http://www.smf.org/s98.html which gives us some light on the standards according to snell. I saw another page which I can not find again that gave pretty much the same info but was impartial. I wish I could find that freakin link.
Here is what I have learned by much persusal on the net.
The EN1077 also called ce 1077 I think, which is the Euro standard is pretty weak. The snell standards are much more inclusvive but harder to find helmets that have this certification. The American Standard, ASTM, is also much weaker then the snell ratings but better then the Euro system.
The fact that Boeris VP responded to the CR testing that the head would warm up the helmet enough to prevent it from shattering is enough to make me avoid those. It gets pretty freaking cold here. No matter how hot headed I am, when it is -10 F my head is not going to warm up the outside of a helmet much. Excuses dont put someones brain back in their skull. Also chin stap failures are not acceptable. For all I know Boeri may have fixed these things but with attitudes like the VPs I suspect not.
Anyone use a leedom Limit? It, at least many floating around on the net, have the snell RS-98 standard. Leedoms site does not state that the current model does. I fear that it may not provide the ventilation I want, but after my mtn bike incident I think I want to avoid a helmet with holes. Also elementary physics suggests that a helmet without holes given he same material would be stronger.
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 148 Location: El Cerrito, soon to be Richmond, the Annex that is
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 12:57 am Post subject:
Yes, helmets are not perfect.
But in general, you're better off with one than without one. I've been cycling, skiing, skateboarding etc. long enought to know that. I've seen and been part of more than a few incidents where a helmet probably meant the difference between minor injuries and serious head traumas or worse.
Have to say that I love my Giro Nine.9 that ranked #1 in the consumer reports test. The only bad part was having to buy the XL size to fit my apparently big fat head! _________________ I gots me a house, no more paying rent woo hoo
ahhh, the old chestnut. always a fun debate, no matter how many times it gets rehashed.
the beauty of statistics is that they can be argued about indefinitely.
but here's a fun experiment:
I'll get an aluminum baseball bat, and, using a moderate swing, smash the back of your head with it. if you want, we can get scientific and make sure the velocity is similar to you rag-dolling on a steep slope and hitting a rock.
anyhoo, we'll do the experiment with you wearing and not wearing a decent helmet, and you can draw your own conclusions.
then, we'll move on to the next step in this endlessly rehashed debate---does WEARING safety gear like helmets or bike armor make you more likely to do something risky?
finally, we'll finish with a flourish...the part of the debate where a biker or skier testifies to the fact that sometimes protective gear allows you to feel a bit more relaxed, less gripped, and hence skiing or biking better and avoiding the potential wreck.
enjoy! _________________ "Now is not the time for sound-bites" - David Cameron
Wear a helmet if you value your noggin. This debate sounds remarkably similar to: "cigarettes aren't harmful and in fact they portray a healthy lifestyle", "motorcycle helmets are dangerous because they limit your hearing", "seatbelts are dangerous because you might be trapped in the car", "bike helmets are only for little kids", and so on and so forth.
Joined: 28 Jan 2005 Posts: 80 Location: Boulder, CO
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 1:53 am Post subject:
Helmets are funny things... I know when I first started wearing mine, my confidence level shot up, and I skied much more aggressively. This is the general rule, when people wear them, they put themselves in more dangerous situations (usually without even being conscious of it).
Helmets = more accidents, but also more saved lives
So the % of deaths w/o helmets is the same as the % of deaths with helmets... More deaths with helmets, but also more accidents... so the % stays constant.
However, even for the best skiers out there, accidents happen! Why not strap one on and hope for the best... It certainly cannot hurt.
As for the helmet causing your accident on your bike, after you fell it surely kept you safe... so that's a wash and not a good argument for not wearing one.
I used to vehemently disagree with Clyde on this one, but if you go to ebaker's referenced post, you'll find that I prolly agree with him as much as not, especially since even Leedom appears to be letting the Snell guidelines fall by the wayside.
We still disagree somewhat on what the epidemiology studies say, but our mutual reservations regarding each other's citations are respectful.
I'll still wear a helmet, and hope it doesn't make me do something stoopid, as well as not expect it to save me if I do so. _________________
Clyde why dont you give us some valid reasoning here?
Because it always degenerates into a lot of pro-helmet zealots who haven't bothered to do any homework coming up with silly arguments. It's been rehashed here many times at a superficial level -- where helmets excel -- but is impossible to have a serious discussion since there are always uneducated newcomers chiming in on "how my helmet saved me" or "I wouldn't be here" blah, blah, blah. That Consumer Reports article was pure garbage on several levels. If you read the actual studies out so far, and not some watered down articles, as well as the actual testing standards, you'd be less than impressed.
As I've stated many times, I'm pro-helmet -- they make great ski hats and definitely help on minor things -- but anti-zealot based on the reality of major design limitations, most users not wearing them properly, and marketing taking advantage of fear and poorly educated consumers. Bottom line: ski helmets don't work most of the time when needed, and the fanciest ones may be worse than the rest.
that consumer reports published a crappy article doesn't surprise me.
that a gearhead like Clyde thinks helmets should be better does not surprise me either.
Seriously, what types of outdoor sports use helmets with adequate standards? kayak helmets? bike helmets seem a lot less sturdy than ski helmets so i assume they are also inadequate. This seems like a good business opportunity for someone willing to build a better mousetrap.
Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 2634 Location: Tigard, OR
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:41 am Post subject:
Hey Clyde, Do you still agree with the remarks you made in your Climbing Gear book about looking at bike helmet stats as an argument in favor of climbing helmets?
Would a helmet save you from a granite missile or the impact of a fall? There's a lot of anecdotal evidence from the climbing world of smashed helmets and relatively uninjured climbers, but there's little real data. However, a look at the bike market gives a good indication.
In 1991, only 18 percent of the estimated 66.9 million bike riders in the United States wore helmets regularly--and 836 cyclists died. By 1997, the number of bike riders was up to 80.6 million, but with routine helmet use increasing to 50 percent, the number of cycling deather actually decreased to 808.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All of the comments above are owned by the
poster, telemarktips.com is not responsible in any way for the
content. The views expressed by the posters are not necessarily
those of Tt.com, its management or owners. Ski safe, be happy,
rip it up, smile on your brother and sister!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
