[3PinGrin]

Clyde,
I agree that the testing standards need to be tightened. But you seem to glitz over the important fact that helmets do provide some protection. The testing standards use anvils, not trees, big difference. There certainly appear to be experts on both sides of the fence. However, I doubt any of them are saying that it is advantageous to NOT wear a helmet. They are definitely more than a "great ski hat". The bottom line is (IMHO) wear a helmet if you want, but also realize its limitations. A helmet does not make you invincible, nor should you increase risky behavior because of it (ie wear a condom even if you have your helmet on ) But I do think it is more than just a fashion statement.

Macnab AJ, Smith T, Gagnon FA, Macnab M. Effect of helmet wear on the incidence of head/face and cervical spine injuries in young skiers and snowboarders. Inj Prev 2002;8: 324-7.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether helmets increase the incidence and/or severity of cervical spine injury; decrease the incidence of head injury; and/or increase the incidence of collisions (as a reflection of adverse effects on peripheral vision and/or auditory acuity) among young skiers and snowboarders. METHODS: During one ski season (1998-99) at a world class ski resort, all young skiers and snowboarders (<13 years of age) presenting with head, face, or neck injury to the one central medical facility at the base of the mountain were identified. On presentation to the clinic, subjects or their parents completed a questionnaire reviewing their use of helmets and circumstances surrounding the injury event. Physicians documented the site and severity of injury, investigations, and disposition of each patient. Concurrently, counts were made at the entry to the ski area of the number of skiers and snowboarders wearing helmets. RESULTS: Seventy children were evaluated at the clinic following ski/snowboard related head, neck, and face injuries. Fourteen did not require investigation or treatment. Of the remaining 56, 17 (30%) were wearing helmets and 39 (70%) were not. No serious neck injury occurred in either group. Using helmet-use data from the hill, among those under 13 years of age, failure to wear a helmet increased the risk of head, neck, or face injury (relative risk (RR) 2.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 4.12). When corrected for activity, RR was 1.77 and 95% CI 0.98 to 3.19. There was no significant difference in the odds ratio for collisions. The two groups may have been different in terms of various relevant characteristics not evaluated. No separate analysis of catastrophic injuries was possible. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that, in skiers and snowboarders under 13 years of age, helmet use does not increase the incidence of cervical spine injury and does reduce the incidence of head injury requiring investigation and/or treatment.


Hagel, BE, Pless IB, Goulet, C, Platt, RW, Robitaille, Y. Effectiveness of helmets in skiers and snowboarders: case-control and case crossover study. BMJ. 2005 Feb 5;330(7486):281.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of helmets on the risk of head and neck injuries in skiers and snowboarders. DESIGN: Matched case-control and case crossover study. SETTING: 19 ski areas in Quebec, Canada, November 2001 to April 2002. PARTICIPANTS: 1082 skiers and snowboarders (cases) with head and neck injuries reported by the ski patrol and 3295 skiers and snowboarders (controls) with non-head or non-neck injuries matched to cases at each hill. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Estimates of matched odds ratios for the effect of helmet use on the risk of any head or neck injury and for people requiring evacuation by ambulance. RESULTS: The adjusted odds ratio for helmet use in participants with any head injury was 0.71 (95% confidence interval 0.55 to 0.92), indicating a 29% reduction in the risk of head injury. For participants who required evacuation by ambulance for head injuries, the adjusted odds ratio for helmet use was 0.44 (0.24 to 0.81). Similar results occurred with the case crossover design (odds ratio 0.43, 0.09 to 1.83). The adjusted odds ratio for helmet use for participants with any neck injury was 0.62 (0.33 to 1.19) and for participants who required evacuation by ambulance for neck injuries it was 1.29 (0.41 to 4.04). CONCLUSIONS: Helmets protect skiers and snowboarders against head injuries. We cannot rule out the possibility of an increased risk of neck injury with helmet use, but the estimates on which this assumption is based are imprecise.



Hagel, BE, Pless IB, Goulet, C, Platt, RW, Robitaille, Y. The effect of helmet use on injury severity and crash circumstances in skiers and snowboarders. Accid Anal Prev. 2005 Jan;37(1):103-8.

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of helmet use on non-head-neck injury severity and crash circumstances in skiers and snowboarders. We used a matched case-control study over the November 2001 to April 2002 winter season. 3295 of 4667 injured skiers and snowboarders reporting to the ski patrol at 19 areas in Quebec with non-head, non-neck injuries agreed to participate. Cases included those evacuated by ambulance, admitted to hospital, with restriction of normal daily activities (NDAs) >6 days, with non-helmet equipment damage, fast self-reported speed, participating on a more difficult run than usual, and jumping-related injury. Controls were injured participants without severe injuries or high-energy crash circumstances and were matched to cases on ski area, activity, day, age, and sex. Conditional logistic regression was used to relate each outcome to helmet use. There was no evidence that helmet use increased the risk of severe injury or high-energy crash circumstances. The results suggest that helmet use in skiing and snowboarding is not associated with riskier activities that lead to non-head-neck injuries.

[nils]

plus, in the lift line at Squallywood on a pow day, not having a helmet pretty much tells the world you are a gaper.
_________________
"Now is not the time for sound-bites" - David Cameron

For Sale: 7tm bindings

[David Witherspoon]

[prophead]

What has pissed me off regarding the helmet thing is that there certainly seems to be a lot of poor design out there and the "standards" do not seem to equate to real world examples regarding impact.

The methodology that consumer reports used to test the helmets sure seemed follow the standards set by ASTM and the impact tests closely followed the standards set by snell. At the very least they are an independent testing facility at least giving consumers some idea of failure points of specific helmets. Garbage or not CR is using the tests that the supposed standards support and encountered multiple failures.

Bottom line, I am trying to wade through the BS and get a good helmet seems to be tougher than I thought it would be.

[teletante]

I agree with Clyde. Helmets make great ski hats. As I understand the data they are a big help in minor situations, but if you're over the age of 14 any impact great enough to cause serious injury without a helmet is going to cause a serious injury with it.

I will continue to wear my helmet beacause it's warm, holds my googles in place, keeps tree branchs from whipping my face, and in a minor, or even not so minor spill, will make a headache a non event or a concussion a headache. If I hit my head on a rock at speed I'm in trouble.

[keithermadness]

Helmets are like seatbelts. They are a good idea. Like already sed, they may not be perfect, but I have witnessed several accidents from scrapes to concussions that could have been avoided. Your brain box isn't all that tough. A second layer makes sense.

One example where a helmet would have been useful, a guy skiing the trees hit a sharp point on an overhanging branch that sliced his scalp. The resulting tear was 4", needed several stitches and the mass of blood covered everything he was wearing.

Another example, this one me, I was hit from behind by a skier coming in from out of bounds. This guy was obviously in laze mode and was admiring his tracks with a huge blind spot that was centered on me. It was a soft snow day so I didn't even hear him approach, trees were involved so being paranoid and watching for other skiers wasn't that much of an option. He hit me very hard, our heads made contact, he lost all of his gear in a long spill that covered 100 yards. I wasn't phased much, he was holding his head [probably thinking, dammit Jim, I need to get me a helmet].

Third example, two women were skiing a steep blue run and eventually made contact with each other. Head to head contact. Both were carried off the mountain, one with an oxygen tank. The patrol sed helmets would have softened or prevented the resulting trauma.
_________________
~km

"Everyday is a potential avalanche day."
-Missiongravity

[!ski]

The obvious reason one wears a helmet (and the main reason
considering the OT threads) is to meet people

Example: Ladies put lift safety bar down. Hits the back of the
helmet everytime. Perfect opening. Need to be tall though.

Example: People with helmets must either be on the ski patrol
and/or know how to operate a camera while standing on skis.
(I still can't believe anyone would ever say "you ski very well"
just to get me to take their picture.)

But then skiing for me is like hanging a bone around a child's
neck so the dog will play with it I really need to change
the glasses to some goggles though so all that is left is
the smile

Everyone is a klutz, just don't want to find out the hard way
one day. And remember the drive is the most dangerous part of
your day.

-r

[jackb]

If you hit your head lightly, a helmet will help protect you. But if you really conk yourself, say on a tree or off a cliff, nothing will help. I have fallen thousands of times skiing and never once hit my head. Cycling is different. Many accidents 1nvolve head injuries. But of course personal preference is paramount. But I don't think skiing without a helmet is risky behavior.

[keithermadness]

[Degaine2]

World cup downhillers wear a helmet.

Will it save them from a collision with a lift tower at 80mph, probably not.

Will it protect their head when it bounces up and down off the ice as they slide briskly down the course after a fall? Of course.

I've had indirect hits many times, sometimes in a course like the above (gs only), sometimes after dropping a cliff and not landing correctly.

I understand the concerns, but it really is poor judgement to recommend that people NOT wear a helmet. Why not instead elaborate on a helmet's benefits and limitations?

In addition, personally, helmet or no I would still ski the same terrain in the same manner: I wear a helmet to enhance the safety of what I am already doing, not as an enabler to ski in a more risky, dangerous manner.

One more thing, regarding climbing helmets the same debate occurs. I have enough personal experience on rotten rock having small rocks (fit in the palm of your hand) hit me from above making marks in my helmet to know that it would have drilled a hole in my skull if I had not been wearing one. I've also grazed my head on falls to fear what would have happened without a helmet. Will it save me if half of El Cap falls on my head? Of course not.

Perhaps the question is, what percentage do "major accidents" make up all accidents? If most accidents are minor, and in these minor accidents a helmet saves your head from major trauma, then the recommendation should definitely be to wear one.

[LittleJohn]

While you all are on the topic, tell me where to get a big helmet here:

http://www.telemarktalk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=13450

[Pinnah]

[Degaine2]

[MattB]

[jackb]

keithermadness,

Yes, but the statistics and research prove that seat belts save lives. We don't have the same evidence concerning skiing. I always wear a seat belt and a bike helmet but only sometimes wear a ski helmet. But, no problem. Folks ought to wear helmets if they want to.