Helmets again - but for skiing?

chrisberry

Sad to read of the death of Natasha Richardson.

Provoked an interesting comment here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7953165.stm

A lot of the arguments seem very familiar, interesting don't you think? Whilst not wanting to dredge up the same old viewpoints from us cyclists, what do people think of the shared views between the two different sports? Can the same points really relate to the different circumstances, and is there a big difference in the halmets?

Chris

Christophe3967

Yes, I would think about using a helmet for skiing, but not because of what's happened here, sad though that is.

I am far more concerned about the risk of injury whilst skiing, to the extent that I no longer do so after lunch, as there are too many people who have had too many gluwines and are suddenly transformed into Jean-Pierre Luni, hurtling down red runs at warp factor 9. I'm much happier getting up early before the big queues start, carrying on through lunch and then skiing down, before the nutters hit the piste.

lfcquin

You're right. It is the same old arguement and therefore my view is the same as my cycling one. I snowboard for a couple of weeks every winter and have been wearing a helmet for the past 4 years. When you are trying new tricks and hitting 35mph on some runs then I'd rather feel protected.

I don't think it should be compulsary though. People should make their own decisions. Interestingly though the helmet use has been rising. Every year I go away and see more and more, this is the first year I have seen skiers in Europe wearing helmets.

They don't look cool, but at least in the cold it keeps your head warm! My trouble is wearing cycle helmets in the summer. I hate it, but I do it.

Hey Jax

there were definitely more people wearing helmets when i was snowboarding this year. it doesnt look "un-cool" anymore. and i'm def going to invest in a good one for next season!

hambones

Wearing a helmet whilst learning to ski (or ice-skate) makes far more sense than for cycling...

White Line

I'd wear a helmet if I were skiing. Just seems logical really. I reckon a lot of people don't bother because the snow looks all soft and fluffy.

Although, I'm not going to say I think they should be mandatory ... Got to partake in Darwinism at times.

BBC News wrote:

This winter Lower Austria made it compulsory for all children under 14 to wear a helmet after the death of a 41-year old woman who had a high-speed collision with the German politician, Dieter Althaus, in January. He was wearing a helmet and survived, while she had no head protection.

Althaus has since been found guilty of manslaughter.

Wow. Now that is just total BS.

il_principe

No no and no. Skiing really isn't dangerous. This has been quoted in a few papers:

Dr Mike Langran, a Scottish-based GP who has studied alpine injury rates for several years, said around three in every 1,000 enthusiasts required medical attention, but the risk of death was less than one in a million.

He added: “I don’t personally regard snow sports in general as dangerous sports at all. For a start, the overall injury risk combining all the snow sports is about 0.2% to 0.4%.

“This is really very low. Think of an average game of football. Usually two or three players end up with an injury at the end of the game.”

Injury rates on the slopes have been decreasing over the years, he said.

Dr Langran added: "From the 1970s to the early 1990s the absolute injury rate for alpine skiing has decreased by about 50%, mainly due to the development of release bindings and ski brakes.

“The vast majority of snow sports injuries occur as the direct result of an isolated fall, by which I simply mean something goes wrong and the person falls over.”

Means nothing, but I've been skiing every year for the last 20 years or so and haven't had a single serious accident. A lot of my friends ski and 3 of them have had accidents whilst on skiing trips, one broke his ankle using "big feet" without quick release bindings. One broke her arm falling off a bar, one broke his back trying to climb out of a window. The latter 2 were drunk, very drunk. In fact I know far more people that have injured themselves when drunk than when skiing or cycling...

It's a pointless argument.

Christophe3967

jashburnham wrote:

No no and no. Skiing really isn't dangerous. This has been quoted in a few papers:

Dr Mike Langran, a Scottish-based GP who has studied alpine injury rates for several years, said around three in every 1,000 enthusiasts required medical attention, but the risk of death was less than one in a million.

He added: “I don’t personally regard snow sports in general as dangerous sports at all. For a start, the overall injury risk combining all the snow sports is about 0.2% to 0.4%.

“This is really very low. Think of an average game of football. Usually two or three players end up with an injury at the end of the game.”

Injury rates on the slopes have been decreasing over the years, he said.

Dr Langran added: "From the 1970s to the early 1990s the absolute injury rate for alpine skiing has decreased by about 50%, mainly due to the development of release bindings and ski brakes.

“The vast majority of snow sports injuries occur as the direct result of an isolated fall, by which I simply mean something goes wrong and the person falls over.”

Means nothing, but I've been skiing every year for the last 20 years or so and haven't had a single serious accident. A lot of my friends ski and 3 of them have had accidents whilst on skiing trips, one broke his ankle using "big feet" without quick release bindings. One broke her arm falling off a bar, one broke his back trying to climb out of a window. The latter 2 were drunk, very drunk. In fact I know far more people that have injured themselves when drunk than when skiing or cycling...

It's a pointless argument.

But there are lots of drunk people skiing (after lunch) and hardly any cycling. I don't know but am inclined to think this is pertinent.

Feltup

I haven't worn a helmet skiing or snowboarding yet but would consider it because apart from the price there really aren't any drawbacks.

Helmets are so light now that compared to a beanie there is very little difference.
They keep your head warmer in bad weather.
They don't hold a bunch of snow when you have headplanted in powder thus no one knows you messed up
Oh and for me they do provide more protection when tree skiing and skiing steeps with rocks.

Trees are the biggest reason I would consider a helmet as I was witness to a lady skiing in too a branch and scalping herself. Very gruesome. I like to ski and board tight lines in trees and drop steep couloirs and am coming around to the idea.

Christophe3967

I tink the other issue for someone like Jash is that they're not having to stop or ski slowly to attend to children, so can keep out of the way. I do feel that I'm going to get taken out one day - God knows I've had a few near misses.

always_tyred

Christophe3967 wrote:

I tink the other issue for someone like Jash is that they're not having to stop or ski slowly to attend to children, so can keep out of the way. I do feel that I'm going to get taken out one day - God knows I've had a few near misses.

Mmm. There was a case in Canada about a decade ago when a snowboarder, just a kid, killed someone on a green run doing about 50kph. Basically, he was pretty good and getting his kicks by heading straight down a green. My impression was that since that case, there has been far more onus on the person up the slop to ski to the conditions and the run.

Now my minor gripe, okay not so minor gripe, is that if I'm coming down a red or black, should I have to slow down coming over a crest just in case some numpty has brought his 5 year old and 7 year old on a grown up slope to snowplough down it? Peronally I think that's just as dangerous. Its like going for a family cycle ride on the A38.

My impression, from somewhat limited experience, is that the slopes are getting progressively more orderly, from both perspectives.

Oh, and I looked up some stats and the risk of head injury in any given accident in skiing is about half that in cycling, which is getting down to pedestrian levels. Not that many people are up to buzzing through pine forests off piste, you know!!

Feltup

I reckon we will see another surge of helmet buying just like after Sonny Bono and Michael Kennedy had their accidents in 1996/7. The forests were deserted after their accidents. I got so many disapproving looks popping out of the tree line back on to the piste by all these people thinking I was being overly reckless skiing among trees. I still think that wearing a helmet in the trees is not a bad idea not because it would save my life but more to save those injuries from hitting branches with the top of your head as you duck through gaps!

Christophe3967

Always Tyred wrote:

Now my minor gripe, okay not so minor gripe, is that if I'm coming down a red or black, should I have to slow down coming over a crest just in case some numpty has brought his 5 year old and 7 year old on a grown up slope to snowplough down it? Peronally I think that's just as dangerous. Its like going for a family cycle ride on the A38.

Not on blacks, for sure, nor reds probably, although ski schools do use reds. My main worry is people not skiiing appropriately on blues, which tend to get very busy in the afternoons IME. I'm simplying trying to understand the pros and cons here.

jedster

I've been wearing a helmet for skiing for about 5 years now. I don't think I've ever had a fall skiing in which a helmet would have really helped much.

So why wear one? For me it is a similar logic to wearing my bike helmet. I don't think either will save me in a catastrophic accident but I do think there is a decent chance of a very nasty blow to the head being turned into something trivial by a helmet.

Skiing I really worry about two risks. On piste, some numpty skiing into me. Off piste, hitting an obstacle (tree branch while skiing, rock after falling). I've done a lot of skiing so I spend mot of my time off-piste.

The difference between cycling and skiing is that there is almost no downside form wearing a ski helmet - its generally cooler and the sport is less aerobically demanding.

On the other hand, I feel that you are much more likely to hit your head on a hard object cycling. Bascially because the whole road is very hard and that's before you start considering kerbs, etc! So, IMO, the benefit of wearing a cycle helmet is greater but the "cost" is greater too. Given that have trashed two cycle helmets in the last 12 months, you can imagine that I've got no intention of going without one!

J

alfablue

Probably an unusual accident, I managed to hit myself in the back of the head with my ski in a spectacular crash :oops:

Blood all over the snow, sutures, but no long term damage (as far as I am aware) luckily. Could have been worse!

jedster

Probably an unusual accident, I managed to hit myself in the back of the head with my ski in a spectacular crash

Not that uncommon actually. It is another sensible reason for wearing a helmet - you're travelling at speed carrying four hard pointy objects!

J

always_tyred

Christophe3967 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Now my minor gripe, okay not so minor gripe, is that if I'm coming down a red or black, should I have to slow down coming over a crest just in case some numpty has brought his 5 year old and 7 year old on a grown up slope to snowplough down it? Peronally I think that's just as dangerous. Its like going for a family cycle ride on the A38.

Not on blacks, for sure, nor reds probably, although ski schools do use reds. My main worry is people not skiiing appropriately on blues, which tend to get very busy in the afternoons IME. I'm simplying trying to understand the pros and cons here.

Spot on. Although ski schools tend to be pretty predictable and the instructors don't get everyone to sit down on steep bits and hide in the middle of the piste from people coming down, and or repeatedly traverse the entrire width of the slope because turns are still traumatic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a crap skier. There are plenty of 7 year olds better than me. Its just that when I was even worse, I didn't have the urge to take on the world cup downhill course.

il_principe

Always Tyred wrote:

Christophe3967 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Now my minor gripe, okay not so minor gripe, is that if I'm coming down a red or black, should I have to slow down coming over a crest just in case some numpty has brought his 5 year old and 7 year old on a grown up slope to snowplough down it? Peronally I think that's just as dangerous. Its like going for a family cycle ride on the A38.

Not on blacks, for sure, nor reds probably, although ski schools do use reds. My main worry is people not skiiing appropriately on blues, which tend to get very busy in the afternoons IME. I'm simplying trying to understand the pros and cons here.

Spot on. Although ski schools tend to be pretty predictable and the instructors don't get everyone to sit down on steep bits and hide in the middle of the piste from people coming down, and or repeatedly traverse the entrire width of the slope because turns are still traumatic.



Don't get me wrong, I'm a crap skier. There are plenty of 7 year olds better than me. Its just that when I was even worse, I didn't have the urge to take on the world cup downhill course.

It's fricking snowboarders (always them) that like to sit just below the crest on fast runs. On one memorable occasion I watched as my brother hit a crest at speed and flew over the top of 2 rather shocked looking boarders who were having a "sit on arse" session in a typically idiotic place.

My bro is a total nut on skis and wears a helmet. I don't, but then I've not had a fall for about 9/10 years

wgwarburton

Always Tyred wrote:

Now my minor gripe, okay not so minor gripe, is that if I'm coming down a red or black, should I have to slow down coming over a crest just in case some numpty has brought his 5 year old and 7 year old on a grown up slope to snowplough down it? Peronally I think that's just as dangerous. Its like going for a family cycle ride on the A38.

Personally, I think you should. I would avoid taking a "blind summit" at speed for just this reason (my usual approach would be to traverse across the top of the crest at speed whilst checking it was clear and then carve back towards the fall line to continue down).

It's not so much a family picnic that I'd be worried about so much as a fallen intermediate, who's failed to take the crest succesfully, or a group of oblivious teenage snowboarders sitting on the slope contemplating their next move.. :-) .

Cheers,
W.

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Now my minor gripe, okay not so minor gripe, is that if I'm coming down a red or black, should I have to slow down coming over a crest just in case some numpty has brought his 5 year old and 7 year old on a grown up slope to snowplough down it? Peronally I think that's just as dangerous. Its like going for a family cycle ride on the A38.

Personally, I think you should. I would avoid taking a "blind summit" at speed for just this reason (my usual approach would be to traverse across the top of the crest at speed whilst checking it was clear and then carve back towards the fall line to continue down).

It's not so much a family picnic that I'd be worried about so much as a fallen intermediate, who's failed to take the crest succesfully, or a group of oblivious teenage snowboarders sitting on the slope contemplating their next move.. :-) .

Cheers,
W.

True enough - its about degrees, though.

I slow down because taking off would be fatal, because I'm crap, and because I'm averse to spending weeks off my bike when I get home because I got stupid. But I still resent having to pretty well stop entirely on the best part of a run, as Jash and you say, because some friggin snowboarder wants to tighten his bindings in the middle, next to his two stoner buddies doing the same, none of whom can hear what's coming because their Ipods are too damn loud.

Similarly, if I come across a small child ("helmet on skis") proceeding glacially, I'm not angry at the kid, but I want to punch the father - mate, you gave up the right to go where you want, when you want, when you got married and had kids. Stop putting them in harm's way and traumatising them, okay?

I feel (slightly) better now.

don_don

jashburnham wrote:

It's a pointless argument.

I agree, but for the opposite reason. I hit a marker pole (backwards; long story :oops: ) at high speed a few years ago, breaking it off at the base. I hit the board with the back of my helmet. I'm willing to bet that it saved me from serious injury.

My (un-helmeted novice) best mate fell on an easy hard-packed run on a seperate trip, hitting his head and suffering a blot clot in his brian. They got him off in time and he survived without permanent injury.

So yes, arguing with me that helmets are unnecessary on the slopes is pointless...

jashburnham wrote:

It's fricking snowboarders (always them) that like to sit just below the crest on fast runs. On one memorable occasion I watched as my brother hit a crest at speed and flew over the top of 2 rather shocked looking boarders who were having a "sit on ars*" session in a typically idioitc place.

Yep, I also agree with you here. Ignorance and inexperience if you ask me. I always stop at the top of the crest, well to the side and in full view of the uphill slope. At least that way I can warn anyone downslope. To do otherwise is sheer folly. Its a bit like parking your car on a blind bend or just over a crest. Stupid, but people do it.

It was horrible to hear about Natasha Richardson. Could've been anyone of course but what a shame all the same

greg66_tri_v2.0

Always Tyred wrote:

Similarly, if I come across a small child ("helmet on skis") proceeding glacially, I'm not angry at the kid, but I want to punch the father - mate, you gave up the right to go where you want, when you want, when you got married and had kids. Stop putting them in harm's way and traumatising them, okay?

I feel (slightly) better now.

Thing is, kids have got to learn to ski on something. Mine, now 7 & 9, are skiing blacks. Now they're not ripping them up and leaving a path of flames in the snow, but they're not skiing them like the teleprinter on Grandstand either. And if they are to improve, they have to ski them.

Basic rule on the mountain is that the uphill skier yields. On account of the downhill skier not having eyes in the back of his head.

If you think you get irate, just imagine how irate the parent gets seeing someone holding borderline control heading in the general direction of the back of their child. It's not fun, I can assure you of that.

[We ski in Canada where mercifully, even in the holiday season, the slopes are not crowded by any objective standard. Collisions are not usual, even at the end of the day when everyone is funnelling down the same paths to get off the mountain. ]

always_tyred

Greg66 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Similarly, if I come across a small child ("helmet on skis") proceeding glacially, I'm not angry at the kid, but I want to punch the father - mate, you gave up the right to go where you want, when you want, when you got married and had kids. Stop putting them in harm's way and traumatising them, okay?

I feel (slightly) better now.

Thing is, kids have got to learn to ski on something. Mine, now 7 & 9, are skiing blacks. Now they're not ripping them up and leaving a path of flames in the snow, but they're not skiing them like the teleprinter on Grandstand either. And if they are to improve, they have to ski them.

Basic rule on the mountain is that the uphill skier yields. On account of the downhill skier not having eyes in the back of his head.

If you think you get irate, just imagine how irate the parent gets seeing someone holding borderline control heading in the general direction of the back of their child. It's not fun, I can assure you of that.

[We ski in Canada where mercifully, even in the holiday season, the slopes are not crowded by any objective standard. Collisions are not usual, even at the end of the day when everyone is funnelling down the same paths to get off the mountain. ]

Canada is a world apart - you have a hard time finding anywhere so tight that there's not room for everyone.

Look, its possible to snow plough down a black run, but its not fair to others. I learned on greens. Then blues, then reds, then blacks. Funnily enough, when I go skiing, that tends to be my sequence in the first morning as well, until I remember roughly what I'm doing, after 51 weeks.

Its nothing to do with the age, its to do with the ability - read back and I point that out. don't get so precious just because I mentioned children. I just get especially angry when its an accompanied child, because the adult in charge should know better.

Its the same as taking a tractor at 20 mph on the Devon expressway. You can do it, and if you get rear ended, it's the approaching driver's fault. But if you insist on doing it in the rush hour because the quiet country lane takes 10 minutes longer, you are an asshole.

I knew people with kids would get defensive.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Always Tyred wrote:

I knew people with kids would get defensive.

Yeah, well, that's how it works. Responsible and caring parents vs inconsiderate sterile child-haters. It's the way of the world.

Anyhoo. My kids are past snowploughing, even on blacks. So bully for them. But FWIW, unless you're on a closed course or have a spotter ahead of you or have ESP that allows you to see over a crest, I would have thought it's always sensible to moderate your speed when approaching a crest so you can still stop in the space you can see.

Or is that a bit old fashioned?

Always Tyred wrote:

Stop putting them in harm's way

Does that make you "harm"? :shock:

always_tyred

Greg66 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

I knew people with kids would get defensive.

Yeah, well, that's how it works. Responsible and caring parents vs inconsiderate sterile child-haters. It's the way of the world.

Does that make you "harm"? :shock:

Yup, me and the steady flow of other error prone people all trying to avoid each other, some of whom don't slow down like me as they come over the crest. Think of it like "traffic". You tell'm Greg, all of 'em. Inconsiderate child haters.

Besides, I'm talking about IRresponsible caring parents vs. responsible sterile child haters. And I keep saying its not the kids I'm annoyed with, any more than if I encountered a roe deer or something.

When I drive, I don't stop to get out and check to see over a blind summit. Do you? I slow down and cover the brakes.

I'd still be profoudnly irritated if I saw some plonker teaching his kid how to ride without stabilizers just the other side. I might even propose he did this at a local park, not on an A-road.

But hey, the kid gotta learn to ride somewhere, right? No, wait, that's boll0cks isn't it?

Christophe3967

Erm, I think I'll stick to the Elitism thread. They've got naked, blindfolded champagne drinking over there....

wgwarburton

Always Tyred wrote:

.... But I still resent having to pretty well stop entirely on the best part of a run, as Jash and you say, because some friggin ...

You shouldn't need to stop, though- the idea behind the technique I described above is that you change your velocity, not your speed. As you approach the crest you check that there is space for this maneuvre, then carve a GS-style turn until you are traversing across the slope at speed, glance over the lip, to check it's clear below and carve back again. The drop over the lip of the crest should pretty much top up the speed you lost in the turns and you are back on your run with no loss of momentum.

As an added bonus, the high-speed turns are great fun and it gives you an opportunity to look back uphill to see if your mates have caught up, yet!

Similarly, if I come across a small child ("helmet on skis") proceeding glacially, I'm not angry at the kid, but I want to punch the father - mate, you gave up the right to go where you want, when you want, when you got married and had kids. Stop putting them in harm's way and traumatising them, okay?

Those kids will be using you as a slalom pole in a few years time... :-)

Cheers,
W.

Feltup

But there is schnapps followed by naked mogul skiing here.

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

.... But I still resent having to pretty well stop entirely on the best part of a run, as Jash and you say, because some friggin ...

You shouldn't need to stop, though- the idea behind the technique I described above is that you change your velocity, not your speed. As you approach the crest you check that there is space for this maneuvre, then carve a GS-style turn until you are traversing across the slope at speed, glance over the lip, to check it's clear below and carve back again. The drop over the lip of the crest should pretty much top up the speed you lost in the turns and you are back on your run with no loss of momentum.

As an added bonus, the high-speed turns are great fun and it gives you an opportunity to look back uphill to see if your mates have caught up, yet!

Similarly, if I come across a small child ("helmet on skis") proceeding glacially, I'm not angry at the kid, but I want to punch the father - mate, you gave up the right to go where you want, when you want, when you got married and had kids. Stop putting them in harm's way and traumatising them, okay?

Those kids will be using you as a slalom pole in a few years time... :-)

Cheers,
W.

I suspect you to be more proficient than I.

I get the point, but snowboarders are cunning. They seek out places on the slope that are undetectable, so that they are able to irritate even the most advanced skier.

il_principe

WGWarburton wrote:

You shouldn't need to stop, though- the idea behind the technique I described above is that you change your velocity, not your speed. As you approach the crest you check that there is space for this maneuvre, then carve a GS-style turn until you are traversing across the slope at speed, glance over the lip, to check it's clear below and carve back again. The drop over the lip of the crest should pretty much top up the speed you lost in the turns and you are back on your run with no loss of momentum.

As an added bonus, the high-speed turns are great fun and it gives you an opportunity to look back uphill to see if your mates have caught up, yet!

All well and good, but I regard crests as an opp to get some AIR. I Ski GS style anyway - was taught carving properly, by Canadians, who got it far before the Euros did. Still see plenty of people in Europe skiing carvers with their boots touching! :roll:

I should say at this point that I am still a careful skier, and have enough confidence im my ability to alter my trajectory rapidly should any obstacles appear suddenly - not hit anyone since I was a snowploughing nipper!

Next time I go skiing I'm taking the Garmin with me, forgot last year but it'd be great to have it running all day and have a gander at some of the speeds achieved later on!

wgwarburton

jashburnham wrote:

All well and good, but I regard crests as an opp to get some AIR.

Hmm, I would think that if you're getting airborne, you ought to have a spotter.... that's one thing the snowboarder types usually get right.

I Ski GS style anyway - was taught carving properly, by Canadians, who got it far before the Euros did. Still see plenty of people in Europe skiing carvers with their boots touching! :roll:

Yeah- I really ought to have a go on a pair of those, someday... I'm still using antiques over 2m long!!!

Cheers,
W.