EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Après-Ski › Does Posting or Reading a Helmet Thread do Any Good?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Does Posting or Reading a Helmet Thread do Any Good? - Page 5

post #121 of 134
Now that's information I did not have before. So, posting on or reading a helmet thread does do some good. Thanks, Marcus!

I'm another one who's irked by cherry-picked data used out of context to support an argument. I was just too lazy--or perhaps too tired of reading about it--to look at the source material.
post #122 of 134

Hmm, I seem to have reposted trying to copy my earlier post for the current other helmet thread, but it looks like it was useful, so I'll let it stand. redface.gif

post #123 of 134
Glad you did--I missed it somewhere in all the other stuff and am only checking recent posts. OTOH I did just notice your post on the other thread, making it easy-peasy to get the facts.
post #124 of 134

Wow, thanks marcus.  Real facts from quality research.  Thank you.  Now I've got to read this stuff so I can make some informed arguments.   And your posts on the other thread are great.

 

Its hard work to post like this.

 

Thanks again, joe

post #125 of 134

Helmets are like seat belts. 

 

As for me,  I hate to wear them in 50 or 60 degree day's in Spring Skiing like anyone else. I switch to a airflow helmet in spring.   

 

After skiing for 47 years I recomend them but it souldn't be law. It's all common sense.

 

I have noticed many times when a helmet has saved my life when only riding the ski lift on a qaud. 

 

 

A passanger would pull down the bar on the lift as soon as you sat down and hitting me in the head.  Typically we say, " Bar down". 

 

This is a small example why helmets work on the lift.

 

Again,  if you are a little bent over when loading and the Chair Saftey Bar hit's you in the head you wish you had a helmet.  This happens all the time.

 

 

On some of the older fixed cable lifts the lifty's should were them.  You don't want to walk into one after a 8hrs of cold day not thinking.

 

A liftey walks across slips and falls tried to get up. The Chair hits the lifty in the head or neck.  It's a machanical conveayer Belt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #126 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeshoto View Post

Now I've got to read this stuff so I can make some informed arguments.
Um .... (gotta ask) ... are you saying you were not making informed arguments earlier, just arguments? biggrin.gif

.ma
post #127 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelA View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by joeshoto View Post

Now I've got to read this stuff so I can make some informed arguments.


Um .... (gotta ask) ... are you saying you were not making informed arguments earlier, just arguments? biggrin.gif

.ma
 


I'll let you answer that question for yourself after you go back and my posts.  By the way those studies are great and the treatment given to those on the NJ helmet law thread is great on both sides of the issue.

 

Interesting question though

Joe
 

 

post #128 of 134
smile.gif No offense intended joeshoto, I was just observing the way you wrote your statement above.

Since your occupation may expose you to a high number of people experiencing nasty consequences from head injuries you may inadvertently be arguing from accidental fallacies related to observing artificially concentrated consequences.

Common fallacies like "Hasty Generalization", "Argument from Small Numbers" or "Argument by Generalization" are typical when we're immersed in a job that puts us in constant sight of a given recurring outcome. If our job directs only 'harmed' people our way then we can't help but adopt a biased belief - since we don't experience the shear multitude of unharmed people.

If my job was to treat people struck by Lightening I'd probably believe that everyone should wear Tin Hats with Grounding Wires strung to their shoes.

This isn't an argument for or against helmets. It's just an observation about a potential source of bias.

.ma
post #129 of 134

Hi MA,

 

Thank you for your consideration. No offense taken.

 

Yes of course my opinion is biased toward the extreme consequences of what happens when head meets fast.  no doubt.

 

But I see plenty of uninjured as well.  They are all around me at home and at the hill.

 

Yet I dont see the fallacy built into my bias that you suggest.  People who wear helmets do better than those who do not.  I am aware of the ridiculously vast numbers of skiers who ski without devastaion of injury. 

 

But I have benefit of seeing what happens when helmets cannot do their work and there is no illusion to this.  Others do not have this benefit unless they have seen it.  And if they have seen it in their family or professionally, they too either avoid the activity or if they love it as I do skiing, they put the helmet on, they look over their shoulder before pushing off, they let the maniacs pass by before skiing the most fun part of a run and they are constantly vigilant and they keep skiing as much as possible.

Those who have seen the devastation react to it appropriately.

 

If they have not seen the devastation, they are less or not at all vigilant.

 

I choose not to live my life in fear so I put my helmets on if the current is swift but not when it is flat, I wear a life vest always, I wear my foam hat at the dojo, I wear safety glasses when I cut, seat belts always, I do drive fast but will not tailgait, nor drive after drinking buzzed or not, dont eat all the fish I catch vigilant of poison.....still, I do solo wilderness camping and paddeling which many say is dangerous yet I love that too and it is worth it too me, as are the risks of skiing, and I take precautions against the dangers.

 

But this head injury thing is a little different than other dangers inherent in our recreation as unless you have seen it and unless it effects you, there is no real way of knowing about it.

 

Skiers know about knees and other orthopedic injuries as we all know friends who have these kinds of injuries from ski crashes.  But as you point out, the incidence of TBI is not that great so people dont see it and dont know about it.  And skiers being the independent free spirits they are are not the kind of people effected by silly fears.

 

I really do mean to say that we should all wear helmets to provide at least some level of protection against the one in ten million chances of TBI. 10M, I understand.

 

So you see I realize that it is rare....and Istill say, put it on anyway.

 

Yet this is about wearing a simple helmet.  It is not about extreme fears requiring extreme acts.  It is not required that you dig a fallout shelter, or going off grid or forming a militia against the communist obama government.....It is instead about the simple act of wearing a helmet while snow skiing.

 

 

But to me it is not about to wear or not to wear a helmet.  After seeing all of these reactions from this skewed group, the new question I have is; "should helmets be mandatory for everyone on the hill or only to those who are most vulnerable by virture of skill, where they ski, terrain, crowds or other factors yet to be determined."

 

 

 

To finally answer your considered questioin more directly, yes, I am biased as you say but to no detriment as I only ask that we all merely wear simple helmets.

 

The other question that eats at me as I see all of this response and as I see how things function on ski hills is; what other safety measures, besides helmets, could be added to this already safety conscious industry."

 

Bias in human nature is expected.  Bias is the only reliable measue of safety.

 

 

I saw an orthopedic surgeon last week for this pain in my back.  The MRI showed an old fracture to my thoracic Vertebrae 8.  When doc asked if i had ever taken a hard fall, I explained that I have injuries to both shoulders, elbow, both knees and that I have flown over handlebars, down mountains, that I ski 20-30 days a year, that I trained with skilled fighters for 25 years...and he said ok stop there....it could have happened anytime,any head injuries?.....no sir, I always wear a helmet...He said;  "good that probably saved you over the years with your history."

 

I am biased to no ones detriment....

 

Do you wear a helmet?

 

joe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #130 of 134
Joe,

Nope, I don't wear a helmet for general skiing. I also don't mind when others have the opinion that "others should wear them too." I just object to any campaigning efforts that seem dedicated to enforcing my wearing of a helmet.

Your own statements just above suggest you make your own decisions about safety-gear based on your own judgment of the dangers present in other athletic ventures suggests you know exactly what I mean. It's not about safety itself - it's about who gets to make safety-related choices for me.

---
I have many friends that wear knee braces. Some do it to protect recent injuries but many wear them because they want to avoid future injuries. One fellow with our ski school once promoted a particular "consumer" knee brace "For all skiers, all the time."

Since knee injuries are the single most common injury for skiers it seems practical to require knee braces for all skiers. This would reduce insurance costs, reduce long term injuries and probably extend each skier's lifetime of skiing. All of this is obviously true. Since it's true, should we create laws that require all skiers to wear knee braces? All I'm suggesting is that everyone wear simple knee braces, is that too much to ask?

See the problem? Where does it stop? Sure, you may think the potential trauma of head injuries warrants helmets on everyone - but I may think the trauma of knee injuries warrants knee braces on everyone. Someone else may think thumb injuries warrant forced thumb protectors, and on it goes.

Racing, Pipe & Park, Aerials and such often require a helmet to participate because these activities have a high probability of high-energy falls that may result in head injuries. General skiing doesn't come anywhere near those probabilities and a skier paying attention can easily reduce what probability does exist by orders of magnitude.

---
FWIW, I grew up on a farm in the boonies. I've been hit by 2,000 lb Angus Bulls, head-butted by 1,500 lb Steers and Cows, hit by fast moving Rams, fallen off house and barn roofs, fallen off a 20' haystack and been crushed as it collapsed on top of me, fallen off cliffs into the Snoqualmie and Tolt Rivers... and naturally, have had a huge number of falls while skiing. I've also had and several collisions - including one with a 24" tree this last March (bruised knee, bruised ribs and slightly sprained wrist - but no head injury at all).

So sure, I've been whacked hard enough to see stars plenty of times - but not every impact misfortune results in helmet-preventable head injuries. I've never worn a helmet for skiing, though if I ever engage in some skiing activity that I think warrants a helmet due to the heightened probability of head injury, I'll certainly put one on.

Therein lies the real issue people here generally have with helmet threads. It's not about statistics or actual probabilities. It's about who's evaluation and decision gets to decide what.
- A few people want to impose the results of their own evaluation on everyone else.
- Most people object to others deciding for them whether they should wear a helmet or not.

No one objects to helmets - they object to others imposing their own beliefs on them.
(And that's also why missionary proselytizing goes over so badly in the instructional forums)

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

.ma
post #131 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeshoto View Post

 

Do you wear a helmet?

 

joe

 



NO

Ain't gonna happen joe...get over it.

 

post #132 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelA View Post

Joe,

Nope, I don't wear a helmet for general skiing. I also don't mind when others have the opinion that "others should wear them too." I just object to any campaigning efforts that seem dedicated to enforcing my wearing of a helmet.

Your own statements just above suggest you make your own decisions about safety-gear based on your own judgment of the dangers present in other athletic ventures suggests you know exactly what I mean. It's not about safety itself - it's about who gets to make safety-related choices for me.  head injuries are of a different order than common knee inuries.
The differnce in magnetude of knee injuries v.s.head injuries makes comparisons or even examples not applicable.  Its like talking cars and skiing, no app.

---
I have many friends that wear knee braces. Some do it to protect recent injuries but many wear them because they want to avoid future injuries. One fellow with our ski school once promoted a particular "consumer" knee brace "For all skiers, all the time."  I wear a CTI knee brace that was molded to fit my leg. I wear it to protect against further injury to an already damaged knee.  There is no independent research that shows knee braces provide any more protection to the uninjured knee.  The protection they provide to injured knees is questionable.
 
A knee is not a brain and so a knee has no place in this discussion.   Every orthopod I talk to tells me that the brace would have to screwed in to work against the twisting forces that cause injury.  Helmets are not like that.  A helmet provides some benefit in every hit and that is obvious and that is not observer bias.  Observer bias may happen if the statement were to include protection in every condition.

Since knee injuries are the single most common injury for skiers it seems practical to require knee braces for all skiers. This would reduce insurance costs, reduce long term injuries and probably extend each skier's lifetime of skiing. All of this is obviously true. Since it's true, should we create laws that require all skiers to wear knee braces? All I'm suggesting is that everyone wear simple knee braces, is that too much to ask?  Yes because there is no concensus that they work at all.  With a knee it is not about a little protection as once the knee joint starts to open up, it backs out of the brace.
A helmet does provide a little protection or alot of protection with an upper limit that, to my knowledge is not yet determined or is unknowable.

See the problem? Where does it stop? Sure, you may think the potential trauma of head injuries warrants helmets on everyone - but I may think the trauma of knee injuries warrants knee braces on everyone.  But you dont believe that, that is not your opinion, and talking scientific evidence is often beside the point because you are not saying that you would wear one only if they worked.  You dont care if they work, youre not going to wear on. Someone else may think thumb injuries warrant forced thumb protectors, and on it goes.  Forced?, doubt it.   No devastation in a thumb injury although they can be quite debilitating.

Racing, Pipe & Park, Aerials and such often require a helmet to participate because these activities have a high probability of high-energy falls that may result in head injuries. General skiing doesn't come anywhere near those probabilities and a skier paying attention can easily reduce what probability does exist by orders of magnitude.  This is where I think an informed discussion starts.  I think that for many people on any given Saturday, just skiing at all poses a threat ot beginners and brave intermediates similar to what is expereinced in a park becasue of a number of factors.  you know out of control skiers, fast skiers from above, runaway beginner straight liners who hit poles.
Iam talking about what you may call once-in-while accicents. 
And here is where I have conceded some of my position, perhaps there needs to be a selection process for who wears a helmet. Based on what/which? It s too complicated, infringes on rights, too expensive to test, you may say. 
You may feel that you are informed enough to make your own decisions. But I would say that the beginner or unitiated are not at all able to make their own decisions about this.  Theydont have the experience or skill, conceding for a moment that skill makes for better decision making.

---
FWIW, I grew up on a farm in the boonies. I've been hit by 2,000 lb Angus Bulls, head-butted by 1,500 lb Steers and Cows, hit by fast moving Rams, fallen off house and barn roofs, fallen off a 20' haystack and been crushed as it collapsed on top of me, fallen off cliffs into the Snoqualmie and Tolt Rivers... and naturally, have had a huge number of falls while skiing. I've also had and several collisions - including one with a 24" tree this last March (bruised knee, bruised ribs and slightly sprained wrist - but no head injury at all).  You did all of that crashing around without devastation because you didnt happen to hit your head, you lucky fool.  I would guess that your particular musculoskeletal system provides you with a considerable amount of protection, I guess.  Do youknow why you never hit your head?

So sure, I've been whacked hard enough to see stars plenty of times - but not every impact misfortune results in helmet-preventable head injuries. I've never worn a helmet for skiing, though if I ever engage in some skiing activity that I think warrants a helmet due to the heightened probability of head injury,  You have a long history of banging around and have never hurt your self, this provides you with a single subject research that tells you that helmets dont apply to you so you will never put one on. I'll certainly put one on. What? cliffs? bumps? steeps? backcountry? Do any of those call for a helmet? what?
 But you have no concern for seeing stars plenty of times which means that you are unaware of the cumulative effect of the concussion and laws are made exactly to protect the uninformed. 

Therein lies the real issue people here generally have with helmet threads. It's not about statistics or actual probabilities. It's about who's evaluation and decision gets to decide what.  If it is not about proof of any kind, then it is about denial.
- A few people want to impose the results of their own evaluation on everyone else.
- Most people object to others deciding for them whether they should wear a helmet or not.

No one objects to helmets - they object to others imposing their own beliefs on them.  Here you are correct.
(And that's also why missionary proselytizing goes over so badly in the instructional forums) Making change is always about facing adversity, I dont care.  Not asking for people to go on faith but with reason.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.  Because you are made of the same stuff that most skiers are made of.  And that stuff often enough results in risk taking behavior which in this case is focused on thet meager helmet.
 
The other issues I have besides how to decide who and under what conditions helmets should be worn is related to the responsibility code and what additional safety features could be made to the already safty conscious industry.

.ma and joe


 


Edited by joeshoto - 4/15/11 at 6:18am
post #133 of 134



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post





NO

Ain't gonna happen joe...get over it.

 


becasue you are retro kind of guy.  Cool,    , harsh, pointed, stubborn.

 

Me too, dont get over it.
 

 

post #134 of 134

That's the best argument  on Brain Buckets. 

 

I only wear one because the Boeri rep gave me one for free 25 years ago. 

 

The brain bucket issue needs to be based on education and not laws. 

 

I wear one for a few reasons.  

 

First and most important is that 90% of heat loss goes out your head. 

 

when this happens all other parts of your body get cold real fast  Feet hands ect..

 

The brain bucket acts as an insulator while keeping the body warmer on real cold days. 

 

 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Après-Ski
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Après-Ski › Does Posting or Reading a Helmet Thread do Any Good?