EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Poll: Wear a Helmet, Get Discounted Lift Tickets?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Poll: Wear a Helmet, Get Discounted Lift Tickets? - Page 2

post #31 of 48
bloxy: As an aside I am always suprised by the number of skiers in the US (and I genuinely love skiing in the US) who wear goggles all of the time (without helmets) even the bluebird days when they are just cruising groomers. What's wrong with sunglasses?

For myself, I wear contact lenses and at speeds the wind tends to dry my eyes. Goggles help in that aspect. I will wear sun glasses occasionally, but I always regret the decision. Otherwise I agree with your opinion on helmets. It is largely marketing gone a little too far.
post #32 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier
"To give a stark example, biomechanics have demonstrated that in order to protect the head against a direct impact blow at 30 mph, with currently available materials, a helmet would need to be at least 18cm thick, 50cm wide and weigh 5kg+. "
This is supposed to convince me not to wear a helmet? If I run into a brick wall at 30 mph in my car I stand a big chance of serious injury or even death. Nobody in their right mind should expect a helmet to help in a circumstance like that, and I don't hear anyone claiming that they will, either. The arguments against helmets don't hold water. Helmets are ugly, I'll agree. And the wind won't rush through your hair. I don't give a rip if you wear one or not, but don't give me a bad time because I do. Also, don't get on your high-horse when people talk about finding ways to encourage helmet use. Nobody is making you do anything.

What I find disturbing is that it doesn't stop at "I won't wear one, and you can't make me." People actually have the gall to try to convince me that helmets are really dangerous. That's bull.

By the way, the link did not work for me.
post #33 of 48

scientific study

Medline search for "Ski AND Helmet AND injury"

For those not familiar w/ Medline, it is a free search engine run by the US Nat'l Library of Medicine/ Nat'l Institutes of Health.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&li st_uids=15632094

1: BMJ. 2005 Feb 5;330(7486):281. Epub 2005 Jan 4.Related Articles, Links

Erratum in:
  • BMJ. 2005 Feb 12;330(7487):345.

Effectiveness of helmets in skiers and snowboarders: case-control and case crossover study.

Hagel BE, Pless IB, Goulet C, Platt RW, Robitaille Y.

Alberta Centre for Injury Control and Research, Department of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, 4075 RTF, 8308-114 Street, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2E1. brent.hagel@ualberta.ca

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.

PMID: 15632094 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
post #34 of 48

and another....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&li st_uids=12460972

1: Inj Prev. 2002 Dec;8(4):324-7.Related Articles, Links

Effect of helmet wear on the incidence of head/face and cervical spine injuries in young skiers and snowboarders.

Macnab AJ, Smith T, Gagnon FA, Macnab M.

Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. amacnab@cw.bc.ca

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.

PMID: 12460972 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
post #35 of 48

and another

THIS is your brain. THIS is your brain on treebark. Any Questions?



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&li st_uids=12394869

1: J Trauma. 2002 Oct;53(4):695-704.Related Articles, Links

An analysis of head injuries among skiers and snowboarders.

Levy AS, Hawkes AP, Hemminger LM, Knight S.

Intermountain Neurosurgery and Neuroscience, Saint Anthony Central Hospital, Denver, Colorado 80204, USA.

BACKGROUND: Head injury is the leading cause of death and critical injury in skiing and snowboarding accidents. METHODS: Data relating to head injuries occurring on the ski slopes were collected from the trauma registry of a Level I trauma center located near a number of ski resorts. RESULTS: From 1982 to 1998, 350 skiers and snowboarders with head injuries were admitted to our Level I trauma center. Most of the injuries were mild, with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores of 13 to 15 in 81% and simple concussion in 69%. However, 14% of patients had severe brain injuries, with GCS scores of 3 to 8, and the overall mortality rate was 4%. Collision with a tree or other stationary object (skier-tree) was the mechanism of injury in 47% of patients; simple falls in 37%; collision with another skier (skier-skier) in 13%; and major falls in 3%. Skier-tree collision and major falls resulted in a higher percentage of severe injuries, with GCS scores of 3 to 8 in 24% and 20%, respectively, and mean Injury Severity Scores of 14 and 17, respectively. Mortality from skier-tree collision was 7.2%, compared with 1.6% in simple falls and no deaths from skier-skier collision or major falls. The risk of sustaining a head injury was 2.23 times greater for male subjects compared with female subjects, 2.81 times higher for skiers/boarders < or = 35 years of age compared with those > 35 years, and 3.04 times higher for snowboarders compared with skiers. CONCLUSION: Skier-tree collision was the most common mechanism for head injuries in patients admitted to our Level I trauma center, and resulted in the most severe injuries and the highest mortality rate. Because most traumatic brain injuries treated at our facility resulted from a direct impact mechanism, we believe that the use of helmets can reduce the incidence and severity of head injuries occurring on the ski slopes.

PMID: 12394869 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
post #36 of 48
One oft missed issue on the subject of ANY protective device is the injuries that could have been avoided do have a cost to everyone. Medical costs are borne by insurance companies that increase premiums (think of what a medical evac helicopter flight, trauma care, CAT-scans, police/fire personnel intervention, etc actually costs even if the outcome is death -- I would guess easily $75-100K), lost productivity at companies who employ those that are injured, etc etc.

While I am not one to legislate helmets for those over 18, I am definately of the opinion that minors should, just like bike helmets in many states in the usa.

Helmets prevent concussions, lacerations, and can be the thin margin between life and death. Plain and simple. Everyone of my son's friends wear them, and so do their parents many of them who qualify as extreme skiers. To even think of glade skiing without one is hard to fathom, because it doesnt take a lot of speed to cause a major head injury (by the way most injuries are NOT solely about the external impact but rather the fact that the brain is soft and slams back and forth against the inside of the skull upon impact)

Finally, head injury often begets other problems over time. This from a neuro web site...

"The older you get, the harder it is to recover from a concussion. Increasingly, research is discovering long-term effects from head injuries. For example, a study by the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, published in the May 2003 issue of Neurology, linked head injuries to Parkinson's disease. Just one head injury can quadruple a person's risk of developing Parkinson's disease. Symptoms started an average of 20 years after the incident."

My mom has parkinsons, trust me you don't want to have it...
post #37 of 48
Quote:
Originally posted by Pheft
This is supposed to convince me not to wear a helmet? If I run into a brick wall at 30 mph in my car I stand a big chance of serious injury or even death. Nobody in their right mind should expect a helmet to help in a circumstance like that, and I don't hear anyone claiming that they will, either. The arguments against helmets don't hold water. Helmets are ugly, I'll agree. And the wind won't rush through your hair. I don't give a rip if you wear one or not, but don't give me a bad time because I do. Also, don't get on your high-horse when people talk about finding ways to encourage helmet use. Nobody is making you do anything.

What I find disturbing is that it doesn't stop at "I won't wear one, and you can't make me." People actually have the gall to try to convince me that helmets are really dangerous. That's bull.

By the way, the link did not work for me.
Sorry to rattle your soapbox, but what I think what is bull is your statements above. There is absolutely nothing in my post that gives you or anyone else a hard time for wearing a helmet or tries to convince you that they are dangerous. Unlike your totally unsubstantiated and subjective assertions : I have simply provided some objective evidence.
Oh and the link is http://www.ski-injury.com/helmet.htm...0and%20helmets (now edited in the original post -my bad)

Indeed, not that it is relevant, but, as I posted in a previous thread I do wear my race helmet most of the time but I don't try to browbeat others into doing the same. I support 100% the right of an individual to make their own choice as to whether or not to wear one.

Oh and if you don't expect your helmet to help you in a situation where you hit (or are hit by) a solid object, what do you expect it to help you with?:
post #38 of 48
Quote:

originally posted by DrFrau
Mortality from skier-tree collision was 7.2%, compared with 1.6% in simple falls and no deaths from skier-skier collision or major falls. The risk of sustaining a head injury was 2.23 times greater for male subjects compared with female subjects, 2.81 times higher for skiers/boarders < or = 35 years of age compared with those > 35 years, and 3.04 times higher for snowboarders compared with skiers. CONCLUSION: Skier-tree collision was the most common mechanism for head injuries in patients admitted to our Level I trauma center, and resulted in the most severe injuries and the highest mortality rate. Because most traumatic brain injuries treated at our facility resulted from a direct impact mechanism, we believe that the use of helmets can reduce the incidence and severity of head injuries occurring on the ski slopes.
Sooo.....based upon the statistical evidence, the simple fact of being male makes me 2.23 times more likely to suffer a head injury. Do you suggest that a helmet can reduce my risk by a similar level to make us equal in risk again?:

Sorry DrFrau, but you know as well as I do that based upon the very small sample (350 skiers/boarders over 6 years) this is hardly a case that you would want to take to the FDA. The giveaway is in the last sentence "we believe...." : i.e the normal code used by the researcher where he/she has not been able to produce any clear scientific evidence either way but they stick with their theory. As a doctor I am sure you normally base your diagnosis upon more positive evidence !!

And, again, for the record, I do not advocate either way, simply illustrating taht just because people wnat to shout loudly in support does not of itself make skiing safer by wearing a helmet. Oh and yes, the unsubstantiated assertions in this thread do encourage me to stir things
post #39 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier
Sooo.....based upon the statistical evidence, the simple fact of being male makes me 2.23 times more likely to suffer a head injury. Do you suggest that a helmet can reduce my risk by a similar level to make us equal in risk again?:

Sorry DrFrau, but you know as well as I do that based upon the very small sample (350 skiers/boarders over 6 years) this is hardly a case that you would want to take to the FDA. The giveaway is in the last sentence "we believe...." : i.e the normal code used by the researcher where he/she has not been able to produce any clear scientific evidence either way but they stick with their theory. As a doctor I am sure you normally base your diagnosis upon more positive evidence !!

And, again, for the record, I do not advocate either way, simply illustrating taht just because people wnat to shout loudly in support does not of itself make skiing safer by wearing a helmet. Oh and yes, the unsubstantiated assertions in this thread do encourage me to stir things
These are but three articles of MANY published over the past 10 years or so. It is not just the sample size of one study that determines positive correlation - though 350 IS indeed a sample size large enough for statistical significance - it is the preponderance of evidence across many studies. And there ARE many studies - I only gave you three. I only posted them because of the mention from someone else about the Lancet. The first article I posted was from the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in Feb 2005, and the research was done in Canada. So no one in Britain can claim that that this is an American obsession, either.

The articles that you so conveniently DIDN'T quote say:
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.

And.....

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). <snip> CONCLUSIONS: Helmets protect skiers and snowboarders against head injuries.









post #40 of 48
Quote:

Originally posted by DrFrau
The articles that you so conveniently DIDN'T quote say:
Well done DrFrau, my point entirely . You see, by selectively quoting parts of reports and statistics it is possible to argue for completely different perspectives
Let me also post some sections from the report I cited



Quote:
In the 1998/99 part of the study, Shealy and colleagues followed the deaths as they happened and found that, where the information was available, 35% of individuals who died were wearing a helmet. This is much higher than the rate of helmet use amongst the general population on the piste. Two of the deaths amongst snowboarders resulted from them being struck by young skiers wearing helmets who had jumped without being able to see where they would land.


Statistically this shows that I am at greater risk of death by wearing a helmet : ...hmmm, not too appealing

Quote:
Shealy et al conclude "...the findings are not particularly supportive of the notion that wearing helmets will significantly reduce the number of fatalities in winter snowsports". This was supported by a presentation at the last ISSS meeting by the Chief Medical Examiner for the state of Vermont, USA - Dr Paul L. Morrow. Dr Morrow was of the opinion that of 54 deaths at commercial ski areas in Vermont from 1979/80 to 1997/98, helmets would not have been of any particular value in saving any of the lives lost - as the degree of trauma simply overwhelmed any benefits that the helmet might convey in an impact. To quote Shealy et al again - a team of highly respected ski injury researchers - "On the basis of results to date, there is no clear evidence that helmets have been shown to be an effective means of reducing fatalities in alpine sports".
or this

Quote:

To add fuel to the fire, the US Government got on the bandwagon and commissioned the controversial CPSC study which in January 1999 concluded that more than 7,000 head injuries on the slopes each year in the USA could be prevented or reduced in severity by the use of a helmet.
Whilst it is widely quoted and on the surface seems to make a conclusive case, this study has been criticised by most leading ski injury researchers (including Bob Johnson & Rick Greenwald) as being politically motivated with misleading use of statistics. As one example, snowboarding head injuries are quoted rather dramatically as having risen from 1000 in 1993 to 5200 in 1997 – without mentioning that the straightforward reason for this was that the total number of snowboarders on the slopes increased by at least the same % if not more! The CPSC were offered data by Jake Shealy on head injuries - a far more comprehensive set of statistics - but declined the offer. For these and many other reasons, most researchers criticise the study for being poorly designed and claim its sole objective was political - to reach the conclusions that it did regardless of the actual facts.


So....which survey should we be guided by? IMHO, there are elements of truth in all of them. Are any of them so conclusive that they provide an overwhelming argument for compulsory helmet wear? Again, IMHO, no. And I would also suggets that if the evidence was so conclusive there would be much stronger efforts by resorts to drive their use or, probably (and unfortunately) the most telling evidence, damages awards for ski injuries being reduced because of contributory negligence where the injured party was not wearing a helmet.

I will continue to make my personal decision based upon my risk assessment, review of the evidence and causes and experience and would expect you to do the same. Again (for the final time!) I reiterate I am not advocating for or against the use of helmets, merely suggesting that people think through the process.

post #41 of 48
Quote:

Originally posted by Skidad
"... For example, a study by the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, published in the May 2003 issue of Neurology, linked head injuries to Parkinson's disease. Just one head injury can quadruple a person's risk of developing Parkinson's disease. Symptoms started an average of 20 years after the incident."

My mom has parkinsons, trust me you don't want to have it...
Skidad, I share your pain here as my my mom also has Parkinsons and, as you say, I would not wish it on anyone. It is an extremely cruel and debilating disease. However to the best of my awareness it is not in her case attributed to head injury or skiing.
post #42 of 48
It seems to me obvious that the single beneficiaries of law suits are lawyers and insurance companies

The solution is that ski areas should randomly mount a few bright orange sharpened spikes in the snow pointing uphill

They could attach them to the bases of pylons too - Sort of an advert saying - Ski into this or out of control anywhere and you are a jerk and deserve to die

The hazzards are already there (its that kind of sport) I say mark em up and ski into them at your peril or should the resorts paint all the trees orange and pad them too

PS I am also British, and false attribution of blame denies you own your own life- it's a fraud and I'm afraid increasingly a part of US culture
post #43 of 48

Quit requiring, start offering.

- Free helmet rentals to all ski school participants and gear renters.

- Free helmet rentals to all premium Superpark users.

- Bike balaclavas and thin beanies at the cafe register.


</original thought, back to regularly scheduled bickering now>

PS the poll is FLAWED. There are no fun little color tally bars.
post #44 of 48
Yes in her case not, but seeing how the disease has progressed its not hard to understand why I have no interest in receiving any head injuries of any kind. My boeri goes where ever i do on the snow.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier
Skidad, I share your pain here as my my mom also has Parkinsons and, as you say, I would not wish it on anyone. It is an extremely cruel and debilating disease. However to the best of my awareness it is not in her case attributed to head injury or skiing.
post #45 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier
Statistically this shows that I am at greater risk of death by wearing a helmet : ...hmmm, not too appealing


I will continue to make my personal decision based upon my risk assessment, review of the evidence and causes and experience and would expect you to do the same. Again (for the final time!) I reiterate I am not advocating for or against the use of helmets, merely suggesting that people think through the process.
ScotsSkier,
Your decision to (attempt) to be well-informed is admirable, but your "risk assessment" is based upon poor interpretation of the study statistics. In one of your previous posts you said that the study meant that you were 2.23 times more likely to suffer a head injury by the fact that you are male. That is an incorrect interpretation of the study results. The study said that IN THEIR STUDY GROUP, the victims of head injury were 2.23 times more likely to be male. That means that they had twice as many male victims come through their doors as female victims. COULD that mean that males are more at risk? Possibly yes - perhaps males take more risks than females. OR Possibly No - perhaps there are simply more males on the ski hills that this trauma center serves. To know which is true we would have to look at the gender ratios at those ski areas or look at Male skier/days vs Female skier/days to see if the injuries are proportional to the numbers in each group.

To come to the conclusion that you did is a common mistake and is akin to the old joke which goes "My wife and I heard that most car accidents happen only 5 miles from home - -- so we moved!"

As far as your assumption from your other article "Statistically this shows that I am at greater risk of death by wearing a helmet : ...hmmm, not too appealing " that is ALSO an incorrect statistical conclusion. What was stated was that a greater proportion of those who died were wearing helmets than the proportion of helmet wearers of all kinds at that resort. Does that mean that wearing a helmet CAUSED the deaths? NO! It may mean that those who died were bigger risk-takers or more extreme skiers. Those other variables are called "confounders", and they must be controlled for in the analysis before you can come to a conclusion like that.

Yes, studies can contradict eachother, but the building preponderance of evidence weighs down on the "helmets help" side of the see-saw.

I am getting tired of trying to explain this, so I'm done with this thread too. ( Famous last words ! LOL )
post #46 of 48
zzzzzzzzzz

I agree DrFrau, this is getting tiresome.

And please do not try to justify your argument by somehow inferring I do not understand the small print or the wording as I am afraid one of my many weaknesses is focussing on interpretation and the small print. (The same degree of interpretation I am sure you apply when reading patient notes. )Unlike your confused attempts to continually shift the basis of your argument I am merely demonstrating how the statistics can be interpreted in many ways.... with tongue firmly in cheek. Perhaps if your helmet (or is it blinkers?) was less restrictive you would see that.

Anyway, I digress.

Quote:
The study said that IN THEIR STUDY GROUP, the victims of head injury were 2.23 times more likely to be male. That means that they had twice as many male victims come through their doors as female victims. COULD that mean that males are more at risk? Possibly yes
My contention was "..based upon the statistical evidence, the simple fact of being male makes me 2.23 times more likely to suffer a head injury" Thank you for confirming my correct analysis of the study evidence you quoted !

I fully understand your attempt to extricate yourself from the hole you are digging by now pointing out that there are other factors that need to be taken into account BUT, the inherent weakness is that you quoted the study in suport of your argument WITHOUT considering these factors (which could for all either of us knows completely reverse the findings and diss your position). Indeed, your words were
Quote:
350 IS indeed a sample size large enough for statistical significance
!!!

Quote:

As far as your assumption from your other article "Statistically this shows that I am at greater risk of death by wearing a helmet : ...hmmm, not too appealing " that is ALSO an incorrect statistical conclusion. What was stated was that a greater proportion of those who died were wearing helmets than the proportion of helmet wearers of all kinds at that resort. Does that mean that wearing a helmet CAUSED the deaths? NO
Again, I don't think I inferred anywhere that wearing a helmet CAUSED the deaths. Sorry to correct you again but my statistical conclusion is accurate!

This simply shows how the statistics can be used and abused. To link to another thread, ....if 25% of skiing accidents involve alcohol then you are 3 times more likely to be involved in a skiing accident if you are sober so I would be safer grabbing a couple of beers when I am skiing!! Again, statistically correct when you ignore all the other factors.


Anyway, this is a rather longwinded way of stating the bleeding obvious. The statistics and studies you quote all have relatively limited controls and small sample groups. Most of the conclusions are subjective. (Incidentally, I notice you fail to consider the study I quoted. Oh sorry, this doesn't necessarily support your argument so ignore it.: )


Soooo.... as I too am getting bored of this, and unlike yourself I am not on some evangelical crusade to convert, I graciously acknowledge your acceptance of my proposition that the statistics available can be used in a variety of ways and I have indeed interpreted them correctly.

From 37 years skiing without a helmet without suffering a head injury, that also provides me some hard statistical evidence which I can use in my personal risk assessment. (indeed I am thinking about maybe throwing my helmet away now,: ).
post #47 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier
zzzzzzzzzz

I agree DrFrau, this is getting tiresome.

And please do not try to justify your argument by somehow inferring I do not understand the small print or the wording as I am afraid one of my many weaknesses is focussing on interpretation and the small print. (The same degree of interpretation I am sure you apply when reading patient notes. )Unlike your confused attempts to continually shift the basis of your argument I am merely demonstrating how the statistics can be interpreted in many ways.... with tongue firmly in cheek. Perhaps if your helmet (or is it blinkers?) was less restrictive you would see that.

Anyway, I digress.



My contention was "..based upon the statistical evidence, the simple fact of being male makes me 2.23 times more likely to suffer a head injury" Thank you for confirming my correct analysis of the study evidence you quoted !

I fully understand your attempt to extricate yourself from the hole you are digging by now pointing out that there are other factors that need to be taken into account BUT, the inherent weakness is that you quoted the study in suport of your argument WITHOUT considering these factors (which could for all either of us knows completely reverse the findings and diss your position). Indeed, your words were

!!!



Again, I don't think I inferred anywhere that wearing a helmet CAUSED the deaths. Sorry to correct you again but my statistical conclusion is accurate!

This simply shows how the statistics can be used and abused. To link to another thread, ....if 25% of skiing accidents involve alcohol then you are 3 times more likely to be involved in a skiing accident if you are sober so I would be safer grabbing a couple of beers when I am skiing!! Again, statistically correct when you ignore all the other factors.


Anyway, this is a rather longwinded way of stating the bleeding obvious. The statistics and studies you quote all have relatively limited controls and small sample groups. Most of the conclusions are subjective. (Incidentally, I notice you fail to consider the study I quoted. Oh sorry, this doesn't necessarily support your argument so ignore it.: )


Soooo.... as I too am getting bored of this, and unlike yourself I am not on some evangelical crusade to convert, I graciously acknowledge your acceptance of my proposition that the statistics available can be used in a variety of ways and I have indeed interpreted them correctly.

From 37 years skiing without a helmet without suffering a head injury, that also provides me some hard statistical evidence which I can use in my personal risk assessment. (indeed I am thinking about maybe throwing my helmet away now,: ).
Scotskier,
Once again, you fail to understand both the significance of the statistics, and the appropriate way to interpet them. I am not "shifting" anything - only trying to correct your continuing and recurring misconceptions. You obviously don't understand the concept of "statistical significance" in designing a study. I suggest you attempt to educate yourself before you expound so erroneously. I have had many months of study in Biostatistics and Epidemiology for my Master of Public Health degree, and though that does not qualify me as an expert, I have certainly been taught how to determine a "good" study from a "bad" one. I have also been taught WHICH conclusions can and cannot be drawn. Do you understand the concept of a Confidence Interval? How about a p-value? Odds Ratio? Relative Risk? ......Apparently not.

You are more than welcome to throw away your helmet if you wish, and take your chances - that is your choice. But as the line from Dirty Harry goes... "You need to ask yourself - DO I feel LUCKY???
post #48 of 48
DrFrau,

yet again you display a complete inability to interpret or understand the English language and a dogmatic refusal to actually read what is written unless it supports your proposition.

Unlike you I do not feel the need (or zeal of the newly qualified??: ) to try to use my academic and professional qualifications in a misguided attempt to try to give my opinions more weight. Suffice to say that I have a modicum of education and have heard of the concepts you describe, (particularly the p-value, as in taking the p*** )

Quote:
I have certainly been taught how to determine a "good" study from a "bad" one. I have also been taught WHICH conclusions can and cannot be drawn.
You may well have been taught the concepts, unfortunately the principals of rigorous analysis, understanding and reasoned judgement (see also p-value above) appear to have passed over your head. It appears the only conclusions you have been taught to draw are those which support your position. Now my understanding may be erroneous but I seem to recall that the recent spate of drugs withdrawn from use had also previously been supported by "good" studies and conclusions drawn and supported by medical professionals. Hmmm......

Unfortunately you exhibit one of the less appealing tendencies of the medical fraternity to want to create a nanny state where doctor( ) always knows best and the simple masses should not question your superior judgement. :

What next? .. no alcohol, must wear helmet, ..oh, let me guess,stricter enforcement of highway speed limits perhaps, always the old favourite?

Do I feel lucky?? No, I prefer to rely on analysis and risk assessment based upon the evidence rather than luck

..... but if you see a Scotsman with a saltire painted on his face heading towards you on the slope at great speed....maybe you need to ask yourself the same question (and also whether it is before or after a beer stop: !!)

Sooo .... I'm done with this thread too. Never been very good at taking Doctor's advice I'm afraid. LOL
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Poll: Wear a Helmet, Get Discounted Lift Tickets?