[Closed] Skiing wear a helmet ?

Sure it does but sometimes the decision is clouded by

1) Does not understand the risk.
or
2) Does not want to accept the risk.

That's all I meant. Im not specifically judging you or anyone else. Its just an observation.

[url= http://www.ski-injury.com/injury-statistics/stats1 ]Interesting site[/url]
Have a gander

That's all I meant. Im not specifically judging you or anyone else. Its just an observation.

Fair enough!

Sorry its been a while since researched this and I don't have any of the info to hand
I remember it being a pain to find too, nobody's going to get paid to come find this kind of conclusion. Whereas if everyones concluding helmets are great and there's nowt wrong with wearing one then somebody makes money, so you'll find a lot of research like that.

I once lost a 1 5l bottle or coke down a black run. Hope it didn't hurt anyone who was within their comfort zone

Did just find this paper
[url= http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/171/10/1134.full ]Risk of neck injury[/url]
Which uses a hell of a lot of fancy stats to indicate that the increase in risk of neck injury is not significant

"In the unconditional logistic regression analysis, regardless of the severity of the neck injury, the crude odds ratios all indicated that there were statistically significantly increased odds of neck injury among skiers and snowboarders who wore a helmet compared with skiers and snowboarders who did not. However, after adjustment, the odds ratios were not significant"
and
"The crude analysis showed that there were significantly higher odds of neck injury among persons wearing a helmet compared with those not wearing a helmet (OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.36); however, the strength of the association decreased and was not statistically significant after controlling for potential confounders (OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.93, 1.22)"

I'd need to take the paper apart to figure out what the adjustments were and why they've done them.

From the Link above :

Conclusions

We did not find evidence of a relation between helmet use and the risk of neck injuries among skiers and snowboarders, regardless of the severity of the neck injury. Among children, who have a larger head-to-body ratio than adults, there was also no statistically significant association. Regardless of the results, reductions in the weight of ski and snowboard helmets that offer adequate protection should remain a goal for manufacturers. Our study provides additional evidence that helmets do not significantly increase the risk of neck injuries among skiers and snowboarders, and their use should be encouraged.

That's one of the examples I was talking about really.

When someone says "wearing a helmet increases the risk of neck injury"

It adjusts people's view of whether to wear one or not. It makes their "risk assessment" a bit dodgy if they are using information like that to base a decision on.

The thing is you really need to read the paper and come to your own conclusion, because it looks to me like there is a significant link but if you spin the figures far enough you can show that its not a significant increased risk.

TBH I can't see how there couldn't be just based on the physics, but I do think its small, and how can falling uncontrollably down a mountain off a bike be that much different?

I don't have a helmet for snowboarding, and I don't think I will

I have a good helmet for downhill mountain biking and I'm seriously considering a neck brace too

All my xc helmets have a rounded back ie no pointy out aero bits to act as levers and break my neck

I have read that one, and a few others that all have the same end conclusion.

I wouldn't presume to know any better than they do, so my own conclusion is that there is no proof that wearing a helmet increases the risk of neck injuries.

So when someone says exactly the opposite of that, I will ask for some proof 😉

farty81 - Member

This again: Remember, you're more likely to get a serious head injury in a car. Car helmets anyone? Didn't think so.

This really is one of the biggest straw men of all time though... When humankind travels the same distance by ski as we do by car, and take the same length of time, in the same environment, then it becomes relevant.

Sorry I've seen through too many scientific papers and known too much inside information in the past to take someone else's conclusion for granted, and a quick scan of this paper would indicate to me that there's a lot of figure massaging going.

...but I don't have any papers coming to that conclusion as specifically related to skiing, and I'm happy that you've done an exhaustive search.

It's the fact that I've never seen any study come to a different conclusion than that one that convinces me.

Car helmet?
How about a seat belt? I hated them to start with, feel odd without now. I have a mate who NEVER wears one.

Looking at the data I think a more accurate conclusion would be that there's a strong indication that there's an increased risk of neck injury (odds ratios being significant) however, more data needs to be obtained before a firm conclusion can be made ("We could not adjust for all potentially confounding variables in all analyses, as there were simply too few neck injury outcomes, even with 10 years of data. ")

But I guess you've got a lot more faith in their conclusions than drawing your own

Dales_rider - Member
Seems like its a "Risk analysis" for even the top skiers/boarders.

And sometimes leading to some interesting decisions. A friend of mine runs a company in Canada providing instructor training courses. He had a magazine come and do a feature, with a couple of pros along to chuck up some roosters for the camera. With £600 ABS packs and no helmets. My friend couldn't quite get his head around the priorities:

"You're more likely to hit your head on a tree here than you are to get caught in an avalanche, and if you get caught in an avalanche, you'll end up in the trees. And you're more likely to get brain damage or die from impact trauma than from asphyxiation whilst buried. What gives?"

He probably put it more politely, though, because he's like that.

I'm currently in Andorra and here those that don't wear helmets are definitely in the minority. And having taken a walloping tumble yesterday (one of those nasty 'boarding a flat section at speed and hit a bobbly bit' jobs) and thanked my lucky stars I was wearing a helmet otherwise I'd have been seeing stars. What with that and the kamikaze idiot who took out a poor lass at massive speed, helmets are a necessity if not essential IMHO.

But I guess you've got a lot more faith in their conclusions than drawing your own

As I said, not just their conclusions. But I added theirs to the list of other studies that all seem to have come to the same conclusions.

I have to say, it's an interesting debating tactic.

To make a statement that "wearing a helmet increases the risk of neck injuries"

And for proof of that statement, present a study that concludes the opposite.

And then say you don't trust the conclusion 🙂

I'm not sure wearing a helmet will make a jot of difference in a direct head collision with a tree or rock whilst hammering it to escape an avalanche, or being caught up in one.

I came very close today to using the helmet, someone not learned in the "Skiing etiquette" nearly got me. Bet If I wasnt wearing a helmet she would of.

In the real world of skiing, for a week or maybe 2 each year, ACL and MCL injuries must be more common than head injury.
How many people who hire skis / own skis know the correct 'official' rating for themselves on the bindings , plus how many people actually 'self test' the release mechanism?
Probably 1 in 100( ? ) know what to look for , and a perform a self release test.

I dont want a year off the bike with complicated tendon repairs , or brain damage come to that.

WHat Im trying to say is whilst a helmet might save an injury for some people, bindings on the wrong setting or malfunctioning could save injury for more people.

Ah, DIN settings. My son's giant skis are wound up to 10 with 335mm boots. You'll find that's well over the advised range for even the most able 60kg skier. The reason? Less than that and he risks injury due to losing a ski mid-turn and crashing. It's the old risk assessment thing - the risk of the ski not releasing at 10 (low in a high speed fall) and the risk of losing a ski resulting in a crash at a lower setting (high).

When ski touring I lock the bindings completely (Low-Tech bindings) before steep icy descents where losing a ski would cause a nasty fall.

Having seen people with acl damage they tend to recover better than those with brain damage.

I think we're doing pretty well for a helmet thread!

- Standard "You're wrong", "No, you're wrong", questioning/denouncing of others risk analysis.

- "You don't wear a helmet in the car, do you?" / "You'd never get out of bed" stuff

- Provision of, and calls for back-up from scientific studies (no bonus points for anything "peer-reviewed" though?)

- Comparisons with knee injuries

- "straw man" etc

Don't we've gone quite as far as "I'd never ski with someone without a helmet" or variations on "I wouldn't stop to help someone with a head injury who hadn't been wearing a helmet" Which is a good thing!

Ned it's an amazing thing to see eh?

I've only been skiing the once. A week in France i think. I knocked loads of people over and had a great time doing it. I even caused a guy to fall off a cliff (there was no contact, he just bricked it when i went past). Friends reported the netting saved him 😮 . Even tried a fancy skid/stop thing (as seen on ski sunday, when they finish the race) No idea how many people i cleaned on that attempt. Easily a dozen 😀

If you ski when i'm about, you'd best wear a lid.

Interesting film on tonight in Chamonix, Summits of my life Kilian Jornet. They talk of risk management, not analysis.
If you havent seen it to give a flavour amongst other things he traversed Mont Blanc from Courmayeur to Chamonix in about 8 hours.

NOT A HELMET IN SITE

Fair point any strike to the head up there will result in death either way as they are not roped etc.
I'd definatley be wearing one up there an be roped 🙂 mostly to protect from falling debris as the sun hits the top of the ridge - the sound of rocks and ice leaving higher slopes is terrifying.

But then again I'm probably just a risk adverse wuss who should know better.

Cool, here he is again

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

😀

comp? casques obligatoires?

Yup, you require a mountaineering helmet for ski alpinisme races which are generally organised by the FFME in France. I use a Petzl which is a lot like an uncomfortable, badly fitting, cycling helmet with less vents.

The organisers put a rope down anything too dangerous which you clip if you wish (they haven't bothered in the pic). A good friend toppled off doing a conversion (no rope that day) and broke almost everything apart from his head going over two small cliffs. I doubt the helmet contributed to his broken neck but who knows. I've never dared ask him if he'd rather not have survived. In the year after the accident I'm sure he'd have said not, several years on and able to walk reasonably he's more positive and sings in a choir rather than racing over mountains.

I also think that snowboarders are more vulnerable to upper-body and head injuries and much less to leg torsion injuries than skiers.

Here's a pic of the Snowboarding Great: Terje Haakonsen [mancrush]

[img] [/img]

I don't know anyone that skis seriously that doesn't wear a helmet, don't forget in the early days of mountain biking there was a similar helmet debate, surprised kiers still thing otherwise

farty81 - Member
This again: Remember, you're more likely to get a serious head injury in a car. Car helmets anyone? Didn't think so.

This really is one of the biggest straw men of all time though... When humankind travels the same distance by ski as we do by car, and take the same length of time, in the same environment, then it becomes relevant.

Nope, it's exactly the point. You regularly do one thing with a proven track record of death without a helmet. When it comes to cycling, pedestrians are more likely to die per km travelled than cyclists and do you wear a helmet walking? Didn't think so.

Pros are a particularly unuseful tool to analyse helmet wearing. They get paid by a particular sponsor to wear a particular helmet.

It's the all pervasive culture of fear. It's nonsense and I'll fight it with every bone in my body.

http://video.tedxcopenhagen.dk/video/911034/mikael-colville-andersen

Just to add something of interest that happened on the last days skiing in Avoriaz.
2 Boarders who were descending a piste together crossed paths in front of my missus, they collided with heads hitting one came off worse than the other without helmets it may have been a different outcome.
Me I sometimes will not bother with a helmet skiing or biking as for climbing I never bother. Thats my choice I know the risks and manage them but as there are more and more near misses skiing with skiers who dont know how to behave on the slopes it may be I will from now on always wear one.

3 deaths on whistler this year.

2 with significant head trauma
1 cardiac arrest.

I love reading the bizarre logic and strange facts used by the anti helmet brigade. It's like they've had a bang to the head....