Stupid helmet question ...

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:32:50 -0000, "MoonMan"
wrote:

Interesting rebuttal of risk homeostasis he
http://ip.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/4/2/92


However this argument above is challenged and discussed further at

http://www.bmj.com.cgi/content/full/324/7346/1149


rant
No it's not - that gives page not found. Which makes sense, unlike "Risk
homeostasis *Theory*". The only time this *theory* is propounded is when
someone wants to claim that some peice of safety equipment doesn't make you
safer if you use it. And it is obvious rubbish, people use safety equipment
to be safer, not so they can be more dangerous.. [Sorry champ I know you
deliberately do the opposite ]
/rant

Did you read any of the second article?

It seems to me blindingly obvious that "risk compensation" (easier to
type than homeosta..homestao....) happens. Here, I'll try and lay it
out for you:

1. We all make thousands of decisions every day.
2. These decisions are based on our perception of both the likelihood
of various outcomes, and the costs and benefits of those outcomes. The
key word here is "perception" - it's all based on attitude to risk,
experience (almost always statistically flawed), and other human
factors.
3. So, if you change a factor in your environment, be it seatbelt,
airbag, crash helmet, whatever, you CAN'T HELP BUT factor it into your
decision making. You would literally have to be a machine not to do
this.
--
Champ

In message , Ace
writes
That's the type of argument I've often heard, but an entirely
erroneous extrapolation. You can't possibly say what would have
hapenned if he'd not been wearing a helmet.

24 years of engineering experience lend me over to thinking that the
cans we shotgunned last weekend would probably have squirted straight
back out of his head!
--
Devs
"Punchdown Pete the old Kroner"

Pip Luscher wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:32:50 -0000, "MoonMan"
wrote:

And it is obvious rubbish, people use safety equipment
to be safer, not so they can be more dangerous.. [Sorry champ I know
you deliberately do the opposite ]
/rant

Sure that wasn't aimed at me?

Yep, you only implied it, Champ wrote "And I also know that I do risk
compensate."

Personnally I don't think I do, but I may be wrong


--
Chris *:-)

"MoonMan" wrote in message
...
| Pip Luscher wrote:
| On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:32:50 -0000, "MoonMan"
| wrote:
|
| And it is obvious rubbish, people use safety equipment
| to be safer, not so they can be more dangerous.. [Sorry champ I
know
| you deliberately do the opposite ]
| /rant
|
| Sure that wasn't aimed at me?
|
| Yep, you only implied it, Champ wrote "And I also know that I do risk
| compensate."
|
| Personnally I don't think I do, but I may be wrong

Well I suppose we all do to an extent. We're obviously more likely to be
more comfortable about venturing off piste with arva, airbag, avalung,
shovel and probe, accompanied by a high mountain guide, with a team of
rescuers and their dogs waiting at the top of the slope in case, than
without! That has never been disputed. The issue is whether wearing a
helmet alone 'significantly' affects the extra risks one would be
inclined to take, and then whether when set alongside the potential
benefits it is clearly a factor that should be taken into account. With
respect to the genuinely (not self-labelled) advanced skier, I doubt it.

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:26:44 +0100, "pg"
wrote:


"MoonMan" wrote in message
...

| Yep, you only implied it, Champ wrote "And I also know that I do risk
| compensate."
|
| Personnally I don't think I do, but I may be wrong

Well I suppose we all do to an extent.

That has never been disputed.

Eh? Well that's certainly the impression that you and one or two
others have been giving so far.

The issue is whether wearing a
helmet alone 'significantly' affects the extra risks one would be
inclined to take,

Well that's a whole different question, and one to which there are no
obvious answers.

and then whether when set alongside the potential
benefits it is clearly a factor that should be taken into account.

I'd say that it clearly should be taken into account, together with
any other pros and cons (don't forget the cons) of helmet-wearing.

With
respect to the genuinely (not self-labelled) advanced skier, I doubt it.

You doubt that any change in risk or its perception should be taken
into account? Surely you need to take all factors into account.

--
Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.

Ace wrote in news:5l3vq25atnc14rjpdihgr35lbq81t0pu58@
4ax.com:


But as we've said before, are we all qualified to make that sort of
judgement every single day we go out on the mountain? I'd much rather
wear the thing all the time and get laughed at than risk making the
wrong choice and getting avalanched.

Exactly. I once went to help a party who had been avalanched, only to
discover as I approached them (across snow which had not yet avalanched)
that my transceiver was switched off, as I had left it that way to save the
batteries. Since then I just switch it on in the morning and leave it on.

Oh, yes, I do switch it off if I take my jacket off for lunch in a
restaurant.

--
Jeremy

pg wrote:
"MoonMan" wrote in message
...
Pip Luscher wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:32:50 -0000, "MoonMan"
wrote:

And it is obvious rubbish, people use safety equipment
to be safer, not so they can be more dangerous.. [Sorry champ I
know you deliberately do the opposite ]
/rant

Sure that wasn't aimed at me?

Yep, you only implied it, Champ wrote "And I also know that I do risk
compensate."

Personnally I don't think I do, but I may be wrong

Well I suppose we all do to an extent. We're obviously more likely to
be more comfortable about venturing off piste with arva, airbag,
avalung, shovel and probe, accompanied by a high mountain guide, with
a team of rescuers and their dogs waiting at the top of the slope in
case, than without!

I'd be more comfortable, but no less carefull, that lot doesn't help much
when you fall off a cliff, and I'm scared of depths

--
Chris *:-)

5 days....

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:39:06 GMT, Jeremy
wrote:

Ace wrote in news:5l3vq25atnc14rjpdihgr35lbq81t0pu58@
4ax.com:


But as we've said before, are we all qualified to make that sort of
judgement every single day we go out on the mountain? I'd much rather
wear the thing all the time and get laughed at than risk making the
wrong choice and getting avalanched.

Exactly. I once went to help a party who had been avalanched, only to
discover as I approached them (across snow which had not yet avalanched)
that my transceiver was switched off, as I had left it that way to save the
batteries. Since then I just switch it on in the morning and leave it on.

Oh, yes, I do switch it off if I take my jacket off for lunch in a
restaurant.

I always tell everyone in my groups not to do so. For two reasons: 1)
it means we all have to do a transceiver check again and 2) it uses
much more battery power to switch it off and on again than is saved by
having it turned off for an hour.

--
Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.

pg wrote:
The issue is whether wearing a
helmet alone 'significantly' affects the extra risks one would be
inclined to take

Stepping in again to try to lighten up this thread, it has recently been
demonstrated, by someone who is quite definitely an advanced skier, that
wearing a helmet alone brings a significant unexpected risk: that of
being photographed!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/othe...ts/6252367.stm

John.

--
-- Over 3000 webcams from ski resorts around the world - www.snoweye.com
-- Translate your technical documents and web pages - www.tradoc.fr

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:10:49 +0100, John Wilcock
wrote:

pg wrote:
The issue is whether wearing a
helmet alone 'significantly' affects the extra risks one would be
inclined to take

Stepping in again to try to lighten up this thread, it has recently been
demonstrated, by someone who is quite definitely an advanced skier, that
wearing a helmet alone brings a significant unexpected risk: that of
being photographed!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/othe...ts/6252367.stm

"And true to his word, Schoenfelder cruised down the Lauberhorn
wearing only yellow boots, an orange helmet and gloves."

Orange? I'd have expected blue.

--
Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.