Stupid helmet question ...

Ace wrote:
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.

Thanks Ace,

--
Chris *:-)

Mike Clark wrote:
In message
"MoonMan" wrote:

[snip]
You've made my point for me, How can people Risk Compensate? they
have no real knowledge of what risk is, for example many people
(current company excluded of course) think that if you are exposed
to a "Cancer causing chemical" you *will* get cancer,rather than
increasing a hypothetical small chance that you might get cancer,

So why do so many young people take up smoking?

Peer pressure?
Because it's cool?
Because they're indestructible?
Who wants to live forever?



as you stated people think planes are dangerous when they are in
fact one of our safest forms of transport. So how can you judge the
exact amount a device makes you safer, then act exactly that much
(or actually acording to the theory slightly more) stupidly? it just
doesn't make sense.


OK so I see that you fall into the camp of believing that risk
compensation is about continually adjusting to an exact numerical
risk. I don't hold to that view.


Not really, I don't believe a Helmet or seatbelts or Airbags or whatever
make you feel safer, I think they draw your attention to dangers untill you
basically forget you are using them.

What I am saying about the theory is that it doesn't make sense to me, It
implies that human stupidity overrides animal instincts which are hard wired
into our brains.


--
Chris *:-)

"Ace" wrote in message
...
| 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.

Well you can't have followed what I been saying that closely, as I've
described the effect (with respect to one particular and relatively
small target group only), as being of negligible significance. That
would seem to suggest that I accept its existence in the first place.

| 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.

Indeed. I think it's possible, even likely, that certain naive, often
relatively inexperienced skiers, may ski even more stupidly and
dangerously than they do already - if that's possible - because they
think themselves better protected. I think it is extremely probable that
genuinely advanced skiers will not.

| 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.

Yes, agreed. Slightly impaired hearing, fractionally increased torque.

| 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.

I doubt that there is an effect, or at best an insignificant one, with
respect to the target groups to which I was referring. I've given
reasons for this.

Ace wrote in
:

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

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.

You're probably right on both counts. For some reason it just feels newbie-
ish to have it flashing away, though.

I once checked with my transceiver in a crowded restaurant at Grands
Montets, and only picked up a couple. Lots of people must have been wearing
them, though, so I guess the feeling is widespread.

--
Jeremy

In message
"MoonMan" wrote:

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'm convinced that I have risk compensated particularly after
reviewing the available data.

Since I've become a more experienced skier and also acquired extra
skills and safety equipment I've spent more of my time skiing at higher
risk.

It is quite clear to me looking at the accident statistics that those of
us who venture off-piste, and even more so, those of us who ski-tour,
are at much higher actuarial risk than those who remain as intermediate
skiers on red and blue pistes.

So I carry and have expertise with more safety equipment and as a
consequence I take bigger risks than I used to.

It seems to me that anyone under the illusion that off-piste skiing or
indeed ski-touring is safer than on-piste is being very naive.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
" || _`\,_ |__\ \ | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

In message
"pg" wrote:


"Ace" wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:26:44 +0100, "pg"
| wrote:
[snip]
| 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.

Indeed. I think it's possible, even likely, that certain naive, often
relatively inexperienced skiers, may ski even more stupidly and
dangerously than they do already - if that's possible - because they
think themselves better protected. I think it is extremely probable that
genuinely advanced skiers will not.


Yes but you posted the US study that gives data that supports the idea
that those on the pistes who choose to wear helmets do appear to behave
more cautiously. Given that the majority of skiers in such a study are
not those you consider to be experts it would appear that the available
data supports the opposite view to that which you subscribe above.

i.e. relatively inexperienced skiers who wear a helmet take less risks
when skiing.

Regards,

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
" || _`\,_ |__\ \ | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

"Mike Clark" wrote in message
.uk...
| In message
| "pg" wrote:
|
|
| "Ace" wrote in message
| ...
| | On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:26:44 +0100, "pg"
| | wrote:
| [snip]
| | 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.
|
| Indeed. I think it's possible, even likely, that certain naive,
often
| relatively inexperienced skiers, may ski even more stupidly and
| dangerously than they do already - if that's possible - because they
| think themselves better protected. I think it is extremely probable
that
| genuinely advanced skiers will not.
|
| Yes but you posted the US study that gives data that supports the idea
| that those on the pistes who choose to wear helmets do appear to
behave
| more cautiously. Given that the majority of skiers in such a study are
| not those you consider to be experts it would appear that the
available
| data supports the opposite view to that which you subscribe above.
|
| i.e. relatively inexperienced skiers who wear a helmet take less risks
| when skiing.

Are you deliberately ignoring the points that I have made repeatedly, ie
that the categories of skier ability are self designated and not
remotely approaching the level of genuine expertise to which I have been
referring throughout, and are therefore unreliable on two counts? That
virtually the entire spectrum of holiday skiers that would have been
interviewed in these studies, from beginner to a large percentage of the
allegedly advanced, are mountain 'amateurs' in comparison to the groups
detailed to you (several times)?

In message
"pg" wrote:


"Mike Clark" wrote in message
.uk...
| In message
| "pg" wrote:
|
|
| "Ace" wrote in message
| ...
| | On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:26:44 +0100, "pg"
| | wrote:
| [snip]
| | 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.
|
| Indeed. I think it's possible, even likely, that certain naive,
| often relatively inexperienced skiers, may ski even more stupidly
| and dangerously than they do already - if that's possible -
| because they think themselves better protected. I think it is
| extremely probable that genuinely advanced skiers will not.
|
| Yes but you posted the US study that gives data that supports the idea
| that those on the pistes who choose to wear helmets do appear to
| behave more cautiously. Given that the majority of skiers in such a
| study are not those you consider to be experts it would appear that
| the available data supports the opposite view to that which you
| subscribe above.
|
| i.e. relatively inexperienced skiers who wear a helmet take less risks
| when skiing.

Are you deliberately ignoring the points that I have made repeatedly,
ie that the categories of skier ability are self designated and not
remotely approaching the level of genuine expertise to which I have
been referring throughout, and are therefore unreliable on two
counts? That virtually the entire spectrum of holiday skiers that
would have been interviewed in these studies, from beginner to a
large percentage of the allegedly advanced, are mountain 'amateurs'
in comparison to the groups detailed to you (several times)?


No on the contrary you seem to be continually ignoring any
acknowledgement of my acceptance of points you raise and also you are
then choosing to ignore the data when it appears to contradict your own
assertions or beliefs.

Point 1. I have already agreed with you in an earlier post that an
individuals subjective assessment of their own ability is unlikely to be
the same as an experienced objective assessment. So on that point I have
agreed with you already. (However that subjectivity and lack of complete
objectivity doesn't equate to a complete lack of correlation with
experience. In other words those who are inexperienced are unlikely to
self classify as experts, and those that are experts are unlikely to
self classify as beginners. Would you dispute that?)

Point 2. Even if we accept as you claim

"That virtually the entire spectrum of holiday skiers that would have
been interviewed in these studies, from beginner to a large
percentage of the allegedly advanced, are mountain 'amateurs'"

and also your claim that

"I think it's possible, even likely, that certain naive, often
relatively inexperienced skiers, may ski even more stupidly and
dangerously than they do already - if that's possible - because they
think themselves better protected."

We are then faced with the observation in the USA study that you have
brought to our attention that the two statements of yours above are not
both supported by the data. This is because in the USA study those who
wear a helmet don't appear to be behaving more recklessly, they appear
to be behaving less recklessly. You brought this data to our attention
so if you now intend to dispute the results of the study at least try to
give us some well argued criticism of the data and its interpretation.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
" || _`\,_ |__\ \ | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

"Mike Clark" wrote in message
.uk...
| In message
| "pg" wrote:
|
|
| "Mike Clark" wrote in message
| .uk...
| | In message
| | "pg" wrote:
| |
| |
| | "Ace" wrote in message
| | ...
| | | On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:26:44 +0100, "pg"

| | | wrote:
| | [snip]
| | | 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.
| |
| | Indeed. I think it's possible, even likely, that certain naive,
| | often relatively inexperienced skiers, may ski even more
stupidly
| | and dangerously than they do already - if that's possible -
| | because they think themselves better protected. I think it is
| | extremely probable that genuinely advanced skiers will not.
| |
| | Yes but you posted the US study that gives data that supports the
idea
| | that those on the pistes who choose to wear helmets do appear to
| | behave more cautiously. Given that the majority of skiers in such
a
| | study are not those you consider to be experts it would appear
that
| | the available data supports the opposite view to that which you
| | subscribe above.
| |
| | i.e. relatively inexperienced skiers who wear a helmet take less
risks
| | when skiing.
|
| Are you deliberately ignoring the points that I have made
repeatedly,
| ie that the categories of skier ability are self designated and not
| remotely approaching the level of genuine expertise to which I have
| been referring throughout, and are therefore unreliable on two
| counts? That virtually the entire spectrum of holiday skiers that
| would have been interviewed in these studies, from beginner to a
| large percentage of the allegedly advanced, are mountain 'amateurs'
| in comparison to the groups detailed to you (several times)?
|
|
| No on the contrary you seem to be continually ignoring any
| acknowledgement of my acceptance of points you raise and also you are
| then choosing to ignore the data when it appears to contradict your
own
| assertions or beliefs.

In other words you acknowledge my point then indirectly undermine it by
raising an issue that reposes on ability labels arrived at by the skiers
themselves, a classification that I have rejected as inadequate and
misleading.

With respect to the data, I have ignored nothing. I have pointed out
certain inherent problems in a separate reply that doesn't seem to have
arrived with the ng. I'll post it again.

| Point 1. I have already agreed with you in an earlier post that an
| individuals subjective assessment of their own ability is unlikely to
be
| the same as an experienced objective assessment. So on that point I
have
| agreed with you already. (However that subjectivity and lack of
complete
| objectivity doesn't equate to a complete lack of correlation with
| experience. In other words those who are inexperienced are unlikely to
| self classify as experts, and those that are experts are unlikely to
| self classify as beginners. Would you dispute that?)

Indeed. Although there will be a limited degree of correlation, there
most certainly are significant numbers of skiers who overestimate their
abilities (in my opinion a large majority), some by a considerable
degree. A considerable number of skiers would, for example, consider
themselves 'early intermediates' after their first week or two on the
snow.

The true experts, however, are somewhat more conservative in their self
appraisal.

In my opinion the various scales of expertise by which skiers self
assess is akin to a measure that would encourage a regular driver who's
spent a few hours on a skid pan to classify himself somewhere around 8
(advanced) on a scale of 1 to 9, leaving a single slot for anything from
the village driving instructor to the Schumachers and Loebs of this
world. The reality is that there is a gulf of ability and experience
between these hypothetical driving levels 8 and 9. Level 90 would be
nearer the mark.

| Point 2. Even if we accept as you claim
|
| "That virtually the entire spectrum of holiday skiers that would have
| been interviewed in these studies, from beginner to a large
| percentage of the allegedly advanced, are mountain 'amateurs'"
|
| and also your claim that
|
| "I think it's possible, even likely, that certain naive, often
| relatively inexperienced skiers, may ski even more stupidly and
| dangerously than they do already - if that's possible - because they
| think themselves better protected."
|
| We are then faced with the observation in the USA study that you have
| brought to our attention that the two statements of yours above are
not
| both supported by the data. This is because in the USA study those who
| wear a helmet don't appear to be behaving more recklessly, they appear
| to be behaving less recklessly. You brought this data to our attention
| so if you now intend to dispute the results of the study at least try
to
| give us some well argued criticism of the data and its interpretation.

I'm sure you are aware that the conflicting data you refer to indicates
little more than confusion about the process involved and/or its
interpretation, inconsistencies in the methodologies, potential
fundamental differences in the target groups, cultural elements, or as I
wrote in another reply"... or it could be that the survey questions were
phrased in such a manner as to result in misleading responses, or it
could be that the risk compensation phenomenon is inadequately
understood with respect to helmet wearing while skiing."

None of the data contradicts anything that I have written with respect
to a group of competition skiers who I happen to know - from personal
experience over a decade of involvement in race team management in the
French Alps - pick up close to zero injuries on the snow when not
actually racing or race training. I have explained the reason for this
several times now. The level of physical strength and fitness, skill and
technique, experience and understanding of conditions, reaches such a
phenomenally high level that - when not actually racing - it is
virtually impossible to reach the same demanding levels of intensity. In
other words they ski within their limits virtually all the time away
from training and racing, although it might not appear so to the
unaccustomed eye.

There are some important reasons for this. They get their main thrills
competing and training, they would be lynched by their trainers if they
picked up silly injuries playing around, and finally and most
importantly, they are so in tune with their abilities, fitness, and the
skiing environment that - unlike holiday skiers - they are very rarely
caught out.

In message
"pg" wrote:


"Mike Clark" wrote in message
.uk...
| In message
| "pg" wrote:
[snip]
|
| Are you deliberately ignoring the points that I have made
| repeatedly, ie that the categories of skier ability are self
| designated and not remotely approaching the level of genuine
| expertise to which I have been referring throughout, and are
| therefore unreliable on two counts? That virtually the entire
| spectrum of holiday skiers that would have been interviewed in
| these studies, from beginner to a large percentage of the
| allegedly advanced, are mountain 'amateurs' in comparison to the
| groups detailed to you (several times)?
|
|
| No on the contrary you seem to be continually ignoring any
| acknowledgement of my acceptance of points you raise and also you are
| then choosing to ignore the data when it appears to contradict your
| own assertions or beliefs.

In other words you acknowledge my point then indirectly undermine it
by raising an issue that reposes on ability labels arrived at by the
skiers themselves, a classification that I have rejected as
inadequate and misleading.

You also seem to be confusing studies here and mixing up my two points.
The key observations on helmet use in the USA study are not dependent on
segregation on the basis of self classification. The self classification
was the Norwegian study. It is the USA study that shows that helmet
wearers were taking less risks than non-helmet wearers.


With respect to the data, I have ignored nothing. I have pointed out
certain inherent problems in a separate reply that doesn't seem to
have arrived with the ng. I'll post it again.

I'll look out for it.


Point 1. I have already agreed with you in an earlier post that an
individuals subjective assessment of their own ability is unlikely
to be the same as an experienced objective assessment. So on that
point I have agreed with you already. (However that subjectivity and
lack of complete objectivity doesn't equate to a complete lack of
correlation with experience. In other words those who are
inexperienced are unlikely to self classify as experts, and those
that are experts are unlikely to self classify as beginners. Would
you dispute that?)

Indeed. Although there will be a limited degree of correlation, there
most certainly are significant numbers of skiers who overestimate their
abilities (in my opinion a large majority), some by a considerable
degree. A considerable number of skiers would, for example, consider
themselves 'early intermediates' after their first week or two on the
snow.

So the interesting thing from the Norwegian study is that the subjective
assessment of ability also seems to correlate with the frequency of
injuries. Highest risk are beginners, lowest risk are intermediates,
intermediate risk are good to expert. So someone who self classifies
their abilities as intermediate appear to be at a much lower risk of
injury.


The true experts, however, are somewhat more conservative in their
self appraisal.

And I agree that there are so few of them you can't find any data that
allows you to easily compare them with the main population of
recreational skiers.

What you can do is to select groups such as competition skiers and then
look at them as a cohort separate from recreational skiers. The problem
you then observe is that competition skiers do seem to accept a much
higher possibility of serious injury than the majority of recreational
skiers.



In my opinion the various scales of expertise by which skiers self
assess is akin to a measure that would encourage a regular driver
who's spent a few hours on a skid pan to classify himself somewhere
around 8 (advanced) on a scale of 1 to 9, leaving a single slot for
anything from the village driving instructor to the Schumachers and
Loebs of this world. The reality is that there is a gulf of ability
and experience between these hypothetical driving levels 8 and 9.
Level 90 would be nearer the mark.


If you want to pick examples such as racing drivers let's not forget the
proportion that suffer horrific injuries and death. Schumacher for
example broke his legs very badly in a driving accident and had to step
down from driving for much of one season. Many other racing drivers have
suffered serious injuries requiring medical care. The proportion is much
higher than would be expected from the general population. If the normal
population were prepared to risk crashing their cars as often as rally
drivers do there would be absolute carnage on our roads. If you can't
see that motor racing drivers are subjecting themselves to a higher risk
of injury in a motor accident than the general population you must be
deluding yourself and ignoring the observations.

Point 2. Even if we accept as you claim
|
| "That virtually the entire spectrum of holiday skiers that would have
| been interviewed in these studies, from beginner to a large
| percentage of the allegedly advanced, are mountain 'amateurs'"
|
| and also your claim that
|
| "I think it's possible, even likely, that certain naive, often
| relatively inexperienced skiers, may ski even more stupidly and
| dangerously than they do already - if that's possible - because they
| think themselves better protected."
|
| We are then faced with the observation in the USA study that you have
| brought to our attention that the two statements of yours above are
| not both supported by the data. This is because in the USA study
| those who wear a helmet don't appear to be behaving more recklessly,
| they appear to be behaving less recklessly. You brought this data to
| our attention so if you now intend to dispute the results of the
| study at least try to give us some well argued criticism of the data
| and its interpretation.

I'm sure you are aware that the conflicting data you refer to indicates
little more than confusion about the process involved and/or its
interpretation, inconsistencies in the methodologies, potential
fundamental differences in the target groups, cultural elements, or as I
wrote in another reply"... or it could be that the survey questions were
phrased in such a manner as to result in misleading responses, or it
could be that the risk compensation phenomenon is inadequately
understood with respect to helmet wearing while skiing."

Are you referring to the USA study or the Norwegian study?


None of the data contradicts anything that I have written with respect
to a group of competition skiers who I happen to know - from personal
experience over a decade of involvement in race team management in the
French Alps - pick up close to zero injuries on the snow when not
actually racing or race training. I have explained the reason for this
several times now. The level of physical strength and fitness, skill
and technique, experience and understanding of conditions, reaches
such a phenomenally high level that - when not actually racing - it
is virtually impossible to reach the same demanding levels of
intensity. In other words they ski within their limits virtually all
the time away from training and racing, although it might not appear
so to the unaccustomed eye.

I don't think I've ever disputed the above points and I've certainly
acknowledged again and again that there is insufficient data to test the
idea. However what you seem to want to disregard is that risk
compensation plays a role for the individual as they progress up the
skill level and into competition. Sure competition skiers have fewer
accidents on the piste, but they don't have fewer skiing accidents
compared to recreational skiers. What they have done is swap a lower
risk on the recreational piste for a higher risk in racing. The net
effect is that they are prepared to tolerate a higher risk of injury
whilst skiing overall.


There are some important reasons for this. They get their main thrills
competing and training, they would be lynched by their trainers if
they picked up silly injuries playing around, and finally and most
importantly, they are so in tune with their abilities, fitness, and
the skiing environment that - unlike holiday skiers - they are very
rarely caught out.


Except when they ski in competition when they are caught out (in
terms of serious injury) more regularly than are recreational skiers.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
" || _`\,_ |__\ \ | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"