Stupid helmet question ...

On 18 Jan 2007 13:26:58 GMT, Switters wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:49:44 GMT, Mike Clark
allegedly wrote:

Whilst I wouldn't always wear my transceiver, I do generally try and get
into the habit of putting it on most days I go skiing. I put in a fresh
set of batteries at the beginning of each of my trips and they then
last more than the one or two weeks of use. After the trip the partially
used batteries are transferred to less critical use.

With things like transceivers and also carrying shovel and probes, it
seems to me to be better to get into the habit of carrying them
sometimes when not needed rather than forgetting them occasionally when
they are.

This is my take on it completely, including battery rotation.

Me too. I'm always looking for off piste opportunity, so I need to
have the stuff with me.

The exceptions are when, for whatever reason, I just know that I'm not
going to be going off piste at all, whatever.
--
Champ

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:06:10 -0000, "MoonMan"
wrote:

I don't understand this "reckless behavior to compensate for feeling safer"
idea

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't a well
documented phenomenon.
--
Champ

"Mike Clark" wrote in message
.uk...
| In message
| "pg" wrote:
|
|
| "Pip Luscher" wrote in
| message ...
| [snip]
| Doesn't apply across the board though. If you're brought up to wear
a
| helmet as a child, it's just *what you do*. If 'risk compensation'
is
| the main reason in some cases for people deciding not to wear a
helmet,
| all the more reason for those who have kids to ensure they wear them
| from the start, then this phenomenon won't happen.
|
|
| Risk compensation is certainly noticeable at a population level
although
| there may be individual variations. If you make something appear more
| dangerous than it is, then the population response is to be more
| cautious, if you make it appear safer the opposite is true. There will
| always be some individials who behave at the extremes, i.e. in being
| either too cautious or taking high risk (and in sports like skiing,
rock
| climbing, mountaineering, motorsport, etc we know that some of these
| individuals are killed or seriously injured).
|
| Equally "it's just *what you do*" doesn't rule out risk compensation,
| it's simply that the individuals are starting from a different point.
|
| For example as car design has made the handling and safety for
| passengers safer people at the population level have tended to drive
| faster, brake later, and take corners at higher speed. In effect the
| drivers are adapting to a new level at which they feel comfortable.
This
| effect applies to older drivers who have experience of early car
designs
| as well as younger drivers who only experience modern car design.
| Another effect involves road design, for example studies have shown
that
| if you remove road markings from urban areas, particularly at
junctions,
| people tend to drive at lower average speeds.
|
| The point about risk compensation is that the individual adapts to a
| point where they feel comfortable which may not necessarily correlate
| with a given statistical risk as assessed by an independent actuarial
| analysis.

That's fine on the theoretical level, but from the point of view of
someone who lives in the mountains with kids in race ski clubs that have
worn helmets from the first day they clipped on their skis, in such
cases (and these were what I was referring to), risk compensation is not
a factor - there is absolutely no decrease in the perception of
danger... any more than the colour socks they put on in the morning
affects how safe they feel on the pistes!

It doesn't make them feel more comfortable or 'safe', it's just
something they do because they were told to from day one - part of the
uniform. When you ski 80, sometimes 100 days or more a year in all
conditions, all terrains, sometimes at sixty, seventy miles an hour or
more on ice - you soon realise that the only things separating you from
disaster are intelligent skiing, experience, fitness, technique, with a
sizeable dose of luck thrown in. The analogy between owning a helmet and
having a more powerful and efficient car doesn't work - the race skiers
concerned are already skiing at the limit. As for mountain born and bred
'fun' skiers - wearing a helmet would not significantly affect how
safely they ski. The vast majority of regular local alpine skiers (ime)
learn a form of respect for others on the snow, for the mountain
environment. They all know someone who has been seriously hurt or
killed. Most ski conservatively (although it might not appear so to the
inexperienced visitor). The principal danger is represented by
short-term visitors living the 'rush' of the holiday and combined with
lack of experience/knowledge of the terrain, alcohol, peer pressure,
etc - these are far more serious factors imv than whether a few locals
might feel fractionally safer if they were to start wearing a helmet
later in their skiing lives.

Pete
http://mysnowsports.com

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:26:27 GMT, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message
"pg" wrote:

[snip]
Still, given that they were spending the whole day entirely on piste

It's not unknown of for an avalanche to cross a piste.

"Why did the avalance cross the piste?"

Nah. Doesn't work.

--
-Pip

"Mike Clark" wrote in message
.uk...
| In message
| "pg" wrote:
|
| [snip]
| Still, given that they were spending the whole day entirely on piste
|
| It's not unknown of for an avalanche to cross a piste.

On that particular day in Les Arcs? For 3 cms of ice embedded between
the exposed rocks to avalanche on a cold, overcast day, you would have
to be damn unlucky...

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:25:31 +0100, Ace wrote:

I don't want to turn this into a helmet-wars argument

Too late!

My view is that part of the reason I go boarding is that I just *love*
being in the high mountain environment, and I don't want to wear
anything that may even slightly reduce my perception of that
environment.

And I also know that I *do* risk compensate.
--
Champ

"Ace" wrote in message
news | On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:30:20 -0000, "MoonMan"
| wrote:
|
| Ace wrote:
| On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:26:41 GMT, Pip Luscher
| wrote:
|
|
| But as I said above, a helmet doesn't make me feel safer (apart from
my chin
| guard and slalom poles that is),
|
| Ask the question the other way round, then. Would you feel _less_ safe
| if you were skiing without a helmet?

That doesn't work for me - because even if I were to feel slightly less
comfortable skiing without a helmet, the consequence would not
necessarily be safer skiing ... because less confident skiing can mean
less proficient, less technically correct skiing. I might therefore be
more likely to have an accident without my helmet, on difficult terrain.
Plus when I am wearing a helmet I am not aware of it - but I would be
aware of not wearing it once in the habit.

And as I said before, I consider it supplemental protection in case of
being taken out from behind on high traffic days, or to protect against
minor bumps and bruises, not something to give me false confidence when
tree skiing, or doing difficult off piste.

Pete
http://mysnowsports.com

"MoonMan" wrote in message
...
| Ace wrote:
| On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:30:20 -0000, "MoonMan"
| wrote:
|
| I get to ski snow in 10 days if there's any left

Could be perfect timing :-)

Was up at 2000m+ in Plagne Centre until early pm today, it started
sleeting around 10am, I got absolutely soaked. Tomorrow, more of the
same, only rain to higher altitude. Resort radio was suggesting 30-50
cms above 2500m, so what damage all that lot will do coming down as rain
below 2500m, dread to think.

Still the winter is forecast to arrive Sunday/Monday, snow down to
1000m, and then 400m. Not a lot to start with, but good news all the
same...

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:00:16 +0100, "pg"
wrote:


"Mike Clark" wrote in message
c.uk...
| In message
| "pg" wrote:
|
| [snip]
| Still, given that they were spending the whole day entirely on piste
|
| It's not unknown of for an avalanche to cross a piste.

On that particular day in Les Arcs? For 3 cms of ice embedded between
the exposed rocks to avalanche on a cold, overcast day, you would have
to be damn unlucky...

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.

--
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.

Champ wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:06:10 -0000, "MoonMan"
wrote:

I don't understand this "reckless behavior to compensate for feeling
safer" idea

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't a well
documented phenomenon.

Just because it's documented doesn't mean it's real.... pick your own
examples

I just don't believe the Statistics stand up to any scrutiny, I know you
reckon you do compensate but most people who claim the compensation theory
also claim that helmets restrict thier vision and hearing, therefore
according to the theory they should feel less safe and therefore be more not
less carefull.

Anyway, who cares, the ideas to have fun... 10 days to go

Chris *:-)