Stupid helmet question ...

pg wrote:
"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...

I'll cross my fingers and make plenty of sacrafices then


--
Chris *:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

In message
"pg" wrote:


"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!

You're misunderstanding "risk compensation".


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.

So there are two questions to ask.

Why have helmets been made compulsory for racing and for some other
activities?

Has there been a demonstrable and sustained reduction in accident
records and severity of injuries?


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.

That's all part of the "risk compensation". If someone improves their
technique and skill level they frequently then push themselves to a
point where they again feel "comfortable" with the risk they are taking.
The point is that training and experience doesn't necessarily lead to
fewer injuries per skier, what it can often mean is that they then take
bigger risks than they did before.

Take as an example a learner who starts to feel at risk when they are
skiing at 40-50mph. You then give them some extra tuition and their
skill levels improve. If they continued to ski at a maximum of 40-50mph
with those higher skills they would most probably be very much safer.
However they don't, what they now do is compensate for the extra
perceived safety given by their improved ability (confidence) and now
start skiing at seventy miles an hour. That's an example of "risk
compensation" in action.

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.

Race skiers may indeed not compensate to quite the same extent since
they may already have been selected on the basis that they are prepared
to take bigger risks than the general population. Some racers may be
more susceptible to this than others. For example if on the mens
downhill events all the safety netting were to be removed, would all the
skiers slow down to the same extent, or would some still ski at their
limits and risk a major crash and probable serious injury?

As for mountain born and bred 'fun' skiers - wearing a helmet would
not significantly affect how safely they ski.

The only way to be sure of that would be to collect the data and analyse
it. Based on many other well studied examples it would be a reasonable
question to hypothesis that recreational skiers and borders "risk
compensate". The question is do fewer of them now suffer serious
injuries?

The vast majority of regular local alpine skiers (ime) learn a form
of respect for others on the snow, for the mountain environment.

That's part of "risk compensation" (perhaps it would be easier to think
of the alternative name "risk homeostasis"). Just as cyclists and
pedestrians learn respect for the roads and traffic and thus adjust
their behaviour to the risks they perceive, so it would be expected that
skiers adjust to the perceived risks of the mountains.

They all know someone who has been seriously hurt or killed.

Just as do most pedestrians and cyclists know someone who has been
seriously hurt or killed in a road accident. That helps to set the level
of homeostasis. How many deaths and injuries do you learn of before
adjusting your own behaviour.

Most ski conservatively (although it might not appear so to the
inexperienced visitor).

Most pedestrians or cyclists engage with traffic every day and usually
remain safe.

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

The main point about "risk compensation" or "risk homeostasis" is that
it happens without most people realising that it is happening. Indeed
it seems that those that are most involved with an activity are those
that are most likely to consider that it doesn't apply to them. However
actuarial analysis of population data demonstrates the phenomena over
and over again. The main factor is that it isn't a conscious decision by
the individual but something that they adapt to sub-consciously.

The way to look at this is to analyse data collected over a long period
of time and to see if changes made to improve safety actually achieve a
real reduction overall. In the case of skiing helmets the question to
ask is are there fewer casualties per skier, and are there fewer head
injuries per skier?

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
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.

But you're now making the case for "risk homeostasis". For there to be
no effect on "risk homeostasis", your skiing behaviour should be
absolutely identical whether you wear a helmet or not. You should feel
and ski exactly the same regardless. The only difference should be the
consequences of any injury.


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,

So it may help you compensate for perceived minor risks and collisions
with others beyond your control.

not something to give me false confidence when tree skiing, or doing
difficult off piste.

Fine, so it may not compensate for the bigger risks. What would happen
if you took it off for tree skiing or difficult off-piste?


Pete http://mysnowsports.com

What you consciously believe is not what matters. What matters is
whether statistical data is consistent with this hypothesis or not.

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

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:26:05 GMT, Champ allegedly
wrote:

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

What are these ficticious days of which you speak?

The only day I can maybe think of was the day after doing Mt Blanc.

Le Dieu wrote:
... Just bought one and I'm heading out for four days next week. Just
wondering if anyone's got any packing tips. I'm only taking an overnight bag
which won't offer it much in the way of protection.


Leaving aside the side threads on baggage rules on BA and the
effectiveness off helmets, here's my 2p worth...

Helmets are actually not all that tough (if you have a crash and bash
your helmet you probably need to bin it), so you do need to take care
of it when travelling. As I use a soft duffel bag for general luggage I
daren't put the helmet in there, so I carry it clipped to my hand
luggage. This is a bit of a pain and there is a risk of damage this
way, but it's better than trusting it to the hold. I've not done this
since this summer's new rules so it may cause problems at security -
does anyone have any evidence here?

You can get helmet bags - the soft shell type has a little bit of
protection that would protect the helmet from scuffs etc, but won't
really protect it if it is subject to a serious duffing up. I've also
seen hard-shells for helmets, so I guess these provide a bit more
protection.

Since you say you are only carrying an overnight bag I'd go for the
hand-luggage option.

HTH,
Steve

SteveH wrote:

Since you say you are only carrying an overnight bag I'd go for the
hand-luggage option.

Why not just wear it and say you have a thin skull, or just
had a concussion or something ?

"Mike Clark" wrote in message
.uk...
| In message
| "pg" wrote:

Before getting into the meat of your reply, let me put this to you.

Race skiers N years ago did not wear helmets. Race skiers today do wear
helmets. If it were possible to compare a cross section of racers from
both eras, would there be a difference in the degree of risk taken by
each? I suggest none whatsoever.

A child who skis from the age of 2 wears a helmet. The wearing of the
helmet is as a result unlikely to be associated with safety, any more
than putting his socks on in the morning. On the contrary, all race
skiers know that a helmet offers little or no protection above, say, 25
mph (and even then only if a glancing blow). Would the same child
brought up (a) as a race skier without ever wearing a helmet / (b)
wearing a helmet at all times, ski any differently? I suggest that the
child would ski/race in an identical fashion.

(Your reference to safety netting doesn't work for me, because this
provides significant protection, while a helmet at race speeds does
not.).

Pete
http://mysnowsports.com

"Mike Clark" wrote in message
.uk...
| In message
| "pg" wrote:
|
|
| "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.
|
| But you're now making the case for "risk homeostasis". For there to be
| no effect on "risk homeostasis", your skiing behaviour should be
| absolutely identical whether you wear a helmet or not. You should feel
| and ski exactly the same regardless. The only difference should be the
| consequences of any injury.

That is what I believe - the only difference are the possible
consequences. The hypothetical situation above would only last until I
got used to skiing without again.

|
| 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,
|
| So it may help you compensate for perceived minor risks and collisions
| with others beyond your control.

I seriously doubt it. I didn't think about it before, it seemed a
useful, logical addition on reflection when I happened to read into the
tech specs and studies, I wear one now (plus it also helps to keep my
head dry and warm) I still don't think about the risk element. I ski in
precisely the same manner, in my opinion.

| not something to give me false confidence when tree skiing, or
doing
| difficult off piste.
|
| Fine, so it may not compensate for the bigger risks. What would happen
| if you took it off for tree skiing or difficult off-piste?

I used to ski without. I now ski with. I ski in precisely the same way.
The only consequence of wearing a helmet has been to get used to it.
Having got used to it, I would feel different without it, for a limited
period of time, until I got used to skiing without it again. I would
then be back to skiing in precisely the same manner.

In message
"pg" wrote:

[snip]
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.
[snip]

I think the article you referenced on the snowsports website can give
some insight to this question of experience and safety.

If you look at Table 1 of the article

http://mysnowsports.com/News/article/sid=591.html

You can see a section that analyses the data by "skiing ability"

This shows that 19.1% of the control group of skiers are "Expert" and
18.7% of the injured skiers are "Experts" with 18.4% of those with
serious head injuries being "Expert". If being an expert skier made you
safer than average you would expect the injured percentages to be
relatively lower than the controls. Similarly for "Good" skiers the
results are 35.3% versus 32.2% versus 32.7%.

Interestingly the biggest safety effect is seen amongst those who are
only classed as "intermediates". They make up 33.6% of the controls but
only 25.4% of the injured, or 26.5% of the seriously injured. In other
words those skiers who are classed as "intermediates" do in fact appear
to be at a relatively lower risk of injury than are "Experts".

Beginners are at the highest risk making up 11.6% of controls but 21.3%
of injured and 21.8% of seriously injured.

So what this seems to show is that "beginners" start off with a higher
than average risk but then progress to a stage as "intermediates" when
they are much safer than average. However as they progress further to
"Good" and then on to "Expert", the risks per skier increase again.

Clearly if the only factor that was important was level of skill you
might expect that as ability improved that injuries would always
decrease. But of course what happens is that as ability improves the
individials clearly do change their exposure to risk.

The above data is consistent with risk compensation by the skiers and
boarders who were studied.

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

In message
"pg" wrote:

[snip]
I used to ski without. I now ski with. I ski in precisely the same way.
The only consequence of wearing a helmet has been to get used to it.
Having got used to it, I would feel different without it, for a limited
period of time, until I got used to skiing without it again. I would
then be back to skiing in precisely the same manner.


But that is what you expect to observe with "risk homeostasis". If you
make a change it only has a temporary effect and then the individuals
tend to adjust to how they behaved before.

see http://ip.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/4/2/89

As an example in that article they refer to when Sweden changed from
driving on the left to driving on the right, when there was a temporary
reduction in accidents, but that after a few years it returned to the
previous level. If anything you might expect that during the changeover
period that accidents should increase because more drivers would make
mistakes, but the opposite was observed.

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