Stupid helmet question ...

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:22:54 +0000, Devs
wrote:

In message , Ace
writes

transceiver wearing

So some folk may laugh, but do we care? Do we 'eck, as like.

I'm really confused by your opposed attitudes to transceivers and
helmets. Both of them could potentially save your life or be useless
unwanted extra luggage but you have entirely different attitudes to each
of them.

I believe that wearing a transceiver may save my life, but much more
importantly it may help me save somebody else's. I don't wear it, and
carry the avalanche probe and shovel at all times, for my own benefit.
It's hard to dig and probe if you get buried yourself.

Helmets are a completely different kettle of worms, but the basic
reason I don't wear one is that I don't believe the level of
protection it offers is worthwhile. But I've never suggested that
other people should not wear them or should only wear them if they're
doing something risky (as others are suggesting about transceivers).

Strange. Personally I wear a helmet every time I'm off piste
and most of the time on it these days. I'll wear a transceiver as soon
as i can afford it, but only on "proper " off piste.

Please feel free to make your own choices - I'll do the same, TYVM.
BTW, a transceiever costs less than many helmets.


--
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.

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:40:20 +0000, Devs
wrote:

In message , Adrian D. Shaw
writes
If I were the type of skier who slalom-raced off piste through the
forests of the lower slopes, I guess I would wear a helmet. But anything
which makes me feel safer is likely to make me more reckless, and I'd
rather feel my true vulnerability.

I saw my friend graze his head recently - after the branch had pushed
all the way through his helmet. If it wasn't there he certainly would
never suffer from a pressure headache again!

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.

Safety equipment will help in the majority of accidents. If you adjust
your performance accordingly you are a fool.

I suggest you re-read what's been posted here, and elsewhere, about
risk compensation.

--
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 message
...
| On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:40:20 +0000, Devs
| wrote:
|
| In message , Adrian D. Shaw
| writes
| If I were the type of skier who slalom-raced off piste through the
| forests of the lower slopes, I guess I would wear a helmet. But
anything
| which makes me feel safer is likely to make me more reckless, and
I'd
| rather feel my true vulnerability.
|
| I saw my friend graze his head recently - after the branch had pushed
| all the way through his helmet. If it wasn't there he certainly would
| never suffer from a pressure headache again!
|
| 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.

You could make a damn good guess.

| Safety equipment will help in the majority of accidents. If you
adjust
| your performance accordingly you are a fool.
|
| I suggest you re-read what's been posted here, and elsewhere, about
| risk compensation.

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

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 09:30:19 +0100, "pg"
wrote:


"Ace" wrote in message
.. .
| On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:40:20 +0000, Devs
| wrote:

| I saw my friend graze his head recently - after the branch had pushed
| all the way through his helmet. If it wasn't there he certainly would
| never suffer from a pressure headache again!
|
| 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.

You could make a damn good guess.

Oh, that's all right then. I guess.

--
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 message
...
| On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 09:30:19 +0100, "pg"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Ace" wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:40:20 +0000, Devs
| | wrote:
|
| | I saw my friend graze his head recently - after the branch had
pushed
| | all the way through his helmet. If it wasn't there he certainly
would
| | never suffer from a pressure headache again!
| |
| | 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.
|
| You could make a damn good guess.
|
| Oh, that's all right then. I guess.

In the same way that I 'guess' that when I had an argument with a rock
and damaged my helmet a couple of years back (shell cracked, foam
crushed), the same impact without the protection of a helmet would have
left me with a bit more than a headache and mild concussion.

In message
Champ wrote:

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:40:20 +0000, Devs
wrote:

In message , Adrian D. Shaw
writes
If I were the type of skier who slalom-raced off piste through the
forests of the lower slopes, I guess I would wear a helmet. But anything
which makes me feel safer is likely to make me more reckless, and I'd
rather feel my true vulnerability.

I saw my friend graze his head recently - after the branch had pushed
all the way through his helmet. If it wasn't there he certainly would
never suffer from a pressure headache again! He was on a flat, green if
you like, but after a storm had overhung a tree across the track. What
are the chances? Doesn't matter, if it saves him once it's worth it.
Rugby helmets and shoulder pads make people run into impact harder? Not
in my experience but then I do wear the pads on the insistence of a lady
who doesn't like me with scabby ears and shoulders!
Worst injury I've ever seen? Someone skiing with a metal sided brace
because of ligament damage losing it on moguls.
Safety equipment will help in the majority of accidents. If you adjust
your performance accordingly you are a fool.

Many studies suggest that, in your words, everyone is foolish.

I think the problem is that when individuals are asked if they risk
compensate, most seem to believe that if you alter the perceived risks
it doesn't affect them. However if on the other hand you look at proper
statistical data you can demonstrate risk compensation. This implies
that the majority of people are actually unaware that their behaviour is
altering. You haven't only got to consider your own attitude, there is
also the attitude of others towards you that can change the degree of
risk that you put on yourself.

For example in cycling it has been demonstrated that changing the way
you cycle and also your appearance can alter the amount of clearance
that car drivers give you when they overtake. In one recent study a
scientist found that car drivers gave him less room if he wore a
cycling helmet and more room if he wore a blonde wig!

see http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/...ing110906.html

Most people if asked whether they would give less room to a cyclist who
was wearing a helmet would probably say no, but clearly at a population
level people are changing their behaviour. Perhaps wearing a ski helmet
might alter the probability of others on the slopes giving you more or
less space as they pass?

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

Mike Clark wrote:
For example in cycling it has been demonstrated that changing the way
you cycle and also your appearance can alter the amount of clearance
that car drivers give you when they overtake. In one recent study a
scientist found that car drivers gave him less room if he wore a
cycling helmet and more room if he wore a blonde wig!

see http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/...ing110906.html

Most people if asked whether they would give less room to a cyclist who
was wearing a helmet would probably say no, but clearly at a population
level people are changing their behaviour. Perhaps wearing a ski helmet
might alter the probability of others on the slopes giving you more or
less space as they pass?

Then again, perhaps wearing a blonde wig on the slopes might actually be
the best risk reduction method? We'd need lots of statistical data to be
sure of course, preferably correlated with the risks of wearing a dayglo
pink ski suit :-)

John.

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

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:54:34 +0100, John Wilcock
wrote:

Mike Clark wrote:
Most people if asked whether they would give less room to a cyclist who
was wearing a helmet would probably say no, but clearly at a population
level people are changing their behaviour. Perhaps wearing a ski helmet
might alter the probability of others on the slopes giving you more or
less space as they pass?

More space, IWHT:

"just look at the way that helmet colour clashes with his jacket!
Don't ski too close, dahling, we don't want others to think that wer'e
with him..."

Then again, perhaps wearing a blonde wig on the slopes might actually be
the best risk reduction method? We'd need lots of statistical data to be
sure of course, preferably correlated with the risks of wearing a dayglo
pink ski suit :-)

Depends on how sexy you'd look in that ensemble, surely?

--
-Pip

Pip Luscher wrote:
Then again, perhaps wearing a blonde wig on the slopes might actually be
the best risk reduction method? We'd need lots of statistical data to be
sure of course, preferably correlated with the risks of wearing a dayglo
pink ski suit :-)

Depends on how sexy you'd look in that ensemble, surely?

Well, just the idea of venturing out in that attire would be guaranteed
to reduce the risks of a fatal accident, as in "You wouldn't catch me
dead looking like that!" :-)

John.

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

In message
"pg" wrote:


"Mike Clark" wrote in message
.uk...
| In message
| "pg" wrote:
|
| [snip]
| In the (only) group I have been discussing (ski racers / mountain
| dwellers), I reckon the effect - if any - would be negligible.
|
|
| The simple way to demonstrate that you are right would be to show that
| mountain dwellers and ski racers were at much less risk than you'd
| expect from the general population. I'd hypothesise that if you did
| find such data that you'd find that ski racers and mountain dwellers
| are likely to be at a higher risk than the general population
| because familiarity with risk tends if anything to make people less
| cautious.

So you would be safer being driven along a wet country road with 'Mr
Ordinary Sunday driver' at the wheel, than as Michael Schumacher's
passenger? More secure than on a winding, icy road sitting next to
Sebastien Loeb?

You're misunderstanding risk compensation again. If extra skills lead
the individual to expose themselves to a higher risk more of the time
the net effect may be a higher chance of an accident.

Take racing and training out of the equation, and I would wager that
this target group are at a greatly reduced risk level.

Peter Bourne and Gianclaudio Regazzoni are two recent examples of racing
drivers who have been killed in motor accidents on the road.

Because one can go very quickly indeed doesn't mean than one is
compelled to.

Agreed what we are considering is whether there is a higher probability
of taking risks.

Beyond a certain age this is certainly not the case (I would guess
30/35+), and amongst the younger generations, they quickly gain a
maturity and understanding of the genuine risks involved, of which
most holiday skiers are unaware.

Look the available data is very clear for general recreational skier
injury rates, it is measured in terms of just a few injuries per 1000
skier days of participation. If you compare that to race skiers it is a
few injuries per 1000 runs and that frequency seems to be true for
National Championships as well as World Cup. So competitive skiers seems
to suffer more frequent injuries than recreational skiers. That doesn't
surprise me because it is clear to me that competitive skiers are
prepared to push themselves to the limit even if it does risk injury.
Many competitive skiers retire with lifelong effects from the injuries
and any surgical treatments needed.


Your hypothesis above completely ignores training, skill, fitness,
familiarity with terrain, snow conditions and weather, knowledge of
how to fall, instinctive awareness of what you can and cannot take on.
It also ignores certain negative factors adversely affecting the short
holiday skier on a quick dash to the snow.


No my hypothesis is that knowledge of all the above leads individuals to
expose themselves to greater risk and hence the probability of injury to
the individual is often increased rather than decreased.

As to ski racers being immune from "risk compensation" ask yourself
this simple question. Do you think that ski racers are more or less
likely to be injured whilst recreational skiing or whilst racing or
training?

Vastly less, obviously. But I've only (throughout) been referring to
relative immunity *with respect to the wearing, or otherwise, of a
helmet, by genuinely expert skiers.* You're shifting the goal posts.

No I'm not shifting the goalposts, all I'm saying is that you've picked
a sub group for which we can't find data one way or the other. However
your hypothesis seems to be based on an idea that experts are immune to
risk compensation, whereas other studies show this not to be the case.

With respect to ski racing/training we're talking about calculated
risks consciously taken, not the hypothetical ones skiers may or may
not take on unconsciously when they don a helmet.

I flippantly questioned - with respect to a ski racer who has worn a
helmet since he first slid down a slope - whether wearing a different
colour pair of socks would encourage him to ski with a different
(safer/less safe) attitude. If the answer is no, then you prove my
point. To a ski racer a helmet is an item of clothing, part of the
uniform, no more, no less.

So why present evidence that helmets are an item of safety equipment if
to you they are merely an item of clothing?



With respect to risk compensation and lids across skiing as a whole,
you might be interested in this brief summary of a study. It has an
interesting conclusion: "Helmet use by skiers and snowboarders
continued to trend upwards and does not appear to motivate more risk
taking. Helmet wearers engaged in less risk behavior than
non-wearers, suggesting that decisions to adopt helmets are motivated
by safety concerns."

Interesting study.


http://www.cdc.gov/NCIPC/lifeguard/2...stractBook.pdf (a
very large pdf).

On page 148 there a piece entitled: "Testing the Risk Compensation
Hypothesis for Safety Helmets in Alpine Skiing and Snowboarding".

Michael D Scott, PhD1, DB Buller, PhD2, PA Andersen, PhD3, BJ Walkosz,
PhD4, JH Voeks, PhD5, MB Dignan, PhD6, GR Cutter, PhD5
1California State University, Chico, CA; 2The Cooper Institute, Denver,
CO; 3San Diego State University, San Diego, CA; 4University of Colorado,
Denver, CO; 5University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; 6University of
Kentucky, Lexington, KY

"Background/Objectives: Previous surveys showed increasing adoption of
helmets by skiers and snowboarders. Efficacy of helmets for these sports
has been questioned on the basis of risk compensation. This survey
tracked helmet use by skiers and snowboarders and tested for risk
compensation.

Methods: Helmet use was recorded in face-to-face interviews with 1,779
adult skiers and snowboarders at 31 ski areas in Western North America
in January-March 2003. Respondents were asked two questions assessing
risk compensation: do they (a) ski/snowboard faster, slower or about the
same speed and (b) challenge themselves more, less or about the same.
Helmet wearers compared current behavior to when they did not wear a
helmet; non-wearers, to previous seasons.

Results: In 2003, 23.0% were observed to be wearing a helmet (12.1% in
2001; 19.6% in 2002). Significant univariate predictors of use (p.05)
were included in a multivariate logistic regression to identify the
strongest predictors of higher use: older guests (O.R. = 1.02, p.05),
snowboarders (O.R. = 3.24, p.05), guests with a college degree (O.R. =
1.73, p.05), and those who spent more days on the mountain (O.R. =
3.18-8.03, p.05). Helmet use was significantly associated with less
risky skiing/snowboarding (higher speeds, O.R. = 0.64, 95% C.I. 0.49,
0.82; more challenge, O.R. = 0.76, 95% C.I. 0.60, 0.97) compared to no
use. A minority reported engaging in more risky skiing/snowboarding
(33.6% faster; 35.7% challenge), but this was associated with variables
other than helmet use.

Conclusions: Helmet use by skiers and snowboarders continued to trend
upwards and does not appear to motivate more risk taking. Helmet wearers
engaged in less risk behavior than non-wearers, suggesting that
decisions to adopt helmets are motivated by safety concerns. "


The above data is very interesting because it actually demonstrates risk
compensation, but in this case it is those that show the highest
perception of risk (and thus choose to wear a helmet) are also taking
the least overall risks in the study.

If there was no risk compensation involved with wearing helmets you
would expect that there was no change in risk behaviour on wearing
helmets. In fact what this study shows is that those who wear helmets
also take less risks.

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