British skier dies in Alpe d'Huez

AllyG wrote:Why don't skiers just wear motorbike helmets then, if they work at higher speeds?

Ally

who says they do?

by and large, the helmet for one sport doesn't work for another, if you're hitting the road which is flat you need a helmet to take one big impact, if you're bouncing down a slope it's got to take several impacts and deal with penetrating impacts from rocks for example.

Studies and stats are one thing.

I remember the point at which I decided to get helmets for my GF and I.It was sliding down quite fast, head first, on my back down some 'natural features' of a run at Big White.

I must have been trevelling at some speed because, whilst still sliding, I remember having the time to think "Mmmm... It might be a good idea to get a helmet, I will look in the shop at lunch time." :)

steverandomno wrote:Studies and stats are one thing.

They're the most important thing, someone might get hit by a piece of falling debris from the space shuttle, it doesn't mean it's going to happen to anyone else though :lol:

The whole, and only point, of taking risk mitigation measures relies on assessing what the risk actually is and not someone's emotional response to a situation. In your case the risk was the same before and after you fell over and the outcome no more or no less likely. It's just human nature to react to things that are either close to us personally or well publicised and it's not a bad thing, it's just the information to make a reasoned assessment before an incident is out there and it's better to use it.

The trouble with anecdotes is sooner or later someone produces one they think in some way disproves some rule, you might have easily said that you slid half way down a mountain without a helmet or injury and that proved it wasn't required.

Otherwise, what does happen is that people fret about things that are entirely unlikely to occur ignoring things that can happen.

The reason people wear helmets when under supervision in activities like rock climbing is that the formal risk assessment makes it a simple decision. You have a situation where the likelihood of the event is low but not zero, the consequences are serious i.e. up to and including multiple fatalities and the mitigation doesn't compromise the activity. You might arrive at the same conclusion for snow sports but you measure those inputs by available data rather than personal anecdotes.

actually, I'll just add a personal observation to that :lol:

My own risk assessment tells me that wearing a helmet for snow sports is a good thing but it's a personal choice. So, I think it would be safer if people did. Which means any incident that makes people wear helmets is actually beneficial. It's just the engineering part of my brain abhors faulty logic whether it leads to the right decision or not.

ise wrote:actually, I'll just add a personal observation to that :lol:

My own risk assessment tells me that wearing a helmet for snow sports is a good thing but it's a personal choice.

ise - just to be clear - that is the point I was making.

It's common sense. I don't care what the stats or studies say, common sense and experience tells me that wearing a helment is a good thing.

The way stats and studies are used in the modern world realy "grinds my gears", but that's a conversation for the pub.

I also agree with you, it's a personal choice.

steverandomno wrote:It's a good anecdote though isn't it? :lol:

I liked it
I'll be buying a helmet

steverandomno wrote:
It's common sense. I don't care what the stats or studies say, common sense and experience tells me that wearing a helment is a good thing.

I think you'll find common sense tends to agree with properly conducted studies, when it doesn't it's either not common sense or not a proper study as a rule of thumb :D

This thread has got a bit off topic. Probably not the place for anecdotes when you re read the original title. My fault, sorry. :oops: