J2Ski Forum Posts and Replies by ise

Tony_H wrote:Can we please stop the pissing contest?

It's a shame you chose to take that tone, safety issues are actually fairly important, if some bad and dangerous advice is being given it needs answering.

If you don't want to read it then grow up and don't.

johntin wrote: If problems do occure ie injury insurance problems etc there is no point of contact with the trusty rep, this could be a major concern.

Regards ABTA/ATOL bonding is that for cover of monies if a operator goes bust? would it apply to us? forgive ignorance!

try http://www.tiscover.at when I lived in Germany we used to use them all the time for weekends etc, I know they do insurance, not sure what it covers but it may be what you're looking for. They probably have a deal with the hotels you know as well.

I know from friends that came from the UK they used to ask the hotels about transfers, some can even do it themselves mostly someone in their extended family turned out to be running a taxi business :D

Most of us turn out to be really bad at risk assessment, that balancing act of judging potential outcomes against how likely they are to occur. Mostly we probably aim to get it just a little wrong, for me I'd like to think that I just err on the side of caution. Mostly though we get it wrong because we've failed to understand the environment we're in properly and skiing is particularly bad for this.

I've a cliché image in my mind of a holiday skier, going out in the morning secure in the knowledge that the risk they face is someone skiing into them, which is why they've bought a helmet. Someone who's convinced themselves that they're quite safe but it's all those other idiots that are putting them at risk. If you read some of the stuff on other forums (not here) you see how true that is.

But, the truth turns out differently. In fact, for a start, it's a pretty safe activity, accident figures are low and the worst effects you're likely to be suffering when you board your flight back are a few aching muscles, some sun burn and a hangover.

It's a tiny, tiny percentage who have some sort of accident, by that we're meaning something reportable and involving the piste security or medical treatment so the figures are captured.

Maybe surprisingly, your accident will involve no one else. You'll have fallen, hit a stationary object like a rock or tree or just twisted badly enough to hurt yourself. In Switzerland the figure is that only 1 in 20 accidents involve more than one person but the Swiss are as guilty as anyone of failing to recognise the real risk, 51% of skiers are afraid of speeding skiers and 45% think skiers have got more dangerous. Both figures are wrong, in fact there's not even more accidents, but they're getting more serious, more spinal, neck and head injuries are happening.

The one thing I see again and again when I'm out is people not looking behind them, most obviously when they set off failing to look up and across the hill but just generally not taking the chance to glance behind and assess what's going on, it's the ski equivalent of not using the mirrors in the car.

That's interesting because I read elsewhere how people think they can hear skiers coming from behind and avoid them, of course they can't, but they use to identify another risk to themselves, people like me who, from time to time, ski with MP3 players. I mention this because it's another way that people deflect real responsibility from themselves, you can't say it enough, if you have an accident the odds are it's going to be your own fault and involve no one else.

You see the result of that all the time, skiing down some restricted area, a narrow piste or track for example, you come upon people moving slower than you totally unaware you're behind them until a metre or so away at which point they often turn erratically and panic, I'm sure this adds to their feeling of danger but if they learnt to look over their shoulder from time to time things would be more relaxed.

The main thing though, it's all pretty safe, wear a helmet if that risk concerns you, look ahead at what people are doing, try and look behind if you can, try and make it easy for everyone else to avoid you by making regular consistent turns on a predictable line. Basically, there's little to worry about and if we've the right information in our mind we can manage risk a bit better.

82ross wrote:I can see ILoveSkiings point, a trip forward and skid head first into a rock can be helped with a bike helmet. Also other things like newbs spread eagle on the floor fallen tryin to get on a t-bar getting bonked on the head every 5 seconds (ive see it happen, she was laughing so much she nearly wet herself), careless skiers carrying skis incorrectly spinning round and catching other on the head. Theres many more obscure things that could happen.

Hes basically saying wearing one (skiing or not) is safer than not. And only if it lured someone into a false sense of security could it make things worse (debatable).

That's why I think he should go back and remove all these posts, if you think there's an ounce of sense of them then that's extremely dangerous. This is actually life or death stuff after all.

You make two points that really go to the heart of this. First, "a trip forward and skid head first into a rock can be helped with a bike helmet", well, that's not true, a cycle helmet is designed to compress and come apart in an impact, it's designed for impact with a flat surface, i.e. the road. The principle is that the helmet absorbs and spreads the impact and force. What happens when impact occurs to tight radius or angular surfaces, i.e. you hit a rock, is that part of the impact is absorbed, the helmet splits and the surface penetrates. That means that in that circumstance a cycle helmet provides no protection at all.

Second, "And only if it lured someone into a false sense of security could it make things worse (debatable)." Actually, that's not debatable at all, it's an established medical fact that people do engage in more risk intensive behaviour if they've access to safety equipment like helmets. I realise a great number of people refuse to accept that but they need to argue that point with bodies like the BMA if they've got a good counter argument and some research.

Accidents on bikes are different, you're expecting something like going over the handlebars, there'll be a single impact and the helmet needs to absorb it. Skiing it's entirely different from that, you're expecting to hit irregular objects like rocks or your own equipment, or take a sliding type fall taking multiple impacts.

The point, as simple as anyone could possibly make it, is that we would choose to wear a helmet to prevent serious injuries. Who would choose to wear one that offers no protection from a serious injury but prevents a couple of bruises?

iLoveSkiing wrote:

ise wrote:
We wear helmets to reduce the risk of serious head injuries, in fact they're actually pretty rare but the consequences are potentially serious. A cycle helmet will not protect you in the impacts likely to cause those type of injuries.

It's an extraordinarily bad idea to wear a cycle helmet for skiing and hugely bad advice to give anyone. Anyone following your advice would be extremely foolish.

Yes, I'm reading it with some horror. Now, read what I'm writing, a cycle helmet will not protect you at all from serious head injury for the impacts likely to occur to a skier.

Well you are know updating your view by saying it applies to serious injuries. I never said a bicycle helmet will protect a skiier against higher speed collisions.

What I said before to you was correct until you added the bit about serious injury. If the OP was talking about high speed collisions I wouldn't have wrote what I did.

High speed collisions are a different matter entirely. If you manage to find any reports on the internet about the effectiveness of ski helmet in high speed head on collisions with fixed hard solid objects like trees you may find ski helmets may not be that much use.

Bizarre. So, you're now saying that you're prepared to wear a helmet to prevent trivial injury in the full knowledge it won't protect you from serious injury?

I've not updated my view in any way at all, it just turns out that you don't understand why people wear helmets and the purpose of campaigns being run in Switzerland for example or the new laws in Italy. But, yet again, I'm telling you the purpose is to prevent serious injury, no one is interested in trivial cuts, grazes and bruises.

iLoveSkiing wrote:If people think anyone was saying a bicycle helmet is a 100% like for like substitute for a ski helmet or that every skiier should save money by wearing a bicycle helmet instead of a ski helmet then they need to re-read what's been written.

No, you need to re-read what's been written. We wear helmets to reduce the risk of serious injury, injuries including brain damage or death. A cycle helmet will not protect you in these circumstances and that's why they are not approved for use.

iLoveSkiing wrote:Even if it prevents bruising it's offering protection.

I was being serious when I compared it to a thick wool hat, they'll prevent bruising as well.

We wear helmets to reduce the risk of serious head injuries, in fact they're actually pretty rare but the consequences are potentially serious. A cycle helmet will not protect you in the impacts likely to cause those type of injuries.

It's an extraordinarily bad idea to wear a cycle helmet for skiing and hugely bad advice to give anyone. Anyone following your advice would be extremely foolish.

iLoveSkiing wrote:Are you reading exactly what I wrote? I said it will offer some protection. I didn't say or imply it would offer the same protection as an actual ski or snowboard snowboard helmet.

Yes, I'm reading it with some horror. Now, read what I'm writing, a cycle helmet will not protect you at all from serious head injury for the impacts likely to occur to a skier.

iLoveSkiing wrote:ise, So do you agree that a bicycle helmet is better than no protection at all? The point i was making.

No I don't, I'm completely amazed anyone's prepared to stand up in public and claim it is. They don't provide any protection for the impacts a skier is likely to experience.