@Layne: ??
Surely there isn't any doubt at all that helmets don't protect against all accidents?
And don't prevent concussion?
Wasn't it obvious that all those statements you've quoted were not seriously made?
Didn't I say I was exaggerating there very badly, and that that oversimplified cr*p was not what I had meant in the previous posts?
And didn't I originally say it was easy to think something, and not say that all or most punters thought that thing?
And as an example why I felt I ought to write that, haven't a SH or two on this thread written they think those things, or close to it?
And as you mention about people not caring that much, myself l suspect the reason for that is ignorance is bliss?
That mostly people naturally and passively assume they are being looked after better by the ski industry than they are?
And is it impossible for something to be done about that in the general interest, without getting too concerned about the Darwin award contenders?
Whoops. In danger of becoming a typical poster on here . . .
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@Fat George, to take just the last two of those...
Quote:
That mostly people naturally and passively assume they are being looked after better by the ski industry than they are?
Err. If it wasn't clear already. I disagree. Most people I suspect are well aware that the marketing blurb is just that.
Quote:
And is it impossible for something to be done about that in the general interest, without getting too concerned about the Darwin award contenders?
Knock yourself out. You've written some epic (long and detailed) posts on this thread. And that is great. But I suspect virtually nobody read them all the way through and/or really took it in and/or it made much difference to their helmet use. That is not to insult you or the time you took to write them. But bear in mind this limited penetration this is Snowheads, there are thousands of people who go skiing who have never heard of snowheads or never visit it... that just don't have that depth of interest. So honestly I think you are wasting your time.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
@Layne:
1. What I said didn't exclude what you say being true. There's a lot of BS out there.
2. Probably.
What got me worked up to start with, was something I haven't dared post a link to, that I found on t'internet on first looking at this thread and before making my first post.
It's far too incendiary, and the forum might catch fire.
It was an early EU-funded research paper for a proposal on strategies to get helmet-wearing universal, and eventually compulsory in EU ski resorts.
Using some poetic licence for rhetorical purposes here you understand, but this was the the basic gist AIR:
At the time there was little or no usage.
Market studies concentrated on the psychological hurdles in the way of getting lots of people to do something many might not like to do.
Market research was done to find out attitudes, and what factors might persuade people to buy and wear helmets, or dissuade them from doing so.
The big two factors were:
Helmets had to be cheap.
They mustn't be embarrassing to wear.
What the helmet actually did was not of much psychological or sales significance.
The basic strategy recommended was:
Standard ought to be entry level, low enough so manufacturers could easily comply, so the helmets could be cheap.
Manufacturers should have plenty of flexibility, so they could use style and fashion, so helmets could look attractive.
Standards not to be raised much to ensure market penetration kept growing.
Once market penetration was high enough, and resistance low enough, helmets could be made compulsory.
The target for 100% compulsory helmet-wearing in the EU was suggested to be 2020.
Once compulsory, standards could be raised to a level they might give proper protection. (Edited to be last line here)
I wanted to see for myself how crap or good helmets really were despite the BS.
I wasn't surprised by the strategy as it's the sort of stuff bureaucrats everywhere get up to.
Very Sir Humphrey Appleby.
Don't know if this is the strategy actually adopted, but wouldn't be surprised if it was.
Writing things down and getting feedback helps me be clear to myself on what I think I know.
Not too worried about others getting it all, but nice if some find it helps.
So I'm feeling much better now I know a bit more about where I stand.
Still a bit worked up though.
And lots more where that came from.
Hope that cheers you up.
(BTW, you can tell from one of my posts that the standard for straight impact protection you're getting hasn't increased since 1996 . . . . . . and market penetration is still rising . . . )
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Sat 1-09-18 14:51; edited 1 time in total
When bike helmets first started to be around, I was rather scornful of them as they felt so flimsy in comparison to my horse riding helmet I was using (used to ride my bike up to the stables with that on, though as much to do with it was that or carry it in the rucksack). Saying that at some point I bought and started using cycle helmets and i did get knocked off my bike landing head / shoulder first. I believe it made a difference to the seriousness of that accident but can’t be certain.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
My Dainese v vision helmet with visor looks the dog’s proverbials and keeps the snow/ glare from my spectacles and my head warm. Winning!
After all it is free
After all it is free
Quote:
The target for 100% compulsory helmet-wearing in the EU was suggested to be 2020
The day the sport officially dies then. Saturation usage but the graph for serious head injuries won't change. What will the eurocrats do then?
Three pages of in-depth (frankly too in-depth) nonsense and not a word about why people are hitting their heads and how to avoid it. Someone said the words 'secondary concussion' and that really is the elephant in the room and the one that'll put you in hospital, or even kill you, hours later. Doesn't matter if you are wearing a £200 helmet or not, don't hit your head and definitely don't repeatedly hit your head. I know some people do because I have seen their posts about multiple incidents on this very forum. Don't go buying the super dooper replacement helmet, maybe address the reasons why you are a danger to yourself.
In normal recreational skiing there is simply no need to be hitting your head. There are some higher risk groups like kids and snowboarders who think they are Shaun White but, as I said before, the helmet industry has done a spectacular job in bigging up the danger and selling you the solution. They even take the p*ss by selling you the fluffy ears helmet covers, and the telly tubby cameras, that can only add to the rotational issue whilst making you look like a d*ck.
I'm going for a lie down
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
NickyJ wrote:
@Fat George, hmm that is rather interesting.
It is!
Pruman wrote:
In normal recreational skiing there is simply no need to be hitting your head. There are some higher risk groups like kids and snowboarders who think they are Shaun White but, as I said before, the helmet industry has done a spectacular job in bigging up the danger and selling you the solution.
My view too. I'm far more worried about my knees.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@NickyJ; @maggi: Ta. I find it helps to look at the big picture. I also find it helps to go into the depths.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Fat George wrote:
. . .
Once compulsory, standards could be raised to a level they might give proper protection.
The target for 100% compulsory helmet-wearing in the EU was suggested to be 2020.
Too much to hold in head I guess. I suppose I should have written.
Fat George wrote:
. . .
The target for 100% compulsory helmet-wearing in the EU was suggested to be 2020.
Once compulsory, standards could be raised to a level they might give proper protection.
Ah well.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
Agreed the question of why people are hitting their heads and how to avoid it is a very good one.
I had been trying to stay on topic, 'Helmet Research', so mentioned it only in context, as did others.
Perhaps someone who feels strongly about that could give us their opinions by starting a new topic.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
@Snowsartre Love it. Didn't mention comfort was lower down in the early market research; they took it industry would take care of that one if the standards weren't too prescriptive. Thought about visors but went for contact lenses myself.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@Fat George - sorry, I wasn't trying to have a go; I sort of significantly agree with you.
"Why form over function?"
I think they are sold as/used as a panacea, but offer really quite limited protection. Motorcyclists have a firm rule, 'if it touches the ground it goes in the bin.' Now I appreciate that if a motorcyclist's head hits the ground the chances are there has been a rather more spectacular incident than somebody falling over in a lift queue. My only point is that if somebody thinks a helmet is worth wearing, then it has to be worth replacing after a fall (if polystyrene, not non-Newtonian) and it has to be worth following the instructions about not putting stickers onto it.
Personally I think that in-resort NDT would be a brilliant way of selling more helmets. Not sure why you think it would be bad for the ski industry - apart from for hire shops that rent out the same helmet season after season.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
[quotw]. Don't go buying the super dooper replacement helmet, maybe address the reasons why you are a danger to yourself.
In normal recreational skiing there is simply no need to be hitting your head. There are some higher risk groups like kids and snowboarders who think they are Shaun White but, as I said before, the helmet industry has done a spectacular job in bigging up the danger and selling you the solution. They even take the p*ss by selling you the fluffy ears helmet covers, and the telly tubby cameras, that can only add to the rotational issue whilst making you look like a d*ck.
I'm going for a lie down [/quote]
Hmm. It used to be those pro helmet who got overexcited in helmet threads. Glad there are still enough smug people who have never lost an edge, had a ski dragged off by a hidden rock or stump and don't ski in trees or chutes.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
@Dave of the Marmottes, catching an edge doesn't mean falling over and smacking your head and in "normal recreational skiing" people aren't taking on chutes and trees. Obviously, if you are skiing trees, it might make sense to protect yourself from sticky out branches but if you fail to keep to the white bits the tree will win no matter what protection. There again, people skied trees long before helmets and amazingly they survived.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
My kids learned to ski without wearing helmets. This video nails the argument on that score, and I certainly wasn't going to insist on them wearing helmets, when I had no intention of putting my head in a pointless bucket.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
