Cover story on today's NY Times. Extreme skiing in France. American skiers died in fall in April. The photo was taken just prior to the accident. No helmet evident on at least one of the skiers. These were considered technically excellent and cautious alpinists. Interestingly, no mention of helmets are in the article.
fatal ski accident/ no helmet
Wed, 05/17/2006 - 8:10am
Wed, 05/17/2006 - 2:21pm
#1
So?
What's that to do with cycling?
Tue, 05/23/2006 - 12:17am
#2
See below... (nm)
Tue, 05/23/2006 - 3:03pm
#3
Humans are not an endangered species. Why the fuss?
For myself, I wear a helmet.
I see many people wearing helmets that will do them little good– tipped way back, exposing their forhead, loose or unbuckled strap, etc.
Why bother wearing a helmet that will most likely fall off in an accident?
Wed, 05/17/2006 - 8:17am
#4
475 Feet!
While there is no mention of helmets, I believe the article stated that one of the men fell 475 feet. Would a helmet have made a difference (not that they should not have been wearing them anyway)?
Wed, 05/17/2006 - 8:39am
#5
Would a helmet have made a difference?
Most likely, yes. It would make it easier to identify the corpse.
Wed, 05/17/2006 - 8:51am
#6
That's cold. (nm)
Wed, 05/17/2006 - 9:04am
#7
A bit harsh. (nm)
Wed, 05/17/2006 - 9:38am
#8
Untrue, actually.
Cold? Harsh? That describes the mountain environment, as unforgiving as the open sea.
Wed, 05/17/2006 - 11:34am
#9
Jamie Pierre's 245 foot huck
Extreme skier Jamie Pierre jumped a 245 ft cliff off the backside of Grand Targhee in Jan. 06. He biffe the landing, landed head first and sunk into the 6 foot powder drift HEAD FIRST. No helmet. We were out skiing at Jackson Hole that week and the locals thought he was an idiot, not for not wearing a helmet, but for risking his life with a young child at home.
Here's a link to a pic of the jump and a news thread.
http://www.killingtonzone.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9364&highlight=jami...
Doug Coombs and family knew the risks of extreme skiing. There's not much a helmet would help protect falling off a cliff band. A helmet really won't help the average skier in-bounds when colliding with a tree either.
Wed, 05/17/2006 - 12:48pm
#10
Or the ground. I had a bad concussion a few years ago that was not only NOT prevented by my helmet, but actually made worse, because of the air vent channels in the helmet liner.
Wed, 05/17/2006 - 2:35pm
#11
huh?
I've read your post a few times and I am lost as to what your are trying to express; it's quite contradictory many times over. Is that bad concussion still lingering? Or am I having an AFLAC moment?!? (joke :-)
Wed, 05/17/2006 - 2:57pm
#12
AFLAC! My head hit the ground was so hard that my skull was forced into the channels in the liner of the helmet, resulting in a very bad concussion. I had an ALFAC moment that lasted for almost a month after that accident :)
Wed, 05/17/2006 - 3:45pm
#13
Still, without the helmet perhaps you'd be dealing with more than a bad concussion if your head hit the ground that hard, no?
Wed, 05/17/2006 - 6:36pm
#14
Conjecture
Do you assume these guys did a free fall for 400 odd feet? Doug Coombs had a static fall. Would you think rolling 400 feet with a helmet is better than without one?
We can throw this back and forth all night. These 2 guys don't have that option. There was a time where people used the arguement that some people survive car crashes because they are thrown clear of the accident. And some 90 year olds die of non-lung related problems. But if you want to do the math, statistics make these people long shot Louies. Las Vegas is viable because statistics work in the long run. Every day you biff. Statistically, you are going to biff bigtime one day. Not wearing a helmet when running the risk of head trauma might make a difference in how or if you spend the rest of your life is akin to unsafe sex with a stranger.
Okay, give me your best shot as devil's advocate.
Wed, 05/17/2006 - 6:38pm
#15
Unfortunately, there has been no statistical evidence of bicycle helmet reducing the incidence or severity of head injuries.
The same is not true, for instance, of seatbelts.
- Una mucca anonima
Thu, 05/18/2006 - 3:34am
#16
Plenty of statistical evidence supporting bike helmets
Thu, 05/18/2006 - 7:31am
#17
statistical evidence
Here's one link that provides such statistical evidence.
http://massbike.org/info1/stats.htm
In addition to the helmet issue, I found it to be quite a good read.
If you do not believe the statistical evidence, I suggest looking at empirical evidence. For instance, with the bike stationary, fall off it and land on your head directly. I think you will conclude after one trial, with and without wearing a helmet, that the latter will reduce the severity of your head injury.
Thu, 05/18/2006 - 10:07am
#18
Peter,
By that token, do you wear a helmet when walking? My incidence of falling when walking is probably approximately the same as when cycling (twice in 10 years), and my unprotected head is at approxmiately the same height from the ground. In other words, I don't think an empirical analysis is of much use, as it presumes 100% incidence of an accident.
I wear a helmet, as it's no discomfort to me, but based on the results of the Australian helmet legislation (by far the largest dataset ever analysed for helmet protection), I don't believe it provides much benefit. Or, at the very least, such benefit has not been clearly demonstrated.
- Christian
Thu, 05/18/2006 - 12:01pm
#19
risk assessment
You did not mention if you had hit your head in both instances.
I don't wear a helmet while walking because I do not assess my personal risk of such activity to be as high as that of cycling.
I don't recall the last time I slipped while walking and when I have - I've yet to hit my head. I have cracked two helmets within the past two years - one of them as recently as this past Saturday.
On the other hand, maybe if I were the late Dr. Atkins my risk assessment of walking would be different.
On that same theme, I don't wear helmet while driving even though statistically it has the highest mortality rate next to cancer and heart disease.
Oddly enough, Nascar drivers do wear helmets while racing. Statistically, their mortality rate is better than national average for driving, attributable in part to safety innovations, including helmet usage.
I can supply you with links to those studies if you wish.
In the meantime, please provide me with the links to the Australian study.
Thu, 05/18/2006 - 1:22pm
#20
So, you wear a helmet while engaging one activity you consider risky (cycling) and do not wear one when engaging in another, demonstrably riskier, activity (driving). I'm not sure what conclusions can be drawn from that, other than to say that people generally do not assess risk very well.
Likewise, I'm not sure what comparisons are to be drawn to NASCAR. The type of helmet and types of accidents are sufficiently different as to warrant no comparison at all. As it turns out, I have first hand experience in car racing accidents. I had a pretty severe car racing accident in 2005 (8 rolls at 90+ mph), in which my helmet added no additional protection. If I were to base my helmet-wearing solely on personal experience, I would reasonably conclude that I should not wear a helmet car racing. That has not been my conclusion.
Lastly, the Australian study did assess compulsory helmet laws, but the fact remains that it's the study of, by far, the largest population where there was a significant increase in helmet usage, and there was no difference shown in mortality, pre- or post-implementation of the law. I don't pretend to have all the answers of why that was, but certainly if you think helmets are a panacea, you would have expected _some_ improvement in the statistics, no?
And to answer your other question, in the two times I've fallen of a bicycle in the last 10 years, neither time did I hit my head.
- Christian
Thu, 05/18/2006 - 2:23pm
#21
which Australian study?
"If you did in fact read the study, you would find that making helmet use compulsory did not reduce the number of reported head injuries. That’s quite different than judging the efficacy of _actually_ wearing a helmet. It also stated that these compulsory helmet laws were flawed.
Here’s a more local flawed example - flood insurance is compulsory in the USA and has been for quite some time. Despite this only 1/3 Katrina’s damages were covered by flood insurance. Using your logic, purchasing flood insurance is an absolute waste of money.
You wrote,
""Unfortunately, there has been no statistical evidence of bicycle helmet reducing the incidence or severity of head injuries.""
I provided you with one recent, personal example where it did reduce the severity of head injury. Likewise your incorrect counterclaim is from the Australian study which opens with,
""Bicycle helmets substantially reduce the risk of head injury in a crash.""
Or maybe I am reading different Austrialian helmet studies and hence the confusion. If so, then a specific citation on your part would be helpful.
"
Thu, 05/18/2006 - 12:40pm
#22
Australian helmet legislation
"What you referred to is a debate whether bicycle helmet usage should be compulsory in Australia and NOT whether wearing a bicycle helmet is effective.
In my experience this past Saturday, it was effective at reducing injury - to the point of experiencing no head injury despite the damaged physical evidence of my cycling helment. The same cannot be said to the other unprotected areas of my body.
In Australia, they did do a comprehensive 10 year study, ending in 1995.
http://www.helmets.org/henderso.htm
The first sentence in the report states, ""Bicycle helmets substantially reduce the risk of head injury in a crash.""
Here is an even more recent Aussie study:
http://tinyurl.com/e5cw7
It opens with, ""An examination is made of a meta-analysis by Attewell, Glase and McFadden which concludes that bicycle helmets prevent serious injury, to the brain in particular, and that there is mounting scientific evidence of this."""
Fri, 05/19/2006 - 9:25am
#23
Unsafe sex with a stranger
"Are you telling me that if I wear a helmet, I am less likely to contract a disease while having unsafe sex with a stranger?
Or are you telling me i might be able to have unsafe sex with a stranger if i wear my helmet while skiing?
Or is this thread about unsafe sex while riding bicycles? Or is this a bulletin board about cycling after all?
To quote the famous bard, Lou Abbott, ""Who's in first?""
Your Pal,
Etoain Shrdlu"
Wed, 05/17/2006 - 6:47pm
#26
Maybe :)
Actually, I really endorse helmets. Would never do any speed-oriented sport without one. I've had two concussions skiing - the first without a helmet. They are more debilitating than one can imagine!
Wed, 05/17/2006 - 6:52pm
#27
Do you think the egg industry would be spending their money on egg cartons if they didn't believe is worked?
Thu, 05/18/2006 - 5:03am
#28
Apples and..........eggs
Heads are not eggs, nor melons either... That's Bikemag Adspeak
All over the world, for over 100 years, people have been riding bikes every day. Almost none wear helmets, outside of the ti & lycra crowd.
If it were that dangerous, you think they would've figured it out by now...
Do what you want, but save the preaching for church.
Thu, 05/18/2006 - 7:47am
#29
then and now
"For many years folks
drove without seatbelts
and did so with babies riding in their laps
and had bathroom electrical outlets that were not GFCI
and road penny farthing high wheeled bikes without helmets
and road coaster brake bikes
and road on steel rims in wet weather
and road with those fangled top-of-the-drop-handlebar brake levers.
Your free to continue to choose to do so today. There's also other safer alternatives that are available today.
Those same folks today, the ""non ti & lycra crowd"", that you describe are the one you are more likely to see riding against the flow of traffic, maybe drunk and at doing so at night with no lights. If you care to look at bicycling related statistics, they do show that is dangerous behavoir. Most bicycling fatalaties each year occur by those not wearing lycra."
Thu, 05/18/2006 - 8:14am
#30
Another example to be seen in footage of old bobsled races . . .
Did anyone see that great piece in the Winter Olympics coverage of the former famous Italian bobsledder? The footage of bobsledding in the 50s or so was quite terrifying! There were no protective walls on the courses, they weren't built like they are today, and people dying was much more commonplace than it is today -- helmets or no helmets.
Thu, 05/18/2006 - 7:12pm
#31
Are you familiar with head trauma? I doubt it by the way you write.
It is one thing to speak of not wearing a helmet in the abstract. It is quite another to deal with it in the concrete.
Fri, 05/19/2006 - 6:03am
#32
.
Are you familiar with Lotto?
Abstract? I've been riding to work every day, 12 months a year for 25 years. No helmet.
And I'm still here. Pretty crazy, huh? I mean, what are the odds?
Fri, 05/19/2006 - 9:08am
#33
not a big deal
"Thousands and thousands of people ride their bikes w/o helmets around here, and tons more do so in places like the Netherlands. It's not that big a deal. ""No helmet"" does not equal ""head trauma."" Hitting one's head hard enough for a helmet to help prevent major head injury is very rare. And when we remove the portion of such incidents where the helmet would simply be overwhelmed (like falling 245 ft or getting one's neck snapped by a car...) the times a helmet might help are even rarer."
Fri, 05/19/2006 - 10:01am
#34
Helmet wars
"It seems that May, officially National Bike Month™, is also unofficially Helmet War Month. The thread ""I crash into religion"" on rec.bicycles.tech has over 1450 messages and is still going strong, and the thread ""Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience"" has over 500.
Someone wrote this on r.b.t. (in a thread called ""Summary of all H****t threads!""), which puts the matter into a nutshell:
""This helmet thing is easy. I don't see why there's so much discussion.
1. If you like them, wear one
2. If you don't like them, don't wear one
3. If your local government has a regulation regarding them you don't like, work to change that.
Is there any more? I think not!"""
Fri, 05/19/2006 - 11:05am
#35
LOL
Too true.
Fri, 05/19/2006 - 11:56am
#36
may is official helmet war month
a couple other points about bicycle helmets.
The preferred safest design is the round mushroom shaped design that is also the least popular. The popular elongated or tapered designs have a tendency to stop the sliding head and cause more significant injuries
Bicycle Helmet manufactures remove them themselves from any mention that their products actually work.
Majority of fatalities and injuries around here are from vehicle hitting bicyclist, the helmet rarely help's here. Driver responsibility is the answer.
The cpsc helmet test is designed for a speed of the head hitting the ground at about 10mph.
http://www.helmets.org/dropcalc.htm
I noticed when there were a couple pole voting accident and they tried to design a helmet for that purpose they realized that any helmet that may protect from that kind of impact would be to heavy and large for a pole vaulter.
I wonder if the same is true for a bicyclist who commonly travels at speed of 20mph?
Btw trek recalls Anthem Helmets due to non meeting of cpsc specs, outed by independent source
Fri, 05/19/2006 - 6:32pm
#37
Wow
I have been watching this post all week, and it is truly amazing. Some additional thoughts:
The expected severity of a head injury, is well, severe.
The expected frequency based on responses above is not very frequent.
So the expected severity, when incorporating frequency, of a head injury is not very high.
So you conclude - doesn't matter to wear a helmet or not.
Then you can also conclude that you don't need insurance on your home, your vacation, extra insurance on your car (I hope you don't get suckered into $15/day when you rent). Wearing a helmet is the same concept - to protect you from that one time you basically win the (evil) lottery and smack your head on the concrete.
Bottom line - if you are a risk taker - feel free to ride without - the expected chances of head injury are low. However, whereas risk-takers are generally associated with gambling, I hope you don't play the lottery, slot machines or expect to win the jackpot at the casino poker room...
Fri, 05/19/2006 - 8:58pm
#38
"I agree that eggs and melons are different than heads; you can't buy another head.
If you are waiting for the definitive, evidence-based study on this before you don a bean bucket. My advice is to pack a lunch. And smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day while your are at it because somebody's grandfather is still going strong at 95.
Unlike others on this thread, I have had 3 instances where I suffered blows to my head but had a helmet on. Perhaps I am inept. Or accident prone. Or was a bad person in a former life.....
That said, if you do suffer that ""odd chance"" of head trauma, chances are good that it won't be your problem to deal with.
Hell, you're on a winning steak, you can stay at the tables forever.
"
Fri, 05/19/2006 - 9:16pm
#39
Helmet saved my noggin. (nm)
Sat, 05/20/2006 - 3:03am
#40
EXPERIENCE
You can debate the scientific aspects of helmet usage all you want, but take the practical advice of someone who has had TWO concussions - wear a helmet! If you haven’t had a concussion, you have no idea how difficult the physical and emotional side effects are to deal with during recovery! Not something you would like to experience.
Tue, 05/23/2006 - 7:02am
#41
The thing is
"When a car runs you over and you're in the hospital with a punctured lung and broken legs and spinal injuries, do you really want to have to answer ""No"" when the doctor and your loved ones and other cyclists ask you if you were wearing a helmet? C'mon, who needs that kinds of stress when you're in intensive care? So wear a helmet so you can honestly answer ""Yes"" to the question, and then hear them say ""Good for you, you were lucky."""
Tue, 05/23/2006 - 8:32am
#42
More pointless drivel
"No. While laying on the bed, you just give them the Million- Dollar-Baby TM kick in the crotch and tell them to wear a jock strap next time.
""The night was dry, yet it was raining."", Owen Lift
"
Mon, 05/22/2006 - 7:34pm
#43
It's NOT about the helmet
"Both sides of the coin from the NYT sports section yesterday:
Extreme Responsibility
To the Sports Editor:
The article about the death of the extreme skier Doug Coombs in La Grave, France, (""Skiing Beyond Safety's Edge Once Too Often,"" May 17) made it sound as if the accident would have been less likely to occur in the United States because resorts ""control the environment.""
But almost all resorts in the United States have adopted an open gate policy. When skiers or snowboarders leave the resort, they are responsible for their own safety, much as they are at European resorts. Coombs skied deadly terrain outside the boundaries of Jackson Hole, Wyo., and anywhere else he could find it. Paying the ultimate price for a bad decision on these slopes is not the responsibility of the resort, but of the skier.
Doug Schnitzspahn
Boulder, Colo.
To the Sports Editor:
There are safe ski resorts all over the world, but some of us seek a high from putting ourselves in places man should not be. This is what keeps us sane. We live only when we are going to the mountains, when we are in the mountains or when we are planning to go to the mountains.
Life is worth living only if we can truly live.
And when a great man goes down, our world community reacts and remembers. I can only hope to be remembered like Doug Coombs.
Ray Ellis
San Diego
"
Tue, 05/23/2006 - 12:21am
#44
Coombs, extreme skiing, and helmets
First, a thank you to hank for posting this article reference. I used to ski quite a bit (normal downhill, not extreme), and would have been up on this when it happened. But when you get off the slopes and don't follow the sport, things and events slip by you.
Doug Coombs. In extreme skiing, at least from an American perspective was THE GUY. The top guy. Maybe not the first, but maybe the greatest, maybe ever greater than Glen Plake. A fair comparison to cycling would be to compare him to Greg Lemond. Possibly he could be compared to Armstrong or Mercxx, but it would be better to ask someone who's a little more into the sport than i have been.
I know a fellow that has done a couple of camps with Doug Coombs. at least I know that he didn't die that day.
Helmets. I've seen a lot of guys who come with Helmets, ropes, pitons, etc. and other gear in their backpacks along with skis and poles. They are ready to do mountineering where necessary. But whether they all do..I can't say.
I'm afraid a 400 foot fall, with a helmet or not, is going to inflict mortal wounds. It helps to be prepared and protect yourself. But some circumstances are so extreme, that even helmets can't save you. Just like getting hit and run over by a car while cycling
Tue, 05/23/2006 - 9:52am
#45
Doug Coombs Memorial Fund
"http://www.dougcoombsmemorialfund.com/
On Sunday, June 25, 2006 at 4 p.m., Jackson Hole Mountain Resort will host a memorial celebration for Doug Coombs.
The event will start with a memorial service just upslope from the Cody House. Afterwards, there will be a potluck party on the lawn between the Bridger Center and the base of the Teewinot Lift. Films and slideshows will be presented in Walk Festival Hall.
Beer will be provided; please bring food to share and a bottle of wine if you like."
