kbroderick
Active member
while helmets may prove useful at higher speeds, the likelihood of protection is reduced dramatically. a review of skiing related deaths over the past few years would show you many many many helmet wearing skiers that died going 30 MPH+ due to head/neck trauma after hitting a tree. that raises the ole' false sense of security issue which suggests people do more dangerous things (such as ski faster than they would without a helmet) because they think the helmet would protect them.
Oh, a head-tree collision at 30+ MPH wouldn't be fun regardless of headgear (not to mention the potential for organ damage if your torso hits the tree). My point was more along the lines of (a) it's not always a tree that stops you and (b) it may make a difference between shaking it off and skiing for the next few days and going to the hospital.
For me, the idea of skiing faster because of a helmet is silly (since I always ski with one); my ex-gf would wear one when she was planning on skiing fast, and I always thought the question of whether or not to wear one on a particular day based on anticipated skiing was silly. As my other anecdote alluded to, I've had near-misses when skiing in a relatively relaxed and low-speed manner as well as with the pedal to the floor. I think one of the benefits of consistently wearing a helmet is that you do become less aware of it, and thus it's less likely to affect your decision-making process.
(Besides which, my dumbest ski accident occurred when my helmet was safely in my duffel bag in the lodge--I was 12 or 13 and being exceptionally stupid at the time, which combined poorly with someone else being somewhat dumb to put me in the hospital overnight due to a concussion and off skis for a few weeks while my collarbone healed.)