Helmets: when they count.

[Nick]

I'm not a fan of helmet laws. I am a fan of encouraging folks to make smart decisions, and I think people should wear helmets, but not sure about compelling them (with the exception of minors).

I wouldn't go mountain biking with a helmet, and I'm pretty sure a helmet at least very closely saved me from disability when I wrecked my mountain bike when I was around 15 years old.

This is the first year I've worn a helmet skiing and to be honest, I think they are just as comfortable as a helmet, and in honesty I think I actually kind of like the look.

 

[skiersleft]

I'm not quite following what you're getting at. Are you saying helmets should not be required by law? If so I agree with you...

Why? Because not doing so impinges on a person's liberty to decide whether to ride without a helmet? How John Stuart Millian of you.

 

[snoseek]

A few years ago I was in an accident where I'm pretty sure the helmet saved my life (at least as I know it). I need no convincing to wear one...

 

[Scruffy]

I'm not quite following what you're getting at. Are you saying helmets should not be required by law? If so I agree with you, except I think children under 18 should be required to wear them since some parents are too daft to protect their kids, and kids don't usually appreciate the risks they are taking.

For myself I wear a helmet since many impacts are going to be glancing blows rather than direct hits that stop you dead. Some accidents will be direct hits, and those are the ones we hear about. Not much you can do to avoid those except stay on the couch.

Rather than passing helmet laws for low death rate sports like skiing, the legislators should concentrate on car safety. That's where the easily preventable injuries are happening. Smart cars with automatic braking and collision avoidance could keep cars from crashing into each other and into motorcycles. Thousands of lives could be saved there instead of the handful that can be saved by requiring skiing helmets.

I am a believer in taking personal responsibility, so no I'm not advocating laws requiring helmets for skiing, and I don't want cops on the slopes, but I do wear a helmet so it wouldn't be an issue for me one way or the other . My point is simply that whenever there is a skiing accident where the victim get's seriously hurt or killed, and they were wearing a helmet, there is are a number of anti-helmet folks pointing out that "he WAS wearing a helmet". I'm curious would they not wear a helmet on a bike or motorcycle?

 

[speden]

Why? Because not doing so impinges on a person's liberty to decide whether to ride without a helmet? How John Stuart Millian of you.

Basically yes. For me the whole point of skiing and riding a motorcycle is for the sense of freedom. If I wanted to do either one without a helmet then I think that should be my choice. I'd be okay with requiring medical insurance though to offset the cost to society of the resulting injuries.

The John Stuart Mill reference is a little too obscure for me. This week's reading in one of your classes?

 

[speden]

I am a believer in taking personal responsibility, so no I'm not advocating laws requiring helmets for skiing, and I don't want cops on the slopes, but I do wear a helmet so it wouldn't be an issue for me one way or the other . My point is simply that whenever there is a skiing accident where the victim get's seriously hurt or killed, and they were wearing a helmet, there is are a number of anti-helmet folks pointing out that "he WAS wearing a helmet". I'm curious would they not wear a helmet on a bike or motorcycle?

Probably because they enjoy the freedom of not having a helmet on, and their odds of crashing are pretty low. It's a fact that helmets don't prevent all deaths, so it's valid for them to raise that to support their decision. I like the added protection myself, even if it's far from perfect.

 

[skiersleft]

Basically yes. For me the whole point of skiing and riding a motorcycle is for the sense of freedom. If I wanted to do either one without a helmet then I think that should be my choice. I'd be okay with requiring medical insurance though to offset the cost to society of the resulting injuries.

The John Stuart Mill reference is a little too obscure for me. This week's reading in one of your classes?

John Stuart Mill is the father of libertarianism.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/

The views you have can be traced back to his influential writings, especially to his magnus opus, "On Liberty".

http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html

From now on you're not excused if what comes to mind when you think of libertarianism is Ron Paul. Paul is a superficial libertarian. Stuart Mill was the real deal. Mill would probably be against helmet laws.

Of course, libertarianism is a controversial philosophical position. The opposite view - paternalism - is also defended (at least partially) in philosophical circles. There are intermediate positions. But that's all for now.

 

[snowmonster]

Or as Monty Python puts it: "John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,/ On a half a pint of shandy, was particularly ill."

 

[drjeff]

Helmets are just one item that can help LOWER the risk of suffering a head injury should an accident happen. Deaths and brain injuries can and do occur while wearing helmets. If one ever wants to see the benefits of taking steps to reduce their chance of a traumatic brain jury in the event of an accident, try and swing by the brain injury rehabilitation unit of a local hospital and/or nursing home

From the accounts of many of the reports of on hill deaths this year, a great deal of the trauma's that caused the fatalities seemed to be from chest/torso impacts more so than head impacts. Based on that is it that far fetched of an idea to think that some company that is actively involved in personal protection equipment with active ties to the ski industry will start to try and actively market some type of chest protector, something like what motocross riders often wear?

Given the relative success that a company like POC has had in the racer/high level park market with their spine protectors the last few years, I wouldn't be suprised to see them bringing a combo spine/chest protector to the market at some point. Possibly even a coat with a rigid chest/back protector integrated into it.

It is one's choice to wear or not wear a helmet and/or other types of protective equipment (for example wrist guards for boarders), but I based on the numerous new pieces of safety equipment that are being introduced, and then we continue to see being sold, I think that it's pretty safe to say that there IS a market for this type of gear that helps decrease risk for oneself

 

[witch hobble]

I wouldn't go mountain biking with a helmet, and I'm pretty sure a helmet at least very closely saved me from disability when I wrecked my mountain bike when I was around 15 years old.

This is the first year I've worn a helmet skiing and to be honest, I think they are just as comfortable as a helmet......

And folks thought my post was a little out there!!! :-o

 

[witch hobble]

No doubt John Stuart Mill would be for leasing Cannon.

 

[snowmonster]

Given the relative success that a company like POC has had in the racer/high level park market with their spine protectors the last few years, I wouldn't be suprised to see them bringing a combo spine/chest protector to the market at some point. Possibly even a coat with a rigid chest/back protector integrated into it.

You mean something like this:

 

[from_the_NEK]

Is it possible a helmet prevented this student racer from being added to the growing list of fatalities?

http://www.wcax.com/story/16991213/vt-student-suffers-head-injury-in-ski-accident

He suffered a serious head injury but he is alive. Even though the article doesn't say anything about a helmet he was likely wearing one since high school racers are required to.

 

[AdironRider]

I swear by my chest protector when Im mtn biking. My backcountry pack has a spine protector, which has saved my ass a couple times.

Chest protector limits freedom of mobility however, not sure how Id like it snowboarding or skiing.

 

[drjeff]

You mean something like this:

Bingo! And why am I not surprised that the folks at POC made that! They make some GREAT ski and bike personal safety gear!

 

[drjeff]

I swear by my chest protector when Im mtn biking. My backcountry pack has a spine protector, which has saved my ass a couple times.

Chest protector limits freedom of mobility however, not sure how Id like it snowboarding or skiing.

My guess is that someone will come up with one that isn't so restrictive and/or noticeable to the wearer. Heck a few years ago they came out with the d30 gel that was used in same world cup race suits that was relatively speaking soft and flexible until impact when it instantly "hardened" to provide protection from gate impacts. I'm sure that could be tweaked a bit to provide both comfort and protection

http://gizmodo.com/155142/new-flexible-ski-armor-hardens-on-impact

 

[snowmonster]

Bingo! And why am I not surprised that the folks at POC made that! They make some GREAT ski and bike personal safety gear!

I was actually looking at this. Demon Snow makes a similar product at a lesser price. I usually wear kneepads, a helmet and a semi-full backpack when I ski. I feel that my pack protects my spine enough. I've run into trees at very low speeds so I know that the chest and my groin are especially vulnerable. Perhaps one of these days, I'll come out in full gear with an athletic cup and chest/back protector. Overkill? Perhaps.

 

[Nick]

And folks thought my post was a little out there!!! :-o

I'm losing it