Helmets!

Ace wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:46:41 -0000, "James Hart"
wrote:


David Mahon wrote:

In article , James Hart
writes

David Mahon wrote:

In article , John
Ricketts writes


Nanny-ism is just going too far. As of January, I can't even change
my own 3-pin plugs at home now!

Can't you? Still see them on sale (together with all the kit you
need to rewire your house if desired).

Not sure what country they live in but the UK has just had Part P
kick into action and the amount of bull**** that's being spread
about it is unbeleivable. Certain electrical jobs around the home
are now subject to restrictions but even the relevant authorities
don't seem to know what's supposed to happen and how they're
supposed to police them. Rewiring a plug is still allowed, replacing a
socket is still
allowed but other stuff like adding an extra socket must be done by
a certified person (for that read "has paid their fees to a
certifying body") or under a Building Control Notice (and with the
requires fees being paid).

Then someone ought to tell the DIY stores (this is link from B&Q)

http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/templa...ontent=/bq_adv
ice/common/howtos/fitxtrasockets/

Naughty website, just shows the confusion that's about at the moment though.


It's mainly you that's confused. As I understand it (and as a non-UK
resident) the requirement is that any such work is done to the
certified standards. Nothing's saying the installer must actually be
certified, so there's no reason why a householder can't do any amount
of re-wiring he/she desires, as long as it meets said standards.

So when does it become law to wear a helmet whilst rewiring my house?

"Ace" wrote in message
news | On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 06:17:40 +0100, "PG"
| wrote:
||
| Rip out all the safety belts and let's teach everyone to drive more
| carefully, shall we? LOL.
|
| Don't be daft. It's all about perspective - there's no real debate
| about seatbelts - they decrease injury count and severity with
| practically no downside.

The counter argument referred to the nanny state, and personal choice
issues. It is therefore not so daft an analogy.

|
| Champs' point[1], and one with which I wholly concur, is that
| partaking of risky sports activities is a choice, and one where we
| should all make positive efforts to understand the inherent dangers
| therein. He's not suggesting that you should _not_ wear a helmet, or
| that your children shouldn't, just that the blind adherence to the
| 'helmets must be worn' school of thought detracts from an individual's
| right to decide for themselves.

I agree, and always have done, that adults should have that choice. I do
not agree that this choice should be extended to minors.

snip

| One last point of note: I looked at skiing helmets earlier this
| season, and was astonished to discover that, like cycling helmets,
| they're all really flimsy things, offering a degree of protection only
| slightly greater than that of a baseball cap. If I'm ever going to
| wear one, I want one that's actually going to be able to take some
| impact, as it's only really the extreme situations I'd be trying to
| protect against.

If you collide with a tree at 50mph a helmet is unlikely to help you.
The main point of helmets is to prevent minor trauma occurring in the
first place, or the possibility of minor trauma being aggravated to a
major injury - which can occur, even at very low speeds.

|
| If you look at (horse-)riding helmets, by contrast, you'll find their
| construction much more robust. Why should horse-riders, who only
| travel at 20-odd mph and can fall from about two metres up, have such
| better protection, I wonder?

As above, the harder the helmet, the greater the injury to some extent,
at speed. Much of the damage is done by the brain hitting the inside of
the skull.

Pete

"Nick Hounsome" wrote in message
k...
|
| Nice picture!....granted, I wouldn't contemplate racing without one,
but
| isn't this just the nanny state philosophy kicking in yet again? I
reckon
| its less about protecting the individual than about minimising the
risk of
| litigation!
|
| This is exactly what it is all about.

Historically that is not true. And you may be thinking of the UK,
whereas in France the litigeous culture is in its infancy, and did not
exist at all when safety on the piste and the wearing of helmets first
became an issue of concern.

| Do people think that in the past everyone thought that safety
equipment made
| no difference? Of course not they just thought that it didn't make
enough
| difference to make up for the loss of enjoyment, time or whatever.
There are
| arguments about whether or not this was solely down to lack of
information
| but it is quite clear that few people actually know or understand the
| statistics even now so what has actually changed?
| The problem is that the current litigious climate exerts powerful
pressure
| on resorts and ski schools to make helmets mandatory.
|
| Consider ski schools:
|
| Upside of helmets: Harder to be sued potentially saving huge amounts
of
| money.

It is not compulsory to wear a helmet as things stand in France. And I
would be interested to hear of a case where a ski school was
successfully sued in France for not insisting a pupil wore a helmet. I
know of no instances of this happening.

| Downside: Possibly fewer clients. Importantly they are not the ones
who pay
| for the helmets.
| Result: It is in the interests of ski schools to get helmets made
compulsory
| and/or to make people feel that it is very dangerous to ski without so
that
| their legal risks are reduced whilst ensuring that all their clients
do not
| go to other schools that don't demand helmets.

I have seen far more research claiming that it is more dangerous to ski
without a helmet, backed up by trauma statistics ranging from minor to
major. It would be misleading to limit this debate to serious injury and
fatalities.

|
| Consider Resorts:
|
| Upside: Harder to be sued although this is probably more relevant to
North
| America than europe. Greater revenue from selling/hiring helmets.

As above, not yet an issue in France.

| Downside: Possibly fewer clients.
| Result: As with ski schools it is in their interests to promote the
dangers
| of skiing without to prevent clients going elsewhere.
|
| And finally skiiers:
|
| Upside: Safer. Avoids having to listen to hysterical people claiming
that
| you might as well be throwing your child off a tall building as
letting them
| ski without a helmet.

That is a parody of the arguments presented both here and in the
publicly available research on the subject.

| Downside: Money; Having to listen to children with a mind of their own
| moaning about it; All the stuff about enjoyment. Result: People are
| pressured into an ever safer and duller life
|

An emotional rant not worth commenting on.

| The key point is that the only group for whom NOT wearing a helmet has
an
| upside are the skiers themselves.

You fail to distinguish between adults and minors who should not be
placed in a position where they have to judge the dangers for
themselves, in my view.

Pete

Jason Pereira wrote:
Ace wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:46:41 -0000, "James Hart"
wrote:


David Mahon wrote:

In article , James Hart
writes

David Mahon wrote:

In article , John
Ricketts writes


Nanny-ism is just going too far. As of January, I can't even
change my own 3-pin plugs at home now!

Can't you? Still see them on sale (together with all the kit you
need to rewire your house if desired).

Not sure what country they live in but the UK has just had Part P
kick into action and the amount of bull**** that's being spread
about it is unbeleivable. Certain electrical jobs around the home
are now subject to restrictions but even the relevant authorities
don't seem to know what's supposed to happen and how they're
supposed to police them. Rewiring a plug is still allowed,
replacing a socket is still
allowed but other stuff like adding an extra socket must be done
by a certified person (for that read "has paid their fees to a
certifying body") or under a Building Control Notice (and with the
requires fees being paid).

Then someone ought to tell the DIY stores (this is link from B&Q)


http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/templa...ontent=/bq_adv
ice/common/howtos/fitxtrasockets/

Naughty website, just shows the confusion that's about at the
moment though.


It's mainly you that's confused. As I understand it (and as a non-UK
resident) the requirement is that any such work is done to the
certified standards. Nothing's saying the installer must actually be
certified, so there's no reason why a householder can't do any amount
of re-wiring he/she desires, as long as it meets said standards.

So when does it become law to wear a helmet whilst rewiring my house?

What, you mean you don't?

Chris *:-)

John Ricketts wrote:
At last! Someone else who see it as it is!

One other point.....what about keeping the kids heads warm? I've not
read anything about this, but certainly at Le Tour last year (and at
the top of Nevis range in April come to think of it) The biggest
danger was hypothermia! How good are helmets at keeping the head
warm, when compared with fleecy hats for instance?

(or do I tell them they have to wear a helmet on top of their fleecy
hat, neck warmer and face mask and goggles?) G


Personaly I find my helmet much warmer than a hat, That's why I tend not to
wear it in hot weather. Mind you I used to only wear it during racing,
training and vile weather, and now I seem to wear it all the time I'm skiing
unless I'm teaching (my helmet has a large chin guard which gets in the way)


--
Chris *:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 21:45:17 GMT, "John Ricketts"
allegedly wrote:

Nice picture!....granted, I wouldn't contemplate racing without one,
but isn't this just the nanny state philosophy kicking in yet again? I
reckon its less about protecting the individual than about minimising
the risk of litigation!

It's interesting that in the more litigious USA, helmets are not
compulsory but are certainly more common. The ski areas haven't mandated
their use out of fear of being sued, yet the majority appears to wear
them.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 06:14:37 +0100, "PG"
wrote:


"Champ" wrote in message
.. .
| On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 21:23:40 +0100, "PG"
| wrote:
|
| Back on the subject of helmets, my 12 year old watched a shot of Baxter
| on Ski Sunday in the slalom, and was disgusted that he wasn't wearing a
| helmet - ok it wasn't a speed discipline, but they really can
travel...
|
| She was disgusted? That a grown mad could make his own judgement on
| what precautions to take for his own life? See, this is what happens
| when we insist that kids wear helmets....

She was disgusted with what she saw as the example she felt was being
set, actually. A pretty mature position to hold for a youngster,
certainly beats jumping to conclusions about the motives/thinking of
others as you've just done!

What a load of double-think! She's the target audience, and yet she
was complaining that an adult was setting her a bad example? Surely
if it really was a bad example, she'd be saying "way cool, no helmet"?

You see sort of thing all the time on the Tour de France - the riders
are meant to wear helmets, but many of them don't when it suits them,
and just pay the fine to the organisers. The organisers are worried
that riders without helmets are setting a nad example, when in fact
they are setting the best example - take resposibility for yourself
and use your own judgement.
--
Champ

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:24:26 +0100, "PG"
wrote:

I agree, and always have done, that adults should have that choice. I do
not agree that this choice should be extended to minors.

Hmm. This is where it gets tough. I agree that a six year-old, say,
is not well equipped to assess risk. However, at some point, kids
become adults, and need to be able to assess risk for themselves. If
they've always worn a helmet, tho, then they're unlikely to be able to
assess the question objectively.

Back to the original poster's point - I would say that twelve years
old is a good age for kids to be thinking about these things
themselves.
--
Champ

On 10 Jan 2005 12:46:12 GMT, Switters wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 21:45:17 GMT, "John Ricketts"
allegedly wrote:

Nice picture!....granted, I wouldn't contemplate racing without one,
but isn't this just the nanny state philosophy kicking in yet again? I
reckon its less about protecting the individual than about minimising
the risk of litigation!

It's interesting that in the more litigious USA, helmets are not
compulsory but are certainly more common. The ski areas haven't mandated
their use out of fear of being sued, yet the majority appears to wear
them.

That's cos yanks are weenies :-)

Waiting in the queue for lift 10 at Kirkwood to open a few days ago,
there were about 50~60 diehards - all up early, and prepared to queue
to get first tracks (on a run that hadn't been open for 36 hours, with
lots of fresh). Me and Iain, both British, didn't have helmets. Of
the rest (all American, as far as I could tell), around 90% wore
helmets. Maybe those guys *really* rip, but I couldn't see their
justification, myself.
--
Champ

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:32:00 +0000, Champ wrote:

On 10 Jan 2005 12:46:12 GMT, Switters wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 21:45:17 GMT, "John Ricketts"
allegedly wrote:

Nice picture!....granted, I wouldn't contemplate racing without one,
but isn't this just the nanny state philosophy kicking in yet again? I
reckon its less about protecting the individual than about minimising
the risk of litigation!

It's interesting that in the more litigious USA, helmets are not
compulsory but are certainly more common. The ski areas haven't mandated
their use out of fear of being sued, yet the majority appears to wear
them.

That's cos yanks are weenies :-)

Waiting in the queue for lift 10 at Kirkwood to open a few days ago,

Hey, I thought you were at Squaw. What did you reckon to Kirkwood then
(apart from the five feet of powder you texted me about)? We were
muchly impressed when we skied there in November, and that was with
only the middle four chairs running. Loads of off-piste stuff, both
open and in the trees, and quite a lot of it pretty steep too.

there were about 50~60 diehards - all up early, and prepared to queue
to get first tracks (on a run that hadn't been open for 36 hours, with
lots of fresh).

Which run?

Me and Iain, both British, didn't have helmets. Of
the rest (all American, as far as I could tell), around 90% wore
helmets. Maybe those guys *really* rip, but I couldn't see their
justification, myself.

I guess it becomes so automatic they wouldn't think of _not_ wearing
them.

--
Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.