Helmets!

"Champ" wrote in message
...
| 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"?

She's a ski racer as I pointed out earlier, and in the full British
children's team. She lives in Les Arcs and races everything from slalom
to super G. She's trained by the 98 Olympic downhill champion week in
week out, and isn't some fortnight a year ski tourist spouting forth on
a topic he/she knows next to nothing about. Make your mind up - on the
one hand you say a 12 year old is old enough to think for herself and
then you carp when she has an opinion on the subject. Her view, from the
experience of free skiing and ski racing over a five month season each
year since she was six, is that a helmet has stopped her from sustaining
serious injury on several occasions, and that senior racers should set
an example to would-be racers by wearing a helmet.

Pete

Ace wrote:

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.

In the past the householder could do the work and as long as it was done
properly then everyone was happy. Unfortunately the government decided we
need more regulations covering this area and brought in the Part P regs. The
trouble is that the industry has had a very mixed reaction to the whole
thing and even the HSE say it will have very little impact on
injuries/deaths so we're left with a scheme that no one seems to want and no
one seems to need.
A DIYer could do a whole rewire themselves but it would now need certifying
by Building Control, which adds more expense than was involved before.

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

Jason Pereira wrote:
James Hart wrote:
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).
So as long as i say i rewired my house in December 2004 i will be ok.
Spose all the wire colours all change aswell just to prove dates/times
etc!?? now wheres the screwfix catalogue...........

It's all nice and confusing, as long as you say you started before 1/1/5 you
have until 1/4/5 to finish (the definition of started hasn't been agreed
yet, having a written plan could be classed as started for instance).
If you start on or after 1/1/5 then it falls under Part P regs.

The colours are changing though and they're using an overlapping set of
dates for the change (but different to those above) so it's impossible to
say when the work was done simply by looking at the colour of the wiring
used.

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:49:36 +0100, "PG"
wrote:

| 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"?

She's a ski racer as I pointed out earlier, and in the full British
children's team. She lives in Les Arcs and races everything from slalom
to super G. She's trained by the 98 Olympic downhill champion week in
week out, and isn't some fortnight a year ski tourist spouting forth on
a topic he/she knows next to nothing about. Make your mind up - on the
one hand you say a 12 year old is old enough to think for herself and
then you carp when she has an opinion on the subject.

Yes, she's old enough to have a valuable opinion.

Her view, from the
experience of free skiing and ski racing over a five month season each
year since she was six, is that a helmet has stopped her from sustaining
serious injury on several occasions,

And this is quite reasonable too.

and that senior racers should set
an example to would-be racers by wearing a helmet.

This is where it all falls down. The only resposibility a senior
racer has is to themselves. Whoever he is, I imagine the racer in
question had a reason for not wearing a helmet. Given that it only
affects him (i.e. it's only his brain at risk), then why isn't that
reason good enough for you and your daughter?
--
Champ

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:43:55 +0100, Ace wrote:

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

I loved it - never too crowded, even during the US holidays, *loads*
of tree skiing (which, considering the visibility most of the time,
was a good thing), and plenty of steep stuff. A couple of runs we
took off "The Wave" when they finally opened it on my last day there
were as good as an heli runs I've done (tho considerably shorted).

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?

We got 2nd chair (!), so in those circumstances, with several feet of
fresh, I think the only choice is to ride back under the lift,
whooping as you go :-)

The subsequent runs we did were all down the various Wagon Wheel
chutes, and then a little later they opened up Eagle Bowl and we did
some runs over there.

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.

I think that's it exactly. And, as I said elsewhere in this thread,
if you've grown up wearing a helmet, then you're probably less likely
as a young adult to say "hey, I can decide for myself now - do I want
to wear this thing?".
--
Champ

"Champ" wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:49:36 +0100, "PG"
| wrote:
|
| | 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"?
|
| She's a ski racer as I pointed out earlier, and in the full British
| children's team. She lives in Les Arcs and races everything from
slalom
| to super G. She's trained by the 98 Olympic downhill champion week in
| week out, and isn't some fortnight a year ski tourist spouting forth
on
| a topic he/she knows next to nothing about. Make your mind up - on
the
| one hand you say a 12 year old is old enough to think for herself and
| then you carp when she has an opinion on the subject.
|
| Yes, she's old enough to have a valuable opinion.
|
| Her view, from the
| experience of free skiing and ski racing over a five month season
each
| year since she was six, is that a helmet has stopped her from
sustaining
| serious injury on several occasions,
|
| And this is quite reasonable too.
|
| and that senior racers should set
| an example to would-be racers by wearing a helmet.
|
| This is where it all falls down. The only resposibility a senior
| racer has is to themselves. Whoever he is, I imagine the racer in
| question had a reason for not wearing a helmet. Given that it only
| affects him (i.e. it's only his brain at risk), then why isn't that
| reason good enough for you and your daughter?
| --

Children look up to the racing elite and emulate them. Her opinion is
that by not setting an example he is letting her generation down.
Whether you/the racer concerned/whoever thinks that the only
responsibility is to oneself is simply one standpoint. There are those
who think differently, and it is an entirely acceptable position to
hold, and argue.

On 10 Jan 2005 15:40:02 GMT, "David Mahon" wrote:


Champ wrote:

This is where it all falls down. The only resposibility a senior
racer has is to themselves. Whoever he is, I imagine the racer in
question had a reason for not wearing a helmet. Given that it only
affects him (i.e. it's only his brain at risk), then why isn't that
reason good enough for you and your daughter?

Not true - there are incidents now where skiers/boarders with helmets have
collided with other skiers/boarders and caused significant injury (I'm not
sure about death) that may be attributable to their helmets.

Well, yes, this is the whole "risk compensation" behaviour phenomenon,
and another argument for not having wide use of helmets on the slopes,
imo.
--
Champ

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:36:12 +0100, "PG"
wrote:

| and that senior racers should set
| an example to would-be racers by wearing a helmet.
|
| This is where it all falls down. The only resposibility a senior
| racer has is to themselves. Whoever he is, I imagine the racer in
| question had a reason for not wearing a helmet. Given that it only
| affects him (i.e. it's only his brain at risk), then why isn't that
| reason good enough for you and your daughter?
| --

Children look up to the racing elite and emulate them.

Your daughter doesn't seem to. But I guess she's different.

Her opinion is
that by not setting an example he is letting her generation down.
Whether you/the racer concerned/whoever thinks that the only
responsibility is to oneself is simply one standpoint. There are those
who think differently, and it is an entirely acceptable position to
hold, and argue.

I don't think you've really argued it. The proposition would seem to
be that senior racers not wearing helmets encourages children not to
wear helmets. However, the one example you have, your daughter, gives
the opposite result.

I would argue the following : "Senior racers taking responsibility for
their own safety encourages children to take responsbility for
themselves too". Is my arguement any more or less provable than
yours?

--
Champ

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:02:46 +0000, Champ wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:36:12 +0100, "PG"
wrote:

Her opinion is
that by not setting an example he is letting her generation down.
Whether you/the racer concerned/whoever thinks that the only
responsibility is to oneself is simply one standpoint. There are those
who think differently, and it is an entirely acceptable position to
hold, and argue.

I don't think you've really argued it. The proposition would seem to
be that senior racers not wearing helmets encourages children not to
wear helmets. However, the one example you have, your daughter, gives
the opposite result.

I would argue the following : "Senior racers taking responsibility for
their own safety encourages children to take responsbility for
themselves too". Is my arguement any more or less provable than
yours?

I think the available evidence would support a similar argument :
"Senior racers taking responsibility for their own safety encourages
children to discuss the issues involved".

Which is a good thing, IMO.

--
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.

About 6 years ago one of the lifites at Kirkwood (Seth) spun out racing
down to chair 4 (ask Iain about that..). Seth died from side impact on
his head. Since then helmets have been acceptable and proper at
Kirkwood. Like you said, almost everyone wears them.

Especially snowboarding where we are vulnerable to catching an edge a
helmet is more valuable. I know it has saved me from at lesst a
serious headache more than few times.

You, Champ, don't ride that fast or jump so I suppose you are less
vunerable to impact.

Other reasons for wearing a helmet:

1. Prevents head from sticking to the snow while sliding (neck injury)
2. Suspends goggles so the don't squeeze your head.
2. keeps you warm so you don't need a goofy head gaitor.

"Ride for Seth"
"Let Seth Ride"







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,
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