Helmets!

"Champ" wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 06:42:32 +0100, "PG"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Champ" wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:45:48 +0100, "PG"
| | wrote:
| |
| | mega snip
| |
| | So, can you explain again why a racer without a helmet (who seems
to
| | be in a minority) is setting a bad example?
|
| You've got to be kidding...
|
| No, really.
|
| You've stated that almost all racers are wearing helmets, so why are
| the few that don't going to have any sort of influence?

Depends on several factors. In France a racer that doesn't wear a helmet
is unlikely to have significant influence unless he/she receives
proportionately greater media attention for some reason (local skier,
major event winner, etc). Whereas the UK is a different story, as there
are only two British male racers with any kind of public profile (just
one until quite recently), so that influence is potentially greater. In
both cases a disproportionate degree of influence is possible, depending
on the circumstances.

Pete
www.skiclublesarcs.com

Nick Hounsome wrote:
"David Mahon" wrote in message
...

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.

No it's attributable to them being out of control.

Punish the dangerous not the careful.


Why do you consider wearing a helmet a punishment?


--
Chris *:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

As the OP, can I just chip in here.....

On the subject of skiing my experience is that low speeds the nature of
the skiis and the slopes seems to make hitting your head very unlikely -
mostly it is more of a semi-controlled sitting down. I don't ski fast
unless the piste is flat and clear - if I did I would probably wear a
helmet.

This is my point exactly....Its horses for courses. Most of the responses to
my post seem to be about racing. I'm not talking about racing. I'm talking
about the family tootling down greens and blues admiring the scenery. In
this instance, helmets are obtrusive, and detach you somewhat from the
surroundings. I also think they can restrict the senses (vison/hearing) to
the extent that you are less aware of other traffic! The decision ought to
lie with the parent, who is hopefully intelligent enough to make a fair risk
assessment.

As a parent, I would not want my children to go racing without proper
protection, and would not consider it myself. Enforcing skiing tourists to
wear them is just not on and should never happen.

"John Ricketts" wrote in message
...
| As the OP, can I just chip in here.....
|
| On the subject of skiing my experience is that low speeds the nature
of
| the skiis and the slopes seems to make hitting your head very
unlikely -
| mostly it is more of a semi-controlled sitting down. I don't ski
fast
| unless the piste is flat and clear - if I did I would probably wear
a
| helmet.
|
| This is my point exactly....Its horses for courses. Most of the
responses to
| my post seem to be about racing. I'm not talking about racing. I'm
talking
| about the family tootling down greens and blues admiring the scenery.
In
| this instance, helmets are obtrusive, and detach you somewhat from the
| surroundings. I also think they can restrict the senses
(vison/hearing) to
| the extent that you are less aware of other traffic! The decision
ought to
| lie with the parent, who is hopefully intelligent enough to make a
fair risk
| assessment.
|
| As a parent, I would not want my children to go racing without proper
| protection, and would not consider it myself. Enforcing skiing
tourists to
| wear them is just not on and should never happen.

Trusting parents to make an informed decision about whether their
children should wear helmets is a mistake IMO. Intelligence isn't
enough - the great majority of ski tourists have little or no knowledge
of the FIS piste etiquette rules, and are simply too inexperienced and
ill-informed themselves to judge what's best. Their limited experience
of the dangers of the mountain environment is demonstrated time and
again on the piste, as holiday rush/sheer stupidity/ignorance etc affect
a not insignificant number - and not just the gung-ho teenagers, I've
seen many a 'respectable' father mistake himself for the Herminator in
conditions of heavy traffic.

Children ambling down a piste on holiday take a tumble far more
frequently than the 'pro' ski racers. They are far less aware of their
surroundings and change direction randomly - both by accident and
design. Skiers/boarders coming up behind a slower person are often
unaware of the priority rules. They regularly don't allow for unexpected
movements downhill of them. Many are unaware how changing snow
conditions can affect their level of control. Collisions are a frequent
occurence, the occasional one very violent indeed. It is not just a case
of protecting people from themselves.

Helmets 'detaching you from the environment' ... well, that is not my
experience. You can hear and see just fine, and racers don't seem to
have a problem. As a parent with several children who don't race as well
as the one who does, I can think of a number of incidents where a helmet
has protected them - and particularly the youngest - from what could
have been quite serious injury. They include being taken out at speed
from behind by both boarders and skiers, as well as some nasty falls
from overenthusiastic skiing of bumps.

Pete
www.skiclublesarcs.com


I spend several months a year on the pistes.

John Ricketts wrote:
As the OP, can I just chip in here.....

On the subject of skiing my experience is that low speeds the nature
of the skiis and the slopes seems to make hitting your head very
unlikely - mostly it is more of a semi-controlled sitting down. I
don't ski fast unless the piste is flat and clear - if I did I
would probably wear a helmet.

This is my point exactly....Its horses for courses. Most of the
responses to my post seem to be about racing. I'm not talking about
racing. I'm talking about the family tootling down greens and blues
admiring the scenery. In this instance, helmets are obtrusive, and
detach you somewhat from the surroundings. I also think they can
restrict the senses (vison/hearing) to the extent that you are less
aware of other traffic! The decision ought to lie with the parent,
who is hopefully intelligent enough to make a fair risk assessment.

As a parent, I would not want my children to go racing without proper
protection, and would not consider it myself. Enforcing skiing
tourists to wear them is just not on and should never happen.

The problem is that you and your children may well be tootling down greens
and blues, but you are not the only people on the piste, and even worse the
blue or green you are tootling down may be crossed by a red or even a black
run. and the other users may well be out of control, or have just fallen and
they and their equipment is sliding down the hill.

I am also intrigued by the idea that Helmets "restrict the senses", Most
helmets worn by non racers do not impinge on your area of vision, and many
do not even cover your ears. Even Helmets designed for racing tend to have
holes to allow you to hear normally.

I bought my Helmet for racing, Helmets are required for all racers on dry
slopes so I didn't really have much choice. In the beginning I used only to
wear it on snow when I was training, Racing or the weather was vile (Helmets
are much better protection from a blizzard than a woolly hat!), but over
time I have been wearing my helmet more and more of the time, Mainly I think
because of the apparently deteriorating level of control of many
skiers/boarders and also because of the deteriorating snow conditions which
seem to be leaving more and more obstructions uncovered by snow.

I don't believe that Adults should be forced to wear helmets, but I do
believe you are being negligent if you allow small children to ski without
one!


--
Chris *:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

Almost all laws are about protecting person A from person B. However,
things like the seatbelt law and helmet laws are about protecting
person A from person A, and I really don't think that's the business
of the state.
--
Champ

That's fine as long as person A does a proper job and terminates
him/herself. If person A ends up as chronic wreck then the state (i.e. the
rest of us) has to pay that cost..... so why should I pay for person A's
stupidity / how much should the state restrict person A's freedom of choice.
It's a question of balance and hence there will be no right/wrong answer.

"MoonMan" wrote in message
...

I don't believe that Adults should be forced to wear helmets, but I do
believe you are being negligent if you allow small children to ski without
one!

Does 12 class as small?

"PG" wrote in message
...

"Nick Hounsome" wrote in message
. uk...
|
| "PG" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Nick Hounsome" wrote in message
| . uk...
| |
| | On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:36:12 +0100, "PG"

| | wrote:
| |
| |
| | I don't think that feeling disgusted can reasonably be called a
| discussion
| | of the issues.
|
| Straw man. This is the logical fallacy of refuting a caricatured or
| extreme version of someone's argument, rather than the argument
they've
| actually made.
|
| You have lost the thread - there is no post that says that the child
| discussed anything at all she was only reported as being disgusted.

Her views were mentioned in passing and were never held up to be a
discussion of the issues. Therefore your reply is a straw man, as I
said.

On the contrary - the fact that a young child can be "disgusted" by the
sight of a pro racer not wearing a helmet is extremely relevant to the issue
of the social pressures restricting freedom of choice regarding wearing a
helmet.

"MoonMan" wrote in message
...
Nick Hounsome wrote:
"David Mahon" wrote in message
...

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.

No it's attributable to them being out of control.

Punish the dangerous not the careful.


Why do you consider wearing a helmet a punishment?

An invouluntary payment is usualy regarded as a tax or a fine. A fine is a
punishment.

"PG" wrote in message
...

"Champ" wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 06:42:32 +0100, "PG"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Champ" wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:45:48 +0100, "PG"
| | wrote:
| |
| | mega snip
| |
| | So, can you explain again why a racer without a helmet (who seems
to
| | be in a minority) is setting a bad example?
|
| You've got to be kidding...
|
| No, really.
|
| You've stated that almost all racers are wearing helmets, so why are
| the few that don't going to have any sort of influence?

Depends on several factors. In France a racer that doesn't wear a helmet
is unlikely to have significant influence unless he/she receives
proportionately greater media attention for some reason (local skier,
major event winner, etc). Whereas the UK is a different story, as there
are only two British male racers with any kind of public profile (just
one until quite recently), so that influence is potentially greater. In
both cases a disproportionate degree of influence is possible, depending
on the circumstances.

You seem to be taking the notion of the responsibility of pros rather a long
way he now it seems that their responsibility rises and falls not just
according to their own behaviour but according to the rankings of their
fellow countrymen and whether the BBC decides to increase coverage of
skiing!