UKC

Helmets will probably never have a serious impact on mitigating death due to head injury since the typical fatal scenario has so much kinetic energy that it will overwhelm the protective elements of the helmet.

Really interesting article:

http://skicanadamag.com/2011/12/05/gear/helmet-science

In reply to Tom Briggs:

yes

In reply to Tom Briggs:

Absolutely, you only have to experience one helmet-less hard slam on an ice patch to realise the value of wearing a helmet....

In reply to Tom Briggs:

One friend who would very likely be dead had they not been wearing a helmet. Firm yes for me.

Apparently the same is true of Schumacher, but I don't know the details obviously.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

I'm a great supporter of the "swedish helmet"... aka. a beanie.

Think of it this way, which one breaks a beanie or the helmet from dropped from the 6th floor to tarmac... I will use the one that is better, as in stays intact.










Readers beware, don't trust everything you read in ze int3rw3b.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

Or to put it another way... "if you can guarantee that the only accidents you'll ever have are so violent that no protective gear would save you, there's not much point wearing a helmet."

That's not really a good argument against helmet use.

There's some reasonable summaries of various arguments for and against here: http://www.ski-injury.com/prevention/helmet

In reply to Tom Briggs:

There is no way (well except that 1 in a million chance an alpine brain weevil gets stuck under it) that wearing a helmet will do any harm.

Frankly these days for 99% of cases I see no reason not to wear a helmet, even if on piste.

Having said that, people not wearing helmets will surely help evolution (Darwin awards and all)

In reply to richardw87:


Which is exactly what the article says "With an impact on icy snow, the use of a helmet could be the difference between a significant head injury (possibly life-threatening) and a minor head injury.".

The conclusion Tom Briggs is quoting suggests that most fatal accidents couldn't be mitigated but a ski helmet because the impact was too severe anyway; but they also suggest they are pretty good at mitigating more minor injuries. Pretty obvious stuff really.

In reply to NottsRich:



I thought schumacher was wearing a helmet?

In reply to Tom Briggs:

I don't really wear a helmet because it'll help in a catastrophic crash, I wear it to help me walk away from less catastrophic incidents which would otherwise be much more serious. Even if it only prevents a lump on my head ending a day's skiing it's worthwhile.

It's also warm and cosy in cold and windy weather.

I can't see any down sides to be honest.

In reply to petellis:


He was... I think Rich was trying to say that while he's in a coma, if he hadn't have been wearing a helmet then he would have been dead.

All speculation but a pretty sensible assumption if you ask me.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

what about the crash the doesn't kill you but leaves you seriously injured.

i'm a boarder and fall over quite a lot (either from lack of talent, or just recklessness) and i've worn a helmet for several years now.

it's the ones that you walk away from (eventually) because you were wearing a helmet vs being brain damaged because you didn't that i wear a helmet for.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

IMO this argument is comparative to saying that there is no point using a bouldering mat because if you fall from high enough it will make a negligible difference - and yet we as sound minded folk know that what they will protect us from is small to medium impacts, which would otherwise damage our bodies considerably over time.

A helmet is NOT a bubble to insulate you from the world. You do not need that, and you do not want that. It is there for the simple purpose of staving off the smaller things, so that you can keep going. I've had at least four impacts whilst wearing various different helmets that I can near enough guarantee would have left me severely injured had I not been wearing them. An imperfect method for an imperfect world, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

I had a nasty crash in Chamonix which left me concussed for several days.

I was wearing a helmet at the time and have worn one on the slopes ever since.

As above, while helmets may not stop fatal damage they certainly prevent less serious injuries.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

Surely the big issue here is risk compensation - i.e. people going faster, tackling more dangerous terrain or doing more dangerous jumps, because they think (possibly subconsciously) that wearing a helmet will make it safer.

That in itself isn't a problem, better equipment has always lead people to push the boundaries. What we need to remember is that helmets are of limited use, and not the panacea that some seem to claim.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Interesting point. Many years ago when my brother started wearing a helmet (he is a pretty decent big-face boarder) he often referred to 'helmet balls' but apparently that quickly went. I don't recall whether I took more risks or not when I started wearing it for off-piste (probably because I was a bit shit in deep powder on thin skis).

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Seems very hard to quantify, especially the 'perhaps subconsciously' bit!

The argument pops up a lot. Problem is, the key risk group (14?-30?yo males) are the ones most prone to doing stupid things in the first place, and it would be tough to argue that, eg. adolescent boys would be less of a danger to themselves or others if they were bare-headed!

Also, I have knees, and a face, and various other bits of me that I'd like to keep intact that my helmet doesn't cover. I'd buy the risk compensation argument if people were wearing more armour; stuff like downhill mtb style impact shirts etc, but that doesn't seem to be very in snowsports...

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I often hear this argument, but I'm not sure how valid it is.

In my case I don't ride any differently whether I am wearing a helmet or not.

Wearing a helmet is obviously a personal choice and it's up to everyone to make their own decision.

But it makes me angry when the online anti-helmet brigade try to tell novice skiers and snowboards that they are more likely to get injured if they wear a helmet.

I think the advice to beginners should always be that wearing a helmet is safer...

In reply to crayefish:


Interesting, I started wearing one on piste last year after being knocked over by an out of control 12 year old. He knocked 7 people over I got away with bruises. The elderly couple standing behind me in the lift queue were helicoptered off the mountain. 90% of my skiing is touring in Scotland, I haven't felt the need to wear mine whilst off piste yet. On piste you tend to be going faster and there are far too many other people around you, unfortunately you never know quite how in-control they are.

In reply to Shearwater:



Wasn't that exactly the sort of arguments people were making against climbing helmets 20 odd years ago.

They won't save you if a rock the size of a car drops on your head so why bother?

In reply to crayefish:

Yes I was, thanks.

In reply to Shearwater:


Indeed, but surely as climbers we know that we are always more likely to push ourselves when near good gear, than at the end of a run-out


I see lots of back protectors these days, and my snowboarding friends wear more armour (wrist guards, arse pads, nappies...) than when they are mountain biking

I now wear a helmet myself, but my big concern with them becoming almost mandatory is not with people taking more risks in the fun parks and off-piste, but people going faster on-piste as a result of feeling safer, more insulated, warmer even.

In reply to OwenM:



Just goes to show you never know where the dangers are on a ski slope! lol

I could kinda see an excuse for not wearing it when touring (assuming there is f*ck all down hill) as speeds are generally pretty slow. Though in Canada I did a 15km uphill ski using those awful thin ones with soft shoes that only clip at the front. Never felt I needed the helmet (though still wore it). Coming down again the next day however... f*cking glad I had it as those skis are lethal down hill. Never had so many wipe outs. Haha

In reply to maxsmith:

I've had 2 crashes where I've been very glad I was wearing a helmet.

The first was losing a heel edge on sheet ice - I went down pretty hard and would probably have crushed the back of my head in. As it was, I had a bit of neck ache after. I was wearing a ProTec canoeing helmet at the time.

The second was slamming into a stupid beginner that didn't look before pushing off into my path on a fast red run. That tore the vent covers off my brand new Dainese helmet!

I also have a few scratches from branches while messing around off-piste.

Oddly, the only time my sisters have worn a helmet is when one of them borrowed mine for a heli-ski trip.

In reply to Shearwater:


I wear MTB elbow/forearm guards when boarding and sometimes when skiing, partly because I've already got chipped elbows and I don't want them broken (friend of mine has done this) and partly for brushing branches out of the way off-piste. I wear wrist guards boarding, I've known a few people break them. I'm known to wear a back protector when boarding if I'm not wearing a rucksack - don't tend to wear it skiing. First time I wore it, I got teased in the chalet - by the end of that day, several other people wanted one (sheet ice back to the resort). I also have impact shorts - I've already bust my coccyx once, I don't want to do that again (they're also warmer for sitting in the snow). I don't bother with knee pads, as I find them too restrictive under trousers. Several of my friends wear various levels of body armour.

I don't think it's risk compensation particularly - I'm pretty confident in my own abilities, but the reassurance is nice. These days, with busier resorts, I wear them as much in case I get hit by someone else out of control.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


People also go faster thanks to improvements in ski technology that have made skiing much easier than it was in the past. This means that people who are predisposed to being hazards can much more quickly get to a skiing standard where they can maximise the danger they put themselves and others in.

That's the problem with the risk compensation argument... its very difficult to prove, and there are a lot of other variables which would seem to have more influence.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I agree with all of that.

However, for those who say there is no 'downside' to wearing a helmet, I'm not sure I agree. I tend to feel 'cocooned' in my own little world when wearing a helmet and am definitely less aware of people skiing up fast behind me on the piste.

Whereas I don't see any downsides whatsoever to wearing a climbing helmet. I wear one even when climbing on the grit where there's little or no risk of stone fall, yet we all know that climbing helmets are only designed to withstand impact from above (i.e. not for 'swinging in' falls, which is what I might be worried about).

In reply to Tom Briggs:

Can't possibly be true, just look through a few old 'helmet' threads on here and see how often people say "I wasn't seriously hurt, but without my helmet I *definitely* would have died."

In reply to Tom Briggs:

"However, for those who say there is no 'downside' to wearing a helmet, I'm not sure I agree. I tend to feel 'cocooned' in my own little world when wearing a helmet and am definitely less aware of people skiing up fast behind me on the piste."

If you ski faster then no one can come at you from behind! I have heard that wearing a helmet may make you more confident at high speed

In reply to petellis:

He was, it has been suggested that he would not have reached the hospital alive, but for his helmet. I am not sure of the validity of the statement and obviously don't know the full details of the accident, but in a general sense appears to make sense.

In reply to Tom Briggs:




Sure about that?

In reply to Tom Briggs:


Agree, although anyone overtaking me on a piste is skiing way too fast


Oddly enough, I think climbing is the one sport where helmet can affect performance. Obviously the weight only a very marginal factor, more psychological that anything, but the heat can be issue. But the main problem I've noticed is that I hit my head on the rock far more when wearing a helmet. This may sound like a reason to wear one, but I think there is a certain spatial awareness we have as to the shape of our heads that means you can be close to the rock without touching it. Or maybe your head does touch, but without the disconcerting noises or bumping you get. Either where I do remember a route in the Lakes with a delicate, awkward start which I could only do without a helmet.

Cycling is the one sport I'd never do without a helmet, but I'd strongly oppose them being made mandatory, or used as means of blaming the victim for culpability for injuries caused by motorists

In reply to crayefish:



I think your mixing up Nordic track skiing with Alpine touring, I do Alpine touring, downhill type skis and fixed heel bindings.

In reply to OwenM:


Yeah I could never get the names right for the two! Never tried the Alpine style touring with the releasable heel bindings (they have those right or am I thinking of ANOTHER type?) but apparently it's much nicer all round than the silly soft shoed Nordic one I did. Though in tracks they have on those circuit routes they are actually pretty quick on the flat once you get the knack.

In reply to cuppatea:


That they're only designed to take impact from above? Yes - ask Petzl.

In reply to maxsmith:


I'm not sure you're the best person to make that judgment. It may feel like you don't but it's probably impossible to view impartially.

(Not picking on you, just making the point.)

The conclusion of the article is pretty much what we all knew anyway, isn't it? They won't prevent loads of deaths. It's a shame it doesn't look in further detail about reducing the seriousness of head injury.

In reply to Richard Alderton:

I take your point but I'm pretty confident I can self analyse impartially.

There is definitely a lack of research on 'halfway' head injuries.

Bottom line for me - if I'm going to suffer a blow to the head I would much prefer to be wearing a helmet than not.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

I believe the standard you're looking for is EN12492:2012.

In reply to Tom Briggs:


As opposed to from underneath, where the head is? (added because this is UKC and we are supposed to argue)

I was under the impression that foam helmets such as the Meteor were designed to absorb impacts to the top, back, front, side of the helmet - such as what might happen in a penduluming (is that a word?) fall, or a lead fall with rope behind a leg, and that hard shell helmets, with webbing cradle inside were designed to absorb/deflect blows from above - such as from rockfall.


http://www.petzl.com/en/outdoor/helmets

Helmets are a crucial piece of safety equipment for a variety of vertical activities. They protect the head against falling objects and against impacts with fixed objects - if the climber's head strikes the cliff in a fall, for example.

Helmets can be constructed in several ways, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Helmets made of expanded polystyrene (METEOR3+) are very light but retain marks from minor impacts. Helmets can be constructed using a hybrid of technologies and materials. The ELIOS' lighter ABS shell with expanded foam liner offers an excellent balance between weight and durability.

Or the BMC?

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/climbing-helmets

Climbing helmets come in 3 different flavours - hardshell, foam and hybrids. In general, foam helmets are best for rock climbing, hardshell best for winter & alpine, whilst hybrids are good all rounders. For foam and hybrid helmets, the more extensive and deeper the foam, the better the protection. Some offer almost as much protection around the rim as on the top of the head. Hardshell helmets offer very little protection towards the rim, but are strong against top impacts.


I have a morbid fascination with this topic, as well as a passing interest in the psychology behind the free choice we all have about whether to wear a helmet or not. Make your own mind up. I'm here now (typing rubbish on the net rather than at work) because I wasn't wearing a helmet.

In reply to cuppatea: These are climbing helmets I think ski helmets are padded out and constructed slightly differently.

In reply to OwenM:


Thanks for the insight, yes my links were referring to climbing helmets.

I have to admit to knowing very little about ski helmets. I would imagine that they are designed to offer more side/front/back protection than climbing helmets and little to the top of the head. Is that the case?


My original reply was to this

In reply to Tom Briggs - Jagged Globe:


What sort of helmets were you talking about, Tom?

In reply to Tom Briggs:

Is it worth living? Tricky one.

In reply to cuppatea:


Yeah they are not designed to take impacts from above... though I am sure they have some limited capability. It's all about side impact with ski helmets. Though I don't know what the testing procedure includes - if I recall climbing helmets only need to be certified from the various impact scenarios (blunt, point, etc) from above.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

I'll be wearing a helmet when I go skiing next week, but my question is : would my climbing helmet (Camp Armour) be ok? Only because it has my GoPro mount on it.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

"The question isn't can ski it and live
But you can live without skiing it"


The problem here is that it isn't black and white
Wearing a helmet = safe, not wearing a helmet = you will die
Off piste = dangerous, on-piste = safe

In reply to Tom Briggs:


Well, there are some key words here; note that it says they will probably never have a serious impact on mitigateing DEATH to head injury since the typical FATAL scenario etc etc etc.

That may be true, but it doesn't go into the benefits in situations other than the "typical fatal scenario". Or op put it another way, does it offer benefit it less serious incidents? Well, it doesn't say no. And therefore this article is a poor reason not to wear a helmet.

In reply to Chris the Tall:




Of course it's not black and white; it's about hedging one's bets. And it's (most of the time) not about dying but about the difference between a trivial incident with a rock bouncing off one's helmet and serious/painfu/unpleasantl/debilitating injury. "I can't climb for a few days, but hey! I was a hero because I was climbing without a helmet!" Um, yes.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
And therefore this article is a poor reason not to wear a helmet.

1st line, 2nd para summed that up "My colleagues and I are strong believers in helmets and encourage everyone to use one"

interestingly (if you're that way inclined) 44km/hr is about the fastest human running speed. It's kind of obvious, but serious injuries are far more likely once you go above the body's natural operating range.
I reccon most skiing isn't that much faster than flat out sprinting. (make of that what you will......)

I think I might start wearing a helmet walking to work, that's probably my most dangerous activity. I'm just off to email that nice chap Mr Bolt, he's running some big risk.

In reply to daWalt:

It's a bit like the regular UKC thread on wearing a climbing helmet for cycling, or vice versa. "Oh no" shout people, "cycles helmets aren't designed for climbing, don't wear one". True, they aren't, but a cycle helmet will offer better protection than no hlemet when climbing, and vice versa.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

cycling helmets are woefully inadequate for cycling if you looked at impact forces in this way, but that's another story.

In reply to Tom Briggs: It's worth banning helmets if only to slow down the growth of people wearing go pro cameras. ( comment not aimed directly at you mr cowdrey)
There must be some really boring videos doing the rounds if all the people I see bumbling about on and off the piste are recording and uploading their 'adventures'

Pmc

In reply to Tom Briggs:

I don't think that's completely true; the off-axis strike within the testing standard gives us some idea of the protection the side of the head would get in a swinging fall and I hope that all the helmet manufacturers aren't so cynical that they are only designing to get a helmet through the tests, rather than thinking about real world protection. I do though agree that this isn't talked about much - the Wild Country 360 seems to have been designed particularly to be a tough hybrid helmet that DOES emphasize side-protection (most hybrids don't). Wild Country sort of mention it passing whilst actually I reckon they should be shouting about it. Also the continuing belief by many British climbers that foam helmets aren't really that tough seems to me misplaced. Foam helmets seem to be much better designed for most UK rock climbing than hybrids or cradles.

In reply to crayefish:

I've never seen anyone wearing a helmet for cross country skiing. You would really get some strange looks doing that round my way!

In reply to baron:

No offence taken I won the GoPro, and don't upload videos unless it's of relative interest. Just a momento like photos.

In reply to Shearwater:

I always wear a helmet for ice climbing and I've occasionally worn a helmet when skiing off piste. When wearing a helmet I feel a little more immortal and tend to take bigger risks, I'm very aware of it. It's a good idea wearing any form of PPE when doing risky stuff but you have to be aware of how it changes your behaviour and concentration. This aspect has been heavily surpressed by the health and safety brigade who would rather not show you the statistics around additional safety features in cars or putting foam matting in children's play areas. It's perceived risk that controls our behaviour, and companies like Volvo have shown by experiment that making us feel less comfortably safe is the best way to protect us. So, if you believe in perceived risk then spend the helmet money on a few apres beers!

In reply to Jeff Ingman:


Doesn't your feelings of immortality when wearing a helmet just suggest you are really bad at perceiving risk then? Surely no one thinks that a helmet will do anything if the pillar of ice you are climbing collapses for instance.

In reply to Tom Briggs:
Another angle:

Never seen anyone wearing a helmet ski touring. Not worth it if you spend most of the day going up (extra weight to carry) and then descend around later in the day when it might be pretty warm. Plus most tourers tend to avoid taking high risks on descents as if you have an accident it's often not easy to get rescued - might be no phone signal for a start.

Don't ski on piste or do hard off piste but if I did a fair amount of that I would consider getting a helmet. On piste would be more of a concern actually as the piste is hard and hurts if you hit it, whereas off piste the snow is softer. Obviously there are rocks but I make sure I don't fall if it's dangerous to do so. Touring mentality again.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

I've written off a climbing helmet (BD foam thing) with an impact from behind when I flipped upside down and whacked the back of my head. Hardly felt the impact and carrried on climbing. So they do protect from more than just things falling on you from the top. Otherwise why bother wearing one where stuff is unlikely to fall on your head eg single pitch. Of course many people don't.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

I bopped myself with my axe pulling it out of some hard ice last year, the hammer would have hit my directly on the forehead if not for my helmet. The force of the blow caused me to fall!

Obvs I'm a rubbish climber, but that aside the helmet stopped the hammer from fracturing my skull!

In reply to Tom Briggs:

having knocked myself out falling over skiing and having to be medivacced off the mountain I now always wear a helmet!

In reply to Tom Briggs:

The discussion seems to be revolving around whether or not to wear a helmet whereas the article Tom refers us to actually makes some significant points about speed, areas in which accidents occur and the demographic of victims:
"...most snowsports fatalities due to head impact with solid fixed objects such as a tree take place at speeds of 44 kph or more. That speed is the average maximum speed seen by 650 consecutive skiers and snowboarders at three different resorts on wide, groomed blue-square trails—the sort of trails where most fatalities occur. Skilled young adult male skiers and snowboarders tend to go even faster than the rest of the population. This group is also the most commonly fatally injured. A review of most fatality reports shows that the typical fatality occurs to an experienced male between late-teens and late-30s in age, while travelling at a relatively high speed on the margins of intermediate runs."
These figures bear comparison with those relating to car accidents and suggest that in both cases speed is a significant contributor to the fate of the victims.
Another key point seems to be:"In terms of overall fatality rates nationwide in the U.S., there has been no decline (statistically significant or otherwise) even though nearly half the onslope population now wears a helmet." Now that is worrying because it runs counter to the commonsense view that wearing a helmet should decrease your chances of fatal accident. Something is happening here that deserves further research.
It may be that risk compensation is taking place but only research can reveal that as the victims' demographic group is notoriously bad at making objective judgements about its behaviour.
It may also be useful to consider whether the piste is becoming overcrowded. There must be statistics to examine but for what it's worth my impression on a recent visit to Chamonix is that accomodation for skiers has probably doubled within the resort over the past 10-15 years whilst the number of lifts and runs has remained pretty much constant. Now uplift capacity may well have increased with bigger, faster lifts but a doubling of piste area? I don't think so. Fat skis have encouraged more off-piste skiing but are helmets also a technological attempt to alleviate the dangers of overcrowding?
Of course it makes sense to wear a helmet: "Helmets are most effective in the mitigation of these minor head injuries." But Tom's point about being "coccooned" reflects the way helmets reduce auditory sensory input and peripheral vision which might in fact contribute to collisions. And there is clearly a problem if the increase in helmet use has NOT reduced fatalities as the research shows.
Perhaps we all just need to be more careful out there.

There's always a lot of pseudo-science and superstition (and fashion?) involved in this debate.

Into the melting pot of opinion I throw this:


It’s not just skiers who should wear helmets

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/10544734/Its-not...

"...announced the findings of a study using crash test dummies to examine the potential benefits of helmets for skiers and snow-boarders.

Surprise, surprise, forces exerted on the skull were “four times less” when head protection was worn. A helmet’s liner absorbs a proportion of the impact; the acceleration of the head is reduced; and the impact on the skull is spread over a larger area...."


And this:

'I was snowboarding one minute... then I woke up six weeks later'
https://www.headway.org.uk/my-story/charlotte-elmore.aspx

In reply to cuppatea: Thanks for that link - the comments below it from a bloke called "Tony" are interesting re New Zealand and Australia seeing an increase in head injuries following the introduction of compulsory helmet wearing (assuming it's true). And the fact that the writer is James Cracknell's wife (one of the greatest proponents of helmet-wearing and "brand ambassador" for a cycle helmet manufacturer).

Tony's slightly dodgy maths aside, I also find the number of near-death experiences from very pro-helmet (as opposed to those who just wear one but don't bang on about their mystical properties) people extraordinary, having skied for 25 years and never having bumped my head, not seen anyone with a head injury - and also cycling c6000 miles a year (wearing a helmet 95% of the time) and consistently failing to bang my head or see a any of my mates do so.

In reply to andy:

Your comments usefully emphasise the emerging consensus that it is behaviour modification rather than supplying technological "quick fixes" that will reduce fatal accidents. The NYT article below makes reference to other research and reaches the same conclusion: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/sports/on-slopes-rise-in-helmet-use-but-n...
This is remarkable in that it refers to the USA where piste patrollers will confiscate lift passes from skiers skiing dangerously, yet still the "need for speed" is an identifiable behaviour of the victim demographic.
Misha's points above also indicate how ski-touring affects behaviour, producing more cautious skiing since there is no guarantee of immediate transfer to hospital from remote situations in the event of an accident plus ski conditions are always off-piste and consequently more challenging.

In reply to Dave Wynne-Jones: I had a message posted by a mate who's got into snowboarding from more of an "urban extreme" background than me, who got into skiing as another thing to do in the mountains. His message was pointing out my "low maximum speed" on a day's skiing, pointing out that he had "maxed out" at 63mph the previous week on a snowboard - the thought of what damage you could do to yourself if you caught an edge at that speed on an icy, tree-lined piste is horrible - yet I'm the one who has to pay extra for insurance etc because I ski a lot of off-piste which I invariably do slowly and cautiously (and have no idea what my maximum speed is!).

In reply to Tom Briggs:


It depends...

There are downsides to wearing a helmet, in the form of reduced situational awareness (reduced hearing due to ear pads, restricted peripheral vision, etc). Then there's the risk compensation issue. And the increased spinal leverage.

On a recent thread, someone asked what earphones they should use for skiing and cycling. I suggested none (since they significantly reduce situational awareness), and got grief for 'butting in'. Some helmets have the facility to fit quite significant headphones, and I think this reduced situational awareness poses a significant risk to themselves and others.

I find it odd that the vast majority of responses hear seem to be "yes, obviously you should wear a helmet", when I'd hope that all climbers make a risk assessment of what they do, and decide on how much risk they are prepared to take (style of climbing, etc), including whether they wear a climbing helmet or not... It's no different with skiing/boarding; you make a risk assessment, and decide on what level of risk you are prepared to accept, considering what you are doing. If you want to eliminate all risk, don't go skiing...

In reply to captain paranoia:




I started wearing a helmet for piste skiing last year, so far I can't say I've noticed any loss of peripheral vision. The ear flaps on my mountain cap actually restrict my hearing more than my helmet does. I was quite pleasantly surprised at just how comfortable it is to wear, I suppose it does depend on which helmet you choose.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

"Helmets will probably never have a serious impact on mitigating death due to head injury since the typical fatal scenario has so much kinetic energy that it will overwhelm the protective elements of the helmet."

Perhaps this is true in some fatal scenarios. However, for lesser impacts helmets certainly can prevent serious injury.

It's a bit like saying "there is no point wearing a climbing helmet as some blocks are so large that the impact will be fatal regardless of a helmet".

In reply to Tom Briggs:

My impression is that the benefits of ski and cycle helmets are overstated in many quarters, for reasons made above.
But in both cases I wonder if there would be a greater reduction in injury severity if all those people who bought a helmet spent the money on tuition?
In both cases I suppose one is often wearing a helmet to protect against the dangerous actions of others.

In reply to Tom Briggs:


helmet are like ropes...bloody useless until you need them......

In reply to top cat:

Totally agree. I'd rather not wear one but they are a very necessary evil. I count the number of people I know dead or damaged from head injuries and anything to tip the odds in my favour in the event of something unpredictable happening must be a good thing.