Skiing vs cycling

[davefb]

What difference does that make?

because it's not the risk of walking,, its the risk of crossing roads..

walking itself is a low risk activity ( or not)..

 

[davefb]

Oh yes, thanks @davefb for reminding us that this thread was originally about skiing vs cycling!

I wonder if you clicked on srw's original link and read the NYT article? (I have to declare here that I have never been skiing, so all I can do is refer to that article and others about Schumacher's accident, as well as drawing on what I know about traumatic brain injuries through my work.) The article is pretty definite about the fact that skiing helmets offer little or no protection against concussion, closed head injuries, traumatic brain injuries, or rotational neck/brain injuries (although the last one seems more speculative than the others). They offer some protection against scalp lacerations and skull fractures, but these are not brain injuries and are less likely to be serious or life-threatening. The 'perception of risk' factor seems to be crucial in that, among a certain population who are already risk-seekers, wearing a helmet might be leading them to be more reckless with regard to their own safety. That applies to other realms of behaviour and other alleged safety equipment as well of course.

The article's summing-up is interesting:
"Seventy percent of snow-sports fatalities involve men in their late teens to late 30s, according to the ski area association. That is the same population that most often engages in high-risk behaviors like driving fast. Head injuries remain the leading cause of deaths in skiing and snowboarding, Shealy said, with about 30 in the United States each year.
“The helmet does a very good job at protecting against skull lacerations and skull fractures, but it doesn’t seem to have much effect on concussions or T.B.I.’s,” Shealy said, referring to traumatic brain injuries. “Our guess is that this is due to the fact that those injuries are occurring at such a high magnitude of energy that they overwhelm what a helmet can do for you.”

yeah and it seemed a load of conjecture and talking about high risk.. schumacher was quite specifically wasnt in a high risk area.. and according to his medic, he'd be dead already if he'd had no helmet ( I guess fractured skull, which he has had before after a motorcycle accident I think..)

what should be happening from the info about 'do helmets help with', is that the helmets should be made 'better' to try to mitigate... not that people shouldnt wear helmets....

( why didn't I buy one skiing ? 80 quid back then... couldn't afford it...)

 

[Linford]

So, once again, a bit of a sidestep into an unlike for like comparison. Oh well, what did I expect?

This thread is a skiing versus cycling thread....I would personally say that skiing is more akin to the risks of motorcycling than cycling having done all three...that doesn't and shouldn't diminish the risks which cyclists are subjected too. Now you are insisting on a cut off point, and TBH you are clearly floundering in absence of your gang to back you up.....let me help you on this one. If you are infirm, then walking is dangerous. You should not walk without the aid of a stick, and indeed a safety lid may be of use if you have balance issues and intend walking on uneven ground.
If you are intending to walk on the pavement and your balance and vision is good, then you should be OK with neither. If you are cycling at walking speed on the pavement or in a place where there is a serious likelihood you will actually come across other vehicles, then you should regard safety gear as optional as if you were walking...however if you want to mix it up at cycling speeds and with traffic which regards your presence as an irritation, then you would be wise to mitigate against the possibility of falling off, or being knocked off.

There, is that clear enough or is common sense something for other people in your book ?

 

[Linford]

Amazing. Despite 12 pages of evidence (nee a whole section on a cycling forum about helmet "safety") you've still got the reasons for wearing a helmet completely arse about tit.

Im stunned.

What you are expecting me to do is to accept Adrians assertion that cycling on the roads is as safe as walking. Now I've provided data which contradicts Adrians assertions, so I am still not convinced and despite coming from a reputable and independent source he is sticking his fingers in his ears and doing the

thing !
Some people are just unreasonable.

Now tell me why you yourself cycle with a lid if you feel my assertion on head protection has no basis Smeggers ?

 

[Linford]

All very plausible but not right. Fit healthy people pitch up at A&E with head injuries. I want to know why you feel it OK to overplay one danger and underplay the equivalent for another group. It is very simple and just requires a simple honest answer.

A&E is full of fit and healthy people on Saturday night/sunday morning with head injuries...usually after a skinful !

 

[sazzaa]

My assertion is not that cycling is as safe as walking. It is that cycling is not sufficiently more dangerous to justify a greater level of protection.

Honestly I don't get this argument anymore. If I cycle 80km per week and walk less than 1km, is my risk not greater in the activity I'm doing more of at a higher speed in busy traffic? Am I dumbing this down too much? Stats include a whole load of variables that might not even be relevant to some of us. So shouldn't risk be assessed on an individual basis?

 

[Linford]

For godsakes - forget the vitriol, read the facts and then come back with answers to the following questions...

1) Are bicycle (not motorbike) helmets effective at high impacts (speed or force)?
2) Given the answer to No. 1, draw your own comparisons to walking.

.... looking forward to that moment of epiphany.

... or not.

[FWIW Ive had my own 'discussions 'in here some months ago, along the same lines, @Cunobelin , @McWobble , @Adrian and others were very effective at showing me the facts. It would do you no harm to listen occasionally]

So why are you still cycling with a lid mister ?

 

[Linford]

Honestly I don't get this argument anymore. If I cycle 80km per week and walk less than 1km, is my risk not greater in the activity I'm doing more of at a higher speed in busy traffic? Am I dumbing this down too much? Stats include a whole load of variables that might not even be relevant to some of us. So shouldn't risk be assessed on an individual basis?

Because there are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics

 

[Linford]

It is hard to break the habit, what with it being an emotional issue.

It is a simple question.
I ride my 170mph (ish) motorcycle without a lid from time to time...however, that is done on private land and at walking pace when parking up.
It is all about 'managing risk'...you can never completely remove it.

 

[thom]

And there's something of a lesson there for the cycling industry - the skiing industry does its PR rather better.

I think this is very true. A friend who has skied in Switzerland for most of his life and broke his leg while skiing as a child, told me that Swiss hospitals focus heavily on ski injuries in large part because of the fear of negative PR to a very important tourism industry.

It has been a couple of years since I skied but more recently when I did I wore a helmet, partly as I went off piste and the people/guides I skied with required it, partly because I thought it looked cool with ski-goggles… but partly because I know of no better way to keep your head warm in high wind atop a snowy mountain. I do remember being thankful that one or two accidental minor collisions happened while both parties had a helmet on.

Whatever the empirical stats, I honestly don't think there is a fair or constructive comparison to try to make between downhill skiing and general cycling. Maybe make it with downhill mountain biking, otherwise it isn't really a like with like comparison.

But the area of brain injuries in normal sports is of growing concern and very worthy of discussion because it seems to me people are quite happy to turn a blind eye to it. The sad case of Ben Robinson shows how bad the general awareness of the issue is. There is surely a cultural problem within rugby when even venerated players like Brian O'Driscoll set very public bad examples of playing through concussions. Football has issues, like Hugo Lloris' recently for Spurs. I wonder whether there are good studies on the loss of brain function coming from the normal heading of a football.

Anyway, nobody has yet cited the popular hit parade as a usage environment for helmets.
They seem to help Daft Punk Get Lucky but to end up with Random Access Memories is perhaps not a good sign of brain function.

 

[thom]

It is hard to break the habit, what with it being an emotional issue.

Are you talking about helmet usage or are you talking about talking about helmet usage ?

 

[Linford]

Sorry, a correction: Linford has posted what he thinks is a selfie, but it isn't one. As a bicycle is to a motorcycle, so is Linford's photograph to a selfie .

Do you have to be so small minded....more importantly, are you actually going to post something of value on this thread as I see virtually all of your posts as mindless trolling.

 

[Linford]

That would be a yes then....there is always CA&D, you just demonstrated that you don't really give a fig about this issue, you just want to pick an argument...that is clearly where your passion lies...

 

[thom]

For goodness sake, how old is everyone here ?

 

[Linford]

For goodness sake, how old is everyone here ?

I'm happy to debate the issue on merit....TMN has demonstrated she has another agenda on many occasions...