My helmet saved my life on Sunday

Glad you're alright and I'm certainly not trying to discourage anyone from choosing to wear a helmet, but in a weird way, this whole idea that seems to becoming a popular point of discussion about whether or not to wear helmets while sport climbing brings to mind an analogy. Again, please understand I am not trying to be a jerk, I am just expressing the opinion of those who taught me to climb.

Whenever that thread bubbled up a few months back about the malfunctioning X4's, I thought to myself, I can't believe someone would just yell take and whip 8 feet onto a piece. Then, he proceeded to claim it was a gear malfunction. While I have no idea if he was right or wrong about whether the gear malfunctioned, I am sure that the climber malfunctioned first. As a climber, the minute you step into a climbing area, you are in danger. Climbing, belaying, or putzing around under the cliff. As the climber it is your job to limit your exposure to risk. Trad gear limits, but does not eliminate your risk. By electing to simply whip onto a piece, you accepted the risk that it may fail. Order of blame goes onto the climber first and the gear second.

I could argue it is the same with a helmet. I frequently climb in Eldo, notorious for crowds of newer climbers moving across loose rock. When I am belaying, I am watching the person I am belaying. If he/she knocks something off, I am aware of it either before or at the same time as the climber. Whenever I am moving under the cliff with climbers above me, I am watching and listening for rockfall. I wear a helmet but I don't rely on it, I rely on my own awareness and risk assessment to avoid these types of accidents. Now I don't wear a helmet sport climbing and don't consider it necessary because my exposure to risk is much less on a well-traveled sport cliff, but that said anytime I am climbing I am in the danger zone. As a result, I'm paying careful attention to what's happening above me, whether that's climbers, or ropes being pulled, or anything else.

Now, simple awareness does not protect against all. Even the most cautious climbers can have a hold break, a rock above naturally dislodge, etc. There are literally millions of things that could go wrong while climbing that could injure or kill you so helmets and other gear are certainly a good idea. Again, not trying to discourage people from wearing a helmet but too often I see newer climbers who buy a helmet and think that's the end of the equation. They have no awareness of their surroundings and just walk around blindly thinking that the thin piece of plastic on their head is all they need.

I guess really this is a roundabout way of saying that you, as the climber, are the best and first line of defense. Awareness of your surroundings, experience with gear, etc. all add up to a safer climber. Gear does not necessarily equal safety. It's like saying I bought a Volvo because of the exceptional safety ratings, but I'm a terrible driver. Those airbags don't help if you don't know how to keep yourself out of trouble.

Again, I would never judge someone for wearing a helmet and I am truly glad the OP came out of this alright, but I would just again stress to understand that climbing in all forms, even bouldering or sport climbing in a popular place like animal world is dangerous and you need to respect it at all times. I mean, who is safer, the newbie with a set of double cams who has never placed any gear or Honnold without any gear? The emphasis is on the climber, not the gear.

I recognize that I may come off like a condescending ass, but I just feel as if this reliance on gear has reached critical mass. Trad gear is not a bolt. A helmet does not make you invincible. They are simply tools that can minimize the risk when used correctly by an experienced climber who is also constantly assessing the risks surrounding him. I just hope my message comes across as be a safer climber and use gear appropriately to compliment your safety procedures. Gear is not replacement for experience and a solid awareness of the risks around you.

Mark E Dixon wrote: I'm not sure there is data to support your belief that wearing a helmet has been PROVEN to save lives. Would love to see the citations. ABS in cars doesn't decrease accidents. People drive more aggressively when they have it. I believe the helmet article cited above references a study from Australia where the implementation of a mandatory bicycle helmet law had no effect on accidents. Might have made it worse, I just can't remember and don't have time t review the article right now. I'll update and edit if I get the chance.

First off we are not bicyclists, the danger between the two sports is vastly different. Secondly I don't think I need to cite you articles on how helmets prevent head injuries. Are you saying if I hit you with a rock in the head the helmet may not be safer?

Simply put rock fall is a hazard that you may have no control over. Rock fall can happen randomly with no climbers above. Maybe the chances are low, but if you are wearing a helmet and are hit with a rock the helmet can save your life. I don't understand arguing against it.

to the OP; Thanks for posting!

Never a bad idea to hear other folks experiences of this nature. I've definitely had incidents in other endeavors that would have resulted in much more serious injury had I not been wearing a helmet.
The earth is not static, every part of it is always moving, at least at some pace. I used to go helmet-less at the sport crag; Was being lowered off of a route when my knee brushed the wall and sent a golf-ball sized rock toward the ground. Partner was awake and managed to side-step, with the projectile landing inches from his foot. You never know; we had done many, many laps on this route and thought the rock was solid enough.

TheBirdman wrote:Glad you're alright and I'm certainly not trying to discourage anyone from choosing to wear a helmet, but in a weird way, this whole idea that seems to becoming a popular point of discussion about whether or not to wear helmets while sport climbing brings to mind an analogy. Again, please understand I am not trying to be a jerk, I am just expressing the opinion of those who taught me to climb. Whenever that thread bubbled up a few months back about the malfunctioning X4's, I thought to myself, I can't believe someone would just yell take and whip 8 feet onto a piece. Then, he proceeded to claim it was a gear malfunction. While I have no idea if he was right or wrong about whether the gear malfunctioned, I am sure that the climber malfunctioned first. As a climber, the minute you step into a climbing area, you are in danger. Climbing, belaying, or putzing around under the cliff. As the climber it is your job to limit your exposure to risk. Trad gear limits, but does not eliminate your risk. By electing to simply whip onto a piece, you accepted the risk that it may fail. Order of blame goes onto the climber first and the gear second. I could argue it is the same with a helmet. I frequently climb in Eldo, notorious for crowds of newer climbers moving across loose rock. When I am belaying, I am watching the person I am belaying. If he/she knocks something off, I am aware of it either before or at the same time as the climber. Whenever I am moving under the cliff with climbers above me, I am watching and listening for rockfall. I wear a helmet but I don't rely on it, I rely on my own awareness and risk assessment to avoid these types of accidents. Now I don't wear a helmet sport climbing and don't consider it necessary because my exposure to risk is much less on a well-traveled sport cliff, but that said anytime I am climbing I am in the danger zone. As a result, I'm paying careful attention to what's happening above me, whether that's climbers, or ropes being pulled, or anything else. Now, simple awareness does not protect against all. Even the most cautious climbers can have a hold break, a rock above naturally dislodge, etc. There are literally millions of things that could go wrong while climbing that could injure or kill you so helmets and other gear are certainly a good idea. Again, not trying to discourage people from wearing a helmet but too often I see newer climbers who buy a helmet and think that's the end of the equation. They have no awareness of their surroundings and just walk around blindly thinking that the thin piece of plastic on their head is all they need. I guess really this is a roundabout way of saying that you, as the climber, are the best and first line of defense. Awareness of your surroundings, experience with gear, etc. all add up to a safer climber. Gear does not necessarily equal safety. It's like saying I bought a Volvo because of the exceptional safety ratings, but I'm a terrible driver. Those airbags don't help if you don't know how to keep yourself out of trouble. Again, I would never judge someone for wearing a helmet and I am truly glad the OP came out of this alright, but I would just again stress to understand that climbing in all forms, even bouldering or sport climbing in a popular place like animal world is dangerous and you need to respect it at all times. I mean, who is safer, the newbie with a set of double cams who has never placed any gear or Honnold without any gear? The emphasis is on the climber, not the gear. I recognize that I may come off like a condescending ass, but I just feel as if this reliance on gear has reached critical mass. Trad gear is not a bolt. A helmet does not make you invincible. They are simply tools that can minimize the risk when used correctly by an experienced climber who is also constantly assessing the risks surrounding him. I just hope my message comes across as be a safer climber and use gear appropriately to compliment your safety procedures. Gear is not replacement for experience and a solid awareness of the risks around you.

I don't really follow your argument.

On the one hand, you have situational awareness, which as you mention is important whether or not you are wearing a helmet. More situational awareness = more safe.

On the other hand, you have wearing a helmet. In some situations wearing a helmet may prevent a serious accident. I can't think of any situations where wearing a helmet would cause an accident. It's not like when you put on a helmet all the sudden you are impervious to rockfall, and most (all?) people realize this -- just like you mentioned walking around Eldo. So it would seem that helmet = more safe.

Of course there are some situations where wearing a helmet reduces the risk so marginally that you may conclude "it's not worth it" for whatever reason. Taking your umpteeth burn on a severely overhanging sport route? I doubt anyone will call you out for not wearing a helmet. Is it less safe? Maybe, but only by a small fraction. For most (all?) people, this fraction is small enough that they are willing to accept the slight decrease in safety for the increase in performance. That tradeoff is a reasonable one to make IMO, but I can't quite think of any reason in that case (or any other) that a helmet would actually make it less safe.

Caveat: Squeeze chimneys. But if you find yourself in one of these, you probably have bigger life issues to grapple with.

Nowhere do I say it's one or the other. I simply said awareness is much more important than the helmet but I did say a helmet never hurts, it's just not the be all end all.

Mark E Dixon wrote: I'm not sure there is data to support your belief that wearing a helmet has been PROVEN to save lives. Would love to see the citations. ABS in cars doesn't decrease accidents. People drive more aggressively when they have it. I believe the helmet article cited above references a study from Australia where the implementation of a mandatory bicycle helmet law had no effect on accidents. Might have made it worse, I just can't remember and don't have time t review the article right now. I'll update and edit if I get the chance.

Leave it to my buddy Mark to refer to a study about ABS, that had to be done what, 40 years ago?

I am assuming you are implying that a persons risk acceptance will increase disproportionately in realation to the tangible increase in protection one recieves from wearing a helmet. Which is a valid concern and something that is a common problem in backcountry skiing. People have an avalung and an airbag so they go after lines they shouldn't. This is something we teach people to be aware of and constantly ask themselves if they are allowing their risk acceptance to increase unwarranted.

In climbing, however, this is not really something to be concerned about. Very few climbers would tell you they climb harder with a helmet on. It has nothing to do with the outcome of their end goal. Climbing a route will be succesful and safe based on many far more integral parts, mainly the climber themselves, than the presence of a helmet. I can't climb .13c and just having a helmet on my head is not going to make me want to try or more or even be able to get 10 feet off the deck. As opposed to being in the backcountry where all that safety gear might make me think about trying that epic untouched chute.

Rockfall is a spontaneous thing that will always happen as long as gravity is around. Youcan be more aware than anyone on earth with cat like reflexes, but 16 pitches up the Salathe anchored into a hanging belay and a couple softball sized blocks rain down, there isn't a shred of "experience" or "skill" that will save even the incredible Mark E Dixon. Conqueror of Cho Oyo(almost).

ChefMattThaner wrote: I am assuming you are implying that a persons risk acceptance will increase disproportionately in realation to the tangible increase in protection one recieves from wearing a helmet. Which is a valid concern and something that is a common problem in backcountry skiing. People have an avalung and an airbag so they go after lines they shouldn't. This is something we teach people to be aware of and constantly ask themselves if they are allowing their risk acceptance to increase unwarranted. In climbing, however, this is not really something to be concerned about. Very few climbers would tell you they climb harder with a helmet on. It has nothing to do with the outcome of their end goal. Climbing a route will be succesful and safe based on many far more integral parts, mainly the climber themselves, than the presence of a helmet. I can't climb .13c and just having a helmet on my head is not going to make me want to try or more or even be able to get 10 feet off the deck.

Yes, this is the suggested mechanism explaining why some safety measures seem not to have the desired effect. I actually don't know whether climbing helmets are overall safer than not wearing them and am pretty sure most of those posting on this thread don't actually know either, in the sense of having reliable objective data. Just have opinions based on limited personal observations. Which they seem very sensitive about having questioned! Guess that's human nature.

But is it really an issue of how 'hard' a climb is? I'd think it was more about how dangerous, chossy, or exposed a route is, or maybe the fall danger (e.g. hitting obstacles.)

ChefMattThaner wrote: even the incredible Mark E Dixon. Conqueror of Cho Oyo(almost).

And I'm still waiting for my Piton d'Or for that too!

In a climbing career spanning 30 years helmets have saved the life of me or a partner on 4 separate occasions. You can make the choice for yourself but I do know that not wearing a helmet at the crag makes as much sense as driving without a seatbelt. I even boulder with a helmet- I have a small ego and limited climbing skills so it has not cramped my style but definitely marks me as a supernerd. All I can say is that I am able to post this comment because a helmet prolonged my life.

Mark E Dixon wrote: Yes, this is the suggested mechanism explaining why some safety measures seem not to have the desired effect. I actually don't know whether climbing helmets are overall safer than not wearing them and am pretty sure most of those posting on this thread don't actually know either, in the sense of having reliable objective data. Just have opinions based on limited personal observations. Which they seem very sensitive about having questioned! Guess that's human nature. But is it really an issue of how 'hard' a climb is? I'd think it was more about how dangerous, chossy, or exposed a route is, or maybe the fall danger (e.g. hitting obstacles.) And I'm still waiting for my Piton d'Or for that too!

You are right it really isn't about how hard the routes are, it's more about the spontaneous nature of rockfall. A chossy 5.7 alpine route is far more dangerous tha a .13d sport in CCC.

I guess my question is why you would even suggest that wearing a helmet makes you less safe. Do you have any studies related to climbing that suggest this? Do you assume that people wearing helmets are therefore oblivious the the possible dangers lurking above them? Does me wishing to be protected while in much more vulnerable positions such as belaying (I.e. cant run out of the way)??

In my experience my helmet has yet to "save my life" while climbing, but it has definitely saved me a few headaches and serious head wounds from the smaller rocks that come loose. To me its similar to stick clipping a high first bolt (I do not own a stick clip) if you fall before you get the first bolt on most routes you are not going to die, but you could very likely break an ankle or something else menacing that could keep you out for months. I dont ever assume my helmet is going to save my life, that is my job, but it sure is nice when it deflects a couple smaller rocks that would have hurt none the less. Maybe it is just as a Colorado alpine climber, I have a greater appreciation for loose rock.

Wait, you have probably been in the mountains before too, right Mark? Is there less rockfall in the Himalayas because its mostly snow and ice anyway?

Mark E Dixon wrote: And I'm still waiting for my Piton d'Or for that too!

Hahahaha, I love it! Piton d'or

Because you left shit on the mountain.... thats the difference between that one and the piolet d'or, right??

Good thing my coffee wasn't ready yet or you would owe me a new keyboard!

The helmet wars continue, in nearly every sport. I feel like (no, I know) I've participated in this exact same discussion with skiers, cyclists, and climbers.

Tell you what, I wear helmets. Do whatever the hell you want, it's your head. I make my living with my head. Even a minor head injury that resulted in temporary cognitive defects would be supremely inconvenient.

There is a simple way to evaluate risk and benefit. If probabilty of injury X probability a helmet would prevent injury X cost of injury > cost of helmet + cost of looking dorky, then wearing the helmet makes sense. In gravity sports the probability of injury can be managed, but is ALWAYS present. The probability that a helmet would prevent a head injury is not 100% but is also not 0%. The cost of a head injury, for those of us who actualy use our brains, is enormous. Not just medical expenses, but lost income, lost ability to enjoy our sports, lost ability to interact with the world and our loved ones, all of that adds up to huge. So, a low probabiliyt of injury X a medium probability of preventing injury X huge costs is far greater than $50-$100 for a helmet + looking dorky.

You choose how to value your injuries, and how to value looking dorky. I've made my call. And the banged up helmets I've retired over the years tell me my call was the right one.

James Piotrowski wrote:There is a simple way to evaluate risk and benefit. If probabilty of injury X probability a helmet would prevent injury X cost of injury > cost of helmet + cost of looking dorky, then wearing the helmet makes sense.

What does your car look like? I want to see if you wear one when you drive.

Rick Blair wrote: What does your car look like? I want to see if you wear one when you drive.

I always wear a seatbelt, I drive vehicles with very high safety ratings, multiple airbags, crumple zones, ABS, good tires (fully inflated), working headlights, and I drive pretty cautiously. The odds of me being in the kind of accident in which a helmet would provide effective protection are extraordinarily small (like lottery-small, and I don't play the lottery). I have a high probability of fender benders, but those don't result in head injury. I have a really low probability of being in the kind of catastrophic accident that would result in head injury. And to be in an accident that would result in head injury, but only the kind of head injury that a helmet would protect (in other words, an accident that results in a blow to the head, but does NOT result in airbags deploying, and results in blunt trauma injury rather than deceleration injury which a helmet doesn't help with) is a vanishingly small probability.

I have always worn a helmet when on a motorcycle.

glad you're ok, Rich. Jeeze, that was a tag on the head

Rationally Irrational?

James Piotrowski wrote: a minor head injury that resulted in temporary cognitive defects would be supremely inconvenient.

James Piotrowski wrote:The cost of a head injury, for those of us who actualy use our brains, is enormous. Not just medical expenses, but lost income, lost ability to enjoy our sports, lost ability to interact with the world and our loved ones, all of that adds up to huge.

Definitely agree with the above points.

James Piotrowski wrote: In gravity sports the probability of injury can be managed, but is ALWAYS present. The probability that a helmet would prevent a head injury is not 100% but is also not 0%.

Agree as well: a helmet reduces, but does not eliminate the risk of acute head trauma.

However, I would argue: a small percentage multiplied by a large number is still a large number. Despite putting an extremely high value on your brain's optimal function, you still engage in activities that have a greater then normal probability of injuring your dome piece.

Wouldn't the most rational course of action be to take up fly fishing or golf?

James Piotrowski wrote:I have always worn a helmet when on a motorcycle.

Mind blown.

I do flyfish, far more than I ski or climb. But the risk of drowning while flyfishing is just as serious as the risks faced by climbers.

If your mind is blown it is because you are tryign to oversimplify. WHETHER to engage in an activity is a different decision than HOW to engage in that activity. I am not going to refuse to go skiing, climbing, flyfishing, or cycling because of the risk. If I did that I also woudl not drive a car, cross the street, ride in a bus, eat meat purchased at a grocery store, and I would never have had sex with anyone. I choose to engage in activities that entail some degree of risk because those activities have utility to me that outweighs their risks.

Once someobody decides to engage in an activity, they then have to decide HOW to engage in that activity, including which safety measures they will employ. The decision to ski the back country is one thing, the decision to ski a 45 degree slope the day after a 6-foot dump on top an inch-thick ice crust, after forgetting your transceiver and breaking your partner's probe while using it to fish something out of the back of the pickup truck, is totally separate.

So I have decided I will engage in gravity sports, and I have decided that I will do things to reduce the risk of harm, where those things make sense, such as wearing a helmet. And while I may never ride a motorcycle again, I may also decide that I am a good and cautious rider who can safely avoid serious injury as long as I choose carefully where and under what conditions to ride. The mountains of Idaho offer some fabulous choices.

For me climbing is all about risk management, and I feel similarly to James: if there's something I can do for little or no cost, like wearing a helmet or tying knots in the end of the rope or adding an autoblock before I rappel, then I do it (the cost of these is a small amount of weight or time or both) (oh, and I'm past the age where I care if I look dorky or not). I also want my belayer to wear a helmet in case I drop something on her.

One off-topic note about seat belts: not only do I always wear one, I like laws that require YOU to wear one. The reason is that if I happen to make a mistake and cause an accident, then the other driver's use of a seatbelt reduces the probability of him or her getting hurt, as well as the severity of the potential injury, and therefore the likelihood of me getting sued. For the same reason, it also reduces all of our automobile liability insurance rates.

I suppose this argument can apply to climbing, as well: if everyone else wears a helmet, that reduces the risk of me causing an injury if I drop something on someone below me. A friend of mine suffered a head injury from a rockfall likely caused by someone in his party (it hit him in the back of the head just below the helmet, unfortunately), and he had to be evacuated by helicopter. The insurance company wasted no time investigating in an effort to determine fault, presumably to try to pin the cost of the rescue onto someone else.

For people too cool to were helmets there is this.

nothing says cool like an inflatable helmet

hovding live crash test

D.Buffum wrote:Arguing that a helmet makes you feel safer, take more risks and therefore you shouldn't wear one is like arguing that a rope makes you feel safer, take more risks and therefore you should free solo everything.

The argument I would make is that wearing a helmet makes you feel safer, and IF you fail to compensate for this tendency it MIGHT lead to you to take risks you might otherwise avoid. Or lead you to drop your situational awareness that Birdman described, thereby increasing your risk.

In my limited soloing experience, I definitely found myself a lot more focused and less likely to fall!

ChefMattThaner wrote: Hahahaha, I love it! Piton d'or Because you left shit on the mountain.... thats the difference between that one and the piolet d'or, right??

Yeah, piolet d'or, I think they gave me that one, it's hard to keep track of the little details when you live a life of international eco-villainy.