Helmet or no Helmet
|
You don't need a helmet until you need a helmet |
|
Kevin Mokracek wrote:You don't need a helmet until you need a helmetYou don't need air either until you need air... but the chance you will need air is alot higher than the chance you need a helmet. Should I not climb because there is a chance I will need an ER doctor? |
|
Nick Goldsmith wrote:I see that owen is a bundel of fun....... NOT......Losing a couple of people you care about to fully preventable deaths in the mountains will do that to you. Climbing deaths ripple in ways those who haven't experienced it or something like it tend not to understand. The craven drumbeat of the retail outdoor industry telling us to go bigger bigger bigger and then pretend to be surprised when one or two of their sponsored athletes die every year is one of the most disturbing aspects of our sport. If anyone wonders why wearing a helmet is even something we waste pixels on, look no further than the photos in the climbing mags. Those people want our money and don't give a damn who end up without a father or sister or child. |
|
Bryan Ferguson wrote:I wonder, if the drive to the crag is the most dangerous part of a day of climbing, why don't we helmet up for that? Wearing a helmet doesn't make anything safe. It can make climbing safer by addressing one set of risk exposures - impacts to the dome. No protection for the face and not much (or any) for the c-spine. Sometimes I wear a helmet. Bouldering exposes a climber to head injury, too. It's a little concerning when climbers explain that their helmets have saved them many times - what does a day at the crag entail for these folks? Old helmets are really beefy with webbed suspension, foam innards and a tough shell (I saw one at the AAC museum, once). The industry and consumer have moved away from these features to ever lighter, thinner helmets with more and more breathing holes. One of the biggest selling points for the helmet I just bought is it's light weight (that's why I bought it. Well, that and it's very attractive, too). The second big selling point is it's great ventilation, made possible by many holes in the helmet. Why aren't climbers rejecting helmets that offer less protection, if safety is paramount? Helmets are big business.Those "beefy" helmets were less effective at absorbing impacts. |
|
John Barritt wrote: What? You think people who freesolo are running up the cost of insurance? A butt load of people get hurt climbing every year. On approaches and rappels and climbs and boulders. Freesolo injuries or deaths are few and far between because falling is not an option. Gear mistakes and failures account for way more injuries and deaths than freesoloing. I say gear dependant hang danglers are running up the cost of insurance. JB PS Sorry for the highjack, wear a helmet. Insurance exists in part to allow people to take risks. Life is risky, and bearing the full brunt of low-probability, high consequence events is tough for most people's finances. The issue is what kinds of risks the risk pool is willing to cover. Extending coverage to people who intentionally forego the risk-mitigating technology standard to their activities is the sort of thing that disqualifies you from a risk pool. Just like a smoker has to pay higher life insurance rates, so do climbers. At some point, excessive risky behavior becomes essentially suicidal (e.g. accepting the high probability of death for the glory of making some summit) so there isn't any premium that will balance the behavior. Soloing is essential to some alpine climbing. Those who do it take the risk knowingly, making a judgement that the risk of falling is outweighed by other advantages like moving fast. While those decisions make perfect sense in the context of mountaineering, an insurance underwriter isn't likely to see it that way. How to incorporate all of that into what we do as a society with welfare systems is something I don't think we've grappled with. We still act as if people who eat themselves into diabetes are just as deserving of benefits as people who excercise everyday. You're right, climbers are insignificant in terms of the overall costs, but perhaps our current insurance and welfare models are encouraging a wider range of risky behaviors that we don't realize are driving costs up. |
|
Someone said that the drive to the crag is the most dangerous part of a day of climbing. I highly doubt that. The accidents-per-user-hour of climbing is likely much, much higher, although there's the issue of deciding what kinds of injuries to count. If someone has data, it would be interesting to hear about. |
|
As you can see even the fiercest of the fierce are donning helmets |
|
Owen Witesman wrote: Those "beefy" helmets were less effective at absorbing impacts.Can you provide data that supports your point? |
|
On newer climbs things can fall out completely unexpectedly. But if to put pro in and then have it fail does not look too good. mountainproject.com/v/10985… |
|
ViperScale wrote: Healyje wrote: Good thing you can figure that out.Why?, if you give them a grigri and put some knots in the rope they have to take out as they go along ... what can go wrong? |
|
Bryan Ferguson wrote: Can you provide data that supports your point?Go on ukc there is a article on it I would find it but I'm at work. |
|
I dislike helmets, but wear them situationally. I have plenty of partners who always wear one, and some who never have in their 20+ years of climbing. |
|
I used to wear mine only for ice and alpine climbing. That is until I took about a 25 ft fall onto a ledge. Strangely I didn't get seriously hurt, just some scrapes and bruises. After that I decided to wear my helmet all the time. |
|
never did like the wearing the helmet stuationaly idea. that implys that you think you are smarter than murphy. the only time I don't wear the lid climbing is free soloing rock. Been a few times fee soloing where I wished I had the lid. Bouldered to the top of South peak in seneca and should have worn a lid . lots of rocks coming down from noobs on the rappel.... |
|
Nick Goldsmith wrote:never did like the wearing the helmet stuationaly idea. that implys that you think you are smarter than murphy.Presumably you use a rope situationally though? I feel like a lot of things make sense to do situationally, even if there are no situations in which there is no chance of them being useful. That said, I wear a helmet essentially 100% of the time when climbing 5th class, so I guess I don't really disagree. |
|
donald perry wrote:ViperScale wrote: There are people I know I would not ever go climbing with. Why?, if you give them a grigri and put some knots in the rope they have to take out as they go along ... what can go wrong?New climbers aren't the problem it is when you get someone who thinks they know alot more than they do is the danger. Someone who thinks they know how to build a safe anchor but their best anchor a 40 pound kid would pull out on a fall sort thing. |
|
There may be a reason to ALWAYS wear a helmet... even while top-roping. |
|
Here's what it boils down to: |
|
Go to Maple Canyon in Utah and look at all the cobbles lying around and then look at how few climbers have helmets on, and you'll see that failure to use a helmet is not fundamentally a matter of rational decisions being made based on situational factors. The whole climbing area is predicated on rocks falling out of their matrix and people still don't wear helmets. Clearly fashion, tradition, and habit are strong drivers that we should assume will tend to cloud our judgement. of course that's making some assumptions about the preservation of life and limb being more important than whatever the supposed downsides of wearing a helmet might be. Some people may genuinely value looking cool or not getting their hair messed up more than they value reducing their chance of paralysis. |
|
Owen Witesman wrote:People who free solo fifth class terrain should be ineligible for any medical coverage they can't pay for themselves out of pocket. Neither the state, hospitals, or other insured individuals should have to contribute to the costs of their intentional negligence.Why so black and white? What if I only free solo 5.6 or less. Why not include being unroped on 4th class terrain. What about going on an all day hike without complete bivy gear and rations for an extra day incase you get lost. Many people would say that climbing in general as a recreational activity is intentionally negligent. Someone else may feel that driving with less than 8 hours of sleep the night before is risky and negligent. You're probably not going to find any two people who agree on what risks are acceptable, but you seem to feel like you are an authority on this matter. Also, I've yet to see a friend of family member of someone who died climbing, skydiving, basejumping, etc who said "well, they were taking the proper safety precautions so that doesn't make it as bad." |