Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:43 pm Posts: 439 Location: Western Washington
Helmet, not skinning, I'm to old to sweat that much...all the time riding, though, been saved a few times because I had it on, always inbounds, always my own fault crashes, like hard carving edge transitions when you hook the downhill edge in a fast transition and pound yourself into the slope...hard.
_________________ Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them (Frederick Douglass)
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:51 am Posts: 55 Location: Melbourne,Australia
My mrs prefers that i use a helmet,got to keep the mrs happy.
Mine is very comfortable and has vents you can open or close to suit conditions,i sometimes forget i even have it on,but it can get a bit hot in the spring so i will only wear it descending.
They are definately becoming more and more popular over here,years ago you were considered a geek(that thought still remains for some)for wearing your helmet but mostly attitudes have changed.
I think the study is valid, it doesn't mean it can be generalized to everyone. A local UAC forcaster wrote an article on the effects of group dynamics, he found that avalanche incidents were more likely in larger groups, especially groups with females. It makes sense, put a video camera on anyone and their more likely to do things they may otherwise think twice about. Again, I think a helmet is best practice, but I know being a primarily a solo rider I take more risks when I am with others or see others doing more aggressive lines. I think it is human nature. I have for sure seen people with avalungs who have no clue what they are doing but feel they can take greater risks because they have the avalung.
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:09 pm Posts: 682 Location: white room
UTAH, I have actually heard the exact opposite as far as females in the group. Several avalanche instructors have told me having a female in the group tends to lead to less risk taking - unless the males are trying to impress the ladies, of course. I've also heard the argument about helmets making people feel safer, thereby more likely to ride fast. These studies, though, no matter how accurate or inaccurate they may be, are just using statistics. I personally take more risks inbounds in a controlled environment, where I am not too concerned about slides and I know help is minutes away - which does make my personal helmet choice seem contradictory, but as I said earlier, sometimes it's about convenience.
P.S. There is a very interesting study done on the psychological and emotional aspects, and human factors such as group dynamics, involving avalanches, which is not covered in a lot of avy courses, but provides much food for thought. I'll post it in the avy section when I can find a link.
Accident parties that included females made riskier decisions than parties of all males. The effect was most pronounced in parties with little avalanche training. It is notable that these were precisely the parties in which women were least likely to participate.
, which makes a case for UTAH being correct, though I was definitely taught otherwise, and the statement is a bit confusing.[/url]
EDIT - Is it possible to post more than one direct link?
Accident parties that included females made riskier decisions than parties of all males.
I think that statement is worded poorly. It assumes that there is no such thing as an all female party. How do parties of all females compare to parties of all males and mixed-gender parties? By saying 'that included felmales' rather than 'mixed gender' it makes it sound like you shouldn't include women in your party.
I found the above quote too, but so far I haven't found any science to back it up. I'm looking though. Lou Dawson makes reference to a proof in Coulior Magazine around September 25 2005 that "if you ski with women in your group, you're more likely to get killed in an avalanche (if you're a man)." If anyone has that issue of Coulior it would be interesting to find the source of their statistics.
For certain, Tremper say that 7% of 215 US avy accident fatalities between 1990 and 2000 were women. I've heard that 35 - 40% of backcountry users are women. I'm still looking for a source for that number too.
But if 35% of backcountry visits are by women, then it would mean men are about 5 times more likely to be killed. That doesn't seem to fit very well with the statement.
As always, looking at the numbers and methodologies are how you really understand these things.
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:41 pm Posts: 14 Location: Fort Collins
I definitely dial it back if I have forgotten my helmet.
When I drive up to Summit Cty, I also tend to see four-wheel drive SUVs much more amply represented in the populations of autos that have slid into the ditch than they are represented in the on-road, moving auto populations. Which strikes me as interesting as they are better equipped to stay on the road.
But -- "These studies, though, no matter how accurate or inaccurate they may be, are just using statistics"...
My wife pointed out that I might of sounded sexist. I did not in any way mean to suggest touring parties should eliminate females or discount there value. Not an article I wrote just something I read and is interesting to consider. My wife has been one of my best running/summer hiking, resort riding partners I have. I am sure when we start backcountry riding together with our kids she will keep me in check. The study did account the higher rate to "showing off". I agree with everyone in that studies are almost always bias. For example what role does age, experience, etc., play in the results. Again I think wearing a helmet is best practice. My wife teaches kids with severe disabilities it's scary how many of those students disabilities are attributed to severe head injuries. They grow up "normal" and are severely disabled in a matter of seconds. I just think it's interesting to analyze things from every perspective and come to a more balanced conclusion.
I guess there were three other things I didn't like about that statement. (Which wasn't UTAH's - it's an exact quote from Ian McCammon of snowpit technologies.)
1. It makes it sound like it's up to guys to include girls or not in groups. Girls can actually form their own groups and decide whether on not to invite guys!
2. The dangerous thing seems to be including guys in your group, not the other way around. I'm sure all-girl groups are safer than all-guy groups or mixed groups.
3. It makes it sound like the danger comes from including girls, rather than from doing stupid shit to impress them. If guys include girls in their groups and they also include them in discussions about avy danger and risk my guess is that they'll be safer for it. And as a fringe benefit you'll likely impress her more that way then you will by hucking off that cornice onto a windloaded slope.
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:59 am Posts: 549 Location: Stowe, VT
Re: somones mention of "don't try to convince your partners".
If I'm responsible for another persons safety, I have a right to indicate what I need them to do to remain safe. I have forced a guy on a bike ride I was leading to put on the extra helmet I brought, and I'd do the same for a group in the backcountry I'm responsible for. If I don't think the person is safe, then it's my responsibility not to get into a situation where they get themselves, and me, in trouble. If that means not going on tour, then it would be a touch decision and one I've not *yet* been forced to make, thankfully.
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:36 am Posts: 65 Location: Middle America
I've found that helmets come in very handy in the trees. I cant count howmany times I've hit my head on a stray branch and thought to my self if I had a hat on I would be huffing my way back up to get it.
_________________ Can you repeat the part of the stuff where you said all about the things?