Advocacy & Safety - Natasha Richardson - Helmets

An actress Natasha Richardson passed away today after a sking accident where she hit her head yet managed to walk away. There's now discussion on whether a helmet could have saved her life. Here's what Time Magazine said.

>>>>>The fact that Richardson was not wearing a helmet may or may not have made a difference in the gravity of her injury. If skiers are moving slowly — say 10 m.p.h. or slower — and they fall on soft snow, they're probably not going to be hurt severely, whether they're wearing a helmet or not. If they're moving faster than 15 or 20 m.p.h. and strike ice, hard-packed snow or another solid object with the head, they're likely to suffer severe injury, and again the presence of a helmet may not make much difference. It's in the middle area — at speeds that are neither very slow nor very fast — that a helmet can play the biggest role. The trick, of course, is that you never know when you're going to be in that gray zone, since even slow beginner skiers can lose control and speed up, and high-speed skiers have to slow down eventually.<<<<<

I find this interesting because it means that a helmet does work well in low and medium speed accidents below 15 or 20 m.p.h. Regardless, I wasn't wearing my helmet all winter long but after this accident, it's back on again.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1886115,00.html?iid=tsmodule

>>>>Association of Quebec Emergency Room Doctors made the request earlier this year, claiming that 60 per cent of head traumas could have been avoided by wearing a helmet while performing winter sports. Helmets are already mandatory for any skiers and snowboarders that use snow parks or take part in downhill races in the province.<<<

I found it interesting that they mentioned helmets at all. My observation that only kids wear helmets while skiing. And this accident happened on the beginner's slope, which probably means it was dead flat.

Now, having lived in Utah, and witnessing idiot skiers first-hand, it's possible that she was pulling a "Sonny Bono" and skiing out of control through the bunny hill. But that seems unlikely.

I have had bad days skiing and smacked my head very hard. Fortunately it never ended up in any sort of injury beyond a stiff neck.

I'm sure people are making the same posts in driving, shower, jogging, swimming, diving, and home handyman forums everywhere. "Ya know, Ned, you never know when you might fall off that ladder or bump your head on that closet shelf"

She was a pretty and talented lady...darn shame.

And this accident happened on the beginner's slope, which probably means it was dead flat.

Now, having lived in Utah, and witnessing idiot skiers first-hand, it's possible that she was pulling a "Sonny Bono" and skiing out of control through the bunny hill. But that seems unlikely.

She apparently fell during a beginner's lesson and showed no signs of injury. A darn shame. A beautiful, talented mother and wife. Rest in peace, Ms. Richardson.

CNN News story (http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/18/obit.richardson/index.html):


According to a statement from Mont Tremblant Ski Resort, Richardson fell during a lesson on a beginners' trail.

"She did not show any visible sign of injury, but the ski patrol followed strict procedures and brought her back to the bottom of the slope and insisted she should see a doctor," the statement said.

Richardson, accompanied by her instructor, returned to her hotel, but about an hour after the fall was "not feeling good," the statement said. An ambulance was called, and Richardson was taken to a local hospital before being transferred to Hopital du Sacre-Coeur in Montreal. From there she was transferred to Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City.

Yes, a shame. I was just reading another discussion on the topic. I can't make anyone else wear a helmet, but I know I'll keep wearing mine.

I think there are variables at work here that we, and, perhaps, medical experts will never know. I keep thinking that she must have taken a fairly good whack to the head, or the instructors would not have insisted upon following protocol that obviously ended the lesson and sent her back down the slope to receive medical treatment that she, apparently, declined.

If the blow to her head were as insignificant as reports make it sound, then, perhaps there were conditions present that predisposed her to serious injury in such situations.

The point is that we will never really know. This is one of those freakish, unexplainable and tragic situations the exact causes of which may never be known as medicine, in many ways, is still an unknown science.

In my mind, I keep trying to process this event, and I keep getting these "does not compute" messages. She was relatively young, in good physical condition, and, yet, this seemingly minor blow deals her injuries from which she was unable to recover.

My mind also keeps questioning why, her injuries notwithstanding, her life could not have been saved. Once the symptoms appeared, was deterioration so rapid and irreversible that there was nothing that could be done to reverse the damage, or was medical science, in its current state, just too slow to address her problems in order that her life might have been spared?

Approximately five years ago, the newly rebuilt rear wheel of my bike pancaked in a turn, locking up its rotation and sending a clueless rider head over heels into the ditch as I lost control.

In addition to the minuscule fracture of a bone in my arm, I needed seven stitches to close a wound in my scalp. In those days, I proudly eschewed helmet use, and, with even more vanity, told the hospital staff exactly where they could stuff their offers of cat scans of my skull. Did I appear to be confused, out of it, whatever? Then, no, I would not agree to a scan of my skull.

Fortunately, for me, my insticts proved to be correct. But, this most recent accident, this tragedy, underscores for me the capriciousness with which I brushed off offers of expert medical assistance, ascribing the professional entreaties to boilerplate protocol designed to increase the bottom line of the medical facility.

One cannot comprehend the seriosness of these sort of injuries. Had I been more unlucky, my stubbornness might have resulted in my death.

I have been very proud of the way I handled that accident, but am now revisiting all the assumptions/conclusions that have resulted from the experience.

This fine lady probably had a more lucid realization of what happened to her than I in my experience. She knew she was on skis, and she knew she took a fall. I only knew that I was riding my bike at one moment, and, at another, experienced an unexplainable lack of control.

In my case, some bystander, assuming that any cyclist chooses to cycle by virtue of being legally prohibited from more "normal" means of locmotion, called the police and emergency ambulance to the scene. I remember being slightly disoriented as to my location and direction of travel, but also being somewhat insulted by the implied assumptions of emergency/law enforcement personnel that I must certainly have had too much to drink prior to the mishap.

I had not been drinking, the mishap was mechanical, but, that part never found its way into the report (an allegation that I might have been drinking, fortunately, also never found its way into the report).

I am rambling a bit, but, would like to emphasize that this most recent event leaves me re-thinking my attitude about head injuries, my experience, and how I hope I might react if some future mishap occurs in my life.

As for the helmet issue, I see very little in the scant info included in reports of this incident that indicate that a helmet would have made a difference. Are we to assume that a blow to the head that leaves no outward signs can be sufficiently cushioned by a helmet as to avoid internal injuries that escape immediate detection? I am reluctant to make or accept such a conclusion.

I am so sorry for the victims family. They were obviously engaged in the sort of wholesome family activity around which the American dream is woven. My prayers and thoughts continue to be directed towards them.

Caruso

If they're moving faster than 15 or 20 m.p.h. and strike ice, hard-packed snow or another solid object with the head, they're likely to suffer severe injury, and again the presence of a helmet may not make much difference.
I've been skiing for the last 35 years of my life, mostly faster than the aforementioned 20mph, lost count how often i fell.
Most severe injury up to now: almost froze off my earlobes once. Also once suffered strained ligaments at the knee and several on the thumbs.

I grew up and live about 60km from the nearest skiing resort. All my family goes skiing, as did all members of my schoolclass and now most of my friends and colleagues. I personally know of *no one* who ever hit his/her head while skiing.

With skiing, the same kind of media hype can be observed as with bike helmets. A mass sport that for decades no one felt any particular danger in suddendly is branded as high risk stuff, for people with a deathwish only, unless, of course, performed with the newest hi-tech cover-all full-protection gear. Yeah, sure. Its buy-or-die! Fork out 100$ or be a goner!

I wonder whats next. Walking helmet?

A wise and insightful comment by Carusowi.

Forward speed matters if the impact is into a tree or fixed object but has very little to do with impact velocity on the ground. If you fall off you bike going 5 mph and hit your head the impact is the same as falling off going 30 mph.

Forward speed matters if the impact is into a tree or fixed object but has very little to do with impact velocity on the ground. If you fall off you bike going 5 mph and hit your head the impact is the same as falling off going 30 mph.

Wrong.

Forward speed matters if the impact is into a tree or fixed object but has very little to do with impact velocity on the ground. If you fall off you bike going 5 mph and hit your head the impact is the same as falling off going 30 mph.

You're kidding, right? :lol:

If the blow to her head were as insignificant as reports make it sound, then, perhaps there were conditions present that predisposed her to serious injury in such situations.


That's the point I was trying to make.

The reports on the blow to her head sounded insignificant. Unless there was some sort of cover-up, she was traveling at a slow speed when the accident happened. Yet, it killed her. The one hour she spent alive was the only time anything could have been done to save her. The low speed and highspeed head injuries can be just as fatal.

The resort where the accident happened is now going to require all skiers to wear helmets. Lawsuits? You bet! I don't think it's a bad idea overall.

Forward speed matters if the impact is into a tree or fixed object but has very little to do with impact velocity on the ground. If you fall off you bike going 5 mph and hit your head the impact is the same as falling off going 30 mph.

Welcome, Freds!

-Kurt

You're kidding, right? :lol:

Missed that day in physics class did you?

Missed that day in physics class did you?

So you learned this on Bake Sale day? :roflmao2:

Apply a little trig to your ivory tower theory and you'll see the light, weedsmoker.

I'm curious whether or not she had a history of previous head injury...

Very sad. Very freaky.

Missed that day in physics class did you?

I assume you are referring to the vectors being independent. Doesn't friction with the ground matter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidural_hematoma


In the hallmark of epidural hematoma, patients may regain consciousness during what is called a lucid interval, only to descend suddenly and rapidly into unconsciousness later. The lucid interval, which depends on the extent of the injury, is a key to diagnosing epidural hemorrhage. If the patient is not treated with prompt surgical intervention, death is likely to follow.[10]

Guys, don't take head injuries lightly, even if you are able to walk away from it.

There's also something called a "second impact syndrome", which occurs when an already concussed brain is impacted a second time. Apparently the second blow does not have to be that hard. The swelling is very quick and often fatal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidural_hematoma



Guys, don't take head injuries lightly, even if you are able to walk away from it.

even when there appears to be no external damage. Some people may feel they are all right because, after a collision while wearing a helmet, there is no injury on the exterior of the head. It's not uncommon for the problem to be inside the skull and therefore, not visible.

Looking forward to reading the autopsy report.

Once again, very sad and shocking event...

I've never been snow skiing, but I figured if I'm moving faster than a walking pace on something that can be slick as ice, I would want to wear a helmet.

When my wife relayed this news story, that was my first comment, "people don't wear helmets when skiing?" Shows what I know!

Why not wear a helmet? Don't they have the added benefit of keeping your head warm? Again, I've never been in that environment, so I have no idea.

Hm, "why not wear a helmet"... true, but why only when skiing? or cycling? because doing these tings is actually not very risky. Check the statistics, people been doing it for decades. You shoulds ask "why wear a helmet" instead, or face me asking you why don't you wear one when driving your car? walking stairs? taking a shower? People died doing that, from fatal head injuries. Ah, because no clebrity recently died doing that? because no one sells and advertises shower helmets?

For keeping the head warm, there is the fine invention of woolen caps, or, if the conditions are nice, it isnt needed to keep them warm... let your hair feel the wind.

The kind of fall that Natasha Richardson took, from all i read, could as well have happened by just walking and slipping on an icy spot or wet leaves, or by slipping in the bathtub. It has just been a very sad and tragic accident. It doesnt mean that you are under lethal danger whenever moving outside of your normal habitat (at least not extraordinarily so - life is dangerous and will end with your death). Is this some new kind of angst?

I assume you are referring to the vectors being independent. Doesn't friction with the ground matter?

I agree with you, friction does matter. But not for force of impact. As far as ripping your scalp off, and probably more importantly, head rotation after the ground bites into you scalp, the speed of the fall definitely matters.

even when there appears to be no external damage. Some people may feel they are all right because, after a collision while wearing a helmet, there is no injury on the exterior of the head. It's not uncommon for the problem to be inside the skull and therefore, not visible.

When my kid took a tumble and had a big huge bruise on his forehead I was told that it was actually good that the injury looked really bad from the outside. Makes perfect sense.

Although I actually did take him to the ER because he was 2 years old.

I agree with you, friction does matter. But not for force of impact. As far as ripping your scalp off, and probably more importantly, head rotation after the ground bites into you scalp, the speed of the fall definitely matters.

Indeed, if one is moving forward, the head will most likely impact at some angle <> 90 degrees on a surface that is most likely not flat and level, in which case their forward velocity is a factor in the force of the impact. It don't take a physics major to figure that out.

When my kid took a tumble and had a big huge bruise on his forehead I was told that it was actually good that the injury looked really bad from the outside. Makes perfect sense.

Although I actually did take him to the ER because he was 2 years old.

from the "have you ever hit your head" thread


... I was broadsided in my VW by a Honda Prelude in 1998. Despite my head not hitting anything in the car, I suffered a serious concussion and spent a year in a brain injury study. I had to be convince to go to the doctor. Initially, my injury was dismissed because I showed no external injury. After several days of ringing in my ear, vomiting, and disorientation, I revisited the doctor and rushed to an ER. My specialist explained how brain injuries occur and how injury (and even death) can result with no impact. It was an eye opener to say the least.

from the "helmets cramp my style thread..


... After any impact, helmet or not, you should be checked for a brain injury. The brain is injured from impacting the inside of the skull, not from external impact. Most riders, after an accident, will not seek any medical exam because they feel the helmet "saved" them. From experience, I can state that most doctors will dismiss the possibility of a head injury if there are no signs of external impact. With the exception of specialists, most doctors don't seem to grasp what causes brain injuries...

I'm not a doctor, but I play one here on the forums.

Her case sounds like a classic case of a closed head injury, subdural hematoma.

At the instant that your head hits a nonmoving object, the skull stops, but the brain still keeps on moving and sloshes around inside your cranium, which can cause blood vessels to rupture. The blood leaking into your brain causes pressure on the brain tissue which destroys it.

So it's very common after a head injury where there is no apparent damage to the skull, for the person to appear to be perfectly okay. But within a short period of time, the blood pressure starts to build up in the brain, causing progressive brain injury as the pressure builds and the person will start to lose motor function. If the person is not taken into surgery immediately, and the pressure on the brain relieved, massive brain injury or death can ensue, which is apparently what happened in her case.

Hm, "why not wear a helmet"... true, but why only when skiing? or cycling? because doing these tings is actually not very risky. Check the statistics, people been doing it for decades. You shoulds ask "why wear a helmet" instead, or face me asking you why don't you wear one when driving your car? walking stairs? taking a shower? People died doing that, from fatal head injuries. Ah, because no clebrity recently died doing that? because no one sells and advertises shower helmets?


Yes, but the cost risk and benefits are different for different people. The older you get the more you need a helmet as your riding ability has declined along with your ability to withstand head trauma. I sometimes use a bicycle helmet when climbing ladders.

I'm not a doctor, but I play one here on the forums.

Her case sounds like a classic case of a closed head injury, subdural hematoma.

At the instant that your head hits a nonmoving object, the skull stops, but the brain still keeps on moving and sloshes around inside your cranium, which can cause blood vessels to rupture. The blood leaking into your brain causes pressure on the brain tissue which destroys it.

So it's very common after a head injury where there is no apparent damage to the skull, for the person to appear to be perfectly okay. But within a short period of time, the blood pressure starts to build up in the brain, causing progressive brain injury as the pressure builds and the person will start to lose motor function. If the person is not taken into surgery immediately, and the pressure on the brain relieved, massive brain injury or death can ensue, which is apparently what happened in her case.

this is a prime argument that could show wearing a helmet may have not made any difference at all. Far more effective to save a life is getting to a hospital to get a scan. It seems that, that, and not a helmet, could have been the deciding factor here. It would be too bad if people take away the lesson as, wear a helmet, and not get checked out if you have a tumble.

An actress Natasha Richardson passed away today after a sking accident where she hit her head yet managed to walk away. There's now discussion on whether a helmet could have saved her life. Here's what Time Magazine said.

>>>>>The fact that Richardson was not wearing a helmet may or may not have made a difference in the gravity of her injury. If skiers are moving slowly — say 10 m.p.h. or slower — and they fall on soft snow, they're probably not going to be hurt severely, whether they're wearing a helmet or not. If they're moving faster than 15 or 20 m.p.h. and strike ice, hard-packed snow or another solid object with the head, they're likely to suffer severe injury, and again the presence of a helmet may not make much difference. It's in the middle area — at speeds that are neither very slow nor very fast — that a helmet can play the biggest role. The trick, of course, is that you never know when you're going to be in that gray zone, since even slow beginner skiers can lose control and speed up, and high-speed skiers have to slow down eventually.<<<<<

I find this interesting because it means that a helmet does work well in low and medium speed accidents below 15 or 20 m.p.h. Regardless, I wasn't wearing my helmet all winter long but after this accident, it's back on again.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1886115,00.html?iid=tsmodule

>>>>Association of Quebec Emergency Room Doctors made the request earlier this year, claiming that 60 per cent of head traumas could have been avoided by wearing a helmet while performing winter sports. Helmets are already mandatory for any skiers and snowboarders that use snow parks or take part in downhill races in the province.<<<

The same thing happened to Sonny Bono when he went skiing without a helmet. He crashed head-first into a tree being killed instantly.

Autopsy concludes..."The cause of death was "epidural hematoma due to blunt impact to the head."

The same thing happened to Sonny Bono when he went skiing without a helmet. He crashed head-first into a tree being killed instantly.

Everybody knows Sonny didn't hit a tree. It was a mob hit. ;)

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23483165-5001026,00.html


"It's nonsense for anyone to now try to suggest that Bono died after crashing into a tree. There's zero evidence in this autopsy report..."

His claims have reportedly been backed by top forensics experts who fear Nevada authorities were too quick to call the death a skiing accident.

this is a prime argument that could show wearing a helmet may have not made any difference at all. Far more effective to save a life is getting to a hospital to get a scan. It seems that, that, and not a helmet, could have been the deciding factor here. It would be too bad if people take away the lesson as, wear a helmet, and not get checked out if you have a tumble.

Helmets are designed to prevent the rapid deceleration of the head, which can cause the brain to slosh around and lead to internal bleeding, precisely the type of injury that she had.

Obviously, once the impact reaches a certain level, no helmet can prevent a brain injury, but at this point it's just speculation that she would've had the same brain injury if she'd been wearing a helmet without some sort of forensic analysis to determine what the deceleration forces were and whether or not a helmet would have been able to lessen those forces.

even the presence of a concussion can signal that there has been movement of the brain. The minimal deceleration provided by a helmets foam is often not sufficient to prevent such an injury.

(believe me -I've researched this at length)

also, from another thread (commuting gets a spotlight),


not necessarily. I've been a ski patroller for six years and I've seen my share of head injuries with and without helmets.

There's little evidence to show that helmets help in the worst crashes. I'm no longer convinced helmets save lives for the following reasons.

There have been two very compelling and well received papers in the ski industry in the last three years, one, the Sugarbush Whitepaper, and the other out of Sweden (I don't recall the name). They also found that skiers with helmets were far more likely to be involved in lethal wrecks, persumeably due to the superman factor. I know I feel naked and ski more cautiously without my ski helmet.

In the former case, all injuries involving care in the US with National Ski Patrol are documented in the exact same manner on every ski slope across the country. Bikes don't have that. This yields a much stronger data set. The paper came to the conclusion that ski helmets don't offer any assistance in the types of crashes that kill skiers and they offer minimal protection for things like slip and fall concussions. Ski wrecks and cycling wrecks are very similar as are the helmets, as are the speeds, the things they impact, etc.


IMHO, the only thing a bike helmet will help with are superficial injuries and possibly penetrating injuries where you have a high force applied over a small surface area, like a skull impacting the edge of a curb. The evidence that cycling helmets save lives is largely anecdotal and when people see a damaged piece of styrofoam they assume the same would have happened to their skull.

I can tell you that despite the above, ski resorts rent helmets now on a huge percent of beginner packages because of liability concerns as well as the huge increase in revenue streams. And beginners will automatically think skiing is dangerous and opt for the helmet, even though the likelihood of head injury while skiing is absurdly low. Helmets are marketed and are, imo a self perpetuating and self-reinforcing problem.


... The data confirms that helmets don't help in those types of wrecks. Helmets are useless against fixed objects like trees and snowmaking equipment.

Ppl do ski into fixed objects, unfortunately, but ... it is rare. The ski helmet industry got a ton of mileage out of it. It survives and thrives because of ppl's irrational fears. Helmets are a big push as a revenue source when it comes to rentals, especially at areas that service beginner skiers, not so much at destination resorts. The lack of need to wear a helmet skiing is fully supported by the low frequency of head injuries while skiing per skier visit; nevertheless the use of helmets is skyrocketing.

Many patrollers in my area only wear them when the trails are really crowded. Out of control skiers crash into scenes patrol is on with unfortunate frequency so a lot of patrollers wear them because our heads are at ski and ski boot level, and a helmet can help disperse the impact or keep you from getting a severe laceration.

plus from, "helmets cramp my style"


...I think it's fairly well believed that helmets do help in minor to moderate impacts, beyond that, I doubt it. I recall a neurologist patroller commenting once that ski helmets would have to be 6 inches thick to prevent the really serious injuries, and even then, you run into a problem that was faced 10-15 years ago, when SNELL helmets were the standard. The helmets while very protective, were so heavy they were causing neck injuries...

I always wear a helmet when I bike.

I always wear a helmet when I ski. I figured it was illogical to always wear a helmet on my bike yet rocket down the slopes (at even faster speeds) without one.

As I recall, when I was learning to ski (as an adult), I think they MADE us wear helmets on the bunny slope.

Honestly, I don't see the big deal about wearing helmets on the slopes - it's cold anyway, put on a helmet.

In head injuries like hers, it common to bleed in the brain without pain and without knowing it. The problem with brain bleeding is the blood has nowhere to go, pushing on the brain, and all the sudden you feel the pain from the pressure of blood. All sorts of bad things happen when the brain is being pressured against the skull or against the brain stem. That's why she probably felt fine at first.

Now would a helmet have saved her life? Perhaps not or Perhaps so because the helmet would absorb some of the blow and that could have been the difference between life and death. Do I know for sure? Of course not.

If you're in an accident and your hit your head, go get checked out. Even if you're wearing a helmet.

The article in the OP is basically correct, but they make bunch of misleading comments related to the physics of the problem.

Higher velocity impacts means that the helmet absorbs even more energy; if you look at a load-deflection diagram for EPS the plateau region is not flat, but rather increases towards the end. At higher strain rates, the same behavior is likely to occur.

However, the proportion of the energy absorbed to the energy received by the head does not change by much. That means the energy delivered to the head will still increase quadratically with speed.

In other words, the helmet's energy absorption also increases with speed, but doesn't increase just quite fast enough.

I will strongly advocate helmets. In this case, a helmet may or may not have saved her life. If she was wearing a helmet, her injury would have allowed her a longer time for hospital procedures.

I found it interesting that they mentioned helmets at all. My observation that only kids wear helmets while skiing. And this accident happened on the beginner's slope, which probably means it was dead flat.

Now, having lived in Utah, and witnessing idiot skiers first-hand, it's possible that she was pulling a "Sonny Bono" and skiing out of control through the bunny hill. But that seems unlikely.

I have had bad days skiing and smacked my head very hard. Fortunately it never ended up in any sort of injury beyond a stiff neck.

I was thinking the same thing.

My wife said she saw the Time article that was linked in the OP. I only read the clips from it in the OP before I started commenting but when I got home, I read the article. Some of what I brought up without reading it was in the article,

"One of the most common collision-related head injuries is a concussion, which occurs when the head moves at high speed and stops suddenly as it strikes a hard object. The brain, which is snug but not completely stationary inside the head, may continue moving...

Once you do fall and hit, the brain can do much more than just bump the inside of the skull. "You can have stretching of cortical connections or stretching of blood vessels, and that can lead to bleeding," Shealy says. "You can also have linear or rotational acceleration [of the brain]. There's a lot that can go wrong in there."

Even some experts acknowledge that helmets are no panacea, and not only because they become less effective at higher speeds..."

Interesting CNN News story (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/18/brain.injury/index.html) on the subject of head injuries. Not wearing a helmet simply increases the chances of traumatic brain injury, though I know the I-don't-need-a-helmet crowd has strong feelings to the contrary.


It's very common for someone who's had a fall or been in a car accident to appear perfectly lucid just after the impact but then to suddenly, rapidly deteriorate, Dr. Carmelo Graffagnino, director of Duke University Medical Center's Neurosciences Critical Care Unit, told CNN.

...

Graffagnino says the initial fall or injury doesn't have to be hard at all. The delay in symptoms can range from five minutes to three hours after the accident.

If an individual isn't medically evaluated after a car accident, sports injury, or just a slip in the driveway, recognizing the signs brain injury early is critical. Nausea, severe headache, glossy eyes, sudden sleepiness, are all common symptoms. Getting to a hospital within the first few hours is critical to prevent permanent brain damage, experts say. An emergency room team can quickly determine the severity of your injury. An emergency craniotomy -- opening of the skull -- surgery is often needed to stop the bleeding and control brain swelling.

...

"The most important thing to do to lower your risk is to wear a helmet when you can, and don't brush off an injury because you feel 'fine' at first," Graffagnino said. "The thing that's going to save a life is for friends and relatives to recognize the first glimmer of a symptom. The quicker we can stop the bleed, the better."

I just hope the message people get from this tragedy is to get checked out if you think you've suffered an injury. Not to refuse a check or treatment.

"Getting to a hospital within the first few hours is critical to prevent permanent brain damage, experts say" "You don't have to see external injury to have injury to the brain...Stieg recommends checking the size of their pupils and asking questions such as the patient's name and what year it is. In the hours following, Stieg recommends monitoring the person's cognitive skills and to "bring them in to get a CAT scan" if there is a change in behavior.

I just hope the message people get from this tragedy is to get checked out if you think you've suffered an injury, not to refuse a check or treatment, AND to wear a helmet.

Interesting CNN News story (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/18/brain.injury/index.html) on the subject of head injuries. Not wearing a helmet simply increases the chances of traumatic brain injury, though I know the I-don't-need-a-helmet crowd has strong feelings to the contrary.
You are misreading the "i don't need a helmet" lobby.

"Not wearing a helmet simply increases the chances of traumatic brain injury" is phrased very universally and not only restricted to skiing or cycling. Its a trivial statement, always true. With that argument, i can advocate pool billard helmets as well.

Why don't we all run around with a helmet all the time, then?

We don't always wear helmets, because usually we do some risk management and decide individually which activities put us in a higher danger of getting hurt; and what kind of safety equipment is likely to enhance our chances of staying well.

For biking, this has been replaced by peer pressure. Most of the people who will automatically put on a helmet when cycling don't waste any thought about the rationality of what they are doing.
Sking is going the same way.

Does a ski helmet improve your safety while skiing? sure.
By what margin? that is debatable. There are other dangers when in an alpine environment. Your safety depends mostly on the way you behave, not primarily on your headgear. Most skiers die from avalanches. Vast majority of skiing accidents cause injuries to legs and shoulders; head injuries are rare.
Oh, and btw: "skiing is getting more dangerous", something often heard in this kind of argument, isn't true. Here in Germany, the number of skiing accidents is half of that of 20 years ago.

Whoa, remember this part: "Again, I've never been in that environment, so I have no idea." I've never been skiing, ever. I've never seen more than 1" of snow.
I wasn't asking to be argumentative or to state my opinion in question format, I really DO NOT KNOW, I was just asking to gain information. A simple "it's not that risky, hardly anybody wears a helmet while skiing, you should find out some time, skiing can be fun! Let's be friends!" would have sufficed just fine. http://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/ugh2.gif
Sorry, i didn't mean to attack you personally! apologies :)

To answer your question: Nope, helmets were not seen on the slopes until about 3-4 years ago. Ski racers wear them, slalom specialists have a good chance to lose some teeth from a viciously backsnapping slalom pole, so they used them for the last 15-odd years, and of course racers doing the fast disciplines used them since the late 70ies. They do 120km/h on slopes prepared to pure concrete... i don't. Also, snowboarders practicing backflips and other kinky stuff started to use them a while ago.

Ordinary recreational skiers didnt use them for 80odd years, and no one felt anything strange about it. No alarmingly high death rates are reported.

"Not wearing a helmet simply increases the chances of traumatic brain injury" is phrased very universally and not only restricted to skiing or cycling. Its a trivial statement, always true. With that argument, i can advocate pool billard helmets as well.

Why don't we all run around with a helmet all the time, then?

No need to prop up straw men. In an accident, wearing a helmet decreases one's chance of brain injury. Period. We agree. Labels such as "trivial" are moot.


We don't always wear helmets, because usually we do some risk management and decide individually which activities put us in a higher danger of getting hurt; and what kind of safety equipment is likely to enhance our chances of staying well.

Exactly. Each of us assesses our own risk and acts accordingly. You don't want to wear a helmet while riding a bike? That's fine, but it's another issue when people try to convince others in a public forum it is just as safe, if not safer, to not wear a helmet (not that I've seen you do that here).


For biking, this has been replaced by peer pressure. Most of the people who will automatically put on a helmet when cycling don't waste any thought about the rationality of what they are doing.
Sking is going the same way.

"Peer pressure"? Please, give the rest of us some credit. I've never for one second considered "peer pressure" in my decision to wear a helmet every time I ride.

No need to prop up straw men. In an accident, wearing a helmet decreases one's chance of brain injury. Period. We agree. Labels such as "trivial" are moot.

Well, statements like this *are* trivial when used as an argument for a certain kind of helmet.

"i propose the use of icecream eating helmets, because, in case of an accident while eating your ice cream, wearing a helmet decreases your chance of brain injury".

also true. Doesn't tell us a single thing ehether or not it is sensible to wear one.
See what i mean?

The older you get the more you need a helmet as your riding ability has declined.

According to the many old gaffers I know who ride a bike, many of whom have raced in the past, this is simply not true. I've never known any of them to fall, I think that a lifetime of riding has given them almost unnaturally good bike handling skills. Couple that with the bit where most of them no longer ride as fast, nor feel the need to take corners as fast as humanly possible, and you'll see why none of them fall. In fact, after my various falls, they've been known to console me by saying that I'll grow out of it- they all fell a lot when they were first racing, but as they got better at riding, knew their limits a lot better.

No need to prop up straw men. In an accident, wearing a helmet decreases one's chance of brain injury. Period. We agree. Labels such as "trivial" are moot.

I hope you wear your helmet at all times - period. I wouldn't want to think you were hypocritical or something. I mean, wouldn;t you want to do ANYTHING to prevent a possible brain injury....and lord knows we cannot predict when an accident will happen, no matter what we are doing, right? Get that helmet on now, we wouldn't want to lose you to an angry wife with a frying pan.

...I know the I-don't-need-a-helmet crowd has strong feelings to the contrary.

maybe because it isn't explained how wearing a helmet could have prevented the bleeding occurring in the first place?

Anyone know if there was a skull fracture involved?

Exactly. Each of us assesses our own risk and acts accordingly. You don't want to wear a helmet while riding a bike? That's fine, but it's another issue when people try to convince others in a public forum it is just as safe, if not safer, to not wear a helmet (not that I've seen you do that here).

"Peer pressure"? Please, give the rest of us some credit. I've never for one second considered "peer pressure" in my decision to wear a helmet every time I ride.


I'm calling BS twice on this.

Noone argues that it's "just as safe, if not safer, to not wear a helmet" - noone. What's more, thereis no anti-helmet lobby... only anti-helmet advocate lobby.

That there was even a bicycle helmet available in the store to buy was a function of peer and lobby pressure.