Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Wearing helmets

dalai

16-Nov-2005
2:35:43 PM

Thanks for the warnings DaCrux. I feel safer already!!

21Cmalaise

16-Nov-2005
3:11:54 PM

Hmmm, interesting argument from Dalai and Goodvibes - can't say I agree though. I doubt there is much of a correlation between wearing a helmet and having more accidents - for instance, at the very least you would need to know how many accidents involved climbers wearing helmets and how many involved climbers without - in fact there are a great many other details that I can't be bothered listing that you would have to know before making such a claim. Perhaps the reason there are more accidents is because there are a lot more people climbing, many of whom come straight from the gym without adequate training or experience. I have never thought that I can suddenly take a bit of an extra risk simply because I am wearing a helmet - doubt many others have either. This argument sounds suspiciously like an attempt to justify not wearing a helmet because you are always very careful, never place bad protection, always watch your rope, never climb loose rock etc. However, it doesn't matter how long you have been climbing or how experienced you are, accidents happen. And please - although helmets probably won’t save you in a 30 metre ground fall or from being hit from above by a 5kg rock (although I’m sure you have a better chance with one than without) - they could well save your ass in many other situations. Face it the main reason people don't wear helmets is because it doesn't look cool.

And don't bore me senseless by listing all the other potential dangers like crossing the road, eating cereal, eating McDonalds etc. Of course everything has its risks and we constantly evaluate the cost/benefit of these everyday. It is simply about reducing unnecessary risk - I mean, what’s the rope for, what do you clip into gear for, why do you wear a harness? A helmet is simply another part of the safety gear for this sport. I also don’t recall seeing too many professional cricketers batting without helmets either.

Now, strangely enough, despite my little sermon - I don't always wear a helmet - promise I will from now on! No really, I do.

dalai

16-Nov-2005
3:25:12 PM

On 16/11/2005 21Cmalaise wrote:
>Hmmm, interesting argument from Dalia and Goodvibes - can't say I agree
>though... snip...This argument sounds suspiciously like
>an attempt to justify not wearing a helmet

Wasn't making a statement, only raising a question...

>I have never thought that I can suddenly take a bit of an extra risk simply because I am wearing a helmet

Maybe not consciously, perhaps subconsciously? (I will consult a psychologist tonight and get back to you if there are any studies on my hypothesis.)

As already stated, we all face risks everyday and make decisions accordingly. Each person either wearing or not wearing a climbing helmet has made the right decision IMO. It's a personal choice, just like whether people choose to headpoint a death route or toprope a boulder problem.


billk

16-Nov-2005
3:30:06 PM

On 16/11/2005 mockmockmock wrote:
>On 16/11/2005 DaCrux wrote:
> If you have a frontal lobe injury all your disinhibitions come out and
>you become aggressive and your actions may be inappropriate (to use a medical
>term).
>
>We all accept there are risks and likely injuries but we choose to do
>these thing inspite of it. As I ride a motorbike as well I often want
>to punch people in the nose who feel the need to tell me how dangerous
>it is and how they knew such n such that was killed, is in a wheel chair
>or crashed. Your rant today make me want to add you to that list too.
> I won't of course because I realise you just don't know better and it
>would acheive nothing.
>
>
>Ralph
>

I'm not too keen on Chockstoners expressing urges to punch fellow Chockstoners who disagree with them. Or telling people who have been on the sharp end of dealing with brain injuries that they don't know any better.

Motorcyclists (and cyclists) are justified in feeling anger because they are subjected to risks resulting from the combination of bad traffic engineering and car/ truck drivers who don't give a bugger about anyone else's safety. In other words, our anger is justified because those people's attitudes contribute to increased risks for us.

You aren't justified in blowing your stack with someone who is sincerely trying to deal with a real safety issue.

21Cmalaise

16-Nov-2005
3:37:00 PM

>I have never thought that I can suddenly take a bit of an extra risk simply because I >am wearing a helmet

>Maybe not consciously, perhaps subconsciously? (I will consult a psychologist >tonight and get back to you if there are any studies on my hypothesis.)

No, not even subconsciously Dalai - if anything, when I get the bloody thing wedged into off-widths it scares the shit out of me even more!


nmonteith

16-Nov-2005
3:46:16 PM

I wouldn't go near a NZ mountain route without my helmet - it certainly 'encourages' me to be doing more
dangerous things as it gives me a sense of safety.


billk

16-Nov-2005
3:49:37 PM

On 16/11/2005 21Cmalaise wrote:
>>I have never thought that I can suddenly take a bit of an extra risk simply
>because I >am wearing a helmet
>
>>Maybe not consciously, perhaps subconsciously? (I will consult a psychologist
>>tonight and get back to you if there are any studies on my hypothesis.)
>
>No, not even subconsciously Dalai - if anything, when I get the bloody
>thing wedged into off-widths it scares the shit out of me even more!

Check out the "risk homeostasis" theory, which btw has a lot of empirical evidence to support it. Here's a wee snippet from Wikipedia:

The theory of risk homeostasis states that an individual has an inbuilt target level of acceptable risk which does not change. This level varies between individuals. When the level of acceptable risk in one part of the individual's life changes; there will be a corresponding rise/drop in acceptable risk elsewhere. The same, argues Wilde, is true of larger human systems (e.g. a population of drivers).

dalai

16-Nov-2005
3:53:41 PM

Thanks Billk!


JamesMc

16-Nov-2005
7:21:06 PM

Yep, a head injury would be really really bad. That's not a reason for wearing a helmet. It's a reason for not climbing.

The last rock I accidently dislodged while climbing was about a metre and a half long. I was seconding and dislodged it with my feet, so nobody got hurt. But if my leader had dislodged it then the fact that I was wearing a helmet would not have been much use.

james mc


DaCrux

16-Nov-2005
11:28:16 PM

On 16/11/2005 mockmockmock wrote:
>I don't see how this is too much different from most people now.. lol
Why am I not surprised!?

>As for the rest of it, there are some good points BUT, I've known a lot
>of people who have died in their sleep.. imagine waking up to be dead
>and not even knowing it because you didn't wake up.
Well you wouldn't wake up would you!!! Do you see dead people?

>The huge rant won't change anyones thoughts, there are lots of ways to
>be maimed or rendered in a vegetative state. If this form of warning works
>for you Da Crux, that's great and I suggest never going to sleep ever again,
>excercising, walking across the road being rescusitated (?), being intribated
>(??), travellingt to Bali or going climbing at all.
OK let me point something out to you - I'm posting comments on a climbing forum - therefore it would be safe to assume I climb and hence take risks. What part of my post discouraged you from walking across the road or going to Bali? The point I was trying to make was that people don't wear helments because they don't look "cool" but they don't consider how a brain injury would affect their life.

>As I ride a motorbike as well I often want
>to punch people in the nose who feel the need to tell me how dangerous
>it is and how they knew such n such that was killed, is in a wheel chair
>or crashed.
People with frontal lobe injuries often display aggression. How many times did you crash your bike?

>Your rant today make me want to add you to that list too.
> I won't of course because I realise you just don't know better and it
>would acheive nothing.
No it is you who doesn't know better. The aim of my post was simply to alert people to what life can be like if you have a brain injury. Wearing a helmet won't save your life if you have a bad fall - but if you survive, your quality of life if likely to be better if you are wearing a helmet.

>Off now to J walk across the road, buy some chicken from the vietnamese
>shop, climb the ladder to the mezzanine lunch room and have a coffee.
and to be a troll
I don't get pissed off very easily but your ignorance really offends me!


DaCrux

16-Nov-2005
11:30:07 PM

On 16/11/2005 dalai wrote:
>Thanks for the warnings DaCrux. I feel safer already!!

never know - your computer might crash ;)


runnit

17-Nov-2005
12:16:28 AM

Has anyone else read 'The Totem Pole' by Paul Pritchard? Good example of some serious head injuries from rock fall.

Although he did raise a good point (that someone else brought up here somewhere) that if he had been wearing a helmet, his brain might have been saved, but the impact would have just tranfered to his neck (and this was a microwave size block from memory). Brain damage or spinal damage . . .

Goes to show that helmets can be good, but aren't the be all and end all of safety and it's just another consideration to keep in mind (this isn't supposed to be hanging crap on helmets/their wearers by any means).

Wendy

17-Nov-2005
9:59:17 AM

I'm a fickle helmet wearer. But it's actually not because it doesn't look cool (I'm enough of a dag that it really wouldn't drag me down any further). I actually find they bother my climbing. The reason we hit our heads so often wearing a helmet is because our sense of our bodies' boundaries has changed. They don't sit well on my dreads and having your helmet fall off the back of your head is a little disturbing mid crux. It gets in my peripheral vision and, as previously mentioned by some other sick soul, they get stuck in offwidths. Some of the things I want to climb become exponentially more desperate with the addition of a couple of inches around the head. Five fingered mary with a helmet? I'm not sure I could.

Despite all of this, I wear one at plenty of crags and routes where I consider the risk to be greater. Arapiles is rarely one of those unless I'm guiding. I have never fallen upside down or hit my head in a lead fall in 16 years. The only times I've hit my head seriously was working on the Frinj shows on the Nati silos. Once into the ground, once into another performer. Both times I was wearing my bike helmet, and it works great! I chose the bike helmet for the shows because it is way nicer to wear than my climbing helmet. Interestingly enough, there are a lot of fickle bike helmet wearers in Nati as well. People pop them on their head to stop the police hassling them, but don't do them up! I often don't grab mine to dash over to a friends place, but I will if I ride out to the mount. Calculated risk again. Back streets of Nati are very quiet. Highway is not so.

Still, I realise it's a calculated risk, and if I end up with a head injury not wearing a helmet, there's only myself to blame for the decision. But there are plenty of other things effecting one's chances of injury - including choice of route and good use of gear. Some large percentage of accidents come down to failure to use gear appropriateately or failure to use gear at all. Failure of the earth to stay in it's approriate place doesn't help either. But (no offense meant!) there's really no excuse for ripping gear out of Pedro or Diapason or D Minor and I don't think the earth's going to move off those pitches either. Of the deaths at the Mt described in Simon's guide (I have Lou's copy here Simon, I still don't own it ... but I am making reference to it!), 6 are from failure to use gear correctly or at all and 1 from rock failure. I'll never hassle anyone for wearing a helmet, I have even encouraged it, but the stats suggest that learning how to use gear, using it even on easy ground and avoiding unroped climbing are far more likely to minimise your injuries.

This poll suggests that I should see between 60 and 80 percent of climbers out there wearing helmets, and me thinks this is not so ... I'm not sure where you're all climbing.

Wendy

17-Nov-2005
10:12:45 AM

I have 2 other pitiful excuses for not wearing my helmet (climbing or bike) that I think other people will probably relate to.

I am slack.

I forgot (either to bring it or to put it on!).

Sorry.


maxots

17-Nov-2005
2:41:13 PM

I always wear mine unless indoors. I have even had rocks fall on me at nowra! (they havent hit me but thats not to day they wont. I HAVE had my helmet save my life at least 2 or 3 times already, and I hope it will many times more. I should porbably wear a helmet leading indoors too, as I have seen people flip by catching their foot on a hold)

I used to not wear it on sport routes but I have taken a few falls where Ive flipped and had many rocks fall at sport crags. I think those who have never flipped are lucky. I don't want to rely on luck. I have flipped because my feet hit the rock (IE, you can flip even if you watch your rope)

I think anyone climbing trad, multipitch or worse still mountains without a helmet is an idiot.

I think the argument that its too heavy or too hot is ridiculous! Some helmets these days weight less than 300g (petzl meteor 250g) and I find my ecrin rock fine on hot days!

BoaredOfTheRings

17-Nov-2005
4:09:53 PM

A coronial inquest was held into climbings deaths in Victoria (majority at Piles) in the early '90s. The question was raised that helmets should be made compulsory when climbing, but the coroner found no evidence that this would help to prevent deaths.

gfdonc

17-Nov-2005
5:12:08 PM

The view I believe is that there have been no deaths in roped rockclimbing in Victoria due to falls to climbers who were wearing a helmet. Perhaps I deduced it from Sedgie's article.
Anyone care to confirm/dispute/add a meaningful diversion?


nmonteith

17-Nov-2005
5:20:07 PM

This statistic would be massivly skewed because a fair majority of climbers don't wear helmets...
(although according to the stats on this poll i am very wrong!)

kieranl

17-Nov-2005
8:34:31 PM

I think it was Chouinard who propounded the theoryy that wearing a helmets leads to putting yourself in a position of danger. Sounds like typical Californian gobbledegook masquerading as wisdom to me (and remember, Chouinard was anti-harness as well). I started out climbing with a helmet, went through a period of not wearing one (even though I had survived a major head-impact from rockfall wearing a helmet - go figure that one) and now wear one. I deliberately took it up again after Chris Baxter received a head injury from a rockfall richochet several years ago - he thought he was far enough to the side to be well away from any danger.
People seem to be quoting a 5 Kg rock as a killer. I'm not sure how big the rock that struck me was. When the guys went back the next day to retrieve some gear they found the rock, with a point covered in paint and fibreglass, lying on the footledge in the ice that I was standing on. They said it was about the size of two house bricks and a house brick being about 2.5 kg means it was about 5 kg. That thing hit me right on the crown of my helmeted head after hurtling for a 100m or so down a gully, stopped dead and fell onto the step that my feet had just vacated. It's likely that it would have taken my head off if it had been a glancing blow but the end result was half a dozen stitches and a very sore neck and a few days in hospital to recover.


billk

18-Nov-2005
11:56:37 AM

On 17/11/2005 runnit wrote:
>Has anyone else read 'The Totem Pole' by Paul Pritchard? Good example of
>some serious head injuries from rock fall.
>
>Although he did raise a good point (that someone else brought up here
>somewhere) that if he had been wearing a helmet, his brain might have been
>saved, but the impact would have just tranfered to his neck (and this was
>a microwave size block from memory). Brain damage or spinal damage . .
>.
>>Goes to show that helmets can be good, but aren't the be all and end all
>of safety and it's just another consideration to keep in mind (this isn't
>supposed to be hanging crap on helmets/their wearers by any means).

At the moment there are risk trade-offs with hard shell and soft shell climbing helmets.
However, there are motorbike helmets under development that use gels for impact force absorption. The new technology should make it possible to have a helmet with a hard shell to protect against sharp objects but which will reduce impact force transfer to the brain and neck.

There are 123 messages in this topic.