Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Upside down


DaCrux

7-Jun-2007
11:49:46 PM

On 7/06/2007 Snowball wrote:
>On 7/06/2007 patto wrote:
>>Too many recent deaths have been from head injuries.
>
>Where is the evidence of this, and where is the evidence of helmets making
>a difference to the outcome of past deaths from head injuries?
>
>I'm not against wearing helmets, that's a personal choice, just unsubstanciated
>claims.
>
Perhaps we should set up a randomised controlled trial. Get people to take 10m whippers – you can be in the group without helmets and I’ll be in the one wearing helmets. Who do you think is gonna end up with brain injuries? It’s not rocket science!

Just look at a couple of recent falls. A climber fell at Morialta (approx 15m) a couple of months ago. He was wearing a helmet – and now he’s walking around enjoying life (probably still a bit sore). Then a German climber fell probably the same distance – ended up with a compressed skull fracture and died from his injuries, whilst people debated what climb he was on – like it makes a difference.

I look after people with brain injuries – it’s really not that hard to get one. Even a fall whilst drunk can lead to major surgery and months, if not years of rehabilitation. Majority of patients are lucky enough not to remember their hospital stay and the things they went through – can’t say the same about their families though.


cheesehead

7-Jun-2007
11:52:20 PM

>Where is the evidence of this, and where is the evidence of helmets making
>a difference to the outcome of past deaths from head injuries?

If you're interested, read Paul Pritchards book (The Totem Pole). For those unfamiliar with the tale, Paul took a fall on the Tote, brained himself and got rescued. He was somewhat messed up bit lived.
One of his surgeons in Hobart predicted that his injuries my have been worse if he was wearing a helmet, due to the very particular nature of the trauma.
I don't remember how much else is said, but said surgeon briefly shares his thoughts on helmets and climbing injuries.


DaCrux

8-Jun-2007
12:09:52 AM

Did he take a fall or did a boulder land on his head? I don’t think his injuries would have been as severe if he’d worn a helmet. I think the surgeon suggested he could have ended up with spinal injuries instead – pretty silly thing to say really.

ghost

8-Jun-2007
2:01:35 AM

On 7/06/2007 kieranl wrote:

Enough ranting. Disclaimer - I have been on the pointy end of rockfall penetrating my helmet into the crown of my skull.

Mmmmmmiiiiggghhhtttt eeexxppplllaaiiinn yyyyy uuuurrrrr sssuuuccchhh aaa cccaannnttaaannnkkkkooorrrooouuussss ooolllldddd sssss######ddddddd,,,, Kkkkkiiiiieeeerrrraaaannnnnn ....................


shamus

8-Jun-2007
10:07:59 AM

Snowball, as several people have commented on, the injuries inflicted in a car crash will follow a different pattern to climbing injuries. Car crash - you're flung around inside a very small space, hemmed in by solid objects. The body's only response in to bend and twist arond them, impact upon them and break. Climbing accident - For the most part you're in open space, and you can happily bounce off one bit of rock with plenty of space before you hit the next bit. The solid objects are what causes the deceleration that causes the trauma. Cars have chunks of metal and shatter-proof glass in all the wrong spots as far as catching high-speed bodies go.

No, I dont expect any of the first-aid things i've mentioned will save a life in and of themselves. Snapping a femur is bad. Severing the femoral artery with broken end of femur is worse. I'd recommend you dont try it. But... if you're talking about losing 2litres of blood, thats not going to stop because the vessel clots, its gunna stop because tension in the tissue prevents blood leaving the vessel. Which is why applying sufficient compression to the site will reduce the rate of blood loss, and perhaps let the person survive to receive that surgical intervention. The body wont compensate long-term for lost blood volume, and its compensatory effects are why blood pressure is a poor indicator of blood loss. But the mechanisms which keep pressure up are what maintain blood flow to the brain and heart, keeping people alive at least initially.

Breaking a femur is HARD! Breaking the skull is EASY. One of them has a lot of opportunity to move around, absorbing impacts. That same one has bout 4inches of muscle overlying it and protecting it. If you want to discuss these sort of things with me, I'd be happy to learn from anyone, but I guess the poor innocent readers must be getting a bit sick of all this. I haven't always put in my full reasonings / justifications behind what I've said, that doesn't mean they dont exist. I'm not sure what sort of level of assumed knowledge there is out there.

My belief - if you feel like not wearing a helmet, go for it. It would be extraordinarily irresponsible for someone to actively recommend against wearing helmets, in particular to beginners or people who may not have a good understanding of the considerations, especially if you are unwilling to fully outline and justify your reasoning.

patto

8-Jun-2007
10:39:31 AM

There have been several deaths in Melbourne the last couple of years when a person involved in a brawl has struck their head when they fell resulting in death. The person fell a distance of less than 2m.

When two hard objects strike each other like a skull and rock/concrete something has to give. Unfortunately it is normally the skull.


tnd

8-Jun-2007
11:02:21 AM

On 8/06/2007 patto wrote:
>There have been several deaths in Melbourne the last couple of years when
>a person involved in a brawl has struck their head when they fell resulting
>in death. The person fell a distance of less than 2m.

I recommend wearing a helmet when going out for a drink in Melbourne.


BigMike

8-Jun-2007
11:07:46 AM

On 7/06/2007 cheesehead wrote:

>One of his surgeons in Hobart predicted that his injuries my have been
>worse if he was wearing a helmet, due to the very particular nature of
>the trauma.

Hmmm...

- I could see a doctor saying this to someone with a serious ding to their head in an attempt to keep them positive.
- I could see Paul Pritchard hanging on to that speculation as a way of countering self-recrimination over having not worn a helmet.

Years and years ago there was a car accident near my home where a car went under a semi-trailer. It took the car's roof clean off, but safety belts weren't compulsory then, the driver wasn't wearing one, he ducked, and got off without a scratch. Reports at the time suggested that a seatbelt would have restrained him, and he would have been decaptitated.

So I've never worn a seatbelt since then, naturally.


BigMike

8-Jun-2007
11:11:13 AM

On 8/06/2007 patto wrote:
>There have been several deaths in Melbourne the last couple of years when
>a person involved in a brawl has struck their head when they fell resulting
>in death. The person fell a distance of less than 2m.

I do, however, wear a helmet when visiting pubs in Melbourne...

TonyB

8-Jun-2007
11:19:27 AM

Thank you for all your input. For anyone who values their grey matter, wearing a helmet on a lead seems a sensible thing to do, to guard against head injury in the event of flipping inverted. However, on reseaching helmets I haven't as yet found any mention of helmets being designed to protect against this kind of event. Everything seems talk about protection from falling rocks. Falling rocks are much more likely to have been dislodged by someone, making helmets more useful to the belayer than the leader for this purpose ... ( on one such occasion, I dislodged a rock and yelled out to my girlfriend on belay "STONE !!" ... unfortunately her name is "Stone" and she just looked up ... now I yell "ROCK !!" )

Chest harnesses would seem to be able to halt backward rotation in falls, if the fall and rotation hasn't progressed too far. Does anyone actually use these ? I'm also curious if grabbing the rope during a fall might also be able to reduce rotation, as the rope tightens ? (I'd rather damaged hands than a damaged head).

When climbing, the only dangerous position I can think of is the one I described. A rope to the outside of the body, rather than the cliff side, would always cause flipping, no matter how the fall was taken. Apart from tangling the rope around a leg, I can't envisage any other dangerous stance. Others may disagree ?

patto

8-Jun-2007
11:40:17 AM

On 8/06/2007 TonyB wrote:
>Thank you for all your input. For anyone who values their grey matter,
>wearing a helmet on a lead seems a sensible thing to do, to guard against
>head injury in the event of flipping inverted. However, on reseaching
>helmets I haven't as yet found any mention of helmets being designed to
>protect against this kind of event. Everything seems talk about protection
>from falling rocks. Falling rocks are much more likely to have been dislodged
>by someone, making helmets more useful to the belayer than the leader for
>this purpose ... ( on one such occasion, I dislodged a rock and yelled
>out to my girlfriend on belay "STONE !!" ... unfortunately her name is
>"Stone" and she just looked up ... now I yell "ROCK !!" )
>
>Chest harnesses would seem to be able to halt backward rotation in falls,
>if the fall and rotation hasn't progressed too far. Does anyone actually
>use these ? I'm also curious if grabbing the rope during a fall might
>also be able to reduce rotation, as the rope tightens ? (I'd rather damaged
>hands than a damaged head).
>
>When climbing, the only dangerous position I can think of is the one I
>described. A rope to the outside of the body, rather than the cliff side,
>would always cause flipping, no matter how the fall was taken. Apart from
>tangling the rope around a leg, I can't envisage any other dangerous stance.
> Others may disagree ?

Yeah maybe we should get back to the thread. :)

There are several scenarios that can cause flipping. One of the simplest is when step over your rope so that your legs aren't on the same side of the rope. Unless your directly above you last piece when you fall the rope will likely wrap your thigh and flip you.

Often stepping over your rope can be hard to avoid, it happens. Just be aware of the risk.

rod

8-Jun-2007
4:14:31 PM

TonyB: for the one incident I'm closely aware of wherein someone flipped from just above the second bolt, the person crushed the back of their skull about 3 inches above their neck and the form of my new helmet would likely have prevented that.


kezza

8-Jun-2007
5:17:05 PM

On 8/06/2007 rod wrote:
>TonyB: for the one incident I'm closely aware of wherein someone flipped
>from just above the second bolt, the person crushed the back of their skull
>about 3 inches above their neck and the form of my new helmet would likely
>have prevented that.

unless it was a pointy rock that would fit JUST under where the helmet finishes, a helmut probably would have prevented such an accident as helmets aren't close to your scull like a beanie, they stick out a far bit and the helmet would hit the rock, not there skull. (not very well worded sorry, but someone out there may understand, and be able to word it into adult vocabulary!!)

Try it at home.. put your helmet on, and bang the back of your head against the wall with your chin to your chest i just tryed, looked like a very special kid, and i still couldn'tt hit my head... neck yes, head nope.

rod

8-Jun-2007
8:56:41 PM

That conjures up quite an image Kezza, coupled with the right music it'd be a great warm up for a Friday night out.


kezza

8-Jun-2007
9:19:26 PM

it was quite amusing, i've now got a paint mark on the back of my BRAND NEW helmet! ahh well.. had to prove a point lol


Zebedee

8-Jun-2007
11:12:38 PM

On 8/06/2007 TonyB wrote:
>
>Chest harnesses would seem to be able to halt backward rotation in falls,
>if the fall and rotation hasn't progressed too far. Does anyone actually
>use these ?
Yep I've used a chest harness as a redirect. Not really that important it brings you head up at the bottom of the fall. Prior to that anything could happen. The rope is effectively tied in higher up so more rope is out in my case 40cm. You are also facing a slightly more compicated rig for example don't grab the bight between the harnesses and clip gear cause you won't be goin nowhere. I did use this set up because I am really top heavy but after a while I stopped and just took it.
> I'm also curious if grabbing the rope during a fall might
Holding the rope might keep you upright, grabbing it may be dangerous as fingers thrust into loops of rope will be damaged.
The other stuff, as posted above is propably more critical: helmet, foot vs rope, etc


shmalec

9-Jun-2007
3:14:04 AM

couple of points
most helmets with internal straps and no polystyrene type foam are designed for falling rocks ie vertical impact. the ones with foam will act like bike helmets and should reduce impact in any direction.
the actual length of the fall is not as relevant as the fall factor. Dan Osman survived a jump off El cap (I believe) using only a climbing rope. (don't want to go into all the other issues with D.O.)
the original post was about falling backwards and banging your head. not about length of falls or cause of death. hemets reduce the impact of hits to the head just like they do on bikes.

From "Climbing Accidents in Australia 1955-2004" (may be a newer version around).

Full report is here http://www.vicclimb.org.au/Site/includes/file.php?id=61


M10iswhereitsat.

9-Jun-2007
8:41:40 AM

>Interestingly though they are overly represented in the severe category which may be a >consequence of the former point. More research is required in this area...

More research is required in deciphering what is meant here ... poor, lazy syntax ...
Can anyone give me an anti- "DOH !!! " translsation , please .


shamus

9-Jun-2007
1:31:57 PM

I'd take that as meaning that climbers who would have otherwise ended up in the 'dead' column from a specific fall if not wearing a helmet had reduced injuries that wound up with them in the 'severe' column. They survived hence were in a lower category, rather than meaning that wearing a helmet led to increased levels of severe injury. Still not the greatest translation/interpretation, but hope it helps.


Paulie

12-Jun-2007
9:56:58 AM

On 7/06/2007 pat wrote:
>Paulie, I hope that you mean the bottom of the tie in loop not your leg
>loop?

Yep, the tie in loop on my leg loop.

There are 61 messages in this topic.