selkirk Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Thought we should move the helmet discussion elsewhere. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i guess god has spoken... how 'bout this? except that i don't want to... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thats your personal choice and everyone here respects it, I hope. I'm sure you do wear one when you are out climbing with your kids though.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They wear a helmet...i don't... Only on loose stuff do i wear one...its not to protect me from when i fall but to protect me from falling stuff...i also don't like climbing under other parties... the treatsie on accidents in the yosemite guidebook by don reid on serious trauma and fatalities said that for certain only 5 cases would a helmet have made a difference in falls...that was over 250 cases...his statement was that the amount of trauma (i'm paraphrasing here) was so high that a helmet wouldn't have amounted to much protection...look at the percentages... don't kid yourself...you fuck up, you're dead, helmet or not...best bet is don't fuck up... Just a question... but does the type of climbing play into how severe the accident is? Around here it seems like we have lots and lots of single pitch, or ledgy multipitch stuff (Vantage, Icicle, Smith) so it seems likely that falls wouldn't be as large and hence not as traumatic. While Yosemite is known for Big Walls and Big Routes. Granted the biggest cause of needing a helmet is screwing up somewhere else. Would be interesting to do a quick survey of ANAM and see in just how many accidents the presence of absence of a helmet affected. If people are interested i'll do a count next week, as i'm off to smith, helmet in tow Alpine Choss, and Ice are a different matter as your dealing more with rock/ice fall than anything else and pretty much everyone seems to agree here. Good climbing everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 I'm pretty sure there's a WA local who's an ANAM alum from a few years ago. Something like they were cragging, he's belaying and not wearing a helmet. Miscommunication between climber and belayer, climber expects to get lowered, leans back. Belayer gets surprised and thrown off-balance, bangs head, drops partner. Anyone know the year or can supply correct details? (I only have ANAM back to 2000.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 That sounds similar to an accident on Orchard Rock at Peshastin Pinnacles about May 1999, in which my group of climbers (one of whom is an MD) was first on scene. That guy got a basal skull fracture out of it, and his belayer got broken legs and pelvis. Thing is, he remained on rope at the top of the crag, but was incoherent and combative when reached. He did not fall to the ground, but his belayer did on an unbraked "air rappel". I believe they were b/f and g/f, or maybe even married. Can't remember the names... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 yeah, that sounds like it. the dude was leading climbs for the Mounties two seasons ago, not sure if he still is anymore. i'll keep the name of the dude to myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric8 Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 Rumor pointed out in the other thread that the position of your leg relative to the rope is really important. I find myself telling my partners to get there leg out from behind the rope all the time, to the point where I think I'm being annoying and sometimes i think there kinda like I'm wearing a helmet so screw it. I know that I pay extra attention to wear my feet are relative to the rope when i'm not wearing a helmet. Also wearing a helmet when its hot out sucks period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolyn Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 I wear my helmet when I climb, belay, and often times just hanging around a cliff. I HATE it (especially when its hot)! Maybe I am full of bad luck, maybe Im just a clutz. In my few years of climbing I have been hit with a chunk of ice on my head and shoulder which knocked me out for a brief period of time and gave me a seperated shoulder. Ive had MANY near misses with rock. And just last weekend as I took my first "true whipper" (20+ft), I was trying to avoid smashing my leg against the rock and turned. I flipped upside down and hit my head twice. Good thing for that helmet! Not to mention all the times I bonk my head on the rock. DOH I think its a personal choice if you want to wear one or not. Im not gonna rag on ya if I see ya without one. tho, I do think its important to consider the folks around you and whether or not its fair to put them in a situation where they might have to save your life because of something preventable. Kinda like solo climbing. Go for it. I do it. But I wont do it around others. Touchy subject. I wont laugh at you when you get hit in the noggin' if you dont laugh at me while Im wearing my helmet! Promise! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkemp Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 Yeah, I like Carolyn's statement. Its a personal choice - and I personally always choose to wear one. Like someone said before, I wear it not just to protect from falling stuff, but because I've conked my head on roofs and such a few times. Cheers, Dox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryad Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 I have a nice whipper-induced dent in my helmet that would have been in my skull otherwise. That's all the convincing I need to wear one pretty much all the time no matter how big a dork I might look like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neversummer Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 Personal choice for sure, if you dont where one for comfort(heat), weight, uber climber that never falls, or your simply just arrogant and believe "it will never happen to me" whatever. But if you choose not to wear one simply because you think it makes you look like a dork... Get over it, you look like one anyway and yer pretty stupid to boot. Not directed at any one specific, just saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvs Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 My helmet sits at a jaunty angle on my too-large head, hinting at disturbing bulges underneath! I look like a dork! But if I were to remove it, craggers would shudder at the shiny, blue-veined skin, the wispy trails of reddish stringy hair (haar), the fragile wobbly eggshell that a mere pebble might explode! So I by gob wear one. If I'm climbing with someone who doesn't wear one, I don't worry about them at all, or feel uncomfortable that they are putting others in a bad situation because there are so many other risk factors too. For example I could (well-helmeted) fall ripping out my poorly-placed pro and make those around me go through acres of discomfort or danger to help. I could break every bone in my body (except spine?) and recover. But just a hard knock on the head might be the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badvoodoo Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 Wearing a helmet to me is like what wearing a seatbelt should be: it's your life and only your life, it should be your choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 But then rolls in subsidized social services and health services. If your head injury will cost the taxpapers bigtime, why not enforce (or at least strongly encourage) something as nonimposing as wearing a seatbelt? (I'm playing Devil's advocate) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 on the seatbelt rule, the only logic i've only bought is the idea that, in many accidents, the driver still needs to be in control of the vehicle to prevent even more bad shit from happening (which is of course impossible if his head is through the windshield or a passenger has been thrown into him). i fail to see the corollary to the climbing-helmet debacle. here we see the pure essence of dumb-fucks being allowed to dash their own dumb-fuck skulls in w/ impunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpine_Tom Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Well, if my not wearing a helmet results in a disabling injury which requires evacuation (say, rockfall on Gib Ledges) I'm endangering more people (climbing rangers, helicopter pilots, emts, etc) than I would be as the driver of an automobile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterMo Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 But then rolls in subsidized social services and health services. If your head injury will cost the taxpapers bigtime, why not enforce (or at least strongly encourage) something as nonimposing as wearing a seatbelt? (I'm playing Devil's advocate) ...and in this corner of hell...The devil's evil twin says OK you got it; I buy your reasoning 100%...but...first...let's impose proper diet & excercise upon 100% of the population and really save some lives. To save a few more we could ban everything even remotely "risky". Same logic applies, doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badvoodoo Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 But then rolls in subsidized social services and health services. If your head injury will cost the taxpapers bigtime, why not enforce (or at least strongly encourage) something as nonimposing as wearing a seatbelt? (I'm playing Devil's advocate) Then by that same logic there should be a mandatory helmet law for climbers, just like motorcyclists... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman_Clyde Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Helmet use is a lot like seat belt use: there are enough obvious, well documented benefits of their use that most communities consider helmet/seat belt laws to be fair and just. The rugged individualist likes to believe that his life choices affect no one except himself/herself, but it's just not true. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge the fact, society is compelled to do a certain amount for you if you're incapacitated by injury. This is also true if you get killed, but the burden to society from a dead person is much less. If you survive another 30 years in a vegetative state in a nursing home somewhere, you'll be consuming public funds and resources eventually, no matter how good your insurance. Therefore society has some degree of authority over how much risk you may assume in certain situations. Society can't quite justify mandating a healthy diet for you, because the question of benefit vs. risk is not nearly so clear-cut. This is not true for use of helmets or seat belts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 so i'm morally free to be an asshole than if i have a living will? partner w/ no helmet at crag = fuck'em, no serious danger to myself or inconvience in disposing of his carcass, so be cool w/ yer bad-self partner w/ no helmet in the alpine = asshole partner who could very well leave me up shit's creek all by myself, w/ a very dangerous responsibility to care for his incapicitated self. probably wouldn't climb w/ that guy a second time unless he had great herbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 But then rolls in subsidized social services and health services. If your head injury will cost the taxpapers bigtime, why not enforce (or at least strongly encourage) something as nonimposing as wearing a seatbelt? (I'm playing Devil's advocate) Then by that same logic there should be a mandatory helmet law for climbers, just like motorcyclists... one day that logic will go all to far and there will be a law agains motorcycleing and rock climbing. it is sad that people can't mind there own buisness. eventulay there could be laws against playing with your children... tickeling...runnning...and any other thing that *might* cause harm. getting out of bed in the morning is a risk, each person has to determin how much of a risk they are willing to take. Then they have to take responsabilty for that risk, and accept what ever consequences come from that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arlen Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Helmet use must be like "ethics," in that it depends a lot on what you see and hear locally. In the Adirondacks, where I learned to climb, more people climbed helmetless than otherwise. But rockfall isn't as common there (you can look up without cringing), people are comparatively more interested in trad ethics and style, and there's hardly anything close to alpine climbing. Or maybe it's just that helmet use is increasing everywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Helmet use must be like "ethics," in that it depends a lot on what you see and hear locally. In the Adirondacks, where I learned to climb, more people climbed helmetless than otherwise. But rockfall isn't as common there (you can look up without cringing), people are comparatively more interested in trad ethics and style, and there's hardly anything close to alpine climbing. Or maybe it's just that helmet use is increasing everywhere. rock climbing is becomming a more commen sport with more and more "yuppies" participating. this means there are more *easier* routes being put up and more helmets and *safety measurs* out there. it is not longer a sport for risk takers and individualists. any one with a few hundred dollars thinks they can climb. and they can. but I would say the more *safety* meauures there are out there the more the false security exisits and luls inexperienced climbers into thinking they don't neeed basic outdoor skills or to train there asses off. IMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry_Pi Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Helmet use is a lot like seat belt use: there are enough obvious, well documented benefits of their use that most communities consider helmet/seat belt laws to be fair and just. The rugged individualist likes to believe that his life choices affect no one except himself/herself, but it's just not true. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge the fact, society is compelled to do a certain amount for you if you're incapacitated by injury. This is also true if you get killed, but the burden to society from a dead person is much less. If you survive another 30 years in a vegetative state in a nursing home somewhere, you'll be consuming public funds and resources eventually, no matter how good your insurance. Therefore society has some degree of authority over how much risk you may assume in certain situations. Society can't quite justify mandating a healthy diet for you, because the question of benefit vs. risk is not nearly so clear-cut. This is not true for use of helmets or seat belts. Hello capitalist! I've smoked cigarettes all my life and I'm not dead yet. Thank you for allow fou to post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrythellama Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 i don't see how 'yuppies' climbing has anything to do with helmet wearing? are you saying that they are more dangerous then 'poor' people who climb? that makes zero sense. and then laws agaist you playing with your children? that is sooo far fetched, almost paranoid. it's a personal choice for a climber to wear or not to wear a helmet. why do you care? to ride a motorcycle you have to get an endorsement on your license, you need to prove to the powers that be that you can follow the rules and regulations of the activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badvoodoo Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 i don't see how 'yuppies' climbing has anything to do with helmet wearing? are you saying that they are more dangerous then 'poor' people who climb? that makes zero sense. Yuppies: Young, healthy, fit people with enough disposable income and time to explore new sports on a whim, rather doing so out of dedication. Thereby increasing the number of people at the crags who don't take the sport seriously, and pose a danger to themselves and others. Not to say there aren't stupid poor people too, there's just less of them with $1000+ worth of gear. to ride a motorcycle you have to get an endorsement on your license, you need to prove to the powers that be that you can follow the rules and regulations of the activity. That would indicate to me they'd be more likely to use good judgement in such an activity than someone at the crags who's never so much as taken a belay test. But they still regulate helmet usage on motorcycles. So your point is.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 i don't see how 'yuppies' climbing has anything to do with helmet wearing? are you saying that they are more dangerous then 'poor' people who climb? that makes zero sense. Yuppies: Young, healthy, fit people with enough disposable income and time to explore new sports on a whim, rather doing so out of dedication. Thereby increasing the number of people at the crags who don't take the sport seriously, and pose a danger to themselves and others. Not to say there aren't stupid poor people too, there's just less of them with $1000+ worth of gear. to ride a motorcycle you have to get an endorsement on your license, you need to prove to the powers that be that you can follow the rules and regulations of the activity. That would indicate to me they'd be more likely to use good judgement in such an activity than someone at the crags who's never so much as taken a belay test. But they still regulate helmet usage on motorcycles. So your point is.... could not have said it better myself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.