My helmet saved my life on Sunday

James Piotrowski wrote: I always wear a seatbelt, I drive vehicles with very high safety ratings, multiple airbags, crumple zones, ABS, good tires (fully inflated), working headlights, and I drive pretty cautiously. The odds of me being in the kind of accident in which a helmet would provide effective protection are extraordinarily small (like lottery-small, and I don't play the lottery). I have a high probability of fender benders, but those don't result in head injury. I have a really low probability of being in the kind of catastrophic accident that would result in head injury. And to be in an accident that would result in head injury, but only the kind of head injury that a helmet would protect (in other words, an accident that results in a blow to the head, but does NOT result in airbags deploying, and results in blunt trauma injury rather than deceleration injury which a helmet doesn't help with) is a vanishingly small probability. I have always worn a helmet when on a motorcycle.

I wear a helmet climbing myself but I was just using your equation. Feel safe in your car all you want, it is statistically the most dangerous thing we do, irrespective of its safety rating and ask any EMS about head trauma and car accidents. You crunch those numbers, they are out there.

I always find it amusing that we have seatbelt laws in cars yet riding a motor cycle on the road is even legal. Now that's an interesting equation for you.

Rick Blair wrote: Feel safe in your car all you want, it is statistically the most dangerous thing we do, irrespective of its safety rating and ask any EMS about head trauma and car accidents.

(citation needed)

The world certainly needs more organ donation.

The rock's other victim

No need for helmets when cragging.

I was climbing at a popular crag in Bolter Canyon Wednesday. While leading a route right in the middle of the crag with several people at the base below me, some with helmets on, some without. Half way up the route a grapefruit sizes hold broke off in my hand. Oops sorry craggers with no helmets. Actually I held onto it, yelled rock and safely tossed it to the side.

While rapping this same route my rope dislodged another grapefruit sized rock. Oops sorry craggers with no helmets. Actually I did see it coming and was able to catch it, yell rock and safely toss it to the side.

When a foot hold breaks off I'm sure I will be able to catch it too True story.

But, no need for helmets when cragging.

davedad wrote: I even boulder with a helmet- I have a small ego and limited climbing skills so it has not cramped my style but definitely marks me as a supernerd.

Climb on, davedad!

Personally, I wear a helmet whenever ANY of the following apply:

Ice. Stuff comes down, duh.

On lead, trad or sport. I've gotten turned upside-down when I had my foot in the wrong spot relative to the rope. Climber error? Sure. Doesn't mean I won't error again.

An "active cliff" e.g. Cannon NH. Stuff comes down.

High probability of climbers above me e.g. the Gunks. Stuff comes down.

What does that leave? Seconding or top-roping on short stable crags e.g Rumney (except maybe Main Cliff, which seems "active"), Ragged Mountain, Devil's Lake, etc. At that point, the value to me of the comfort of climbing helmetless is greater than the value of risk mitigation for very low probability events. Other's mileage may vary.

I'm curious how many folks who've replied to this thread work in healthcare. Previously, I tended to only wear helmets when mountain biking and ice climbing (notably not while bike commuting, rock climbing or skiing).

However, once I started working in a hospital environment, within a few months I saw enough life-altering TBIs to completely turn my opinion around. Many of them were from relatively mundane stuff- beginners skiing into trees, kids skateboarding, etc... and their lives were completely f*cked.

Obviously nobody knows if a helmet would've changed the outcome significantly in any of those cases, but don't we usually try to stack the odds in our favor when climbing or skiing big alpine lines? I put wearing helmet in this same category- yes, it may be slightly inconvenient and 99% of the time totally unnecessary, but in my opinion it seems a small price to pay for the potential that exists to prevent a major, life-altering injury.

Plus, all you dirtbags out there without insurance, please wear a helmet to lower the chances that we'll all be footing the bill for your extended hospital stay & rehab :).

(and no, I don't fail to see the irony in the fact that I'm not wearing a helmet in my profile pic- so please don't think I"m being preachy!)

My climbing partner got "beaned" by a small rock from up near the rim of the cliff we were at the base of 2 weeks ago. Helmet saved her from some stitches or worse. I wasn't wearing one and haven't worn one since I stopped ice climbing. Been lucky and with some experience.

Way she wears her Petzl I think it would not help her much in a climbing fall.

Greg D wrote:No need for helmets when cragging. I was climbing at a popular crag in Bolter Canyon Wednesday. While leading a route right in the middle of the crag with several people at the base below me, some with helmets on, some without. Half way up the route a grapefruit sizes hold broke off in my hand. Oops sorry craggers with no helmets. Actually I held onto it, yelled rock and safely tossed it to the side. While rapping this same route my rope dislodged another grapefruit sized rock. Oops sorry craggers with no helmets. Actually I did see it coming and was able to catch it, yell rock and safely toss it to the side. When a foot hold breaks off I'm sure I will be able to catch it too True story. But, no need for helmets when cragging.

Pretty sure a grapefruit sized rock hitting you in the dome with any significant velocity is going to wreck your shit helmet or not.

That being said, of course wear a helmet when you are climbing in chosslandia.

Ryan Watts wrote: Pretty sure a grapefruit sized rock hitting you in the dome with any significant velocity is going to wreck your shit helmet or not. That being said, of course wear a helmet when you are climbing in chosslandia.

You still mad at me?

Greg D wrote: You still mad at me?

Err...what for?

I was just taking a quick jab at "Bolter Canyon" as you called it.

All the cool kids are doing it.

James Piotrowski wrote:The cost of a head injury, for those of us who actualy use our brains, is enormous.

So are there oodles of people out there who don't "use" their brain to make living? Do garbage collectors not need a functioning frontal cortex? It was hard for me to understand what you have been saying through the ringing of self-righteousness in your posts.

Oh yeah, and by the way, you misspelled "actually".

Ryan Watts wrote: Pretty sure a grapefruit sized rock hitting you in the dome with any significant velocity is going to wreck your shit helmet or not.

Sure, and running into a K-Rail at 145 MPH with a Formula One race car would nearly guarantee death, yet despite the "guarantee" there are plenty of drivers that have survived such. It may be true that there are some rocks a helmet will never provide adequate protection against, but that does not mean one should not wear one. That's like saying sharp rock can cut a rope, so there is no point in roping up at all.

Buffum is right on both counts. It was intended to make the point that everyone values their brains, and thus should have a similar calculus on this, AND I am a condescending jerk, trying to point out that it you don't value your brain it's probably because you don't use it.

J.Albers, my point had absolutley nothing to do with garbage collectors. In fact, most blue collar jobs actually require MORE functional brain power on a day to day basis than an awful lot of white collar workers are capable of. I applaud your effort to find class-based insult, but you missed the mark on this one. Also, do you really want to be the spelling nazi?

James Piotrowski wrote:Buffum is right on both counts. It was intended to make the point that everyone values their brains, and thus should have a similar calculus on this, AND I am a condescending jerk, trying to point out that it you don't value your brain it's probably because you don't use it. J.Albers, my point had absolutley nothing to do with garbage collectors. In fact, most blue collar jobs actually require MORE functional brain power on a day to day basis than an awful lot of white collar workers are capable of. I applaud your effort to find class-based insult, but you missed the mark on this one. Also, do you really want to be the spelling nazi?

Sigh, it wasn't a class-based insult. Let me be more clear. Every time that I have checked in on this thread - which I will admit has been infrequently - I have read a post by you that is subtly snotty. You may not come right out and be a jerk, but it is certainly implied by your tone. And that is even more annoying because you won't even own your self-righteousness. For example, this:

"If your mind is blown it is because you are tryign to oversimplify. WHETHER to engage in an activity is a different decision than HOW to engage in that activity"

this,

"I make my living with my head. Even a minor head injury that resulted in temporary cognitive defects would be supremely inconvenient. "

and this,

"The cost of a head injury, for those of us who actualy use our brains, is enormous."

are certainly snide comments. In particular the last statement about "actually" using your brain is dickish. Why? Because your usage of the word "actually" implies that there are folks out there who don't use their brain all that much, or at a minimum, use their brain so little that the cost of injuring their brain isn't "enormous". Your statement more or less boils down to you admitting the possibility that someone doesn't value their head enough to protect it with a helmet, but unlike them, you do wear a helmet because your brain contents are valuable. That is what the "actually" part of your statement is implying.

Yes, yes, I know that you are going to try and say that this isn't what you meant, but I think that is BS. I know you probably figure that you're being subtle enough about your snideness not to be noticed outright, but let me guarantee you that there is a world of difference between your tone and the tone of comments by say, Nick Stayner, who goes out of his way to make it clear that there is no judgement in his statements.

And this is exactly what I think John Strand was complaining about earlier in this post. That is, folks like you talk about wearing a helmet with an air of self-righteousness. Again, you don't come out and say "people who don't wear helmets are reckless idiots", but everyone who is paying attention to your capitalization of words and tone of argument can hear the righteousness loud and clear...even if you're too PC to come out and call someone an idiot outright.

And the spelling comment? Yeah, that was me subtly poking you in the eye for being intellectually aloof, yet spelling poorly.

Finally, has it occurred to you that those of us who don't wear a helmet while sport climbing have actually made a calculated judgement in our heads as to what the ratio is between the probability of getting hit by rockfall while sport climbing versus the annoyance of wearing a helmet all day? My judgement is that riding in the car to the crag is infinitely more dangerous than not wearing a helmet while sport climbing. Think I'm wrong? Go ahead, calculate the number of hours spent every single day by folks sport climbing throughout the world and divide that by the number of injuries from rockfall while sport climbing. My guess is that the number is as you say "vanishingly small."

The first two comments you listed were not snide or snotty, you just chose to read them that way. The third comment was indeed snide.

There really is a difference between whether and how. This is how critical reasoning works (and I am a huge fan of linear logic). We define the words that describe the decision making process, so that we can know we are talking about the same thing, then we apply the appropriate standards to each step of that rpocess, and those standards may vary from step to step. For instance, I agree to take risk when I decide WHETHER to climb. I make decisions about the scope of that risk when I decide HOW to climb. If you find it snotty that I make those sorts of distinctions, then I just don't know what to say.

Likewise, I do make my living with my brain, primarily. So do most people I know. I can work just fine with broken bones (and I have done so in circumstances where I had broken bones but not a damaged skull because of a helemt). I could work from a wheelchair. Theoretically, quadriplegia would only effect my efficiency, not my ability to do the work I do. But a lot of people could not do the job they presently do with physical injuries. It is also true that most of them could not do their job with cognitive injuries, any more than they could with musculo-skeletal injuries. Which is precisely my point, if you need your brain, protect your brain. If you consider that snotty simply because everyone needs their brain, then you are way too sensitive.

For myself, I consider wearing a helmet at the crag to be a no-brainer. And I consider the people who argue against wearing one to be slightly delusional. While I respect your right to follow your delusion (especially a minor one such as this), I'm still going to point out that wearing a helmet is, in my opinion a no-brainer, and if that means you think I am claiming that you lack a brain, well that's your conclusion, not mine.

Chances are very good that despite not wearing a helmet, you will never suffer the inconvenience of blunt trauma injury to your skull sufficient to cause cognitive difficulties. So, it is likely that your gamble will pay off and that you will reap all of the rewards of avoiding the "inconvenience" of wearing a helmet. For your sake, I hope it works out that way. I'm kind of clumsy, and not the luckiest guy int he world, so I'll wear my helmet, which I don't find inconvenient at all.

And you're still a spelling-nazi which pretty much makes you an internet punk.

20 kN wrote: Sure, and running into a K-Rail at 145 MPH with a Formula One race car would nearly guarantee death, yet despite the "guarantee" there are plenty of drivers that have survived such. It may be true that there are some rocks a helmet will never provide adequate protection against, but that does not mean one should not wear one. That's like saying sharp rock can cut a rope, so there is no point in roping up at all.

I never said don't wear a helmet. In fact if you read my other post I said there is almost no situation in which not wearing a helmet is safer.

There are situations in which it really makes almost no difference, but climbing in Boulder Canyon or any other place where you are likely to have rocks falling down on you is not one of those.

Jamespio wrote:There really is a difference between whether and how. This is how critical reasoning works (and I am a huge fan of linear logic).

I envy your job, or maybe not, because nothing in real life can be cleanly separated into each facet. There is no "whether" without predicating on "how". Linear logic only gets (poorly) programmed in computers, which is why they sometime fail spectacularly when different parameters interact in unanticipated manner.

Say I'm deciding whether to do a classic alpine route or an OK local sport route on a particular day. My decision process very much depends how I can do it. Do I wake up super early to get a jump on everyone else, or do I go later and risk shit being dropped on my head, helmet or no helmet? Even though the alpine route may be better in vacuum, I may decide my available "how" options override "whether".

In 35 years of climbing, I've had two "definite saves," by wearing a helmet. In other words, two instances where I would have likely died, if I hadn't been wearing a helmet. In both cases, I was the belayer, not the climber. In both cases, I was wearing an old school hard-surface type helmet. And, in both cases I was in an area generally considered to have solid rock (Little Cottonwood Canyon, UT). In both cases, I was in a situation where I couldn't dodge (hanging belay for instance). I've had a bunch of additional "close calls" where a rock landed near me that was a size such that would be stopped by a sturdy helmet, but might have killed or severely injured if it hit an unprotected head. Of course, I (or my partner) have dodged a few things that would kill, independent of whether you had a helmet on.

One partner took a leader fall, and did a head plant (pile driver style) on a ledge in the midst of his fall. His helmet broke in two, literally down the middle ( a tough, old school, solid epoxy, shell). He walked away from this with a screwed up neck, and contusions everywhere, but no head injury.

Ryan Watts wrote: I never said don't wear a helmet. In fact if you read my other post I said there is almost no situation in which not wearing a helmet is safer. There are situations in which it really makes almost no difference, but climbing in Boulder Canyon or any other place where you are likely to have rocks falling down on you is not one of those.

Actually you did imply that a helmet is useless for grapefruit sized rock when you said:

"Pretty sure a grapefruit sized rock hitting you in the dome with any significant velocity is going to wreck your shit helmet or not. "

But it is obvious you were just trying to take a cheap shot at me cuz you are still mad about the Jesus thing cuz that statement is quite retarded. If a grapefruit sized rock is coming at you would you say "fack it. I'm taking my helmet off cuz it's gonna wreck my shit helmet anyway". Everyone knows that a destroyed helmet is not a failed helmet. It is one that has absorbed a significant amount of energy. If fact, motorcyclists that survive crashes often have destroyed helmets. Imagine what would have happened to their heads without the helmet. Don't hang onto anger. It's just Internet conjecture anyway.