|
jt512
Sep 13, 2005, 5:03 PM
Post #126 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Really I was curious to see if anyone had any good reasons for not wearing a helmet on lead. There are no good reasons for not wearing a helmet while leading. Similaraly, there are no good reasons for not wearing a helmet while taking a crap. This either leads to the conclusion that you should wear a helmet while taking a crap or the conclusion that you asked the wrong question. -Jay Given the tortured grammer...
Nine times out of 10, if you find yourself using the word grammar on the Internet, you had best spell it correctly.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
speedywon
Sep 13, 2005, 5:11 PM
Post #127 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 5, 2005
Posts: 182
|
Nice! Tacky as hell, yet also funny as hell!
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Sep 13, 2005, 5:13 PM
Post #128 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
In reply to: In reply to: Given the tortured grammer... Nine times out of 10, if you find yourself using the word grammar on the Internet, you had best spell it correctly. -Jay
Helmut too.
In reply to: As I have stated in other threads, I think the truth is just the opposite: that wearing helmets leads to sloppy decisions. The current n00b wears a helmet, climbs with his leg in front of the rope, and belays directly underneath his partner. The climber isn't paying enough attention to his footwork to realize he is knocking rocks down on his belayer (much less to actually yell "rock"), while the belayer isn't looking up and watching for rockfall (much less standing someplace less likely to be exposed to it).
And has been pointed out before, your statment has no basis in fact. It is so weak, I wonder if you feel the need to argue with yourself when you type it.
Murf
Edited to truly quote jt512..
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Sep 13, 2005, 5:29 PM
Post #129 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: As I have stated in other threads, I think the truth is just the opposite: that wearing helmets leads to sloppy decisions. The current n00b wears a helmet, climbs with his leg in front of the rope, and belays directly underneath his partner. The (inexperienced) climber is (acting inexperienced). And has been pointed out before, your statment has no basis in fact. It is so weak, I wonder if you feel the need to argue with yourself when you type it. Murf
And your opinion is backed up by some sort of facts? Your post is laughable. I couldn't care less if people wear helmets or not.
However, it is a fairly simple matter to establish the cause and effect of most accidents--but the Gumbys here seemingly prefer to merely treat only the symptom of their errors and toss on a helmet as some sort of cure-all. That hardly seems like the best option to me.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
veganboyjosh
Sep 13, 2005, 5:32 PM
Post #130 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2003
Posts: 1421
|
In reply to: However, it is a fairly simple matter to establish the cause and effect of most accidents--but the Gumbys here seemingly prefer to merely treat only the symptom of their errors and toss on a helmet as some sort of cure-all. That hardly seems like the best option to me.
i'm not about only treating the symptoms, as an admitted noob, i wanna learn as much as i can to prevent accidents or limit potential accidents. but i am about stacking the odds against being injured in my favor. which is where my helmet comes in.
as an adult, you are free to wear or not wear a helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Sep 13, 2005, 5:39 PM
Post #131 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: i wanna learn as much as i can to prevent accidents or limit potential accidents. but i am about stacking the odds against being injured in my favor. which is where my helmet comes in.
You want to stack the odd in your favor...Don't listen to 98-per-cent of the crap on this site. The sheer amount of accidents and near misses that I have seen and heard of in the last 10 years has more to do with lack of experience than with wearing and not wearing a helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 13, 2005, 6:04 PM
Post #132 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Given the tortured grammer... Nine times out of 10, if you find yourself using the word grammar on the Internet, you had best spell it correctly. -Jay Helmut too. In reply to: As I have stated in other threads, I think the truth is just the opposite: that wearing helmets leads to sloppy decisions. The current n00b wears a helmet, climbs with his leg in front of the rope, and belays directly underneath his partner. The (inexperienced) climber is (acting inexperienced). And has been pointed out before, your statment has no basis in fact. It is so weak, I wonder if you feel the need to argue with yourself when you type it. Murf
How do you know it has no basis in fact? Clearly there is an association. Cause and effect is difficult to establish, but association is a necessary and insufficient condition for causation, and hence evidence (albeit incomplete) for causation.
Now, I didn't write "The inexperienced climber is acting inexperienced," and for future reference, I would appreciate it if you would not inaccurately quote me. The inexperienced climber, in stepping in front of his rope and standing in a rockfall zone, is not just acting inexperienced; he's acting inexperienced, stupid, and poorly trained. That's my point: that thinking and training in climbing have gone out of fashion, as helmets have come into fashion. Look at the post at the bottom of page one. The poster writes that he witnessed an upsidedown fall on a sport route and that the climber hit his head. What message does he say he took away from the lesson? To keep the rope out from behind his leg and actually prevent the accident from occurring? No, to always wear a helmet.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
veganboyjosh
Sep 13, 2005, 6:12 PM
Post #133 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2003
Posts: 1421
|
In reply to: What message does he say he took away from the lesson? To keep the rope out from behind his leg and actually prevent the accident from occurring? No, to always wear a helmet. -Jay
my point being that it's important to learn both lessons. keep my foot outside the rope, and wear a helmet.
a question for those who don't wear a helmet:
are you aware of any times when having a helmet on caused an accident, or made one worse? i'm not talking uncomfortable, i'm talking "man, that was really bad, too bad he was wearing his helmet." or "this accident could have been prevented by the climber not wearing her helmet".
not trying to flame/troll, just trying to get all the angles.
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Sep 13, 2005, 6:16 PM
Post #134 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: As I have stated in other threads, I think the truth is just the opposite: that wearing helmets leads to sloppy decisions. The current n00b wears a helmet, climbs with his leg in front of the rope, and belays directly underneath his partner. The (inexperienced) climber is (acting inexperienced). And has been pointed out before, your statment has no basis in fact. It is so weak, I wonder if you feel the need to argue with yourself when you type it. Murf And your opinion is backed up by some sort of facts?
I'm supposed to disprove Jay's theory? Where are his facts that my supposition so laughable?
In reply to: However, it is a fairly simple matter to establish the cause and effect of most accidents.
If it so simple, then prove to me that helmet wearing causes accidents.
I think we assume the tautology "beginners act like beginners".
And Curt, if you don't care about helmets that much, why are you posting here? I think Jay can handle me all by his lonesome.
Murf
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Sep 13, 2005, 6:17 PM
Post #135 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: That's my point: that thinking and training in climbing have gone out of fashion, as helmets have come into fashion.
That's the sad part. You have these folks who think that wearing a helmet and having all the gadgets will save them from their own stupidity!
God forbid if they actually took the time and worked through the grades.
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Sep 13, 2005, 6:17 PM
Post #136 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
In reply to: As I have stated in other threads, I think the truth is just the opposite: that wearing helmets leads to sloppy decisions.
I'm just going to leave this one out here to enjoy...
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 13, 2005, 6:33 PM
Post #137 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: As I have stated in other threads, I think the truth is just the opposite: that wearing helmets leads to sloppy decisions. I'm just going to leave this one out here to enjoy...
Well, Murf, in the same thread you have now (1) intentionally misquoted me and (2) quoted a statement of mine, in which I was paraphrasing my opponent's wording for effect, out of context. These tactics are dishonest and unnecessary. I'm sure you can make your points more eloquently.
For the record, let me state my point more rigorously: I believe that the trend in increased helmet wearing is partly responsible for producing a cohort of climbers who are more careless in their climbing practices than their predecessors.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Sep 13, 2005, 6:41 PM
Post #138 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: However, it is a fairly simple matter to establish the cause and effect of most accidents.... If it so simple, then prove to me that helmet wearing causes accidents....
Who here said that wearing helmets "causes" accidents? I think your reading and comprehension skills need some work.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Sep 13, 2005, 6:42 PM
Post #139 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
Let me say, I enjoy a good n00b bashing once and a while. OK, more than once in a while, the truth be told.
I think that rgold basically summed up the long and the short of it for me:
http://www1.rockclimbing.com/...hp?p=1185721#1185721
Maybe the freaking n00bs don't know what to do 'cause all you hyper experienced dudes won't help 'em out? I know, I know, some of the people out there are truly idiots, and no amount of help will... help. I do wonder where you n00bs gates get the energy to be so vitrolic alot of the time.
Gri-gri's, n' helmets, n' belaying, oh my!
Murf
|
|
|
|
|
catbird_seat
Sep 13, 2005, 6:44 PM
Post #140 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2004
Posts: 425
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: As I have stated in other threads, I think the truth is just the opposite: that wearing helmets leads to sloppy decisions. I'm just going to leave this one out here to enjoy... Well, Murf, in the same thread you have now (1) intentionally misquoted me and (2) quoted a statement of mine, in which I was paraphrasing my opponent's wording for effect, out of context. These tactics are dishonest and unnecessary. I'm sure you can make your points more eloquently. For the record, let me state my point more rigorously: I believe that the trend in increased helmet wearing is partly responsible for producing a cohort of climbers who are more careless in their climbing practices than their predecessors. -Jay |
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 13, 2005, 6:53 PM
Post #141 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: As I have stated in other threads, I think the truth is just the opposite: that wearing helmets leads to sloppy decisions. I'm just going to leave this one out here to enjoy... Well, Murf, in the same thread you have now (1) intentionally misquoted me and (2) quoted a statement of mine, in which I was paraphrasing my opponent's wording for effect, out of context. These tactics are dishonest and unnecessary. I'm sure you can make your points more eloquently. For the record, let me state my point more rigorously: I believe that the trend in increased helmet wearing is partly responsible for producing a cohort of climbers who are more careless in their climbing practices than their predecessors. -Jay You are entitled to your belief, but you have no evidence to back it up.
The only evidence I have is what I have observed, both longitudinally over a 20-year climbing career, and cross-sectionally: Look around your local crag. Who is more likely to be standing in the rockfall zone, the climber wearing the helmet or the climber not wearing one. I believe this association would hold up after controlling for experience level. If you want better evidence than that, find me $50,000, and I'll conduct the study and get it published in a scholarly epidemiology journal.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Sep 13, 2005, 6:57 PM
Post #142 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
In reply to: Well, Murf, in the same thread you have now (1) intentionally misquoted me
Which I have fixed, and will not do to your quotes again, mea culpa.
In reply to: (2) quoted a statement of mine, in which I was paraphrasing my opponent's wording for effect, out of context. These tactics are dishonest and unnecessary. I'm sure you can make your points more eloquently.
And you have shown that (1) you are a stickler for not being misquoted and (2) when you are directly quoted you call me dishonest ( ad hominem ). I have to say that I was actually glad you stated your point outright, unfortunately it seems you were making a point to another poster.
In reply to: For the record, let me state my point more rigorously: I believe that the trend in increased helmet wearing is partly responsible for producing a cohort of climbers who are more careless in their climbing practices than.
Finally, a rigorous quote! I will not argue with the fact that there are greater numbers of climbers than ever. I will not argue with the fact that with these greater numbers of climbers, there are more climbers that are under trained, under prepared, and over geared.
However, when you directly attribute the production of careless climbers to the use of a helmet, I think you are making an unsupportable leap. I believe you have a better backround than I in statistics and logic, but this would seem to be more of joint effect than causation. Your point is that you have seen many people stand directly under the climber in a rockfall situation. These type of people also buy the line that you should always wear a helmet.
But to say that wearing the helmet actually causes the lemming like behaviour of standing under the rockfall just seems outrageous to me. In fact, it seem like the kind of sloppy thinking that you normally jump all over others for posting.
Murf
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Sep 13, 2005, 7:05 PM
Post #143 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: ...But to say that wearing the helmet actually causes the lemming like behaviour of standing under the rockfall just seems outrageous to me. In fact, it seem like the kind of sloppy thinking that you normally jump all over others for posting. Murf
You still don't get it. It's not that putting on a helmet "causes" the poor behavior. Rather, it is the misguided belief that "helmet wear = safety" that allows these climbers to do things that others (who know better) do not. That's my opinion anyway.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jaybird2
Sep 13, 2005, 7:06 PM
Post #144 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2004
Posts: 163
|
In reply to: For the record, let me state my point more rigorously: I believe that the trend in increased helmet wearing is partly responsible for producing a cohort of climbers who are more careless in their climbing practices than their predecessors. -Jay
Oh man... I was just starting to respect your comments.... :wink:
This is such a periphery scapegoating I am gonna puke. Climbers are more careless because of their attitude/ignorance/inexperience, not their helmet toting. Sure they are wearing helmets, and sure they may have a false sense of the security. But wearing a helmet has NOTHING to do with it. Don't blame the helmet, blame the person. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. It's like saying that my car gets me speeding tickets. Stupid car. :cry: If you are gonna scapegoat helmets you need a much stronger stance than that. I refuse to hold anything accountable except for the responsible party. Good use of cohort though.
|
|
|
|
|
gat
Sep 13, 2005, 7:07 PM
Post #145 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2003
Posts: 420
|
In reply to: are you aware of any times when having a helmet on caused an accident, or made one worse? i'm not talking uncomfortable, i'm talking "man, that was really bad, too bad he was wearing his helmet." or "this accident could have been prevented by the climber not wearing her helmet". not trying to flame/troll, just trying to get all the angles.
The helmet doesn't cause the accident, but it can contribute to one's overall gumbiness.
I can show what I mean with two examples:
1. Climber thinks - Gee, this might not be the best place to set up the belay - could get some debris coming down. Oh screw it, I have my helmet on. Wearing the helmet didn't make them set up the belay in the wrong place; however, the helmet may give enough of a false security to not make the effort to correct the mistake.
2. Climber is working hard on a route, accidentally puts foot/leg in front of rope. Inner thought is - Oooh, that's bad. Well, once I move out of this stance I'll fix that. If I fall making the move, at least I have my helmet on. In this case, the helmet obviously didn't make them do something stupid, but they fail to correct the problem because of the false sense of security the helmet provides.
Wow, I must be as bored as eveyone else. I just posted to a 10 page long thread on helmets (which I do wear, not that you should really care).
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 13, 2005, 7:18 PM
Post #146 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: Well, Murf, in the same thread you have now (1) intentionally misquoted me Which I have fixed, and will not do to your quotes again, mea culpa. In reply to: (2) quoted a statement of mine, in which I was paraphrasing my opponent's wording for effect, out of context. These tactics are dishonest and unnecessary. I'm sure you can make your points more eloquently. And you have shown that (1) you are a stickler for not being misquoted and (2) when you are directly quoted you call me dishonest ( ad hominem ).
I am indeed a stickler for being quoted accurately, and what I said (damn it!) is that it was dishonest for you to quote me out of context. Maybe "dishonest" was too strong. Sorry.
In reply to: In reply to: For the record, let me state my point more rigorously: I believe that the trend in increased helmet wearing is partly responsible for producing a cohort of climbers who are more careless in their climbing practices than [their predecessors]. ...when you directly attribute the production of careless climbers to the use of a helmet, I think you are making an unsupportable leap. I believe you have a better backround than I in statistics and logic, but this would seem to be more of joint effect than causation. Your point is that you have seen many people stand directly under the climber in a rockfall situation. These type of people also buy the line that you should always wear a helmet. But to say that wearing the helmet actually causes the lemming like behaviour of standing under the rockfall just seems outrageous to me.
I don't think it's that outrageous at all. An assertion that people who wear helmets feel more insulated from risk (say of rockfall), and hence take less precaution against it, is both logical and plausible. On the other hand, I think it borders on absurd to ask for specific evidence that the assertion is true. Where is such evidence supposed to come from? A rigorous study? None exists. Is it such a huge leap to believe that if you don't have a helmet on you're going to be more careful about exposing your head to falling rocks? If you don't have a rope on, aren't you going to be more careful to avoid falling?
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Sep 13, 2005, 7:19 PM
Post #147 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
In reply to: In reply to: ...But to say that wearing the helmet actually causes the lemming like behaviour of standing under the rockfall just seems outrageous to me. In fact, it seem like the kind of sloppy thinking that you normally jump all over others for posting. Murf You still don't get it. It's not that putting on a helmet "causes" the poor behavior. Rather, it is the misguided belief that "helmet wear = safety" that allows these climbers to do things that others (who know better) do not. That's my opinion anyway. Curt
Noting:
In reply to: I believe that the trend in increased helmet wearing is partly responsible for producing a cohort of climbers who are more careless in their climbing practices than their predecessors.
I parse out:
helmet use -> partly produces -> more careless climbers
Murf
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Sep 13, 2005, 7:26 PM
Post #148 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
After 10 pages, many people here still are failing to understand the fundamental argument being made by jt512, BobD1953 and myself. So, I am going to try and restate my position again--from another angle.
Suppose you have two climbers A and B. Climber A never steps in front of the rope, doesn't climb where there is a lot of loose rock, never stands directly under the leader or directly below a rope that he/she is pulling down, etc. etc. Climber A also opts to not wear a helmet.
Climber B has a tendency to get the rope behind his leg, climbs where there are tons of loose rock, stands directly below the lead climber when belaying and directly below the rap ropes he/she pulls down, etc. etc. Climber B opts to wear a helmet.
In my estimation, there is absolutely no doubt that climber B is much more likely to be injured climbing that climber A is; and is more likely to suffer head injuries. I find it hard to believe that anyone would disagree with that.
The real question is: If climber A puts a helmet on and doesn't change any of his/her climbing habits, will he/she be any safer? My answer is maybe--but only very marginally so. And, for me this very marginal improvement in safety just isn't worth worrying about. If you are that worried about a very small incremental safety benefit, you probably ought to give up climbing altogether--and maybe take up knitting.
Just don't poke yourself with one of those long needles. :wink:
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Sep 13, 2005, 7:31 PM
Post #149 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
In reply to: I don't think it's that outrageous at all. An assertion that people who wear helmets feel more insulated from risk (say of rockfall), and hence take less precaution against it, is both logical and plausible.
I think we can agree that helmet use does make you safer from some risks, say rockfall. I think we diverge is blaming the helmet for the person, perhaps this is a semantic problem . If a person stands under avoidable rockfall only because she is wearing a helmet, they are an idiot. The helmet is a helmet, they are a bozo.
In reply to: Is it such a huge leap to believe that if you don't have a helmet on you're going to be more careful about exposing your head to falling rocks?
You are starting to refine your statement down quite a bit from "careless climber" to "more careful about exposing your head". And to answer your question, yes I'm more careful about rockfall when I don't have a helmet on. That doesn't mean I'm careless when I'm wearing one either.
Murf
|
|
|
|
|
ddriver
Sep 13, 2005, 7:51 PM
Post #150 of 178
(10154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 264
|
In reply to: Is it such a huge leap to believe that if you don't have a helmet on you're going to be more careful about exposing your head to falling rocks? -Jay
Now that's some damn funny shit (said in my best Eddie Murphy).
I know what you're trying to say, but here's a case where less does not necessarily equal more. If you're at the crag you're exposed, and if you don't have a helmet, you're more exposed.
A number of people on this thread are trying to equate use of a helmet with gumbyism. Duh, don't expect the helmet to save your life man. Well, maybe that attitude is in part why you see very few helmets on climbers in the mags: it just doesn't look as cool. BFD, this whole topic is stupid. Its like saying bc skiers who wear beacons will be more careless than those who don't. That's some damn funny shit.
There are some valid arguments here that safety is a lot more than having the right equipment, but, really, who doesn't understand that? The real argument is that given equal behavior, the climber with the helmet is less likely to become a vegetable than the one without the helmet. If there's a difference in the behavior of the two groups, I'm getting the impression its because some of the more experienced climbers in this thread have convinced themselves that they're now so smart they can do without one. I know better, and if you don't, I hope I don't have to read about you in next years' ANAM journal. There are lots of you guys in this years'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
