If anyone is interested......

I've just discovered that snow sport helmets are only required to be tested with a vertical impact. How rubbish is that, has anyone ever landed square on the top of their head?

Maybe my injury wouldn't have been so bad if I was wearing one of these mipshelmet**

Glad to see someone is trying tests on impacts from all sorts of directions.

Interesting stuff.

Yeah, I think the same thing. I faceplanted in the snow. Not sure how a helmet would have addressed my issue at all. And, if it had somehow done something about my head, my brain still would have sloshed, right?

People need to understand what most helmets are designed for. They are not designed to reduce concussions. Their design is to reduce skull fractures. Most sports (other than football and ski/snowboard competition) helmets are designed with a sacrificial destruction principle. The helmet gets destroyed absorbing some of the impact.

They may be a minor amount of help with concussions but should not be used so as to allow greater risk taking. Some research suggests that helmets can cause a false sense of security thus increasing the risk taking negating the added value of the helmet.

If a skier were to run into a tree, the helmet will be of little value.

I'd be careful about minimizing the importance of helmets. Given my experience, landing headfirst on a stump, I have no dobt at all that without my helmet my outcome would have been disasterous. My helmet was of the ultimate value.

There's a story in today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch on this topic if you go to ** and go to the Health section.

Sounds like your helmet may indeed have saved you from a disasterous skull fracture, but the fact that you're here suggests it didn't save you from a brain injury, which is exactly the strengths and weaknesses Mark was saying they have.

Of course it's better for people to wear helmets, but for me now any activity for which a helmet is worn, I just won't do it in the first place.