Tragic

Regardless of circumstances, always tragic when someone dies on the slopes.  22 year old snowboarder died in an incident around 12:30 Sunday on Excelsior at WF.  Could be a lot of things, but I wouldn't be surprised if speed was a factor, whether it was the guy who died or someone who might have hit him.  Having one of the most crowded trails on the hill be one that begs for speed is a bad combo.  I like that the mountain keeps someone camped at the intersection with Lower Northway to keep people in check.  If speed was a factor I wonder if we will start to see that further down the trail.

When we were leaving, I saw two state trooper vehicles parked at the base lodge ... I said to my son that I had a bad feeling something like this may have happened, but I was hoping I was wrong.

I am so sorry to hear this.

Ugh.

There is a little more information available today:

A State University College at Brockport student died following a snowboarding accident in the Adirondacks Sunday afternoon, according to New York State Police.

Austin P. White, 22, of Hemlock, a hamlet within the Livingston County town of Livonia, suffered a severe head injury when he struck a tree while snowboarding on Whiteface Mountain in Wilmington, Essex County, said Trooper Jennifer Fleishman.

White, several friends and his sister were all on Whiteface Mountain's Excelsior trail, an intermediate-level trail, when White passed by his friends and snowboarded into a wooded area, striking a tree about 15 feet off the trail, Fleishman said.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2014/03/17/brockport-student-dies-snowboarding-whiteface/6518535/

While there is no saying for sure that it would have changed the outcome, it's unfortunate to read that he was not wearing a helmet.  A helmet won't do much for a high speed collision with a tree, but one article indicated that speed did not appear to be a factor.

All we can look for in such tragedies is teaching/learning opportunities.  While I enjoyed skiing in my pre-helmet days, the shell will stay firmly atop my noggin, and I'll mention this to my family and friends as a reinforcement of why control and head protection are so important.

My heart and prayers go out to the young man's family and his girlfriend, who apparently was on the mountain with him.

My sister was in first aid getting a broken thumb treated when the boy came in. She sent me a text last night saying "A boy who looked like you came in with a broken femur, pelvis, and fractured skull. He was bleeding from the ears and they gave him CPR for 30 mins. Be careful."

Very sad to hear. Thoughts go out to his family and friends.

I saw them bringing this kid down the mountain on the sled, never dreamed it was a fatality.  Positively awful.

Skidds wrote

While there is no saying for sure that it would have changed the outcome, it's unfortunate to read that he was not wearing a helmet...

If you want to beat the helmet dead horse, do it in another thread. I never read any comments on helmets when I hear about car accident deaths. But for some reason, all the scolds come out of the woodwork for a bike or ski death.

Let's not blame the victim here. It was an unfortunate thing to happen. Condolences to the family.

I didn't blame the victim, I didn't say a helmet would have changed the outcome, I wasn't beating any horses.  That said, this is my thread about someone who died of a head injury while skiing without a helmet.  If I was inclined to beat that particular dead horse there could hardly be a better place to do it!  I'm not inclined to beat the horse, so I won't.  However, while some might not be helmet wearing advocates, it doesn't mean the observation regarding use of helmets isn't worth mentioning when someone dies of a head injury.

Would I prefer to see everyone have some measure of added protection in their chosen activity (skiing and helmet, automobile and airbag, power tool and goggles, etc., etc.) if there is the slightest chance that it could lessen the severity of a potential injury?  Absolutely......but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  

Other than offering our heartfelt condolences, IMHO the best way we, as outsiders, can honor this young man is to do our parts to try and lessen the likelihood of a tragic injury happening to someone else.  While I understand a helmet isn't going to save everybody, I'll do that by reinforcing what I think are the important safety lessons to consider in the circumstances.  Sorry if that ruffles anyone's feathers......

whenever a skier is killed it deserves a discussion to see if future deaths/injuries can be prevented. For car crashes, investigators look to see if all safety equipment was functional and being used. For the skier, this looks at the helmet and perhaps bindings or other equipment failure.  Then they look for operator error. Was driver/skier going too fast for conditions or just being reckless? Was the accident caused by another car/skier? No one mentioned blaming the victim at this time. But depending upon the investigation, the facts might lead to the boarder being the cause of his own death. Lately, I've seen some highly intoxicated skiers and boarders on the mountain. I've seen skiers/boarders flying at top speed on icy days with no helmet. And of course, I've seen plenty of reckless skiers/boarders this year. There have been discussion threads on all ski forums this year about safety and reckless behavior. I work with people with traumatic brain injuries and I find it incomprehensible that some people still participate in activities where a helmet is available and highly recommended but still don't wear one. It's sad.

There was in interesting piece in the NY Times "Ski helmet use isn't reducing brain injuries" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/sports/on-slopes-rise-in-helmet-use-but-no-decline-in-brain-injuries.html?_r=0).  I think that there is much more risk taking than 30 years ago.  When I was a kid, if a patroller saw you get air, you were losing your ticket.  The terrain features now being offered would boggle the mind of a 70's skier.  I routinely see flips, just casually off of cat tracks, etc.  So as we have become safer in terms of our headgear, our behavior is riskier.  

evergreen wrote

There was in interesting piece in the NY Times "Ski helmet use isn't reducing brain injuries" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/sports/on-slopes-rise-in-helmet-use-but-no-decline-in-brain-injuries.html?_r=0).  I think that there is much more risk taking than 30 years ago.  When I was a kid, if a patroller saw you get air, you were losing your ticket.  The terrain features now being offered would boggle the mind of a 70's skier.  I routinely see flips, just casually off of cat tracks, etc.  So as we have become safer in terms of our headgear, our behavior is riskier.

I saw the same article and all I could think was the same thing as you: as a whole skiers take way more chances than they used to. The comparison isn't really legit.  The dramatic increase in side cut alone has lured more people into the trees.

Harvey wrote

  The dramatic increase in side cut alone has lured more people into the trees.

Not sure what you are trying to state here, but one could argue this is safer. Purposely skiing in the trees almost always results in slower speed, conscious and deliberate turning. When's the last time you heard about someone glade skiing that got annihilated?

Tragic accident indeed. I can speak from personal experience regarding the benefits can provide.  My helmet saved my life about 5 years ago while teaching at Mtn Creek.  I was helping a student who fell off Sugar Lift by staying on the lift too long and before I could get her up and on her feet, the liftie started the lift.  This fixed grip lift came around and struck me in the side of my head with the metal corner of the seat bench.  It put a 2" gash through my helmet, blew my eye apart with the pure force of the blow and I had to go for CT scan.  I doubt I would be here, or in the (relatively) normal condition I'm in if I had no helmet on that day.  It's not always about skiing per se.  It's like motorcycling or bicycling, why would you not wear a helmet?  My 2 cents, which those who know me know I have a lot of.... (BTW, yelling at the clouds long and hard enough finally paid of last week).  Live Long and Prosper my vulcan.

skimore wrote

Harvey wrote

  The dramatic increase in side cut alone has lured more people into the trees.

Not sure what you are trying to state here, but one could argue this is safer. Purposely skiing in the trees almost always results in slower speed, conscious and deliberate turning. When's the last time you heard about someone glade skiing that got annihilated?

What does side cut have to do with tree skiing?  Width would have a connection but not side cut.  

Wasn't this accident a snow boarder?  I have not heard what his ability level was.  Was he riding terrain well over his ability or was it catching an edge at the wrong time.  The edge catch could happen to any of us at any time.  Poor judgement or too much speed are preventable.

Either way it's tragic but was it pure bad luck or self inflicted tragedy?

I just reread the article.

My original beef with it was that the absolute number of head injuries is somewhat irrelevant. If head injuries doubled and skier visits tripled then the sport could be getting safer.

The article points out that injuries like the ones Telerider describes are on the decline. And it points out that "rotational injuries" aren't affected in anyway by helmets. Ok I can buy that.

Your point about deliberate skiing in the trees is a good one.  I feel safer in The Slides at Whiteface than I do on Cloud or Sky.  The snow is softer in The Slides (when they are open, in my experience) and you take one turn at a time. I actually think I ski the safest when I am alone, in the trees. Not trying to keep up with faster skiers. I really enjoy skiing one turn at a time.

I think someone like me, the advanced intermediate, is in more danger in the trees (or anywhere) than an accomplished expert like yourself.  And for me sidecut is a factor. The first time I rode a chairlift was at Gore sometime around 1996 (I think). I was on 210s that were maybe 60-50-55.  I never imagined tree skiing until I got some curvy skis and realized how easy they were to turn.  I bought them they day after the Valentines Day storm 2007 and went into the Straightbrook Glades.

I remember when Zach got hurt at Whiteface (and he's a true expert). He was doing something I used to do a lot.  Skiing the side of a trail trying to get the only soft snow on the trail. He hit a submerged snow snake and used his arm to protect his head. (He broke his hand). Those quick turns in a ten-foot width can't be easily be done on those 210s.

I guess I will grant your point - the edge of the trail is a more dangerous place than the trees themselves. It's almost ten years to the day that our friend Andy Banach died at Whiteface. He was an expert who died at the edge of the trail.

I totally  disagree.  The slides are inmeasurably more dangerous than skyward.  Sky is all blown and groomed and controlled while still an expert trail. The slides have all sorts of danger lurking like rocks, cliffs, ice waterfalls, tight trees that no controlled trail ever would have.

The slides are 100% raw and untamed.  Harv Maybe you just have skied them when they were in perfect condition which does happen often.  The slides can be the nastiest ski experience in the east when marginal.  They should not be attempted by intermediates period. I can only recall 2001 and and maybe 2011 I think it where they were easier than the norm.  In other words not very often about every 10 years or so.  This is true no poop experts only terrain.

Saftey is part common since, and part luck

I think ski helmets should be the law, like on bikes

Maybe it wouldn't have made a diffrence, but whenever you hear head injury you gotta assume it would ( why wouldn't you make your chances better no matte how small or large it may be)

Ability level and peer preshure of skiing and boarding in groups is a factor too -- I wss a beginer skiier, skied 5 times before, could barely ski karyatis way at greek, freind got me to go down odisy on my 5th time out a dumb move---  ( not to ruffle feathers but youth get dumber in groups)

No one will know for sure what trey happened, and the out come is tragic, but we can use what we can find out to learn from.

Coach Z wrote

I totally  disagree.  The slides are inmeasurably more dangerous than skyward.  Sky is all blown and groomed and controlled while still an expert trail. The slides have all sorts of danger lurking like rocks, cliffs, ice waterfalls, tight trees that no controlled trail ever would have.

The slides are 100% raw and untamed.  Harv Maybe you just have skied them when they were in perfect condition which does happen often.  The slides can be the nastiest ski experience in the east when marginal.  They should not be attempted by intermediates period. I can only recall 2001 and and maybe 2011 I think it where they were easier than the norm.  In other words not very often about every 10 years or so.  This is true no poop experts only terrain.

IMHO slides are best hiked up then skied, that way you know what to expect on your way back down. Slides in the NE usually have a pure ice base or smooth rock (Macomb is a big exception - gravel and sand). The top layer can be lots of powder, unstable slab or pure ice to name a few.

kenneywallace wrote

I think ski helmets should be the law, like on bikes

Bike helmets are not the law (for adults), and it's a good thing, too. Studies have shown that helmet laws don't decrease head injury rates, but they do lead to a decline in participation (http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australia's-helmet-law-disaster)

I don't mind snark, but I hate smarm. And people who push their personal decisions on others are the smarmiest pricks I can think of.

Like I said. Sad story, but if you want to discuss helmet use, injury rates, sidecut, or whatever, maybe post up another helmet thread I can ignore. I'm sick of this BS coming up every time there's a ski death. I never post up when helmet wearers die skiing (which also happens a fair amount). I don't get any joy from running to the internet to proclaim that my side is right, and others are idiots. For some reason, though, the first thing that people ask when these things happen is "was he wearing a helmet?", then they smarmily tut-tut if he wasn't and make self aggrandizing statements like "I would never ride without my helmet" as if that does anything when you're traveling over 25mph (note: it doesn't - http://xgames.espn.go.com/snowboarding/article/8513198/ski-snowboard-head-injuries-increasing-us-helmet-use-new-study-reports).

Maybe you can just call a tragedy a tragedy and not try to use it to boost your own (apparently fragile) egos or force others to do everything exactly as you do them. All of your arguments for helmet use could be used for Spine protectors or giant rubberized Sumo suits (like NJ's picture used to be). Should we require everyone to ski in those things?