Zion - Mystery Canyon

[tdoughty]

Hey derekholmes,
Just funin wit ya on the spelling thing. Know I sure mess up a bunch, specially when posting from my phone! And thanks for the answer to my helmet question. To each his own. Having soloed quite a bit of stuff over the years, I too make judgment calls that others may question, but I also accept full responsibility for my actions.

[Iceaxe]

have nothing to live for, there is no reason to wear a helmet, right?

Its time to take this down a couple notches.... you are starting to remind me of a whore that found religion or a drunk that discovered AA.

There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.... YMMV.

[Scott Card]

Ice, I hear what you are saying. Head injuries are different. Getting injured in a canyon, particularly a head injury, affects a whole lot of people in and out of the canyon. Those directly affected include group members, family members, SAR members, medical people, etc. Helmets are the easiest way to prevent a head injury. Yes, I know you have a right to not wear one. I get that. But dang, I have done my share of studying head injuries and I think I would rather be a quadriplegic or have many bones broken than have a serious closed head injury, and injury that is easily mitigated with a brain bucket. I am not sure that strong language in the arena of a head injury is too much. Again, head injuries are a different and insidious beast. (Yes, I chose that word carefully)

[bshwakr]

__

[Iceaxe]

I'm not sayin' helmets are not a great idea and should not be incouraged..... I'm sayin' if your message is not delivered in timely moderation it becomes an annoyance and loses its effectiveness.

Or at least that has been my experience when listening to religious whores and sober alcoholics.... your mileage may vary....

[tdoughty]

So Iceaxe, are you saying that I was immoderate in the presentation of my question and that I'm a drunken religious whore? Jeesh, I don't even know you man

(although i might cop to the drunk part )

And all I did was ask a question

[Scott Card]

I think that little quote box in Ice's post indicates that he is responding to ratagonia (Tom), not you.

[Iceaxe]

Ice's post indicates that he is responding to ratagonia (Tom), not you.

^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^

although i might cop to the drunk part

[Felicia]

I have that top.

[tdoughty]

I'd consider my life half full, no matter how ya view this...

[flatiron]

Ice, Head injuries are different. Getting injured in a canyon, particularly a head injury, affects a whole lot of people in and out of the canyon. Those directly affected include group members, family members, SAR members, medical people, etc. Helmets are the easiest way to prevent a head injury.

THIS is the essence of all discussion about helmet or no helmet. (or any safe practice) Any injury affects many others, not just YOU. But head injuries are much more serious and extremely difficult to treat on site. It can and would be very traumatic, cause enormous strain and sacrifice on others, and possibly be life threatening for those who could be putting themselves in danger trying to rescue/save you (certainly SAR). To put other people, especially your own family and friends, in this kind of situation, in harm's way, because you don't want to wear a helmet?? What does that say? Tell me? How self centered is that? Do I really get to behave however I want and the hell with how or who it affects?? Doesn't that sound just like a guy named A Ralston that everyone beat up on so much, as they rapped down with no helmet. Wearing a helmet, or any safe practice is NOT JUST ABOUT YOU. IT IS ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE. And you know what, being safe is a communicable positive action you can have with other human beings. One of those things people talk about when discussing what a good guy so and so is: kind, generous, helpful, safe, always put others first, someone you could trust, etc. And try and emulate. Which seems to be better than a selfish negative action. Being safe, wearing a helmet, is a simple act of having courtesy and consideration for others. That's it. You NOT being safe endangers them. Not being safe, is that how you treat friends and family? Sar? Bo Beck? Oh gosh, wait, is this message an annoyance? Really? Just how annoying is it to help rescue someone who did not practice safety? Maybe SAR will be annoyed next time someone calls for help because they weren't being safe. Come on guys, cut it out, shut it down, stop the BS, the excuses. Think about someone else! Oh and PS: a big big big personal bonus is you just might save your own life.

[mattandersao]

I think this is applicable here and on many of the threads in the political section. It is called the backfire affect. Everyone that is ripping apart the non helmet wearer by using logic and fact are in fact only strengthening his resolve not to wear a helmet in the future!

When you read a negative comment, when someone shits on what you love, when your beliefs are challenged, you pore over the data, picking it apart, searching for weakness. The cognitive dissonance locks up the gears of your mind until you deal with it. In the process you form more neural connections, build new memories and put out effort – once you finally move on, your original convictions are stronger than ever...

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/...ect/#more-1218

[oldno7]

THIS is the essence of all discussion about helmet or no helmet. (or any safe practice) Any injury affects many others, not just YOU. But head injuries are much more serious and extremely difficult to treat on site. It can and would be very traumatic, cause enormous strain and sacrifice on others, and possibly be life threatening for those who could be putting themselves in danger trying to rescue/save you (certainly SAR). To put other people, especially your own family and friends, in this kind of situation, in harm's way, because you don't want to wear a helmet?? What does that say? Tell me? How self centered is that? Do I really get to behave however I want and the hell with how or who it affects?? Doesn't that sound just like a guy named A Ralston that everyone beat up on so much, as they rapped down with no helmet. Wearing a helmet, or any safe practice is NOT JUST ABOUT YOU. IT IS ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE. And you know what, being safe is a communicable positive action you can have with other human beings. One of those things people talk about when discussing what a good guy so and so is: kind, generous, helpful, safe, always put others first, someone you could trust, etc. And try and emulate. Which seems to be better than a selfish negative action. Being safe, wearing a helmet, is a simple act of having courtesy and consideration for others. That's it. You NOT being safe endangers them. Not being safe, is that how you treat friends and family? Sar? Bo Beck? Oh gosh, wait, is this message an annoyance? Really? Just how annoying is it to help rescue someone who did not practice safety? Maybe SAR will be annoyed next time someone calls for help because they weren't being safe. Come on guys, cut it out, shut it down, stop the BS, the excuses. Think about someone else! Oh and PS: a big big big personal bonus is you just might save your own life.

Good points flatiron........

[torange]

I'd consider my life half full, no matter how ya view this...

That is unreal. I have heard of beer goggles but weel, this is something else entirely

[dustinsc]

I think this is applicable here and on many of the threads in the political section. It is called the backfire affect. Everyone that is ripping apart the non helmet wearer by using logic and fact are in fact only strengthening his resolve not to wear a helmet in the future!

That may be true, but I know that some in my group started wearing helmets as a result of being made fun of. People have different motivations, I guess.

[Iceaxe]

That may be true, but I know that some in my group started wearing helmets as a result of being made fun of. People have different motivations, I guess.

Just curious.... who was appling the peer pressure? Other friends from the same group or those posting in forums?

I believe helmets are a good thing.... and I believe encouraging their use through peer pressure is a great tool..... but sometimes I believe folks on the forums go overboard and the important part of the message gets lost in the noise of strangers.

YMMV

[ratagonia]

Just curious.... who was applying the peer pressure? Other friends from the same group or those posting in forums?

I believe helmets are a good thing.... and I believe encouraging their use through peer pressure is a great tool..... but sometimes I believe folks on the forums go overboard and the important part of the message gets lost in the noise of strangers.

YMMV

...and I thought we were in a post-helmet-discussion universe, where there are a few holdouts, and it is only part of the routine to hassle them about a lack of helmets, not to be taken personally. Heck, I don't even need to do it anymore, there are usually plenty of minions around that take care of it before I pipe in. The focus now, post-helmet-discussion, is to find a novel and humorous way of pointing out the the non-helmet wearers are ... not wearing helmets.

God made my head hard, but not hard enough to not break when it cracks into a rock. I have had two friends with serious brain injuries that would have been a non-event with a helmet on. Yeah, steep skiing, no real need for a helmet. Yeah, sports climbing in an established area, no real need for a helmet. And just think, both dads got the honor of being taught to speak english again by their kids... can't put a price on that!

So, Derek - nothing personal. Nice TR. My preference is for people to not post TRs with lots of photos of people without helmets, and thus, like this, they often get turned into "teaching opportunities" - okay, "conflict opportunities". We have lost sight of the value of your original TR. Good. If you want your TR to be valued on its on merits, people in the pictures should have helmets on. It is the community standard in canyoneering.

I have a fantasy scenario: person gets hurt canyoneering. SAR arrives to save the day. SAR sees victim was not wearing a helmet, says "sorry, not my department", then goes home.

In a way, this is actually the scenario you set up by not wearing a helmet. A closed-head injury is time-sensitive, and reported accident to SAR team arrival to trauma center in St George is probably too long a time to save the life anyway. It is reported that the guy who cracked his head in Middle Leprechaun only survived the night because hypothermia prevented the swelling from taking full effect.

So, please, consider my totally asinine for harping on this over and over and over and over again, and for doing so in ways you do not consider funny. Here's an idea - WEAR A FRAKIN HELMET and then you won't have to put up with this BS every time you post a picture. Blame it on me if you wish. Whatever. But mostly, don't crack your head open (or have a closed-head injury). That is what the goal of this project is.

Tom

[tdoughty]

As I understand it, if you require a weather related rescued from a wall in Yosemite NP and are found to be under-equipped, (down sleeping bag rather than synthetic, for example) then you are subject to fines on top of the rescue costs.

Tom, don't think rescue staff will every refuse to help people, unless their own lives are seriously jeopardized, but additional fines have proven to be an effective way for land managers to "force" people into reducing risks and impacting their limited budgets. Remember when seat belt laws were established and the impact they've had on fatalities over the years?

[ratagonia]

As I understand it, if you require a weather related rescued from a wall in Yosemite NP and are found to be under-equipped, (down sleeping bag rather than synthetic, for example) then you are subject to fines on top of the rescue costs.

Tom, don't think rescue staff will every refuse to help people, unless their own lives are seriously jeopardized, but additional fines have proven to be an effective way for land managers to "force" people into reducing risks and impacting their limited budgets. Remember when seat belt laws were established and the impact they've had on fatalities over the years?

In most rescue jurisdictions, if you are following the rules, the rescue is free. If you are cited for violating the law, then the agency CAN attempt to bill you for the rescue, though most do not try very hard. I hear Summit County is an exception.

It was offered as a "fantasy", then as an "analogy" to what a person does by not wearing a helmet.

Tom

[canyoncaver]

Coming from the caving world, my crew and I consider it unthinkable to not wear a helmet when doing rope work at height. We just have seen too many close calls, short falls, and helmet impacts that would have been brain injuries and fatalities without helmets. Granted, there is usually a little less loose rock in canyons than in caves, but this is not always true and anyway is no excuse. I have only been canyoneering for about 7 years, but I have seen biners dropped from 165 ft, spontaneous rockfall in between my partner and I, and many times have had the damn bighorn sheep try to kill me with rocks from above. To pretend that there is no need for helmets in canyons is assinine and more than a little selfish.

When I come across someone canyoneering without a helmet, I take it personally. That person is endangering me, the rescue teams, his partners, relations with the land managing agency, and my right to access canyons. The short version is that it makes us all look bad, and we all have to answer for your ignorance. You owe it to the community if not to yourself.

Besides, we all have loved ones that depend on us and would have their lives irreparably altered by your head injury or death. Don't we owe it to them if to no one else? My head is worth $90. How about yours?