Walking Helmets Have Arrived!

[irc]

I saw a chap strolling uphill with a helmet. Just shows you.

The argument has been made that wearing a helmet has no downside as far as comfort or convenience goes. So why are they not worn other places with a fall risk?

So - hillwalking helmets.

[pjclinch]

Nothing that new about them. If you take a winter skills course at the likes of Plas Y Brenin or Glenmore Lodge you'll be wearing one, it's fairly common walking in the Cuillins (where there's a lot of loose rock waiting to be dislodged on precipitous paths shared with others) to wear them, particularly if you have one for climbing anyway. And if you see an MRT on a callout then they'll often be wearing them in places the same folk in "civilian mode" wouldn't bother because they're in a hurry and minimising snafu potential is more important than comfort.
Walkers tend to use climbing helmets, and the issue they're mainly guarding against is stuff falling from above. There's plenty of hillwalking locales beyond the Cuillins where that's a potential issue, though trips and falls can certainly be a factor.

All of these are at the riskier end of hillwalking scenarios, the question becomes where does one draw the line? Things like boulder fields give excellent opportunities to fall over in hard places, and indeed places where the remoteness makes them potentially more serious. Icy paths are at least as much a problem up mountains as icy roads in towns, and so on.

At the moment, use of protective headgear for walking is down to context and choice rather than shaming. Long may it stay that way.

Pete.

[Bmblbzzz]

I can't enlarge that photo enough to see the helmet on this screen; is it a climbing helmet?

I once met a bloke cycling away from a cliff where he'd been climbing, with a cycle helmet on his head and a climbing helmet clipped to his backpack. I did ask why he didn't just wear the climbing helmet for both purposes... But here's the thing; as a cyclist, who only wears a cycling helmet when compelled to (racing, which I do very rarely), I made the assumption it would be more sensible to make the climbing helmet double up. In other words, I ascribed more use to the helmet in the situation I know little or nothing about – I'm not a climber (other than trees occasionally). I think that says something about psychology.

Anywayz, I had assumed this would be about walking helmets in a more everyday context; pavements, city streets. So far in this context they are still confined to very high-risk cases, cerebral palsy, extreme age, etc.

[Cowsham]

Could it just be someone who's horse has run away?

[drossall]

There was research several decades ago into pedestrian helmets for Japanese school children. Around the same time, I believe that the Australians were looking at them for driving (probably as a research project rather than a likely public policy). Perceptions of danger do affect what is perceived as necessary.

[irc]

I can't enlarge that photo enough to see the helmet on this screen; is it a climbing helmet?

Looked like a cycling helmet to me. While I have worn a climbing helmet - not for a gentle walk like the Csmpsie Fells.

[Anthony-C]

Perhaps the 'cocoons encourage risk-taking' argument applies here in a positive way. Some racing cyclists say they wouldn't without their gear - gear that goes untested. Maybe an unnecessary and/or pointless walking helmet helps frail-feeling folk not to shrink from doing all they still can.

[pjclinch]

Perhaps the 'cocoons encourage risk-taking' argument applies here in a positive way. Some racing cyclists say they wouldn't without their gear - gear that goes untested. Maybe an unnecessary and/or pointless walking helmet helps frail-feeling folk not to shrink from doing all they still can.

Maybe, though when it comes to walking for leisure I see more people making their lives harder than easier, starting with over-burdened school kids toting huge loads of "just in case" gear, despite the fact that carrying more makes you more tired, more clumsy and thus more likely to end up needing "just in case" gear to start with... The trick is finding a happy medium between under and over prepared.

The most typical overdoing it is chunky walking boots for conditions not really requiring them. These make walking more tiring so mean folk can typically do less in them rather than "all they still can". If feet are warm enough and the outsole gives enough grip that's typically all that's needed, not stout, not necessarily waterproof and healthy human ankles shouldn't need support beyond the bones, ligaments and muscles that have evolved to do that.

Pete.

[Bmblbzzz]

Could it just be someone who's horse has run away?

The most typical overdoing it is chunky walking boots for conditions not really requiring them. These make walking more tiring so mean folk can typically do less in them rather than "all they still can". If feet are warm enough and the outsole gives enough grip that's typically all that's needed, not stout, not necessarily waterproof and healthy human ankles shouldn't need support beyond the bones, ligaments and muscles that have evolved to do that.

Pete.

The typical example of this is people wearing chunky leather walking boots, suited for high fells and moors, to walk their dogs in the manicured grounds of National Trust properties.

[mattheus]

The most typical overdoing it is chunky walking boots for conditions not really requiring them. These make walking more tiring so mean folk can typically do less in them rather than "all they still can". If feet are warm enough and the outsole gives enough grip that's typically all that's needed, not stout, not necessarily waterproof and healthy human ankles shouldn't need support beyond the bones, ligaments and muscles that have evolved to do that.

Pete.

The typical example of this is people wearing chunky leather walking boots, suited for high fells and moors, to walk their dogs in the manicured grounds of National Trust properties.

I feel like there is some reverse snobbery here, and I'm on the wrong end of it!!!



After I bought "proper" walking boots (and bearing in mind the cost) for years I found it easier to use them for any vaguely wet/muddy/technical venture. The only alternative was always my respectable shoes - I didn't want the trouble of buying ANOTHER pair of intermediates, just so that Reverse Shoe Snobs would approve of my choice when walking below 800m!

[but yes, I agree - leather boots are very often overkill ]

[pjclinch]

The most typical overdoing it is chunky walking boots for conditions not really requiring them. These make walking more tiring so mean folk can typically do less in them rather than "all they still can". If feet are warm enough and the outsole gives enough grip that's typically all that's needed, not stout, not necessarily waterproof and healthy human ankles shouldn't need support beyond the bones, ligaments and muscles that have evolved to do that.

The typical example of this is people wearing chunky leather walking boots, suited for high fells and moors, to walk their dogs in the manicured grounds of National Trust properties.

I feel like there is some reverse snobbery here, and I'm on the wrong end of it!!!



After I bought "proper" walking boots (and bearing in mind the cost) for years I found it easier to use them for any vaguely wet/muddy/technical venture. The only alternative was always my respectable shoes - I didn't want the trouble of buying ANOTHER pair of intermediates, just so that Reverse Shoe Snobs would approve of my choice when walking below 800m!

[but yes, I agree - leather boots are very often overkill ]

Folk that spend all day in wet muddy places doing stuff, e.g. farmers and gamekeepers, tend to wear wellies more than walking boots. They're better at keeping feet dry and don't need any looking after, and as long as they're a decent fit are okay to walk in. Hillwalking is increasingly done in much lighter shoes and boots these days, which are more comfortable and less tiring. I keep my chunky leather boots for when I might need my crampons.

My default for wet/muddy is wellies. They don't take crampons but they're fine in technical terrain, or cavers wouldn't use them as their default footwear. I've potted boggy Munros in my caving wellies, though they do get some suspicious glances, as does my brolly if I've got that along...

Pete.

[mattheus]

The typical example of this is people wearing chunky leather walking boots, suited for high fells and moors, to walk their dogs in the manicured grounds of National Trust properties.

I feel like there is some reverse snobbery here, and I'm on the wrong end of it!!!



After I bought "proper" walking boots (and bearing in mind the cost) for years I found it easier to use them for any vaguely wet/muddy/technical venture. The only alternative was always my respectable shoes - I didn't want the trouble of buying ANOTHER pair of intermediates, just so that Reverse Shoe Snobs would approve of my choice when walking below 800m!

[but yes, I agree - leather boots are very often overkill ]

Folk that spend all day in wet muddy places doing stuff, e.g. farmers and gamekeepers, tend to wear wellies more than walking boots. They're better at keeping feet dry and don't need any looking after, and as long as they're a decent fit are okay to walk in. Hillwalking is increasingly done in much lighter shoes and boots these days, which are more comfortable and less tiring. I keep my chunky leather boots for when I might need my crampons.

My default for wet/muddy is wellies. They don't take crampons but they're fine in technical terrain, or cavers wouldn't use them as their default footwear. I've potted boggy Munros in my caving wellies, though they do get some suspicious glances, as does my brolly if I've got that along...

Pete.

Ah - so you want me to buy some lightweight boots AND some decent wellies AS WELL!?! How big do you think our hallway is?!?

Why can't I just wear my boots - they're fine!?!

p.s. I did summit Goat Fell* in wellies on a student trip - I'd had them since I was 15, no boots yet. Do I get a forum correct footwear badge now?
*sorry, a mere Corbett, I will manage a munroe on foot one day ...

[Bmblbzzz]

Forum correct footwear is SPD sandals, with socks in winter.

[Anthony-C]

... chunky walking boots ... make walking more tiring so mean folk can typically do less in them rather than "all they still can". If feet are warm enough and the outsole gives enough grip that's typically all that's needed, not stout, not necessarily waterproof and healthy human ankles shouldn't need support beyond the bones, ligaments and muscles that have evolved to do that.

Sure they can achieve less but if it helps them to feel it's safe to exert all they can, there's the win. For walkers in their 80s if tiredness or inattention has them roll an ankle they can lose condition fast in the ensuing period of reduced activity. So, many stay far below their limits and lose condition anyway.

[Cugel]

... chunky walking boots ... make walking more tiring so mean folk can typically do less in them rather than "all they still can". If feet are warm enough and the outsole gives enough grip that's typically all that's needed, not stout, not necessarily waterproof and healthy human ankles shouldn't need support beyond the bones, ligaments and muscles that have evolved to do that.

Sure they can achieve less but if it helps them to feel it's safe to exert all they can, there's the win. For walkers in their 80s if tiredness or inattention has them roll an ankle they can lose condition fast in the ensuing period of reduced activity. So, many stay far below their limits and lose condition anyway.

The principle of, "Use it or lose it" applies in many areas of human capability. Many devices and technologies, though, seem to be invented so that the human employing them doesn't have to "use it" (their body part and its controllers). The prime example is the car, of course. Kaputs the whole body of many! See all them feak & weeble folk who can only just manage to get in and out of one, panting the while and perhaps twisting their atrophied ankle and mebbe also a knee!

We evolved walking about with no shoes at all. Some do try this mode and one or two are successful. There was a famous one in Lancaster, who went everywhere in all seasons barefoot; and also bare in other parts, at times, to the horror or delight of passers-by, especially ladywimmin' and Methodists. Others, such as moi, are far too softlad to go barefoot, especially up and down a fell.

Yet I never took to the boot. The problem is that the things are expensive, often ill-fitting, heavy, stiff and (as you mention) preventing some body parts from doing their task ("using it") which may cause said parts to go weeble, feak and not fit for purpose. Personally I adopted trail-running shoes with a Gore-Tex component (to keep the feet warm when wet, as fell walking includes bog-trotting, which will pour water even down a wellie, never mind a boot or a trail-running shoe). They have a good grip on the gravelly chutes and 45 degree wet grass, the trail-running shoes.

Some boots develop other issues, becoming irrecoverable and so abandoned, despite costing loadsamoney.

Bad boot bend begets boot abandonment

This one is probably now home to lichen, moss, woodlice and perhaps some earwigs. None of them will use it for fell walking, wise creatures.