Body Cage, BE AGM and Eventing Safety

SpottedCat

SpottedCat

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 May 2007
Messages
11,668
Visit site
Ok, so following on from the other thread, I think it is worth a trip to the BE AGM to pose the question to the board about why they have not made the body cage compulsory.

Assuming I can get there, is anyone interested in me tabling the question on behalf of multiple members? If you're not, no worries, I'm happy to stand alone, but if you are, perhaps a PM with your name and BE membership number so I can table the question as being from a group (whom I can list as current members) rather than just an individual. I will circulate a draft question to everyone before I submit it so you can say definitely if you want your name to it, so you're nto committing to anything yet, just gauging interest really.

Alternatively if you think this is a terrible idea, feel free to tell me so!
grin.gif
 
Yes i was thinking about this following kerillis thread in cr, that perhaps we could get something together along these lines.

ETS....talk of AGM in thread made me think of doing something re the safety thread issues....

I will pm you my name and number this evening (not got it at work)....er number obviously i can generally remember my name!!
 
I don't think it's a terrible idea at all, but I do think much more R&D needs to go into fit etc before it becoming compulsory is even considered.

Also, if the price stayed at £300+ then I for one would have to give up eventing to be able to to afford one, which kind of defeats the object!!!
 
i will do it if you like as long as i can make the date when is it? quite happy to stand up and ask awkward questions as have no one to offend/influence.
 
You're seriously saying that between now and next season you could not save up £50 a month? They retail at £275, so for £46 a month you could have the money before the start of next season. It's about a tenner a week...not megabucks really.

ETA - don't take this personally, you're free not to want it to become compulsory - for my part I want to know BEs rationale more than anything else, I find it astounding that the technology exists to mitigate for rotational falls and yet they are wittering about polystyrene XC jumps or whatever.
 
Yes, count me in unless date proves absolutely impossible.

I am waiting for Bodycage's response to the suggestion of being able to fit just the cage over an existing body protector - this might be cheaper and more appealing to riders, perhaps.

taking on board sar1's comments: if they became compulsory, would it be possible to have 3 in every size available at the start of xc for people to wear for their round if they don't have 1? After all, there are usually only a maximum of 10 people warming up for xc at any one time, and say 3 going round the course (5 at 4* level).
Just trying to think outside the box here. Maybe they could have their own trailer and be something that has to be present at every BE event. set up say 5 trailers. just a thought! I can totally understand not everyone wants to/can fork out £300 for another body protector...
 
[ QUOTE ]
i will do it if you like as long as i can make the date when is it? quite happy to stand up and ask awkward questions as have no one to offend/influence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to be on the circuit for the first six months of next year, so they will have forgotten about me by the time I come back
wink.gif
I don't want to upset anyone, I want someone to explain to me what the thinking behind not making them compulsory is given the fuss there so rightly is about rotational falls. I certainly can't see them being made compulsory by next season, maybe the one after? That gives everyone plenty of time to save up....
 
I am not a member of BE, only started this year with day tickets, but I think the arguement for not making BodyCage compulsory at this stage lies in the points already given on the previous threads, i.e., poor range of sizes, lack of availability, trading limitations, the limits on the licence to one manufacturer, etc.

Rather than specifically asking BE to make the BodyCage compulsory, perhaps they should be asked to overhaul the beta safety standards completely, with crush protection foremost in mind. A new beta level is required to classify crush protection for use in eventing, whether that is a level 4 bp with the exo incorporated, or a 3+ system with a standard BP and exo style cage fitted as a seperate item.

In this overhaul the they still need to take new technologies used in other sports into account. I still think that motocross style tops (lighter & more flexible) would be more effective for the majority of abrasion/bruise injuries that horse riders incur. i can't see why beta wouldn't endorse these with level 2/3 certification.

F x
 
I've been following this thread with interest but see a total 'design failing' in any cage or BP. It's the human a stride wobbling around on 1/2 tonne (plus) animal doing about 20mph plus, hitting, rolling and smacking at different angles hard solid things.!!!!

But will follow with interest but very much hate things be imposed at great expensive without all arguement and theory tested.

But not knocking your sprint or idea and very much like the idea coming from grass roots of sport to BE AGM
 
I'm with KO here. Have followed the thread with interest but there are still many design limitations to the BP and I would be very much against it being imposed as a mandatory item of equipment. Would love to see more research and development into it though.
 
I'd also really really like to know who wrote and authorised the distribution to every BE event of the piece of paper asking those who wear an Exo to inform the secretary, because the T.D. carries the allen key to get you out of it in the event of an accident blah blah blah. I have seen this notice in every secretary's tent this year, and had my attention deliberately drawn to it... they were evidently told that it was really important.
This was, at best, misleading. At worst, scaremongering, and deliberately libelling the product, imho, in light of what has now come to light about the presence of 2 allen keys in every Exo...!!!

btw, I have just emailed Woof Wear re: making them in carbonfibre/lighter alloy.
If anyone else fancies doing this, or mentioning that they require a smaller size, the page is at

http://www.woofwear.co.uk/

and I wrote:

I wondered whether you might have any plans for making the cage of the Exo body protector in a carbonfibre or lighter alloy, as I would definitely buy one if they could be made lighter, and I know that many riders share this concern. I think that it is a brilliant product and am currently planning to attend British Eventing's AGM with like-minded eventer friends to ask why it has not been made a compulsory piece of equipment, given its proven ability to save lives. We have been discussing the product in great detail on Horse and Hound forum, if you wanted to see it, at
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/3505990/an/0/page/1/gonew/1#UNREAD
and
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/3515576/an/0/page/0/gonew/1#UNREAD
and
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/3519335/an/0/page/0/gonew/1#UNREAD
Thankyou.

worth a try?
 
I guess the thought was less: 'you should make it compulsory' and more 'why have you not done more to promote the only product shown to make a difference in the event of a rotational fall?' Given that they are happy to spend our membership money on research into the issue which so far has yielded only a rule which was quickly repealed! I want to know what the thining is - I don't think for one second they will make them compulsory, but they haven't exactly done a great deal to promote them either....
 
a good question and one who ever stands up might need to be prepared to ask. obviously no one wants a confrontation but on the other hand you need the response to be a detailed one that goes on the record not just 'its something we are looking into, dear' or words to that effect.
wink.gif
 
Kerilli - the response on the separate cage was as follows:

regarding your second thought - could it work as a separate product:

Yes.

This was a very strong line of thought we had when we developed the product - and ideally we wanted to develop it in this way, however:
- No testing standard = no PPE certification = can't sell it as protective wear in the UK.
- No testing standard = consumers in shops assuming that it is 'less safe' than a Beta 3 protector (even though comparing different purposes) = no sales
- Difficulties in it working with body protectors from a number of manufacturers - when we talked to them, the general view is that they wanted the IPR exclusively to be bothered to develop a body protector to fit specifically with the EXO (well we could only then licence to one company), there are huge difficulties in producing a product which works with body protectors currently on the market, and historic ones riders already own.
- Many riders have their body protectors custom made - how could a product be made to fit those - difficult.
- Liability, if there is an issue, who is responsible - the Exo manufacturer / The bodyprotector manufacturer / the rider for putting them on wrongly?

All of these issues are valid and need to be dealt with, but they are not reasons that it can't work.

The bottom line is that, if there is a product that can stop or reduce the fatalities in eventing then it needs to be invested in and made mainstream.
 
[ QUOTE ]
A new beta level is required to classify crush protection for use in eventing, whether that is a level 4 bp with the exo incorporated, or a 3+ system with a standard BP and exo style cage fitted as a seperate item.

In this overhaul the they still need to take new technologies used in other sports into account. I still think that motocross style tops (lighter & more flexible) would be more effective for the majority of abrasion/bruise injuries that horse riders incur. i can't see why beta wouldn't endorse these with level 2/3 certification.

F x

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the first point, totally and utterly.

However, re: 2nd point, I really don't wear a body protector to protect me against abrasions and bruises... because these, though painful, aren't life-threatening! (and how many riders go xc with bare arms, they obviously don't care about abrasions!) I wear my RP body protector because it has a pretty solid "spine" protector and I hope that if I am ever thrown against a fence hard (as happened to a friend of mine, who sustained severe internal injuries but would have died if she had not been wearing a body protector) it might give enough protection to save me.
I want an Exo, preferably a lighter weight one than is available now, because I know that however hard I train and good I think my horses are, our luck might run out at any moment, and if we have a rotational (God please forbid) I want a better chance of surviving it.

i would very much like to see a test done for a rider thrown against a fence, in the Exo and in the other body protectors on the market...
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm with KO here. Have followed the thread with interest but there are still many design limitations to the BP and I would be very much against it being imposed as a mandatory item of equipment. Would love to see more research and development into it though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is something that given BEs interest in doing safety research is probably something BE should be investing in, no? They are using Bristol Uni and Goodyear and hauling that portable round the country - any reason why they couldn't be altering/improving/whatever the deisgn of the bodycage and trialling it on riders at various levels? Given that the design is already level 3 BETA so fulfils current safety requirements?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I guess the thought was less: 'you should make it compulsory' and more 'why have you not done more to promote the only product shown to make a difference in the event of a rotational fall?' Given that they are happy to spend our membership money on research into the issue which so far has yielded only a rule which was quickly repealed! I want to know what the thining is - I don't think for one second they will make them compulsory, but they haven't exactly done a great deal to promote them either....

[/ QUOTE ]

That why i think it's a grand idea coming from grass roots (i do believe in making boards THINK at AGM, as folk can become complacent and need the odd prod now and then-IMO keeps them on their toes)

But will hold on to my own reservations on effectiveness on all types of falls and await more data
 
[ QUOTE ]

Which is something that given BEs interest in doing safety research is probably something BE should be investing in, no? They are using Bristol Uni and Goodyear and hauling that portable round the country - any reason why they couldn't be altering/improving/whatever the deisgn of the bodycage and trialling it on riders at various levels? Given that the design is already level 3 BETA so fulfils current safety requirements?

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely agree, this is my main point i think. i said on the previous post that dont have one due to fit and weight.....these need to be developed further and more tests carried out long before they can be made compulsory. It has already been proved to save lives so surely it should be one of the things at top of list being invested in by BE?
 
SC - I am not a BE member currently though will happily do any 'dogsbody' work on your behalf. Having lost a friend through a rotational fall and having seen first hand the devastation caused to family and friends as a result I will stand up and do anything I can to reduce (would love to say prevent!) the frequency of these tragedies.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Which is something that given BEs interest in doing safety research is probably something BE should be investing in, no? They are using Bristol Uni and Goodyear and hauling that portable round the country - any reason why they couldn't be altering/improving/whatever the deisgn of the bodycage and trialling it on riders at various levels? Given that the design is already level 3 BETA so fulfils current safety requirements?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would certainly like to see some investment in this area. I do have a slight concern that this body cage might make riders feel invinsible and as such not ride as carefully.
 
SJ - I would guess the very same thing was said when skull hats were made compulsory....those types of things often crop up but are rarely borne out in my experience.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I do have a slight concern that this body cage might make riders feel invinsible and as such not ride as carefully.

[/ QUOTE ]

Crikey, that thought hadn't even occurred to me. I don't ride any differently in my existing body protector than when I'm not wearing it, I'm absolutely positive of that.
Anyway, I'm probably more concerned about the horse getting hurt in a fall than I am of myself (and I bet I'm not alone in this).
 
It may be that if the governing bodies of eventing decided that crush protection should be compulsory in a body protector from, say, 2010 or 2012, then money could be invested into developing the product to make it better and, possibly, cheaper, with the investors at least knowing that they would have sales in the future.

Also, a coordinated approach may attract investors from the other countries, such as the US, who are keen to improve rider safety. Spreading the cost could result in more rapid development and a wider scale testing by riders.

I wonder what Princess Haya thinks about the Exo body protector? She seems to be an open advocate in safety matters, so would be interesting to know her view.
 
I've been thinking about this while going off to bake a cake (!) and I think BE are looking at Safety through the wrong end of the periscope, so to speak.
On the BE site's Safety page it says "A fundamental conclusion from the report, which pervades every detailed recommendation is that:
... everything should be done to prevent horses from falling."

The trouble is, I really really don't think this is possible. If we are jumping fixed fences, horses will occasionally fall. Either we must make every single fence of deformable polystyrene or similar (including every course in the country, every schooling course, etc etc... which I really really cannot see happening. It would cost an absolute fortune, severely limit the types of fences available, be a nightmare to organise - imagine having to have enough spares of every type of fence in case a horse destroys it, at every event!!!) or the focus should be on Rider Protection just as much as on Prevention of Falls.
The fact is, at Burghley, BE's prestige Autumn event, with a very experienced course builder, and 80 of the top riders and horses competing, we saw a LOT of horse falls. Very luckily, no-one was badly injured, and there were no rotationals, but if we are trying to test riders and horses at any level, there will be falls. I think concentration should shift to "how can we save riders' lives, assuming that some falls will happen, and that some of those falls will be rotationals?"
Does anyone agree?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I've been thinking about this while going off to bake a cake (!) and I think BE are looking at Safety through the wrong end of the periscope, so to speak.
On the BE site's Safety page it says "A fundamental conclusion from the report, which pervades every detailed recommendation is that:
... everything should be done to prevent horses from falling."

The trouble is, I really really don't think this is possible. If we are jumping fixed fences, horses will occasionally fall. Either we must make every single fence of deformable polystyrene or similar (including every course in the country, every schooling course, etc etc... which I really really cannot see happening. It would cost an absolute fortune, severely limit the types of fences available, be a nightmare to organise - imagine having to have enough spares of every type of fence in case a horse destroys it, at every event!!!) or the focus should be on Rider Protection just as much as on Prevention of Falls.
The fact is, at Burghley, BE's prestige Autumn event, with a very experienced course builder, and 80 of the top riders and horses competing, we saw a LOT of horse falls. Very luckily, no-one was badly injured, and there were no rotationals, but if we are trying to test riders and horses at any level, there will be falls. I think concentration should shift to "how can we save riders' lives, assuming that some falls will happen, and that some of those falls will be rotationals?"
Does anyone agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes K, wholeheartedly!

I that your speech for the AGM then?
wink.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top