Call to action over rider deaths.

RedDiamond said:
The riders know what they're getting into when they choose to go eventing. Any individual who chooses to do eventing obviously knows the risk with it, so its that person's responsibility. Unfortunately death is just the reality of living and risk makes life exciting. You could be killed by crossing the road, but that doesn't mean you stay inside all day. I can guarantee that most eventers love the thrill of eventing. Also, what would be the boundary with making the courses safer? When the jumps aren't bigger than 2ft and are made of cushions?
Click to expand...

This. :biggrin3: at the last bit!

I am making an assumption that rotational falls are causing a problem by the horse landing on the rider. If this assumption is wrong then just ignore me!

I think some riders should stop trying to glue themselves to the saddle and actually learn to ride instead. By balance and skill, with full fitness in themselves as well as the horse. Saddles used to be made of leather not suede seated, with flat seats and hardly any knee rolls. Sticky bum suede seated breeches didn't exist. I think if there was a rotational fall the rider would be more likely to be thrown clear of the horse.
 
Sugar_and_Spice said:
This. :biggrin3: at the last bit!

I am making an assumption that rotational falls are causing a problem by the horse landing on the rider. If this assumption is wrong then just ignore me!

I think some riders should stop trying to glue themselves to the saddle and actually learn to ride instead. By balance and skill, with full fitness in themselves as well as the horse. Saddles used to be made of leather not suede seated, with flat seats and hardly any knee rolls. Sticky bum suede seated breeches didn't exist. I think if there was a rotational fall the rider would be more likely to be thrown clear of the horse.
Click to expand...

Falling clear of a rotational fall has absolutely nothing to do with the materials of the saddle! In a rotational the horse's front legs are caught by the jump, the horse itself somersaults over itself inevitably taking the rider with him. On the landing the horse lands on its back (as you would if you were tumbling) but of course the rider is there lands first and then gets the weight of the horse on him.

There is a horrific video of a rotational fall that proved fatal on youtube. The family of the woman who sadly died this way have left the video on there for others to learn from the accident.
 
I would have thought that the most logical fence alteration that would make a significant difference and not cost a fortune is slightly angle fences rather than have them square. A two inch lip at the back with a white strip along with a white toe board would allow a horse to judge easily. Think about it....in showjumping if somebody wants a horse to touch a fence they build a very square oxer or vertical with two poles nearly touching then approach either under paced or over paced. For one season putting a defined line at the back of all fences and compare the number of rotational falls is surely an easy exercise to do that wont cost a fortune. If national hunt racing had the number of fatalities eventing does it would be banned.
 
Booboos I know what a rotational fall is, but why are the riders still in the saddle (or only just fell out of it, being now directly under the horse) when the horse lands on its back instead of being thrown out of the saddle at the point the horse hits the fence hard with its legs? My guess is dippy seats in the saddle, big knee blocks and suede bums all combining to hold them there. Maybe I'm wrong. I just think that if riders could stay on by balance, skill and fitness alone instead of relying on shortcuts they'd be better riders, therefore better able to cope with the challenge of cross country and if they did come off they'd be more likely to be thrown clear instead of landing under the horse.

It's like I don't think people should compete cross country without stirrups or bareback, but they should be able to jump like this IMO because if they can't, then they're not as good a rider as they think they are, if they *need* the security of a saddle/stirrups to do these things. I think the main problem with health and safety in horse riding these days is that so many people can't actually really ride and yet are able to compete.

If there were less available shortcuts to staying on then the less-good riders would spend more time falling off, they would know they were a bit rubbish and probably would not choose to go riding huge xc fences, having rotational falls (that maybe due to their lack of skill?) and the horse landing on top of them because they've glued themselves to the saddle.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think for xc to become safer horse riding in general needs to become more dangerous, partly by tack and equipment becoming simpler and people need to fall off more, to sort out those that have the reasonable ability to go xc (the ones that stay on more) from those that don't (the ones who fall off a lot).
 
amage said:
I would have thought that the most logical fence alteration that would make a significant difference and not cost a fortune is slightly angle fences rather than have them square. A two inch lip at the back with a white strip along with a white toe board would allow a horse to judge easily. Think about it....in showjumping if somebody wants a horse to touch a fence they build a very square oxer or vertical with two poles nearly touching then approach either under paced or over paced. For one season putting a defined line at the back of all fences and compare the number of rotational falls is surely an easy exercise to do that wont cost a fortune. If national hunt racing had the number of fatalities eventing does it would be banned.
Click to expand...
Last sentence .....^^^^NHR (if you include point to point ) has way more fatalities worldwide than eventing worldwide. And it isn't banned... Nor should it be. If you think eventing is unacceptably dangerous - don't do it. I really can't see a problem. It is for each individual competitor to decided. We dumb down everything to a state of boring mediocrity, and lower standards to the lowest common denominator 'safe for everyone' ' we may as well switch the lights out and exit stage left.
 
Sugar_and_Spice said:
Booboos I know what a rotational fall is, but why are the riders still in the saddle (or only just fell out of it, being now directly under the horse) when the horse lands on its back instead of being thrown out of the saddle at the point the horse hits the fence hard with its legs? My guess is dippy seats in the saddle, big knee blocks and suede bums all combining to hold them there. Maybe I'm wrong. I just think that if riders could stay on by balance, skill and fitness alone instead of relying on shortcuts they'd be better riders, therefore better able to cope with the challenge of cross country and if they did come off they'd be more likely to be thrown clear instead of landing under the horse.

It's like I don't think people should compete cross country without stirrups or bareback, but they should be able to jump like this IMO because if they can't, then they're not as good a rider as they think they are, if they *need* the security of a saddle/stirrups to do these things. I think the main problem with health and safety in horse riding these days is that so many people can't actually really ride and yet are able to compete.

If there were less available shortcuts to staying on then the less-good riders would spend more time falling off, they would know they were a bit rubbish and probably would not choose to go riding huge xc fences, having rotational falls (that maybe due to their lack of skill?) and the horse landing on top of them because they've glued themselves to the saddle.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think for xc to become safer horse riding in general needs to become more dangerous, partly by tack and equipment becoming simpler and people need to fall off more, to sort out those that have the reasonable ability to go xc (the ones that stay on more) from those that don't (the ones who fall off a lot).
Click to expand...

But if you know what a rotational is, how can you imagine the rider somehow jumping clear of one? The force of the fall is a tumble, the rider takes this tumble with the horse, how can he possibly push himself clear of that? The rider doesn't stay with the saddle because of a suede patch, he stays because all the forward force turns into a rotation.

There is little that can protect the rider from a rotational fall. Air jackets may protect and treeless saddles may protect (as the rigid tree is suspected of contributing significantly to the crush injuries).
 
Booboos I'm not talking about riders somehow pushing themselves away from the horse in the event of a rotational fall. I'm talking about riders not using any extra means to try to stay with the horse/in the saddle in general, especially xc.

A human is lighter than a horse, so when the horse hits the fence yes they'd both summersault (sp) but I don't see why the rider, being lighter and therefore affected less by gravity, would not be thrown forwards and down on a longer arc than the horse (ie thrown clear of the horse) unless the rider was using additional means other than skill/balance/fitness to keep them in the saddle no matter what.

I believe the whole culture of trying to never fall off that is around now is more harmful than the days when falling off at times was an accepted part of riding. I'm not saying a horse never fell on anyone in the past but I'm guessing its happening more now if people deem it necessary to make a big issue of the fact that it happens? Or am I wrong and a big deal is being made of it because we're fast becoming a nation of wusses who want everything to be either risk free or banned?

I'm finding this thread frustrating really. If people don't want to fall off a horse they shouldnt get on a horse! Nobody is forced to take up a career or a hobby in eventing.
 
Sugar_and_Spice said:
Booboos I'm not talking about riders somehow pushing themselves away from the horse in the event of a rotational fall. I'm talking about riders not using any extra means to try to stay with the horse/in the saddle in general, especially xc.

A human is lighter than a horse, so when the horse hits the fence yes they'd both summersault (sp) but I don't see why the rider, being lighter and therefore affected less by gravity, would not be thrown forwards and down on a longer arc than the horse (ie thrown clear of the horse) unless the rider was using additional means other than skill/balance/fitness to keep them in the saddle no matter what.
Click to expand...

This is important to point out because this is a safety discussion: what you are claiming bears no relation to physics. Objects of different masses fall at the same accelleration, the rider won't fall faster because he is lighter! Galileo and all those balls falling off the Pisa tower stuff!
 
Booboos said:
This is important to point out because this is a safety discussion: what you are claiming bears no relation to physics. Objects of different masses fall at the same accelleration, the rider won't fall faster because he is lighter! Galileo and all those balls falling off the Pisa tower stuff!
Click to expand...

What I'm claiming? You dont understand what I'm claiming, your reply makes that clear. I can't be bothered trying to explain any more. I don't really care. Professional event riders are self employed basically and therefore responsible for their own safety.
 
Sugar_and_Spice said:
This. :biggrin3: at the last bit!

Saddles used to be made of leather not suede seated, with flat seats and hardly any knee rolls. Sticky bum suede seated breeches didn't exist. I think if there was a rotational fall the rider would be more likely to be thrown clear of the horse.
Click to expand...

I don't think any decent cross country saddles are made with suede. And I know from experience that monoflap event saddles have a very flat seat and minimal knee blocks.
 
I dont know,I go away for a few hours and suddenly everyone is talking nonsense. Sugar-and-spice ,Booboos is correct about objects of diferent masses being subject to gravity in the same manner, but you are correct about being thrown forward on a longer arc however . Booboos ,when a horse hits a fence hard enough to rotate ,its momentum is redirected .If the rider does nothing except sit there ,the rider will continue in the original direction and not stay in the saddle. The factors that cause a rider to remain in the saddle do include saddle materials and design,Knee rolls etc .Another factor is that because the rider can bend forward at the waist , if the saddle holds the riders lower half even momenterily,the riders upper half will be thrown forward and down absorbing the forward momentum and converting the energy into a separate rotation (angular momentum.) This means the rider does not get thrown clear. The slower the forward speed at impact with the fence ,the easier it is for the saddle to hold the rider . And while I dont know the exact statistics on fatalities against falls when comparing steeplechasing with eventing,I would be astounded if steeplechasing had a higher percentage.
 
Hmm.... given the calibre and quality of some of the riders who have sadly fallen to their deaths, I would be very surprised if they were not also capable of riding round a very decent course with no saddle / stirrups. I find it hard to believe there is an addressable lack of rider skill in these cases.
 
The reason more people die at the higher levels eventing than the lower is that the margin for error is much, much smaller.

At the lower levels the horse can sprokle and has more time to prevent a fall, and can get much closer to the fence than you could at the higher levels. You also get more pros and less amateurs, so the "population" of riders at the higher levels are smaller so the statistics are skewed.

Someone once told me that at the higher levels with pros riding them the horses are told where to take off and the rider is rarely wrong. Therefore when that place is wrong (mistakes happen!) the horse might not have developed the skills to look after itself, resulting in a fall.
At the lower levels with amateurs the rider is not 100% right all the time so the horse learns to look after itself, so in times of a mistake it has the ability to think for itself and try to correct.

The figures are misleading - when you look at the number of people it is inevitable that there will be some fatalities, each one incredibly tragic accidents that are so sad :( but accidents do happen, no matter how much safety gear you have on or how much risk has been taken out of the sport. A lady died swimming the channel this year, with a safety boat right beside her. Utterly tragic and had the best support avaliable.
 
We all know that wiki isn't all that reliable but this is interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eventing#Safety

It states that there were at least 37 riders killed eventing between 1997 and 2008, 18 of them between 2006 and 2008 - which might mean deaths in earlier years were under-reported. At least 25 of the 37 were killed in rotationals

It takes data from this article http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/saferide/131-eventingincrisis.shtml#axzz2euPcjUYU which also quotes a reduction in the risk of serious/fatal injuries in BE events from 0.24% in 2002-2003 to 0.07% in 2007-2008.

I also found this page which is a list of fatalities but with very few details http://eventing.zzn.com/?coname=eventing. Of the people whose events are identified 1 in a 1m, one at a PC rally, 2 in **s, 1 in an advanced.
 
A scientific study by a totally independent body needs to be made of these accidents to establish exactly what is going on and then from that measures can be taken to reduce the risk.
A British/European Standard can then be developed for the testing and construction of cross country fences (It does not matter that they all have a different appearance).
The number of fatal accidents can then hopefully be reduced.
(It may also found that other equipment in eventing needs further investigation).
 
I tend to agree with the theory that these very square fences with minimal ground line can be difficult for the horses to judge at speed and are very unforgiving if you get it wrong.
 
I agree that it would be good to have some independent research into deaths/serious falls in eventing. Then, if it's found that there is a certain type of fence, or a certain factor leading to a lot of these falls, then perhaps this particular type of fence could be changed to make it safer. However, someone would have to fund this study, and it would probably not come to any sort of instant conclusion.

I also think there are so many variables, such as fitness of the horse, experience of the horse and rider, speed of approach, angle of approach, distractions in the crowd, terrain, shape of the jump, decorations of the jump, the horse's length of stride (and many more I'm sure I haven't thought of). This means it would be very difficult to say that one type of fence is statistically more likely to cause a fall than another. A controlled experiment would be able to prove this, but you wouldn't be able to get ethical approval for it.

However, at Burghley, one of the falls was a French rider who was unseated when his horse slipped/tripped coming out of the water. I think another was caused by a horse leaving a leg behind in a ditch. Neither of the falls were serious, but falling from a horse at high speed is generally dangerous. It's impossible to eliminate the risks of lesiure riding completely, let alone in a sport like eventing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top