Baydale
Well-Known Member
Sorry I couldn't get there but was late finishing at Pony Club.
Kerilli - how was the Safety Forum?
- Thread starter Baydale
- Start date
Gamebird
Well-Known Member
I was wondering too, and am just about to read BE's safety recommendations in the front of H&H over lunch. I'm fairly confident however that a report will follow shortly
kerilli
Well-Known Member
hiya, no probs, don't know quite what to say about it really. rough notes:
v poor turnout. (22 of which only 1 or 2 other riders i think), mostly course builders, designers etc.
lots of stuff about what they're doing, analysing data etc.
they know they've gone too far down the 'skinny' route at lowest levels and are doing sth about that. (yay!)
they are going to publish on website clear guidelines of what to expect at all levels etc soon.
they've had feedback from riders that fence profiles have gotten too soft so are going to change that a bit.
their definition of a "serious" fall is the same as Police's and Doctors' - anything necessitating a visit to hospital. broken bone, concussion etc.
the %age of serious injuries per competitors running has been declining since '02. BUT, as someone said, there are now the lowest levels (which there weren't then i think - when was Intro started?)
so this is v prob skewing the results considerably (since most horses, however badly ridden, manage not to hit the deck at PN downwards cos the fences are smaller etc) - if you compared %ages at N,I,A in '02 cf '08 you might get a diff picture.
lots about TFL fence, analysis of results etc.
Course designers need to think how they can use frangible pins on more diff types of fences. e.g. they've done a fence v recently with skinny 'shields' which are actually frangible.
btw, i was told - not part of meeting - that the skinny upright rail at Bramham where Faith Cook had her horrible headstand rotational fulfilled ALL the requirements for being a frangible, but was not. So, WHY NOT? this could (v v prob would) have made a huge diff. why did SB or TD not make that fence frangible???
FC has been told not to ride for a year apparently, neck/spinal fractures etc.
since horse did not land on her (but did kick her head as it got up apparently) you might want to think a bit about the protection she was wearing...
working on the idea of a collapsible 'table type' fence (i've seen pics of this, iirc it collapses a bit, like a parallelogram.)
Proposed minimum entry level of Comp for new members to be BE100.
5 qual results to be obtained, of which 3 at BE100, before progressing.
fledgeling idea - BE Approved Training Venues.
Make riders more aware that once a hat has been fallen off in, sustained a blow, dropped etc, the polystyrene absorbs the impact once, and that's it. it has done its job and won't do it again.
Medical Committee asked early on that the Point2 be shown going off in a scanner to test the pressure it exerts on the neck. THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED....
In pipeline _ titanium body cage, carbon fibre body cage.
There were no 'serious' falls at A last year.
Competitors are twice as likely to be injured at a FEI comp than at National level.
Since lowering quals, seen a difference...
I asked about an idea a few people have floated by me. there is a huge diff in injuries to riders, both with horse landing on them and sometimes not, if the ground is v hard with no give at all. (was told last night - Jonathan Chapman at ALW - multiple fractures, horse did not land on him.) a trauma surgeon, and a course design expert, have both said that hard ground makes crush injures much much more severe. so, i suggested have an all-weather/softened landing zone on all fences, in case of worst-case-scenario falls, so that there is that bit of squish guaranteed, which might well save a rider.
this was discounted, an organiser said he prob wouldn't bother with a new event because of the cost of this etc.
i didn't think quickly enough, should have said "it's more important than lots of flowers and dressing fences" or something.... maybe it's a case of priorities?
surely woodchip or similar on landings, raked by fence judge (many do this anyway) would not be so difficult to do?
thoughts....?!
v poor turnout. (22 of which only 1 or 2 other riders i think), mostly course builders, designers etc.
lots of stuff about what they're doing, analysing data etc.
they know they've gone too far down the 'skinny' route at lowest levels and are doing sth about that. (yay!)
they are going to publish on website clear guidelines of what to expect at all levels etc soon.
they've had feedback from riders that fence profiles have gotten too soft so are going to change that a bit.
their definition of a "serious" fall is the same as Police's and Doctors' - anything necessitating a visit to hospital. broken bone, concussion etc.
the %age of serious injuries per competitors running has been declining since '02. BUT, as someone said, there are now the lowest levels (which there weren't then i think - when was Intro started?)
so this is v prob skewing the results considerably (since most horses, however badly ridden, manage not to hit the deck at PN downwards cos the fences are smaller etc) - if you compared %ages at N,I,A in '02 cf '08 you might get a diff picture.
lots about TFL fence, analysis of results etc.
Course designers need to think how they can use frangible pins on more diff types of fences. e.g. they've done a fence v recently with skinny 'shields' which are actually frangible.
btw, i was told - not part of meeting - that the skinny upright rail at Bramham where Faith Cook had her horrible headstand rotational fulfilled ALL the requirements for being a frangible, but was not. So, WHY NOT? this could (v v prob would) have made a huge diff. why did SB or TD not make that fence frangible???
FC has been told not to ride for a year apparently, neck/spinal fractures etc.
since horse did not land on her (but did kick her head as it got up apparently) you might want to think a bit about the protection she was wearing...
working on the idea of a collapsible 'table type' fence (i've seen pics of this, iirc it collapses a bit, like a parallelogram.)
Proposed minimum entry level of Comp for new members to be BE100.
5 qual results to be obtained, of which 3 at BE100, before progressing.
fledgeling idea - BE Approved Training Venues.
Make riders more aware that once a hat has been fallen off in, sustained a blow, dropped etc, the polystyrene absorbs the impact once, and that's it. it has done its job and won't do it again.
Medical Committee asked early on that the Point2 be shown going off in a scanner to test the pressure it exerts on the neck. THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED....
In pipeline _ titanium body cage, carbon fibre body cage.
There were no 'serious' falls at A last year.
Competitors are twice as likely to be injured at a FEI comp than at National level.
Since lowering quals, seen a difference...
I asked about an idea a few people have floated by me. there is a huge diff in injuries to riders, both with horse landing on them and sometimes not, if the ground is v hard with no give at all. (was told last night - Jonathan Chapman at ALW - multiple fractures, horse did not land on him.) a trauma surgeon, and a course design expert, have both said that hard ground makes crush injures much much more severe. so, i suggested have an all-weather/softened landing zone on all fences, in case of worst-case-scenario falls, so that there is that bit of squish guaranteed, which might well save a rider.
this was discounted, an organiser said he prob wouldn't bother with a new event because of the cost of this etc.
i didn't think quickly enough, should have said "it's more important than lots of flowers and dressing fences" or something.... maybe it's a case of priorities?
surely woodchip or similar on landings, raked by fence judge (many do this anyway) would not be so difficult to do?
thoughts....?!
Baileyhoss
Well-Known Member
Very interesting. Sounds like a lot of good information and ideas. As always it's the implentation of them that counts.
I love your idea re 'landing zones' this could be a real life saver. Done properly, couldn't this also also save the ground conditions at a jump from becoming too slippy or hard, which could also ultimately help to reduce the amount of abandonment?
What was the discussion re' the body cage - in pipeline?
I love your idea re 'landing zones' this could be a real life saver. Done properly, couldn't this also also save the ground conditions at a jump from becoming too slippy or hard, which could also ultimately help to reduce the amount of abandonment?
What was the discussion re' the body cage - in pipeline?
kerilli
Well-Known Member
body cages - there is a titanium one in development, not the same as the Exo bodycage, it is narrower hoops and would go over existing bp apparently.
the other one is something to do with ProDrive (cars), using their carbon fibre technology. that way it could be v strong and v light i guess.
i really do think the body cages are the ultimate aim. although the Hartington Report recommended preventing rotational falls as the ultimate aim, it just is not possible. as J Clissold said at meeting last night, they've seen rotational falls where horse has not even touched the fence, it has just overjumped so much, back end has gone so high it has tipped itself over. also, you can have literally thousands of horses jump a fence with no probs at all and then just 1 combination get it totally wrong and turn over at it. not a bad fence obv. i am convinced that we need to protect riders from these worst-case-scenario falls much more than try to make every fence frangible, deformable etc... that is just not feasible.
the other one is something to do with ProDrive (cars), using their carbon fibre technology. that way it could be v strong and v light i guess.
i really do think the body cages are the ultimate aim. although the Hartington Report recommended preventing rotational falls as the ultimate aim, it just is not possible. as J Clissold said at meeting last night, they've seen rotational falls where horse has not even touched the fence, it has just overjumped so much, back end has gone so high it has tipped itself over. also, you can have literally thousands of horses jump a fence with no probs at all and then just 1 combination get it totally wrong and turn over at it. not a bad fence obv. i am convinced that we need to protect riders from these worst-case-scenario falls much more than try to make every fence frangible, deformable etc... that is just not feasible.
moogrrr
Well-Known Member
Umm all very interesting and a lot of food for thought, so to speak. i esp like the reducing the number of skinnies at lower levels and the landing zone idea, very very interesting.
Shame about the turn out - aren't they doing several through out the country? I wonder what the turn out will be like for the others.
Shame about the turn out - aren't they doing several through out the country? I wonder what the turn out will be like for the others.
Gamebird
Well-Known Member
Well I don't exactly live in the middle of nowhere, and I appreciate that they can't accommodate everyone but the roadshows are all approx 5 hours away from me, except one which is 3.5 hours. No chance of driving that each way after work, even if they were handing out free money!
Plenty of eventers in Yorkshire will probably be thinking similar thoughts!
Plenty of eventers in Yorkshire will probably be thinking similar thoughts!
moogrrr
Well-Known Member
I did look at them and think ekk, they are quite far away and i live in Leicester so pretty central really!
kerilli
Well-Known Member
Gamebird, you're right. a mate of mine would have gone but the nearest one to her was about 4 hours...
Baileyhoss
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
body cages - there is a titanium one in development, not the same as the Exo bodycage, it is narrower hoops and would go over existing bp apparently. [ QUOTE ]
I think you are bang on there - the concept of the exo is fabulous, it was the fact that it was incorporated into the woof wear bp that either made the cost prohibitive or put people off, or just didn't fit everyone. It's true, in the case of rotational falls, it's protection as well as prevention that is required. You won't elimate these type of falls completely, there will always be freak accidents.
body cages - there is a titanium one in development, not the same as the Exo bodycage, it is narrower hoops and would go over existing bp apparently. [ QUOTE ]
I think you are bang on there - the concept of the exo is fabulous, it was the fact that it was incorporated into the woof wear bp that either made the cost prohibitive or put people off, or just didn't fit everyone. It's true, in the case of rotational falls, it's protection as well as prevention that is required. You won't elimate these type of falls completely, there will always be freak accidents.
Ludi-doodi
Well-Known Member
Proposed minimum entry level of Comp for new members to be BE100.
Forgive me if I have this wrong, but what would that mean for intro and BE80T classes? I guess in the long term, they would become obsolete in the future as people who join at BE100 would not presumably want to then compete a lower levels? I know some people who join with a BE100 horse might feasibly want to take youngsters to the lower levels, but that number would presumably be so small that it's not worth an organisers time to run the class.
On a personal note
as someone who has an ambition to BE at somepoint in the not too distance future, I want to keep BE90 as I don't think I have the confidence to do BE100 my one and only horse is 16 (I'm considerably older
) so we don't quite have the time either!!
On a personal note
jumptoit
Well-Known Member
Interesting stuff, but the woodchip doesn't cost a fortune, would be a good idea if you ask me.
I would of gone to one too but mine was a 3 hour drive too.
I would of gone to one too but mine was a 3 hour drive too.
deskbound
Well-Known Member
QR and the landing area seem very sensible, workable options which could go far.....
Baileyhoss
Well-Known Member
i could be wrong, but I think they mean BE100 as 'Maximum' entry level of comp for new members. i.e., rider have to prove themselves at before moving up to novice and above.
kick_On
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
i could be wrong, but I think they mean BE100 as 'Maximum' entry level of comp for new members. i.e., rider have to prove themselves at before moving up to novice and above.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's i understood from my trainer on saturday who's heavyfully in involved with BE
K - and thanks for reporting back, brilliant as per normal
i could be wrong, but I think they mean BE100 as 'Maximum' entry level of comp for new members. i.e., rider have to prove themselves at before moving up to novice and above.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's i understood from my trainer on saturday who's heavyfully in involved with BE
K - and thanks for reporting back, brilliant as per normal
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
They are not not doing away with intro or training.
It is just at the moment any muppet over 18 who can sit on a horse can go straight in and do a novice so they wish to drop this to PN and had considered intro being the starting point.
I personally think it is time all riders at BE had a competition licence, just the thought of it being revoked may make them a bit more aware of what they are doing.
It is just at the moment any muppet over 18 who can sit on a horse can go straight in and do a novice so they wish to drop this to PN and had considered intro being the starting point.
I personally think it is time all riders at BE had a competition licence, just the thought of it being revoked may make them a bit more aware of what they are doing.
kerilli
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Proposed minimum entry level of Comp for new members to be BE100.
Forgive me if I have this wrong, but what would that mean for intro and BE80T classes? I guess in the long term, they would become obsolete in the future as people who join at BE100 would not presumably want to then compete a lower levels? I know some people who join with a BE100 horse might feasibly want to take youngsters to the lower levels, but that number would presumably be so small that it's not worth an organisers time to run the class.
On a personal note
as someone who has an ambition to BE at somepoint in the not too distance future, I want to keep BE90 as I don't think I have the confidence to do BE100 my one and only horse is 16 (I'm considerably older
) so we don't quite have the time either!!
[/ QUOTE ]
oops yes, sorry, my error... at the moment a brand new BE member can go straight in at Novice (unless under 16 iirc) but the proposal is that this be changed to BE100.
no plans to do away with Intro or Training, quite the reverse.
sorry, my mistake.
Proposed minimum entry level of Comp for new members to be BE100.
On a personal note
[/ QUOTE ]
oops yes, sorry, my error... at the moment a brand new BE member can go straight in at Novice (unless under 16 iirc) but the proposal is that this be changed to BE100.
no plans to do away with Intro or Training, quite the reverse.
sorry, my mistake.
jumptoit
Well-Known Member
That's a good idea re: the BE100, something I've always thought should of been there personally.
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
I think it would need looking at carefully as I think there may be drawbacks as well .For one most horse leg injuries particularly at speed are caused by inconsistant going so a horse may be travelling at speed and going from a surface to harder turf I think it may cause injuries so I think the type of surface would be critical
kerilli
Well-Known Member
just had a further think about the 'landing zone' idea.
a couple of bags of woodchips per area would possibly do it. we are talking about the area where slow rotationals happen really, fast rotationals could land much further away and then you are getting into covering an area of maybe 18m2 (3m of fence width by 6m of travel maybe) to a depth of say 3"-4".
but if you are just talking about the immediate landing zone, then 3m x 3m would do it i would think.
am i right in thinking that this could be done for a couple of hundred pounds? does anyone know prices of woodchips? the one i just checked at random was about £40 for a 1m x 1m bag, or £10 for a small (feed sack sized) bag. i'm sure a local stockist to an event could do it more cheaply...
sounds like a good use of the money to me...
a couple of bags of woodchips per area would possibly do it. we are talking about the area where slow rotationals happen really, fast rotationals could land much further away and then you are getting into covering an area of maybe 18m2 (3m of fence width by 6m of travel maybe) to a depth of say 3"-4".
but if you are just talking about the immediate landing zone, then 3m x 3m would do it i would think.
am i right in thinking that this could be done for a couple of hundred pounds? does anyone know prices of woodchips? the one i just checked at random was about £40 for a 1m x 1m bag, or £10 for a small (feed sack sized) bag. i'm sure a local stockist to an event could do it more cheaply...
sounds like a good use of the money to me...
ColouredFan
Well-Known Member
Very interesting K, thank you for reporting back. Perhaps the landing zone could be something that is incorporated into perminant courses over time, Many of the fences on some BE courses have all weather take offs and landings, Stockland lovell is an example. I believe west wilts have all weather take offs/landings at alot of their fences?
kerilli
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I think it would need looking at carefully as I think there may be drawbacks as well .For one most horse leg injuries particularly at speed are caused by inconsistant going so a horse may be travelling at speed and going from a surface to harder turf I think it may cause injuries so I think the type of surface would be critical
[/ QUOTE ]
yes, i agree with this totally. but a lot of places now have "all weather take offs and landings" which are very stony, definitely harder than the surrounding turf. also, i can think of quite a few events which do not put sand or anything else down on roadways/tracks that have to be crossed. (it's a big bugbear of mine.)
I think it would need looking at carefully as I think there may be drawbacks as well .For one most horse leg injuries particularly at speed are caused by inconsistant going so a horse may be travelling at speed and going from a surface to harder turf I think it may cause injuries so I think the type of surface would be critical
[/ QUOTE ]
yes, i agree with this totally. but a lot of places now have "all weather take offs and landings" which are very stony, definitely harder than the surrounding turf. also, i can think of quite a few events which do not put sand or anything else down on roadways/tracks that have to be crossed. (it's a big bugbear of mine.)
KatB
Well-Known Member
Problem with woodchip on hard ground (which lets face it is where is will be needed!) will move considerably, and cause slipping on landing
Surely in a combination this would be more dangerous than the risk of hitting hard ground?
Some very interesting points covered though, will be interested in the new bodycage idea.
Some very interesting points covered though, will be interested in the new bodycage idea.
kirstyhen
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Problem with woodchip on hard ground (which lets face it is where is will be needed!) will move considerably, and cause slipping on landing
Surely in a combination this would be more dangerous than the risk of hitting hard ground?
[/ QUOTE ]
My thoughts too, I don't think you could do anything like that without doing it properly and therefore throwing money at it.
Problem with woodchip on hard ground (which lets face it is where is will be needed!) will move considerably, and cause slipping on landing
[/ QUOTE ]
My thoughts too, I don't think you could do anything like that without doing it properly and therefore throwing money at it.
VRIN
Well-Known Member
But don't woodchips get slippy?
kerilli
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
But don't woodchips get slippy?
[/ QUOTE ]
i think they can get slippery depending on what they are on top of. i'm no expert... obv research would need to be done.
maybe a peat/sand mix could be used instead... i'm just chucking ideas in, really.
fwiw the 'slip' factor, as long as horses could keep their feet (and tbh i think as long as they have studs in they usually do, i've seen horses slip on take-off but can't recall seeing or feeling one slip on landing... someone will correct me i'm sure though!) could be another safety factor, literally allowing rider to slide out of the way a little perhaps.
just more suggestions.
But don't woodchips get slippy?
[/ QUOTE ]
i think they can get slippery depending on what they are on top of. i'm no expert... obv research would need to be done.
maybe a peat/sand mix could be used instead... i'm just chucking ideas in, really.
fwiw the 'slip' factor, as long as horses could keep their feet (and tbh i think as long as they have studs in they usually do, i've seen horses slip on take-off but can't recall seeing or feeling one slip on landing... someone will correct me i'm sure though!) could be another safety factor, literally allowing rider to slide out of the way a little perhaps.
just more suggestions.
Ludi-doodi
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the clarification. I should have realised that what you meant, it's obvious now
Anyhoo might all be academic to us as we're off to vets in the morning with a back leg that's not working that great - his not mine!
Darkly_Dreaming_Dex
Well-Known Member
Sand with wood chip over the top would be relatively cheap and effective- i buy woodchip in bulk from a local fencing supplier and its £140 for a 5 ton tipper load (makes a pile the same size as my horse trailer) we use it for gates and walkways and find that once its had a few days to settle then it doesnt move or get slippery.
LEC
Opinions are like bum holes, everyone has one.
I think stricter rules regarding the what you can enter are a good idea.
One of my gripes is that the book on people to watch for dangerous riding is all very well they then might be told they are being watched but nothing further happens. I would like to see it more like school where targets have to be met by that rider before they can either move on or event again. It strikes me that not enough is done to improve people who have been seen to be dangerous.
One of my gripes is that the book on people to watch for dangerous riding is all very well they then might be told they are being watched but nothing further happens. I would like to see it more like school where targets have to be met by that rider before they can either move on or event again. It strikes me that not enough is done to improve people who have been seen to be dangerous.
Harrie123
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Problem with woodchip on hard ground (which lets face it is where is will be needed!) will move considerably, and cause slipping on landing
Surely in a combination this would be more dangerous than the risk of hitting hard ground?
[/ QUOTE ]
My thoughts too, I don't think you could do anything like that without doing it properly and therefore throwing money at it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I totally agree, the next thing we would have is people blaming the ground near the fences for their fall/refusals. Most places do agrivate the ground and look after the courses very well. My horse likes hard going. Then you have to ask what is the point of going XC? Why not do indoor eventer trials.
At the end of the day if you know the ground is hard at a venue and it doesnt suit your horse just dont go. I dont think we should get the the point where we have so many rules and regulations that rider judgement doesnt have to enter into the equation.
I went last night and was really impressed at these guys efforts, I think they do a great job and are really over looked. I am really pleased I have such a large group of professionals looking after me and my horse!
[ QUOTE ]
Problem with woodchip on hard ground (which lets face it is where is will be needed!) will move considerably, and cause slipping on landing
[/ QUOTE ]
My thoughts too, I don't think you could do anything like that without doing it properly and therefore throwing money at it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I totally agree, the next thing we would have is people blaming the ground near the fences for their fall/refusals. Most places do agrivate the ground and look after the courses very well. My horse likes hard going. Then you have to ask what is the point of going XC? Why not do indoor eventer trials.
At the end of the day if you know the ground is hard at a venue and it doesnt suit your horse just dont go. I dont think we should get the the point where we have so many rules and regulations that rider judgement doesnt have to enter into the equation.
I went last night and was really impressed at these guys efforts, I think they do a great job and are really over looked. I am really pleased I have such a large group of professionals looking after me and my horse!