Laura collett, air jacket did inflate says h&h

[Lolo]

Lolo the section where you said the Airjacket deforming is spreading out the force is what I think is happening in these falls. I think (but VERY happy to admit what I know about this aspect of physics could be written on the back of a stamp) that some of the kinetic energy of the falling horse is *somehow* being absorbed by the Airjacket so less force/energy is reaching the rider.
Now that's all well & good BUT several years down the line I can find no further research that has been done on air jackets particularly in crush scenarios. I think this is a really poor show from all of the manufacturers.

Even though I wear an air jacket & believe they are a step forward in safety I will stand by the saying
'The plural of anecdote is not fact'
Yes, currently we have these riders surviving pretty nasty falls & shouting
'Yes, yes it was my Airjacket that saved me' but quite frankly I believe some further testing is long overdue. I would like test results over anecdotes please!!

This is what gets me- I've spoken to people who know stuff about engineering, about testing things like this, at length. And armed with what I said we worked out how you could model both physically and also on a computer the types of fall and how different body protectors/ airbags act. He said it would be an interesting project for someone and it's a shame I missed the boat on trying to do my dissertation on it... So someone thinks a fairly average 3rd year student could do this testing. So why hasn't it been done?!

I think a P2 helps in almost all falls aside from those where it doesn't go off until after the person has been squidged. But then if you have an outward inflating model that's probably going to cause very little damage, especially as it will immobilise you and prevent some of the flailing people coming to consciousness tend to do.

All you can do with sports like eventing is mitigate risk, try and design it out at source and then minimise the residuals. TarrSteps summed up why the marketing for P2 and stuff makes me uneasy- it sells itself as a lifesaver, which it isn't because not much is.

 

[glamourpuss]

I am trauma trained & married to a trauma & orthopaedic consultant surgeon. I also have a good friend who is a consultant specialising in accident & emergency medicine including on scene treatment.
Both OH & my friend agree with me that airjackets do provide significant protection.
Now if I had observed Laura's fall & witnessed that somehow the air jacket prevented the horse from squashing her to death then I would happily offer MY OPINION that the air jacket had saved her life...& I'm sure my OH & my friend would do the same...but that's just it, an opinion.
Until however we get the testing that I keep banging on about I will continue to treat these testimonials as opinions (although currently they are opinions which support my choice to ride in an air jacket which is good )
As we all know most opinions mean nothing...

 

[glamourpuss]

This is what gets me- I've spoken to people who know stuff about engineering, about testing things like this, at length. And armed with what I said we worked out how you could model both physically and also on a computer the types of fall and how different body protectors/ airbags act. He said it would be an interesting project for someone and it's a shame I missed the boat on trying to do my dissertation on it... So someone thinks a fairly average 3rd year student could do this testing. So why hasn't it been done?!

I think a P2 helps in almost all falls aside from those where it doesn't go off until after the person has been squidged. But then if you have an outward inflating model that's probably going to cause very little damage, especially as it will immobilise you and prevent some of the flailing people coming to consciousness tend to do.

All you can do with sports like eventing is mitigate risk, try and design it out at source and then minimise the residuals. TarrSteps summed up why the marketing for P2 and stuff makes me uneasy- it sells itself as a lifesaver, which it isn't because not much is.

I actually find it pretty insulting that these companies are almost patronising us instead of offering, what sounds like, pretty simple testing.
It's like they are saying
'Oh no we won't bother giving our poor, thick customers proper evidence they won't understand it. Lets just show a picture of a crashing fall & a rider quote. That's all the evidence they need'

One company sticks out as being most prolific in this

 

[TarrSteps]

I'm still confused. . .who is 'supposed' to be doing this testing? To do a proper on going would cost a fair bit and, frankly, there is little in it for manufactures. People are buying the product now.

If there is a Trade Standards issue then that obviously needs to be pursued. I guess the other possibility is someone is injured in a way the jacket claims to prevent and takes them to court.

 

[TarrSteps]

Gp, perhaps consumers need to be more outspoken in saying they won't support the company without proof. And/or lobbying the appropriate governing bodies to insist on further testing, although this would likely have implications re restraint of trade.

(I'm not actually arguing with your point. There isn't sufficient proof either way to confirm or deny efficacy. But that fact, at least, IS known to the consumer.)

 

[glamourpuss]

I agree Tarrsteps as customers maybe we should stop being so passive & demand these companies or BETA provide us with more evidence.... But then I think if you look carefully it's never actually the company making the 'it saved her life' claim but someone else (the victim, a bystander...) so I guess from that point of view the companies have nothing to prove.

 

[only_me]

Does noone else not notice that it is always the airjacket that saved them but not infact the actual back protector?

 

[glamourpuss]

Does noone else not notice that it is always the airjacket that saved them but not infact the actual back protector?

IMHO it is a combination of all of the safety equipment & the changes BE have made to courses (including frangible pins)
I think as well many eventers still have the awful season of 1999 (where 5 riders died in a short space of time) pretty fresh in their mind. Plus the tragic death of Ian Olding which happened around the time that P2 was released in the UK. All wearing body protectors but not air jackets.
So there has been this surge of people thinking that the air jackets have been the saving factor.

What people seem to be forgetting is it isn't JUST the air jackets saving lives although the way it's being reported you would think it was!

 

[dafthoss]

Lolo the section where you said the Airjacket deforming is spreading out the force is what I think is happening in these falls. I think (but VERY happy to admit what I know about this aspect of physics could be written on the back of a stamp) that some of the kinetic energy of the falling horse is *somehow* being absorbed by the Airjacket so less force/energy is reaching the rider.
Now that's all well & good BUT several years down the line I can find no further research that has been done on air jackets particularly in crush scenarios. I think this is a really poor show from all of the manufacturers.

Even though I wear an air jacket & believe they are a step forward in safety I will stand by the saying
'The plural of anecdote is not fact'
Yes, currently we have these riders surviving pretty nasty falls & shouting
'Yes, yes it was my Airjacket that saved me' but quite frankly I believe some further testing is long overdue. I would like test results over anecdotes please!!

This is what gets me- I've spoken to people who know stuff about engineering, about testing things like this, at length. And armed with what I said we worked out how you could model both physically and also on a computer the types of fall and how different body protectors/ airbags act. He said it would be an interesting project for someone and it's a shame I missed the boat on trying to do my dissertation on it... So someone thinks a fairly average 3rd year student could do this testing. So why hasn't it been done?!

I think a P2 helps in almost all falls aside from those where it doesn't go off until after the person has been squidged. But then if you have an outward inflating model that's probably going to cause very little damage, especially as it will immobilise you and prevent some of the flailing people coming to consciousness tend to do.

All you can do with sports like eventing is mitigate risk, try and design it out at source and then minimise the residuals. TarrSteps summed up why the marketing for P2 and stuff makes me uneasy- it sells itself as a lifesaver, which it isn't because not much is.

There's very little in it for the manufacturers though. If it goes in their favour then they have just spent loads of money when the product is selling without it. If it goes against it then they have expensive research that shows their product doesn't do what they would like to think it does and they now have research that they would like to keep out of the public eye.

 

[lannerch]

I think the air jacket saved her or at least messiness her injuries, only a fool would say it made no difference .
Now wether it saved her life , and she would have died without it wearing just her normal body protector will never be known , but in Laura's case it would certainly have been touch and go!


No one is saying her normal body protector did not help. However everyone has to wear them, which is why she is saying the addition of the p2 probably saved her life.
I agree
People love to hate p2 is it because they are so expensive and they want to justify not spending the money !

 

[Topaz Tiger]

Sorry that is absolutely rubbish, it has absolutely nothing to do with the price for me.... And everything about whether I think it actually works.... I'm not going to keep piling stuff on myself and my horse just in case it 'might' make a difference...

 

[Lolo]

Considering the sheer cost of keeping a horse and eventing it, I don't think price puts that many off. It puts us off because of the lack of testing for the money- stuff that is proven to work well is money well spent...

Re. testing, I was trying to say earlier for it to be dissertation suitable at a basic level it can't cost serious money. If they were clever, they could do it very cheap comparatively on that basis...

 

[lannerch]

Interesting as it is the price and only the price that puts me off.
I struggle to event , horses are so expensive every expense matters , I agree totally the air jacket can save lives at best and reduce injury at worst which is slso why motorcycles have extensively adopted it likewise .
But still I do not have one , I just cannot afford it .

 

[lannerch]

And if I can afford it, if I had to have it I would find the money but I live on the illusion it would not happen to me, and would rather spend my money on something else that I enjoy buying.
That said this year I cannot afford to event!

 

[teapot]

Re the make of LC's BP - looking at the photos I took of her at Barbury a day before her fall, I think it's a Rodney Powell, could be wrong though.

As for the P2s and 'could save your life', nothing's 100% effective, not even seat belts I don't think but every little helps.

I can think of two pros who don't wear them, unless they're wearing the hybrid and I've never noticed?

 

[only_me]

What I meant is that the air jacket is not the only thing that saved her life; her back protector did too but there is no advertising or promotion of the back protector to say this. P2 appear to "jump on the bandwaggon" and claim to save lives when people wear them and then fall.

I have a P2 as well and think any thing that helps to reduce risk is a good thing, so am not anti P2. The eventers that have unfortunately died as a result of a fall may or may not have been saved by an airjacket but it is impossible to say so and every fall is different. I guess I take the "saved by my airjacket" with a pinch of salt - maybe saved by the paramedics, air jacket and BP may be more accurate

I'm glad to see LC back up again and hope for a quick rehab so she can be back eventing soon

 

[PaulC]

Rather than getting into the discussion of which protector is best - exo, p2 etc, I would find it very interesting if an independent body did some crush testing with a dummy.

Quite a simple test really - one crash dummy full of sensors lay down on a solid surface, several types of body protectors to test and add a load the equivalent to a horse in a rotational fall.

I few permutations could be added - ie the saddle / shoulder / rear of horse hitting the rider.

I think this test would be very valuable to rider safety, but I cant imagine any of the BP companies signing up!!

 

[Lolo]

PaulC, you are my kind of person That's pretty much the set up I discussed, with methods of analysing a variety of rotational falls to try and simulate worst-case scenario loading situations to then mimic in labs...

Does AN wear one? Or Caroline Powell?

 

[Rum Tum]

I find it really frustrating that it is down to manufacturers/suppliers to market their safety products. Undoubtedly EXo failed due to lack of marketing. If they had adopted a Point 2 style marketing campaign, would they be popular now? But when I asked BE questions on their effectiveness and possible problems, they just told me they could not get involved in a commercial product, and that I had to make up my own mind. But how do we make an informed decision when so little info is available? Eg Laura's fall. We know she was wearing a Point 2, but what was her other body protector and what was her hat? Similar question re Lucinda Fredericks fall in March. And similar info would be so useful when there are deaths. Its not morbid, we just need to learn from what happened. This can only be done by the governing bodies but there seems to be no appetite. I was very heartened by the recent post about the possible development of a body protector that incorporates both Exo style frame and Point 2 air cushioning. Now that sounds a good idea. Would anyone else like to see BE encourage the development of such a product?

 

[teapot]

Does AN wear one? Or Caroline Powell?

See AN was one of the pros I was thinking of and Toddy too!

 

[PaulC]

lolo, I didn't see your comment, great minds and all that!! (Im a Civil Engineer BTW so always dreaming up tests )

Its a shame BE haven't jumped on this idea. They have done great things with the Goodyear fence a few years ago, and frangible pins since - this seems like the next step in an area where they could really make a difference.

I always see in Eventing that these are the areas that if controlled, make a real difference in safety

1) Rider / Horse readiness for the class they enter.
2) The riders ability (which includes common sense!) - so many times you can see accidents about to happen simply in the way they are approaching a question
3) Course design
4) The unforeseen / unlucky factor!
5) Safety equipment

Now with BE, point 1) is addressed with qualifications/rules etc, and whilst riders can bend the system by entering easier events to qualify for higher classes, this is not something BE can reasonably prevent.

Point 2) well, what can I say. All riders have different abilities, some with common sense, others perhaps with less. There isn't a great deal BE can do about that other than a reactive measure of having people on the watch list.

Point 3) I believe BE are approaching fantastically well. Aside from fence anchors for portables, frangible fences (both front and reverse pinned), polystyrene logs etc, they technical aspects have been increased, rather than big fast courses which can cause one to go splat at speed!!

Point 4) Well sometimes we just have 'bad luck' and I have seen some horrendous accidents happen in the most unlikely of places - its a sport and a dangerous one at that!!

Point 5) In any sport / industry, PPE should always be the last resort. However whilst BE have rules on the rating/BSEN of BP's and hats, I am not aware of any thorough testing that has been carried out as previously mentioned. Under HSE guidelines PPE used should be appropriate for the task you are carrying out. This is why BE will stipulate the P2 is only an additional device, rather than primary.

It would be great if some group could carry out some testing. With credit to BE they have done an awful lot in the last few years(see link below, but I see this as one of the only areas left to significantly improve serious injury rates

http://www.britisheventing.com/section.asp?section=700&sectionTitle=BE+Safety+Milestones

Lord I have just rambled on a bit!!

 

[PaulC]

PS to Rum Tum and others, I think it is very difficult for BE to get involved because of commercial reasons. Additionally, they do have a limited budget and have done an awful lot for event safety, ideas which others then use.

Perhaps the FEI, BHS/riding clubs, Pony Club, could all get involved with BE and create an Event Safety Research group. It would benefit all levels of eventing, and being a collaboration would be more independent!!

 

[Lolo]

Snap, only in training atm I don't know if it's because we're taught to design out at source rather than mitigate later, and PPE is the final resort normally whereas until really recently it was the only answer. Tradition has a lot to answer for IMO!

In our 1st year labs we did a set of experiments on applying loading to beams- pretty sure this is a set up you could adapt if nothing else... You're not needing to invent a method of getting the loading right, it's all there in almost every uni lab, just needing tweaking.

 

[PaulC]

Lol, oh bending beams and crushing cubes, in labs, thanks for making me feel old!!

The ground anchors came about from us Civil Engineers - they should listen to us more

 

[TarrSteps]

See AN was one of the pros I was thinking of and Toddy too!

They are old. Plus they have rather "carefree" temperaments (I don't mean they aren't master of attention to detail, but they have both ridden literally hundreds of horses over thousands of jumps and are very confident jockeys) from a culture that doesn't have quite the same obsession with health and safety. I would be surprised if they have done a comprehensive study of the risks and rewards of wearing air jackets, more that they rely on other aspects of their approach to keep them safe (if they think about it much at all). And, frankly, if you ride like either of those boys and have their record, then you are likely less at risk that the rest of us.

With each progression in safety equipment there have have been "early adopters" and hold outs. It was the same for newer style helmets and for body protectors. I don't think pointing to this or that rider's attitudes towards the product have any bearing in the subject. After all, as many people have said, more riders know squat about the subject.

 

[teapot]

They are old. Plus they have rather "carefree" temperaments (I don't mean they aren't master of attention to detail, but they have both ridden literally hundreds of horses over thousands of jumps and are very confident jockeys) from a culture that doesn't have quite the same obsession with health and safety. I would be surprised if they have done a comprehensive study of the risks and rewards of wearing air jackets, more that they rely on other aspects of their approach to keep them safe (if they think about it much at all). And, frankly, if you ride like either of those boys and have their record, then you are likely less at risk that the rest of us.

With each progression in safety equipment there have have been "early adopters" and hold outs. It was the same for newer style helmets and for body protectors. I don't think pointing to this or that rider's attitudes towards the product have any bearing in the subject. After all, as many people have said, more riders know squat about the subject.

I totally agree and I did wonder when I typed those two names that if either actually come off, it'll be a horrible fall. That said Lucinda Green rides in one which makes me wonder just a little bit...

 

[Rum Tum]

PaulC - your comments are really interesting. I agree that BE have taken the lead with frangible pins and I think maybe they thought other countries/associations would follow on with other ideas eg the polystyrene logs. Have these been used at all recently? Course design is generally safer and the pins are a huge step forward. But years ago (after Richard Adams (?) was killed at Windsor, table fences were identified as dangerous, because if the horse gets very close and hits the front on the way up, it rolls across the table and lands on the rider the other side. There are still table type fences on virtually every course I walk. I know they are slightly tilted towards the takeoff side now, which makes them less upright. But the filled in corners are often very upright and are they not effectively tables?

I would love to see crush testing on the air jackets (all brands) and also on Exo type protectors, so we could make an informed choice. I realise that there is not a bottomless pit of money, but maybe £1 on every entry to go towards safety testing would work. Its in everyone's interests. I have always wondered if it shouldn't be the FEI taking the lead on this, rather than thinking its down to BE. As you say, they spent all the money on frangible pins and now everyone uses them. Or at least the FEI should organise some sort of 'whip round' between the eventing nations to create a pool of money for research.

 

[TarrSteps]

I totally agree and I did wonder when I typed those two names that if either actually come off, it'll be a horrible fall. That said Lucinda Green rides in one which makes me wonder just a little bit...

LG has become a big proponent of proactive safety measures these days (which wasn't always what you would have associated with her riding and teaching way back when . . .) both in her teaching and in her approach to the sport. It stands to reason she would support any and all advances. Also - I'm sure this will incite comment - she is someone's mother. This is not to say men aren't also concerned with keeping themselves in one piece but many women riders will tell you that having kids did increase their awareness not so much of their mortality, but of the necessity of staying in one piece.

I would say again it is not really pertinent which "name" does or does not wear an air jacket. I really don't see that they would be any more informed, on average, than any other group of riders. I do understand that emulation plays a big part in people's attitude towards things like this but then we are back to the question of how much should you rely on your own thoughts and independent investigation, and how much should you go with what other people tell you. . .

 

[TarrSteps]

PaulC - your comments are really interesting. I agree that BE have taken the lead with frangible pins and I think maybe they thought other countries/associations would follow on with other ideas eg the polystyrene logs. Have these been used at all recently? Course design is generally safer and the pins are a huge step forward. But years ago (after Richard Adams (?) was killed at Windsor, table fences were identified as dangerous, because if the horse gets very close and hits the front on the way up, it rolls across the table and lands on the rider the other side. There are still table type fences on virtually every course I walk. I know they are slightly tilted towards the takeoff side now, which makes them less upright. But the filled in corners are often very upright and are they not effectively tables?

I would love to see crush testing on the air jackets (all brands) and also on Exo type protectors, so we could make an informed choice. I realise that there is not a bottomless pit of money, but maybe £1 on every entry to go towards safety testing would work. Its in everyone's interests. I have always wondered if it shouldn't be the FEI taking the lead on this, rather than thinking its down to BE. As you say, they spent all the money on frangible pins and now everyone uses them. Or at least the FEI should organise some sort of 'whip round' between the eventing nations to create a pool of money for research.

The difference though is organisations like BE are responsible for course design, they are not responsible for personal safety decisions. It's true that they have adopted rules about helmets and body protectors following on from independent safety tensing but they are not and have never been responsible for testing or approving these products. I suspect air jackets will eventually come under the same heading but body protectors were around for decades before they became mandatory and even that did not meet with universal approval at the time.

Paul's point about possible restraint of trade issues is also a factor. It isn't really up to BE to endorse a particular product or technology and, in fact, they would potentially open themselves up to censure or worse if they did. You could argue this has been done in the past but I suspect not always for wholly altruistic reasons.


Don't get me wrong, I would be interested in seeing testing results and I believe people should take safety precautions as they see fit. But I think it's dangerous to think that "they" should be ultimately responsible for issues of personal safety. Individuals don't have input into course design, they do have a choice in safety equipment.

 

[Elf On A Shelf]

Could I just point out that jockeys ride in bps that are about as much use as a cardboard box, they hit the grounds at higher speeds, have horses landing on them, get stood on by others et al and generally take a pummeling yet none have died for many years - not an air jacket it sight.