Protective Equipment and Safety Standards - Musings

[Kat]

I'm currently in the market for a new body protector (and probably a skull cap too). I've been doing lots of research to try and find a suitable up to standard body protector that will fit my humongous knockers and not be too horrifically uncomfortable. Whilst researching I ended up down something of a rabbit hole of old HHO threads, in particular this archive thread from 10 years ago.

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/archive/index.php/t-193760.html

In that thread a couple of posters predicted that in 10 years standards will have moved on and we would all be wearing exo cage type protectors. The exo cage is no longer in production and there is no equivalent which seems a backward step. There is still no safety standard for air jackets.

Further both Kan (knox) and Dianese have in recent years had disagreements with BETA regarding the approval of their body protectors which seem to be far more advanced than the BPs offered by traditional body protectors as they utilise motorcycle safety technology.

When you buy a hat there are currently PAS015, SNELL and ATSM standards if your hat has all three you are buying one of the safest hats on the market. If a standard is no longer supported then the others will hopefully still be used. For Body protectors though BETA are the only standard that counts and there is one standard for all with no recognition of extra safety.

So are BETA and BE really representing the best interests of riders? Is the current system of approval fit for purpose? Should There be a new system? Should more be done to encourage innovation and the use of technology from other sports?

 

[wkiwi]

I think a lot of the testing procedures come down to money i.e. who is going to pay for new systems and legislation; Plus innovation can cost ££££££££££££££££

To be devil's advocate, is all this protection doing much use anyway? There is some research to suggest that people wearing protective gear behave differently (sometimes more recklessly) than those without, or that protective gear can limit movement (e.g. i was working at a university when they reversed a mandate on wearing steel-capped boots for staff working with cattle, as it reduced the ability to move feet out of the way of hooves; they became optional.

Also there is the issue of where do you stop - there are some high profile riders (including 'superman') who broke their neck between a helmet and a back protector. My last concussion was delivered by a shelf (yes, you read that right) but I have no intention of wearing a helmet around shelves or any other wooden or metal structure indoors.

It is also interesting that jockeys back protectors are at a lower safety standard than event riders (correct me if i am wrong on this but that is how i understand the standards involved).

In essence, life is a risk and how much do we protect ourselves, our horses, and how much is needed to be forced onto riders and how much should be voluntary.

just had another thought - why can't someone design a helmet to protect a horses head in rotational falls? (and ideally a protector for their back as well though may be too complex).

 

[Red-1]

The only thing I can add to your thoughts is that the new Racesafe is a world away from the old one. The holy grail of body protectors.

It may or may not be safer than before, but it is now comfortable enough that it is very wearable and that can only be a good thing.

I believe that Kan have sorted it out with the new standard now.


ETA - and BTW, I find that I am actually more windy when wearing a body protector. Kind of reverse psychology I think!

 

[Fiona]

I love my kan BP. So glad they got sorted with a BETA label.

Still v sad that the exo failed though.

Fiona

 

[Kat]

Kan and Dainese have both sorted out the new standard now but it was concerning.

I agree about being more windy in a BP than without. I definitely experienced that with my old BP but I think it was partly that is was a bit restrictive so affected stability.

 

[Orangehorse]

I wonder about children and protectors. When I was a child/teenager I fell off lots of times, and so did lots of other children yet real injuries were rare. Yet now it seems that children often fall off and break something and I wonder if the "straightjacket" effect of a body protector is hampering them. I know that protection is vital if jumping at speed over fixed fences, but for normal riding? I am interested to be pointed in the direction of research on this.

 

[Kat]

I think a lot of the testing procedures come down to money i.e. who is going to pay for new systems and legislation; Plus innovation can cost ££££££££££££££££.

Totally accept that point but are the costs of BETA registration stifling innovation?

Plus in the case of utilising technology from other spheres the innovation cost is less but there are costs involved in getting approval and making inroads in a different market.

to be devil's advocate, is all this protection doing much use anyway? There is some research to suggest that people wearing protective gear behave differently (sometimes more recklessly) than those without, or that protective gear can limit movement (e.g. i was working at a university when they reversed a mandate on wearing steel-capped boots for staff working with cattle, as it reduced the ability to move feet out of the way of hooves; they became optional. .

I think this is very relevant in the workplace, and in less organised leisure activities but in a regulated Sport like BE it isn't about choices and behaviour as to a large extent this is controlled by the rules it is about minimising the risks that remain.

Also there is the issue of where do you stop - there are some high profile riders (including 'superman') who broke their neck between a helmet and a back protector. My last concussion was delivered by a shelf (yes, you read that right) but I have no intention of wearing a helmet around shelves or any other wooden or metal structure indoors. .

Christopher Reeve was a very long time ago now and in Showjumping in the USA if i remember correctly so his BP was not necessarily up to BE standards. Having said that Andrew Nicholson suffered a nasty neck injury despite a body protector. However he recovered, who knows what would have happened without?

We must remember that serious injuries can happen in innocuous circumstances. I have a case at work where a bump of the head on a shelf caused brain damage but we can't wear helmet every day it is risk benefit analysis and your chance of sustaining a life changing injury is higher when eventing than in day to day life.

It is also interesting that jockeys back protectors are at a lower safety standard than event riders (correct me if i am wrong on this but that is how i understand the standards involved). .

They are I believe that this is due to analysis of the different risks. Due to the nature of the sport and the type of falls. Risk benefit analysis again it is more important for a jockey to be flexible to avoid being trampled. They also have fall training.

In essence, life is a risk and how much do we protect ourselves, our horses, and how much is needed to be forced onto riders and how much should be voluntary. .

Fair point but it is important that people can make informed choices

just had another thought - why can't someone design a helmet to protect a horses head in rotational falls? (and ideally a protector for their back as well though may be too complex).

I guess while people are being killed they are the priority.

 

[wkiwi]

I guess while people are being killed they are the priority.

Lol - This is where the world has gone wrong.

 

[Mule]

From what I understand helmets can prevent a broken skull but they don't prevent concussion.
Concussions are caused by the brain moving in the skull. All it takes is sudden violent movement. That's why you don't have to hit your head to get concussed.
I have no idea what type of equipment could be used to prevent concussion.

I don't know the extent of protection given by back protectors. I do believe I'm braver wearing one.
Last year I fell off and landed on my back on top of a log that my horse decided to stop at. I was wearing a back protector and wasn't even bruised. I imagine I would have been injured if I wasn't wearing one

 

[DabDab]

Interesting discussion to start...

I think safety standards always have limitations and particularly so when you're engaged in an athletic activity involving a live animal. Apart from hat and gloves I tend to avoid most safety equipment when riding/handling horses, predominantly because being able to move quickly is my priority over being better protected if I get stuck. But if I had restricted mobility then my value judgement would probably be different.

 

[JFTDWS]

I do think there is an issue with very prescriptive standards, in that they do reduce innovation and stifle development (or use) of novel products.

However, I do actually agree with wkiwi about the effects of PPE on risk assesment - there have certainly been studies in other fields about how people's risk perception changes with PPE, and I have definitely seen people falsely encouraged into risky activities by their nice, shiny safety stuff.

But to rely on sensible risk assessment and less PPE, you need good supervision and competent, experienced advice for people who are new to the sport, moving up levels, and, most of all, children, who aren't capable of assessing risk rationally. And since those are also lacking in many areas of equitation these days, it's not necessarily as simple as it seems.

I do feel quite strongly that body protectors can be a double edged sword though - they often do limit mobility and affect balance, particularly if not well fitted, or on very small children. There does have to be a bit of common sense applied - a small child on the lead rein may benefit more from not wearing a bp and developing their seat properly, whereas for a small child set loose, hooning around a course of jumps free range, it's probably a sensible precaution.