PDA

View Full Version : Helmet question for jswan



Ambrey
Nov. 16, 2007, 10:56 AM
I did not want to ask about this in the other thread, as it is off topic and I have given my condolences already. To me, there can be no "tsk tsk" ing or I told you so after a tragedy, but there can be reminders of the preciousness of life and learning.

But, Jswan wrote:


You wrote, "eliminate the possibility". The very sad truth is that helmets will not reduce the chance of serious head injury. They only reduce/mitigate minor head injuries

Do you have a reference for this? I'd be interested, as it is not something I've heard before (most of my helmet research has been in motorcycle/bicycle area, but certainly in that area helmets mitigate major injury).

Knowledge is power :)

Zevida
Nov. 16, 2007, 11:04 AM
The very sad truth is that helmets will not reduce the chance of serious head injury. They only reduce/mitigate minor head injuries.

I'm glad you started a new thread for this as I've got the exact same questions.

Seems more like people who are wearing helmets have only minor head injuries, so I guess you could say that the helmet only mitigated an already minor injury. On the other hand, maybe if they hadn't been wearing a helmet, the "minor" injury would actually have been major.

I think it is ridiculous to assume that the wool has been pulled over our eyes and that helmets (bike, motorcycle, horse-back riding) don't protect our heads from serious injury. We know they can protect from neck and back injuries, but they are designed entirely to protect from serious head injury. I would really like to know where your information came from.

Ginger
Nov. 16, 2007, 11:12 AM
Having taken a bad fall (horse hung a leg and flipped) that resulted in a cracked helmet and only a minor concussion, I can only say I'm sorry, that's simply ridiculous. My helmet saved my life and yes, it definitely "reduced the chance of a serious injury."

JSwan
Nov. 16, 2007, 11:16 AM
No - just anecdotal and personal observation. Actually - the helmet manufacturers will probably have the information you need.

You'd want to ask someone like Deltawave, who is a physician, or someone who can point you to the actual studies done on helmets (or other safety equipment)

I've noticed on this board that some people treat helmets as if they completely eliminate the possibility of head trauma. As I've seen for myself - if the accident is bad enough - or medical treatment delayed for some reason - the injury can be severe. Even fatal. Some injuries are crushing injuries. Some cause swelling that cannot be controlled. Some that might have been fatal result in permanent brain damage requiring 24/7 care.

I don't automatically assume that a person injured in a car accident wasn't wearing a seatbelt. I don't make similar assumptions about a rider in a riding accident. People think - riders falls and hits head. Therefore the helmet would have prevented any injury. But people get dragged, kicked, crushed, run into trees, impaled, all kinds of things. In the head.

I question those who think a helmet is a miracle product that will keep them safe. I always wear one, but do not think for one second that it eliminates the possibility of severe head trauma. Just like a safety vest does not eliminate the possibility of spinal or other trauma. (some people do think those vests offer that level of protection!


edited to add - you are taking my posts completely out of context. I was responding only to a poster who stated that helmets "ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY" of head injury.

I too have fallen and cracked my helmet. It acted as designed and REDUCED the level of injury I would have sustained had I not been wearing it. However, I still suffered an injury. No manufacturer that I'm aware of has made the claim that these helmets will eliminate the possibility of a head injury - even a severe one - when worn.

There are many types of accidents - and they are all different. The accident I witnessed in which a severe head injury was sustained was by a person wearing a certified helmet. And yes, there were those that were surprised that the guy got hurt - because helmets were supposed to PREVENT injury.

They can't prevent injury. They can only reduce or mitigate it. I'd never ride without my helmet. But I'm not dumb enough to think I can't be injured while wearing it.

Coreene
Nov. 16, 2007, 11:21 AM
Because I was not wearing a helmet when I took a header, I fractured my skull in seven places, fractured my jaw, had all the cartilage ripped up the right side of my nose, blew out my eardrum and had blood and csf pouring out of my nose and ear. Twelve years later and I still have vertigo, cannot smell through my left nostril and have terrible tinnitus, plus some other problems. Even now I am having a daily struggle, since I started Jenny Craig three weeks ago and there is more sodium in the food than I usually have, and salt really effects my vertigo.

Had I been wearing a helmet, I would still have been concussed, but the extent of the injuries would have been greatly reduced. This was told to me time and again by the doctors who treated me.

Even wearing a helmet cannot always save someone. But I do not chance riding without one. However, I do view it as an individual decision (while quietly hoping that anyone who chooses to go sans helmet does not go through what I go through).

Ambrey
Nov. 16, 2007, 11:25 AM
I've noticed on this board that some people treat helmets as if they completely eliminate the possibility of head trauma. As I've seen for myself - if the accident is bad enough - or medical treatment delayed for some reason - the injury can be severe. Even fatal. Some injuries are crushing injuries. Some cause swelling that cannot be controlled. Some that might have been fatal result in permanent brain damage requiring 24/7 care.


So what you meant to say was not that they do not reduce the chance, but that they do not eliminate the chance.

I think the wording here is very important. They certainly reduce the chance, as they absorb a significant amount of energy. But, just as a car accident can be so severe that a seatbelt/airbag/child safety seat cant save the occupants, the same is true of helmets.

My old helmet has a nice broad scrape on the side left by my horse's hoof. I don't really want to think what that would have done to my head.

I believe any physician who has ever seen a head trauma case will tell you- wear your helmet, please.

I had a boyfriend in college who had survived a traumatic brain injury. He was in a car accident, he was wearing his seatbelt- but he armed himself with knowledge and did speaking at local schools about TBI and how to do all you can to avoid what he went through. He was a rabid helmet advocate. And, sure enough, one day I found him on the road surrounded by ambulances- he'd been in a bike accident, and because he was wearing his helmet had only a concussion and bruising. He became even more of an advocate after that.

He would tell the kids stories about having to learn how to talk and walk all over again, about living with seizures, about being in a coma. Some pretty powerful stuff.

appychik
Nov. 16, 2007, 11:32 AM
I too would like some more information regarding helmet safety. I do hope that Deltawave chimes in. My BF (we'll call him B) had a guy call him up looking for hay. The guy is a neighbor (of sorts) and lives about 5 miles away. Over the summer he was air lifted from his home after an accident. B found out he was kicked in the head while cleaning out his horse's hooves (or picking something up off the ground). Regardless, he's lucky to be alive - was kicked in the forehead. Had he had a helmet on while doing this ground would, he probably wouldn't be here because he would have likely been kicked in the face.

So, this guy tells B that he'll never wear a helmet again. Even while riding, mind you this accident occurred while on the ground. B tells this guy he's gotta talk to me... because I'm always working around and behind my horses. I trust the one guy a lot (Gus) the younger one, not so much. They know I'm behind them, and whenever possible I always work off to the side. However, sometimes when you're doing things, such as braiding tails, you need to stand directly behind the horse, to get that nice symmetrical braid, right?

Going on... B tells me he'll never, ever wear a helmet when riding horses. Cause well, it can cause more harm then good. There's always the risk of that happening... just like the freak accidents when wearing a seatbelt actually killed the person - and the coronor's report stated the person would have lived had they not been wearing a seatbelt. It happens, but it's more likely, IMO, that you'll survive better and with less injuries, if you're wearing a seatbelt or in this case, a helmet.

I told B, cause he may be the one, that my kids will always wear helmets when riding horses. When they turn 18, it's their decision but I hope that they'll continue wearing them. He said "Nope. They won't wear a helmet." I'll even go as far, if it comes to that, to get information from different surgeons and ER doctors to back up my point. Who knows though?

So, yeah, I'd love more information hearing why helmets aren't good. I'll never not wear mine. I love it. And hate it. But, if you have a good fitting helmet, it shouldn't be an issue. Plus, I'd rather not be brain dead and live to be old, then be living as a vegetable because of being just irresponsible and stupid. JMHO.

So, please Deltawave, chime in. I need some ammo!!!

coloredhorse
Nov. 16, 2007, 11:36 AM
Professional editor and formerly in the consumer product safey area here chiming in on the wording. Yes, Ambrey, the wording is important, and yours is not quite precise either. Use of a helmet can reduce the severity of a head injury, not the chance of one occurring. As any ER nurse or doctor can tell you, even a minor, seemingly innocuous blow to the head causes some amount of injury (note the bump on the head I gave myself this very morning on a kitchen cabinet ... I have a headache from that little knock!). A properly designed helmet will dissipate the forces contacting the skull and, in most cases, lessen the resulting injury. It does not affect the chance of an injury-causing incident. Follow?

And statistics such as you expressed interest in are available via FOIA from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, as well as from ASTM and NIST. The AMA also tracks ER-treated injuries and has quite a lot of data. There is a developing trend to track cervical spine injuries as they relate to head injuries that I find quite interesting in terms of how it might affect helmet design for all helmet-wearing activities.

JSwan
Nov. 16, 2007, 11:37 AM
So what you meant to say was not that they do not reduce the chance, but that they do not eliminate the chance.

I think the wording here is very important. They certainly reduce the chance, as they absorb a significant amount of energy. But, just as a car accident can be so severe that a seatbelt/airbag/child safety seat cant save the occupants, the same is true of helmets.

My old helmet has a nice broad scrape on the side left by my horse's hoof. I don't really want to think what that would have done to my head.

I believe any physician who has ever seen a head trauma case will tell you- wear your helmet, please.

I had a boyfriend in college who had survived a traumatic brain injury. He was in a car accident, he was wearing his seatbelt- but he armed himself with knowledge and did speaking at local schools about TBI and how to do all you can to avoid what he went through. He was a rabid helmet advocate. And, sure enough, one day I found him on the road surrounded by ambulances- he'd been in a bike accident, and because he was wearing his helmet had only a concussion and bruising. He became even more of an advocate after that.

He would tell the kids stories about having to learn how to talk and walk all over again, about living with seizures, about being in a coma. Some pretty powerful stuff.

That's very sad. The gentleman I wrote of, wearing a helmet, as far as I know - has still not be able to go back to work. Permanent brain damage, finances drained, family under stress..... no matter how you look at these accidents - they are all tragedies.

These days I think we all know enough about these helmets to be wearing one. But - I won't get after someone for not doing so. (adults).

When I read these threads on helmets - there are always folks who seem to imply that these things somehow prevent injuries. I don't think we should have that level of faith in any safety product. To illustrate - there are those that stopped wearing seat belts when airbags came into use. Thinking (wrongly) airbag deployment would prevent injury. Some people found out the hard way that safety equipment doesn't always protect us as much as we'd like. Especially if we fail to follow instructions.

(helmets with loose chin straps, improperly fitted helmets, airbags were designed to work with seatbelts; not as a replacement)


I've seen lots of riding accidents - and I've been on the receiving end of a few myself. I don't notice many folks using safety stirrups, safety vests, neck protection that bull riders wear, etc.

But whenever I ask folks why they don't use that equipment religiously...... I am met with silence.

eqsiu
Nov. 16, 2007, 11:38 AM
Wearing a helmet can be the difference between wiping your own butt and needing someone to do it for you. It won't absorb all of the impact, but any reduction in trauma is worth it in my mind. I would rather have a serious concussion than a disabling head injury. I would rather have a mild concussion than a serious one. Etc.

monicabee
Nov. 16, 2007, 11:38 AM
Being old enough to remember the thin hunt caps of the seventies, I can say that even that rather inadequate shell held on by an elastic strap was a good thing. I can still hear the metallic "think" noise of a horse's shod hoof hitting my helmet - hard - as I lay in the dirt once. So any helmet is better than none.

When I asked a racehorse trainer where the exercise riders bought their helmets, she told me that her daughter, a dressage rider, had been killed when her horse reared in an indoor arena and her unhelmeted head struck a pipe. I immediately wished I hadn't asked, but that is just another story I remember when I go to a dressage clinic and see so many people riding without them.

While in general I appreciate the inherent conservatism and tradition of horse culture, this is one area where a lot of people seem to have a blind spot. Even (or especially) top riders.

Have any comparisons been done of sport helmets across the board? Motorcycle, bicycle, skiing, etc.? A look at the adoption curve in other sports might be informative. A brief glance online showed some statistics on bicycles which says that 80% of white collar urban bike commuters wear them, while only 10% of rural kids who ride to school do. About 50% of bike fatalities are kids under 15. (source: http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm)

eqsiu
Nov. 16, 2007, 11:40 AM
I don't notice many folks using safety stirrups, safety vests, neck protection that bull riders wear, etc.



Yet many don't wear helmets. Boggles my mind. :no:

JSwan
Nov. 16, 2007, 11:40 AM
[quote=appychik;2807936]
So, yeah, I'd love more information hearing why helmets aren't good. /quote]

I'd love to know where you read that "helmets aren't good". I certainly never wrote that. Nor would I.

JSwan
Nov. 16, 2007, 11:46 AM
Yet many don't wear helmets. Boggles my mind. :no:


When I was a kid I don't even think they existed. I never saw them for sale until I was an adult - and I said to myself - hey - that's a good idea - and bought one.

But I ask - again - why few to none of folks that wear certified helmets, avail themselves of all the other safety equipment out there. Why continually harp on the helmet thing? You don't mind having helmet hair but you don't want the bulk of a safety vest under your jacket - makes a person look less feminine????? The fact it might stop a broken rib from puncturing your lung, or spleen or liver laceration not good enough?

I don't care about the answer - I'd just like to know why folks blather on about certified helmets - yet don't respond when asked about all the other stuff that's out there. I certainly don't see any photos of folks all trussed up to ride. (except when the rules of their sport require it)

So - for folks that are interested in the never ending helmet debate - why don't you wear or use other safety equipment?

dutchmike
Nov. 16, 2007, 11:54 AM
The only two bad accidents I have seen both riders were using helmets.
1. broke his neck and died at the scene no helmet could have saved him.
2. A guy got his face kicked in, the helmet did nothing.Needed major surgery.

I have fallen off plenty with helmet and without one. One of my assistents never used a helmet and never got seriously hurt. Walking down the stairs she slipped hit her back and is paralised.

I know it sounds hard but I honestly believe that when your time comes you are going to go one way or another.

Yes people get hurt without an helmet but people wearing one get hurt just the same. So if you want to be safe don't ride.

rothmpp
Nov. 16, 2007, 12:00 PM
I will start this by saying that I do not always wear a helmet. I know that I should but I began riding enough years ago that helmets were really not much more than decorative, and it was very difficult for me to get used to riding with a helmet all the time. They were hot and uncomfortable. That being said - I always wear a helmet on young horses, green horses, hot horses, horses that I am trying/don't know, etc...

One example for you - when I tried my young horse last spring when I was purchasing him - I watched him go, and was confident that if he would do anything it would be to balk, not buck, rear, or bolt. Neither the owner of the horse or the barn owner (a trainer that I know, so she knows how I ride) asked that I put on a helmet, though I did since I won't ride a green broke 4 year old without one. Within 5 minutes I was on my back in the arena from the horse crow hopping and bucking basically from a standstill. I did not hit my head, but just by pure luck. After making sure I was alright, the one thing that the BO said that stuck with me was - "I'm so sorry that you came off, but thank you for reminding me to insist that anyone trying a horse on my property, even if I know them, needs to wear a helmet."

Moral of the story - wear a helmet. If you have any doubts, just read some stories about people attempting to recover from TBIs. Even mild ones take work and the people are often never 100% better. Give yourself every chance to lessen the chance for serious injury. The same reason that you wear a seatbelt in the car. Will this totally mitigate the possibility that you will get hurt in an accident? No. But will you have a better chance of surviving? Yes.

Ambrey
Nov. 16, 2007, 12:01 PM
But I ask - again - why few to none of folks that wear certified helmets, avail themselves of all the other safety equipment out there. Why continually harp on the helmet thing? You don't mind having helmet hair but you don't want the bulk of a safety vest under your jacket - makes a person look less feminine????? The fact it might stop a broken rib from puncturing your lung, or spleen or liver laceration not good enough?


Oh, that's easy. Because head injuries are more common, more debilitating, have more long-term consequences, and are more preventable than any other injury.

Because being in a hospital for 5 days doesn't give me the nightmares that having brain damage for a lifetime gives me.

Because my ribs are important, but my brain is who I am.

Because safety vests don't have decades of data showing their effectiveness in preventing injuries.

And because I don't own one yet, but I will :)

Ambrey
Nov. 16, 2007, 12:12 PM
Yes people get hurt without an helmet but people wearing one get hurt just the same. So if you want to be safe don't ride.

Wow, that's very black and white.

I will tell you one thing about the helmet "debate" that I do not understand. I don't understand how there can be any debate that it is safer to ride with a helmet.

If you choose not to wear one, that's fine. But educate yourself and look at the facts before you choose, rather than ignore them.

This is quoted from an article on Medscape. Link at

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/432438_4


In all published clinical series, including the present report, head injury is the most common cause of serious injury and death.[18-20] In one British study, 50% of hospital admissions after a horse-related injury were due to brain injury.[21] In our 75 patients, 5 died of a head injury, and another 28 survived after a significant head injury. A substantial body of epidemiologic evidence supports the use of approved helmets as a means of preventing brain injury during contact with horses.[22,23]

eqsiu
Nov. 16, 2007, 12:31 PM
So - for folks that are interested in the never ending helmet debate - why don't you wear or use other safety equipment?

Wasn't meaning to harp, I just wonder why you wouldn't complete the package. I must say though, I only use a safety vest if I'm not in a ring. Mainly because I'm lazy. But I have safety stirrups.

tangledweb
Nov. 16, 2007, 12:32 PM
When I read these threads on helmets - there are always folks who seem to imply that these things somehow prevent injuries.

Of course they prevent some injuries, you are trying to make it black and white.

Some things that would have been minor injuries unhelmeted are prevented. Some things that would have been major injuries unhelmeted become minor injuries. Of course some things that would have been major injuries without a helmet are still a major injury.

I don't really think there are many people who have magical faith that a helmet will stop any harm coming to them. There might be some, but others are probably just sloppy writers.

CurlyLindsay
Nov. 16, 2007, 12:41 PM
There's been no specific study on riding helmets, but "Bicycle helmets reduce traumatic brain injuries in bicyclists by 88 percent. The effectiveness of ASTM/SEI equestrian helmets is estimated to be comparable." this from http://www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d000901-d001000/d000978/2.html

appychik
Nov. 16, 2007, 12:42 PM
I'd love to know where you read that "helmets aren't good". I certainly never wrote that. Nor would I.

I should have clarified [sp?] that. I know you didn't write that. My BF said that - or something to that effect. I'd like to know where I can find information stating such. I believe they are good. But like anything else, there is a lot to take into consideration (fit being one thing).

So, sorry J Swan, I wasn't implying that you said that. I should have been more concise in my post. Sorry about that.

JSwan
Nov. 16, 2007, 12:46 PM
You'd be surprised how many people think certified helmets are only for beginners. That once you are as good as they are (the persons who asserted this) helmets were no longer necessary.

One of those people also said Stubben saddles were for beginner riders - you had to "graduate" to a CC.

There's lot of interesting people out there. And there are truly and honestly some who think helmets prevent an injury.

I think riding with a helmet is pretty much a no-brainer, pardon the pun. But I don't have the faith in them a lot of y'all seem to have.

So far only one person has answered my question about other safety equipment. For the person who wrote about a broken rib - I'd just like you to know that you can bleed to death from a lacerated spleen or liver. There's more than one way to die - or suffer brain damage.

I'm fascinated by the silence on that issue. I think it's very telling. Some folks seem to only be interested in helmets - because that is the equipment THEY use - and so everyone else should use it too. But extend that thinking to encompass all other equipment...... there is silence.

Again - I don't care what y'all wear or don't wear. You don't have to justify your choices - I'm just interested in learning about them.


appchik - No problem - no offense taken! :-)

tangledweb
Nov. 16, 2007, 12:47 PM
So - for folks that are interested in the never ending helmet debate - why don't you wear or use other safety equipment?

I am not actually very interested in the helmet debate. Can I answer anyway?

I usually wear a helmet, for reasons that are probably obvious. I am fussy about what helmets I wear (especially in the heat) so I have comfortable ones, so when I don't wear one the only reason is vanity. Hunt caps, bowlers and top hats just look nicer so I show in them when legal and on a suitable horse.

I sometimes wear a vest at times when I am not forced by rules to do so, but only when I am doing something more risky than average. Lots of riding falls break ribs and collar bones, but really life altering injuries to the torso seem fairly rare. It is a level of risk I am willing to take for the increased comfort and freedom of movement.

I don't use safety stirrups because I don't think stirrup related dragging happens very often to adults wearing proper boots and stirrups that fit. In my experience it mostly happens to children whose feet are small enough to slip through a too large stirrup. Safety stirrups look like they would all fail from time to time and release prematurely.

Everybody chooses a level of risk they are comfortable with. Some people choose to cower in their basement wearing a tinfoil hat surrounded by enough tinned food to survive a disaster. Some people choose to drink too much, drive too fast and have unprotected sex all at the same time.

Most people are comfortable at a level of risk somewhere in between the two ends of the spectrum.

JSwan
Nov. 16, 2007, 12:58 PM
That seems very reasonable.

But I take exception to the tinfoil hat comment. I happen to like mine very much!

My niece's saddle has the peacock stirrups on them - for the reasons you stated. I've only seen one dragging incident with an adult.

I have a vest from my teeny weeny level eventing days - but I do not wear it hunting. Nor do I use safety stirrups.

Actually - I don't see much safety equipment in the dressage arena or the hunt field. But we all know dressage riders break just as easily as other mortals, and hunting most assuredly isn't risk free.

I'm not much interested in the helmet debate either. I'm sure folks are supremely uninterested in if I wear a helmet or not. I sure don't care if they wear one or not - we all know the score even if we like to think we'll beat the odds.

appychik
Nov. 16, 2007, 01:03 PM
Oh, that's easy. Because head injuries are more common, more debilitating, have more long-term consequences, and are more preventable than any other injury.

Because being in a hospital for 5 days doesn't give me the nightmares that having brain damage for a lifetime gives me.

Because my ribs are important, but my brain is who I am.

Because safety vests don't have decades of data showing their effectiveness in preventing injuries.

And because I don't own one yet, but I will :)

Well said. And I do own a safety vest. However, I only use it jumping (which I don't do anymore) or when I will eventually attempt to back my youngster again. The last attempt I ended up with a very swollen ankle from being dragged. No safety equiptment would have saved me from that. I got caught in the reins. Thank god I wasn't wearing proper boots (I had on rubber boots) because fortunately about 30 sec. into it, my boot popped off. I wish there was some sort of safety feature for reins... It would have my accident a lot last traumatic.

And, I'll add, back when I did jump a lot, I always showed with my vest, under my jacket. I may have looked a little manly - cause of the fit, but well, it kept me safe and thinking better. I like my vest, just don't wear it while working in dressage. It's a bit impractical, IMO. But I have no issues wearing it if were required.

As Ambrey put it, there isn't a lot of factual evidence showing it protects as much as helmets do. And until then, I won't wear it while working with my 18 yr. old gelding... I don't see the need as he's definitely not going to buck, rear, etc on me. He's too lazy. But, you never know.

ETA: I'm not for a helmet debate either, because I guess I really don't care what others do. However, when I have kids, they will be wearing a helmet or no riding - whatsoever. It would be great if they'd do some statistics about riding accidents though. I'd like to get some good evidence, especially using all these new helmets (like GPAs) versus the tried and true ones (like Troxel's Legacy and other Troxel helmets).

poltroon
Nov. 16, 2007, 01:19 PM
I have a vest and it's fairly comfortable. I enjoy wearing it for cross-country. But, I don't feel that it provides that much protection unless I'm going to fall off and hit something solid, like a jump.

My daughter's saddle has safety stirrups. I have the 4-way flex stirrups, though for comfort rather than safety. I wear appropriate footwear, which I consider to be a safe situation.

I do wear a helmet, and I've fallen on my head with one rather too many times. I have no doubt that helmets have saved me from more serious injury.

JSwan
Nov. 16, 2007, 01:19 PM
Reasonable response as well.

What y'all are doing is weighing risks.

But..... the problem with accidents is that we usually don't think that 18 year old horse is going to buck us off. Or that wearing a vest while jumping is okay - but you don't wear it on the flat. Or you only wear a helmet while jumping because the risk of injury is greater than on the flat.

When you get hurt on the flat - you'll think - geez - if only I'd be wearing my safety vest.... helmet, blah blah blah. Or someone has the bad taste to tell you that while you're being stuck in the ambulance.

People on the "helmetless" side make those same distinctions. They're just saying - hey - my risk of head injury doing dressage is less than if I was jumping. So I think the risk is reasonable. Or I'm riding an old horse, or I'm a great rider.....

They're just justifying their decisions by rationalizing. The same way others do with vests, or safety stirrups, etc. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

I don't happen to agree with it. But whatever floats your boat.

I've always wanted to wear a derby out foxhunting and in dressage tests, but never have because they are not approved. Turns out a poster on this BB informed me that Troxel makes a derby for Saddleseat riders. It's very expensive, but may be of interest to those dressage riders who prefer a more traditional turnout for the lower levels. Hopefully the price will come down and they'll do something with the harness....


poltroon - I use those stirrups too - and I believe they have helped me be a bit safer. Not because of the design itself, but because with hunting, we are in the saddle so long that my joints start really hurting. Or I get tired. I didn't think there was much difference in my seat until I switched back to Fillis stirrups for comparison. After a few hours - I was much looser in the tack using the Fillis stirrups. And my knees and ankles were killing me.

Purely anecdotal - I have no science to back it up. All I can say is that a tired rider that is loose in the tack may end up on the ground. So I got rid of all my Fillis Stirrups. I don't know that they make any difference in dressage at all - but I put them on my dressage saddle as well.

tangledweb
Nov. 16, 2007, 01:23 PM
I used to think that tinfoil hat wearers were a huge untapped market. I set up an internet store to sell them tinfoil hats in a range of fashion colours and styles.

Unfortunately, it turns out that TFH wearers don't have credit cards, wouldn't use them on the internet if they did and don't want to tell you where they live, so it was not a great success.

Daydream Believer
Nov. 16, 2007, 01:25 PM
I absolutely believe that I owe my life to wearing an ASTM helmet the day that my quiet old event horse flipped over backwards on me. I walked away from that wreck seeing stars (literally) and the entire front of my helmet was crushed. The worst wrecks I have had were doing flat work...that day and later on a three year old where I suffered memory loss after a bad fall. Every single time I get on a horse I have an ASTM helmet on. While I might break a rib or injure something else in a bad wreck, I feel like if afterwards I least know who I am and who the people around me are and have my mind intact, I could cope with a debilitating injury...like Christopher Reeve...he found meaning in his life but might well not have survived with his mind intact if he had not had a helmet on that day. So...I wear a helmet in the hope that at least my head is as protected as it can be...and of course, it might not save my life but the odds are good it will greatly improve my chances to not just survive but to prevent a major head injury.

I am stupified when people continue to refuse to wear a helmet and make excuses that they don't work or help that much. Story after story of helmet wearing people who walk away from horrible accidents like the one I had, while certainly not a scientific study, certainly ought to make one wonder. Then we hear of tragedies, like this one and the little girl who died from Barrelworld magazine (written by her mother), of people dead with no helmet on....and yes, there is nothing wrong to ask. It is a horrible enough thing to lose someone you love in an accident like this but to always wonder, what if they'd only had a helmet on....would they be alive...., is not something I'd wish on anyone. For pity's sake if you won't wear a helmet for yourself, wear one for your loved ones so they won't have to second guess forever, what if?

JSwan
Nov. 16, 2007, 01:28 PM
DB - farmers have the same arguments on farm safety. Why don't folks get after market roll over protection for their old tractors. Why don't they wear their seatbelts. Why do they still refuel their tractors when they're running.

Same sh** - different activity.

sm
Nov. 16, 2007, 01:36 PM
I am stupified when people continue to refuse to wear a helmet and make excuses that they don't work or help that much.

There is no scientific basis for the statement in the OP, “The very sad truth is that helmets will not reduce the chance of serious head injury. They only reduce/mitigate minor head injuries.”

Helmuts must play a significant factor, along with other saftey measures. According to this study, "Head injury remains the predominant cause of death. Prevention of death from horse-related trauma is synonymous with prevention of head injury. " http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/432438_4

AM
Nov. 16, 2007, 01:41 PM
Appychick, I've read your description of your neighbor's accident several times and just don't understand the conclusion that wearing a helmet would have killed him. You said the neighbor was kicked in the forehead. If he had been wearing a helmet, he would have been dead because he would have been kicked in the face. It seems to me that had he been wearing a properly fitting helmet which covers at least part of the forehead, the kick could just as easily have glanced off the helmet. If the helmet had a brim, or even if it didn't, a kick to the forehead would first touch the helmet bringing the force disipation properties of the helmet into play.

Daydream Believer
Nov. 16, 2007, 01:52 PM
DB - farmers have the same arguments on farm safety. Why don't folks get after market roll over protection for their old tractors. Why don't they wear their seatbelts. Why do they still refuel their tractors when they're running.

Same sh** - different activity.

I don't think it's the same at all. Horseback riding for most people is a diversion...not something we do for a living but a sport we engage in for competition or enjoyment. It is a sport where head injuries are frequent and we have helmets, proven safety equipment easily and cheaply obtained, that anyone can use. Children who ride are not aware of the risks and it is their parent's responsibility to do the best they can to keep them safe. An adult can decide for themselves...but I wonder often how many times that adult really is fully aware of the risks, the stats, and just how debilitating a head injury can be.

When I hear of someone having a head injury coming off a bike or a motorcycle, I feel the same exact way if they were not using the most basic of safety equipment like a helmet. I wonder how they could be so foolish...

An interesting question...if helmets don't reduce risk of severe injury, why does my insurance company insist that any person under 18 wear a helmet on my farm that they insure? An adult who rides has to sign a waiver and can ride without a helmet, but not a child. Why also has New York State adopted a helmet law for children under 14 for horseback riding? Those rules were not made for nothing...they were made because risk was assessed and the risk was unacceptably high for injuries.

I lost a good friend some years ago who was wearing a non ASTM helmet and had a bad fall on XC. Her name was Amanda Warrenton...and many will remember her. She fell at a straightforward jump on a horse that later went on very successfully with a different rider...certainly a very talented horse. She never woke up after the wreck on XC. Shortly after that, the ASTM helmets became mandatory for that sport. I will always wonder what if...and dammit...I don't want my husband or my family to wonder the same way about me. If I die while wearing my helmet than they can at least not second guess that as they try to get on with their lives.

Ambrey
Nov. 16, 2007, 01:58 PM
Appychick, I've read your description of your neighbor's accident several times and just don't understand the conclusion that wearing a helmet would have killed him. You said the neighbor was kicked in the forehead. If he had been wearing a helmet, he would have been dead because he would have been kicked in the face. It seems to me that had he been wearing a properly fitting helmet which covers at least part of the forehead, the kick could just as easily have glanced off the helmet. If the helmet had a brim, or even if it didn't, a kick to the forehead would first touch the helmet bringing the force disipation properties of the helmet into play.

Agreed, I don't see how the helmet would have changed where the horse's foot hit him?

I think it's an improper conclusion drawn by a poor understanding of basic physics.

Take your boyfriend outside. Put a basketball or other head-shaped object on the ground. Kick it toward the top.

Then put a helmet on it, and kick it in the same place.

Imagine how each kick would have felt if that was your head.

When the hoof hits the helmet, the helmet is pushed away by the force of the kick, but the force to your head is distributed by the area of the helmet. It isn't like kicking a helmet that is bolted to an iron post- the hoof won't just slide off and hit something else.

JSwan
Nov. 16, 2007, 02:29 PM
[quote=Daydream Believer;2808359]I don't think it's the same at all. Horseback riding for most people is a diversion...not something we do for a living but a sport we engage in for competition or enjoyment. It is a sport where head injuries are frequent and we have helmets, proven safety equipment easily and cheaply obtained, that anyone can use. Children who ride are not aware of the risks and it is their parent's responsibility to do the best they can to keep them safe. An adult can decide for themselves...but I wonder often how many times that adult really is fully aware of the risks, the stats, and just how debilitating a head injury can be.

When I hear of someone having a head injury coming off a bike or a motorcycle, I feel the same exact way if they were not using the most basic of safety equipment like a helmet. I wonder how they could be so foolish...





The problem with the recent responses is that you are taking one sentence of a post I wrote in a different thread, and which was quoted out of context by a person who started this thread, and then going off in a lot of different directions and assuming I meant things I never actually wrote - or even implied. Please tell me y'all are smarter than that.

I'd prefer if y'all didn't take things out of context and then put words in my mouth. If any of you had really read what I wrote - you'd know I was responding to a person, on another thread, who insisted that helmets "ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY" of head injury.

If you want to debate the merits of wearing or not wearing a helmet - go for it. I don't care. I wear one, know they help dissipate some impact in certain types of falls. And unlike a lot of you - didn't have to have a near death experience to figure it out.

That's not what I was talking about when I wrote on this subject on another thread - and for the last time - responding to a specific post which stated helmets eliminate the possibility of head injury.

Don't be so impatient to put your 2cents in that you fail to understand what people are trying to say.

And for Daydream Believer - I was not implying that farm safety was the "same thing". All I meant by that is that people in many dangerous activities often believe bad things are not going to happen to them. Hence the emphasis on farm safety by insurance companies.

Since you operate your own facility, I have no doubt you not only follow all recommended safety guidelines for operating farm equipment, you take advantage of every program out there - including annual farm safety checks?

If not - don't you think you're picking and choosing your risks just like riders do? Who cares that one is a job and the other is a hobby? And when did I ever imply that helmets were not a good idea?

I have noticed that in these helmet threads too many people think wearing a helmet is some sort of guarantee that they WILL NOT suffer a head injury. But they can - and it can still be severe - even fatal. I suggest people not place too much faith in helmets - I never suggested they not wear one. Geez - y'all need to switch to decaf.

Ambrey
Nov. 16, 2007, 02:45 PM
I'd prefer if y'all didn't take things out of context and then put words in my mouth. If any of you had really read what I wrote - you'd know I was responding to a person, on another thread, who insisted that helmets "ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY" of head injury.

Um, I started this thread because you said that helmets would not reduce the risk of serious head injury. I don't believe I quoted out of context at all- I simply quoted what you said, whereas apparently I was supposed to know that wasn't actually what you meant.

JSwan
Nov. 16, 2007, 02:53 PM
Um, I started this thread because you said that helmets would not reduce the risk of serious head injury. I don't believe I quoted out of context at all- I simply quoted what you said, whereas apparently I was supposed to know that wasn't actually what you meant.

As another poster wrote - that was imprecise. (my writing was imprecise). People have posted the data you requested. As you see, and as I asserted in the other thread - helmets don't guarantee anything. (which was in reply to another poster). We can only take steps to mitigate - we can never eliminate the possibility of a head injury. Again - I must emphasize that when we have these helmet threads - there are always people that seem to think helmets provide some sort of absolute protection. They don't - and I don't think any manufacturer has asserted that.

Serious and fatal head injuries happen even with helmets. They are not an absolute protection. For the poor woman that was killed - trust me - her family and friends don't want or need to hear that "if only" crap at this time. Which is why I replied to that poster in the first place.

None of that was ever intended to imply that wearing a helmet is not a good idea. If y'all are inferring that from anything I've written - you are incorrect. Good Gawd - none of y'all have to be rocket scientists to figure that out.

Velvet
Nov. 16, 2007, 02:53 PM
[QUOTE=J Swan;2808273]Why do they still refuel their tractors when they're running.
[QUOTE]

:lol: Like this is a HUGE risk. Just talk to people who live in VERY cold climates (try Alaska) and talk to them about this one. I have never seen a problem, and neither have they. Most people in those place HAVE to leave the engine running.

I know this is OT, but it was just so funny to see it posted in this topic I couldn't resist a reply. :lol:

As for helmets, I think so many people are so worried about dying because they really aren't sure where they're going after they die--or don't believe there is anything else. So they hold on to this place as if they can put off death by wearing a helmet, or many other things. This is not to say there isn't a place for safety equipment, it does offer protection and does lessen the risk exposure in SOME situations--I wear one. But as others have pointed out, you have to accept some risk in life and you also have to realize that once you're born you will die. No helmet will stop that when you're number is called. (I'm addressing risk to ones self, not putting other people at risk with your actions. This is about taking responsibility for your own life and actions that only impact yourself. No one should be able to take away your freedom for paying for your own stupidity. It's one of the freedoms we still have in the USA. :D )

JSwan
Nov. 16, 2007, 03:02 PM
[quote=J Swan;2808273]Why do they still refuel their tractors when they're running.
[quote]

:lol: Like this is a HUGE risk. Just talk to people who live in VERY cold climates (try Alaska) and talk to them about this one. I have never seen a problem, and neither have they. Most people in those place HAVE to leave the engine running.

I know this is OT, but it was just so funny to see it posted in this topic I couldn't resist a reply. :lol:
I can see the humor in it but since I helped out a neighbor who suffered 2nd and 3rd degree burns from a refueling fire.... you can understand why I'd bring it up. We all take risks, hopefully for valid reasons. Extreme cold would be one of them. In the case of the local farmer - he was losing the light and needed to get his crops in. So he just did it - because he'd done it before and it was ok. It's not as if it's a huge risk, right?

But.... for his family and friends, his decision had an unfortunate outcome. Still - refueling this way is done all the time - even by the farmers who helped this guy get his crops in while he was in the hospital.

I guess you can go round and round on this thinking. I almost flipped the tractor the other day and thought - well - at least I'm wearing my seatbelt. Still - I knew if I rolled that tractor I was in deep doo doo. But I still wear the seatbelt.....

Ambrey
Nov. 16, 2007, 03:05 PM
None of that was ever intended to imply that wearing a helmet is not a good idea. If y'all are inferring that from anything I've written - you are incorrect. Good Gawd - none of y'all have to be rocket scientists to figure that out.

I'm not sure what kind of scientist I'd have to be to know that "The very sad truth is that helmets will not reduce the chance of serious head injury. They only reduce/mitigate minor head injuries" doesn't mean that helmet use doesn't reduce the risk of serious head injury.

It really isn't a big deal that you miswrote, but I'm a bit offended that you're now insulting my intelligence for thinking you actually meant what you were writing. I miscommunicate in writing all the time, but when faced with my own words I usually say something to the effect of "oh, well that's not what I meant to say!" and I move on. I don't turn around and tell the person quoting me that they must have been stupid to believe I meant to say that.

Daydream Believer
Nov. 16, 2007, 03:10 PM
j swan,

If you go back and read what I wrote, I said that I realized the helmets were no guarantee of preventing an injury or saving your life also...but it's pretty clear that they can really help in many situations and have saved many lives. I also pretty much read your OP in the same way Ambry did on the other thread but I appreciate you clarifying what you meant.

You're darn right that I'm safety concious around my farm and we do check our equipment and we take all reasonable precautions while working around horses which are inherently dangerous to be around. I also take my insurance premium seriously and what hoops I, as a commercial farm owner, have to go through in these litigous times to keep my risks down and make a business like mine worth operating. To me, using safety equipment proven to moderate injuries and save lifes...particularly for your children, should be a given but unfortunately you can't legislate common sense....so I have to make each and every person who rides on my property sign that waiver and no child mounts without an ASTM helmet...period...not open for debate.

Maybe my opinions are stronger due to the loss of my friend...and my own narrow escapes from tragedy. I don't know but I hate the lackadaisical attitude many people have about using basic safety gear and I hate seeing injuries that might well have been prevented.

JSwan
Nov. 16, 2007, 03:19 PM
"You and y'all" is meant in the collective sense, not individually. I stand by what I wrote - imprecise as it was. A severe - and I mean severe head injury is not the same as a minor concussion. If someone has a bad enough fall that their brains look like mush.... chances are the helmet wasn't going to save them. At that point - the helmet is pretty much just holding their brains in.

To me - that's what a severe head injury is. Crushing injuries, kicks in the face, etc. Not taking a header off your horse and replacing your helmet. That's minor compared to the types of head injuries that can occur in the hunt field, on the race track, or similar accidents outside a sandy arena.

I wasn't insulting your intelligence - I'm wondering why on earth folks have to state I did not advocate wearing the friggin helmet, and continually take posts out of context.

Wear it - don't wear it. I don't care either way. When people are so vociferous about helmets....often I get the impression they are really saying, "Why can't everyone be like me?"




I'm not sure what kind of scientist I'd have to be to know that "The very sad truth is that helmets will not reduce the chance of serious head injury. They only reduce/mitigate minor head injuries" doesn't mean that helmet use doesn't reduce the risk of serious head injury.

It really isn't a big deal that you miswrote, but I'm a bit offended that you're now insulting my intelligence for thinking you actually meant what you were writing. I miscommunicate in writing all the time, but when faced with my own words I usually say something to the effect of "oh, well that's not what I meant to say!" and I move on. I don't turn around and tell the person quoting me that they must have been stupid to believe I meant to say that.

JSwan
Nov. 16, 2007, 03:29 PM
j swan,

Maybe my opinions are stronger due to the loss of my friend...and my own narrow escapes from tragedy. I don't know but I hate the lackadaisical attitude many people have about using basic safety gear and I hate seeing injuries that might well have been prevented.

Thank you. I think my reaction is probably a little different from yours. I don't hate the attitude - I just notice that they're not wearing it and shrug it off. If they haven't figured it out - me bringing it up isn't going to do anything.


Of course - it could very well be that people have seen me ride and said to themselves, "I'm sure glad she wears a helmet because she can't sit a horse to save her life...." ;)

On farm safety... well - some folks are more concerned than others. I tend to fall in the middle.

Ambrey
Nov. 16, 2007, 03:37 PM
"You and y'all" is meant in the collective sense, not individually. I stand by what I wrote - imprecise as it was. A severe - and I mean severe head injury is not the same as a minor concussion. If someone has a bad enough fall that their brains look like mush.... chances are the helmet wasn't going to save them. At that point - the helmet is pretty much just holding their brains in.

OK, well I can say that this is not true. The amount of energy that a helmet can absorb would, indeed, crush your skull.

Fatal head injuries are rare while wearing a helmet, when they do happen it's often because either the helmet came off or the injury was to an uncovered part.

Helmets reduce the severity of severe head injuries, and often eliminate minor ones. They are very, very effective.

There is a study of horse-related deaths in australia that is quite telling, especially this quote:


Major head injury was the cause of death in five of the six children who died, none of whom were wearing a helmet when their heads struck the ground.

This is out of over 200 children injured while riding- every fatality was helmetless.

There are other studies showing that major head injuries are rare in people who ride in helmets.

So, again, I'd ask for data that supports your assertion, that helmets do not reduce the risk of severe head injuries?

mr_miamis_mom
Nov. 16, 2007, 03:38 PM
As for helmets, I think so many people are so worried about dying because they really aren't sure where they're going after they die--or don't believe there is anything else. So they hold on to this place as if they can put off death by wearing a helmet, or many other things.

Actually I am less afraid of dying than permanent mental impairment and being a burden on my family. Thank goodness I have a living will, which should be a thread for another day! ;)

Daydream Believer
Nov. 16, 2007, 03:49 PM
Thank you. I think my reaction is probably a little different from yours. I don't hate the attitude - I just notice that they're not wearing it and shrug it off. If they haven't figured it out - me bringing it up isn't going to do anything.


Maybe "hate" is too strong of a word...I just can't understand how people can brush off helmet use with saying "when it's your time you will die with or without one." That's just too fatalistic, too much of a cop out, and to me, irresponsible to others who care about you....it's like saying you don't care enough about those you leave behind to take reasonable precautions to moderate risks while engaging in a high risk sport. I strongly believe that we have a lot of control over our destiny and while some things cannot be prevented, we can take reasonable precautions. And...no...I am not afraid to die and what comes after. I'm just like a bad penny...I'll get recycled and come back....but I still have a lot left to do in this life and am looking forward to an easy retirement someday. :winkgrin: :cool:

I have one boarder I'll tell you about. Her daughter always wears her helmet by the rules but she thinks nothing of getting on this mare bareback and galloping around the property at full speed...between trees, fenceposts, etc...and she's no expert rider...kind of scarey to watch her. I once asked her if she was worried about orphaning her daughter if she ever had a bad wreck and bashed her head in and she shrugged and said that she knew she should wear a helmet but figured the risks were very low of her having an accident that bad. She may be right but I wonder how many people feel that way until they wake up in a hospital (if they are lucky)? :no:

JSwan
Nov. 16, 2007, 03:54 PM
Oh for Christ's sake give it a rest. Now you'll take a quote out of an entire study that didn't even address what I was talking about? I take back what I said about your intelligence. You're trying to pick a fight by arguing over minutae. Sorry - hon - not interested. Go start a thread on Anky or rollkur.

No data exists that proves the point another person made in a thread - that helmets eliminate the possibility of severe head injury. Again - no manufacturer has asserted that these helmets will do that.

They don't - no matter what study you look at - people still get hurt or die. My point was not to place such great faith in these products - as severe injuries can and DO happen. Some people insist on thinking these products are an absolute protection against injury. They're not. Nothing is absolute. But every time a thread is started about someone who died - people post about how these helmets are some sort of perfection invention.

They're not. That's all I was saying. And you know that. Now you just want to quibble to get some sort of point across.... which I'm not sure what it could be since I agree that helmets do offer a greater level of protection.

In case you haven't figured it out..... yet..... I never indicated that riding without a helmet was a good idea. So I'm not quite sure why you're bringing out a quote about helmetless kids in Australia with head injuries. :confused:



OK, well I can say that this is not true. The amount of energy that a helmet can absorb would, indeed, crush your skull.

Fatal head injuries are rare while wearing a helmet, when they do happen it's often because either the helmet came off or the injury was to an uncovered part.

Helmets reduce the severity of severe head injuries, and often eliminate minor ones. They are very, very effective.

There is a study of horse-related deaths in australia that is quite telling, especially this quote:



This is out of over 200 children injured while riding- every fatality was helmetless.

There are other studies showing that major head injuries are rare in people who ride in helmets.

So, again, I'd ask for data that supports your assertion, that helmets do not reduce the risk of severe head injuries?

JSwan
Nov. 16, 2007, 03:56 PM
And...no...I am not afraid to die and what comes after. I'm just like a bad penny...I'll get recycled and come back....but I still have a lot left to do in this life and am looking forward to an easy retirement someday. :winkgrin: :cool:

Me too! With my helmet. ;)

dutchmike
Nov. 16, 2007, 04:03 PM
I ride with and without but what always suprises me is that people that ride hatless you never hear but those who wear helmets always try to force their will onto others. If older then 18 years old it should be someones own choice.The last time I checked the use of a helmet is a free choice.
I have been riding for a long time ,worked most of my life with problem horses and I am still here. I have had horses fall on me ,roll over me, a car crash in which I flew through 2 windscreens and into the back seat of the car in front. I really don't care what others think about what I do but hate it when people try to push their believes into my way of thinking. I will ride with a helmet and without a helmet as I feel fit. Why are helmet users like ex smokers?.

appychik
Nov. 16, 2007, 04:12 PM
Appychick, I've read your description of your neighbor's accident several times and just don't understand the conclusion that wearing a helmet would have killed him. You said the neighbor was kicked in the forehead. If he had been wearing a helmet, he would have been dead because he would have been kicked in the face. It seems to me that had he been wearing a properly fitting helmet which covers at least part of the forehead, the kick could just as easily have glanced off the helmet. If the helmet had a brim, or even if it didn't, a kick to the forehead would first touch the helmet bringing the force disipation properties of the helmet into play.


AM - It's not my neighbor, sorry if that was confusing. It's my BF's parents neighbor. You're right on the account that a properly fitting helmet would not have slipped back. In fact, mine has little to no "give" in it. It fits very snuggly and I like it that way. And what you said makes a lot of sense. I was just relaying what my BF said to me last night about his neighbor. It's interesting. The doctors at the ER said he probably would have died had he been wearing a helmet, but who knows? Perhaps the helmet would have done it's job and taken the brunt of the impact? All I know, from a second hand source, is that he was in such critical condition that he had to be air lifted.

That being said, I usually never wear a helmet while grooming....

But what you said really does make sense. Why can't I think of things like that when I'm in the mist of an good arguement?

sm
Nov. 16, 2007, 04:17 PM
I ride with and without but what always suprises me is that people that ride hatless you never hear but those who wear helmets always try to force their will onto others.

I don't know that's the case here, I believe the objection is to the BLATANT LIE that "helmets will not reduce the chance of serious head injury." I think all that is requested is the source of this info, since it is presented as TRUTH/FACT, a fair enough request:


You wrote, "eliminate the possibility". The very sad truth is that helmets will not reduce the chance of serious head injury. They only reduce/mitigate minor head injuries.

Nothing can eliminate the chance of any of us getting seriously hurt - no matter how much safety equipment we wear.

I have had a friend suffer a terrible head injury - while wearing a helmet - and the folks who started going on about the helmet thing were setting themselves up for a punch in the nose.

Tragedy's are bad enough for family and friends without having to deal with that sort of crap. Leave it.

RHdobes563
Nov. 16, 2007, 04:23 PM
A co-worker's 16 year old daughter on her horsewas lining up for a parade last July. The horse slipped; it was NOT acting up. Girl fell and hit her head. Girl in coma for several weeks, both original and medically-induced. She is now/still in a "rehabilitation/re-learning facility"; family and friends have held several money-raising events to cover medical expenses.

She was riding western, and of course, it's not "cool" to ride a helmet when riding western. I guess, as a 16 year old, she was 'old enough' to choose for herself whether or not she would wear a helmet; I'm sure her family is happy with her decision not to.

pandorasboxx
Nov. 16, 2007, 04:36 PM
I absolutely believe that helmets reduce the severity of head injuries and in some cases prevent the head from being injured at all (besides a slight headache). *warning-boring anecdote ahead*

I took a bad fall miles from help in a remote wilderness area. My helmeted head hit a huge boulder when I landed. Before passing into darkness, I thought I heard a shotgun go off in very close range. That was my helmet hitting HARD. Hard enough when I could come back to some sort of clarity, I tried to answer my friend and ended up spewing garbled, nonsense words. That scared the crap outta her. I remember thinking as I lay there, not feeling my body, "Boy I've really done it now."

Luckily I was eventually able to rise, albeit shakily, and finish my endurance ride. Fast forward 2 days later. I fell out of bed, unable to walk, throwing up as I crawled to a phone. Diagnosed with a wicked concussion several hours later. But I was alive with my pumpkin intact and able to ride again another day.

No doubts in my mind. I would have left brain matter and my life up there without the helmet.The horror of my thoughts when I momentarily thought that I was "Reeved" was enough to convince me of the absolute wisdom in wearing my helmet always.

appychik
Nov. 16, 2007, 04:37 PM
Agreed, I don't see how the helmet would have changed where the horse's foot hit him?

I think it's an improper conclusion drawn by a poor understanding of basic physics.

Take your boyfriend outside. Put a basketball or other head-shaped object on the ground. Kick it toward the top.

Then put a helmet on it, and kick it in the same place.

Imagine how each kick would have felt if that was your head.

When the hoof hits the helmet, the helmet is pushed away by the force of the kick, but the force to your head is distributed by the area of the helmet. It isn't like kicking a helmet that is bolted to an iron post- the hoof won't just slide off and hit something else.


Can't I just kick him in the head without a helmet and then with? :winkgrin: J/K. I know the reasons why.... but sheesh. He played hocky. I tried comparing helmet wearing in equine activities to hockey, he didn't see the correlation. Aggh!

Zevida
Nov. 16, 2007, 04:42 PM
No data exists that proves the point another person made in a thread - that helmets eliminate the possibility of severe head injury. Again - no manufacturer has asserted that these helmets will do that.

You keep bringing up this point even though many have already agreed that nothing can eliminate the possibility of an injury. However, you continue to posture that helmets cannot protect against serious head injuries, when in fact people have posted reports and studies showing that in fact do protect against serious head injuries.

JSwan
Nov. 16, 2007, 04:42 PM
I don't know that's the case here, I believe the objection is to the BLATANT LIE that "helmets will not reduce the chance of serious head injury." I think all that is requested is the source of this info, since it is presented as TRUTH/FACT, a fair enough request:


Bwwwwwwaaaaahahahahhahaha - blatant lie!! That's hysterical!!! Folks have posted the info she requested and which I didn't have.

News flash - people still end up eating jello or pushing up daises. Same with wearing a seat belt. Helmets to do not have magical (or even magikal) properties. They simply are a good idea and mitigate. Not eliminate!

Please..... don't be so dramatic! It's so over the top and it's making me giggle!


Zevida - y'all are again reading too much into all of this - and inferring things I have not implied. Y'all have gone waaaayyyyyyy beyond the intent of my original post, or the follow up ones. I was never interested in anything other than responding to the original post on the other thread. If y'all want to take up holy orders and go on your crusade - please find another heretic to finger. No study has proven the point made in the post in the other thread. Now - if y'all want to take that further and go in a different direction- please feel free. I never intended to discuss anything other than that one point. Nor was I interested in doing so.

Y'all are preaching to the choir, anyway.

sm
Nov. 16, 2007, 04:48 PM
J Swan, what people might be looking for is for you to revise your original post, so some kid doesn't come along and believe that blatant lie you posted, "The very sad truth is that helmets will not reduce the chance of serious head injury. They only reduce/mitigate minor head injuries."

Instead of tons of bandwidth insulting other people on this BB, had I written it, I would have said something like, "thanks for the catch. I did edit my original post, I can see your point."

I don't think any one wants to "pick on you" because they exhausted rollkur threads and figure you are a good substitute (or whatever you posted re Anky and rollkur).

JSwan
Nov. 16, 2007, 04:53 PM
J Swan, what people might be looking for is for you to revise your original post, so some kid doesn't come along and believe that absurd lie you posted.

Instead of tons of bandwidth insulting other people on this BB, had I written it, I would have said something like, "thanks for the catch. I did edit my original post, I can see your point. It was never my intention to dismiss safety measures."


I have said that, in my own words. But you might want to take your own advice since any kid could come along and think I'm a blatant liar after reading your posts. There is no intent to deceive - merely an observation about the efficacy of helmets.

oldenmare
Nov. 16, 2007, 05:01 PM
Good grief!!! Its like watching a train wreck occurring - I know I should look away but the thing is too **** compelling.....

With the amount of misstatements and misconstructions - some that seen unintentional, others obviously not - seems to me that wearing a helmet hasn't helped the brains of many here. Myself included as I took the time to post (well, I am utterly brain-fried with work at the moment so at least I have a legitimate excuse).

Ambrey
Nov. 16, 2007, 06:27 PM
Oh for Christ's sake give it a rest. Now you'll take a quote out of an entire study that didn't even address what I was talking about? I take back what I said about your intelligence. You're trying to pick a fight by arguing over minutae. Sorry - hon - not interested. Go start a thread on Anky or rollkur.

snip

In case you haven't figured it out..... yet..... I never indicated that riding without a helmet was a good idea. So I'm not quite sure why you're bringing out a quote about helmetless kids in Australia with head injuries. :confused:

Because you've said twice now that a helmet will not prevent a severe head injury. And I've responded twice now that YES A HELMET CAN PREVENT A SEVERE HEAD INJURY.

Of the 200 children who were injured, about 24 % was wearing a helmet- but of the children who died, none was wearing a helmet.

And you added to it by "If someone has a bad enough fall that their brains look like mush.... chances are the helmet wasn't going to save them." That's just not true. The amount of energy that can be absorbed by your helmet would have your brains looking like mush. It's why none of the 24% of kids wearing a helmet ended up dead.

So if you stop sticking to an already disproven hypothesis, I'll certainly "give it a rest."

Ambrey
Nov. 16, 2007, 06:28 PM
I have been riding for a long time ,worked most of my life with problem horses and I am still here. I have had horses fall on me ,roll over me, a car crash in which I flew through 2 windscreens and into the back seat of the car in front. I really don't care what others think about what I do but hate it when people try to push their believes into my way of thinking. I will ride with a helmet and without a helmet as I feel fit. Why are helmet users like ex smokers?.

I don't care if you don't use a helmet, as long as I don't have to change your diapers when you get hurt.

Ambrey
Nov. 16, 2007, 06:33 PM
I have said that, in my own words. But you might want to take your own advice since any kid could come along and think I'm a blatant liar after reading your posts. There is no intent to deceive - merely an observation about the efficacy of helmets.

You did?

Seems to me you simply restated it in a different way.

You also said people posted the information I asked for- and I'm totally confused about that. I didn't see any information indicating that helmets cant prevent severe head injuries?

dutchmike
Nov. 16, 2007, 08:18 PM
I don't care if you don't use a helmet, as long as I don't have to change your diapers when you get hurt.

MUM?.:lol:There comes a time we all have to wear diapers again:D. Listen I think it is good that people ride with a helmet but I just disagree in forcing a helmet down somebodies throat and claiming it safes your life. IMO a helmet a body protector and god only knows what else will be invented and makes you look like the Michelin man,horseriding has a certain risk factor which cannot be prevented no matter how much protection you have. I have seen some horrid riding accidents in my days but none would have been prevented by a helmet

Aggie4Bar
Nov. 16, 2007, 09:10 PM
Weird semantic argument in this thread.

I think some people may not understand the goal of helmet design. They aren't designed to prevent injury. They're designed to redistribute the force of impact through the helmet itself by means of purposeful material failure. The materials compress and/or crack as energy dissipates, minimizing the blow experienced by your skull and spreading it over a larger surface area. And though you walk away unscathed, you may not be able see the damage inflicted within the materials of the helmet. This is why it's important to replace the helmet following any fall that involves head impact.

While the helmet does a tremendous job to guard against external head injuries (skull fracture, lacerations), they do little for closed-head injuries. Brain injuries like concussions result from sudden deceleration of the brain when it smacks the inside of your skull. As someone in another thread once pointed out, the compression of the inner foam material when your head strikes something can be significant enough to help slow the brain and reduce bruising. That's if your head strikes something, and you'll still incur some degree of brain injury. Traumatic brain injuries can occur without external impact, and a helmet offers absolutely zero protection in those situations.

I would disagree that helmets cannot prevent injury. In cases where riders have walked away with cracked helmets, they may very well have ended up with cracked skulls had the helmet not been in place. But there are instances in which a helmet does not - and cannot - offer protection. That includes most internal head injuries.

Last note because it seems relevant based on other current threads...
Brain injuries involving impact to the back of the head tend to be the worst. There's a higher risk for a contrecoup injury involving the frontal regions of the brain. Essentially, you get a double whammy - injury at the location of impact, and injury on the opposite side of the impact as the brain ricochets forward. It may or may not leave any external marks even in fatal situations, and a helmet offers little protection.

Ambrey
Nov. 16, 2007, 10:06 PM
Weird semantic argument in this thread.

I think some people may not understand the goal of helmet design. They aren't designed to prevent injury.

Well, I'd have a semantic argument with that too, but now I think this thread has caused a head injury, and I'm not wearing a helmet ;)



Traumatic brain injuries can occur without external impact, and a helmet offers absolutely zero protection in those situations.

This was the type of injury my ex had. He had damage to both the front and back of the brain, because as he came forward the seatbelt snapped him back (brain hits the front of his skull) and then he hit his seat and snapped again (brain hits the back of his skull).

But as he said every time he spoke to people, without the seatbelt he would have been dead- the car hit a tree at 60 mph.

So, there, the seatbelt prevented death, but did not prevent injury.

I'm still wondering whether it's possible to get brain damage from staring at a computer screen too long, I need a beer!

Mary in Area 1
Nov. 16, 2007, 10:31 PM
Dutchmike wrote: "Why are helmet users like ex smokers?"

Probably because, like ex-smokers, we know that the medical research shows that we can significantly extend our life expectancy by not smoking, wearing seatbelts and wearing helmets. Actually smoking is an EXCELLENT comparison to going helmet-less: it is statistically stupid, it makes you a poor role model, and it makes you a liability hazard on someone else's property.

dutchmike
Nov. 16, 2007, 10:47 PM
Dutchmike wrote: "Why are helmet users like ex smokers?"

Probably because, like ex-smokers, we know that the medical research shows that we can significantly extend our life expectancy by not smoking, wearing seatbelts and wearing helmets. Actually smoking is an EXCELLENT comparison to going helmet-less: it is statistically stupid, it makes you a poor role model, and it makes you a liability hazard on someone else's property.

If I would answer this post ,that would be stupid. ;)

Sithly
Nov. 16, 2007, 10:54 PM
You know, I'm an avid helmet-wearer and I encourage all my friends to wear them, too. I love reading the "Helmet saved my life!" stories. But jeebus lord, these threads annoy me. The amount of self-righteous preaching makes me want to argue for the other side.

dutchmike
Nov. 16, 2007, 11:00 PM
You know, I'm an avid helmet-wearer and I encourage all my friends to wear them, too. I love reading the "Helmet saved my life!" stories. But jeebus lord, these threads annoy me. The amount of self-righteous preaching makes me want to argue for the other side.

Exactly my point. I always advice people to use a helmet , but threads like these almost would make me advice them otherwise.

Donella
Nov. 17, 2007, 02:18 AM
Wearing a helmet is to me a serious no brainer. The fact that we even have to debate about it makes me seriously shake my head:no:. What is the downside to wearing a helmet...anyone care to tell me?
Just look at it this way...what is the worst thing that can happen to you if you wear a helmet? ...bad hair at the BARN?
What is the worst thing that can happen to you if you aren't wearing it? You could be killed or seriously injured by a riding induced blow to the head that could have been minor if you were wearing your helmet.
So...bad hair at the barn or head trauma/death:confused:? Hmmmmm thats a REAL tough one folks.

Jees, the way everyone goes on about helmets it sounds as if they were torture devices. It's a hat..big freaking deal!

tangledweb
Nov. 17, 2007, 12:48 PM
I'm still wondering whether it's possible to get brain damage from staring at a computer screen too long, I need a beer!

The internet contains ample evidence of a strong correlation. A causal relationship might be harder to prove.

Ambrey
Nov. 17, 2007, 12:57 PM
The internet contains ample evidence of a strong correlation. A causal relationship might be harder to prove.

Well, I'll tell you, when I've been staring at the computer screen for 7 hours doing a project for my illustrator class, I sure have a headache!

But I agree, it's hard to say what came first, the brain damage or the computer overuse ;)

tangledweb
Nov. 17, 2007, 01:02 PM
I think some people may not understand the goal of helmet design. They aren't designed to prevent injury. They're designed to redistribute the force of impact through the helmet itself by means of purposeful material failure.
Huh? Of course they are designed to prevent injury. They are designed to reduce injury by increasing deceleration time and therefore reducing impact force. If you can turn a 1000G impact into a 300G impact you will reduce the severity of an injury. If you can turn a 500G impact into a 200G impact you will prevent and injury.


But there are instances in which a helmet does not - and cannot - offer protection. That includes most internal head injuries.
I don't suppose you are likely to provide evidence to support this claim of "most"?

lizathenag
Nov. 17, 2007, 01:12 PM
So - for folks that are interested in the never ending helmet debate - why don't you wear or use other safety equipment?

I ride in a helmet all the time. I ride in boots with a heel, breeches, gloves, my sprenger stirrups that I can't remember the name of (not due to no helmet wear!).

I wear a vest except in clinics.

Most importantly, I have had decades of instruction. I take good care of my horse (OTTB) who is out 24/7. If he is acting zippy, I longe before I ride.

I do the best I can.

dutchmike
Nov. 17, 2007, 05:39 PM
I for one would be intrested to know the number of people that ride in the USA alone and of those how many brain injuries there are every year or,horserelated accidents compared to other sports with a risk factor. I personally think it doesn't even add up to 0,5 % of riders.

TwoArabs
Nov. 17, 2007, 06:49 PM
Just skimmed this thread and I must say that I don't care if others wear a helmet or not, I KNOW that had I been wearing one on that ride in 1991, I woukd not be in the advanced stages of Parkinsons Disease today. I also would not have just spent a small fortune on brain surgery. I would be riding both my horses in a better and more enjoyable fashion, and their care would be easier, I would still be working in a career that was both fulfilling and financially rewarding. In brief, my life would be very different today. As a result, when anyone rides on my property or my horses they must wear a helmet, I don'y want to see anyone have the disaster that happened to me.

BTW, I had to type this with one hand, the other doesn't work.

Daydream Believer
Nov. 17, 2007, 07:19 PM
dutchmike...here are some stats for you. Turns out there are as many injuries in horseback riding as there are in motorcycles in the US. 18% of the injuries are head injuries and that is 12,600 out of a total of 70,000 emergency room visits a year.

http://www.troxelhelmets.com/pdf/MedicalFacts.pdf (http://www.troxelhelmets.com/pdf/MedicalFacts.pdf).

This is an excerpt from the Neurosurgery today:

Horseback Riding
Head injuries comprise about 18 percent of all horseback riding injuries, although they are the number one reason for hospital admissions and the leading cause of death. Three of every five equestrian accident deaths are due to head injuries.

This is a little old but gives some idea of the total numbers of riders, etc....

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001626.htm

I hope that helps answer your questions. :-)

Tworabs {{{hugs}}} thanks for sharing your story with us. Hopefully it might encourage even one person to put a helmet on and prevent an injury like yours.

dutchmike
Nov. 17, 2007, 08:40 PM
dutchmike...here are some stats for you. Turns out there are as many injuries in horseback riding as there are in motorcycles in the US. 18% of the injuries are head injuries and that is 12,600 out of a total of 70,000 emergency room visits a year.

http://www.troxelhelmets.com/pdf/MedicalFacts.pdf (http://www.troxelhelmets.com/pdf/MedicalFacts.pdf).

This is an excerpt from the Neurosurgery today:

Horseback Riding
Head injuries comprise about 18 percent of all horseback riding injuries, although they are the number one reason for hospital admissions and the leading cause of death. Three of every five equestrian accident deaths are due to head injuries.

This is a little old but gives some idea of the total numbers of riders, etc....

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001626.htm

I hope that helps answer your questions. :-)

Tworabs {{{hugs}}} thanks for sharing your story with us. Hopefully it might encourage even one person to put a helmet on and prevent an injury like yours.





30.000.000 riders is more than the population of many countries. Causing 12.500 head injuries seems not alot especially considering that another study states most of those injuries are ocurred by recreational riders and not by dressage riders or even 3 day eventers. I thought the % percentage would be alot higher then 0,05%.

Ambrey
Nov. 17, 2007, 10:23 PM
I got .3% injuries from the article with the 30,000,000 number- 92,763 emergency room visits. It didn't actually list the number of head injuries.

The Troxel site says 7,000,000 people participate, and 70,000 injuries- that's 1%. Of those 18% are head injuries, so .2%

One study shows that as helmet use is increasing, head injuries are decreasing- almost outnumbered now by other injuries.

Mary in Area 1
Nov. 17, 2007, 11:25 PM
I don't have the stats right here in front of me, but the US Pony Club does stats every year on every injury that occurs during a PC-sponsored event. One of the reasons they insisted on helmet use long before everyone else did is that they had the statistics to prove how important they were, AND they can prove how much that helmet use has cut down on the significant head injuries. The write about it all the time.

FancyFree
Nov. 18, 2007, 01:02 AM
Wearing a helmet is to me a serious no brainer. The fact that we even have to debate about it makes me seriously shake my head:no:. What is the downside to wearing a helmet...anyone care to tell me?
Just look at it this way...what is the worst thing that can happen to you if you wear a helmet? ...bad hair at the BARN?
What is the worst thing that can happen to you if you aren't wearing it? You could be killed or seriously injured by a riding induced blow to the head that could have been minor if you were wearing your helmet.
So...bad hair at the barn or head trauma/death:confused:? Hmmmmm thats a REAL tough one folks.

Jees, the way everyone goes on about helmets it sounds as if they were torture devices. It's a hat..big freaking deal!

I completely agree. I can't understand the debate over whether or not to wear a helmet. It boggles my mind. That said, I woulod never go up to a helmetless rider and chastise them. It's they're right to have their brains smashed to bits if that's what they want. It does make me kind of sad to see so many helmetless teens at the place I board now. At my previous stables there seemed to be more of a trend for everyone to wear helmets, even if they were just doing flat work.

Sabine
Nov. 18, 2007, 01:23 AM
this thread is convincing- now where do I find a really good looking, top notch helmet that doesn't make me look like I pumped up my head with air???
Black with a little bling would be great!!

any links would be appreciated...and don't mention the Troxel...please!!
(don't want to look like my son riding his bike...)!

dutchmike
Nov. 18, 2007, 10:09 AM
this thread is convincing- now where do I find a really good looking, top notch helmet that doesn't make me look like I pumped up my head with air???
Black with a little bling would be great!!

any links would be appreciated...and don't mention the Troxel...please!!
(don't want to look like my son riding his bike...)!

I liked the GPA until one of my clients dropped one and it split open like an egg.

claire
Nov. 18, 2007, 11:18 AM
Sabine,
My recommendation would be Charles Owen. I had the most wonderful experience being fitted by the head salesman at a trade fair.

I have a small head and must have tried every helmet out there in my search for one that was certified, fit, and didn't make my head look like a lollipop on a stick. (Vanity, Vanity :lol: )

They have a wide choice of styles, colors (Navy, Charcoal :cool: )
and fabric. I have the GR8.

But they have a new helmet for dressage: H2000 that looks classy:
http://www.charlesowen.com/en/products/discipline/list.php?p=68 (http://www.charlesowen.com/en/products/discipline/list.php?p=68)

Here is the link to their site:
http://www.charlesowen.com/en/products/ridinghats/index.php

To DutchMike re: the helmet breaking when dropped, I thought this
was interesting (from the Charles Owens site)

quote:
~Making a Safer Helmet~

~There is a popular misconception that building a helmet safer is all about making it stronger. In protecting the head from the most damaging injuries, it is all about building a helmet weaker than your head, with resilience to endure the multiple impacts of a real life accident. Too strong a helmet can result in all of the damage being done to your brain.


~Charles Owen is the only manufacturer that has a wide range of helmets that are independently certified to the three most recognised standards in the world. There are many arguments about which standard is the best in the world. Making helmets to all the major recognised standards is Charles Owen's way of winning no matter what the outcome. It is only in the small helmets that we decided to stay with the European and British approach. We believe that the ASTM standard requires too stiff and bulky helmets for little heads. In the laboratory it may be okay, but our mission is to use our expertise to protect the riders of the future from helmets that are too stiff and that may cause neck injury due to their bulk.

Helen of NC
Nov. 18, 2007, 11:21 AM
I'll spare you all the details of the stupid things I did on horseback with my friends as a kid. I can tell you, though, had I not been wearing a helmet that time my head collided with a low-hanging branch at a full gallop way back when, I'd probably not be typing this. The neurologist who examined my helmet was emphatic on the point: it saved my life. That one occurence, coupled with a few more concussions along the way--I had an odd propensity to fall on my head as a kid--convinced me never to ride without a helmet. Couldn't wear one on the balance beam, however, much as I probably needed it...

When my son begged for riding lessons at age 9, there was never a question. Pony Club instilled in him the fast and hard rule, and he never, ever rode without one. He grew up to climb mountains, run the rapids, ski in the backcountry, mountain bike, forecast avalanches, train to fight wildland fires, etc., etc. But I trust that he always takes the proper precautions, through proper training, adequate preparation and the exercise of basic common sense.

We promised each other we would. Simple as that.

Do I have any Polyanna notions that riding doesn't carry enormous risks? No. Even Jewel, my almost 21-year-old, seen-it-all, done-it-all (including a lengthy stint as a therapeutic horse), sweetheart of a mare, is still a horse. And in the 17 years she's been a part of the family, there isn't one time I've been on her back without a helmet.

Of course, take this with a grain of salt. This is a woman who managed to suffer a compound fracture of a toe... after tangling it in the handle of my son's plastic trick-or-treating pumpkin (he was 3 at the time). Try explaining that one to the ER docs. And, when I recently cracked the top of another toe, after slamming it into the wooden base of a cat climbing tree, the first question my son asked me--from way out yonder in Colorado--was whether there was a plastic pumpkin involved.

Perhaps I ought to wear steel-toed boots around the house.

Ambrey
Nov. 18, 2007, 11:31 AM
any links would be appreciated...and don't mention the Troxel...please!!
(don't want to look like my son riding his bike...)!

LOL, Troxel makes several different types of helmets.

But I'll tell you- the lighter, bike-type helmets are soooo cool and comfortable. The old velvet helmets are like wrapping your head in plastic. Plus, you can get blingy helmet covers :)

This one looks small and cute if you want velvet:

http://www.doversaddlery.com/irh-windsor-show-helmet/p/X1-3627/cn/39/

Ambrey
Nov. 18, 2007, 11:33 AM
I liked the GPA until one of my clients dropped one and it split open like an egg.

That's exactly what is supposed to happen. The helmet splits open (molecular bonds break apart) so that your head does not.

Any time you drop a helmet or have a decent fall, you should replace it :)

Ambrey
Nov. 18, 2007, 11:38 AM
~There is a popular misconception that building a helmet safer is all about making it stronger. In protecting the head from the most damaging injuries, it is all about building a helmet weaker than your head, with resilience to endure the multiple impacts of a real life accident. Too strong a helmet can result in all of the damage being done to your brain.

Yep! People have the same misconception about cars- that the biggest, heaviest cars are safest in a crash. Actually, the safest cars in a crash are those designed to be the safest cars in a crash- with energy absorbing zones in all of the right places so that the car absorbs the energy of the impact, rather than the occupant.

Think of it this way- if you jumped head first off your horse, would you rather land on a styrofoam block or a concrete block? LOL!

claire
Nov. 18, 2007, 11:42 AM
Sabine, If Bling is your Thing :winkgrin:

You should check out the Charles Owens Showjumper helmet:
Sparkly! Cow and Giraffe Prints! :eek:

http://www.charlesowen.com/en/products/ridinghats/list.php?p=6
"The Showjumper XP has a slightly lower profile than previously with a shallower peak yet retains the classical deep fit with a soft edged leather harness.



Extra details:
Available in Black, Navy, Brown, Green, Elephant grey, Maroon, Red, Sparkly and Cow and Giraffe Print." :lol:

claire
Nov. 18, 2007, 11:47 AM
Ambrey, I just wanted to clarify that this is a quote from the Charles Owens site ( shouldn't be attributed to me) :)


quote: s/b Charles Owens site:
Originally Posted by (claire)
~There is a popular misconception that building a helmet safer is all about making it stronger. In protecting the head from the most damaging injuries, it is all about building a helmet weaker than your head, with resilience to endure the multiple impacts of a real life accident. Too strong a helmet can result in all of the damage being done to your brain.

Ambrey
Nov. 18, 2007, 12:04 PM
Ambrey, I just wanted to clarify that this is a quote from the Charles Owens site ( shouldn't be attributed to me) :)

Oh my gosh, it's not even class and I'm getting dinged for my reference formats! :eek:

:lol:

claire
Nov. 18, 2007, 12:17 PM
Ambrey, Sorry if I came off like a teacher! :uhoh:

I just have a "thing" about posters on BB's lifting material and then copying it on a BB as if it was their own. :dead:

Ambrey
Nov. 18, 2007, 12:25 PM
Ambrey, Sorry if I came off like a teacher! :uhoh:

I just have a "thing" about posters on BB's lifting material and then copying it on a BB as if it was their own. :dead:

LOL, I just had APA format flashbacks :cool:

Coreene
Nov. 18, 2007, 01:47 PM
I love the Charles Owen helmets. Sadly, my head shape goes best in a Troxel, but I keep trying the Owens in hopes that one day I'll find one that fits great.

claire
Nov. 18, 2007, 02:06 PM
Ooooh Coreene, You must get yourself to a big vendor show. That head salesman from CO is sooo veddy British and knowledgable! Swoon! :winkgrin:

He just took me under his wing and fixed me up beautifully!

You would get the "Royal" treatment I am sure!
(ESPECIALLY if you brought the Queen Mother!) :D

Tory Relic
Nov. 18, 2007, 02:27 PM
Wow -- this is an interesting thread. I usually do not read these but I couldn't resist when I saw my bud JSwan's name in the title.

WHAT IS IT with you helmet NAZIs? Don't you have a life at all?

And that argument about a kid reading and thinking they shouldn't wear helmets? :rolleyes: I'll bet JSwan wishes she had that kind of power!!

Yeah, I wear a helmet when I ride. I didn't for the first 20 years of my life, though. I understand JSwan's statement. I, too, get the feeling that people think wearing a helmet makes them invincible, and this is very, very dangerous. I usually don't try to talk them out of it -- the thing about swine and pearls, y'know -- but this thread is over the top. Ambrey, you should be smacked on the butt with a crop!

I do many things more dangerous than riding with or without a helmet. Why don't you people wrap yourselves up in a cotton cocoon and leave the rest of us alone.

JSwan, if you are still reading this ridiculous thread, then kudos on handling yourself well!

Ambrey
Nov. 18, 2007, 02:36 PM
Ambrey, you should be smacked on the butt with a crop!

Excuse me? What the hell are you talking about?

Basically, I've posted information and data on helmet safety, and challenged one person's incorrect assertion that helmets do not prevent severe injuries.

If you don't want to read about it, skip on by. Who's the nazi here? The person posting information for others, or the one threatening to smack her in the butt with a crop for it?

I never told you or anyone else to wear a helmet. I merely said they save lives and prevent injuries. If that knowledge is just a little too much for you to handle, maybe you should move on down to the kiddie pool.

Tory Relic
Nov. 18, 2007, 04:02 PM
Excuse me? What the hell are you talking about?

Basically, I've posted information and data on helmet safety, and challenged one person's incorrect assertion that helmets do not prevent severe injuries.

If you don't want to read about it, skip on by. Who's the nazi here? The person posting information for others, or the one threatening to smack her in the butt with a crop for it?

I never told you or anyone else to wear a helmet. I merely said they save lives and prevent injuries. If that knowledge is just a little too much for you to handle, maybe you should move on down to the kiddie pool.

Bit touchy, aren't you?

There is PLENTY of information on this board and all over the equestrian universe without you browbeating someone over the semantics of a post on another thread. You pretty much singled her out and wouldn't accept her explanations.

My opinion on *your* actions are just as valid as yours on *hers*. Next time, don't post the person's name in the thread title and then refuse to accept their answer to your question. An *opinion* doesn't have to be supported by facts. An *opinion* doesn't have to be defended repeatedly.
Don't like it? Put your big girl panties on and deal with it. Oh, and BTW, I didn't threaten you, I just expressed an opinion about what ought to be done.....you know like saying, there ought to be a law....read for comprehension and you may have less trouble down the line. :lol::lol:

sm
Nov. 18, 2007, 05:22 PM
An *opinion* doesn't have to be supported by facts. An *opinion* doesn't have to be defended repeatedly.

An opinion doesn't begin with the words, "the very sad TRUTH is:"


The very sad truth is that helmets will not reduce the chance of serious head injury. They only reduce/mitigate minor head injuries.

If it’s indeed an *opinion* and not the truth what’s the problem with editing it so it's an accurate statement?



And that argument about a kid reading and thinking they shouldn't wear helmets?

That comment was for the original post on the R.I.P. Kristin Webber condolence thread where any of Kristen’s friends who only sometimes ride could read it and walk away believing that to be “truth,” not this thread where the statement was challenged often enough. Thankfully, YankeeLawyer ended up addressing it with a considerable amount of tact for Kristen's friends and loved ones in post #75 on the R.I.P. Kristin Webber thread .

THIS THREAD asks for references for that TRUTH, the OP asks “Do you have a reference for this?” So I guess your answer would be of course not, but you have a lot of snarky insults instead?

And I guess your repsonse indicates it's okay to send whatever false message you want to kids on life and death issues -- because no one reads COTH seriously?

Ambrey
Nov. 18, 2007, 06:45 PM
My opinion on *your* actions are just as valid as yours on *hers*. Next time, don't post the person's name in the thread title and then refuse to accept their answer to your question. An *opinion* doesn't have to be supported by facts.

Actually, her quote was that she was stating "the sad truth." So it's not an opinion, is it? And an opinion on an issue for which data exists should be supported by the data, should it not?

But in truth, I put her name in the post because I was curious as to where she got the information. I actually thought she was giving information and wanted to know what the source was. If she had information I was unaware of, I was interested to learn it.

It is unfortunate that others are not so eager to learn :sadsmile:

And if nobody is interested in a helmet thread, why are so many people responding? Just because you aren't interested in a thread does not make it uninteresting to everyone.

JSwan
Nov. 18, 2007, 07:55 PM
I think I hear violins, and they're playing just for you, Ambrey.

I most sincerely doubt the children of the world spend their time wondering what JSwan is going to post on the Internet. There are no posters of JSwan on a GP horse at Aachen, nor do folks tune in to watch me win gold for the USA. In short - enough with the melodrama.

And in case y'all haven't figured it out yet, Sabine was probably being facetious. Do not presume to teach the Master.

Since class seems out for the holidays, and y'all don't have much homework, I think some of you have just decided to have some fun at another's expense. Too bad you're not getting a rise out of me.... perhaps you should try and bait another poster.

One of the nice things about getting older is that one comes to realize that things that are supposed to protect us don't always work. Or that they don't work as well as we thought they would. I, for one, am glad that we have these certified helmets. I hope adults choose to wear one.

But I stand by what I've said. You joined this BB a few months ago and only have a few posts. I've read more. A theme running through them is that some posters think these helmets are going to prevent 100% of injuries. Meaning - no matter what happens - they're going to get up and walk away. No one should have blind faith in a piece of equipment.

I know that's not true - because I've seen it with my own eyes. No helmet manufacturer is going to make that assertion - because no helmet will prevent all injuries. And that is, indeed, a sad truth.

Another poster even explained it to you.

That doesn't mean people shouldn't wear one.

How any poster could infer that from anything I've written is absolutely unbelievable. Wear the darn helmet. It will help. But it is NOT an ABSOLUTE protection against injury.

Sithly
Nov. 18, 2007, 08:14 PM
It is unfortunate that others are not so eager to learn :sadsmile:


Would that we could all be just like you. :sadsmile:

ThatScaryChick
Nov. 18, 2007, 09:19 PM
It is unfortunate that others are not so eager to learn :sadsmile:


Or you could try not being the teacher to someone who doesn't need or want your learnings. :yes: Why these threads even get started is beyond me. Certain topics just end up in a war. Plus, some people wear helmets and some don't and trying to preach to people isn't going to change anyones mind. If they the person in question is an adult, they have that choice to wear a helmet or not. There is no need for people to condemn each other for the choices they make.

Sabine
Nov. 19, 2007, 01:24 AM
Sorry to see this thread disintegrating like this....I don't appreciate your comment JSwan- I did find the information very interesting and learned stuff I didn't know.

I have a long set aversion against helmets- because two of my good friends died despite wearing them...as many said they are not a 100% sure thing- but then they can prevent certain injuries that can be devastating...

My post was not to manipulate- simply to find out more and maybe rethink my attitude..that's all.
It's not good that it gets so personal- when it should be about facts and better products and solutions that actually can improve the chances of recuperation after a bad accident.

I think I will check into those helmets Claire recommended...and I hope you all can play nice...;)

Ambrey
Nov. 19, 2007, 02:04 AM
Or you could try not being the teacher to someone who doesn't need or want your learnings. :yes: Why these threads even get started is beyond me. Certain topics just end up in a war. Plus, some people wear helmets and some don't and trying to preach to people isn't going to change anyones mind. If they the person in question is an adult, they have that choice to wear a helmet or not. There is no need for people to condemn each other for the choices they make.

I did not condemn anyone for not wearing a helmet, I was interested in data on helmet use. As for teaching people who don't want my learnings- it actually seems to me that BBs are a place to share information, and a place where others have the *option* to read that information if they want it.

For example, I don't really have any interest in loose ring snaffles at the moment, but that doesn't mean another person should not start a thread about them. And starting a thread about the benefits of snaffle bits isn't exactly the same as attacking those who don't use snaffles now, is it?

I believe if you look back at the thread, any comments about people who do not wear helmets were not made by me. My only comment about the "debate" is that there is no debate that it's safer to wear one. There is also no debate that a lot of people do not wear them- including quite a few people that I really respect.

So if you are going to condemn what I say, at least figure out what it is I'm saying first, 'k? Not every post in this thread is written by me.

soloudinhere
Nov. 19, 2007, 08:43 AM
I think some people are very obviously missing the point that was made several pages back. Helmets do not PREVENT head injuries or the chance of a head injury. They do not keep you on a horse you were otherwise going to fall off of. They do not magically float your head two inches off the ground when you do fall. Rather, they MITIGATE the severity of the injury you were going to get anyway.

Anytime you get on a horse you take the risk of a severe head injury. That DOES NOT CHANGE when you wear a helmet. The risk still exists. What a helmet does is reduce the probability that the injury will be fatal or severe. It does not reduce the original risk of injury. It is a measure taken to insure that WHEN an injury occurs everything was done to MITIGATE its severity.

Do not for one minute think that wearing a helmet reduces the risk of injury. It simply helps assure that when you are injured you won't die from it. It does not somehow guarantee you will never fall off, get kicked, or any other head-injury causing situation, which would be the only way to ACTUALLY "reduce the risk" of riding as a whole.

If I misunderstand you, JSwan, please correct me, but this is the impression that I got of what you were trying to say. She is not saying that helmets are unsafe or don't save lives--merely pointing out that it is an incorrect assumption that helmets reduce RISK in any way. They don't. No safety equipment does. Risk is inherent in the sport itself, and is not a variable dependent on how much safety equipment you wear. Safety equipment exists precisely because sports are risky and action should be taken to reduce the severity of injuries--but NO safety equipment can actually PREVENT the injury causing action from happening in the first place.

Sister Margarita
Nov. 19, 2007, 09:07 AM
Sabine:
Disintegration is right.
While you and I may not agree on the helmet issue, I 100 percent support your right to do so, your right to offer up your situations to support your opinion and listen to them however strong you may differ from me. I am not going to examine your every word and question its choice.
I really turn off reading this BB when I see individuals squaring off and quoting each other to prove their points away from the question on helmets.
SO,
I am going to just go back to the question of helmets, and I understand that my history may differ from others' experiences. I just "offer it up" as a means of offering data that will give some of you readers a reference to the information you appear to be looking for.

I had the unfortunate experience of having three acquaintances involved in riding accidents a couple of years ago.

Rider A: Died despite wearing a helmet, found after the accident, helmet on, apparently dying instantly or soon after the fall.
Rider B: Died not wearing a helmet, head injury, horse tripped and fell on a hack at the walk.
Rider C: Injured wearing a helmet, head injury causing memory loss (still), loss of awareness and balance. When brought to the hospital, the ER Dr. said that the injury below the crack in her helmet would have been fatal if not for the protection of her helmet.

So, does wearing a helmet insure you will never get hurt or worse while riding? No.
Does wearing a helmet SOMETIMES make a difference? I believe so.
Would I put up with the expense, discomfort, heat, flat hair, inconvenience of wearing a helmet?

I am not a gambler, feel my life or mental faculties (what is left of them:winkgrin:) is well worth the effort and inconvenience of a helmet every time I put my foot in a stirrup. Riding puts one at risk more so than walking on the sidewalk, so I will choose to do so.

I also would not call a different choice to question, as it is everyone's personal choice.

This is the data I use when I make that choice, and my trainer's barn, which is full of really experienced and long-time competitors has chosen to do the same. They are not gamblers either, and choose to put safety before convenience, minor discomfort or a bad hair day.

ise@ssl
Nov. 19, 2007, 09:40 AM
My personal opinion - I don't ask horse people about whether or not to wear helmets - I ask people who are EMT's or work in emergency rooms. Horsepeople can always tell the story of the person who wasn't helped by a helmet but that's not a valid survey.

We all have to realize as well that those questions asked at the emergency room regarding how the accident happened and if a helmet was worn or not goes into statistics used by insurance companies.

JSwan
Nov. 19, 2007, 09:53 AM
A couple of you get what I was trying to say, Thank (insert name of deity of choice).

Risk can only be managed, not eliminated. As we've seen from the two most recent equestrian related deaths. Even with a helmet, or any other piece of safety equipment, we can be seriously injured, even killed. Nothing is going to prevent that.

We make the decisions to wear or not wear a helmet - and there is enough data out there to show that they do help a great deal on certain types of injuries. So it makes sense to wear one - every ride. Folks that wear them some days but not others, or only for jumping - well - you're making an informed decision and if folks don't like it - screw 'em.

If a person knows the risk and chooses to take it - that's a personal decision. ADULTS. Minors - you don't get to make your own decisions until you reach your majority. Yeah - it sucks but that's the way it is so just deal with it.

For folks who wear a helmet but don't avail themselves of all the other safety equipment out there, well, again, you're making an informed decision and more power to you. Choosing to protect yourself from only the most common form of injury is just fine and dandy.

Because all we're doing is mitigating risk - not eliminating it. I'd hope that folks would wear a helmet - every ride. It's a good idea. Just like wearing a seat belt, or testing the breakaway cable on your horse trailer, or putting a smoke detector in your house.

But good Lord - just because we take those precautions doesn't mean we'll survive and accident, our horse trailer will stop on its own if disconnected at speed, or our houses won't catch on fire!

Just be reasonable in your expectations of what this equipment does and does not do.

ise@ssl - good point. At our local ER (smack dab in the middle of horse country), if a person shows up in riding clothes or farm coveralls they usually go to the front of the line - even if they've walked in under their own power.

While all these Internet stories are nice to read..... folks who treat our injuries could probably give us quite a lecture. Even my own ortho, every visit, reminds me that horseback riding is dangerous. (guess he feels obligated to say that even though equestrians form the bulk of his practice and we all know that it's dangerous or we wouldn't be seeking medical treatment) Some even go as far as to suggest the full face protection, neck roll, etc. Guess they just don't want folks to get hurt.

ise@ssl
Nov. 19, 2007, 11:38 AM
I also wanted to add that I wonder where some of you that won't or don't wear helmets ride. Most commercial facilities are now required to have people wear approved safety helmets by their insurance carrier.

sm
Nov. 19, 2007, 11:59 AM
People here always “got it," no one has claimed they found a way to be invincible through helmuts. Nor has it really anything to do with the OPs question:


A couple of you get what I was trying to say, Thank (insert name of deity of choice).

Risk can only be managed, not eliminated. As we've seen from the two most recent equestrian related deaths. Even with a helmet, or any other piece of safety equipment, we can be seriously injured, even killed.


I learned a lot about helmut construction and impact, so I'm glad for this thread. And I do really like the Showjumper XP that was posted earlier http://www.charlesowen.com/en/products/ridinghats/list.php?p=6 It made it on my Christmas wish list, although I may not ever be up for the Giraffe Print option… unless it comes with matching saddle pad :) and I spent a lot of time hacking out with it.

soloudinhere
Nov. 19, 2007, 01:05 PM
People here always “got it," no one has claimed they found a way to be invincible through helmuts. Nor has it really anything to do with the OPs question:




I learned a lot about helmut construction and impact, so I'm glad for this thread. And I do really like the Showjumper XP that was posted earlier http://www.charlesowen.com/en/products/ridinghats/list.php?p=6 It made it on my Christmas wish list, although I may not ever be up for the Giraffe Print option… unless it comes with matching saddle pad :) and I spent a lot of time hacking out with it.

The point I was trying to make was that people were jumping on jswan, telling her she was wrong and to back up her statements with facts, when they were misunderstanding what she was saying. She never said helmets were bad or dangerous. Just that the assumption that wearing one somehow reduces the RISK inherent in riding is wrong, and she is correct in that statement. The RISK remains the same, the LIKLIHOOD of a fatal injury lessened. The possibility of injury or death remains, just as a fact inherent in the sport of riding. The point was that helmets PREVENT nothing at all and MITIGATE the injury once it occurs. Not the same thing as saying "helmets prevent head injuries" at all.

coloredhorse
Nov. 19, 2007, 01:11 PM
I think some people are very obviously missing the point that was made several pages back. Helmets do not PREVENT head injuries or the chance of a head injury. ... Safety equipment exists precisely because sports are risky and action should be taken to reduce the severity of injuries--but NO safety equipment can actually PREVENT the injury causing action from happening in the first place.

Thank you, alterageous; that is the distinction I made earlier on this thread. People are interchangeably using two phrases: "helmets reduce risk of injury" and "helmets reduce severity of injury." However, the two have entirely different meanings. One statement is true, the other is not.

Folks, everyone can just agree that helmets reduce the severity of injury. There have been oodles of controlled tests done; there are reams and reams of paper documenting this fact: If an injury occurs, a properly designed and applied helmet will reduce the severity.

Helmets do not reduce the risk of an injury occurring. The risk that one will sustain a head injury is independent of whether that someone is or is not wearing a helmet to mitigate the damages of such an injury.

I have completed my daily plea for precision in the use of language. Please return to your regularly scheduled sniping. :lol:

tangledweb
Nov. 19, 2007, 01:14 PM
I think some people are very obviously missing the point that was made several pages back. Helmets do not PREVENT head injuries...

Mostly people are having a stupid argument about semantics.

Some people read "Helmets do not prevent head injuries" and interpret it as "Helmets do not prevent ALL head injuries" and some people interpret it as "Helmets do not prevent ANY head injuries".

Or stated the other way some people read "Helmets prevent head injuries" and interpret it as "Helmets prevent ALL head injuries in all possible accident situations including wildebeest stampede and asteroid strike" and some people interpret it as "Helmets prevent some head injuries".

Some people seem to believe both interpretations, but not everybody is being clear about which version they are pushing, which means the "debate" is going in circles.

akor
Nov. 19, 2007, 01:15 PM
I get the idea of "doesn't eliminate risk." Totally, 100%. I also tend to agree with "if it's your time" you go.

However, I don't want "that time" to be when I'm cooling my horse out on a long rein and she spooks at something, sending me flying and I land on something sticking out of the ground. While perhaps yes, I am getting in the way of god's plan for me, I'll risk pissing her off.;) Or, in some random happens a lot little things that can be avoided. I wear it doing ground work around youngsters as it's just a bit extra protection from this and that.

I am riding more in my protective vest, as I see the tie-in and it makes a lot of sense, especially when jumping.. I don't use safety stirrups as the MDCs help me after my multiple ankle fracture. For now, I'll take the risk. I do know the danger of a foot slipping or getting dragged by one leg through personally.

I guess I just think my head deserves the "most" protection. While the shattered collarbone derailed me some and the multiple ankle fracture (not horse relate) derailed me even more, I could still use my brain "normally" and I guess I prefer it that way. In no way would I have wanted my head/skull to bear the brunt of either of my two previous "serious" accidents.

I don't think my helmet is going to save me from death in any way shape or form.

coloredhorse
Nov. 19, 2007, 01:15 PM
I also wanted to add that I wonder where some of you that won't or don't wear helmets ride. Most commercial facilities are now required to have people wear approved safety helmets by their insurance carrier.

You'll still see more cowboy hats than helmets at top-level western barns (and even some more down-market facilities). Ball caps and visors still outnumber safety helmets at most larger-name dressage facilities as well. That won't change.

When I ride on my own horses, on my own property, I may or may not don my safety helmet.

Ambrey
Nov. 19, 2007, 01:21 PM
The point I was trying to make was that people were jumping on jswan, telling her she was wrong and to back up her statements with facts, when they were misunderstanding what she was saying. She never said helmets were bad or dangerous. Just that the assumption that wearing one somehow reduces the RISK inherent in riding is wrong, and she is correct in that statement. The RISK remains the same, the LIKLIHOOD of a fatal injury lessened.

I don't understand this statement. How do you define risk? If the likelihood of a severe injury is reduced, and if the relative severity of the injury sustained is reduced, how does that not reduce the risk?

Words do have meaning. Jswan's initial post was not vague or open to interpretation. As I said, if she misstated her views, that's a-ok- I do that all the time. But why get defensive and call people names rather than just reading your words and admitting they don't say what you meant to say? I personally don't waste time defending what I write unless what I wrote is actually what I meant to write.

I was only interested to see any data that shows that helmets do not reduce the chance of serious head injury. That was my only goal in posting the thread- reading more into it than that is just ascribing motives that aren't there.

tangledweb
Nov. 19, 2007, 01:22 PM
Helmets do not reduce the risk of an injury occurring. The risk that one will sustain a head injury is independent of whether that someone is or is not wearing a helmet to mitigate the damages of such an injury.

Ok, you have stated it relatively precisely. Now prove it, or at least provide some supporting evidence.

Regardless of how generously you define "injury" there must be some degree of force above which your definition of injury will occur, and below which injury will not. If you accept that a helmet reduces the severity of forces on the head, then you have to accept that in some accident situations, wearing a helmet will reduce the force to level that the head can accept it without injury.

claire
Nov. 19, 2007, 01:27 PM
I learned a lot about helmut construction and impact, so I'm glad for this thread. And I do really like the Showjumper XP that was posted earlier http://www.charlesowen.com/en/products/ridinghats/list.php?p=6 It made it on my Christmas wish list, although I may not ever be up for the Giraffe Print option… unless it comes with matching saddle pad :) and I spent a lot of time hacking out with it.

I have the Showjumper XP for "dress": classic black velvet...
I *think* Aunt Esther would approve! :winkgrin:

And I was just trying to interject a little DQ fashion humor along with the helmet information and links requested.

Maybe, certain topics (Helmets/Drugs/RollKur/Anky/PP) should carry ***TRAINWRECK FODDER*** Warnings? :eek:

soloudinhere
Nov. 19, 2007, 01:31 PM
I was only interested to see any data that shows that helmets do not reduce the chance of serious head injury. That was my only goal in posting the thread- reading more into it than that is just ascribing motives that aren't there.


That's just the point. Helmets do nothing to reduce the chance that you will fall on your head. That comes from getting on the horse in the first place. What a helmet does is reduce the chance that that fall will kill you. Therefore, they do not reduce the chance of serious head injury that is inherent in the sport of riding. They reduce the chance that one, specific injury to the head will wind up being fatal. That's the difference. When you ride, you accept the risk, and you take steps to help mitigate the DAMAGE you might incur from accepting that risk. That's the distinction being made here. There's no data to show here. That's just how safety equipment works. It is designed to minimize damage that can arise from involvement in something with a potential for injury. They don't reduce the chances of an injury causing situation at all.

coloredhorse
Nov. 19, 2007, 01:37 PM
Ok, you have stated it relatively precisely. Now prove it, or at least provide some supporting evidence.

Regardless of how generously you define "injury" there must be some degree of force above which your definition of injury will occur, and below which injury will not.

See, this is what I mean by precision. The key word is "risk," not "injury." Sticking with riding, the "risk of injury occurring" is XX% based on various factors -- what you are doing, environmental conditions, your balance, the horse's balance, other people. So if your risk of falling and injuring your head is, say, 50%, it is 50% whether or not you are wearing your helmet.


If you accept that a helmet reduces the severity of forces on the head, then you have to accept that in some accident situations, wearing a helmet will reduce the force to level that the head can accept it without injury.

Yes, ma'am (or sir ... would hate to offend)! See, you got the point without even realizing it. Helmets mitigate injuries. They do not prevent them, though "prevent" is the term most here seem to want to use. It's not the correct one. I whack myself in the head with a hammer. The force is, oh, say 20lbs/square foot. If I am whacking my naked head, the fallout from the injury will be quite a lot worse than if I whack my helmet-clad head. The risk of injury occurring is 100% in both instances, since I am apparently so stupid as to whack myself rather hard on the head with a hammer. An injury will occur. Period. End of discussion. I am definitely hitting myself in the head with a hammer. Now, if I put that helmet on first, the injury will be much less, possibly barely noticeable. If I don't, well, I'll be going to the ER and we'll see what happens from there.

See, helmets mitigate; they don't prevent. They lessen the resulting damage from the injury. They don't magically keep you from falling and contacting hard ground or a hard hoof (or hard hammer) with your head.

Boy, quite the scrimmage today for precision in communication. It's hard to be an anal editor, lemme tell ya!

tangledweb
Nov. 19, 2007, 01:49 PM
Helmets mitigate injuries. They do not prevent them, though "prevent" is the term most here seem to want to use. It's not the correct one. I whack myself in the head with a hammer. The force is, oh, say 20lbs/square foot. If I am whacking my naked head, the fallout from the injury will be quite a lot worse than if I whack my helmet-clad head. The risk of injury occurring is 100% in both instances, since I am apparently so stupid as to whack myself rather hard on the head with a hammer. An injury will occur. Period. End of discussion.

Are you confusing the word injury with impact? The chance of an impact occurring is unchanged. The chance of an injury occurring is much reduced.

Seeing as you want to use a silly example, let's say one of us hits ourself on the naked head with a hammer. The other one of us hits ourself on the head with a hammer while holding a pillow then a steel plate above our head. One of us has a 100% chance of getting injured. One of us has a very close to 0% chance of getting injured. Therefore, the risk of an injury occurring to one of us is reduced.

Don't believe me? Let's do a small experiment. But I get to be the person with the steel plate and pillow.

soloudinhere
Nov. 19, 2007, 01:54 PM
Are you confusing the word injury with impact? The chance of an impact occurring is unchanged. The chance of an injury occurring is much reduced.

Seeing as you want to use a silly example, let's say one of us hits ourself on the naked head with a hammer. The other one of us hits ourself on the head with a hammer while holding a pillow then a steel plate above our head. One of us has a 100% chance of getting injured. One of us has a very close to 0% chance of getting injured. Therefore, the risk of an injury occurring to one of us is reduced.

Don't believe me? Let's do a small experiment. But I get to be the person with the steel plate and pillow.

Not quite. the risk of injury comes from swinging the hammer and doesn't have anything to do with what's on your head. what's reduced is the liklihood that you'll be injured if you have the pillow and the plate. That's exactly what you just said. Both have a chance of being injured, and one person did something to help reduce that. That's the same situation as with a riding helmet. The risk is from the situation.

tangledweb
Nov. 19, 2007, 01:59 PM
Not quite. the risk of injury comes from swinging the hammer and doesn't have anything to do with what's on your head.

OK, maybe that example was not silly enough, or the word "risk" has a new definition I was not aware of.

Let's try another situation where two people are in the same situation and only safety equipment differs between them.

One man jumps out of a plane. Jumping out of a plane carries a risk of injury.

Another man jumps out of a plane wearing a parachute.

Are you going to tell me that the parachute does not reduce the second man's risk of being injured?

Ambrey
Nov. 19, 2007, 03:42 PM
That's just the point. Helmets do nothing to reduce the chance that you will fall on your head. That comes from getting on the horse in the first place. What a helmet does is reduce the chance that that fall will kill you. Therefore, they do not reduce the chance of serious head injury that is inherent in the sport of riding.

Helmets reduce the probability that you'll get a serious head injury. They do not eliminate the chance, but they do reduce it. If you do not wear a helmet, you are more likely to get a severe head injury. If you wear a helmet, you are less likely to get a severe head injury. If you fall while wearing a helmet, the energy absorbed by your head will be less, meaning the injury will be less extensive. All of these speak to reduction in both frequency and severity of head injuries.

You and I are having an entirely semantic discussion at this point, of course. It is all about words. I believe we are both on the same page conceptually.

I have an MA in a research related field that required some advanced statistics, so my brain is constantly thinking in probabilities and populations and samples. Measuring probabilities and the difference in the probability of something happening is a main function of statistics.

Ambrey
Nov. 19, 2007, 03:46 PM
Not quite. the risk of injury comes from swinging the hammer and doesn't have anything to do with what's on your head. what's reduced is the liklihood that you'll be injured if you have the pillow and the plate. That's exactly what you just said. Both have a chance of being injured, and one person did something to help reduce that. That's the same situation as with a riding helmet. The risk is from the situation.

The risk of what? I honestly don't understand what definition of the word "risk" you're using here.

My favorite website, dictionary.com, defines risk as:

"exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance"

(note, I always look up words when I'm having a semantic argument because I often find I'm just using a different definition than someone else).

So if you quantify risk as something that can be less or more, rather than just there or not there, it's hard for me to see how it's not less when wearing a helmet. Of course it is still there, it's just less.

Your risk of falling on your head isn't reduced. The risk of your head being injured by the fall, and the relative severity of the injury, is reduced.

Sorry, I love semantic arguments. Words are somewhat baffling but fascinating to me (I think in pictures).

Ambrey
Nov. 19, 2007, 03:52 PM
See, this is what I mean by precision. The key word is "risk," not "injury." Sticking with riding, the "risk of injury occurring" is XX% based on various factors -- what you are doing, environmental conditions, your balance, the horse's balance, other people. So if your risk of falling and injuring your head is, say, 50%, it is 50% whether or not you are wearing your helmet.

No.

Because the data shows that the risk is not the same for the two populations.

It is kind of like saying "if your risk of being killed in a car crash is 3%, that's the same whether or not you're wearing your seatbelt." However, when you measure the two groups, you find that the risk of death is much higher for non-seatbelt-users than seatbelt users.

Because helmets and seatbelts mitigate injury, there is a certain level at which injury would have occurred normally, but will not occur with a helmet. A perfect example is my own experience- a hoof swiped my helmet. That would have caused an injury of unknown severity- because of my helmet there was no injury at all.

So at some baseline level, the mitigation mitigates a severe injury into a minor injury, and mitigates a minor injury into no injury.

And this reduces the risk- people who might have ended up in the emergency room walk away. People who might have ended up on life support have a really bad headache for a week. all along whatever line of measurement you use to define "severe" "minor" and "injury," there are reductions.

And I'm now officially enjoying this conversation too much.

Pommederue
Nov. 19, 2007, 05:37 PM
:sleepy:

Ambrey
Nov. 19, 2007, 06:03 PM
:sleepy:

The worst part is that I really talk like that.

I'm great for insomnia, though :winkgrin:

TBrescue
Nov. 20, 2007, 05:09 PM
I think some people may not understand the goal of helmet design. They aren't designed to prevent injury. They're designed to redistribute the force of impact through the helmet itself by means of purposeful material failure. The materials compress and/or crack as energy dissipates, minimizing the blow experienced by your skull and spreading it over a larger surface area. And though you walk away unscathed, you may not be able see the damage inflicted within the materials of the helmet. This is why it's important to replace the helmet following any fall that involves head impact.

While the helmet does a tremendous job to guard against external head injuries (skull fracture, lacerations), they do little for closed-head injuries. Brain injuries like concussions result from sudden deceleration of the brain when it smacks the inside of your skull. As someone in another thread once pointed out, the compression of the inner foam material when your head strikes something can be significant enough to help slow the brain and reduce bruising. That's if your head strikes something, and you'll still incur some degree of brain injury. Traumatic brain injuries can occur without external impact, and a helmet offers absolutely zero protection in those situations.

I would disagree that helmets cannot prevent injury. In cases where riders have walked away with cracked helmets, they may very well have ended up with cracked skulls had the helmet not been in place. But there are instances in which a helmet does not - and cannot - offer protection. That includes most internal head injuries.

Last note because it seems relevant based on other current threads...
Brain injuries involving impact to the back of the head tend to be the worst. There's a higher risk for a contrecoup injury involving the frontal regions of the brain. Essentially, you get a double whammy - injury at the location of impact, and injury on the opposite side of the impact as the brain ricochets forward. It may or may not leave any external marks even in fatal situations, and a helmet offers little protection.

This basically sums it up. helmets cannot PREVENT injury, but they CAN mitigate the severity of an injury, whether it is a motorcycle, hockey, bicycle or riding helmet-they ALL act in the same manner.

As an older rider who grew up riding before helmets were considered necessary for any sport, and having fractured a few helmets in my day, I think they are important safety equipment (IMHO). And as I discovered on Sunday, even the laziest old horse can still bounce around like a noodle with the best of them-my aged TB gelding was performing his Lippizan Stallion impression complte with "airs above the ground". He has never acted like that before and I was happy to have a helmet on!

Just my .02

Tory Relic
Nov. 21, 2007, 11:39 AM
And I guess your repsonse indicates it's okay to send whatever false message you want to kids on life and death issues -- because no one reads COTH seriously?

My response indicates that plenty of people read COTH seriously, but probably not as seriously as many who like to pontificate and cite "facts" like to think. I spent a career with stats and "facts" and you can find a study to say anything you wish it to say.

As coloredhorse says, try some precision.

I certainly have learned a lot on this forum. I've also had some side splitting laughter over some of the nonsense that is spouted here. And before you jump on that, I do NOT mean to say or even infer that wearing a helmet is nonsense. There are no rules against it, no one is trying to make anyone NOT wear one. The nonsense comes in when the crusaders want anyone who disagrees with them to back up whatever they say with facts. The fact is, I will choose whether or not I wear a helmet, and little any helmet crusader has to say about it will change my mind.

As JSwan stated somewhere along the way, and I restated, there are those of us who feel that people think wearing a helmet is a panacea for all head injuries. I disagree. Accept it or not.

tangledweb
Nov. 21, 2007, 11:56 AM
As JSwan stated somewhere along the way, and I restated, there are those of us who feel that people think wearing a helmet is a panacea for all head injuries.

Funny how this long circular thread is full of people who think some other mythical people think wearing a helmet makes a head injury impossible, but a bit short on actual people stepping up to say "I think wearing a helmet makes a head injury impossible".

I wonder why that is?

Could it be that those people don't really exist, or are the bushes at the bottom of your garden full of a little known tribe of helmet wearing pygmies who think that wearing a helmet protects them from all possible horse injuries in addition to plague, locusts and brimstone?

LookinSouth
Nov. 21, 2007, 12:00 PM
Interesting thread. Here's my 2 cents.

A friend of mine is a surgeon. She gave me a statistical article/study based on equestrian related accidents that come into ER's across the country from a medical journal for my own reference awhile back. The study compared the incidence of severity in head injuries/trauma in riders with and without helmets. The level of head trauma in riders w/o helmets that came into ER's across the country versus with helmets was astoundingly high. The husband of said surgeon is an ER doctor. He agrees with the findings of the article. My mother in law worked as an ER nurse for many years. She agrees wholeheartedly that helmets are lifesavers based on her experiences in the ER.

The bottom line is I think you would be hard pressed to find a professional in the medical field that experiences first hand the results of riding accidents with riders with as well as w/o helmets tell you that helmets don't do a darn thing when it comes to saving your life or saving your head. For me this is enough conviction to put a helmet on my head every time I get on the back of horse. But that's just me.:)


I will try to find the article to post on here. I did post it on a another forum awhile back.

LookinSouth
Nov. 21, 2007, 12:05 PM
. A perfect example is my own experience- a hoof swiped my helmet. That would have caused an injury of unknown severity- because of my helmet there was no injury at all.
.

This has happened to me as well. A few months ago my horse slipped on landing an oxer in a grass ring. He went down on his knees, I fell off, he quickly managed to get up but in the process whacked me in the head with his shod hoof(with helmet on thank god) as he was struggling to get up. I had a bad headache for a few hours and that was it, I walked away pretty much unscathed except for very bruised confidence and some fear of jumping to get over. There is no doubt in my mind that could have been a very bad fall had I not been wearing a helmet.

Edited to add: I absolutely will not argue with those who say it is their right to ride w/o a helmet if they choose. So be it, I don't disagree.
However, I will never agree that wearing helment does not reduce the incidence and severity of head trauma.

Ambrey
Nov. 21, 2007, 12:33 PM
My response indicates that plenty of people read COTH seriously, but probably not as seriously as many who like to pontificate and cite "facts" like to think. I spent a career with stats and "facts" and you can find a study to say anything you wish it to say.


How long was this career that you did not understand the purpose of data or how to interpret it?

That's right, if someone says that helmets do not help reduce the chance of a severe head injury, I'd expect them to back that up with data. And if you can find a study to say anything you want it to say, why can't you find a study to back up that particular statement?

LookinSouth
Nov. 21, 2007, 01:08 PM
. Therefore, they do not reduce the chance of serious head injury that is inherent in the sport of riding. .

Where are the facts to back this up?? Of course a chance of injury is inherent in riding. A chance of any type of injury, not just head injury.Obviously breaking a arm, leg or rib isn't going to be prevented by wearing a helmet.
No one claims that wearing a helmet will save one from any sort of injury or a fall in general :confused:

Helmets absolutely do reduce the incidence of head injury from a fall whether it be serious or minor. I cannot fathom how anyone can argue different and have the facts to back that statement up!

Ambrey
Nov. 21, 2007, 01:59 PM
Helmets absolutely do reduce the incidence of head injury from a fall whether it be serious or minor. I cannot fathom how anyone can argue different and have the facts to back that statement up!

They can't, they can only insult you for asking for the facts to back it up. It's the classic ad hominem argument. It's hard to argue with people who do not use basic logical principles :)

PaddyUK
Nov. 21, 2007, 02:51 PM
http://mdirf.co.uk/enhap_results.asp

Paddy

dutchmike
Nov. 21, 2007, 03:46 PM
Wow GPA only 2* wich is worse then their motorbike helmets. So you def don't get what you pay for

JSwan
Nov. 21, 2007, 08:35 PM
Funny how this long circular thread is full of people who think some other mythical people think wearing a helmet makes a head injury impossible, but a bit short on actual people stepping up to say "I think wearing a helmet makes a head injury impossible".

I wonder why that is?



Probably because you don't understand that this entire ridiculous thread hinged upon nothing more than a statement, made by a poster on another thread - that asserted that helmets eliminate the possibility of head injury. To which I replied. This thread is the result of a posters mystifying obsession with semantics.

The folks who are chiming in on this thread have not only not read those two posts, but haven't bothered to read many of these, either. Because if they did, they'd know that no one has asserted that helmets do not offer protection. No one has asserted that riding without a helmet is better or the same as riding with one.

Folks may have all sorts of articles to post on helmet safety, or stories from doctors, or even personal anecdotes. And all of those have a great deal of merit. It should be obvious to any equestrian that a certified helmet offers a certain amount of protection from head injuries. That alone is reason enough to wear one.

But I still stand by what I wrote on that other thread. From the information available from manufacturers and results of tests on different models of helmets - it is a fact that helmets cannot prevent serious injury - they can only mitigate certain types of injuries.

In case that still isn't sinking in, that can mean many different things. It can mean walking away with a headache. Or nothing at all. Or it can still mean a coma or death. It runs the gamut from bad to ok to good.

Note - NOT compared to riding without a helmet. The ACTUAL results of tests on helmets.

An example might be penetration injuries. How do the vents in the Troxel helmet prevent those? They can't. So penetration tests are conducted on the solid portions of the helmet - and the results are similar to other helmet designs.

But that does not mean by wearing a Troxel helmet with vents that you cannot suffer a penetration injury into your head. You can - if the object hits you through the vent, or hits the helmet and slides into the vent.

And therefore, it is an example of how a helmet does not prevent a serious head injury. One that could easily prove fatal. It mitigates.

However, Troxel helmets are great and I used one for years.

Some helmets designs offer greater protection above the eyes. Brims that detach. Greater coverage over the back of the head. All those designs go through testing - and all receive ASTM/SEI approval. Even the retention harnesses have different designs - all those designs are tested.

BUT - the results of testing on those helmets are often different. They all meet certain requirements and meet certain standards.

Crushing injuries - contrary to what Ambrey asserted - are not helped too much by helmets. One test revealed only 10-20 percent. Heck - I'll still take those odds, thank you very much!

I think it's interesting that many of us appear to be concerned about the "bubble head" look, and look for the most traditional design possible, or the most popular in the show ring, etc. Helmets have become a fashion statement; yet improperly worn, improperly sized, not secured correctly, not replaced when required, and when it comes down to it - we often buy the helmet that "looks" best on us.

And then still comment about how "safe" they are without even knowing that the different designs are not merely cosmetic - the RESULTS of testing on those helmets can be different. All approved, and all very much worth wearing.

Keep posting studies about how helmets save lives. Everyone already knows that, and nobody has questioned it. But few appear to understand how they work, why they work, and what they do and do not do.

People can and do experience severe head trauma while wearing helmets. Now try and think of what kind of horrible accident that rider has to have in order for a helmet to fail that badly. That doesn't mean don't wear them, and it doesn't mean it can't or won't mitigate injuries that might occur in an accident. If you're lucky, the accident you have matches the type of impact your helmet was best designed to mitigate. Regardless, any helmet is going to spread the force of most impacts to some extent.

I think the absurd obsession with the turn of a phrase has detracted from a meaningful discussion on helmet design and efficacy. The information on engineering and testing of different models of helmets is available. If any of y'all are interested - it's out there to read. If others want to continue with the weird hen party - well - I guess you're free to compare the OED to dictionary.com for word meanings since that appears to be more interesting than helmet safety.

spotted mustang
Nov. 21, 2007, 10:10 PM
jswan and others - throughout this discussion, folks seem to randomly get their verbs mixed up. "eliminate", "reduce" "prevent" - these all mean different things. You have to state precicely what you actually mean, or other people will always misunderstand.

- do helmets eliminate injury? Hell, no.

- do they prevent injuries? Yes: many, but not all. If you suffer a concussion instead of a cracked skull because you had your helmet, the helmet did indeed prevent a cracked skull.

- do helmets reduce the chance or severity of head injury? Yes, usually.

tangledweb
Nov. 22, 2007, 12:55 AM
Probably because you don't understand that this entire ridiculous thread hinged upon nothing more than a statement, made by a poster on another thread

No actually, I did read that thread.

The full post was:

It's very sad to hear about this. However, I don't think it's inappropriate to ask whether she was wearing a helmet. If she wasn't, maybe ONE person will make the change to wearing a helmet and eliminate the possibility of family and friends facing this kind of tragedy.

I just chose to interpret it as a variation of the "if it only saves one life" argument. ie, "Sure I am tormenting a dead girl's family by asking if she deserved it, but maybe by tormenting them one other person who was destined to die in a helmetless accident will wear a helmet instead and not die, thereby eliminating that suffering"

You chose to interpret it as "I think wearing a helmet eliminates all possible risk including flood, fire and attack by angry woodchuck".

I still think my original interpretation was more likely what the writer meant, but then I guess I would.

JSwan
Nov. 22, 2007, 07:23 AM
You chose to interpret it as "I think wearing a helmet eliminates all possible risk including flood, fire and attack by angry woodchuck".

I still think my original interpretation was more likely what the writer meant, but then I guess I would.

Well, I inferred differently. Get over it.

Eight pages of quibbling over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? If people are truly interested in the science and engineering behind helmet design - look up the data available on line. Find out why there are so many models - and which one offers the type of protection you think is best for your discipline. I tend to think few of the posters on this thread will do that - or were ever interested in the subject to begin with.;)

Mrsmph
Nov. 23, 2007, 03:32 PM
A few hours ago, I took a spill off a horse I've been riding for a couple of months. She had a bad spook, and I came off. My head it the plank fence on my way down, and my helmet is cracked wide open. I have no doubt that my helmet saved my life, and am grateful that I am one of those "every time, every ride" helmet wearers. I walked away today with a bruised butt, not a brain injury. Sadly, I also learned that at 40, I don't bounce near as well as I used to. whew!

sm
Nov. 23, 2007, 04:22 PM
But I still stand by what I wrote on that other thread. From the information available from manufacturers and results of tests on different models of helmets - it is a fact that helmets cannot prevent serious injury - they can only mitigate certain types of injuries.

I think you are missing a qualifier like "all" to make your statement true, as in helmuts cannot prevent ALL serious injury.

Helmuts do in fact prevent serious injury every day. What helmuts cannot guarantee is to be effective against ALL injuries.



I spent a career with stats and "facts" and you can find a study to say anything you wish it to say. As coloredhorse says, try some precision... As JSwan stated somewhere along the way, and I restated, there are those of us who feel that people think wearing a helmet is a panacea for all head injuries. I disagree. Accept it or not.

Tory, the OP question was where is the data or source for this claim, “The very sad truth is that helmets will not reduce the chance of serious head injury. They only reduce/mitigate minor head injuries. "

So try some precision yourself Tory --- and link to some studies to back it up as long as you can find studies to agree to any claim. BTW, the OP is not debating if a helmet is a panacea for all head injuries.

JSwan
Nov. 23, 2007, 05:18 PM
Jesus, Mary and Joseph - give it a rest. There's a thread in Off Course on helmets and safety equipment that is actually interesting to read.

If you want to debate the quality of writing on the Internet - try finding a BB for it.

I vote this thread to be among the oddest and most pointless thread on this BB in a long time.

:sleepy::sleepy::sleepy::sleepy::rolleyes:




I think you are missing a qualifier like "all" to make your statement true, as in helmuts cannot prevent ALL serious injury.

Helmuts do in fact prevent serious injury every day. What helmuts cannot guarantee is to be effective against ALL injuries.




Tory, the OP question was where is the data or source for this claim, “The very sad truth is that helmets will not reduce the chance of serious head injury. They only reduce/mitigate minor head injuries. "

So try some precision yourself Tory --- and link to some studies to back it up as long as you can find studies to agree to any claim. BTW, the OP is not debating if a helmet is a panacea for all head injuries.

Ambrey
Nov. 23, 2007, 06:12 PM
Jesus, Mary and Joseph - give it a rest. There's a thread in Off Course on helmets and safety equipment that is actually interesting to read.

This thread would have gone away 2 pages ago if you had taken your own advice and given it a rest.

Karoline
Nov. 28, 2007, 02:34 AM
The worst part is that I really talk like that.

I'm great for insomnia, though :winkgrin:


Dont apologize for being educated and intelligent.

And thanks for the data.

JSwan
Nov. 28, 2007, 10:14 AM
Uh - before you thank her for the nonexistent "data" - take a look at her blog. For such a vociferous proponent of helmet use, one of her kids isn't wearing one - and the other is wearing one so improperly that it is useless in a fall.

If you want to learn anything about these helmets - you're better off reading the manufacturers website, reading the results of the tests that are conducted on each helmet model (they're all different), and picking the one that best protects your head against the types of falls you are likely to experience. Then - wear the thing every single time you ride, make sure it fits CORRECTLY, and don't imbue it with supernatural powers. Even the manufacturers are quite clear on what these helmets do and do not do.

Read and learn from the source. While the studies on accidents are useful in proving that helmets do help to protect us - the results of the testing on each helmet model, the type of tests conducted, and how helmets models stack up against each other - will be of more use to the rider choosing which helmet to purchase.

Ambrey
Nov. 28, 2007, 02:55 PM
Uh - before you thank her for the nonexistent "data" - take a look at her blog. For such a vociferous proponent of helmet use, one of her kids isn't wearing one - and the other is wearing one so improperly that it is useless in a fall.
.
LOL

Good try, but me husband took the helmetless pic of my son while we were switching riders/helmets. My children do not ride without helmets, period. Ever. My son has never even been off leadline, and still wears a helmt.

I don't see where you are getting the misused helmet thing. Ilooked at all of the pics and although it was a little loose in some, it was far from useless. I guess I shoul have called out the helmet expert?

so give it arest.

JSwan
Nov. 28, 2007, 05:38 PM
Hope you are feeling better.

Yes, you should contact a "helmet expert". Try the manufacturer. A loose helmet is practically useless.

And sorry - but if I was going to single someone out for their opinion on helmets; I'd be damn sure my kid was wearing one - regardless of the circumstances. I found it ironic that the study you referenced was done on kids - and when I looked at your blog and stopped drooling over that gorgeous horse - I saw two examples of why a helmet can fail in an accident. First - you have to wear the darn thing. Second, you have to wear it correctly. That goes for all of us - including me (who has shoved her helmet back on a hot day - exposing an area of the brain you really don't want injured)

Think about it and make sure your kids are wearing the darn things when they get on a horse - even for a second - or next time - they might be the ones hurt and not you. I mean that sincerely.



As an aside, it's a bit unrealistic to start a thread directed at a specific person, not accept their explanation in the spirit with which it was intended, then get their knickers in a twist if the individual in question insists upon setting the record straight.

Perhaps next time you want to ask me a question, a PM might be more appropriate. You would have had the same answer - without all the obfuscation.

Hope you are back in the saddle soon.

2ndyrgal
Nov. 28, 2007, 10:56 PM
I have a friend who is not only a firefighter, but is on the bomb squad. He has a special bomb squad suit with a helmet, etc. When I asked him what would the suit and helmet be good for if the bomb actually went off his reply was this...
Container.

Which is to say, as JSwan has so eloquently stated (several times for you slow learners)
If a fireman is fighting a fire, and things go well, or even a little bad, his suit will protect him. He may have some minor burns, might take some smoke, but he'll live to fight another day. If the damn roof caves in and the building explodes, IT IS NOT GOING TO MATTER IF HE WAS IN FULL GEAR OR HIS BOXERS. Except that if he's in full gear they can at least find something to bury. Same with a helmet. I watched an exersize jock go down and the follwing horse stepped directly on his head. He died instantly. Ralph Hill was wearing an approved helmet, safety vest and knows how to fall off. He is still in amazing recovery. A helmet is a really good idea, as is paying attention to what you are doing. I hate my approved helmet with a blinding passion, my head is, having been surgically altered,really, almost an oval with the front bigger than the back and convex sides. There is not an in stock helmet on the planet that is ever going to really fit well, and if it fits SAFELY, it's going to be damn uncomfortable. My Patey, fits perfectly, and has stayed right where it belongs through some rather spectacular unplanned dismounts. Yet I'm not allowed to wear it to show in. So I abide by the rules, because I have to, and trust my experience, reflexes and God to protect me at home, since riding is contraindicated for me anyway. What the helmet nazi's fail to realize is that in spite of their convincing arguments, much like people who smoke, drink and then drive home, or guzzle down cheeseburgers, you aren't going to change an adults behavior. Helmets, in certain circumstances, minimize an injury that would have been worse if you weren't wearing it. In other instances, and there are a lot of them, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. If you are riding a motorcycle and a semi runs over you, the helmet will be a nice little container for your head, but it's not going to save you.

SillyHorse
Nov. 28, 2007, 11:14 PM
Well, I inferred differently. Get over it.
Your inferrence was incorrect.

FancyFree
Nov. 29, 2007, 01:33 AM
What the helmet nazi's fail to realize is that in spite of their convincing arguments, much like people who smoke, drink and then drive home, or guzzle down cheeseburgers, you aren't going to change an adults behavior. Helmets, in certain circumstances, minimize an injury that would have been worse if you weren't wearing it. In other instances, and there are a lot of them, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. If you are riding a motorcycle and a semi runs over you, the helmet will be a nice little container for your head, but it's not going to save you.

Well of course a helmet won't prevent ALL injuries. In some cases it will give no protection at all. But until I can accurately predict the day that I am going to be injured in a non-head related injury, I'm going to wear my helmet. It might just be the day I smush my head. So I guess I'll always wear my helmet. I'm just paranoid like that.

P.S. I'm no helmet Nazi I could not care less if a person wants to ride with no helmet. Motorcycle, bicycle, horse, whatever. Someone up thread said it better, I'm paraphrasing: if they don't want to protect their brains, maybe they have good reason. :D

Ambrey
Nov. 29, 2007, 01:43 AM
And sorry - but if I was going to single someone out for their opinion on helmets; I'd be damn sure my kid was wearing one - regardless of the circumstances. I found it ironic that the study you referenced was done on kids - and when I looked at your blog and stopped drooling over that gorgeous horse - I saw two examples of why a helmet can fail in an accident. First - you have to wear the darn thing. Second, you have to wear it correctly. That goes for all of us - including me (who has shoved her helmet back on a hot day - exposing an area of the brain you really don't want injured).

You need not worry about my children. Using personal attacks does not lend strength to you arguement.

I have 100 picture of my son on Smokey, and that is the only one taken between his mounting and me handing him his helmet. I am not defensive enough to take it down- I know I do my best to keep him safe.

2ndyrgal
Nov. 29, 2007, 04:18 AM
In order for the helmet to be truly effective, one should put it on before mounting the horse. "I swear officer, this is the ONLY time I've ever driven home from the bar". Of course that was the only time he's been mounted sans helmet. Your problem is, that with your position (much like Clinton's) there was tangible evidence. ooops.

JSwan
Nov. 29, 2007, 10:36 AM
It wasn't a personal attack. Merely an observation. Had the picture been of anyone else - I would have made a similar remark. If you're going to be so sensitive - don't post the URL to your blog.

It only takes a split second for a lovely photo op to turn into a bucking fit or a spook that sends the rider to the ER or the morgue. If you want more stats - check out the ones that illustrate how riders get hurt. It's when we least expect it - which is why, if we're going to wear one - wear the darn thing every time we get up on a horse.

If any of y'all are interested in the substance, and not the arguing, on this issue - just search for the information on the engineering and testing of helmets. It will be of much more use in making an informed decision than this thread could ever hope to be. It's out there and easily accessible. And THAT's where I got a lot of the information on the efficacy and design of helmets - as well as the information and what they can and cannot do to protect us. Personal observation, anecdotal and oh gee - look - testing data and manufacturers statements on design limitations. Check it out.

Tory Relic
Nov. 29, 2007, 12:56 PM
You need not worry about my children. Using personal attacks does not lend strength to you arguement.


Starting a thread with someone's NAME in the title and then not accepting their explanations is not PERSONAL?

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol:

Ambrey
Nov. 29, 2007, 01:33 PM
In order for the helmet to be truly effective, one should put it on before mounting the horse. "I swear officer, this is the ONLY time I've ever driven home from the bar". Of course that was the only time he's been mounted sans helmet. Your problem is, that with your position (much like Clinton's) there was tangible evidence. ooops.

Since we've abandoned logical argument of the initial point, let me hand you your straw man. Both I and my children ride frequently without helmets. At this point, I will allow it to pass without objection. Were it true, we'd be in great company- most of those at our stables, even kids, do not wear helmets unless they are jumping. For the purposes of this discussion, the truth of that statement does not matter.

Does it change the data or facts regarding the safety of helmets? Does the fact that my son has spent 30 seconds on a horse helmetless once in his life make helmets not useful?

Let us take that straw man even further. If my son had fallen, and had been injured in the head while helmetless- which side of the argument would such an injury have supported? Would the assumption of all rational people not have been... "he'd have been OK if he had been wearing his helmet."

And to the relic- actually, my post was specifically asking a question of a person. That's an attack... how?

I believe if you looked deeply into my mind, you'd find that I am not a very good helmet nazi. It's why I don't usually say things like "people who don't wear helmets are idiots." I am lucky that I understand the data, though, and that it's strong enough to overcome my laziness and ditziness most of the time- because I'm pretty sure I'd be dead right now without one. As for my son, until my horse is better behaved he doesn't even sit on him bareback anymore :( No helmet worries there.

Tory Relic
Nov. 29, 2007, 06:58 PM
And to the relic- actually, my post was specifically asking a question of a person. That's an attack... how?



I don't believe I said it was an "attack." I asked you how it wasn't personal.

I think I now understand why you aren't getting the explanations offered to you. :D

Ambrey
Nov. 29, 2007, 08:14 PM
I don't believe I said it was an "attack." I asked you how it wasn't personal.

I think I now understand why you aren't getting the explanations offered to you. :D

Yep, it's because nothing you say follows the basic rules of logic:yes: Don't worry, though, I stopped wasting energy trying to figure out what planet you're living on a long time ago.

Ambrey
Nov. 29, 2007, 08:34 PM
It wasn't a personal attack. Merely an observation. Had the picture been of anyone else - I would have made a similar remark. If you're going to be so sensitive - don't post the URL to your blog.


Don't sell yourself short! It was absolutely a perfect example of a type of ad hominem fallacy, also called "personal attack." Check out this website:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

and you'll find a great explaination. If you go to the home page, and read all of the fallacies written there, you will find why so much of what you write boggles peoples' minds. So far I believe you've used several of these fallacious argumentative techniques in this one thread alone! Included are:

appeal to ridicule: a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."

Red Herring: a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.

Begging the Question: a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.

You might find your online debates much more productive and less stressful if you read that website :yes:

JSwan
Nov. 29, 2007, 08:50 PM
Hon - you need to go take your pain meds and rest. This isn't an online debate - I have no interest in debating anyone. You are starting to creep me out.

Actually - you have creeped me out. For the first time since I joined this BB in 2000 - I am officially creeped out by another poster.

Ambrey
Nov. 29, 2007, 08:52 PM
Hon - you need to go take your pain meds and rest. You are starting to creep me out.

Logic does that to some people :lol:

oldenmare
Nov. 30, 2007, 01:58 PM
Actually, the fact that I have been offline for OVER a week and this thread is still active - that's not logic, that's obsession.

And yes, its creepy. Not that you scare me - but 'tis creepy.

Going back to the real world now.