Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You're responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the Forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it--details of personal disputes may be better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts, though are not legally obligated to do so, regardless of content.

Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting. Moderators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts unless they have been alerted and have determined that a post, thread or user has violated the Forums' policies. Moderators do not regularly independently monitor the Forums for such violations.

Profanity, outright vulgarity, blatant personal insults or otherwise inappropriate statements will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Users may provide their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, individuals, etc.; however, accounts involving allegations of criminal behavior against named individuals or companies MUST be first-hand accounts and may NOT be made anonymously.

If a situation has been reported upon by a reputable news source or addressed by law enforcement or the legal system it is open for discussion, but if an individual wants to make their own claims of criminal behavior against a named party in the course of that discussion, they too must identify themselves by first and last name and the account must be first-person.

Criminal allegations that do not satisfy these requirements, when brought to our attention, may be removed pending satisfaction of these criteria, and we reserve the right to err on the side of caution when making these determinations.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it's understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users' profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses -- Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it's related to a horse for sale, regardless of who's selling it, it doesn't belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions -- Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services -- Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products -- While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements -- Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be "bumped" excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues -- Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators' discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the �alert� button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your �Ignore� list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you'd rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user's membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

Finally! An Air Vest Study...Air Vest Users Should Read This!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Originally posted by OverandOnward View Post
    Just IMO -

    To be valid to me, a 'safety vest study' needs to be done in the same way that they do studies on car air bags, of air vests AND every other type of safety vest that is frequently found on active eventers.

    That is, in a lab, with crash test dummies or whatever they use these days to gather data that is systematic and comparable. The same forces can be applied in the same way to achieve truly comparable data. And of course they need to look at different kinds of force applied in different ways, designing the tests to be as close as possible to the kinds of situations that most often occur on course (guess that will need some video examples).

    Question #1 is exactly what does each type of vest does under force. Question #2, 3, 4 and etc. would be different types of force applied in different ways.

    I do not believe that data gathered by the FEI is ever going to provide more than a directional pointer. No matter what the FEI records, it can't answer more specific questions about what the vests do and don't do. In fact I'd consider the FEI data very nearly anecdotal. It has some worth, but it can't be exact.
    U

    That's along the lines of what I thinking. An adult re-rider at our barn fell over a X-rail and fractured a disc. From what people who saw it happen described; she landed on her feet with her arm around the standard, facing the approach to the jump. She didn't appear to get knocked into the standard (which was a single and not a heavy wing standard), and it was a 15.2hh horse going at a slow trot. I'm guessing that she probably reached for the standard to catch herself and a twist was created in her spine, making it especially suseptible to the force generated on landing. If I'm correct in my speculation about the nature of the fall, it's doubtful that her wearing even a standard safety vest would have changed the outcome.

    Buuuuuut, here's a thought. I started poking around looking at motorcycle racing protective gear. It's worlds more sophisticated in design. No doubt most of us in the US have seen motorcyclists wearing a Kevlar protective vest. Racers apparently use a spine protector that slips into the back of the vest. It's designed to support and limit spinal mobility in a fall. The Motorcycle Legal Foundation notes that increased soft tissue damage can occur in the areas the edge of the spinal protector contacts in an accident. But they're still standard equipment in racing because everyone would rather deal with some bruised intercostal muscles than a severed spine.

    Could a safety device like that have helped in the fall that i described above? What effect does overal rider fitness have in an accident? The laws for extended rear facing car seats came about as a result of crash lab research with volunteer subjects. For years, the assumption was that it was the degree of muscle strength that mattered. Then, it dawned on them that the volunteer subjects were big, burly military guys. But their strong muscles didn't prevent whiplash injury. So their heads were obviously moving in a crash. They just didn't suffer the internal decapitations evident in infants based on data from real life crashes. Bingo. It had to be the increased bone density possessed by adults that made the difference.

    how much do we really know about any riding safety vest until some group starts putting them through lab testing? It's quite possible that different riders have different needs in safety gear.

    Comment


      #62
      From the looks of photos from Luhmuhlen, the XC pinneys are sleeveless jerseys? They appear to be pretty snug and might "contain" or at least restrict the inflation of an airvest. Perhaps someone who saw falls in person could confirm whether or not they simply tear (or perhaps the airvests aren't even in use).

      Comment


        #63
        Originally posted by JER View Post
        Academic publishing is so corrupt. I applaud everyone who takes actions to break its stranglehold.
        I don't want to get off topic, but as a medical editor who works for an academic publisher, saying academic publishing is corrupt is so untrue and somewhat ignorant. JER, I'm so disappointed because I've would have considered you smarter than this kind of statement.

        "Breaking its stranglehold" means sharing content against copyright, which hurts everyone, including the authors. There are many legitimate ways to get access to papers if they are not open access, but it takes a little more work. Sadly many people would rather do it the easy and illegal way (even academics admit that they used SciHub [which illegally shares copyrighted content] rather than get a paper through their academic library).

        Without academic publishers--in case this case Elsevier--the research discussed here, which has been peer reviewed and vetted by researchers not involved in the study nor affiliated with its authors, institution, or funding, would likely not be available. We all acknowledge more research is needed on this topic, but how is quality research generated without a supporting infrastructure? It's not as simple as the authors simply posting it online (and, no, preprints do not provide the needed peer review that supporters tout).

        It amazes me how people who work hard in their own jobs think those of us who work in academic publishing should do so for free and make the resulting content free. None of us have chosen this career to get rich--we do it because we are hoping to make the world a better place by getting essential research created, validated and reviewed, edited and produced, indexed so that it can be found, and then stored in perpetuity and corrected/updated as new data comes to light.

        The PDF of this article costs $35! That's it! How many people pay more than that to take a lesson or go to a horse show or watch FEI TV? Do you know how much it costs to produce a research article to the point where you can easily download it as a finished PDF? As noted above, publishing research as subscription content is not at all a lucrative endeavor.

        Anyway, sorry for my rant! It's unusual to see such an ugly statement made here among the educated posters on this board. Funnily enough, I'm leaving tomorrow morning to speak at a library conference about academic publishing, so this topic is at the forefront of my mind.

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by RAyers View Post
          Yeah. We sign the copyright of the final article over to the publisher while we retain all rights to the actual work and data. Therefore, we can distribute data sets and analysis but not direct copies of published work other than to explicit users, e.g. researchers who may cite or utilize such work in their research. But even in that case there still is a license agreement with the publisher or sharing agreements with other institutions who have licensing rights.
          The Author Original Manuscript can be freely shared by the authors, although publishers ask that authors include the citation and DOI upon publication.

          The Accepted Manuscript (peer reviewed but not the Version of Record) can be also be shared by the authors but not on commercial websites (eg, pharmaceutical companies). Again, publishers ask that authors include the citation and DOI upon publication.

          Publishers also allow Green Open Access, which allows authors to post the AOM or AM manuscript to a subject or institutional repository, although sometimes embargoes will apply. NIH-funded research is automatically uploaded to a repository upon publication and freely available to access.

          These policies may vary publisher to publisher, but there are several ways to legally share your work upon publication and publishers are more than happy to tell you (and their websites will also provide this information).

          Comment


            #65
            Originally posted by IFG View Post
            Also, in the old days, you purchased paper "reprints" of your article which you were allowed to send to people. These days, if people request copies of a paper, I send them the pdf. Most of my articles I pay to have open access, so that is not an issue. Yes, most journals charge the authors for that privilege.
            I can't speak for all publishers, but it is common practice to provide each author a large number of free eprints (links to online PDF of the final, or Version of Record, manuscript) upon publication.

            Okay, I'm off! I hope some of this was helpful.

            Comment


              #66
              Originally posted by KellyS View Post

              I don't want to get off topic, but as a medical editor who works for an academic publisher, saying academic publishing is corrupt is so untrue and somewhat ignorant. JER, I'm so disappointed because I've would have considered you smarter than this kind of statement.

              "Breaking its stranglehold" means sharing content against copyright, which hurts everyone, including the authors. There are many legitimate ways to get access to papers if they are not open access, but it takes a little more work. Sadly many people would rather do it the easy and illegal way (even academics admit that they used SciHub [which illegally shares copyrighted content] rather than get a paper through their academic library).

              Without academic publishers--in case this case Elsevier--the research discussed here, which has been peer reviewed and vetted by researchers not involved in the study nor affiliated with its authors, institution, or funding, would likely not be available. We all acknowledge more research is needed on this topic, but how is quality research generated without a supporting infrastructure? It's not as simple as the authors simply posting it online (and, no, preprints do not provide the needed peer review that supporters tout).

              It amazes me how people who work hard in their own jobs think those of us who work in academic publishing should do so for free and make the resulting content free. None of us have chosen this career to get rich--we do it because we are hoping to make the world a better place by getting essential research created, validated and reviewed, edited and produced, indexed so that it can be found, and then stored in perpetuity and corrected/updated as new data comes to light.

              The PDF of this article costs $35! That's it! How many people pay more than that to take a lesson or go to a horse show or watch FEI TV? Do you know how much it costs to produce a research article to the point where you can easily download it as a finished PDF? As noted above, publishing research as subscription content is not at all a lucrative endeavor.

              Anyway, sorry for my rant! It's unusual to see such an ugly statement made here among the educated posters on this board. Funnily enough, I'm leaving tomorrow morning to speak at a library conference about academic publishing, so this topic is at the forefront of my mind.
              I agree with your rant. That is why I suggested that the person who posted the article take it down.

              Comment


                #67

                Originally posted by OverandOnward View Post
                This article is about a 2012 demonstration of air vests at the USEA convention.
                https://eventingnation.com/emsa-air-vest-presentations-from-point-two-and-hit-air/

                It sounds as if there is some sort of test data out there. However, it doesn't seem to be on the Point Two website, and I can't imagine why they wouldn't include it if they had it.




                It sounds as if you are wearing only the air vest, and are not wearing a standard safety vest underneath the air vest. At least one air vest distributor does say that the air vest can be used with or without a standard safety vest. (The only one I looked at.)

                As I understand it, under the USEF/USEA Eventing Rules, isn't the regular vest required, with or without the air vest? I was under the impression that, under the rules, the air vest was an extra layer of protection. Not the only layer. Re eventing rules. Is that right?

                I do know of non-eventers who are wearing just the air vest. I wonder about the level of difference in protection with and without the regular vest. I'm sure two vests are safer, but I wonder if it is enough safer to make the extra expense and wardrobe desirable.
                I was looking for their data as well.


                i don’t event. I ride leisurely but with a vest at all times.

                Comment


                  #68
                  "Further, FEI reported the number of falls as a percentage of starters for each level of competition from 2014 to 2017 to be 4.8% for one-star competitors, 5.4% for two-star, 6.8% for three-star, and 13.3% for four-star.4"

                  So is there a correlation between riding at a higher level and serious falls? If so then are we to say people shouldn't be riding 4 star?

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Originally posted by BayAreaRider View Post
                    "Further, FEI reported the number of falls as a percentage of starters for each level of competition from 2014 to 2017 to be 4.8% for one-star competitors, 5.4% for two-star, 6.8% for three-star, and 13.3% for four-star.4"

                    So is there a correlation between riding at a higher level and serious falls? If so then are we to say people shouldn't be riding 4 star?
                    I think it is worth noting here that FEI increased its qualification process for the upper levels recently, probably as a result of these types of stats. I can't remember the details, but I remember it being discussed as one of the reasons for the smaller KY3DE field this year.
                    www.mayaswellevent.wordpress.com

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Originally posted by Jealoushe View Post
                      A question for all those reading. Based on all the information we have available on these vests, do you or would you feel comfortable using these vests, knowing fully there is no research on their actual safety influence? If so, why?
                      I wear one. I've had two XC falls wearing them, both schooling training/prelim level fences, about 10 years apart. I hit the ground hard both times and am convinced the air vest softened the blow considerably. Anecdotal to be sure, and reflective of my own personal experience and worthy of a disclaimer of non-evidence of the first order. If one wants to be totally safe then perhaps one should not ride a horse. Not trying to be a smart*ss, but seriously there's only so much one can do. Shame the Exo vest never panned out.

                      Comment


                        #71
                        I thought BE or some British organization did some air vest tests a couple of years ago.

                        Comment


                          #72
                          I suspect this will be studied for quite some time, it seems to me to be a very complex issue with more rider/horse/fence/footing combinations and permutations than Carter's has pills. I think Reed is best to speak to all of that. If the air vest is responsible for an increase in the injury/fatality rate it would be nice to have a specific mechanism of how that happens. There are things that perhaps "make sense" on the surface but may not hold up to real world testing. I know neck injuries for example can be direct compression 'lawn dart' injuries or hyperextension/hyperflexion type injuries. I don't know anything that will save you from a rotational fall except luck.

                          Comment


                            #73
                            Originally posted by Jealoushe View Post

                            I had often wondered this. I saw this shared on Faceobok but can't recall what page now. The comments were interesting, and a lot of air vest users being in total denial of the results. Actually arguing that air vests are safer, based on absolutely no research. So much propaganda pushing the vests with no research previously. Hopefully this study can jump start some others.

                            I really hope I can get the full research article.
                            I shared this on Facebook and had quite a discussion going. It was beginning to sound like a COTH thread, where I got out the popcorn. There was a person, whom I know, who was arguing with Deltawave. She was treating Deltawave like she was ignorant.
                            When in Doubt, let your horse do the Thinking!

                            Comment


                              #74
                              Originally posted by Auburn View Post

                              I shared this on Facebook and had quite a discussion going. It was beginning to sound like a COTH thread, where I got out the popcorn. There was a person, whom I know, who was arguing with Deltawave. She was treating Deltawave like she was ignorant.
                              Is she an expert?
                              Boss Mare Eventing Blog

                              Comment


                                #75
                                Originally posted by Jealoushe View Post

                                Is she an expert?
                                Deltawave is a cardiologist, so someone who is familiar with reading studies. She also, I believe, worked with the USEA on some horse heart studies.

                                Comment


                                  #76
                                  Originally posted by Jealoushe View Post

                                  Is she an expert?
                                  Not quite RAyers but pretty darn close.

                                  Comment


                                    #77
                                    I was an early commenter on this thread, saying I was considering getting an air vest in the near future and that I wasn't sure either way about the evidence presented in the study at the top of the thread.

                                    Anyway, just chiming back in with an update for those interested in potential-air-vest-adopters' thoughts...

                                    I am actually not sure I am considering getting one anymore, partly from reading later comments here and partly from recent experience. I suffered an XC fall with my horse in competition a couple weeks ago while wearing my protective vest but no air vest since I hadn't gotten one yet. We were competing at preliminary level. The footing was quite wet and my horse slipped on takeoff at a ditch+brush similar to a weldon wall I guess, anyway we flipped over the jump (there is disagreement as to whether my horse flipped), breaking it, and I landed on my head, kind of at the front/top if it, and then flipped over onto my back unconscious. My horse fell to the right, I fell to the left, so we didn't collide with one another during the fall. We both walked away. I still can't believe it, we are so lucky.

                                    Reading the comments in this thread specifically about spinal fractures, I can't help but imagine that an air vest could have rendered my fall more serious by immobilizing my spine during the impact to my head, but I'm not a medical professional so I don't know. Or maybe it would have been fine since the ground wasn't hard, again, I don't know. Either way, seems like that ~$600 could be better spent elsewhere.

                                    Comment


                                      #78
                                      Thank goodness you are both OK. I think the "I don't know" part of your last paragraph says it all. Until we DO know, with SOME degree of confidence, we should resist making assumptions that more gear is always better. "This sounds like a good idea" is not enough. I sincerely hope more evidence is forthcoming and if/when a system is convincingly shown to do more good than harm I will loudly and publicly support them and buy one immediately.
                                      Click here before you buy.

                                      Comment


                                        #79
                                        Originally posted by deltawave View Post
                                        Thank goodness you are both OK. I think the "I don't know" part of your last paragraph says it all. Until we DO know, with SOME degree of confidence, we should resist making assumptions that more gear is always better. "This sounds like a good idea" is not enough. I sincerely hope more evidence is forthcoming and if/when a system is convincingly shown to do more good than harm I will loudly and publicly support them and buy one immediately.
                                        Exactly. Horse people have to be one of the most superstitious groups of people out there. Quite often doing things based more on tradition and personal experience than science. Usually because there is no science....yet.

                                        Comment


                                          #80
                                          Originally posted by cour10ay View Post
                                          I was an early commenter on this thread, saying I was considering getting an air vest in the near future and that I wasn't sure either way about the evidence presented in the study at the top of the thread.

                                          Anyway, just chiming back in with an update for those interested in potential-air-vest-adopters' thoughts...

                                          I am actually not sure I am considering getting one anymore, partly from reading later comments here and partly from recent experience. I suffered an XC fall with my horse in competition a couple weeks ago while wearing my protective vest but no air vest since I hadn't gotten one yet. We were competing at preliminary level. The footing was quite wet and my horse slipped on takeoff at a ditch+brush similar to a weldon wall I guess, anyway we flipped over the jump (there is disagreement as to whether my horse flipped), breaking it, and I landed on my head, kind of at the front/top if it, and then flipped over onto my back unconscious. My horse fell to the right, I fell to the left, so we didn't collide with one another during the fall. We both walked away. I still can't believe it, we are so lucky.

                                          Reading the comments in this thread specifically about spinal fractures, I can't help but imagine that an air vest could have rendered my fall more serious by immobilizing my spine during the impact to my head, but I'm not a medical professional so I don't know. Or maybe it would have been fine since the ground wasn't hard, again, I don't know. Either way, seems like that ~$600 could be better spent elsewhere.
                                          So glad you are okay.

                                          Another possible what-if is that the force needed to detach the lanyard - even though small - might have changed your trajectory a little bit and caused the horse to impact you. It may just be visceral and unfounded but the lanyards worry me.
                                          If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X