• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

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 are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

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 1/26/16)
See more
See less

video: a PointTwo failure to deploy

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

  • #41
    Nope. So what? We still use them and swear they help and don't hurt our horses.

    But what if the safety vests DO work most of the time and COULD save my life... ?

    I will take my chances! I wore one. I had a fall. It felt great. And the EMT's swore that I would have had some serious damage if I hadn't been wearing it. They were right there. I feel lucky. And I've worked hard to get others to get air vests, having loaned mine out to friends who couldn't afford one. And I know a pile of ULR's who swear by them. They are not stupid. They are not being bought off by sponsors. I have great respect for them.

    Maybe we are all playing with voodoo. I really doubt that though.

    Originally posted by JER View Post
    Is the Mattes pad marketed as a safety product?

    Big difference there.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by retreadeventer View Post
      I know we always end up worrying about research and studies whenever the airvest technology questions come up. As the daughter of a test engineer, I am pretty much driven in my opinions by science and technology as are the most learned among us here.

      But....

      I have, in my lifetime, had three close friends killed by horses. Two were within the last 10 years - dear friends, one death of whom I witnessed, on a public racetrack, the other's death as a result of working with a horse I had serious misgivings about, and begged her to get rid of, prior to her accident.

      All the science and studies in the world didn't help them. In fact, all the safety equipment known to man may not have helped any of them. One thing with horses that I have learned. You cannot predict what they will do and what might happen. I know that I - and you - could also be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and I pray everyday that will not happen to anyone I know.

      If the equipment is out there and can give you a chance you should use it. Helmets continue to evolve -- they knew before they did the tests in the 80's that helmets saved lives -- and they have continued to improve them and create better more protective helmets. 30 years ago I had an instructor who insisted all of her students had to wear helmets with a harness attached. Long before harness helmets were required. We knew they were safer with the strap. We didn't need tests and rules.

      I think it's the same with the airvest. I think they will get better and more protective and eventually I have faith that the proper research will be done, and that will help them create an even better product. But in the meantime I think they work for what we do when we fall from a horse. I've seen them in action many times, as have the EMT's with whom I've discussed the issue, and we agree they are positive. That's what I mean by "anecdotal".
      ^Thank you, THANK YOU, Retreadeventer! I am so very passionate about safety and doing all I can to be safe, and have those I care about, be safe. I also am a scientist by training, and am very big on empirical support. But in this case, all we have is anecdotal support and that support is very positive. I know this forum has been very negative about air vests and I hope that those who lurk will not take this as a reason to forego making a modest investment in something that might just save your life.

      Comment


      • #43
        So wildlifer, I assume you would have been one of those who refused to wear a helmet back in the 80s and 90s. I knew quite a few of people who also didn't wear a helmet back then. In our family, we all wore helmets. It was required even though there wasn't research to support the effectiveness.

        To each his own.

        Originally posted by wildlifer View Post
        Anecdotes are absolutely not enough for me. Or most people with a working knowledge of statistics, the physics of accidents, and the understanding levels of involved parties. There's research behind my helmet. A lot. There's some testing behind my conventional vest and the model of deformable foam safety devices in an impact in general.

        And I highly doubt these EMT's are recording data and analyzing it for trends. There is such a thing as spurious correlation. If more people WEAR air vests, they will see more vests deployed during falls, but have no way of knowing whether further injury was prevented by that or the conventional vest. Neither do we.

        Extensive test designs have been proposed. By someone who can fart sunshine AND understand the concept of correct R&D. How much clearer do we need to be?

        Comment

        • Original Poster

          #44
          Originally posted by ahbaumgardner View Post
          But in this case, all we have is anecdotal support and that support is very positive.
          Really? What about Faith Cooke? Or Karen O'Connor? Or Mandiba? Or Boyd Martin (IIRC, it was him) getting hung up in an iron? Or Jo Rugman, who died of crush injuries while wearing one?

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by ahbaumgardner View Post
            So wildlifer, I assume you would have been one of those who refused to wear a helmet back in the 80s and 90s.
            Nope. My mom would not even leave the driveway if our seatbelts weren't buckled. I tried to outlast her (just because I was that kid) and even my stubborn butt lost. I sure as heck was not allowed on a horse without a helmet. Ever. Or my bike. Head protection was not optional. Of course, I was a kid, so I really didn't know much physics back then... In retrospect, she did the right thing -- it never even occurred to me to ride WITHOUT a helmet because she made it a lifetime habit.
            Life doesn't have perfect footing.

            Bloggily entertain yourself with our adventures (and disasters):
            We Are Flying Solo

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by JER View Post
              Really? What about Faith Cooke? Or Karen O'Connor? Or Mandiba? Or Boyd Martin (IIRC, it was him) getting hung up in an iron? Or Jo Rugman, who died of crush injuries while wearing one?
              So did they all settle out of court? I would guess that with that many injuries, the companies would be out of business from the huge payouts.

              Comment


              • #47
                So I googled air vest and crush injuries. All I could find was the statements that air vests cannot protect against crush injuries (i.e., if a 2000 lb horse falls on you, the vest won't save your life. duh).

                I found nothing about air vests causing injury except on... this forum.

                Is there some sort of conspiracy to keep these accidents from the public? These are not Apple Corporation. These are relatively small companies.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Wait, I thought this was about why Clayton's P2 vest (if he was even wearing one, that's not yet clear to me) didn't inflate when he went flying off his horse.

                  Or was this thread started for some other reason

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by caballero View Post
                    Wait, I thought this was about why Clayton's P2 vest (if he was even wearing one, that's not yet clear to me) didn't inflate when he went flying off his horse.

                    Or was this thread started for some other reason
                    That was answered on the first page when someone linked to the Burghley TV video which clearly showed the lanyard was not attached. But in true COTH style the thread morphed... into. the. same. old. discussion.
                    I'm so busy I don't know if I found a rope or lost my horse

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Why do posters keep saying there has been no research? There has been research. View post #27. If you are saying you would like to see even more done that's a different story but I don't see why the companies should have to shell out for more testing. This would only drive up the prices for those people that do want to buy and even less people would be able to purchase them or would have to put off purchasing. Now if the USEA funded the testing/research that would make sense. If you don't feel the vest offers any protection or causes harm then don't buy it. Top level riders would be the first to stop using the vests if there were any issues with them. I would think that if a vest did cause harm there would have been a big stink about it. Did I miss something? Honest question because I very we'll could have.
                      As far as the crush injuries, not much is going to be able to protect you from that, no helemt, vest or air vest. Especially crush injuries from rotational falls, the force of the impact is just too great.

                      Comment


                      • #51
                        Originally posted by Cindyg View Post
                        Oh that poor horse! Did he land on concrete?!
                        OMG, the sound and sight of that poor horse hitting the fence turned my stomach inside out. The poor thing.
                        Hillary Rodham Clinton - the peoples choice for president.

                        Comment


                        • #52
                          And of course, we can't subject riders and horses to falls via experimental methodology.
                          That is not stopping the makers of vests from using (selected) accidents as "evidence".

                          I think the opinions of EMT's who pick up 89 percent of the eventing membership out there competing BN-T are more compelling to me. The EMT's sure aren't sponsored by Point-Two.
                          With all due respect and gratitude to EMTs everywhere, neither are they particularly well trained in the nuances of neuro/orthopedic trauma (other than stabilize-and-ship), biomechanical research, or other areas that might make their opinions anything more than a "golly gee" observation or friendly speculation in an attempt to make an accident victim feel better. It is VERY DANGEROUS for anyone even in a para-medical field to make offhand comments about accidents or illnesses, because people (especially in stressful or traumatic situations) latch on to what a medical person in authority says and can elevate even a casual statement to the level of dogma.

                          I try to be REALLY careful to never say things like "wow, it's a good thing you came in when you did or this ______ may have been a lot worse" because (and I have quite literally heard with my own ears on more than one occasion) words to that effect immediately translated and shared as "that doctor told me I would have been *dead* if I had arrived even 5 minutes later".
                          Click here before you buy.

                          Comment


                          • #53
                            Why do posters keep saying there has been no research? There has been research. View post #27
                            That is like supplement companies saying their products are "scientifically proven". In-house studies done by a company selling a product, with tiny numbers of subjects and no peer review does not rise to a very high level. It is vastly better than nothing, of course, but these types of studies are better known (in purely scientific terms when no product is in need of selling) as "hypothesis generating" rather than conclusive evidence of safety and efficacy.

                            I would think that if a vest did cause harm there would have been a big stink about it. Did I miss something? Honest question because I very we'll could have.
                            There are a number of reports of failure to deploy, failure of lanyards to detach, inappropriate deployment, etc. Not to mention the ENTIRELY UNANSWERED question of whether or not it is better or worse to have a rapidly-inflating thing potentially pushing vertebral fragments around in the event of a spinal fracture. That last question--unanswered--is my the main reason I won't wear one until there is some directed research (the good kind) in that direction.

                            I believe they have potential. But I'm not convinced they are ready for prime time with the large holes in the evidence base. Lots of things are great ideas and wind up needing huge revision or even scrapping when the hard, cold research is done.
                            Click here before you buy.

                            Comment


                            • #54
                              Originally posted by deltawave View Post
                              With all due respect and gratitude to EMTs everywhere, neither are they particularly well trained in the nuances of neuro/orthopedic trauma (other than stabilize-and-ship), biomechanical research, or other areas that might make their opinions anything more than a "golly gee" observation or friendly speculation in an attempt to make an accident victim feel better. It is VERY DANGEROUS for anyone even in a para-medical field to make offhand comments about accidents or illnesses, because people (especially in stressful or traumatic situations) latch on to what a medical person in authority says and can elevate even a casual statement to the level of dogma.
                              Doesn't that cut both ways, pro and against air vests?

                              Comment


                              • #55
                                As for those people who were injured by air vests, I am wondering if they are settling out of court. I would guess that they are getting a hefty settlement.
                                Well, not everyone automatically defaults to "who can I sue?" when accidents happen. That is a uniquely American trait, and most of these products are sold and used outside of the USA. Since the vests are unregulated, not mandatory, and basically under the rules are items of apparel, I doubt there would be much of a case (but I'm no lawyer) .
                                Click here before you buy.

                                Comment


                                • #56
                                  Originally posted by deltawave View Post



                                  With all due respect and gratitude to EMTs everywhere, neither are they particularly well trained in the nuances of neuro/orthopedic trauma (other than stabilize-and-ship), biomechanical research, or other areas that might make their opinions anything more than a "golly gee" observation or friendly speculation in an attempt to make an accident victim feel better. It is VERY DANGEROUS for anyone even in a para-medical field to make offhand comments about accidents or illnesses, because people (especially in stressful or traumatic situations) latch on to what a medical person in authority says and can elevate even a casual statement to the level.
                                  Spot on Deltawave!
                                  EMTs and Para-medics stabilize and ship, they do not follow up long term with every patient they have transported.

                                  Every good, sharp EMT or Para-medic that I have known would NEVER say " oh, but for blah, blah,or blah, you would have been in much worse shape , or dead" (or whatever).
                                  Some, those that are not as professional and/or, not so great at their job, or some that are absolute beginners, will not have enough sense to know better and can (and do) speak some very ill considered words to their patients.

                                  When I hear people quote an EMT, Para-medic, or any other medical person saying this type of thing...rather than inspiring confidence, it gives me pause as to the professional quality of the person quoted..
                                  Last edited by skydy; Feb. 1, 2013, 12:05 AM.

                                  Comment


                                  • #57
                                    Originally posted by caballero View Post
                                    Doesn't that cut both ways, pro and against air vests?
                                    Sure. Making statements that a product works or doesn't work in a factual tone without evidence to substantiate is not smart. Speculation is allowed, but is best clearly stated as such.
                                    Click here before you buy.

                                    Comment


                                    • #58
                                      Originally posted by caballero View Post
                                      Doesn't that cut both ways, pro and against air vests?
                                      Not really.. "First, do no harm" comes to mind. There has not been enough research.

                                      The potential that air vests may have, to aggravate spinal and/or rib fractures, etc.. etc.. isn't known. NO GOOD RESEARCH has been done as of yet.

                                      Only marketing and anecdotal "evidence".

                                      I don't believe anyone here has a grudge against air vest vendors. Some of us really do believe that proper research should be done before safety claims are made. I hope that the ball is now rolling and that proper studies will be done.

                                      Comment


                                      • #59
                                        Originally posted by deltawave View Post
                                        Not to mention the ENTIRELY UNANSWERED question of whether or not it is better or worse to have a rapidly-inflating thing potentially pushing vertebral fragments around in the event of a spinal fracture. That last question--unanswered--is my the main reason I won't wear one until there is some directed research (the good kind) in that direction.
                                        That's definitely a good question. Not sure how they could test that though. Is such a test even possible to design?
                                        I'd still rather have a vest on just because of the nature of my past injuries and the fact that I feel they wouldn't have been so sever if I had had a vest on at the time.

                                        Comment


                                        • #60
                                          Originally posted by SunNSand View Post
                                          That's definitely a good question. Not sure how they could test that though. Is such a test even possible to design?
                                          I'd still rather have a vest on just because of the nature of my past injuries and the fact that I feel they wouldn't have been so sever if I had had a vest on at the time.
                                          According to "our" experts, that research would take time and money.
                                          Since the vests are selling quite well with little research, but much BNR anecdotal endorsement, there isn't much incentive for companies to do the proper research.

                                          The problem that many of us have(as you can read in previous threads about this topic) is ; It Seems The Air Vest Companies Are Doing Their Product Research On Their Customers, Rather Than Before Marketing Their Product, and that is not acceptable in the world of "safety" gear.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X