# Point Two...Worth Reading.



## Groom42 (9 June 2010)

Sorry to pull up Point Two again, I know it is a bit of a sore topic here as it resulted in the loss of a valued member of the forum, BUT....

Whilst at Tattersalls, L was accosted by the Point 2 stand manager [which I hasten to add was not Lee, but he did 'know his stuff']. She decided to be upfront about her opinions and concerns with reg'ds the P2 - which she has developed herself without influence from others. 

Firstly, the man [let's call him John, I have no idea what his name was!] showed L the promotional DVD they have playing on their stand. It featured Karim Florent Laghouag's [yes, I googled it] fall. John asked L to pause the DVD where she thought the Point Two was inflated, which she duly did. John seemed rather annoyed at how late L left it, and proceeded to tell her she was wrong. At which point L redid it, and paused it at exactly the same point [with KFL almost on the floor] and said it wasn't inflated until that point. John then did the same thing, pausing the DVD earlier, but then also admitting that the Point Two was only 3/4's inflated when KFL hit the floor - which is surely a contradiction to him pausing it earlier than L stated [seeing as the Point Two only takes 0.1s to inflate]. He then proceeded to ask L did she think KFL would have walked away without the Point Two, at which point she said 'I have no idea, and in all honesty neither do you as you cannot compare it to an identical fall without the Point Two.' Needless to say that didn't go down well.

L then proceeded to query as to why a colour costs such a vast amount more than plain black, as she knew that colouring a fabric [having done A-level textiles] did not cost nigh on £100 if not more. This was answered with the fact that as they sell less of the coloured Point Two's, but the colour costs more [and L assure's me it would be, for the price of P2's, negligible] so therefore the RRP must be higher to make a profit. At which point L said maybe if it wasn't a 'money making scheme' it may be more sensible and less hassle to have black then three or four base colours. That didn't go down well either.

L was now asked if she wanted to try a Point Two - at which point she said no. When asked why she replied 'because I don't want to - is that a problem?' John seemed miffed and L explained she is not a fan of tight or restrictive things, and she had been reliably informed from wearers and paramedics that the Point Two was constrictive and took your breath away. She also knew that P, her horse, would 'run until his legs broke' if he heard a Point Two go off. L had heard one with her boyfriend at Hambleden, and her boyfriend, a keen shooter, stated it sounded like gunfire. When asked about paramedics and who had said the Point Two was restrictive, she said she knew the paramedic who retrieved Faith Cook at Bramham, and her first words were 'Get this F-ing thing off me.' He is of the opinion had Faith been minus a Point Two, she would have stayed on the floor rather than getting up to get her Point Two off.

[Can you tell L spent some time arguing with John....??!]

She then asked about the automatic deflation of the Point Two, and surely this should be the paramedics decision as to whether to destabilise the spine. She was told that 'if a paramedic isn't with you in three minutes, there's something seriously wrong.' L pointed out that was all well and good if you were at a BE event, where even 3 minutes can be a push, but if you were xc schooling, hunting, or hacking, where would you be then? This wasn't taken very well either, and something was mentioned about blocking the deflation valve - at which point L said you can just 'block it' because if something lands on the Point Two the pressure will build up behing the blockage and release it [we are talking a removable blockage rather than a built in blockage]. That may have just been the way L interpreted it ...

Finally, L raised the query re: sticky moments where the Point Two would inflate despite the fact you may actually have recovered. John said that he highly doubted if you were that far out of the saddle you would recover. L said if she showed him a picture, would he admit whether the Point Two would have inflated or not. John, being rather arrogant and sure said yes, at which point L showed him her misser at the chase fence [see last weekes H&H pg2.]. John said yes, it would have inflated, but no way did L stay on, at which point L showed him her recovery picture. John looked rather green by this point, and L smiled sweetly, thanked him for his time, and left. 

Lee spoke to a friend of Ls at Bramham, and it had obviously got back to him Ls run in with John at Tattersalls, and he seemed quite riled by it  not only had someone questioned his jacket, but  it was a 17yo girl. Now, surely if there was nothing to concern him, he would not have mentioned it and laughed it off with John? By him mentioning it to someone else, and seeming riled by it, it seems to me L was questioning a little too closely things that Point Two possibly didnt want to discuss or didnt have answers for? I know this has been v. long, but I think L raised some points that people should be made aware of [ie the 3min deflate].


----------



## *hic* (9 June 2010)

If you don't want one, don't buy one. Simples.

If you do want one, do your research and make your own mind up whether the risk / benefit balance is acceptable to you. Simples.

If you want an Exo equally do your reseach and make your own mind up with the risk / benefit balance is acceptable to you.

Bear in mind that in neither of the two brands mentioned can you check against testing standards suitable for the USP of the products.


----------



## TGM (9 June 2010)

Some very interesting points there!  Must say the one about the 'sticky moments' was particularly interesting.  I have a video (sadly not my copyright so can't post it) of a friend point-to-pointing where the horse walloped the fence, jockey shot out the saddle, both legs actually the same side of the horse and looked like there was no way he could get back in the plate but actually swung one leg round and clambered back in.  I'm pretty sure that if he had been wearing a P2 it would have inflated, and made it difficult for him to avoid a fall.

I think it more complex than if you want one, buy one.  I think posts like this are helpful as people may be triggered into thinking about various factors that they may not have thought of on their own accord.  This way they can make a more informed decision about what to buy.


----------



## hati (9 June 2010)

Very interesting. I have to say that I was at Tattersalls and watched the sales pitch in action....it obiviously worked as number of Irish riders were wearing them on the saturday.

I personally am in 2 minds about them - I saw it being demonstrated on someone at Tatts and it seemed really tight and restricting - which would panic me in a fall. Also, I am only at lower levels eventing on youg horses at the minute and so would not want one to go off and frighten them. 

But I think everyone has their own views/opinions on them and I think over time the concept will develop and I could be swayed then.

For the meantime -I can do a lot of events for the price of one!


----------



## MillbrookSong (9 June 2010)

jemima_too said:



			If you don't want one, don't buy one. Simples.

If you do want one, do your research and make your own mind up whether the risk / benefit balance is acceptable to you. Simples.

If you want an Exo equally do your reseach and make your own mind up with the risk / benefit balance is acceptable to you.

Bear in mind that in neither of the two brands mentioned can you check against testing standards suitable for the USP of the products.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you j_t. The person i work for at the mo has fallen twice in her P2 and neither horse has run a mile (one PN and one Int) and she thinks its the best thing around and like landing on a bouncy castle and had escaped possibly injury and as she is riding full time for a living that quite important i think! I also think anything that can reduce injury is a good thing as we recently had a girl in out PC sadly killed due to a XC fall. I have yet to have fallen off in mine so i have no say re bolting horses either way.

ETS - there have been talk of them in P2P and how the jockey club has said no! I have had a few rides and no way would i want to have one for pointing because if you fall you have up to 19 other horses coming over you and treading on the jacket could bring them down as well as you! They have there place and i think that is eventing!


----------



## wizoz (9 June 2010)

I think there is always going to be for's and against's with any product. I cannot comment on the point 2 as A) I've only ever seen one as it's flashed by on a competitor and B) have not even tried it.

I am sure that L thought she had very valid comments and by the reaction she got from the "John" it did not boost her confidence on her own opinions, or indeed may have given her more grounds to agree with her own beliefs!

I have a feeling as time goes by and there have been more fallers wearing the point 2, there will at least be some sort of stat's for people to look at, however, I will remain on the fence until I have tried one out for myself, which could be a very long time,  if ever!!!


----------



## KatB (9 June 2010)

Can I ask who is the valuable forum member who has left because of the P2 please? 

Some interesting points there, but as J_T states, you pays your money, you makes your choice  They are a business, of course they are going to try and make money out of "gimmicky" things like colours etc. 

I personally am not looking at buying one yet, because I don't want to pay the £15 everytime I fall off  I would be trying to unclip it on the way down, which kind of negates it   However, furthe rup the levels, it is still a consideration even with the negatives, as there are still a lot of positives to be considered with them.


----------



## millitiger (9 June 2010)

KatB said:



			Can I ask who is the valuable forum member who has left because of the P2 please? 

Click to expand...

was it lucretia who was banned because of comments on Point2?


----------



## Madhope (9 June 2010)

i agree with Jemima, all this slating isn't doing anyone any favours!!  If you want one, buy one, if you don't, then simply don't, but please don't make others who have bought one feel stupid, its THEIR choice, and we all have a choice in this matter!!!


----------



## langside (9 June 2010)

now don't shoot me down here im just saying my opinion
but if im not wrong L is sponsored by kanteq which is probably one of the main competitors in the current market so i can't help but think she had already had an opinion before she went and is sticking by the product she knows/ believes in (and i understamnd why as i've seen 2 sets of pictures where it could have gone wrong)/ sponsored by?

I went to the stall at Bramham alredy being a sceptic and asked near enough the same questions and was impressed by the way the lady responded to them and answered theres always going to be different views/ instances but like jemima_too said its upto YOU and only you to make your mind up to what ever you think is right for you

ps i haven't got either a p2 or kan (i spent my money getting my mother a BP for hacking) so im still on the fence


----------



## KatB (9 June 2010)

Ah ok, yes that sounds right. Sorry memory is ****!!


----------



## TheMule (9 June 2010)

If this thing *could* help protect me against serious injury then I'm sure going to be wearing it.

Tbh the cost is far less than I'll happily splash out on a saddle, horse insurance, vets fees. What value do I put on my life? Far more than the cost of a P2!

Whilst I dont disagree that some of her points are valid, I dont feel many are particularly relevant!


----------



## Santa_Claus (9 June 2010)

I'm very much on the fence on the jackets still. Can't afford one anyway unless I didn't event all season so I for the time being will be sticking purely with my racesafe!

one point I will add though having watched a friend of a good friend fall off in one recently at a BE event (went semi over head but landed on feet by shoulder after last minute stop by horse) hers was fitted too tight (but had apparently been fitted by the sales team) and the result when it went off was that she couldn't breathe. She hadn't been winded by the fall (as said landed on feet and that was relatively slowly) it was purely down to the jacket. Thankfully she very quickly unzipped the jacket and was able to breathe again but for about 10 seconds until she got it undone she was really struggling.

In this situation it wasn't a problem as she was fully concious and able to undo the jacket but had she been an unconcious rider with the jacket too tight there could have been other more serious implications. So those that have one please make sure it is correctly fitted so once inflated it does not restrict your breathing.


----------



## *hic* (9 June 2010)

Eeep I want to stick up for what I actually said which was that if you want one DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH and work out whether the risk vs benefits suits you. 



Re: the noise, there appears to be an un-fiddled with soundtrack on this video of KFL's fall. I can't hear anything that sounds like a gunshot - perhaps others would like to check it out for their own interest?


KFL fall


----------



## Madhope (9 June 2010)

When mines gone off when i have jumped off, it doesn't sound like a gunshot but it did make me jump and look behind me!!!  What an idiot i must have looked!!  My horse never flinched and she is very spooky and receptive to noise, so if it had been bad i'd have lost her!!  In response to the tightness, my did feel tight when it went off, like it took my breath away for a few seconds, but i was told that is how they are to be fitted when i had a demo done before i purchased.  They are not zipped up they are little clips like the ones on your number bib, just 3 off them, so quick to get off!


----------



## Groom42 (9 June 2010)

langside said:



			now don't shoot me down here im just saying my opinion
but if im not wrong L is sponsored by kanteq which is probably one of the main competitors in the current market so i can't help but think she had already had an opinion before she went and is sticking by the product she knows/ believes in (and i understamnd why as i've seen 2 sets of pictures where it could have gone wrong)/ sponsored by?

I went to the stall at Bramham alredy being a sceptic and asked near enough the same questions and was impressed by the way the lady responded to them and answered theres always going to be different views/ instances but like jemima_too said its upto YOU and only you to make your mind up to what ever you think is right for you

ps i haven't got either a p2 or kan (i spent my money getting my mother a BP for hacking) so im still on the fence
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, L is supported by Kan, but she had these opinions on the Point Two before the Kan support was offered. Iirc the Point Two has been on the market a while - trust me, L has been anti them since they started! I think the fact she was in a motorbike accident makes her doubt the Point Two - it wouldn't have made a single difference to her injuries in her crash, and that's in the situation the Point Two was originally designed for. 

J_T - we were in the xc starters box at Belton, and a young lady dismounted in the warm up in her Point Two. We were all looking down writing times and numbers down, but our heads snapped up at the loud crack. The horse was dancing around on the end of the lead rope looking thoroughly terrified at his now puffed up Mum! There is a v loud crack / bang when the Point Two detonates. Maybe the fact L and her OH were in the woods at Hambleden exacerbated the noise level.


----------



## Santa_Claus (9 June 2010)

Madhope said:



			When mines gone off when i have jumped off, it doesn't sound like a gunshot but it did make me jump and look behind me!!!  What an idiot i must have looked!!  My horse never flinched and she is very spooky and receptive to noise, so if it had been bad i'd have lost her!!  In response to the tightness, my did feel tight when it went off, like it took my breath away for a few seconds, but i was told that is how they are to be fitted when i had a demo done before i purchased.  They are not zipped up they are little clips like the ones on your number bib, just 3 off them, so quick to get off!
		
Click to expand...

ah ok didn't realise cilps rather than zip (that bit always hidden under bid when I seen them  ) but still hers was definitely far too tight as it was moer that just being short of breathe for a few seconds. Yes I didn't speak to her directly but very good mutual friend who was travelling with her and competing at same event relayed how much it had restricted her breathing and I also saw it first hand from about 20m away


----------



## Weezy (9 June 2010)

I have a full bike licence and rode a 750cc for years, I have come off bikes and have had friends come off bikes, indeed I have two dead friends who have come off bikes.  I can say with absolute sincerity that one of those dead friends would still be alive had she had a P2 on, the other, very possibly.  There is deffo a safety factor in wearing one on a bike, as there is on horses - mostly you are protecting your ribs IMO, but broken ribs can easily lead to punctured organs which can, as we all know, lead to death.

Like them or loathe them, they are another tool in the *safety* box that everyone has a right to delve into and use what they see fit for them.  I have absolutely no doubt that they have saved a LOT of broken ribs, beyond that I don't think anyone can say.


----------



## *hic* (9 June 2010)

Hmm, you see my rider hopped off the little mare at the finish at Burnham without unhooking and was amazed at how quiet it was. The mare certainly didn't react but she had just finished her run so no doubt her mind was on other things. AFAIK she'd not heard one go off before. As we walked over to meet them we didn't realise what had happened until we saw that he'd suddenly doubled in width. He'd resisted using it on the youngsters as he was concerned at how noisy it might be. That incident set his mind at rest on that point. The times that my daughter has inflated hers I've actually wondered whether it had worked.

There are other videos on YouTube of them inflating - one is noisy but it is in close proximity to three brick walls forming an enclosure, one is very quiet where the video is taken at a trade stand in the open.

I think it depends on what you want or expect to hear. I suppose I'm used to living near crowscarers so I and my horses wouldn't find a quiet "pop" anything untoward compared to them.


----------



## MillbrookSong (9 June 2010)

Mum has seen a few people at BE events with them tight like BPs. You need to be able to get a fist inbetween you and the jacket!


----------



## TGM (9 June 2010)

Madhope said:



			i agree with Jemima, all this slating isn't doing anyone any favours!!  If you want one, buy one, if you don't, then simply don't, but please don't make others who have bought one feel stupid, its THEIR choice, and we all have a choice in this matter!!!
		
Click to expand...

I don't think it is slating at all - just offering some alternative points of view, for people to take into consideration when deciding whether to buy one or look at alternative products.  I can't see anywhere in this thread where people have been called 'stupid' for buying one.


----------



## Fanatical (9 June 2010)

I find these threads very interesting as I like the idea of teh jackets a lot but have one fairly major concern.

Has anyone known one NOT become detached in a fall. The lanyards are now all the same length (apparently measureed to Mary King's fit as 'nobody could be more defensive than her') and to me they look very long. If you had a fall whereby you just popped off the horses shoulder and landed on your feet, would it detach, and if not could you then be dragged as you may not then have more than 6 stone pulling on it to detach it if teh horse panicked and bolted. This is my only real concern.


----------



## Santa_Claus (9 June 2010)

the fall I witnessed was a slow mo fall over head/shoulder with rider landing by horses shoulder on her feet and yes it went off. And she was little (about 8-9 stone at pure guess). In the event of the horse pulling away there should be a force far far far in excess of 6 stone exerted on the lanyard.

I know someone on here said their daughters didn't go off when she dismounted without unclipping once but she was about 6 stone herself and if sliding down you can potentially understand that.


----------



## Madhope (9 June 2010)

In response to TGM, i just feel people who have a point 2 shouldn't be made to feel like they have wasted their money.  I think it''s time this topic was put to bed for a while and those that are sceptical can have time to watch it's progress!!


----------



## TGM (9 June 2010)

Madhope said:



			In response to TGM, i just feel people who have a point 2 shouldn't be made to feel like they have wasted their money.  I think it''s time this topic was put to bed for a while and those that are sceptical can have time to watch it's progress!!
		
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying that P2 owners have wasted their money!  People are just saying that there are a lot of factors to take into consideration before deciding whether to buy one or not.  Different factors will influence people's decisions in various ways dependent on their circumstances.  For example, the noise issue will obviously be of more concern and therefore require more investigation if someone has a sensitive, spooky horse, whereas someone on a totally bombproof mount wouldn't give it a second thought.  If you are asthmatic or claustrophobic, then the issues about tightness and shock on inflation may be relevant to you, etc.

I don't think the topic should be 'put to bed' just because you have made up your own mind about the issue - there are lots of people still considering the pros and cons who find threads such as this very interesting!


----------



## Saratoga (9 June 2010)

I think the debate is a good thing. What i don't like about this product is that the people making them seem to have a real problem with dealing with people's concerns/issues with it....if their product was really all it is made out to be then they would happily show those critics to be wrong. But time and time again those concerns have been met with angry/threatening behaviour and forcing people off the forum/out of their stands!

I don't like the fact that they have been cleverly marketed, without appropriate testing IMO, and people are buying them in thousands without thinking about the different scenarios. 

Threads like this make people think about what they are parting with their money for. And they also show up the products weaknesses which is only a good thing for the purchaser and their safety.


----------



## Carefreegirl (9 June 2010)

My parents bought me one a couple of weeks ago and having been fitted and 'set off' I must admit I feel a bit more safer at the thought of falling off, tho its not a habit I wish to start. It did go off with a hell of a bang which shocked me but it was in a saddlery so of course it's going to be loud. Again its personal choice, there is no right or wrong. I dont jump huge, 3ft xc and am hoping to team chase in the autumn. It was tight when it went off but immediately you can hear it start to deflate and it has 3 plastic clips so easy and quick to undo. Hopefully I wont need it but I feel safer knowing that it's there.


----------



## SpottedCat (9 June 2010)

The thing I find most weird about the whole debate is that every time we have one of these threads, someone will say 'they could help and what price do I put on my life' - which is a very sensible and valid point, but makes me wonder why on earth people are not queuing up to buy the Exo - which will prevent a crush injury, and about which exactly the same could be said. The Exo is also cheaper than the P2. Various arguments put forwards against the exo are:

 - Weight - makes no sense to me as there was a point in time when all horses had to carry at least 11 stone (IIRC - could be wrong on the weight) so riders had weight cloths filled with lead. Plus they are on a harness so you don't feel it on you like the dead weight it is in your hand (but you probably only understand this properly if you've ever done physical activity with a heavy but decently fitted rucsac on).
 - Price - null and void - they are cheaper than the P2 and certainly cheaper than a saddle!
 - Looks - I was told by Harry Meade that the reason he would not wear an exo is because they did not look smart enough.

Which leads me to draw the conclusion that had WoofWear bothered to market the Exo as well as P2 have marketed their product, you'd see as many people wearing Exos as you now do P2s.

I don't own either, I can see the merits of both - if I either worked with horses or backed a lot of babies, sure I'd buy a P2 because I can see real benefits in the system when one is rapidly ejected onto the floor. As I don't, the exo is what I am searching for in my size, because the crush injuries worry me more than the bruising injuries. I would like some clarification from RDA/BE about whether one will be allowed to wear the Exo after the new Beta regs are in force though.


----------



## Madhope (9 June 2010)

TGM i am asthmatic!!  To be honest this is the first time i have posted on the H and H forum and i won't be posting again, i have not been brave enough in the past for this exact reason, being made to feel like my opinion has been shouted down!!  You guys continue your 'debate', but i won't be commenting again!


----------



## SpottedCat (9 June 2010)

Madhope said:



			In response to TGM, i just feel people who have a point 2 shouldn't be made to feel like they have wasted their money.  I think it''s time this topic was put to bed for a while and those that are sceptical can have time to watch it's progress!!
		
Click to expand...

If one has bought one, and is happy with it, why would one feel like they have wasted their money? That's really odd, and shows a lack of courage in one's convictions to start with I think! I've phrased this oddly to avoid being drawn into the inevitable 'personal attack' which stems from using the word 'you' on this forum BTW.


----------



## TGM (9 June 2010)

Madhope said:



			TGM i am asthmatic!!
		
Click to expand...

 But presumably you have weighed up the pros and cons, and decided that the 'pros' for YOU outweigh any worries you might have about your breathing after a fall.  Another rider may make a different choice, but that doesn't mean either of you are 'wrong'!




			To be honest this is the first time i have posted on the H and H forum and i won't be posting again, i have not been brave enough in the past for this exact reason, being made to feel like my opinion has been shouted down!!  You guys continue your 'debate', but i won't be commenting again!
		
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has 'shouted down' your opinion, just offered some alternative points of view.  I hope you can continue to enjoy reading the debates on here, even if you don't feel brave enough to post!


----------



## HotToTrot (9 June 2010)

SpottedCat said:



			The thing I find most weird about the whole debate is that every time we have one of these threads, someone will say 'they could help and what price do I put on my life' - which is a very sensible and valid point, but makes me wonder why on earth people are not queuing up to buy the Exo - which will prevent a crush injury, and about which exactly the same could be said. The Exo is also cheaper than the P2. Various arguments put forwards against the exo are:

 - Weight - makes no sense to me as there was a point in time when all horses had to carry at least 11 stone (IIRC - could be wrong on the weight) so riders had weight cloths filled with lead. Plus they are on a harness so you don't feel it on you like the dead weight it is in your hand (but you probably only understand this properly if you've ever done physical activity with a heavy but decently fitted rucsac on).
 - Price - null and void - they are cheaper than the P2 and certainly cheaper than a saddle!
 - Looks - I was told by Harry Meade that the reason he would not wear an exo is because they did not look smart enough.

Which leads me to draw the conclusion that had WoofWear bothered to market the Exo as well as P2 have marketed their product, you'd see as many people wearing Exos as you now do P2s.

I don't own either, I can see the merits of both - if I either worked with horses or backed a lot of babies, sure I'd buy a P2 because I can see real benefits in the system when one is rapidly ejected onto the floor. As I don't, the exo is what I am searching for in my size, because the crush injuries worry me more than the bruising injuries. I would like some clarification from RDA/BE about whether one will be allowed to wear the Exo after the new Beta regs are in force though.
		
Click to expand...


Quite right.  I've said this many times before - the EXO is the only thing that will protect you from being crushed in a rotational. Nothing else will.


----------



## *hic* (9 June 2010)

HotToTrot said:



			Quite right.  I've said this many times before - the EXO is the only thing that will protect you from being crushed in a rotational. Nothing else will.
		
Click to expand...

But sadly of course there is no standard to test it to to prove that.


----------



## SpottedCat (9 June 2010)

jemima_too said:



			But sadly of course there is no standard to test it to to prove that.
		
Click to expand...

But there are all the calculations one can do if one is clever and trained enough in stress/forces/materials etc, which do hold up - OH has looked at it and as he is an engineer who keeps jet planes in the sky, I am inclined to think there is something in it. Testing only comes after all the clever maths people have done their bit to design the product, and they are pretty good at making things pass tests - but if a test hasn't been devised (which it hasn't), then the product can hardly be expected to pass it. That doesn't mean it doesn't work. Of course, the same could be said for the P2, but that's not designed to protect against crush injuries, which is what I am more concerned about on a personal level.


----------



## *hic* (9 June 2010)

SpottedCat said:



			But there are all the calculations one can do if one is clever and trained enough in stress/forces/materials etc, which do hold up - OH has looked at it and as he is an engineer who keeps jet planes in the sky, I am inclined to think there is something in it. Testing only comes after all the clever maths people have done their bit to design the product, and they are pretty good at making things pass tests - but if a test hasn't been devised (which it hasn't), then the product can hardly be expected to pass it. That doesn't mean it doesn't work. Of course, the same could be said for the P2, but that's not designed to protect against crush injuries, which is what I am more concerned about on a personal level.
		
Click to expand...

But there you are talking about the aerospace industry with all the clever people who work and design and test and have done for years - one of my exes is coming up for his 40 years in the job with Marshalls, my peers are all between 25 and 30 years there so I have some idea of the process. Bodycage state that they are "a Product Development Company for the equestrian industry". We've been idly chatting the actual force of impact, and I'd be interested to know whether your OH feels the product has been designed to take an appropriate force. I don't disagree that the Exo will stand up to having a tonne weight sat on it for five minutes which no other BP on the market would.


I was commenting that the test had not yet been designed - it used to be in these threads that someone would come out with "but the EXO is BETA approved" which of course it is - but only the foam padding.


----------



## *hic* (9 June 2010)

SpottedCat said:



			But there are all the calculations one can do if one is clever and trained enough in stress/forces/materials etc, which do hold up - OH has looked at it and as he is an engineer who keeps jet planes in the sky, I am inclined to think there is something in it. Testing only comes after all the clever maths people have done their bit to design the product, and they are pretty good at making things pass tests - but if a test hasn't been devised (which it hasn't), then the product can hardly be expected to pass it. That doesn't mean it doesn't work. Of course, the same could be said for the P2, but that's not designed to protect against crush injuries, which is what I am more concerned about on a personal level.
		
Click to expand...

But there you are talking about the aerospace industry. Bodycage state that they are "a Product Development Company for the equestrian industry". We've been idly chatting the actual force of impact, and I'd be interested to know whether your OH feels the product has been designed to take an appropriate force. I don't disagree that the Exo will stand up to having a tonne weight sat on it for five minutes which no other BP on the market would.


I was commenting that the test had not yet been designed - it used to be in these threads that someone would come out with "but the EXO is BETA approved" which of course it is - but only the foam padding.


----------



## *hic* (9 June 2010)

Oooh it's posted my original AND the edited version I wanted posted. If you could please read the second version it would be appreciated.


----------



## JoG (9 June 2010)

Have never tried one and no longer ride so never will but being objective I thought i'd throw in my 2p worth....

*Disagreeing over when something inflates *- that is surely down to someone's unique perception, reaction times and eyesight so not indicative of the effectiveness of the product?

*You can't compare an identical fall with and without a P2* - Is that not true for every hat/BP etc?

*Cost of colours *- has probably been worked out by the marketing team looking at forecasted profits, again no indication of the level of protection offered but surely more an indication of what cost vanity and colour co-ordination?!

*Constricted feeling* - that is how you achieve immobilisation.  Ask anyone who has been strapped to a spinal board

*Noise of it going off* - yep it might be loud, it is a gas canister.  and your horse may leg it....is that a primary concern if you're buying a protective garment that in theory you will only inflate _after_ you and the horse have parted company?  Should a horse be somewhat desensitised to loud noises if it is competing/hunting/hacking?  What are the _real_ risks to horse and rider if the horse does leg it after the P2 goes off?  Surely that is specific to each individuals horse? 

*Automatic deflation* - as a Paramedic I completely agree that a sudden loss of spinal immobilisation is not good.  And I can see L's point that medical assistance may not be at scene when a fall happens - but surely _someone_ is there?  Who can, in the case of a serious fall, keep the rider still and call for medical assistance?  (this person, if there before 3mins can surely also undo the P2 if it does look like breathing is restrictive?!)

*Unecessary inflating* - if you have a seat of glue and tend to recover is the purchase of such an expensive piece of equipment actually necessary?  Or could you be selective about when you wear it based on your knowledge of your ability at that level/activity and your risk assessment of a fall?  I.E. taking responsibility for your own safety?

*The Rep was a bit Pee'd off* - well to be fair he is trying to do his job and increase sales and by not convincing someone of the benefits of the product he is going to be annoyed.  Likely because of other potential customers who may have overhead the conversation or tales of it afterward.....it is his job to make a profit for the company!!

So I guess what i am saying is - your post seems to have the tone of "L shows that P2's are a waste of money" when in fact IMHO it is simply that L has made her decision and has yet to find evidence to change that....there is no indication that because of her opinion there is any fault with the product - it is simply personal preference

So as J-t said - your money, your neck/back/life, your personal risk assessment and your choice!!


----------



## brushingboots (9 June 2010)

The OP has made very valid points. However, at the end of the day as someone says earlier in the thread, it is up to you what you choose for yourself, and you shouldn't be questioned on what you choose for yourself. 


What L decides to question is up to her, and definitley wont influence the side of the fence on which i will sit. I do respect L's values and opinions, as she is a gutsy and talented rider. 

However, nobody on HHO can agree with anything over the point two subject. 

I myself, have had a fantastic experience with point two, finding them a delight to deal with. Having had a nasty fall myself, with my horse landing on me, the point two has saved me a lot of hospital time i belive, coming away with a couple of cuts and bruises. 

Therefore, i feel i should say, that the explosion is loud to others, but not to yourself. You are dealing with a lot going on when you fall off and so is your horse, neither of you tend to notice it. Horses around me when mine exploded just had a little look nothing too major and one of them was very very spooky. My horse, decided to run off - but that is because he is a worrying horse and feels very sorry if he does anything wrong. 

However, one point i will agree on is the fact that the coloureds are so expensive!


----------



## *hic* (9 June 2010)

May I introduce a touch of levity?



brushingboots said:



			Just like coloured horses vs boring bays

Click to expand...


----------



## Saratoga (9 June 2010)

It's a personal choice. If you decide that the pros outweight the cons then go for one. If you don't then don't. But i do truly believe that debate is healthy, it opens peoples eyes to the weaknesses as well as the strengths of a product, and makes people think about things before being talked into buying a product that is expensive by a very persuasive sales team.

From my own personal point of view the restriction when it goes off, the lack of being able to tuck and roll when it is inflated, the noise and effect it has on my horse when going off, and the automatic deflation when an unstable fracture could be present are all stopping me buying one.

As long as those buying one realise all of the weaknesses and are still happy to buy one then there is no problem.


----------



## TGM (9 June 2010)

Saratoga said:



			But i do truly believe that debate is healthy, it opens peoples eyes to the weaknesses as well as the strengths of a product, and makes people think about things before being talked into buying a product that is expensive by a very persuasive sales team.
		
Click to expand...

 Agree with this entirely - very well said.


----------



## Groom42 (9 June 2010)

JoG said:



*Constricted feeling* - that is how you achieve immobilisation.  Ask anyone who has been strapped to a spinal board



*Automatic deflation* - as a Paramedic I completely agree that a sudden loss of spinal immobilisation is not good.  And I can see L's point that medical assistance may not be at scene when a fall happens - but surely _someone_ is there?  Who can, in the case of a serious fall, keep the rider still and call for medical assistance?  (this person, if there before 3mins can surely also undo the P2 if it does look like breathing is restrictive?!)




So I guess what i am saying is - your post seems to have the tone of "L shows that P2's are a waste of money" when in fact IMHO it is simply that L has made her decision and has yet to find evidence to change that....there is no indication that because of her opinion there is any fault with the product - it is simply personal preference

So as J-t said - your money, your neck/back/life, your personal risk assessment and your choice!!
		
Click to expand...

- Having seen my daughter come out of an ambulance on a spinal board, trust me, she knows about that, as do I. 

 - That is presuming the 'leisure riders' and 'happy hackers' are not hacking alone. Keeping still is not necessarily the issue - the deflation will lower you to the ground, and if out hacking / hunting you do not have a bodyprotector on, that means all stablity of the spine is gone - what if there is a branch / rock / dip? I know it is a lot of what if's, but the what if's do happen, so need to be addressed.

- The tone is not that they are a waste of money at all, but things that L and I feel people should be made aware of as they may not be things other people have thought about.


----------



## SpottedCat (9 June 2010)

jemima_too said:



			Oooh it's posted my original AND the edited version I wanted posted. If you could please read the second version it would be appreciated.
		
Click to expand...

Having read version 2, the short, and ultimately unhelpful answer is 'yes'. The reason it is unhelpful is because it was done on a bit of paper of an evening to satisfy my curiosity and we did not keep any of it, and like anything, it must have factored in a number of assumptions. It was enough to satisfy me that it was worth buying one, not that that is worth anything either really! 

P2 found a niche in the market and managed to exploit it v successfully without treading on BEs toes. Exo did the same but could not help but tread on BEs toes because BE have major BP manufacturers as their sponsors. Plus Woof did sweet FA to market the thing properly. I suspect this will always be a VHS/Betamax debate, where the more advanced product lost out to the better marketed one, which is a shame.

I also happen to think it is pretty shameful that BE do NOTHING towards developing tests for both of these products. The answer I got from them is that BE do not do R&D or sell/endorse products. Which would be more convincing had they not developed the frangible pin which course builders have to buy from their supplier.


----------



## jonny (9 June 2010)

jemima_too said:



			If you don't want one, don't buy one. Simples.

If you do want one, do your research and make your own mind up whether the risk / benefit balance is acceptable to you. Simples.

If you want an Exo equally do your reseach and make your own mind up with the risk / benefit balance is acceptable to you.

Bear in mind that in neither of the two brands mentioned can you check against testing standards suitable for the USP of the products.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree with all your comments! People should embrace any new form of safety, not try and think of every possible reason for not using one.

X  X


----------



## oldvic (9 June 2010)

A case where the p2 would have been quite dangerous is when Armada pulled his reins over his head in the water at Tatts. AN had to react very quickly getting well up the horse's neck to catch the reins as Armada went to accelerate away up the course, pull him up and again get up the neck to sort the reins out and get them back over the head before the volatile Armada took off. If he had a jacket on that had gone off or restricted him then he would have been in serious s***.
Another time that the p2 would be a disadvantage is if the horse gets caught up and you have to get off in a hurry.
A rider at Badminton got off at the end without undoing the jacket and it didn't go off. It wasn't a lightweight girl either so the rider would need to be well separated from the horse before inflation.


----------



## popsdosh (9 June 2010)

SpottedCat said:



			I also happen to think it is pretty shameful that BE do NOTHING towards developing tests for both of these products. The answer I got from them is that BE do not do R&D or sell/endorse products. Which would be more convincing had they not developed the frangible pin which course builders have to buy from their supplier. 

Click to expand...

BE did actually ask P2 to carry out various tests all of which P2 dragged their heels over and I am not aware that they have in fact ever been carried out.I think P2 were pushing for them to be made compulsory and infact last summer their sales people were stating at shows that BE were going to do this (just shows how low they stoop).
Please dont forget P2 are not the only manufacturer of these jackets Hit Air jackets are starting to catch on over the pond and are approx 100 euros cheaper.They are just as good but perhaps not so pushy in their marketing.


----------



## kerilli (9 June 2010)

I'll be very careful what I say on here... 
As has been said, it is up to individual riders to make their own choices.
There is some fascinating discussion about the airjackets on the Chronicle of the Horse Forum, which seems to allow free speech. A U.S. Event Rider, Reed Ayers (RAyers on COTH), who happens to be a rocket scientist (yes, really!) and who has been involved in safety testing for riders (of crash hats, iirc), has some very interesting things to say about them.
Btw, he rides xc in an Exo, as I do...


----------



## BronsonNutter (9 June 2010)

I can see that they'll be useful in a 'normal' fall by making you bounce and protecting further up and down than a normal BP. Also, they don't look to heavy and unless you plan on pulling off some spectacular save (I tend to just fall off!) then I can't see how too much 'harm' can be done, even if it is to protect you from a bit of bruising. 

However, I can't see how a few inches of air will do any good in a rotational fall if your horse lands on you. Also, in the only fatal fall I've seen (before P2s) the rider never seemed to come far away from the horse, and I'm not sure if it would have inflated as a result of that. That and I can't afford one


----------



## TGM (9 June 2010)

jonny said:



			Totally agree with all your comments! People should embrace any new form of safety, not try and think of every possible reason for not using one.

X  X
		
Click to expand...

But if there are several different new safety options (ie Exo, other air jackets etc), then surely it is wise to consider and debate the various pros and cons of each, to ensure that the right decision is made for each individual horse/rider combination.


----------



## Weezy (9 June 2010)

When we have these debates rotational falls ALWAYS get mentioned again and again.  Now, I don't know what the sales people are saying, but nowhere on the site does it say that they will save you in a rotational as far as I can see.  Sure, one could argue that by putting up videos of rotationals they are indirectly stating that they will save you, but I don't see any claims of this by P2 themselves....please feel free to prove me wrong, I am incredibly fallible     The main claim is that they could be beneficial in stopping spinal and rib injuries and traumas usually associated with horse falls, and I can see WHY they claim this, as if the product works correctly in a fall then it goes without saying that some bounce will help LOL!


----------



## event_rider (9 June 2010)

I regularly keep an eye on the H&Hs forums to keep up to date with all the eventing news and gossip but I'm a posting virgin as I never feel strongly enough to post!!!However, having read the OP's post and some of the subsequent replies, I feel compelled to throw my two cents in!

Having been present at the event at Tattersalls (was supposed to be riding but did damage to myself) and having purchased my point2 jacket there, I had a completely different experience with the sales rep than "L" did. He couldn't have been nicer and spent the guts of 30 mins talking me through the issues and concerns that I had. Not only did he inflate the jacket using the big canister, he also inflated a jacket with an actual canister on both myself and my sister so that we got the chance to experience what would happen in the instance of a fall. Personally I found the restricted feeling it gave me incredibly comforting having had my fair share of bad falls! I also didn't feel the noise was unduly loud and to be honest I would expect my eventers to have enough exposure that they wouldnt find it too daunting!

I had tried the jackets previously at two of my local tack stores but I felt that the staff there weren't able to give me the level of detail on the product that I required. I also wanted to be talked through the fitting and use of the jacket by an "expert" so consequently waiting until I was in a position to talk to someone who really new their stuff.

As the cost was so great, I personally thought long and hard before buying one but ultimately it came down to the question "what monetary value did I put on my safety" and after that it didnt seem so expensive. It was a completely personal decision but having lost people close to me and having had friends with serious spinal damage after eventing accidents, I came to the conclusion that even if it saved me some element of damage in a fall situation it was worth the initial outlay!

Finally Groom 42 - I saw your daughter's miss at that fence in Tatts and in fairness she did extremely well to hang in! As someone who is far from perfect and who has there fair share of "Lucky Moments" I cant judge but had her horse not managed to right itself at that fence she would have had a fairly hefty fall. Had the P2 gone off in that instance I would have been fairly philosophical about it because it was shear luck that I didnt fall. Personally I wouldnt mind the odd equipment incident if it worked to save my bacon when I needed it. Tack can break no matter how well oiled, you can lose a shoe now matter how good the farrier, you can lose your reins in the water (Like Andrew Nicholson) -  the point is things with horses do go wrong!

Finally, in my opinion, no one should try to influence another without hard fact. This post is based firmly on my PERSONAL opinion having done my own research which resulted in be deciding that the benefits outweighed the price! It's clear that there are still some untried aspects of the jackets but there is proof that they will prevent some degree of injury until someone actually has proof that they are potentially harmful I will continue to wear mine!

God instead of writing my first post I've written a novel!!!


----------



## Booboos (9 June 2010)

SpottedCat said:



			I also happen to think it is pretty shameful that BE do NOTHING towards developing tests for both of these products.
		
Click to expand...

Best comment I have read by anyone on all the P2 threads.


----------



## Booboos (9 June 2010)

event_rider said:



			Finally, in my opinion, no one should try to influence another without hard fact.
		
Click to expand...

I think this is what worries me about some of these threads as well. I have no idea if the P2 works well or not, but I think you need to know a lot to be confident to give advice to others on their safety. 

Suppose I had doubts about the efficacy of the jacket, aired them in public, convinced someone not to buy it and was wrong...if that person was injured that would be my fault.


----------



## CParker (9 June 2010)

To add my small bit to this. I was competing at LD last weekend on two 6yr olds! When a man came through the finish then jumped off right next to me (3m away) without unattaching himself the noise was very slight not spooking either horse especially as i was riding my little mare who is pretty sharp at times it didnt even make her flinch! having had my p2 for nearly a year now and setting it of on two occassions neither time did it in the slightest upset the horses. I feel alot happier wearing it and as others have said if you want one get one, if not then don't! but don't criticise them instead.


----------



## Admirable (9 June 2010)

There has been a fair bit of discussion on this subject recently so I thought I would post this as I know some of you are interested.

Taken at Burgie, this is every 3rd frame and I'm unsure of the make/model of airjacket.

Below are four crops of the original shots just to let you see what happens.

This shows the coiled cord from the airjacket to the saddle. Note she still wears a bodyprotector under the airjacket.







The thickness of the airjacket tells us it has not inflated yet.








Here we see the cord is fully stretched and about to trigger the airjacket. She's now on her way to a wet bum!







I would like to add there was no 'great' noise or bang from the airjacket when activated.


Lastly we look just under her arm we see the air filling the jacket and expanding like a balloon. The airjacket is fully inflated before the rider hits the water.


----------



## Mike007 (10 June 2010)

But in fairness that was a pretty slow and sedate fall on the scale of these things.It gets really interesting when you look at the more energetic falls,and examine time lapse photographs and work out how quickly things actualy happen.I have moved somewhat from my initial scepticism having seen footage of a partialy inflated jacket,in my opinion ,spreading the load from a potential crush situation ,and then on full inflation ,lifting and rolling the horse off the rider.I think it is a good thing that people should air their concerns.Slick marketing should never go unchallenged.If the product is good ,it will stand up to this,on its own merits.I still want to see some proper tests,not people jumping off a vaulting horse.Incidentaly,I too am a qualified aircraft engineer.


----------



## Admirable (10 June 2010)

Mike007 said:



			But in fairness that was a pretty slow and sedate fall on the scale of these things.
		
Click to expand...

I have looked at the shutter activation times for these images, all the frames shown above,  were taken in the same second. In fact there are others in that sequence, not shown, that were taken within the same second.

The camera shoots at 10 frames per second.

The timing of the first frame, which is the one before the first one here, and the riders boot hitting the water is less than two seconds.

She was lucky it was water and not a ditch or another log.


----------



## Saratoga (10 June 2010)

It might have taken 2 seconds but the horse isn't really moving in the pictures, looks like he has just jammed on the brakes. I agree it seems a fairly sedate fall.


----------



## TableDancer (10 June 2010)

event_rider said:



			I regularly keep an eye on the H&Hs forums to keep up to date with all the eventing news and gossip but I'm a posting virgin as I never feel strongly enough to post!!!However, having read the OP's post and some of the subsequent replies, I feel compelled to throw my two cents in!

Having been present at the event at Tattersalls (was supposed to be riding but did damage to myself) and having purchased my point2 jacket there, I had a completely different experience with the sales rep than "L" did. He couldn't have been nicer and spent the guts of 30 mins talking me through the issues and concerns that I had. Not only did he inflate the jacket using the big canister, he also inflated a jacket with an actual canister on both myself and my sister so that we got the chance to experience what would happen in the instance of a fall. Personally I found the restricted feeling it gave me incredibly comforting having had my fair share of bad falls! I also didn't feel the noise was unduly loud and to be honest I would expect my eventers to have enough exposure that they wouldnt find it too daunting!

I had tried the jackets previously at two of my local tack stores but I felt that the staff there weren't able to give me the level of detail on the product that I required. I also wanted to be talked through the fitting and use of the jacket by an "expert" so consequently waiting until I was in a position to talk to someone who really new their stuff.

As the cost was so great, I personally thought long and hard before buying one but ultimately it came down to the question "what monetary value did I put on my safety" and after that it didnt seem so expensive. It was a completely personal decision but having lost people close to me and having had friends with serious spinal damage after eventing accidents, I came to the conclusion that even if it saved me some element of damage in a fall situation it was worth the initial outlay!

Finally Groom 42 - I saw your daughter's miss at that fence in Tatts and in fairness she did extremely well to hang in! As someone who is far from perfect and who has there fair share of "Lucky Moments" I cant judge but had her horse not managed to right itself at that fence she would have had a fairly hefty fall. Had the P2 gone off in that instance I would have been fairly philosophical about it because it was shear luck that I didnt fall. Personally I wouldnt mind the odd equipment incident if it worked to save my bacon when I needed it. Tack can break no matter how well oiled, you can lose a shoe now matter how good the farrier, you can lose your reins in the water (Like Andrew Nicholson) -  the point is things with horses do go wrong!

Finally, in my opinion, no one should try to influence another without hard fact. This post is based firmly on my PERSONAL opinion having done my own research which resulted in be deciding that the benefits outweighed the price! It's clear that there are still some untried aspects of the jackets but there is proof that they will prevent some degree of injury until someone actually has proof that they are potentially harmful I will continue to wear mine!

God instead of writing my first post I've written a novel!!!
		
Click to expand...

Just wanted to say, absolutely excellent first post, Event_Rider and welcome to the Forum


----------



## worMy (10 June 2010)

TableDancer said:



			Just wanted to say, absolutely excellent first post, Event_Rider and welcome to the Forum 

Click to expand...

agreed!!!


----------



## popsdosh (10 June 2010)

Admirable said:



			I have looked at the shutter activation times for these images, all the frames shown above,  were taken in the same second. In fact there are others in that sequence, not shown, that were taken within the same second.

The camera shoots at 10 frames per second.

The timing of the first frame, which is the one before the first one here, and the riders boot hitting the water is less than two seconds.

She was lucky it was water and not a ditch or another log.
		
Click to expand...

I dont really see your point as P2 claim 0.1 sec to full inflation maybe your photos are doing them a disservice.
I agree with those above it looks like the type of fall thats happening all the time and the riders just got up and carried on.


----------



## Booboos (10 June 2010)

popsdosh said:



			I dont really see your point as P2 claim 0.1 sec to full inflation maybe your photos are doing them a disservice.
I agree with those above it looks like the type of fall thats happening all the time and the riders just got up and carried on.
		
Click to expand...

My mental arithmetic is pants, but if the camera took 10 shots a second and at the start of the shorts you can see the lanyard stretch but not yet break, whereas by shot 4 the jacket is inflatted, the 0.1 sec claim could well be correct.

I also don't see why the fall can be judged to have been slow or less severe simply from these photos. You'd need to know the weight of the horse, the speed at which the horse was travelling and the suddenness with which it came to a full stop, as well as the weight of the rider to calculate with what kind of force she was ejected from the saddle.


----------



## Shrimp (10 June 2010)

Booboos said:



			My mental arithmetic is pants, but if the camera took 10 shots a second and at the start of the shorts you can see the lanyard stretch but not yet break, whereas by shot 4 the jacket is inflatted, the 0.1 sec claim could well be correct.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you. If these photos are every third frame then its 0.3 secs between each pic (is that right??) Somewhere in between the third and fourth pic, the lanyard breaks but we dont know if it was just after third or just before the fourth pic but either way its still pretty fast! So I think it could be right or my arithmetic is also pants!


----------



## Admirable (10 June 2010)

Looking at these pics I would agree with claims that it only takes 0.1 sec for the air jacket to inflate.

I'm only posting these pics to let others see what happens when the air jacket goes off. I don't think the air jacket saved this rider from any injury as she landed on her feet, it was the comment about the pretty slow fall that made me look at the frame times. 

I'm not for or against these jackets but I've witnessed riders hurt from what would appear trivial jumps. It's quite amazing to think that this rider was ok going through the hedge and six seconds later she was soaked to the skin and eliminated. Had she fallen further to her left she could have landed on the large log possibly resulting in an injury. 

This is another pic showing more of the water complex.







As you can see from this pic the rider has come through the hole in the hedge, into the water, you can't see it, and up towards the crocodile log. This is where their trouble started, the problem was the log and to be fair it's a tricky section of the water complex. They just made it over the log after giving it a clatter but this resulted in being out of sorts just before the next part of the water.


----------



## poacher82 (10 June 2010)

In response to the Exo, I have discussed this in the past with a fully trauma-trained eventing doctor and with a senior official, as I was personally stunned that they didn't take off in a major way - how can something which can apparently save riders from rotational falls and resulting crush injuries not a) take off of it's own accord and b) be made compulsory after proper testing? I wondered if it were down to sheer lack of marketing, but was still surprised given the apparent lifesaving benefits.

What I was told by both (indepentantly of each other) - and this is in no way my opinion or otherwise, am purely reporting - was that the way the Exo works, forming a cage that is 'hung' from the rider's shoulders, meant that when hitting the floor there was no support to the riders' neck. This resulted in whiplash as the head snapped down to the ground but the body was held up by the Exo. IIRC the various riders endorsing the products the first year they were out weren't seen in them the next year, presumably because of this. 

It appears that if one had a rotational crush fall wearing an Exo, crush injuries would be prevented. BUT in a 'normal' fall, whiplash/other could be caused.

Also, the doctor stated that they did not like them because of the way they make riders lie, and because of the exit strategy - they have built in allan keys, and all BE doctors carry keys too, to enable removal but access to the locks can be hard depending how the rider landed. A normal BP can be removed by cutting if really necessary, but even with it on the spine/neck can be stabilised. In an Exo, the head is not aligned normally with the body because the cage holds the rider off the floor, so it is hard to stablise wearing it, but also hard to remove it.

As I said, this is purely reporting the answers I was given. I have not ever tried an Exo, but was very interested to find out why a product on the face of it brilliant was not taken up by competitors and BE.


----------



## ecrozier (10 June 2010)

Interesting thread.  I have just managed to procure myslf a second hand Exo after looking for a new one in my size for a while....its barely been used and saved me a few pennies that for sure!
I think like anything and as someone said above, for all of these things its a cost/benefit analysis.  I probably would/will one day use a point two if competing at a higher level but for now my Exo will do nicely. TBH having broken several bones in my leg last year, most of the injuries to you extremities are a temporary inconvenience more than anything, and eually well if I come off and my exo causes whiplash, I guess I will deal with that for a few days or even a few weeks....but if I come off and get crushed, or hit a fence hard, I'll be thankful for any protection I can get for my spine/internal organs.
Can someone tell me, how much protection does a point two offer to your neck?


----------



## Hels_Bells (10 June 2010)

This is a really interesting post.  Although the debate is still out there as to their effectiveness I would very much like to get one as I think they would give me a bit more confidence when going xc.  However, there is no way on g*ds earth that I could afford to spend that amount of money on anything, even a body protector.  I think that putting an elitist price on safety is the biggest travesty about these jackets.  Those who can afford are able to be "safer" than those who can't.


----------



## kerilli (10 June 2010)

I asked a lot of questions about the Exo before buying one. the Exo does stand off the body, so if you lie on the floor in one, the spine is held off the floor. But, if you lie on the floor in a crash hat, that also holds your head off the floor (approx the same width as the Exo, apparently - I haven't measured though).
The whiplash effect is worrying with any bp which stiffens up the body, the PointTwo included. The cervical spine is the most flexible and therefore the most vulnerable area of the spine, I was told by a biomechanics expert, and stiffening up the lower part of the spine makes the cervical spine even more prone to injury, as it is the only bit which can still flex. 
The rear part of the Exo is designed to work on its own as a 'back board', rather like half of a turtle shell. I'd rather have this part staying absolutely solid and firm than a self-deflating airjacket which might move an unstable fracture... but, as I said above, it's individual choice.

Re: access to the body in an Exo. In a previous thread, a paramedic said that a fallen rider is very very unlikely to need CPR (unless they've been squashed, perhaps, I don't know) - fit athletes riding xc don't have heart attacks, so the front-access isn't vital.

On one of the COTH threads, iirc RAyers says that he has read the result reports from PointTwo testing on motorbike riders in Europe, and it didn't reduce neck injuries. A few U.S. event riders have been wearing separate neck supports, from motorbike racing, apparently. This is an interesting area. I'm not sure they would be permitted by BE though.


----------



## SpottedCat (10 June 2010)

This is all going to be a moot point very soon - I emailed Woof Wear, they have no intention of bringing the exo forward for BETA 2009 testing, so in a very short space of time it will be an obsolete product which BE will not allow you to wear. I can't find the bit on the BE website where they said they were going to make BETA 2009 the standard, but it must be in the next couple of years. When that happens, wave goodbye to wearing your exo BE. 

I'm really disappointed by this, not least because it seems to me that as BE have said that with the best will in the world they can't eliminate rotational falls (which is fair enough!), I would like to see them putting as much effort into rider protection as into collapsible fences, but they are just unwilling to engage with safety partners to do that. I don't really understand why - they say it's about R&D and product development, but Bristol Uni seemed pretty keen to work with them and Michelin on the fence issue, so why they think they couldn't find similar people to work with them on the rider protection issue I don't know. Maybe they genuinely can't, or maybe they don't want to upset their sponsors (some of whom make BPs). But imagine if BE did come up with a patented design for a safer BP which protected from crush injuries - they could then licence the patent as widely as they liked, and perhaps sponsorhip could be tied in with that - free licence in exchange for sponsorship of a series or the pony team or whatever. I don't understand what is so wrong with that idea, but BE are disinterested in it from the responses I have had from them.


----------



## kerilli (10 June 2010)

SC, afaik BE only recommend certain bps (level 3 etc), they do not insist upon them. E.g. there is no tagging of bps, the presence of some kind of bp is good enough...
I won't be happy if I am forced to give up wearing my Exo and made to wear something which, imho, does not give as much protection.
I totally agree with you about BE's apathy when it comes to rider protection.


----------



## HotToTrot (10 June 2010)

SpottedCat said:



			This is all going to be a moot point very soon - I emailed Woof Wear, they have no intention of bringing the exo forward for BETA 2009 testing, so in a very short space of time it will be an obsolete product which BE will not allow you to wear. I can't find the bit on the BE website where they said they were going to make BETA 2009 the standard, but it must be in the next couple of years. When that happens, wave goodbye to wearing your exo BE. 

I'm really disappointed by this, not least because it seems to me that as BE have said that with the best will in the world they can't eliminate rotational falls (which is fair enough!), I would like to see them putting as much effort into rider protection as into collapsible fences, but they are just unwilling to engage with safety partners to do that. I don't really understand why - they say it's about R&D and product development, but Bristol Uni seemed pretty keen to work with them and Michelin on the fence issue, so why they think they couldn't find similar people to work with them on the rider protection issue I don't know. Maybe they genuinely can't, or maybe they don't want to upset their sponsors (some of whom make BPs). But imagine if BE did come up with a patented design for a safer BP which protected from crush injuries - they could then licence the patent as widely as they liked, and perhaps sponsorhip could be tied in with that - free licence in exchange for sponsorship of a series or the pony team or whatever. I don't understand what is so wrong with that idea, but BE are disinterested in it from the responses I have had from them.
		
Click to expand...


Unless BE rules change, we will still be able to wear the EXO.  This is from the BE rulebook:

Body Protector
A British Equestrian Trade Association (BETA) Level 1, 2 or 3 body protector, or such
other body protector as may reasonably be expected to offer a similar or higher
level of protection, is mandatory for cross-country. Level 3 body protectors are
specifically recommended for event riders. It is strongly advised that the body protector
should impede neither flexibility nor balance. (The up to date BETA list of
body protectors may be obtained from the BE office or direct from BETA - see
www.beta-uk.org.)


----------



## SpottedCat (10 June 2010)

But BE do insist on BETA approved, and once the BETA 2000 standard is obsolete (in two years according to the BETA website, so 2011), the Exo presumably won't be approved....though BE do have a loophole which says (bold is my addition):

Body Protector
A British Equestrian Trade Association (BETA) Level 1, 2 or 3 body protector, *or such
other body protector as may reasonably be expected to offer a similar or higher
level of protection*, is mandatory for cross-country. Level 3 body protectors are
specifically recommended for event riders. It is strongly advised that the body protector
should impede neither flexibility nor balance. (The up to date BETA list of
body protectors may be obtained from the BE office or direct from BETA - see
www.beta-uk.org.)

BTW the download from the BETA site as to what is and is not approved is out of date - it has Woof Wear down as having no BPs approved under either 2000 or 2009, when the exo is 2000 approved and the contour is 2009 approved.

I would be willing to stake money on BE saying the exo cannot be used after 2011.


----------



## SpottedCat (10 June 2010)

HotToTrot said:



			Unless BE rules change, we will still be able to wear the EXO.  This is from the BE rulebook:

Body Protector
A British Equestrian Trade Association (BETA) Level 1, 2 or 3 body protector, or such
other body protector as may reasonably be expected to offer a similar or higher
level of protection, is mandatory for cross-country. Level 3 body protectors are
specifically recommended for event riders. It is strongly advised that the body protector
should impede neither flexibility nor balance. (The up to date BETA list of
body protectors may be obtained from the BE office or direct from BETA - see
www.beta-uk.org.)
		
Click to expand...

We cross posted - I will bet that what BE will say is that they have the rule worded in that way to allow people who bought BPs outside of the UK to compete in their BPs in the UK otherwise it would unfairly penalise foreign riders. They will probably then go on to say that anything BETA 2000 approved does not offer a similar or higher level of protection to the 2009 standard, because the 2009 standard was bought in to upgrade the 2000 standard. Therefore anything from a UK manufacturer which was only 2000 and not 2009 approved will not be allowed to be used. The only way round this will be if the exo is approved to a foreign standard which is higher than BETA 2009. I'd love to be wrong about this - I've emailed Woof Wear, does someone else want to email BE?


----------



## HotToTrot (10 June 2010)

SpottedCat said:



			But BE do insist on BETA approved, and once the BETA 2000 standard is obsolete (in two years according to the BETA website, so 2011), the Exo presumably won't be approved....though BE do have a loophole which says (bold is my addition):

Body Protector
A British Equestrian Trade Association (BETA) Level 1, 2 or 3 body protector, *or such
other body protector as may reasonably be expected to offer a similar or higher
level of protection*, is mandatory for cross-country. Level 3 body protectors are
specifically recommended for event riders. It is strongly advised that the body protector
should impede neither flexibility nor balance. (The up to date BETA list of
body protectors may be obtained from the BE office or direct from BETA - see
www.beta-uk.org.)

BTW the download from the BETA site as to what is and is not approved is out of date - it has Woof Wear down as having no BPs approved under either 2000 or 2009, when the exo is 2000 approved and the contour is 2009 approved.

I would be willing to stake money on BE saying the exo cannot be used after 2011.
		
Click to expand...


Yes and your bold is my point!!!!!  If that proviso is not changed then we can still wear the EXO, as it would "reasonably be expected to...".  The test for reasonableness is [probably] whether the reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus would think it reasonable.


----------



## SpottedCat (10 June 2010)

See my post above yours...


----------



## HotToTrot (10 June 2010)

SpottedCat said:



			We cross posted - I will bet that what BE will say is that they have the rule worded in that way to allow people who bought BPs outside of the UK to compete in their BPs in the UK otherwise it would unfairly penalise foreign riders. They will probably then go on to say that anything BETA 2000 approved does not offer a similar or higher level of protection to the 2009 standard, because the 2009 standard was bought in to upgrade the 2000 standard. Therefore anything from a UK manufacturer which was only 2000 and not 2009 approved will not be allowed to be used. The only way round this will be if the exo is approved to a foreign standard which is higher than BETA 2009. I'd love to be wrong about this - I've emailed Woof Wear, does someone else want to email BE?
		
Click to expand...


So in effect, the EXO will be outmoded because it has been BETA 2000 approved.  If it had never been tested, but "could reasonably.....etc" then it would still be alright.  I will email BE.


----------



## HotToTrot (10 June 2010)

SpottedCat said:



			See my post above yours...
		
Click to expand...

Yes, sorry - I saw that, am off to talk to BE.


----------



## *hic* (10 June 2010)

Might one suggest that those people who feel strongly about the Exo utilise some of their energies in persuading the current licence holder, WoofWear, to update as necessary and submit for BETA 2009 testing? Emailing BE to tell them that you want them to effectively allow you to use a less rigorously tested product would seem to go against all rider safety initiatives.

Point being that those of us who are using BETA 2000 normal body protectors will be forced to update at sometime and with some sensible / clever / appropriate marketing the goose could finally be about to lay it's golden egg for the Exo.


----------



## Mike007 (10 June 2010)

Booboos said:



			My mental arithmetic is pants, but if the camera took 10 shots a second and at the start of the shorts you can see the lanyard stretch but not yet break, whereas by shot 4 the jacket is inflatted, the 0.1 sec claim could well be correct.

I also don't see why the fall can be judged to have been slow or less severe simply from these photos. You'd need to know the weight of the horse, the speed at which the horse was travelling and the suddenness with which it came to a full stop, as well as the weight of the rider to calculate with what kind of force she was ejected from the saddle.
		
Click to expand...

The severity of a fall is down to a certain amount of luck but the speed is easy to tell if you know what to look for.The rider and horses weight is relatively unimportant,but since the energy of the fall is proportional to the Square of the velocity,the speed is very significant.This fall was positively leisurely.


----------



## SpottedCat (10 June 2010)

jemima_too said:



			Might one suggest that those people who feel strongly about the Exo utilise some of their energies in persuading the current licence holder, WoofWear, to update as necessary and submit for BETA 2009 testing? Emailing BE to tell them that you want them to effectively allow you to use a less rigorously tested product would seem to go against all rider safety initiatives.

Point being that those of us who are using BETA 2000 normal body protectors will be forced to update at sometime and with some sensible / clever / appropriate marketing the goose could finally be about to lay it's golden egg for the Exo.
		
Click to expand...

I emailed Woof Wear - they are discontinuing the exo and it is being replaced by the contour. I don't disagree with you BTW, but the BETA 2009 test only looks for coverings on the zip (that's the only change from the 2000 test), so as the exo has no zip, it is not any less rigorously tested by only being tested under 2009 rather than 2009. Equally, my Airowear Reiver has no zip either, so the 2009 test should give exactly the same results as the 2000 test. So it's not as though the 2009 test is more rigorous than the 2000 test, it's just it looks for a covering on the zip. 

In the past when hat kitemarks have changed, hats have had to be updated instantly - not so with this test (they've given it 2 years I think) because if your BP has no zip, it will be exactly the same when submitted for 2009 testing as it was in 2000, and should still pass.


----------



## HotToTrot (10 June 2010)

Right.  I spoke to Carolyn at BE.  BETA 2000 tests the absorbency of the foam.  BETA 2009 will test the zips and the fit.  If, for example, two parts of the BP cross each other, there will be a red patch underneath so that the wearer can see if the top flap has been stretched too far.  Many of these BETA 2009 tests do not apply to the EXO cage.

She confirmed that BE had no current plans to make BETA 2009 the standard that BPs must meet.  She understood that BPs must continue to meet the BETA 2000 standard.  She said that if they planned to change this, she recognised that it would be expensive for members and would want to give them around two years' notice.        

She understood that Woof had sold the EXO patent to RDA.  She hoped that RDA, should they choose to start manufacturing EXOs, would submit the EXO for BETA 2000 testing.  

All existing EXOs are BETA 2000 approved and will therefore continue to be permitted under BE rules even once the BETA 2009 tests have been carried out.


----------



## SpottedCat (10 June 2010)

That's good news. Woof never held the patent though, they were only a licenced manufacturer, the company which held the patent signed it over to the RDA for nothing.


----------



## HotToTrot (10 June 2010)

Yes, let's hope that it's actually the case!


----------



## SpottedCat (10 June 2010)

Indeed - I guess we'll find out when the 2011 rule book is released!


----------



## Booboos (10 June 2010)

Mike007 said:



			The severity of a fall is down to a certain amount of luck but the speed is easy to tell if you know what to look for.The rider and horses weight is relatively unimportant,but since the energy of the fall is proportional to the Square of the velocity,the speed is very significant.This fall was positively leisurely.
		
Click to expand...

Fair enough, what can you see on the photo that tells you the speed at which the horse was going prior to stopping and having its photo taken?


----------



## Mike007 (10 June 2010)

There are two components ,forward speed and also vertical .A horse that for example jumps a big drop has not only a forward velocity but a quite considerable vertical one,because it has effectively been in free fall from the highest point of its arc.The combined effect is to pile the rider hard and fast into the ground. This rider is not already in "free fall" when she leaves the plate ,and in 0.3 seconds does not move very far.In fact after a whole second very little happens.Plenty of time for a point two to operate and maybe protect against being brought to a halt by somthing solid.


----------



## dad_io (10 June 2010)

I broke my back last year and am lucky to be walking. I have 2 rods fusing L1 to 3. With the blessing of my consultant, i have started rding again and my OH made me get a properly fitted body protector. I then decided to get a P2 to go over the top.I took both to my last meeting with the consultant and he was very happy for me to wear them . Anything that reduces the risk HAS to be worth trying. I dont have the worry of being too light to set it off like you girls


----------



## Weezy (10 June 2010)

Great to see you on here


----------



## ilovecobs (10 June 2010)

If you hate them so very much, do not spend money or time on them, to be honest i think they are a good idea, and i also know a lady who has one and thinks its great, however never having used one myself i couldn't tell you my exact opinion, yes they may be a bit restrictive but id rather feel a jolt as it inflates then be seriously injured


----------



## eishi (10 June 2010)

just to add my two cents 
I don't find mine restrictive at all.. infact I have to get my mum to shout at me at the finish to unclip it because I'd forget I have it on!

I also had one inflated on me when buying one.. was restrictive yes.. but that's sort of the point and it wasnt in a oh my god I can't breathe sort of way.. more of a hmm thats snug!

My parents bought mine, and I'm happy to wear it if it makes them happier about me eventing.


----------



## Mike007 (10 June 2010)

ilovecobs said:



			If you hate them so very much, do not spend money or time on them, to be honest i think they are a good idea, and i also know a lady who has one and thinks its great, however never having used one myself i couldn't tell you my exact opinion, yes they may be a bit restrictive but id rather feel a jolt as it inflates then be seriously injured
		
Click to expand...

I dont think it is a question of people hating them,its the number of unanswered questions that is the problem .You think they are a good idea,exactly what are you basing this on?Do you have a clear idea of what kind of falls this can help with and what kind ,it will not help with.How do you base your risk assesment of whether it is a good idea for you and your horse and the type of riding you do.


----------



## kerilli (10 June 2010)

That's good news about the Exo, thankyou, HotToTrot.
re: the pics of the PointTwo inflating in the fall - I don't really understand the dissent, no-one has disputed that ONCE TRIGGERED it inflates incredibly fast. The problem is whether the rider is far enough away from the horse or not to trigger it, especially in rotational falls, (and whether it triggers or not), surely?


----------



## SpruceRI (10 June 2010)

jonny said:



			Totally agree with all your comments! People should embrace any new form of safety, not try and think of every possible reason for not using one.

X  X
		
Click to expand...

But the point of a healthy debate is not just to discuss the plus sides, it's the down sides as well.  

Doesn't necessarily mean that those people talking about the cons are 'thinking of every possible reason for not using one'.... in their case, they may have decided not to, yes.... but for the rest of the undecideds it gives further clout to their decision making process.


----------



## event_rider (11 June 2010)

TableDancer said:



			Just wanted to say, absolutely excellent first post, Event_Rider and welcome to the Forum 

Click to expand...

Aww Shucks - Thanks Guys!


----------



## Booboos (11 June 2010)

I don't think it's a good idea to discuss negative points of this jacket when they are mainly based on speculation.

Riding is a managed risk, the question is whether P2 helps manage this risk better. There are only three possible alternatives:

1. Overall P2  helps prevent injury in some circumstances
2. Overall P2 is useless and a waste of money
3. Overall P2 causes injuries that would have otherwise not occured

Outcomes 1 and 3 require evidence to back them up, either of P2 offering protection or of P2 causing harm. I think everyone is in agreement that more research is needed on this product and on BPs in general, but this by itself is not reason to stop people from wearing BPs altogether as there is a prima facie case that BPs work.

There is a prima facie case that P2 works (unlike for example advocating people carry a rabbit's foot for good luck to avoid accidents), so the presumption has to be for option 1 unless 1 is defeated. To defeat 1, there is need for proof, not speculation. In the absence of proof, speculation is irresponsible as it may lead someone NOT to buy the P2 and THEREFORE get injured.


----------



## Mike007 (11 June 2010)

Booboos, if I fall off my horse,with my lucky rabbits foot and it deflects a sharp spike that might have injured me,am I entitled to claim a prima facie case for the use of lucky rabbits feet.The fact that a point two is worn over a body protector means that we have no way of knowing which item protected from injury. Ultimately he who asserts proves,but we do not seem to be getting the quality of proof on these products.


----------



## Booboos (11 June 2010)

I don't think I agree.

Making decisions about risk is about probabilities not exceptions. Of course there is the possibility that your rabbit's foot will save your life, but this extreme exception does not make a coherent claim about the safety of rabbits' feet as protection equipment.

The design and function of the P2 is sufficient, in my mind at least, to make a prima facie case for it's suitability as protection equipment.

Indeed he who asserts proves, but there is less at stake if you assert protection and you are wrong (because the person will have been wearing the standard BP anyway, so all there is to lose is the money for the P2), than if you assert harm and you are wrong (because then you are encouraging others to avoid the P2 and you are wrong).

This is not about the P2 as such, but rather the wisdom of publicly making posts that may put other people off what could be a decent safety device. That action (of posting and taking responsibility for other people's safety decisions) requires more evidence than I have seen presented in these threads, otherwise it risks being irresponsible.


----------



## Mike007 (11 June 2010)

The problem is (and I do have an open mind about point 2) that this is not a passive system. so it is not a question of there being less at stake if one is wrong.There is actualy a great deal at stake. The system adds energy to a fall.(the energy stored in the compressed gas).


----------



## Darkly_Dreaming_Dex (11 June 2010)

*DDD waves at Weezy while rushing out to buy dad_io a rabbits foot AND a four leaf clover to pin to P2 & Outlyne BP*

Seriously though, anything that reduces the chance of a nasty fall resulting in injury has to be worth trying. In dad_io's case, he fell off his hunter whilst practising for a dressage test in our field. He was bounced off and landed squarely on his bottom. The shockwave bypassed his coccyx and exploded his L2 also causing an anvil injury to the spinal cord. Now short of wearing padded pants, there is no BP system that could have prevented/reduced that injury.

Hmmm unless i add a whoopie cushion to all the other protective clothing


----------



## kerilli (11 June 2010)

I'm with Mike007, and Reed Ayers, on this.
re: "he who asserts, proves" - in the Badminton Highlights programme on H&C, Oliver Townend states that he's only here because he was wearing a Point Two. He's also called for them to be made compulsory. Considering that imho his P2 didn't inflate until CQ started rolling off him (judging by the head-on sequence of photos, which I've studied carefully) - not a fault with the P2, this was simply because OT stayed so close to the horse as it fell (the inherent problem with a protection system which can only be activated by the lanyard pulling when you are a set distance from the saddle) - this is a HUGE claim to make. Imho his helmet and his regular bp saved him.
IF the P2 did go off in time, wouldn't it perhaps have spared him 4 broken ribs, broken clavicle, etc?


----------



## langside (11 June 2010)

I've just got my Eventing mag and just read the air jacket article and i think it has some good points on both sides with 2 riders who have had different outcomes 

pepo makes a good point about being able to roll away - something i haven't thought about as i guessed seems you would expand you would be more round to roll 

also interesting that a company has latched onto the fact taht the cost of the jackets is not viable to some (as seen in quite a few posts on here) 
my concern here is how are they going to manage/ maintain the jackets to ensure they are not damaged by previous rider (even if not inflated?) ?


----------



## HotToTrot (11 June 2010)

kerilli said:



			I'm with Mike007, and Reed Ayers, on this.
re: "he who asserts, proves" - in the Badminton Highlights programme on H&C, Oliver Townend states that he's only here because he was wearing a Point Two. He's also called for them to be made compulsory. Considering that imho his P2 didn't inflate until CQ started rolling off him (judging by the head-on sequence of photos, which I've studied carefully) - not a fault with the P2, this was simply because OT stayed so close to the horse as it fell (the inherent problem with a protection system which can only be activated by the lanyard pulling when you are a set distance from the saddle) - this is a HUGE claim to make. Imho his helmet and his regular bp saved him.
IF the P2 did go off in time, wouldn't it perhaps have spared him 4 broken ribs, broken clavicle, etc?
		
Click to expand...

Sputter cough, splutter, grumble, tries to restrain self......... bites at tongue......loses control and fails....... IF HE HAD BEEN WEARING AN EXO HIS RIBS WOULD STILL BE INTACT..... hares off out of forum and into the ether before Admin can catch up.


----------



## blue eyes (11 June 2010)

langside said:



			the cost of the jackets is not viable to some (as seen in quite a few posts on here)
		
Click to expand...

I put this on another P2 thread on here, but wanted to put it on this one too in case anybody hadn't seen that thread. You can buy the same gas canisters that P2 sell for £17.50 from this (and other) sites for *£2.49 each*!:

http://www.co2cartridges.co.uk/all-...iss-45gm-threaded-cartridge-co2/prod_294.html

The cartridges are a generic 45g CO2 canisters sold for use in a few other applications like inflating tyres. These aren't the only company who sell them just an example. I would think you can buy them even cheaper if you got a pack of them.

I know it wont help with cost of jacket, but at least at that price you don't need to worry about wearing a P2 in lower risk situations where you might come off, hopefully, without hurting yourself.


----------



## Booboos (11 June 2010)

Mike007 said:



			The problem is (and I do have an open mind about point 2) that this is not a passive system. so it is not a question of there being less at stake if one is wrong.There is actualy a great deal at stake. The system adds energy to a fall.(the energy stored in the compressed gas).
		
Click to expand...

That is not a claim that the P2 is ineffective, it's a claim that the P2 causes harm. On the principle of he who asserts proves, it is in as much need of proof as any other assertion. 

Here is a little chart (can you tell I am a philosopher?? I am only pursuing this out of intellectual interest by the way, I have nothing to do with P2 or any other BP manufacturer, nor do I event):

Assertion          Reality                            Outcome                   

P2 works       P2 works                            It should be worn
P2 works       P2 does not work                 Irrelevant
P2 works       P2 does not work AND harms  It should not be worn

P2 does not work  P2 does not work           Irrelevant
P2 does not work  P2 does work                 It should be worn 

P2 does not work AND harms  P2 does not work AND harms It should not be worn
P2 does not work AND harms P2 does not work NO harm  Irrelevant


The assertion that P2 does not work and harms is the assertion most in need of proof. The assertion that P2 does not work and harms is potentially most harmful if incorrect.


----------



## kerilli (11 June 2010)

blue eyes said:



			I put this on another P2 thread on here, but wanted to put it on this one too in case anybody hadn't seen that thread. You can buy the same gas canisters that P2 sell for £17.50 from this (and other) sites for *£2.49 each*!:

http://www.co2cartridges.co.uk/all-...iss-45gm-threaded-cartridge-co2/prod_294.html

The cartridges are a generic 45g CO2 canisters sold for use in a few other applications like inflating tyres. These aren't the only company who sell them just an example. I would think you can buy them even cheaper if you got a pack of them.

I know it wont help with cost of jacket, but at least at that price you don't need to worry about wearing a P2 in lower risk situations where you might come off, hopefully, without hurting yourself.
		
Click to expand...


Crikey, really? That is some mark-up, especially on something they've already made a nice profit on. 
If I had a PointTwo i'd want to try one of these to ensure that it inflated it properly, but at that price, it's worth trying out!

HotToTrot, I daren't even go there...   
shame such a worthwhile piece of kit has been marketed so appallingly badly.  
btw, to those who don't think they'd fit in an Exo, Reed Ayers altered the side-fixings of his so that it would fit him. Since he's a bit of a safety-fanatic, like me, I'm pretty sure he'd be happy to share how to do it...


----------



## Darkly_Dreaming_Dex (11 June 2010)

HotToTrot said:



			Sputter cough, splutter, grumble, tries to restrain self......... bites at tongue......loses control and fails....... IF HE HAD BEEN WEARING AN EXO HIS RIBS WOULD STILL BE INTACT..... hares off out of forum and into the ether before Admin can catch up.
		
Click to expand...

Excellent point BUT EXO DOESNT COME IN MENS SIZES so OT couldnt have worn one FWIW my OH would have bought one instead of P2 if he had had the choice..


----------



## blue eyes (11 June 2010)

Booboos said:



			That is not a claim that the P2 is ineffective, it's a claim that the P2 causes harm. On the principle of he who asserts proves, it is in as much need of proof as any other assertion.
		
Click to expand...

This is cut and pasted (as there doesn't seem to be a way of posting a .pdf file on here) out of the Transport Research Laboratory summary report that P2 sent me when I inquired:

*Date: 29/04/2010 

Ref: VT09158 

Initial observations relating to impact performance assessment of Point Two 
Equine Air Jacket 

In order to illustrate that there are no additional risks associated with the Point Two Air 
Jacket (PTJ) when compared to other body protection products or no protection, TRL 
evaluated the performance of the Jacket in a two typical dynamic impact scenarios. 

Scenario 1 - Impact to chest simulating frontal impact from 1.4m fall onto flat surface 
Scenario 2 - Impact to back simulating rear impact from 0.75m fall onto flat surface 

The purpose was to investigate whether the Point Two Air Jacket was likely to worsen 
injuries to the neck and spine and what level of injury risk benefit could be achieved during a 
chest impact in a typical horse fall. Based on this study, the following statements summarise 
TRLs main observations. 

 There is no evidence that the PTJ would exacerbate spinal injury and in fact, during 
rear impact testing, it provided the greatest reduction in the neck and pelvis loading   

 In combination, the BETA and PTJ provide reduced loading for the majority of 
performance measures and therefore improved protection to the wearer when 
compared to the BETA alone.  

 The PTJ may have extended performance benefits beyond the fall scenarios 
considered. 

 The PTJ , when used with a BETA Level 3 body protector, improves protection to the 
spine by up to 69%1 

 The PTJ, provides approximately 45% more protection for the lower spine than a 
BETA level 3 jacket alone2 

 The PTJ,, with or without BETA jacket, reduced the risk of rib fractures and 
underlying organ damage, by as much as 20%3 

Vincent StClair,  TEST TEAM MANAGER, TRL 

1 
 Reduction in peak neck and lower spine shear and compression loads for scenario A fall (when compared with no protection) 
2 
 Reduction in peak lower spine shear and compression loads for scenario A fall (compared with typical BETA level 3 protection) 
3 
 Reduction in risk of AIS3+ injuries, compared with no protection in scenario B fall. 
Direct line: +44 (0)1344 770430 
Direct Fax: +44 (0)1344 770859 
Email: vstclair@trl.co.uk * 


I know P2 paid them to do the research, but they are a pretty big reputable company. They say very clearly that they don't think it would exacerbate injuries!


----------



## Booboos (11 June 2010)

Yes, I don''t see us as diagreeing! 

All I said is that if one were to claim that P2 causes harm, this has to be backed up by evidence.

This piece of research seems to show that P2 does not cause harm and if fact confers an added advantage.


----------



## kerilli (11 June 2010)

i think the concern, the same as was raised earlier with refence to the Exo, is that in certain situations it might possibly cause harm. There are so many different variables with any fall, obviously. Also, because eventers falling in them are always wearing a BETA approved bp underneath, there's no way of knowing whether that is what 'saved' the rider in any given fall... unless someone is prepared to spend a lot of money on replicable falls and crash test dummies...


----------



## Mike007 (11 June 2010)

Booboos, with regard to your comment"That is not a claim that the P2 is ineffective, it's a claim that the P2 causes harm. On the principle of he who asserts proves, it is in as much need of proof as any other assertion."My comment was not a claim that the P2 causes harm,but a statement of fact that the explosive release of compressed gas adds energy to the fall situation. With regard to the transport research laboratory test,basicly it is meaningless without the full report and justification of why a blow representing a 1.4 M fall(straight down) is in any way representative of a fall from a horse.As for a static 0.75 M fall,on ones back,Are we talking about shetland racing here.


----------



## ecrozier (11 June 2010)

All I am saying is YAY my exo turned up today  hardly used and only £50 on ebay   However I can see ho w a lot of people couldn't have one, I'm a size 12 with reasonable bust and am in the second largest size!
Impressed by weight, not as heavy as I remember and no more restrictive on the ground than my previous BP really


----------



## SusieT (11 June 2010)

I have one-the sales staff were very amenable to questions-spent a long time answering them.
If they seemed put off by the OP's source or whatever-how many people appreciate being aggressively questioned about a product by someone trying to put a negative spin on everything nevermind when trying to sell that product???
The doubters will continue to make up scenarios (the exception rather than the rule) where they *think* the p2 could be bad etc. etc.-but suggesting that those who are buying it are stupid enough not to have a brain even to (without it being made a big 'campaign' etc.) walk past and see it without having heard of it before and buy it on  whim without appreciating it could be a gimmick is insensible.
Let's examine for a moment the type of person with enough money to buy one. Either you've saved up for it-i.e you know all about it and have made a concious decision to buy it.
Or you have enough spare cash to just buy it on the spot. In general the more wealthy are those with better jobs i.e with more skills and intelligence/sense whatever way you want to look at it. In other words-they have enough of a brain to decide for themselves.
That's my Viewpoint anyway. 
The pros weren't satisfied by the exo(or maybe they are less panicky about rotationals? who knows!) but are by the P2-another plus in its favour regardless of sponsorship etc.


----------



## kerilli (11 June 2010)

hmm, i think "panicky about rotationals" is rather insulting actually, considering the calibre of many of the riders who have tragically, undeservedly, lost their lives in such falls.

ecrozier, i bet once you've got it on and are in the saddle, you'll forget about it - i do.


----------



## SusieT (11 June 2010)

related to the number of people who ride xc throughout a year-they are not that big a statistic realistically.
It is a dangerous sport. We choose to do it. Yes, do what you can to make it safer but if you are going out on a course wondering if you will die or being concerned about it-it's time to consider another sport. We have a tendancy to concentrate on the rotationals and get over fixated on them.


----------



## ecrozier (11 June 2010)

Hmm, panicky about rotationals? Well yes I guess I am fairly as I would rather not end up paralysed or dead! So anything that can prevent that (be it an Exo, a pt2, or in fact frangible pins) is worth it in my book! Tbh if current youngster fulfils his potential and goes beyond on I'd even consider both exo and pt2! Might be impractical but if it's possible I guess youjust have to consider what risks you can eliminate and whatthats worth?
Kerilli have you hit theseck in your exo? How did it feel? Were you winded at all?


----------



## ecrozier (11 June 2010)

Just to add I don't go out wondering if I am going to die! Far from it!


----------



## HotToTrot (11 June 2010)

ecrozier said:



			Hmm, panicky about rotationals? Well yes I guess I am fairly as I would rather not end up paralysed or dead! So anything that can prevent that (be it an Exo, a pt2, or in fact frangible pins) is worth it in my book! Tbh if current youngster fulfils his potential and goes beyond on I'd even consider both exo and pt2! Might be impractical but if it's possible I guess youjust have to consider what risks you can eliminate and whatthats worth?
Kerilli have you hit theseck in your exo? How did it feel? Were you winded at all?
		
Click to expand...

I have hit the deck four times in mine.  Was not remotely winded.  The second time, my horse went down with me and I actually managed to drop and roll away from her as I saw flailing brown above me!  I found it really easy to roll in the EXO.  I barely knew I'd fallen off and I got back on afterwards. The one problem that I have (and this is peculiar to me, I suspect!) is that my shoulders dislocate really easily.  I therefore don't dare put my arms above my head in my EXO as I feel vulnerable.  This can be an issue when I am getting on; normally I climb up on the bull bars of my 4x4 and hop on so I am high enough not to need to reach up.  If, however, someone is giving me a leg, I can't reach the pommel and cantle for fear that my shoulders will pop.


----------



## kerilli (11 June 2010)

SusieT said:



			related to the number of people who ride xc throughout a year-they are not that big a statistic realistically.
It is a dangerous sport. We choose to do it. Yes, do what you can to make it safer but if you are going out on a course wondering if you will die or being concerned about it-it's time to consider another sport. We have a tendancy to concentrate on the rotationals and get over fixated on them.
		
Click to expand...

Hmm, death is a rather serious issue though, you can't really expect those in the sport to ignore it.  Considering how few people ride xc compared to the numbers doing other sports, it is rather a big statistic actually...
Yes, it's dangerous and yes, it's a choice. 
Since those who buy Point Twos are presumably concerned about protecting themselves from injury, does this mean that they should consider another sport too?
I don't care about bruising (if I did I wouldn't event!) so I won't bother with a Point Two. I do care about having an unlucky slip or something, and the worst happening. That's why I choose to wear an Exo.

ecrozier, haven't hit the deck in mine yet, but asked a few people who wear them and they said it's fine, like falling off in a regular bp. One said that she felt the curved cage actually helped her roll.


----------



## Booboos (11 June 2010)

Mike007 said:



			Booboos, with regard to your comment"That is not a claim that the P2 is ineffective, it's a claim that the P2 causes harm. On the principle of he who asserts proves, it is in as much need of proof as any other assertion."My comment was not a claim that the P2 causes harm,but a statement of fact that the explosive release of compressed gas adds energy to the fall situation. With regard to the transport research laboratory test,basicly it is meaningless without the full report and justification of why a blow representing a 1.4 M fall(straight down) is in any way representative of a fall from a horse.As for a static 0.75 M fall,on ones back,Are we talking about shetland racing here.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry I am confused then - what are the implications of this statement of fact? I took your word that the explosive release of compressed gas adds energy to the fall and assumed that you meant to conclude that the added energy makes the fall more dangerous. Is that a fair conclusion? If it is, then the P2 could cause harm by adding energy to the fall.

If the added energy makes the fall less likely to cause harm then that makes the P2 more beneficial.

If the added energy makes no difference to the risk of the fall, then it doesn't seem relevant to the discussion.

Is there another option I missed?


----------



## Mike007 (11 June 2010)

Yes you have missed an option.The question is does the added risk outweigh the added benefits.This can only be determined by extensive research,or by using the public as guineapigs. Sadley we engineers do not have such highly tuned brains as philosophers and have to rely on testing and testing a product rather than just thinking about it. In fact we tend to do tests to try and make the product fail,rather than convince the public with tests a product cant fail.Silly old us.


----------



## scally (11 June 2010)

"Scenario 1 - Impact to chest simulating frontal impact from 1.4m fall onto flat surface 
Scenario 2 - Impact to back simulating rear impact from 0.75m fall onto flat surface "

Sorry but what use is this test?  What velocity, weight etc was it tested with.  Also work out what height the average rider falls from, it isnt 1.4m and a normal person tripping would fall further than .75m.  Also how often are falls onto totally flat area.  What was the surface as different surfaces will give different results.

Why werent these tests more realistic, say from a height of at least 2.5m, and weight and speed, giving surfaces, solid surfaces, stony surfaces all being tested.  Because I would guess that as they are paying for the tests they are only going to do tests that back up their claims.

This test proves and shows nothing at all.

I dont have a problem with the air jackets, apart from the deflation, this seriously needs addressing and is being side stepped time and time again.  Paramedics, doctors and consultants have all expressed concern about the deflation and destabilising the spine and/or neck.

Also under what speed and weight will the jacket just explode, like standing on a packet of crisps there has to be an optimum pressure which the jacket will not be able to sustain.

There are so many questions unanswered, and I dont believe they are unreasonable, as if the jacket proves fears totally unfounded with proper testing and results then surely this is the biggest safety advance in years and should be embraced.  However, Point 2 seem totally unwilling to to answer any fears about deflation (surely building in a deflation button would not be that difficult), or do realistic tests.

An airbag in a car, saves lives be deflating, an air jacket protects by inflating.  Airbags had to undergo rigourous testing before being used as a safety device, body protectors also, so why not airjackets?

£400 is a lot of money to pay out on a piece of safety equipment, but if these air jackets prove without reasonable doubt that they are the ultimate piece of safety equipment it is worth missing a couple of events to pay for one, but the manufacturers need to seriously back up their claims with proper scientific evidence and medical reports.


----------



## vic07 (11 June 2010)

On of my concerns with the p2 is the likelihood that the lanyard could affect the rider's trajectory in a fall, hence causing a rider to be under their falling horse rather than a safer distance away.

I am therefore not happy to purchase this equipment until it is proved via testing that the product will not make a fall worse. The company I work for could model this via a piece of software, rather than have to use crash test dummys!


----------



## Booboos (11 June 2010)

Mike007 said:



			Yes you have missed an option.The question is does the added risk outweigh the added benefits.This can only be determined by extensive research,or by using the public as guineapigs. Sadley we engineers do not have such highly tuned brains as philosophers and have to rely on testing and testing a product rather than just thinking about it. In fact we tend to do tests to try and make the product fail,rather than convince the public with tests a product cant fail.Silly old us.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I am not making myself clear. I meant overall benefit and overall harm. So, was your claim that there was overall harm because of the added energy or was your claim that there was overall benefit because of the added energy or was your claim that there was overall no difference? As I said before risk assessments have to work on overall probablities because of the uncertainty of the risk. It is reasonable to take a 1% risk (ceteris paribus) even if the risk does actualize exactly because of the low probability that it will do so. The actualization of the risk does not retrospectively unjustify the decision to take it - the decision must be judged on its own, otherwise risk decisions become hostage to the outcome.

Well if you do tests to try to make the product fail and you fail to do so, then the product can't fail, so I am afraid I can't see the difference.

In any case, whether you go with a verification test or a falsification test surely depends on the product. If you are building a bridge you want to put your model under stress to see if it falls apart. If you are testing a new drug you want to see if it works.

I don't think you are silly and have no idea if you are old.


----------



## Mike007 (11 June 2010)

Booboos, I think you have rather missed the point. Firstly,I make no claims,because there is insufficient data to make any claim about the effectiveness of this product.The reason there is insufficient data is in my opinion due to insufficient relevant testing. You cannot calculate the probability of any outcome without sufficient meaningfull data.This is probably why nobody asks philosophers to build aircraft or bridges..Taking a 1% risk may be your idea of a low probability but it certainly isnt mine. In my profession we take a great deal of time and effort to try to reduce this to zero.We know this is not possible but we try. Now we cant reduce the risk from a fall to zero,but we need to ensure that risk due to safety equipment comes prety close to it.Would a climber use a rope that hadnt been properly tested,(bought from Booboos climbing supplies ltd,"we guarantee it only has a 1% chance of breaking")


----------



## kerilli (12 June 2010)

Booboos, isn't this an "a priori vs a posteriori" situation? My philosophy's pretty rusty though... 
Anyway, some people believe that the Point Two makes riders safer because it is marketed as a piece of safety equipment. 
Some of us will only believe that it does when it has been properly tested (not just for inflation times) to ensure that it does not make riders less safe in certain situations.


----------



## Booboos (12 June 2010)

All I am saying is that this is a body protector, its design is to protect bodies so there is a prima facie case that it does so. I entirely agree that we need more evidence on it and other body protectors. 

In light of the lack of evidence it seems to me irresponsible to put other people off wearing it and my personal feeling is that the tone, length and frequency of these threads may be putting people off wearing it in a manner disproportionate to the evidence that it causes harm (which we all seem to agree does not exist any more than the evidence that it brings about benefit).

Keilli: no we're not in the realm of a priori, then we would really be in a metaphysical mess!!!  I think you capture the disagreement with your very next sentence. Some people think it should not be used until its safety credentials have been established by evidence. I (and others I assume?) think that it overall it provides extra safety and we can't establish that it harms unless we have more evidence. Either way the important thing is that more evidence is needed and I find it sad how little effort in put in in eventing for proper scientific analysis of things like this.

Mike007: 1% was merely an illustrative example. Funnily enough although I have never been asked to design a bridge, I teach ethics to engineers, have worked with the Royal Academy of Engineers on recommendations for the teaching of engineering at University level and have published on engineering ethics, so philosophers do come in handy! What I do for them is very similar to this discussion, i.e. discuss one's responsibility and ethical response to the possibility of risk.

Anyway, at least this discussion hasn't been pulled and no one has been chucked off HHO...so far!


----------



## Mike007 (12 June 2010)

Booboos,I did understand that the 1% was simply an example,but I am surprised that you have not realised the flaw in your argument.                     I quote" As I said before risk assessments have to work on overall probablities because of the uncertainty of the risk. It is reasonable to take a 1% risk (ceteris paribus) even if the risk does actualize exactly because of the low probability that it will do so. The actualization of the risk does not retrospectively unjustify the decision to take it - the decision must be judged on its own, otherwise risk decisions become hostage to the outcome.
     The point is that if the person deciding that the risk is acceptable,is not the person actualy taking the risk.                                                          "my personal feeling is that the tone, length and frequency of these threads may be putting people off wearing it in a manner disproportionate to the evidence that it causes harm (which we all seem to agree does not exist any more than the evidence that it brings about benefit)."                                                                      Some years ago an artificial sweetener was brought out by a drug company,It worked well and there was no evidence that it caused harm,but the testing was flawed,its name was Thalidomide.


----------



## Mike007 (12 June 2010)

Sorry,wretched return key on my computer is playing up.


----------



## Booboos (12 June 2010)

If anyone is fed up with this, please say so and I will change to PMs with Mike007, but assuming people are interested:

- a number of factors go towards the assessment of the reasonableness of the decision to take the risk. For example, there are three parties to decisions about risk, the person (s) making the decision, the person(s) potentially to overall benefit from the outcome and the person(s) potentially to overall be harmed by the outcome. The less problematic decisions involve one person deciding and bearing the risk of benefit/harm, e.g. I decide my view on P2 and I stand to gain or be harmed by the outcome - this is less problematic because both the responsibility for the decision and the burden of the outcome are mine to bear. The most problematic decisions are ones that split these roles, for example as a parent I decide to enrol my child in a non-therapeutic drugs trial, my child will bear any potential harm if the trial is harmful, other sick children will bear any potential benefits if the trial is beneficial - this is more problematic because the parent is 'volunteering' (see how odd that concept sounds on behalf of others) a child to risk harm for the benefit of third parties. For brevity's sake I did not mention this and other (numerous) parametres, and it also struck me that the decisions to buy/wear the P2 is made by the same person who may be protected or injured by the P2 so this was an irrelevant complication in this case. 

- Thalidomide is an unfortunate example as it has beneficial medical properties (and is in fact still used to treat a variety of conditions) and is perfectly harmless unless you are pregnant. The only drugs testing protocol under which this could have been discovered is one under which all drugs must be tested on pregnant women before they are released - clearly an unreasonable idea. Drugs are, on the whole, tested on healthy, adult volunteers, both for scientific validity (no other factors to influence results such as hormonal changes (for this reason volunteers are preferably male, not female and certainly not pregnant female)), and for ethical reasons (a healthy person is more likely to overcome any adverse effects). They are also tested on the smallest number of people compatible with obtaining robust results (another reason why pregnant women are not good candidates as you risk two people with one test). Research ethics committees are likely to accept higher risk threshholds depending on the situations: for example, a therapeutic trial for a 'last resort' treatment for terminally ill patients may well allow for much greater risks of harm than a trial on healthy volunteers for an elective treatment for cosmetic reasons. The testing for Thalidomide was not flawed, it was just bad luck and this will sometimes be the case (e.g. there is almost no paediatric testing following the guidelines for the Nurenberg Code, so children have to rely on drugs that have only been tested on adults - sometimes the point that children are NOT mini adults becomes tragically clear).


----------



## *hic* (12 June 2010)

Mike007 said:



			Some years ago an artificial sweetener was brought out by a drug company,It worked well and there was no evidence that it caused harm,but the testing was flawed,its name was Thalidomide.
		
Click to expand...


No Thalidomide was brought out and used as an anti-emetic for morning sickness - which is where most people know it from. It's main role and function was as a sedative and painkiller.


----------



## kerilli (12 June 2010)

Booboos, aren't you really looking at it from an "a priori" viewpoint though - it is marketed as a "safety item", therefore it must be safe, kind of thing? 
I've just read the article in Eventing magazine this month. What happened to Pepo Puch is EXACTLY what some of us were seriously concerned about in early threads on here last year (or was it the year before?!) about airjackets. His horse tripped on an overreach boot, he fell off straight on top of his head, he is quoted as saying "the air jacket fixed and stiffened my upper body so I fell with my upper body extremely straight." He broke his neck at the point where the airjacket stopped. 
Re: the testing the Point Two has undergone, quoted extensively earlier in this thread, Jonathan Clissold, BE's national safety officer, said "I understand that the tests carried out by TRL on the Point Two were quite basic initial tests that showed the air jacket to have some benefit in the scenarios tested."  (last four words very important imho!)


----------



## Mike007 (12 June 2010)

jemima_too said:



			No Thalidomide was brought out and used as an anti-emetic for morning sickness - which is where most people know it from. It's main role and function was as a sedative and painkiller.
		
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right I stand corrected.Thanks.


----------



## Mike007 (12 June 2010)

Kerili,,i hadnt heard about Pepo Puch, i read your post and felt physicly sick. It is one thing having a suspicion about a product but it is a terrible thing to hear of an accident that is exactly what one expected.My concern is rather more complicated than just the stiffening effect of the jacket,which in it self is not that great. It is a question of muscle reflexes. When the jacket inflates,its pressure on the body causes all the muscles subjected to the pressure to tense. This is an uncontrolled reflex action.I strongly suspect that if the jacket fires closely before the rider hits the ground,it would be impossible to roll in any fashion because the torso has already "locked"and does not have time to release and allow the bodys natural reflex action to striking the ground,to occur.


----------



## kerilli (12 June 2010)

Yes, Mike, I totally agree. This very major concern was aired on the early threads. Point Two's video'd testing in Germany, to "prove" that one can tuck and roll in one, didn't convince me - the subjects knew when it was going to be detonated, nothing like a real fall imho.
I think a lot of riders have them fitted too tight (because they don't want it flapping loosely) and so when the jacket inflates, it totally takes the breath away. The panic to get it off isn't good either, when paramedics are trying to get the rider to stay STILL so they can assess/limit the damage.


----------



## Booboos (12 June 2010)

Just on the a priori thing (mainly because I am anally retentive): a priori knowlegde is arrived at through reasoning alone, I am not suggesting that P2s can be proven to be safe through pure reason!!!! That would be an almost insane claim. All I said was that there is a prima facie claim they are a piece of safety equipment.

Consider the rabbit's foot. The standard claim for the rabbit's foot is that it increases your good luck, so faced with dangerous situations one is more likely to escape because of the good luck - this claim is clearly rubbish. There is no voodoo, magic or good luck spells that will improve your chances of escaping an accident unhurt, so prima facie carrying the rabbit's foot is not a piece of safety equipment (that is can operate as one if it coincidentally prevents a puncture wound is a happy piece of coincidence, but one that will be so rare as to be negligeable for the purposes of any safety discussion).

The P2, unlike the rabbit's foot, has a plausible presumption of safety, since its design and function make coherent sense as a potential piece of safety equipment. This presumption can be defeated if it is proven that overall it causes more harm than benefit (the 'overall' bit is going to be crucial because any piece of safety equipment may become a danger to the user under some circumstances, e.g. there are some types of crashes during which you are better off not wearing a seat belt, but since the ones where the seat belt is likely to be of great benefit massively outweigh the ones where it might cause harm, and there is no way to distinguish the two types of crashes in advance, the reasonable choice is to wear a seat belt).

I don't know what percentage of accidents are like the ones Pepo Puch had but one would need to weigh up the chances of this kind of accident occuring as opposed to the sort of accident where the BP would be beneficial AND show that only P2 causes the particular problem in these cases (e.g. one might wonder whether the EXO might produce exactly the same sort of rigidity under the same circumstances - I have no idea, but worth looking into properly). This is the same as the seat belt reasoning.


----------



## Mike007 (12 June 2010)

Indeed ,I agree there is a prima facie case for the point two,as a piece of safety equipment ,however as you are aware , in law that would not be sufficient to convince a court .it is merely the level of evidence required to convince a court that there is a matter worthy of consideration. Then we get to the matter of the burden of proof.Our problem is that there has been insufficient testing to proceed to that point..................Where I differ from learned counsel for the defence,ms Booboos ,is that I consider the concept of " overall benefit" from a product an error. I believe we must separate the risk into a minimum of two levels. Minor injury/Discomfort,and Serious injury/death.The first question must be ; Is it acceptable to have overall a greater protection from minor injuries,if as a consequence ,there is even a slight increase in overall risk of death.I would argue ,Nn this basis I submit that we must only consider situations where there is a clear risk of serious injury or death. Matters of comfort,and being still able to ride ones second horse are irrelevant.the problem arises that we cannot simply wait for sufficient evidence to build up. That would be immoral,as we are considering serious risk here.Hence I think costructive criticism and observations on the effect of the product,are important,and concerns about putting people off a potential piece of safety equipment,also become irrelevant.


----------



## *hic* (12 June 2010)

May I just point out, from a fence judge's point of view, getting ANY rider to stay still, other than the unconscious, for the paramedic to assess them is virtually impossible. It makes not a jot of difference what BP they are wearing, unless physically unable to they all want to get up or at least get more comfortable - oh, apart from one young girl at an unaffiliated who was perfectly happy to lie in the bottom of the ditch screaming her head off and who turned out to have nothing more than injured pride.


----------



## oldvic (12 June 2010)

With regard to how Pepo Puch fell - Faith Cook also landed on the top of her head and also had spinal damage. The head is the heaviest part of the body so will fall quickest. If the rider is unable to tuck does this increase the likelihood of landing head first?


----------



## Mike007 (12 June 2010)

oldvic said:



			With regard to how Pepo Puch fell - Faith Cook also landed on the top of her head and also had spinal damage. The head is the heaviest part of the body so will fall quickest. If the rider is unable to tuck does this increase the likelihood of landing head first?
		
Click to expand...

Sorry oldvic but I think the last four hundred years of physics has kind of passed you by. Things fall with the same acceleration regardless of their mass.Anyway if this were true, a great many horsey ladies would actualy land on their buts.


----------



## meardsall_millie (12 June 2010)

Mike007 said:



			Sorry oldvic but I think the last four hundred years of physics has kind of passed you by. Things fall with the same acceleration regardless of their mass.Anyway if this were true, a great many horsey ladies would actualy land on their buts.

Click to expand...

Meaning that a great many horsey blokes would land on their ego?


----------



## *hic* (12 June 2010)

meardsall_millie said:



			Meaning that a great many horsey blokes would land on their ego? 

Click to expand...

*Sighs and wipes cider off screen, after having tipped a good glug out of the keyboard*


----------



## oldvic (12 June 2010)

yes Mike007 you are absolutely right - I have never done physics and have no interest in it. That doesn't mean you need to reply to me like I'm inferior. All I do know is that if you drop a shuttlecock it will land base down. I was just asking a perfectly civil question - if a rider loses the ability to be athletic and save themselves are they more likely to land in a way that could injure them more severely? I personally don't think that physics is the whole answer as self preservation means that we can change the way we fall if we have quick enough reactions and are fit and athletic enough.


----------



## Bearskin (12 June 2010)

Is it possible to tuck and roll effectively in an Exo cage?  Have never tried one so would be interested to know how much it restricts movement compared to the air jacket and conventional body protectors.


----------



## event_rider (12 June 2010)

SusieT said:



			related to the number of people who ride xc throughout a year-*they are not that big a statistic realistically.*
It is a dangerous sport. We choose to do it. Yes, do what you can to make it safer but if you are going out on a course wondering if you will die or being concerned about it-it's time to consider another sport. *We have a tendancy to concentrate on the rotationals and get over fixated on them*.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately Suzie T you seem to be in the extremely lucky (although somewhat uncommon) situation whereby you've never been touched by the serious injury or death of someone close to you as the result of a rotational fall. 

Rotational falls are naturally a major concern for most people who event due to the high number of deaths in what is a relatively small tightknit community. Eventing was classed as the "most dangerous sport" a few years back due to the extremely high rate of mortality per capita competitor. As the key cause of death is rotational falls it is only natural that people have become "fixated" on them as by implementing measures to prevent them we can make our sport considerably safer!

With regard to the pro's, I dont know each individuals reason for failing to adopt the exo but I can practically assure you that it is not based on their lack of concern about rotationals!!!As a very high percentage of the deaths over the last few years have been "pros" who were EXTREMELY experienced, it has really hit home with everyone in the professional eventing circuit that nobody is immune! Aside from that, most of the professional riders would have lost close friends as a result of such incidents which has caused them to think long and hard about it.

I was at a safety forum last year where Clayton Fredricks, Pippa Funnell, William Fox Pitt, Zara Phillips, Oliver Townend, Mary King, Polly Stockton  Andrew Nicholson and various others (I'm sure I've left a few out!) all gave their opinions as to why these accidents were occuring and what we could do to stop them. Each and every one of them said that recent fatalities had an influence on the way that they rode cross country and that they made different riding decisions as a result. Andrew Nicholson said that on the odd occasion that he gets it wrong, he's now more accepting of having a stop rather than forcing a horse to jump out of a difficult situation and risking a rotational fall.

...Sorry once again another novel!!!


----------



## kerilli (12 June 2010)

oldvic said:



			With regard to how Pepo Puch fell - Faith Cook also landed on the top of her head and also had spinal damage. The head is the heaviest part of the body so will fall quickest. If the rider is unable to tuck does this increase the likelihood of landing head first?
		
Click to expand...

I don't think it's got anything to do with the head being heavy, it's more that if you're falling head first and DON'T tuck and roll, then your head will hit the deck first... unless you are strong enough and have good enough timing to do a handstand - which iirc is what Faith Cook tried to do (judging by the pictures), but her elbows were bent so her head and spine took the brunt.
It AMAZES me that Point Two are still using pictures of her fall in advertising (in H&H this week, for example, and on their U.S. website initially, where the caption claimed that horse and rider were both uninjured) when it is well known that she fractured multiple vertebrae. Really not the best image they could use, surely? Makes my mind boggle.

Mike007, apart from the rudeness to oldvic, very well said. Exactly my concern.

event_rider, thankyou for that contribution. You have said what I wanted to say, far better than I managed.


----------



## kerilli (12 June 2010)

Bearskin said:



			Is it possible to tuck and roll effectively in an Exo cage?  Have never tried one so would be interested to know how much it restricts movement compared to the air jacket and conventional body protectors.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. I've practised doing Aikido rolls on a stable floor in mine (not quite brave/mad enough to chuck myself off a horse, sorry) and it is perfectly roll-in-able.
Someone earlier implied that the Exo might cause the body to stiffen just as the PointTwo might when it detonates. No, not possible imho. The Exo stands off the body - I stay cooler in mine than I did riding xc in my previous Rodney Powell bodyprotector. Since the Exo stands off the body there is room to move within it. I can bend at the waist easily, flex my spine, and roll. 
There's no reason to stiffen against it, because, like any other regular bp, it feels the same all the time. Hope that makes sense.
I can post a link to myself going xc last year in mine if anyone wants to see. It feels just like a normal bp once you are riding. From a distance the rider looks as if they are in any other bp, it doesn't affect style or movement at all.


----------



## kerilli (12 June 2010)

jemima_too said:



			May I just point out, from a fence judge's point of view, getting ANY rider to stay still, other than the unconscious, for the paramedic to assess them is virtually impossible. It makes not a jot of difference what BP they are wearing, unless physically unable to they all want to get up or at least get more comfortable - oh, apart from one young girl at an unaffiliated who was perfectly happy to lie in the bottom of the ditch screaming her head off and who turned out to have nothing more than injured pride.
		
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but have you ever heard anyone who has fallen off in a regular bp saying instantly "get this effing thing off me?"
This has been heard on a number of occasions coming from those who have just fallen off in a PointTwo.     One could argue that it is because they had the flipping thing fitted too tightly in the first place...
I've seen quite a few riders fall off at 4*, obviously unhurt, stay sitting on the ground undoing it rather than getting up and out of the way (which is the natural reaction, surely, once one knows one is unhurt?)  All riders know that if they're still in the way, the course will be held...


----------



## Booboos (12 June 2010)

Mike007 said:



			Indeed ,I agree there is a prima facie case for the point two,as a piece of safety equipment ,however as you are aware , in law that would not be sufficient to convince a court .it is merely the level of evidence required to convince a court that there is a matter worthy of consideration. Then we get to the matter of the burden of proof.Our problem is that there has been insufficient testing to proceed to that point..................Where I differ from learned counsel for the defence,ms Booboos ,is that I consider the concept of " overall benefit" from a product an error. I believe we must separate the risk into a minimum of two levels. Minor injury/Discomfort,and Serious injury/death.The first question must be ; Is it acceptable to have overall a greater protection from minor injuries,if as a consequence ,there is even a slight increase in overall risk of death.I would argue ,Nn this basis I submit that we must only consider situations where there is a clear risk of serious injury or death. Matters of comfort,and being still able to ride ones second horse are irrelevant.the problem arises that we cannot simply wait for sufficient evidence to build up. That would be immoral,as we are considering serious risk here.Hence I think costructive criticism and observations on the effect of the product,are important,and concerns about putting people off a potential piece of safety equipment,also become irrelevant.
		
Click to expand...

I am afraid I know nothing about the law, have no legal training, so I can't really comment on what might happen if there was a legal claim.

My main contention is that there is no evidence that the P2 is a case of greater protection from minor injuries but at the cost of a slight increase in overall risk of death. Where are the studies? Where are the simulations? Where is any kind of evidence that the P2 increases the risk of dying in an accident for those who ride in it?

In the absence of evidence any such public, repeated and unrelenting speculation about a safety product is irresponsible - that is all I ever wanted to say, but, of course, I can accept that many people will disagree with me.

It's Dr Booboos if we're going to be formal with one another!


----------



## Mike007 (12 June 2010)

This is the point , nobody knows yet whether there is an increased risk,and it is somthing that needs to be determined urgently.Oh and the learned counsel comment was a reference to an amusing post of yours a few weeks ago.


----------



## *hic* (13 June 2010)

kerilli said:



			Fair enough, but have you ever heard anyone who has fallen off in a regular bp saying instantly "get this effing thing off me?"
This has been heard on a number of occasions coming from those who have just fallen off in a PointTwo.     One could argue that it is because they had the flipping thing fitted too tightly in the first place...
I've seen quite a few riders fall off at 4*, obviously unhurt, stay sitting on the ground undoing it rather than getting up and out of the way (which is the natural reaction, surely, once one knows one is unhurt?)  All riders know that if they're still in the way, the course will be held...
		
Click to expand...

We're back to the PT thing here. He wanted to get up and get the thing off, I didn't want him to get up. Short of sitting on him, I couldn't keep him on the floor till the paramedics came. After the fall he'd had I was damned grateful he WAS trying to get up.

As for riders sitting on the floor undoing their air jackets, well I haven't watched much 4* but they will all know equally that unless they have been having a particularly bad round the next horse won't be landing on them for at least a minute and a half. Those who are winded or shocked by their falls often stay sitting for a while to take stock of what has happened. It is as least easily possibly for a Point Two to be removed immediately with no equipment rather than having to wait for the paramedics to turn up.


----------



## NeilM (13 June 2010)

oldvic said:



			if a rider loses the ability to be athletic and save themselves are they more likely to land in a way that could injure them more severely? I personally don't think that physics is the whole answer as self preservation means that we can change the way we fall if we have quick enough reactions and are fit and athletic enough.
		
Click to expand...

Speaking from a Martial Arts point of view, if someone is thrown from their horse, they will describe an arc (depending on velocity, height etc) and land with a thump! Many riders, especially in rotational type falls are thrown up and forward this will mean they are heading face down for the ground, rather like diving into a swimming pool. The natural reaction is to put both your arms out in front to try and protect the head / face which is why in many case the wrist, forearm, elbow or collar bone is broken, because you arms cannot stop and support the weight of the body moving forwards at up to 30mph. Once your arms have (inevitably) collapsed, the next thing that will hit the ground is your head.

I have said this on many occasions, to the point where I usually don't bother wasting my time typing anymore, anyone and everyone who rides CAN learn to roll and breakfall. Riders spend hundreds of pounds and thousands of hours practising their dressage, sj and xc skills and more hundreds on necessary safety equipment yet I have never had a single acceptance when I have offered, for free, to teach the basics of rolling and breakfalls.

Just like any other safety measure, rolling and breakfalling is not THE answer, but I am constantly amazed that people will consider spending £400 on a single piece of safety equipment, yet will not even consider learning how to control a fall which offers at least the same, if not a greater possibility of reducing injury. 

My view on the P2 is that until Lee honours his offer of an open day, when we can test whether the laniard alters the falling riders trajectory and also whether it is possible to roll wearing an inflated P2, then I am better off keeping my £400 in my pocket and relying on my many years of MA training.


----------



## kerilli (13 June 2010)

jemima_too said:



			We're back to the PT thing here. He wanted to get up and get the thing off, I didn't want him to get up. Short of sitting on him, I couldn't keep him on the floor till the paramedics came. After the fall he'd had I was damned grateful he WAS trying to get up.

As for riders sitting on the floor undoing their air jackets, well I haven't watched much 4* but they will all know equally that unless they have been having a particularly bad round the next horse won't be landing on them for at least a minute and a half. Those who are winded or shocked by their falls often stay sitting for a while to take stock of what has happened. It is as least easily possibly for a Point Two to be removed immediately with no equipment rather than having to wait for the paramedics to turn up.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, I didn't know that about PT, he wasn't one of the ones I was referring to as having wanted to get the PointTwo off immediately. My argument is that in a normal bp, riders aren't desperate to get their protection off them immediately, regardless of the possible consequences...

If a rider is winded I know that they stay where they are (they can't help it!) but in my experience most uninjured riders get to their horse, and off the course, as soon as they can. They have no way of knowing whether the next rider is motoring or not, what gap between competitors the XC Starters are using, etc.


----------



## suzysparkle (13 June 2010)

I bought Horse&Rider magazine today for something to read while the rain carries on falling and there's a shopping article about BP's. I was surprised to see a P2 as one of the featured items and it's been put in by treehouse online. Here's what it says :

'Designed to be worn in conjunction with the Treehouse Racesafe body protector, this inflatable jacket gives protection against crushing injuries and can withstand up to a tonne of pressure. It also gives added neck and lower back coverage, and inflates in 0.1 seconds'. 

Some pretty serious claims about the protecion it can offer.


----------



## Saratoga (14 June 2010)

kerilli said:



			I've just read the article in Eventing magazine this month. What happened to Pepo Puch is EXACTLY what some of us were seriously concerned about in early threads on here last year (or was it the year before?!) about airjackets. His horse tripped on an overreach boot, he fell off straight on top of his head, he is quoted as saying "the air jacket fixed and stiffened my upper body so I fell with my upper body extremely straight." He broke his neck at the point where the airjacket stopped. 
Re: the testing the Point Two has undergone, quoted extensively earlier in this thread, Jonathan Clissold, BE's national safety officer, said "I understand that the tests carried out by TRL on the Point Two were quite basic initial tests that showed the air jacket to have some benefit in the scenarios tested."  (last four words very important imho!)
		
Click to expand...

I felt sick reading this, it's one of the initial worries i had about the airjacket limiting people's ability to fall properly and roll out of harms way. 

The more i think about it, the more i get cross that a product is on the market that is not properly tested, and the testing is being done on the people that buy it.


----------



## Cazza263 (14 June 2010)

Booboos said:



			... and it also struck me that the decisions to buy/wear the P2 is made by the same person who may be protected or injured by the P2 so this was an irrelevant complication in this case.
		
Click to expand...

Just to pick up on this BooBoos, it is clear that often it is NOT the same person who makes the decision to buy/wear the P2 as the person who may be protected or injured by the P2 - witness the number of children/juniors who are wearing them.

I for one have discussed this at length with 14 year old daughter and I am still sitting on the fence on this one having followed all these debates on the HH forum, waiting for more comprehensive testing and results, particularly where the product is used by someone small and lightweight  -  I have no desire at this stage to become someone for whom "the point that children are NOT mini adults becomes tragically clear"  - although it is still a very hard decision to call!


----------



## Booboos (14 June 2010)

Yes, of course, but that is always the case with children. Thinking a step back you have to make the much more difficult decision of allowing your child to participate in a really risky sport before you even get to the question of what BP she should be wearing. Children are always the exception when it comes to decision making.

I would imagine though that the number of children able to wear P2 will be limited because of its weight requirements, so perhaps it's not a very wide spread problem.


----------



## QassiaDeTouzaine (15 December 2010)

I definitely agree about the noise one of these air jackets makes when it goes off; I was at a hunter trial and in the lorry park a rider was dismounting and had forgotten to undo the lanyard and it went off with such a bang, startling so many horses. My own horses would be terrified if they heard this and run a mile! Surely this can be off putting for the horse and possibly scare it and knock it's confidence?
However, I think as a form of protection they are a good idea, and with horses being such an unpredicatable and potentially dangerous hobby any safety equipment should be taken advantage of.


----------



## millitiger (15 December 2010)

what an old thread to bring back to life! 

I set mine off getting off my freshly broken 18hh 4yro and was actually surprised at how QUIET it was.

he hopped a little but didn't spook really and I even thought to myself 'oh, what was that noise?' before I realised I had exploded


----------



## kerilli (15 December 2010)

QassiaDeTouzaine said:



			I definitely agree about the noise one of these air jackets makes when it goes off; I was at a hunter trial and in the lorry park a rider was dismounting and had forgotten to undo the lanyard and it went off with such a bang, startling so many horses. My own horses would be terrified if they heard this and run a mile! Surely this can be off putting for the horse and possibly scare it and knock it's confidence?
However, I think as a form of protection they are a good idea, and with horses being such an unpredicatable and potentially dangerous hobby any safety equipment should be taken advantage of.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, when I raised exactly that point with Lee Middleton at the demo he did at the BE Eastern meeting last year, he scoffed, and said no horse would be startled by it. I said 1 of mine would, and tried to take him up on his offer to test it. He never got in touch.
To be fair, most event horses have seen a bit of life and seem to cope fine with it.
As for your last point, absolutely, as long as it has been tested exhaustively to prove that it is protective in all situations, and doesn't increase risk to the rider in certain circumstances, I totally agree. I daren't say more tbh.


----------



## bigboyrocky (15 December 2010)

I have no intention of buying a p2, (too expensive, and not as much risk of a rotational at lower levels [although im sure someone will come and tell me im wrong on that]) But a friend of mine had a fall, and her and her parents both said they think she would have suffered much worse injuries without it. She walked away with concussion (she still cant even remeber going XC) and was very battered and bruised, but her and her parents think that without the air jacket she would have definaftley broken a few bones, if not worse, as she would literally have been crushed by her pony, and she now wont go XC without one..


----------



## kerilli (15 December 2010)

the thing is bbr, that's just conjecture, without proper testing, we just don't know. 
Phoebe Buckley didn't break anything when she got rather squashed at Burghley, but I don't hear anyone saying "WOW, she didn't break any bones because she was wearing an x" (i have no idea what bp she was wearing)... "I must buy one of those!" 
Ditto OT's fall at Kentucky, a lot of people have studied the photos and are convinced that his HAT saved his life, 100%, and that the airjacket didn't inflate until the horse rolled off him. Yet, in spite of his numerous fractures, it was credited with saving his life. iirc he said they sold something unbelievable like £92,000 worth of them in Badminton week, on the back of his testimony... it was in his lecture to USCTA or whatever they call themselves now.


----------



## NeilM (15 December 2010)

Can someone please explain to me how these vests prevent crush injuries?

I cannot find a schematic of the P2, but a schematic of the Hit-Air, which is a very similar product, shows it to be a tube of C02 at the front of the body and another one at the back. There appears to be nothing stopping the two tubes of (deflating) CO2 joining one another under the weight of a horse, other than the meat filling that is wearing it!

If P2 are selling £100K's worth of vests at each of the events they attend that means two things: 1) Horse riders really are loaded (as many who don't ride already perceive them to be) and (2) The directors of the company are unlikely to pay any attention to anything I have to say regarding their product or marketing strategy.


----------



## bigboyrocky (15 December 2010)

No i quite agree with you kerilli, just another take on it


----------



## shell2 (15 December 2010)

I havent really seen or read that much about the P2, but for the money that they cost I do think they should have to provide more substantial evidence to prove they do what they say they do and do some comparative work of P2 with BP and a BP on its own.

That way we would all be able to make a better decision to whether its worth spending an extra 400 pound on top of the BP.


----------



## HotToTrot (15 December 2010)

NeilM said:



			There appears to be nothing stopping the two tubes of (deflating) CO2 joining one another under the weight of a horse, other than the meat filling that is wearing it!
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree.  (And ride XC in an EXO body cage........)


----------

