Announcement of Helmet Study Result Release Date

[Xctrygirl]

1. There are many studies and testing that a helmet can go through, here and abroad. The understanding I have is that the VT results are “added info” and not replacing nor superceding the ASTM/SEI standing requirements.

2. No. Not the point of this study and funding has not been raised for any studies of older or damaged helmets… In the USA we “suggest” helmet replacement every 5 years. Other countries have mandates about replacements.

3. This is done in places abroad, it has not been added to any USEF, or other American association requirements yet. Also how would that work exactly if you fell on your stickered helmet??? It still has a sticker and there are no ways for the human eye to ascertain damage to the internal foam? I would think the risks would be there for our typical overly litigious society to have a field day with any loopholes in the “sticker” provisions.

Em

[make_the_time]

@Xctrygirl thanks for rapid & cogent remarks! Helps clarify. I think if someone falls and hits their hypothetically stickered helmet, perhaps the stewards remove the sticker and you’re not allowed to ride anymore at that event. It’s always been curious that you can fall off one horse and be eliminated, then after a few questions from EMTs, etc. get on other horses and continue competing.

[Xctrygirl]

That works at some events, it wouldn’t work at a circuit like Wellington, HITS, Desert, etc for H/J or dressage.

And that’s the hard part. Even spitballing this things with a diverse group of friends years ago, we couldn’t come up with even a partial way to get all the helmets on Jan 1st to be stickered by June 30th. And then we too ran into the litigation risks. People have difficulties owning their responsibilities and not just attacking the first sitting duck to make them pay for their own issues.

Em

[make_the_time]

@Xctrygirl related on safety improvements with visible indicators (numbers in this case)… I saw that Hunter/Jumper rules are changing as they try to get lungeing under control with 2 deaths this past year. They mention horses without numbers, not entered, etc. being exercised and no means for stewards to find out who they are when there were safety or other related issues. Some people are indeed going to do random, ill-advised, and unsafe things which risk their safety and that of their horse.

However, we do have mandatory bit checks, whip length checks, boot checks, etc. at arena in-gates. Those are cases where a spec is mandated and checked by officials. Yet, I guess something which relates to rider safety and which is also mandated (helmet spec), can’t or won’t be checked. Perhaps we don’t know where the liability falls until someone tests it in court. It seems that liability of the sanctioning body and the venue is reduced if they check to see that the rider has the mandatory helmet when registering. The sanctioning body / venue hanging their legal hat on riders signing an incoming waiver saying they do abide by the rules, is sort of like what’s called an “adhesion contract”, where that may not protect the venue because no one reads them. One could also make a liability argument down the road that VT has shown some approved / mandatory helmets are inferior from a safety standpoint. Yet, the sanctioning body didn’t update their requirement. So, the liability goes to them now.

Nevertheless, I certainly agree with your implication that if riders are dumb enough to wear an unapproved and unsafe 20 year old helmet, then, well… stuff will happen.

In Wellington, at least for the big classes in the International Arena, the helmet sticker could be checked when they check the boots on the inspection pad right next to the farriers by the in-gate across from the gazebo. The myriad of other arenas there are of course another issue. That’s why one would check equipment at the incoming jog or at registration. So, maybe no sticker. And, the rider is responsible for not being stupid after that. And, if they switch helmets, or whatever the rider owns the liability.

[Xctrygirl]

I’m happy to ask some officials.

@Janet tagging you first.

Em

[Janet]

What exactly are you asking me?
And are you asking for my personal opinion, or my interpretation of the rules?

[Xctrygirl]

Could helmets be checked at competitions regularly within the confines of how riders, officials and federations work currently??

Em

[Janet]

The current rules say (EV9.9)
INSPECTION OF DRESS. A supervisor should be appointed to inspect whips and spurs before any phase. The supervisor has the authority to refuse permission for an Athlete to start the phase whose whip or spurs are not permitted. The supervisor must immediately report the circumstances to the Ground Jury, or Technical Delegate if the Ground Jury is unavailable, for confirmation. An Athlete who competes with an illegal whip or spurs must be eliminated. An Athlete who competes with prohibited dress may be eliminated, at the discretion of the Ground Jury…

In reality, there is usually only “supervisor to inspect…” before the dressage phase, though the cross country and show jumping warm up stewards usually keep an eye out for obvious violations (e.g. standing martingales and dressage-length whips).

The rule could be changed to say “to inspect helmets, whips and spurs before any phase.” But there is usually nobody actually “inspecting” dress before XC and SJ.

[make_the_time]

A simple way to check conformance and assure that liability is on the rider, not the venue or sanctioning body, is when you check in, get your packet, sign the waiver, you must present an sanction body approved helmet. Then you get a box checked in your entry database. If the rider cheats or doesn’t use it, liability is on them.

The rules can easily be modified to say that stewards can ask to see any mandated equipment at any time during the event. Riding without an approved helmet can be grounds for elimination and yellow card.

[Highflyer1]

What exactly are you considering an unapproved helmet for this? Just non ASTM-SEI? Older than 5 years? Lower than 3* by the VT study? I haven’t seen anyone ride in a non ASTM-SEI helmet at an event or show in probably ten years-- the vast majority of helmets are now pretty identifiable. Is this still a big issue? Both the helmet date and the VT study results are considered suggestions at this point aren’t they?

[make_the_time]

@Highflyer1 I think from reading the USEF rules, and US Equestrian publications there are almost no unapproved helmets for USEF. They merely have to be ASTM / SEI tested. I think they can be as old as you like, or in any condition you care, and be legal. The Nov 7, 2022 US Equestrian publication on Equestrian Helmet Fitting & Safety has nice tables comparing the rules for USEF, FEI, British Dressage, British Riding Club, and Pony Club. Outside of USEF, other organization have age rules summarized in the tables.

The genesis of the question came from discussions, which I’m sure many others have had, after the VT test results were published. People would say, I am getting a new helmet, and I was considering model xyz, but I see its ranking in the VT study and it’s no good. Now, I don’t know whether I should get it. So, the essence is the VT study produced a rank-ordering of quality of helmets, yet all are “approved”. So, the layperson perception is some are good and others are not, or are “less good”.

This prompted the questions: it’s mandatory to have an approved and tested helmet, but it’s never checked at a competition. It’s counter argued, people can tell it’s legit just looking at it from a distance on a riders head cause it looks like a Charles Owen, or whatever. So, there’s no need to check for conformance since we don’t care how old it is anyway, and there would never be a counterfeit helmet made in China.

Liability questions then came up as it was pointed out that the USEF just says it must be any ASTM / SEI tested helmet. Yet, the public and popular perception is that not all of those are equally good, based on the VT tests. So, it was observed that the sanctioning body ignores those VT technical results and says they are just more information. That caused confusion. Are the results not valid? USEF feels as long as they meet ASTM/SEI test, regardless of age, they equally good. But, the public perception based on VT ranking is they are not equally good.

Some lawyer may eventually argue that USEF said the helmet the injured rider wore was ok (in spite of the disclaimer in the USEF rules saying no helmet can always protect you). Yet the VT study said it was poorly ranked, and USEF decided not to have a more constraining rule requirement to reflect that, as other bodies have had more constraining requirements, such as age of certification.

There will no doubt be more technical testing and analysis aimed at improving safety for riders and our horses. This will inevitably cause more discussion about how that knowledge should be incorporated into rules, norms, and conventions. More knowledge will lead to better outcomes.

Anyway, have a great and safe ride everyone!

[Jealoushe]

They do this in the UK, or at least they used to!

[Xctrygirl]

Yep… I said that above.

The question I have, the biggest one, is once a helmet has a sticker, it has a sticker. It’s not event/competition specific. AND as I stated above there is NO way for anyone to look at a helmet and with a naked eye determine if it’s been fallen in.

As the show jumping steward for RRP I have talked to more than a handful of people about helmets that were no longer as safe as they could be or ones that are very much aged out. But there too I am under USEF rules and when I spoke to Bill Moroney in August at VT I clarified what a steward could do. The short answer was not a lot. Yes you can ask for an inspection, but again…no way to tell by looking if a helmet has been fallen in.

Given the price tag of some of the best sold brands, I know riders who keep riding in helmets they have fallen in rather than swap out for a new helmet they could afford (of a “lesser” brand). I think we have a couple challenges in our world that extend beyond dealing with which certification or study results mean the most. We have a HUGE cultural issue of looks over functionality and hierarchal assignations of superiority based on perceived importance of “popular” brands or best “looking” helmets.

Until we get more riders understanding that they need to prioritize safety OVER all else and replace helmets the moment they hit the ground… then, and only then, will someone saying that their helmet is current and not fallen in will mean something useful. In all disciplines.

Em

[Janet]

@Highflyer1

What exactly are you considering an unapproved helmet for this? Just non ASTM-SEI?

Under current rules, an “unapproved” helmet is one that is not ASTM-SEI certified.

[Xctrygirl]

Also @Highflyer1 I can attest that in the recent past I do know of riders who were wearing Non-ASTM helmets.

Not every helmet sold abroad online is ASTM approved. Also…Champion helmets were NOT ASTM certified for the last 25 years or so before Toklat made the distribution deal with them. But I know people who have been wearing them at shows for more than a few decades, without interruption.

Em

[enjoytheride]

There are probably quite a few people who have helmets approved in Europe that were imported and don’t have the ASTM stamp.

If I’m to understand it, some want the VT rankings to be relevant to the USEF rules and to “ban” helmets that aren’t a certain ranking? Then to further ban those helmets that are so many years old, and to ban helmets that have a fall in the show ring?

How do we determine if someone’s head hit the ground? Do we then have to have a steward standing in each ring observing each rider and determining if during their fall their head hit the ground? How much is all of this going to increase cost at shows, and affect the rider’s pocket book?

[Xctrygirl]

And you have hit my point. @enjoytheride. We cannot do all of this without raising the costs of shows…again.

The VT study results are important but cannot, in my view, and were not, in USEF’s view, intended to be a part of the process of being approved for USA showing. It’s a study intended to try to determine how to make helmets safer. And some brands are already working on it. Some are not. But changes will come because of it. And they have 5-10 more helmets waiting to test after the holiday. Their tests will be ongoing for years. It will not stop.

Determining if someone’s head hit the ground is usually on the rider, their trainer (if present during a fall) or some other bystander who witnesses a fall. Usually there is evidence of some kind, and when in doubt I chuck the helmet. NOT worth the risk of being wrong.

I have scrapped 2 helmets myself for brutal hits that weren’t 100% obvious. One I walloped the front of my head above my forehead, on one of my horse’s necks when he threw his head up and back HARD. Majorly saw stars. Another was from falling and the initial hit to the helmet was on a fence post of the ring fencing. At the back of the helmet. The impact bounce then hit the ground, along with my hip onto a spare jump rail under the ring fence. . Both helmets done for good on the day these hits happened. Period. Filled replacement policy paperwork and got new ones.

Give credit to the brands for creating the replacement policies so we can save some money on the replacements.

Em

[Jarpur]

Too bad that there’re not indicators available to show the shock a helmet has received.

I’m thinking of the ones used when packaging fragile goods.

https://www.drypak.com/shippingHandlingIndicators.html

We’ve used them when shipping fragile, expensive items. It would be great if helmet manufacturers could come up with an indicator built into the helmet that showed when the helmet’s protection has been compromised.

[Highflyer1]

I guess I am just not sure that we have a big enough issue with people wearing non approved helmets to merit checks.

[Xctrygirl]

Been discussed. Liability galore and will add costs.

Em