Here is the press release that announced the study:
12 June, 2003
The equestrian trade and sporting disciplines have hit out at the results of the Mark Davies Injured Riders’ Fund’s (MDIRF) controversial Equestrian New Hat Assessment Programme (ENHAP), which has criticised many of the hats currently on the market.
Fifty-five helmets were subjected to an initial side impact test, and of these, only 15 were considered to offer sufficient protection to go for further testing. Star ratings were then awarded depending on the level of protection offered.
The hats were divided into four categories: traditional velvet-covered designs; jockey skulls; lightweight - of the type popular with endurance riders - and modern, such as GPA show jumping hats.
Just one traditional hat, the Troxel Airwear Grand Prix Gold II, was awarded a two-star rating, while jockey skulls fared better: the Dublin NZ skull, Gatehouse Airflow and Charles Owen Competitor were all awarded three stars (the highest rating).
However, one skullcap failed the initial test and two others were considered to merit only a two-star rating.
All but one of the lightweight hats tested were awarded the top rating, while of the modern hats, only the Collins LPC-100 passed the initial test.
All the hats included in the tests have already been certified bythe British Standards Institute (BSI) or the European equivalent to (BS) EN 1384 and/or PAS 015 or to the American standard ASTM F1163 which includes penetration, shock absorption, harness strength and harness stability tests.
The British Equestrian Trade Association (BETA), which represents British hat manufacturers and importers, has dismissed the ENHAP results as “at best meaningless and at worst [likely to] cause greater rider confusion”.
BETA was also highly critical of the way the results were presented in a weekend edition of a national newspaper, which claimed that most riding hats “fail to protect” their wearers.
Dr Michael Whitlock, medical advisor to the European committee for sports protective equipment, says: “Since the European standard was introduced, research has shown that the hats have reduced the number and severity of head injuries. They work very well and it is worrying that the inference of the star system is that they don’t.”
However, Jane Davies, founder of the Mark Davies Injured Riders’ Fund, is convinced that the ENHAP results are a true reflection of the situation.
“These tests are truly independent. The information about which hats are safest is there, andif riders choose not to see it then that is up to them. It is now up to the governing bodies of equestrian sport to take this information on board and act to protect their members,” she says.
Here is the response from the helmet industry:
BETA Voices Concern Over Hat Research
The British Equestrian Trade Association (BETA) has hit out following a story in a national newspaper at the weekend that claims most riding hats ‘fail to protect’ their riders. This is simply not true.
The implication of by ENHAP (Equestrian New Helmet Assessment Programme) have been strongly refuted by BETA and leading riding hat manufacturers who feel the story will cause unnecessary fear and uncertainty over safety issues in the minds of the thousands of people who ride in the UK.
At all times, BETA encourages tests and trials aimed at making riding safer for all, but is seriously concerned about the claims and implications of the ENHAP results which are, at best, meaningless and, at worst, will cause greater rider confusion.
Despite numerous attempts to obtain representation on the working party that established the testing protocols, BETA as a representative of both the manufacturing and retail trade, was excluded. Indeed, the working party did not even attempt to seek any type of advice from manufacturers, who between them, have over 156 years of equestrian safety heritage. Manufacturers have also invested a considerable amount of money ensuring rider safety is to the highest of British standards through the BSI kitemark. The kitemark guarantees that hats have been produced to the stringent standards through a series of independent tests (this means, on average, one riding hat is tested every single working day of the year).
BETA Chief Executive and Secretary Claire Williams said: "The article that appeared has factual inaccuracies and there is the danger that it could cause unnecessary concern amongst riders and parents.
“Manufacturers already invest thousands of pounds per annum in the development of new and safer hats, including new methods to test their safety. These tests are carried out to the highest of standards and involvement in the development of ENHAP would have opened the working party up to many years of experience. Working together, we could have achieved a more rounded and accurate programme.”
A number of concerns have been raised by manufacturers directly in regard to ENHAP.
“We still do not feel that Star ratings are the best way of indicating the safety of a hat,” continues Ms Williams. " We are concerned that if decisions are based solely on these ratings, then the standard that the hat meets or the purpose for which it was intended may become secondary factors, creating the potential for a higher incidence of accidents."
According to Dr Michael Whitlock, Consultant in Accident and Emergency and Medical Adviser to CEN for Protective Sports Equipment, it is meaningless to say that a 3-star rating is better than a 1-star rating because it depends on the standard to which the hat is made, the accident that could occur and whether or not the hat fits correctly.
Research undertaken by Dr Whitlock reveals that the incidence of head injuries has decreased dramatically since 1995. This is a direct result of the introduction of standards like EN1384 and PAS 15 which replaced the existing standards. Continued education amongst riders to ensure that they are wearing properly fitted hats designed to the recognised standards, is therefore imperative.
BETA has also expressed concern on a number of other points with regard to the testing.
" The ENHAP research was undertaken without a penetration test which is a feature of both the EN1384 and PAS 15. However, a crush test, which is still in development and is as yet unproven, was included although we understand that the results were withdrawn in the final stages.
" All of the hats tested as part of the ENHAP research are approved to the recognised European or American standards.
" Of the 55 hats tested for side impact, only 15 then underwent a full testing through all eight controlled tests. These 15 are then compared with the other 40 on the same footing. Some of these forty may therefore have scored better had they been tested using some of the other parameters.
" The ENHAP testing is on three sizes only in the final round, rather than a full range and is a one-off field trial process. This is compared with the Kitemark procedure whereby all hats are tested on an ongoing basis and on a wider range of sizes to guarantee that they are completely up to the British safety standards.
" The variability of these results emphases the importance of constant testing. This is highlighted by the fact that two of the helmets tested which are identical in manufacture and different only in label have achieved different star ratings.
Concludes Ms Williams: "BETA is committed to supporting all initiatives which are aimed at improving safety standards but the association is genuinely concerned that the ENHAP findings are confusing and may be misunderstood. The riding hats in the research have been subjected to tests that they were not designed to meet and the overall picture which has emerged from the testing does not give a true picture of the standards or current situation.
"The aim, at all times, should be to encourage riders to keep improving their riding hats, and to encourage them to purchase new, up-to-date models which have achieved the highest of standards throughout testing and research. Through years of experience, we know that if riders are confused about safety, they are less likely to change their hat. As an industry, we recommend that hats are changed on a three to five year basis, unless they have been involved in an accident, in which case they should be changed immediately. There are so many factors that can influence a correctly fitting hat - a simple change in hair style, a drop on the floor or natural head growth can all alter the correct fit of a hat.
“Ultimately we are concerned that the ENHAP results will make purchasing more of a minefield for consumers and the retailers trying to provide appropriate advice. As a result of this, we will find that riders will take the easy option and opt to continue using their current model, rather than considering what is the best option for their own safety.”
I wrote about that study back in 2009 . . . the study was conducted in 2003. Haven’t found the data yet, but here’s my blog article:
[URL=“http://equineink.com/2009/11/04/which-equestrian-helmets-are-the-safest/”]http://equineink.com/2009/11/04/which-equestrian-helmets-are-the-safest/
