JER is correct – I was inaccurate in typing the word “allow.” Sometimes my brain doesn’t come out as intended.
I do not appreciate personal attacks such as being the subject of cognitive dissonance. I certainly am not accusing anyone here of being cognitively biased. Just because we don’t agree with each other, is not a reason to take personal aim.
No one has data. Period. Only hypotheses. And there are physicians, nurse practitioners, and Ph.D physicists etc etc who wear the air vests. If you want me to provide stats on my “claims,” then the same goes for you.
Interestingly, scientific opinion is sometimes most polarized among experts in a field.
I also never said that just because they are no lawsuits, one should use the vest. That was taken totally out of context. My point was that there are no lawsuits because the data are very hard to extract. So that goes against both sides of the opinion.
If you want to argue, why not argue about the actual content, rather than pick fights with expertise, “wild speculation,” and “smartness.”
Proponents of the air vest seem always to come under attack on these forums.
Actually, everyone has been very kind and patient. I appreciate experts explaining the science to me.
You appear to want to believe the marketing claims. You appear to believe marketing claims are equal to science.
They’re not. Also, your point about lawsuits indicates you have no understanding of our legal system. It is not true there are no lawsuits because data are “hard to extract”. 1) There is no way to ascertain the status of claims or litigation unless the company chooses to disclose that information to the public. The lack of public disclosure does not mean no consumer has filed claims, or there has been no litigation. 2) unlike other products, including automobiles, there is no agency or centralized system in which consumers can report design/engineering failures or resulting injuries.
The manufacturer relies almost exclusively upon marketing claims and testimonials to sell you a product that may not work as advertised. The problem with it not working as advertised is that the vest may actually kill or maim you.
If riders want to be their crash test dummies, they should ask the company for payment to assume that risk. That seems to be what the company is using instead of putting the product through proper safety and product testing.
I’m as safety conscious as all of you appear to be. Perhaps the difference is that I am not gullible or one to jump on bandwagons.
That’s not a personal attack. You seem to want to argue with those pointing out real and potential problems, or those who are trying to educate laypeople. If you wish to rely on faith, belief, and testimonials from people paid to endorse the product, that’s fine. It’s no one’s business.
Just don’t confuse belief and faith with science and facts.
[QUOTE=Countrywood;7077267]
A vest deflating might allow a fracture or fragment to move or shift, but based on what I have seen of rider behavior after a fall (including my own), the people do their own shifting. Everyone’s instinct is to try to get up, or move a bit to see what hurts etc. Even if someone loses consciousness, the minute they come to, that is their instinct, to move try to get up, etc. Even if they can’t get up they shift this way and that. I have never seen anyone lie rock still after a fall (hopfeull never will as that would mean they were dead)[/QUOTE]
Really, because I fell off in the winter and did this, I thought I broke my neck. A girl at the clinic I was at last week had a bad rotational fall over a showjump, and she did not move either. She had NO injuries, she wasn’t wearing a vest.
Either you haven’t been to many equestrian events, you are in denial, or you are extremely lucky to have not seen many falls.
Like wildfire said, this is not wild speculation, it is an informed hypothesis. If it makes you feel better to wear the vest then wear one. Don’t try and stop others from trying to get a better understanding of how they work though.
[QUOTE=Winding Down;7077348]
I do not appreciate personal attacks such as being the subject of cognitive dissonance. I certainly am not accusing anyone here of being cognitively biased. Just because we don’t agree with each other, is not a reason to take personal aim.
No one has data. Period. Only hypotheses. And there are physicians, nurse practitioners, and Ph.D physicists etc etc who wear the air vests. If you want me to provide stats on my “claims,” then the same goes for you.
Interestingly, scientific opinion is sometimes most polarized among experts in a field.
I also never said that just because they are no lawsuits, one should use the vest. That was taken totally out of context. My point was that there are no lawsuits because the data are very hard to extract. So that goes against both sides of the opinion.
If you want to argue, why not argue about the actual content, rather than pick fights with expertise, “wild speculation,” and “smartness.”
Proponents of the air vest seem always to come under attack on these forums.[/QUOTE]
Acutally there is data. Data from falls - as in what falls have occured where the rider was wearing an air vest and is now seriously injured? It isn’t much but at least it is a start and will help lead to the answer - Do air vests do more harm than good in a serious horse fall?
Which claim that we have made do you want stats for?
The fact that doctors, nurses, and PHDs wear them means didily squat. They are not engineers nor do they study the effects of these things. They could just as well have been taken in by marketing. Just like in any profession, there are the people at the top of their scale and people at the bottom. I know some doctors I wouldn’t let stitch me up if I meant I had to drive an hour further. Your profession does not define your knowledge on a topic unless it is your actual work focus, and even then you can have people who have no idea what they are doing.
The only vest wearers that come under attack are the ones who claim they “saved someones life” or make statements like “anyone who doesn’t ride in one is a fool” which I have seen many times here.
[QUOTE=JSwan;7077380]
Actually, everyone has been very kind and patient. I appreciate experts explaining the science to me.
You appear to want to believe the marketing claims. You appear to believe marketing claims are equal to science.
They’re not. Also, your point about lawsuits indicates you have no understanding of our legal system. It is not true there are no lawsuits because data are “hard to extract”. 1) There is no way to ascertain the status of claims or litigation unless the company chooses to disclose that information to the public. The lack of public disclosure does not mean no consumer has filed claims, or there has been no litigation. 2) unlike other products, including automobiles, there is no agency or centralized system in which consumers can report design/engineering failures or resulting injuries.
The manufacturer relies almost exclusively upon marketing claims and testimonials to sell you a product that may not work as advertised. The problem with it not working as advertised is that the vest may actually kill or maim you.
If riders want to be their crash test dummies, they should ask the company for payment to assume that risk. That seems to be what the company is using instead of putting the product through proper safety and product testing.
I’m as safety conscious as all of you appear to be. Perhaps the difference is that I am not gullible or one to jump on bandwagons.
That’s not a personal attack. You seem to want to argue with those pointing out real and potential problems, or those who are trying to educate laypeople. If you wish to rely on faith, belief, and testimonials from people paid to endorse the product, that’s fine. It’s no one’s business.
Just don’t confuse belief and faith with science and facts.[/QUOTE]
Show me the facts. I’ve never even read or looked at the advertising. Am I gullible and wanting to jump on the bandwagon?
It amazes me that people on this forum must make insinuations and/or claims about others’ motivations, lack of education, gullibility, desire to equate marketing claims with science, and being in denial. Why does one need to question the credibility of people who simply represent an opinion that differs from their own? I’ve seen no data, although people seem to allude to it. I’ve also heard the argument that there are more serious accidents with the vest than without, indicating a conclusion of causation based on simple correlational data.
Well don’t forget these facts : they had their hands slapped for misrep:
http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-348309.html
Found the actual case:
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2012/3/Point_2-Equine-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_154010.aspx
Here’s another good old thread, where someone mentions they are being sued. http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/archive/index.php/t-302400.html
Wikipedia has this quote from OT, who had severe injuries.
British rider Oliver Townend described the vest as “the biggest step forward in the safety of our sport, ever”. Townend had his horse fall on top of him while participating in the Rolex Kentucky Three Day in Lexington, Kentucky, and despite a broken sternum and four cracked ribs, credited the vest with allowing him to leave the hospital after only one day, saying that without the vest he “would be in a box or in America for a month”.[1]
Also found this data, wonder why P2 never came back and shared it? I see things have now changed, where they have had several riders with serious injury wearing P2.
[QUOTE=Countrywood;7077267]
Everyone’s instinct is to try to get up, or move a bit to see what hurts etc. Even if someone loses consciousness, the minute they come to, that is their instinct, to move try to get up, etc. Even if they can’t get up they shift this way and that. I have never seen anyone lie rock still after a fall (hopfeull never will as that would mean they were dead)[/QUOTE]
I do not know if it is instinct or training, but MY automatic response after a bad fall is to stay relatively still for several seconds. This is true even when I am in the middle of a “hot” (motorcycle) race track.
Can I breathe?
Can I see?
Does anything hurt?
Is there any blood?
Can I wiggle my toes?
Can I wiggle my fingers?
THEN I will think about moving, and the best way to get up.
I have been cornerworking at motorcycle races since the mid 60s, and almost everyone who falls remains almost imobile for at least a few seconds.
Even when someone remains apparently imobile for 10-30 seconds, they are usually fine, and up and pushing the bike before the corner worker gets to them.
Your statement that
“anyone who lies rock still after a fall is dead” is completely the opposite of my experience.
I am prety sure it si NOT “instinctive” to “get up immediately” after a potentially bad fall.
Well heck, the last couple of bad falls I’ve had were completely different. One was being spectacularly bucked off - I remained still for a while since I had the wind knocked out of me and whacked my back. Then my first instinct was to try to breathe, second instinct was to keep my back still.
The other I sustained a major concussion - it was an innocuous-looking fall, according to a bystander. Apparently I sat right up and started taking off my gloves and helmet; she knew something was wrong because I hadn’t jumped up to go catch the loose horse. “Instinct,” in a braid-addled person, was off…
[QUOTE=Janet;7077486]
I do not know if it is instinct or training, but MY automatic response after a bad fall is to stay relatively still for several seconds. This is true even when I am in the middle of a “hot” (motorcycle) race track.
Can I breathe?
Can I see?
Does anything hurt?
Is there any blood?
Can I wiggle my toes?
Can I wiggle my fingers?
THEN I will think about moving, and the best way to get up.
I have been cornerworking at motorcycle races since the mid 60s, and almost everyone who falls remains almost imobile for at least a few seconds.
Even when someone remains apparently imobile for 10-30 seconds, they are usually fine, and up and pushing the bike before the corner worker gets to them.
Your statement that
“anyone who lies rock still after a fall is dead” is completely the opposite of my experience.
I am prety sure it si NOT “instinctive” to “get up immediately” after a potentially bad fall.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, Janet!
I don’t have an air vest. Doesn’t bother me one bit if someone does have one. These are personal choices…and there is NOT a right or wrong answer.
I don’t have one for simple reasons…I don’t wear my regular vest riding daily and doubt I would wear an air vest at any time other than a competition. Since I’m far more likely to be hurt at home and schooling…I see it as a waste of money. I do wear a helmet every ride.
I do have horses who I’m 100% sure would react negatively to a vest deploying. Hell…they react to other people’s air vest deploying. I had one ridden by a pro who did bolt off with his rider when his vest deployed.
I would 100% be a person who dismounted and deployed their vest…and given my own horses…would very likely get hurt in that situation. And wearing an airvest is not so important to ME personally that I’m going to spend the time and money to desensitize my own horses.
So for me personally…there is not a huge benefit in the air vests. I don’t mind taking advil for a few days if I pop off. So it really just became a cost benefit issue for me.
And while there are all risks in horse sports…I minimize mine through proper training and having good horses. My most likely significant injury is going to come driving to and from the barn in my car or truck…and I’ll accept the other risks.
[QUOTE=Winding Down;7077466]
Show me the facts. I’ve never even read or looked at the advertising. [/QUOTE]
You say this like it’s a point of pride.
I would think that reviewing a product’s promotional and marketing materials are part of the research process when evaluating a product. How do you know what the product is purported to do or how it’s supposed to work if you don’t read what the manufacturer says about it?
I’m still waiting for you to answer my question as to which legal databases and court dockets you searched in order to assert as ‘fact’ that ‘there are no lawsuits’.
Just want to add a fall anecdote, while we’re sharing anecdotes.
I wear an EXO. I had a bad fall recently- not rotational, but I fell HARD. Hard enough, on my back, that even with a properly fitted certified CO helmet I had a pretty good concussion. The trauma from hitting the ground was enough to make my nose bleed (I did not hit my face on anything).
I hurt absolutely nowhere on my body except my head. No bruising, no soreness, nothing. My EXO vest provided me all the protection I needed. Now I have no video of how I fell, and it’s an anecdote. But I know how fast I was going when I fell (approx 350 mpm) and I know that my head sure took a beating from the impact.
Just a thought for all those that want a air-vest to protect them from bruising/broken rib. In this instance, my EXO vest did just fine. Too bad they don’t make them anymore… hopefully someone will make something like this again sometime soon.
The doctors would not allow the release of the video of Karens fall for some reason…which would have helped analyze just when the vest off etc. P2 does not care to do research into its own product - that in itself is worrisome.
I can’t imagine a scenario where a doctor would be asked, or have the authority to give permission, for a video of a patient to be “released”. That would be up to the patient and nobody else. And even beyond that, why would any physician want to keep such information secret? 
Have to agree with the over-arching theme that THERE IS NOT ENOUGH RESEARCH to say with certainty that these vests do anything at all. 
WD, I don’t understand why you are so defensive, even with your previous username, on this topic… Obviously from your posts your level of confidence in the vests is nowhere near that of the most polarized supporters–what gives with taking things so personally? Nobody’s saying “nobody should wear a vest”. Almost nobody is saying “everyone should wear a vest”. A gigantic majority of people on this thread are giving their personal reasons for wearing or not wearing one. What the heck is wrong with that?
If you haven’t read anything about the product, then how did you become aware of it? The answer is going to be - testimonials and stories from non scientists or paid endorsers.
Again, if you want to rely on that, fine. Don’t get your knickers in a twist that others require better and more solid information than advertising. You don’t get to decide what other people are permitted to think or discuss.
I find the information presented by Reed and others to be very educational and compelling. You seem determined to ignore them, and argue with anyone who dares question the claims made by the manufacturer.
Frankly, it’s a little bizarre to get almost hysterical about it. Buy one or don’t buy one. Consider the information presented or don’t. But calm down about it. Geez.
I know, it was strange. I can’t remember the exact story, but it was discussed on CoTH how the doctor determined the vest saved her life but they were not going to allow any one else to watch the video…I will look for the post.
Airvests…
Perhaps the safety claims of manufacturer are “over inflated”…
Perhaps the scary projections put forth are “over blown”…
Found it - maybe misconstrued - unclear if it will remain private because of the surgeons or because of Point Two -
[QUOTE=deltawave;7077586]
WD, I don’t understand why you are so defensive, even with your previous username, on this topic… [/QUOTE]
I didn’t know this person had changed her screen name. All of the arguments sounded familiar but then the ‘no lawsuits’ line came up again, and then the ‘I haven’t read the marketing materials’ line. Then I looked at the old threads and saw that a previous name had morphed into ‘Winding Down’.
I don’t get it. Why rehash it all under a new name? People on this thread who have real-world expertise are quite generous to share their thoughts on this BB. Why put them through the same rigamarole again and again? Are you hoping for a different outcome?
