WTF Are We Doing?

[Gnep]

[QUOTE=Gry2Yng;8671445]
This. Better stated than I EVER could.

http://eventingnation.com/a-way-forward-how-eventing-can-use-established-strategies-to-improve-safety/[/QUOTE]

No, we have studied and studied and studied. How old is the frangible pin study, I aint going to google for it, 10 years, 15 years. Eventing is still studing and than will do a nother study.

Eventing has never said a fatality is not acceptable.

Other high risk sports, I use motor sports for my examples, quiet simply said a fatality is not acceptable, period.
They threw what ever money it took to reach that goal in a minimum time.
If you look at a F1 car, it is so narrow that you can hardly fit a person into it, but it will protect a person from a 200 mile, 40g impact and than the follow ups at 20g, multiple impacts. It is jus a glove so to speak, if it brakes, the thing inside is dead.

When has there been a demand by the FEI for better vests, or helmets. There is none, the USEA, the FN. They just play along with their sponsors.

Accidents will happen, that’s the nature of the sport. Nobody will or can deny that. You can not build a jump save enough that they will not happen, its impossible. But we have to make those accidents none fatale.
First goal should be to develop a protective gear for the rider, that will allow him/her to survive the most brutal of the accidents, getting smashed into pulp by the horse, helmets and vests, Exo system. You give the suppliers a reasonable date and the proper test requirements and by day X, only those equipments are allowed. This is what other high risk sports do.
If a vest can not handle the force of 2000 or maybe 3000 lbs crashing down on it, it aint no good.
You want to make money, solve the problem. But remember you vest will be illegal on date X, the money maker.
Next thing would be horses and the jumps, this is were one would have to spent some of their own money. Hire some serious pros and give them the goal to develop the technology for the jumps, without changing the nature of the jump. That is going to be costly. But if F1 can simulate every race track, within a few 100 of a second and built and set up the car for it, with out actually testing that equipment, live.

Come on.

Eventing has pushed that ball far to long in front of it.

It has to do what other high risk sport did, no more and than make the proper changes, not tomorrow but today.

Evnting is not looking in its own mirror, does not dare and if it does not do it, its just a matter of time.

[Manahmanah]

Let’s not forget the unintended consequences of poorly researched technology. For example, I was heavily involved in the motogp community for a number of years (long ago) because my ex fiance raced. A lot of tracks in the 90s installed fancy grip paint along the outside of the tracks to make racing safer. An unintended consequence was that the number of highsides at these tracks increased, which is a peculiar phenomenon where the outside of the tire gets too much grip and violently rips the rider to the outside and off the bike frequently resulting in severe injury and death.

When people are throwing out ideas like “let’s put a lip on the back end of the table” or regurgitating safety studies that have already been applied, then screaming that we are not making the sport safer, it does not help. People with engineering and or analytical backgrounds can help. If the unhelpful masses are always screaming makes a lot of distracting noise.

[vineyridge]

Just what safety studies have already been applied?

[JER]

[QUOTE=Gnep;8671963]

When has there been a demand by the FEI for better vests, or helmets. There is none, the USEA, the FN. They just play along with their sponsors.

Accidents will happen, that’s the nature of the sport. Nobody will or can deny that. You can not build a jump save enough that they will not happen, its impossible. But we have to make those accidents none fatale.

First goal should be to develop a protective gear for the rider, that will allow him/her to survive the most brutal of the accidents, getting smashed into pulp by the horse, helmets and vests, Exo system. You give the suppliers a reasonable date and the proper test requirements and by day X, only those equipments are allowed. This is what other high risk sports do.

If a vest can not handle the force of 2000 or maybe 3000 lbs crashing down on it, it aint no good.
You want to make money, solve the problem. But remember you vest will be illegal on date X, the money maker.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

Eventing has not done any of this yet, despite averaging 3 fatalities per year. And it’s probably a big part of why there’s an average of 3 fatalities per year.

F1 has had one death in the last 22 years, after going 20 years without a single fatality. The last fatality in a NASCAR Sprint Series race was Dale Earnhardt in 2001 – this led to the mandatory use of the HANS device.

Motorsport has a huge challenge in dealing with accidents because the amount of kinetic energy generated in a vehicle far exceeds that of a horse on xc. Remember: k= 1/2mass x velocity squared. Velocity is the big factor in that equation as vehicles are traveling at speeds up to 350kph. Square that and you’ve got yourself some serious kinetic energy.

The point is, if motorsport can eliminate fatal accidents in races in which 16 vehicles traveling at 300+kph attempt to overtake other vehicle traveling at 300+kph that don’t want to be overtaken, then eventing should stop pleading ‘improving’ and get serious about zero fatalities.

And the other point is, we’re not saying anything on this BB that we haven’t been saying since 1999. Eventers born in that year will be going Advanced next year – and the sport is still chugging along with an ‘average’ of three deaths per annum. Eventing should have had a better future waiting for them.

[CSU92]

[QUOTE=Gnep;8671963]

You can not build a jump save enough that they will not happen, its impossible.
…

Hire some serious pros and give them the goal to develop the technology for the jumps, without changing the nature of the jump.[/QUOTE]

Why do you say its impossible to build a safe enough jump?

What do you consider essential to the nature of XC jumps?

Is the answer to the first question dictated by the answer to the second question?

How will F1 racing prevent deaths caused by a tire flying into the driver’s face if the sport determines that closing up the cockpit is against the nature of F1?

[Littleluck55]

One thing about the motorsports, they poured millions and millions of dollars into safety research. At the highest levels, they have that type of money. There are still an average of 20 deaths a year in motorsports at the lesser tracks and dirt tracks that don’t have the money to implement many of the safety features.

[wildlifer]

[QUOTE=vineyridge;8671636]
The first things that seems needed, it seems to me, are full scale, 3D maps of the terrain of each XC course. [/QUOTE]

This can very easily be done in an area where LIDAR data is available. Essentially, LIDAR is an aerial 3D laser scan of the earth’s surface with sub-3 m. accuracy. The existing datasets are massive & we don’t have full coverage yet, as you can imagine it’s not cheap or fast to produce. But USGS & NOAA both have data portals that we use to import layers into GIS mapping software for fine-scale analytic work like hydrologic modeling.

If you have the processor, it’s easy to build in parameters such as light reflection/refraction & a zillion other things. However, for analysis of a single jump in place, it’s likely simpler to just digitize a model from high-resolution photography or video.

But these wouldn’t be, shouldn’t be something required to move forward – there are already links posted to the excellent article with real, practical, feasible, immediate suggestions for steps to reduce or remove elements we already know pose problems. No, we can’t fix everything. But there is absolutely no acceptable reason for failing to come to the table (no horrible pun intended) and improve conditions where we already can.

[snowrider]

[QUOTE=Manahmanah;8672015]
Let’s not forget the unintended consequences of poorly researched technology. For example, I was heavily involved in the motogp community for a number of years (long ago) because my ex fiance raced. A lot of tracks in the 90s installed fancy grip paint along the outside of the tracks to make racing safer. An unintended consequence was that the number of highsides at these tracks increased, which is a peculiar phenomenon where the outside of the tire gets too much grip and violently rips the rider to the outside and off the bike frequently resulting in severe injury and death.

When people are throwing out ideas like “let’s put a lip on the back end of the table” or regurgitating safety studies that have already been applied, then screaming that we are not making the sport safer, it does not help. People with engineering and or analytical backgrounds can help. If the unhelpful masses are always screaming makes a lot of distracting noise.[/QUOTE]

Yes. There must be prioritized recommendations for data collection and also some proper modern safety protocols as well as proper modern R&D and IMPLEMENTATION to improve the things we already know are problems. And this action plan should be developed transparently with input from competitors and experts with oversight by the governing body. There must be goals with timeframes to meet the goals. And a way to filter safety innovations down, say grants to PCs to invest in approved technology, that sort of thing. The FEI started on this years ago but the follow through has been decidedly meh.

All the people suggesting we make random changes then monitor actual riders- why? There are ways to model most collisions these days, we don’t build cars, monitor for a while then assign safety ratings. Why experiment on the competitors when software and hardwear exists to allow you to run millions of scenarios at no risk?

Changes should be monitored for testing after implementation to make sure they are producing the expected results and for unintended side effects but testing is only useful if you have a) a baseline and b) an expected effect. There are people who do this for a living. Eventing needs to hire some. Or hire at least a professional program director and let them contract it out.

Many other groups have gone through this process after a frankly unacceptable level of injuries and deaths in recent years. There are numerous well studied pathways to reducing risk in inherently risky activities. The strides made in fields like commercial diving, motorsports, avalanche awareness, commercial fishing, oil drilling could provide a roadmap. And yes, its hard to see someone you know become a case study in safety class. I’ve sat through classes were they were discussing the death or near death of someone I knew more than once. It’s sobering and sad but it saves lives. Keeping the details a secret does not.

As it is we repeat the same exact accident over and over and over again (warning pdf will download).

[kcmel]

[QUOTE=Littleluck55;8672165]
One thing about the motorsports, they poured millions and millions of dollars into safety research. At the highest levels, they have that type of money. There are still an average of 20 deaths a year in motorsports at the lesser tracks and dirt tracks that don’t have the money to implement many of the safety features.[/QUOTE]

That’s what I was thinking as well. F1 drivers are among the most highly paid athletes in the world–it is a huge money making industry. Orders of magnitude different from eventing. I don’t expect the changes we are discussing would cost nearly as much as in the auto racing industry, but still, where is the money going to come from? Are the PTB going to ask the super-rich owners to pull money away from sponsoring horses/riders to put into making the sport safer? I don’t think so. Can donations from all of us LL riders (and you UL riders as well) be enough to make an impact? I don’t know. Is this any excuse for the industry to look the other way? Of course not! They need to find a way to make it happen.

[JER]

Money is no excuse for a lack of safety in eventing.

If a modern sport can’t afford to be safe, it can’t afford to exist. What else could possibly be more important?

[findeight]

[QUOTE=Littleluck55;8672165]
One thing about the motorsports, they poured millions and millions of dollars into safety research. At the highest levels, they have that type of money. There are still an average of 20 deaths a year in motorsports at the lesser tracks and dirt tracks that don’t have the money to implement many of the safety features.[/QUOTE]

It costs NOTHING to publically admit there is an ongoing problem with fatalities. That’s the first step. If motor racing can do it, Eventing should stop giving the perception they shrug it off. It’s holding back the popularity of the upper levels of the sport and keeps the casual spectator away.

I figure that if grown macho man types can publically shed tears over a fatality (Daytona 2001) or admit on camera to being badly shaken by a wreck whether they were involved or just a witness? Eventing should lose the collective poker face and admit they have a very big problem admitting fatalities and serious injury on the upper levels should not just be thrown into the " It Happens bin".

I dunno, maybe in some cases riders don’t want to admit their own mortality and truely accept it could happen to them.

[vineyridge]

About money for safety studies–is there a line on the entry forms asking for safety donations for the USEA safety fund in the fee section that could be checked? And added to entry fees?

Does every omnibus click on the USEA site have a banner asking for donations?

Do the online entry sites ask for safety donations?

Is there a big sign in each secretary’s office asking for donations to the safety fund?

Is there something as simple as a checked box for safety donations on the entrants’ paperwork at the show? They could donate then and there.

If not willing to have a safety fee, why shouldn’t participants be hounded?

[JER]

[QUOTE=vineyridge;8672636]
About money for safety studies–is there a line on the entry forms asking for safety donations for the USEA safety fund in the fee section that could be checked? And added to entry fees? [/QUOTE]

But there’s no point to any of this is the ISF and NSFs aren’t committed to implementing real changes to make the sport safer.

[vineyridge]

Bu they are! Read the Honor Phillipa commentary on the right.

[Winding_Down]

[QUOTE=vineyridge;8671652]
Yes, people can donate, but many people won’t. They may well recognize a worthy cause when they see one, but horse care and competition cost so much, that donation doesn’t get made. If there were a mandatory safety fee built into the entry fee, maybe USEA wouldn’t have to beg for money to continue the Kentucky Study.[/QUOTE]

I agree. We need to find ways to raise more money for continuing and expanding research.

Begging can also be called fundraising

The problem with increasing entries fees is that many of us struggle to pay mounting entry fees which have increased greatly over the past 10-20 years. There have been threads on this forum complaining about USEA fees already.

I am committed to donating whenever I have a bit extra $$. In the past, whenever I sell a horse, I take a portion and “pay it forward” by donating to particular riders or to funds, and I plan to donate to safety research again when my current sales horse is sold. I donated a small amount in memory of Philippa last week.

I will try harder to donate more.

[JP60]

[QUOTE=vineyridge;8672925]
Bu they are! Read the Honor Phillipa commentary on the right.[/QUOTE]
With all due respect, her article does little on both fronts.

First, Eventing is not akin to climbing Mt Everest, an the act of climbing it is not a sport. There is a vast difference between the two which make it a bad comparison. Eventing has rules, strict guidelines that define how we ride and what we ride against. Everest does not. When people die on K2, Everest, Danali that is purely on their own choice of risk, not based on a competition.

Eventing, at the highest level is not climbing Everest, it is just the culmination of training in a series of events that test the capability of horse and rider. Everest is a crap shoot, Rolex, Jersey Fresh should not.

So my point is that the PTB have NOT done all they can to reduce risk since we are still talking about it. LGL says remove tables…has it been done? No so we’ve not done anything yet. The rabble says change the style of the courses to focus on endurance, not technical questions and have we done it no.

But are they? Hardly

So please, we’ve not done a damn thing to really change the nature of this sport to date.

[Winding_Down]

[QUOTE=JP60;8672970]

So please, we’ve not done a damn thing to really change the nature of this sport to date.[/QUOTE]

Reeeeeaaaaally???

[Manahmanah]

[QUOTE=Winding Down;8672979]
Reeeeeaaaaally???[/QUOTE]

Don’t feed the troll

[JER]

[QUOTE=vineyridge;8672925]
Bu they are! Read the Honor Phillipa commentary on the right.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I did. It was a post from a fellow eventer, emotional and trying to make sense of a rough situation.

But I didn’t see anything in it that should make any sentient being believe that the ISF and NSFs are committed to taking the steps – some of these were described by gnep earlier in the thread – necessary to change the rate of fatalities and serious injury in the sport.

@Manahmanah;8673100

Don’t feed the troll

He’s not a troll. He has a legitimate point, considering that there’s an average of 3 fatalities in competition in the sport each year.

Getting back to that ‘Honoring Philippa’ post, I do take exception to the author’s put-downs of the online eventing community. Language like ‘from your computer’ – well, Leah, perhaps it’s just the emotion taking over, but that’s a pretty damn condescending way to treat your fellow eventers. Do you really believe we’re not out there with our horses every day and competing at weekends? Do you really think that we come on here to post about something in which we have no direct experience? Do you really think we’ve never talked to a TD or a course designer before?

There’s no place for a high horse in eventing. We’re all in this together.

[betonbill]

To paraphrase Gnep, nobody in all the editorials or TPTB, has come out and acknowledged that there is a problem and that the death of any horse or rider is not okay. Until you admit there is a problem there will be no real solutions.