Talk:Equestrian helmet

US-centric

ΛThis article is very US-centric, both in terms of standard discussed, and the disciplines mentioned. It would be good to update it to include other standards, or add the disclaimer "in the USA" to the end of some sentences. ASTM is not an international standard.

Well, lend a hand! This editor (me) has insufficienrt data on European standards, any help much appreciated! If you have good URLs or research sources, please inform us. Or propose some text here and we can see what can be done. Oh, and please remember to sign your posts! Montanabw 03:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The article still is US-centric. I added a tiny bit of information about standards other than ASTM F1163. In fact ASTM is international and its standards can be used by anyone, anywhere, who wants to use them. However, adoption of ASTM F1163 by manufacturers and user organizations outside the US (and Canada?) seems to be limited. --Una Smith 06:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you are the only person to add international material, and I thank you. I know zip about international standards, so I am letting others do that bit. However, I am making a small tweak: ASTM F1163 is the standard now, but in a year or so I am sure it will be upgraded to something with a new magic number, so am going to use more generic terminology, if you don't mind. (We could say F1163 is the current standard as of 2007, but need a source so people can verify if it's still current.) Montanabw^(talk) 04:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are you sure of that? ASTM standards are revised on a mandatory 5 year cycle, *preserving* their numbers. F1163 already has survived several cycles of revision. Do you have reason to think F1163 will be withdrawn? Are you a member of that ASTM technical committee? --Una Smith 12:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You want to commit to being here in five years to update the article? (smile) This is not a huge deal to me, but to me the number is totally meaningless and is boring in the context of the article. I mean, who cares? Does it mean that it survives a drop from fifteen feet and a thousand pound horse rolling over it or what? That is what matters...

Cleanup

I have marked this article for cleanp, as it needs to be wikified, and has some typos etc. - Tim.bounceback 23:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made a small start, will see if the creator fixes it up. If not, will dive in and do more work later. Montanabw 20:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Decided it was time to just be bold, drug every helmet I owned out of the closet and started taking pictures. Then renamed it, and generally altered everything beyond recognition. (Also fixed at least FIVE redirects...!) Hope it helped! Montanabw 04:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Riding vs other helmets

I don't ride horses but any reason why horse riders shouldn't be using something more modern and safer like full face motorcycle helmets? These equestrian helmets may have been fine 100 years ago, but get with the times already.

ASTM/SEI standards for equestrian helmets are "modern," Their design is far more recent that 100 years ago, and the current helmet is more protective of the head than, for example, a bicycle helmet. No doubt room for improvement, but kindly read the entire article. Montanabw^(talk) 20:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because something is designed recently does not automatically make it modern or good. You could design a medieval outfit yesterday and it'll still not be modern. How well do the standard equestrian helmets work if a horse steps in your face? What happens if you fall on your chin? Requiring a "Classic Appearance" is a stupid excuse to have low protection by default. It's fine to require a "classic appearance" for reenactments of historical events, or special parades - where "appearance" is of utmost importance, but in other situations isn't it rather silly?

And, I don't think bicycle helmets are good either :). Still I suppose it's rare for a bicycle to accidentally stomp on your head after you fall off and even if it does roll over you, you are more likely to be OK (most modern bicycle aren't that heavy). Also: it's a longer drop falling from a horse than a bicycle, and the last I checked horse riding was one of the most dangerous sports on an injuries/fatalities per participant basis. So better protection is warranted.

I guess my thinking is that I want people to wear helmets. They are much better than NOT wearing helmets. Given that you think bicycle helmets are also not that great, it's good to know that is where you are coming from. Bottom line is that a modern helmet -- bicycle or equestiran -- CAN do a great deal to reduce the rate of closed-head injuries (concussions) and in that respect is a vast improvement over old designs. For that reason alone, it is a good thing they are out there. Certainly better than other options, like no helmet at all!

Beyond that, you can build something better, but you also have to deal with human nature--they gotta be willing to wear it to do any good. Look at motorcycle helmets, where I live, the state doesn't even require them for people over 18. Though many organizations require helmet wear in sanctioned competition, only one state in the USA requires by law helmet use for horseback riding, and that only for children under 14. They might be great, they might save lives, and yet...well, human nature. If they don't wear it, it does no good at all. And people barely are willing to wear the new designs as it is, usually only jockies and the folks who jump have a majority of users wearing them. Not that this is good, but it's reality.

Design-wise, falling off a horse is a longer drop than a bicycle, but generally onto dirt, not pavement. And, other than in horse racing or eventing, the fall generally occurs at slower speeds. (Statistically, most falls occur at a walk or standstill...the horse has to slow down to buck you off!) The modern ASTM/SEI helmet is a vast improvement over the shell hunt cap, which was an improvement over the soft derby. But horses rarely step on people, and even less often on purpose (they don't like squishy things under their feet). The main thing that hits people when they fall off a horse is the ground. (Can't say the same for rodeo bulls, and rodeo cowboys won't wear head protection at all!) I can think of cases where a horse fell on someone, but the helmet wouldn't be much help there. Facial injuries would be more likely to occur from landing face-first in a pile of brush. I can't think of a case where a horse stepped on someone's face, though I am sure it has happened. Closed-head injuries are more the problem, and modern helmets CAN do a great deal to reduce the risk of those.

I am not sure what stats you are looking at, and though horseback riding is not without risks and the injury rate may well be on the high side, the fatality rate is not.

My point is that people need to wear what is available. If someone designs something even better, that's great -- IF you can get people to wear it! Montanabw^(talk) 22:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Standards

I took out some comments that are POV or factually untrue. In particular, untrue statements that ASTM sets safety designs for helmets. --Una Smith 13:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

However, as SEI is accredited to ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996 by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Standards Council of Canada (SCC), ISO standards and ASTM/SEI standards are quite similar.

I have a real problem with this one. Accreditation has nothing to do with similarity of content of standards. --Una Smith 13:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's what the source implies. We can tewak semantics, but the bottom line is that ISO and ASTM both reduce the probability of a closed-head injury. That's the only real point (note the person who thinks we should all wear a 10-pound helmet with a face shield, versus all the cowboys who won't wear anything because it's not macho...just trying to find a middle gound)

I am unaware of any ISO standard pertaining to riding helmets. ISO has other functions, one of which is to define guidelines for accreditation. The text SEI is accredited to ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996 by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) and citation already is on the wikipedia page describing SEI, where it belongs. --Una Smith 13:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement ISO standards and ASTM/SEI standards are quite similar needs to be supported by a citation. For starters, identify which ISO standard pertains to riding helmets. Only then can we compare them and say how they are similar or not similar. --Una Smith 13:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The section about standards needs cleanup again. This is a complex area, and not well explained in equestrian magazines. For example, PAS and SZN standards are published by national standards organizations, but ASTM, Snell and EN standards are not. The EN standard has been adopted by a British national standards organization, hence the "BS EN". Worldwide, the EN standard arguably is the most widely adopted and probably also is the one that appears on the most helmet labels.

References

Bias

Please leave bias out of the article. Some cowboys wear helmets, some don't. Some English riders wear them, some don't. In some rodeo sports (especially bull riding!), wearing helmets and vests is becoming routine at the national pro level. Contestants in my county's annual rodeo wear helmets and vests. --Una Smith 13:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This cap is not ASTM/SEI certified and offers minimal protection for a rider's head.

User:Montantabw wrote I happen to own this helmet and it's a piece of crap. Why can't I say it's useless? Even manufacturers now have dislaimers on these saying all they are is "apparal." Must I cite to a source that says they are a piece of crap just for a photo caption??

"Piece of crap" is an opinion, or if you like original research. I would not wear the cap in question as PPE. On the other hand, it is not true that the cap provides no protection. Arguably it protects against sunburn, rain, abrasion, and possibly penetration. It may fail a crush test, or it may not have been tested. To claim it provides no protection you must make protection = passes a certain test, and then show that this helmet was tested and failed. --Una Smith 16:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Design

First, the design standards are set and approved by an organization with expertise in design, engineering and safety. This sounds good but it is simply untrue! ASTM has no such expertise. As I wrote already in this article, ASTM has a volunteer committee made up of helmet producers and users and that committee has written a safety standard, ASTM F1163. ASTM F1163 is not a design standard. I know this because I have read the standard. --Una Smith 13:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

ASTM

(formerly American Society for Testing and Materials).

Yes, ASTM formerly was American Society for Testing and Materials but that does not need to be explained on this page because it is explained on ASTM International. --Una Smith 13:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

PAS 015

Is this standard an equestrian safety standard or an equestrian helmet safety standard? Someone who has read it, please abstract it for us! --Una Smith 13:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

General replies

Replacing my earlier message with the comment that I am appalled at how much the various citations you added, when reading the source, didn't match what the articles actually said. I have to say that this concerned me a great bit. If you are going to critisize POV, bias and sourcing, then please look in the mirror first. As for the rest, I did some rearranging for readability. There still may be a place for some structural tweaks, but for heavens sake, be careful what you say about a source! Montanabw^(talk) 23:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What? Where? --Una Smith 00:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Snell

I have never heard of the "Snell" standard. If it is so great, then explain who uses it. From the text, it appears to just be something harness racing people use? In what country? And to sanctioning organizations require it, or is it just a good idea? On that note, though, there is an argument to be made to include the standards for jockey helmets in Thoroughbred racing, I will admit. Montanabw^(talk) 22:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Snell has two equestrian helmet standards, one for riding and one for harness racing. Snell E2001 is the riding helmet standard. I guess its name really is "Snell E"; the 2001 indicates a revision year, one of several. Snell E seems to be used most in the eventing helmet market. Do we need sources for the statement that it is widely regarded as the most rigorous standard? It surpasses most other standards because it includes a penetration test; one criticism of the Snell standard is that this test is unnecessary because penetrations are a rare mechanism of injury. But that depends on where you ride; people who ride cross country may well prefer a helmet model that passes a standard penetration test. --Una Smith 00:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Replies to all -2

Yeah, we definitely need a source on who says Snell is so terrific. I have had horses for decades, taught lessons for years, bought helmets for decades, been a member of USEF for decades and have never heard of Snell until you mentioned it two days ago. Everything I see in the states, the catalogues, the magazines, the promtions for helmets, all the labels, at least on jumping helmets, is all pretty much ASTM/SEI. I am not into Eventing or horse racing, though so maybe that crowd has a different standard, but whoever these people are, they may be great and all that, but from the source material I found for my last set of updates, the need for a penetration test is kind of the big debate between ASTM and EN...Americans won't wear hot helmets so they have some up with designs that have ventilation slots. The sources I read suggested that the penetration issue is a debate, not a "clearly superior" design.

As for what standards are mandated by the government of a given nation versus the ones that are industry-base, that can be mentioned, but needs to be NPOV. An industry-based standard may be as good a standard as one mandated by the government, the issue is more that of enforcement for violations -- a wrist slap versus fines and sanctions, I suppose. Source it, explain it, keep the article readable so ordinary people want to wear helmets...

Given the controversy here, I suggest that we try to source as much as possible. Sourcing ends controversies, or at least dueling sources allows each side to present its view in a balanced matter. It may get a little awkward to source every sentence, but let's try for paragraphs, at least. It may help to know what general country you are working from, you sound like you have a European or British perspective, mine is western United States, the last bastion of "it's my head, why should I wear a helmet?" thinking. (which is why I know cowboys don't like helmets...sigh) My view is let's encourage helmet use and while accuracy is good, let's not get bogged down in technicalities. Put the simple stuff first, the more complicated stuff farther down the page for those who care. Montanabw^(talk) 07:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Equestrian helmet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810132116/http://www.beta-uk.org/Safety/HatStandards.asp to http://www.beta-uk.org/Safety/HatStandards.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Other uses

It would be informative if there was a section in the article about other uses of these helmets, such as by mounted police. --Dreddmoto (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)