Evaluation of Safety Vests

Evaluation of safety vests
Health and safety in Australian racing
APRIL 2014
RIRDC Publication No. 14/037

Health and safety in Australian racing
by Foote, C.E., Gibson, T.J. and McGauran, P.J.
April 2014
RIRDC Publication No 14/037
RIRDC Project No. PRJ-008125
2014 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.

All rights reserved.
ISBN 978-1-74254-653-7
ISSN 1440-6845
Health and safety in Australian racing Evaluation of safety vests
Publication No. 14/037
Project No. PRJ-008125
The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and
discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information
contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances.
While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct,
the Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication.
The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the
authors or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability
to any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or
omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the
part of the Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors.
The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views in this publication.
This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are
reserved. However, wide dissemination is encouraged. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and
rights should be addressed to RIRDC Communications on phone 02 6271 4100.
Researcher Contact Details
Dr Caroline Foote
Equine Consulting Services
P.O. Box 3361
Dural NSW 2158
Email: caroline@equineconsultingservices.com.au
In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form.
RIRDC Contact Details
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
Level 2, 15 National Circuit
BARTON ACT 2600
PO Box 4776
KINGSTON ACT 2604
Phone:
Fax:
Email:
Web:
02 6271 4100
02 6271 4199
rirdc@rirdc.gov.au.
http://www.rirdc.gov.au
Electronically published by RIRDC in April 2014

Print-on-demand by Union Offset Printing, Canberra at www.rirdc.gov.au
or phone 1300 634 313
ii
Foreword
Jockey safety is of paramount importance to the Australian horse racing industry and the equipment
available to jockeys must find a balance between offering effective protection and being comfortable.
Compulsory for jockeys and trackwork riders since 1998, safety vests are now an established part of
the kit worn by jockeys.
This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of existing safety vests for jockeys and trackwork
riders in Australia. The adoption of this reports research findings will make long-lasting
improvements to the safety of jockeys and trackwork riders in Australia.
Industry information from Racing NSW suggests that the average time lost following a fall is over
500 hours per incident, with the claim cost from horse-related falls amounting to approximately $3
million per annum. Since safety vests were made mandatory in Australia in 1998, there had been
concerns that one or more of the currently used safety vests may offer limited protection and may
even contribute to neck and/or spinal injuries.
The report makes a number of recommendations aimed at improving jockey safety. These include
changes to the Australian Racing Boards standard for vests, improving systems for approving vests
and better systems for monitoring compliance and vest performance. It is now for the racing industry
to adopt the reports recommendations.
This project was funded primarily from industry revenue with additional funds provided by the
Australian Government. This report is an addition to RIRDCs diverse range of over 2000 research
publications and it forms part of our Horse RD&E program, which includes an objective to improve
the safety of industry participants.
Most of RIRDCs publications are available for viewing, free downloading or purchasing online at
www.rirdc.gov.au. Purchases can also be made by phoning 1300 634 313.
Craig Burns
Managing Director
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
iii
Contents
Foreword............................................................................................................................................... iii
Contents ................................................................................................................................................. iv
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................vii
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
Objectives................................................................................................................................................ 2
Overview of methods ............................................................................................................................. 2
Australian Jockey Survey...................................................................................................................... 3
Method ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Results ................................................................................................................................................. 3
Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Review of insurance claim data prior to and following the introduction of the vests.................... 11
Method .............................................................................................................................................. 11
Results ............................................................................................................................................... 11
Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 17
Biomechanical review of the effectiveness of safety vests ................................................................. 19
Method .............................................................................................................................................. 19
Results ............................................................................................................................................... 19
Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 20
Evaluation of Protective Equipment Standards ................................................................................ 23
Method .............................................................................................................................................. 23
Results and Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 23
Safety Equipment Testing ................................................................................................................... 27
Method .............................................................................................................................................. 27
Results ............................................................................................................................................... 28
Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 36
Implications .......................................................................................................................................... 38
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 40
Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 41
References ............................................................................................................................................. 54
iv
Tables
Table 1
Breakdown of Jockey Survey respondents from riders in NSW and Vic ........................... 3
Table 2
Responses of riders on whether the safety vests impact on their ability to minimise
risk of injury during a fall ................................................................................................... 7
Table 3
Percentage of respondents supporting the review of safety standards ................................ 7
Table 4
Opinion of riders on the use of additional safety equipment .............................................. 8
Table 5
Rate of fall claims prior to and following the introduction of the vests in Vic ................. 11
Table 6
Average time lost (days) due to injury prior to and following the introduction of the
vests in Vic ........................................................................................................................ 12
Table 7
Rate of fall claims prior to and following the introduction of the vests in NSW.............. 13
Table 8
Average time lost (hours) due to injury prior to and following the introduction of the
vests in NSW ..................................................................................................................... 13
Table 9
Average gross value of claims and age of riders in the pre- and post-vest periods .......... 14
Table 10
Injury types in the pre- and post-vest period excluding sprains and strains...................... 15
Table 11
Severity of injuries at specific bodily locations ................................................................ 16
Table 12
Results of the case analysis with the body region, the injury and the type and area of
injury causing contact summarised for each case. ............................................................ 20
Table 13
Jockey vest sample specifications. .................................................................................... 28
Table 14
EN 13158 Level 1 impact performance testing results. .................................................... 29
Table 15
Specifications of the additional Tipperary Ride-Lite sample............................................ 30
Table 16
Results of Tipperary Ride Lite when tested to SATRA Jockey Vest Standard M6
Issue 5. .............................................................................................................................. 30
Table 17
Sizing dimensions supplied with the jockey vest samples ................................................ 31
Table 18
Dimensions of the jockey vest samples ............................................................................ 31
Table 19
EN 13158 Level 2 body protector specifications. ............................................................. 32
Table 20
EN 13158 Level 1 impact performance. ........................................................................... 32
Table 21
High level body protector specifications........................................................................... 33
Table 22
EN 13158 Level 3 impact performance results. ................................................................ 33
Table 23
EN 13158 Test 1 (flat impactor) ambient v hot conditioning comparison........................ 34
Table 24
EN 13158 Test 2 (narrow bar) ambient v hot conditioning comparison.. ......................... 35
Figures
Figure 1
Hows Racesafe (1) and Phoenix Tipperary (2) vest examples............................................ 3
Figure 2
Vests most frequently worn in racing ................................................................................. 4
Figure 3
Vests most frequently worn in racing: separated by state ................................................... 4
Figure 4
Flexibility of each vest rated by surveyed riders ................................................................ 5
Figure 5
Restrictiveness of each vest rated by surveyed riders ......................................................... 5
Figure 6
Heat retention of each vest as rated by surveyed riders ...................................................... 6
Figure 7
Protective capabilities of each vest from falls as rated by surveyed riders ......................... 6
Figure 8
Protective capabilities of each vest from kicks as rated by surveyed riders ....................... 6
Figure 9
Importance of issues associated with wearing a safety vest................................................ 7
Figure 10
Frequency of injuries prior to and following the introduction of the vests in each
bodily location analysed.................................................................................................... 12
Figure 11
Injury types expressed as a percentage of Vic rider fall claims in years prior to and
following the introduction of the vests.............................................................................. 13
Figure 12
Frequency of injuries prior to and following the introduction of the vests in each
bodily location analysed (NSW data). .............................................................................. 14
Figure 13
Injury types expressed as a percentage of Vic rider fall claims in years prior to and
following the introduction of the vests.............................................................................. 15
Figure 14
SATRA Test Setup............................................................................................................ 25
Figure 15
The jockey vest samples (left to right) - Racesafe, Tipperary, Descente and
Komperdell Ballistic ......................................................................................................... 28
Figure 16
Additional Tipperary Ride-Lite sample (size small) ......................................................... 30
Figure 17
Coverage area templates for SATRA and ARB Standards (left) and EN 13158 (right) ... 30
Figure 18
Airowear Swift EN 13158 Level 2 body protector. .......................................................... 32
Figure 19
High level body protectors (from left to right) - Knox Kan Teq, Komperdell Cross
Protection vest, Komperdell Cross body protector. .......................................................... 33
vi
Executive Summary
This project was designed to investigate the effectiveness of existing safety vests for jockeys and
trackwork riders in Australia.
The findings of this report are particularly relevant to the Australian Racing Board (ARB), Principal
Racing Authorities and stewards, race clubs, the Australian Jockeys Association, insurance
companies, vest manufacturers worldwide but most of all jockeys and trackwork riders and their
employers.
Background
Several studies have identified a concerning rate of incidents and injuries to jockeys in racing.
Based on information received from Racing NSW, the average time lost due to injury as a result of a
raceday or trackwork fall is over 500 hours per incident, with a total annual claim cost of all injuries
due to a fall from a horse amounting to approximately $3 million. Safety vests were made mandatory
in Australia in 1998, however there are concerns that one or more of the currently used safety vests
may offer limited protection and may even contribute to neck and/or spinal injuries.
Aims/objectives
The aims of this study were: to evaluate the performance of safety vests as a means of preventing or
lessening the severity of injuries amongst jockeys and others in Australian racing; to determine
whether there is a risk that one or more of the types of currently used safety vests may cause neck or
spinal injuries; to ascertain whether the current safety standards used to evaluate safety vests
adequately replicate the conditions faced by jockeys whilst riding and during falls; and to evaluate
alternative safety vests used elsewhere.
Methods used
A series of studies were conducted including a survey of jockeys and apprentice riders, analysis of
insurance claim data in the years prior to and following the introduction of the vests to determine if
there has been a change in the frequency and severity of injuries as a result of wearing of the vests;
review of raceday footage to identify injury causation; analysis of safety vest standards; and testing of
current and alternative safety vests.
Results/key findings
Despite an apparent growing acceptance of the vests, most riders felt the protective capabilities of the
vests and the vest comfort levels should be improved. While a reduction in sprain and strain injuries
in the chest and back were identified (suggesting a vest meeting current standards may be reducing
these lesser injuries), an increase in neck and spinal fractures was also identified. There was no
evidence that the increase in neck and spinal fractures was related to wearing the vests (as suggested
by some riders). Instead a review of raceday footage carried out by a biomechanical engineer showed
that most of these injuries are indirect injuries and a result of a rider taking a forward dive into the
track. This theory was supported by the identification of a significant increase in head and facial
fractures during the same period of study. Several vests were tested as part of this work, with the
widely used Tipperary Ride Lite vest failing testing requirements. As a result of the project the ARB
immediately began further investigations into the Tipperary vest and subsequently ruled to suspend
the use by licensed jockeys, track riders and stable hands of the Tipperary Ride Lite vest. The ARB is
continuing to work with the manufacture of the Tipperary Ride Lite vest to address safety concerns.
That action alone is a significant outcome of this project.
vii
Implications for relevant stakeholders

The results of this work are primarily for the benefit of jockeys, apprentices and trackwork riders
however there is much work to be done by the ARB. Following further investigation, certain
manufacturers will be required to answer questions regarding the failure of their vests to meet safety
standards and the implications of this issue are yet to be realised. Implementation of new rulings and
policies by the ARB will be imperative to avoid similar issues in the future.
Recommendations
Recommendations include:
1. The provision of a list of Approved Vests within the rules of racing, as opposed to simply
listing approved safety standards which is a system of self-certification only;
2. The establishment of a system of surveillance testing of vests (batch testing) currently being
used by jockeys to ensure protection to meet current standards is provided;
3. The attachment to vests of a highly visible microchipped ARB badge thereby easily
identifying Approved Vests;
4. The recommendation of a vest providing a higher level of protection (such as a Level 2 vest
or a high performing Level 1 vest such as the Hows Racesafe) for higher risk activities such
as trackwork riding;
5. Consideration of the introduction of one uniform ARB standard to assist in the design of a
superior vest with a higher impact performance and level of comfort with more simplified
testing requirements better suited to Australian conditions;
6. Improved communication between racing regulatory authorities and jockeys and track riders
to help to alleviate confusion amongst riders on the protective capabilities of the vests. Riders
should be allowed the opportunity to review the results of the surveillance testing of vests so
they can select vests based on performance testing.
viii
Introduction
Safety vests are mandatory in Australian racing however there is a concern that the currently used
safety vests may provide limited protection and may even contribute to injuries sustained by riders
during falls. In 2004, a RIRDC publication explored the use of available vests and their influence on
neck injury frequency in Australia (McLean, 2004). An increase in neck injuries was observed in the
four years following the introduction of the vests, however as there was no other information obtained
regarding circumstances under which the injuries were sustained, the author stated this increase may
have arisen due to factors unrelated to the requirement to wear the protective vest.
A subsequent RIRDC funded project entitled Health and Safety in Australian Racing (Foote et al.,
2011) described the incidence of injuries to jockeys in Australian racing, with injury rates being
similar to that reported elsewhere (Whitesel, J. 1976; Edixhoven et al., 1981; Waller et al., 2000;
Turner et al., 2002; Hitchens et al., 2009). As part of this research a preliminary investigation was
carried out using insurance claim data obtained from Racing NSW and Racing Victoria with the aim
of determining if there had been any change in the incidence of injuries since the introduction of the
safety vests in 1998. The findings did not identify any increase in injury rates using race day data but
did raise other concerns. There were limitations associated with use of insurance claim data for the
purpose of assessing injury rates and potential causal factors. The findings also suggested that injuries
to the back, chest, neck, ribs and abdomen (i.e. the areas meant to be protected by a vest) were
accounting for 30% of insurance claims. Further investigation of the role of vests in protecting
jockeys against injury was warranted, leading to the current project.
While the insurance claim data analysis work offered some information on the types and frequency of
injuries being sustained, it provides little detail on injury causation. A biomechanical review of the
effectiveness of safety equipment was also undertaken as part of this work. This part of the project
involved the detailed analysis of race falls in an attempt to present the various types of injuries being
sustained and their causation. When the causation of the specific injury is known, then it is possible
to assess the effectiveness of the protective equipment used. Based on this information, possible
revisions to the standards defining the protective capabilities of the equipment may then be assessed.
A review of current safety standards used in racing was conducted to assist in understanding the test
requirements and also to indicate where improvements could possibly be made while still following
accepted practice internationally. A number of currently used and alternative safety vests were tested
according to these safety standards. The aim of this part of the project was to determine whether
current vests are adequately protecting the jockeys and whether the currently prescribed standards are
appropriate. The major concerns include the level of impact protection provided by the vests; the
extent of padding coverage provided by the vests and the suitability of the current padding materials
(including temperature sensitivity). The results of this part of the project were unexpected and have
already resulted in action undertaken by the racing regulatory authority.
Objectives
This study was designed as an investigation of the effectiveness and suitability of currently used
safety vests in Australian racing. The objectives were as follows:
1. To evaluate the performance of safety vests as a means of preventing or lessening the severity
of injuries amongst jockeys and others in Australian racing;
2. To determine whether there is a risk that one of more of the types of currently used safety
vests may cause neck or spinal injuries;
3. To review and identify factors that may be contributing to the types of injuries sustained in
racing;
4. To determine if current safety standards are suitable;
5. To evaluate alternative safety vests and equipment.
Overview of methods
Several studies were conducted to address these objectives.
A survey of professional race day, apprentice and retired jockeys was conducted in collaboration with
metropolitan, provincial and country race clubs and stewards in NSW and Victoria. The information
gathered by this survey provided an insight into rider opinions on the comfort and protective
capabilities of currently used safety vests.
An epidemiological study using up-to-date data and resources was then conducted to evaluate the
effectiveness of existing vests in reducing the incidence and severity of injuries. This work involved
the detailed analysis of insurance claim data gathered from NSW and Victoria in years prior to and
following the introduction of the vests to determine if there has been a change in the incidence and
types of injuries being sustained.
The biomechanical causation of injuries to jockeys in race falls was also investigated. This work
involved the review and analysis of race day video footage to give estimates of fall velocity, body
region involved in the fall and objects struck during the fall. Characteristics of the fall were combined
with injuries sustained to the jockey to define injury causation. Observations were made regarding
fall characteristics, injury-causing impacts, the role of vests and any apparent injury-avoiding actions
of the jockey.
Summaries were compiled of the major international standards for vests used by jockeys in racing.
These were to assist in understanding the test requirements and also to indicate where improvements
could possibly be made while still following accepted practices internationally.
Finally, a number of samples of jockey and general equestrian body protectors were tested as part of
the investigation into the effectiveness of vests in preventing injury to jockeys. These samples were
tested at Human Impact Engineering1 to compare the performance of currently available jockey vests
and to investigate whether other types of protectors have the potential to provide additional protective
benefits.
http://www.humanimpactengineering.com/
Australian Jockey Survey

Method
An Australian Jockey Survey was developed in collaboration with the Chairman for Racing NSW
Stewards, the Australian Racing Board National Medical Officer, the General Manager of the
Australian Jockeys Association, the National Occupational Health and Safety Officer for the
Australian Jockeys Association and the Racing Victoria Jockey Wellbeing and Safety Officer and
was distributed to professional, apprentice and retired jockeys with the assistance of New South
Wales and Victorian stipendiary stewards.
Riders were asked a series of questions relating to their opinions of the protective capabilities and
other qualities of their preferred safety vest. Riders were also asked to comment on previous injuries
sustained during their careers, current safety standards and alternative protective equipment.
Results
Response to survey
A total of 138 surveys were returned, 88 from professional race day jockeys (representing 32.7% of
jockeys in NSW and Vic); 44 from apprentice riders (representing 32.1% of apprentice riders in NSW
and Vic) and 4 from retired riders. The breakdown of respondents is shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Jockeys
Apprentices
Retired
Breakdown of Jockey Survey respondents from riders in NSW and Vic
NSW
Victoria
Total
45
18
43
26
4
88
44
4
Rider
numbers
NSW and
Vic (RISA,
2012)
269
137
%
respondents
NSW and
Vic
32.7
32.1
Vests most frequently worn in racing

The four vests most commonly referred to by respondents in the survey were:
Hows Racesafe Jockey vest, manufactured from up to 70 individually hinged perforated foam
strips (weight starting at less than 400g);
Phoenix Tipperary Ride-Lite Vest consisting of polyester closed cell cross-linked foam blocks
covered by a mesh fabric (weight 530g);
Velocity Impact Protection Apparel (VIPA) Body Protector, designed by ex-Jockey Greg Childs
and incorporating a Nitrex closed cell PVC foam core covered by a light weight Air Mesh (weight
of vest from 600g);
Ozvest II vest, made in Australia by R & A Racewear Pty Ltd and incorporating a one-piece,
closed cell foam core at the back of the vest with full thickness grooves laterally to allow the vest
to contour to the body. The front of the vest comprises two halves joined by a vertical zip (370g).
All four vests are claimed to meet standards for use of
vests on race day as defined by the Australian Rules of
Racing.
Figure 1
Hows Racesafe (1) and Phoenix Tipperary

(2) vest examples
(1)
(2)
Combining data from both states, the vest most frequently worn in racing is the Hows Racesafe, with
approximately 40% of respondents identifying this vest type as their preferred model (Figure 2).
Vests most frequently worn - NSW and VIC data (%)
45
40
% of respondents
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Racesafe
Figure 2
Tipperary
VIPA
Ozvest
Vests most frequently worn in racing
Figure 3 describes the results of each state when analysed separately. Interestingly the majority of
NSW riders prefer to ride in the Hows Racesafe vest while the majority of Victorian riders wear the
Phoenix Tipperary.
Vests most frequently worn: VIC
70
70
60
60
50
50
% of respondents
% of respondents
Vests most frequently worn: NSW
40
30
20
10
30
20
10
0
Racesafe Tipperary
Figure 3
40
VIPA
Ozvest
Racesafe Tipperary
Vests most frequently worn in racing: separated by state
VIPA
Ozvest
Jockeys opinions: vests currently worn in racing

Riders were asked to rate the flexibility, restrictiveness, heat retention, and protective capabilities of
their preferred vests on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 represented extremely; 2 represented
moderately; 3 represented slightly; 4 represented not at all and 5 represented undecided.
Flexibility
Flexibility of each vest
80
% of respondents
70
60
50
40
VIPA
30
RACESAFE
20
OZVEST
10
TIPPERARY
Figure 4
Undecided
Not at all
Slightly
Moderately
Extremely
Flexibility of each vest rated by surveyed riders
Restrictiveness
Restrictiveness of each vest
% of respondents
60
50
40
30
VIPA
20
RACESAFE
OZVEST
10
TIPPERARY
Figure 5
Restrictiveness of each vest rated by surveyed riders
Undecided
Not at all
Slightly
Moderately
Extremely
Heat Retention
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
VIPA
RACESAFE
Figure 6
TIPPERARY
Undecided
Not at all
Slightly
Moderately
OZVEST
Extremely
% of respondents
Heat retention of each vest
Heat retention of each vest as rated by surveyed riders
Protective capabilities from falls
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
VIPA
RACESAFE
Figure 7
TIPPERARY
Undecided
Not at all
Slightly
Moderately
OZVEST
Extremely
% of respondents
Protective capabilities of each vest from falls
Protective capabilities of each vest from falls as rated by surveyed riders
Protective capabilities from kicks

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
VIPA
RACESAFE
Figure 8
Undecided
Not at all
Moderately
Slightly
OZVEST
Extremely
% of respondents
Protective capabilities of each vest from kicks
Protective capabilities of each vest from kicks as rated by surveyed riders
TIPPERARY
Importance of issues associated with wearing the vest

Riders were asked to rate the importance of various issues including vest comfort, price, safety,
thermal qualities and popularity on a scale of 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).
Importance of issues associated with wearing a safety vest
90
% of respondents
80
70
60
1 (not important)
50
40
30
20
5 (very important)
10
0
Vest comfort
Figure 9
Vest price
Safety
/Protection
Thermal
qualities
Friends use
them
Importance of issues associated with wearing a safety vest
Impact of the vest on injury minimisation

Riders were asked if they believed their vest restricted or prevented their ability to minimise the risk
of injury when falling by taking a tucked position.
Table 2
Responses of riders on whether the safety vests impact on their ability to minimise
risk of injury during a fall
Does the vest impact on the rider taking

the tucked position during a fall
Yes
No
No response
Both states
% of respondents
NSW only
VIC only
32.6
47.8
19.6
17.5
63.5
19.0
45.3
34.7
20.0
Current safety standards
Riders were asked if they thought the current safety standards should be reviewed to allow other vests
to be approved for racing in Australia. Further, the riders were asked if they felt the protection
offered under the current safety standards should be maintained as a minimum. The data shown in
Table 3 incorporates responses from both NSW and Vic.
Table 3
Percentage of respondents supporting the review of safety standards
Yes
No
No response
% of respondents
Should standards be reviewed
Should the standards be
to allow other vests in racing
maintained as a minimum
78.3
51.4
18.1
11.6
3.6
37.0
Injuries in racing
The overwhelming majority of respondents (73.9%) stated that they had suffered significant injury
resulting in broken bones or hospitalisation during their careers. Fractures was the most common type
of injury (73.2% of respondents) followed by sprains and strains (69.6%), head injuries (55.0%),
shoulder injuries (50.0%), facial injuries (39.9%) and spinal injuries (21.0%).
Additional safety equipment

Riders were asked if they would like to have the option of wearing additional safety equipment during
racing or track work. The percentage of respondents in support of the additional equipment is shown
in Table 4.
Table 4
Opinion of riders on the use of additional safety equipment
Equipment type
Padded clothing (similar to materials used by Moto GP riders)
Light weigh shoulder padding
Inflatable vests
Facial protection
Mouth guards
% of respondents in support
15.9
10.1
9.4
8.0
3.6
Rider comments
Riders were asked to comment freely on their opinions of the vests. A sample of comments is shown
below.
Majority of jockeys ride with toe in now, spearing them into the ground. This could be a factor. I have no
doubt that you would not roll or move naturally with the vest on
Everybody is different. If they could custom fit them then I believe they would have better fit and comfort and
protection. I have a very short body where some have a very long body
I feel the vests are far too restrictive in movement and keep you straight like a board, hence the reason when
you fall you cant bend and all the pressure goes to head and neck. I started riding when vests were not
compulsory and have noticed a lot more head, neck, back injuries since being introduced. If I had the choice I
would not wear a vest
Vests should be outlawed. They have no protection for jockeys what-so-ever. There have been more bad
injuries since vests came in than there ever was before e.g. spinal and neck more so than other parts of the
body
Obviously safety is of the upmost importance! And regardless of how good something is (e.g. helmet) there can
always be something better! We should never stop investigating improvements in all walks of safety. Im a
jockey and know there are smarter people than me to investigate and trial new vests. I am very concerned of
what to me appears to be a significant increase in back injuries! Is it the tracks? The way we race nowadays?
I dont know? Maybe there is actually a decrease in back injuries? I think it is imperative that we have the
stats to better understand what is causing these back injuries and I would think it not be just a coincidence with
many years of data since the vests have been introduced and compared to the previous 10 yearsor maybe its
just particular vests that cause the back injuries? I dont know but would like to know!
Vests are good protection from impact from other horses when you fall but I dont think they can help much
when you fall and hit the ground at speed
In one particular fall I had, I was kicked in the ribs by passing horses which resulted in 1 month off with
bruised ribs but I feel that without the vest they would have been broken ribs
Discussion
The Australian Jockey Survey completed as part of this work provided the research group with a great
insight into the opinions of jockeys on the currently used safety vests and safety issues in general.
The survey was divided into key sections assessing the riders opinions on commonly used safety
vests, current safety standards, injuries they had sustained during their careers and their views on
alternative safety equipment.
It was revealed that the majority of riders preferred to ride in the Hows Racesafe vest. However when
the comfort and safety properties as rated by the riders of each vest were further examined, the VIPA
vest appeared to be superior in terms of flexibility, restrictiveness and heat retention. This vest
weighs approximately 200g heavier than an equivalent size in the Hows Racesafe model. In order to
compensate for the wearing of a vest, jockeys are provided with a 1kg allowance when they weigh
in and weigh out. If a rider is struggling to make weight, the choice of a lighter vest will provide
them with a weight advantage. Interestingly, the Ozvest was considered by wearers to be extremely
protective against falls, however this vest was not a commonly worn vest. This may be due to the
poor comfort qualities of this vest as identified by this study. Rider safety was considered to be of key
importance in the survey. The survey suggests that riders tend to prefer a flexible and comfortable
vest, but often need to sacrifice comfort (and potentially safety) for a lighter vest due to weight
restrictions.
When asked to rate certain qualities of a vest, the majority of riders considered vest comfort and
safety/protective capabilities to be very important, while vest price, thermal qualities and whether or
not friends wore the same vest were less important.
In the past there has been the suggestion that the safety vests impact on the ability of riders to
minimise risk of injury during a fall, for example by taking a tucked position. In a tucked position the
head and arms are tucked or pulled closely to the body and the spine flexed. The intent is to
minimise flail of the limbs and to reduce the exposure of the neck when the jockey tumbles as a result
of the fall. When responses from both states were combined, the majority of riders did not think the
vest restricted or prevented their ability to take the tucked position. This is in contrast to results of a
previous survey (Foote et al., 2011) suggesting a change towards a more positive attitude of some
riders towards the vests. Interestingly, when the results from each state were analysed separately in
contrast to NSW riders, the majority of Victorian riders did feel the vest impacted on their ability to
take the tucked position. The survey previously showed that the majority of NSW riders prefer to
wear the Hows Racesafe vest while the majority of Victorian riders opt for the Phoenix Tipperary.
Both vests were considered by the majority of respondents to be moderately flexible and slightly
restrictive suggesting that other factors may be contributing to the opinions of the jockeys on the vests
impacting on injury minimisation.
When asked if the current safety standards should be reviewed to allow other vests to be approved for
racing, the majority of respondents supported this idea however most of these respondents believed
that the current safety standards should be maintained as a minimum. The Japanese Descente vest
is one such vest that is popular with jockeys due to its flexibility however this vest does not meet
current safety standards and is therefore not permitted to be worn under the Australian Rules of
Racing. Several riders commented that they would like to see alternative vests available to them that
fit the criteria of being lightweight, comfortable and offering superior protection to that currently
available.
The results of this survey support previous findings outlining a relatively high rate of injuries in
racing. The majority of respondents had sustained serious injury during their careers most commonly
resulting in fractures. Head, facial, shoulder and spinal injuries were significant. In the US, Press et
al., (1995) reported a retrospective questionnaire study of 706 experienced professional jockeys and
their injuries and health concerns. Similar to the results of the current study, fractures were the most
common (64% of total injuries). In contrast to the US study, a British study (Turner et al., 2002)
found most injuries were soft tissue (80%), and upper limb/clavicle fractures predominated. This may
in part be related to the surface on which horse racing occurs, but is more likely to be because jockeys
take soft tissue injuries as part and parcel of everyday life and often omit details of them from any
questionnaires.
Riders were asked if they would like to have the option of wearing additional safety equipment during
racing or trackwork. While some riders entertained the idea of wearing padded clothing, shoulder
pads and inflatable vests, fewer respondents supported the use of facial protection and mouthguards
due to these items interfering with the riders ability to breathe and vocalise during the ride.
Riders were asked to comment freely on their opinions of the vests. While most respondents did not
provide any feedback, those that did provided very mixed opinions. Some riders suggested that
injuries (particularly spinal and neck) had increased since the vests were introduced. There was also a
suggestion that a change in riding style may be contributing to the severity of injuries. Some riders
identified issues with currently used vests such as fit which may impact on protection. However some
respondents were very supportive of the vests and suggested that they may have sustained more
serious injuries had they not been wearing the vests. Overall the comments made by riders highlight
an element of confusion over the effectiveness of the vests and their understanding of what the vests
are designed to do. This study clearly identifies the need to increase communication between riders
and regulatory authorities as information becomes available on the effectiveness of vests in racing.
Furthermore, if factors such as riding style are found to be contributing to injuries, this information
needs to be clearly relayed to riders so they fully understand the risk of their actions. Overall there
was a strong sense that riders would like to see the vests improved in terms of comfort and protection
and this should be the objective for the future.
10
Review of insurance claim data prior to

and following the introduction of the vests
Method
Insurance claim data was obtained from Racing NSW and Racing Victoria for the period 1986 2011.
A total of 9568 and 3005 records respectively from each state were made available incorporating
claims from all workers associated with racing. These claims were sorted according to fall data. Data
obtained from Victoria represented race day rides by professional jockeys, however data from NSW
included race day, trackwork and barrier trials for jockeys and trackwork riders and despite our best
attempts it was impossible to separate race day only data due to limitations in the available data.
Furthermore, data entered prior to 1993 was incomplete and for this reason the study periods were
limited to 5 years prior to the introduction of the vests (1993/94 1997/98) and 11 years following the
introduction of the vests (2000/01 2010/11). The intermediary years were omitted as there was a
change in rulings of vest standards during this period.
Data were analysed by Dr Mick ONeill from Statistical Advisory and Training Service Pty Ltd using
the following methods:
- Relative frequency (percentage) data pre and post vests were compared using maximum
likelihood 2 statistics for two-way tables. This method generalises to logistic regression when the
annual percentage data was used as replication. When there were more than two possible
outcomes, log-linear modelling was used.
- When means of variants such as age, average time lost and average gross value of claims were
approximately normally distributed, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Linear Mixed Models
(REML) were used. REML gives identical answers to ANOVA, but clarified whether the
variation in annual means was consistent pre and post vests.
Results
Victorian Insurance Claim Data: Race day only
Rate of fall claims
There has been a significant reduction in the total number of fall claims as a percentage of starters
(RISA, 2012) in the years following the introduction of the vests (X2 = 38.12, P<0.001) (Table 5).
Table 5
Rate of fall claims prior to and following the introduction of the vests in Vic
Total fall claims

Starters
Percentage
Pre-vest
367
243460
0.15%
Post-vest
502
511967
0.10%
Time lost due to injury

The average time lost due to injury was reduced in the years following the introduction of the vests
however this did not reach statistical significance due in part to the large variation in annual average
time lost (Table 6).
11
Table 6
Average time lost (days) due to injury prior to and following the introduction of the
vests in Vic
Average time lost (days)
Pre-vest
115
Post-vest
99
Change
16
P value
0.661
Incidence of injury in specific bodily locations

Figure 10 describes the frequency of injuries in each bodily location (expressed as a percentage of
Victorian rider fall claims) prior to and following the introduction of the vests (please refer Appendix
1a for raw data).
The frequency distribution of injury location pre-vests was not significantly different to that post-vests
(X2 = 3.39, df = 6, P = 0.758) indicating there has been no significant change in the frequency of
injuries in specific bodily locations in the years following the introduction of the vests.
Head and face

10.9% PRE
12.2% POST
Neck injuries
5.7% PRE
7.8% POST
Back injuries
12.0% PRE
12.4% POST
Trunk
injuries*
9.3% PRE
8.2% POST
Unspecified
8.2% PRE
6.0% POST
Upper limb injuries

32.7% PRE
32.7% POST
Lower limb injuries

21.3% PRE
20.9% POST
* Includes chest, ribs, pelvis, abdomen
Figure 10 Frequency of injuries prior to and following the introduction of the vests in each
bodily location analysed.
12
Severity of injury in years prior to and following the introduction of the vests
Types of injuries as a % of all fall claims for

each study period
Figure 11 describes the percentages of injury types in years prior to and following the introduction of
the vests (expressed as a percentage of Victorian rider fall claims). The frequency distribution of
injury type pre-vests was not significantly different to that post-vests (X2 = 3.02, df = 4, P = 0.554)
indicating there has been very little change in the types of injuries occurring since the introduction of
the vests. Please refer to Appendix 1b for raw data.
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
46.346.0
Pre-vest
40.0
Post-vest
25.9
22.1
30.0
20.0
13.5
10.6
10.0
5.4 5.4
11.712.9
0.0
Fracture
Contusions Sprains/strains Intracranial

and crushings
injuries
Other
Figure 11 Injury types expressed as a percentage of Vic rider fall claims in years prior to and
following the introduction of the vests
New South Wales Insurance Claim Data: Race day, track work and barrier trial
data
Rate of fall claims
There has been no change in the rate of fall claims (expressed as a percentage of starters) in the years
following the introduction of the vests (X2 = 0.087, P = 0.768) (Table 7).
Table 7
Rate of fall claims prior to and following the introduction of the vests in NSW
Total fall claims

Starters
Percentage
Pre-vest
1120
335378
0.33%
Post-vest
2065
611643
0.34%
Time lost due to injury

The average time lost due to injury was reduced in the years following the introduction of the vests
however this did not reach statistical significance due in part to the large variation in annual average
time lost (Table 8).
Table 8
Average time lost (hours) due to injury prior to and following the introduction of the
vests in NSW
Average time lost (hours)
Pre-vest
594
Post-vest
439
13
Change
142
P value
0.155
Gross value of claims and age of riders

The NSW dataset contained additional fields allowing for the analysis of changes in the gross value of
claims and average age of riders prior to and following the introduction of the vests. The data is
presented in Table 9.
Table 9
Average gross value of claims and age of riders in the pre- and post-vest periods
Average gross value of claims

Average age of riders
Pre-vest
$11872
29.7 years
Post-vest
$17672
30.6 years
Change
$3800
0.88 years
P value
0.106
0.091 years
There has been no significant change in the average gross value of claims or the average age of riders
in the years prior to and following the introduction of the vests.
Incidence of injury in specific bodily locations
Figure 12 describes the frequency of injuries in each bodily location (expressed as a percentage of
NSW rider fall claims) prior to and following the introduction of the vests (please refer Appendix 2a
for raw data).
The frequency distribution of injury location pre-vests was significantly different to that post-vests
(X2 = 39.91, df = 6, P < 0.001). Examining the individual injury locations, there has been a
significant increase in neck, and neck and other injuries in the years following the introduction of the
vests (X2 = 21.62, df = 1, P < 0.001). There has also been a significant increase in the probability of
Multiple unspecified injuries (X2 = 11.83, df = 1, P < 0.001).
Head and face

9.0% PRE
9.6% POST
** Includes chest, ribs, pelvis, abdomen
Neck injuries*
3.2% PRE
7.1% POST
Back injuries
17.4% PRE
15.1% POST
Trunk injuries**
6.0% PRE
7.5% POST
Multiple unspecified
other*
0.7% PRE
2.2% POST
Upper limb injuries

32.4% PRE
28.9% POST
Lower limb injuries

31.3% PRE
29.6% POST
*P < 0.001
Figure 12 Frequency of injuries prior to and following the introduction of the vests in each
bodily location analysed (NSW data).
14
Severity of injury in years pre- and post-introduction of the vests

Figure 13 describes the percentages of injury types in years prior to and following the introduction of
the vests (expressed as a percentage of NSW rider fall claims). The frequency distribution of injury
type pre-vests was found to be significantly different to that post-vests (X2 = 48.95, df = 4, P < 0.001)
due to a significant reduction (51% down to 39%) in sprain and strain injuries in the post-vest
period. Please refer to Appendix 2b for raw data.
100.0
Types of injuries as % of fall claims
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
51.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
Pre-vest
39.3
26.1
Post-vest
29.4
20.0
11.3
15.8
10.0
2.9 2.3
8.8
13.1
0.0
Fracture
Contusions and Sprains/strains

crushings
Intracranial
injuries
Other
Figure 13 Injury types expressed as a percentage of Vic rider fall claims in years prior to and
following the introduction of the vests
Sprains and strains is clearly the dominant injury type effect accounting for 40.06 of the 48.95 X2
test value. If sprain and strain injuries are excluded, the remaining data shows a decrease in the
percentage of fractures (4.7%) and intracranial injuries (2.0%) and an increase in the percentages of
contusions and crushings (3.0%) and other injuries (3.7%) when calculated as percentages of all
injuries excluding sprains and strains (Table 10). These differences do not reach statistical
significance (X2 = 8.89, df = 3, P = 0.031).
Table 10
Injury types in the pre- and post-vest period excluding sprains and strains
Injury type
Fractures
Contusions and crushings
Other
Intracranial
% pre-vest period
53.2
23.1
17.9
5.8
15
% post-vest period
48.5
26.1
21.5
3.8
Severity of injury at specific bodily locations in years pre- and post-introduction of the
vests
The severity of injuries at specific bodily locations (neck, back, ribs, chest and head/face) was further
examined. The results are shown in Table 11 and expressed as a percentage of injury type for each
bodily location.
Table 11
Injury Type
Severity of injuries at specific bodily locations
Neck injuries
Prevest
(%)
0.01
80.6
5.6
Postvest
(%)
12.41
67.6
15.2
Back injuries
Prevest
(%)
6.22
78.93
12.9
Fracture
Sprains and strains
Contusions and
crushings
13.9
4.8
2.1
Other and multiple
Intracranial
including concussion
1,6
P = 0.004; 2,4,5 P < 0.001; 3 P = 0.008.
Rib injuries
Chest injuries
Postvest
(%)
16.12
61.73
19.3
Prevest
(%)
1.8
0.8
0.9
Postvest
(%)
2.7
0.5
0.8
Prevest
(%)
Postvest
(%)
0.43
0.2
0.23
0.6
2.9
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.2
Head/facial
injuries
PrePostvest
vest
(%)
(%)
6.95
21.35
5.9
1.5
6
4.0
12.26
31.7
51.5
Neck injuries
The relative frequencies of neck injury types in the pre-vest period are significantly different than
those during the post-vest period (X2 = 14.05, df = 3, P = 0.003). This was due to a significant
increase in neck fracture percentages during the post-vest period (X2 = 8.46, df = 1, P = 0.004). The
other injury types in the neck area vary comparing the pre- and post-vest period but none are
significantly different.
Back injuries
The relative frequencies of back injury types in the pre-vest period are significantly different than
those during the post-vest period (X2 = 18.91, df = 3, P <0.001). This was due to a significant
increase in back fracture percentages during the post-vest period (X2 = 11.83, df = 1, P < 0.001) and a
significant decrease in sprain and strain injuries (X2 = 7.07, df = 1, P = 0.008). There were no
differences in the percentages of contusions and crushings or of other injuries (including dislocation).
Rib injuries
The relative frequencies of rib injury types in the pre-vest period are not significantly different than
those during the post-vest period (X2 = 4.39, df = 3, P = 0.222).
Chest injuries
The relative frequencies of chest injury types in the pre-vest period are significantly different than
those during the post-vest period (X2 = 7.91, df = 3, P = 0.048). This was due to a significant
decrease the in number of sprains and strains in the years following the introduction of the vests.
Head/facial injuries
The relative frequencies of head and facial injury types in the pre-vest period are significantly
different than those during the post-vest period (X2 = 22.23 df = 4, P < 0.001). This was due to a
significant increase in fracture percentages (X2 = 11.35, df = 1, P < 0.001) and contusion and
crushing percentages (X2 = 8.40, df = 1, P = 0.004) during the post-vest period. There were no
differences among the remaining injury types, which all decrease during the post-vest period.
16
24.4
40.6
Discussion
This part of the project involved the analysis of insurance claim data obtained from Racing NSW and
Racing Victoria for the period 1986 2011. There were limitations to both the Victorian and NSW
dataset. The data obtained for this study were retained for insurance purposes only and were not
easily accessible for the purposes of this project. The system does not allow data to be sorted except
in a limited number of standard formats and there may also be variation depending on the person
entering the data. For these reasons there does exist the possibility of inaccuracies within the dataset.
The Victorian dataset included race-day data only, allowing for a more focussed analysis compared to
the NSW dataset. The analysis revealed a significant reduction in all fall claims during the post-vest
period. However upon further analysis, the frequency distribution of injury location during the prevests period was not significantly different to that during the post-vest period indicating there has
been no significant change in the frequency of injuries in specific bodily locations in the years
following the introduction of the vests. The frequency distribution of injury type during the pre-vest
period was also not significantly different to that during the post-vest period indicating there has been
very little change in the types of injuries occurring since the introduction of the vests. This data
suggests that the reduction in injury rates may have little to do with the introduction of the safety vests
and instead may be due to other factors such as improvements in running rails and track conditions
during race day.
The NSW dataset contained race day, trackwork and barrier trial information which was unable to be
reliably separated. Compared to the Victorian dataset, the rate of fall claims remained unchanged in
the years following the introduction of the vests and was approximately three times higher than the
race day only fall claim rate from Victoria, implying that injuries during trackwork and barrier trials
are major contributors to the overall injury rate. This suggests that factors during out of competitive
riding are having a significant impact on the incidence of injuries. Certain factors such as horse
behaviour, experience and age; environmental conditions; track surface; and skill of riders may be
contributing to the high rate of injuries during out of competition riding and require further
investigation.
While the NSW dataset had its limitations, the analysis did reveal some differences in the location and
nature of injuries during the post vest period. The analysis identified an increase in neck injuries with
a significant increase in neck fractures in the years following the introduction of the vests. There was
no significant change in the incidence of back, rib or chest injuries, however when the nature of the
injuries in these bodily locations was examined there was also a significant increase in back fractures.
There was a significant reduction in less severe injuries (i.e. sprains and strains) in the back and chest
regions and a non-significant decrease in sprains and strains in the rib region. Unlike the dataset
obtained from Victoria, the NSW dataset suggests that it is possible that the vests are indeed offering
some protection against less severe injuries. The main difference between NSW and Victoria is the
type of vest being worn, with a preference for the Hows Racesafe vest in NSW and the Tipperary in
Victoria. When tested (refer final chapter of this report) The Hows Racesafe vest was superior in
terms of protective capabilities, which may be contributing to the significant reduction in sprains and
strains in NSW but not in Victoria.
In an attempt to determine the causation of the increased back and neck fractures in NSW, injuries in
the head/facial area were also examined. While there was no change in the rate of head/facial injuries,
there was a significant increase in fractures and contusions and crushings. As the increase in neck
fractures was coupled with an increase in head/facial and back fractures, this suggests a change in the
causation of injuries and may be due to the riders being speared into the ground (please refer to the
next chapter of this report for an analysis of the biomechanical causation of injuries). Beckers
Principle (Byrd, 1993) states that the proportion of head injuries in a sport reflects the degree of headforward-stance adopted. In racing the rider leans forward over the shoulders of the horse and the head
becomes the leading part of the body. In recent years some riders have been adopting a toe-in-the
17
iron riding style in an attempt to gain a performance advantage for the horse. It may be argued that
the toe-in style only requires a slight deviation from the horse for the jockey to lose balance causing
one or both feet to slip from the irons resulting in the jockey being tipped out of the saddle. While
it is currently policy for trainee apprentices to ride with the stirrup iron on the ball of their foot, the
increase in head fractures raises the question whether riding style may be impacting on injury type
and severity.
This part of the project also highlights the importance of ensuring a high (and possibly different) level
of protection for riders involved in out of competition riding such as track work where weight
restrictions are not as crucial.
18
Biomechanical review of the effectiveness

of safety vests
Method
Individual cases where jockeys fell during a race meeting were investigated in detail. These cases
occurred between 2002 and 2005 in NSW, VIC, ACT, QLD, TAS and Macau. Data collected for
each incident included video footage, helmets where available and the injuries based on an interview
with the jockey. The case was assessed and if a view of the incident was available in the video
footage then the incident was digitised and still frames were captured from the video immediately
surrounding the incident. These frames were analysed where possible to give estimates of the fall
velocity, body region(s) involved and the object(s) struck during the fall. The characteristics of the
fall were then combined with the injuries to the jockey to define the possible injury causation.
Injuries were characterised as either direct (caused by a direct impact of that bodily location with an
object) or indirect (due to an associated head or back impact by the track surface). Special attention
was paid to the causation of any spinal injuries recorded. Finally, observations were made regarding
the fall characteristics, the injury-causing impacts, the role of protective equipment and any apparent
injury-avoiding actions of the jockey.
The process was time consuming, hence only a limited number of cases was investigated. The cases
investigated are a selection of incidents that were available and filled the following criteria:
Video footage of the incident was available; and
If the jockey survived the incident they were willing to discuss the injuries received.
Results
A total of 17 individual cases where jockeys fell during a race meeting were investigated in detail.
The individual summaries of each case are included in Appendix 3.
Of these cases, there were 39 individual injuries recorded. Of these, there were 7 head injuries (2 of
which were fatal), 5 facial injuries, 6 injuries to the neck, 8 to the back or spine, 2 to the shoulder or
clavicle, 3 chest injuries, 2 injuries to the upper limbs and 6 to the hip and lower limbs. The results of
the case analyses are summarised in Table 12, in which the body region, injury and injury type and
the region of injury-causing contact is summarised for each case.
The injuries included 17 fractures and one dislocation. The remainder were soft tissue injuries or
were unspecified.
There were three main injury-producing fall modes observed:
1. Forward dive into the track as the horse stumbles
2. Fall off the side of the horse whilst holding onto the reins
3. Rider butted into the air or thrown from the horse
In some cases the rider was trampled or crushed by a fallen horse after impacting the track. This
mechanism of injury was typically unclear in the videos available and so difficult to interpret.
The impact velocities observed were in the order of 30 to 50 kph, from heights of up to 3.5 metres.
Although the video footage in most cases was unclear, there were observed to be very few active
attempts at injury minimisation by riders, for example, taking a tucked position. In a tucked position
the head and arms are tucked or pulled closely to the body and the spine flexed. The intent is to
19
minimise flail of the limbs and to reduce the exposure of the neck when the jockey tumbles as a result
of the fall. The riders tend to hold onto the reins for as long as is possible and hence were poorly
prepared for the eventual landing. When they tumbled, it was often uncontrolled with arms and legs
flailing.
Table 12
Results of the case analysis with the body region, the injury and the type and area
of injury causing contact summarised for each case.
Body Region
Injury
Type
Head (7)
Intracerebral bleeding
Brain contusions
Fracture
Concussion (2)
Unspecified (2)
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Fracture (2)
Direct
Face (5)
Neck (6)
Spine (7)
Back (1)
Chest (3)
Shoulder (1)
Clavicle (1)
Upper limb
(2)
Hip (1)
Lower limb
(5)
Lacerations
Bruising
Unspecified
Fracture (3)
Dislocation
Soft tissue injury (2)
Cord injury
Cord bruising
Fracture
Contacts
Opponent
Hoof
Track
Track
Track
Track
Track
Track
Hoof
Face
Hoof
Face
Horse body or hooves
Face
Track
Head
Track
Head
Track
Head/Back
Track
Head
Track
Head/Neck/Back
Track or Horse
Back
Track
Back
Track
Head
Track
Head/Back
Track
Back
Track
Back
Track
Chest
Track
Chest
Track
Shoulder
Track
Chest
Hoof
Upper limb
Track
Upper limb
Track
Hip
Track
Hip
Lower limb
Track or horse
Lower limb
Track or horse
Lower limb
Track
Lower limb
Track
Body Region
Head
Head
Head
Head
Head
Head/Face
Face
Direct
Direct
Direct
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Direct/Indirect
Direct
Direct
Indirect
Soft tissue injury

Bruising
Fracture (2)
Indirect
Direct
Direct
Bruising
Bruising
Fracture
Soft tissue injury
Fractures
Fracture
Fracture (2)
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Soft tissue injury

Bruising/swelling
Bruising
Direct
Direct
Direct
Case No.
J12
J08
J04
J11, J15
J17
J09
J02
J12
J16
J05
J09
J05, J08, J14
J04
J01
J05
J07
J02
J10
J02, J03
J06
J13
J03
J02
J13
J01
J11
J01
J01
J13
J13
J05
J05
J05
J03
J11
Discussion
The aim of this analysis of race falls was to present the various types of injury and their causation.
When the causation of the specific injury is known, then it is possible to assess the effectiveness of the
protective equipment used. While this information only represents a small percentage of injuries,
based on this type of information, possible revisions to the standards defining the protective
capabilities of the equipment may then be evaluated. If the injuries are studied by body region then it
is possible to make an assessment of the adequacy of the current protective equipment and highlight
those areas that can be improved in terms of protection offered.
20
Of the 17 cases studied, all seven head injuries observed were due to direct impacts by either the track
surface (6) or by the hoof of a horse (1). This is a region already protected by the helmet. A helmet
should be able to protect the wearer from skull fracture and brain injury in most impacts that occur in
racing. Therefore these failures in protection are important and indicate that some improvement in the
protective capability of the helmets may be able to reduce these injuries. A new standard for jockey
helmets was issued by the Australian Racing Board (ARB HS 2012) in October, 2012 following 5
years of research and prototype testing. To date no manufacturer has complied with ARB HS 2012,
but trials are currently being conducted by an Australian manufacturer that may result in ARB HS
2012 being met. Once a manufacturer has brought to market an ARB HS 2012 compliant helmet, all
other helmets must meet the ARB HS 2012 within 9 months or be withdrawn from sale. A rider may
only wear an ARB HS 2012 compliant helmet 9 months after the first compliant helmet becomes
available for purchase.
There were 5 facial injuries all due to direct impacts from the track surface (2), possibly the body of a
horse (1) and the hooves (2). Improvements to the coverage area offered by the helmet by inclusion
of a chin guard would offer protection to the face. A correctly designed chin guard has the potential
to reduce the injuries to the face such as nose fractures, jaw fracture and bruising and laceration.
However when surveyed (refer first chapter of this report), less than 10% of jockeys were in favour of
additional protection in the facial region due to potential interference with sight and verbalisation
during a race.
There were 6 neck injuries ranging from soft tissue injury (2) to fracture (3) and dislocation (1).
These injuries were all indirect and due to associated head impacts and possibly one impact to the
back by the track surface. The mechanism of most of these injuries was not clear from the video
footage. When surveyed many riders expressed concerns about an increase in neck fractures in recent
years and attributed these injuries to wearing the vest. Based on these video footage analyses, it is
evident that the majority of neck injuries are indirect and are a result of impact of the head to the
track. There is no existing protective equipment available which is able to protect the neck from these
injuries due to the neck being driven by impact to the head.
There were 7 spine injuries ranging from soft tissue injury (2), fracture (3) and cord injury (3). These
injuries can be divided into two types: direct injury (3) due to impacting the track surface directly with
the back during the primary part of the fall; and indirect injury (4) which usually involved multi-axial
loading of the back. There also was one that appeared to combine both loading mechanisms, Case J07
and a more general back injury that involved bruising. These injuries can be divided into two with
regard to protection. The direct injuries due to direct contact with the track surface may be reduced
by attention to the design of the vests in this region. A safety review conducted by the Irish Turf Club
suggested that further improvements in the protection offered by the safety vest could be made if the
panel covering the spinal column was strengthened, a point worth further investigation. It is less easy
to effect injury reduction with the indirect and usually more serious injuries. There is no existing
protective equipment available that is able to protect the spine from these indirect injuries, which are
caused by multi-axial loading of the spine. The loading directions often consist of compression
combined with flexion and possibly rotation; each motion of the spine being driven by a combination
of direct body impacts and the inertia of the body.
There were 5 torso injuries ranging from chest injuries (3), including fractures (2) and bruising (1),
shoulder bruising (1) and a clavicle fracture (1). These injuries were all due to direct impact with the
track (3) or horses hoofs (2). This is the area of the body that is protected by the vest and this offers
the potential to reduce the injuries if improvements in design can be made.
The other reported injuries were to the arms (2), hip (1) and legs (5). These injuries were all direct
impact injuries from the track surface or the horses. The exact mechanisms of these injuries were not
clear from the videos.
21
There appears to be potential for reducing injury by improving the design of the vests. The first step
in assessing where this improvement might be achieved is by understanding the requirements of the
current protective equipment standards.
22
Evaluation of Protective Equipment

Standards
Method
Since 1998, it has been compulsory for jockeys and track work riders to wear a body protector. The
current ARB Rules of Racing require the body protector to comply with one of three prescribed
standards:
ARB Standard 1.1998;
SATRA Jockey Vest Standard;
European Standard EN 13158 Level 1 (currently the 2009 issue).
Summaries were compiled of the major international standards for vests used by jockeys (refer
Appendix 4). These were to assist in understanding the test requirements and also to indicate where
improvements could possibly be made while still following accepted practice internationally.
The aim of a standard for protective equipment is to ensure a baseline level of performance of the
product under simplified test conditions. The test conditions are simplified to make the testing more
repeatable and reliable. As a result the test requirements often seem to be different to the conditions
of use in a particular sport. When evaluating a protective equipment standard it is important to keep
in mind the purpose of the equipment, that is, to protect the wearer under the specific circumstances
that occur in that sport.
An item of protective equipment is effective if it fulfils the following requirements:
1. It is worn in voluntary situations for this to occur, the equipment must be both comfortable
to wear and accepted by the user as worthwhile (fit and ventilation for example);
2. It remains in place the equipment must not be dislodged during an accident therefore the fit
and retention must be suitable for the purpose to ensure that the equipment is not lost
(retention system strength, stability for example);
3. It protects the wearer the equipment must offer the correct level of protection of the correct
type to reduce injury (impact energy absorption, resistance to penetrating impacts for
example).
Results and Discussion

The following section provides discussion on each of the requirements for effective protective
equipment.
1. It is worn For the jockeys it is compulsory that the vest be worn, however based on the number of
complaints, the vests are neither comfortable nor have they been universally accepted as
being worthwhile. There are also some concerns from racing regulatory authorities regarding
the actual wearing of the vests on race days as some jockeys have been known to wear vests
that do not conform to current standards for improved comfort. Some riders have also been
found to alter the vests to obtain weight advantages. Once the vests are tampered with, their
protective capabilities may be restricted.
23
2. It remains in place The vest must not be dislodged or displaced during a fall, and therefore the fit of the vest and
the strength of the fastening system must be suitable for the purpose to ensure that the vest
remains in place. The standards all have test requirements for the fastening system strength
and fit testing.
3. It protects the wearer
The vest must offer the correct level of protection to the chest and spine and of the correct
type to reduce injury. To protect the wearer requires that the vest have the correct energy
absorption for distributed impacts with the track surface and also protect the wearer from
smaller area harder impacts such as a kick from a horseshoe. The vest needs to cover a
defined area on the body. The standards all have test requirements for the impact energy
absorption, resistance to more penetrating type impacts and a gapping test to ensure that the
padding components remain closely grouped.
Each of the performance standards outline minimum requirements for the body protectors, such as
padding coverage, gaps between padding, impact protection, strength of restraints, ergonomics etc.
Both the SATRA Jockey Vest Standard and the ARB Standard 1.1998 are body protector standards
specifically for jockeys. EN 13158 is a more comprehensive standard for body protectors and includes
three performance levels. EN 13158 Level 1 is specifically for jockeys and is the lowest level of
protection offered in the standard.
The EN 13158 Level 1 test is the most recent standard and has the most comprehensive testing for
impact performance. Two impact test configurations are required to be met:
Test 1 involves an impact using a flat circular impactor (80 mm diameter) onto the vest. The anvil
used is a 150 mm radius dome with a surrounding guard ring level to the top surface. This test is
performed at a drop energy of 25 J.
Test 2 involves an impact using a narrow bar impactor (80x20 mm). The 150 mm radius dome
anvil is surrounded by a guard ring raised to 10 mm above the top surface. This test is performed
at a drop energy of 20 J.
The SATRA Standard (Figure 14) has different impact performance requirements to the European
Standard EN 13158 Level 1. The SATRA Jockey Vest Standard M6 Issue 5 demands three impact test
configurations to be met:
performed at a 25 J drop energy.
Test 2 is similar to Test 1 except the anvil has a domed top of 100 mm radius and the guard ring is
set to 10 mm above the anvil. Test 2 is performed at a 30 J drop energy.
anvil of Test 1 is surrounded by a guard ring raised to 10 mm above the top surface. This test is
performed at a 15 J drop energy.
24
Figure 14 SATRA Test Setup
The European Standard EN 13158 specifies three performance levels for body protectors. Level 3 is
considered to be the minimum requirement for Equestrian Sport activities (such as 3-day eventing).
Two test configurations are required for the Level 3 standard:
performed at a drop energy of 35 J.
anvil is surrounded by a guard ring raised to 10 mm above the top surface. This test is performed
at a drop energy of 45 J.
For all tests, the average peak transmitted force should not exceed 4.0 kN, with no single force result
exceeding 6.0 kN. For this report, the result was considered marginal if the transmitted force was
close to or exceeded 4 kN.
The ARB Standard.1998 was drawn up by Gibson for the Australian Racing Board. The ARB
Standard is based on the SATRA Standard, with changes made to the impact attenuation requirements
to allow for a more flexible vest; as well as the water retention requirement and the temperature
specified for hot weather testing to ensure adequate performance in wet and hot conditions (Appendix
4).
In a previous review of jockey injury data and vest standards, Gibson (1997) identified that
temperatures of the Australian climate can have an effect on vest materials. Plastic materials become
significantly softer at higher temperatures, typically over some transition temperature which depends
on the specific material. In the EN 13158 standard, if the body protector is specified for use in high
ambient temperatures (above 28C), the vest must meet the impact performance criteria after being
conditioned at 30C. In the ARB Standard 1.1998, the vest must meet the impact performance criteria
after being conditioned at 40C, to be representative of body heat and sun load in Australia. In order
to determine temperature sensitivity of the sample vests, the samples were also conditioned for at least
4 hours in a temperature chamber at 40C and then retested according to the original procedure.
The basis for testing the energy absorption of the padding is similar for all the vest standards. The
vest is impact tested by dropping a mass onto the vest and measuring the transmitted impact force or
acceleration of the impactor due to the sample vest being tested. The energy absorbed from the
impact required varies according to the standard. The vest standards used in Australian racing have
similar impact test methods, with similar anvils, the base test being a flat impactor on a domed rigid
anvil (150mm radius) and measurement of the force transmitted through the vest in a test. The main
differences are in the number of impactor types required and the test severity, measured in terms of
25
the drop energy, which is typically defined by the test velocity. The use of the ring surrounding the
impact anvil is to assess the bending stiffness of the vest material, to control the vest response in the
small area harder impacts. The velocity in a drop test rig is derived from the drop height. Of this
group of standards, only the ARB Standard requires the vest to be tested at an elevated temperature,
40C (near body temperature). These standards all require an average transmitted force for the tested
vest of less than 4kN.
The ASTM Standard uses a different test methodology, using a spherical impactor (of 150mm
diameter) on a rigid anvil (based on the helmet test methods). It also requires testing at an elevated
temperature of 40C (near body temperature). This standard also requires the vest material to be
tested on a deformable clay filled tray that is on a non rigid surface, to assess its bending stiffness as a
guide for localised impacts.
The aim of all the tests is similar: the domed/flat impact is designed to give a certain level of energy
absorption for the vest material similar to an impact to the chest of the wearer. The domed/flat impact
with guard ring is designed to give a certain level of energy absorption for the vest material similar to
a more localised impact to the chest of the wearer. The 4kN requirement appears to be related to the
compression stiffness of a tensed human cadaver chest when hit by a 150mm diameter 23kg impactor
at a velocity of 6.7m/s (Kroell et al., 1974). The tests for all the standards give a combination of both
energy absorption and bending strength for the vest material. The higher temperature test used for the
ARB Standard is to ensure that the material used is suitable for use in warmer conditions. Most
plastics used for the padding have a significantly reduced stiffness above 30C. It is important to
realise that body temperature is 38.
It is important to note that ARB Standard 1.1998 does not demand the narrow bar impactor test (Test
2) but only the flat impactor (Test 1) for the impact performance requirement. This removes the need
for increased stiffness or thickness but the implications for injury are unknown. In reviewing NSW
insurance claim data obtained previously, a minimum of 22.5% of rib claims were due to a direct
impact by an object (either the horse kicking or stepping on the rider, the rider colliding with the
running rail or the horse rolling on top of the rider). Rib claims accounted for approximately 4.3% of
all claims, so these injuries are representative of approximately 1% of all rider fall claims. The
narrow bar impactor test requirement is responsible for the bending stiffness. If this test were
omitted from the requirements as is the case according to the ARB standard, it may be possible to
produce a more flexible and potentially more comfortable vest for the wearer. As comfort and
flexibility is a major consideration (and necessity) for riders, the necessity of this test deserves further
investigation.
26
Safety Equipment Testing

Method
Samples of jockey and general equestrian body protectors were tested as part of the investigation into
the effectiveness of vests in preventing injury to jockeys. These samples were tested at Human
Impact Engineering to compare the performance of currently available jockey vests and to investigate
whether other types of protectors have the potential to provide additional protective benefits.
A number of vest samples were obtained and tested to the impact performance requirements of EN
13158 Level 1. This test protocol was chosen because it is the most recent standard and has the most
comprehensive testing for impact performance.
Following the results of the testing to EN 13158 Level 1, one of the vests was also tested to SATRA
standard.
The European Standard EN 13158 specifies three performance levels for body protectors. Level 1 is
specifically for jockeys and is the lowest level of impact performance allowed. To illustrate the
difference in impact performance, an EN 13158 Level 2 equestrian vest, Airowear Swift was also
tested to this Level 1 standard. A number of higher protective level body protectors were also tested
to investigate the impact properties of alternative materials. The samples were subjected to the impact
test protocol of EN 13158 Level 3.
The aim of this part of the product was to determine whether current vests are adequately protecting
the jockeys and whether the currently prescribed standards are appropriate. The major concerns
include:
The level of impact protection provided by the vests.
The extent of padding coverage provided by the vests.
The suitability of the current padding materials (including temperature sensitivity).
27
Results
Comparison of Jockey vests
Three jockey vests were supplied for testing, consisting of the two most common vests currently
being worn by jockeys in Australia, the Hows Racesafe and Phoenix Tipperary, and the third a vest
approved by the Japanese Racing Authority, the Descente. The Descente is currently not approved for
use in Australia. In addition, a motorcycle vest/back protector to the EN1621-2 standard, the
Komperdell Ballistic, was included for comparison with the jockey vests.
Details of the samples tested are provided in Table 13 and pictured in Figure 15.
Table 13
Jockey vest sample specifications.
No.
Type of protector
Manufacturer & Model
Size
Phoenix Tipperary
Standard
Claimed
EN13158:2000
Level 1
SATRA M6
Jockey vest
Hows Racesafe
Jockey vest
3
4
Jockey vest
Motorcycle back
protector/vest
Flat
Padding
thickness
20 mm
Padding
Stiffness
Med
Youth M
12 mm
Large
Small
12 mm
8 mm front
18 mm back
Low with firm

core
Low & Med
High
JRA Descente
Komperdell Ballistic
JRA
EN1621-2
Figure 15 The jockey vest samples (left to right) - Racesafe, Tipperary, Descente and
Komperdell Ballistic
28
Impact performance
The results of the EN 13158 Level 1 impact tests are presented in Table 14.
Table 14
Vest
Specimen
Tipperary
Tipperary
Racesafe
Racesafe
Descente
Descente
Komperdell
Ballistic
Komperdell
Ballistic
Komperdell
Ballistic
(front)
EN 13158 Level 1 impact performance testing results.

TEST 1 (Flat Impactor)
Peak
force
Pass / Fail
Location
(kN)
Back, centre,
9.26
FAIL
bottom
Back, centre,
8.95
FAIL
middle
Back, centre,
1.77
PASS
bottom
Back, centre, top
Back, centre,
middle
Back, right, top
Back, centre,
middle
Back, centre,
bottom
Front, left, middle
TEST 2 (Narrow Bar Impactor)

Peak
Location
force
Pass / Fail
(kN)
Back, centre, top
13.78
FAIL
Back, left, bottom
9.63
FAIL
1.43
PASS
1.74
PASS
11.06
FAIL
18.27
FAIL
1.87
PASS
4.19
MARGINAL
3.78
MARGINAL
Back, centre,
bottom
Back, centre,
middle
Back, centre,
middle
Back, left, middle
4.29
MARGINAL
Back, centre, top
1.77
PASS
3.95
MARGINAL
Back, left, middle
2.11
PASS
9.73
FAIL
Front, centre,
middle
26.71
FAIL
Of the vests tested, the Hows Racesafe vest, which is BETA (British Equestrian Traders Association)
certified to EN 13158 Level 1, had the best performance in both Tests 1 and 2, with peak force values
well within the allowable threshold. The Racesafe also has the thickest padding material at 20 mm,
(Table 14).
The Tipperary vest performed the worst, failing both Tests 1 and 2 by a considerable margin. The
Tipperary and the Descente had similar thickness material at 12 mm (Table 14).
The Descente vest consists of foam pieces of variable density. The foam pieces around the arm and
neck holes are considerably softer than the foam in the chest and back areas. As the soft foam pieces
would allow a higher level of force to be transmitted, the Descente vest was only impact tested on the
harder foam pieces, and so indicating the best possible performance. Nevertheless, the results show
that the Descente vest has marginal performance in the flat impactor test. Considering the small
padding thickness, the foam material had good impact performance. The Descente vest performed
poorly in the narrow bar impactor test.
The Komperdell Ballistic motorcycle vest/back protector consists of stiffer foam than the other
samples. At the front, the vest was much too thin to provide adequate impact protection and failed
both Tests 1 and 2. On the back, the vest had marginal performance in the flat impactor test but
performed well in the narrow bar test.
Testing the Tipperary vest to the SATRA Standard

Due to the poor performance of the Tipperary Ride Lite vest, an additional Tipperary Ride Lite vest
was obtained and tested to the requirements of the SATRA Jockey Vest Standard M6 Issue 5 (Table
16). The Tipperary Ride-Lite has a label affixed, which states CE CERT. #617 Performance Test
Level: SATRA Jockey Vest Standard Satra doc M6. Details of the additional Tipperary vest are
provided in Table 15. The vest is pictured in Figure 16.
29
Table 15
No.
9
Specifications of the additional Tipperary Ride-Lite sample.
Type of
protector
Jockey vest
Manufacturer &
Model
Tipperary Ride-Lite
Standard Claimed
Size
SATRA Jockey Vest

Standard doc M6
Small
Padding
thickness
12.5 mm
Padding
Stiffness
Low with firm
core
Figure 16 Additional Tipperary Ride-Lite sample (size small)

Table 16
Vest
Specimen
Tipperary
Tipperary
Tipperary
Results of Tipperary Ride Lite when tested to SATRA Jockey Vest Standard M6
Issue 5.
TEST 1 (Flat Impactor, 150 mm
anvil, level, 25 J)
Peak
Pass /
force
Location
Fail
(kN)
Front,
3.95
M
Centre, Top
Front, Left,
5.51
M
Middle
Front, Right,
5.75
M
Middle
TEST 2 (Flat Impactor, 100 mm

anvil, raised, 30 J)
Peak
Pass /
force
Location
Fail
(kN)
Back, Left,
14.84
FAIL
Middle
Back, Right,
23.51
FAIL
Middle
Back, Right,
25.49
FAIL
Middle
TEST 1
AVERAGE
TEST 2
AVERAGE
5.07
FAIL
21.28
FAIL
TEST 3 (Narrow Bar Impactor,

150 mm anvil, raised, 15 J)
Peak
Pass /
force
Location
Fail
(kN)
Back, Centre,
5.72
M
Middle
Back, Centre,
8.23
FAIL
Bottom
Back, Centre,
4.56
M
Bottom
Back, Centre,
5.61
M
Top
TEST 3
6.03
FAIL
AVERAGE
The Tipperary Ride-Lite vest failed all three tests of the SATRA Jockey Vest Standard M6 Issue 5.
Padding Coverage
The SATRA and ARB standards have the same required minimum padding coverage area, which is
different to that specified by the European Standard. The coverage templates are pictured in Figure
17.
Figure 17 Coverage area templates for SATRA and ARB Standards (left) and EN 13158 (right)
30
The manufacturer must supply size ranges for the chest circumference (A), waist circumference (B)
and over the shoulder (C) measurements. The supplied jockey vest samples were of different sizes
but there is some overlap in the size ranges (Table 17). There was no sizing information evident on
the Descente vest sample. The dimensions of each vest were measured and the results are displayed
in Table 18.
Table 17
Sizing dimensions supplied with the jockey vest samples
Size
Chest circumference size range (A)
in mm
Waist circumference size range (B)
in mm
Over the shoulder size range (C) in
mm
Table 18
Tipperary
Youth Medium
750 850
Racesafe
Flat
770 870
Descente
Large
Not Specified
700 800
670 770
Not Specified
Not Specified
750 850
Not Specified
Tipperary
230
260
425
425
525
420
965
Racesafe
180
260
365
400
590
435
915
Descente
240
310
390
390
620
455
805
965
855
725
145
80
65
115
55
45
105
55
25
Dimensions of the jockey vest samples
Dimensions (in mm)

Width across front at mid armhole
Width across back at mid armhole
Length at front centre
Length at front edge
Length at back centre
Length at back edge
Max chest circumference (no
padding gaps)
Max waist circumference (no
padding gaps)
Depth of neck hole front
Depth of neck hole back
Width of shoulder strap
All three vests have similar dimensions. The major differences are the chest circumference, waist
circumference and depth of the neck hole.
The Tipperary and Racesafe vests have a considerably greater circumference at the chest and waist
than the Descente vest when adjusted so that there are no padding gaps on the sides. It is most likely
that the Descente vest is meant to be worn with gaps in the side regions to allow for chest and waist
adjustability for the wearer.
At the neck hole, the Tipperary vest has a much greater depth at the front and back compared to the
other vest samples. The Descente uses much softer foam around the arm and neck holes, most likely
to increase wearer comfort but this foam does not offer the same protection and compromises the
energy absorption properties of the vest in these areas.
The European standard allows for adjustable areas on the side regions and shoulders where the vest
padding can consist of two layers of overlapping 50% thickness foam. Both the Tipperary and
Racesafe vests use this allowance around the sides of the vests.
31
Padding separation (Gaps)

A further requirement of all three current racing standards (ARB, SATRA and EN 13158) is that there
cannot be gaps between padding pieces greater than 15 mm nor can the padding pieces be easily
separated to create gaps of this size.
The Tipperary and Racesafe vests satisfy the gap test requirements. The Descente vest does not
satisfy the gap test requirements of the current standards because of large gaps between padding
pieces and there is no padding on the shoulders or behind the front zipper. As a result, the vest is
considerably more flexible and comfortable for the wearer but the flexibility and large gaps also
contribute to the failure of the vest in the narrow bar impact tests. The extent to which the lack of
gaps in the padding is important for the protection of the jockey in racing is a question yet to be
determined.
Comparison with an EN 13158 Level 2 Body Protector

An Airowear Level 2 vest was subjected to the same impact test protocol as the jockey vests (EN
13158 Level 1).
Table 19
No.
5
EN 13158 Level 2 body protector specifications.
Type of
protector
Equestrian vest
Manufacturer &
Model
Airowear Swift
Standard
Size
EN13158:200
0 Level 2
Padding
thickness
20 mm
Padding
Stiffness
Med
Figure 18 Airowear Swift EN 13158 Level 2 body protector.

Table 20
Vest
EN 13158 Level 1 impact performance.
TEST 1 (Flat impactor)

Peak
Location
force
Pass / Fail
(kN)
Airowear
Back, centre, top
1.46
PASS
Airowear
Back, centre,
middle
1.50
PASS
TEST 2 (Narrow bar impactor)

Peak
Pass /
Location
force
Fail
(kN)
Back, centre,
0.68
PASS
bottom
Back, centre,
0.68
PASS
bottom
The Level 2 vest performed well when subjected to the Level 1 impact test protocol. The vest
padding is the same thickness as that in the Racesafe vest, but the padding consists of a single sheet of
foam rather than a number of smaller blocks. The one piece design of the Airowear padding allows it
32
to perform considerably better in the narrow bar impact test, however the flexibility of the body
protector is decreased.
Comparison of Higher Level Body Protectors

A number of higher protective level body protectors were tested to investigate the impact properties of
alternative materials. The details of the higher level protectors tested, two EN 13158 Level 3
equestrian vests and an EN1621-2:2003 motorcycle back protector, are summarised in Table 21 and
shown in Figure 19.
Table 21
No.
6
7
8
High level body protector specifications.
Type of
protector
Equestrian vest
Equestrian vest
Manufacturer &
Model
Knox Kan Teq
Komperdell Cross
Protection
Motorcycle back Komperdell Cross
protector
Standard
Size
2
Small
Padding
thickness
28 mm
22.5 mm
Padding
Stiffness
High
Medium
EN13158
EN13158:200
9
EN16212:2003
Small
23 mm
High
Figure 19 High level body protectors (from left to right) - Knox Kan Teq, Komperdell Cross
Protection vest, Komperdell Cross body protector.
As shown in Table 22, the Level 3 equestrian vests performed Tests 1 and 2 well, satisfying the
requirements of the standard. The Komperdell Cross had marginal performance in the flat impactor
test but performed well in the narrow bar test.
Table 22
EN 13158 Level 3 impact performance results.
Vest
TEST 1 (Flat impactor)

Peak force
Location
(kN)
Pass / Fail
TEST 2 (Narrow bar impactor)

Peak force
Location
Pass / Fail
(kN)
Back, centre,
2.99
PASS
bottom
Back, centre,
1.87
PASS
middle
Knox Kan Teq
Back, centre, bottom
1.97
PASS
Knox Kan Teq
Back, centre, top
2.04
PASS
Back, centre, middle
2.35
PASS
Back, centre,
bottom
2.08
PASS
Back, centre, top
2.59
PASS
Back, centre,
middle
1.57
PASS
5.00
MARGINAL
1.80
PASS
4.25
MARGINAL
2.65
PASS
Komperdell Cross
Protection
Equestrian Vest
Komperdell Cross
Protection
Equestrian Vest
Komperdell Cross
MC Back Protector
Komperdell Cross
MC Back Protector
33
Back, centre,
middle
Back, centre,
bottom
Temperature Sensitivity
Each vest sample was conditioned for at least 4 hours in a temperature chamber at 40C and then
retested according to the original procedure. Tables 23 and 24 compare the peak force transmitted
through the vest for ambient and hot conditioning.
Table 23
EN 13158 Test 1 (flat impactor) ambient v hot conditioning comparison. Improved

responses are indicated by (+) deteriorated responses by (-).
Vest Specimen
Tipperary
Tipperary
Racesafe
Racesafe
Descente
Descente
Komperdell
Ballistic
Komperdell
Ballistic
Airowear
Airowear
Knox Kan Teq
Knox Kan Teq
Cross Protection
Equestrian Vest
Cross Protection
Equestrian Vest
Komperdell
Cross Back
Protector
Komperdell
Cross Back
Protector
EN Test
Level
Level 1
Level 1
Level 1
Level 1
Level 1
Level 1
Level 1
Level 1
Level 1
Level 1
Level 3
Level 3
Level 3
Level 3
Level 3
Level 3
Ambient Conditioning
Peak
Location
force
(kN)
Hot (40C) Conditioning

Peak
Location
force
(kN)
Back, right,
8.40
bottom
Back, right,
7.55
middle
Back, right,
1.77
middle
Back, right,
1.97
middle
Back, left, top
6.13
Back, centre, top
3.98
Back, centre,
2.86(+)
bottom
% Change
9.26
8.95
1.77
Back, centre, top
1.87

Back, right, top
4.19
3.78
4.29(+)
3.95(+)
Back, left, middle
2.72(+)
-31.1(+)
Back, centre, top
1.46
1.33
-8.9
1.50
1.43
-4.7
1.97
0.92
-53.3
Back, centre, top
2.04
Back, left, middle

Back, right,
middle
Back, right,
middle
Back, centre, top
2.08
2.0
2.35
Back, left, top
1.70
-27.7
Back, centre, top
2.59
Back, right,
middle
1.84
-29.0
5.00(+)
Back, centre, top
2.82(+)
-43.6(+)
4.25(+)
Back, left, middle
2.82(+)
-33.6(+)
34
-9.3
-15.6
0.0
5.3
46.3
5.3
-33.3(+)
Table 24
EN 13158 Test 2 (narrow bar) ambient v hot conditioning comparison. Improved

responses are indicated by (+) and deteriorated responses by (-).
Ambient Conditioning
Peak
force
Location
(kN)
Back, centre, top
13.78
Back, left, bottom
9.63
1.43
1.74
11.06
Hot (40C) Conditioning

Peak
Location
force
(kN)
Back, right, middle
17.08
Back, right, middle
13.10
Back, left, middle
1.57
Back, right, top
1.60
Back, right, top
13.48
Back, centre,
17.80
middle
Vest Specimen
EN Test
Level
Tipperary
Tipperary
Racesafe
Racesafe
Descente
Level 1
Level 1
Level 1
Level 1
Level 1
Descente
Level 1
Back, left, middle
18.27
Level 1
Back, centre, top
1.77
Back, right, top
1.40
-20.9
Level 1
Back, left, middle
2.11
Back, right, middle
1.43
-32.2
Level 1
Level 1

0.68(-)
0.68(-)
1.77(-)
1.57(-)
160.3(-)
130.9(-)
Knox Kan Teq
Level 3
2.99
1.94
-35.1
Knox Kan Teq
Level 3
1.87
Back, right, bottom

Back, left, bottom
Back, centre,
middle
Front, right,
middle
1.77
-5.3
Level 3
2.08(-)
Back, right, middle
13.24(-)
536.5(-)
Level 3
1.57(-)
Back, right, bottom
11.13(-)
608.9(-)
Level 3
1.80
Back, centre, top
1.80
0.0
Level 3
2.65
Back, centre,
bottom
3.16
19.2
Komperdell
Ballistic
Komperdell
Ballistic
Airowear
Airowear
Cross Protection
Equestrian Vest
Cross Protection
Equestrian Vest
Komperdell
Cross Back
Protector
Komperdell
Cross Back
Protector
% Change
23.9
36.0
9.8
-8.0
21.9
-2.6
The high test temperature had some effect on the foam materials of the body protectors. The
motorcycle back protectors, Komperdell Ballistic and Komperdell Cross, had improved performance
in the flat impactor test (Test 1) at the higher temperature, as indicated in green in Table 23. In
contrast, the Airowear and Komperdell Cross Protection vests had worse performance after high
temperature conditioning in the narrow bar impact test (Test 2), see Table 24.
The stiffer foam materials that are used in the motorcycle body protectors softened in the high heat,
which resulted in improved performance in the flat impactor tests, as indicated in green in Table 23.
In contrast, the more compliant foams in the Airowear and Komperdell Cross Protection vests became
even softer and were adversely affected in the hot condition, as indicated in red in Table 24. Even at
the raised test temperature, the Airowear vest does still pass the Level 1 requirements of the standard
whereas the Komperdell Cross Protection fails the Level 3 requirements following hot conditioning.
35
Discussion
This part of the project involved the testing of a number of samples of jockey and general equestrian
body protectors in an attempt to further investigate the effectiveness of vests in preventing injury to
jockeys. The two most popular vests in racing were chosen (refer Rider Survey results (Chapter 1)),
the Hows Racesafe (over 50% of NSW riders) and Phoenix Tipperary (over 50% of Victorian riders).
The Hows Racesafe claims to meet the EN13158:200 Level 1 Standard, while the Phoenix Tipperary
Ride Lite vests claim SATRA Jockey Vest Standard on their labelling. Some additional vest types
including the Japanese Descente vest and Level 2 Airowear vest were also tested to demonstrate their
protective capacities against Level 1 standards. Vests manufactured from alternative materials (the
Austrian Komperdell and UK KAN vests) were also tested.
The impact performance of the vests is determined by the thickness and the type of padding material.
Foam absorbs energy by being compressed. If foam becomes fully compressed in an impact, it has
bottomed out and does not provide any further energy absorption. Foam padding in protective vests
must be thick enough so that it does not bottom out and transmit high forcers onto the wearer. The
level of energy absorption and amount of compression is determined by the stiffness of the foam.
Soft foam will crush easily but not absorb as much energy as hard foam. However, if a foam is too
hard, it may not compress at all in an impact, acting as if it were rigid and transmitting the energy
through.
Of the two currently used vests in Australia, the Hows Racesafe performed extremely well in the
testing, and due to its thickness was of a similar standard to that defined by a Level 2 vest.
However, the Tipperary performed poorly, failing all tests by a considerable margin.
The European Standard requires two distinct test configurations for impact performance to be
satisfied. The thickness and type of padding material must be appropriate to pass both test
configurations. For the flat impact test (Test 1), the vest will fail if the padding is too thin or too soft,
such as the Tipperary and Descente vests. The vest cannot be too stiff either, as was the back of the
Komperdell Ballistic. However, the stiffness of the Komperdell Ballistic meant that it was able to
pass the narrow bar test (Test 2). The smaller surface area of the impactor requires the vest to have a
certain level of bending stiffness (Komperdell Ballistic) or increased thickness (Hows Racesafe).
Again, a vest that is too soft or too thin will not pass this requirement (Tipperary and Descente).
It is important to note that ARB Standard 1.1998 does not demand the narrow bar impactor test (Test
2) but only the flat impactor (Test 1) for the impact performance requirement. This removes the need
for increased stiffness or thickness but the implications for injury are unknown. The suitability of the
narrow bar impact test should be further discussed.
A higher level test (Level 2 Airowear) was also tested to demonstrate the difference in energy
absorption compared to a Level 1 vest. When tested, the Level 2 vest performed well when subjected
to the Level 1 impact test protocol. The vest padding is the same thickness as that in the Racesafe
vest, but the padding consists of a single sheet of foam rather than a number of smaller blocks. The
one piece design of the Airowear padding allows it to perform considerably better in the narrow bar
impact test, however the flexibility of the body protector is decreased.
As was the case with the Komperdell Ballistic motorcycle vest/back protector, the Komperdell Cross
motorcycle back protector consists of stiffer foam than the other samples. As a result, the Komperdell
Cross back protector was too stiff for the flat impactor (Test 1) but performed well under the narrow
bar impactor (Test 2).
The Komperdell Cross Protection equestrian vest uses a damped foam material, similar to the Level 2
Airowear vest. The Cross Protection is thicker so that it passes the more severe impact energy of the
36
Level 3 requirements. The results are well below the allowable peak force for EN 13158 in both tests
1 and 2.
The Knox Kan Teq vest uses polyurethane foam which is moulded into panels (two front panels, one
back panel and two shoulder panels). The polyurethane is formed so that there are open and closed
cells in the padding layers. The resulting panels are firm but have more compressibility upon impact
compared to the motorcycle back protector foam. The protector performed well in both Tests 1 and 2
however it was also the thickest body protector at up to 28 mm.
It has previously been identified that temperatures of the Australian climate can have an effect on vest
materials (Gibson, 1997). In order to determine temperature sensitivity of the sample vests, the
samples were also conditioned for at least 4 hours in a temperature chamber at 40C and then retested
according to the original procedure. Temperature had a noticeable effect on some of the protective
foam padding materials, in some cases softening the foam due to the heat load. The high stiffness
motorcycle back protectors had improved performance in the flat impactor test due to the foam
softening. The impact test results in both ambient and high temperatures indicate that the current
padding in motorcycle back protectors is too stiff for use in jockey vests. A reduction in stiffness
would improve the performance of these protectors in the impact attenuation requirement of the
European Standard EN 13158.
The Airowear jockey vest and Komperdell Cross Protection equestrian vest also exhibited softening
of the foam materials when heated. These vests suffered deteriorated performance in the narrow bar
impact test (Test 2). The peak force transmitted through the Airowear vest more than doubled after
hot conditioning however the impact test requirement of the European Standard was still easily
satisfied. The peak force transmitted through the Komperdell Cross Protection vest was more than
five times greater after hot conditioning changing the result for the vest from a pass to a failure. The
high peak force value indicates that the vest became much too soft and most likely bottomed out in
the high temperature impact.
As a result of this work, in September 2013, the Australian Racing Board suspended the use by
licensed jockeys, track riders and stable hands of the Tipperary Ride Lite vest. The Australian Racing
Board is continuing to work with the manufacturer of the Tipperary Ride Lite vest to address safety
concerns.
37
Implications
The primary aim of this project was to evaluate the effectiveness of currently used safety vests in
Australian Racing. A number of studies were undertaken examining the suitability of the safety vests
and their protective capabilities.
The initial part of this work involved a survey of jockeys and apprentice riders. The survey suggests
that generally speaking, riders prefer a flexible and comfortable vest, but often will sacrifice comfort
(and potentially safety) for a lighter vest due to weight restrictions. Riders in Victoria choose a more
flexible, heavier vest presumably due to the extra weight allowance available in that state. NSW
riders opt for the lighter weight, less flexible vest. The majority of riders would like to see more vest
choices available, with improved protection, while being comfortable enough to offer the riders the
flexibility required during a race and ideally vests should be available in more customised sizes.
When considering design of a new or alternative vest, riders considered vest comfort and protective
capabilities of utmost importance and placed little emphasis on vest price and thermal qualities.
While there appeared to be a more positive attitude towards the vests, some riders voiced concerns
about a perceived increase in injuries (with particular reference to neck and back fractures) and many
attributed these injuries to the wearing of the vests. The results of the insurance claim data analysis
did indeed reveal an increase in neck and back fractures in the years following the introduction of the
vests, however there was no evidence that these types of injuries were being caused by the vests. This
was supported by a corresponding increase in head and facial fractures and the observation from a
Biomechanical Engineer that most of these injuries were indirectly caused by the rider taking a
forward dive into the track with the head hitting the turf. It will be important to assure the riders that
the vests do not appear to be contributing to these injuries to alleviate their concerns. There is a
suggestion that more riders are employing a more forward riding style which involves simply placing
the toes in the stirrup irons as opposed to the ball of the foot. It may be worth investigating if this
change in riding style is increasing the risk for the rider taking a forward dive off the horse and
contributing to these more serious types of injuries, or if other factors are involved.
The review of injury causation through the analysis of race day footage carried out by Human Impact
Engineering identified two types of injuries: direct injury due to impacting the track surface directly
and indirect injury which usually involved multi-axial loading of the back. The direct injuries due to
direct contact with the track surface may be reduced by attention to the design of the vests in this
region. It is less easy to effect injury reduction with the indirect and usually more serious injuries.
There is no existing protective equipment available that is able to protect the spine from these indirect
injuries, which are caused by multi-axial loading of the spine and due to the significant impact of
fractures, alternative equipment (such as back protectors) may be worth further investigation. A
safety review conducted by the Irish Turf Club suggested that further improvements in the protection
offered by the safety vest could be made if the panel covering the spinal column was strengthened, a
point worth further investigation (OSullivan, 2004).
The review of insurance claim data obtained from NSW and Victoria was complex due to the nature
of the original data received. Based on using race day data only, while there has been an overall
reduction in the rate of fall claims, the data suggests that the reduction in injury rates may have little
to do with the introduction of the safety vests and instead may be due to other factors such as
improvements in running rails and track conditions. The NSW dataset contained both race day and
trackwork claims and unlike the Victorian dataset revealed no change in claim rates in the years
following the introduction of the vests. This suggests that factors during trackwork (such as horse
behaviour, experience, age and skill of rider and environmental conditions) are having a significant
impact on the incidence of injuries and require further investigation. It may be justifiable to
investigate the implementation of a safety vest offering a higher level of protection (such as a Level 2
vest or equivalent) for track work riding, especially where weight limits are not as critical.
38
The insurance claim data analysis of the NSW dataset did reveal a significant reduction in less severe
injuries (sprains and strains) in the region currently protected by the vests (chest, back, ribs).
Interestingly this was not the case using the race day only dataset from Victoria. The jockey survey
revealed that the majority of Victorian riders wear the Tipperary vest while the majority of NSW
riders wear the Hows Racesafe vest. Both these vest types were tested at Human Impact Engineering,
and despite the Tipperary Ride-Lite Vest having a label affixed stating CE CERT. #617 Performance
Test Level: SATRA Jockey Vest Standard Satra doc M6, this vest failed all three tests of the SATRA
Jockey Vest Standard. A second Tipperary vest was obtained which also failed testing requirements.
The test failure of a popular vest is concerning and the Australian Racing Board took the action to
recall all Tipperary Ride-Lite vests and is currently investigating the issue further. It is imperative
that a quality assurance surveillance system be implemented to ensure vests are continuing to meet the
safety standard. Vests are routinely inspected by stewards on race days and it is also crucial that this
practice is continued to ensure riders are wearing an appropriate fitting vest correctly and not altering
the vests in anyway which may result in reduced protective capabilities.
In comparison to the Tipperary vest, the Hows Racesafe performed extremely well during the testing
and despite its light weight, this vest was on par with a Level 2 vest due to the use of a thicker foam
material. Following the implementation of routine surveillance and testing of commercially available
vests claiming to meet the safety standard, the performance data information should be provided to
the riders so they have the opportunity to select superior vests rather than simply relying on vest
manufacturers.
Moving forward, the review of safety standards and safety equipment testing carried out by Human
Impact Engineering identified some key factors to consider for optimising vest impact performance
while being mindful of comfort and weight issues. It was suggested that the padded foam must have
adequate thickness and appropriate stiffness (not too soft or too firm) to achieve the allowable impact
response in both a flat impact test and a narrow bar impactor test of the European Standard. Based on
the testing conducted for this project, vests made of PVC nitrile appear to require a minimum padding
thickness of approximately 20mm to be effective in meeting current standard requirements as is the
case for the Hows Racesafe vest. Alternative foam materials, such as in motorcycle back protectors
and moulded polyurethane, can offer a similar level of protection as the current vests and some may
perform better at higher temperatures. The narrow bar impact test (EN 13158 Test 2) requires a
certain level of stiffness for the body protector. The ARB standard does not demand this impact test
and may allow for a more flexible vest. Further investigation is required to determine the suitability
of the narrow bar impact test for realistic situations. Some changes to the test methods utilised by the
safety standards may be required to make the material requirements clearer for the vest designer.
Some of the vest materials are sensitive to temperature, softening under heat load. It is essential that
the materials be tested at a higher temperature (40C) to ensure that appropriate materials for use in
Australian summer conditions are used. The impact performance must be ensured for all temperatures
at which the vest is likely to be used. Furthermore, there may be some benefit from improving the
protection capability to area of the vest covering the spine.
39
Recommendations
Taken together there appears to be potential for reducing injury to riders by improving the design of
the vests and reviewing current safety standards. In light of the results of the investigation into the
effectiveness of safety vests in Australian racing, the following recommendations were presented to
the Australian Racing Board:
That the Australian Racing Board:
1. Establish a list of Approved Vests under the Australian Rules of Racing in addition to the
standard defined by Australian Rule of Racing 87B as an added safeguard against substandard vests;
2. Institute a system of surveillance testing (i.e. batch testing) of certified vests so as to identify
any manufacturer which fails to meet the ongoing obligation for all vests to meet the standard
as defined by AR 87B;
3. Identify Approved Vests under AR 87B with a highly visible microchipped label providing
easy identification so as to assist Stewards in the enforcement of compliance under AR 87B;
4. Develop a safety rating scale for vests based on the results of performance testing to enable
riders to make more informed decisions on which vests to acquire;
5. Recommend the use of a vest providing a higher level of protection (such as the Hows
Racesafe or a Level 2 vest (e.g. Airowear vest)) for trackwork riding;
6. Initiate discussions with the manufacturer of Hows Racesafe vest (Level 1), given its superior
safety performance, so as to improve the comfort of the vest by increasing the depth at the
neck hole now permitted under the most recent European standard;
7. Investigate the causation of the increasing incidence of head, neck and back fractures with
particular attention paid to current riding styles or practices;
8. Review current safety standards under AR 87B and specifically the relevance of the narrow
bar impactor component of testing requirements as this may be leading to unnecessarily
inflexible and uncomfortable vests;
9. Investigate the degree of protection offered by back protectors and alternative materials with
the aim of developing a form of hybrid vest offering superior protection and comfort for
riders;
10. Consider the implementation of one uniform ARB standard to assist in the design of a
superior vest with a higher impact performance and level of comfort with more simplified
testing requirements better suited to Australian conditions;
11. Improve communication between racing authorities and jockeys and track riders to better
inform riders of the protective capabilities of the vests.
N.B. At the time of submission of this report, the Australian Racing Board had commenced acting on
these recommendations and had completed the first round of surveillance testing on currently used
vests in racing.
40
Appendices
Appendix 1
Frequency of injuries in each bodily location and injury types (expressed as a
% of rider fall claims) prior to and following the introduction of the vests: Vic
Data
(a)
Body location
Head & face
Neck
Back
Trunk
Upper limbs
Lower limbs
Unspecified
Total
Count of injuries
at each bodily
location
pre
post
40
61
21
39
44
62
34
41
120
164
78
105
30
30
367
502
Injuries at each bodily location

expressed as a percentage of
total injuries
pre
post
10.9
12.2
5.7
7.8
12.0
12.4
9.3
8.2
32.7
32.7
21.3
20.9
8.2
6.0
The frequency distribution pre-vests is not significantly different to that post-vests (X2=3.39, df=6,
P=0.758). As can be seen, no individual body location pre-vests differs from that post-vests.
(b)
Injury type
Fracture
Sprains/strains
Intracranial injuries
Other*
Total
Injury types
expressed as a
percentage of total
injuries
pre
post
46.3
46.0
10.6
13.5
25.9
22.1
5.4
5.4
11.7
12.9
Count of
injury types
pre
post
170
231
39
68
95
111
20
27
43
65
367
502
The frequency distribution of injury type pre-vests is not significantly different to that post-vests
(X2=3.02, df=4, P=0.554).
41
Appendix 2
Frequency of injuries in each bodily location and injury types (expressed as a
% of rider fall claims) prior to and following the introduction of the vests: NSW
Data
(a)
Body location
Head and face
Neck +
Back +
Trunk
Upper Limbs
Lower limbs
Multiple other
Total
Injuries at each bodily location

expressed as a percentage of
total injuries
pre
post
9.0
9.6
3.2
7.1
17.4
15.1
6.0
7.5
32.4
28.9
31.3
29.6
0.7
2.2
Count of injuries at
each bodily location
pre
post
101
197
36
145
194
311
67
155
362
593
350
609
8
45
1118
2055
The frequency distribution pre-vests is significantly different to that post-vests (X2=39.91, df=6,
P<0.001). Examining the two sets of observed frequencies it can be seen that the differences are
caused by:
There is a significant increase in the probability of a neck+ injury post-vests (X2=21.62, df=1,
P<0.001).
There is a significant increase in the probability of a Multiple other injury post-vests (X2=11.83, df=1,
P<0.001).
There are no significant differences in the percentages across other body locations (X2=6.42, df=4,
P=0.170).
42
(b)
Injury type
Fractures
Sprains and strains
Other
Intracranial
Total
Injury types
expressed as a
percentage of total
injuries
pre
post
26.1
29.4
51.0
39.3
11.3
15.8
8.8
13.1
2.9
2.3
Count of injury
types
pre
post
292
608
571
812
127
327
98
270
32
48
1120
2065
There is a significant difference (X2=48.95, df=4, P<0.001) in the percentages pre- and post-vests
across these injuries types.
There is a significant relative decrease (51% down to 39%) in sprain and strain injuries post-vests
(X2=40.06, df=1, P<0.001). This is clearly the dominant injury type effect accounting for 40.06 of the
48.95 X2 test value.
The other four injury types are not consistent (X2=8.89, df=3, P=0.031). Indeed, once sprain and
strain injuries are excluded we obtain the following:
Injury type
Fractures
Other
Intracranial
Total
Injury types
expressed as a
percentage of total
injuries
pre
post
53.2
48.5
23.1
26.1
17.9
21.5
5.8
3.8
Count of injury
types
pre
post
292
608
127
327
98
270
32
48
549
1253
There is a decrease in the percentage of fractures (4.7%) and intracranial injuries (2.0%) and an
increase in the percentages of contusions and crushings (3.0%) and other injuries (3.7%) when
calculated as percentages of all injuries excluding sprains and strains.
43
Appendix 3
Jockey Injury Case Studies
CASE J-01
Accident description
Horse stumbles and the rider slides forward over the horses head, landing on the right forearm and
elbow, and then rolling on the right shoulder and head onto the back. Rider continues to roll onto his
knees and again falls to his right side and onto his back. The horse gets up and steps over the rider,
stepping on his upper right chest with the right back hoof.
Riders actions
The rider initial fends off the ground with his arms. He appears to tuck in his arms and legs in the
latter stages of the fall.
Riders injuries
Fracture to the medial aspect of the right clavicle, right chest wall bruising, soft tissue injury to the
right elbow and neck. Rider was off riding for 6 weeks.
Injury mechanisms
In the initial fall, the rider travelled from a height of approximately 2.5 metres at an average speed of
approximately 14 m/s (or 50 kph), and landed on the right elbow and shoulder. The fracture to the
right clavicle may be due to this initial impact alone, or a combination of this impact and subsequently
being trodden on by the horse.
Comments on Protective Equipment
There were no reported head injuries. Increasing the protective capabilities of the vest in the shoulder
region and extending this protection down to the elbows could prevent or reduce the injuries.
CASE J-02
Horse stumbles and the Rider 1 slides forward over the horses head, landing on his face, right
shoulder and then rolling onto his mid-back. Second horse clips the heels of the first horse and
stumbles. The Rider 2 holds onto the reins but is thrown off the right side of the horse and lands on
his buttocks.
Riders actions
Views are unclear or obscured, however Rider 1 appears to remain in a tucked position.
Riders injuries
Rider 1 suffered a fracture to the T5 thoracic vertebra, three rib fractures, bilateral pneumothoraces
and a fractured nose. Rider 2 suffered bruising to the spine at coccyx level.
44
Injury mechanisms
The initial impact of Rider 1 was to the face and occurred at approximately 10 m/s (36 kph). No direct
chest impact with the track surface was observed. The chest injuries may have been caused by being
trampled or crushed by the following horse. The fracture to the T5 vertebra was due to combined
loading, which includes compression due to head impact, frontal flexion and some rotation. Rider 2s
injuries were from direct impact with the track surface.
The helmet of Rider 1 did not prevent the fracture to his nose. A full face helmet in this case may
have prevented this injury. The vest of Rider 1 did not prevent the chest and spinal injuries. The
combined loading to the spine and hence the spinal injury could not have been prevented by an
improved vest. The cause of the loading to the chest is unclear. Rider 2s vest was not effective in
protecting him from the impact to the coccyx.
CASE J-03
Horse stumbles and the Rider 1 slides forward over the horses head, landing on his head, then his
right knee. Left leg appears to remain in the stirrup as horse continues to tumble and Rider 1s body
pivots horizontally to the left about his head, horizontal arrow in still photograph below. Rider 1
continues to tumble. Second horse clips the heels of the first horse and stumbles. The Rider 2 holds
onto the reins but is thrown off the left side of the horse and lands on his buttocks and/or lower legs
and continues to roll forward to land on the left leg and then continues tumbling.
Riders actions
Rider 1 appears to actively tumble out of the way of the falling horse. Rider 2 appears to tuck his head
in but arms and legs continue to flail.
Riders injuries
Rider 1 received fractures of the 4th to 6th thoracic vertebra and some soft tissue bruising. Rider 2
suffered minor injuries including a sore leg and ankle and soft tissue swelling of the legs.
Injury mechanisms
Rider 1s injuries were a result of multi-axial loading of the spine including:
Compression due to impact to the crown
Full forward flexion at the waist
Left lateral flexion of the torso
Some rotation of the spine
Rider 2s leg injuries appear to be due to direct impact with the track surface.
The helmet of Rider 1 was effective in this fall as it prevented any head injuries. The combined
loading to the spine and hence the spinal injury could not have been prevented by an improved vest.
There is no sign that the vest in this case contributed to the injuries suffered. Rider 2 had no major
impacts to the head, chest or back.
45
CASE J-04
Rider is butted into the air by the horse as it falls forward. Rider lands and goes under horse. Views of
landing are obscured.
Riders actions
Unknown
Riders injuries
Loss of consciousness with fractured skull and internal head trauma (bleeding), subluxation (partial
dislocation) of cervical vertebra (C2 on C3).
Injury mechanisms
Rider was thrown to a height of at least 3.5 m and fell at a speed of approximately 50 kph. The
injuries appear to be due to direct impact between the head and the track surface. Views of the actual
impact are obscured.
It appears that the capabilities of the helmet in this case were exceeded due to the severity of the fall.
If the injuries were in fact a fracture to the base of the skull, then it is unlikely that an improved
helmet would have reduced the injuries.
CASE J-05
Three falls: Rider 1 falls with his horse and continues rolling as the other horses appear to run over
him. Second horse stumbles over first and Rider 2 holds onto reins, falling off the horses side onto
his legs and left side, and then rolls onto his back. He continues to roll and appears to get his head
momentarily caught under the rolling horse. Third horse falls over the second and Rider 3 also holds
onto reins, falling onto his right hip and rolls onto his head. His left leg appears to be caught under the
horse.
Riders actions
View of Rider 1 is obscured. Other two riders continue to hold onto reins until impact with the track.
Riders injuries
Rider 1 suffered a compound fracture to the tibia and soft tissue bruising to the legs and face. Rider 2
had ligament damage to the neck, an undisplaced fracture of the spinous process of the C7 cervical
vertebra, and some shoulder bruising. Rider 3 suffered a fractured tibial plateau, bruising to the left
leg and a soft tissue injury to the ankle.
46
Injury mechanisms
Rider 1s injuries are most likely due to being run over by the following horses. Rider 2s injuries
may have been caused by a forced extension to the neck. Rider 3s leg injuries may be due to direct
impact with the track surface, or from having his leg trapped under the horse.
Views of Rider 1 were obscured. Rider 2 may have been protected from crushing injuries to the head
by the helmet.
CASE J-06
Rider falls off side onto his legs and hands and is violently flipped, tumbling three times and twice
landing on the upper back. Cap is lost during the tumbles but helmet remains in place.
Riders actions
Rider does not appear to actively tuck his body during the fall.
Riders injuries
The rider suffered a fractured vertebra.
Injury mechanisms
The fractured vertebra may be due to the full extension of the neck due to the initial impact with the
ground, or subsequent impacts to the back in tumbling.
There appears to be no significant head impact or chest impacts in this fall.
CASE J-07
Horse trips and rider is flipped forward off the back of horse onto his head and upper back and
tumbles. Rider is crushed by the fallen horse. Views are obscured.
Riders actions
Unknown
Riders injuries
The rider is rendered an incomplete quadriplegic from his injuries.
47
Injury mechanisms
The injuries are likely to have resulted from the initial fall and impact to the upper back, or from
crushing. The initial impact on the head/neck was at a vertical velocity of approximately 5 m/s or 18
kph.
Comments on the Protective Equipment
There are no reported head or chest injuries, which could be related to the helmet or vest
effectiveness.
CASE J-08
Rider falls off side of horse onto his feet and knees and then continues forward to hit head on track.
Riders actions
The rider does not appear to actively tuck his body during the tumbles.
Riders injuries
The rider suffered brain contusions and fractured cervical vertebrae (unspecified).
Injury mechanisms
The rider hits the track surface with his head, after initially landing on feet and legs. The motion
causing the neck injury is not clear.
The impact between the head and the track caused brain contusion and possibly a fractured neck. An
improved helmet (thicker and softer) may have been able to reduce the brain injury. There are no
reported chest injuries, which could be related to the vest effectiveness.
CASE J-09
Horse trips and rider continues forward to impact face first with the track. The rider then rolls onto his
back and tumbles. Views are unclear and obscured.
Riders actions
View is unclear and obscured.
Riders injuries
The rider suffered fatal head and facial injuries from the fall.
48
Injury mechanisms
The horse was initially travelling at approximately 36 kph. The rider fell from a height of
approximately 2.4 metres. The injuries (although not specified) are likely to be as a result of direct
impact to the face.
The helmet failed to prevent head injuries. An improved helmet may have been able to reduce the
head injury. A chin guard may also have reduced the head and facial injuries. No reported injury in
the chest region.
CASE J-10
Horse falters and rider loses balance. He holds onto the reins and falls down the right side of the
horse, landing flat on his back.
Riders actions
View is unclear and obscured, but he attempts to hang onto the reins.
Riders injuries
The rider suffered fractured vertebrae (unspecified) from the fall.
Injury mechanisms
The injury is likely to be a result of a direct impact with the back from the fall. It is unclear whether
there was further tumbling and/or whether the rider was trampled by the other horses.
The vest does not appear to have been effective in preventing direct impact injury to the back.
CASE J-11
Horse stumbles and rider holds onto reins as he is thrown initially upwards and lands head first, then
upper back and shoulders.
Riders actions
The rider holds onto the reins until impact with the turf and does not appear to prepare for the landing.
Riders injuries
The rider suffered concussion and soft tissue bruising to the shoulders and legs
49
Injury mechanisms
The head injuries are from direct impact with the track. The head impact was at a vertical velocity of
approximately 10 m/s or 36 kph.
An improved helmet could reduce the head injury. An improved vest could reduce the shoulder
bruising.
CASE J-12
Multiple fall accident in which one rider jumps from the side of his horse, lands on his left side and
tumbles before apparently being kicked in the left jaw. His helmet was lost.
Riders actions
The rider appeared to try to land on his feet.
Riders injuries
Rider suffered a fractured jaw and intracerebral bleeding.
Injury mechanisms
The rider appears to have been kicked in the left jaw.
Inspection of the helmet revealed a fractured retention strap clasp located on the left side. This is the
reason the helmet came off. A chin guard may have been able to reduce the injuries to the head and
jaw due to the kick.
CASE J-13
Horse stumbled, rider was butted forward violently off the horse and is caught in a couple of flips,
landing on his lower back and legs.
Riders actions
Rider does not appear to actively tuck his arms and legs in during the fall.
Riders injuries
Rider suffered a fracture to the hip, a right rib, suffered an aggravation of a previous lumbar L5 disc
injury (from 5 years prior), and a fracture of the left wrist, thumb and 5th finger.
50
Injury mechanisms
The lumbar disc injury is most likely compression and flexion related.
The vest was not effective in preventing the rib fracture.
CASE J-14
Rider holds onto reins as he falls from the left side of the horse and lands on his feet and knees and
then tumbles, landing on his forehead and chest, and then rolling onto his back.
Riders actions
Rider tried to keep hold of the reins. No attempt to use a tuck position in the fall.
Riders injuries
Rider suffered a fracture through the body and lamina of the C2 cervical vertebra
Injury mechanisms
The impact to the forehead caused a hyperextension to the neck as the rest of the body fell, and is
likely to have caused the fracture at C2.
No head or chest injuries reported.
CASE J-15
Horse stumbles and veers right, throwing rider off the left side. Rider holds onto reins, trying to step
down, lands on his back, with heavy impact to the back of his head.
Riders actions
Rider attempts to hang onto the reins. No attempt to take a tuck position.
Riders injuries
The rider suffered a concussion with no loss of consciousness.
Injury mechanisms
Head injury due to the impact to the back of the head with the track surface.
An improved helmet may have been able to reduce the likelihood of concussion.
51
CASE J-16
Horse pulls up, rider comes off the left side and tries to hold onto the reins. Lands on his feet and fell
onto his back. He was then kicked or trampled by the hind legs of his own horse or by the following
horse. Riders cap was lost but helmet remained in place.
Riders actions
The rider holds onto the reins and is not prepared for a fall. There is no evidence of tucking.
Riders injuries
The rider suffered a laceration to the forehead (eyebrow to hairline) and lips.
Injury mechanisms
Inspection of the helmet showed a crushed area of the liner in the region of the forehead. There was
60 mm vertical indentation in the shell at the back of the head (parietal area) with a matching fracture
of the liner, indicating a kick. Inspection of the goggles worn shows an indentation in the right eye
area. The laceration to the forehead indicates that the helmet was displaced during the impact.
No chest injury reported. The helmet appears to have been effective in preventing head injury. The
helmet was effective in two ways, with adequate energy absorption in the forehead area and sufficient
shell stiffness and energy absorption in the rear. The provision of a chin guard may have been able to
reduce the facial injury. The soft goggles received an impact, but no eye injury resulted.
CASE J-17
Horse stumbles and rider moves forward over the head of the horse and appears to impact the track
surface face and head first.
Riders actions
The rider has no time to react.
Riders injuries
The rider suffered fatal head injuries including massive intracerebral bleeding.
Injury mechanisms
The helmet appears to remain in place. More injury details are required before it is possible to
comment regarding injury mechanisms.
No reported chest injury. Insufficient detail in the head injuries to be able comment on the helmet
effectiveness.
52
Appendix 4
Comparison of Jockey Vest Standards
JOCKEY VEST STANDARDS
SATRA M6 (1997)
ARB Standard Issue 1,

1998
BETA 2000/ EN
13158:2000
100+/-1mm diam., 150+/5mm radius dome
ID: 120+/-2mm, wall

thickness 20+/-1mm
ID: 120+/-2mm, wall

thickness 20+/-1mm
ID: 120+/-2mm, wall

thickness 20+/-1mm
80+/-2mm diam., 5000+/50g

(80+/-2)x(20+/-1) mm,
0.5mm radius corners,
2500+/-25g
80+/-2mm diam., 5000+/50g

(80+/-2)x(20+/-1) mm,
0.5mm radius corners,
2500+/-25g
80+/-2mm diam., 0.5+/0.1mm radii, 2500+/-25g

(80+/-2)x(20+/-1) mm,
0.5+/-0.1mm radius
corners, 2500+/-25g
Test 1
25 J, flat impactor on
anvil, guard ring 0+/0.5mm above anvil
Flat impactor on anvil,

guard ring 0+/-0.2mm
above anvil: Level 1- 25J,
Level 2- 30J, Level 3- 35J
Test 2
Impact Test Equipment

Anvil
Guard ring
Flat impactor
Narrow bar impactor
Impact Test Configuration
Test 3
No. of impact points per sample
Impact Test Criteria
Max. average peak transmitted force
(kN)
Max. transmitted force (kN)
Conditioning
Padding Gap Test

Lower bar
Upper bar
Fixings/Restraint Test
Pull test
Coverage refer document page 36
Sizing
Dimensions
Narrow impactor on anvil,

guard ring 10+/-0.2mm
above anvil: Level 1- 20J,
Level 2- 32.5J, Level 345J
15 J, narrow impactor on
10
10
6
Samples washed as per
instructions, conditioned
@20+/-2 deg C, 65+/-5%
RH for 24 hrs, tested
within 10 minutes
6
Samples washed as per
@ i) 20+/-2 deg C, 4hrs;
ii) 40+/-2 deg C, 4hrs;
Water immersion @ 10 to
30 deg C, 4hrs
6
Samples washed 5x as per
@i) 20+/-2 deg C, 65+/5% RH for 48hrs; ii) 30+/2 deg C for 48hrs if
specified for use under
high ambient temps.
W(15+/-1)xL(45+/2)xD(70+/-2) mm
W(15+/-1)xL(45+/2)xD(70+/-2) mm
W(15+/-1)xL(45+/2)xD(70+/-2) mm
W(15+/-1)xL(45+/2)xD(55+/-2) mm, 2.55+/0.05kg
W(15+/-1)xL(45+/2)xD(55+/-2) mm, 2.55+/0.05kg
Similar to lower bar with

mass 2.55+/-0.05kg
Gradual 25N held for 10

seconds
Gradual 25N held for 10

seconds
i) 50N at midpoint of
adjustment, ii) 10N at
widest setting
See diagram
See diagram
53
See diagram
See diagram
See diagram
See diagram
References
Byrd, J.W. (1993). Risk factors of head and neck injuries in equestrian activities. American Medical
Equestrian Association News, 3.
Edixhoven, P., Sinha, S. C. & Dandy, D. J. (1981). Horse Injuries. Injury 12, 279-282.
Foote, C.E, McIntosh, A., V'Landys. P., Bulloch, K. (2011). Health and Safety in Australian Racing.
RIRDC Publication No 10/067.
Gibson, T. (1997). Protective vests for jockeys. Human Impact Engineering R97-01.
Hitchens, P. L., Blizzard, C. L., Jones, G., Day, L. M. & Fell, J. (2009). The incidence of race-day
jockey falls in Australia, 2002-2006. Medical Journal of Australia. 190, 83-86.
Kroell, C.K., Schneider, D.C., Nahum, A.M. (1974). Impact tolerance and response to the human
thorax II. Proceedings of the 18th Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE 741187, pp 383-457.
McLean, J. (2004). Assessment of protective jockey vests. RIRDC Publication No W04/190.
O'Sullivan, D (2004). Turf Club Safety Review Group.
Report and Recommendations.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/88327929/TURF-CLUB-SAFETY-REVIEW-GROUP-Reportand-Recommendations
Press, J. M., Davis, P. D., Wiesner, S. L., Heinemann, A. & Semik, P. A., R.G. (1995). The national
jockey injury study: an analysis of injuries to professional horse-racing jockeys. Clinical
Journal of Sports Medicine 5, 236-240.
Turner, M., McCrory, P. & Halley, W. (2002). Injuries in professional horse racing in Great Britain
and the Republic of Ireland during 1992-2000. British Journal of Sports Medicine 36, 403409.
Waller, A. E., Daniels, J. L., Weaver, N. L. & Robinson, P. (2000). Jockey injuries in the United
States. Journal of American Medical Association 283, 1326-1328.
Whitesel, J. (1976). How jockeys get hurt in thoroughbred racing. Physician and Sports Medicine 4,
67-69.
54

By Foote, C.E., Gibson, T.J. and McGauran, P.J.
Pub. No. 14/037
Jockey safety is of paramount importance to the Australian
horse racing industry and the equipment available to jockeys
must find a balance between offering effective protection and
being comfortable.
Compulsory for jockeys and trackwork riders since 1998,
safety vests are now an established part of the kit worn by
jockeys.
This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of existing
safety vests for jockeys and trackwork riders in Australia. The
adoption of this reports research findings will make longlasting improvements to the safety of jockeys and trackwork
riders in Australia.
RIRDC is a partnership between government and industry
to invest in R&D for more productive and sustainable rural
industries. We invest in new and emerging rural industries, a
suite of established rural industries and national rural issues.
Most of the information we produce can be downloaded for
free or purchased from our website <www.rirdc.gov.au>.
RIRDC books can also be purchased by phoning
1300 634 313 for a local call fee.
Phone:
02 6271 4100
Fax:
02 6271 4199
Bookshop:
1300 634 313
Email: rirdc@rirdc.gov.au
Postal Address: PO Box 4776,
Kingston ACT 2604
Street Address: Level 2, 15 National Circuit,
Barton ACT 2600
www.rirdc.gov.au

Evaluation of Safety Vests - Health and Safety in Australian Racing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of Safety Vests - Health and Safety in Australian Racing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Health and safety in Australian racing

Evaluation of safety vests

2014 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.

Electronically published by RIRDC in April 2014

Percentage of respondents supporting the review of safety standards ................................ 7

Opinion of riders on the use of additional safety equipment .............................................. 8

Severity of injuries at specific bodily locations ................................................................ 16

Jockey vest sample specifications. .................................................................................... 28

EN 13158 Level 1 impact performance testing results. .................................................... 29

Specifications of the additional Tipperary Ride-Lite sample............................................ 30

Sizing dimensions supplied with the jockey vest samples ................................................ 31

Dimensions of the jockey vest samples ............................................................................ 31

EN 13158 Level 2 body protector specifications. ............................................................. 32

EN 13158 Level 1 impact performance. ........................................................................... 32

High level body protector specifications........................................................................... 33

EN 13158 Level 3 impact performance results. ................................................................ 33

EN 13158 Test 1 (flat impactor) ambient v hot conditioning comparison........................ 34

EN 13158 Test 2 (narrow bar) ambient v hot conditioning comparison.. ......................... 35

Hows Racesafe (1) and Phoenix Tipperary (2) vest examples............................................ 3

Vests most frequently worn in racing ................................................................................. 4

Vests most frequently worn in racing: separated by state ................................................... 4

Flexibility of each vest rated by surveyed riders ................................................................ 5

Restrictiveness of each vest rated by surveyed riders ......................................................... 5

Heat retention of each vest as rated by surveyed riders ...................................................... 6

Importance of issues associated with wearing a safety vest................................................ 7

SATRA Test Setup............................................................................................................ 25

Additional Tipperary Ride-Lite sample (size small) ......................................................... 30

Airowear Swift EN 13158 Level 2 body protector. .......................................................... 32

Implications for relevant stakeholders

Australian Jockey Survey

Breakdown of Jockey Survey respondents from riders in NSW and Vic

Vests most frequently worn in racing

Hows Racesafe (1) and Phoenix Tipperary

Vests most frequently worn in racing

Vests most frequently worn: NSW

Vests most frequently worn in racing: separated by state

Jockeys opinions: vests currently worn in racing

Flexibility of each vest rated by surveyed riders

Restrictiveness of each vest rated by surveyed riders

Heat retention of each vest

Heat retention of each vest as rated by surveyed riders

Protective capabilities from falls

Protective capabilities of each vest from falls

Protective capabilities of each vest from falls as rated by surveyed riders

Protective capabilities from kicks

Protective capabilities of each vest from kicks

Protective capabilities of each vest from kicks as rated by surveyed riders

Importance of issues associated with wearing the vest

Importance of issues associated with wearing a safety vest

Impact of the vest on injury minimisation

Does the vest impact on the rider taking

Current safety standards

Percentage of respondents supporting the review of safety standards

Additional safety equipment

Opinion of riders on the use of additional safety equipment

Review of insurance claim data prior to

Total fall claims

Time lost due to injury

Average time lost (days)

Incidence of injury in specific bodily locations

Head and face

Upper limb injuries

Lower limb injuries