Who should make the rules about helmets and how far should the rules go?

[Barbara_F]

The news just came up about a Harvard university student who died this week after a freak accident on a polo pony. This is so sad for the entire family - it sounds like she was a very special young lady with a wonderful future ahead of her.

According to the article:
"the horse she was riding suddenly bucked, possibly spooked by something, and fell, landing on Shaker and causing severe head trauma. She was taken to Boston Medical Center, where she was pronounced dead at 9:42 p.m. Wednesday. She had not been wearing a riding helmet, according to police."

Apparently, the rider was quite competent and this was not an unpredictable horse. It was just a terrible freak accident.

My question is this...whose responsibility is it to compel riders to wear helmets? The riders themselves? Team captains? Coaches? Individual barns?

Is it ever appropriate for the local government to pass a by-law, as they have in Toronto for bicycle helmets? I believe in Quebec riders must wear riding helmets. How far do you think the rules should go?
Student Dies in Fall (http://www.barnmice.com/profiles/blogs/student-dies-in-fall-from-polo)

[Linny]

My condolences to this young lady's family and friends.
While I think that helmet safety is very important, and I always wear mine, I do tend to think that we are responsible for ourselves. If you are running a boarding/lesson/riding operation you are within your rights to require riders to use proper safety gear. Riders at places where there are no helmet rules who choose not to wear them are taking a risk but we all take varying degrees of risk every day.
I am not in favor of legislating personal responsibility.

[jn4jenny]

I am not in favor of legislating personal responsibility.

Ditto this. I am an "every ride, every time" girl myself, but I wouldn't force it upon others or their facilities.

When I played polo at UVA, you had to wear a polo helmet. Period end of discussion. You *might* be allowed to wear your regular helmet instead if you were just hacking out and/or we were warming the ponies up (meaning no projectiles in the arena).

[Barbara_F]

What about if the rider is under 18? Under 16? Should there be separate rules for juniors?

[Paragon]

Helmets are required to play football and hockey, even in college. If we're talking school-sanctioned sports, this really isn't much different.

Legislating personal responsibility? Nah. Do what you want at home. But for scholastic or collegiate sports teams, there are guidelines specifying safety equipment. It's just part of school and league rules.

[Trixie]

According to the article, she was 21. Old enough to make her own decisions.

That being said, I'm surprised it wasn't in the school rules for riding, with such a litigious society.

Condolences to her family and friends. That's truly sad.

[pAin't_Misbehavin']

How sad.:( Yes, of course, if it's a university sport, the university should require appropriate safety equipment of participants.

Is it ever ok for a municipality to pass a law about helmets? Hm. We're wrestling with that very thing in Myrtle Beach, SC right now - motorcyclists are suing the city because it passed a law requiring helmets. (The city passed the law to discourage the bike rallies, not for safety reasons.)

I'm torn, personally. I'd like to say "adults should make their own decisions." But I've lived here twenty years, and a half-dozen or so bikers die every single year solely because they refuse to wear helmets. I personally hate seeing that happen, and I hate driving alongside these folks during the bike weeks, never knowing if they're about to lay the bike down and leave what brains they have all over the asphalt.

As for horse riders? I don't know. Most people where I live don't wear one, and I never say anything to them about it. I'd wear myself out fussing about it, to no avail, if I tried. I'm just happy if they don't get after me for wearing one.

[Guilherme]

The news just came up about a Harvard university student who died this week after a freak accident on a polo pony. This is so sad for the entire family - it sounds like she was a very special young lady with a wonderful future ahead of her.

I don't mean to sound insensitive to bring this up, but the article says she died of severe head injury - unfortunately she was not wearing a helmet.

My question is this...whose responsibility is it to compel riders to wear helmets? The riders themselves? Team captains? Coaches? Individual barns?

Is it ever appropriate for the local government to pass a by-law, as they have in Toronto for bicycle helmets? I believe in Quebec riders must wear riding helmets. How far do you think the rules should go?
Student Dies in Fall (http://www.barnmice.com/profiles/blogs/student-dies-in-fall-from-polo)

An adult individual bears first responsiblity for their helmet decision.

But that responsibility is not always absolute nor the last word.

If a person is a member of an equestrian team, the team captain may require helmets be worn. If a person does not wish to wear one they can find another team.

An authority responsible for the rules of an equestrian discipline may require a helmet to be worn while formally participating in that discipline. If a person does not wish to wear one they can find another discipline.

The owner/operator of an equestrian facility might require helmets be worn while riding in that venue. If a person does not wish to wear one they can find another venue.

I'm sure other folks can think of other examples.

As for governmental action, if the state can establish that a failure to take this safety precaution has a significant impact on public health, safety, or welfare then they can, and maybe should, make the safety device mandatory.

There really are very few "school" answers, here.

G.

[spirithorse22]

I am not in favor of legislating personal responsibility.

Emphatically agree. Also, no helmet requirements for motorcyclists either, thank you.

Also, OP, this thread is likely to become a train wreck.

[mvp]

I used to think that we all ought to be able to choose and, being cynical Darwinian, I assumed the smart would go helmeted and live while the stupid would die of head injuries.

No problem, except that brain injuries that don't kill people are really, really expensive for all of society. A recent article in PH made that clear.

Since we don't live on islands or in vacuums, other people may legitimately have a basis for dictating your choice of headgear.

[HenryisBlaisin']

On principle, I'd like to agree that we shouldn't legislate responsibility.

But we pay for the irresponsibility of others in the form of higher health costs. When someone is badly injured in an accident, treatment can cost thousands and those costs are, in some form or other, passed on to other consumers whether that person was insured or not. Frankly I'm not into paying for someone else's stupidity.

So I think helmets should be reqiured of any rider regardless of age as soon as they leave their own property (not that an injury can't happen on their property, of course, but that does leave some personal decision) and should be required of those under 18 at all times.

I was a t a show today and was shocked-the show was an open show sponsored by a local 4-H club, and helmets were only required while jumping. There were kids in the ring without helmets! I was the only adult in the Western division to wear a helmet. And I got thrown. From my own horse, who I trust completely. I'm fine, and never hit my head. But it sure reminded me why I never get on any horse, ever, without a helmet!

[vacation1]

I've always thought the laws requiring children to wear helmets while riding bikes were an overreaction to the hazards of bicycle riding as children generally practice it - aka, goofing around in suburban neighborhoods, not highways or high-density streets. With horses, now, I think there's a higher risk of serious injury from even goofing around, and a better case to be made that kids should be required to wear helmets on and/or around horses. Particularly as their little heads are a lot closer to even a half-hearted equine kick than an adult's.

What I really don't subscribe to is the argument that the costs of treating TBIs is a good reason for creating a helmet law. For starters, in a nation that treats gun ownership as holy writ, it's a bit precious to start preaching about any other activity creating societal costs.

[Barbara_F]

In Ontario, we have helmet laws for bikes, helmet laws for motorcycles, and we are about to have a hands-free law for cell phones in cars starting Oct 26.
Lots of safety laws, for anything happening on public property. I'm not a skier, but I wonder if there are helmet laws in place on privately owned ski hills around here.

IMO, it should not be about legislation, but education, and also acceptance. I had an instructor years ago who laughed at anyone who wore a helmet and made them feel cowardly. Fortunately, I moved on!

[Old Equine Lady]

One law of nature is gravity and when gravity is applied to the human body, the heaviest part of said body usually lands first. For adults, that is not always the head, but it is for kids, especially small ones. My vote is kids should be required, adults can make up their own minds.

[greysandbays]

I used to think that we all ought to be able to choose and, being cynical Darwinian, I assumed the smart would go helmeted and live while the stupid would die of head injuries.

No problem, except that brain injuries that don't kill people are really, really expensive for all of society. A recent article in PH made that clear.

Since we don't live on islands or in vacuums, other people may legitimately have a basis for dictating your choice of headgear.

If you start letting other people dictate things "since we don't live on islands or in vacuums", there is no end to the things that will have to be controlled, right down to the foods we are allowed to eat.

And if you accept that premise, it's pretty hard to defend riding horses at all, because there are a lot of ways they can inflict injuries that don't kill people and are really expensive for all of society. To wit, Christopher Reeve was wearing a helmet -- and his injuries cost somebody a whole lot of money and eventually killed him anyway.

[oldenmare]

Agree with greysandbays on this one - and have to say, with the 1000+ people I know via horses, the only two have incurred serious head injuries - one while riding (she was wearing helmet and it did save her life) and the other was kicked in the face (helmet wouldn't have protected her regardless). Fortunately, both lived with no long term physical issues.

Every significant equine-related injury that has occurred to someone I've personally known has not involved head trauma. And there have been some nasty, expensive injuries with long-term/lifetime consequences.

FWIW. That and $10 might get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

[amdfarm]

On principle, I'd like to agree that we shouldn't legislate responsibility.

But we pay for the irresponsibility of others in the form of higher health costs. When someone is badly injured in an accident, treatment can cost thousands and those costs are, in some form or other, passed on to other consumers whether that person was insured or not. Frankly I'm not into paying for someone else's stupidity.

So I think helmets should be reqiured of any rider regardless of age as soon as they leave their own property (not that an injury can't happen on their property, of course, but that does leave some personal decision) and should be required of those under 18 at all times.

I was a t a show today and was shocked-the show was an open show sponsored by a local 4-H club, and helmets were only required while jumping. There were kids in the ring without helmets! I was the only adult in the Western division to wear a helmet. And I got thrown. From my own horse, who I trust completely. I'm fine, and never hit my head. But it sure reminded me why I never get on any horse, ever, without a helmet!

I was at a similar show almost a month ago. There was quite a good turnout on a beautiful day and on the show bill that we were mailed, it stated that helmets were optional. Because in 4-H they are required at all times while mounted or driving. Although I wasn't making notes or anything, I remember only seeing one gal wearing a helmet. This show had one jumping class, one w/t class and the rest were speed events and games.

To each their own.

Very sad story. Condelences to her family and friends.

[eventmom]

I used to think that we all ought to be able to choose and, being cynical Darwinian, I assumed the smart would go helmeted and live while the stupid would die of head injuries.

No problem, except that brain injuries that don't kill people are really, really expensive for all of society. A recent article in PH made that clear.

Since we don't live on islands or in vacuums, other people may legitimately have a basis for dictating your choice of headgear.
Which is exactly why I am so opposed to national health care. I really don't want it to be my business whether you wear a seat belt or a helmet. And I really don't want to care about what you eat either, or how about how much exersize you got this week. I can't imagine a world where it would be my business to be concerned with your health!
And yes, I also require helmets when my kids ride. Personal safety, and the choices we make accordingly, is such a ....well......personal thing

[hellerkm]

I believe that it should be a personal choice for adults at home - in public ( shows , trail riding on public ground ect) it should be mandatory, kids practice what they see ( trust me I know this!!) and if they see adults wearing helmets in almost every situation they will willingly wear them as well.
My girls wear helmets to ride and groom, ( the story about the college student who suffered the traumatic brain injury while bathing her horse prompted this) my youngest who does not ride for more than 10 minutes a day ( she is 2 1/2) wears one while we are at the barn ( a week ago we were taking ponies out of the pasture and she ran ahead and a pony kicked at her head , thanks to her helmet she was fine) a bit over protective???? maybe but as an ER , and NICU nurse I have seen it all and I NEVER want to be in that position.
Adults are capable of making their own choices, and legislating these choices seems wrong, but children ( under 18 ) should be required to wear them at all times!

[merrygoround]

I used to think that we all ought to be able to choose and, being cynical Darwinian, I assumed the smart would go helmeted and live while the stupid would die of head injuries.

No problem, except that brain injuries that don't kill people are really, really expensive for all of society. A recent article in PH made that clear.

Since we don't live on islands or in vacuums, other people may legitimately have a basis for dictating your choice of headgear.

You are so right!

[twobays]

On principle, I'd like to agree that we shouldn't legislate responsibility.

But we pay for the irresponsibility of others in the form of higher health costs. When someone is badly injured in an accident, treatment can cost thousands and those costs are, in some form or other, passed on to other consumers whether that person was insured or not. Frankly I'm not into paying for someone else's stupidity.



I actually agree with your position on the issue, but I have to play devil's advocate here. You talk about riding without a helmet being unfair to the rest of us because it passes on higher health care premiums. Why couldn't you make the exact same arguement about riding in general. Why should someone who takes no risks be forced to pay for my injuries when I fall off riding (with a helmet)?

[twobays]

If you start letting other people dictate things "since we don't live on islands or in vacuums", there is no end to the things that will have to be controlled, right down to the foods we are allowed to eat.



Actually, "what food we are allowed to eat" is an issue that IS highly regulated by the government, in terms of subsidies, taxes, quality standards, etc.

I really have no problem with requiring everyone to wear a helmet, other than the fact that it's unenforceable. Contrary to what the anarchist faction on COTH thinks, you don't have the right to do whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want.

[greysandbays]

Actually, "what food we are allowed to eat" is an issue that IS highly regulated by the government, in terms of subsidies, taxes, quality standards, etc.

I really have no problem with requiring everyone to wear a helmet, other than the fact that it's unenforceable. Contrary to what the anarchist faction on COTH thinks, you don't have the right to do whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want.

There are very few regulations on WHAT we are allowed to eat. There's a lot of stuff about how whatever it is has to be handled, stored, served, sold, priced, etc.

But compared to those, the limits for the purpose of "control you because I have a $$$$$ stake in your treatment" are almost non-existent. About all I can think of are right offhand are some liberal wacko bans on trans-fats in some municipalities.

Are you OK with regulations that say how much sugar, salt, fat, cholesterol, caffeine, and any of a thousand other things you may consume that some "experts" say can be bad for you?

And contrary to what the tyrant faction of COTH thinks, you don't have the right to make other people do whatever you want, whenever you want it, however you want it, just because you think it's right. At least not yet, though you are busy manipulating and conniving to make it so...

[HenryisBlaisin']

I actually agree with your position on the issue, but I have to play devil's advocate here. You talk about riding without a helmet being unfair to the rest of us because it passes on higher health care premiums. Why couldn't you make the exact same arguement about riding in general. Why should someone who takes no risks be forced to pay for my injuries when I fall off riding (with a helmet)?

I guess I feel that there is a difference between someone who takes on a risky activity and takes reasonable precautions to protect his or herself (helmet, vest for galloping cross country, boot with a heel) and still gets hurt than someone who rides in flip flops with no helmet and goes galloping pell-mell across hill and dale.

It's one thing to assume the risk of people's responsible activities (I don't ride motorcycles or skateboards, but have no problem subsidizing those who ride them safely, for example). I DO have a problem paying for people who undertake any of these activities in a stupid, irresponsible manner. Perhaps insurance should stop covering people for injuries incurred while not taking proper precautions (riding a horse/bike/motorcycle helmetless or riding in a car without a seatbelt, for example), then it wouldn't effect our premiums and might make some people think twice. But even then, we'd end up paying for it in some way when hospitals had to raise rates for the rest of us.

[poltroon]

I am sorry she died, and perhaps a helmet would have saved her - but if the horse fell on her, then that's not a given.

[greysandbays]

I guess I feel that there is a difference between someone who takes on a risky activity and takes reasonable precautions to protect his or herself (helmet, vest for galloping cross country, boot with a heel) and still gets hurt than someone who rides in flip flops with no helmet and goes galloping pell-mell across hill and dale.

It's one thing to assume the risk of people's responsible activities (I don't ride motorcycles or skateboards, but have no problem subsidizing those who ride them safely, for example). I DO have a problem paying for people who undertake any of these activities in a stupid, irresponsible manner. Perhaps insurance should stop covering people for injuries incurred while not taking proper precautions (riding a horse/bike/motorcycle helmetless or riding in a car without a seatbelt, for example), then it wouldn't effect our premiums and might make some people think twice. But even then, we'd end up paying for it in some way when hospitals had to raise rates for the rest of us.

Who gets to define "reasonable precautions"? And "stupid, irresponsible manner"?

By definition, the helmet-less rider who rides without incident HAS taken enough "reasonable precautions" to not affect your insurance premiums. And the helmet-wearing rider who ends up with major injuries and incurrs huge medical bills has not.

It is only YOUR OWN OPINION and your desire to force that opinion on others that makes the difference between the two.

[spirithorse22]

Actually, "what food we are allowed to eat" is an issue that IS highly regulated by the government, in terms of subsidies, taxes, quality standards, etc.

I really have no problem with requiring everyone to wear a helmet, other than the fact that it's unenforceable. Contrary to what the anarchist faction on COTH thinks, you don't have the right to do whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want.

Really? Our Civil Liberties are nearly absolute; conduct is subject to laws but just as there can't be 'punitive taxes' there can't be laws simply b/c an individual 'exists' and may 'cost someone more'.

(The federal government does not have the power to regulate Americans simply because they are there. Significantly, in two key cases, United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court specifically rejected the proposition that the commerce clause allowed Congress to regulate noneconomic activities merely because, through a chain of causal effects, they might have an economic impact. These decisions reflect judicial recognition that the commerce clause is not infinitely elastic and that, by enumerating its powers, the framers denied Congress the type of general police power that is freely exercised by the states.)Ed Morrissey


And even if I wanted to use that argument, you can bet I'd care more about the # of people who smoke, drink, use drugs, etc. before worrying about the percentage of riders who go helmetless. Seems like a sensational-and empty- argument to me.

[eventmom]

Who gets to define "reasonable precautions"? And "stupid, irresponsible manner"?

By definition, the helmet-less rider who rides without incident HAS taken enough "reasonable precautions" to not affect your insurance premiums. And the helmet-wearing rider who ends up with major injuries and incurrs huge medical bills has not.

It is only YOUR OWN OPINION and your desire to force that opinion on others that makes the difference between the two.

Grays....Oh my goodness, you took the words right out of my mouth!!! n
Great minds think alike:lol::lol:

[dizzywriter]

the tyrant faction of COTH .

Are you referring to us Communists?

Choo choo

[Paragon]

Hmm. Anyone remember the part about this being a student riding a university polo horse? Ya'll can stick your smoking laws and your motorcycle helmets and your national healthcare wherever you like. Blah blah blah let's all talk about more political garbage that has nothing to do with the thread, because everyone's political opinions are just so terribly important that we all have to be subjected to them when it's not Off-Topic day.

I love you all, really. I'm just staggered by the regularity of the topics and players. It's so predictable.

On-topic? I'm surprised that the university didn't have some sort of rule in place, given that most universities - and riding stables - do. Wonder if they did, and it was ignored?

Anyone know what Harvard's rules are?

[dizzywriter]

the anarchist faction on COTH

Wait a minute. Maybe these are the Communists. You people are using big, important words to smear whatever you are demonizing.

[oldenmare]

Okay - went and reread article linked in the OP.

The student was EXERCISING the horse - this fall did not happen during a match.

There is no mention in article as to the university's requirements of helmets when riding school horses.

So - there may very well (and probably is) a rule regarding helmet use by the school. I haven't seen anything definitive posted on this thread. Thus, it is wrong to assume that the university did not have a policy in place re: safety equipment requirements.

Point being - she may have been riding helmetless against university policy - which is a crying shame given the outcome - but that would not be the university's responsibility but rather, personal responsibility.

Now, whether the university enforced the rule is yet another discussion - but that gets into assumptions yet again.

[Ghazzu]

Hmm. Anyone remember the part about this being a student riding a university polo horse? Ya'll can stick your smoking laws and your motorcycle helmets and your national healthcare wherever you like. Blah blah blah let's all talk about more political garbage that has nothing to do with the thread, because everyone's political opinions are just so terribly important that we all have to be subjected to them when it's not Off-Topic day.

I love you all, really. I'm just staggered by the regularity of the topics and players. It's so predictable.

On-topic? I'm surprised that the university didn't have some sort of rule in place, given that most universities - and riding stables - do. Wonder if they did, and it was ignored?

Anyone know what Harvard's rules are?

I don't believe Harvard owns either the horses or the stable.

ETA: apparently the horses do belong to the university's polo club.

[dizzywriter]

OM, why are you being reasonable? That violates just about everything on the subject of helmets.

Ok, I can't help but push a trainwreck.

Helmets are awful because they cause helmet hair and we can't feel the brisk winds of freedom in our hair.

Helmets are sacred because they protect all of us hard working, taxpaying, premium paying good people from the stupidity of people who care more about their hair than they care about us.

OR, people who demand that we wear helmets are crypto Big Brothers who also want to take our guns. I love shooting. I shot better than my bodyguard did when I had one (a bodyguard, not a gun, and that's actually true).

Subjects involving helmets on COTH are cause for popcorn and margaritas.

Anyone having an opinion about helmets other than my own is a Nazi-Fascist-Anarcho-Libero-Enviro-Conservato-FOODIE. You probably kill meat, gather non-bruised veggies and make creme brulee with soy milk. All of that is WRONG. The thing to do is buy meat, kill veggies and eat as much creme brulee as you can.

Not to denigrate the death of the person on in the OP, or the loss her family is suffering, but the way this thread is going, that's happening anyway.

Oh, and yes. I wear a helmet anywhere around a horse, including on the ground. But with my shooting skills, I'd love to take out anyone on a cell phone when they are driving. Sober drunks as far as I"'m concerned.

Not too sorry for the hijack. Any helmet thread is asking for it.

[oldenmare]

I always believe in eating creme brulee at any opportunity to do so!

[oldenmare]

And to further confuse the CSI team when they arrive at this trainwreck:

1 of my riding horses is barefoot.

1 of my riding horses is shod (all four feet).

Popcorn in microwave and appletini shaken, not stirred.

[Tiffani B]

Helmets are required to play football and hockey, even in college. If we're talking school-sanctioned sports, this really isn't much different.

Legislating personal responsibility? Nah. Do what you want at home. But for scholastic or collegiate sports teams, there are guidelines specifying safety equipment. It's just part of school and league rules.

Agreed. I'm sure the guys playing football on Sunday afternoon in the park aren't ever going to be required by law to wear a helmet, even though when they play in a sanctioned league they are required (by law, I'm not sure, but the organization requires it).

Nothing wrong with individual riding programs, schools, competitions, etc requiring helmets, but the government should stay out of it.

Riding a bike on the street is a different thing entirely - the rider is on government-owned property so they have the right to set down the laws pertaining to activities that occur on their streets. If they're riding in their back yard... whatever.

[dizzywriter]

Gosh, another rational person with actual arguments about helmets. This cannot be tolerated. All helmet discussions must be screaming matches.

[lesson junkie]

I thought the question was who should make the rule, not whether or not there should be a rule in the first place. Maybe the person responsible for cleaning up the resulting mess should get to make the rule. How far should the rule go? Depends on how much mess you can stand to clean up.

[WNT]

When I was in college, I attended a university that had a very, very Western-based program. When the program expanded to include English, the ONLY time riders were absolutely required to wear a helmet was while jumping. There was a second part of the liability release that specifically waived the school's liability if the signing student did not want to wear a helmet and got hurt. At least the school kept it's butt covered in the event of something untoward happening.

[Xanthoria]

Which is exactly why I am so opposed to national health care. I really don't want it to be my business whether you wear a seat belt or a helmet. And I really don't want to care about what you eat either, or how about how much exersize you got this week. I can't imagine a world where it would be my business to be concerned with your health!

Here in the USA society pays if people need very expensive care. So it really is already our business - all of us - if people choose not to protect their heads.

I was just reading a piece in the NYT about fertility treatments for couples. One woman's babies (paid for mostly by insurance) impacted her company's bottom line:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/health/11fertility.html


In March, the United States Chamber of Commerce and the March of Dimes held a luncheon in Washington to discuss preterm babies. “The human costs are staggering,” Dr. Steven K. Galson, then the acting surgeon general, told the group. “The medical costs are staggering. That’s why we’re here.”

“Today you’re going to hear that preterm birth is not just a significant public health issue,” Dr. Galson said, “but that it also impacts businesses and employer health plans.”

The hospitalization and doctor’s care for Ms. Hare and her son exceeded $1 million. Most of that, about $750,000 to $800,000, was for Carter. The bill was picked up by the self-funded health plan of the Trammell Crow Company, the Dallas real estate investment company where Ms. Hare worked.

“The following quarter during the earnings release, somebody asked why there was a sharp increase in medical costs,” Ms. Hare said. No one identified her, but Ms. Hare knew that her family had contributed heavily.


Now, think about a TBI, and how much they can cost. Sometimes a lot more than a million dollars. According to http://www.neurologychannel.com/tbi/index.shtml


The cost of traumatic brain injuries in the United States is estimated at $48.3 billion annually: $31.7 billion in hospitalization costs and another $16.6 billion in costs associated with fatalities.

The CDC estimates the total cost of acute care and rehabilitation for TBI victims in the United States is $9 billion to $10 billion per year, not including indirect costs to families and society (e.g., lost earnings, work time, and productivity for family members, caregivers, and employers, or the costs associated with providing social services).

It is estimated that over a lifetime, it can cost between $600,000 and $1,875,000 to care for a survivor of severe TBI.


Now think about the economy. And think about what would happen to your coworkers if your TBI meant your company had to either reduce coverage, or even close their doors forever. Or if your family couldn't afford the difference between insurance and the rest of the hospital bill. Or the after care, or the nurses to look after you.

Now can you see how a person's choice not to wear a helmet might impact other people? Their very livelihoods? Their jobs, their time.

That is just one small part of why not wearing a simple, cheap, easily available helmet is selfish.

[sisu27]

Grays....Oh my goodness, you took the words right out of my mouth!!! n
Great minds think alike:lol::lol:

Why so self deprecating eventmom?

What? Legislate the wearing of helmets? The horror! What next? Big brother? Is that you? Translation to Newspeak coming right up!

ETA Dizzywriter, you stole my funny and did a better job if it.

[greysandbays]

Here in the USA society pays if people need very expensive care. So it really is already our business - all of us - if people choose not to protect their heads.

[snip]

Now think about the economy. And think about what would happen to your coworkers if your TBI meant your company had to either reduce coverage, or even close their doors forever. Or if your family couldn't afford the difference between insurance and the rest of the hospital bill. Or the after care, or the nurses to look after you.

Now can you see how a person's choice not to wear a helmet might impact other people? Their very livelihoods? Their jobs, their time.

That is just one small part of why not wearing a simple, cheap, easily available helmet is selfish.

I suspect the multitude of smaller, more frequent injuries horse people get is a bigger drain on the economy than the relatively few TBI scenarios -- the broken wrists, the bad knees, the injured backs, etc, etc, etc. And that isn't even getting to all the lost production time that results from horse people leaving early to go ride, taking time off to fart around with vets and farriers, and taking an extra day off to get a three-day weekend for a show.

NOW can YOU see how a person's choice to be involved with horses at all might impact other people? Their very livelihoods? Their jobs, their time?

If you want to start talking "selfish", simply being involved with horses might be a good place to start.

[lorilu]

Florida has an "under 16" rule coming on line next year.

I wholeheartedly support it.

I also support helmet laws for all competitions.

As I support helmet laws for motorcycles, too.

I do not want to pay for your "personal choice". when you get injured. Whether or not you have insurance, either I pay thru taxes for your ER visit, or my insurance premiums go up .

And yes, I support the Health Insurance reforms, including the "must have some" provisions.

Here in FLa, my homeowners ins is higher because we "have to keep the rates for the waterfront homes down" theory.
I don't agree with that, either.

Basicly, I do not want to pay for your choice.

L

[Xanthoria]

I suspect the multitude of smaller, more frequent injuries horse people get is a bigger drain on the economy than the relatively few TBI scenarios -- the broken wrists, the bad knees, the injured backs, etc, etc, etc. And that isn't even getting to all the lost production time that results from horse people leaving early to go ride, taking time off to fart around with vets and farriers, and taking an extra day off to get a three-day weekend for a show.

NOW can YOU see how a person's choice to be involved with horses at all might impact other people? Their very livelihoods? Their jobs, their time?

If you want to start talking "selfish", simply being involved with horses might be a good place to start.

The theory that horse riders getting millions of non life threatening injuries that may or may not add up to the same cost as a few TBIs may or may not hold water, but it seems like you're saying that since we can't reduce all injuries without compromising our freedom, we shouldn't regulate any of them?

As far as lost time at work due to people meeting the shoer or vet, most jobs provide time off for this as part of your vacation or sick time. You can use it for any damn thing you like - horses don't fall into a special category of time off that is free and without consequences to your PTO balance. (more's the shame!) Jobs are required to give sick or vacation pay so that has no additional impact whatsoever on the company's bottom line, unlike a massively expensive TBI that could easily increase insurance rates for the company.

At any rate, we can't prevent all accidents but I don't think it's unreasonable to try and prevent the ones that aside from causing death or disablement, usually also cause financial hardship for the victim, family and sometimes workplaces of the victims.

A broken wrist isn't gonna be the end of many people's livelihood. A broken head usually is.

[fooler]

...
As far as lost time at work due to people meeting the shoer or vet, most jobs provide time off for this as part of your vacation or sick time. You can use it for any damn thing you like - horses don't fall into a special category of time off that is free and without consequences to your PTO balance. (more's the shame!) Jobs are required to give sick or vacation pay so that has no additional impact whatsoever on the company's bottom line, unlike a massively expensive TBI that could easily increase insurance rates for the company.

At any rate, we can't prevent all accidents but I don't think it's unreasonable to try and prevent the ones that aside from causing death or disablement, usually also cause financial hardship for the victim, family and sometimes workplaces of the victims.

A broken wrist isn't gonna be the end of many people's livelihood. A broken head usually is.

Depends on your employer, type of business and geographic location. I know several multi-national companies that allow all employees two weeks of vacation - 1 being July 4th week and 1 being Christmas week. That applys to all employees at all plants and offices.

Also some employers make it 'difficult' for you to take time off for child, elder and animal care. While they can not 'ding' you they can forget your name when opportunities are presented and raises may be less as 'you have so many distractions'.

TBI's are devastating, no question. However anyone whose job requires manual dexterity such as electronics, carpenters, mechanics, data entry, surgeon (MD or VDM) could definitely lose their livelihood. Some actors and athletes are not allowed to 'partake in risky actions' such as riding motorcycles & horses, para-gliding and jumping out of planes and so on. Many, including insurance companies, consider horse back riding of any discipline to be a dangerous activity.

We know the impact of this BB, resulting in an article in the NYT and ESPN show about Eventing injuries and fatalities. We should wisely and calmly discuss this issue.

[Xanthoria]

I think the difference between a broken wrist or a TBI is that wrists usually heal to normal function. Heads often do not.

As far as companies that only allow certain prescribed dates off work, or otherwise make it difficult for you to lead a normal life, those companies are in the minority, and one does have the choice to work there or not.

No doubt about it - in this economy it may not seem like *much* choice, but it is a choice. And the more people that demand fairer working conditions, the more likely it is to happen.

[Arbitrary]

I used to think that we all ought to be able to choose and, being cynical Darwinian, I assumed the smart would go helmeted and live while the stupid would die of head injuries.

No problem, except that brain injuries that don't kill people are really, really expensive for all of society. A recent article in PH made that clear.

Since we don't live on islands or in vacuums, other people may legitimately have a basis for dictating your choice of headgear.

I too have always thought of helmet-wearing (or not) as natural selection for horsepeople and have very little sympathy for adults who receive injuries that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet. Helmets *should* be required for children - IMO analogous to car seats.

Agree about the cost of TBIs to the commons.

Insurance companies will be the ultimate decisionmakers and driving force for helmet requirements, I suspect. Private industry driving it rather than the gubmint ought to make the right wingers happy!

[catknsn]

On principle, I'd like to agree that we shouldn't legislate responsibility.

But we pay for the irresponsibility of others in the form of higher health costs. When someone is badly injured in an accident, treatment can cost thousands and those costs are, in some form or other, passed on to other consumers whether that person was insured or not. Frankly I'm not into paying for someone else's stupidity.

But using that logic, you can also argue that we should not allow anyone to:

-drink alcohol
-eat unhealthy foods
-date anyone with a criminal record
-get pregnant if they're high risk for some reason
-engage in perilous sports like...oh crap now we've made riding illegal. After all, few people get bucked off the couch.

The logic just doesn't hold up. People do stupid stuff all the time that results in injuries or avoidable health conditions that everybody pays for one way or the other. Many people would argue that sitting on a 1,000 lb. animal with a mind of its own is inherently stupid.

I believe in helmet rules for the under 18 crowd (enforced by parents and private property owners, not government) but once you're 18, it's your right to do a wide variety of stupid and possibly life-threatening stuff. It's called "freedom" and most people don't want to limit it unnecessarily.

[Guilherme]

I believe in helmet rules for the under 18 crowd (enforced by parents and private property owners, not government) but once you're 18, it's your right to do a wide variety of stupid and possibly life-threatening stuff. It's called "freedom" and most people don't want to limit it unnecessarily.

I agree that freedom should not be unnecessarily limited. But in deciding "necessity" we must realize that "freedom" does not live in a vaccuum. It lives in a context. The context in 1787 was very different than our context of 2009. This does not at all mean that any and all government interferance is limitless; it does mean we look at the context of what we are discussing and make intelligent choices (vice just allowing our knees to jerk, be it the Left Knee or the Right Knee).

G.

[sidepasser]

Now who in their right mind would want to jump out of a perfectly good airplane? lol...me I have fears of being tossed out of a failing airplane..

As far as helmets go - I believe children under the age of 18 should be required to wear one. Adults - do whatever suits you.

We already have seatbelt laws, hands-free phone laws, no open containers (whether driving or not) in cars, and a million other laws to keep us safe.

I've fell off my horse or been thrown far more times than I've had wrecks in cars..gotten hurt a lot worse too. I do wear a helmet - my choice. I could argue that since I've only been in one car wreck that seatbelts are silly..but I go along with the law - who knows one day I might wish I had three or four seatbelts on instead of just the one. Same with a helmet. Might never have another fall..but better to have a helmet and not need it than need it and not have it.

[greysandbays]

We already have seatbelt laws, hands-free phone laws, no open containers (whether driving or not) in cars, and a million other laws to keep us safe.


Many of those laws are not to keep US safe -- they are to keep us from hurting other people. Laws that protect people from themselves are nanny-statish and anti-liberty -- and anti-choice.

As I read on a political forum the other day, most people would eagerly give up all their liberties and freedoms in order to control their neighbor. I don't have much of a problem with people crapping away their own liberties and freedoms without so much as a fare-thee-well -- but I have some major quibbles with them playing so fast and loose with liberties and freedom of other people. And I've got a real problem with people who would line up fifty deep to cheer the right of a woman to kill her unborn child (and will even pitch in their tax dollars/insurance premiums to contribute to the effort), then turn right around and say she can't choose whether or not to wear a helmet because OMG, she might cost the taxpayers/insurance premium payers some $$$$$ if she gets a TBI.

[Petstorejunkie]

In most states it's the law for motorcyclists to wear helmets, and those big burly men arent out there on soap boxes shouting for it to be amended. I would have no problem with it being a state to state law requiring equestrians to wear helmets. dont know who would enforce it other that the BO's that could be fined...

[greysandbays]

I think you might be misinformed about it being the law in most states for motorcyclists to wear helmets. I know for a fact that my state only requires them on minors.

As I understand it, "those big burly men" kicked up quite a stink about not wanting somebody (especially "The Goverment") TELLING THEM they had to wear helmets -- and for the most part, have gotten their way.

When I worked at the BP store, the boss was a big motorcycle nut, and because of that, drew in lot of the area motorcycle custom. There'd be big packs of 40-50 riders coming through fairly often, and maybe half of them at the most would be wearing helmets.

[arabhorse2]

Speaking of motorcycle helmet laws, here's a website that indicates which states require them at all times, which only require them on younger than 18 y/o, and which don't require any at all:

http://www.usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html

Concerning the horseback helmet law, I think anyone under 18 should be required to wear one. Once you're at the age of majority, it's your business whether or not to protect your punkin head.

I wear one every ride, but my it's not my place to impose my own set of safety rules on someone else.

[*Teddy*]

I can't comment on the legislation because in canada it is the LAW to wear helmets if under 18. Any riding school that even if your a adult requires you to wear a helmet, so generally I see few people who ride without and those people are usually riding their own horses.

[Xanthoria]

I think you might be misinformed about it being the law in most states for motorcyclists to wear helmets. I know for a fact that my state only requires them on minors.

As I understand it, "those big burly men" kicked up quite a stink about not wanting somebody (especially "The Goverment") TELLING THEM they had to wear helmets -- and for the most part, have gotten their way.

Yeah - same stink over people being forced to wear seatbelts way back when. And IIRC the juniors had quite a fit when they initially were forced to wear helmets to compete here.

The times they are a-changing: enforced helmet wearing is coming down the pipeline whether people like it or not.

[greysandbays]

The times they are a-changing: enforced helmet wearing is coming down the pipeline whether people like it or not.

Like I said earlier: People will eagerly give up all of their liberties and freedoms in order to be able to control their neighbors.

America is no longer either the home of the free or the home of the brave. We're becoming a bunch of control freaks with no guts. I'm ashamed of us and relieved that I probably will not live long enough to see the worst of it come to pass.

[Thomas_1]

In the UK there's legislation to enforce the wearing of helmets by young riders when riding on public roads.

Then the terms of licence for Riding Centres mean that proprietors are responsible for ensuring customers wear hats.

At shows it's covered by show rules who also say which ISN standard must be worn.

If you have your own horse and ride on your own land then it's up to the rider.

It tends to be the exception to see a rider without a helmet here because rider education has been pretty effective.

[Ghazzu]

Yeah - same stink over people being forced to wear seatbelts way back when..


I wear a seatbelt, but it irritates the snot out of me that the state passed a freaking law *requiring* it.

[Xanthoria]

:lol: It's not the 1700s anymore. The USA is no longer a land fighting to be it's own. It's transitioning into better living standards, better healthcare, and times of peace.

Look at Europe - so far countries there have achieved that and nobody sits around bewailing their longer vacations, better health systems, higher standard of living, much lower infant mortality, fewer gun deaths and so on.

Anyway, I don't consider it a huge liberty to be "allowed" to risk becoming paraplegic by not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt! :lol: I want to protect my head and the lives of my family.

I think it's a common US sentiment to dislike what the government says though - even if it's for your own good.

[Thomas_1]

^ Hey we dislike what the government says..... We're just a terribly polite and compliant bunch though ;)

[Xanthoria]

Thomas I'm from the UK - I get the feeling having spent about 1/2 my life in the US and 1/2 in the UK that in the US people feel the government is big, corrupt, faceless and out to get them: they must protect themselves from it.

In the UK people feel that they elected those idiots and have no problem ditching them if they fail to represent them properly. They are held accountable for their failures. The government serves the people.

[Thomas_1]

That's a pretty good summary of political diversity ;)

I also think there's an HUGE difference between being a social democracy and just being democratic.

Here we've not such a cultural opposition and intrinsic dislike of a rule or law to protect the majority

[Xanthoria]

exactly!

[jvanrens]

I can't comment on the legislation because in canada it is the LAW to wear helmets if under 18. Any riding school that even if your a adult requires you to wear a helmet, so generally I see few people who ride without and those people are usually riding their own horses.

Seriously? :confused: Law enforcement would have a field day at any western show on any given weekend. Saw a bunch this summer at the shows I was at.

[greysandbays]

Look at Europe...

Europe is a civilization in decline, emulating much of the sloth, corruption, and decadence that preceded the fall of the Roman Empire.

Europe is on its way to becoming Eurabia and at least part of Europe will be under Sharia Law within our lifetimes.

[Paragon]

Europe is a civilization in decline, emulating much of the sloth, corruption, and decadence that preceded the fall of the Roman Empire.

Europe is on its way to becoming Eurabia and at least part of Europe will be under Sharia Law within our lifetimes.

Oh, you're totally right. Excepting the part where you're not.

I love the smell of hyperbole in the morning. ... No, wait. That's manure. My mistake.

[Moderator 1]

Please avoid the general political commentary and keep the thread more tightly focused on the topic.

Thanks!
Mod 1

[*Teddy*]

Seriously? :confused: Law enforcement would have a field day at any western show on any given weekend. Saw a bunch this summer at the shows I was at.


I know the law was passed but I dont actually think they are going to monitor helmet use of minors at horseshows anytime soon unless there is a complaint or accident. The rest is the decision of whoever is paying the insurance.

I know its not like pony club where judges/staff physically check your helmet to see if its well fitted and certified at sanctioned events(not a bad idea).

Then again the police are too busy up here with speeding traps and seatbelt checks( and thats 100$ a nonwearing seatbelt...pricey and dangerous) to go to the shows and check junior's helmets.