Overturning USEF Helmet Rule Change?? [Archive]

Jumphigh83

Jan. 19, 2005, 06:37 AM

Let me lead by saying I wear an approved helmet and have no problem doing so...BUT...our freedoms are erroding bit by bit..I cant talk on my cell phone and drive but I cAN have a cup of coffee, out on make up, read the paper, adjust the Radio, change the CD,talk on the CB, etc etc, all at the same time!! And it isnt the TALKING on the cell phone that is the trouble it is the DIALING which you can and have to do to use the headsets...and what about my constitutional right to fly through my windsheild if I want to??? No that's a LAW too...Hey what about me being an "adult" and choosing for myself? Or riding a motorcycle with out a helmet? We live in a litigious society and we attempt to make laws to dictate common sense (impossible)...Maybe Shakespeare was right...first, we kill all the lawyers....sorry Elizabeth et al....ok maybe just the personal injury lawyers that can find McDOnalds guilty for making hot coffee which the village idiot pours into her crotch and sues....and wins!

Bumpkin

Jan. 19, 2005, 06:42 AM

After the whole Patey Incident with Anyplace Farm, why would anyone care what happens to the Patey Lady?
She could care less what happens to her clients.

findeight

Jan. 19, 2005, 06:44 AM

This is silly.
Kind of like seat belts.

Nobody likes being told what to do but the decision to pass up something proven to save serious and debilitating injuries does not only effect the person suffering the injury.
It effects the rescue and medical teams that have to work on them.
It effects the families who have to pay for all the uncovered expenses and make up for lost wages.
It effects the employer and coworkers who have to scramble to cover the work and can cost the injured their job.

Accidents happen. But when the results are so much more serious then they would have been if a safety device was used???
And you can say "It's MY choice" but it really isn't all about you when you drag all these others into your preventable situation.

Just try to think about it in those terms.

Lucassb

Jan. 19, 2005, 06:51 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by horsepop:
I would like to know if the Patey manufacturers are going to work on an approved helmet with a stylish look that the adults would embrace and allow the transition to be less painful for some. After all what's wrong with going for safety and looks? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's nothing wrong with going for safety and looks, but Patey is a custom manufacturer, and therefore the helmets they offer can not be approved.

Contrary to popular opinion, this does not speak to the relative safety of the Patey helmets but recognizes that, as a custom item, there is no way for them to go through the testing protocol. (Each helmet is made individually and would therefore have to be tested separately in order for them to be approved.)

The ASTM and SEI processes are designed to test "representative" helmets from commercial producers, which assumes that each helmet is within a small deviation from the submitted specification. Thus, they are able to "test one and certify many," so to speak.

I truly don't think it is only the style that drives some of us to get the Pateys. There are those who are simply not able to get a good and relatively comfortable fit from a standard, off the shelf (approved) helmet. The Patey's custom design fits like a glove and is much more comfortable. I don't know if it offers more or less protection than an approved (and neither does anyone else because of the testing issue) but I chose one because I know that to work as designed, a helmet must fit properly.

The folks you see riding around in approveds with the chin strap dangling etc are not wearing them as they were intended to be used (and as they were tested) and so are not guaranteed of the protection outlined in the standard. Whether that is safer than a properly fitted non-approved helmet is anyone's guess.

FWIW, I am in favor of the rule that was passed because it will help the sport from a liability perspective. It may also encourage helmet manufacturers to improve their offerings due to a larger potential market. All good things.

Mai Tai

Jan. 19, 2005, 06:57 AM

Bumpkin - what Patey Incident at Anyplace Farm?

Janet

Jan. 19, 2005, 06:57 AM

As I understand it, it is impossible to be "custom" and "approved" at the same time.

The manufacturers have to submit an instance of each style/size for (destructive) testing. The helmets are then approved on the basis that they are EXACTLY the same as the one that passed the test.

With a custom made helmet, it ISN'T exactly the same as the one that passed the test, and therefore can't be stamped "approved".

I know it is somewhat counter intuitive, but that is the nature of "standards" and "testing".

Considering that the new rule was passed UNANIMOUSLY, I think it would be dificult to get it overturned without similarly convincing statistics telling a different story.

findeight

Jan. 19, 2005, 07:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Mai Tai:
Bumpkin - what Patey Incident at Anyplace Farm? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Bump is referring to that Off Course thread of a few months back.

The Patey lady wasn't exactly a customer service gem and there is an audio snippet that is really entertaining.
I'd had a less then satisfying brush with her too over some fit problems with my "custom" Patey.

You can search it to find the thread or maybe somebody can post a link.

Ketch

Jan. 19, 2005, 07:08 AM

From a legal standpoint, I don't understand why the "assumption of the risk" doctrine would not absolve show managers and the like of any liability surrounding an accident or fall. Any legal eagles care to comment?

hjchik

Jan. 19, 2005, 07:13 AM

I don't think horsepop was saying that patey should make custom approved, we all know that wouldn't work. But if they could help with the stylistic aspect of the helmets that would be nice.

And BTW this thread wasn't a customer service thread about Margie. Personally I haven't had any troubles with her she has been more than helpful.

findeight

Jan. 19, 2005, 07:51 AM

The assumption of risk may mitigate damages but will NOT stop you from getting sued.

Shows are in a tough enough spot with insurance costs soaring...and Lord help you if you are hosting an in barn show your insurance doesn't know about and somebody suffers a debilitating injury http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

khobstetter

Jan. 19, 2005, 07:57 AM

Jump hi.....Pease know I am NOT trying to start a train ride to wreckdom here...BUT
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> our freedoms are erroding bit by bit <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Riding and showing is not a "right"..we chose to go to USEF shows..that is our choice. Just about everything comes with Rules and Regulations and this organization is not different.

Whether you are SHOWING horses, rowing boats, flying down hill in a bicycle competition or running the Boston Marathon there are rules and regs.

We can chose to not enter these competitions...THEY can chose the rules and regs that work for their sport.

If you have followed my posts along the lines of "approved" helmets you will know I have ABSOLUTELY NOT been a supporter of the requirement. HOWEVER, I was at the Conventions in Louisville and Tucson and I must tell you that the presentation, details, discussions and "visual aids" has changed my stance.

I STILL do not think we have good helmets out there for the masses..yes there are great helmets but not a varity enough to fit all of us and we will all be now required to wear them.

SO I am on the bandwagon as it trudges along this road and I will make sure all my adult riders start NOW to find a helmet that fits...I will support USEF in their endeavor to provide safe rules for our sport.

Do I always agree...nope....but I will support them.

OneonOne

Jan. 19, 2005, 07:58 AM

Here is The Patey Saga. (http://chronicleforums.com/groupee/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=6656094911&f=5566064631&m=331203593&p=1)

Bumpkin

Jan. 19, 2005, 07:58 AM

http://chronicleforums.com/groupee/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=6656094911&f=5566064631&m=331203593&p=1

Patey Incident.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA

Jan. 19, 2005, 08:08 AM

Two questions. My understanding is the USEF is essentially a private club. YOu have to pay to belong, and show. As such, they can dictate the rules which we have to follow in order to belong, am I wrong? We have the choice not to belong.

Secondly, Betsy from what I read is not NY one of the states that mandate riders wearing helmets on horseback? Public or private facilitites. The reason I ask, does the state mandate an ASTM-SEI helmet to be worn?

Bumpkin

Jan. 19, 2005, 08:25 AM

So Radiotalk, does that mean all horse shows? I mean it sounds like it does.

Glimmerglass

Jan. 19, 2005, 08:43 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by radio talk:
.. from what I read is not NY one of the states that mandate riders wearing helmets on horseback? Public or private facilitites. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When was this? To my knowledge nothing like this has ever been passed and certainly could never be enforced on private land. That would be well stepping over the boundaries of what any government should be trying to enforce.

Trust me the QH folks alone would run good old George Pataki out of Albany in 20 minutes if that was so http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Keep in mind that several States have repealed the mandate of having to wear a motorcycle helmet while riding a motorcycle on public roads. (NY is not one of them) Unlike a horse at a USEF show - meaning in a relatively controlled evironment - that isn't as inherently dangerous as a race bike that any yahoo kid can buy easily can touch 160 mph or 0-60 in under 5 seconds. Why such a reversal of "common sense" when helmet laws were in all 50 states in 1967? It just could be that sticky little thing we call civil liberties.

My word we are NOT talking about a no-helmet rule in this case, but rather mandating use of "certified" (ASTM, as cited, is done by sampling) vs. the scant few customized helmets out there which likely afford almost the same protection if not more. No one is advocating that baseball caps fall under the latter that I can tell. I'd love to see data that shows that anyone wearing a Patey helmet, for example, died or received head trauma that could've been prevented if ASTM/SEI certified. Me thinks if any such credible cases did exist well then guess what - they [the manufacturer] would've been sued for sure.

It's amazing the silly things people on these boards get so wrapped around the axel on!

Lucassb

Jan. 19, 2005, 08:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by radio talk:
Two questions. My understanding is the USEF is essentially a private club. YOu have to pay to belong, and show. As such, they can dictate the rules which we have to follow in order to belong, am I wrong? We have the choice not to belong.

Secondly, Betsy from what I read is not NY one of the states that mandate riders wearing helmets on horseback? Public or private facilitites. The reason I ask, does the state mandate an ASTM-SEI helmet to be worn? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the University of Texas (Austin) equine law site:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>New York enacted a statute, signed into law on September 7, 1999 and going into effect on January 5, 2000, requiring the wearing of approved helmets by riders under 14 years of age and requiring horse providers to provide approved helmets to all riders under 14 and to all beginning riders. The City of Plantation, Florida enacted a municipal ordinance that became effective April 1, 1999 that contains similar requirements for riders under the age of 16. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are several interesting questions to consider with respect to implementing helmet rules. For example, it is possible to compete in USEF-rated horseshows without actually being a member of the USEF itself (by paying a non-member fee.) However, I believe that by entering, the non-member exhibitor agrees to be bound by all the rules and regs. of the association. Whether this offers any protection to the horseshow itself is a question for the lawyers... I would think it does. Most entry forms do have general liability release language included.

Another interesting aspect is that the USEF is the national governing body for the sport of equestrian, not just an association that one can join or not.

As the NGB for the sport, the USEF is mandated to "provide and coordinate technical information on physical training, equipment design, coaching, and performance analysis; and to encourage and support research, development, and dissemination of information in the areas of sports medicine and sports safety."

I would guess that requiring approved helmets falls into a few of the categories noted above.

pinkhorse

Jan. 19, 2005, 09:48 AM

You know, we've been over this a million times. Sure, anyone has the right to commit suicide however they please. Most of us have a grip on lessening the risks to our lives. Some of us have people around us who love us enough to help us to learn how to minimize the risks to our lives. Someone needs to look out for the poor souls, like some on this board and in the horse work, who seem to have neither.

Countryhawk

Jan. 19, 2005, 10:04 AM

The problem with allowing someone to 'commit suicide' by not wearing a helmet, is that unfortunately some live, and the public ends up paying for the medical costs. If it were as easy as you are an adult, and choose not to wear a helmet so be it, but don't expect someone else to pay for your medical care. Our society won't let you go without trying to save you.

Hucklebug

Jan. 19, 2005, 10:09 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Countryhawk:
The problem with allowing someone to 'commit suicide' by not wearing a helmet, is that unfortunately some live, and the public ends up paying for the medical costs. If it were as easy as you are an adult, and choose not to wear a helmet so be it, but don't expect someone else to pay for your medical care. Our society won't let you go without trying to save you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why I pay taxes and pay a boatload for medical insurance. Public ends up paying the medical costs of those on medicaid too...let's just round up all the medicaid recipients who are useless to society anyway and "off" them so we don't have to pay their medical benefits anymore.

smrobb

Jan. 19, 2005, 12:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by horsepop:
I don't have contact information for the Patey Lady but I think I have some advice for her. Either come up with an approved helmet or shutdown your booth at the shows. I would think that show managers would not want someone at their shows after 12/01/05 promotoing illegal helmets. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm sorry (well actually, I'm not), but that is a really moronic thing to say. Illegal helmets? You sound like a 2nd grade evangelical christian school teacher spouting off about gay people at some cocktail party.

I'm no great fan of Margie (and in fact went all the way to England to get a hat instead of buying one through her), but the high and mighty attitude is seriously irritating. It would probably be more productive for you to not be an asshat.

ABBA

Jan. 19, 2005, 12:47 PM

I think there should be give and take. If they are going to make us wear approved helmets, then ace should be legalized http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Boston Chicken

Jan. 19, 2005, 12:54 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by smrobb:
It would probably be more productive for you to not be an asshat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

blubays

Jan. 19, 2005, 04:02 PM

Ok, I admit that I own a Patey. It is a beauty. Too bad it lives in my closet. Someone asked the question about why the Pateys (Regal Crown in the US) are not approved. They can not be approved simply because they WILL NOT pass the tests for protection from impact and the ability to stop objects from penatrating through the helmet into a head. Has nothing to do with being a custom. Just does not pass industry standards for protecting a persons head.

Snowbird

Jan. 19, 2005, 04:05 PM

Well I have to agree I am for a zero tolerance for drugging horses who do not have the opportunity to say no please don't! Pain is a warning that something is a miss and to mask it is bad judgment.

The helmet needs to have certain elements to be safer. A label about pounds of impact does not impress me because I have never seen anyone fall and land on the top of their head.

HiJumpGrrl

Jan. 19, 2005, 04:08 PM

findeight, speaking as a healthcare provider, all i have to say is thank you for making those very very valid points.

CBoylen

Jan. 19, 2005, 04:10 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by horsepop:
I don't have contact information for the Patey Lady but I think I have some advice for her. Either come up with an approved helmet or shutdown your booth at the shows. I would think that show managers would not want someone at their shows after 12/01/05 promotoing illegal helmets. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not illegal by any stretch of the imagination. People will still be able to hack, ride around, and ride at home in whatever helmet they choose or none at all.
And show managers choose their vendors by virtue of their paid vendor's fee, not by whether or not they endorse their products.

teal tea

Jan. 19, 2005, 05:25 PM

Wow, I can't believe so many people are obsessed w/ the look of a helmet rather than it's use. If helmets are so "ugly" why wear a hat that is basically an ornament and really not that much different in looks than one that will work? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif But I'm not going on a rampage. I learned a long time ago, that people will do whatever they want, whatever the consequences. This whole "looks" thing really just flabbergasts me.

bumknees

Jan. 19, 2005, 07:06 PM

I own a helmet but will probably only wear it when my dh is around. It is uncomfortable, heavy, ugly (it is not a GPA).
I had just turned 18 when the original rule went into effect ( jan 1983) and jumped for joy that I didnt have to wear one.
I guess if the USEF insists on playing big brother I guess i can do without joining or showing in any of their shows.
have enough big Brother with the goverment i do not need it with my passion/hobby/what ever you wish to classify it.
mmmm What next.... body armor?
Oh as for people allowed to choose to commit sucide is not exatcally true though it is the only felony if you do it properly you can do infront of a police officer... and not be charaged but you have to do it properly...

oxerdown

Jan. 19, 2005, 07:17 PM

Sounds like a good choice. It is not a requirement that you show at USEF shows. You do have a choice. You do not have to participate at shows that hold safety in such importance. You may want to try schooling shows with no rules or Regs.

I personally am rather impressed that AHSA or USEF or whatever is concerned enough that they actually spend time to research what best protects it's competitor's. Do you think US Bike or US Ski just lets any old helmet be used? Do you think that fashion is really a good reason to not utilize new technology? What about seat belts? What about energy absorbing bumpers in autos. What about football helmets. Did they not used to be open faced with no absorbing properties? Now look at them.

Comments like those above either indicate your stupidity or maybe you are just spoiled.

S4zeus

Jan. 19, 2005, 07:18 PM

Does anyone have a website for these Patey Hunt Caps? I would like to see what they look like for $650.

bumknees

Jan. 20, 2005, 02:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by oxerdown:
Sounds like a good choice. It is not a requirement that you show at USEF shows. You do have a choice. You do not have to participate at shows that hold safety in such importance. You may want to try schooling shows with no rules or Regs.

I personally am rather impressed that AHSA or USEF or whatever is concerned enough that they actually spend time to research what best protects it's competitor's. Do you think US Bike or US Ski just lets any old helmet be used? Do you think that fashion is really a good reason to not utilize new technology? What about seat belts? What about energy absorbing bumpers in autos. What about football helmets. Did they not used to be open faced with no absorbing properties? Now look at them.

Comments like those above either indicate your stupidity or maybe you are just spoiled. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trust me I am neither stupid nor spolied... however those who wish to impose their will 'for my health and safety' should be willing to step up and pay for them. Right now I am paying for both.
It dosent impress me at all that the usef chose to go with the big brother flow and decide to 'regulate' choice. I do not give a rat's patootie what us bike or ski do I do neither one of those sports and in my state neither are rquired.
My safety can be in my own hands.. guess what I am an adult with plenty of grey matter between my ears( as can be atested to by my neurosurgon). For some of us who have paid BIG$$$$ for our own health care and survived all of our riding lives without a helmet dispite the falls, crashes, and still walking around as fully intact as one can be when they reach a certian age.

Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl

Jan. 20, 2005, 06:24 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Glimmerglass:

Keep in mind that several States have _repealed_ the mandate of having to wear a motorcycle helmet while riding a motorcycle on public roads. (NY is not one of them) Unlike a horse at a USEF show - meaning in a relatively controlled evironment - that isn't as inherently dangerous as a race bike that any yahoo kid can buy easily can touch 160 mph or 0-60 in under 5 seconds. Why such a reversal of "common sense" when helmet laws were in all 50 states in 1967? It just could be that sticky little thing we call civil liberties.

[QUOTE]

This may be an urban legend, but my recollection from the 70's was there was some pushback from the medical community because having all those motorcycle riders in helmets was severely reducing the number of usable organs available for transplant. That is, these riders were surviving their falls, not bashing their heads in and leaving kidneys behind. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Again, may well be a better story than fact - maybe some research eagle can check into it for us??

MistyBlue

Jan. 20, 2005, 06:25 AM

WHile trying to not add fuel to the fire:

Being/having personal insurance for accidental head injuries while riding doesn't mean other people aren't paying for that injury also. After so many claims for long term/highly expensive injuries the costs are absorbed by raising rates across the board.
If not insured...tax payers pay for those injuries.
Yes...I do agree that adults should be able to make adult decisions. This does include choosing whether or not to wear an approved. But if in some way down the line *I'm* paying for their decision...then I'm not too happy having my rates increased.
If show grounds can be sued for injuries incurred whilst on showgrounds...then I don't want my show fees raised for a handful of other folks' personal decisions.
I would highly doubt the new rule is being implemented for annoyance only. I would assume it's the best way they can figure out how to save money/protect themselves. As a business, they have that right to enforce a rule on their premises/under their watch/within their association.
And over time...it's been pretty much proven that giving everyone the absolute 100% free choice over their own safety matters whilst under someone else's financial umbrella...whether in the work force, on our highways or within a sport association...the folks rarely choose the most cost effective/safest. And most often to the financial detriment of others.
It's a private association, they have a right to enforce whatever rules they wish. If we pay for the right to be in that association...we have to follow their rules. If we continue to try to enforce our own choices for our own personal agendas/comfort within an association we take a very large risk of closing that association down and ruining the experience for countless others.
Crying "big brother" over a possible safety/insurnace/legal nightmare isn't a very adult perspective on the whole matter. Big Brother isn't involved...finances are. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Just my two cents.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA

Jan. 20, 2005, 06:42 AM

Did you know that Patey makes a Polo helmet? They do, and it failed the ASTM1163/NOCSAE test. The USPA (polo assoc.)has done in depth study on the helmet issue as well. A total of 82 prototype helmets were tested. If you would like to see the results, http://www.us-polo.org or use Google to do a search on Patey helmets.

Equitalk, were the results from this study available to the USEF safety committee?

DMK

Jan. 20, 2005, 06:54 AM

well, not to entirely disagree with Misty Blue... but just a little clarification...

While head injuries and other similar catastrophic injuries are unbelievably costly on an individual level, they do not really significantly change insurance costs, because they are such a small portion of the total health care costs.

A simple example - assume an insurer has 75,000 off their 300K members (representing 25% of the total pop) on a certain manufacturer's drugs. Let's just assume that manufacturer ups costs across the board by $0.03 per pill - that's $1 per 30 day scrip, that means $12/year per member added to costs. Oops. That's almost a million dollars more in cost the insurer must absorb. This is oversimplified, but it's a good example how small costs have a big impact when the frequency is high. It also gives you a good insight into what are an insurer's red flags.

So really, unless a whole lot more people leave their sedentary lifestyle behind and take up sports where they are more likely to have serious injuries, the health insurers are probably going to focus on managing costs that really DO have an impact.

However, this says nothing about the cost to the individual and their family. Don't kid yourself, you can have all the insurance in the world, and you are still going to be ruined financially. Your health insurance simply does not cover the day to day things you will need to function in the years that follow catastrophic injury. That isn't what health insurance is about. We call that long term care, and they have a different license.

It also doesn't say much about the motivations of the P&C insurer who offer liability coverage to shows. While a health insurer isn't focusing on catastrophic injuries for the reasons listed above, a liability insurer would recognize catastrophic injury as probably their most significant risk. Their rates will go up accordingly. And even if the liability laws protect them to some degree, it still costs money to defend yourself against a non-viable lawsuit, ya know? Winning and paying out legal fees is a pyrrhic victory in the eyes of your average insurer!

Janet

Jan. 20, 2005, 07:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Keep in mind that several States have repealed the mandate of having to wear a motorcycle helmet while riding a motorcycle on public roads. (NY is not one of them) Unlike a horse at a USEF show - meaning in a relatively controlled evironment - that isn't as inherently dangerous as a race bike that any yahoo kid can buy easily can touch 160 mph or 0-60 in under 5 seconds. Why such a reversal of "common sense" when helmet laws were in all 50 states in 1967? It just could be that sticky little thing we call civil liberties. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Point 1 - A motorcycle that is licensed for use on the street, is, by definition, NOT a racebike. Every motorcycle racing organization in the US requires approved helmets. Most of them require SNELL approved helmets. (The SNELL standards for mogorcycle helmets are considerably stiffer than the ASTM/SEI standards. I have been to LOTS of motorcycle race tracks. And I don't know a single one that will let you on the track with an ASTM helmet. It HAS to be SNELL approved.)

2. WHere were you in 1967? I was actively involved in the motorcycling world, and I can assure you that MANY states had NO helmet laws in 1967.

3. Riding a race bike at 160 mph (on a race track)is a LOT safer than riding at legal speeds on the street.

findeight

Jan. 20, 2005, 07:05 AM

Just had an interesting conversation with my neighbor.

Turns out he broke his arm about 3 weeks after I did in an organized Adult indoor soccer game.
Basically a late, but unpenalized, hit
He is suing the other team, it's coach and it's corporate sponsers (some poor guy's welding business and a plumber) and the the owners of the gym.

His lawyer also represents other "victims" of sports injuries against the "demon" property owners, park jurisdictions and organizations that put on whatever team sport is involved...usually gets a big settlement. This despite all those waivers everybody signs.

In my neighbor's defense he has been unable to work since Thanksgiving, does NOT have the kind of short term disability I do and has been terminated from his job as they can no longer cover his position without training somebody. Wife and 3 year old to support.

So you may not sue if you suffer a serious injury that could have been mitigated by a safety device...but others are quick to jump on it for a variety of reasons.
I have already seen a city operated show facility shut down permanently by a lawsuit (horse broke it's leg on the property), no one would insure them after loosing the judgement.
Also aware of legal action against one of the biggest around here over an accident, no doubt we'll all be paying more as their premiums shoot up.

And Snowbird, I have seen at least a half dozen serious concussions as riders went head first into jumps.

I don't blame any sports organization for requiring appropriate safety equipment, even the USEF.

Far as avoiding their shows? The insurance industry already requires most show organizers and many barns that offer any instruction to require helmets or risk losing the policy. They'll tack that "Approved" on there very soon.

You DO have a right to wear what you want, or nothing, on your own property. You do not have the right to ride on another's when they asked you to comply.

tosca4711

Jan. 20, 2005, 07:13 AM

This regulation is due to our litigious society. Things worked better when people were held responsible for their own behavior. "Ride at your own risk" used to be the order of the day.

If riders stuck together and boycotted the USEF shows, or just refused to wear the approved helmets, the regulation would be repealed right quickly.

Health care costs for obesity, smoking, drug use, drunk driving, careless driving, unprotected sex (STDs [including AIDS], unwanted pregancies) etc are far higher then the occasional head injury from riding. I pay for all these largely preventable health problems through my taxes. The cost of head injuries from riding to the health care system is a drop in the bucket.

Tosca

RoyalTRider

Jan. 20, 2005, 07:23 AM

Oh my, to read some of these, one would think that the USEF was personally employing an army of bodyguards to follow after each member and insure that they showed up at and left the barn wearing a three-foot long approved helmet and never so much as loosening the straps.

This isn't about one's "rights as an adult." That would make it sound, to me, like some people take showing as a right- if you don't see why, think about it and try to see where I am coming from- it seems that some people want to make whatever choses they want- at ANY time- because you are an adult.

The USEF is a private organization- not something everyone is entitled to. Even as an adult, if you step into someone else's domain, that is THEIR domain and their decisions. The USEF has decided for safety reasons that on THIER turf, they want to protect you this way. Regardless of your age, when you step onto someone else's turf, you get to play by their rules.

Glimmerglass

Jan. 20, 2005, 07:33 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Janet:

2. Where were you in 1967? I was actively involved in the motorcycling world, and I can assure you that MANY states had NO helmet laws in 1967. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't even born http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif As for 1967 - please check out the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) (http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/state_laws/helmet_use.htm)

quote: Michigan was the first state to repeal its law in 1968, beginning a pattern of repeal, reenactment, and amendment of motorcycle helmet laws. In 1976, states successfully lobbied Congress to stop the Department of Transportation from assessing financial penalties on states without helmet laws. By 1980, most states had repealed or limited their motorcycle helmet laws to cover riders younger than 18, but not older riders.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>3. Riding a race bike at 160 mph (on a race track)is a LOT safer than riding at legal speeds on the street. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Safety is all relative and even the greatest, almost god-like [race bike rider] Valentino Rossi does have spills and crashes http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for organized racing I agree 100% helmets are a must and no sane competitor would or could go without. However the point was being made that road going bikes that I or you or anyone could walk into a dealership and buy can be navigated on US highways in several states without a helmet at the maximum speed allowed. Again just because science and financial impacts with insurance and rehabilitation costs or purported "societal greater good" are being push does not always win over personal freedoms.

There have been many fatalities in Illinois, in particular, in just the last year but no foreseeable change in road bike helmet laws.

Janet

Jan. 20, 2005, 07:35 AM

The helmet rules ar "infringing on your rights as an adult" EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as the rules that say your horse cannot wear boots or bandages in a hunter calss. Or that you cannot tie your stirrups to the girth.

No more. No less.

If you want to play the "USEF game" you play by the USEF rules. Pure and simple.

Argue all you want about whether or not it is a good rule. But don't argue about your "rights as an adult." You give up some of those when you sign the entry blank.

tosca4711

Jan. 20, 2005, 07:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by RoyalTRider:
Oh my, to read some of these, one would think that the USEF was personally employing an army of bodyguards to follow after each member and insure that they showed up at and left the barn wearing a three-foot long approved helmet and never so much as loosening the straps.

This isn't about one's "rights as an adult." That would make it sound, to me, like some people take showing as a right- if you don't see why, think about it and try to see where I am coming from- it seems that some people want to make whatever choses they want- at ANY time- because you are an adult.

The USEF is a private organization- not something everyone is entitled to. Even as an adult, if you step into someone else's domain, that is THEIR domain and their decisions. The USEF has decided for safety reasons that on THIER turf, they want to protect you this way. Regardless of your age, when you step onto someone else's turf, you get to play by their rules. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I rider, I would have the right to decide that I don't like the rules, and that I'm not going to play on their turf. If enough people did this, it would have an impact on revenue. The shows would have to decide if a drop in revenue is worth it.

Tosca

findeight

Jan. 20, 2005, 07:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by tosca4711:

Health care costs for obesity, smoking, drug use, drunk driving, careless driving, unprotected sex (STDs [including AIDS], unwanted pregancies) etc are far higher then the occasional head injury from riding. I pay for all these largely preventable health problems through my taxes. The cost of head injuries from riding to the health care system is a drop in the bucket.

Tosca <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhhh I am paying too. And paying. And paying. The trouble with head injuries is they can lay a person up or outright institutionalize them for years at an incredible cost. We also support their children as they are no longer able to.

I've been wearing an approved since the Junior rule passed-but,then again, I always wear a seat belt and do not and have never smoked either.

Head injuries are no drop in the bucket if you are the one who is sued when a new quadriplegic is created on your property.

And lumping this with other risky behaviour that leads to health problems is no justification for engaging in risky behavior yourself.

Rye

Jan. 20, 2005, 07:51 AM

This whole arument is so tired. I could give a rip about the Patey lady and what this would do to her business. There's a great book called "Who moved my cheese" which basically talks about adapting to change. In the real business world, successful companies have to adapt and change their companies and their products to survive. Maybe this will motivate the company to develop a new line of approved helmets with some customizable features like ribbon style, color of the velvet, leather color on the chin strap....you get the point. People could still get the Patey name and adhere to the rules. If they can't adapt, they won't survive.

findeight

Jan. 20, 2005, 07:56 AM

My company recommended Who Moved My Cheese as we went thru a downsizing and rethink of the basic business plan.

Highly recommend it to help with the bend instead of break skills life requires.

Also a hilarious parody set in a prison-Who Moved My Soap.

Now back to the topic.

tosca4711

Jan. 20, 2005, 07:57 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by findeight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by tosca4711:

Health care costs for obesity, smoking, drug use, drunk driving, careless driving, unprotected sex (STDs [including AIDS], unwanted pregancies) etc are far higher then the occasional head injury from riding. I pay for all these largely preventable health problems through my taxes. The cost of head injuries from riding to the health care system is a drop in the bucket.

Tosca <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhhh I am paying too. And paying. And paying. The trouble with head injuries is they can lay a person up or outright institutionalize them for years at an incredible cost. We also support their children as they are no longer able to.

I've been wearing an approved since the Junior rule passed-but,then again, I always wear a seat belt and do not and have never smoked either.

Head injuries are no drop in the bucket if you are the one who is sued when a new quadriplegic is created on your property.

And lumping this with other risky behaviour that leads to health problems is no justification for engaging in risky behavior yourself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the old rule of "ride at your own risk" should be made to apply again. People should behave as adults as assume responsibility for their own behavior.
Approved helmets are not going to prevent spinal cord injuries (quadriplegia). If you fall on your head hard enough while wearing an approved helmet (Christopher Reeve), or have a horse fall on you, you are quite likely to sustain a spinal cord injury. In your scenario, you could be sued if you were at fault whether or not the rider was wearing an approved helmet.

Tosca

Janet

Jan. 20, 2005, 08:23 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> quote: Michigan was the first state to repeal its law in 1968, beginning a pattern of repeal, reenactment, and amendment of motorcycle helmet laws. In 1976, states successfully lobbied Congress to stop the Department of Transportation from assessing financial penalties on states without helmet laws. By 1980, most states had repealed or limited their motorcycle helmet laws to cover riders younger than 18, but not older riders. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Michigan may have been the first to repeal an EXISITING law, but there were plenty of states that didn't have a helmet law TO repeal. CT and FL for starters.

In case I wasn't being clear enough, the point is that you can be AGAINST helmet laws for the stret, and IN FAVOR of helmet rules for organized competition. Which is the correct current analogy.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Safety is all relative and even the greatest, almost god-like [race bike rider] Valentino Rossi does have spills and crashes <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Rossi may be current 500cc champion, but he certainly isn't "the greatest" or "god-like" in MY opinion. He has not shown himself yet to be the equal of Hailwood, Ago or even KR or Doohan (speaking of injuries).

Glimmerglass

Jan. 20, 2005, 08:47 AM

Janet - point taken and valid with non-sanctioned use of bike on the street is akin to riding around in a non-USEF show. Organized, sanctioned racing - like the USEF's intent with the rule - does come with it safety codes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Janet:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Safety is all relative and even the greatest, almost god-like [race bike rider] Valentino Rossi does have spills and crashes <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Rossi may be current 500cc champion, but he certainly isn't "the greatest" or "god-like" in MY opinion. He has not shown himself yet to be the equal of Hailwood, Ago or even KR or Doohan (speaking of injuries). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That kind of talk about Rossi could in some parts of Italy get anyone deported http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Giacomo Agostini was great indeed, but like Schumi in F1 the level of seemingly effortless domination by Rossi at just 24 yrs old is amazing. Rossi is interested in switching to F1 someday - and Ferrari has let him test twice - so maybe he'll be the next Graham Hill http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

findeight

Jan. 20, 2005, 08:52 AM

If you would like to return to the old "ride at your own risk"?

Write your congressman about tort reform and lobby the ABA in it's favor.
Good luck.

It's not that simple to just roll it back.

DMK

Jan. 20, 2005, 09:00 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> This regulation is due to our litigious society. Things worked better when people were held responsible for their own behavior. "Ride at your own risk" used to be the order of the day. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> So the old rule of "ride at your own risk" should be made to apply again. People should behave as adults as assume responsibility for their own behavior. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All well and true, but stamping your feet and saying It Should Not Be So, does not exactly change the reality of the situation. Property owners, show managers and representative associations do not have the luxury of working in the world as we think it ought to be.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Approved helmets are not going to prevent spinal cord injuries (quadriplegia). If you fall on your head hard enough while wearing an approved helmet (Christopher Reeve), or have a horse fall on you, you are quite likely to sustain a spinal cord injury. In your scenario, you could be sued if you were at fault whether or not the rider was wearing an approved helmet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one can argue with that. And seat belts don't do a lot for side impact injuries. What exactly was the point? Was it that if we can't prevent 100% of catastrophic injuries, we shouldn't bother with those that we could prevent? Forgive me, but is that akin to saying because mammograms don't detect all cancers, we should just skip 'em?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> If riders stuck together and boycotted the USEF shows, or just refused to wear the approved helmets, the regulation would be repealed right quickly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also VERY true. You go first. I'm not proud. I take primary colors any way I can get 'em.

I swear, I find this such a giggle. I mean I don't own an approved, and after I get one, I suspect it will be used outside of the show environment about as much as my curent item of apparel gets used. But honestly, I don't argue with people on the hard core facts of the issue. And I really don't care that much about what might amount to 4 hours of saddle time over the course of a month. Life is way to short to get your panties in a twist over that. Or at least MY life is way too short...

Rye

Jan. 20, 2005, 09:15 AM

Findeight
"who moved my soap" That's a hilarious visual...nice to bring a little levity to this cranky topic!

Janet

Jan. 20, 2005, 11:19 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Rossi is interested in switching to F1 someday - and Ferrari has let him test twice - so maybe he'll be the next Graham Hill <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No! No!. NOT Graham Hill. John Surtees. The only man to be World Champion on both 2 wheels and 4. Hailwood made a reasonably sucessful transition to cars, but never had the same level of success as on bikes.

Lisamarie8

Jan. 20, 2005, 11:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Janet:
The helmet rules ar "infringing on your rights as an adult" EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as the rules that say your horse cannot wear boots or bandages in a hunter calss. Or that you cannot tie your stirrups to the girth.

No more. No less.

If you want to play the "USEF game" you play by the USEF rules. Pure and simple.

Argue all you want about whether or not it is a good rule. But don't argue about your "rights as an adult." You give up some of those when you sign the entry blank. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the most logical thing in the whole wide world, a perfect explaination Janet.

Now everyone take a deep breath and go try on some brain buckets... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

tle

Jan. 20, 2005, 11:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by DMK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Approved helmets are not going to prevent spinal cord injuries (quadriplegia). If you fall on your head hard enough while wearing an approved helmet (Christopher Reeve), or have a horse fall on you, you are quite likely to sustain a spinal cord injury. In your scenario, you could be sued if you were at fault whether or not the rider was wearing an approved helmet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one can argue with that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I can. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Christopher Reeve did not "fall on his head". He fell on his neck... BETWEEN his approved helmet and his safety vest. Who knows what would have happened if he had fallen on his head. Most likely a lot less than if some of you arguing for the unapproved in the same situation.

sorry... but this whole thread is ludicrious! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Snowbird

Jan. 20, 2005, 12:13 PM

Not really Janet, hunter classes require a sound horse and it is traditional that a sound horse is not wearing wraps and should be over reaching to the front feet. The boots hide the sound of the clicking from back to front and the bandages imply lameness. These are cosmetic and tradition.

I think the only problem with the rule is that they can require a helmet, but not the specific specifications for a level of approval. For example suppose two years from now they find out those standards are defunct. Then everyone injured can sue retroactively because they were compelled to use that level helmet.

The Association loses its Private Club status because everyone who rides is welcome no other standard it is offered to the public. That's the same reason that I lose my ability to refuse entries. Once the Prize list is sent across the board it no longer is as it was years ago by invitation only.

In the olden days you had to feel grateful if a show secretary was willing to send you an invitation to attend a show. The Officials were also by invitation and then it was a Private Club. When we advertise in National magazines and cross state borders we are restricted to the Federal codes for interstate commerce. Those laws supercede anything in the Federation Rule Book and compell the Federation to be responsible to the public at large.

Failure to enforce those regulations in the past does not void them.

Janet

Jan. 20, 2005, 12:38 PM

Not the point.

It doesn't matter whether the REASON for the rule is good or bad.

Outside a horse show, you have a perfect right to ride without a helmet (or with an "unapproved"), to put boots and bandages on the horse's legs, and to tie your stirrups to the girth.

When you enter a USEF horse show, you voluntarily give up those rights.

DMK

Jan. 20, 2005, 12:41 PM

tle, you have to work with the OP's original point, such as it was, ya know? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Besides, wassup with gettin' all ovah' my stuff, sistuh? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

sit up

Jan. 20, 2005, 12:47 PM

Well as to whether or not some unapproved helmet businesses will in fact be businesses in a few more years, who knows? That is entirely up to them. If they change their business plan and market accordingly, then maybe they will.

If they can't change with the times, then they won't. That is the beauty of a free market system.

It happens all the time, things become outdated and you either catch up, create anew or go out of business.

How many horse and buggy firms were still around after the invention of the car?

leelee

Jan. 20, 2005, 01:34 PM

I simply cannot see the big deal about wearing an approved helmet versus an unapproved. For those who plan to go to extreme lengths to get rid of the potential helmet law, why don't you ad making another law to romove the heel from the boot, or perhaps making it maditory that short stirrupers show without reins. If exhibitors get nothing else out of having to wear an approved helmet, just keep in mind that it is for your safety. Just think of how many times you have heard yourself or someone else say "I don't know why my horse decided to do that out there?". An unpredictable animal is reason enough for the added protection of an approved helmet.

poltroon

Jan. 20, 2005, 01:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by findeight:
Just had an interesting conversation with my neighbor.

Turns out he broke his arm about 3 weeks after I did in an organized Adult indoor soccer game.
Basically a late, but unpenalized, hit
He is suing the other team, it's coach and it's corporate sponsers (some poor guy's welding business and a plumber) and the the owners of the gym.

His lawyer also represents other "victims" of sports injuries against the "demon" property owners, park jurisdictions and organizations that put on whatever team sport is involved...usually gets a big settlement. This despite all those waivers everybody signs.

In my neighbor's defense he has been unable to work since Thanksgiving, does NOT have the kind of short term disability I do and has been terminated from his job as they can no longer cover his position without training somebody. Wife and 3 year old to support.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And since he lost his job I assume he lost his health insurance.

I really think that if we can build a better health insurance system where everyone is covered outside of employment, we'll end a lot of these (IMHO) frivilous lawsuits - because when you look at the actual human, sometimes they're looking at a choice of a questionable lawsuit vs a personal bankruptcy. Sometimes it's hard to tell which is the more ethical path for the person in question.

wtywmn4

Jan. 20, 2005, 01:45 PM

Leelee, there is no big deal. Some people feel its their right to ride in what ever they see fit. Only, come Dec 05 it won't be at USEF sanctioned shows.

DutchOwner

Jan. 20, 2005, 02:37 PM

Everyone keeps talking about our litigious society, and I though I might just see for sure what kind of lawsuits I could find that have been brought about this issue, since that seems to be one of the big reasons for this rule change, right? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

So, I just did a quick bit of research on westlaw...which is basically a database of both federal and state cases nationwide...and found these cases:

1) Ferguson v Ulmer, California, 2003. A girl sued her former trainer who told her not to ride in a helmet, she was later injured in a fall. Judgement for the defendant. (Trainer)

2) Hurwitz v Strain, 773 N.E. 2d 478 (2002). Established rule of law that "riding horse without helmet was such obvious risk that, as a matter of law, no actionable duty arose as result of seller's failing to warn buyer to wear one."

3) Dunckley v State, NY 1987. "The claimant's decedent, having voluntarily chosen which helmet to use, and to participate in an obviously dangerous contest, assumed the risk of the alleged injuries.

4) Pulvirenti v Ingman, Michigan Appeals 1996. "Absent special circumstances such as the participant's age, a recreational facility does not have a duty to supervise patrons to assure that they do not take unreasonable risks."

Interestingly enough, the only incidence of a person suing a facility that I found was a lawsuit that concluded the defendants owed a duty "to avoid an unreasonable risk of injury to plaintiff and to take care that the jumping array was not beyond the capability of horse and rider." Galardi v Seahorse Riding Club, 1993.

Oh, and Sieber v Wigdahl found that not replacing a helmet between falls was evidence of contributory negligence.

So, where exactly are all these plaintiffs who are going after facility owners? Oh yeah, that's right...there aren't any. Please, someone, anyone come up with a CONCRETE CASE NAME of someone who has sued a facility because of a lack of helmet rule, won, and established legal precedent. I will give anyone $100 if they can give me this info. Any takers?

So, if y'all can't back up all these legal assertions that our sport is in danger of ending up the victim of a litigious society, please stop making unfounded claims.

tosca4711

Jan. 20, 2005, 03:08 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by DutchOwner:
Everyone keeps talking about our litigious society, and I though I might just see for sure what kind of lawsuits I could find that have been brought about this issue, since that seems to be one of the big reasons for this rule change, right? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

So, I just did a quick bit of research on westlaw...which is basically a database of both federal and state cases nationwide...and found these cases:

1) Ferguson v Ulmer, California, 2003. A girl sued her former trainer who told her not to ride in a helmet, she was later injured in a fall. Judgement for the _defendant. (Trainer)_

2) Hurwitz v Strain, 773 N.E. 2d 478 (2002). Established rule of law that "riding horse without helmet was such obvious risk that, as a matter of law, no actionable duty arose as result of seller's failing to warn buyer to wear one."

3) Dunckley v State, NY 1987. "The claimant's decedent, having voluntarily chosen which helmet to use, and to participate in an obviously dangerous contest, assumed the risk of the alleged injuries.

4) Pulvirenti v Ingman, Michigan Appeals 1996. "Absent special circumstances such as the participant's age, a recreational facility does not have a duty to supervise patrons to assure that they do not take unreasonable risks."

Interestingly enough, the only incidence of a person suing a facility that I found was a lawsuit that concluded the defendants owed a duty "to avoid an unreasonable risk of injury to plaintiff and to take care that the jumping array was not beyond the capability of horse and rider." Galardi v Seahorse Riding Club, 1993.

Oh, and Sieber v Wigdahl found that not replacing a helmet between falls was evidence of contributory negligence.

So, where exactly are all these plaintiffs who are going after facility owners? Oh yeah, that's right...there aren't any. Please, someone, anyone come up with a CONCRETE CASE NAME of someone who has sued a facility because of a lack of helmet rule, won, and established legal precedent. I will give anyone $100 if they can give me this info. Any takers?

So, if y'all can't back up all these legal assertions that our sport is in danger of ending up the victim of a litigious society, please stop making unfounded claims. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have one from Canada, and it was in all the papers. A young girl went on a trail ride with her parents. The stable operators put her on a green horse. She wasn't wearing a helmet or shoes with a heel. The horse bolted, she got her foot caught in the stirrup, and she came off and died. The stable operators were charged, and found legally at fault. After this, I understand that the local politicians tried to bring in a stupid and dangerous law which said that on a trail ride, the horse of an inexperienced rider should be tied to the horse of an experienced rider. Luckily this didn't pass.

People sue for such stupid things as spilling hot coffee in their lap, and win.

The insurance companies of several stables I have boarded at require all instructors to be certified, in case of legal action.

Tosca

tosca4711

Jan. 20, 2005, 03:15 PM

It seems to me that the USEF is the government of the horse set. It's an American tradition to protest unpopular laws.

Tosca

DutchOwner

Jan. 20, 2005, 03:18 PM

You wanna talk about the coffee incident? The McDs coffee incident? OK...we'll go there, since the media/insurance companies have spun that into such a lovely fiction...here's the real deal:

1) the coffee was purposefully kept that hot so they didn't have to replace it throughout the day.

2) There had been SEVERAL other people who had been severely burned from the coffee, and McDonald's Corp KNEW THAT, and there was quotes from the executives found that said "we don't care if they get burned, they like their coffee hot."

3) The woman suffered 3rd degree burns throughout her genital area; she originally only asked for the cost of her medical costs and McDs would not do it.

4) The large verdict was because of punitive damages; AND they calculated by finding the profit McDs makes on sales of one size of coffee, for one day. That's it. The woman did not ask for that verdict; it was what was fair to punish McDs for its blatant and malicious intentionally negligent behavior!

So, please, I'm still open for some proof that we are all in danger of litigation adversely affecting our sport.

tosca4711

Jan. 20, 2005, 03:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by DutchOwner:
You wanna talk about the coffee incident? The McDs coffee incident? OK...we'll go there, since the media/insurance companies have spun that into such a lovely fiction...here's the real deal:

1) the coffee was purposefully kept that hot so they didn't have to replace it throughout the day.

2) There had been SEVERAL other people who had been severely burned from the coffee, and McDonald's Corp KNEW THAT, and there was quotes from the executives found that said "we don't care if they get burned, they like their coffee hot."

3) The woman suffered 3rd degree burns throughout her genital area; she originally only asked for the cost of her medical costs and McDs would not do it.

4) The large verdict was because of punitive damages; AND they calculated by finding the profit McDs makes on sales of one size of coffee, for one day. That's it. The woman did not ask for that verdict; it was what was fair to punish McDs for its blatant and malicious intentionally negligent behavior!

So, please, I'm still open for some proof that we are all in danger of litigation adversely affecting our sport. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about my example of the trail ride?

There was a case where a burglar broke into his victims house while they were away. He locked himself in the garage accidentally, and had to eat dog kibble until the owners of the house returned. He sued the owners of the house for damages and won.

Tosca

Seven

Jan. 20, 2005, 03:27 PM

Dutch Owner (with free access to Westlaw...most of us practicing attorneys need an actual client to bill that expensive legal search to, so your $100 is hardly worth anyone's time http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif ) is missing a vital piece of the puzzle. MOST cases do NOT get to the point of a legal decision because MOST cases settle, so you won't find any decision in Westlaw (or Lexis, or Findlaw, or any where else). Just because you can't find the decision of interest does not therefore mean that there are not actions initiated, or threats of actions, that result in settlement. It is infinitely easier for a deeper pocket insurance company to come up with an adequate pay off to allegedly injured party then spend valuable resources litigating claims. While I personally don't work in insurance defense, I have a very good friend who does handle multi-million dollar tort claims for his insurance company clients (at a large national law firm). Guess how many actual trials he's been to? ZERO. Every case, even on the eve of trial or jury selection, has ended either by being dismissed or in settlement. Those are considered a 'win' by his client. Settlements are cheaper and easier. A trial would not be a win.

So just because you don't find a case (and I haven't looked so I have no idea if you're correct) doesn't mean that actions haven't been started, settlements reached, and/or insurance rates for horse show venues raised (this is probably the key issue) just on the mere possibility of a problem.

RoyalTRider

Jan. 20, 2005, 03:36 PM

I still think the McDs thing is crazy. So what if McDs keeps the cofee hot? It is STILL not McDs fault that the lady spilled it in her lap. She knew she was getting hot cofee... to me, why McDs keeps the cofee hot is unrelated. So, they save work. Cofee is a hot drink, folks, in most cases. She knew she was recieving a hot drink. I doubt anything could convince me that McDs is in any fault whatsoever unless they're selling faulty cups. I don't find what happened to the lady at all laughable... I find it laughable that people would blame McDs for keeping cofee hot. What, we cannot keep cofee hot anymore because some people try to drink cofee and drive and cannot do it?

Glimmerglass

Jan. 20, 2005, 03:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by DutchOwner:
Interestingly enough, the only incidence of a person suing a facility that I found was a lawsuit that concluded the defendants owed a duty "to avoid an unreasonable risk of injury to plaintiff and to take care that the jumping array was not beyond the capability of horse and rider." Galardi v Seahorse Riding Club, 1993. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My ex g/f rode there at the Seahorse Riding Club in Rolling Hills Estates - Palos Verdes http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Galardi won as I recall and the financial judgement against the trainer (Lisa) and club (Judy) was significant enough to alter the structure of ownership, etc.

As for the almost urban legend status of the McDonald's (Aug 1994) coffee case. Here is the real deal:

"McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit" (http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm)

above all else -> On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000

DutchOwner

Jan. 20, 2005, 03:48 PM

RTR: why don't you try doing some background research on the case before you expound your oh-so-uneducated opinion? Like the fact that they kept it EXCESSIVELY hot; if it had been kept to a normal degree of heat, then she most likely wouldn't have recovered. BUT, they knowingly kept it excessively hot, knew that keeping it this hot could and in fact had severely burned numerous people, knew that they could make it less hot with a little more employment cost, but intentionally kept it so excessively hot knowing that it would cause injury to people. It was not found that she was negligent in spilling hot coffee on herself.

The bottom line is this: there are rules of civil procedure that help to stop frivilous lawsuits; courts frown on them as well.

Yes, it is true that westlaw would not turn up settlements, but I would think that, given the assumption of risk and established rules of law, if there was truly this multitude of litigation about helmets, there would be at least one defendant that elected to go to trial.

So, my offer still stands, and, what the hell, is expanded to include definite settlements as a result of an adult person who has sued a facility/showgrounds because they didn't require them to wear an approved helmet.

Edited because I see where glimmerglass has posted a link to the actual heat of the coffee. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

tosca4711

Jan. 20, 2005, 03:50 PM

Willeck v Mrotek
Wisconsin Court of Appeal
April 25 2000

Plaintiff fell off a horse on a trail ride conducted by defendent because a third party's dog barked. The defendant was found at fault because he didn't attempt to ascertain the skill levels of the riders he was escorting.

DutchOwner

Jan. 20, 2005, 03:51 PM

And how does that have anything to do with a helmet law?

Edited to add: OK, following the pattern of the cases we've found, it seems like we should be more concerned that shows/trainers/facilities, et al. are correctly ascertaining the level of riding that people are at. So, why don't we just impose strict regulations that everyone send in videos of themselves riding before we allow them to compete at the level they sign up for??? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

tosca4711

Jan. 20, 2005, 03:53 PM

Re: McDonald's

Aren't you likely to spill coffee if you use your groin as a cup holder?

The McDonald's incident may not be the best example, although I still think anyone who carries their coffee this way is careless. Certainly there are many many examples of stupid law suits that won. (see the burglar issue).

tosca4711

Jan. 20, 2005, 04:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by DutchOwner:
And how does that have anything to do with a helmet law? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't. It does prove that people can sue and win when they fall off a horse regardless of the Equine Activity Laws (US). My Canadian example did involve a helmet.

If you are correct that a rider couldn't win a lawsuit if he got hurt while wearing an unapproved helmet, and I hope you are actually, then the insurance companies have no business insisting that stables require them. Individual stables may have rules, but they shouldn't be determined by insurance companies.

Tosca

DMK

Jan. 20, 2005, 04:10 PM

Dutch Owner, the issue of settlement by insurers is a real one, but never mind there hasn't been a case that went to court (or one that is found), your P&C insurer could still assume a risk and rate accordingly. Free world, adam smith economics and all that. They get to rate for risk. Ultimately that tends to govern business decisions.

But never mind lawsuits or liability... We still have the Plantation Acres situation. The Plantation Acres Saddle Club is a long running not for profit show that uses the public facility owned and maintained by the city of Plantation Acres. Big horse community. One of the main reasons you live in the little enclave of the Acres is to be in an equine environment. Some kid got run off with, chucked head first into an immovable object (my memory fails me, but for some reason I want to think it was a pole?) She was killed. Not sure if it could have been prevented/ameliorated by a helmet, not sure if the parents bought suit and settled against the city... haven't a clue. But I do know they passed an ordinance shortly thereafter requiring that riders wear an approved helmet while mounted. Now, do you think they did this just for grins and giggles, or do you think they perceived risk?

So I encourage you to tell everyone the sky is falling, but I suspect you won't change the minds that matter.

tosca4711

Jan. 20, 2005, 04:12 PM

I figure insurance rates have something to do with the new helmet rule, perhaps lower rates if approved helmets are required.

Tosca

RoyalTRider

Jan. 20, 2005, 04:34 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>RTR: why don't you try doing some background research on the case before you expound your oh-so-uneducated opinion? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can give you a whole host of reasons I am not going to do background research, starting with the fact that is simply doesn't interst me enough.

However, your nice and sarcastic "like" example doesn't change my opinion. Which, by the way, I am allowed to have without doing background searches based on what I already know. So, regardless of any background research... my opinion doesn't change. And I can guarentee you... making comments at the people who disagree with you doesn't make the people who agree with you any more likely to have researched the matter.

Lisamarie8

Jan. 20, 2005, 05:25 PM

Ummm, RTR, I'mnot getting in on the helmet thing (I'm an eventer, I've had to wear one forever)but:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by RoyalTRider:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>RTR: why don't you try doing some background research on the case before you expound your oh-so-uneducated opinion? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can give you a whole host of reasons I am not going to do background research, starting with the fact that is simply doesn't interst me enough. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet, despite the vacuum of interest you still feel the need to expound on something you have no primary knowledge on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>However, your nice and sarcastic "like" example doesn't change my opinion. Which, by the way, I am allowed to have without doing background searches based on what I already know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And that IS the definition of an uneducated opinion. Not saying you're a monkey, just saying your education (background knowledge) on this case, is admittedly null.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>So, regardless of any background research... my opinion doesn't change. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
and this is the definition of close minded

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>And I can guarentee you... making comments at the people who disagree with you doesn't make the people who agree with you any more likely to have researched the matter <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually debating facts DOES foster a healthy discussion...and should the research be found viable that is EXACTLY what makes people change their mind (granted it's not already closed). It’s the beauty of an educated discussion, even when opinions differ. You might learn something.http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

swansong

Jan. 20, 2005, 06:18 PM

Justmagic, you said it all. I can't believe people are so upset that a rule has been passed that is only looking out for their best interest and safety. Margy and her hats shouldn't even be a consideration in this argument. Your safety is more important than your vanity and hopefully, in time the competition between hat companies will force them to come up with a few more features or designs to make them a bit more attractive as well as fit better. As someone previously said, if you object so much to the new rule than perhaps you should just show at the backyard shows where you can make up your own rules.

melliebay Aefvue Farms Chesapeake Bay

Jan. 20, 2005, 06:32 PM

I have to say, I couldn't care less about Margie and her hats. And I own one.

For everyone who is boycotting USEF shows now, thank you, maybe there will only be 30 horses in the schooling hunters now instead of 60.

Honestly people, I don't think this law is that big a deal. If you can protect yourself from a potential life ending/ruining accident, why wouldn't you? When at home, ride without your helmet, ride upside-down and backwards, no one cares. But if you are at a competetion sanctioned by a private organization, you follow their rules.

Go protest something that is truly harmful.....

just_me

Jan. 20, 2005, 07:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by DMK:

But never mind lawsuits or liability... We still have the Plantation Acres situation. The Plantation Acres Saddle Club is a long running not for profit show that uses the public facility owned and maintained by the city of Plantation Acres. Big horse community. One of the main reasons you live in the little enclave of the Acres is to be in an equine environment. Some kid got run off with, chucked head first into an immovable object (my memory fails me, but for some reason I want to think it was a pole?) She was killed. Not sure if it could have been prevented/ameliorated by a helmet, not sure if the parents bought suit and settled against the city... haven't a clue. But I do know they passed an ordinance shortly thereafter requiring that riders wear an approved helmet while mounted. Now, do you think they did this just for grins and giggles, or do you think they perceived risk?

So I encourage you to tell everyone the sky is falling, but I suspect you won't change the minds that matter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I board my horse in the Acres. I remember when that teenager was killed. She was racing her sister down one the streets (don't remember which). Her horse tripped over some sort of metal pole in the ground that they didn't see in time. Horse broke his leg and was destroyed and the girl landed on her head and was killed. The City of Plantation passed a law stating that all riders under 16 or 18 (don't remember which) have to wear a helmet on public property. I believe they can still not wear one on private property. Also,
the kids in the western classes at horse shows in the Acres don't have to wear them. I'm not sure how they got around the law on
that one.

BTW DMK, they tore down the old showgrounds and are almost done with the new Plantation Equestrian Center. They bought all the vacant land around it, built two barns with 96 stalls for shows, office building, one big lighted arena, another unlighted arena, several schooling rings, and trails. It should be finished in March. Hopefully, they'll make enough money and put in a covered arena.

2Dogs

Jan. 20, 2005, 07:32 PM

remember how everyone protested seat belts!

xegeba

Jan. 20, 2005, 07:39 PM

You guys can protest all you want. The rule won't change. Who pays the insurance premium? Who pays the lawyer? Who pays the settlement or judgement amount? Now, you can argue that if you are not a member, yadda yadda... but we all know that your need to compete far outweighs your need to look cool.

just_me

Jan. 20, 2005, 07:43 PM

Athletes in other sports don't seem to have issues with wearing unattractive and clunky helmets. For example, downhill skiers, football players, jockeys, baseball players (when batting), race car drivers (don't know if they're considered athletes), etc. You're athletes. Quit worrying about how your hat looks.

Equitalk

Jan. 20, 2005, 08:07 PM

In response to several questions I have had regarding the helmet rule.

The Federation (USEF) Safety Committee has been working on this rule change for almost 3 years. After much discussion and debate we unanimously agreed to put forth the current rule change almost 8 months ago. The rule change proposal was sent out to all USEF committee's including it's Active Athlete's, Show Managers, Jumper, National Hunter, Pony Hunter, Junior Hunter, and all Zone Committee's. In addition the rule proposal was sent out in press release and via the USEF week in review web updates. The rule change was also presented to the Board and Committee's of the USHJA. All of the USEF/USHJA committee's and director's evaluated factual data provided made available without regard to any individuals personal financial gain or benefit. The majority of these committee's and their members fully supported this rule change. The USEF BOD was unanimous in it's voting to approve.

The rule change proposal also followed all standard and published practices for rule changes. This rule was not deemed extraordinary, and followed the rather lengthy process that includes many avenues for USEF member feed back. This rule change has been clearly available for review and comment via the USEF web site and through published upcoming rule changes via regular mail. This is the same process we have for all rule changes, so this should be NO surprise if you are a current USEF member and understand the rules of the association you joined. I am assuming if you joined an association you would take the time to educate yourself to the rules of the association you just joined. To not do so is at best irresponsible in my personal opinion.

I personally on several times sent emails, started discussion topics, and asked for USEF members to give feedback via polls and other means on web sites such as COTH and Towerheads. This was not done in any USEF capacity, but was merely intended to put additional word out on the street through avenues I know USEF members travel. This was simply an attempt to better inform the members through available media sources. I am a firm believer in the benefit of utilizing outlets such as COTH web boards to stimulate conversation and in the end we hopefully motivate members to get involved.

I can tell you that the Federation has many outlets for members to feedback on this and any rule change. Information provided on sites like this one does not go back to the safety committee, but we hope to encourage USEF members to get involved in the process through proper channels of communication. If you or any federation member, manufacturer, and/or medical expert has legitimate information about helmets approved or not, that is not derived from one persons financial gain we will welcome that feedback. The way to do so is through the federations web site or call the USEF offices directly and speak with the appropriate staff member. Please refer to usef.org or call 859-258-2472.

I can say that personally I feel the role of the safety committee regarding this rule change in the future will be one of education and continued monitoring as new technology presents itself. We have reviewed factual and unbiased information. We came to the unanimous decision to put forth this rule change, and I stand by that decision. We will continue to hold open all legitimate channels of communication to all Federation members equally. I will continue my efforts to encourage the committee to view all sides of argument equally, and I expect they will continue as we have in making those democratic choices into the future.

I would encourage all USEF members to familiarize yourself with the responsibilities of the Safety Committee as set forth in the USEF Bylaws.

I would also like to add that all helmet manufacturers approved and un-approved have been extended the same opportunities to share feedback and factual data.

I will no longer continue to add to the COTH threads specific to this issue, but would again ask that if you want to share with me or the safety committee you do so through official means available. My email is provided below.

I know that I as Chair of the Safety Committee that my conscious is clear. We viewed all sides equally and make a decision that we stand behind. The role of the Federation is to uphold the highest standards of safety for both human and equine athlete, and that's what we are doing.

I would again like to remind everyone that the Headgear rule for junior's competing in Hunter-Jumper is exactly as it has been. There is NO change to that existing rule.

Andrew Ellis, Chairman
USEF Safety Committee
equitalk@aol.com

Jumphigh83

Jan. 20, 2005, 08:24 PM

YES NY HAS a helmet law (for anyone under fourteen and/or a novice rider) OK so what IS a novice rider? And go to ANY QH show at the STATE OWNED fairgrounds and see no one wearing a helmet approved or otherwise (in horsemanship, WP, etc) And YES our freedoms are erroding..one would hope that wearing a helmet would be a matter of COMMON SENSE not LEGAL SENSE...but because you can sue if you are stupid and dont wear a helmet and get hurt and dip into the till of the poor sap who counted on you being smart and ADULT enough to know whats good for you, NOW we have to litigate common sense...it is like wrestling with a pig..you get muddy and the pig loves it. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY should be our national motto not in legislation we trust. UGH http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Hucklebug

Jan. 20, 2005, 08:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Equitalk:
...this should be NO surprise if you are a current USEF member and understand the rules of the association you joined. I am assuming if you joined an association you would take the time to educate yourself to the rules of the association you just joined. To not do so is at best irresponsible.

Andrew Ellis, Chairman
USEF Safety Committee
equitalk@aol.com <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, is Mr. Ellis going to pay my hourly billing rate for the day it would take me to read through the AHSA, er USEQ, er USEF rulebook each year and the other time for periodic review of proposed rule changes? I, for one, don't appreciate being called irresponsible for not keeping up with the details on the websites and emails that I receive from an association I joined for the single purpose of being able to compete at recognized horse shows. I joined the USEF and all its earlier iterations for the purpose of competing, not adding to my list of junk mail and tasks I have to keep up with. Were I a trainer, I could see the need to keep up with the day-to-day activities of the USEF, but as an amateur with a life outside of horses and an inbox that receives over 100 emails a day and a mailbox that receives 5-30 pieces of mail monday-saturday, I'd rather spend my spare time riding my horse rather than keeping up with a horse show governing body with multiple personality disorder. I have a hard enough time getting my job done, tending to my animals, and managing to have clean clothes for work and food in my fridge without someone else deciding that if I don't read the proposed rule changes from my hobby's governing body that I'm an irresponsible person. If I hadn't started riding 25 years ago, there's no way I'd stick with it today. I just want to get back to the days of riding my horse and having fun. Sometimes I think this horse show world has spun so far away from reality that the "trust fund babies" and professionals who can ride all day every day have lost touch with how strapped thin and overworked we "working class" amateurs are. I have a hard enough time keeping my horses fit enough to show while holding down a job so that I can afford to show...please don't add more tasks to my plate.

oxerdown

Jan. 20, 2005, 08:35 PM

I too think it is not responsible. If you are going to sit here and add to a form taking an opposition to this point, att least know what the h--l you are talking about. I applaud Mr. Ellis for actually taking his time to get the word out. I am sure he has other things to do with his time too...

There is nothing that requires you to show at USEF shows. You are competing with the USOC's governing body. Maybe you belong at local & unrated events where you don't have to comprehend the rules.

Hucklebug

Jan. 20, 2005, 08:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by oxerdown:
I too think it is not responsible. If you are going to sit here and add to a form taking an opposition to this point, att least know what the h--l you are talking about. I applaud Mr. Ellis for actually taking his time to get the word out. I am sure he has other things to do with his time too...

There is nothing that requires you to show at USEF shows. You are competing with the USOC's governing body. Maybe you belong at local & unrated events where you don't have to comprehend the rules. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oxerdown, dearest, to comprehend is to understand, and yes, I understand the rules. That has nothing to do with keeping up with proposed rule changes, it has to do with understanding what you read...and, in case you haven't been to a local show lately, most of them follow USEF rules, where appropriate, so one does need a working knowledge of the rules in order to compete. People are not complaining that they don't understand the language of the rule, they are complaining because they didn't know it was coming, or just plain don't agree with it. The former largely deriving from having better things to do with their time than keeping track of proposed rule changes. If you would like me to further spell out this distinction for you, please PT me.

oxerdown

Jan. 20, 2005, 09:29 PM

I am not sure how people on this board did not know this was coming.

I remember alot of polls and discussion about this very topic.

It also seems to me that most of the people who have commented seem to be understanding and supportive of this rule change.

Hucklebug

Jan. 21, 2005, 04:52 AM

Oxerdown, from your past posts, I understand that you are very involved with the various associations and it would make sense you are on the ball about rule changes. That is not the case for all of us. Sure, I've read the amateur rule backward and forward to make sure I never break it. I don't jump oxers backward ("lay ups") at horse shows. I call the USEF 1-800 number if I have a med. question. I basically understand the rules, and know when there may be a rule issue and consult the USEF rules to clarify and have even called Gary Baker when I had a zone-specific question (regarding pre-green status). I'm a rule follower, not a rule breaker. I own an approved helmet that I wear. My patey rarely sees any action these days. I'm not objecting to the rule change; I'm objecting to being called irresponsible because I didn't know it was coming. I understand from an email from Mr. Ellis that he went back and edited his post to add "in my opinion" so that it's clear that this is coming from him as a personal opinion and not something from the committee. That's all I object to. Would I rather not have the rule change? Yes. Am I OK with it? Yes.

swansong

Jan. 21, 2005, 05:09 AM

You might have been surprised by the rule change and felt it came with no warning BUT you have a year to get used to it so if I were you I would quit the complaining.

DMK

Jan. 21, 2005, 05:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SunnyBunny:
So, is Mr. Ellis going to pay my hourly billing rate for the day it would take me to read through the AHSA, er USEQ, er USEF rulebook each year and the other time for periodic review of proposed rule changes? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you so much for sharing how much more valuable your time is. Gosh, I don't know how I would have gone on another day without understanding the trauma that it is to be you. I am in awe.

(I mean, what? Do you think you are the only one who has to wade through complex documents like homeowner's associations, insurance policies, user manuals, upgrading to a wireless router, or - god forbid - a new DVD/CVR player?)

Hucklebug

Jan. 21, 2005, 07:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by DMK:
[QUOTE]

Thank you so much for sharing how much more valuable your time is. Gosh, I don't know how I would have gone on another day without understanding the trauma that it is to be you. I am in awe.

(I mean, what? Do you think you are the only one who has to wade through complex documents like homeowner's associations, insurance policies, user manuals, upgrading to a wireless router, or - god forbid - a new DVD/CVR player?) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don't think I'm the only person around here in my situation. That's why I posted in the first place. I HAVE NOT been active in the helmet rule bashing threads. I took offense, however, to those of us who weren't aware that the rule change was upon us being called irresponsible for not keeping up with our hobby's rule change proposals. I can only speak from my personal experience that this is not high on my priority list and that those things I'm required to read in order to make a living take priority over the mass amounts of mail I receive related to my horsey activities. If I thought I were alone, I wouldn't have posted it. I was trying to stand up for the little guy who can't find the time to read proposed rule changes because there are other priorities in life---and that doesn't make us irresponsible. On that note, I should be getting back to work now!

Portia

Jan. 21, 2005, 08:10 AM

Sorry I'm behind on this, as I've been on a business trip since immediately after returning from the annual meeting and haven't been able to check the boards, but I can confirm that if anyone is hoping the new rule will be changed again, it ain't gonna happen. The rule change was passed overwhelmingly, with not a single vote against it from the Board.

The detailed information and data presented at the Safety Committee seminar was enough to convince everyone who saw it of the importance of requiring approved helmets when jumping.

tle

Jan. 21, 2005, 08:32 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SunnyBunny:
No, I don't think I'm the only person around here in my situation. That's why I posted in the first place. I HAVE NOT been active in the helmet rule bashing threads. I took offense, however, to those of us who weren't aware that the rule change was upon us being called irresponsible for not keeping up with our hobby's rule change proposals. I can only speak from my personal experience that this is not high on my priority list and that those things I'm required to read in order to make a living take priority over the mass amounts of mail I receive related to my horsey activities. If I thought I were alone, I wouldn't have posted it. I was trying to stand up for the little guy who can't find the time to read proposed rule changes because there are other priorities in life---and that doesn't make us irresponsible. On that note, I should be getting back to work now! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have got to be kidding me! Now it's the fault of the association that you can't find time to read what they have taken the time to put out?? Are you freakin' serious??? That's like saying you are going to b#tch and moan about who was elected president because voting was not "high on your priority list?" I could fully understand being upset at being surprised if the USEF hadn't made a lot of effort in getting the word out about the proposal.

Ok, let's for a moment suspend this little inconvenience called reality and even do away with that problem child called personal responsibility. What would you have had the USEF do so that YOU wouldn't be upset? Obviously the e-mail notices, magazine articles, various polls, contact with specific other governing bodies, etc. wasn't enough to capture your attention and get you to spend the time (to READ!). Would you have them make a phone call to you personally? What about the other thousands of members? Should they have called them too??

See how ridiculous your complaint sounds?

Hucklebug

Jan. 21, 2005, 08:46 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by tle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SunnyBunny:
No, I don't think I'm the only person around here in my situation. That's why I posted in the first place. I HAVE NOT been active in the helmet rule bashing threads. I took offense, however, to those of us who weren't aware that the rule change was upon us being called irresponsible for not keeping up with our hobby's rule change proposals. I can only speak from my personal experience that this is not high on my priority list and that those things I'm required to read in order to make a living take priority over the mass amounts of mail I receive related to my horsey activities. If I thought I were alone, I wouldn't have posted it. I was trying to stand up for the little guy who can't find the time to read proposed rule changes because there are other priorities in life---and that doesn't make us irresponsible. On that note, I should be getting back to work now! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have got to be kidding me! Now it's the fault of the association that you can't find time to read what they have taken the time to put out?? Are you freakin' serious??? That's like saying you are going to b#tch and moan about who was elected president because voting was not "high on your priority list?" I could fully understand being upset at being surprised if the USEF hadn't made a lot of effort in getting the word out about the proposal.

Ok, let's for a moment suspend this little inconvenience called reality and even do away with that problem child called personal responsibility. What would you have had the USEF do so that YOU wouldn't be upset? Obviously the e-mail notices, magazine articles, various polls, contact with specific other governing bodies, etc. wasn't enough to capture your attention and get you to spend the time (to READ!). Would you have them make a phone call to you personally? What about the other thousands of members? Should they have called them too??

See how ridiculous your complaint sounds? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't complained about the helmet rule. I have an approved helmet and don't have a problem wearing it. I can understand how others might. My only complaint is that a member of the committee got on here and called all of those who were unaware of the forthcoming rule change irresponsible for not participating in reviewing the USEF's rule proposals. I've never once broken a USEF rule. I don't have a problem with the rules. I have a problem with being labeled by a rep from the organization. ANd the reality check is that some people have other ways to spend their time than keeping up with the USEF's activities. Some of us leave it for the professionals to follow and let us know when there's a rule change that would affect us. THat's part of their job as a trainer and part of why they're responsible when their clients' horses have a positive drug test. I object to people who aren't keeping up with the rule changes as being labeled irresponsible. Stop telling me what I am and am not complaining about. I can tell you that i'm not complaining about the rule change. I'm complaining about Mr. Ellis coming on here and calling those who were unaware irresponsible.

tle

Jan. 21, 2005, 09:18 AM

Please read for comprehension!

I never said you were complaining about the rule itself.

ir·re·spon·si·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-spns-bl)
adj.
1. Marked by a lack of responsibility: irresponsible accusations.
2. Lacking a sense of responsibility; unreliable or untrustworthy.
3. Law. Not mentally or financially fit to assume responsibility.
4. Not liable to be called to account by a higher authority.

Now, I would point out that to not know the change is coming (which you admitted to when you recently replied to DMK) IS irresponsible because whether or not you knew about it you are being held accountable. You are very responsible when it comes to knowing current rules, but irresponsible when knowing upcoming changes.

oxerdown

Jan. 21, 2005, 09:51 AM

I too would say it is not responsible for ignoring the rules of the group you join.

I think Mr. Ellis takes action therfore he seems to have a sense of responsibility based on the definitions above.

It seems that sunnybunny is #2, lacking a sense for whatever reason. I just don't think you should be so critical on someone who really cares enough to get involved and say how they really feel.

That takes courage.

PiedPiper

Jan. 21, 2005, 10:09 AM

What I don't think a lot of people understand or know is there is a big push from the insurance companies to drop all coverage on those that participate in at risk sports, i.e. sky diving, rock climbing, horseback riding, etc. Having worked in HR and in Long Term Care, I have seen first hand that those of us that ride are not looked at favorably. So I think that in that perspective having to wear an approved helmet and keeping at bay those that want to shut us all down is very little to ask.

What we love to do is seen as reckless to the rest of the world and if given their way, uncoverable. I think showing a good faith effort of doing all that can be for safety's sake should be of the utmost importantance unless we want to one day see the day where we are lamenting the fact that as of a certain date ALL riding will be considered uncoverageable. Money talks and it is with the insurance companies.

But you guys are right, it SUCKS being told as an adult what to do. But showing is a priviledge and like any club the USEF can decide what is or isn't allowed. There are no rights in it. Just like, as was pointed out by Janet, not having leg wraps, flash nosebands, etc. This is just another rule added to the list. If you don't like it, or any of the others, than don't participate.

Okay off my soapbox now. I do want to say my one REAL pet peeve is those that leave their chin harness dangling. What is that!?! The most ridiculous thing I have ever see, just sitting there dangling around hittig you all over your face. Who was the first to think THAT looked cool? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/dead.gif Okay, sorry just had to let that out, whoo. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

ser42

Jan. 21, 2005, 10:16 AM

As I asked on another of these threads, will those of you against the new helmet rule also complain about Lenny's Law if enacted? God forbid we are told how many horses can be in a ring at once....

But I'm a "Helmet Nazi," so go ahead and flame me.

Hucklebug

Jan. 21, 2005, 12:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by tle:
Please read for comprehension!

I never said you were complaining about the rule itself.

_ir·re·spon·si·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-spns-bl)
adj.
1. Marked by a lack of responsibility: irresponsible accusations.
2. Lacking a sense of responsibility; unreliable or untrustworthy.
3. Law. Not mentally or financially fit to assume responsibility.
4. Not liable to be called to account by a higher authority. _

Now, I would point out that to not know the change is coming (which you admitted to when you recently replied to DMK) IS irresponsible because whether or not you knew about it you are being held accountable. You are very responsible when it comes to knowing current rules, but irresponsible when knowing upcoming changes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I only respect those definitions from the OED http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I want everyone to be safe and brain healthy...I'm moving along now, and hope the rest will too...and I'm am in support of Lenny's Law or whatever would make schooling areas safer. I also have some ideas for it that I'll post on that thread.