Fun Ride banning shielding/vulnerable riders- is this OK?

[Silver Clouds]

I have been on several organised rides over the last couple of months, and although they ask you to sign a disclaimer saying you don't have CV19 and haven't recently come into contact with someone who does, none have asked about shielding. I have contacted the organisers of a ride due to take place in 3 weeks time, and their list of rules state that if you were shielding and/or are classed as vulnerable then you are banned from the ride. I know that employers can be sued for disability discrimination if preventing shielding/vulnerable people from working in the same capacity as their colleagues (even if they are trying to protect them), so is it OK for a (hunt run) fun ride to do this?

As a person who is classified as extremely vulnerable I do not present an extra risk to the public compared to anyone else, and unless I fall off I will not come into contact with another person whilst taking part (I have a sensible horse so this is not a significant risk). I am working full time for the NHS so more likely to catch it at the office. I am not sure whether to challenge the organisers, not go to the ride (the last event of the year in this area so would be very disappointed to miss it), or lie on the form (not really keen on this).

What do you think?

 

[ihatework]

I think its a nonsense clause.
How will they know and how can they police.

If you want to go and accept the risk of doing so then just go.

 

[AShetlandBitMeOnce]

I would imagine it's input as a get out clause for them should anything happen, as the risk is now in your hands - and that they have no intention on policing it

 

[ester]

I don't understand the logic behind it.

the questionnaire for my physio that is filled in before every appt. asks about it but am not sure what happens if you say yes.

 

[katastrophykat]

Surely if you’re shielding you won’t be riding so it won’t be an issue?

 

[Silver Clouds]

I don't understand the logic behind it.

the questionnaire for my physio that is filled in before every appt. asks about it but am not sure what happens if you say yes.

We ask our patients (well, their parents/carers as it's paeds) this question, but it is just to make sure that our staff wear extra PPE to protect the patient, and we ensure that they don't have to wait in the waiting room but go straight into their appointment. It has no effect on the clinical care we provide them with.

 

[AmyMay]

Surely if you’re shielding you won’t be riding so it won’t be an issue?

I suspect the clause is about not being able to guarantee that a shielded/vulnerable rider will not come into close contact with another rider.

But presumably someone in that category wouldn’t attend anyway ??‍

 

[Silver Clouds]

Surely if you’re shielding you won’t be riding so it won’t be an issue?

Shielding ended on the 1st of August, and since then shielding people are expected to attend work, appointments, etc. The letter the Government sent out at that point basically said return to normal activity-wise, but remember that you are still more vulnerable than 'healthy' people (it wasn't much help really!). It is odd that the Fun ride rules ban 'people who were shielding/are vulnerable'.

 

[ihatework]

We ask our patients (well, their parents/carers as it's paeds) this question, but it is just to make sure that our staff wear extra PPE to protect the patient, and we ensure that they don't have to wait in the waiting room but go straight into their appointment. It has no effect on the clinical care we provide them with.

On this basis I would take an educated guess that the organisers have done a risk assessment, presumably needed as part of their insurance. I'd imagine there are set questions on that RA, one of which is how they will mitigate risk to vunerable/shielding people. In the fun ride situation that would be difficult so naturally a quick and easy response to that would be to exclude those people.

It is therefore put on the individual to comply. And yes, if you are a shielding person you would be out of your mind to go on a fun ride, because that is hardly shielding is it?

So I wouldn't loose sleep over this, the organisers are most likely box ticking.

 

[Silver Clouds]

I suspect the clause is about not being able to guarantee that a shielded/vulnerable rider will not come into close contact with another rider.

But presumably someone in that category wouldn’t attend anyway ??‍

The ride rules also state that you mustn't get within 2 metres of anyone else on the ride unless you are from the same household, and that lorries/boxes will be parked with a 10m gap between them in the car park. All the other rides I have attended have had the stewards reminding all the participants as they pass on the ride that they must keep their distance. I go on my own, and have not come within 5m of anyone at rides so far- at least as we're all on horses people are more likely to keep their distance!

 

[ester]

We ask our patients (well, their parents/carers as it's paeds) this question, but it is just to make sure that our staff wear extra PPE to protect the patient, and we ensure that they don't have to wait in the waiting room but go straight into their appointment. It has no effect on the clinical care we provide them with.

I suspect this is the same/she adjust what time of day you went etc.

 

[Silver Clouds]

On this basis I would take an educated guess that the organisers have done a risk assessment, presumably needed as part of their insurance. I'd imagine there are set questions on that RA, one of which is how they will mitigate risk to vunerable/shielding people. In the fun ride situation that would be difficult so naturally a quick and easy response to that would be to exclude those people.

It is therefore put on the individual to comply. And yes, if you are a shielding person you would be out of your mind to go on a fun ride, because that is hardly shielding is it?

So I wouldn't loose sleep over this, the organisers are most likely box ticking.

The confusing thing is that shielding stopped months ago, and shielding people have been advised to return to work etc. I am at far less risk on a ride than in the supermarket or at work, so it feels more like the rule is discrimination due to a lazy or paranoid risk Ax. You can't ban people with mobility problems from working at a company just because in theory they are more likely to fall over, and this seems similarly nonsensical.

I am probably particularly touchy on this front as I have a degenerative and life-limiting disease, so being unnecessarily excluded from things highlights that I don't know how much longer I will be able to do them. I also have a tendency to maybe see things as rather black and white, so struggle to understand rules that can't be clearly justified.

 

[southerncomfort]

I would look at it as, since shielding isn't a thing any more then the clause is null and void and you should go and have a lovely day out! ?

I wonder if they've reused T&C's from an earlier ride and forgotten to remove the clause.

 

[Esmae]

I would say it's okay. Last time I looked this virus hadn't gone away. People who were classed as vulnerable before are just as vulnerable now. I would look at it as the ride organisers trying to protect those vulnerable groups and be thankful for their care and efforts.

 

[Pearlsacarolsinger]

It sounds like discrimination to me, too. If you can be bothered, you could ask them how they are complying with the Equality Act 2010. If they have organised measures to ensure distancing, I can't see the problem with regards to the clinically extremely/vulnerable, compared to say, going to work or travelling on public transport. I think if you want to go, just go

 

[Silver Clouds]

It sounds like discrimination to me, too. If you can be bothered, you could ask them how they are complying with the Equality Act 2010. If they have organised measures to ensure distancing, I can't see the problem with regards to the clinically extremely/vulnerable, compared to say, going to work or travelling on public transport. I think if you want to go, just go

That was my thoughts, as it doesn't matter if someone thinks/says they are trying to 'protect' you, it can still be discrimination. I think if I question the organisers regarding equality they are likely to just say their insurance demands it, or that as they are organising a private event it doesn't apply- I'm not sure I have the energy to argue with them about it TBH.

 

[Tiddlypom]

I’m pretty law abiding, but I’d not admit to being vulnerable and would just take my chances and attend. You are not endangering anyone else except for yourself else by attending, and I can see why you think it’s worth it.

 

[Pearlsacarolsinger]

That was my thoughts, as it doesn't matter if someone thinks/says they are trying to 'protect' you, it can still be discrimination. I think if I question the organisers regarding equality they are likely to just say their insurance demands it, or that as they are organising a private event it doesn't apply- I'm not sure I have the energy to argue with them about it TBH.

Actually I think if they are charging an entry fee they do need to comply with Equality Act. However it is probably easier to just not declare your issues and go, making sure that you stay as safe as possible.

 

[Adoni123]

I think by this point it should be up to those that are shielding if they want to take part or not... I do think that's what the Government were saying now but I can't keep up

 

[Muddywellies]

I would imagine it's input as a get out clause for them should anything happen, as the risk is now in your hands - and that they have no intention on policing it

This.
It's likely that by having this rule, it means that as you are vulnerable, should you catch covid from someone else (who does not know they have it) and become really quite poorly, you couldnt then sue the organisers.

 

[poiuytrewq]

Surely if you’re shielding you won’t be riding so it won’t be an issue?

Well this was what I thought when reading the question.
My dad shielded and it literally means staying home, otherwise it’s surely just social distancing?
I think someone actually vulnerable and shielding wouldn’t want to be taking part in a fun ride.

 

[wills_91]

How can you sign a disclaimer stating you don't have covid? Unless your being tested you wouldn't know..

 

[Dexter]

Its discrimination and its illegal. You can contact one of the big disability charities for help and advice.

 

[sport horse]

Shielding is no longer in operation. If you google 'is shielding still in operation' it will take you to a government page and it clearly states that shielding is no longer in operation. Those that are extremely vulnerable should make their own decisions. I suspect the rules were circulated some time ago to organisers and no one hs thought to update them - there is quite a lot going on!!
Therefore no one is shielded by the Government so the rule for the Fun Ride does not apply any longer. If you choose to shield yourself I am surprised that you are thinking of attending.

 

[Silver Clouds]

Shielding is no longer in operation. If you google 'is shielding still in operation' it will take you to a government page and it clearly states that shielding is no longer in operation. Those that are extremely vulnerable should make their own decisions. I suspect the rules were circulated some time ago to organisers and no one hs thought to update them - there is quite a lot going on!!
Therefore no one is shielded by the Government so the rule for the Fun Ride does not apply any longer. If you choose to shield yourself I am surprised that you are thinking of attending.

Thank's SH, that was my understanding re. shielding. I was on the shielding list, but stopped on the 1st of August when shielding ended for everyone. I would not choose to 'shield' myself now as aside from being depressing and impossible from a practical point of view (I would starve), I would not get paid!

 

[blitznbobs]

Its discrimination and its illegal. You can contact one of the big disability charities for help and advice.

It’s not illegal to do health and safety things... you can be excluded from rides at alton towers etc because you are pregnant or have a bad back... it’s about reducing risk, and limiting liability. If you weren’t allowed to attend In the rules, you’ll have very limited Comeback if you get seriously ill at an event. It is up to the individual organisation to do a health and safety assessment and as such as long as they can justify it on those grounds they can make this the rule,

 

[Boulty]

As shielding isn't currently a thing atm it would likely be worth a message to organisers asking for clarification. It is highly unlikely that whichever poor person got roped into organising is an expert in equality law so would go softly softly rather than all guns blazing. (At the end of the day it's just a local fun ride not Badminton! It's highly unlikely that whoever is running it is getting paid for their time & all the extra covid related paperwork... Be kind, they're a human too) Would think they're within their rights to issue advice based on what they know about the venue (for example parking might be tight & so lorries may need to be parked closer together than recommended or maybe it's something to do with the route & where it goes idk) but as they can't check your medical records it would be a hard rule to enforce.

 

[Old school]

May I ask the OP, what is their plan of action that they have prepared should there be an incident where they need medical attention during the fun ride? I am specifically curious about the period from time of incident to when a medic in PPE would arrive? From reading your post I would now be extremely hesitant to assist anyone in this situation. I have First Aid training. But can not guarantee I am Covid19 free at any particular time and point.

 

[Tiddlypom]

I can’t speak for the OP, but it sounds like she is prepared to take her chances on being injured and needing assistance. She is not putting anyone else but herself at risk.

 

[Trouper]

Riding can be a dangerous sport but I find the application by non-medical organisations of additional limitations because of a virus somewhat ludicrous. We could all have an accident 100yds down the road on a hack but if I needed medical attention I would expect that emergency or trained first-aid attendees would have the Covid situation already factored in to their actions by now.
If you feel well enough to ride, are competent to do so and trust your horse then I would ignore the issue - or write "Non Applicable" beside the shielding question. Trying to speculate on what complicated set of circumstances might lead you to be more at risk to yourself or others because of a virus? - well, that way madness lies!!!
Go and enjoy yourself.