Horse and Hound lost the plot?

applecart14

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 March 2010
Messages
6,270
Location
Solihull, West Mids
The simple reason? Because in those days people didn't realise the consequences of riding without a hat. The head injury and the resultant problems that come with such an injury. Roll on 18 years and my head injury classed 'severe concussion' still has an impact on my life. I suffered from migraines for years afterwards, and I have problems with recognition of faces, long term memory, relating something to someone with a 'thread' and sometimes get very frustrated trying to explain things to people, sometimes it results in me becoming angry with frustration and teary. Those that know me well understand.

Just because they did something in 'the old days' doesn't mean it was sensible or clever!
 

Arizahn

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 May 2011
Messages
4,298
I agree. Having lost a fellow livery who had a head injury and died (was wearing a hat but not her own) and me that was fitting with eyes rolling into the back of my head and intensive care overnight after a bad concussion, again whilst wearing a hat, it beggars belief that people will ride without one, like people drive without a seatbelt, drink when drunk, ride without fluorescent, etc, etc. But its their decision at the end of the day.

But I agree a blanket ban in publications, and a ban on riding on road and livery yards too for those that ride without hats. Just out of interest I would love to know if anything could ever come back on a livery yard owner that let someone without a hat ride in their school and something happened. I assume it would come back on a competition centre for example.
As someone who has often woken up in hospital after a serious neurological event, I'm offended by your choice of words here.
 

applecart14

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 March 2010
Messages
6,270
Location
Solihull, West Mids
As someone who has often woken up in hospital after a serious neurological event, I'm offended by your choice of words here.
Sorry I'm not sure what you mean. After the fall I had (horse went down on shoulder and I was catapaulted off landing on my head) - an off duty police lady who was a livery on the yard drove me to hospital as she suspected I had a head injury. I started talking strangely to her on the way and she knew I was in trouble. On arrival at hospital I was combative with the consultant (typical head injury) and I was fitting and my eyes were rolling back into the back of my head. I was blue light to a hospital with a CAT scanner as my hospital didn't have one at the time. I was in intensive care overnight. Wasn't being glib in the slightest. There was a suspicion that I had a bleed on the brain, fortunately I didn't but the problems that I have now (much less than before) are as a result of this injury, all those years ago.
 
Last edited:

Firefly9410

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 November 2014
Messages
900
I have not read all the replies so I apologise if this has already been said. H&H is a hunting magazine, there are no hat rules in hunting other than dress code rules. How could they ban photos of people who do not wear hats to a modern safety standard or at all? They could end up with no pics left! As for the Queen, I love her and like to see photos of her I do not care what she wears on her head. She is happy with her choice and always looks smart that is good enough for me. I sometimes buy magazines just because there is a photo of her. magazines are not a public service they are a business and will mostly be concerned with what sells. If you dislike hatless photos maybe you could refuse to buy anything with them in? It would have bigger impact I think than moaning on here.
 

armchair_rider

Well-Known Member
Joined
8 May 2012
Messages
2,185
Location
South Ox
Its clearly stated that it's an old photo and is included to emphasise the faith that Emma Hindle has in his temperament. In the context of the article it seems fine to me that it's included. H&H often include old photos, some have shown riders wearing hats without chinstraps, or well known riders as children jumping huge fences without a body protector for example but I can't see that it encourages anyone to copy. I like to see these old photos, it would be a huge pity if they had to excluded for H&S reasons or photo shopped to match current safety standards!
I would hate to see old photos being excluded/photoshopped to make them more acceptable to modern viewers. And i'm not sure they'd be very influential anyway - people are no less likely to leave their hat off because of an old photo than they are to hack out in a hacking jacket

The simple reason? Because in those days people didn't realise the consequences of riding without a hat. The head injury and the resultant problems that come with such an injury. Roll on 18 years and my head injury classed 'severe concussion' still has an impact on my life. I suffered from migraines for years afterwards, and I have problems with recognition of faces, long term memory, relating something to someone with a 'thread' and sometimes get very frustrated trying to explain things to people, sometimes it results in me becoming angry with frustration and teary. Those that know me well understand.

Just because they did something in 'the old days' doesn't mean it was sensible or clever!
I think it's more a case of not having effective hats on offer - I get the impression that, as hats have improved, people have become more likely to wear them. People certainly understood the potential consequences of head injuries even if they didn't understand the mechanisms.

I do agree with the last sentence of your post though
 

The Fuzzy Furry

Resident irriot
Joined
24 November 2010
Messages
17,025
Location
Buzzing about the south east
Helmets were not safety items many years ago, for horse riders and motorbikers.
Seatbelts in cars were not mandatory.

Fast forwards to this century & its been found that using both the above does save lives as proven by facts.
Its mandatory to wear seatbelts in moving vehicles, also for motorbikers to wear helmets.
Also mandatory to wear recognised safety helmets when competing on horseback, some even (shock horror to some here) having to wear body protectors too!

Anyways, back to the OP - totally agree that H&H ought to be setting standards not applying it as & when they think its required.
 

JFTD-WS

Wears headscarf humorously...
Joined
4 November 2010
Messages
18,861
Fwiw, I think getting up in arms about a single photo of a hatless rider with an explanation in the text is in the realms of the professionally offended. Like a previous poster, I feel more strongly about the multitude of photos of obese show horses every week.

It's one photo of an unusual situation. They're hardly publishing photos of dozens of kids with the title "hatless is fun! Who cares if you become a vegetable!"

Also, if I hear one more mention of "back protectors" I'm going to scream. Body protectors. Because that's what they're designed to protect :/
 

applecart14

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 March 2010
Messages
6,270
Location
Solihull, West Mids
Fwiw, I think getting up in arms about a single photo of a hatless rider with an explanation in the text is in the realms of the professionally offended. Like a previous poster, I feel more strongly about the multitude of photos of obese show horses every week.

It's one photo of an unusual situation. They're hardly publishing photos of dozens of kids with the title "hatless is fun! Who cares if you become a vegetable!"

Also, if I hear one more mention of "back protectors" I'm going to scream. Body protectors. Because that's what they're designed to protect :/
Ha ha, you would hate me then as I keep referring to my air jacket as an air bag. lol :)
 

minesadouble

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 June 2005
Messages
2,137
I do think we need to remember that whilst wearing a hat is sensible and advisable it is not a legal requirement (unless a minor riding on roads).
As for body protectors I'm interested to know how far they have come. I am old enough to remember the introduction of body protectors into the horsey community and I also remember that they would protect you from bruising but that they would not prevent broken bones. I assume they must have progressed since those days.
However I see quite frequently in Facebook people saying 'my body protector saved my life' I have to say I very much doubt that that is the case!
Photos in H&H of hatless riders do not concern me at all, the 'nanny state' mentality bothers me a lot!
 

JFTD-WS

Wears headscarf humorously...
Joined
4 November 2010
Messages
18,861
AppleCart, whilst the colloquial nature of that term is one I would be disclined to use personally, it is not deeply and erroneously misleading in the manner in which "back protector" is - no back protector offers significant spinal protection, other than possibly from penetrating injuries...
 

Clodagh

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 August 2005
Messages
14,251
Location
Essex
But those of us who think you are being ridiculous don't necessarily not wear hats - I always wear a hat, my chidren wear hats and body protectors (when younger) I just don't see a pic of someone riding without one and think 'dammit that looks cool' and take off bareheaded. Earlier, when I said sheeplike that was what I meant - I can see a picture of a page 3 girl and keep my top on too. (Thank goodness say the population).
 

ycbm

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 January 2015
Messages
19,093
Mimi
AppleCart, whilst the colloquial nature of that term is one I would be disclined to use personally, it is not deeply and erroneously misleading in the manner in which "back protector" is - no back protector offers significant spinal protection, other than possibly from penetrating injuries...
It's older people that it's come from jftd. The first ones back in the mists of time only covered your back, not the front of your body, and so they were called back protectors, not body protectors, and people have just stuck with the habit.
 

Bustermartin

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 January 2008
Messages
210
Mimi

It's older people that it's come from jftd. The first ones back in the mists of time only covered your back, not the front of your body, and so they were called back protectors, not body protectors, and people have just stuck with the habit.
'Back in the mists of time........' how old do I feel now!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

horsebenny

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 April 2012
Messages
201
Totally agree. When I was a kid a lady in our village had the safest, quietest horse you could find - she even used to hack to the local shop and throw her shopping over his back. She did that for years. One day, out of the blue, he got a fright and bolted. She died.
 

DabDab

Well-Known Member
Joined
6 May 2013
Messages
6,760
The point is that the vast majority of people do wear hats and one photo in a magazine among a sea of photos of riders with hats is not going to stop them wearing one.

I neither need nor want protection from seeing images of people being irresponsible. And I don't want to read a magazine that I know has been censored in such a way.
 

Sleighfarer

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 January 2009
Messages
2,267
In the same issue of H&H there is a cover line about Jo Hamilton, the dressage rider, who recently sustained a brain injury falling in the school. She was wearing a hat, but the injuries would have been worse without it. As it is, she was in hospital for nine weeks and is still unable to ride.
 

Jericho

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 February 2008
Messages
2,534
Seeing someone ride without a hat doesn't make me think oh I will do that. I have a young daughter and I hope I have brought her up to understand the importance of wearing a hat AND not to do something just because someone else has...
 

popsdosh

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 November 2008
Messages
6,382
Perhaps a challenge for the Zealots would be to go through horse and hound and check out how many riders are wearing hats that conform to safety standards. To be blunt for every rider that becomes a burden on the NHS by not wearing a hat there will be one that is because they were! wearing hats does not stop riders becoming vegetables ! However I suspect that will go straight over your head!!
 

popsdosh

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 November 2008
Messages
6,382
This just about sums it up for me.
Exactly! Next they will stop pictures of jumping ,because they may fall off an injure themselves . I once saw a picture in the paper of somebody jumping off Beachy Head but something told me that was not a good idea!
 

horsebenny

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 April 2012
Messages
201
Exactly! Next they will stop pictures of jumping ,because they may fall off an injure themselves . I once saw a picture in the paper of somebody jumping off Beachy Head but something told me that was not a good idea!
Totally missing the point which was, whatever your stance on hats or no hats, that a responsible magazine shouldn't publish a picture of it pseudo-Editor riding a stallion without a hag and wearing Ugg boots.
 

DabDab

Well-Known Member
Joined
6 May 2013
Messages
6,760
Totally missing the point which was, whatever your stance on hats or no hats, that a responsible magazine shouldn't publish a picture of it pseudo-Editor riding a stallion without a hag and wearing Ugg boots.
Why not - what effect do you think publishing that picture will have? (genuinely curious)
 

Kaylum

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 May 2010
Messages
3,913
I was riding in the school on a bomb proof horse just trotting he tripped I went down with him he stood on my head am still alive, the hat has died though. irresponsible yes just like those photo shoots without hats and wedding dresses.
 
Last edited:

popsdosh

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 November 2008
Messages
6,382
Totally missing the point which was, whatever your stance on hats or no hats, that a responsible magazine shouldn't publish a picture of it pseudo-Editor riding a stallion without a hag and wearing Ugg boots.
Have you never heard the term . 'When you find yourself in a hole stop digging' !!
 
Top