"How dangerous is horse riding?"

B

Booboos

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 January 2008
Messages
12,776
Location
South of France
Visit site
I must keep my OH from reading this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8339097.stm

Hacking = riding at a walking pace ???!!! Someone didn't do their research!
smile.gif
 
God, I hope my husband doesn't see this !
I came home the other week to find he had recorded helicopter heroes or something and he made me sit and watch it because three showjumpers were taken to hospital in the air ambulance ! I then had to listen to his usual "its time you gave horses up" speech !
 
Professor Nutt-Job got the sack, so not sure you can count his opinion anyway.

Of course riding is dangerous, particularly if you go XC when you cant even tell if youre on the right canter lead or not without diving down the horses shoulder. Or when you ride in an ill fitting saddle because you wont spend money on a new one. Or you dont ride all week, feed shovel loads of course mix (because he likes it), then expect your horse to behave at the pleasure ride at the weekend.....

Riding is dangerous anyway, so why people make it more so is whats crazy to me!
crazy.gif
 
*Hides article from OH* Dont need to give him any reason to stop our son starting lessons
grin.gif

It's dangerous,but the one true thing in that article is [ QUOTE ]
He found many serious accidents resulted from a "mismatch between the skills of the participant and the task attempted".

[/ QUOTE ]
If you are trying to do something you are not ready for,you are going to get hurt.
Good lessons,the right horse and an acceptence of what your ability really is combined with wearing the apropriate safety equipment reduces the risks.
To compare a sport to a drug is just dumb....
 
[ QUOTE ]
Professor Nutt-Job got the sack, so not sure you can count his opinion anyway.



[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think he's pretty good, puts things into perspective using what I presume is accurate data that he and his team have collected over a number of years. The government just try to make some things 'bad' (such as cannabis) when in actual fact the risks they pose are less than the public are led to believe.

I think all he was trying to point out was that an activity that is enjoyed recreationally by thousands (millions?) is more risky, and probably cost more in terms of hospital treatment than some drugs.

FWIW, I don't take drugs, but I horse ride does the fact that I do something more risky than drugs as a hobby make me a 'cooler' person to joe public though? I think not
tongue.gif
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
He found many serious accidents resulted from a "mismatch between the skills of the participant and the task attempted".

[/ QUOTE ]

No shetland sherlock. If only a few more people would listen to the only piece of decent info Professor Nutt has spouted!
 
Haha thats laughable!

Oh and guess who they chose to have the pic of-Zara Phillips! Suprised that there was no mention of her, there is in anything else horsey!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Juno - perhaps you need to give up hacking [riding at a walking pace] and take up eventing - Equasy! Haha

[/ QUOTE ]
I tried this hacking of which you speak yesterday. Riding a big warmblood but thats another story.
I feel i must have been ill equiped for the task as I rarely managed the desired walk. perhaps once I have mastered eventing I will be able to return to more successful hacking.

On a serious note, lets remember this person was sack NOT because he was incompetent but rather because he dared to disagree with the goverment line.
However I do think he is a little confused over the ecstacy of riding horses and the ecstasy of raves/pop concerts etc.

PS, I've had a good search for a chest protector but only found back body protectors. If I wear one of these backwards will it do the same job?
 
QR
Someone is going to have to speak to all the horses I have ever hacked. They are not doing it right
mad.gif
tongue.gif


He got sacked because he threw a hissy fit and went to the media because the minister didn't take his advice. If I'd done the same when ministers didn't take my advice I'd have been sacked too, despite the fact that I was far more expert in my field than they were!
 
I think his name says it all really, would you trust a man called Proffessor Nut
grin.gif
me thinks not.

now where are my equasy pills, I think I need to overdose
wink.gif
 
is this nonsense leading to a tax on horse riding, or will we all have to apply for licences to do so- nothing would surprise me any more with this pathetic and inept government which shows unbelieveable ignorance in virtually everything!!!!
 
If I were the conservatives I would legalise cannabis, tax it heavily and steal the tourists from Holland.

Never mind taxing horses, if they legalised all drugs for that matter they'd have a really revenue earner and generate loads of jobs and tourism.
 
Crossing the road is dangerous every blinking thing is dangerous.

I am sitting here with whiplash due to a car accident.

I am still going to ride and spend time with horses once the neck has recovered.
 
He was sacked because he commented on policy in a way that contradicted the current government stance. The - very valid - concern is that the powers that be can't just go around firing public citizens for their personal views, even if they have been hired (not elected) to do a specific job with set parameters for said powers. I think he was very naive but I also think he'd likely had it with doing the objective job he was hired to do and then being told he'd done it "wrong". I don't know if he's keen on being controversial or - like many scientists - just sees the world in that black and white way that makes them think that telling the truth will somehow be okay with everyone.
smile.gif


By the way, I don't think he's ever said "drugs good, horse riding bad" so I don't really know where people get that. He's merely said, if we're going to ban things because people get hurt doing them then the rule has to be accurately applied. If we're going to have an ethical debate then that's different but that's not how they're selling it. Leaving out the fact that alcohol and tobacco use - which every study says has huge risks - is "okay" merely because it's already legal and the public purse makes huge money through taxing it.

Doesn't it bother anyone that there seems to be some real evidence the government is setting policy - and spending millions - on beliefs that don't stand up to scrutiny? If the want to say "We're waging a war on drugs because the people who elected us want that" then cool, all good. But if they say "We're waging a war on drugs because it's a massive threat to society and our citizens so it's worth spending massive amounts of money on it because the cost of not doing so is far higher" . . .well, it would seem to be that's not quite the case.

Surely the next argument will be that people should not be allowed to do a dangerous sport like riding because it poses a risk to citizens and potentially costs millions in health care, not to mention costs of bridleways etc? What? It's the same reasoning?

I know stats can be manipulated but I'm amazed anyone who rides is surprised - let alone disagrees - that riding is dangerous and has a very high injury rate relative to participant hours. And that lack of knowledge and proper, safe practice greatly increases those risks. That's not exactly a shock. Why do people get so bent when it's pointed out? Are they kidding themselves?
 
to put it back into perspective - from an insurance viewpoint, I have been informed that formula 1 racing is less dangerous than eventing. Now that could be numbers of drivers v riders but I took the point!. And the worst equine accidents I have seen are normally freaky and one off's.... accidents in other words.. As we get older and are less happy to pass spare time in hospitals, we become more careful (well thats what happened to me!)
 
I find this article kind of pointless - when it says serious accidents it doesnt define serious so therefore is rather meaning less IMO. Also 3% of spinal cord cases down to horse riding yet fails to mention the other % of cases caused by the other sports researched? its 3% very low... high? Surely these points where covered in the orginal paper and would give some perspective so the reader could make up ones own mind....

the comment about horse riding vs motorbikes seems rather out of date too being from 1985 so therefore not considering the safety improvements for both riders and bikers.

"Cars, horses and riders are a lethal combination" to steal a great phrase - no shetland sherlock. Yet when you report a incident on the road to do with dangerous driving and horses the police politely tell you to F**k Off nine times out of ten......

Sorry for rant! Just a poor article IMO and I think you have to always remember unlike other sports one of the vital pieces of kit has a mind of its own!!
 
[ QUOTE ]

Surely the next argument will be that people should not be allowed to do a dangerous sport like riding because it poses a risk to citizens and potentially costs millions in health care, not to mention costs of bridleways etc? What? It's the same reasoning?

I know stats can be manipulated but I'm amazed anyone who rides is surprised - let alone disagrees - that riding is dangerous and has a very high injury rate relative to participant hours. And that lack of knowledge and proper, safe practice greatly increases those risks. That's not exactly a shock. Why do people get so bent when it's pointed out? Are they kidding themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tarrsteps you make some good points.
I think that if horse riding and drugs are as dangerous maybe they would like to chuck some more money our way?! I know riding is dangerous I just think it seems pointless to write an article brushing over the actual points of the paper in question.

With regards to the idea of banning riding due to the incurred costs - then its major talking point. IMO I would see it as ridiculous and more money should be put into making all sports available and safer for all people. As a UK tax payer I would rather my tax be spent on a injuries from a sports nd research into this area, regardless how dangerous said sport is rather than a condition some1 causes to themself - for example obesity.
 
When I posted the link I was thinking that the article's mistakes on riding were funny and for the general point that my OH would use it as ammunition to get me to give up horses.

On the more general point of DrN's recommendations, the article is pretty poor journalism and kind of typical of the dumbed down debates we get from the media. As far as I understand it Dr N was asked to study the effects of drugs with a specific question in mind regarding the de-criminalisation of drug use. In general the law does not make an activity criminal unless there is good reason to do so. Dr N was suggesting that some drugs are less harmful than other legal activities (e.g. horse riding) so there is no basis in criminalising these drugs because of the harm they cause. To be consistent one would need to either criminalise other harmful activities like riding (which the law is generally reluctant to do, on the good principle that mature adults should be free to choose to expose themselves to some harms), or de-criminalise the use of these drugs. All of which sounds extremely sensible to me!
 
[ QUOTE ]
On the more general point of DrN's recommendations, the article is pretty poor journalism and kind of typical of the dumbed down debates we get from the media. As far as I understand it Dr N was asked to study the effects of drugs with a specific question in mind regarding the de-criminalisation of drug use. In general the law does not make an activity criminal unless there is good reason to do so. Dr N was suggesting that some drugs are less harmful than other legal activities (e.g. horse riding) so there is no basis in criminalising these drugs because of the harm they cause. To be consistent one would need to either criminalise other harmful activities like riding (which the law is generally reluctant to do, on the good principle that mature adults should be free to choose to expose themselves to some harms), or de-criminalise the use of these drugs. All of which sounds extremely sensible to me!

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent, well written and truthfull post about the present situation. This proffessor is top notch as are all the other members of that advice group. They are the experts NOT Alan Johnson. Our drug laws are ludicrous when the REAL affects of all drugs, legal or illegal are looked into in an honest and open manner.
Basically the public are being misled by politicians and our media and our naive public lap it up, sadly.
 
To be honest i thought it was pretty much pointing out things to us that we as horse riders already know.

Just a thought. You know these "horsey airbags", when they say triggered by a release cord do they mean automatically or that the rider has to trigger the cord? Because if they mean the latter could someone please explain to me how the chuffing hell you're meant to pull the cord before hitting the deck? Because i barely get time to think let alone cord pull.
smirk.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Just a thought. You know these "horsey airbags", when they say triggered by a release cord do they mean automatically or that the rider has to trigger the cord? Because if they mean the latter could someone please explain to me how the chuffing hell you're meant to pull the cord before hitting the deck? Because i barely get time to think let alone cord pull.
smirk.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I think they probably mean the Point 2 Body Protector which has a cord attached to the saddle which pulls as the rider falls off and the jacket inflates. More info on their website if you are interested, and loads of discussions on the pros and cons on here if you do a search.
 
Really? Blimey i thought it was an over exaggeration. Had a read through thanks. Makes for interesting reading, not sure i'd want one but can see why they're attractive
smile.gif
 
I do think that Prof Nutt et al seem to miss an important point about cannabis. It may be less dangerous than some other drugs however it is a gateway drug and it does, in my experience, lead to trying other more dangerous psychoactive drugs. I personally think that this is an important consideration.

I would also be interested to hear about the health benefits of riding as I think they may well balance out the overall cost to the healthservice of dealing with injuries. How many obese chronically ill riders do you know? We are in general a fit healthy bunch and whilst we may need patching up occasionally after hitting the deck there are many health benefits related to regular exercise and the outdoor active life!
 
Professor Nutt was being in no way critical of riding.

What he was saying is that the government want to make Ecstacy a class A drug with the prison sentances and penalties for possession and dealing that go with it. He was arguing that there is no evidence to suggest that it was reasonable to make ecastacy class a as in fact is it not that dangerous.

He said ecstacy is no more harmful than horse riding in reference to numbers of deaths. His point was not that horse riding should be banned, but that no one thought horse riding should be banned and yet it causes more deaths.

The government are scare mongering and "inflating" the classification system in the same way a-level grades get inflated. If cannabis is class B and Ecstacy class A, what do you make heroin or crystal meth???? A*???

The government need to decide why they outlaw drugs and what they hope to acheive with drugs legislation before they review anything as at the moment their policy is incoherant, and simply ends up criminalising a few stoned teenagers. Legalisation and appropriate control would be more cost effective and would probably be more successful too! At least then we could control purity and strength (a major cause of deaths is impurity and inconsistant strengths causing overdose) and take tax revenue from drugs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top