Riding with baby strapped to chest

Its not a new phenomena I would love to watch you tell this man he shouldnt be riding bareback with his 3yo son god no hats either!

attachment.php


I think some of a certain generation will recognise him and the photo is well known.
 
Tiddlypom said:
Harvey Smith (I think it's him) hasn't strapped his son to his chest, though, and the child is not a baby, so not the same.
Click to expand...

I would say the risk is about the same though? Aside from the dismounting issues. And why is it OK to endanger the life of a 3yo but not a baby?
 
GirlFriday said:
Not something I personally would do but many people would put (hold) young babies up for a photo op, take 3 year olds for lessons on ponies, have toddlers up to a yard to feed carrots etc. And of course plenty of people take their kids on pedal bike seats on the road. What this lady was doing was essentially a little more dangerous than those things combined... And the baby was (presumably) with its mother rather than dumped while she pursued her hobby, which, assuming it makes it that far, will have measurably better outcomes into adulthood... So, unless we're condemning every parent who lets their child ride ponies and every parent who takes their kid on a push bike... Live and let live?
Click to expand...

So mothers aren't allowed to 'dump' their babies on a minder whilst they pursue a hobby? They must be pinned to the baby every second of the day and not have any sort of separate life of their own? Good grief.
 
DabDab said:
I would say the risk is about the same though? Aside from the dismounting issues. And why is it OK to endanger the life of a 3yo but not a baby?
Click to expand...
It's not something I would do, but if they were both thrown from the horse, the child would likely have been thrown clear from his father. A strapped on baby would probably be at least partially crushed by the adult.
 
popsdosh said:
Its not a new phenomena I would love to watch you tell this man he shouldnt be riding bareback with his 3yo son
Click to expand...

Why?

I don't see the difference whether it's Joe Bloggs from down the road or someone well-known. The risk is there regardless - you're not exempt just because you have some kudos. Stupid decision either way.
 
I saw one a while ago riding down a busy road with a very young baby in a backpack type baby carrier - rider wearing a hat, baby had no protection at all. Can some people really not manage without riding for a while until they can find adequate baby care? Utter madness.
 
DabDab said:
I would say the risk is about the same though? Aside from the dismounting issues. And why is it OK to endanger the life of a 3yo but not a baby?
Click to expand...

You don't know much about babies, maybe? Their skulls are not fully formed and they are very fragile. When very young, they even have a hole in them, called a fontanelle
 
popsdosh said:
Its not a new phenomena I would love to watch you tell this man he shouldnt be riding bareback with his 3yo son god no hats either!
Click to expand...

I those days those who thought themselves 'good' riders also thought wearing hats [outside the competition ring] was for a novice rider. It was the same era where there was the school of thought by some that having a drink made them a sharper driver. Thankfully we have (mostly) evolved a bit since then :).
 
Last edited:
Llewellyn said:
I think this is hugely off topic and a disturbing place your mind leaps to when discussing a pretty unrelated topic. Equally I would be careful the offers you make on public forums not everybody will pick up on the sarcasm and I wouldn't want anyone to report you for behaviour they felt would be dangerous to your children without the whole story.
Click to expand...

I don't have any children. I'm amused that you think I would be stupid enough to write that if I did.

There was no sarcasm involved. It was a genuine question. You indicated that no-one should judge anyone else's behaviour regarding their children and I was asking you where you draw the line?

The fictional activity I proposed is less likely, imo, to harm a baby than riding with it in a papoose. You seem to draw the line at legal/illegal? That line is only society's current view of what is and is not acceptable. I think we are all entitled to have opinions which don't necessarily correlate with the current law.
 
ycbm said:
You don't know much about babies, maybe? Their skulls are not fully formed and they are very fragile. When very young, they even have a hole in them, called a fontanelle
Click to expand...

Yes I am aware of that, but we are not talking about falling over, we're talking about a tumble from height alongside a half ton animal that can tread or kick you. That extra bit of skull will not make a huge difference in the grand scheme of the risk being taken here. In the same way as a catastrophic car crash wouldn't be comparatively less risky for a 2yo than a 9mo.
 
ycbm said:
I don't have any children. I'm amused that you think I would be stupid enough to write that if I did.

There was no sarcasm involved. It was a genuine question. You indicated that no-one should judge anyone else's behaviour regarding their children and I was asking you where you draw the line?

The fictional activity I proposed is less likely, imo, to harm a baby than riding with it in a papoose. You seem to draw the line at legal/illegal? That line is only society's current view of what is and is not acceptable. I think we are all entitled to have opinions which don't necessarily correlate with the current law.
Click to expand...

You think deliberate sexual molestation of a child would be less harmful than taking a risk with their safety?! Please tell me you're joking
 
DabDab said:
You think deliberate sexual molestation of a child would be less harmful than taking a risk with their safety?! Please tell me you're joking
Click to expand...

Did you read what I wrote? I explicitly specified no sex involved.


The important part of the discussion, imo, was what level of potentially harmful activity by parents we are are and are not 'allowed', according to you, to criticise?
 
Last edited:
DabDab said:
Yes I am aware of that, but we are not talking about falling over, we're talking about a tumble from height alongside a half ton animal that can tread or kick you. That extra bit of skull will not make a huge difference in the grand scheme of the risk being taken here. In the same way as a catastrophic car crash wouldn't be comparatively less risky for a 2yo than a 9mo.
Click to expand...

But we aren't taking about a car crash. We're talking about dismounting badly, stumbling and knocking the baby's head or jolting its neck. Having a gentle tumble due to a misstep by the horse and squashing the baby's head under you or knocking it. It is far, far more risky to shake a young baby's brain or knock a young baby's head than it is an older child.
 
Strapping a baby to one's chest is an entirely different thing to what was almost certainly a posed photo of a child sitting on a horse in walk with at least one foot follower (the photographer). Plus it's rather different times (even the op is a different time!)
 
Just last year OH saw a woman on a horse on a very busy A road. She was leading a toddler on a pony and had a baby in a carrier on her back.

Pure selfishness that her desire to ride endangers her babies.
 
To me im glad we actually live in a society were we still have the choice! We all do things others dont agree with ,I certainly have never heard of any bad accidents with children as described in OP . There will be many children every year injured in accidents whilst in a pushchair even struck by vehicles. I am always horrified every time I see a pushbike with a baby in a trailer on the back is it really more dangerous to do as described in the OP.
 
popsdosh said:
I am always horrified every time I see a pushbike with a baby in a trailer on the back is it really more dangerous to do as described in the OP.
Click to expand...

Yes, much more. The bike isn't going to bolt off with the rider, buck, rear, spook or trip.

A bike 'trailer' is about 1ft off the floor probably going about 9mph max.
 
SpringArising said:
Yes, much more. The bike isn't going to bolt off with the rider, buck, rear, spook or trip.

A bike 'trailer' is about 1ft off the floor probably going about 9mph max.
Click to expand...
Just the right height to get hit by a car!
We can all imagine what may happen however it rarely does.
 
Moomin1 said:
So mothers aren't allowed to 'dump' their babies on a minder whilst they pursue a hobby? They must be pinned to the baby every second of the day and not have any sort of separate life of their own? Good grief.
Click to expand...

'Course they are. But babies (very young ones especially) much prefer it if they don't. That was the point... There are pros and cons to everything.
 
DabDab said:
I would say the risk is about the same though? Aside from the dismounting issues. And why is it OK to endanger the life of a 3yo but not a baby?
Click to expand...

Exactly this.

There are very few people on here who would criticise parents who let young kids SJ/hunt/etc. Plenty of them break bones or worse.

They are still often way too young to asses risks themselves so it is really still the parents' responsibility to do so.

They are legally allowed on motor bikes as soon as their feet can reach the foot pegs... and in bike carrier/trailer/etc things from birth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top