SHB new Hat ruling :(

Referring back to the comment about how "ghastly" this will look - really? I will admit that I haven't done a huge amount of showing but as a child who always wore a hat who then showjumped, evented and did dressage, we were all wearing hard hats. My eye is so used to hats that I don't think it disturbs the picture at all. Modern hats aren't huge bulky things anymore and I'm sure you will get used to the picture.
 
magicmoose said:
Fist time that I've seen Godwin's Law in action!
Click to expand...

Glad to have amused you, but heaping vitriol on a person's point of view will not help to change it. If you cared to actually process what I am saying you will find that, should I ever venture into SHB showing I would, in fact, be abiding by whatever rules were in force. If required to wear a hat at a venue or competition I do so; it is only polite and if I want to play I abide by the rules.

What I do not appreciate is people insisting that I MUST be helmeted at all times just because it is "good for me". I work in an industry which requires me to ride hatless 99% of the time (film/TV and historical displays), I don't generally wear one unless the situation obviously requires it, I am well aware of the dangerous nature of riding just as I am aware of the dangerous nature of many things that we do everyday, but I accept that and make my own decisions as to what level of risk I am prepared to take. There are many millions of riders around the world who never wear head protection; never have, never will. I am one of them, please understand that just because you are all so vehement on this subject in the UK it does not make you in charge of what other people choose to do.
 
I'm not sure anyone said you must be helmeted at all times - but at other people's events where they choose to include it in the rules it really shouldn't be such a huge issue.
 
Having had a fall in the school where my head hit a post of the fence and cracked my hat and I have a dint on my head marking the spot .
I know my hat saved me from death or serious injury .
However I do believe it ought to be a choice .for showing I believe judges ought to be instructed not to give any wieght to the head wear chosen when making their desision the problem is then solved .
 
Cortez said:
Glad to have amused you, but heaping vitriol on a person's point of view will not help to change it. If you cared to actually process what I am saying you will find that, should I ever venture into SHB showing I would, in fact, be abiding by whatever rules were in force. If required to wear a hat at a venue or competition I do so; it is only polite and if I want to play I abide by the rules.

What I do not appreciate is people insisting that I MUST be helmeted at all times just because it is "good for me". I work in an industry which requires me to ride hatless 99% of the time (film/TV and historical displays), I don't generally wear one unless the situation obviously requires it, I am well aware of the dangerous nature of riding just as I am aware of the dangerous nature of many things that we do everyday, but I accept that and make my own decisions as to what level of risk I am prepared to take. There are many millions of riders around the world who never wear head protection; never have, never will. I am one of them, please understand that just because you are all so vehement on this subject in the UK it does not make you in charge of what other people choose to do.
Click to expand...


Hear hear ^^^ completely agree.
 
Cortez said:
Glad to have amused you, but heaping vitriol on a person's point of view will not help to change it. If you cared to actually process what I am saying you will find that, should I ever venture into SHB showing I would, in fact, be abiding by whatever rules were in force. If required to wear a hat at a venue or competition I do so; it is only polite and if I want to play I abide by the rules.

What I do not appreciate is people insisting that I MUST be helmeted at all times just because it is "good for me". I work in an industry which requires me to ride hatless 99% of the time (film/TV and historical displays), I don't generally wear one unless the situation obviously requires it, I am well aware of the dangerous nature of riding just as I am aware of the dangerous nature of many things that we do everyday, but I accept that and make my own decisions as to what level of risk I am prepared to take. There are many millions of riders around the world who never wear head protection; never have, never will. I am one of them, please understand that just because you are all so vehement on this subject in the UK it does not make you in charge of what other people choose to do.
Click to expand...

Completely agree, the society does have every right to change its rules but people on an internet forum do not have the right to call people 'stupid', 'selfish' 'bloody idiots' etc. for assessing a risk and making their own decision, it's insulting and unnecessary. Also, I would be interested to know what the hat die hards have to say in response to Cortez's point about the film industry- are all stunt riders and actors terrible people who are going to leave their families to 'wipe their arse' every day? No, they are people who do a job they enjoy whilst taking the risks of that job into account, I imagine many of you watch Westerns and period dramas- are you all writing to film companies demanding their films set in the 18th century should feature modern style hats to protect their actors from themselves? I doubt it...
 
micramadam said:
If you want to take your own risks then sign a disclaimer that you won't be needing any medical attention if anything should hapoen to cause you a head injury. Somthing along the lines of a 'Do not resusitate' disclaimer.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately nurses and medics are bound by codes of conduct set up by their ruling bodies which means they are professionally accountable and would therefore be in breach of the codes and answerable to their ruling bodies if they did not provide care - they would more than likely lose their jobs. As they would be present at an event they would therefore be required to provide care. DNAR orders are entirely different as they are completed for known patients who are either entering the "end of life" stage or for whom resuscitation would prove futile - usually due to advanced age and/or disease. I don't think therefore you would ever be able to complete a disclaimer at an organised event.
 
I'm sorry but this is utter madness! Do any of you actually want to live in a world where Doctors pick and choose who they treat???? There is a very good reason why they are bound by a code of conduct to treat EVERYONE regardless of the circumstances that placed them in their care. What if one of your loved ones stepped out in front of a car but the doctors wouldn't treat because they should have been looking where they were going?
 
confirmedponyaddict said:
Also, I would be interested to know what the hat die hards have to say in response to Cortez's point about the film industry- are all stunt riders and actors terrible people who are going to leave their families to 'wipe their arse' every day?
Click to expand...
Cortez is fact the only poster on this thread who has come up with a valid reason for not wearing a hat. It is part of her job to agree to ride hatless.
 
So it is ok in SOME circumstances? Stunt riders aren't terrible people costing the NHS unnecessary time and resources? Ok, as long as it only applies to the rest of us that's fine.
 
confirmedponyaddict said:
I'm sorry but this is utter madness! Do any of you actually want to live in a world where Doctors pick and choose who they treat???? There is a very good reason why they are bound by a code of conduct to treat EVERYONE regardless of the circumstances that placed them in their care. What if one of your loved ones stepped out in front of a car but the doctors wouldn't treat because they should have been looking where they were going?
Click to expand...

My point exactly, as a registered nurse, I would never stand by whilst an injured person needed my help - my code of conduct forbids it - but not as much as my own personal ethics. It's why you would never find a competition where you could "opt out" of receiving care from medical staff in case of an accident as the codes forbid it - as should personal morals and ethics regardless of professional codes.

Getting back to the point of the post though, I really like the look of the harnessed helmets, I wear a jockey skull but think the velvet hats with the tan harnesses are really quite attractive and for me as a lay person at a show, it certainly would not detract from the rest of the traditional outfit. It's great to have choice but events are arranged in such a way that the organisers and ruling bodies really do have to do their best by their members and competitors.
 
The Xmas Furry said:
Those who are moaning, (and those who are not) take a look at the pictures here

Patey: http://www.pateyhats.com/hats/riding-hat/lg/

Beagler : http://www.charlesowen.co.uk/gb/products/beagler+classic

And 1 with flesh harness (also plenty of others to choose from)
The Fiona: http://www.charlesowen.co.uk/gb/products/fiona’s+hat

Are you REALLY getting your knickers in a twist for a small item of apparel???
Beggars Belief really...........
Click to expand...

I don't really get your point. Most people are annoyed because they won't be able to wear toppers or bowlers, nothing to do with velvet caps. And that charles owen beagler clearly states in the description that it offers 'no protection' so under the new ruling would they be able to wear this?
 
Slightly off the point but I grew up watching Harvey Smith et al and the one rider who really inspired me was Lionel Dunning - I loved the hat and the sporty harness he wore and for an impressionable young girl it stuck with me. I know it was show jumping he rode in but at the time he was one of the only riders to wear a harness on his hat having had a nasty fall and from that day he decided to be as safe as he could be. Although he was in the minority at the time, things changed to such an extent that now it would be unacceptable to see a showjumper without appropriate head gear. Charlotte Dujardin wore her hat at the Olympics and broke with tradition there and I think she looked great! In a few years time I'm sure it will be the same with showing, it's just evolution, times move on as do fashions. As that impressionable young girl, what Lionel Dunning said about wearing hats with chin straps stayed with me and I have always found it odd to see a hat without a strap, let alone feel it that is a completely pointless thing to wear a hat which couldn't possibly provide protection - I believe that Fiona Vigar was wearing a beagler style hat not intended for protection when she had her tragic fall earlier this year. Her horse slipped at the walk causing the fall which resulted in her death from catastrophic head injuries.
 
Cortez said:
Glad to have amused you, but heaping vitriol on a person's point of view will not help to change it.
Click to expand...

Cortez, I have no wish to change your mind, I just felt that your phrasing was somewhat hyperbolic. For the record, I didn't always wear a hat on my old horse, so it would be hypocritical of me to have a go at you for your choices.
 
On the subject of people thinking it's a "nanny state" thing . . .

http://www.dressage-news.com/?p=19719

Okay, Canada, which arguably has an even more encompassing socialised medicine system than the UK, was the first country to make it mandatory but there was no real discussion on those grounds. The equivalent of showing in North America has made helmets mandatory for a few years now, too, and, oddly, the world has not come to a crashing halt. (It rather blows the NHS theory, too.) It's pretty clear it's the way the world is going.

Just for the record, too, Charlotte was not the first to wear a helmet at GP, that designation belongs to Jaquie Brooks, a Canadian rider. So. I guess you can blame us. ;)

People can do as they please in their private lives and yes, no one should call anyone stupid or selfish for making different choices, but public competitions, activities etc have to think of the big picture. I can see the argument re stunt riders but really, all sorts of things are "okay" in movies that are not okay in real life and generally people do not get confused. Try getting out of a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt by telling the police that's how they do it in the movies. As already mentioned that is why insurance for film production is a crazy amount and carries all sorts of conditions.
 
Last edited:
From the uneducated point of view I think this will push helmet companies/brands to design alternatives that conform to new standards - only time will tell but now there's a market to fill where both sides of the fence have what they require; I just wouldn't expect anything immediately.
Either way it doesn't change what is - end of the day you either play the game and continue doing what you love or stamp your feet and move on to reminisce "about the good old days".
 
There are a lot of very ignorant views on this thread.

I can make my own choices in life, I don't criticise the plethora of idiots on this forum who completely out horse themselves, put themselves in the most safety compromising situations going and frankly shouldn't be sat on anything with more go than a rocking horse - but it is perfectly acceptable for the hat nazis to wind out the same rant over and over and over again. I'm glad your all so confident in yourself.
 
Before I wade in, I want to clarify that I was brought up to wear a hat, and that I do so whenever I ride (with the exception of a very few rare occasions when I actually forgot. I suspect I've fallen on my head too often!). If I were not in the hat-wearing habit, I possibly wouldn't be here.

That being said, what bothers me about this debate every time it crops up is the way that single instances of unfortunate accidents get intermingled with statistics, which themselves are generally used without explanation of how the statistic was calculated, and based on what data. It's an emotive and sloppy way to go about constructing an argument. (And don't get me started on that weird H&S multiplication thingy, where people with no data beyond a gut feeling come up with arbitrary numbers on an arbitrary scale, multiply them together, and then expect the result to mean something. Generations of mathematicians are spinning in their graves!)

Every time we do anything remotely risky, we're at some level deciding if the risk is significant enough to take preventative measures, or if the potential reward is great enough. I am not from a body-protector-wearing culture. I'd never worn one before moving to the UK. Here, I wear it for XC, and for SJ only on the Spooky Pony, becaue he's not safe to jump (generally, I just don't jump him). I wore it for getting on a mare that I strongly suspected was too strong and sharp for me, but I do not wear if for normal riding, and I won't wear it if I choose to take him hunting. Statistically, there's probably about a 2% chance that I will come off him; far lower on a hack, and far higher in a charged situation in an open field, or when jumping. It could be argued that this chance is significant enough, that wearing a BP every time would be the sensible thing to do.

Nevertheless, because as a society, we're not (yet) used to insisting on BPs for adults, no-one is going to chew me out on a forum about it. Maybe they should? I haven't seen statistics on how likely a BP is to prevent serious injury; I'm sure they exist, and I'd really like to know under what circumstances the data were collected. Because I'm not acculturated to BP-wearing, I make an assessment when I get on about the likelyhood of getting dumped, and wear the BP under circumstances where I think it's warranted. If I am not wearing one, because (say) I'm just going for a hack in the woods and don't tend to get dumped then, and I do get dumped because there is a scary folding bed (that has itself been dumped :p ), then I ascribe that to freak circumstance not subject to statistical analysis. Such a freak circumstance certainly won't make me put on a BP for my next harmless hack, because if I started trying to prepare even for freak circumstances, then I'd be too nervous to get out of bed in the morning.

If I were not from a hat-wearing culture, I might think and act very similarly about risk assessment for hat wearing. As tragic as the life-changing accident suffered by the American rider while schooling a youngster was (didn't it just trip or something?), it's no argument for changing hat-wearing habits, because it's an isolated case that seems so statistically improbable as to be insignificant. Millions of people ride horses under similar "safe" circumstances every day, without coming off. A chance of one in millions (just how often do such freak accidents happen?) is not enough to convince me of anything (it's certainly less than the 2% of getting dumped by the Spooky Pony!). What is more convincing is if someone can show that the chance of any one specific rider having a significant fall at some point is rather high (which it probably is), and that in that fall, wearing a hat significantly reduces the likelihood of serious injury (which it probably does). But I strongly suspect that the chance of a significant fall is closely related to the activity being pursued. I can fully understand why a person might decide that they're exceedingly unlikely to come off in a particular circumstance, and are therefore willing to take the risk. (I imagine, for example, that your average stunt horse is a highly-trained animal of reasonably stable mental disposition!)

When it comes to making rules, my main concern is that all too often, such rules are based on emotive argumentation and not on a thorough understanding of statistical evidence. At worst, the two get muddled in an unhelpful way. I don't know what statistics were used in this particular case, so I can't comment on the specific situation.

I'm also very interested in Mike007's argument that the hat-testing procedures are so entrenched with and influenced by current practice, that R&D which goes back to first principles to try to find an optimal (but possibly very different) solution is effectively blocked. It wouldn't be the first time that scientists are well aware that there would be a better way of doing something, but that it would be economically unfeasible to change tracks completely (because the existing system is established and has infrastructure). (In a complete aside, I do wonder if that's why the British utilities provision is so crappy... :p ). Also, the link provided by another poster to the Swedish airbag-bicycle helmet thing was so interesting, because it's such a different concept. Mike007, can you provide any evidence for us to read?
 
Last edited:
I suppose the hat rule also brings safety in line with horses having to wear shoes so they don't slip and unseat a rider! It would be a bit ironic if a safety hatless rider fell off a shod horse that slipped and was hurt. lol
 
amandap said:
I suppose the hat rule also brings safety in line with horses having to wear shoes so they don't slip and unseat a rider! It would be a bit ironic if a safety hatless rider fell off a shod horse that slipped and was hurt. lol
Click to expand...

Lol !!!!! Its never funny when someone hurts themselves .
 
I am quite prepared to believe that some ridden activities are much less likely to result in a serious fall than others. Also, that some riders are much less likely to suffer a serious fall than other riders.

However, next time that I am plummeting earthwards, I would much rather prefer to be protected by adequate safety gear than relying on a bunch of statistics telling me that I am unlikely to suffer serious injuries from my impending contact with the ground :).
 
I don't think we will ever think of BPs the way we do hats as heads are generally more important than bodies and hats don't restrict movement (apart from your flowing locks :p) like a BP does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top