Your thoughts on the HOYS hunter class dispute?

Echo the OP on this one... as a sister of a brother who works in the 'emergency services' and the tragic stories he's told me of folk who've suffered horrific head injuries through NOT wearing the correct/safe headgear, i am definitely FOR the harnessed headgear.
 
I think it's a personal choice and showing judges should be instructed not to consider head gear when making their desisions .
 
I would presume that if they had a head injury and had not been wearing a correct protective hat they would not have insurance cover.
People are perfectly free to choose not to wear a hard hat but I feel that if that is the case they should be prepared to pay the possible considerable medical costs they could incur from resulting injuries.
You take your choice and the consequences.
 
The requirement for proper hats came in in all disciplines in Australia YEARS ago (actually, I'm not sure about the western disciplines? but certainly dressage and showing were effected).

Everyone complained about losing the tradition and it looking weird, but a few years down the track and its completely normal. It turned out to be a complete mountain out of a molehill.

Oddly enough someshow societies now allow the use of non-harness helmets and top hats again (depends on their insurer), and everyone still pretty much wears the standard helmet.

ETA - Would the ruling have made much difference anyway? Surely people who don't wear helmets at home will continue to not do so, just as I in the past have always worn one at home, of my own volition.
 
Last edited:
I think its a shame, they practically caved in to the outrage. I'm guessing there was pressure from major producers or something
I do think its right that people have the choice to wear what they like at home but I do think it was fair to introduce a rule where an organisation is taking responsibility for the riders at its shows, they have to foot the insurance bill and keep the H&S people at the venue happy after all
It was almost like people were being asked to wear specific hats at all times including hacking out at home etc, I think a sense of proportion wouldnt have gone amiss
 
Well, I always thought it was the horse they were judging....as it should be, whether you are wearing a top hat or a neat peaked hat and look suitably attired, the judge (IMO) should only take turnout into consideration when all else is equal and if that means standard issue hats all round, as per the rules, so be it! Safety first at all times, looking pretty isn't much use when your head is split open? Lot of fuss over a minor detail I think! (Mines a tin one...:) ).
 
Should be compulsory to wear hats definately. This day and age it shouldn't be acceptable for the message to be that it's ok not to wear one.

I was horrified recently when a reputable local riding school near me posted a video to FB, asking for up to 1000 likes - showing the proprietor and main instructor riding without a hat. Shocking. And the amount of people, including youngsters who 'liked' it was awful to see.
 
I'm disgusted, but not hugely surprised. HOYS are obviously more concerned about keeping a small, influential group of producers happy than helping the sport progress. I think that everything has already been said, so I won't repeat it, but I certainly won't be going back to HOYS this year to watch.
 
I think that it's a bit of a last hurrah by the anti safety hat brigade.

I'm sure that safety hats will be compulsory in all competitive sports within a very few years. Its just the way of the world. People will soon get use to the new look, and will then wonder what all the fuss was about.

Anyone else watching the dressage last month at Olympia think that the riders in top hats were the ones who stood out as 'odd', rather than the ones in safety hats? It hasn't taken long for that to happen.
 
Yes i thought that too Tiddlypom!! As you say,.. some folk just throw their dummies out of the pram when change comes about! This change though i feel very strongly about where safety is concerned. It certainly doesn't paint a good picture to the younger generation coming up into the World of riding not to be without the 'proper' head gear.
 
Bobbly said:
Well, I always thought it was the horse they were judging....as it should be, whether you are wearing a top hat or a neat peaked hat and look suitably attired, the judge (IMO) should only take turnout into consideration when all else is equal and if that means standard issue hats all round, as per the rules, so be it! Safety first at all times, looking pretty isn't much use when your head is split open? Lot of fuss over a minor detail I think! (Mines a tin one...:) ).
Click to expand...

Funnily enough was chatting with a panel judge over the weekend & asked her what would happen if the best horse in the class was unplaited & ridden by someone in incorrect dress? My question was really about WH classes (county level & above) because I asked her where in the marks poor turnout would be reflected given that there wasn't a section in the marks to cater for that aspect. Her response was to agree that turnout wasn't covered in the marking system & that if it's the best horse in the class it should win regardless. Well yes, we all know it should.......whether or not it would is another thing........
 
It is annoying for SHB and it's members because it made a very brave decision in the face of the showing community by standing by that rule and as a result they have been penalised - it doesn't set a good example to impressionable young riders. However, I personally am one in the "your head, your choice" camp and this is a stance against a common sense rule unfortunately.
 
HOYS are taking a huge risk in PR terms too........if there is an accident involving someones head (& hopefully there won't ever be) they'll take a real slating.....
 
Tiddlypom said:
Anyone else watching the dressage last month at Olympia think that the riders in top hats were the ones who stood out as 'odd', rather than the ones in safety hats? It hasn't taken long for that to happen.
Click to expand...

No, I most certainly did not think the properly attired dressage riders in top hats looked anything other than normal, elegant dressage riders. Realistically, how likely were any of these riders to need head protection? Trying to force your own standards of over-the-top H&S political correctness on competitors who are more than capable of assessing their own safety requirements is nothing short of bullying. Let people make their own choices please.
 
Cortez said:
Trying to force your own standards of over-the-top H&S political correctness on competitors who are more than capable of assessing their own safety requirements is nothing short of bullying. Let people make their own choices please.
Click to expand...
I'm not bullying anyone! I have no affiliation with any of the showing bodies, indeed I find showing to be tedious in the extreme! I was just observing that times are a'changing and that sooner rather than later, safety hats will become compulsory in all competitive equestrian sports. This will be insurance driven.

I was brought up in a family in which wearing riding hats (and seat belts in cars) were compulsory. My Dad was an eye surgeon and he dealt professionally with the aftermath of accidents in which people did not. We kids thought nothing of it and carried on our normal activities but always wearing hats and seat belts, it simply wasn't an issue.

I have continued wearing hats as an adult, and welcome each improvement to riding hats as they have been made. They are much more comfortable, and safer, than they were!

I believe that safety hats will become ubiquitous in non competitive riding within the next 20 or so years, as insurance companies tighten up their conditions. It would be a very foolhardy refusit to continue to ride without a safety hat if all their personal accident cover was rendered void by doing so.
 
Cortez said:
No, I most certainly did not think the properly attired dressage riders in top hats looked anything other than normal, elegant dressage riders. Realistically, how likely were any of these riders to need head protection? Trying to force your own standards of over-the-top H&S political correctness on competitors who are more than capable of assessing their own safety requirements is nothing short of bullying. Let people make their own choices please.
Click to expand...

How likely? Probably about as likely as those top riders who have suffered brain injuries/death as a result of not wearing a hat.
 
Tiddlypom said:
I'm not bullying anyone! I have no affiliation with any of the showing bodies, indeed I find showing to be tedious in the extreme! I was just observing that times are a'changing and that sooner rather than later, safety hats will become compulsory in all competitive equestrian sports. This will be insurance driven.

I was brought up in a family in which wearing riding hats (and seat belts in cars) were compulsory. My Dad was an eye surgeon and he dealt professionally with the aftermath of accidents in which people did not. We kids thought nothing of it and carried on our normal activities but always wearing hats and seat belts, it simply wasn't an issue.

I have continued wearing hats as an adult, and welcome each improvement to riding hats as they have been made. They are much more comfortable, and safer, than they were!

I believe that safety hats will become ubiquitous in non competitive riding within the next 20 or so years, as insurance companies tighten up their conditions. It would be a very foolhardy refusit to continue to ride without a safety hat if all their personal accident cover was rendered void by doing so.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. HOYS are only delaying the rule as before long it will be the case that all safety hats will be worn in all classes. For now money is controlling safety
 
So now we are wearing helmets because of insurance? Another example of "health" and "safety" actually meaning insurance companies wanting to make more profits; not much to do with actually being either healthier or safer, or indeed any form of common sense. I object to wearing a helmet in order to prevent a commercial operation making less money: I don't object to wearing safety equipment when it is necessary. When riding a dressage test I deem it not necessary.
 
Cortez said:
So now we are wearing helmets because of insurance? Another example of "health" and "safety" actually meaning insurance companies wanting to make more profits; not much to do with actually being either healthier or safer, or indeed any form of common sense. I object to wearing a helmet in order to prevent a commercial operation making less money: I don't object to wearing safety equipment when it is necessary. When riding a dressage test I deem it not necessary.
Click to expand...

I'm quite frankly amazed that anybody would feel it 'not necessary' to wear a hat at ANY time on a horse! It may be someone's 'personal choice' not to wear one, but to say it's 'not necessary' is akin to saying it's not 'necessary' to have smoke detectors or fire alarms. I suppose we could all say 'how likely is it we will require a smoke detector'...
 
WelshD said:
I do think its right that people have the choice to wear what they like at home but I do think it was fair to introduce a rule where an organisation is taking responsibility for the riders at its shows, they have to foot the insurance bill and keep the H&S people at the venue happy after all
Click to expand...

Just to point out the Health and Safety At Work Act 1974 (which introduces the standard of "reasonable practicability") applies in the workplace. To employees. Not to competitors in sporting events, whose participation would probably be successfully defended in an action based on tort or delict by the complete defence volenti non fit injuria.

Insurance companies do not, and should not, make the law (even though they would sometimes like to think that they do). That is Parliament's and the courts' jobs.
 
Moomin1 said:
I'm quite frankly amazed that anybody would feel it 'not necessary' to wear a hat at ANY time on a horse! It may be someone's 'personal choice' not to wear one, but to say it's 'not necessary' is akin to saying it's not 'necessary' to have smoke detectors or fire alarms. I suppose we could all say 'how likely is it we will require a smoke detector'...
Click to expand...

Well, I don't have a smoke alarm or a fire alarm either; living dangerously, me. I live in a country that is perhaps not as H&S obsessed as the UK. I have ridden without a riding helmet for 50-ish years and I will undoubtedly continue to do so unless required by competition or venue rules. It is my choice and I make it freely. If you wish to wear a helmet then by all means feel free also - won't object, but please leave people who don't wish to alone.
 
Mithras said:
Just to point out the Health and Safety At Work Act 1974 (which introduces the standard of "reasonable practicability") applies in the workplace. To employees. Not to competitors in sporting events, whose participation would probably be successfully defended in an action based on tort or delict by the complete defence volenti non fit injuria.

Insurance companies do not, and should not, make the law (even though they would sometimes like to think that they do). That is Parliament's and the courts' jobs.
Click to expand...

Out of interest, would the showring count as the 'workplace' for professional producers?
 
catkin said:
Out of interest, would the showring count as the 'workplace' for professional producers?
Click to expand...

Since there is no case law interpreting it as such, I would have to say no. They are not regarded as "professionals" as in the Hunter v. Hanley sense to whom greater rules of conduct apply, and it is still a sporting event which offers prizes, not payment for attendance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top