Re: [RC] AERC Survey question on age requirements to ride - Tiffany D'Virgilio
This almost ties in with the helmet thread in that...What are we going to do, legislate everything? If the argument about not letting younger children do endurance because it's a disaster waiting to happen and the AERC is at a greater risk for lawsuits, etc., then wouldn't it be the same for helmets? If you don't wear one and you fall, you put the AERC at risk for lawsuit because they didn't require helmets, and gosh darn it, shouldn't they? Those awful people didn't make wear a helmet, so it's their fault and I'm going to sue. It's basically the same with the kid issue-you didn't tell me my son wasn't old enough and he is hurt so I'm going to sue.
Do whatever floats your boat. Helmets or no, kids and endurance or no, shoe or no, treeless vs. conventional, can't we just let people ride? Has the AERC or a RM ever been sued for liability of an accident? I'd love to see the percentage of rides are ridden by 5-7 year olds for those years. I deleted the post but I believe that it was 12 total out of how many starts there were in those same years?
How can there be a problem when the? percentage is that low-so low it makes this discussion silly. If your company showed less than one percent in losses over a period for years, you'd get to be the CEO.?
If you divide 12 by as little as 1000 (starts) the answer is .012. Twelve one thousandths of a percent. There are thousands upon thousands starts every year, so the percentage is much higher than it would be in reality.? How can you claim this is a problem? You make it sound like herds of kids are lining up for rides, and the numbers don't support that.
Tiffany
On Feb 22, 2006, at 10:01 PM, Joe Long wrote:
Mike Maul's figures show that there are five, six, seven-year-olds riding
endurance rides every year.? How long are you going to continue to claim that it
