Re: Helmets Part VI, VII, VIII, & IX

[jlong@mti.net (Joe Long)]

On Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:47:23 EST, Thiessej@aol.com wrote:

>It was said that we didn't have to compete if we choose not to wear a helmet
>that's pretty much the same thing.	People do do not have to make decisions for
>me . The beauty of endurance is that it is a sport where a person do things
>the way one chooses and not have to dress and act like the show ring people
>and yet the small minded thinking is still there. 

One more time, neither Susan nor I are calling for an AERC rule
requiring helmets.  If you wish to tempt fate that is your choice.

>THe diference in risk level
>riding a horse 50 miles with or without a helmet is negilible. It is not like
>stepping in front of a truck where the results have to end in disaster. 

Here you are sadly mistaken.  The difference in risk is negligible
only if the value of the rest of your life is negligible.  Accidents
can and do happen when riding horses.  Everyone who has been around
endurance very long has seen them; many of us have lived through them.

Where safety is concerned there are always trade-offs.  Few of us
would want to ride in complete flak suits, and the benefits from doing
so are marginal at best.  The benefits from helmets, though, are real,
significant, and well proven.  If you believe that the benefit (as
perceived by you) of not wearing a helmet is worth risking the loss of
the rest of your life, or worth becoming handicapped and unable to
function normally for the rest of your life -- then go ahead.  It's
your noggin, after all.

-- 

Joe Long
jlong@mti.net
http://www.mti.net     Business
http://www.rnbw.com    Personal