Re: [RC] Very young riders in AERC rides - Joe Long
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 01:00:38 EDT, FASTGraphic@xxxxxx wrote:
>In a message dated 10/23/2002 5:40:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
><< How will we feel if a young child
> is seriously injured or killed on a ride, and we had the chance to
> prevent it and failed to do so? >>
>Probably as bad as we would feel if an eight or nine year old died. What kid
>of logic dictates that setting the age at 8 protects our feelings if a child
>is injured or killed? Seems irrational nonsense to me. I have children,
>ages 8, 9, and 10 - and do not feel they are ready to safely complete a ride.
> But I have known children younger than 8 who certainly could have done so
>and see NO reason to bar them from participation. Again, I don't get it.
>Why would you feel worse for the death of a 5 year old than the death of an 8
>year old????? Whazzupwitdat?
That's a good point ... both would be tragic. But we have to set the
minimum somewhere; currently it is birth. Generally speaking, the
older the child, the less the chance of such a tragedy occuring on a
ride. BTW, I have never known of a five or six year old child who
could safely ride in an endurance ride. None.
The risk of an accident is not the only reason to have the minimum,
note, it is also the damage to young bodies resulting from the ride
Perhaps a minimum age should be higher than eight, but eight would be
better than what we have now.
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
If you are an AERC member - PLEASE VOTE in the upcoming By-Laws
Election!!!! (it takes 2/3rds to tango!!)
- Re: [RC] Very young riders in AERC rides, FASTGraphic