 |
RE: [RC] Safe??? - David LeBlancKat said: Information in advance on what ride management is or isn't going to provide is nice, but I consider it safe to assume that unless explicitly stated otherwise, what ride management is going to provide is what the AERC requires them to provide, which is a marked trail with a finish line and a control vet at the vet checks (I don't even assume that a treatment vet will be available, and have been to plenty of rides that have handed out the phone number and location of the nearest veterinary hospital in the event my horse is in need of treatment). At an AERC ride there is no reason to assume that ride management will provide anything more than what the AERC requires in its rules. Many rides DO provide more than this, but these things are "perks." ---------------------------------- Couple things to think about - I think letting people know in advance what to expect is more than 'nice' - it's really the right thing to do. I don't mind when I know what risks I'm taking, but when you're talking about a sport where you could drive for a couple of days each way and spend a lot of money, then it's pretty important to let people know what to expect. It's especially true when people cross regions - you might be used to having rides with no treatment vet, but if you live in the NW, you won't see one without a treatment vet. No requirement, just the way we do things. At any rate, that may be an acceptable risk to _you_, but it isn't to me. Not that I need treatment vets very often, but the one time I did, I likely would have had a dead horse if someone hadn't been right there. I was running about 40th out of 50-something riders at the time - horse just metabolically had a very bad day. Which is _not_ to say you care less about your horse, just that you make different choices than I would. As another example, I do not get on a horse without a helmet - other people take different levels of risk - some don't wear helmets, others wear more protective gear. So sure there's reason to assume ride management will provide more - maybe someone has never seen a ride without treatment vets, plenty of water, etc. Might not be smart to _ass_ume_ things, but people do it. Best way to counteract that is to be up front about what you can and cannot expect. Until I met people here who had different experiences, I thought a treatment vet was a requirement, since I'd been to about 50+ rides and never seen one without it. Second thing to think about - there was a landmark lawsuit many years ago where a ship got in trouble on the Great Lakes. They didn't have a radio, and radios weren't a _requirement_. If they'd have had a radio, they almost certainly wouldn't have had a major problem. The thing the court found was that since radios were in common use, and it was _best practice_ to have a radio, then the owners of the ship were negligent, and were at fault, despite the fact they met requirements. So a RM could meet the _requirements_ and still be negligent, if they didn't follow well known best practice. At any rate, when people know the risks they're taking in advance, you're less likely to get lawyers involved, or even have malfunctions in the first place. Maybe it would be nice to have some of this stuff on the calendar - we have spaces for the RM and the head vet, maybe we should give people some other information, too. Then people can make their own choices. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|