Discuss

N

Nailed

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 September 2006
Messages
8,650
Location
Stoke-on-Trent
Visit site
Title of Discussion:-

If insurance companies were to put a claus in there policies to state that insurence would be void if the horse being hacked out or the rider/handler was not wearing any florenced/reflective equiptment, that more people would wear hi-viz?!

Lou x
 
Probably not - some people think that things don't happen to them just to the ordinary mortals they happen to share the earth with.
smile.gif
 
YO told me that some policies are void if Hi-Viz was not worn if it contributed to an accident that could have been prevented by the wearing of Hi-Viz.

I was thinking about this today whilst riding the Jazz horse. In the winter I wear the horsewear flashing tabard which is great in dim/foggy conditions but the yellow is great for being found by friends/chopper if you fall off. Does the grey tabard count as Hi-Viz?

I should wear it more to be fair as Jazzy is bay and I generally wear black T-shirts out hacking. If it was part of the insurance, then I'm sure more people would put SOMETHING (be it boots, rugs, hat band etc) on.
 
I wonder if most riders realise that if they report a horse-related road incident to the police, one of the first questions they will be asked is, were you wearing hi-viz?

Doesn't really answer your question though.
 
This post was sparked because my OH nearly hit a horse this afternoon, she girl was on a dark bay with no hi-viz/reflectives on, in a dark top and dark numnah and in a shadowy area.. I dont do this. I always wear hi-viz and dont see why people wouldnt.. I like my horses alive.. lol

I think all insurence policies should have in them that it is void unless hi-viz/reflectives are worn. simples.

Lou x
 
[ QUOTE ]
Most insurance companies won't pay up if you werent weaing hi-viz
smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Unless it is specified in their policy details, then I'd like to see them get away with that. Sorry, it simply is not the case.
 
Unfortunately, I think that many of the ones who don't wear high viz are the same ones who don't have any public liability insurance.
 
[ QUOTE ]
This post was sparked because my OH nearly hit a horse this afternoon, she girl was on a dark bay with no hi-viz/reflectives on, in a dark top and dark numnah and in a shadowy area.. I dont do this. I always wear hi-viz and dont see why people wouldnt.. I like my horses alive.. lol

I think all insurence policies should have in them that it is void unless hi-viz/reflectives are worn. simples.

Lou x

[/ QUOTE ]

DITTO
grin.gif
 
I think they should put the clause in. It horrifies me when you see people that aren't wearing hi viz and have blended into the background.

it would probably take a while to catch on but you see very few people ridin on the roads without hats on these days because people have realised its the sensible thing to do.
 
I think even with that clause in and people being aware some will still ride without hi-viz. I just don't think with the roads today as they are you can risk not wearing hi-viz and such a clause might help prevent some accidents. At 7.10pm this evening driving home from yard came across 2 riders trotting like demons home as realised they were almost in complete darkness (small lane no street lights). In fairness to them both had fluorescent sheets on their horses but still hard to pick them up quickly in your headlights if you had been driving at speed. Just a stupid time to be out for a hack really and people take chances assuming nothing can go wrong.
 
If you had an accident, even without a specific clause in your policy regarding High-Viz, it is feasible that your insurers could still find you liable of negligence if they deemed your failure to wear high viz or make yourself reasonably visible to motorists was a contributory factor in the cause of the accident....especially with regards to hacking in low light/poor visibility.

Negligence would invalidate your insurance. I've had this exact chat with our NFU rep and he said that although there is no clause stating you should wear high viz on the road, it doesn't mean you won't have comeback in a claim, or a claim rejected, had you not been wearing it at the time of your accident.
 
[ QUOTE ]
This post was sparked because my OH nearly hit a horse this afternoon, she girl was on a dark bay with no hi-viz/reflectives on, in a dark top and dark numnah and in a shadowy area..

[/ QUOTE ]

We had almost exactly the same thing quite recently Lou. Drives me mad, we never go out without Hi viz on us and the horse - pure madness to do so IMHO!

I suspect that quite a few people have no idea what the clauses in their insurance say!

Edited to add this link to BHS 'don't be a dark horse' poster - I really like this. Might put some up round the yard! http://www.bhs.org.uk/About_Us/Campaigns/Safety/Be_Seen_and_Be_Safe.aspx
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most insurance companies won't pay up if you werent weaing hi-viz
smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Unless it is specified in their policy details, then I'd like to see them get away with that. Sorry, it simply is not the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lady at my yard had an accident and her company wouldn't pay up because she wasn't wearing hi-viz. They got around it because it came under a clause/claus about reasonable care.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most insurance companies won't pay up if you werent weaing hi-viz
smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Unless it is specified in their policy details, then I'd like to see them get away with that. Sorry, it simply is not the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lady at my yard had an accident and her company wouldn't pay up because she wasn't wearing hi-viz. They got around it because it came under a clause/claus about reasonable care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oooo interesting. Can see how that would work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top