Fined for not wearing hi-viz?

You can't legislate against idiocy! It may be illegal to use a mobile phone while driving but I would say 1 in 10 drivers I see around here is on the phone whilst driving. I think it would be the same with riders/cyclists.
Either people have sufficient smarts to put hi viz on while riding, cycling or running on roads or they don't. No amount of 'laws' is going to change that.
Seeing a police officer around here at the time the horses are out is unheard of tbf anytime is unheard of so completely empty threat to a lot of yards around here.
 
Maybe it's because I position myself boldly in the road (riding or driving), rather than clinging to the hedgerow, but I can't remember the last time anything had to brake late because they didn't see me (not wearing hi viz). IME cars see us in plenty of time. Some slow down, some don't, and some (fortunately rare) charmers speed up deliberately - but they've all seen us.

The only visibility issues I have are with a couple of totally blind bridleway junctions locally... and no amount of hi viz would help. Perhaps a flashing orange light on a 10ft stick that I can poke out into the road before emerging :D
 
pennyturner said:
Maybe it's because I position myself boldly in the road (riding or driving), rather than clinging to the hedgerow, but I can't remember the last time anything had to brake late because they didn't see me (not wearing hi viz). IME cars see us in plenty of time. Some slow down, some don't, and some (fortunately rare) charmers speed up deliberately - but they've all seen us.

The only visibility issues I have are with a couple of totally blind bridleway junctions locally... and no amount of hi viz would help. Perhaps a flashing orange light on a 10ft stick that I can poke out into the road before emerging :D
Click to expand...

How do you know that they have seen you? I've overtaken riders on many occasions that I've not seen until I am quite close but as long as the road is clear I can slow down and give them plenty of room. I recently passed a group of three riders, I saw the grey horse but both of the bays ridden by riders in dark clothing were virtually invisible until I got very close. I fail to understand why any rider would not wear hi viz when hacking out on roads or in open countryside, to me it's just plain common sense! I'm old enough to remember when they made wearing seat belts a legal requirements, I heard all sorts of moans from people who thought it was unnecessary and would result in people being trapped in vehicles but it has saved so many lives and prevented so many very serious injuries. Just wear a tabard and a hat band, cheap and easy to do and will make you stand out and just might save your life and/or that of your horse.
 
Are those children walking along the road? :eek3:, not everyone gets to make it to pony club so I am not sure that is going to solve the issue.

Yes they seem to ship the children out in coaches and bus to go to various schools, pick up points around the villages/area, pavements are pretty thin on the ground in places and even local Lord Webber had to fling himself into a hedge due to traffic around the area when out walking a dog (Although if I were him I would take my dogs walking over my own land rather than down a road) but he did try to highlight the problem

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/andrew-lloyd-webbers-equine-road-safety-fears-605753
 
Haven't read the whole thread, but just some observations as a driver. We have some roadworks going on on the road that's about half a mile long, just off the lane by my house. The work is happening at the top of the road, I join the road at the bottom. When the workmen there are wearing hi-viz, I can see them from nearly the bottom of the road. Ok, I can't make out what they are doing, but I see hi viz and I am aware of something. The workmen not wearing hi viz, as happened last week, I wasn't aware of until they were directly in my sight. Not a problem because they were up on the grass verge. If they'd been in the road, yes there was still time for me to see them and act... BUT... I was driving at the speed limit and the other side of the road was clear, so I could have moved over if need be. If that had been a horse and rider, I had been going at 45mph and the other side of the road was busy, it might not have been so easy.

I don't care what anyone says, by wearing hi-viz, you are spotted earlier. Yes, the exception of the rule is the partially blind driver who probably shouldn't be driving, or the one too busy fiddling with their car stereo... but as a whole, you are seen earlier.

So why anyone would ride on today's roads without at least some form of hi-viz clothing, is lost on me.

That said, I don't believe you can fine people for not doing so because you would have to have a rule about how much hi-viz was the legal minimum requirement and then you would have the issue of cyclists, motorbikes, other road users.
 
I have said before - and I don't ride on the roads so I can't confess to not wearing high viz - I honestly believe it is a risky road, because it puts the responsibility on the rider rather than the vehicle driver. EVERY driver should be driving according to the conditions, and to the extent of the road they can clearly see. If you can't see the road clearly you should not be in control of a dangerous weapon - you might run into stationary vehicles, pedestrians, livestock, cyclists, and of the other LEGITIMATE road users. When I am behind the wheel I am focussed on the road ahead and if I can't see it all clearly I slow down. Other than that this is know as "driving without due care and attention".
I suspect the problem is not visibility per se but driving too fast for the conditions and/or not appreciating or caring how animals move.
 
JillA said:
I have said before - and I don't ride on the roads so I can't confess to not wearing high viz - I honestly believe it is a risky road, because it puts the responsibility on the rider rather than the vehicle driver. EVERY driver should be driving according to the conditions, and to the extent of the road they can clearly see. If you can't see the road clearly you should not be in control of a dangerous weapon - you might run into stationary vehicles, pedestrians, livestock, cyclists, and of the other LEGITIMATE road users. When I am behind the wheel I am focussed on the road ahead and if I can't see it all clearly I slow down. Other than that this is know as "driving without due care and attention".
I suspect the problem is not visibility per se but driving too fast for the conditions and/or not appreciating or caring how animals move.
Click to expand...

Hit the nail on the head
 
Goldenstar said:
I have no desire to live with this amount of state intrusion .
Click to expand...
I envisage that the contents of the black box would be encrypted and accessible only in the event of a serious accident. It could be set up to require a court order to unlock - much like a warrant to search your house. Only the last one or two minutes leading up to the accident would actually be recorded (by using a circular/rolling buffer); everything before that would get wiped continuously and would therefore remain private and unknowable.

But in any case... "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Do you also object to CCTV? Considerably less "safe", I'd have thought, because you don't know who is watching.
 
oldie48 said:
How do you know that they have seen you?
Click to expand...
Eye contact, a change in engine noise as they hesitate on the accelerator (even if they then speed up), and of course, it being a small place, the cheery wave and not infrequently the conversation through the window as they pass. :)
 
fburton said:
But in any case... "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Do you also object to CCTV? Considerably less "safe", I'd have thought, because you don't know who is watching.
Click to expand...
I think this is the most naive comment about any form of surveliance, one which is regularly trotted out, it either shows a complete lack of understanding of how such issues can and do end up being subverted (recent cases of police officers who "whistleblew" having their phone records seized by their superiors to show that they were "conspiring", under laws that were introduced as part of the anti-terrorism legislation, being one that springs to mind) or a touching faith in those who *may* have access to the information, following the rules.
 
I genuinely do not understand why people are hellbent on not wearing hi-viz. They cost less than a bale of hay if you go to a builders merchant, no horse owner can argue they can't afford a simple hi viz vest (with reflective strips). It can only be vanity or some strong principle about drivers should see you anyway.

Yes, drivers should always spot anything on the roads. I fully agree with that. However surely as a horse rider we owe a moral obligation to help being identified too.

Mind boggles.
 
YorksG said:
I think this is the most naive comment about any form of surveliance, one which is regularly trotted out, it either shows a complete lack of understanding of how such issues can and do end up being subverted (recent cases of police officers who "whistleblew" having their phone records seized by their superiors to show that they were "conspiring", under laws that were introduced as part of the anti-terrorism legislation, being one that springs to mind) or a touching faith in those who *may* have access to the information, following the rules.
Click to expand...
Well, quite! That's why I put it in quotes. It is an argument that many appear to accept. I don't.

However(!)... What I am proposing with the black box recorder is extremely unlikely to be abused by the authorities, because of the technical design (it is physically capable of storing only a minute or two of recording which is not easily accessed without a key), and the fact the information is relatively unexciting (one or two minutes of someone driving). CCTV, on the other hand...
 
I'm another who thinks your insurance should be void if hacking on the road without hi viz. With being a road user on horseback, cycling and as a driver I would love to see it as compulsory.
 
fburton said:
I envisage that the contents of the black box would be encrypted and accessible only in the event of a serious accident. It could be set up to require a court order to unlock - much like a warrant to search your house. Only the last one or two minutes leading up to the accident would actually be recorded (by using a circular/rolling buffer); everything before that would get wiped continuously and would therefore remain private and unknowable.

But in any case... "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Do you also object to CCTV? Considerably less "safe", I'd have thought, because you don't know who is watching.
Click to expand...

No problem with CCTV,, although since austerity hit the fan the camera's may be there but how many are actually working? Not so many in our street
I like CCTV I have it all over my property, however I wouldn't choose to have it in my home or car and so I don't, my decision and my choice

*If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to worry about*
This was once a popular mantra among third Reich enthusiasts

A well established legal principle that pre-dates both police and Nazi party by about 500 years is
*You cannot prove a negative*

Last words on the subject:
The judge who tried the case of Hepburn v CC Thames Valley 2002
No-body is required in this Country to satisfy a police officer that he or she is not committing an offence

I wouldn't trust any state that wishes to overstep the mark and put some sort of surveillance on my property or try to tell me that only the last one or two minutes will actually be recorded

I also really don't care who is watching me when I shop, it is the shops business as I am on their property, I am in a shop that does not belong to me and they wish to protect their property, if it bothered me to be watched I would not use the shop, I would however go ballistic if I saw CCTV in the changing rooms or toilet, that to me is overstepping the mark just as I see certain area's of my world to be private and non-negotiable
 
Cecile said:
I wouldn't trust any state that wishes to overstep the mark and put some sort of surveillance on my property or try to tell me that only the last one or two minutes will actually be recorded
Click to expand...
I wouldn't trust the State on a lot of things. However, if I could verify the technical limitations of the black box and was sure that only a couple of minutes at most could be recorded, I would be happy to have one installed in my car knowing that it could be very helpful to prove my innocence in the event of an accident. And this from someone who covers or disconnects his webcams routinely, wouldn't touch Amazon Echo with a bargepole, doesn't use a smartphone, ...

I also really don't care who is watching me when I shop, it is the shops business as I am on their property, I am in a shop that does not belong to me and they wish to protect their property, if it bothered me to be watched I would not use the shop, I would however go ballistic if I saw CCTV in the changing rooms or toilet, that to me is overstepping the mark just as I see certain area's of my world to be private and non-negotiable
Click to expand...
Are you okay about CCTV in public places too? In this country where there's apparently a surveillance camera for every 11 people. Of course, not living in a city helps a lot!

Talking about CCTVs in toilets... Many years ago now, I led a Dales pony in the Lord Provost's procession in Glasgow. At the start in Peel Street I asked a policeman if I could fill my water container in the police headquarters there and was ushered into a staff (not public!) loo that had a camera up in one corner of the room. Go figure!
 
Too many people telling too many other people what they ought to be doing and seeking ways to compel them to do it not nice not healthly .
It's Bad Bad Bad it starts one place and ends another .
 
fburton said:
It's big business, and has been for years, but what can you do? It's hard to avoid advertising altogether.
Click to expand...

Eh , just buy what you want and trust your own judgement .
There's a world of difference between being compelled by the state to wear a form of clothing and choosing to buy an item .
If you don't want to look at advertising don't I think it would be extremely odd way to lead your life but on you go .
 
fburton said:
I wouldn't trust the State on a lot of things. However, if I could verify the technical limitations of the black box and was sure that only a couple of minutes at most could be recorded, I would be happy to have one installed in my car knowing that it could be very helpful to prove my innocence in the event of an accident. And this from someone who covers or disconnects his webcams routinely, wouldn't touch Amazon Echo with a bargepole, doesn't use a smartphone, ...


Are you okay about CCTV in public places too? In this country where there's apparently a surveillance camera for every 11 people. Of course, not living in a city helps a lot!

Talking about CCTVs in toilets... Many years ago now, I led a Dales pony in the Lord Provost's procession in Glasgow. At the start in Peel Street I asked a policeman if I could fill my water container in the police headquarters there and was ushered into a staff (not public!) loo that had a camera up in one corner of the room. Go figure!
Click to expand...

Absolutely fine with any CCTV in public places, there is no law to stop me or anyone else taking images in a public place
On 26 August 2010 ACPO sent out a communication to all forces basically telling them to stop breaking the law :-)
It clearly states in the letter to remind all officers and staff that they should not prevent anyone from taking photo's/images in public and none of us need a permit to do so
There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photo's, film or digital images in a public place
Apparently the public play a vital role as their images help them identify criminals
They must acknowledge that citizen journalism is a feature of modern day life
Unnecessarily restricting photography is unacceptable and it apparently undermines public confidence in the police service
Also once an image has been recorded, the police have no power whatsoever to delete or confiscate it without a court order
 
Goldenstar said:
Eh , just buy what you want and trust your own judgement .
There's a world of difference between being compelled by the state to wear a form of clothing and choosing to buy an item .
If you don't want to look at advertising don't I think it would be extremely odd way to lead your life but on you go .
Click to expand...
My comment was tongue in cheek, of course.
In general, I have quite libertarian views - e.g. I'm in favour of decriminalizing drug use, strongly against ID cards and inheritance tax - but accept some state compulsion where the benefits clearly outweigh the loss of freedom, e.g. in the case of seat belts and non-use of mobile phones while driving.
 
Last edited:
Cecile said:
Absolutely fine with any CCTV in public places, there is no law to stop me or anyone else taking images in a public place
On 26 August 2010 ACPO sent out a communication to all forces basically telling them to stop breaking the law :-)
It clearly states in the letter to remind all officers and staff that they should not prevent anyone from taking photo's/images in public and none of us need a permit to do so
There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photo's, film or digital images in a public place
Apparently the public play a vital role as their images help them identify criminals
They must acknowledge that citizen journalism is a feature of modern day life
Unnecessarily restricting photography is unacceptable and it apparently undermines public confidence in the police service
Also once an image has been recorded, the police have no power whatsoever to delete or confiscate it without a court order
Click to expand...
I agree with all of that, Cecile.
 
millikins said:
A better law would be to make it illegal to ride (horse or bicycle) without a head cam; thus ensuring that dangerous driving can be reported and the perpetrators punished rather than the victims.
Click to expand...

I was cycling to work in 2014 and hit by a car which decided to turn across me. I was wearing a helmet camera and the force of the impact corrupted the 5 minute file that it was currently writing so I had lovely footage before the impact of me cycling and afterwards of the sky, paramedics, police, A&E resus, etc. Conclusion - they let you down the one time you need them.
 
Cecile said:
Absolutely fine with any CCTV in public places, there is no law to stop me or anyone else taking images in a public place
On 26 August 2010 ACPO sent out a communication to all forces basically telling them to stop breaking the law :-)
It clearly states in the letter to remind all officers and staff that they should not prevent anyone from taking photo's/images in public and none of us need a permit to do so
There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photo's, film or digital images in a public place
Apparently the public play a vital role as their images help them identify criminals
They must acknowledge that citizen journalism is a feature of modern day life
Unnecessarily restricting photography is unacceptable and it apparently undermines public confidence in the police service
Also once an image has been recorded, the police have no power whatsoever to delete or confiscate it without a court order
Click to expand...

Just to clarify that rule slightly as it was used to abuse the system. You can take images of a public space you cannot however take images of something private from a public space! It would still be illegal to record sound also without a warning that you were.
 
popsdosh said:
Just to clarify that rule slightly as it was used to abuse the system. You can take images of a public space you cannot however take images of something private from a public space! It would still be illegal to record sound also without a warning that you were.
Click to expand...

Of course you can. Google earth is full of pictures of people's houses and gardens.
 
ycbm said:
Of course you can. Google earth is full of pictures of people's houses and gardens.
Click to expand...

You try and get a defined close up image off google earth.On streetview faces have to be obscured and property excluded if the owner objects.
How do you think they stop intrusive shots being taken ?
 
Last edited:
popsdosh said:
You try and get a defined close up image off google earth.On streetview faces have to be obscured and property excluded if the owner objects.
How do you think they stop intrusive shots being taken ?
Click to expand...

I think they've done that for PR reasons, not for legal reasons. They are certainly allowed to show people's faces, no-one has any right to their own image.

I review the homes I send my horses to on Google earth. I can see their chickens scratching in the dirt.
 
ycbm said:
I think they've done that for PR reasons, not for legal reasons. They are certainly allowed to show people's faces, no-one has any right to their own image.

I review the homes I send my horses to on Google earth. I can see their chickens scratching in the dirt.
Click to expand...

Look up the DPA or go and stand on the roadside and take pics with a long lens and see what happens if you wish to disprove.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top