Fined for not wearing hi-viz?

B

booandellie

Well-Known Member
Joined
10 December 2013
Messages
429
Visit site
Following on from the other riding on the road thread, head cams and general rider road safety, it made me think about last week when i was getting a lift off a non horsey friend. We were on a 60 road and ahead were 3 horses being ridden up from their fields bareback in muddy camouflage rugs. Now i saw them straight away and said slow down! And she replied that she normally would do but she never even noticed them till the last minute! Now i ride in hi-viz and most sensible people do, but round me i also see hatless, hi-vizless riders listing to ipods!! Drivers get fined for using their phones, it's a dangerous behaviour- should riders be fined for not wearing hi-viz? Afterall, they're not only endangering themselves but other road users. I think a minimum requirement off a hi-viz vest should be compulsory! I know the police have enough to do but it would be a deterant to those that don't wear it. Also, if you were involved in an accident and not wearing hi-viz you would be seen as partially at fault if it came to prosecution or insurance payout. What are people's thoughts?
 
Personally I'd say no to compulsory because where would it end? Would we need to wear hi-viz at all times even on private land on the offchance that a pony (or a dog or a child) steps off that property onto a road even if only for a step or two.

Anyone employed as a groom or rider would need to comply with Health and Safety which perhaps includes wearing of hi-viz. Insurance would clamp down on any claims too so there are recourses for some situations already.

PS I do wear hi-viz when hacking out or leading a pony along a road (even carried a Sam Browne belt in my pocket out hunting for hacking home) but not at home or on a showground.
 
Yes I think it should apply! Even when riding off road I always wear hi viz, have been told that it makes it easier for air ambulance to spot you in emergency and also if horse gets loose. Silly not to wear it
 
Thanks catkin, i am suggesting it was compulsory on public roads only so not on yards or showgounds where there will obviously be horses and where their isn't any compulsory health and safety laws for riders. It could and should probably also include cyclists!
 
Even though I am now in cycle country and I don't think there are so many that anyone stops seeing it.

All road users travelling in a longitudinal manner should have X area of high vis.

Therefore little old lady crossing the road would be exempt.
 
catkin said:
At what point does one stop? the little old lady getting off the bus and crossing the road to get home?

Is there also danger of it becoming so ubiquitous that people 'stop' seeing it?
Click to expand...

This what happened with motorbikes and there is a phenomena that suggests that as something becomes the norm we get blind to it.
I do wonder how so many of us of a certain age are still here to post. I have yet to see any figures that show since more hi vis is used actual accidents have fallen. Just as a slight aside on the debate about yellow or orange I came across a group at the weekend riding on a bridlepath picked out the orange ones at twice the distance to the yellow clad ones.
 
Horse riders should wear it, cyclists should wear it, joggers should wear it, dog walkers should wear it - especially the dogs who wander into the road... and I really wish the bl**dy sangliers would wear it instead of frightening me half to death lol!
 
As you might guess from my Username, I'm not someone who 'grew up' with High Viz! While I try to move with the times, I do think there is a line to be drawn on making things compulsory. Yes to hats, yes to banning hearing loss due to iPods (!!) but beyond that I feel that education as to what should be worn by horse and rider in broad daylight should be enough. If you're talking about dusk (let alone night) then I think riders should be encouraged to wear Hi-Viz and have similar on their horse's tack. Could there be a case for this being compulsory after dusk (although widely ignored by bicycle riders, I notice!) but at the rider's discretion during daylight? I also agree with catkin - where things become commonplace, they no longer stand out. I would tend to use 'young horse' tabards etc where appropriate only.
 
Would go down very well with hunting fratenity (I am NOT one of those) but they might just have a few choice words to say.

I'd be all in favour though, seems only sensible
 
I think the getting used to it issue is a concern on say building sites where it is worn by everyone all the time and seen constantly by those around you.
Intermittently seeing people at the side of the road, not so much especially in the areas where you are likely to find horse riders. I would see very few other road users and plenty of blind bends where a couple of extra seconds can make a lot of difference.

(I am a cyclist too)
 
Last edited:
ITPersonnage said:
Would go down very well with hunting fratenity (I am NOT one of those) but they might just have a few choice words to say.

I'd be all in favour though, seems only sensible
Click to expand...

I always hacked to meets, in full hi vis garb plus lights in case I needed them on the way home. I would also whip it straight back out my saddlebag when on roadwork and particularly if we were going to be stuck on that road for any length of time. Those with me used to thank me for it and and secretary used to say it was something that she always worried about and wondered whether they should do so, particularly on the tree lined darker stretches we had.
 
The point of hi viz is to make you visible you won't become less visible because more people wear it .
It may of course affect how drivers behave when they see it if everybody is wearing it .
I don't favour compulsion though it's just not my thing forcing people to do things .
 
I think if you start stipulating dusk/dawn times it complicates matters and makes it harder to enforce eg . oh i set off and it was daylight, didn't realise the time blardy blah..... Interesting comment about how the more common place it is on the road, the less likely we are to see it- does that mean that i am less likely to notice pedestrians crossing the road because i live in a town/city? I know we live in a society where there seems to have to be a law for everything, many of what is only common sense- take wearing seatbelts, not smoking in cars with kids etc etc but the laws are there to make sure the numpties don't endanger other people and i do think anyone using a public highway has to make themselves visible to all other road users.
 
It's the compulsion element that makes me nervous, especially when it's to do with such a fundamental right as free passage along a public highway which (apart from motorways and the like which have special laws) are open to travellers of all modes not just cars.
 
I see absolutely no problem in suggesting that walkers, cyclists and horse riding wear hi-viz when travelling on a public highway as it makes it safer for all concerned, however be aware that in situations of bright low sunlight that drivers will be blinded and not see hi-viz.
 
Some of the answers up the page are that ALL users should wear hi-viz including walkers. The trouble with framing these sort of laws is that there are often unintended consequences and this would get majorly complicated very very quickly - so, for example, a householder putting out rubbish before dawn steps on the public highway to be able to do it, without hi-viz/lights/glowstick stuck on the top of their head etc (whatever flavour of the month for the enforcers is........) is that a crime or not? This sort of thing happens so frequently with interpretations of the law that I can't support any more compulsion than what we already have.
 
Well I know, I was one of those answers.... :rolleyes3:......
But I don't understand why we can't possibly compel people to do things when obviously we already do.

Again your example would not apply if said person were not travelling longitudinally down the road as per my previous post. This is why things need wording carefully but just because they need wording carefully, as does all legislation, doesn't automatically mean they are a dreadful idea.

I don't imagine it would be one of those crimes that regularly gets enforced, the same with bicycles and lights and drivers on mobiles but having it might well encourage a few more to join in.

Most cyclist's views on Hi vis actually really worries me - any time on a cycling forum and you will come up with 'I look like a numpty, I look like a target, people will think cycling is dangerous so we will have fewer people cycling'.
 
Yes all road users ( travelling along the road on a journey- not just crossing the road,or putting bins out...or loitering with intent! should use hi-viz.( And without getting ridiculous like saying office commuters in london should all have hi-viz over their suits) But i am suggesting that cyclists and horse riders who are obviously travelling at greater speed and /or are in control of an unpredictable animal and that are actually in the road and NOT on the pavement should by law wearing a minimum of a hi-viz tabbard to make them more noticeable to other road users. It isn't going to stop ALL accidents but it does give other cars/bikes/horseriders( yes, it works both ways) a bit more chance to see what is coming their way. Catkin, it seems the only one totally misinterpreting it to extremes is you! cross posted again!
 
Yes, i think every horse rider on the road should have hi viz on. It's very selfish not to. I don't care much if you get hit if you don't wear hi-viz, it's your own fault, but it's not fair on the driver of the car and any passengers, and the horse.

Horses and riders in neutral /dull colours (even if pink/white/whatever) are really difficult to spot next to a hedge. I also think people have no right to complain about cars coming fast at them if you don't wear hi-viz, it's harder to see them, then you have to break quicker.

We were discussing cyclists the other day and even when they have no hi-viz and black gear, they are still far more visible than horse riders. Me and OH reckon it has something to do with how a cyclist moves and the speed they are going.

Generally horses and cyclists travel on roads without verges/country roads and they can't get off the road easily, or sit on an animal that needs lot of space to pass, i think it's totally different for people walking where there are pavements/vergers etc to get up onto.
 
Playing devil's advocate employers are required to demonstrate 'duty of care' to their employees which includes wearing PPE - arguably when exercising horses on the road as part of your job this includes high vis. Many of the leading racing stables have taken this approach and use high vis when hacking to the gallops.
In the farming world an employer who did not check/insist that his farmhand wore a helmet when riding an ATV or correct protective gear when filling (and for some types, operating) a crop sprayer could be prosecuted by the HSE in the event of an accident. There have been several cases where payouts have reached six figures.
BTW the debate about how easy it is to define poor light conditions is totally irrelevant - on a bright sunny day a rider wearing dark clothes and riding a dark coloured horse will literally disappear before your eyes as they ride into the shade from a tree or tall hedge. I have had this experience as a driver and although some weird instinct made me think there might be a horse ahead and thus avoid an accident, I would never want to repeat it.
 
Goldenstar said:
The point of hi viz is to make you visible you won't become less visible because more people wear it .
It may of course affect how drivers behave when they see it if everybody is wearing it .
I don't favour compulsion though it's just not my thing forcing people to do things .
Click to expand...

This really for me.
I work in a manufacturing plant where everyone wears hi vis, and I don't think you go blind to it really, but it does make people without it all the more invisible as you just don't expect a person to be there if you don't catch a glimpse of hi vis.
Wouldn't like legislation though.
 
booandellie said:
Yes all road users ( travelling along the road on a journey- not just crossing the road,or putting bins out...or loitering with intent! should use hi-viz.( And without getting ridiculous like saying office commuters in london should all have hi-viz over their suits) But i am suggesting that cyclists and horse riders who are obviously travelling at greater speed and /or are in control of an unpredictable animal and that are actually in the road and NOT on the pavement should by law wearing a minimum of a hi-viz tabbard to make them more noticeable to other road users. It isn't going to stop ALL accidents but it does give other cars/bikes/horseriders( yes, it works both ways) a bit more chance to see what is coming their way. Catkin, it seems the only one totally misinterpreting it to extremes is you! cross posted again!
Click to expand...

Got news for you the whole idea is ridiculous!! If you cant see whats coming travel at a speed where you can react! Simple as.
 
No! Absolutely hate the trend of fines for everything. Let people use their own initiative and exercise choice.
I have actually started wearing high vis due to the increase of traffic and bad drivers in my area. They still nearly flatten me but I feel I'm in a better position to say 'well I was wearing high vis!' if they hit me. I don't believe anyone deserves to be fined or forced to wear it though. They way people drive around me is bad and it has nothing to do with high vis. They can see me alright they just don't give a ****!
 
Last edited:
ironhorse said:
Playing devil's advocate employers are required to demonstrate 'duty of care' to their employees which includes wearing PPE - arguably when exercising horses on the road as part of your job this includes high vis. Many of the leading racing stables have taken this approach and use high vis when hacking to the gallops.
In the farming world an employer who did not check/insist that his farmhand wore a helmet when riding an ATV or correct protective gear when filling (and for some types, operating) a crop sprayer could be prosecuted by the HSE in the event of an accident. There have been several cases where payouts have reached six figures.
BTW the debate about how easy it is to define poor light conditions is totally irrelevant - on a bright sunny day a rider wearing dark clothes and riding a dark coloured horse will literally disappear before your eyes as they ride into the shade from a tree or tall hedge. I have had this experience as a driver and although some weird instinct made me think there might be a horse ahead and thus avoid an accident, I would never want to repeat it.
Click to expand...

Please point me to the law that says people riding ATVs have to wear helmets as it does not exist even on roads.
 
booandellie said:
That's the point-people don't and aren't otherwise there would be no accidents on the road at all
Click to expand...

Well who should be prosecuted and fined then??
If you as a rider wish to use it for your own protection fine ! but get the reason straight! However please justify why it should be mandatory or are you trying to take the blame away from them and just passing it to the rider. I have two friends in wheelchairs both hit by cars travelling to fast on country lanes . They were both wearing Hi viz . it is only effective when the driver can actually see it and that very rarely is at the time accidents happen as they are most likely when travelling around bends to quick .most accidents on straight roads are caused by horses moving into traffic which is not a visibility issue but a rider control issue that no amount of hi viz will change . Maybe we should all have to ride out with a vehicle escort to warn other road users of horses ahead particularly when around bends.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top