Further to Reasons why riders do not wear Hi Viz...............

Where does it stop, though? How many laws do we need to protect us from death or injury at all times? And is this really beneficial or does it just make us unthinking and careless as riders, drivers, or walkers?

I drive on rural roads in a way that keeps me from injuring red squirrels and deer, both of which are rubbish in traffic and have no hi vis. Many other drivers do not drive safely and so I do not ride on roads,anymore. The roads are too narrow for fast vehicles to pass me safely. I don't wear hi vis hacking off road.
 
I never hack without hi vis, but wouldn't support making it a legal requirement. Who's going to enforce that then? Personally I would far rather police resources were focused on other things.

If we were going to start passing laws about hi vis, should we also reinstate the cycling proficiency test as a mandatory requirement for cyclists, and the Riding and Road Safety test for any riders wanting to hack out?

And should a horse have to be objectively assessed as sufficiently well schooled and sensible to be on the roads without causing a danger to others before it's allowed out of the school?

Or perhaps it's the horse and rider combination who should have to pass some sort of test? After all, a horse that, with me on board, would be a danger to everyone within a five mile radius might cause no problem to anyone with Goldenstar in the saddle ;-)

All these things would make everyone safer, but would be utterly impractical and unenforceable.
 
The thing about hi viz wearing, on this forum in particular, that really gets on my wick, is the holier than thou proselytising from the proponents.

It's incredibly offensive and I find it unpleasant to read, from people whose opinions I normally respect.
 
Rowreach said:
What surprises me is that on this forum, which can be a little bit fluffy bunny at times, the non-hi-viz-wearing supporters don't seem to be more worried about the safety of their horses. Freedom of choice in wearing hi-viz or not, or blaming car drivers for not driving carefully enough to avoid hitting a horse and rider, pale into insignificance when it comes to the option of potentially safeguarding our horses (who don't have any choice in the matter)
Click to expand...

I assume that everyone is equally concerned with the welfare of their horses, perhaps they just don't feel the need to state the fact, that's like saying "yes I have done the tack, back. teeth etc check" doesn't everyone? Why bother to state the obvious?

I didn't mention anything about my horse, but it doesn't mean that I don't consider her safety.
 
Goldenstar said:
There's no reason for being on the road in dark or in the fog on a horse .
No ones talking about riding at night or in bad weather hi vis is no excuse to be out in situations like that .
Click to expand...
I never used to bother with hi viz. Then one bright sunny day I was tootling down a straight country lane and nearly hit a horse and rider.
She was riding in the shadow of the trees, I only saw her at the last minute thanks to her companion on bicycle riding out of the shadow.
I realised on that day there was absolutely no reason to put my horse, myself or any other road user at an increased risk of injury or death for the sake of fashion.
 
I'm on the fence. I do think we live in a society that is a 'nanny' state- people have the right to make their own decision about what they wear, and what they don't. We're not communists yet...

However, I have seen the effect that riding without a hat has when an unfortunate event happens and it's not pretty. I think that law should be change to all minors should wear a hat, not just 14 and under, which I believe is the current law (correct me if I'm wrong).

Ultimately the choice must lie with the person if they are adult and of sane mind.

With regards to high vis, I would never ride out without it. However I do agree with others saying that drivers should drive as per the road situations, not at the speed limit or above when the conditions mean that it is dangerous to do so.

I was recently driving though a village near me, not one I'd driven through before and the speed limit was 40mph. It was a windy road and I was doing probably about 20mph as I couldn't see the road ahead- car behind me on my bumper.
As I went around the corner, a Huntsman on a clearly agitated horse was in the middle of the road. I have absolutely no doubt that had I been doing the speed limit (or if I were not there, the car behind), he would have been hit- and it didn't make a difference that he wasn't wearing high vis, because of the bend.
 
Last edited:
spacefaer said:
The thing about hi viz wearing, on this forum in particular, that really gets on my wick, is the holier than thou proselytising from the proponents.

It's incredibly offensive and I find it unpleasant to read, from people whose opinions I normally respect.
Click to expand...

Glad it's not just me.

It also makes me feel sick that folk can't see that this is the pathway by which our freedoms are taken:

First we have to wear hi-viz to ride out on the roads...
Then a 'competence test' or a licence, and special insurance...
Then we're not allowed on the roads at all (nobody will be by then, due to the cost of the red tape)....
Then they ban riding horses altogether. Dangerous, irresponsible, animal welfare, etc. etc.
 
spacefaer said:
The thing about hi viz wearing, on this forum in particular, that really gets on my wick, is the holier than thou proselytising from the proponents.

It's incredibly offensive and I find it unpleasant to read, from people whose opinions I normally respect.
Click to expand...


Why do you open the threads? There's only one way its going to go, isn't there? You must know when you open it that you are about to be offended.

No-one ever starts a thread to persuade other people NOT to wear hi viz.
 
Goldenstar said:
They would have to live with the fact that THEY where driving in an unsuitable way for the road conditions they would not be allowed to hit a small grey car and blame the car for being grey .
Click to expand...

It's a bit late then, innit, for the sake of wearing a yellow jacket.
 
I'm not sure how you could enforce a law like this to be honest. I have rarely if ever had a police car pass me while out hacking and it would be a massive waste of police resources to call them out every time you saw a horse rider without hi viz, especially given the rider would undoubtedly be gone by the time the police got there.

I do think it is common sense to wear hi viz though, and am always surprised that more people don't do it. As a driver on rural roads I ALWAYS take care, especially when going round blind bends, as you never know what you'll meet, but a lot of drivers aren't as careful. And I still like to get plenty of warning that there is a rider ahead, especially as horse riders often blend into hedges to the extent that they can be difficult to see until you're almost on top of them.
 
There are areas where there are horses being ridden on roads so how about having road signs warning there may be horses on road just like signs for schools.
 
I do not think that legislation is needed or wanted to be honest, there would be huge issues regarding the enforcing of it. I do believe that people should take responsibility for themselves and that all road users should be aware of, and follow, the highway code, that includes riders, cyclists and pedestrians. If we want to continue to share the roads, then we all have a responsibility to ensure that we do so as safely as we can and with consideration for other road users, which IMO includes giving other road users a chance to see us as soon as possible.
 
EQUIDAE said:
I was out in my car on a country lane. Through the hedges I could see a rider wearing hivis around the corner. When I came around the corner I was stunned to come upon 3 riders. The two bays were invisible... Yes I saw them in plenty of time to slow don't, but hivis gives drivers so much more thinking time.

Plus if the helicopters are looking for you if you fall off, they are more likely to find you if you are lit like a beacon
Click to expand...

Agree.

I had the same with 3 cyclists - mulling it over afterwards I now think if one person has hi viz the others become less noticeable.
 
The Xmas Furry, thankyou. There are signs but only for the wild ponies not for ridden horses but there are many ridden here and quite a few livery yards. I will get in touch with them to see what can be done.
 
If you don't have hi-viz then it is unlikely that you will be able to claim much compensation even if the motorist is in the wrong. Been through this, but not a rider and horse - a runner.
 
FestiveG said:
I do not think that legislation is needed or wanted to be honest, there would be huge issues regarding the enforcing of it. I do believe that people should take responsibility for themselves and that all road users should be aware of, and follow, the highway code, that includes riders, cyclists and pedestrians. If we want to continue to share the roads, then we all have a responsibility to ensure that we do so as safely as we can and with consideration for other road users, which IMO includes giving other road users a chance to see us as soon as possible.
Click to expand...

No different to wearing a seatbelt being the law though if you think about it. Fairly sure the police arn't out and about all day, everyday watching for the offenders...
 
There has to be evidence before you remove peoples freedoms .
There was overwhelming evidence for seat belts .
So those who want Hi vis made law
How many riders are killed or injured on the roads each year .
Of those killed or injured in how many cases was the driver not seeing the rider a factor .
You need evidence to justify the cost and curtailment of personal choice that passing a law causes .
Any of you know .
It's my observation around here most people on the roads wear hi vis so it seems to me that a law is not needed but find the evidence and I might be prepared to change my mind .
 
On our hacking route 3 horses have been killed in the last 6 years. 2 were driven into the back of, one bolted. I don't need any more evidence to wear hi viz on the routes (pretty flat country lanes with low/no hedges) than that! I don't routinely use a sheet as mine arn't clipped but we always have something hi viz and reflective on.
 
I don't think any law would be enforceable. With drivers they are easier to identify from the number plate and driving licence and as well as fines there is the threat of points on a licence which in theory they could lose if they accumulate enough taking away their right to drive. With horse riders (and cyclists and pedestrians who the same visibility concerns apply to), there is no way of identifying them and you can't stop them from riding, walking or cycling if you do catch them.

I suspect the pressure may come from insurance companies either by making it part of the T & Cs or by not paying out/paying out less if it is a factor.
 
I started to do a long post, gave up :). Simply, I just don't get why anyone would ride without hi viz. Forget about laws, legislation, and all that. The choice is, be seen easily or don't... Why would anyone not want to be seen, especially on the busy roads today? Sorry, just don't get it.
 
I would suggest that the reason most people do not wear h-viz is because they do not perceive it as looking fashionable and also think people think that because they are wearing hi-viz that they are not capable horse riders.

As regards those employed to ride horses out such as those employed by Riding Schools, Livery Yards, Racing Yards or individual horse owners (pay or reward) the employer must ensure that the rider wear Hi-Viz to EN471:2003 for occupational use when riding horses out of the premises. This is to comply with current Health and Safety legislation regarding the wearing of PPE (Personal Protective Equipment).

When goods vehicles or horseboxes are being directed on a yard then all staff and other persons must wear Hi-Viz to EN471:2003.
 
zzClaire said:
Interesting fact:
Studies comparing motorcycle riders dressed head to toe in hi-viz versus those dressed only in black found car drivers 'saw' the rider in black, both consciously and sub consciously, much more often and earlier than they saw 'dayglo Dave'. People are simply more scared of hells angels so our brain pays more attention. I sometimes wonder if similar scare tactics led to the invention of those adorable lycra outfits cyclists favour.

I'm offering this snippet of info to lighten the tone. Father Christmas kindly added to my high-viz wardrobe recently and I am grateful.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that doesn't stack up about "seeing figures all night black, how often have you seen a rider in high viz, then realised that actually there are two, you just hadn't seen the one not wearing high viz until later. Having experience working in helicopters, hi viz really enables you to be seen, we would use panels of hi viz material to bring in the helicopters to land, purely because they could be seen.
I would be really interested to read the study you mentioned, can you remember where you came across it?
 
ycbm said:
Why do you open the threads? There's only one way its going to go, isn't there? You must know when you open it that you are about to be offended.

No-one ever starts a thread to persuade other people NOT to wear hi viz.
Click to expand...

Because I live in hope that someone might be able to have a reasonable rational discussion without the attitude. Sadly, not yet.
 
I would not want to see a law about the wearing of hi-viz - in an ideal world, commonsense would prevail but it would seem that common-sense is in short supply in some areas.
However, I do think that insurance companies will bring about the same effect, by citing 'contributory negligence' when meeting claims (or not). I include BHS Public Liability cover, in this.
 
spacefaer said:
Because I live in hope that someone might be able to have a reasonable rational discussion without the attitude. Sadly, not yet.
Click to expand...

I think you'll get that discussion when anyone can give a rational argument against wearing it. As far as I can see, the only rational argument for not wearing it would be 'it makes riding more dangerous'. Preferring not to wear it is not a rational argument, it's just a preference like dying your hair or wearing blue jods instead of black ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top