Government survey? New or out of date?

[Meredith]

This arrived via Facebook. Is it up to date? Should we all complete it?
Does it really say cyclists can pass a horse on either side?

https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/K73...i8vS332cxIyEsXTIh3gUdfcdai-P-9DHendQpafpgEjI4

 

[The Fuzzy Furry]

Yes it's new, yes do complete it, its ruddy nuts to make such sweeping changes!

 

[milliepops]

thanks for sharing. have given my feedback!

 

[Zuzan]

OK so my answers below and pdf of my full response attached.

Q6. Why not?

This is illogical. The risks of a horse spooking / rider being unable to control the horse are too high to reliably mean they can give way to cyclists. Young horses in training are especially liable to spook unpredictably. Frequently horses spook at cyclists who pass to close, too fast and without any warning. The Hierarchy must take into consideration ability to control manoeuvrers. This hierarchy does not take into consideration that a rider is riding a horse / pony which is in itself a sentient being and will not view the environment in the same way a human will. The hierarchy is a dangerous presumption and will cause conflict and accidents.

Q10. Why not?

It is dangerous to presume a rider will be able to give way. If the horse is spooked or becomes uncontrollable this presumption will only make the situation even worse. Equine behaviour relies on training which involves desensitising to environments, if pedestrians assume an equine will be behave reliably is always controllable this will cause conflict and accidents.. This presumption is unsafe.

Q17. Do you agree with the proposed change to give way to pedestrians waiting at Junction and Zebra Crossing

​

NO
This assumes that a rider will be able to reliably give way.. In an environment where there are other vehicles etc which could cause the equine to become uncontrollable this a dangerous presumption. There must be recognition that equines are sentient beings in their own right and will not see the environment in the same way that a human will and are much much stronger than any human so the ability to "control" an equine relies on training and cannot be assured in every instance.

Q22. Why not?

The rider may be perfectly aware but this is only part of the problem. The equine the rider is on will not necessarily always obey requests the rider makes no matter how effective the rider is. Equines are much much stronger than humans are sentient beings in their own right and thus may not always be controllable.

Q26. Why not?

This does not place enough emphasis on cyclists being aware of and careful when passing or approaching ridden or driven equines. Cyclists must ensure the rider is aware of their presence especially when approaching a ridden or driven equine from behind as the rider / driver will not be aware the cyclist is there.

Q28. Why not?

This does not provide the cyclist with effective guidance on approaching or passing ridden or driven equines. It doe not place enough responsibility on the cyclist to consider the fact that an ridden / driven equine is going to behave reliably or that the rider / drive will be able to control the equine.

Q47. Why not?

Passing at a distance of 2m on a single track lane is impossible.
Passing a ridden or driven equine at 15mph at a distance of 2m is unsafe as the horse can move sideways very fast if spooked. This is unsafe and will cause accidents.

Q48. Do you agree with the proposed speed limits detailed at Rule 163 for overtaking:

15mph is too fast in some instances to reliably pass an ridden or driven equine. The equine may be young and or inexperienced and therefore unable to behave safely and allow safe passing at this speed.

Q49. Do you agree with the proposed passing distances detailed at Rule 163 for overtaking:

If no, why not?
2m is not sufficient at the sited speeds and there is no consideration of instances where 2m is not possible such as on single track lanes.

Q59. Do you have any further comments about the changes to the rules on using the road?

There should be strengthened priority for ridden or driven equines.

Q64. Do you have any further comments about other changes proposed in the chapter on road users requiring extra care?

Not sufficient explanation on why ridden or driven equines should be given extra / specific consideration. It must highlight that the equine may be unpredictable and that a rider will not always be able to control / manoeuvrer an equine.

Q71. Do you have any further comments regarding the proposed amendments to The Highway Code which focus on safety improvements for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders?

The hierarchy is illogical as in many instances there are cited exceptions // qualifications in the code in relation to cyclists and ridden / driven equines in particular. Using this hierarchy will mean cyclists could assume that all ridden / driven equines will be able to give way to them in all instances. This is a dangerous expectation and will cause conflict and accidents.

 

[dogatemysalad]

Arrgggh. That was a long, drawn out process. Has little practical benefit for horse riders, whilst strengthening the status of cyclists. Very predictable.

 

[milliepops]

I added comments re the passing on the left, around positioning your horse on the road. For me, I find it most useful to position the horse quarters to the left and present the horse's right eye to see what is coming from behind. if the horse startles when being passed then it runs to the side of the road. having the safe area on the left of you is really important I think. if you had to do that the other way round to let a cyclist pass from the left, then your horse may run into the road.

 

[Mrs C]

I've completed. It's ludicrous

 

[Errin Paddywack]

I have answered it. Don't think they will like a lot of my comments. I found a lot of it confusing and will lead to accidents. It definitely won't make life on the roads any safer for any road users, potentially quite the opposite. In my lifetime my transport has been cycles, motorbikes and cars plus many years riding horses. I have also done a fair bit of towing. Personally I found a lot of it confusing, woolly and so vague as to be a nightmare if any accident caused by it went to court.

 

[PapaverFollis]

I'm stuck on question 1. I've no problem with a hierarchy in a way but think we are more vulnerable on a horse than a cyclist even though theoretically a horse could do more damage to a car or pedestrian. A horse is not a big bike.

 

[Rowreach]

A basic tenet of riding and road safety training and the new Ride Safe award is that you should always look out for idiot cyclists coming up on your left hand side, and if possible place yourself to prevent any traffic doing this. Which seems very sensible to me.

This survey seems to be encouraging the sort of response that will benefit the argument that horses shouldn't be allowed on the road, at all, which is a worry

 

[Zuzan]

I'm stuck on question 1. I've no problem with a hierarchy in a way but think we are more vulnerable on a horse than a cyclist even though theoretically a horse could do more damage to a car or pedestrian. A horse is not a big bike.

Those riding and driving equines are more vulnerable as there is no way any of us are really in control of equines. We rely on the training of equines including their desensitising to environments like road / other vehicles etc An equine even a small pony is much stronger than a human no matter what tack is used. Equines are sentient beings in their own right and will make their own judgements on risk .. which is where the training comes in. The hierarchy is illogical as it assumes too much about the rider or driver being able to manoeuvre the equine.

If you do use a hierarchy then it should be based on ability to manoeuvre effectively no matter. A rider or driver of an equine cannot guarantee that they will be able to do so so arguably should be number 1!!

 

[ycbm]

A basic tenet of riding and road safety training and the new Ride Safe award is that you should always look out for idiot cyclists coming up on your left hand side, and if possible place yourself to prevent any traffic doing this. Which seems very sensible to me.

It sounds sensible, but on my very narrow lane, the safest place for me to be is in the middle of the road. This prevents any driver from attempting to pass me until they have slowed right down and I have moved the horse over. Unfortunately it also allows cyclists to think they can overtake on the left. It would be possible to place my horse so that they can't do that, but then I am exposed to cars who think they can overtake at speed giving me 1 or 2 feet of space between them and my foot.

This survey seems to be encouraging the sort of response that will benefit the argument that horses shouldn't be allowed on the road, at all, which is a worry

I thought that, are they actually seeking an excuse to ban horses from public roads?

 

[Rowreach]

It sounds sensible, but on my very narrow lane, the safest place for me to be is in the middle of the road. This prevents any driver from attempting to pass me until they have slowed right down and I have moved the horse over. Unfortunately it also allows cyclists to think they can overtake on the left. It would be possible to place my horse so that they can't do that, but then I am exposed to cars who think they can overtake at speed giving me 1 or 2 feet of space between them and my foot.



I thought that, are they actually seeking an excuse to ban horses from public roads?

Yes I worded that a bit badly, sorry, I meant positioning yourself to prevent big traffic coming up your left, but that that is why they teach you to look left as well in case of sneaky cyclists squeezing up the gap.

 

[Red-1]

I have plugged through that. I don't think active horse riders had much input on that. It will be likely to increase horse related accidents. I have no idea how to stop cyclists coming up the inside and not startling the horse into big traffic. You only have to look at the video of the sportive where cyclists went up the inside.

I thought the BHS had been consulting with this?

 

[milliepops]

I can't imagine what benefit there is to a cyclist (who isn't in a race ) going on the left side of a horse.
why are they trying to make that a *thing*?
being overtaken the normal way works fine doesn't it?

 

[Rowreach]

I thought the BHS had been consulting with this?

[insert hollow laugh]