Hats and Hi-Viz on the roads - compulsory? (bit of a rant too sorry)

Well I went for my hack this morning dressed in an orange hi viz jacket, with a yellow quater sheet, and pink reflective boots. A guy walking his dog stopped and shouted 'Nice socks!!!'. OK clearly not horsey, but he saw me from a long way off.

Making hi viz compulsory would be ideal, but lets face it - driving on your phone is illegal, and people do it, as is drink driving, and drug driving, yet people do it every day.
 
The arguments against hats and Hi-Viz are the same ones which were trotted out about drunk driving laws, helmets for motor cycles and compulsory seat belt use. The arguement about individual freedom of choice is a bit redundant when the tax payer is forking out for your ICU bed and subsequent life long care! I do not advocate the end of all risk, (heck I ride a very spooky Appy mare on the road!) but do think that we have a collective responsibility. If we are not visible then we put other road users at risk. 500kg of horse through the windscreen is quite likely to cause damage to the driver (mind you I wish a few of them would recognise that fact).
So yes wear huge amounts of Hi-Viz, an up to date hat, which is always fastnend.
smile.gif
 
YorksG beat me to it.

Wear or don't wear a hat, if you are an adult you are big enough and ugly enough to decide on your own safety.

High Viz, however, is not just about your safety, but that of your horse's and other road users too.

Plus, take it from someone who was very recently in this position, if my horse is loose on the road or I am a heap on the floor somewhere, I da*n well want other road users to be able to see me and him!
 
I just don't see why you wouldn't wear it. My friends horse was killed on the road by a car, and I've had numerous near misses, including the bus that came so close, we touched his wing mirror! I take reponsibility for my own safety, and if I feel I need to, I will put a hat and gloves on for leading. Whether it's dark/sunny/raining I would plaster myself in high viz stuff. Why give drivers any excuse to say "they didn't see you?"
 
[ QUOTE ]
The arguments against hats and Hi-Viz are the same ones which were trotted out about drunk driving laws, helmets for motor cycles and compulsory seat belt use. The arguement about individual freedom of choice is a bit redundant when the tax payer is forking out for your ICU bed and subsequent life long care! I do not advocate the end of all risk, (heck I ride a very spooky Appy mare on the road!) but do think that we have a collective responsibility. If we are not visible then we put other road users at risk. 500kg of horse through the windscreen is quite likely to cause damage to the driver (mind you I wish a few of them would recognise that fact).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hear hear! I wear yellow hi-viz all year round, whenever I'm hacking out (whether on roads or not - you never know when you're going to have to deviate onto a road from your planned route). And a hat, as I have done for the past 45 years. I will never understand those who refuse to do their best to ensure their own safety and that of their horse and other road-users, never mind reduce the likelihood of leaving family and friends (and the NHS) to pick up the pieces after an accident.

Hi-viz gives drivers an extra 2-3 seconds of reaction time and that extra braking distance can make all the difference to whether you and your horse end up draped over a car or simply a bit startled but safe on the verge.
 
I've not read all of this (not got time) but if it hasn't been stated before, a lot of insurance companies have a clause where by if you're not wearing a certain amount of high viz on the road your insurance is invalid....worth a thought.
 
I always wear both. I have high vis on even though I rarely go on a road so walkers can see me. It's also adviseable to wear a hat cover if there is any low flying in your area.
I think it should be a legal requirement for riders and cyclists....both hats and high vis on the road. I passed a cyclist the other day wearing camoflagued trousers and jackets.....clearly he had a death wish. He was almost invisible which is what the clothing is meant to do!!
 
[ QUOTE ]
. The arguement about individual freedom of choice is a bit redundant when the tax payer is forking out for your ICU bed and subsequent life long care!

[/ QUOTE ]

But where does it stop??? Next thing we know i'll be in court for being too fond of beer/ciggies/all the unhealthy things I eat...
 
[ QUOTE ]
There was a case reported in H&H some time ago about a drier sueing a rider for damages, although I think that time the horse was misbehaving, which helped his case.

I have read of incidents in our local paper, and in the national press, whereby drivers have successfully claimed against horse riders, cyclists etc where accidents have been deemed as their fault for whatever reason.

I am a biologist, and as a biologist there are many things in the world of science I am unaware of. As a lawyer, surely you are not aware of every single case in the UK that has happened or is currently happening? I will talk to my sister (also a lawyer) and see if she can find out the details of the cases I have heard about.

Anyway, that is slightly off topic, and the point of this thread was more to get people's responses to attitudes about wearing high viz, whether it should be legal or not etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not off-topic, because if people are mis-stating the law, then it should be pointed out.

As a qualified solicitor and lecturer on undergraduate LLB courses at university level, I am not aware of every case that hits the courts but I must be aware of changes to the law of delict and tort (I am dual qualfied). It is so easy for non-lawyers to misunderstand the law, namely in this context you could have confused this for:-
(i) a defence of contributory negligence
(ii) a counter claim which reduced the damages given to a horserider
(iii) Newspaper report of an insurance company's intention to claim off the insurance of a horse rider - as previously stated, this is not the law.

Even if a first instance court did make such a finding, it still wouldn't be law, because it would be most likely overturned in the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court. Or it could be the case that it was not defended as some insurers do not as a matter of economy. As I say, if I am wrong, then please give me the case and citation so I can ascertain the veracity of this claim of what would be a quite astounding change in the law of England and Wales.
 
Anyway, in answer to the original premise, I would not be in favour of legislating to make the wearing of high-viz and hats compulsory, for the following reasons:-

Horse riding can be distinguished from driving a car, in that the latter requires a license from the Government and is subject to certain restrictions due to that. Horse riding is not a licensed activity. The reason driving a car requires a license is that cars are made of hard metal and can be driven very fast and as such, statistically cause a lot of accidents. Therefore they are treated differently by the law.

The way the system of tort works is to place a duty of care upon the licenseholder ie the car driver not to drive their car so as to injure other road users.

I have to say I am concerned that you report two near misses yourself when driving your car, and that you accept no responsibility for this whatsoever and seek to place the blame on horseriders. Is it not possible you could still be driving too fast for the road conditions - if you are in gear and collide with a horse or cyclist or pedestrian, it is your fault. You know the roads around you are twisty, you know there are horseriders likely to be there, some not wearing high viz, but still you have near misses. Can you perhaps cycle or something on the same road to get more of a feeling for being a vulnerable road user? I too drive on such roads and I have never had a near miss. Surely everyone is taught that if you cannot see the road ahead, you must proceed very cautiously indeed?

I am also against the premise because it would take the onus of care away from car drivers and place it on horse riders to avoid being hit. I think this would be very dangerous - it would lead some car drivers to believe they had a free license to drive fast on country roads, free in the knowledge that if they do collide with a vulnerable road user, they will get off.

In several European countries, including Holland, there were recent changes to the law to make drivers automatically liable should they be involved in an accident, unless they can prove the contrary. This has resulted in a significant decrease in road traffic accidents involving cyclists in Holland, and this approach would seem to have more chances of reducing accident figures than making high-viz and hats compulsory.

My personal opinion is that there is also a significant number of very nervous horse riders out there, who place too much significance on artificial aids to safety, because these are things that they can control, and it makes them feel secure. There is far too much regulation in this country already, yet we have some of the most deliberately dangerous drivers on country lanes in the world. Lets not give them any more excuse to treat country lanes like motorways!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Riders on roads without any viz gear are twats, doesn't matter what the excuse is for not wearing it, nation of arseholes, end of.

[/ QUOTE ]


So Im a twat!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I could say you look like a twat wearing hi viz! But then Im an adult and dont find the need to name call at other peoples preferences
wink.gif

Alright!
wink.gif
wink.gif
wink.gif
wink.gif
wink.gif
 
Headless horsewaoman, well bloody said!!!!
Each to their own, jesus christ horse riding is meant to be fun not bloody strict and have loads of rules
mad.gif


I remember when I used to go out for miles bare back on a welsh cob!
Or should bare back be made illegal too?????????????
 
Sorry, I have actually not read this thread. Last year there was a petiton on No 10, asking for it to be made a legal requierment for horse riders/drivers, motor and pedal cyclists to have to wear Hi-viz. I believe it got 19 signatures in six months.

I think this, rightly or wrongly, says what people think about the idea.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I am also against the premise because it would take the onus of care away from car drivers and place it on horse riders to avoid being hit. I think this would be very dangerous - it would lead some car drivers to believe they had a free license to drive fast on country roads, free in the knowledge that if they do collide with a vulnerable road user, they will get off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that necessarily the case? If compulsory wearing of hats and hi-viz were introduced, it might make it a little more difficult for a horse-rider victim not wearing these items to make a 100% successful claim - there would be contributory negligence - but a legally-compliant horse-rider would have a stronger claim against the driver. I can't imagine a speeding driver weighing up the consequences of possibly hitting an almost-invisible as opposed to a very visible rider round the next bend. Both are vulnerable road-users but the legally-compliant one would have a much stronger case and the driver would be by no means certain of getting off.
 
But why should a fun hobby be ruined by rules and regulations?? All the years that people have been hacking out. Whats changed so much?
I think its a bloody stupid idea, I think police should be out catching perverts and murderers not worrying about a mother and daughetr out on their ponies enjoying a relaxing hack
confused.gif


Donklet, thank god for that!
 
QR

TBH, I think alot of accidents happen around blind bends and over blind summits, not on straight stretches of road where a driver can see. Yes I can see that high vis helps drivers, and as a driver I am aware of how much harder people are to see without it.

But as I believe most accidents happen round blind bends then drivers who are tw*ts will hit the horse regardless of what they are wearing. And accident where a horse runs onto the road into trafficm is just that - an accident. Some of these things happen so fast I would imagine that the drivers have no chance to stop.
frown.gif


FWIW I do wear a hat and hi vis, but have ridden without when I have forgottent them in the past. And in my younger days yes high vis was worn by sad people
smirk.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
But why should a fun hobby be ruined by rules and regulations?? All the years that people have been hacking out. Whats changed so much?

[/ QUOTE ]
More cars?
tongue.gif
 
I have read all the comments on this post and a lot of good sense has been written.

I have 2 views on the subject

1. Does anyone not feel that it is a little bit sad that horse riders, cyclists, pedestrians, dogs, car passengers (in a broken car) should be required to wear such appalling colours to ward off the dangers from large, heavy vehicles travelling at speed around the UK?

2. Horse riders, cyclists, pedestrians, dogs, car passengers (standing at the side of a road whilst vehicle is repaired) should be wholly responsible for any damage they inflicts on large, heavy vehicles travelling at speed on our roads - and deserve any collateral damage they receive.

OK, there's a third view after all that.

3. Make the drivers responsible, sue them, throw them in jail,hang them.


...... sorry, I'm getting carried away. I'm more in agreement with headless-horsewoman here.
 
Right so before I go to get on him, he's going to pull me to one side and ask me politely put on some hideous gear so we look like knobs going trough the quiet country side? Um NO, dont think so!
Did you not read donklets post??
19 Votes!!!!!!

My animal's trust ME as much as I trust THEM!
Its cocky snipey people like you that give horsey people the bad name!
Each to their own!
 
I was of the same view as you, until I had a child.

My kid might look a 'gork' in a cycle helmet, but they still wear one... I'd rather they looked a gork than were left in a vegetable state or dead.

Same goes for Hi Viz... they wear it because (although I trust the pony implicitly), I do not trust perfect strangers driving a tonne of metal at 40+ miles per hour with my child's life.
 
So do mine, and so do I - but I appreciate the legal explanation earlier on, and now can see why making it a legal requirement might not be a good idea.
Doesn't stop anyone with sense wearing it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am also against the premise because it would take the onus of care away from car drivers and place it on horse riders to avoid being hit. I think this would be very dangerous - it would lead some car drivers to believe they had a free license to drive fast on country roads, free in the knowledge that if they do collide with a vulnerable road user, they will get off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that necessarily the case? If compulsory wearing of hats and hi-viz were introduced, it might make it a little more difficult for a horse-rider victim not wearing these items to make a 100% successful claim - there would be contributory negligence - but a legally-compliant horse-rider would have a stronger claim against the driver. I can't imagine a speeding driver weighing up the consequences of possibly hitting an almost-invisible as opposed to a very visible rider round the next bend. Both are vulnerable road-users but the legally-compliant one would have a much stronger case and the driver would be by no means certain of getting off.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree. That isn't the way liability operates at present. Contributory negligence is decided AFTER liability and breach of duty of care. But what was being proposed was, I think, changing liability so that the onus of proof is upon the person hit by the car to prove that they did not deserve to be hit. Or at least that is the logical legal presumption of what the OP is proposing. Because contributory negligence already exists, there isn't really a question about this issue in civil law. The present system operates perfectly satisfactorally. And please note that contributory negligence is usually just a small percentage reduction in damages, not a total negation of liability, as some appear to believe.

I do believe it would be very dangerous in this country to lead drivers to believe they should only take care to avoid hitting road users wearing high viz and hats. There are unfortunately plenty of regularly speeding drivers around twisty country roads who would use it as an excuse to switch off their brains to anything other than high-viz. Far better that drivers should be encouraged to drive more safely.

And how on earth would you enforce it? When out riding in my high viz tonight, I saw plenty of barely visible dog walkers in dark clothing. When out running later, in the dusk, I deliberately wore all black - because the roads are very quiet and I can jump out of the way of a car, but I don't want any dodgy car drivers spotting my escape route should I ever have to make a quick getaway!

I agree, high-viz is not a guarantor of safety. Its people who driver round blind bends too fast for safety who then profess frustration at other road users being there who are the danger. And high-viz doesn't really help that much in this sort of situation.
 
People should have to wear hi-viz, maybe you don't care about yourself or your horse enough, but what about me say - a mum, travelling at dusk one night, your horse might spook off the pavement say, into the road. Do I and my children deserve to lose that 3 seconds extra chance of living because you didn't WANT to wear hi-viz...?

You can choose not to care about yourself or your horse, but please just have a little care also for your fellow road users and remember- the day you come off and your horse runs onto a main road, you might be lying there thinking "I wish he had hi-viz on" as the screech of tyres tells you someones seen him - I hope for his sake, its not three seconds too late.
 
I couldn't agree more.

I wear a yellow tabard (dark horse) who wears a yellow h-viz breastplate and also a hi viz tail gaurd. I also have a hi viz yellow exercise sheet for when she is clipped.

Idon't care what I look like!

Everyone at our yards wears a tabard.
 
There is a difference between saying 'everyone should wear hi viz' with which I agree and 'it should be made a legal requirement' with which I don't.
 
Exactly what I was saying, I choose to wear high viz and a hat on my horse but don't want to be forced to.

When on my motorcycle, in bad weather conditions, I wear high viz, but on a summer day pootle on my Harley which has a loud exhaust, very loud horn and bright lights, which frankly if someone did not see or hear, they must be half dead, I don't.

At the end of the day I have a brain and I know when I need to make myself more visible. The horse, I will do everything to eliminate risk on, but the bike already has certain factors in its favour which the horse does not.

I think after 30 years motorcycle riding and 40 years of horse riding on roads, I have got it right.

At the end of the day if someone is going too fast round a bend to stop, they will hit you - I had a car go into the back end of my horse (luckily not causing damage to her) in full daylight on dry roads. I was in full high viz, and so was the horse and this stupid cow had sped through the village, past a kids' school crossing and couldn't stop when she encounted the horse with a car coming in the opposite direction.

The lovely school patrol lady proceeded to thump the car with her lolly pop she was so angry at this woman - let alone my horse, had kids been on the crossing she would have ploughed through them.

High viz helps, has a place but still won't prevent f*ck wits like her from causing accidents - only her going head first into a large tree (which I hope she did at some point) will.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Tinkerbee. I "so" agree with you. My friends moaned at me so much for not wearing hi-viz. In the end they bought me a tabbard and made me wear it. I noticed from then onwards that yes, the motorists could see me much earlier but that meant as they could see me they didnt have to slow down. When they dont have as much time to see me they slow down very quickly! I do wear my tabbard tho but I dont think it makes any difference, not for the better anyway!

[/ QUOTE ]

I always hack out in high viz and in my area I find that the more i put on (pony wears an exercise sheet in winter but not summer) the more likely the car is to slow down for us. Having said that, I am quite small and the pony is only 13.33hh so maybe they think I am a child
grin.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top