Official statement from POLITE

It's okay guys, the 'ruling' comes from the 'Crime Prosecution Service' *snigger* so probably has little bearing...

I am amazed that a company pulling in as much money as they seem to do cannot employ an advisor or just a proof reader (costs literally pennies!) before releasing such twaddle.

I have even more disdain for the company now.
 
If I still had a horse I would wear mine I think they are great and if I had taken a pic of Cob boy covered in mud plus a polite notice if anyone thought he had looked like a police horse well they would have needed their eyes testing. I think it made most motorists stop to look and gave them a bit of a laugh! Taking the P.

Keep wearing them am sure the Police have much more important crimes to solve.
 
That statement doesnt even say where the ACPO comment ends. I read it thinking he'd said ALL that but i honestly dont know what he's said and whats just Nicky's opinion.

At the end of the day legally they have to draw a line at whats classed as impersonation and whats not. There are other designs out there, id say continue to be seen but at the same time its only right to respect the law.
 
curio said:
I stopped wearing mine due to motorists being more angry and abusive at thinking they had been conned also a lot sped past us more probably thinking the horse was a police horse so should be perfect i seem to get more space given a respect in plain hiviz than the polite range
Click to expand...
It clearly doesn't work for you - so don't use it! Other people may have different experiences, and if it works for them I see no reason why they shouldn't go on wearing the Polite tabard until such time as they are officially outlawed. I have no axe to grind either way as I don't ride out on roads (but am fastidious about slowing down and giving space to riders I encounter in my car, whether they are 'snobby' or not).
 
I was always under the impression that LAWS (as in common law/laws of the land) were what are on the Magna Carta when it was done and signed in 1215 and the stuff the government create is legislation and given that the government and the police are, to my knowledge, limited companies, unless we work for those companies (or pride ourselves on being legal abiding) then we don't have to follow their rules......
Therefore all this IaPO breaking the 'law' nonsense doesn't apply to this that choose freedom over being brainwashed.......?
 
Redequus said:
sadly I'm not a polite officer... ;)
Click to expand...

Witty, I liked that bit.

Anyway. I have been meaning to get around to buying one of these for a while, and this hullabaloo isn't going change my mind.

I think that if a driver speeds up and passes too close, or is aggressive, then they are probably one of those drivers who believes that they have sole ownership of the tarmac, and anything that doesn't move as fast as they do, or impedes their progress for just a few seconds is obviously personally trying to offend them. I should imagine these are the same people who take huge risks overtaking tractors on blind bends or when there is clearly visible oncoming traffic, just to make their journey fractionally shorter. I doubt even if a rider wore a tabard emblazoned with "Friends?", or maybe something intentionally inflammatory, it would change their behaviour.

As for impersonation of a police officer, I think the vest looks different enough from a police vest to not constitute an offence. If a motorist has to slow down to take a closer look to determine this, then job done in my books. Also, if riders started to get cautioned, I agree with previous posters, people out in town centres on a night should get cautioned too, and this would be a waste of money.

By buying one of these products, when I'm handing over my cash, I'm not thinking "Can't wait, I'll be able to impersonate a police officer soon, I might even carry a notepad and interrogate people" (Which is what a previous poster had linked to an article about RE: prosecutions), I am thinking that I'm buying something eye catching, that will mean I am safer when hacking out on roads.
 
applecart14 said:
I think the whole thing is ridiculous. We are trying to protect our lives and that of our horses. The Polite range DOES slow down traffic, it DOES work.

I will continue to wear the items and in the event that the police ever bring out a ban I shall still continue to wear it. I think the police have better things to do than to stop riders on the roads and report them for 'inpersonating a police officer'.
Click to expand...

Agree, and put it into perspective for these recession ridden times that we all live in. The police numbers are at an all time low with many more cuts to come. They do not attend a vast number of crime incidents, merely issuing a crime reference number at the point the phone call came in and logging it on their systems. Many smaller police stations are either closed or only operate for a few hours a day.

The public purse is empty and will remain that way for years to come, many forces do not have the resources to provide a decent service when serious crime occurs let alone the resources to pursue horse riders.
 
Lady La La said:
I still can't work out why anyone would want to wear them :confused:

Nothing to do with the current debate, but police horses are renowned for being highly trained, and good in traffic. To make drivers think you are a mounted police officer, is to make whoever is behind the wheel think that you are riding a police horse. An exceptionally well trained beast that can handle a lot of tricky situations that most 'standard' horses cannot.

Why would anyone riding on the roads benefit from drivers thinking that your horse is better in traffic than it actually is? :confused:
Click to expand...

I completely agree and have said the same from when the polite range was first issued!

I also think someone made a very valid point on another thread, driver driving along the road, thinks your the police, realises you're not and feels conned. Next horse they pass they don't bother to slow down...
 
monkeybum13 said:
I also think someone made a very valid point on another thread, driver driving along the road, thinks your the police, realises you're not and feels conned. Next horse they pass they don't bother to slow down...
Click to expand...
Wouldn't these be the drivers who drive inconsiderately and don't normally slow down adequately for horses anyway? Okay, it only moderated their behaviour once, but that's marginally better than not at all. I find it hard to believe that more considerate and safety-conscious drivers would be turned into lunatics who deliberately set out to scare riders by not slowing down, even if they felt miffed at being deliberately 'conned'.
 
I own a pink polite jacket & exercise sheet. I admit to being hacked off when it came to light they were not police endorsed as they claimed to be when i bought them. I did not buy them to impersonate the police or try to fool drivers (unless the police have added pink to their official range). I do not ride a horse that would ever be mistaken for a police horse (arabs).

I have always worn hi viz, & have noticed that drivers back off earlier, & pass wider with the polite coat than my previous stuff (that was yellow with 'please pass wide & slow' on it). They are less likely to try & squeeze through unsuitable small gaps, but wait for me to get to a passing place or verge I can pull off onto. I have never had abuse, an angry driver, or any indication that someone has mistaken me for an officer of the law. PPW&S didn't work, this does. Every time I leave the yard I can only hack on roads, there are no bridleways in hacking distance.

If it means I get noticed earlier, great. It is doing it's job. It seems to help drivers understand how to pass safely. Afterall, even the pistonheads don't want you sat on the bonnets of their precious (replaceable) cars. Given the number of people on that forum compared to the number of drivers in the UK, they are a very small minority.

Most of bad passing is genuine ignorance of horses & how they react. People like the idea of being in the country, but not actually dealing with country issues (such as passing horses). I found drivers so much worse when I lived in commuting distance of London. People wanted to live at London pace in a country environment. They never chilled. How dare you be on the road on a sunday morning & make them late for lunch at the pub (there was one close by), didn't you know they were running late for their booking etc.

Does it make drivers more likely to approach the next horse badly? If they are that much of a numpty they'll have bad driving skills anyway & should attend anger management sessions.

In an ideal world all drivers would have to retake their learner test every 15 years, because usually they passed as kids, never taken any further training & their bad habits are so ingrained they think it is 'normal'. I had to attend a driving awareness course at work last week. I am an advanced driver, & was the first to be asked how I'd rate myself as a driver out of 10. Gave myself an 8. Better than average, but could improve. Funnily enough everyone else (all chaps) ranked themselves a 7. Guy next to me said he woudl have said 8, but as he had had no training since learner days, couldn't rank himself above/equal to me. Funny how everyone deems themselves to be very definately above average in terms of driving ability. If someone is a good driver, then they would have nothing to fear from having to retake their l test. If they fail (aren't up to basic - not even advanced - standard, then they should be forced to have tuition & pass the l test before being let back on the roads). It will never come in, because too many of the voting public would be scared of loosing their liecences because, deep down, away from a meeting room full of colleagues, they know they aren't 'better than average'.

Get the driving sorted, so hi-viz is only worn as an aid to help alert drivers to your presence, that is all hi viz should need to do. Learning how to pass a horse is a standard technique (though hard to practise in a town - make pass plus compulsory part of a staged licence for those just passing learner test). Do I really have to keep spelling it out to people on the roads? Unfortunately yes. Does my head in, passed 4 kids from local riding school out last weekend, they had ridden down a primary a road (national speed limit), no hi viz. Just how would those parents cope knowing darling daughter was killed when the accident may have been avoided if the driver (& with it being a primary route there a loads of hgv's as well on it) had seen her a few seconds earlier?
 
Last edited:
In the unlikely event a rider gets stopped by the police and asked to remove their Polite clothing, then point out Highway Code Rules 50 and 51 for horseriders and that you are complying with those rules by wearing hiviz. The silver part of the chequers are reflective, the yellow is fluorescent/reflective.

50
Other clothing. You should wear
boots or shoes with hard soles and heels
light-coloured or fluorescent clothing in daylight
reflective clothing if you have to ride at night or in poor visibility.


51
At night. It is safer not to ride on the road at night or in poor visibility, but if you do, make sure you wear reflective clothing and your horse has reflective bands above the fetlock joints. A light which shows white to the front and red to the rear should be fitted, with a band, to the rider’s right arm and/or leg/riding boot. If you are leading a horse at night, carry a light in your right hand, showing white to the front and red to the rear, and wear reflective clothing on both you and your horse. It is strongly recommended that a fluorescent/reflective tail guard is also worn by your horse.
 
Lady La La
I still can't work out why anyone would want to wear them

Nothing to do with the current debate, but police horses are renowned for being highly trained, and good in traffic. To make drivers think you are a mounted police officer, is to make whoever is behind the wheel think that you are riding a police horse. An exceptionally well trained beast that can handle a lot of tricky situations that most 'standard' horses cannot.

Why would anyone riding on the roads benefit from drivers thinking that your horse is better in traffic than it actually is?
Click to expand...

Ditto!


Goldenstar
...I exercise in a dark blue waterproof coat with silver hi viz lines and dark blue waterproof chaps and a velvet riding hat , I am not taking the exercise sheet off because a few drivers think I look like a police officer from a distance.
Click to expand...

But do they have the word Polite, written with big letters, somewhere on them?
I didn't think anybody was saying that riders should not wear high-visibility clothing (well, except those on another thread talking about some people overdoing it, but as said, that is another thread), only that it is unwise to use high-visibility clothing with the word Polite on the them. A word which, by the way, seems to have been deliberately chosen because it can make people think that the wearer belongs to the police force.


Curio
... also most people do not read it properly they read the first letters and not the rest i have had to stand still more than once for them to read it three or four times to understand it does not say police but polite, hen they seem rather annoyed that they were wrong.
Click to expand...

Very good point, I've heard about studies that shows that people often read what they expect to read. Our brains tries to compensate, makes assumptions based on previous experiences, so if a person expects the word on a high-visibility clothing to say Police, because it begins with Poli**, then Police is most likely the word that they will think they're reading.




And since people keep bringing up the subject about people going dressed up as police officers to masquerades, then to me, wearing a police uniform to a masquerade is like telling a white lie, it's like saying that the food tasted good, when you actually thought it tasted okay.

However, to deliberately choose to wear a high-visibility clothing with the word POLITE on it, because you know that it can fool people into believing that you belong to the police force, is to me plainly just wrong. (Who knows, you could be a police officer off duty, which would explain why you're riding a Highland pony, that police officers probably should not wear their police high-visibility clothing when they're off duty, is another subject.)
 
How do swedish drivers behave towards horses? How is their general awareness on how to pass them?
 
I should imagine very well if anything like the rest of their driving. They have incredibly good lessons and tests and cover a multitude of situations. Always found English tests appalling in comparison to how my friends out their learned.
 
pip6 said:
How do swedish drivers behave towards horses? How is their general awareness on how to pass them?
Click to expand...

Different culture altogether. Sweden has a rich equestrian tradition with free access and the right to roam. Its a more tolerant society and the roads are less busy then the UK. They have more horses per person than other European countries, so are probably more horse aware.

England is pretty bad for providing riders with opportunities for safe riding.
 
I imagine most people wear Hi Viz to be seen, and to validate their insurance should the worst happen. I therefore cannot understand WHY people wear polite as they Hi Viz is sub - standard as someone else said on here because of all the other crap they have stuck on it.

Insurance companies are very slippy, there have been issues over payouts with people wearing Hi Viz with "Caution - young horse" etc, I wouldn't put it past them to get hold of the current debate on this range and refuse to pay out over it, stranger things have happened.

I wear plain Hi Viz we use on the farm, if it is good enough for the boys it is good enough for me. You will always get idiots who are going too fast, I cannot understand what good Polite range will do you.

When I first saw them, I thought they looked convincing, which was enough for me not to wear them, as others have said, why would I want to advertise my horses to have the nature of a police horse, when they do not.
 
RunToEarth said:
When I first saw them, I thought they looked convincing, which was enough for me not to wear them, as others have said, why would I want to advertise my horses to have the nature of a police horse, when they do not.
Click to expand...

Nobody in their right minds in NI would want to be mistaken for a police officer, so they never took off over here anyway. The price would have put me off buying any of their stuff - why spend £££££ when you can get good, quality stuff for £?
 
Interesting

I have one and used to have a sheet until I got so p***** off with the rubbish fit that I binned it.

They are seriously awful quality and I was stunned by how rude the people were when I wasn't at home to receive the collection!!!!!

However, that said I do find it extremely effective, far more so than my normal high viz and won't be removing it anytime soon. I've quite often seen drivers give a wry smile when they realise its not 'Police'. I'm very smiley and thanky though so I reckon this also helps for the next time.

Main problem I've had is drivers actually stopping for me about 100 yards away which gave spookesville horse a good old excuse for a nap LOL.:D:D
 
The only letter that I have been able to trace was issued this month on "Association of Police Officers" letterheaded paper, but was written by the Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) for Avon and Somerset Police. Is this a national issue or just one that has been taken up by a local ACC?

My main problems with the contents of that letter, though, are:
1) "Colour". The ACPO letter says "police high visibility uniform is universally yellow". Well, with respect, that's because it is "Personal Protective Equipment" (PPE) so MUST be fluorescent and yellow is the most common fluorescent colour in use (check out construction sites, dockyards, quarries - in fact anywhere were individuals are at higher than normal risk of injury. They will all be wearing fluorescent yellow PPE jackets or tabards - I can't honestly see builders wearing pink!). This is because fluorescent yellow "glows" in low light conditions, including the shadow under trees, thus making the wearer more visible;
2) "Checkered Banding" - "police high visibility clothing commonly uses blue-silver checkered banding, this being standardised by international convention". The word used is "commonly", not "exclusively", and the reason why silver is used is because it is reflective (again check out PPE clothing worn on hazardous work sites - they will all have strips of silver reflective material on the jackets/tabards). The silver reflective strips are used because they "shine out" when a light is shone on them - i.e. headlights at dusk;
3) I have checked my local police's mounted police website (West Yorkshire Police) and there are photographs showing mounted police a) on general duty, b) in dress uniform, and c) on duty outside football stadia. No sign of ANY chequered pattern on the "on duty" uniforms or the football stadia photos and, in fact, when on duty in potentially hazardous situations (i.e. outside football stadia, riots, etc.), mounted police in West Yorkshire don't appear to wear yellow PPE on all occasions in any case (black riot gear and riot helmets with visors appears more usual - probably because fluorescent PPE would have you standing out as a target for the throwing of rocks and petrol bombs). The only chequered pattern I could find was on the helmets of the mounted police in dress uniform.

As such, it would appear that the only thing this Assistant Chief Constable could be expressing concern about is the word "Polite". However, the Equisafety tabard says "Polite" in large letters, then underneath "notice" in small letters, then "Please Slow Down" in the same large font as the "Polite". Police PPE simply says "Police" - there is no other lettering to be seen.

The Equisafety tabard was submitted (as all equipment/clothing to be used as PPE must be) to the British Standards Authority and was approved for use: thus it carries the "CE" kitemark and confirmation that the tabard complies with BS En1150. Wouldn't the BSA have queried the possibility of it being mistaken for a police uniform if they thought that was a serious possibility? In any case, the tabard or jacket worn by the police is just one part of a mounted police officer's uniform (the police also wear long boots and spurs - most leisure riders in my experience don't - and helmets that look more like motorcycle helmets than riding hats). It is probably because the police have had a complaint from a member of the public who doesn't really understand what constitutes "Impersonating a Police Officer" and resented being "obliged" to slow down. Has this ACC responded on a local rather than national level, then?

Compare the comments in this officer's letter with that issued a couple of years ago by the Chief Constable of the Metropolitan police where he said that the police can't stop a member of the public from wearing the "Polite" tabard as long as there is no indication that the person has attempted to impersonate a police officer. Also check out the press releases and leaflets issued by the police and the Home Office that state that the police take seriously the protection of vulnerable road users such as cyclists, motor cyclists, horse riders and carriage drivers. Surely anything that makes a driver take a second look and, more importantly, slow down is worth supporting.

Other contributors to this forum have also asked if the police intend in future to press charges against "strippers dressed as police officers" for impersonating a police officer (after all, that uniform usually says "Police", not "Polite") and perhaps a police officer could comment on what the difference is when one item of clothing is used to help protect vulnerable road users and the other, more complete, "uniform" is used to make some money and provide entertainment?
:rolleyes:
 
I received today, via a good friend, a statement from ACPO, regarding High Viz that "Resembled Police Uniform" and I pass it on for your perusal. I would like to say though that I am very dubious as to any statement made by ACPO. Whilst many people regard this organisation as "the law", they are a "PLC" and they have business links to people who pay them for information, they provide criminal record checking services and also as far as I am aware, they endorse products. "So much for independence"........Here is the letter.....

POLICE GUIDANCE TO MANUFACTURERS AND RETAILERS OF EQUINE CLOTHING THAT CLOSELY
RESEMBLES POLICE UNIFORM
This guidance is provided in response to a number of
concerns and complaints that have been raised against
horse riders who have been mistaken to be police
officers as a result of the clothing worn by them or their
horses. In particular, issues have arisen through
individuals wearing high visibility clothing, including
jackets, horse sheets and banding for helmets.
Q: What is the legal position around owning/wearing clothing that looks like police uniform?
Section 90 of the Police Act 1996 (‘the Act’) provides the legal base for considering this issue and it
defines the following offences:
1) Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or
special constable, or makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to
suggest that he is such a member or constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable
on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a
fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
2) Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in
circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a
member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence
and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard
scale.
3) Any person who, not being a member of a police force or special constable, has in his
possession any article of police uniform shall, unless he proves that he obtained
possession of that article lawfully and has possession of it for a lawful purpose, be
guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1
on the standard scale.
4) In this section - “article of police uniform” means any article of uniform or any
distinctive badge or mark or document of identification usually issued to members of
police forces or special constables, or anything having the appearance of such an
article, badge, mark or document

As can be seen, this section of the Act covers a wide range of offences relevant to clothing that
closely resembles police uniform. It creates offences for both possession of such an article of
clothing (Subsection 3), as well as an offence in respect of wearing the apparel (Subsection 2).
Subsection 1 specifically relates to the intention of an individual to deceive and creates an offence
in respect of an act or statement made by him/her which is designed to suggest that he/she is a
member of a police force.
For the avoidance of doubt, wearing clothing resembling police uniform is capable of satisfying the
definition of ‘an act’ for the purposes of Section 1. The main difference between Subsection 1 and
the others is that it is concerned with deception, or intent to deceive, which is why the maximum
penalty is 6 months imprisonment. It is of note that there does not have to be any intention to
profit from this deception; simply doing an act intended to deceive (such a raising one’s hand to
direct traffic as though a police officer) could fulfill the requirements of this offence. Q: Does the ‘article of police uniform’ only apply to the rider or can any
item worn by the horse also be considered?
The simple answer is that it would be an objective decision for an officer
to make on the basis of what is presented to him/her. The question under
consideration is this – ‘Does the overall image of the horse and rider
taken together give the impression of that person being a police officer?’
The most direct comparison is with a person in plain clothes driving a car
that was adapted to look like a police vehicle. Incidents comparable to
this recently resulted in successful convictions against the individuals
concerned.
Q: What does an ‘article of police uniform’ look like?
Police officers are issued with a variety of uniform clothing and equipment that reflects the varied
nature of their profession. There is no ‘national police uniform’, as each police force or
constabulary decides exactly what to issue – for example, some have retained the traditional look
of white shirts and ties, whilst others have adopted black shirts and baseball caps. The key item
under consideration is police high visibility clothing and whilst variations in the exact design exist,
there are certain characteristics that are common, namely:
• Wording - The word ‘POLICE’ in large capital letters on a contrasting background
printed prominently on the rear of the jacket
• Banding - The prominent use of chequered banding, primarily blue and silver (albeit
one force uses red and silver)
• Colour – All police forces have adopted yellow material with reflective banding as the
standard
The incorporation of the above characteristics ought to be avoided by manufacturers of both
existing and future ranges to ensure that they and their customers do not infringe the Act.
Q: Do any one of these characteristics alone create a risk of breaching legislation?
Again, this will depend upon individual circumstances and will only ultimately be decided by a
criminal court through a prosecution. That notwithstanding, the following are presented for
consideration:
• Wording – the use of anything that resembles the word ‘POLICE’ displayed
prominently on clothing or a piece of equipment will retain a high risk of offending
• Banding – the prominent use of blue/silver and red/silver banding on the rider or the
horse will retain a similar risk
• Colour – a yellow jacket alone will have a negligible breach but when combined with
the other characteristics, the risk will increase significantly; conversely, a change to
any other colour, would negate any risk
Q: Who should I contact for further information?
This information sheet has been provided by Assistant Chief Constable Rod Hansen, National Lead
for Mounted Policing. Further information can be obtained from *******************

So, are you any the wiser? I would suggest that "Intent" is the key word. Most people including myself who have purchased "Polite" High Viz, have done so because it is SAFE!!!!......it stands out, it makes motorists aware. Lets ask ourselves the question. "Does it make us look like Police Officers".....answer "No" only to people who could not pass a driving test eyesight exam and think "Polite" says "Police".......

Perhaps if "Dibble" spent less time picking on people who wanted to stay alive and more time catching drivers who act in an unsafe manner then the roads would be a safer place for all.
 
Robsonian said:
The Equisafety tabard was submitted (as all equipment/clothing to be used as PPE must be) to the British Standards Authority and was approved for use: thus it carries the "CE" kitemark and confirmation that the tabard complies with BS En1150.
Click to expand...

CE is NOT a kite - mark. It is merely "a mandatory conformity marking for products placed on the market in the European Economic Area (EEA). With the CE marking on a product, the manufacturer declares that the product conforms with the essential requirements of the applicable EC directives." It doesn't seem to actually mean anything about safety.

BS EN 1150 covers garments for purely private use. The standard for professional use is BS EN 471. 471 comes in 3 classes - level 2 is considered the minimum for road workers. That would be a full jacket. Level 3 would include trousers. In the BBC show "Fake Britain" a Polite vest was sent for testing and it did NOT meet BS standards.

http://www.rema.org.uk/publications/
 
Last edited:
99% of people that I have seen wearing this range do not look like police. Most people only have bits and bobs of the set, others have diddy horses...

I have some bits, the hatband and the neckstrap, plus the gilet as it had great pockets for summer riding. I won't buy any more as the reflective bits are flaking off so quickly, so there is no point to it anymore. I hated the exercise sheets as they flapped around in the wind. The legstraps only fit booted horses, and the velcro doesn't go right round. In general, you would get much better reflective things for a lot less money.

In general I think the novelty has worn off along with the relfectiveness for most people.
 
Ever since this range was brought out they have been the subject of discussion.

People have raved about how they slow down motorists. Why? Because they get mistaken for Police.

When they first came out the advert annoyed me - "Police Approved". What rubbish!

Not only was it not true but why would a supplier put that if they weren't concerned or hadn't thought about it. A shame the ASA weren't involved at that stage before the supplier got wrapped by the ASA for the "Police Consulted" claim.

Does wearing these enhance the image of the horse rider with other road users? In my view not.

I'd suggest wearing good quality professional standard EN471 hi-viz is the answer. Get it from an commercial supplier and you can save a fortune - e.g someone like VizWear - http://www.vizwear.com/product.php?c=0.1
(they do a great "Executive EN471 Tabard with zip and pockets!)

I thank an earlier poster for metioning REMA.

People would be well advised to look at:

Selection and Use of High Visibility Clothing for Professional Use

http://www.rema.org.uk/pub/pdf/professional-hi-vis-advice-to-buyers.pdf

and

Selection and Use of High Visibility Clothing for Non-Professional Use
http://www.rema.org.uk/pub/pdf/non-professional-hi-vis-advice-to-buyers-v2.pdf

An extract reads...

"BS EN 1150 sets the standard that high visibility clothing needs to meet to ensure that the wearer is clearly visible to motorists against the background in ALL weather and lighting conditions (bright daylight as well as rain, mist, dusk and night-time). To achieve this, clothing must have a combination of fluorescent material for daytime visibility and reflective material for night-time and low light conditions.

The requirements of BS EN 1150 have been agreed by panels of experts in all the countries of the EEC to be the MINIMUM design and performance requirements that are needed to achieve this and for that reason this standard applies only to clothing for non-professional use. For clothing that is worn in the course of a trade or profession (e.g. at road works) there is a higher standard, BS EN 471 which the clothing MUST meet to comply with Health and Safety legislation. These two standards also ensure that clothing is reasonably durable and does not fade or suffer a loss of reflectivity after washing or a short period of use.

It is important to understand that retroreflective products work by reflecting light back towards the light source (the headlights of an approaching vehicle driver) so, to the person buying or wearing a reflective garment, the retroreflective bands will usually just appear a dull silver/grey irrespective of whether their reflectivity is excellent or non-existent. The wearer may therefore believe that he is clearly visible to traffic at night when in fact he is not and instances have been found where the reflectivity of a “high visibility” garment has been no better than white tissue paper!

Private users are free to buy and wear garments of a lower standard than BS EN 1150 if they wish, but need to be aware that they are choosing to operate below what is considered to be the minimum safe level of conspicuity in traffic. Not only are they taking an unnecessary risk with their own lives and those of other road users, but if they were unfortunate enough to be involved in a traffic accident, they could find they have invalidated or reduced their insurance cover by contributing to the accident."


Let's try to get the respect of other road users and not antagonise them.

Wear simple Hi-Viz at all times when out hacking. I'm sure the arguments will continue ad infinitum.

Safety of horse and rider has to rise above them.

Please remember to be polite, but only in certain circumstances.
 
Last edited:
careful Equigirl-she's not adverse to sending threatening PMs :)

Look, I applaud anyone who gets off their backside and launches a product. It's hellishly difficult. But basically she fibbed at the start, some of her products I had (pre-Polite range) were badly made and of poor quality-the hi viz doesn't meet safety standards I don't think? And her customer service skills lack. She does have a fairly loyal customer base by the sounds of it-she could pull it all back if she wants to.
 
EquiGirl1 said:
Apologies for not reading all the posts but I notice a couple of people mentioned the tone of the statement (not to mention bad grammar and spelling) from Equisafety. I personally do not buy any of there stuff as the owner is one of the rudest most obnoxious women I have ever met. I worked on a stand at a show last summer as a favour to a friend and she caused no end of troubles for the organisers (and anyone in her way), they ended up threatening to kick her off! Every other exhibitor I spoke to over that weekend commented on her awful behaviour at all shows she attends and said she has been kicked off an event in the past. The irony of "Polite" being printed on all of her stuff was not lost on me.
Click to expand...



what show was that?
 
peteralfred said:
careful Equigirl-she's not adverse to sending threatening PMs :)

Look, I applaud anyone who gets off their backside and launches a product. It's hellishly difficult. But basically she fibbed at the start, some of her products I had (pre-Polite range) were badly made and of poor quality-the hi viz doesn't meet safety standards I don't think? And her customer service skills lack. She does have a fairly loyal customer base by the sounds of it-she could pull it all back if she wants to.
Click to expand...

I shall keep a close eye on my inbox ;)

Agree the premise of the idea is good, and I'm all for being a hi-viz beacon on the roads, just a shame people cant be nice with it... :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top