PeterNatt
Well-Known Member
Urgent: Highway Code
The British Horse Society responded to The Highway Code External Consultation Document issued in February 2006. The Secretary of State has now laid the proposed new Highway Code before both Houses of Parliament. Although the new Highway Code is in several respects an improvement on the current version from horse riders and carriage drivers point of view, the Secretary of State has chosen to disregard the Societys advice on three matters which we believe are important.
I would ask you to consider the points highlighted below and to bring our concerns to the attention of your Member of Parliament before 23rd May.
You can find out who your MP is here:
http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/l/
The Society objected to the draft rule that stated never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.
The comments the Society made were as follows, Delete words after two abreast in final bullet point because as written this would result in increased danger to equestrians. There can be many valid reasons for riding two abreast: groups of riders (particularly from riding schools); nervous or novice horses; nervous or novice riders; defensive riding on winding country lanes where there is insufficient room for a car to pass a single horse safely (let alone a line of horses in single file);
The Society still considers that this Rule should simply read as follows,
Never ride more than two abreast.
especially as the Code says that:-
"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in
itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, the Highway Code may be used in
evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see page 124) to
establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as
'should/should not' or 'do/do not'."
The Society therefore believes that if these words remain in Rule 53 they could have very serious legal consequences for a rider who was riding two abreast on a narrow or busy road or round a bend, and was involved in an accident.
The Society also objected to the draft rule that stated You MUST NOT take a horse on to a footpath, pavement or cycle track, especially as the Society had received a barristers opinion that horse riders cannot be prosecuted for riding on a cycle track created under the Cycle Tracks Act 1984, and had supplied a copy of this to the Department for Transport.
It is therefore wrong, inaccurate and potentially dangerous for the proposed rule 54 to state You MUST NOT take your horse onto a footpath or pavement and you should not take a horse onto a cycle track. In fact, there are many cycle tracks which have been specifically designed for use by horse riders, and the loss of these would be very serious for those who rely on them. The Society considers this sentence of this Rule should end after the word pavement.
Another of the Societys main concerns was that in the reference to First Aid on the Road the following advice is given DO NOT remove a motorcyclists helmet unless it is essential. The Society considers that this should also refer to not removing a horse riders helmet.
I would urge you to ask your MP to press for these three rules to be amended, in the interests of riders safety.
The British Horse Society responded to The Highway Code External Consultation Document issued in February 2006. The Secretary of State has now laid the proposed new Highway Code before both Houses of Parliament. Although the new Highway Code is in several respects an improvement on the current version from horse riders and carriage drivers point of view, the Secretary of State has chosen to disregard the Societys advice on three matters which we believe are important.
I would ask you to consider the points highlighted below and to bring our concerns to the attention of your Member of Parliament before 23rd May.
You can find out who your MP is here:
http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/l/
The Society objected to the draft rule that stated never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.
The comments the Society made were as follows, Delete words after two abreast in final bullet point because as written this would result in increased danger to equestrians. There can be many valid reasons for riding two abreast: groups of riders (particularly from riding schools); nervous or novice horses; nervous or novice riders; defensive riding on winding country lanes where there is insufficient room for a car to pass a single horse safely (let alone a line of horses in single file);
The Society still considers that this Rule should simply read as follows,
Never ride more than two abreast.
especially as the Code says that:-
"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in
itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, the Highway Code may be used in
evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see page 124) to
establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as
'should/should not' or 'do/do not'."
The Society therefore believes that if these words remain in Rule 53 they could have very serious legal consequences for a rider who was riding two abreast on a narrow or busy road or round a bend, and was involved in an accident.
The Society also objected to the draft rule that stated You MUST NOT take a horse on to a footpath, pavement or cycle track, especially as the Society had received a barristers opinion that horse riders cannot be prosecuted for riding on a cycle track created under the Cycle Tracks Act 1984, and had supplied a copy of this to the Department for Transport.
It is therefore wrong, inaccurate and potentially dangerous for the proposed rule 54 to state You MUST NOT take your horse onto a footpath or pavement and you should not take a horse onto a cycle track. In fact, there are many cycle tracks which have been specifically designed for use by horse riders, and the loss of these would be very serious for those who rely on them. The Society considers this sentence of this Rule should end after the word pavement.
Another of the Societys main concerns was that in the reference to First Aid on the Road the following advice is given DO NOT remove a motorcyclists helmet unless it is essential. The Society considers that this should also refer to not removing a horse riders helmet.
I would urge you to ask your MP to press for these three rules to be amended, in the interests of riders safety.
