Riding and high viz

[Spiritedly]

The recent thread about the horse accident and being liable if not wearing high viz has made me think. I know it is advisable to wear it but is there actually anything that states that you can be held legally liable if you don't? I know the highway code says you should ensure you are visible whilst riding in poor or low light but what about during the day? And does any ones insurance policy actually state that they will not be covered if they have an accident whilst not wearing it?

There seems to be so much information flying around about the rider being held liable for not wearing it but I haven't managed to find anything that actually legally states that!

 

[HaffiesRock]

I checked my insurance last year as I was leading my new pony out on the roads. I asked about hi viz on me and him and also about being on the road in a halter rather than bridle. My insurance said hi viz was not compulsory (but recommended) and neither was a bridle, just that the horse must be under control.

So insurance wise no, but personally I always wear it, even today when I just went for a pootle round the woods.

 

[Battytwoll]

I don't know that there is anything that states you are liable before it gets dark, no more I think than cycling or walking, I've never found information as to liability as a cyclist other than with regard to cycling at night; I admit to never looking with regard to riding as I always wear hi viz regardless of time of year or weather and I never ride in the dark. Sorry, that's not much help really is it?!

 

[catkin]

I know the highway code says you should ensure you are visible whilst riding in poor or low light but what about during the day?

There's plenty of 'poor light' during the day at all times of the year. Also there could be sections of a hack in poor light ie under trees on a sunny day, low sun dazzling, drizzle and mist etc etc.

 

[Leg_end]

My insurance states that I must be wearing hi vis on the roads otherwise I'm not covered. I got out head to toe, there's no chance of me or pony being missed!!

 

[Spiritedly]

There's plenty of 'poor light' during the day at all times of the year. Also there could be sections of a hack in poor light ie under trees on a sunny day, low sun dazzling, drizzle and mist etc etc.

My mistake it's 'poor visibility' or at night not poor or low light.

 

[flirtygerty]

I often see two horses being ridden along a tree lined country road, no hi viz at all, even in the middle of the day they aren't seen until the last minute, neither my horses or rider are allowed off the yard unless wearing hi viz, during rider complaining about the time it took to kit the horses out (leg wraps) I said if you part company for any reason, I'm not having dark horses loose on the road without it, don't use it, you don't ride

 

[yaffsimone1]

I checked my insurance last year as I was leading my new pony out on the roads. I asked about hi viz on me and him and also about being on the road in a halter rather than bridle. My insurance said hi viz was not compulsory (but recommended) and neither was a bridle, just that the horse must be under control.

So insurance wise no, but personally I always wear it, even today when I just went for a pootle round the woods.

Petplan said the same to me in that it isn't compulsory but advisable.

I always wear mine

 

[Tapir]

A lot of insurance policies will have a bit in their terms and conditions along the lines of "you must take all reasonable precautionsto keep the horse safe and well". This could cover loads of things as the insurance company chooses, including not wearing hi-viz on the roads.

Generally if there was an accident and the rider was not wearing hi-viz this could count as contributory negligence and so affect claims made.

 

[maree t]

So difficult to enforce isnt it, I would think that in the event of an accident they will look at all the circumstances i know how hard ti see some people are when they are out hacking .
My friend has lost her husband who was walking to the train station He was hit by a car overtaking another early one morning. he was walking on the other side of the road and they are siting the lack of hi viz as part of the cause . It will possibly reduce the insurance payout to this family , she is left with 3 young kids and one of them is disabled . The insurance will riggle out of any payout if they can find some other liability .
So although it might not state on all insurance policies about using hi viz on the road they will surely use that against you .

We always use hi viz by the way

 

[hnmisty]

I think it should be mandatory.A pedestrian or a cyclist isn't going to spook at at a car that passes too close but a horse might. Why not make sure that car can see you and slow down? There will sadly always be idiots on the roads, but making yourself visible means you are reducing the chances of being involved in an accident. How can you profess to love your horse if you don't try to avoid it being welded onto someone's windscreen?

Maree t, that is tragic. What do they expect- pedestrians to wear hi viz? what a horrible and unnecessary stress for your friend to be going through.

 

[cbmcts]

I believe that while it isn't a legal requirement for a rider, cyclist or walker to wear hi viz if there is an accident and a claim is made for compensation your actions or lack of them are taken into account when deciding how much is awarded. Even if you are badly injured your payout can be reduced by set percentages if you are held to be partly at fault by making yourself as visible as possible for instance.

The CPS will also use information like this in deciding whether to prosecute a driver.

What do they expect- pedestrians to wear hi viz?

When I was at school (a very long time ago!) there were campaigns every winter about kids wearing light coloured coats/high viz armbands so that drivers could see them in the short days...does that not happen now?

 

[Gypley]

I phoned PPE a few months ago to ask if I was covered to lead my youngster out on roads in a headcollar. Whilst I was there I asked if I was covered should I not be wearing hi vis (I always do, by the topics always brought up so I thought id ask) to which she laughed down the phone at me and told me that of course I would be covered if I didn't wear it ! Appalling, riders should be fined for not wearing it.
My horses are the most expensive things I own, and why anyone wold not do all they can to protect their horse from motorists is beyond me.
It doesn't have to be a speeding looney that hits you, the most careful driver is still capable of accidents. And I think it's downright selfish to potentially expose a driver to hitting and possibly killing both horse and rider.

 

[Nikki J]

The recent thread about the horse accident and being liable if not wearing high viz has made me think. I know it is advisable to wear it but is there actually anything that states that you can be held legally liable if you don't? I know the highway code says you should ensure you are visible whilst riding in poor or low light but what about during the day? And does any ones insurance policy actually state that they will not be covered if they have an accident whilst not wearing it?

There seems to be so much information flying around about the rider being held liable for not wearing it but I haven't managed to find anything that actually legally states that!

I was very careful to explain that we would have be found to be only PARTIALLY liable. It makes sense when you think about. If you are riding along the road and you are using your mobile phone, a motorbike comes roaring past at a speed excessive to the speed limit, your horse shies violently to the left, you fall off onto the road, smashing your wrist, you have legal cover under the terms of your house insurance for personal injury, so you make a claim. The insurance company will still cover you, but your settlement will be less than it would have been because you were PARTIALLY to blame for your accident - because you were on your phone, therefore not under control of your horse.

It is irrelevant in our case, because us riders did absolutely nothing wrong. We were both wearing the latest standard hats, high viz yellow tabards, stirrup strips, brightly coloured clothing. The motorcyclist was wearing a good quality crash hat, a leather jacket - he wasn't wearing leather trousers, only jeans - but that made no difference to him being paralysed of course. He had fully comprehensive insurance, his bike was MOT'ed, in good condition etc. etc. The only thing he did wrong was to ride on his bike at a speed way way in excess of the speed limit, and because he was not paying attention to the road ahead but was looking down at his bike, he panicked when he did eventually see us, whacked the brakes on, lost control of the bike and it careered across the road onto the wrong side and smashed broadside into my friend's horse. Had he been looking ahead as he pulled out of the left hand bend, he would have been able to slow down and keep control of the bike and not hit us.

I have always said to my friend that actually it could have been far worse for us riders under these circumstances, because my friend's horse was only a youngster, and although very well behaved I think a motorbike roaring past us like that at a speed probably around 50 or 60 would definitely have spooked him, and possibly my horse too. I think they could well have bolted down the road, and maybe we would have had far worse injuries, maybe even be killed.

As unfair as it sounds, the police were quite clear about it being a very good thing that we had not been on our phones, and we were adequately dressed and protected. Had we not have been, we could have been found partially responsible for the biker's paralysis and even been prosecuted.

 

[Nikki J]

A lot of insurance policies will have a bit in their terms and conditions along the lines of "you must take all reasonable precautionsto keep the horse safe and well". This could cover loads of things as the insurance company chooses, including not wearing hi-viz on the roads.

Generally if there was an accident and the rider was not wearing hi-viz this could count as contributory negligence and so affect claims made.

Absolutely - this is the point I have been trying to put across, and you have done it so much better than me!!

 

[Spiritedly]

I was very careful to explain that we would have be found to be only PARTIALLY liable. It makes sense when you think about. If you are riding along the road and you are using your mobile phone, a motorbike comes roaring past at a speed excessive to the speed limit, your horse shies violently to the left, you fall off onto the road, smashing your wrist, you have legal cover under the terms of your house insurance for personal injury, so you make a claim. The insurance company will still cover you, but your settlement will be less than it would have been because you were PARTIALLY to blame for your accident - because you were on your phone, therefore not under control of your horse.

It is irrelevant in our case, because us riders did absolutely nothing wrong. We were both wearing the latest standard hats, high viz yellow tabards, stirrup strips, brightly coloured clothing. The motorcyclist was wearing a good quality crash hat, a leather jacket - he wasn't wearing leather trousers, only jeans - but that made no difference to him being paralysed of course. He had fully comprehensive insurance, his bike was MOT'ed, in good condition etc. etc. The only thing he did wrong was to ride on his bike at a speed way way in excess of the speed limit, and because he was not paying attention to the road ahead but was looking down at his bike, he panicked when he did eventually see us, whacked the brakes on, lost control of the bike and it careered across the road onto the wrong side and smashed broadside into my friend's horse. Had he been looking ahead as he pulled out of the left hand bend, he would have been able to slow down and keep control of the bike and not hit us.

I have always said to my friend that actually it could have been far worse for us riders under these circumstances, because my friend's horse was only a youngster, and although very well behaved I think a motorbike roaring past us like that at a speed probably around 50 or 60 would definitely have spooked him, and possibly my horse too. I think they could well have bolted down the road, and maybe we would have had far worse injuries, maybe even be killed.

As unfair as it sounds, the police were quite clear about it being a very good thing that we had not been on our phones, and we were adequately dressed and protected. Had we not have been, we could have been found partially responsible for the biker's paralysis and even been prosecuted.

I am aware of what you said in your other post and the only bearing that post has on this one is that it made me wonder if it is actually LAW that you have to wear high viz. I always wear it when I ride anywhere except in the school, as do my children. Ten years ago I wore it only rarely and most riders I knew at that time didn't either as it certainly wasn't as common as it is now.
A lot of people have said on various forums, web sites etc that you can be held liable if you are in an accident and aren't wearing high viz what I want to know is has anyone actually seen evidence to support this? Yes a solicitor or insurance company can try to say that the horse rider is liable if they weren't wearing high viz but if it came to court would the horse rider be right if they then argued that they didn't have to wear one legally?
As a motorcyclist I have always ridden with my headlight on and wearing high viz, so do my friends, as I would like to think that I was giving car drivers every chance to see me, but if I were in an accident and I didn't have my light on it wouldn't then make me liable as the law doesn't state that motorcyclists MUST have their lights on. So I wondered if there is actually anywhere where it says that horse riders MUST by law wear high viz.

 

[Fransurrey]

You're not liable. You may be found guilty of contributory negligence, but that's not the same thing, as it's LACK of action on your part. There was a case a few years ago when a rider received half her compensation due to not wearing hi viz, but that didn't make her liable.

I was saddened to read the post above about the pedestrian. I drive on unlit rural lanes which go near and past rural stations and am astonished by the commuters who walk to and from the station wearing black, in the dark.