the importance of hi viz

DragonSlayer said:
I do get amazed when people who 'call out' a poster, mention 'glaring errors' and say 'something is not quite right'....

I have a philosophy of taking things at face value until proven otherwise and live and let live....

10 years ago is a long time. Maybe it's my age, but trying to think of being in music college 10 years ago is taking some doing! I remember lot's of course, but much is misty.....

Why would someone come on with such a horrific story for it not to be true? ....or am I looking looking rose-coloured glasses and being very naive about such things?
Click to expand...

No, I'm the same. My husband says I'm terminally naïve as I believe that people (on forums) don't lie unnecessarily. I can honestly say that some of the troll posts on here have astounded me, especially gamble the foal - and I still can't make up my mind about that one! However, even if I don't believe it I'm not the sort to question it just in case I'm horribly wrong. If Nikki's account is to make people wear hi viz then it has worked because at least one poster has said they'll never ride out without it again. If it's a fabrication .... well I guess it hasn't hurt anyone?
 
Nikki J said:
The point is that had we not been wearing high viz, WE - the injured parties - would have been found to be partially liable. On top of my loss of horse, horrendous injuries, loss of job, etc. etc., don't you think that would have been just a tad too much to bear?

There is nothing I can do to prevent idiots on motorbikes speeding on country roads and lanes - all I can do is to highlight the importance of high viz, not just to make us easier to see and therefore keep us safer, but to ensure that we can never ever be found to be partially liable were we to be struck by a motorist. That motorist could claim that they couldn't see us if we were not wearing high viz.
Click to expand...

I don't believe this is the case at all and can't see any way I could be found partially liable if a speeding motorist were to hit me and my horse whilst riding just because we weren't wearing hi viz. I'm happy to be proven wrong though.
 
GG2B said:
I don't believe this is the case at all and can't see any way I could be found partially liable if a speeding motorist were to hit me and my horse whilst riding just because we weren't wearing hi viz. I'm happy to be proven wrong though.
Click to expand...

Potentially there could be a case to answer to in 2013. But absolutely not 10 years ago. Hi viz for riders simply wasn't on most peoples radars, let alone insurance companies.
 
I believe that there is/was an insurance company which we're trying to wriggle out of a claim for compensation when a teenage girl was hit by a car walking home and suffered brain damage. Their argument was that as she was a horse owner she should know to take the precaution of wearing high viz. Therefore I assume that if you are riding without high viz and a car hits you the insurance companies are going to hold you partially liable.
 
Surely unless you are riding in the dark, then the high viz argument couldn't come into it if a vehicle hits you.....a horse and rider are big enough for a driver to see, they are supposed to be looking for obstacles ahead.....if it was true that you were at fault for what you are or are not wearing then what about walkers, runners, children etc or other vehicles in fact, I've yet to see a high viz car on the roads !
 
JCW said:
I believe that there is/was an insurance company which we're trying to wriggle out of a claim for compensation when a teenage girl was hit by a car walking home and suffered brain damage. Their argument was that as she was a horse owner she should know to take the precaution of wearing high viz. Therefore I assume that if you are riding without high viz and a car hits you the insurance companies are going to hold you partially liable.
Click to expand...

In 2013 they could try. 2003? Not a chance.
 
Sorry yes. I have just googled it and I think accident happened about 3years ago and although the high court cleared the girl of any negligence the insurance company have gone to the court of appeal. It also said it was December evening so it was probably dark. However when I initially read this I was quite alarmed that an insurance company would do this and have always made sure when riding am in high viz and also insist husband wears it when cycling to work.
 
I always wear hi viz, whatever time of year, I do not understand why people don't wear it in truth, its a free country,but I don't get it....it literally does what it says on the tin, I want me and horse to be seen
 
bonny said:
Surely unless you are riding in the dark, then the high viz argument couldn't come into it if a vehicle hits you.....a horse and rider are big enough for a driver to see, they are supposed to be looking for obstacles ahead.....if it was true that you were at fault for what you are or are not wearing then what about walkers, runners, children etc or other vehicles in fact, I've yet to see a high viz car on the roads !
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you as a matter of principle, but unfortunately this is what will happen nowadays. Even though the accident I had was absolutely not in any way my fault, or my friend's fault, or the horses' fault, but 100% the fault of the biker for riding at almost twice the speed limit plus not paying attention to the road ahead, STILL the police were absolutely adamant that had we not been so visible, and had we been on our mobile phones for instance, we WOULD have been found to be partially liable. As such, our compensation would have been even more paltry and unfair than it was, and we may well have been facing charges as well. Totally unfair of course, but this is how it was then, and how it will be in the future.
 
JCW said:
I believe that there is/was an insurance company which we're trying to wriggle out of a claim for compensation when a teenage girl was hit by a car walking home and suffered brain damage. Their argument was that as she was a horse owner she should know to take the precaution of wearing high viz. Therefore I assume that if you are riding without high viz and a car hits you the insurance companies are going to hold you partially liable.
Click to expand...

Absolutely spot on - and so would the police.
 
amymay said:
Potentially there could be a case to answer to in 2013. But absolutely not 10 years ago. Hi viz for riders simply wasn't on most peoples radars, let alone insurance companies.
Click to expand...

Absolutely YES! My accident was 10 years ago, and what I have repeatedly said is what happened. We would have been held partially liable had we not been so visible and had we been on our mobiles.
 
GG2B said:
I don't believe this is the case at all and can't see any way I could be found partially liable if a speeding motorist were to hit me and my horse whilst riding just because we weren't wearing hi viz. I'm happy to be proven wrong though.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely the case, 10 years ago it was the case, and it would still be the case today. As unfair as it is, it is so. I think what makes it even more unfair is the fact that it is not a legal requirement to wear high viz. If as a consequence you are going to suffer penalty by not being visible, then it is not fair that it is not a legal requirement.
 
doriangrey said:
No, I'm the same. My husband says I'm terminally naïve as I believe that people (on forums) don't lie unnecessarily. I can honestly say that some of the troll posts on here have astounded me, especially gamble the foal - and I still can't make up my mind about that one! However, even if I don't believe it I'm not the sort to question it just in case I'm horribly wrong. If Nikki's account is to make people wear hi viz then it has worked because at least one poster has said they'll never ride out without it again. If it's a fabrication .... well I guess it hasn't hurt anyone?
Click to expand...

It is absolutely NOT a fabrication. I wish it was, because if it was, then my darling horse would most likely be still alive. She would be very old at around 30, and most likely no longer able to be ridden, but I would have doubtless enjoyed many more years of happy hacking on her.

And I would be around £10k a year better off and would be sound of body - although probably not of mind : )
 
Spiritedly said:
Yes you can be taken to court if you name someone but if you can prove that your comments were true and not over embellished then it is not libel as the statement was fact but is up to you to judge whether you will be able to provide the evidence to support your claim. You can also say ' if I ever had an an accident I would not want to be taken to such and such hospital' as that is opinion and therefore not defamatory.
Also, for reasons to do with shelf life of forum threads, lies posted about people on forums are classed as slander rather than libel. :confused:
So nikki as a resident of the Daventry area if I were to ever have a horse riding accident round your way which hospital IN YOUR OPINION should I not visit the a + e of? ;)
Click to expand...

Lol !! Not saying, I have enough things to cope with at the moment without having an accusation of slander as well but an outraged orthopaedic surgeon!!

This chap will likely be earning well in excess of £120k, I earn £15k - if he is litigious, and of a mind, he COULD claim that by my actions of naming and shaming the hospital, I was acting maliciously because as the top back chap, it would not be beyond the wit of man to identify him. For such an eminent and well-respected person to have missed 2 crushed vertebrae is appalling, and there could be the potential of a nasty case brought against me.

Living where we do, I can say that we have the choice of 2 hospitals A & E - Rugby and Northampton - but also Milton Keynes if deemed to be appropriate. And possibly Coventry - the Walsgrave. But my lips are sealed as to which one it was.
 
amymay said:
This is simply not the case.



They could claim anything they like. But given they were allegedly speeding and the weather conditions were good, with good visibility, where would be their case? As it is they didn't attempt to sue you for their injuries, so the only conclusion is it was his negligence that caused the accident - not yours.
Click to expand...

How can you possibly say that when it simply is just not true!! How do I know that? Because I was there of course. I will dig out the police report - because it was such an horrendous accident for all concerned, a police expert was called in to do a thorough report and investigation, paid for by the Defendant's solicitors (us being the Claimants). I will try and find it, I think I kept it, along with all my medical reports from various medical experts, so I will quote on here anything pertinent I can find.
 
Nugget La Poneh said:
It is only libel if the statement can be proved as false.

Came across a runner on my side of the road (technically correct I guess) in dark clothes, no reflectors, no lights on a national speed limit road, no street lights as outside development and no junction. Not sure he noticed me if I am honest and he needs to thank the combination of the car coming the opposite direction and him swerving something (assuming drain) for me to see him. That and I refuse to do 60mph because of hidden potholes :D

Just seems a slight mockery that it is a given that horseriders NEED to wear high-viz and insurance companies getting cute about us not wearing it if there is an accident, yet dog walkers, runners, cyclists seem to not have the same focus...
Click to expand...

No, that's a misconception that many people have. You can be accused of slander or libel IF the person taking the case can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the slanderer or libeller acted out of maliciousness, even though the facts were true.

To give an example: say you were a well known public figure. You have an extra marital affair - that is true, it is a fact. Someone you have upset in the past thinks "aha, here's my opportunity to get my own back" ... and he goes to the papers and blows the gaff. The person who has been slandered or libelled might be able to claim that despite being true, this person acted out of spite and malice.

So to take a case of libel and slander, yes, the statement made needs to have been true, but there is more to it than that.
 
Battytwoll said:
Dear Nikki, thank you for highlighting the issues here (also no pun intended) I totally understand what you are saying about the hi viz not making a difference in your particular case but that you wish for nobody else to suffer as you have and therefore that it is a great idea to wear it as it helps to minimise risk to some extent in many other scenarios. As I mentioned to you in an earlier post I am a district nurse and am out on the roads of rural suffolk and today I came around a corner to just be able to make out two horses and riders coming towards me. They were stunning horses, big and beautiful. Both riders in waxed jackets - one had an orange jumper on under her jacket which wasn't zipped to the top and it was this tiny glimpse of orange which stood out. Luckily I was driving slow and what with having you and your friend on my mind, I think I was probably even more vigilant than usual!

Just as an aside, 9 years ago, I went into premature labour - who was the first person I phoned in my panic?? Not the midwife or the labour ward (which would have made sense had I have been rational and clear headed) but my mum who lives in Spain! It was instinct to phone the one person I felt could make it all better for me.

Look at that photo of your beautiful girl and remember the best of times with her xx
Click to expand...

Thank you so much! I am indeed looking at her as I type!!
 
DragonSlayer said:
I do get amazed when people who 'call out' a poster, mention 'glaring errors' and say 'something is not quite right'....

I have a philosophy of taking things at face value until proven otherwise and live and let live....

10 years ago is a long time. Maybe it's my age, but trying to think of being in music college 10 years ago is taking some doing! I remember lot's of course, but much is misty.....

Why would someone come on with such a horrific story for it not to be true? ....or am I looking looking rose-coloured glasses and being very naive about such things?
Click to expand...

You are not being naive ... every single word is true : (
 
How very, very sad. I feel like putting this story on our noticeboard at the yard for the silly ignorant people who still insist on riding on the roads without any flourescent on at all.
 
Nikki J said:
It is absolutely NOT a fabrication. I wish it was, because if it was, then my darling horse would most likely be still alive. She would be very old at around 30, and most likely no longer able to be ridden, but I would have doubtless enjoyed many more years of happy hacking on her.

And I would be around £10k a year better off and would be sound of body - although probably not of mind : )
Click to expand...

I'm so sorry you had to go through such a terrible accident with all the consequences that it entailed, it must have been devastating. Hi viz won't prevent every accident but that's no reason not to wear it. I hope those that don't will think twice, it's not that roads are getting any safer to ride on :(
 
Just add a point re: hi viz which I think this story points out well - in poor visibility, it gives the driver a chance to see you quicker. However if you are riding on country roads that are very twisty, as I do, then unless the visibility is poor due to fading light/mist/shadows etc then it won't magically save you.

I get irritated with people who bang on at me about hi viz, as on my particular road which I hack along to get up onto the hills, hi viz makes minimal difference to stopping times. Cars don't see until they are on me whether I wear it or not. Thankfully it is a quiet road and due to the bends, people drive slowly. When I have hacked other road routes I make an effort to wear hi viz, or if it is a dark day or early morning/evening/misty etc, but I really don't see how hi viz on that particular road in average conditions will make enough difference for me to be injured or not - there isn't enough room for a driver speeding or on the wrong side of the road etc to change that before they'd hit you anyway.

So I am one of those who doesn't tend to wear hi viz, certainly on that road although I do on other local roads when hacking further afield. I have a tendency to wear bright pinks etc anyway, and my horse has bright coloured boots and numnah and a bright purple exercise fleece for winter, so during the day with decent lighting I don't see how the hi viz makes any difference in my particular situation.
 
khalswitz said:
Just add a point re: hi viz which I think this story points out well - in poor visibility, it gives the driver a chance to see you quicker. However if you are riding on country roads that are very twisty, as I do, then unless the visibility is poor due to fading light/mist/shadows etc then it won't magically save you.

I get irritated with people who bang on at me about hi viz, as on my particular road which I hack along to get up onto the hills, hi viz makes minimal difference to stopping times. Cars don't see until they are on me whether I wear it or not. Thankfully it is a quiet road and due to the bends, people drive slowly. When I have hacked other road routes I make an effort to wear hi viz, or if it is a dark day or early morning/evening/misty etc, but I really don't see how hi viz on that particular road in average conditions will make enough difference for me to be injured or not - there isn't enough room for a driver speeding or on the wrong side of the road etc to change that before they'd hit you anyway.

So I am one of those who doesn't tend to wear hi viz, certainly on that road although I do on other local roads when hacking further afield. I have a tendency to wear bright pinks etc anyway, and my horse has bright coloured boots and numnah and a bright purple exercise fleece for winter, so during the day with decent lighting I don't see how the hi viz makes any difference in my particular situation.
Click to expand...

Bright colours is good - from what you describe if you were - God forbid - involved in an accident on this particular road, the driver would not be able to claim he could not see you.
 
Right, OK, just got back from work and dug out what paperwork I kept from my accident 10 years. Whilst looking for the police expert report, I found something in my file which I had forgotten about. It was a clipping taken from the Daventry Express letters page dated September 11 2003. It was a letter written by someone who shall remain nameless, but this is what they said:-

"Our ..., who was the cyclist involved in the accident, has been a motor cyclist for a considerable number of years and he always takes care when horses have been on the roadside.

With his ...... owning horses herself, he is very aware of the care that is needed when they are around.

It goes on for a bit longer, and then it says:-

"He will never be able to ride or walk again, and his .... and ...... do not need to read comments, which have caused added pressure to them, from someone who does not have all the facts.

As we can sympathise with the owners of the animals, our first priority now is our ...

This letter had been written to the Express following a letter in the previous week's newspaper which was making derogatory comments about cyclists.

So please will all the Doubting Thomases become undoubting, because clearly any one of you can contact the Daventry Express and access their archives and verify the truth of what I say.

In addition, I have found the veterinary report on my horse, who did not die at the scene:-

"Because of the unusual nature of the injuries sustained by both horses I have discussed this with vets at Liverpool University, who are currently collating racehorse accidents, the chief vet to the Jockey Club who was involved with collating racehorse accidents some 30 years ago, and also with a pathologist in Newmarket who was working as pathologist at the Animal Health Trust when I worked there. A summary of our experience would be as follows:-

None of us have attended or heard of an accident where the midline of the abdomen has been ruptured during an accident. This is possibly a unique finding and in itself suggests the trauma suffered was excessive.

Regarding the injuries suffered by "....." (my horse), we are aware of one other road accident where a horse was hit by a car and suffered a rupture of the large colon. Again this would require considerable force and in the case of which we are aware a second horse had also been involved and was killed outright. The most significant finding is probably of the fracture rib in "....." (my horse). Whilst we do occasionallysee rib fractures as a result of a horse being squeezed against a sharp object such as a gate post with a protruding latch, but none of us can recall seeing several ribs fractured by being hit by another horse which is, when all is said and done, a relatively smooth and soft object. We cannot begin to tell you how fast the bike would be travelling to do this, because as I am sure you will appreciate no crash testing of bikes into horses has ever been carried out. However, for a bike and rider to be travelling with sufficient momentum to lift a horse off its feet, push it into a second horse and break 3 ribs where we know the horse's weight is in the region of 600 kg, would indicate an enormous force being applied.

I am sorry that I am not able to give any positive or scientific information. Suffice to say motorbikes hitting horses side on are rare and horses injuring other horses by being hit by a motorbike are even rarer!"

Of course, what the vet did not realise is that it was my stirrup iron that broke the 3 ribs of my horse, my friend's horse was blasted into me on my horse, causing my stirrup iron to break my horse's ribs, and this force caused my foot to be completely inverted in the stirrup and me being blasted upwards out of the saddle.
 
Really important!

As a driver I'm amazed of the amount of cyclists riding in the dark with no lights, in dark clothing, with no reflective clothing!! I once nearly killed a cyclist narrowly missing him as he was 'invisible' !

So the same goes for horses and riders. The easier they are to see the better!
 
I would say that whatever the situation it is always better to wear Hi-Viz as it may just make a difference and save you or your horses life.
I always strongly advise riders not to ride out on the roads when there is bright low sunshine as it dazzles other road users who are then unable to see you.
It is also worthwhile to take the BHS Road Safety course and exam as this will provide you with new skills for when riding on the roads.
Unfortunately motorised vehicles are becoming ever more powerfull and fast and are being driven by people that have little or no understanding of horses.
I strongly believe that most horses enjoy being ridden out and that there should be more integrated off road riding routes.
The BHS do a lot of work on the local and national level to develop new routes
 
Richie said:
Really important!

As a driver I'm amazed of the amount of cyclists riding in the dark with no lights, in dark clothing, with no reflective clothing!! I once nearly killed a cyclist narrowly missing him as he was 'invisible' !

So the same goes for horses and riders. The easier they are to see the better!
Click to expand...

I agree about the cyclists they terrify me round here you meet them out in pitch dark no HIviz no lights .
 
chrisritch said:
This whole thread is ridiculous.

Why would you keep it out of the press, Surely you would want to highlight it to make people think twice, be it bikers or riders.
Click to expand...

The very fact you have asked that question tells me that, thankfully, you have never had a really serious, traumatic experience in life.

Following a horrific experience, the very last thing in the world you want is the media crawling all over you.

Now you have been put back in your box and I have been able to prove that every single word I said was correct, you are getting defensive and angry.

A simple apology would be fine.
 
Nikki J said:
Right, OK, just got back from work and dug out what paperwork I kept from my accident 10 years. Whilst looking for the police expert report, I found something in my file which I had forgotten about. It was a clipping taken from the Daventry Express letters page dated September 11 2003. It was a letter written by someone who shall remain nameless, but this is what they said:-

"Our ..., who was the cyclist involved in the accident, has been a motor cyclist for a considerable number of years and he always takes care when horses have been on the roadside.

With his ...... owning horses herself, he is very aware of the care that is needed when they are around.

It goes on for a bit longer, and then it says:-

"He will never be able to ride or walk again, and his .... and ...... do not need to read comments, which have caused added pressure to them, from someone who does not have all the facts.

As we can sympathise with the owners of the animals, our first priority now is our ...

This letter had been written to the Express following a letter in the previous week's newspaper which was making derogatory comments about cyclists.

So please will all the Doubting Thomases become undoubting, because clearly any one of you can contact the Daventry Express and access their archives and verify the truth of what I say.

.
Click to expand...
I assume by this comment that your attempts to keep it out of the press weren't successful anyway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top