What the new (revised) highway code ACTUALLY says

LifeofRiley

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 October 2006
Messages
369
Location
South East
Visit site
I've just seen a letter from Stephen Ladyman from the department of transport which reads:

"On rule 54 of the proposed new version of the Highway Cose (rule 40 of the current code), rule 40 of the current version of the Code reads:"

"You MUST NOT take a horse on to a footpath, pavement or cycle track. Use a bridleway where possible."

Rule 54 of the proposed new version of the code reads:

"You MUST NOT take a horse onto a footpath or pavement and you SHOULD NOT take a horse onto a cycle track. Use a bridleway where possible."

It also reads that:

"....the current version of the code where the final bullet states "You should... never ride more than 2 abreast, and ride in single file where the road narrows or on the approach to a bend"

In the proposed new version of the code (as laid in paliament - now rule 53), the wording was slightly changed to "You SHOULD never ride more than 2 abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"

This basically means that they are SUGGESTIONS made in the highway cose and they are not enforceable by law.
 
Bridlepaths are not getting much funding, but sustrans (cycle) routes are. If the councils are chasing funds, then excluding riders by converting then into cycle paths and qualifying for sustrans money is a small price to pay (as they see it)
 
I don't see much difference to how things were before? You never could ride on footpaths or pavements and you are still ok to ride 2 abreast. It suggests you ride singly where 2-abreast would be dangerous.

I've seen a real kurfuffle about this - why?
 
Quite possibly because busy roads are one of the times you should ride 2 abrest. I used to teach, and would often take people out on hacks for the first few times - regarless of riding ability, it takes some times to understand how to handle a horse on the road, and by riding 2 abrest, the experienced person on the outside, it helps to begin with. In addition, when taking a young horse out to get them used to traffic, I would ALWAYS want a sensible experienced horse on the side closest traffic - a young horse can kick out, spook, shy etc when he doesn't understand traffic - an equine nanny is the best way to accustom them to traffic without incident. Having had to ride down national speed limit roads, I always prefer riding 2 abrest - because then cars do not (usually) attempt to overtake you at silly points - they treat you more like a car because you are then the same width. Similar idea to why motorcyclists ride in the middle of the lane.
 
I think the concern is not over whether it can be enforced by law but

1) the advice is unsound and
2) that in the unfortunate event of an accident, insurance companies could find the rider liable for blame if they are not following highway code guidelines.

Clearly both of these reasons are valid, I don't want to feel that I have to ride in the way suggested and I do not want to be found liable for and accident OR pay increased insurance costs which we will inevitably all have to do, if riders begin to be blamed more for accidents.

Sqip
 
Top