worded high viz tabbard

horseandshoes77 said:
but surely the fact they know the pavement is hazardous hence the caution sign!! so if I still decide to walk along and trip up surely they are liable as they have written caution therefore they know it is a hazard !

my mare doesn't step into on coming vehicles either however drivers like to whizz past an inch off my stirrup !

I think the tabard is the safer option for the drivers as my second option would be a schooling whip with a bolt or screw on the end to whack their cars with....and YES I would be totally liable then :D
Click to expand...

My first reply to your initial post, I felt, was a helpful one. We now live in a world where legal liability for things can be tested in the face of the "blame culture". Next time I won't bother, you evidently haven't read my other posts, if you feel that you are safer with the tabard on then fine, but don't mock me for suggesting you may one day find yourself in trouble for it.

I have exercised, over the years, in a great many outfits and to date I haven't found anything more effective than the last slogan - perhaps I should just wear a Hi Viz reading "Tits" that should slow people down... :D
 
I am not saying I like the way it is but that's the way it is .
Someone suggested that contacting your insurer was the thing to do , I thought that was a good point .
So I did and hey that's what they said they advise agaisnt the use of such tabards and told me which ones they advise , that's good enough for me.
If you want to use " caution " tabards do so it's your risk . But saying to me what about road work signs is futile we are not talking about road work signs and as I am never likely to be in charge of roadwork signs I have no need to understand how liability works in relation to them .
 
Well like i said i feel safer on the road with tabard on and cars are more respectful of my space therefore probably reducing the risk of an accident, having just spoke to my insurance company they have no concerns with the tabard and to be honest made me feel like a bit of a fool for asking as she seemed to be quite confused why i would ask ( im guessing they havent lost many cases through a rider wearing one) thanks for the advice though
 
Goldenstar said:
I am not saying I like the way it is but that's the way it is .
Someone suggested that contacting your insurer was the thing to do , I thought that was a good point .
So I did and hey that's what they said they advise agaisnt the use of such tabards and told me which ones they advise , that's good enough for me.
If you want to use " caution " tabards do so it's your risk . But saying to me what about road work signs is futile we are not talking about road work signs and as I am never likely to be in charge of roadwork signs I have no need to understand how liability works in relation to them .
Click to expand...


A poster (Mr Velvet) already did contact their insurer on a previous thread, but I can't get the link to work. However, the answer was that they were not concerned by the wording.

You might think road work signs are irrelevant, fair enough, but motorcyclists wearing Under Instruction could have similar consequences, as would P plates on a newly licenced driver.
The point about warning tabards is to give other road users relevant information on which to make a risk assessment.
 
RunToEarth said:
Caution horse is admitting that your horse may pose as some kind of hazard, and has, when legally challenged, been proved as admitting liability.

If you put a sign on your house saying "Caution, guard dogs" and then someone comes in (trespassing or invited) and gets bitten, you will be held liable as you are admitting they may pose some danger, whereas if you are displaying a sign saying "Jack Russell lives here" you are not admitting that they should be cautioned, just alerting people to the fact they are around.

I work in property and we are always advised to keep to the generic: "Keep Out" "Men working Overhead" "Quarry Workings" "Fragile Roof" - stating a simple fact without asking people to be cautious of it. A landowner was taken to court and successfully charged when he put signs around his derelict building reading "Danger, unsafe building" and a youth went in there and fell through the floor. The judge found that the landowner had identified that the building was dangerous and unsafe, however had not gone to the length of putting heras fencing around it to make it secure, I reckon had he not put a sign there, it would have been a lot more difficult to prove liability. I'm not saying I agree with how things have gone, but I would be cautious about wearing caution vests.
Click to expand...

Not read the whole thread yet, but this confirms the view that "The law is an Ass". This is just like, don't sweep the snow off your pavement in case someone slips over and sues you. The world has gone mad.
 
horserider said:
A poster (Mr Velvet) already did contact their insurer on a previous thread, but I can't get the link to work. However, the answer was that they were not concerned by the wording.

You might think road work signs are irrelevant, fair enough, but motorcyclists wearing Under Instruction could have similar consequences, as would P plates on a newly licenced driver.
The point about warning tabards is to give other road users relevant information on which to make a risk assessment.
Click to expand...

I don't think road signs are irrelevant but it's irrelevant to me to understand the position about road signs and liability as I am never going to be in charge of siteing any .
What I think was said in the thread you refer to do was wearing such a tabard would not invalidate the riders insurance that's not the same as wearing such a tabard being used by another party as evidence for the horse being more likely than another to be an issue.
I take your point about the motor cyclists and P plates but surely it's the law they wear them and yes if A driver hit either I would fully expect the driver to use the other party's inexperiance as part of their version of who was liable .
 
The wording wouldnt invalidate any insurance or 'make you liable' but it would certainly be tried by the other side as showing that the horse was known to be not as reliable on the roads as other horses and try to get any damages award reduced due to 'contributory negligence' ie saying the horse should have been accompanied if it was requiring such extra consideration to have a printed up tabard with special wording.

Not saying I agree with that approach or that it would succeed but they would certainly try it.

You can take the gamble and work on the basis youd rather lower the risk of the collision by wearing it, rather than not wear it and accept the possible consequence above if an acccident did happen. Your choice entirely. Its one I would probably take too.

I prefer to just be very visible and very polite and thank everyone who slows down remotely for me.

In respect of who has right of way on the roads, all road users have to use roads with regard to other road users. Noone has trumping rights of way however there is special consideration required of car drivers for vulnerable classes of road users which include pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders and so while it doesnt amount to a right of way it does mean that they cannot simply obey signed speed limits, they are expected to drive with special attention and expect the unexpected (child escapes from parents hand, horse shies a step into the road, cyclist has to swerve to avoid drain or pot hole).

Personally I think with the busy nature of roads now, the sooner strict liability on car drivers is brought in the better, both for them and the people and animals they hit. This doesnt mean they would always be held liable, but that assumption would be the starting point of the investigation (and rightly so) - of course if it is a riderless bolting horse then they are not going to be found liable at the end of it.
 
Goldenstar said:
I don't think road signs are irrelevant but it's irrelevant to me to understand the position about road signs and liability as I am never going to be in charge of siteing any .But you may be driving past a Road Flooded sign when you drive off the road due to pot holes hidden by flooding.
What I think was said in the thread you refer to do was wearing such a tabard would not invalidate the riders insurance that's not the same as wearing such a tabard being used by another party as evidence for the horse being more likely than another to be an issue.Other people have mentioned invalidated insurance on this thread as a reason not to wear the aforementioned Hi Viz
I take your point about the motor cyclists and P plates but surely it's the law they wear them and yes if A driver hit either I would fully expect the driver to use the other party's inexperiance as part of their version of who was liable .P plates for new drivers and tabards for motorcyclists are not law.
Click to expand...

Its entirely up to the individual what they want to wear , but it cannot be argued that it is admitting liability. If you ride a young horse that causes an accident on the road and it went to court, believe me, the prosecution would want to know all about the horse you were riding and your competence to control it.
The tabard issue is a red herring. A myth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top