Hi Viz, Hard Hats and the Law

[flinglebunt]

What are your opinions on Hi Viz and hard hats being made a legal requirement when riding on the road? Do you think it is high time the equestrian world should be forced to move into the twenty first century and come into line with health and safety standards that seem to encompass just about every aspect of our working and leisure time?

Given that such a law could only save riders from injury or worse what would your objections be?

[Rhein]

What are your opinions on Hi Viz and hard hats being made a legal requirement when riding on the road?

Completely in favour. I see it no differently to seatbelt laws and other rules of the road that are designed to reduce accident and injury

[posie]

yup - agree whole heartedly

[alliersv]

I think it's a good idea, however I'm always wary of something that gives others (the public/police) a chance to penalise you on the one day you forget to put your bib on. I'm thinking more about the HV here, hard hats to me is just obvious and anyone who rides on the road without one is bonkers. Also, you could argue that if it is made law for horses then surely they should really do it for cyclists too, after all, being lower down you could argue that they are harder to see than horse riders, especially the nobbers that insist on riding pushbikes in the dark with no lights :rolleyes: . Then there's people walking dogs down country lanes etc... where do you (not you personally) draw the H&S line?

[Skippys Mum]

I dont see why not. At the end of the day, you have to remember to put your seatbelt on if you are driving. You would soon learn to remember your bib too.

As for cyclists and dog walkers, while I do think they should be visible too, half a ton of horse can do so much more damage to all concerned so its far more vital. If someone falls off a bike the bike just lies there - if they fall off a horse because it spooked because a driver didnt see it the horse can then go on to cause real carnage, both to itself and to others.

But then, I always wear high vis and a hat hacking so I'm already one of the converts:o

[Elly Koopman]

I'm sorry, I don't think it should be law - certainly not the hi-vis :o

Apart from anything else, who's going to enforce it?

It's not law for cyclists etc., so until that happens there is not point making it a law for riders.

In reality, how many road accidents between horses and vehicles could have actually been prevented due to high visibility clothing? How many of the accidents have been caused by excess speed and lack of knowledge of country roads, and also lack of common sense on the riders part. Many a time I have been coming round a corner at 20 miles/hour on a country lane to find 3 riders mooching along in the middle of the road - hi-vis wouldn't have helped.

However the hat issue should maybe enforced through insurance companies not paying out if it found that you weren't wearing suitably safe hat...

[alliersv]

As for cyclists and dog walkers, while I do think they should be visible too, half a ton of horse can do so much more damage to all concerned so its far more vital. If someone falls off a bike the bike just lies there - if they fall off a horse because it spooked because a driver didnt see it the horse can then go on to cause real carnage, both to itself and to others.

But then, I always wear high vis and a hat hacking so I'm already one of the converts:o

Fair point, but what if someone falls off a bike and hurts themself and can't be seen? If they are hit by a car that doesn't see them, although there isn't a loose horse rampaging around, it can still be a potentially serious accident for the cyclist. I do take your point about the size of a spooked horse though. My post was relative to things I meet on a daily basis where I live, and the cyclists do wind me up a bit. That said, I am also an HV wearer, so not actually disagreeing with OP, just hesitant of anything that might cause me an on the spot fine or whatever! :)

[Daffy Dilly]

I have always kitted myself and Daffy out in hi viz. The day we got seperated and he bolted across a busy national speed limit road, I was told by a driver (I stopped to check Daffy had gone the way I thought he had) that had Daffy not had his hi viz on, the driver wouldn't have seen him and stopped in time.

I used to ride on isolated, open moorland, and if I'd fallen off and broken a leg or something, my hi viz would've helped an air ambulance find me. It's common sense really.

I think it would be wise to make it compulsary - even if it's as simple as insurance companies refusing to pay out in the event of an accident. A hat band on the rider's hat and a bridle kit on the horse is an easy bare minimum, which doesn't require any thought at all as it stays on the kit.

[Rhein]

Also, you could argue that if it is made law for horses then surely they should really do it for cyclists too
Totally agree :)

It's not law for cyclists etc., so until that happens there is not point making it a law for riders.
:confused:. Why is there no point in making it law for riders whilst there is no law for cyclists? What is the relationship between the two?

[Elly Koopman]

Totally agree :)


:confused:. Why is there no point in making it law for riders whilst there is no law for cyclists? What is the relationship between the two?

For the same reason you agreed with alliersv quote - you can't have one law for one person and not another. There are just as many accidents with cyclists that could've been put down to lack of safety equipment as there has been with horses. Both use the roads, both should have the same rules :o

[Dooley]

For the same reason you agreed with alliersv quote - you can't have one law for one person and not another. There are just as many accidents with cyclists that could've been put down to lack of safety equipment as there has been with horses. Both use the roads, both should have the same rules :o

But motorcyclists have to wear helmets by law so why not say horse riders should be treated like THEM rather than like pushbike-type cyclists?

I don't understand why some people have problems with hi-viz. It's not restrictive, it's just as easy to remember as your bridle or saddle if you keep it all together, it helps you to be seen from a much greater distance... why NOT wear it?
Although I agree that there are probably more accidents caused by "ignorance" (not meant pejoratively!) in drivers than by th elack of hi-viz, I would still like to be able to see a horse and rider on the road from further away so that I can take the appropriate action sooner as a driver!

[Rhein]

For the same reason you agreed with alliersv quote - you can't have one law for one person and not another
Of course you can - because they are participating in different activities. Just like motorcyclists, hgv drivers, taxi drivers, towing vehicles etc etc come under slightly different legislation on the road.

[Elly Koopman]

I don't have a problem with Hi-Viz at all and will wear it if I deem it necessary, but I like to think that I am capable of making a suitable decision without having to be told to do something. I also have and will continue to accept responsibility for something that arises out of my decision. If I make myself a vegetable because I wasn't wearing my hat they I will accept that I made a mistake.

What I am trying to say is that there are laws already in place to help prevent damage to all road users and these laws are not being kept to (like the 30mph zone outside of our yard that no-one adheres to, whether we wear hi-viz or not) and by all means campaign to make riders more aware of the benefits of hi-viz, but please not in the form of another law...

[Kady A]

Hats should definitely be compulsory. I had a riding accident on the road some years ago and fractured my skull - it would have been a lot worse if I hadn't been wearing a hat. Last year I got chucked onto the road by my friend's horse in Greece - landing head first - but I had taken my hat to Corfu with me and once again it probably saved the day.

Anyone who doesn't wear a suitable standard riding hat when mounted (AT ALL TIMES!) is totally irresponsible (in my opinion).

High viz is compulsory on our yard - if your are caught leaving the yard without it YO's mum will have your guts for garters!

I personally think that by wearing high viz when out on the roads/bridleways etc you are making yourself less vulnerable to criticism from other road users (cars/motorbikes and cyclists) and god forbid if you were in an accident and said motorist said that he couldn't see you, its got to be more favourable if you are wearing high viz.

High viz has no need to be restrictive and a riding hat certainly shouldn't be if its fitted properly. In some respects I think we as riders should take more reponsibility to make ourselves more visible on the roads and to protect ourselves and our horses and also to show that we are far more courteous to other road users than motorcylists and push bikers (both of which I have a fairly low opinion of).

I don't think we can compare ourselves with pushbikers at all - our horses can be unpredictable - a pushbike doesn't spook:rolleyes:

[Howengold]

doesn't bother me one way or the other, as someone who has a rule for her riders to wear hi-viz every time they leave the yard anyway it wouldn't make a difference to us.

[Wally]

Thin end of the wedge.

How about making car drivers more accountable?

You have an absolute right in law to use the road, car drivers and motor vehicles do not. It's another errosion of civil liberties. Soon we won't be able to walk on the road without legislation.

Just be careful for what you lot campaign for, this government has already ridden rough shod over many MANY civil liberties. Don't hold your hand out for more for goodness sake.


How would you legislate for all the ponies running on common land with roads runing through them??

let insurance companies put their own provisos in place, but leave grown ups to make their own judgment. Leave governments out of private lives.

[Elly Koopman]

Of course you can - because they are participating in different activities. Just like motorcyclists, hgv drivers, taxi drivers, towing vehicles etc etc come under slightly different legislation on the road.

I was trying to say that you agreed with alliersv qoute, but not mine when I said the same thing but worded it differently.

And yes they do come under slightly different legislation, but the principles are the same - roadworthy and safe vehicles/methods of transport all adhering to the same road rules such as speed and signs etc. But there is no law that states they have to wear helmets and hi-viz and I was trying to say maybe there should be if we were to go down the route of making it law for riders. We're all on the roads, and while variations need to exist because of the different types of traffic, the principles should be the same... :o

[Rhein]

but I like to think that I am capable of making a suitable decision without having to be told to do something. I also have and will continue to accept responsibility for something that arises out of my decision. If I make myself a vegetable because I wasn't wearing my hat they I will accept that I made a mistake.
Sadly you will not be in a position to think about and accept you made a mistake. And you will also be unable to accept responsibilty. That will fall to a multitude of other people

What I am trying to say is that there are laws already in place to help prevent damage to all road users and these laws are not being kept to (like the 30mph zone outside of our yard that no-one adheres to, whether we wear hi-viz or not) [/QUOTE]
It's true that there will always be people who flout the law. But the majority do comply with the laws of the road. Just because some people choose to break the law doesn't mean the law should be overturned:confused:. A very small percentage of people wore seatbelts prior to it being law. And the exact same arguments that you are stating now were quoted then. But after it became law, the majority of people did (and do) comply. Mortality and morbidity on the roads decreased dramatically.

[Rhein]

I was trying to say that you agreed with alliersv qoute, but not mine when I said the same thing but worded it differently.
Nope. I agreed that I would like to see it become law for cyclist to wear helmets. But I certainly wouldn't want to see legislation for riders held up because of it.

[Rhein]

but leave grown ups to make their own judgment.
Heavens we'd have drink drivers mowing down innocent pedestrians and other road users on a daily basis if we did.
Sadly most adults seem unable to make sensible judgements for themselves, or they simply have no thought for anyone else but themselves. Hence for some things, legalisation is required.

[flinglebunt]

For the same reason you agreed with alliersv quote - you can't have one law for one person and not another. There are just as many accidents with cyclists that could've been put down to lack of safety equipment as there has been with horses. Both use the roads, both should have the same rules :o

My original question was asked within the context of horseback riding but I agree that the same rules should apply to cyclists. On my way home from work in the early mornings I see many cyclists ... the sensible ones with hi viz and lit up like a christmas tree and the daft ones who wear a black jacket in poor conditions.

I do not beleive hard hats should ever be a matter of choice whether on wheels or four legs. That easily avoidable skull fracture that resulted from a relatively minor accident can wreck lives and divert hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of resources that could otherwise be put to good use elsewhere.

In the area I live I have noticed that an increasing number of motorists are using dipped headlights in sunny daytime conditions in country lanes. This may be compulsary soon anyway as EU laws are going through to bring all EU countries into line on this issue.

Keeping in mind the young kids we see riding in and out of the shadows on a sunny day would those here that would oppose horse riders being singled out for special treatment support a law that included cyclists?

[Rhein]

It's another errosion of civil liberties.
It's not an erosion of civil liverties. It's about learning from mistakes and about the advancement and availability of safety equipment. Not everyone has the misfortune to experience the devastation serious accidents have on many lives. I am baffled as to why preventing these incidents can possibly be argued against :confused:

[Soot]

I always wear my hi viz these days ...

but I hate being told what to do.
Personal responsbility is an important skill
as is personal accountability.

[Elly Koopman]

It's true that there will always be people who flout the law. But the majority do comply with the laws of the road. Just because some people choose to break the law doesn't mean the law should be overturned:confused:. A very small percentage of people wore seatbelts prior to it being law. And the exact same arguments that you are stating now were quoted then. But after it became law, the majority of people did (and do) comply. Mortality and morbidity on the roads decreased dramatically.


When did I say it should be overturned?

There are many sides to every discussion - education can be for everyone including making people aware of livestock/obstructions on the roads, especially in the country. How many learners are taken in the depths of the countryside and taught that the 60mph is a limit, not a goal in the back lanes of middle no-where with 8 footbanks/ditches on either side?

We could wear all the hi-viz and safety gear in the world, but it won't protect us if the education is not given to all sides of the equation...

[Elly Koopman]

My original question was asked within the context of horseback riding but I agree that the same rules should apply to cyclists. On my way home from work in the early mornings I see many cyclists ... the sensible ones with hi viz and lit up like a christmas tree and the daft ones who wear a black jacket in poor conditions.

I do not beleive hard hats should ever be a matter of choice whether on wheels or four legs. That easily avoidable skull fracture that resulted from a relatively minor accident can wreck lives and divert hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of resources that could otherwise be put to good use elsewhere.

In the area I live I have noticed that an increasing number of motorists are using dipped headlights in sunny daytime conditions in country lanes. This may be compulsary soon anyway as EU laws are going through to bring all EU countries into line on this issue.

Keeping in mind the young kids we see riding in and out of the shadows on a sunny day would those here that would oppose horse riders being singled out for special treatment support a law that included cyclists?


If it was a law that encompassed anyone using the road should be visible at all times then fine, it's a law of the road and a level playing field for all road users (including the man walking his dog last night on a blind bend at 8.30pm with nothing on him - only the dogs eyes were visible :eek:) - but you can't start singling out particular groups like riders, without looking at other poeple like cyclists, runners, ramblers etc.

[Elly Koopman]

It's not an erosion of civil liverties. It's about learning from mistakes and about the advancement and availability of safety equipment. Not everyone has the misfortune to experience the devastation serious accidents have on many lives. I am baffled as to why preventing these incidents can possibly be argued against :confused:

No-one argued against preventing the accidents, just that making it into yet another law is possibly not the best way forward...

[Rhein]

When did I say it should be overturned?
True you didn't. But I fail to see how the fact that not everyone abides by the law on the road is relevant as to whether it should be made law for riders to wear hard hats :confused:

If it was a law that encompassed anyone using the road should be visible at all times then fine, it's a law of the road and a level playing field for all road users (including the man walking his dog last night on a blind bend at 8.30pm with nothing on him - only the dogs eyes were visible :eek:) - but you can't start singling out particular groups like riders, without looking at other poeple like cyclists, runners, ramblers etc.
Most aspects of the highway code apply to all road users. But you can't apply every rule to everyone. Motorists wearing crash helmets? Walkers wearing crash helmets?
I agree that it would be good if all road users had to wear high viz. But why not start with horse riders and save lives there first?

making it into yet another law is possibly not the best way forward...
What do you suggest?

[flinglebunt]

No-one argued against preventing the accidents, just that making it into yet another law is possibly not the best way forward...

Ideally the BHS and other organisations should have taken the innitiative long ago but they never did, or if they did they only paid lip service to it. Why, forinstance, do we have a daft exception to the rules that a dressage rider above a certain level does not need a hard hat strapped on?

Hard hats are about as effective as a carrier bag if not secured so what message does that give to the youngsters? Truth is that the top end of our sport is led by dinosaurs who do not allow common sense to get in the way of tradition. If that were not the case then surely we would not even be having this discussion.

[Wally]

Legislation is not the answer, how is it going to be policed?

If I walk on the highway and get mowed down by a car driver not driving with due care and attention, what difference does it make if I am wearing hi viz or not. The driver broke the law by not driving carefully.

When I ride my motorbike I wear a hi viz jacket, a helmet and I still get the odd prat pulling out in front of me and saying "Sorry mate I didn't see you" BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T LOOK! is always my answer.

It's funny, I think there is something going far wrong with this. We wouldn't wear hi viz going for a walk , but we all seem to think that we ought to dress up like an Xmas tree when we ride and become 5 times the size we are when walking alone. Why does a horse become invisible????

[Elly Koopman]

Ideally the BHS and other organisations should have taken the innitiative long ago but they never did, or if they did they only paid lip service to it. Why, forinstance, do we have a daft exception to the rules that a dressage rider above a certain level does not need a hard hat strapped on?

Hard hats are about as effective as a carrier bag if not secured so what message does that give to the youngsters? Truth is that the top end of our sport is led by dinosaurs who do not allow common sense to get in the way of tradition. If that were not the case then surely we would not even be having this discussion.

Hmmm... and that at shows parents can sign a waiver to allow their child to ride a pony that favours it's back legs more than all four legs on the floor with a dressage topper as a hat :rolleyes:

Mind you, my instructor always said that a hunt cap was always made to measure in her day and that if it was properly fitted it wouldn't have come off any more than a skull cap - the only difference is that the skull cap would have strangled you despite saving your skull, whereas the hunt cap would have saved your skull and then come off :eek:

But a law wouldn't necessarily change this happening. Lack of insurance payout though might :o

[Elly Koopman]

... but we all seem to think that we ought to dress up like an Xmas tree when we ride

But then we'd be negligable because we'd caused a distraction :D

[Wally]

This is something I am abivalent about, I do wear hi-viz, I make sure I have the approproate competence certificates for riding and driving on the road, BUT, to make a law and take away the basic right to use the highway unless wearing designated clothing is not the answer. It is an absolute right in law for a horse and cart/horse and rider/leader to use the road, and motor vehicles must act appropriately, as must all road users......but please no more laws........

[Elly Koopman]

What do you suggest?

Riding schools for a start - how many people who learnt at a RS got told to put on a hi-viz vest when they went out for their hack? Maybe if RS started doing this then it would start to become ingrained, like the knowledge of riding. You can even get them printed with the name of the riding school on - advertising and safety in one go :D

Learner drivers should have to complete a certain amount of hours on back lanes and have it encompassed into their test if necessary. Not just because of horses, but because of farm machinery, livestock driving on foot, deer (:eek:), mud, narrow lanes etc. Even if you live in the inner depths of London, you can still get out into the green lanes of the big wilderness - you might have to drive longer than say, someone in Scotland but it's possible.

And maybe the insurance companies should issue a hi-viz vest for every policy they have, provide funding for education/awareness etc. Afterall, it is in their interests as the less accidents they have to pay out on, the more money they make :rolleyes:

[Elly Koopman]

This is something I am abivalent about, I do wear hi-viz, I make sure I have the approproate competence certificates for riding and driving on the road, BUT, to make a law and take away the basic right to use the highway unless wearing designated clothing is not the answer. It is an absolute right in law for a horse and cart/horse and rider/leader to use the road, and motor vehicles must act appropriately, as must all road users......but please no more laws........

Wasn't there a thread on here the other day about priority of horses over cars etc. Didn't someone find out that actually horses have right of way or something? If this is the case then it comes back to the point that maybe the onus lies more on vehicles, than the horse/rider?

[Rhein]

If I walk on the highway and get mowed down by a car driver not driving with due care and attention, what difference does it make if I am wearing hi viz or not.
Absolutely none (in terms of injury). But if you had been wearing high viz - it may never have happened in the first place :confused:
One of the reasons I wear a seatbelt is to protect me from the idiotic antics of other drivers should they hit me.

The wearing of hard hats could be policed in the same way as seatbelts and motorcycle helmets? Some will be prosecuted and some will not.
I don't actually believe it is the fear of being caught that makes most people put their seatbelt on when they get in the car.

At the end of the day, if you are seriously injured and suffer a severe head injury it doesn't matter which road user was in the right or in the wrong. It doesn't matter whether horse have a right or way or not. You won't be in the position to be indignant about your rights.

I don't see this as about who is right or wrong, or whether car drivers should be more careful (of course they should and they should be severly prosecuted for negligent driving). To my mind it is about reducing mobidity and mortality and reducing the amount of devastation and suffering :confused:

[Elly Koopman]

But there obviously are enough people not wearing seatbelts for the goverment to spend millions of advertising to tell us to wear them :confused:

Statistically how many accidents with horses happen on straight stretches with good visability? If a high proportion, then yes hi-viz could help save lives. But if they are on bends or compromised roads with poor visability options - which is what I think they are - than I'm with Wally, hi-viz will only make the image in the drivers memory more vivid as he recalls hitting you.

[Rhein]

But there obviously are enough people not wearing seatbelts for the goverment to spend millions of advertising to tell us to wear them :confused:
I fail to grasp your point?

I don't think your question regarding high viz and straight roads can be answered. But there is plenty of evidence to show that high viz enables road users to see you far earlier than if you were not wearing it (and enable people to find you if you have an accident whilst out hacking).
Surely if it helps to save lives that has to be a good thing:confused:

I do think the question of wearing high viz clothing is not as cut and dried as the wearing of hard hats.
Certainly I would rather see someone wearing a hard hat and no high viz, than high viz and no hard hat.

[Elly Koopman]

I don't see this as about who is right or wrong, or whether car drivers should be more careful (of course they should and they should be severly prosecuted for negligent driving). To my mind it is about reducing mobidity and mortality and reducing the amount of devastation and suffering :confused:

I don't see it as about whether it is right or wrong either, and I don't think Wally does either - it's more to do with you have to address the whole picture, not just one part. If another road user doesn't know what to do if they see you glowing like the Irish Sea, then you're wearing it all in vain.

Yes, people should be wearing the correct hat all the time, and the various 'icons' in the horse world could help immensely with this by setting an example. Ironically I wouldn't have a real issue with a law being passed to make people wear one (in fairness I was always under the impression that anyone under 14 is supposed to anyway, but apparently this isn't the case), as that is about your safety without anyone else or roads coming into the equation. I would however have an issue with being told to wear hi-viz when at the moment I don't think the proof is there that it will help save my life :o

[Elly Koopman]

Certainly I would rather see someone wearing a hard hat and no high viz, than high viz and no hard hat.

Yay - we agree :D

[Wally]

I still wear hi viz, even though my right leg is still bolted together, didn't do me any good wearing it. The woman who hit me should not have been driving due to cataracts........I'm sure there's a law about visual imparement and driving a car.... ;) :D :D

Have to say my skid lid saved me, it had massive streaks of paint from the womans car all over it. I still remember the look on the womans face as I sailed over her windscreen :D :D She saw me then :D :D

[Wotsit]

I agree with Wally that this is the thin end of the wedge. You're already likely to need to have government approval to ferry your kid's friends to and from their riding lessons and this is the kind of thing that will end up going to extremes like that.

I'm far more a believer in peer pressure. None of my friends use a mobile while driving - and we didn't do before the law came in - because we all thought it was a stupid thing to do.

In all honesty, I think that as more and more people think it's stupid to ride without a hat or high viz people without it will become the exceptions (they already are in some ways when it comes to hats). Although, I have yet to convince one of my friends she's silly not to wear a hat (she only wears it when I'm around to placate me I reckon) but I'll get there in the end!

[Elly Koopman]

I fail to grasp your point?

My point was that it is a law that is born out of safety, but enough people are still choosing to ignore it for the need to have the goverment to remind us that it should be done. A law just seems a rather large exercise for something that in comparison to the number of drivers, is relatively small - which is my reasoning for looking at alternative measure to get the message across...

[Wotsit]

Also, I suspect the people that you want to get wearing it by legislating will ignore the law stating that it is their right to wear what they want...

[Rhein]

I still wear hi viz, even though my right leg is still bolted together, didn't do me any good wearing it.
There will always be instances when it may not help. Wearing a hard hat will not help if you suffer severe internal injuries.
But the point is, that it has been shown to save lives and next time, it just might make a difference.


........I'm sure there's a law about visual imparement and driving a car.... ;)
My grandfather was registered blind, and he still held a driving licence. He used to drive (very slowly;)) the 1/4 mile into the village once a week to get his pension, with my grandmother sitting beside him yelling "Ernie, watch out!" every few hundred yards :eek::D

[Melting Moments]

Agree 100%

But not matter what the law is you will never get my mother to wear a riding hat or hivis, thats just the way she is.

[alliersv]

I don't think we can compare ourselves with pushbikers at all - our horses can be unpredictable - a pushbike doesn't spook:rolleyes:

But surely the point of Hi Vis is nothing to do with spooking, it is to do with being seen. :confused:

[vimto92]

I see no problem with it, but at the end of the day, we shouldn't need a law or any measure that forces people to wear high vis and hats, people should be wise enough to know that their safety, and their horse's, is of paramount importance.

I honestly don't think it is a case of high vis OR drivers driving more carefully either. If it is pitch black and your on a 40mph+ road, or a very narrow country lane with hedges and whatnot, and you aren't wearing high viz you are extremely foolish. It is not always the drivers fault, and it certainly isn't just down to the driver to make sure you are seen.

[alliersv]

I always wear my hi viz these days ...

but I hate being told what to do.
Personal responsbility is an important skill
as is personal accountability.

Totally agree. Also, I should perhaps clarify my statement earlier in the thread using cyclists as a comparison. I was referring to HV and not helmets. I must admit I don't wear a helmet on a pushbike but always do on the horse.
I've also just realised that I am a massive hypocrite as I don't wear HV on the bike either for the 2 or 3 times a year I can be arsed to ride it :o

[flinglebunt]

Legislation is not the answer, how is it going to be policed?

If I walk on the highway and get mowed down by a car driver not driving with due care and attention, what difference does it make if I am wearing hi viz or not. The driver broke the law by not driving carefully.

When I ride my motorbike I wear a hi viz jacket, a helmet and I still get the odd prat pulling out in front of me and saying "Sorry mate I didn't see you" BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T LOOK! is always my answer.

It's funny, I think there is something going far wrong with this. We wouldn't wear hi viz going for a walk , but we all seem to think that we ought to dress up like an Xmas tree when we ride and become 5 times the size we are when walking alone. Why does a horse become invisible????

Two points here:

Firstly I beleive that any motorist hitting a rider should, by default, be deemed rosponsible for the accident in just the same way as you would be if you ran someone over on a pedestrian crossing. I have little patience for motorists who cannot drive sensibly in a country lane.

Secondly, horses and riders do become invicible under certain lighting conditions. I have seen many examples of this over the summer on the local roads. Wearing sunglasses makes this even more so which is why I no longer wear them in country lanes. A horse is a living thing but unlike a car it does not even have the benifit of reflective light clusters and number plates.

[Dooley]

I don't have a problem with Hi-Viz at all and will wear it if I deem it necessary, but I like to think that I am capable of making a suitable decision without having to be told to do something. I also have and will continue to accept responsibility for something that arises out of my decision. If I make myself a vegetable because I wasn't wearing my hat they I will accept that I made a mistake.

Have to disagree with you there. It is not just for the rider's sake that I believe Hi-Viz should be worn. It is for the horse's sake too and not to forget the drivers who can't see you without it!
I would be absolutely gutted, devastated, and might well be unable to live a normal life if me not seeing you and your horse early enough had caused you to become the vegetable you mention. You wil be a vegetable and therefore not in a position to "accept" you made a mistake. I, as the driver, however, will be having to live with it forever after. Not to mention the damage the horse might do to himself and to other roadusers once you've fallen off.

I'd rather not have to live with all of that bagage just because you thought it would be ok not to wear Hi-Viz.
A hard hat is about you hurting yourself or not, hi-viz is for the benefit of others too.
Much more so than seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, which ARE compulsory.

I would rather hope there was no need to make it a legal requirement, just a common sense approach from all riders. But so many people on here who I think are good sensible nice (etc )people (like EK) don't seem to agree that maybe a law would be good after all.

[I've Arrived_]

I don't think it should be required by law, especially not hi-viz.

It's the person's choice of what they wear, and you should let them get on with it tbh...

[Dooley]

I don't think it should be required by law, especially not hi-viz.

It's the person's choice of what they wear, and you should let them get on with it tbh...


But that's almost like saying to a car driver that they can choose whether to use their headlights in the dark.. it's their choice. Imagine the carnage ! Now think again...

[Riley Roo]

Have to disagree with you there. It is not just for the rider's sake that I believe Hi-Viz should be worn. It is for the horse's sake too and not to forget the drivers who can't see you without it!
I would be absolutely gutted, devastated, and might well be unable to live a normal life if me not seeing you and your horse early enough had caused you to become the vegetable you mention. You wil be a vegetable and therefore not in a position to "accept" you made a mistake. I, as the driver, however, will be having to live with it forever after. Not to mention the damage the horse might do to himself and to other roadusers once you've fallen off.

I'd rather not have to live with all of that bagage just because you thought it would be ok not to wear Hi-Viz.
A hard hat is about you hurting yourself or not, hi-viz is for the benefit of others too.
Much more so than seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, which ARE compulsory.

I would rather hope there was no need to make it a legal requirement, just a common sense approach from all riders. But so many people on here who I think are good sensible nice (etc )people (like EK) don't seem to agree that maybe a law would be good after all.

Agree with this ^^^^^^


YOU make the choice to go out onto the road NOT your horse. The least you can do is your upmost to protect them.

Some people may argue that they should not be told what they can and can't do - do they agree that their horse has this choice too? :confused: I didn't think so...

It amazes me how people go on about civil liberties and the like - you could argue, therefore, that the law on seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, lights on bicycles, lighst on cars etc is against your civil liberties too. Why complain about something designed to protect you and your horse?

You may say it is my choice and if i become a vegetable then i will have to accept i made a mistake but your 'mistake' will ruin a lot of people's lives - not least the person who hit you but your family, friends and the drain on public spending that would be used to look after you. Why should tax payers pay for your 'choice'?

Hi vis and hats make sense - i think riders, cyclists, ramblers, dog walkers etc should have to wear hi viz at night and in bad visibility. I am by no means taking away the driver's responsibility or blame but any chance to prevent an accident should not be dismissed as ludicrous because it contravenes civil liberties. What about your horse's civil liberties?

[Elly Koopman]

Hmm...Not once have I said that I don't wear Hi-viz. And yet it has been presumed that since I don't agree with the idea of a law to make it a legal requirement - I don't?

I'm very lucky that I don't 'have' to wear it as I don't have any roads as such to ride on. I do however have to cross a road to get my horses in and out of the field and for which in winter I do have hi-viz/reflective vest, flashing LEDS (much to the horses horror as apparently they might abduct her and whisk her off with the aliens :rolleyes:) and the horse has reflective strips on her rug and headcollar.

As for being seen out hacking, I suppose I could wear a tabard - but then I do normally make a point of wearing light coloured clothing (winter I wear a jacket that has reflective bits on) and I always tell my OH the route I'm taking.

But I still don't think making it law will help :o

[Riley Roo]

Hmm...Not once have I said that I don't wear Hi-viz. And yet it has been presumed that since I don't agree with the idea of a law to make it a legal requirement - I don't?




Sorry i wasn't aiming my comment at you EK :)

I just don't see what the problem is with it being made law?

[I've Arrived_]

But that's almost like saying to a car driver that they can choose whether to use their headlights in the dark.. it's their choice. Imagine the carnage ! Now think again...

I'd rather not, as my opinion is set thank you. Then again, driving without headlights in the dark is incredibly stupid but if they want to do it, let them.

[charmy]

Im not for this being made in to a law i will wear hi viz if i deem its necessary and i will also not wear it its a matter of personal choice and to let this government interfere any further in our lives is just asking for trouble.

I will go out without a hat and hi viz its my choice and thats the way it should stay!!!

[cloudandmatrix]

seems sensible to me- i wear high vis tabrd and pony has ecersise rug, neckband an will be getting spats- its just as important for horse to have it- at the very least put a neckband on- what if the horse ran off and coudlnt be seen?

[Chip]

For those who would like to see wearing hi-viz law, for cyclst, bikers and horse ridesr/drivers - there was a petition on No 10 a year or two ago, I remember that it got very very few signatures. 'We' are being told in so many ways what we can or cannot do that I believe peoples ability to think for themselves is diminishing.

[s4sugar]

I still wear hi viz, even though my right leg is still bolted together, didn't do me any good wearing it. The woman who hit me should not have been driving due to cataracts........I'm sure there's a law about visual imparement and driving a car.... ;) :D :D

Now this is a good thought Wally.
Why aren't there compulsory eye tests every few years for drivers? Easy enough to arrange, not a great cost and would save millions.

I always wear some hi vis / reflective if I ride, drive or lead a horse on the road but I find that when riding anything over about 15'2 of a heavy hunter type a Sam Brown belt over black or navy gets a wider berth than any bright colours -I wonder why?