# right of way



## bazza (15 March 2007)

can anyone answer a legal question please ?. on a road who has the right of way, the car or the horse? i have heard that it is the horse, can anyone clarify


----------



## ColleenIsh (15 March 2007)

im pretty sure its the horse


----------



## the watcher (15 March 2007)

I am not aware that either has priority, although the Highway Code makes various recommendations to drivers about how to drive in the vicinity of horses.

As a general point, the concept of having a 'right of way' is a dangerous one. Taking the example of two cars, one travelling along a main road, the second waiting to turn out of a side road where road markings indicate that they must give way..you would think that the car turning out of the side road would automatically be entirely at fault in the event of a collision, wouldn't you..because the car on the main road had a 'right of way'

Not entirely true, every one of use has a responsibility to mitigate risk to others, so if the car on the main road could have reduced speed to avoid collision, and the driver failed to do so, that driver could also be prosecuted.....

My point being that even if you  *do* have the right of way in some circumstances this will be of little use to you in your hospital bed with your horse at the vets, or gripping the rail in court.


----------



## YorksG (15 March 2007)

I absolutely agree with the watcher, my aunt, many years ago nearly had a head on collision in her car with a wagon, as she refused to swerve as a wagon came towards her on her side of the road, she was 'on her right side' . As my uncle said, very good line on a grave stone!


----------



## Spot1 (15 March 2007)

I think the classification of the road ( lane, A road etc) may have a bearing 
	
	
		
		
	


	




  but I can't assume that one road user would have particular rights over another, although certain individuals may feel they have


----------



## bazza (15 March 2007)

Thanks for that, its just that some twit in the local rag is saying that horses shouldnt be on the roads, just wanted to make a point.


----------



## fine_and_dandy (15 March 2007)

I studied law and to be honest with you, I have heard so many "chinese whispers" about who gets what it is really confusing.

I have been on the highway code web site and checked through what i thought were the relevant sections to drivers and also horse riders. at no point did i see anything that gave a blatant right of way to either party.

there is a sectionf or horse riders about the correct way to use roads and also a section for drivers with regard to road users who require particular attention. the part relating to horses is as follows:

"191: Horse riders. Be particularly careful of horses and riders, especially when overtaking. Always pass wide and slow. Horse riders are often children, so take extra care and remember riders may ride in double file when escorting a young or inexperienced horse rider. Look out for horse riders' signals and heed a request to slow down or stop. Treat all horses as a potential hazard and take great care."

so i think basically, both have equal standing, one is not more entitled to have a right of way than another, but there is consideration due by both parties, especially by drivers. 

i hope thats not confusing!!!


----------



## custard (15 March 2007)

I often get asked this as part of my job, I wont say as what.  

I think in this day and age you've got to use common sense whatever the law actually says, the Highway code is a useful reference.  It's a pity that so many never read it again having passed their driving test.

Most cars are  made of metal, weigh over a tonne and are usually driven by a non horsey person who considers their vehicle a suitable place to eat their lunch, apply make up, use the phone, talk to their kids, the list goes on. Basically anything that distracts them from the job in hand ie DRIVING the GODDAM CAR!!.  Horses on the other hand are soft and squishy with a mind of their own and make a real mess when hit by a car, trust me I've seen it first hand and very distressing it was too.

All of us need to ride 'defensively' on the road and anticipate that motorists will do the most stupid things whatever the law says and regardless of the penalties.  There is no place on the road for a 'Mexican stand Off' between car and horse.

While I'm on the subject I am sick and tired of seeing people hack out in the equivalent of camouflage gear that would fox the SAS ie navy jacket on brown horse for example.  
	
	
		
		
	


	




 The further out in the country you go the worse they get, toddling along in a world of their own thinking 500kg of flesh and bone will be seen against the backdrop of hedging and field.  Fact: the average motorist, also in a world of his/her own won't see a horse and rider til way too late, a recipe for disaster.

Sorry barryg if I sound facetious, it's not directed at you and you probably wish you had never asked but I feel much better for venting my spleen, phew!!


----------



## PeterNatt (15 March 2007)

Neither have a right of way over the other on the public highway.

I would like to agree with Custardsmum comments.

I believe that all riders should wear Hi Viz on themselves and their horses and also take the BHS Road Safety course and test.


----------



## Happytohack (16 March 2007)

[ QUOTE ]


I believe that all riders should wear Hi Viz on themselves and their horses and also take the BHS Road Safety course and test. 

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been one of my long standing campaigns.  To such an extent that I refuse to ride with anyone who is not wearing Hi Viz.  However, the majority of people local to me do not wear it as they somehow think it is admitting that they can't ride!  I have been the butt of quite a few jokes as on occasions I resemble a Christmas tree!  How do we make it mandatory to wear hi viz when hacking - whether it be on the roads or off-road?


----------



## filly190 (16 March 2007)

When I am out on the roads, I am very concious of leary people in cars that dislike the inconvience of having to pass a horse.  I just try and keep us both safe and seen by wearing high viz and always keep in the back of my mind that I may need to move quick to get out of the way of car.

In answer to your question, I am unsure of the ruling in law as each road accident published in papers has thrown up slightly different ruling.


----------



## Sparklet (16 March 2007)

Its actually the Horse ....a very old law which has not been updated.  I dont think anyone makes reference to it now though.


----------



## airedale (16 March 2007)

Interesting thing is that a good few years ago the West Midlands police did a test of all the high viz gear (tabards, rugs, rein covers, boots, stirrup lights)

I remember the conclusion was that the thing that motorists saw first was the high viz boots on the back leg of the horses - NOT the stuff on the rider.

This was because the legs of the horse were in the drivers 'eye line' whilst the rider is 'above height'

Obviously this was done before the encroachment of ever more 4x4 and people carriers with a higher driver viewpoint

I still will use the reflective brushing boots or bands round existing boots

I think most stuff too high up the horse and on the rider is less in the drivers eye line than stuff lower down to the ground


----------



## suestowford (16 March 2007)

Interesting point Airedale. I do use leg bands but will also use my tabard because I live in an area blessed with lots of hedges, and I know from seeing other riders on the road ahead that a tabard is visible over the top of most hedges. I have spotted riders ahead (who were wearing a dayglo jacket or tabard) well ahead of the time I would have seen them otherwise.


----------

