Horses On The Roads - What's the Law?

[simer553]

singlecoil said:

We can all take the opportunity to put forward what we personally think about the situation we have been discussing, but the big question now has got to be not what you think about it, or I, or the OP or his son, but what the court will think about it.

Agreed, but the court needs to take into account the root cause of the whole incident. My wife and I own two horses and she has 27 years experience as an owner and rider. We rode our horses on roads in Anglesey in North Wales (Very Narrow with high hedges) and Derbyshire High Peak (around Wirksworth and Middleton) even very briefly (for about 200 yards) on the A6 near Cromford (Biker central to all those who know it). Never once did we get into a confrontation with other road users as we applied a common sense (give way to other road users as they are driving a tonne of metal (or fibreglass) with seat belts and airbags. the half tonne of flesh we we sitting on tended not to be fitted with such safety features and as a result, the simple rule is that you keep your ears open and get out of the way whenever you can!!

[King Fisher]

STHi said:

King Fisher said:

A TVR is made of fibreglass; have you seen what a horse can do to a fibreglass car

No.

King Fisher said:

And yes, if a pedestrian came near his car in a threatening way, he would drive himself away from danger; his car is his pride and joy.

OK, but that's really going to mess up his defence. As he can't claim that his car is more important than another person, no matter what the circumstances.

King Fisher said:

Finally, the witness states she was 18 feet away from the incident. Evidence we have compiled shows her residence as being 60 metres from where the incident took place. She also keeps horses and is a well known member of the horse riding community.

Too much Perry Mason. Does she state she was in her house? Maybe she was in the front garden. As for the fact she rides horses Does she drive a car too? Jesus wept.

No, he cannot claim his car is more important than a person. However, when he is sat IN that car, which the horse is now coming towards in an uncontrolled manner, surely you can realise that he felt that not only his car, but he himself, was in danger? A TVR is a very low, plastic car. If that horse had kicked it, it could have stoved the door in, with him sat behind it, or worse sat on the car, with him in it. He felt threatened, so he left at a speed that got him out of that danger.

Also, in reply to some of the posts further down the page, yes, the horse riders decided to pull him over, then shout at him for going too fast, when he told them he was doing nothing wrong, they abused him, so he told one of them to 'ps off'. Hardly the crime of the century in my eyes.

[singlecoil]

simer553 said:

Agreed, but the court needs to take into account the root cause of the whole incident.

We would like to think they would, but they may not see it that way. They may feel that the riders were quite entitled to ask the car to stop, and to explain to the driver that his car was too loud for the circumstances. Replying to the court that it was ok for the car to be noisy because it is a TVR isn't going to help, I reckon. If anything, I should think it would make matters worse.

[Goaty Bill]

simer553 said:

Agreed, but the court needs to take into account the root cause of the whole incident. My wife and I own two horses and she has 27 years experience as an owner and rider. We rode our horses on roads in Anglesey in North Wales (Very Narrow with high hedges) and Derbyshire High Peak (around Wirksworth and Middleton) even very briefly (for about 200 yards) on the A6 near Cromford (Biker central to all those who know it). Never once did we get into a confrontation with other road users as we applied a common sense (give way to other road users as they are driving a tonne of metal (or fibreglass) with seat belts and airbags. the half tonne of flesh we we sitting on tended not to be fitted with such safety features and as a result, the simple rule is that you keep your ears open and get out of the way whenever you can!!

In my experience you are the average, and indeed the predominant 'type' of horse owner / rider.
One that gives respect to other road users, and does not assume everyone else is crazy and out to kill all horses and riders.
It is both a matter of common courtesy, and and as you point out; self preservation.

I do hope you receive the same courtesy and respect in return from drivers.

For my part, as previously stated, I have lived in a country environment with a substantial number of horses on the roads for 6+ years.
I have never had a reasonable cause for complaint against any of them, and have never had an unreasonable reaction to my approaching and driving passed them.
Quite the contrary. Polite waves or nods are usually exchanged as recognition of each party being shown common courtesy.

You said previously;

simer553 said:

"A TVR - Jesus, they should have heard that coming a mile off and GOT OUT OF THE WAY"

And that has been my experience; the riders hear you coming a long way off and often stop/slow/move to be extra safe.
I am sure they do exactly the same for the tractors that pass, and that make as much/more noise as a TVR.
My neighbour certainly has at least one tractor that is louder than my car. When he 'hits the loud pedal' it's the trumpets of Jericho experience.
A loud vehicle is at the least an 'early warning system' to other road users on a winding country road, including walkers/cyclists/runners. Being approached silently from behind would surely be worse.


I am sure a few (maybe many) "Horse Nazis" exist.
I think the OP's son has been somewhat unlucky in managing to find some.


edited for spelling

[singlecoil]

hora said:

On the top of Rivington Pike a couple of weeks ago one rider had a 'frisky' horse so I blocked both lanes behind them and hit the hazard sand followed at a slow walking pace.

I'm more than happy to be held up than a rider to be thrown 6/7feet onto her head after I've disapeared on my way.

It's not really the ideal place for a frisky horse, though.

Some horse riders seem to emulate the characterisitics of some cyclists, inasmuch as they expect to be able to do whatever they want, while other road users watch out for them. I suppose that's ok most of the time, if perhaps a little presumptious.

[singlecoil]

hora said:

Frisky as in neying, swishing tail, being a right handful for the rider. (not randy!).

As horse riders tend to be easy on the eye I'll always look out for them

Is that the same as neighing?

I'm glad to hear that you will look out for them, but I think they are daft if, having a horse that is prone to play up, they rely on every other driver they might encounter to do the same.

[Orillion]

King Fisher said:

Hardly the crime of the century in my eyes.

Does he have a date for his trial?

[King Fisher]

Orillion said:

Does he have a date for his trial?

23rd November is the hearing, but his solicitor believes it will be adjourned as he has to apply for legal aid (he's in full time education and only has a part time job). The solicitor said perhaps they could get the charge moved down to a section 5 public order offence, and then perhaps he could just plead guilty, pay a fine, and be done with the whole matter? It's stressing him out something rotten.

[vonhosen]

King Fisher said:

Orillion said:

Does he have a date for his trial?

23rd November is the hearing, but his solicitor believes it will be adjourned as he has to apply for legal aid (he's in full time education and only has a part time job). The solicitor said perhaps they could get the charge moved down to a section 5 public order offence, and then perhaps he could just plead guilty, pay a fine, and be done with the whole matter? It's stressing him out something rotten.

They could still ban him from driving for the Sec 5.

[singlecoil]

King Fisher said:

The solicitor said perhaps they could get the charge moved down to a section 5 public order offence, and then perhaps he could just plead guilty, pay a fine, and be done with the whole matter? It's stressing him out something rotten.

Sounds like a good idea to me, but I'm no expert. Is there any mechanism for actually negotiating something with the prosecution?

[grahamw48]

Why oh why is this trivial nonsense going to court anyway ?

My god there are people being robbed or raped and less chance of a court hearing.

[STHi]

hora said:

On the top of Rivington Pike a couple of weeks ago one rider had a 'frisky' horse so I blocked both lanes behind them and hit the hazard sand followed at a slow walking pace.

I'm more than happy to be held up than a rider to be thrown 6/7feet onto her head after I've disapeared on my way.

You drove up to the Pike? I'm surprised that there weren't a lot more giving you grief for doing that

[singlecoil]

grahamw48 said:

My god there are people being robbed or raped and less chance of a court hearing.

Well, in this case the person accused was easily identified, I expect if robbers or rapists were as easily identified they would be more likely to be in court rather than less.

[grahamw48]

I hope you remember that next time someone YOU KNOW punches you in the face and the police do their best, but CPS decides there is not enough evidence to prosecute.

[singlecoil]

grahamw48 said:

I hope you remember that next time someone YOU KNOW punches you in the face and the police do their best, but CPS decides there is not enough evidence to prosecute.

Yes,I expect that happens all the time

[herewego]

Just my uninformed view from looking at the earlier link. S4A seems to be targeted abuse whereas S5 seems to be causing a general ruckus.

On the other hand S4A seems to require more that one instance of abuse:-
"Threats, abuse or insults made more than once but on same occasion against the same person e.g. while following down the street"

If use of the car could be considered as threatening that it could get really serious:-
"Weapon brandished or used or threats against vulnerable victim – course of conduct over longer period"

[King Fisher]

singlecoil said:

Sounds like a good idea to me, but I'm no expert. Is there any mechanism for actually negotiating something with the prosecution?

Yes, his solicitor can speak to the CPS.

To those stating he may be banned, how likely is this? He'd lose his job and his college place.

[otolith]

Seems bizarre to me that you can flag a stranger down in the street, have a go at them, and then when they tell you to "ps off", have them prosecuted. I can't help but suspect that the ages and social standing of the parties involved have influenced the way this has been dealt with.

[singlecoil]

otolith said:

Seems bizarre to me that you can flag a stranger down in the street, have a go at them, and then when they tell you to "ps off", have them prosecuted. I can't help but suspect that the ages and social standing of the parties involved have influenced the way this has been dealt with.

I expect it may well have, plus the fact that there are four of them (counting the 'independant' witness).

However, the case as I understand it is that they heard the noisy car coming, and flagged it down in order to (as it will be put) point out to the driver that the car was unreasonably noisy and not suitable for the sort of road in question (because of the likelihood of encountering horses). Now they couldn't require it to stop, so the driver stopping would be seen as compliance, and therefore not part of the case against him.

As a result of the discussion he abused them and drove off briskly, spinning the wheels? and certainly making a lot more noise, which was likely to startle the horses and result in either they, or their riders, or both, being injured. It looks like quite a strong case from where I'm sitting.

If there is some way of the driver admitting that he was in the wrong (which may well be all the complainants want) without a contested trial, then that's the way I would advise him to go. No matter how unfair it seems to him.

[King Fisher]

singlecoil said:

I expect it may well have, plus the fact that there are four of them (counting the 'independant' witness).

However, the case as I understand it is that they heard the noisy car coming, and flagged it down in order to (as it will be put) point out to the driver that the car was unreasonably noisy and not suitable for the sort of road in question (because of the likelihood of encountering horses). Now they couldn't require it to stop, so the driver stopping would be seen as compliance, and therefore not part of the case against him.

As a result of the discussion he abused them and drove off briskly, spinning the wheels? and certainly making a lot more noise, which was likely to startle the horses and result in either they, or their riders, or both, being injured. It looks like quite a strong case from where I'm sitting.

If there is some way of the driver admitting that he was in the wrong (which may well be all the complainants want) without a contested trial, then that's the way I would advise him to go. No matter how unfair it seems to him.

Surely the fact he had half a ton of out-of-control horse bearing towards his car with NO SIPS should be reason alone for him to get the hell out of there in a hurry? Or is he supposed to just sit and risk being injured/killed by the animal for fear of spooking it slightly in an act of self preservation? Also, they say he spun his wheels for 3 seconds; can anybody just give an idea of how long the number 11s would be on the road? As I went back and checked if there were any, and there's nothing there whatsoever.

Finally, to those stating my view is blinkered, perhaps if I had not suffered similar abuse on the same stretches of road from the horse riders, I would be less inclined to believe my son. However, seeing as I have been abused on numerous occasions, I am inclined to believe that he is indeed the victim of an on going vendetta here.