Horses On The Roads - What's the Law?
Discussion
King Fisher said:
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.
Whether or not your view is blinkered (nice choice of metaphor for this thread, BTW) is not the current issue, or shouldn't be IMO. What really matters is taking whatever steps possible to keep this out of court, or to get the charge reduced as far as possible by co-operating.No matter how strong his case seems to you, and no matter what actually happened, the problem is how it's all going to sound in court, and it's not going to sound good from your son's POV.
singlecoil said:
Whether or not your view is blinkered (nice choice of metaphor for this thread, BTW) is not the current issue, or shouldn't be IMO. What really matters is taking whatever steps possible to keep this out of court, or to get the charge reduced as far as possible by co-operating.
No matter how strong his case seems to you, and no matter what actually happened, the problem is how it's all going to sound in court, and it's not going to sound good from your son's POV.
Well he's been summoned, he has to go unless his solicitor can sort it by next week. No matter how strong his case seems to you, and no matter what actually happened, the problem is how it's all going to sound in court, and it's not going to sound good from your son's POV.
King Fisher said:
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.
No it's not. How does any of that justify the verbal abuse? You keep forgetting what the charge is and what it relates to. It is NOTHING to do with the car and EVERYTHING to do with the way he conducted himself.Rubber on the road lasts for a couple of days at most before other roadusers wear it away; a downpour would clear it overnight.
King Fisher said:
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.
And repeating this in court would land him in deep s
t. You're effectively saying that as his father and role model, he has grown up being shown that being abusive towards horse riders is totally acceptable.Why can you not see this, as I've pointed it out numerous times?
STHi said:
King Fisher said:
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.
And repeating this in court would land him in deep st. You're effectively saying that as his father and role model, he has grown up being shown that being abusive towards horse riders is totally acceptable.Why can you not see this, as I've pointed it out numerous times?
singlecoil said:
Where does it say that KF is abusive towards horse riders? It clearly states abuse FROM horse riders, not TO.
From 29th SeptemberKing Fisher said:
Well, it's over and done with. He got a solicitor who drives an MX5, whose brother-in-law had restored a TVR, and whose business partner is looking at buying a porsche or TVR; he knew his cars, and fought my son's corner well.
According to the 3 horse riders, my son flashed his lights repeatedly, pulled up, swore at them, and then drove off spinning his wheels for 'at least 3 seconds'. An independent witness said she saw a car spinning its wheels, and his car driving off at speed.
Firstly, if my son did spin his wheels, where are the number 11s on the road? Surely a 3 second tyre spin would leave considerable marks on the road? There are none, I've checked.
Secondly; the independent witness said she 'ran out of her caravan thinking there had been a crash' - her caravan is set back from the road by about 30-40 metres. If she ran out of her caravan to see the commotion, she must be one hell of a fast runner to see him 'spinning his wheels', if he only spun them for 3 seconds? It just doesn't fit together right. Also, the entrance to her drive is around 40 metres from the scene of the incident, set on the corner that my son had been accused of 'going too fast for'. He admits he drove off fairly quickly once he rounded the bend, but the horses were no longer in sight.
What makes it worse is that my son now realises he knows the brother of one of the horse riders, and the independent witness is a woman who he had returned her cat to after it nearly got run over in the middle of the road. Some thanks, eh?
Good enough to show that the issue isn't his "loud" car, its his actions.According to the 3 horse riders, my son flashed his lights repeatedly, pulled up, swore at them, and then drove off spinning his wheels for 'at least 3 seconds'. An independent witness said she saw a car spinning its wheels, and his car driving off at speed.
Firstly, if my son did spin his wheels, where are the number 11s on the road? Surely a 3 second tyre spin would leave considerable marks on the road? There are none, I've checked.
Secondly; the independent witness said she 'ran out of her caravan thinking there had been a crash' - her caravan is set back from the road by about 30-40 metres. If she ran out of her caravan to see the commotion, she must be one hell of a fast runner to see him 'spinning his wheels', if he only spun them for 3 seconds? It just doesn't fit together right. Also, the entrance to her drive is around 40 metres from the scene of the incident, set on the corner that my son had been accused of 'going too fast for'. He admits he drove off fairly quickly once he rounded the bend, but the horses were no longer in sight.
What makes it worse is that my son now realises he knows the brother of one of the horse riders, and the independent witness is a woman who he had returned her cat to after it nearly got run over in the middle of the road. Some thanks, eh?
EDIT: OK I accept that KF hasn't admitted it, but it's a reasonable inference and would definitely be questioned if he claimed to be abused as to how he responded. He does without doubt have a bee in his bonnet about horses on the road, irrespective of his son's experience.
Edited by STHi on Thursday 17th November 20:04
singlecoil said:
Is it? I don't think so. And to ponder the abused person's response without considering first the person who started the abuse seems spectacularly unfair.
Ok, but if he were to stand in Court in his son's defence and state he was abused by horse riders, then I'm damn sure the prosecution would probe a little deeper and try to make this inference a little more explicit and try to get him a little riled at the same time.STHi said:
singlecoil said:
Is it? I don't think so. And to ponder the abused person's response without considering first the person who started the abuse seems spectacularly unfair.
Ok, but if he were to stand in Court in his son's defence and state he was abused by horse riders, then I'm damn sure the prosecution would probe a little deeper and try to make this inference a little more explicit and try to get him a little riled at the same time.Having said that, I would quite like to be in his position if I was asked how I had reacted to abuse towards myself. I think the prosecution would wish they hadn't started down that particular line of questioning. Even the idea of it is pretty silly-
"What did you say after he called you a
?" 
King Fisher said:
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.
You really are in a parallel universe. As I said before, the correct action would have been to turn off the engine and allow the rider to get the horse under control. To suggest that someone in a car made such a detailed split second assessment of the mortal danger he was in, from a jaunty horse, whilst inside a car, whilst assessing minute detail (such as SIPS FFS) - you are in danger of appearing desperate and ludicrous.singlecoil said:
Is it likely that he would be called as a witness, though, seeing as he wasn't there?
Having said that, I would quite like to be in his position if I was asked how I had reacted to abuse towards myself. I think the prosecution would wish they hadn't started down that particular line of questioning. Even the idea of it is pretty silly-
"What did you say after he called you a?"
He seems keen to be involved, maybe just as a character witness called by his side? Having said that, I would quite like to be in his position if I was asked how I had reacted to abuse towards myself. I think the prosecution would wish they hadn't started down that particular line of questioning. Even the idea of it is pretty silly-
"What did you say after he called you a
?" Two wrongs don't make a right.
"He called me a c
, so I stabbed him in the face. Totally justified IMO" It's hardly going to help is it?
STHi said:
Good enough to show that the issue isn't his "loud" car, its his actions.
EDIT: OK I accept that KF hasn't admitted it, but it's a reasonable inference and would definitely be questioned if he claimed to be abused as to how he responded. He does without doubt have a bee in his bonnet about horses on the road, irrespective of his son's experience.
How did I respond? I simply shook my head and drove off. The reason for the abuse? The fact I was in my TVR, with the roof down, listening to some music. I crept past a horse at 25mph, and the horse rider shouted that I shouldn't have my music on whilst I have my roof down as it made her horse nervous. They have a vendetta against sports cars.EDIT: OK I accept that KF hasn't admitted it, but it's a reasonable inference and would definitely be questioned if he claimed to be abused as to how he responded. He does without doubt have a bee in his bonnet about horses on the road, irrespective of his son's experience.
Edited by STHi on Thursday 17th November 20:04
Also, in response the Mr GrimNasty post, as I have already stated, my son felt extremely vunerable, faced with a large out of control animal on a narrow country lane. How would you have reacted?
P.S He has a character reference from a police officer who's been out with him in his car, and also taught him at college for the last two years.
King Fisher said:
How did I respond? I simply shook my head and drove off. The reason for the abuse? The fact I was in my TVR, with the roof down, listening to some music. I crept past a horse at 25mph, and the horse rider shouted that I shouldn't have my music on whilst I have my roof down as it made her horse nervous. They have a vendetta against sports cars.
There we have it. That's not a great way for you to defend your son's position. You come across as someone who believes that he owns the road and other roadusers (especially horse riders) are something to be dismissed and treated as an underclass.I have no love for horseriders (anymore) nor do I defend them, however IME they have been courteous and often wave by way of thanks as I slow down and roll off the throttle on my (very, very loud) bike when I see them on country roads.
STHi said:
singlecoil said:
Is it likely that he would be called as a witness, though, seeing as he wasn't there?
Having said that, I would quite like to be in his position if I was asked how I had reacted to abuse towards myself. I think the prosecution would wish they hadn't started down that particular line of questioning. Even the idea of it is pretty silly-
"What did you say after he called you a?"
He seems keen to be involved, maybe just as a character witness called by his side? Having said that, I would quite like to be in his position if I was asked how I had reacted to abuse towards myself. I think the prosecution would wish they hadn't started down that particular line of questioning. Even the idea of it is pretty silly-
"What did you say after he called you a
?" Two wrongs don't make a right.
"He called me a c
, so I stabbed him in the face. Totally justified IMO" It's hardly going to help is it?
singlecoil said:
I must have missed the bit about the stabbing, sorry, which page was that? Your point does seem rather weak without the exaggeration, if you don't mind me saying so.
Ooops, I forgot pedantry counts.If the OP is called as a character witness for his son by his son's defence and states that he has been abused by horse riders. Then the prosecution will probe further. They may even ask the question you suggested. If he responds in an aggressive manner (and barristers are very good at getting emotional reactions), then it will do more harm than good. Even if he doesn't claim to have reacted aggressively, even if he says he "shook his head and drove off", his tone & mannerisms will be played upon to suggest his demeanour is one of being dismissive of other roadusers and hardly a great character witness.
Clear enough?
This thread is painful in all honesty.
The OP is defensive of his son, as any father would be; the horse riders have probably overstated their case.
However, the Court's job is to try to discover what really happened and whether the charge can be proven. As there is an independent witness then the OPs son is up against it. The sooner he accepts this and stops trying to win over the PH SP&L forum the better, as we are not the jury (there won't be ne in this case anyway). His son is in deep s
t if the consequences of a guilty verdict are to be believed.He needs to find a way out of it, not go all Perry Mason, or look for the shooter on the grassy knoll. It makes for good TV but rarely works out well in real life.
OP, you seem to be taking everything your son says as gospel. I can just see now. Do you genuinely believe that he was flagged down and abused for no reason? I can just see him asking "dear woman, what is your problem on this fine day?"
It's far more likely that he passed to close and fast, shouting abuse along the lines of "get off the f'ing road" and put the hammer down in a fit of rage. As someone who has spent his whole life around horses and as a cyclist I see this almost on a daily basis. It's the whole "you don't pay road tax" mentality..
It's far more likely that he passed to close and fast, shouting abuse along the lines of "get off the f'ing road" and put the hammer down in a fit of rage. As someone who has spent his whole life around horses and as a cyclist I see this almost on a daily basis. It's the whole "you don't pay road tax" mentality..
S10 GTA said:
OP, you seem to be taking everything your son says as gospel. I can just see now. Do you genuinely believe that he was flagged down and abused for no reason? I can just see him asking "dear woman, what is your problem on this fine day?"
Father in "believing his own son over people he believes to have a grudge" shock. S10 GTA said:
OP, you seem to be taking everything your son says as gospel. I can just see now. Do you genuinely believe that he was flagged down and abused for no reason? I can just see him asking "dear woman, what is your problem on this fine day?"
It's far more likely that he passed to close and fast, shouting abuse along the lines of "get off the f'ing road" and put the hammer down in a fit of rage. As someone who has spent his whole life around horses and as a cyclist I see this almost on a daily basis. It's the whole "you don't pay road tax" mentality..
Speculating on the truth of the OP's son's statements to his father is utterly pointless and counter productive.It's far more likely that he passed to close and fast, shouting abuse along the lines of "get off the f'ing road" and put the hammer down in a fit of rage. As someone who has spent his whole life around horses and as a cyclist I see this almost on a daily basis. It's the whole "you don't pay road tax" mentality..
Speculating on the truth of the OP's statements to the forum is utterly pointless and counter productive.
Attempting to insert our own experiences into the son's incident is utterly pointless and counter productive.
Although I appreciate that many people probably aren't clever enough to realise it (solicitor and barrister friends have in the past confirmed this to me via some quite humorous anecdotes); telling your legal representative a 'pack of lies' will cause you more trouble in the end.
A sensible person would realise that their best hope of good advice and good defence is to tell the truth to their legal representative and omit or colour nothing.
Neither the OP or his son 'sound' stupid to me.
I am sure they realise the point is not to convince us, but to convince the court.
Neither the OP's statement, nor his posts including excerpts from witness statements suggest anything other than his son being 'flagged down' first, and actually coming to a full stop before any abuse by either party ensued.
Why anyone would; "pass close and fast, shouting abuse along the lines of "get off the f'ing road" and put the hammer down in a fit of rage. " is utterly beyond my comprehension, but as you say it, I must take your word that you have experienced something like it.
I am sorry you have had to deal with that sort of idiot.
The world seems to be quite densely populated with the "you don't pay road tax" idiots along with the "horses were here first" idiots and cyclists with the "we are greener so it should all be ours" idiots. But my key word each time is "idiots".
Thankfully, as I've stated before, we seem to have few if any of those idiots where I live.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff