|
T.K
354 posts
47 months
|
I agree (2) a more natural fit in this case, but (1) is broad enough to capture uniform wearing alone.
If the riders are also waving down drivers or admonishing motorists..
|
|
|
The Black Flash
4,273 posts
67 months
|
DonkeyApple said: Well, this thread certainly does answer the question as to why some riders feel the need to wear a vest that in a normal world would seem excessive and silly.
PH intolerant cocksocketry matters. Cringeworthy isn't it?
|
|
|
forzaminardi
867 posts
56 months
|
10 Pence Short said: Possibly in the top 3 most stupid things I've ever read on this forum. You have no justification whatsoever for having that thought. Even if you did wrongly believe they were Police riders (which would be incredible once you got to within 50 yards), what detriment to you would that be? Ha ha, just back on here and looked back at this. You, 10 Pence Short, and Mercfunder, are distinctly lacking in a sense of humour, aren't you? As it happens, I'd say I'm more considerate than most drivers of cyclists and horse riders firstly because I'm quite a nice guy and secondly because from time to time I am a cyclist and (very) occasional horse rider. What winds me up is people assuming because you're in a car that you'd actually do something to scare the animal. It's like those "baby on board" stickers. What the hell is the point? Are you asking me to not tailgate/cut up/crash into YOUR car because you have a baby, whereas you think I'd unconcernedly tailgate/cut up/crash into ANOTHER car without a baby? What's the point of having a sign that passes at a glance for a police uniform that requests what any sensible, normal person would do anyway - i.e. drive with respect for the horse and the rider?
|
|
|
10 Pence Short
27,633 posts
86 months
|
Probably because an unfortunate number of people don't share your admirable common sense. Otherwise they wouldn't have been inspired to buy and wear them.
|
|
|
GBOBM
9 posts
33 months
|
forzaminardi said: What's the point of having a sign that passes at a glance for a police uniform that requests what any sensible, normal person would do anyway - i.e. drive with respect for the horse and the rider? The mistake there is assuming people are normal and sensible.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
forzaminardi
867 posts
56 months
|
The problem is, if you're a horse rider / cyclist / whatever, it's probably a fair conclusion to come to if you say "car drivers are d*cks, they drive recklessly" because probably every horse rider / cyclist / whatever has got a "car driver being a reckless d*ck" story to tell. Similarly on here, we quite often read that lorry drivers are all tw*ts, or taxi drivers, or female drivers, or motorcyclists, or cyclists, or horseriders, or old people, or young people, or what/whoever. This is despite the fact that I'm sure for every motorist who has overtaken a horse in a reckless way, 100s will have done so perfectly carefully and considerately. But that one bad egg paints the rest with the same brush, doesn't he? Similarly, some might see a dodderly old fool or a silly bint driving dangerously and immediately say "typical of the old / female" without considering that they've probably driven past 100s of old and female drivers without having any problem.
On that basis, horse riders may well feel justified in thinking they have to do what they can to protect themselves, including masquerading as police officers, on the basis that Car Drivers Are A Menace And Ought Be Stopped, when in fact maybe one out of 1000 car drivers truly IS a menace. So by wearing this outfit, what they are doing is assuming that I am a menace, which in an (as I said originally) infantile way make me think I want to be a menace so as to not disappoint them. Naturally I wouldn't, but that is my first thought.
Basically, my proposition is that the inconsiderate, poor, dangerous driver is not a driver who is exclusive to a certain age bracket, gender, make of car, etc - they are simply poor, inconsiderate and dangerous drivers, full stop. So to paraphrase, d*ckdom (the art of being a d*ck) is broadly distributed among the population. However, to therefore assume that everyone else is a d*ck makes the assumee a d*ck in return. Hence my irritation.
|
|
|
10 Pence Short
27,633 posts
86 months
|
forzaminardi said: Basically, my proposition is that the inconsiderate, poor, dangerous driver is not a driver who is exclusive to a certain age bracket, gender, make of car, etc - they are simply poor, inconsiderate and dangerous drivers, full stop. So to paraphrase, d*ckdom (the art of being a d*ck) is broadly distributed among the population. However, to therefore assume that everyone else is a d*ck makes the assumee a d*ck in return. Hence my irritation. I completely agree with you. d  heads aren't confined to one group or another, they infiltrate all walks of life. I can't imagine why some horse riders wearing high vis that looks at first glance like a Police outfit, or people with 'baby on board' signs would upset any half decent person? Neither negatively affect what I plan to do.
|
|
|
forzaminardi
867 posts
56 months
|
They don't affect what I plan to do, or indeed what I do, but they do irritate me because I feel as if that person thinks I'm going to be a tw*t unless they issue me with a 'Polite Notice' not to be a tw*t.
|
|
|
poing
2,308 posts
69 months
|
Well I think most views have been covered and disagreed with here already so I'll not add mine.
I do have 1 question though.
How do horse riders deal with emergency vehicles? If a noisy engine scares them then a siren must send them into orbit.
|
|
|
mattdaniels
5,117 posts
151 months
|
Mastodon2 said: I know a guy who is right into his horseriding (yes, he is a gay, before anyone asks) Well done, you get the runners up prize for "most idiotic comment on this thread".
|
|
|
forzaminardi
867 posts
56 months
|
mattdaniels said: Well done, you get the runners up prize for "most idiotic comment on this thread". Gay imo.
|
|
|
Alfanatic
5,992 posts
88 months
|
forzaminardi said: The problem is, if you're a horse rider / cyclist / whatever, it's probably a fair conclusion to come to if you say "car drivers are d*cks, they drive recklessly" because probably every horse rider / cyclist / whatever has got a "car driver being a reckless d*ck" story to tell. Similarly on here, we quite often read that lorry drivers are all tw*ts, or taxi drivers, or female drivers, or motorcyclists, or cyclists, or horseriders, or old people, or young people, or what/whoever. This is despite the fact that I'm sure for every motorist who has overtaken a horse in a reckless way, 100s will have done so perfectly carefully and considerately. But that one bad egg paints the rest with the same brush, doesn't he? Similarly, some might see a dodderly old fool or a silly bint driving dangerously and immediately say "typical of the old / female" without considering that they've probably driven past 100s of old and female drivers without having any problem.
On that basis, horse riders may well feel justified in thinking they have to do what they can to protect themselves, including masquerading as police officers, on the basis that Car Drivers Are A Menace And Ought Be Stopped, when in fact maybe one out of 1000 car drivers truly IS a menace. So by wearing this outfit, what they are doing is assuming that I am a menace, which in an (as I said originally) infantile way make me think I want to be a menace so as to not disappoint them. Naturally I wouldn't, but that is my first thought.
Basically, my proposition is that the inconsiderate, poor, dangerous driver is not a driver who is exclusive to a certain age bracket, gender, make of car, etc - they are simply poor, inconsiderate and dangerous drivers, full stop. So to paraphrase, d*ckdom (the art of being a d*ck) is broadly distributed among the population. However, to therefore assume that everyone else is a d*ck makes the assumee a d*ck in return. Hence my irritation. So how should they protect themselves from the menace? Keep the jacket in their pocket and put it on just before the menace turns up? Or are you seriously trying to argue that they should not protect themselves against threats in this way because some of those whom the vest is not intended for, despite the fact that wearing this vest makes the rider no more inconvenient to us, take it personally and might be offended and then, being reasonable people with common sense (common sense is a myth, by the way, no two people share their sense), still do nothing to knowingly endanger the rider?
|
|
|
Alfanatic
5,992 posts
88 months
|
poing said: Well I think most views have been covered and disagreed with here already so I'll not add mine.
I do have 1 question though.
How do horse riders deal with emergency vehicles? If a noisy engine scares them then a siren must send them into orbit. That's a good point  I suppose, if their luck's not completely out, the emergency vehicle hmight turn out to be a handy ambulance.
|
|
|
Baryonyx
6,882 posts
28 months
|
Alfanatic said: So how should they protect themselves from the menace? Keep the jacket in their pocket and put it on just before the menace turns up? Keep the horses in a field where their unpredictable nature is unlikely to cause injury to themselves or others.
|
|
|
Alfanatic
5,992 posts
88 months
|
Baryonyx said: Alfanatic said: So how should they protect themselves from the menace? Keep the jacket in their pocket and put it on just before the menace turns up? Keep the horses in a field where their unpredictable nature is unlikely to cause injury to themselves or others. Please provide evidence that shows that horses are unique amongst road users in their capacity to be unpredictable and to cause injury. Seems to me that the whole problem here is the unpredictable nature of a fast moving, loud machine. Before they turned up horses were just fine on roads. Don't even start with the let's ban everything we don't like approach. Cars are near the top of that list.
|
|
|
Baryonyx
6,882 posts
28 months
|
Alfanatic said: Please provide evidence that shows that horses are unique amongst road users in their capacity to be unpredictable and to cause injury. Seems to me that the whole problem here is the unpredictable nature of a fast moving, loud machine. Before they turned up horses were just fine on roads. They are hardly unique in their ability to cause injury. Unlike a human though, they are much more unpredictable and are not accountable for their actions. When one goes wild and kicks someone's car, the rider will sniff and say "it's a wild animal, it will do what it wants". As imperfect as the human driver is, they are nowhere near the loose cannon that a large wild animal on the roads is. They might well have been fine on the roads before the advent of the motorcar. But the motorcar is a representation of progress, the choice of transport of the developed world. Horses are but an anachronism on the roads now. To say that motorised vehicles are responsible for the unpredictable and dangerous nature of horses on the road is ridiculous. The motor vehicle is likely to be serving a genuine purpose but no-one commutes on a horse!
|
|
|
paranoid airbag
1,309 posts
28 months
|
Baryonyx said: They might well have been fine on the roads before the advent of the motorcar. But the motorcar is a representation of progress, the choice of transport of the developed world. Horses are but an anachronism on the roads now. To say that motorised vehicles are responsible for the unpredictable and dangerous nature of horses on the road is ridiculous. The motor vehicle is likely to be serving a genuine purpose but no-one commutes on a horse! Be careful what you wish for. What do the caterham-toting petrolhead hooning around yorkshire, the lycra-clad cyclist struggling up box hill, and the fit young horse rider have in common? none of them are commuting. They're all using the roads for fun. So some might say going out in a car 'just for a drive' is anachronistic, and that the roads should be reserved for economically useful activity only. With the population only going one way, I can't see the number of people thinking that decreasing. For all its potholes, one-way systems and bus lanes, I f king love the freedom this country's roads give me, and whilst it's difficult to justify economically, I sincerely hope I never see the day when that freedom - to just go anywhere, in any vehicle, for no reason - dies. If that means I have to be vaguely courteous around other road users, especially non-armoured ones - even if I am going somewhere necessary, and they are just using the roads for fun - so be it.
|
|
|
fangio
506 posts
103 months
|
I think horses shouldn't be on roads simply because their hooves weren't designed for them. Hard on their feet.
Would you ride a m/bike, cycle or drive a car on just the rims? That's the adhesion a horse has!
|
|
|
Jagmanv12
484 posts
33 months
|
Baryonyx said: the rider will sniff and say "it's a wild animal, it will do what it wants". If the rider can't control it then they shouldn't take it on the road, ride it round a field. Would you take a car/motorbike with bad steering or brakes that you couldn't control on the road? Of course not.
|
|
|
mph1977
4,820 posts
37 months
|
T.K said: If they are using battenburg and the word 'polite' together it might be enough to constitute the offence of impersonating a police officer under s.90(2) of the Police Act 1996. Up to 6 months in the clink. no it doesn't impersonating actually requires the person impersonating to attempt to use a constabulary power , they have previously attempted to prosecute Walter mitties with blue lights for impersonation and unless they tried to stop people and then attempted to give the impression they were a constable by further actions they usually only end up with the 30gbp NEFPN for the lights and any dangerous / careless driving offences, although Hudderfield Mags tried an interesting one a short while ago an ASBO preventing the walter in question from travelling in a vehicle fitted with warning devices unless they were a patient or detained person.
|
|
