Horses shouldn't be allowed on the country roads
Discussion
V8RX7 said:
Rubbish - the primary consideration IS for motor vehicles because they are the main group using them, they are also the main group paying for them - both directly and indirectly.
If no one drove the UK would cease to exist as we know it, if people stopped cycling / riding / jogging there wouldn't be a perceptible difference.
Following your logic the Gov't put 1000x the weight on each horse rider's opinion than each car driver.
Just by way of a fact for you to consider.If no one drove the UK would cease to exist as we know it, if people stopped cycling / riding / jogging there wouldn't be a perceptible difference.
Following your logic the Gov't put 1000x the weight on each horse rider's opinion than each car driver.
Edited by V8RX7 on Wednesday 13th June 13:56
The paved roads you speak of were brought about due to the campaigning of Parliament by the Cyclists lobby group of the late 18th and early 19th Century.
This means that the primary purpose of and primary users of these roads are Cyclists and their safe passage. HtH.
Also, every person in this country pays for the roads through general taxation.
No vehicle specific taxes go directly to the roads, they all go into one, big, central slush fund.
Taking the contributions through vehicle specific taxes and pooling those would leave a gap of more than a billion pounds which the rest of the general taxation pool would have to fill to enable roads to continue existing.
Therefore the general populous subsidises the Motorist to the sum of A LOT.
I hope these facts help you form a more balanced view.
We all like cars here, but facts are facts and the more you know the more reasoned your opinion can be.
DonkeyApple said:
From a socio economic perspective one could argue that users traveling to, from or on work have an obvious priority over those off for a jolly?
That depends how you view the relative benefits of economy (and the means of achieving it) versus the benefits of happiness. However, whilst those perspectives may be of interest, they don't change the current situation. We may argue for or against it but it is, at the moment, what it is.Nanook said:
You could argue that I suppose.
Is it relevant?
How many people are inconvenienced by horse riders on their daily commute? Anyone here?
When you are stuck in traffic on your way to work in the morning, how do you know which people around you are also heading to work? And which are off out on some sort of leisure pursuit?
Hats. People who wear hats in cars are never going to work. Is it relevant?
How many people are inconvenienced by horse riders on their daily commute? Anyone here?
When you are stuck in traffic on your way to work in the morning, how do you know which people around you are also heading to work? And which are off out on some sort of leisure pursuit?
As for relevance, none really but the thread took a divert as to who is more absolutely vitally important to be on the road. It goes without saying that it’s probably never the people losing their s
t over other road users. They are usually irrelevant people which is probably what they are really losing it over. V8RX7 said:
Rubbish - the primary consideration IS for motor vehicles because they are the main group using them, they are also the main group paying for them - both directly and indirectly.
Actually, "they" are not.National-grade roads are paid for from government expenditure. Motor vehicle taxation contributes only 5.4% of government income.
Local roads are paid for from local authority expenditure. Motor vehicle taxation directly contributes 0% of local authority income.
JSquaredJim said:
Just by way of a fact for you to consider.
The paved roads you speak of were brought about due to the campaigning of Parliament by the Cyclists lobby group of the late 18th and early 19th Century.
This means that the primary purpose of and primary users of these roads are Cyclists and their safe passage. HtH.
Also, every person in this country pays for the roads through general taxation.
No vehicle specific taxes go directly to the roads, they all go into one, big, central slush fund.
Taking the contributions through vehicle specific taxes and pooling those would leave a gap of more than a billion pounds which the rest of the general taxation pool would have to fill to enable roads to continue existing.
Therefore the general populous subsidises the Motorist to the sum of A LOT.
I hope these facts help you form a more balanced view.
We all like cars here, but facts are facts and the more you know the more reasoned your opinion can be.
All true except the contribution to the economy of motor vehicles using roads is way beyond just taxation. Congestion alone costs the economy 10 Billion a year so the net contribution must be an order of magnitude more than that. Also most roads were built when there were ring fenced taxes on vehicles so the motorist probably does contribute more in general. The paved roads you speak of were brought about due to the campaigning of Parliament by the Cyclists lobby group of the late 18th and early 19th Century.
This means that the primary purpose of and primary users of these roads are Cyclists and their safe passage. HtH.
Also, every person in this country pays for the roads through general taxation.
No vehicle specific taxes go directly to the roads, they all go into one, big, central slush fund.
Taking the contributions through vehicle specific taxes and pooling those would leave a gap of more than a billion pounds which the rest of the general taxation pool would have to fill to enable roads to continue existing.
Therefore the general populous subsidises the Motorist to the sum of A LOT.
I hope these facts help you form a more balanced view.
We all like cars here, but facts are facts and the more you know the more reasoned your opinion can be.
None of which means they should get priority over anyone else just as in any state provided service.
Nanook said:
V8RX7 said:
Rubbish - the primary consideration IS for motor vehicles because they are the main group using them, they are also the main group paying for them - both directly and indirectly.
If no one drove the UK would cease to exist as we know it, if people stopped cycling / riding / jogging there wouldn't be a perceptible difference.
Primary purpose, primary consideration, generally just primarily for cars. They're all wrong, but just pick one and stick with it instead of changing it slightly every post If no one drove the UK would cease to exist as we know it, if people stopped cycling / riding / jogging there wouldn't be a perceptible difference.
The UK would cease to exist? I think you're getting a bit over-excited about this.:
If every road user has equal rights and there are say 1000x more motorists than Horse riders which group is the most important ?
If 90% of the country couldn't get to work when they got there there were no materials to work with.
Shops and factories had no stock.
If there were no motorists then obviously VED would be zero along with tax on fuel, no petrol stations, no garages, no car manufacturers, parts manufacturers...
Which part don't you understand ?
V8RX7 said:
If every road user has equal rights and there are say 1000x more motorists than Horse riders which group is the most important ?
That's not how it works, y'know...Every individual has equal rights. You can't just multiply the sizes of groups to say "So this group has 1000x more rights".
V8RX7 said:
If 90% of the country couldn't get to work when they got there there were no materials to work with.
Shops and factories had no stock.
If there were no motorists then obviously VED would be zero along with tax on fuel, no petrol stations, no garages, no car manufacturers, parts manufacturers...
Which part don't you understand ?
The leap of logic you made to get from horse riders being 1/1,000th of road traffic, yet causing 90% of the country to cease to function completely, and the other 999/1,000ths ceasing to exist.Shops and factories had no stock.
If there were no motorists then obviously VED would be zero along with tax on fuel, no petrol stations, no garages, no car manufacturers, parts manufacturers...
Which part don't you understand ?
TooMany2cvs said:
V8RX7 said:
Rubbish - the primary consideration IS for motor vehicles because they are the main group using them, they are also the main group paying for them - both directly and indirectly.
Actually, "they" are not.National-grade roads are paid for from government expenditure. Motor vehicle taxation contributes only 5.4% of government income.
Local roads are paid for from local authority expenditure. Motor vehicle taxation directly contributes 0% of local authority income.
If there were no motorists our economy would be around the size it was in the 50's
Nanook said:
Rovinghawk said:
Nanook said:
They have to learn.
Some horses will learn to deal with it better than others. Some will never be good at it, getting spooked by funny shaped rocks or poly bags, but just like cyclists and drivers, they have to learn. They're not just pros, right off the bat.
I don't think it acceptable for me to be at risk as part of their learning curve.Some horses will learn to deal with it better than others. Some will never be good at it, getting spooked by funny shaped rocks or poly bags, but just like cyclists and drivers, they have to learn. They're not just pros, right off the bat.
I learned in a VW Polo. Then I learned some more in a Ford Galaxy with a big trailer on the back, then I learned in a Scania P94D, 18 tonnes of it.
All on the public road, during the day.
Is that acceptable to you?
The same can't be said for the horsey set.,
Rovinghawk said:
TooMany2cvs said:
National-grade roads are paid for from government expenditure. Motor vehicle taxation contributes only 5.4% of government income.
What percentage is road building/maintenance as a percentage of government expenditure?Motor vehicle taxation contributes 5.4% of the money spent on it.
Nanook said:
Rovinghawk said:
You & your vehicle were subject to supervision & minimum safety standards.
The same can't be said for the horsey set.,
My quad bike wasn't. MOT exempt. The same can't be said for the horsey set.,
Same applies to tractors I believe.
Nanook said:
Also, that wasn't your point, it was about people learning when you're sharing the road, not about the safety of their vehicle.
Whilst learning you were supervised & under the guidance & control of a qualified individual. The horse just does whatever it likes.Rovinghawk said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Does it matter?
Motor vehicle taxation contributes 5.4% of the money spent on it.
You make that sound as if 5.4% of road costs are from vehicle taxes. This is very much not the case.Motor vehicle taxation contributes 5.4% of the money spent on it.
Nanook said:
What minimum safety standard was my quad bike checked against? I didn't have to pass any sort of test to drive it on the road, and the same is true of tractors, so can you clarify what you mean by that statement?
I was under supervision, when I learned to drive a car, yes.
Not when I started riding a bike on the road though. There was no 'qualified individual' watching over me, which most horse riders these days have when they learn to ride on the road.
Any decent equestrian centre provide training for riders that want to go out hacking, using public roads.
Talk about trying to labour a point with zero justification.....I was under supervision, when I learned to drive a car, yes.
Not when I started riding a bike on the road though. There was no 'qualified individual' watching over me, which most horse riders these days have when they learn to ride on the road.
Any decent equestrian centre provide training for riders that want to go out hacking, using public roads.
In theory, you have a brain, and in theory you act rationally. Therefore you learning to drive on the road is considered to be an acceptable risk, both in law and morally.
Whilst a horse does have a brain, most of them don't act in a predictable way, and whilst schooling them on the public road to expose them to different situations is legal, I would suggest that it does put other people at risk, giving those people pretty much zero choice in whether or not they accept that risk. Therefore I would call it morally unacceptable.
omniflow said:
I would suggest that it does put other people at risk, giving those people pretty much zero choice in whether or not they accept that risk. Therefore I would call it morally unacceptable.
If you’re worried about putting people at an acceptable level of risk... how many people were killed on UK roads last year by horses, and how many people were killed by cars?I think if you want to phrase the debate in terms of putting people at acceptable risk, it quickly becomes a question of when we should ban people from driving cars on the road. I’m not sure that’s the outcome that you’re hoping for.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff