Horses On The Roads - What's the Law?
Discussion
Hi folks, can't disclose much info right now, but what exactly is the law regarding horses on the road? I know the highway code states to slow down and give them a wide birth, but is the highway code actually law in itself? If not, is there a specific law referring to horses and how they should be approached on the road? Any help would be great!
Thanks,
Tony
Thanks,
Tony
Ok guys, thanks for the info. It's an on going case, but basically my son is under investigation for careless driving after he stopped for a few horse riders (who I may add flagged him down), they abused him for the volume of his exhaust, then one started to prance towards his car, at which point he removed himself from the situation. Apparently because he accelerated away from the horse, it spooked it. Where does he stand?
Wings said:
Inconsiderate, driving without due care and attention, this following event slightly to the extreme, but how courts view animals and inconsiderate road users.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/850486-firefighters-si...
Holy cow (excuse the pun), that's a little harsh on the fireman.http://www.metro.co.uk/news/850486-firefighters-si...
And he's just rung me to tell me he has an interview under caution tomorrow at 5pm. He's in full time education; will he be entitled to a duty solicitor?
Spanna said:
How many riders were there?
I've had a similar situation where I was going round a slight bend on a country road, leisurely at about 25, when 3 horses emerge, all being ridden. I was flagged down, as your son was, to abuse. There was plenty of room, but clearly I should not be on the road in my motor vehicle. As two approached, still mounted, I thought I'd best get out of the situation, these animals can be unpredictable and I didn't fancy 3 v 1 if something happened. (Insurance/police not physically
)
It just so happened that these people had come from the yard where my mother was manager at that time and that's where I was headed.
What I don't understand is the aggression these types of people have. If your horse is unable to stay calm on roads in simple situations, please refrain from putting yourselves in such a situation.
There were 3 of them. I've had a similar situation where I was going round a slight bend on a country road, leisurely at about 25, when 3 horses emerge, all being ridden. I was flagged down, as your son was, to abuse. There was plenty of room, but clearly I should not be on the road in my motor vehicle. As two approached, still mounted, I thought I'd best get out of the situation, these animals can be unpredictable and I didn't fancy 3 v 1 if something happened. (Insurance/police not physically
)It just so happened that these people had come from the yard where my mother was manager at that time and that's where I was headed.
What I don't understand is the aggression these types of people have. If your horse is unable to stay calm on roads in simple situations, please refrain from putting yourselves in such a situation.
10 Pence Short said:
Sounds like he's been lined up for Inconsiderate at least, though the best advice would be for him to ensure there's a solicitor present. The reason for this is that the Solicitor can ask the Police, before the interview, what the basis for the it is and what they're looking for, then advise their client (in private) with this in mind beforehand. To the best of my knowledge a defendant on their own can't.
Will he be offered a duty solicitor? I do have a solicitor friend who may be able to help if not. Needless to say he's worried about points and fines etc.10 Pence Short said:
Yes, he should be offered, as he has a right to one. He should let the Police know in advance though, to make sure one is available at that time.
Another alternative is to find a local solicitor who deals with Magistrate cases such as motoring and see if they'll sit in the first interview for free- mine did when I was in such a situation. Again, that will need to be set up with the Officer conducting the interview.
Bear in mind the Police will not mind changing the time and date of the interview to accommodate the presence of a solicitor.
Also bear in mind, no matter what the accused may think of the whole situation, it is better for them to keep quiet and say the bare minimum to show they were being reasonable (or more to the point, 'careful and competent') than open his mouth and say something on tape he may prefer not to have read out in court.
He's already written a statement and posted it along with his NIP. The statement was checked over by a law graduate before being sent. I could post it up here? Another alternative is to find a local solicitor who deals with Magistrate cases such as motoring and see if they'll sit in the first interview for free- mine did when I was in such a situation. Again, that will need to be set up with the Officer conducting the interview.
Bear in mind the Police will not mind changing the time and date of the interview to accommodate the presence of a solicitor.
Also bear in mind, no matter what the accused may think of the whole situation, it is better for them to keep quiet and say the bare minimum to show they were being reasonable (or more to the point, 'careful and competent') than open his mouth and say something on tape he may prefer not to have read out in court.
10 Pence Short said:
1) No, don't post it here under any circumstances.
2) Law graduate doesn't mean anything. My OH is an Oxford educated commercial lawyer- she knows less about traffic law than I do!!
3) No, don't post it here under any circumstances.
Ok. I have managed to get him in contact with a solicitor, so he should be ok. His statement, in my view, is pretty good; it states what happened, that he was removing himself at a safe speed from what he perceived to be a dangerous situation to himself and his vehicle. 2) Law graduate doesn't mean anything. My OH is an Oxford educated commercial lawyer- she knows less about traffic law than I do!!
3) No, don't post it here under any circumstances.
mdk1 said:
Can i suggest that you post this over on
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?http://forums....
As an interview under caution, sounds like they are going to stich him up.
Posted over there. :-)http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?http://forums....
As an interview under caution, sounds like they are going to stich him up.
Wings said:
I would never use a duty solicitor, in fact if i were in your son's position, i would ask his mum to attend at the police station.
You son needs to make it clear that at the time of the incident, your son’s.his sole concerns were for the well being of both the horses and riders.
Can he get a solicitor of his choice for free?You son needs to make it clear that at the time of the incident, your son’s.his sole concerns were for the well being of both the horses and riders.
Pontoneer said:
The son is probably being interviewed regarding the bunch of equestrians indulging in threatening behaviour and failing to keep their animals under proper control whist on the public highway
I'd like to think that, but seeing as he didn't report it, there were no other witnesses to report it on his behalf, and also the fact he's been told by one of the rider's friends on Facebook that 'he's going to get points and a fine', I'm pretty sure he's the suspect! Ok guys, he's got a duty of his choice organised for tomorrow (they were recommended by my solicitor, as my solicitor admits he is a bit rusty with traffic law). The owner of the firm took quite an interest in my son's car, its age, etc, and agreed that, by the nature of being a classic TVR, it is a loud vehicle. He also agreed that my son hasn't made too much of a mistake by making a statement of events, especially whilst it was still fresh in his mind. I suppose there'll be different views on all aspects of this; all I can do now is hope no further action is taken after his interview.
As for Facebook, he's deleted the people involved, and any posts and messages related to the matter went with it. Nevermind.
As for Facebook, he's deleted the people involved, and any posts and messages related to the matter went with it. Nevermind.
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?
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?
Grommit said:
Sorry if I'm being a bit thick here but does that mean it's been dropped? You make no mention of any further action!
There are quite a lot of horses round where I live and most of the riders are courteous and polite, but there are quite a few who are not. If a horse is so nervous that it cannot tolerate the sound of an engine on tickover, then it has no place on the road, particularly with a learner rider on it. This happened to me recently when I pulled in to let some horses past and was told to turn my engine off, as the horses were nervous and some of the riders were beginners. That is to my mind completely irresponsible.
My main complaint about horse riders on the road though is the seemingly increasingly fashionable practice of taking a Jack Russell & a Lurcher with them, which they then have no control over when they meet other dogs (or traffic). Why does riding a horse set them beyond the rules governing keeping you dog under control?
It's in the hands of the CPS. His solicitor told him that if he gets a warning, take it. If he gets a driving awareness course, take it. If he gets taken to court on a careless driving charge, he could get between 3 and 9 points (they usually go for 6 points apparently) and a fine, and the solicitor told him to fight that. There are quite a lot of horses round where I live and most of the riders are courteous and polite, but there are quite a few who are not. If a horse is so nervous that it cannot tolerate the sound of an engine on tickover, then it has no place on the road, particularly with a learner rider on it. This happened to me recently when I pulled in to let some horses past and was told to turn my engine off, as the horses were nervous and some of the riders were beginners. That is to my mind completely irresponsible.
My main complaint about horse riders on the road though is the seemingly increasingly fashionable practice of taking a Jack Russell & a Lurcher with them, which they then have no control over when they meet other dogs (or traffic). Why does riding a horse set them beyond the rules governing keeping you dog under control?
Cyberprog said:
Did plod charge him with anything? Or just a verbal b
king?
No, he was told it's in the hand of the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether it's worth taking it to court. I'm not up to speed with the exact costs, but I imagine it's fairly expensive to drag someone to court for something like this? king?omniflow said:
Several posts on this thread seem to me to need some kind of response:
Firstly the OP - Given that the "story" told by the "victims" to the police, is there not any chance of a counter-accusation of conspiricy to pervert the course of justice, or something similar. It seems to me like they've collaborated on a made up story and also roped in one of their mates to coroborate. They really shouldn't be allowed to get away with this.
Now on to the subject of horses on the road. Yes, I understand what the law says, but then again there's also common courtesy, and also common sense. Horses frequently do their business all over the road. To this day I've NEVER seen a horse rider stop to clear it up. What about other road users? Cyclists? Pedestrians, kids etc crossing the road. Sometimes there's so much of it, it' very difficult to avoid.
I live in rural Bucks, and I get stuck behind horses frequently, sometimes it's totally ok, other times it quite definitely is not. The speed and "style" with which I pass a horse (or horses) I consider to be my choice, and it quite definitely SHOULD NOT be dictated to me by the person riding the horse. They're making their choice by riding the horse on the road (there are plenty of fields in my local area), I will pass them in a manner that I see fit. It is not their place to pre-judge what I am going to do. If they really feel the need to tell off every car driver who comes within 100yds, have they really thought through the viability of their "hobby". The year is 2011 after all.
I'm guessing the CPS will believe the 4 witnesses vs 1 though? So they'd probably say my son is trying to pervert the course of justice? However, I doubt that they would say that at all as it isn't THAT serious a case in the grand scheme of things. Firstly the OP - Given that the "story" told by the "victims" to the police, is there not any chance of a counter-accusation of conspiricy to pervert the course of justice, or something similar. It seems to me like they've collaborated on a made up story and also roped in one of their mates to coroborate. They really shouldn't be allowed to get away with this.
Now on to the subject of horses on the road. Yes, I understand what the law says, but then again there's also common courtesy, and also common sense. Horses frequently do their business all over the road. To this day I've NEVER seen a horse rider stop to clear it up. What about other road users? Cyclists? Pedestrians, kids etc crossing the road. Sometimes there's so much of it, it' very difficult to avoid.
I live in rural Bucks, and I get stuck behind horses frequently, sometimes it's totally ok, other times it quite definitely is not. The speed and "style" with which I pass a horse (or horses) I consider to be my choice, and it quite definitely SHOULD NOT be dictated to me by the person riding the horse. They're making their choice by riding the horse on the road (there are plenty of fields in my local area), I will pass them in a manner that I see fit. It is not their place to pre-judge what I am going to do. If they really feel the need to tell off every car driver who comes within 100yds, have they really thought through the viability of their "hobby". The year is 2011 after all.
There is also a difference of opinion I think; my son's car is, by its nature, loud, and accelerates quickly compared to the average car. This may be why the horse riders thought he 'roared off'. However, the bit about wheel spinning for 3 seconds is a load of rubbish, if he'd done that he'd have left some big number 11s behind, and I've driven that road numerous times since the incident and there are no marks whatsoever. Also, their 'independent' witness is a horse trainer.......I smell a rat with that one!
Ok folks, an update! Nick has been summoned to court. On his summons, it states that:
"On 19/09/2011 at HAXBY, YORK, NORTH YORKSHIRE, with intent to cause (horse riders names omitted for obvious reasons) harassment, alarm or distress, used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour, thereby causing that person or another harassment, alarm or distress.
- LEGISLATION: 'Contrary to Section 4A(1) and (5) of the Public Order Act 1986.'
- CCCJS CODE: PU86116'
- ACPO: '7.6.17.1'
- PNLD CODE: 'H350'
Contrary to Section 4A(1) and (5) of the Public Order Act 1986."
The witness statements are attached (full of many errors and outright lies I may add!). Now, my main question is this; Nick was sent an NIP for Careless Driving. This summons doesn't mention careless driving. Am I now right in thinking that he is being taken to court for a breach of the peace and NOT a driving offence? If so, can they still give him points for this?
Thanks,
Tony
"On 19/09/2011 at HAXBY, YORK, NORTH YORKSHIRE, with intent to cause (horse riders names omitted for obvious reasons) harassment, alarm or distress, used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour, thereby causing that person or another harassment, alarm or distress.
- LEGISLATION: 'Contrary to Section 4A(1) and (5) of the Public Order Act 1986.'
- CCCJS CODE: PU86116'
- ACPO: '7.6.17.1'
- PNLD CODE: 'H350'
Contrary to Section 4A(1) and (5) of the Public Order Act 1986."
The witness statements are attached (full of many errors and outright lies I may add!). Now, my main question is this; Nick was sent an NIP for Careless Driving. This summons doesn't mention careless driving. Am I now right in thinking that he is being taken to court for a breach of the peace and NOT a driving offence? If so, can they still give him points for this?
Thanks,
Tony
agtlaw]ing Fisher said:
Contrary to Section 4A(1) and (5) of the Public Order Act 1986."
The witness statements are attached (full of many errors and outright lies I may add!). Now, my main question is this; Nick was sent an NIP for Careless Driving. This summons doesn't mention careless driving. Am I now right in thinking that he is being taken to court for a breach of the peace and NOT a driving offence? If so, can they still give him points for this?
Thanks,
Tony
Not careless driving or "breach of the peace"The witness statements are attached (full of many errors and outright lies I may add!). Now, my main question is this; Nick was sent an NIP for Careless Driving. This summons doesn't mention careless driving. Am I now right in thinking that he is being taken to court for a breach of the peace and NOT a driving offence? If so, can they still give him points for this?
Thanks,
Tony
One offence. s 4A POA 1986
Court can disqualify him from driving for this offence (for any length) but can't endorse his licence with pp.
vonhosen said:
When he has seen/heard the prosecution case he'll know how it is alleged that he has intended to cause harassment, alarm or distress (just one of those needed) & what the disorderly behaviour was considered to be.
Yes they can disqualify him (though they don't have to) & the NIP stuff is now an irrelevance. No need to show his exact speed either, excessive speed can be 10mph if the circumstances demand 5mph.
Surely the fact he braked for the horses and stopped to ask what was the reason for them flagging him down means he wasn't travelling at excessive speed?Yes they can disqualify him (though they don't have to) & the NIP stuff is now an irrelevance. No need to show his exact speed either, excessive speed can be 10mph if the circumstances demand 5mph.
My son's car is a TVR S2 with a standard exhaust. It's a LOUD car by its nature. As I said, he was accelerating hard, but braked as soon as he saw the horse riders, then stopped when he was waved down. He then got a tirade of abuse, to which he told them that he pays road tax. When one of the horses came near his car, he moved away for his own safety. I fail to see how this is worth going to court for. Anyway, we do have a solicitor, who has said he will fight the case.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff