Why can horses just **** everywhere?

Crpwned · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:04

Anyone who says that an extra 1 or 2 minutes of their time to considerately over take a horse is too much of an inconvenience either has an over-inflated sense of self worth or no concept of time itself.

neil_g · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:05

Pottsey said:
The difference is what you do is dangerous and can kill or injury other people.

yup, several people around here have died thanks to the impatience of other road users having an adverse effect on the horse they were riding / being pulled in a carriage.

Greebo · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:07

Pottsey said:
The tax is based on the pollution you cause. Anything below a set pollution limit including horses and vehicles pay zero tax. You do not pay tax just because its a vehicle some vehicles are tax free due to low pollution. So horses are being treated the same as vehicle.

Plus did you every stop to think that many roads are designed and originally built for horses. Some roads even have more horses going down them then vehicles.

Its not anymore though is it? Based on price of car going forward. Therefore an expensive horse worth £50,000 should pay £2,100 first year road tax?

Tefal · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:09

Pottsey said:
The tax is based on the pollution you cause. Anything below a set pollution limit including horses and vehicles pay zero tax. You do not pay tax just because its a vehicle some vehicles are tax free due to low pollution. So horses are being treated the same as vehicle.

Plus did you every stop to think that many roads are designed and originally built for horses. Some roads even have more horses going down them then vehicles.

buyt they produce huge amounts of methane

wordy · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:09

Amp34 said:
Personally I'd be wanting to keep both hands on the reigns at the point a horse is most likely to be spooked.

That may in fact be the reason many don't wave.

Yeah that's Fair enough.

neil_g · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:09

Greebo said:
Its not anymore though is it? Based on price of car going forward. Therefore an expensive horse worth £50,000 should pay £2,100 first year road tax?

how do you get a valuation on a pony you bought from a guy down the pub. because people are practically (and do) give them away these days.

how would you account for loan/shared horses?

Amp34 · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:09

Dis86 said:
So you're saying it's ok for the rider to inconvenience multiple people?

The act of driving a car through residential areas inconveniences people. We don't ban cars on residential streets do we (yet)?

Part of being a road user is being considerate to other road users and pedestrians. If you can't do that then you should have your licence taken away.

Gammawolf · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:11

Pottsey said:
Yes the a rider is responsible for the position and shouldn’t be in the middle of the road without good reason. The driver is responsible for overtaking in a sensible safe manner. Revving you engine next to an animal is not normal road conditions. Drivers are responsible as law says “Do not scare animals by sounding your horn, revving your engine or accelerating rapidly” It doesn’t mean 0 revs.

“your horse gets spooked by a 1.4L engine that needs to rev moderately in order to overtake then it must be the drivers fault for the inadequate mental state your horse.”

Your average horse is not going to get spooked by an average vehicle overtaking at a reasonable pace with reasonable revs. Anyway a 1.4L engine that needs to rev moderately to overtake is not classed as Revving your engine. Revving your engine normally means to accelerate sharply or to have high revs: It doesn’t mean you have to run at 0 revs don’t be silly.

It doesn’t matter what mental state the horse is in as it’s the drivers responsibility to overtake in a sensible manner and if they don’t then it’s the drivers fault. Revving your engine is not sensible and treating them like other slow vehicles isn't sensible either. You should be overtaking horses a lot slower then you would other slow vehicles. That's what the law says and it there to save life's.

It may not mean 0 revs but the wording says 0 revs. It's as if it was written by a 5 year old. But you've also just stated the same thing.

Revving your engine is not sensible

You should add a quantitative description to the action of "revving" as it's ambiguous otherwise. But that still doesn't change the issue that it's worded so poorly and takes no account of the variety of vehicles. If they want to advise on the noise levels, speed and acceleration then they should state a dB level and relative velocity to which you should to adhere too.

neil_g said:
HCW

"214
Animals. When passing animals, drive slowly. Give them plenty of room and be ready to stop. Do not scare animals by sounding your horn, revving your engine or accelerating rapidly once you have passed them. Look out for animals being led, driven or ridden on the road and take extra care. Keep your speed down at bends and on narrow country roads. If a road is blocked by a herd of animals, stop and switch off your engine until they have left the road. Watch out for animals on unfenced roads.

215
Horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles. Be particularly careful of horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles especially when overtaking. Always pass wide and slowly. Horse riders are often children, so take extra care and remember riders may ride in double file when escorting a young or inexperienced horse or rider. Look out for horse riders’ and horse drivers’ signals and heed a request to slow down or stop. Take great care and treat all horses as a potential hazard."

See above, that section needs rewording because currently it's so ambiguous it means nothing. Technically everyone passing an animal is not adhering to the advice as it categorically states not to rev your engine.

neil_g · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:13

Gammawolf said:
See above, that section needs rewording because currently it's so ambiguous it means nothing. Technically everyone passing an animal is not adhering to the advice as it categorically states not to rev your engine.

you're being pedantic but if you cannot smoothly pass an object slowly without revving your engine (i.e. bare minimum to avoid stalling) you should not have passed your driving test.

Dis86 · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:13

wordy said:
Are you saving driving slowly for a couple of minutes, at the most is too much of an inconvenience to bear?

I'm saying why should they? I've asked multiple questions and you haven't been able to answer a single one of them.

mattyg · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:13

Gammawolf said:
It's not dangerous though, because the animal is comfortable on the road with normal road conditions. If it is not comfortable then it is infact the rider that is endangering their own life and the horses. Drivers are not responsible for the horses position on the road, the rider is.

But in any case the THINK! campaign is woefully unspecific and pretty useless. Not only do they tell you specifically not to rev your engine, as in they want 0 revs in your engine (when it would be better worded to keep engine revs low if that's what they were aiming for). They don't distinguish between different engines or exhaust configurations. They'd be better off stating a dB level to account for the person in a 1.4L petrol or the ricer with a 5.0L and custom exhaust. But sure if your horse gets spooked by a 1.4L engine that needs to rev moderately in order to overtake then it must be the drivers fault for the inadequate mental state your horse.

Who's actions would it be that could cause the horse to bolt etc.?

Would the horse have bolted anyway and NOT because of the loud sound made by the pillock overtaking too close and at to a higher speed.?

If the main contributing factor is as a direct response or reaction because of something you did. Then Its your fault.

Same as if I threw bricks from a bridge onto your car. Would that be your fault for being on the road or my fault for throwing the bricks?

wordy · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:14

Gammawolf said:
It may not mean 0 revs but the wording says 0 revs. It's as if it was written by a 5 year old. But you've also just stated the same thing.

You should add a quantitative description to the action of "revving" as it's ambiguous otherwise. But that still doesn't change the issue that it's worded so poorly and takes no account of the variety of vehicles. If they want to advise on the noise levels, speed and acceleration then they should state a dB level and relative velocity to which you should to adhere too.

See above, that section needs rewording because currently it's so ambiguous it means nothing. Technically everyone passing an animal is not adhering to the advice as it categorically states not to rev your engine.

None of that needs rewording, you're being ridiculously pedantic to avoid admitting you're wrong.

mattyg · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:15

Dis86 said:
I'm saying why should they? I've asked multiple questions and you haven't been able to answer a single one of them.

One reason Is because they are in front so have priority.

Jeez this is why psychological tests should be routine if you want to have a license

Isnt a trait of being a psychopath not caring about the effect your actions have on other people

Freefaller · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:15

Can't say it bothers me to be honest.

Either horses pooing on the road, or riding on the road. Neither are really a big deal to me.

Amp34 · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:17

Dis86 said:
I'm saying why should they? I've asked multiple questions and you haven't been able to answer a single one of them.

Why should motorists stop at zebra crossings for people to cross, wait for people to cross before entering side streets or stay below the speed limit? Because it's the law and designed to keep all road users safe.*

*not that many people seem to follow any of those regulations anymore...

wordy · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:21

Dis86 said:
I'm saying why should they? I've asked multiple questions and you haven't been able to answer a single one of them.

Because manners, because safety, because they are allowed to use the road. Why should motorist do anything that slows them down or otherwise inconvenience them in any way?

Now I've answered your questions (as have other posters), answer mine, which I've asked multiple times. None of which you have tried to answer.

Gammawolf · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:22

wordy said:
None of that needs rewording, you're being ridiculously pedantic to avoid admitting you're wrong.

It's not pedantic at all, if someone tells me to do something then they better clarify what they want doing. Just a simply quantification of the action would suffice but it as it stands it's just simply wrong.

neil_g · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:24

Gammawolf said:
It's not pedantic at all, if someone tells me to do something then they better clarify what they want doing. Just a simply quantification of the action would suffice but it as it stands it's just simply wrong.

seems that you are the only one not knowing that "revving" means to be honest.

wordy · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:28

Gammawolf said:
It's not pedantic at all, if someone tells me to do something then they better clarify what they want doing. Just a simply quantification of the action would suffice but it as it stands it's just simply wrong.

You're doing it again.

Gammawolf · 28 Jul 2015 at 13:31

neil_g said:
seems that you are the only one not knowing that "revving" means to be honest.

What it attempts to mean and what it actually says are two separate notions, in case you weren't aware.

wordy said:
See, you're doing it again.

See above.