Why can horses just **** everywhere?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dis86 said:
Well he can't buy petrol anywhere else or drive anywhere but roads!
Click to expand...

You've undermined your argument.

Despite doing everything in their power to follow road courtesy and cause as little disruption as possible to motorists, you claim that the very fact that they are using the road at all when they don't "need" to be makes horse riders selfish.

But your not willing to apply the same logic to a leisure car driver who holds you up. Why? Ultimately it's the same....you could claim he's selfish for being on the roads at all when he had no "need", but you don't.

You've exposed a clear bias that undermines your point.
 
Crpwned said:
First off, you are very welcome good sir :D

Secondly, I admit that was an assumption based on the point you're trying to argue. If it's not and you're happy with horse users using the roads and that other people should give them a bit of courtesy then...errr...your next paragraph is a bit redundant?

I'm sure if they could make their horse match the speed of traffic to avoid disruption they would, though I'm sure you'd then argue they may as well get a motorbike right? Also not sure how well a horse holds up at 60mph, regular servicing would be needed I reckon.
If they don't use the roads then how else are they going to get from point A to point B, not all riders are accomplished show jumpers who could just go via the fields ya know :p
Maybe they should use the path, that would certainly appease the road gods.
Click to expand...

Because horses are very very rarely ridden from point a to point b. They're normally ridden from a to a. Also bridle paths...excellent place to ride horses. Think there's more of them than there are roads!
 
Conscript said:
You've undermined your argument.

Despite doing everything in their power to follow road courtesy and cause as little disruption as possible to motorists, you claim that the very fact that they are using the road at all when they don't "need" to be makes horse riders selfish.

But your not willing to apply the same logic to a leisure car driver who holds you up. Why? Ultimately it's the same....you could claim he's selfish for being on the roads at all when he had no "need", but you don't.

You've exposed a clear bias that undermines your point.
Click to expand...

Because that horse rider can ride elsewhere than roads for leasure. A driver can't.

Also I must add actually that slow drivers irritate me far more than horse riders or cyclists who generally don't get on my goat much at all.
Slow drivers can safely travel faster, they're making the choice not to which I'd say is pretty rude!
 
Last edited:
Dis86 said:
Because horses are very very rarely ridden from point a to point b. They're normally ridden from a to a. Also bridle paths...excellent place to ride horses. Think there's more of them than there are roads!
Click to expand...

Actually their are few of these around here, even less so that are maintained. You also find you have to ride up the main A road for a few miles to get onto the next section of one.
 
Dis86 said:
Because horses are very very rarely ridden from point a to point b. They're normally ridden from a to a. Also bridle paths...excellent place to ride horses. Think there's more of them than there are roads!
Click to expand...
Most bridle paths are not connected and need you to go on the road to get to them. Most vehicles are point a to a as well so what's the problem? Most vehicles do a round trip and end up at the point they start just like the horse.

EDIT: How is taking my horse to the pub that different from taking a vehicle to the pub? This is not something I am making up but have done many times.
 
Last edited:
Dis86 said:
Because horses are very very rarely ridden from point a to point b. They're normally ridden from a to a. Also bridle paths...excellent place to ride horses. Think there's more of them than there are roads!
Click to expand...

How do you suggest they get to the bridle paths? Or from where one ends and another one starts?
 
Basher said:
And how do they get to the beaches and common land ... ?
Click to expand...

They drive large vehicles and trailers slowly holding up the traffic over a distance of up to 60+ miles instead.

:rolleyes:

He's surely trolling now as you cant be that stupid.

I've been waiting for Dis86 to tell me that tractors should drive up the fields next to roads because you know... tractor...
 
Last edited:
wilber said:
They drive large vehicles and trailers slowly holding up the traffic over a distance of up to 60+ miles.

:rolleyes:

Surely trolling now as you cant be this stupid.
Click to expand...

Not sure if the stupid comment was directed at me? If so I think you missed my point entirely.

The point is that horses are allowed on our roads. It can hold people up which to some may be frustrating, but no more so than a lorry or a bicycle ...
 
Dis86 said:
Because that horse rider can ride elsewhere than roads for leasure. A driver can't.
Click to expand...

Wrong, because race circuits exist.

But anyway, you've basically reduced the argument to a question of necessity...

Dis86 said:
Everyone rides a horse through choice, not necessity in this country.
Click to expand...

The exact same criticism can be levelled at the Caterham driver in the scenario described. They have no basic need whatsoever to be driving on the roads of holding you up in a queue at a petrol station. But you're willing to say "well, he needs to use fuel, so I'm not willing to consider him as selfish" or "well, he needs to use the road, so he's not selfish".

The logic that ultimately, horse riders are selfish because they don't have an absolute necessity to be on the road can just as easily be applied to the Caterham in the hypothetical situation, but you're squirming and coming up with justifications for him. Again, showing a clear bias only against horses.

So, either you undermine your own argument by continuing to do so, or you apply your same logic to absolutely everyone and claim that anyone who uses the road for any purpose that isn't absolutely necessary is selfish - which is ridiculous.
 
Basher said:
Not sure if the stupid comment was directed at me? If so I think you missed my point entirely.

The point is that horses are allowed on our roads. It can hold people up which to some may be frustrating, but no more so than a lorry or a bicycle ...
Click to expand...

Not at all directed at you. You're speaking sense.

Edited to make that clearer.
 
Basher said:
Oh come on, you know what he means. This whole 'road tax doesn't exist', whilst true, has been done to death.
Click to expand...

It is a road tax from 2017 though. George Osbourne said so

Osborne said: "We will create a new roads fund from the end of this decade and every single penny raised in vehicle excise duty will go into that fund to pay for roads. The tax paid on people's cars will be used on the roads they drive on. It's a fairer tax system for motorists."

Therefore its not a vehicle excise duty based on emissions from then. Its based on using the road.

Osborne said it's not right that those who can afford new cars pay no tax while those who can only afford as used vehicle have to shell out for tax when both are using the roads.

Vehicle excise duty will also be overhauled from 2017 because figures show that under the current scheme three quarters of all new cars would be exempt.
So basically if you can afford a fuel efficent, low pollution car then you have to pay as much as anybody else as its based on road use not emissions anymore
 
Last edited:
its goodluck to step in horse poo,next time you see some roll around iin it,who knows you might win the lotto !!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom