Fair enough, my mistake.
Why can horses just **** everywhere?
- Thread starter IC3
- Start date
- Status
Fair enough, my mistake.
yes and the definition of "revving" which is the word used is
its only ambiguous if you do not understand the meaning of the word revving.
or the difference between verbs and nouns which admittedly seems to be your sticking point here.
you find me a human being that can accurately determine the external DB level of a vehicle they're in.
heck go ask the next 10 people you meet what db a normal conversation is or a normal car is bet none of them get it.
What?! They're not allowed on public land without the landowners permission? It's public!
you allowed to drive your car on public footpaths? after all they're public....
Then I suggest you start petitioning your council. Round here however there are ample amounts of bridleways, public land and common land. Yet we still get horse riders on the roads.
By the same token we also have great cycle paths (they're actually shared paths for horses, pedestrians and cycles) and we still get cyclists on the road for some reason, often riding parallel to a cycle path.
However - how many A roads don't have a path or verge next to them that a horse could walk on? There is often no need whatsoever for the animal to be on the road.
We're getting sidetracked from my initial point though which was that horse riders (as can be seen from some of the earlier posts in this thread) are expecting people to be polite and courteous towards them when in most cases the very presence of the horse is an inconvenience to others.
Are you being intentionally thick here? Read my posts. Bridleways mate. Horses are allowed on them and they're public land.
id like to see it based on weight tbh. (of the vehicle not the driver)
Tyre size it should be based on
Via public bridleways...or via horse trailers which move significantly faster than a horse and rider!
We're not getting sidetracked at all. I responded quite comprehensively in post #253 which you seem to have completely ignored, presumably because I've highlighted your own hypocrisy and bias.
EDIT: Thankyou.
Mr Caterham driver doesn't cause queues of cars on the road (unless he's a bad driver but that's unrelated to his choice of transport).
Horsey rider does.
Mr Caterham cannot get to race tracks without going on a road - unless of course he pops it on a trailer but there's not much point in that when the Caterham will be faster driving than the vehicle towing it.
Driving on a road for pleasure is very very different to driving on a track.
I cannot see the pleasure for a rider riding on a busy road compared to riding through fields, woodland or beaches.
One also anticipates that at checkouts one may have to queue. That's normal.
One shouldn't have to wait behind something that cannot keep up with the speeds of modern road ways and may panic/cause an accident when it's overtaken.
Irrelevant. You reduced the argument to a question of whether or not people were selfish based on their ability to inconvenience others vs. the necessity to be in such a situation in the first place. You were presented with two comparable scenarios where the only difference was that one inconvenience was caused by a car driver, and the other a horse rider. You are happy to defend the motorist, but not the horse, for similar activities.
A horse cannot often access the bridleways, paths, beaches and other public space you want them kept on without using public roads, as is their right.
Again, you've undermined your own argument. You talk about necessity, but are happy to defend a completely unnecessary car being on the roads because you see the pleasure in it, but not the horse, just because you don't understand how anyone can find it pleasurable?
As a driver, I anticipate that there are other road users - pedestrians, horses, tractors, cyclists - and that I may have to queue in order to pass them safely. So should every motorist, and any that don't are the ones who shouldn't be on the roads. An argument that horses shouldn't be there because you aren't expecting them is a very weak one indeed.
Last edited:
The correct term for most roads is a carriageway.
Reasons for which should be fairly obvious, horses were there first, cars are just an annoyance for legitimate traffic.
You're presenting points as if they are fact when they are not. Shall we reduce it down to the very basics?
Caterham can keep up with traffic. FACT
Horse can't keep up with traffic. FACT.
Horse rider is aware his/her mount cannot keep up with traffic and is therefore an obstruction. FACT.
Horse rider therefore makes conscious decision to cause an obstruction. FACT.
Horse rider is therefore placing themselves above the other road users. FACT.
Drivers driving too slowly can and have been prosecuted for 'Inconsiderate driving'. FACT.
Therefore it is legally recognized that travelling on a road too slowly is inconsiderate. FACT.
I rest my case.
So if my horse is 2 miles from a bridleway how do I get there?
You're suggesting I need a horse box even though I can legally ride on the road without causing any significant distress?
Horses are traffic. They are not obstructions, because they are not obstructing the road. They are simply slower moving traffic that you have to negotiate.
Again, they are not making a conscious decision to cause an obstruction, because general practice is that normal drivers will just overtake them sensibly and safely as the law dictates.
Therefore they are not placing themselves above other road users. But it's ironic that you say that, because you seem to be...
You seem to be trying to link these two completely unrelated facts in order to make a point.
I assume that you think a pedestrian walking along a country lane is also inconsiderate then? After all, they must also be travelling "too slowly"?
I hope you never go into law.
Last edited:
- Status