Daughters horse hit a car

Flyboy152

alastairq wrote: »

The Highway Code [or HC for short] contains legal requirements.

It also contains advice, which although maybe not encompassed by the Law, may still be used in evidence against a road user.

This very fact is enshrined in the small print on the cover of the HC....

However, to be fair, even the writers of the HC can get it wrong at times...and this is why it is updated and 'improved' every year....

[anyone noticed that last years issue of HC had a road marking removed?

No?

The HC discovered, a certain road marking, whose meaning head been apparently clear, but assumed....had not actually ever been included in the Regulations covering road markings, their size, dimensions and meaning....therefore had no official meaning, nor could it be enforced....

yet, surprisingly, Local Authorities seem to be still using it ....hmmmm.

Go on....I'm all of a quiver, trying to think of which one.

Flyboy152

Hintza wrote: »

So what you are saying is that if I stop and you run into the back of me then it is my fault? You might find thi is not the case.

Yeah....becuae that's exactly what I wrote, wasn't it. :wall:

You know one of the nice things around here is folk in the country generally try to drive with a little consideration for the countryside, wildlife, livestock etc.

Guess that doesn't happen in your neck of the woods.

Where do you think I live then?

skiddlydiddly

Its the "watch out, out of control horses ahead with no passing place wide enough for the QE2 for 6 miles"

alastairq

Cars for most are a means to get to work and around the country

and not a leisure activity? Or a bit of fun? Or a 'statement' about oneself?


never seen the ratings for 'Top Gear?'

never noticed the conditions of issue ...or the actual legal need, for a driver's licence?

alastairq

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Go on....I'm all of a quiver, trying to think of which one.

have a guess?

enlighten the ignorant masses?

skiddlydiddly

alastairq wrote: »

and not a leisure activity? Or a bit of fun? Or a 'statement' about oneself?


never seen the ratings for 'Top Gear?'

never noticed the conditions of issue ...or the actual legal need, for a driver's licence?

Ok, how many people go to work on a horse?How many people actually need a horse to do their job?Obviously you won't know the figures but its going to be a tiny tiny amount.Now compare that to how many people use cars/vans etc to do the same.

Using them for anything else is a leisure activity.

alastairq

Reasons for usage..ie being on a Public Highway are of total irrelevance.

Otherwise, the same view could and should be applied to all the Sunday afternoon bikers out there.

[they don't go to work on their bikes..leastwise, not on a regular basis.....they don't need them for their jobs...etc]

You are correct regarding numbers in daily use.. however, not 50 years ago there were actually still more horses in use, as working transport, than motor vehicles...and that was around WW2!

Usage is irrelevant to the argument.

cyclonebri1

alastairq wrote: »

the same could be said for the owner of a car?

I agree entirely, as in car drivers are responsible for their actions and have to have insurance, and so should a horse on the road.

Don't even get me started about cyclists:p

cyclonebri1

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Yeah....becuae that's exactly what I wrote, wasn't it. :wall:



Where do you think I live then?

Is your username a clue or do we start from scratch??;);) and yes I am bored, dam royal wadding.

Oh !!!! then, Peckham, next door to Dellboy at Nelson Mandsela house

Flyboy152

skiddlydiddly wrote: »

Ok, how many people go to work on a horse?How many people actually need a horse to do their job?Obviously you won't know the figures but its going to be a tiny tiny amount.Now compare that to how many people use cars/vans etc to do the same.

Using them for anything else is a leisure activity.

In that context, they are mostly used to convey people to leisure activities, rather than being one in itself.