Daughters horse hit a car

alastairq

and so should a horse on the road.

without reading through this thread.........



a horse being controlled on a public highway [or even, uncontrolled?]...should be covered for any damages it creates by Public Liability cover?

Whilst maybe not with a horse, [need confirmation, one way or the other] other domestic animals receive this cover via such insurances as Household Insurance.

Nearly all domestic insurance carries Public Liability cover.


[a personal example....my large dog, ran out into road in front of car, and was hit. Dog was mended, at my expense...car was mended at expense of Household Insurance, public liability cover......car was Ford Sierra, cost more to mend, but came off worse.]....


is there agricultural insurance [not casting aspersions on insurance company]...?? [with regard to this instance?]


Regarding cyclists?


Again, a cyclist may be covered for public liability via other insurance....the issue with cyclists is, the difficulty in holding them accountable...or identifying them properly.

[I would be roundly told off for suggesting that, when having an encounter with a cyclist, it may be a good idea to ensure they sustain a decent injury or damage.....at least then, their identity could be acquired and verified for that future claim?....................did I say that? Moi?]

Altarf

alastairq wrote: »

[I would be roundly told off for suggesting that, when having an encounter with a cyclist, it may be a good idea to ensure they sustain a decent injury or damage]

No, I just pity the mentally ill.

alastairq

No, I just pity the mentally ill.

oh..so all those psychological profiles I've undertaken over the years are wrong?

how can I be mentally ill? The Government cannot be so far adrift with their assessments.....

or were you referring to cyclists?

remember, my idea of mental illness may be your idea of sanity.......and vice versa..

skiddlydiddly

Flyboy152 wrote: »

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

I meant using horses for anything else, not cars.Should have been clearer.

TimothyEBaldwin

Flyboy152 wrote: »

If you are driving on the road, making reasonable progress, then yes it would be the driver who hits you in the rear, but if you were parked on the bend of the road, it would be your fault.

No it is fault of the person driving the moving vehicle.

Highway_Code_Rule_126 wrote:

Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.

skiddlydiddly

TimothyEBaldwin wrote: »

No it is fault of the person driving the moving vehicle.

Is it though?

242
You MUST NOT leave your vehicle or trailer in a dangerous position or where it causes any unnecessary obstruction of the road.

243

DO NOT stop or park

• near a school entrance
• anywhere you would prevent access for Emergency Services
• at or near a bus or tram stop or taxi rank
• on the approach to a level crossing or tramway crossing
• opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space
• near the brow of a hill or hump bridge
• opposite a traffic island or (if this would cause an obstruction) another parked vehicle
• where you would force other traffic to enter a tram lane
• where the kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users and powered mobility vehicles
• in front of an entrance to a property
• on a bend
• where you would obstruct cyclists’ use of cycle facilities

except when forced to do so by stationary traffic.


If this imaginary car hit you up the !!!! after coming around this imaginary bend thats so blind they cannot see you until its too late then it would be a double white liner.

alastairq

Is it though?

yes..every driver has a duty in law...'due care and attention?'

in the HC, 'Must/Must not' is backed up by law.....'Do/Do not' is not in itself, but might be used in evidence, etc.

Without reading the whole post again....if the road is a rural unclassified road, then a 'bend' may not have it's presence re-enforced by solid continuous white lines...there may be no white lines at all..

skiddlydiddly

alastairq wrote: »

yes..every driver has a duty in law...'due care and attention?'

in the HC, 'Must/Must not' is backed up by law.....'Do/Do not' is not in itself, but might be used in evidence, etc.

Without reading the whole post again....if the road is a rural unclassified road, then a 'bend' may not have it's presence re-enforced by solid continuous white lines...there may be no white lines at all..

Yes and my quote says you MUST NOT park it anywhere dangerous eg on or after a blind bend.

There is a duty to park properly/set off safely too.Just doing these things without having any consideration for what could be around the corner is no better than the boyracer coming screaming around it at 80mph.
Its called defensive driving and doesn't just mean crossing your fingers and hoping everyone else is going to miss you.

alastairq

Yes and my quote says you MUST NOT park it anywhere dangerous eg on or after a blind bend.

erm..no it doesn't.

242
You MUST NOT leave your vehicle or trailer in a dangerous position or where it causes any unnecessary obstruction of the road.

'dangerous position' makes no specific reference to a bend....blind or otherwise.

Obstruction is also only proven if there is insufficient room to physically pass.....in actual terms, not a driver's opinion, either.

The onus of care is placed upon every road user.

And that includes a driver approaching, perhaps, a bend they cannot see clearly around.

Mention further down the HC is made regarding the parking on bends....as a Do Not

Lum

Hintza wrote: »

If I am pulling out of a field and you fly round the corner and hit me, you will be at fault.

Hintza is actually right on this one, though it is often difficult to prove.

One of the basic aspects of safe driving is "Always be able to stop in the distance you can see and guarantee to be clear*" so if you are going around a blind corner and can only see 15 feet ahead of you, should be travelling at such a speed that you can stop within 15 feet.

If you come flying around a corner unable to stop and suddenly you see Hintza on his tractor or his horse half way out of the gate to his farm, it's your fault as your driving was negligent. He could just have easily been half way into his field, or broken down in his tractor and trying to repair it.

However if you do stop safely without hitting his horse and his horse then proceeds to kick in your car, that is his fault.

* On single track roads I, personally, choose to adjust this to half the distance you can see to be clear, and have the camera rolling in case the idiot coming the other way does not do this.