Texting on a horse!

[Baggy]

Mugshot. You know the law. I can't be in full control of a motor vehicle if I'm texting, even if I'm stationery behind horses.

Now you're really pushing the envelope...

 

[brokenflipflop]

Now you're really pushing the envelope...

That is a good spot and a quality joke made out of it

 

[brokenflipflop]

I'm sorry if I have diverted the thread from the title slightly. I didn't know that one wasn't supposed to do that.

 

[Bicycle]

I'm sorry if I have diverted the thread from the title slightly. I didn't know that one wasn't supposed to do that.

I'm not sure Adrian has a problem with 'mission creep' on this thread BFF. He just disagrees with you about horses being allowed on the Queen's highway, as far as I can see. Even though it was I who started this with a slight moan about a texting equestrian, I am with Adrian in not having an issue with horses on tarmac. Even horses ridden by minors. My 12-year-old rides a horse on the road and I have no issue with that. If he texted in the saddle, paid no heed to other road users and dawdled two-abreast without having the courtesy to see who might want to get past, I would have words. But riding on the road is cool and frankly it holds up cars and bicycles hardly at all, if done with some civility and awareness.

Until about a century ago horses had the roads to themselves. Cars, bicycles and lorries are the Johnny-come-lately in this one.

Drivers and cyclists (up to a point) are on their territory - not the other way around.

As to manure being left on the carriageway (which some cyclists object to), it is easily avoided and quickly removed by car tyres. It doesn't represent half the threat to cyclists that mud from tractor tyres can. But that too is pretty much unavoidable if we want a domestic rural economy.

 

[brokenflipflop]

A lot of places don't accept cheques anymore even though they were in use before Debit cards. Crap analogy I know but we don't get horses walking down train tracks even though the horse came before the train. Billions have been spent on tarmac roads for cars, not horses. That said I still don't quite understand, given other suitable alternatives, the need for riders to take their horses onto tarmac roads. I'd suggest, in the majority of cases that it's pure vanity on behalf of the rider. What's wrong with riding the horses in the fields that the horse would usually reside in ? I'm not overly bothered, I just think it's an unnecessary risk and where I live the only animals for miles are domestic dogs and cats.

 

[slowmotion]

I find that a little bit creepy, though I concede that it was probably meant to lighten the mood.

Jilly Cooper made millions out of it.

 

[Aperitif]

That could be a 'mare, Adrian, and it would depend on the tryres. You'd be no pal o mino for making me drive off road in my WP.

 

[VamP]

I wonder how many people debating this have actually sat on a horse.

Leaving aside the frothings of BFF who clearly doesn't get most things, can anyone accept that riding a horse is totally different to any other form of transport that we are generally exposed to? The horse is fully capable of transporting himself, the rider's job is to select the destination, and to provide corrective inputs in case of problems. The level of interaction between rider and horse is many, many orders of magnitude greater than that between a driver and a car, or indeed a rider and a bike. To that extent, texting while hacking at walking speed, especially in pairs, is actually pretty safe, as the horse is following the side of the road, and his hacking partner, and the rider has a plethora of sensory inputs to tell him of what is happening. Some horses are easily spooked, others are solid as a rock. It's the rider's job to know their horse, and to act appropriately.

Mobile phone use while riding a horse is not against the law. It may not, however, always be sensible

Riding side by side is advised in certain situations, to prevent dodgy overtakes, much as with cycling. Whether it was appropriate to this instance, I cannot tell.

 

[Bicycle]

I wonder how many people debating this have actually sat on a horse.

Whether it was appropriate to this instance, I cannot tell.

A very good point. I have ridden, but no longer do. Some of my family are keen riders and I spend a fair amount of time around horses.

You're quite right about riding two-abreast being appropriate in some circumstances. These were not they. You're also quite right about the differences between riding a horse/pony and riding a bicycle.

However, I disagree about a rider having only to 'choose a destination and provide corrective input in case of problems'. There is a school of thought that a rider on the road should have both hands on the rein/reins unless signalling. Not everyone holds with that, but a fairly large majority do. It is certainly widely believed that a rider must be aware of traffic approaching from all directions.

I do agree about the rider having a plethora of sensory inputs should anything happen... Most riders are switched on and courteous. But in this case I was sitting/rolling at tickover in a fairly lumpy diesel for about 25-30 seconds behind the horses before either rider showed any awareness of my presence. As there are several stables in the area, we usually see horses out hacking in those lanes. The lanes are generally thought to be too narrow and sinuous for two-abreast riding. This is the view of horsey folk, not just this gnarled and jaded old car lover.

I agree with much of what you say and it is very clearly put. There was a lot of comment on this thread initially that I'd shown impatience in talking to the riders about the poor impression they were giving. I have to take that on board.

Nonetheless, I am sure that a rider on the highway must be completely in control of his or her horse at all times and fully aware of the presence of approaching traffic. These two were neither.

Thanks anyway for a thoughtful and thought-provoking response.

 

[theclaud]

There is a school of thought that a rider on the road should have both hands on the rein/reins unless signalling. Not everyone holds with that, but a fairly large majority do.

Meh. They'll be telling us next that we should have our hands on the handlebars!

 

[VamP]

There is a school of thought that a rider on the road should have both hands on the rein/reins unless signalling. Not everyone holds with that, but a fairly large majority do.

I would agree with that too. Now if you had said that the rider in question had let go of her reins, in order to do her texting, then my perception of the situation would have been different. It is, however, possible to operate a mobile phone and hold the reins at the same time...

Like you, I find the majority of horse riders safe and considerate. Typically, they are in a role of greater responsibility in the sense that they worry for the wellbeing of their horse as much, if not more than themselves. In that, they are similar to parents out bicycling with their offspring.

As to the fact that you spoke to the rider concerned, I have no issue with that. People should generally communicate more, and froth less.

 

[Aperitif]

Here's 'TexTing on a horse' for you...

 

[VamP]

That's everyone's favourite cycle themed cafe bar buggered then.

Maybe they could keep their re-decoration costs low by replacing 'hands' with 'trackstands' ??

 

[snailracer]

Meh. They'll be telling us next that we should have our hands on the handlebars!

And 4 wheels are of course safer than 2 - simple physics, innit?

 

[dellzeqq]

Again Adrian, you may have anticipated my answer but I'll say it anyway - If I dropped a bicycle on your head from say 3 feet, I dare say it would hurt. If I dropped a horse on your head, it would most likely kill you.

even if I was wearing a helmet?