Bitten by a dog ... grrrr

boyfalldown said:
really??? best go live in an hermetically sealed padded box, what with all these threats around you. Heaven only knows how the species survived this long
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. Because I stated horses pose danger to road users who by coincidence pay for the roads I should confine myself to a looney bin because I state my horses shouldn't be on certain roads. Right....
 
ST4 said:
So let me get this straight. Because I stated horses pose danger to road users who by coincidence pay for the roads I should confine myself to a looney bin because I state my horses shouldn't be on certain roads. Right....
Click to expand...
ah there we go, the old "they dont pay car tax".

whos to say that horse riders dont pay their own council tax which pays for road upkeep..

and generally its the horse riders who are more often on the receiving end (not being in a large steel box), i can point you at several local fatalitys caused by motor vehicles.

as a cyclist i sympathise with horse riders on this.

(incidentally sorry OP)
 
ST4 said:
So let me get this straight. Because I stated horses pose danger to road users who by coincidence pay for the roads I should confine myself to a looney bin because I state my horses shouldn't be on certain roads. Right....
Click to expand...


no its more because of this paranoia that I think a nicely padded room would do you good

ST4 said:
Last time I checked, I could. Would rather not have horses which can be volatile posing a threat to my health and well being.
Click to expand...

you'll notice also that most horse owners pay tax (and therefore pay for roads), same with pedestrians and passengers. I'll lay money on whats more dangerous too. Mondeo man at 140 or a bloke on a country lane on a horse. Which do you reckon?
 
Yet another thread is descending into personal insults.
If you want to attack something
attack the "principle" not the poster.

Play nice people :)
 
ST4 said:
So do car drivers pay all these taxes you mention as well as this special tax per vehicle for the road plus a p*** taking level of tax on fuel used but horse users, cyclists don't. IMHO they have less rights.
Click to expand...


Do those less rights extend to not been given any courtesy?
 
OK, some stats

The most recent British Equestrian Trade Association (BETA) National Equestrian Survey (2010-11) indicated that:

3.5 million people (6 per cent of Great Britain‟s population) have ridden a horse at least once in the past 12 months.

There are 460 BHS - affiliated Riding Clubs and 40 Riding Club centres with approximately 36,000 members.

Horse riders represent a significant group of vulnerable road users and are involved in a number of accidents and near misses on the road. (Chapman and Musselwhite, 2011)

Of the 212 voluntarily submitted road accident reports the BHS received in 2011, around 62 per cent claimed that they rode theirhorses on public highways more than once per week.
This is supported by an online poll of 1,021 horse riders conducted by Horse and Hound magazine in 2007 which found that 69 per cent rode on public roads more than twice per week.

Regarding external causes of admittance to an NHS hospital in the financial year 2011-2012: o Animal riders, or occupants of animal drawn vehicles, accounted for 4,142 admissions to NHS hospitals, with a me an length of stay of 2.5 days.
Of these admissions, 3,825 of them were classed as an emergency. However, it is unknown whether those admitted were injured on a public highway.


It's a popular hobby, puts money back into the countryside, gets pretty girls into jodphurs :D, but legislation needs to be targeted at those irresponsible riders on busy roads.
No-one is suggesting a ban, but perhaps a restriction on those stables without any suitable land or access to bridleways.





Good derail this :D
 
ST4 said:
What about the lack of courtesy shown to car drivers/motorcyclists by these groups?
Click to expand...


I've never seen a horse been risen discourtesy, have you? And you seem to have dodged the question
 
Byker28i said:
No-one is suggesting a ban, but perhaps a restriction on those stables without any suitable land or access to bridleways.
Click to expand...
yeah. kindly shut down your livelyhood as its in the "wrong" place. that'd work well.

for the most part (i can tell you this as i cycle bridleways), its near impossible to traverse bridleways for a reasonable distance without having to use some road.
 
aptly fitting :D

This-thread-Is-now-ponies.jpg
 
neil_g said:
@boyfalldown got it.

incidentally you failed to answer my point about vehicle CO2 emissions.
Click to expand...

I see it as a preposterous way to tax things. It's a tax on prosperity.

Horses are often a menace. You won't change my view on that.

Answer this, are horse riders and cyclists oblidged to have 3rd party liability insurance. Iirc they are not. Horse can do a lot of damage yet they can go around uninsured on our roads. Seems that needs changed, IMHO.
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
yeah. kindly shut down your livelyhood as its in the "wrong" place. that'd work well.

for the most part (i can tell you this as i cycle bridleways), its near impossible to traverse bridleways for a reasonable distance without having to use some road.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, why not. Plenty of other businesses have restrictions built into their practices, noise, environmental concerns, even the highways agency is consulted over possible traffic disruption. Why should horses be except, just because thats the way it's always been?

With the stats as shown above, why should stables be restricted to those responsible businesses?
 
ST4 said:
I see it as a preposterous way to tax things. It's a tax on prosperity.
Click to expand...

Sorry I see it as a reasonable response to a change in considerations. The environment was getting polluted, cars was something easy that could be changed, change it through taxation as a fair means. No-one needs gus guzzlers (and that comes from a TVR owner). If you want to run one though you should pay for the priviledge
 
Byker28i said:
Sorry I see it as a reasonable response to a change in considerations. The environment was getting polluted, cars was something easy that could be changed, change it through taxation as a fair means. No-one needs gus guzzlers (and that comes from a TVR owner). If you want to run one though you should pay for the priviledge
Click to expand...

You do pay for the privilege - through the mental amount of tax on fuel you'll use copious amounts of.

I see cars as a thing of joy and hope and lots will see nice cars denied to them through the silly amount of tax applied on fuel etc. the environment would cope fine as things were.
 
ST4 said:
I see it as a preposterous way to tax things. It's a tax on prosperity.

Horses are often a menace. You won't change my view on that.

Answer this, are horse riders and cyclists oblidged to have 3rd party liability insurance. Iirc they are not. Horse can do a lot of damage yet they can go around uninsured on our roads. Seems that needs changed, IMHO.
Click to expand...

prosperity? based on emissions? typically higher VED cars are more powerful ergo more expensive. lower emissions VED with £0 or £30 charge are often cheaper. (edit - right i see what you mean there after your follow up, its still a tax based on vehicle emissions to help cut pollution. not aimed specifically at the better off).

a menace? bit like speeding motorists?

not obliged, certainly most horse riders i know do have it. vet bills for injuries are large. cyclists less so.

Byker28i said:
Perhaps, why not. Plenty of other businesses have restrictions built into their practices, noise, environmental concerns, even the highways agency is consulted over possible traffic disruption. Why should horses be except, just because thats the way it's always been?

With the stats as shown above, why should stables be restricted to those responsible businesses?
Click to expand...

thats nice when you can lob a bit of concrete and an industrial unit pretty much anywhere, but when roads criss-cross the land i cant see it being feasible.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
I see it as a preposterous way to tax things. It's a tax on prosperity.
Click to expand...


no its not. Its a tax on a choice. You choose to drive a powerful car with high emissions.

ST4 said:
Answer this, are horse riders and cyclists oblidged to have 3rd party liability insurance. Iirc they are not. Horse can do a lot of damage yet they can go around uninsured on our roads. Seems that needs changed, IMHO.
Click to expand...

obligated no. But join the riding assoc and you'll have 3rd party liability. of course pretty much every business in the UK (including stables and riding schools will have it anyway)
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
thats nice when you can lob a bit of concrete and an industrial unit pretty much anywhere, but when roads criss-cross the land i cant see it being feasible.
Click to expand...

That's just the point, you can't. There's so many restrictions now, especially by the Nimby lot. Campaign for rural england, Highways agency, objections from local residents, parish councils, planning officers, environmental considerations, so many hoops to go through.

What's wrong with restricting a business to a premises that's suitable. In the case of stables, very near to or with adjacent land suitable for riding. Plenty of other businesses have restrictions placed upon their operation, why should stables be any different. There's numerous deaths and accidents every year mixing horses with vehicles. I'm just suggesting keeping them apart on well used roads and part of that solution has to be the location of stables. If they are in an unsuitable location then yes they should be closed
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
ST4 said:
It's disproportionate. What would be wrong with £1 per gram co2 per km rather than punitive bands. After all co2 is co2 whether it comes from a Bentley or ford fiesta.
Click to expand...
whos going to police that when no engine is going to put out the exact same CO2 (manufacturing tolerances etc)? a band system leaves no room for argument.
 
Is this the right time to mention I've bought a 2.2 turbo diesel thats £30 road tax :D
 
Yves Geza said:
The forum's full of Daily Mail readers tonight, isn't it! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It is surprising how fast threads go off topic. Maybe the forum should be renamed TalkDailyMail or simply DailyMail forums :)
 
ST4 said:
It's disproportionate. What would be wrong with £1 per gram co2 per km rather than punitive bands. After all co2 is co2 whether it comes from a Bentley or ford fiesta.
Click to expand...

it is proportionate a W12 bentley GT gives out 338g/km of CO2 compared to 98 g/km for the 1.6 tdci fiesta
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top