Motorbikes & Horses

Discussion begin ......

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/43068...es_for___300k/

hold on a minute just check my gps i could have swore this was england not yankland.

[timwilky]

Rubbish. she failed to control her animal and as a consequence was injured.

I used to ride horses, we never took any on the road that would have traffic issues.


Good manners dictates road users will pass horses wide with the throttle shut. But it is only good manners not law that makes us do this.


A number of times I have ridden round blind bends to find horse riders waving arms etc. If they have an issue with legitimate road users, complying with speed limits on legal bikes. Stick to the fields

Originally Posted by timwilky

Rubbish. she failed to control her animal and as a consequence was injured.

I used to ride horses, we never took any on the road that would have traffic issues.


Good manners dictates road users will pass horses wide with the throttle shut. But it is only good manners not law that makes us do this.


A number of times I have ridden round blind bends to find horse riders waving arms etc. If they have an issue with legitimate road users, complying with speed limits on legal bikes. Stick to the fields

+1 - She accepted the increased risk by taking her animal on to the road. She may have done this many many times before without an issue. Unfortunately this time it was an issue and resulted in horrible consequences. Feel sorry for her, but I fail to see it as the riders fault. if his machine is that load they surely heard him coming and could have taken avoiding action. The horse could just as easily have been spooked by a bird flying out of the hedgerow for instance.

How can anyone make reasonable comment? There is only one side to the story being given. Did the bike have a road legal exhaust? Was the bike legally on the road? Was the biker insured? All three are being suggested by the claimant that is not the case. More facts required.

I agree with the arguement that she had the animal on the road and needed to control it but also we have to look at the fact that the report indicates that it was not a "road" bike and had no insurance (probably no tax). I guess that is why she is sueing him.

Makes me wonder that if the bike had insurance would the insurance company have paid up therefore blaming the motorbike rider anyway? Guess it is up to the High Court to decide who is wrong now.

[G]

All above posts - I may be missing the point here but she and the horse were off road, as was the bike.

No she was on a country road.

Originally Posted by G

All above posts - I may be missing the point here but she and the horse were off road, as was the bike.

Mill Hill is a road

Originally Posted by Stig_Of_The_Dump

How can anyone make reasonable comment? There is only one side to the story being given. Did the bike have a road legal exhaust? Was the bike legally on the road? Was the biker insured? All three are being suggested by the claimant that is not the case. More facts required.

Agreed - but without these facts blame cannot be apportioned to the biker IMO.