Whenever carriage drivers get together, the topic of conversation likely to dominate all others is the question of safety. Horror stories are exchanged of the spills, wrecks and accidents of one sort and another that every member of the group has experienced. This constant awareness of the likelihood of carriage driving accidents is, in itself, evidence that all is not right and that things could be better. Unfortunately, alertness to the fact that driving is an inherently high-risk activity only heightens the fear of losing control and affects attitudes to change. In the presumed absence of an acceptable alternative, drivers cling to tradition. Carriage driving is perhaps the most conservative of all equestrian disciplines.
Unfortunately, if tradition is interpreted as law it becomes an obstacle to progress when new knowledge makes a welfare advance possible (2). For example, the proposal I have frequently made to officials of driving societies that the cross-under bitless bridle would reduce accidents, enhance performance and advance the welfare of the horse is dismissed out of hand, often with extraordinary vehemence, and without my being given the chance to present the supporting evidence. Instead, I am scolded for my ignorance and the madness of such an idea. Yet one of the earliest depictions of a driving system, the Standard of Ur (c.1600 BC), shows the onegers of a four-ass chariot being driven in bitless bridles.
This article introduces abundant new evidence that the bit is unsafe. It also provides references for further reading that amplify the evidence and show that a bitless alternative has been available since 1999. There is a reason why driving is perceived by drivers as being so accident-prone. The reason is the bit.
One of the oldest myths of horsemanship is that the bit controls the horse. In fact it does not control the horse (1). On the contrary, the bit is undoubtedly the most frequent cause of complete loss of control. For example, mouth pain from the bit is the most frequent cause of a horse bolting, bucking and rearing (1). Bitted horses, both ridden and driven, have been bolting and bucking their way through history for 5000 years. Fear and pain of the bit can trigger behavior that, in man's environment, is potentially fatal to both horse and man (3-6). Even if not fatal, a host of other negative behavioral responses lead to loss of control. All of these responses deny pleasure to horse and man and bring discord to what should be a partnership. Harmony can never be attained if the "man" in "horsemanship" hurts the "horse." Bronze Age man made a mistake in inventing the bit and we have lived with this error for 5000 years. Since the onset of the present millennium, it has become abundantly apparent that there is a better way (1).
I believe that an unstated reason why drivers get so alarmed at the bitless option is because they already recognize, but do not admit - even to themselves, that the bit does not give them control. Yet the thought of abandoning an unsatisfactory but traditional method of communication for what they perceive to be an untested and revolutionary new method of communication requires too large a leap of faith. Fear of the unknown on the part of the driver arises in part from the compartmentalization of the horse world. One discipline tends not to "talk" or to "listen" to another. Drivers have not realized that riders have already thoroughly tested the cross-under bitless bridle (CBB) since 1999 and demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that it is far safer, more effective and a great deal more humane than the bit (See User Feedback at www.bitlessbridle.com/cat/User+comments.html)
Fig. 1: One of the engravings by Edward Mayhew in his book, "The Illustrated Horse Doctor" (1860). Mayhew's caption reads, "Various modes of forming that which all men speak of with admiration, as 'a good mouth.'"
The evidence from riding with the cross-under bitless bridle is of direct relevance to driving. Significantly, the first to adopt CBB driving were those that were already CBB riders
Whether a horse is being ridden or driven, its anatomy and physiology is the same (1). The presence of a bit frightens a carriage horse and makes him nervous, as it does a ridden horse. The pain of a bit in the carriage horse's mouth generates the same flight, fight and freeze responses as it does in the saddle horse. The bit interferes with a carriage horse's ability to breathe, as it does when ridden. A bit interferes with the gait, whether a horse is carrying or pulling a weight. A bit in a carriage horse's mouth triggers the same 100 or more negative behavioral reactions for a driver as for a rider (6). Carriage horses are susceptible, as are saddle horses, to the 40 or more diseases caused by the bit (2).
Because the carriage driver is more dependent on rein-aids than the rider, the bitted driving horse is at greater risk for all of the above than the bitted ridden horse and suffers from their effect to a greater degree. No wonder that the driver is apprehensive about safety. Compared with the ridden horse, the carriage horse is likely to be more nervous, more inclined to bolt, buck and rear, have more difficulty in breathing and will develop bridle lameness and a choppy gait more frequently. Whereas many a ridden horse exhibits 30 or 40 negative behavioral reactions to a bit, a carriage horse can be expected to develop even more. The same applies to the incidence of bit-induced diseases.
There are several reasons for this disparity but they mostly arise from the driver's greater dependence on hand-aids. The rider can rely on seat, legs, hand and voice. But the driver is limited to hand (mainly the bit, with discrete touches of the whip) and voice. The better the rider, the less she relies on hands and the more she uses seat and legs. The essence of "good hands" is the least amount of hand. In principle, this description of "good hands" applies also to driving but it is far harder for the driver to achieve. In fact, with a long rein attached to a metal rod in the horse's sensitive mouth, it is virtually impossible to achieve. First, there is the problem of the greater leverage force that results from the driver's longer rein. It is more difficult for a driver to be gentle than a rider. The mechanical "advantage" (if that is the right word) that a long rein inevitably provides means that it is so easy to apply great force. The firm seat of the driver, as compared to the rider, exacerbates the situation. With his seat on the box and his feet against the dashboard, a driver can too easily throw the whole of his weight against the horse's mouth (Fig 1). As Archimedes wrote, "Give me a firm place to stand and I will move the Earth." The driver may not be standing firmly but, compared to the rider, he is sitting down somewhat resolutely and this offers him the same purchase.
Fig. 2 A Mayhew engraving illustrating the iniquity of the bearing rein (sidecheck) attached to bradoon bits in the carriage pair that already wear curb bits, as compared with the snaffle of the cab horse.
Secondly, there is the inevitable added weight and drag on the mouth by the driver's reins. The hame terrets ease this a little but not entirely.
Thirdly, there is the design and usage of driving bits. The Liverpool driving bit, the one most commonly seen today, can be used as a snaffle but there are three or even four options for its use as a curb bit. I don't have any statistics on how often the Liverpool bit is used in its curb mode as compared with its snaffle mode but, as the curb options are provided, I assume they are used. This means that the driverŐs single rein may be attached directly to a curb bit, whereas when a rider uses a double bridle, she has the option of keeping the curb rein slack. It appears likely that the driver customarily uses a more severe bit than the rider. The Buxton bit can also be used as a snaffle or a curb but once again the temptation will be to use it as a curb and, if so, as the shanks are longer than the Liverpool, it will be even more severe. Mouthpieces for the Buxton bit can be rough or smooth. The less common Wilson four-ring snaffle, can be used as a mild or severe snaffle, depending on the way it is rigged.
Apart from the driver's dependence on hand-aids, there is the problem of the physical separation of driver and horse. If riders do something with their hands to hurt a bitted horse, the horse reacts in a way that alerts the rider immediately. If the rider is sensitive and takes the hint, there may be time to correct the mistake before the horse takes off. But drivers are not in touch with their horse in the same way. The driver is not sitting on its back and may not recognize the body language that the horse uses to signal its displeasure. Because of this, it is imperative that drivers use a method of communication that prevents them from hurting the horse in the first instance. Happily, such a pain-free method of communication is now available.
Apart from what a horseman may regard as the inconvenience of disobedience, when the horse shows any one of over a hundred reasons why it is unhappy with the bit, there is another fundamental reason why the bit method of communication is fatally flawed. Horses quickly learn that they can defend themselves from the bite of the bit. In so doing, they nullify all attempts at further communication. It is the horse equivalent of a listener on the telephone "hanging up" when the caller is rude or offensive. Apart from the negative behavior (which should be thought of as the "listener" screaming back) a horse can hang up in any one of three ways. It can:
ˇ grasp the bit between its teeth
ˇ position its head so that the bit is "buffered" by the front edge of the first cheek tooth in the lower jaw
ˇ tuck the bit away by immobilizing it under the tongue.
All of these maneuvers deaden the pain but also conclude what should be a "conversation." Any method of communication with a horse that lends itself to being ignored in this fashion, and without warning, is both disturbing and dangerous.
For the reasons given above, supported by the evidence in the references below, the bit is inhumane, ineffective and counter-productive. Since 1999, the validity of this statement and the humanity and effectiveness of the CBB has been thoroughly tested on many thousands of riding horses around the world. Because of the inherent resistance to change among drivers and the current rules of competition driving, fewer drivers than riders have used the CBB. But the results, from those who have, support the following conclusion. It is relatively unsafe to drive a horse in a bitted bridle and safer to use the cross-under bitless bridle. A horseman can signal more safely and more effectively if he remembers that a horse can feel a fly landing on its face. A "whisper" is better than a "shout."
References
1. Cook, W.R. and Strasser, H "Metal in the Mouth: The Abusive Effects of Bitted Bridles." Sabine Kells, Qualicum Beach, BC Canada, 2003
2. Cook, W.R.: "Tradition and the Status-Quo or Science and Advance?" Veterinary Times, 29th January 2007, p16-18 Available online at www.bitlessbridle.com/Tradition%20or%20Science.pdf
3. Cook, W.R.: "Bit-Induced Fear Part 1; From Human Hand to Horse's Head." Veterinary Times, April 9, 2007, p 18-23. Available at www.bitlessbridle.com/FOTB-1.pdf
4. Cook, W.R.: "Bit-Induced Fear Part 2: Bits and Diseases They can Cause." Veterinary Times. April 30 2007. Vol 37, No. 15, pp 22,23,25 Available at www.bitlessbridle.com/FOTB-2.pdf
5. Cook, W.R. "Bit-Induced Fear Part 3, Use of the Bit and Bad Behaviour." Veterinary Times. May 28, 2007. Available at www.bitlessbridle.com/FOTB-3.pdf
6. Cook, W.R.; "Behavioral Profiling Questionnaire." Available at www.bitlessbridle.com/FOTB-Q.pdf
7. Cook, W.R.: "Can the Bitless Bridle be used for Driving?" Updated July 2007. Available online at www.bitless bridle.com/DRIVING_BITLESS.pdf
