A horse rider who was left with four broken ribs and a punctured lung when her horse was spooked by an undertaking cyclist says people on bikes need to be more aware of how to share the road safely with those on horseback.
The rider, whose name was given only as Karen, had almost returned to her yard after a ride on her horse Polly when the incident happened last Tuesday, the Horse & Hound reports. No details of the location were provided.
She said: “There was no traffic. I didn’t hear the cyclist and he didn’t shout to say he was passing – there were only inches between the edge of the road, him and me.
“He came so close he was just about touching my stirrup. Polly got a fright and jumped off all four legs across the road.
“There was a lay-by across the road with a parked car and Polly went into the car and I came off. I remember not being able to breathe or speak.”
An occupant of one of two vehicles that stopped at the scene happened to be a nurse who works in A&E and called for an ambulance.
“I could see the cyclist stopped but he never came over and then he was gone,” Karen continued. “He left me.”
Her horse, a 15-year-old mare, was found at the stables.
After spending four days in hospital, Karen is now recovering at home.
She said: “I’m very sore even on painkillers. I left hospital on Saturday evening and still have a raspy voice from the chest drain they had to put in.
“It’s taking me a long time to get dressed and showered and I have my daughter staying with me for two weeks to help me,” she added.
The incident happened two months after a man taking part in the Windsor Triathlon, riding in the cycling leg of the event, undertook a horse rider at speed, making contact with her as he passed.
Several other people participating in the event also passed the horse and rider without slowing down, and subsequently organisers Human Race confirmed that one man had been banned from its events for life and another for 12 months.
> Police probing triathlon cyclist’s undertake of horse rider
The episode was captured on the horse rider’s action camera and after road.cc’s initial coverage the story was picked up by the mainstream media.
The incident was also being investigated by Thames Valley Police, whom we have contacted for an update.
Rule 215 of the Highway Code, among other things, instructs road users to “Be particularly careful of horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles especially when overtaking,” and to “Always pass wide and slowly.”
More extensive guidance on how cyclists and horse riders can share the road safely has been issued by the British Horse Society (BHS) and is endorsed by British Cycling, and is covered in a road.cc article that can be found by following the link below.
167 thoughts on “Woman suffers punctured lung and broken ribs as horse she was riding spooked by cyclist who undertook them without warning”
Hang on. Road.cc covered it
Hang on. Road.cc covered it and brought it to the attention of the mainstream press who are no doubt going to use it as further evidence of how lawless cyclists are?
thanks. With friends like road.cc who needs enemies
atlaz wrote:
Probably because road.cc is involved in reporting news involving cyclists. If it didn’t publish the bad news then it would basically be propaganda…
In any event, I don’t know why people struggle to overtake horses, literally all you need to do is say “hello” to the horse rider so that they know you are there before passing wide and slow.
atlaz wrote:
You can’t blame Road.cc for accurate reporting just because the mainstream press have an axe to grind.
If someone is behaving badly on the road, then there’s a reason to report it, no matter if it’s a lorry, car, cyclist or pedestrian (or even a horse).
atlaz wrote:
The video went viral on its own. We happened to be first to report the story, and we did so in a factual manner.
And as that original story made clear, the majority of comments from cyclists on social media criticised the guy on the bike for the manner in which he was riding.
atlaz wrote:
What a really stupid thing to say. We’re all road users and if there are some brainless cyclists out there who don’t even know how to pass a horse we should be aware of it.
Try puting your brain into gear instead of your bike before writing any more witless comments.
Idiotic thing to do. Maybe I
Idiotic thing to do. Maybe I encounter them more frequently because of where I live but purely in the interests of self-preservation it’s a good idea to give them a very wide berth.
We face the same issues on the road (see this article from H&H https://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/riders-must-change-behaviour-for-safer-roads-lizzie-greenwood-hughes-the-british-horse-societys-the-real-horsepower-safety-conference-623037 for example) so we should all be looking out for each other.
kil0ran wrote:
Spot on
I smell a rat here.I don’t
I smell a rat here.I don’t think that I believe there was an undertaking cyclist.
Second thing is that if a horse is so easily spooked, it shouldn’t be out in public, especially on the public highway.
don simon wrote:
Don, ***all*** horses are potentially spookable. Some freak out at puddles. I wouldn’t want to be passed as a walker or cyclist at touching distance, at any speed, without warning. The fact it was a horse just meant the outcome was worse.
Sounds like this guy was a prize twat.
KiwiMike wrote:
“So easily spooked”
Again, if you know that a horse is spooked by puddles, is it twattish to suggest you don’t take it out in the rain?
I hate it when those police horses freak out too. Bastards!
don simon wrote:
If you can smell a rat its because your nose is too close to your own ass.
Don Simon’s descent into oblivion should be complete following such cretinous comments.
don simon wrote:
Stunning. Just stunningly complacent and frighteningly ignorant.
Bottom line – horses ARE damned easily “spooked” … especially by something fast, silent, often brightly coloured, and coming up beside them, by their shoulder. Think sabre-tooth tigers on the steppes.
It’s called evolution. Thousands upon thousands of years of evolution.
Survival of the fittest, no less. Cos the horses that didn’t get spooked … had that sabretooth tiger sink its teeth into their neck.
don simon wrote:
For any horsists dropping by to see what the cycling community think about this story, please excuse our resident moron.
Mungecrundle wrote:
I smell a rat here.I don’t think that I believe there was an undertaking cyclist.
Second thing is that if a horse is so easily spooked, it shouldn’t be out in public, especially on the public highway.
— Mungecrundle For any horsists dropping by to see what the cycling community think about this story, please excuse our resident moron.— don simon
Bit of a prick, aren’t we? Our resident dildo has problems responding to arguments, being a thick twat, can only throw insults at others. This is how thick the cycling community is, some can read though, others can actually think too, but not at the same time.
don simon wrote:
No argument necessary. You justify my previous comment most cogently.
Mungecrundle wrote:
I smell a rat here.I don’t think that I believe there was an undertaking cyclist.
Second thing is that if a horse is so easily spooked, it shouldn’t be out in public, especially on the public highway.
— Mungecrundle For any horsists dropping by to see what the cycling community think about this story, please excuse our resident moron.— don simon
And don’t think for one minute that you represent the cycling community any more than don simon. You come across as being rather sanctimonious.
don simon wrote:
I don’t see why a horse rider would blame a cyclist if there wasn’t some kind of incident. As others have said, horses can be easily spooked, so why would she make something up if her horse got spooked for some other reason? Also, she says she has footage which is a strange thing to claim if events aren’t quite as she has stated.
Personally, I think that horses have every right to use the public highway as they are the original form of transport (along with pedestrians), so restricting their rights is a step in the wrong direction (think U.S. jaywalking laws). In a lot of ways, horse rights are quite similar to cycling rights as both horses and cyclists need special consideration by motorists.
If events did happen as described, then the cyclist was lucky that he didn’t get caught by the horse. It sounds like a really dumb thing to do, especially as horses are usually right by the kerb so there wouldn’t be much of a gap. I’d certainly be spooked if a cyclist overtook me on the inside without warning.
Every time I’ve encountered horses on the road, I always take care to not overtake too quickly or too closely and I give the rider a nod, hello or maybe a smile depending on how busy the road is and it’s never been anything but a pleasant interaction between fellow road users.
Should’ve used a bell.
Should’ve used a bell.
What kind of utter fucking
What kind of utter fucking cretin undertakes a horse, and without warning at that?
Edited for temper.
vonhelmet wrote:
Were you there, are you taking the side of someone without any evidence, you know which is exactly what the police don’t do?
Too many bullshit stories about how a cyclist did this and that have made me and many others wary of accepting one persons version of events with no other witness/other party chiming in.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
You expect us to take your word about all the times motorists put you in danger, without video proof.
You are the embodiement of double standards.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Were you there, are you taking the side of someone without any evidence, you know which is exactly what the police don’t do?
Too many bullshit stories about how a cyclist did this and that have made me and many others wary of accepting one persons version of events with no other witness/other party chiming in.
— BehindTheBikesheds You expect us to take your word about all the times motorists put you in danger, without video proof. You are the embodiement of double standards.— vonhelmet
The fact I don’t run off to the police because I made a fooking mistake nor indeed bother to go to police unless I have evidence you’re talking a load of twaddle.
it’s not double standards, not even close, bother to actually read and maybe just grasp a basic undeerstanding of what I said in my follow up posts.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Cool, I’m sure we shall all look forward to your next tall tale of victimisation on her majesty’s highways and byeways to be backed up with some independent witness statements or at least a video clip. Or don’t be surprised if your own words are thrown back at you.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Were you there, are you taking the side of someone without any evidence, you know which is exactly what the police don’t do?
Too many bullshit stories about how a cyclist did this and that have made me and many others wary of accepting one persons version of events with no other witness/other party chiming in.
— BehindTheBikesheds You expect us to take your word about all the times motorists put you in danger, without video proof. You are the embodiement of double standards.— Mungecrundle
The fact I don’t run off to the police because I made a fooking mistake nor indeed bother to go to police unless I have evidence you’re talking a load of twaddle.
it’s not double standards, not even close, bother to actually read and maybe just grasp a basic undeerstanding of what I said in my follow up posts.
— BehindTheBikesheds Cool, I’m sure we shall all look forward to your next tall tale of victimisation on her majesty’s highways and byeways to be backed up with some independent witness statements or at least a video clip. Or don’t be surprised if your own words are thrown back at you.— vonhelmetYou seem to be implying that cyclists tell tall tales that they are being victimised on highways and byeways. This seems a very odd view to take, unless you’ve never felt victimised by drivers while cycling and also never witnessed such an act?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Cool, I’m sure we shall all look forward to your next tall tale of victimisation on her majesty’s highways and byeways to be backed up with some independent witness statements or at least a video clip. Or don’t be surprised if your own words are thrown back at you.— BehindTheBikeshedsYou seem to be implying that cyclists tell tall tales that they are being victimised on highways and byeways. This seems a very odd view to take, unless you’ve never felt victimised by drivers while cycling and also never witnessed such an act?— vonhelmet
Yet this is exactly what BTBS, don simon, davel Yorkshire wallet and others are accusing the horse rider in this story of and demanding further proof that it ever happened to the point of conjuring up alternative scenarios.
This is double standards or am I reading some weird parallel set of posted comments?
Mungecrundle wrote:
Were you there, are you taking the side of someone without any evidence, you know which is exactly what the police don’t do?
Too many bullshit stories about how a cyclist did this and that have made me and many others wary of accepting one persons version of events with no other witness/other party chiming in.
— ChrisB200SX You expect us to take your word about all the times motorists put you in danger, without video proof. You are the embodiement of double standards.— Mungecrundle
The fact I don’t run off to the police because I made a fooking mistake nor indeed bother to go to police unless I have evidence you’re talking a load of twaddle.
it’s not double standards, not even close, bother to actually read and maybe just grasp a basic undeerstanding of what I said in my follow up posts.
— BehindTheBikesheds Cool, I’m sure we shall all look forward to your next tall tale of victimisation on her majesty’s highways and byeways to be backed up with some independent witness statements or at least a video clip. Or don’t be surprised if your own words are thrown back at you.— MungecrundleYou seem to be implying that cyclists tell tall tales that they are being victimised on highways and byeways. This seems a very odd view to take, unless you’ve never felt victimised by drivers while cycling and also never witnessed such an act?
— BehindTheBikesheds Yet this is exactly what BTBS, don simon, davel Yorkshire wallet and others are accusing the horse rider in this story of and demanding further proof that it ever happened to the point of conjuring up alternative scenarios. This is double standards or am I reading some weird parallel set of posted comments?— vonhelmet
I suggest that you are reading some weird parallel posts, I haven’t accused the horse rider of anything ( I cast a doubt) I haven’t demanded video ( I said that supporting evidence would clear things up) and I would probably say the same if there were parallels with the cyclist claimed the same. Either demonstrate where I accused or demanded those things and where I have posted a double standard or please edit your post to epress what is real.
don simon wrote:
Cool, I’m sure we shall all look forward to your next tall tale of victimisation on her majesty’s highways and byeways to be backed up with some independent witness statements or at least a video clip. Or don’t be surprised if your own words are thrown back at you.— BehindTheBikeshedsYou seem to be implying that cyclists tell tall tales that they are being victimised on highways and byeways. This seems a very odd view to take, unless you’ve never felt victimised by drivers while cycling and also never witnessed such an act?
— Mungecrundle Yet this is exactly what BTBS, don simon, davel Yorkshire wallet and others are accusing the horse rider in this story of and demanding further proof that it ever happened to the point of conjuring up alternative scenarios. This is double standards or am I reading some weird parallel set of posted comments?— BehindTheBikesheds
I suggest that you are reading some weird parallel posts, I haven’t accused the horse rider of anything ( I cast a doubt) I haven’t demanded video ( I said that supporting evidence would clear things up) and I would probably say the same if there were parallels with the cyclist claimed the same. Either demonstrate where I accused or demanded those things and where I have posted a double standard or please edit your post to epress what is real.— vonhelmet
From your own post 2 pages back.
“If the rider has footage, then let’s see in its full context.”
We really are not communicating are we?
Mungecrundle wrote:
Were you there, are you taking the side of someone without any evidence, you know which is exactly what the police don’t do?
Too many bullshit stories about how a cyclist did this and that have made me and many others wary of accepting one persons version of events with no other witness/other party chiming in.
— don simon You expect us to take your word about all the times motorists put you in danger, without video proof. You are the embodiement of double standards.— Mungecrundle
The fact I don’t run off to the police because I made a fooking mistake nor indeed bother to go to police unless I have evidence you’re talking a load of twaddle.
it’s not double standards, not even close, bother to actually read and maybe just grasp a basic undeerstanding of what I said in my follow up posts.
— ChrisB200SX Cool, I’m sure we shall all look forward to your next tall tale of victimisation on her majesty’s highways and byeways to be backed up with some independent witness statements or at least a video clip. Or don’t be surprised if your own words are thrown back at you.— MungecrundleYou seem to be implying that cyclists tell tall tales that they are being victimised on highways and byeways. This seems a very odd view to take, unless you’ve never felt victimised by drivers while cycling and also never witnessed such an act?
— BehindTheBikesheds Yet this is exactly what BTBS, don simon, davel Yorkshire wallet and others are accusing the horse rider in this story of and demanding further proof that it ever happened to the point of conjuring up alternative scenarios. This is double standards or am I reading some weird parallel set of posted comments?— Mungecrundle
I suggest that you are reading some weird parallel posts, I haven’t accused the horse rider of anything ( I cast a doubt) I haven’t demanded video ( I said that supporting evidence would clear things up) and I would probably say the same if there were parallels with the cyclist claimed the same. Either demonstrate where I accused or demanded those things and where I have posted a double standard or please edit your post to epress what is real.
— BehindTheBikesheds From your own post 2 pages back. “If the rider has footage, then let’s see in its full context.” We really are not communicating are we?— vonhelmet
What’s demanding about that?
don simon wrote:
Cool, I’m sure we shall all look forward to your next tall tale of victimisation on her majesty’s highways and byeways to be backed up with some independent witness statements or at least a video clip. Or don’t be surprised if your own words are thrown back at you.— ChrisB200SXYou seem to be implying that cyclists tell tall tales that they are being victimised on highways and byeways. This seems a very odd view to take, unless you’ve never felt victimised by drivers while cycling and also never witnessed such an act?
— Mungecrundle Yet this is exactly what BTBS, don simon, davel Yorkshire wallet and others are accusing the horse rider in this story of and demanding further proof that it ever happened to the point of conjuring up alternative scenarios. This is double standards or am I reading some weird parallel set of posted comments?— BehindTheBikesheds
I suggest that you are reading some weird parallel posts, I haven’t accused the horse rider of anything ( I cast a doubt) I haven’t demanded video ( I said that supporting evidence would clear things up) and I would probably say the same if there were parallels with the cyclist claimed the same. Either demonstrate where I accused or demanded those things and where I have posted a double standard or please edit your post to epress what is real.
— Mungecrundle From your own post 2 pages back. “If the rider has footage, then let’s see in its full context.” We really are not communicating are we?— BehindTheBikesheds
What’s demanding about that?— vonhelmet
Is English your first language?
Mungecrundle wrote:
[quote=vonhelmet]
What kind of utter fucking cretin undertakes a horse, and without warning at that?
Edited for temper.— Mungecrundle
Were you there, are you taking the side of someone without any evidence, you know which is exactly what the police don’t do?
Too many bullshit stories about how a cyclist did this and that have made me and many others wary of accepting one persons version of events with no other witness/other party chiming in.
— don simon You expect us to take your word about all the times motorists put you in danger, without video proof. You are the embodiement of double standards.— Mungecrundle
The fact I don’t run off to the police because I made a fooking mistake nor indeed bother to go to police unless I have evidence you’re talking a load of twaddle.
it’s not double standards, not even close, bother to actually read and maybe just grasp a basic undeerstanding of what I said in my follow up posts.
— don simon Cool, I’m sure we shall all look forward to your next tall tale of victimisation on her majesty’s highways and byeways to be backed up with some independent witness statements or at least a video clip. Or don’t be surprised if your own words are thrown back at you.— MungecrundleYou seem to be implying that cyclists tell tall tales that they are being victimised on highways and byeways. This seems a very odd view to take, unless you’ve never felt victimised by drivers while cycling and also never witnessed such an act?
— ChrisB200SX Yet this is exactly what BTBS, don simon, davel Yorkshire wallet and others are accusing the horse rider in this story of and demanding further proof that it ever happened to the point of conjuring up alternative scenarios. This is double standards or am I reading some weird parallel set of posted comments?— Mungecrundle
I suggest that you are reading some weird parallel posts, I haven’t accused the horse rider of anything ( I cast a doubt) I haven’t demanded video ( I said that supporting evidence would clear things up) and I would probably say the same if there were parallels with the cyclist claimed the same. Either demonstrate where I accused or demanded those things and where I have posted a double standard or please edit your post to epress what is real.
— BehindTheBikesheds From your own post 2 pages back. “If the rider has footage, then let’s see in its full context.” We really are not communicating are we?— Mungecrundle
What’s demanding about that?
— BehindTheBikesheds Is English your first language?[/quote]
Yes, now explain what is demanding about that.
Just to help, here’s a definition of demand:
to ask for something forcefully, in a way that shows that you do not expect to be refused:
Where’s the force (for starters)?
Here’s another definition, Collins this time:
1. verb
If you demand something such as information or action, you ask for it in a very forceful way.
Where’s the very forceful way.
No, there’s no communication if you insist on misinterpreting the english language and misrepresenting what people here say.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Were you there, are you taking the side of someone without any evidence, you know which is exactly what the police don’t do?
Too many bullshit stories about how a cyclist did this and that have made me and many others wary of accepting one persons version of events with no other witness/other party chiming in.
— ChrisB200SX You expect us to take your word about all the times motorists put you in danger, without video proof. You are the embodiement of double standards.— Mungecrundle
The fact I don’t run off to the police because I made a fooking mistake nor indeed bother to go to police unless I have evidence you’re talking a load of twaddle.
it’s not double standards, not even close, bother to actually read and maybe just grasp a basic undeerstanding of what I said in my follow up posts.
— BehindTheBikesheds Cool, I’m sure we shall all look forward to your next tall tale of victimisation on her majesty’s highways and byeways to be backed up with some independent witness statements or at least a video clip. Or don’t be surprised if your own words are thrown back at you.— MungecrundleYou seem to be implying that cyclists tell tall tales that they are being victimised on highways and byeways. This seems a very odd view to take, unless you’ve never felt victimised by drivers while cycling and also never witnessed such an act?
— BehindTheBikesheds Yet this is exactly what BTBS, don simon, davel Yorkshire wallet and others are accusing the horse rider in this story of and demanding further proof that it ever happened to the point of conjuring up alternative scenarios. This is double standards or am I reading some weird parallel set of posted comments?— vonhelmetIt’s actually not the same, I think some people are naively believing what they read without thinking about it.
Are we all horse-riders who regularly see cyclists undertaking and spooking horses? Some people are pointing out the lack of proof.
As a cyclist, would you ride up the inside of a horse, spook it and then bugger off? Could you imagine any reasonable person ever attempting that? No? Then why so quick to vilify the cyclist we don’t even know exists? I find it much easier to believe people find it too easy to blame a cyclist to cover up their own mistakes.
I presume some people here believe drivers when they say all cyclists go through red lights all the time?
I’ve been on the receiving end of blame (even from the Police) too often when I’ve been on my bike and doing nothing wrong to just blindly believe the cyclist is always in the wrong. If there is video evidence of this, why can’t I find it online and why did the Police, apparently, not mention this, or indeed the Schrodinger’s cyclist?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Why so keen to doubt? Let’s play a game…
As a driver, would you close pass a cyclist, scare them and then bugger off? Could you imagine any reasonable person ever attempting that?
Yet we know some drivers act like dicks with their close passes, their mobile phones, the sun in their eyes… Why is it so hard to believe that some people on bikes are also dicks?
You go on to mention how some drivers say that all cyclists run red lights, which we know isn’t true. However, we know that some do. There is a percentage of cyclists who run red lights. I know there is, I see them doing it every day on my commute. Equally, I’m sure most wouldn’t intentionally or negligently scare a horse, but I have no difficulty believing it happens.
vonhelmet wrote:
Why so keen to doubt? Let’s play a game…
As a driver, would you close pass a cyclist, scare them and then bugger off? Could you imagine any reasonable person ever attempting that?
Yet we know some drivers act like dicks with their close passes, their mobile phones, the sun in their eyes… Why is it so hard to believe that some people on bikes are also dicks?
You go on to mention how some drivers say that all cyclists run red lights, which we know isn’t true. However, we know that some do. There is a percentage of cyclists who run red lights. I know there is, I see them doing it every day on my commute. Equally, I’m sure most wouldn’t intentionally or negligently scare a horse, but I have no difficulty believing it happens.
— ChrisB200SXAs a cyclist who also drives, no, I wouldn’t do that, but I see it every day when I’m driving and experience it every journey when I cycle. I’ve also seen tonnes of videos of it happening. So I have no problem believing that drivers close-pass cyclists without having to see video evidence that hasn’t been published when a cyclist claims it happened to them. I also understand some drivers don’t cycle and see plenty of public posts from people saying they deliberately treat cyclists like that. So I believe there are many unreasonable drivers who are capable of that. I’ve seen one video of cyclists dangerously undertaking a horse… A very small sample size.
You seem to think I’m keen to doubt, and it’s hard for me to believe some people on bikes are dicks. I really don’t know where you’ve got this from. (Actually, I do, but let’s just say you’re jumping to conclusions using false assumptions).
Has the horse made a statement as to what spooked it? After all, we’ve only got Karen’s word for that, is she a qualified equine psychologist? Even if a cyclist was present, how could we know that is what spooked it?
Question everything, otherwise you won’t know what you know and what you really don’t.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
There’s an article, not too far from here, about a poor fella on a bike being killed by a driver who claims to have blacked out.
BTBS displays skepticism on that thread. Seems consistent with posts on this thread IMHO.
Canyon48 and vonhelmet display skepticism (sorry for the name-check, you two: this is more a defence of skepticism in this thread than a dig at your position). Perfectly logical response to that thread, I’d say. I’m skeptical too, faced with the information in that thread. But note that that event will have had serious police and CPS involvement – and, now it’s in court, a judge too.
And yet when a lone horse rider’s account is treated with skepticism, even when we have words from police that don’t corroborate the key detail we’re discussing, those expressing skepticism (and that’s all it is – there hasn’t been abuse aimed in that direction) are being vilified for trying to justify bad cyclist behaviour, when nobody actually is.
davel wrote:
The difference being that Canyon and I expressed skepticism at the guy’s – or his lawyer’s – decision to plead guilty, not at the claim to have blacked out. That’s totally different. I don’t doubt that he might have blacked out, it happens. Where I come unstuck is the decision to plead guilty when that would be a pretty solid defence.
Here we have people claiming the horse rider is flat out lying and that there wasn’t even a cyclist. That’s a whole other level of skepticism and doubt.
vonhelmet wrote:
Fair point: I guess I’m just naturally skeptical so it’s all sides of the same coin to me. I’m skeptical about the guy blacking out and Karen’s version; I don’t see why people wouldn’t be, but I get that they’re not.
But saying ‘we don’t have enough info to conclude that a cyclist was a dick and start pontificating about cycling properly’ is not the same as ‘I’ m confident Karen is out-and-out lying’. I think that subtlety has been lost on some posters.
vonhelmet wrote:
Are we sure there was even a horse? How do we know the allegedly injured party wasn’t just bashing two coconut halves together as they walked along the road?
vonhelmet wrote:
Where have posters claimed that Karen is a flat out liar? Who has claimed that there was not even a cyclist? Certainly not me! I think you shoukd read the skeptical posts properly. The thing that started this off was a glib comment that someone smelt a rat.
Pushing50 wrote:
It’s the abuse of the language that I find highly offensive.
Pushing50 wrote:
“I don’t think that I believe there was an undertaking cyclist.”
“I want some evidence or it never happened. Sounds like the sort of shit your child makes up when they’ve spilt orange all over the floor and the cat did it.”
Page 1. Or am I again in some parellel world of posts that you do not have access to?
Mungecrundle wrote:
Where have posters claimed that Karen is a flat out liar? Who has claimed that there was not even a cyclist? Certainly not me! I think you shoukd read the skeptical posts properly. The thing that started this off was a glib comment that someone smelt a rat.
— Mungecrundle “I don’t think that I believe there was an undertaking cyclist.” Page 1, comment 4.— Pushing50
You really do struggle with english, don’t you?
Mungecrundle wrote:
Where have posters claimed that Karen is a flat out liar? Who has claimed that there was not even a cyclist? Certainly not me! I think you shoukd read the skeptical posts properly. The thing that started this off was a glib comment that someone smelt a rat.
— Mungecrundle “I don’t think that I believe there was an undertaking cyclist.” “I want some evidence or it never happened. Sounds like the sort of shit your child makes up when they’ve spilt orange all over the floor and the cat did it.” Page 1. Or am I again in some parellel world of posts that you do not have access to?— Pushing50
I am beginning to think that you live in your own universe.
1. Where do either of these statements mention that there was not a cyclist? All I read is just someone calling for evidence and that another “don’t THINK THAT THEY BELIEVE there was an undertaking cyclist.” If it is not on Strava it didn’t happen etc.
2. Where do either of these statements mention that Karen is a flat out liar?
It seems to me that you are reading into things that are not there. Your universe is obviously different to mine as I read something completely different to you and I would not call a sceptic a moron.
I’d be potentially spooked if
I’d be potentially spooked if a cyclist undertook me, particularly if they passed close and quickly.
I’m not a horse though.
Canyon48 wrote:
Yes! I hate it when the cunting Cambridge students undertake me, while I’m being patient behind vehicles!
Canyon48 wrote:
Yes! I hate it when the cunting Cambridge students undertake me, while I’m being patient behind vehicles!
How many hours of training do
How many hours of training do you think a police horse gets, at goodness knows what massive cost? Never mind being expensive and well bred animals to begin with. Hardly a reasonable comparison.
vonhelmet wrote:
Well , the fucking monsters they used at Orgreave weren’t easily spooked, that’s for sure. Kind of colours my view of horses – big , heavy scary things with metal shoes, probably ridden by people who don’t really care about their social inferiors. I try desperately hard to give the things as wide a berth as possible, because they terrify me. Also, what is it with using the roads and paths as horse toilets – if I let my dog do that, folk would be raging at me?
oldstrath wrote:
That’s because dog poo harbours all manner of pathogens, because dogs eat raw meat. Horses eat vegetation, so their poo is much “cleaner”.
vonhelmet wrote:
That’s because dog poo harbours all manner of pathogens, because dogs eat raw meat. Horses eat vegetation, so their poo is much “cleaner”. — oldstrath
Very true – I can remember my granda and others coming out into the street after the horse and cart had made their deliveries – no pun intended – to pick up the poop and take it to their allotments. Its a naturally good manure.
vonhelmet wrote:
That’s because dog poo harbours all manner of pathogens, because dogs eat raw meat. Horses eat vegetation, so their poo is much “cleaner”. — oldstrath
It’s still a great big pile of shit, though. There’s a shared-use path near me that always has dollops of it, and because they always shit next to the gates and stiles, it’s impossible to get through them without stepping in shit. When it rains, it becomes shit-mud. It’s covering a path in shit-mud and making it horrible to walk or ride on. You avoid the paths and stretches of road nearby are as slippy as… well, as if a massive animal shat on a wet road.
Before we even get to toxicity, it’s a hobby that involves dropping piles of shit all over paths, which is pretty antisocial in itself. I’d’ve assumed, if only for PR purposes, there’d be some effort to tidy the shit away.
I think sitting on animals while they walk is a fucking weird thing to do, but I get that it’s an established hobby and I’m glad I don’t get to say what people should and shouldn’t do, just because I think some things are fucking weird. But when a side effect is dropping mountains of shit in public areas and there isn’t even a shrug of the shoulders – that’s twattish behaviour.
davel wrote:
I hate to break it to you, but literally everything is covered in shit of one form or another. Some is more problematic than others. Dog poo is of considerably more concern than horse poo. I can live with riding round the odd bit of horse poo, and if I can’t avoid it I’d rather ride through it than ride through dog poo. The smell alone is enough to tell you that one is considerably more dangerous than the other.
vonhelmet wrote:
You really should have quoted ‘shit’ there.
I’m not keen on dog shit either – so what’s your point? That a hobby having a side effect of producing piles of shit in public places and not clearing up is OK because there are worse sorts of shit?
You’re a shit apologist.
vonhelmet wrote:
That’s because dog poo harbours all manner of pathogens, because dogs eat raw meat. Horses eat vegetation, so their poo is much “cleaner”. — oldstrath
It might be less loaded with harmful bacteria etc, but it’s certainly not cleaner.
Not sure why it’s socially acceptable for them to just leave it in the road, or even worse on a path, if they’re not going to clear it up properly they shoulc at least stop and sweep/shovel it into the nearest hedgerow.
vonhelmet wrote:
That’s because dog poo harbours all manner of pathogens, because dogs eat raw meat. Horses eat vegetation, so their poo is much “cleaner”. — oldstrath
So can my vegan friends happily poo in the street with their cleaner poo 😉
atgni wrote:
That’s because dog poo harbours all manner of pathogens, because dogs eat raw meat. Horses eat vegetation, so their poo is much “cleaner”.
— vonhelmet So can my vegan friends happily poo in the street with their cleaner poo 😉— oldstrath
Only if they tell everyone about it.
Yes, I’m sorry, but no-one
Yes, I’m sorry, but no-one gets an automatic pass just because they’re on a bike.
I spent the last few weekends riding some lovely trails and met people on horseback three or four times. In every case I did the same thing, slowed to an almost dead stop, talked to the rider and then passed when they were ready.
No stress. No conflict, just pleasant interactions between them and me.
I’ve ridden horses and you have to accept that they get startled just like we do.
The argument of “if a horse
The argument of “if a horse can be spooked then it shouldn’t be on the road” sounds very worryingly like the argument “if a cyclist has to avoid a pothole then they shouldn’t be on the road”.
Providing no one acts like an idiot (close passing horses/cyclists by cyclists/motorists), there isn’t an issue.
Canyon48 wrote:
The mind is a wonderful thing, don’t insult yours.
Canyon48 wrote:
Or simllarly, in the past, after I was close passed by a Taxi at speed, the cabbie argued “Did that scare you? Then you shouldn’t be on the road”. It is exactly the same argument.
Think we need to apply some
Think we need to apply some mature and thoughtful judgement. Whilst apportioning some blame to the cyclist appears reasonable, so questions as to the horse riders precautions are conspicuously absent. My wife and daughter have ridden horses for years and falls happen, but never with this level of injury. The British Horse Society recommends use of body protectors to minimise injuries and can’t help but wonder if she was wearing one. As others have said horses spook easily and if it was not the cyclist could easily have been a plastic bag.
Grahamd wrote:
Regardless of what your wearing if you get thrown by a horse and side swipe a parked car your going to get injuries.
Victim blaming at its best.
I want some evidence or it
I want some evidence or it never happened. Sounds like the sort of shit your child makes up when they’ve spilt orange all over the floor and the cat did it.
Horses really should not be on the road. If a human had a medical condition in which they got ‘spooked’ and proceeded to spaz out they’d never be allowed to drive ……but yet horses are fine to be out there. I hate horses. Riders are usually jolly hockey sticks twats as well.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Brace yourself.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Horses really should not be on the road. If a human had a medical condition in which they got ‘spooked’ and proceeded to spaz out they’d never be allowed to drive ……but yet horses are fine to be out there. I hate horses. Riders are usually jolly hockey sticks twats as well.— Yorkshire wallet
I like the cut of your jib.
So far all I can see is some quotes in a propaganda rag dedicated to horsing around. A pic linking to an article about how cyclists should behave has horseshit all over a cyclelane symbol. It isn’t screaming ‘objective reporting’ or ‘reliable witnesses’ to me.
Must dash – off to take hundreds of kilos of shitmachine to do its business all over the road and shared-use paths and not bother to clean any of it up.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Your really are a plonker a horse is a LIVING THNG it gets scared by things, you know like you AND I get scared when some dick in a car/lorry flies passed giving you 2 inches of room!! You get a fright your direction takes a deviation, as someone who rides both a bike and horses beenscared/spooked by both.it is not a pleasant experience fall of the bike 2/3 foot drop at most off my horse looking at nearer 5/6 feet, if your foot gets stuck in the stirrup and the horse bolts doesnt bare thinking about.
Glenn1888 wrote:
Your really are a plonker a horse is a LIVING THNG it gets scared by things, you know like you AND I get scared when some dick in a car/lorry flies passed giving you 2 inches of room!! You get a fright your direction takes a deviation, as someone who rides both a bike and horses beenscared/spooked by both.it is not a pleasant experience fall of the bike 2/3 foot drop at most off my horse looking at nearer 5/6 feet, if your foot gets stuck in the stirrup and the horse bolts doesnt bare thinking about.
— Yorkshire wallet
My bike is under my control. My car in under my control. My motorbike is under my control.
Horses appear to bypass this element which other road users have. I’m not completely unaware of horses and their little foibles as my ex had one. It didn’t like phone boxes and would veer all over the road when I rode behind her. Great. Imagine if your car had a mind of it’s own and steered to side at random intervals (besides Tesla).
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
To be fair, I’ve seen cars behaving like that.
Yorkshire wallet]
My bike is under my control. My car in under my control. My motorbike is under my control.
Horses appear to bypass this element which other road users have. I’m not completely unaware of horses and their little foibles as my ex had one. It didn’t like phone boxes and would veer all over the road when I rode behind her. Great. Imagine if your car had a mind of it’s own and steered to side at random intervals (besides Tesla).
[/quote
I cant believe that your comparing your bike / car to a horse. The mind boggles with some of the forum comments on here.
Pitbull Steelers]
People point out the absurdity of sitting on a massive, unpredictable animal, and your problem is with the observers?
I’m off to surf dolphins in the Channel. If anyone shouts at me, be sure to have a word with them, won’t you…
I’ll remember to bring a sack of dolphin shit back to put on a path. I’m sure it’s not as bad as some other animals’, so allgoodyah.
Pitbull Steelers wrote:
surely that’s exactly the point. The things are radically different and we make great allowance for unpredictable animals to be allowed on the road.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
I think some people are putting the cart before the horse here (I can’t bear for a bad joke/pun to go un-said).
Roads were first made for the benefit of horses and carts. Then bikes came along and lovely modern tarmac roads were developed and built. Then cars came along and potholes were extensively developed.
Horses on roads are part of our connection to the past and come the inevitable Brexit/zombie/robo-pocalypse, we might well need to use them again.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Hmm. On that note, it seems a lot of cyclists have got on their high horses over this.
hawkinspeter wrote:
indeed – the supermarkets will be empty…
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
My apologies, i misinterpreted your comments and after reading through them again i realised my error.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Yeah, but enough about car drivers, this thread is about horses.
To people wanting evidence of
To people wanting evidence of this undertaking cyclist, the video has been linked to from road.cc and mainstream media. It is or was on youtube.
Here it is:
Here it is:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-44512967
Bmblbzzz wrote:
Are you trying to tell me that last Tuesday was on or before June 17th?
EDIT: Sad fuck seen and ignored.
don simon wrote:
Well it just goes to show there are more than a few dicks on forum’s, sorry bikes
don simon wrote:
Ah, sorry. Hadn’t realised there’d been another horse-cyclist crash. I was wondering why the story had come up again – I’m now wondering how come someone was so stupid as to try close-passing a horse on the inside when there’s just been so much publicity about the previous incident.
Bmblbzzz wrote:
That’s one of the reasons why I’m skeptical that this happpened as the rider said, there was enough publicity for the serious cycling world to know about it (even the ones here that struggle to understand what they read, good to see a few of them in this thread). If the rider has footage, then let’s see in its full context. It would be awful to discover that the horse has a history of being spooked/difficult or the rider not having the skill/experience to have controlled it properly.
I love these threads and am warmed by the personal insults, because it makes me realise that I’m not as thick as those that hurl the insults. I bet a good portion don’t even know why they’re hurling them. Keep it up thickfucks.
Bmblbzzz wrote:
That is not the incident being reported.
Bmblbzzz wrote:
No thats a different time and place. This was in Warrington
Fookin idiots, imagine if
Fookin idiots, imagine if that had been a cyclist and a car or lorry had gone past there would be hell on.
Happily most posters are in agreement that its not the done thing.
It’s amazing the double
It’s amazing the double standards people are happy to apply. Close passing driver causes injury to cyclist? Bastard driver. Close passing cyclist causes injury to horse rider? Bastard horse. We saw the same thing in the coach crash thread. Driver goes too fast, can’t stop in time and hits cyclist? Bastard driver. Cyclist goes too fast, can’t stop in time and hits coach? Bastard coach driver. Nope. Nope nope nope.
vonhelmet wrote:
Cyclists do not and never have in the history of bikes been on the road react like a horse to others in the vicinity and with the unpredictability they display, not even close. I say this as someone whose partner has had horses since she was 10.
‘Nero’ was a lovely horse, a proper character but he would go fucking mental at a crisp packet or plastic bag in the bushes, so much so it threw her and she was injured and badly shaken, cyclists/bikes he was fine with, she decided that she would hack him off the road because he was too much of a risk to others.
In my honest opinion that is the right thing to do, her new horse she hacks on the road, he doesn’t go mental even when a cyclist is close by.
Police won’t accept events without evidence, this person has no evidence, how many times have the police basically said to cyclist ‘fuck off’, literally millions, or it would be millions but people on bikes have given up reporting becauase we know plod don’t do fuck all.
As above, too many times people have attributed blame to people on bikes when it’s actually them at fault, the stats back this up even when the motorcentric police are investigating they can’t make the facts go away.
I’m hoping that you don’t eat
I’m hoping that you don’t eat beef.
Richard D wrote:
Oh-ho-ho really, I’m hoping that you don’t <insert irrelevant activity that also has shit as a side effect here> too.
I know what the response is going to be. I also know that I can’t really be arsed avoiding the obvious, steaming pile of a trap you’re attempting to lay. But I’m going to sidestep it anyhow, simply because eating farm-produced meat has precisely fuck-all to do with the points I’m repeatedly making about a hobby dumping shit in a public place.
Unless you can show me a cattle farmer who does it all for fun and then dumps the cow shit on the paths by Dunham Massey, or any public paths or roads I suppose. Then I’ll happily land in your trap, with both feet.
I treat horses and their
I treat horses and their riders then same way as I do kids on bikes. Ease up on the speed. Give ’em plenty of room, be willing to stop if they’re coming the other way and there’s not much room. It’s nice to wave, smile and say hi. I got at least two stables near me, and I meet a fair number of them on and around the banks of the Mersey.
And once they’re out of the way and the road or trail is clear, let rip.
Hoping the injured horse rider heals up quick and is back in the saddle soon.
I am a bit odd here I ride
I am a bit odd here I ride both my Horse and my bike on the road, there is not just horse riders or cyclists there are both good and bad in all road users, riding a horse on the road is diffilcult riding a bike on the road is difficult, sometimes my horse will move out wider than i want, same as I sometimes move out on a bike to avoid potholes etc, there are not just riders or cyclists we are all road users some better than others
I ride through a fair bit of
I ride through a fair bit of horse poop. Could be worse, it is better than dog poop. But if it were a requirement for horseists to clear up after their animals as has now become the norm for dog owners then there are going to be some very large bin liners of horse poop hanging from trees and fences.
Never understood why the dog walkers pick up warm, fresh dog filth, just to leave it wrapped in plastic, left in the wild, seemingly for all eternity.
Ride through a bit of cow poop too, but it’s from belted galloway, left on the ranges to maintain heathland so is fairly dry, unlike some of the dairy cow slop I have had to ride through.
And I’m a proper townie..
Why the vitriol towards don
Why the vitriol towards don simon? I simply do not understand. He has more than just a point here. There is NO evidence that this incident ever took place. There is no camera footage (the footage stated in the article relates to the tri-athlete incident), there were no other vehicles (from the report: quote She said: “There was no traffic. I didn’t hear the cyclist and he didn’t shout to say he was passing – there were only inches between the edge of the road, him and me. unquote) therefore no witnesses of the incident. It comes two months after the tri-athlete incident and is reported in the Horse and Hound may who have an agenda along with the British Horse Society to promote safe passing of horses by cyclists.There is no description of the cyclist. Was it a child, adolescent, young adult, middle aged, old aged, male, female, lycra wearing, commuter, road biker, bmx’r (you get my drift?).
Simply put, from what I have read, this is nothing more of a story that any one of us could have made up. Don simon has only questioned the validity of the story and my initial reaction was the same as his. At least road.cc have video evidence to back up their close pass of the day feature to give it credibilty.
People are falling into the trap of believing what they read from an article written after a complaint from Karen (why no surname) and no mention of any police involvement or calls for witnesses to come forward.
I too smell a rat and will happily condone don simon on this occassion for not believing what he read.
Why the vitriol towards don
Why the vitriol towards don simon? I simply do not understand. He has more than just a point here. There is NO evidence that this incident ever took place. There is no camera footage (the footage stated in the article relates to the tri-athlete incident), there were no other vehicles (from the report: quote She said: “There was no traffic. I didn’t hear the cyclist and he didn’t shout to say he was passing – there were only inches between the edge of the road, him and me. unquote) therefore no witnesses of the incident. It comes two months after the tri-athlete incident and is reported in the Horse and Hound may who have an agenda along with the British Horse Society to promote safe passing of horses by cyclists.There is no description of the cyclist. Was it a child, adolescent, young adult, middle aged, old aged, male, female, lycra wearing, commuter, road biker, bmx’r (you get my drift?).
Simply put, from what I have read, this is nothing more of a story that any one of us could have made up. Don simon has only questioned the validity of the story and my initial reaction was the same as his. At least road.cc have video evidence to back up their close pass of the day feature to give it credibilty.
People are falling into the trap of believing what they read from an article written after a complaint from Karen (why no surname) and no mention of any police involvement or calls for witnesses to come forward.
I too smell a rat and will happily commend don simon on this occassion for not believing what he read.
It’s another one of those
It’s another one of those weird double posts where there is a proper time gap between them.
8 minutes.
ktache wrote:
No, my mistake. I copied and pasted the original after changing the word “condone” to “commend” (I am tired) and unfortunately did not realise that I had saved the original draft to be posted. I am a fuktard doofus!!!!
No offence meant, there has
No offence meant, there has been a previous double posts with a time gap some time ago, which I had found a bit weird. Thought this was a new one.
If you go onto the horse and
If you go onto the horse and hound page you’ll see the following paragraph which is in the account and it appears road cc has missed off
“A spokesman for Cheshire Police said: At 9.05pm on 14 August police were called to Newton Road in Winwick, Warrington following reports of a rider being thrown from her horse. The horse had bolted from the scene but was found safe and well. The rider was assessed by paramedics and was taken to hospital”
Pitbull Steelers wrote:
Yes I have read the H&H report. Where does it say that they are looking for a cyclist and for witnesses to come forward? The police were called following reports that a rider had been thrown from her horse. Was the reason because the horse was spooked by a cyclist, plastic bag, puddle or just bad horsemanship? Even if it was a cyclist and even if the story is true, it still does not warrant the quick reactions of some to condemn another posters doubts. Still an unvalidated STORY in my opinion until the reporting gives some factual evidence.
A local guy here in hayle
A local guy here in hayle spooked two horses up the road last month. He rode up silently on two girls out hacking on a narrow back lane, the first horse shot sideways alarming the lead horse, the lead horse then kicked out hitting the paramedic riding his bike square in the jaw. The guy was traveling too. Stopped him dead, knocked out cold..
He earned himself A trip with one of his work colleagues, Many missing teeth, his broken jaw wired, and he missed his holiday abroad.
As usual his bike had no bell and he didn’t let the riders know he was coming. I know both riders and they were shaken up by the amount of blood.
Cant feel sorry for the twat on the bike, brought it on himself.
Voodoo Child wrote:
— Voodoo ChildI’d be as wary of using a bell given I can’t predict how a horse will react to that sound. I’d be more confident that a horse would be used to hearing people speaking, so if I’m coming up behind a horse I’ll tell the rider that I’m there and that usually seems to go down just fine.
vonhelmet wrote:
And if the hourse is spooked because it hears a sudden noise behind them?
Voodoo Child wrote:
Nice first post. Really, brought it on himself? For being nearer to a horse than was, in hindsight, not dangerous, whatever that distance is for these two particular horses. I wouldn”t be surprised if that cyclist is now claiming a very large compensation sum from the horse riders.
Maybe this “Karen” brought it on herself for riding an easily spooked horse on the road without wing mirrors and body armour?!
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Both riders under 14.. Both wearing hi biz and head cameras. Footage passed to the police. No action taken.
So we can doubt the horse
So we can doubt the horse rider who saw fit to call the police over this incident, but we can’t question other posters who have no knowledge beyond what was reported, right?
I bet no one ever called the police. Karen doesn’t exist. I don’t even believe in horses. There is no Newton Road in Winwick. Horse and Hound is a front. This is a false flag incident to smear the good name of cycling.
Get a grip people.
vonhelmet wrote:
I question your questioning of Don Simon’s questioning of other people’s lack of questioning.
I went full Inception.
vonhelmet wrote:
Nobody is saying it *definitely* didn’t happen. But ‘a big boy did it and ran away’ excuses happen all the time.
All the police said is that a rider was thrown from a horse. They don’t mention cyclist.
This is the internet. If you don’t like a drop of healthy skepticism (and that is what this is) you’re going to need a helme
Taxi!
vonhelmet wrote:
Feel free to question other posters who offer differing views, just don’t call them a moron, or call them a moron and get it back by the bucket load. Going to an extreme to try and support an argument makes you no friends either and is quite frankly childish. There are more than one person here who’ll simply stick the boot in for reasons only they know, as I said I don’t particularly care.
Google Maps will show you that Newton rd Winwick does indeed exist, there is still no corroborating evidence of this cyclist.
Bottom line, yes, the rider can be questioned, and should be querstioned either publicly or privately until the facts are made clear. You have the same lack of facts as I do. How can you be so convinced that the fact are as stated? You can’t.
Didn’t really happen either.
don simon wrote:
…Google Maps will show you that Newton rd Winwick does indeed exist…— don simon
Calm down, dear. I didn’t call anyone a moron, and I know full well that Newton Road exists given I cycled down it just last week.
Is it hard to believe that a cyclist would undertake and scare a horse? No, not at all. Hence it seems absurd to pour scorn on the horse rider.
vonhelmet wrote:
Would you mind learning to read?
Your post talks about we being able to call into question the oppsing view. My response was to the we and a section of that group. Thanks for patronising, I’m not just calm, I’m verging on the side of enjoying this.
vonhelmet wrote:
The scorn on here is directed at Don et al for suggesting something that runs contrary to the reported narrative. No scorn directed at the rider… Just skepticism.
It isn’t hard to believe that a cyclist would undertake and scare a horse at all.
But neither is it hard to believe that a thrown rider, having called the police after the horse bolted, might blame A N Other for the spooking, particularly when no description of the cyclist is provided and the police don’t even mention them.
Whichever camp you’re in boils down to your own biases, and probably not even controversial, nasty biases at that. Posters having a personal pop at Don for not taking the story at face value need to have a word with themselves.
davel wrote:
I don’t understand why a thrown rider would find the need to blame someone for the spooking. As someone else has stated in this thread (sorry, can’t remember who said it and can’t be bothered to re-read it all), a horse can be spooked by crisp packets, so I just don’t get why the rider couldn’t just say “my horse just got spooked, I don’t know why”.
People having a personal pop at Don are probably just wanting to get into an argument with Don for the fun of it.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Maybe (and this is purely a personal theory – no evidence so cannot be seen as my belief or the TRUTH) she caused a lot of damage to the parked car with her horse, knew the owner of the parked car, is liable for causing the damage running to the costs of thousands and is not insured for third party liability. She remembers a recent story of those pesky cyclists undertaking a horse, so to relieve her and her horse of full responsibilty she says that the horse was spooked by an undertaking cyclist.
It also seems to me that the time the police were called was 20 minutes or so after sunset. It would have been dark by that time. Was she wearing reflectives, hi viz, had lights. Did the so called cyclist.
This is all irrelevant though as it is not Karen’s word against any others, it is just Karen’s word and has been reported as the truth. If you want to believe it then fine, but it is beyond belief that doubters have been condemned for smelling a rat.
Pushing50 wrote:
That’s plausible, but I doubt that it would materially affect the car damage/insurance issue. There would be little doubt that the damage to the car was caused by the horse, so the car owner/insurer would be looking to recover costs from the rider or her parents – they wouldn’t be particularly interested in why the horse went into the car. To recover costs, the horse rider would then seek to sue the cyclist, so having an imaginary cyclist doesn’t actually help at all. Certainly, if I was the car owner, I would seek recompense from the horse-rider rather than trying to find an unknown cyclist.
I really don’t see how hi-viz/reflectives makes any difference to the circumstances – horses are easy to see.
I don’t understand what the contention is about as it doesn’t seem implausible that a cyclist did something stupid. It seems more likely to me that a cyclist spooked a horse rather than a rider coming off and making up a story about a cyclist.
I’m just not seeing any particular issues with this story and so I’d go with accepting the story at face value – it’s the simplest explanation.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I agree. I am not saying that it did not happen and I think it probably did. What I do not like is that some have seen fault with what is being presented and have been ridiculed.
The reflectives etc was an aside as cyclists are always reported as wearing/not wearing in articles when they are injured and this was not reported here.
Another theory of mine is that the horse was spooked by alien squirrels returning to their planet Nut in a flying saucer. My word against no one others so must be true
Pushing50 wrote:
Now that’s a theory I can get behind!
Do Audi and BMW make bicycles
Do Audi and BMW make bicycles? God help us!
KINGHORN wrote:
Got to love a bit of gratuitous sterotyping – good to see you could fit it in between jumping all those red lights…
There’s certainly a lack of
There’s certainly a lack of decent evidence here, so all we can go on is what is reported.
As far as I can tell, the horse and rider definitely exist and it seems pretty likely that she did fall off/get thrown from her horse (Polly). Now, as far as the existence of the cyclist, that’s up for question as we haven’t got anything except for Karen’s word on that.
In lieu of any other details, I’d be inclined to take her story at face value as I can’t see why she would make something up. It could be part of a big Horse & Hound campaign against cyclists and she was paid to make up a good story to report on. It could be the result of brain trauma leading to an oddly specific hallucination. However, it’s more likely it was someone on a bike who didn’t know how to safely overtake a horse.
Wow, this has gone wayyyyyyy
Wow, this has gone wayyyyyyy over the top.
Most the comments here are very similar to those seen on local news websites when a cyclist says they have been close passed.
There are idiot cyclists out there too.
Could it be that the
Could it be that the undertake was actually a cyclist riding on the pavement ( if there is a pavement on this stretch of road ).
The only thing that niggles me with the horseriders is that they never look over their shoulder to see what may be coming up behind them.I bet you could follow some for 10 minutes without them glancing behind. Last week there was an event on for horseriders over the moors close to where i live. I saw 2 riders coming down a minor road and at the junction with the main road they didn’t stop or even look but just trotted out .It made it more dangerous as it was just over the brow of a hill.
@don simon Just a reminder
@don simon Just a reminder that if you break the site’s T&Cs with regard to personal abuse we reserve the right to delete your account without notice.
Tony Farrelly wrote:
Chapeau, a lot of these comments are only just worthy of being on the Daily Mail website…
Tony Farrelly wrote:
Maybe it’s time we tried Don Simon light?
Tony Farrelly wrote:
@Tony Farrelly with all due respect, you appeared to miss out the warning to the following for unprovoked personal abuse, (plus any others I can’t be arsed digging out) they abuse, I react simples. I’m sorry but calling someone stupid for being stupid, isn’t an abuse and wading into a thread with personal attcks without addressing the argument is stupid. And it happens too often here.
I smell a rat here.I don’t think that I believe there was an undertaking cyclist.
Second thing is that if a horse is so easily spooked, it shouldn’t be out in public, especially on the public highway.
— Mungecrundle For any horsists dropping by to see what the cycling community think about this story, please excuse our resident moron.— don simon
If you support that, then knock yourself out, I live by my principles.
Best way to advise cyclists
Best way to advise cyclists on how to pass horses, use a cycle forum.
If you happen upon someone out for a ride on a horse, ring your bell seriously does anyone on a road bike have a bell lol, no whistle shout hello, morning/afternoon to the rider in front,pass nice and wide if a horse/rider knows your coming there shouldnt be a problem.
For those who think just a horse rider on nag/moan this is my video that was used on this site after idiots put down tacks on a steep descent in Valleys Velo 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dx5fPTS_uU
I used to ride both bike and horses now just horses as due to spinal injuries I cant control my legs to cycle, be considerate stay safe the roads are for everyone.
Glenn1888 wrote:
Semi-off topic, but – Why not try a handcycle?
If it’s concern about recumbents – You don’t have to use that form factor, there are plenty of uprights on the market (though, naturally, they aren’t nearly as quick).
I use a Team Hybrid clip-on for my commuting, and a Top End Force 2 for my leisure cycling.
Oh, and I disagree about bells – I’ve found that they can spook horses, though I must admit I haven’t ridden a horse in well over a decade now.
I’d take an unpredictable
I’d take an unpredictable horse over any number of morons driving along using their phones.
If you see two horses being
Just an FYI; If you see two horses being ridden abreast on a road, it will usually mean that the inside rider or horse is a novice.
Hang back, take your time. Call out, without yelling, to let the rider know you are there.
If you’re part of a group of cyclists, try and pass single file. First cyclists should call “Horses Up” to get the attention of the equestrian. Never, ever ride past the horse on both sides; This will freak it the fuck out. If you’re in a large group, consider spreading out a bit.
Never ride up directly behind a horse, unless you like being kicked in the face. Helmet won’t help either, since it’ll come from below. Oh, and no bells. Bells can startle the horse.
If there are pedestrians walking towards you on the inside of the horse – wait for them to pass.
Also, for some reason, the flag on a back of a recumbent cycle always seems to give horses the absolute screaming shits. Be aware of it.
I tend to come to an almost complete relative stop (maintain distance), call out and wait for positive affirmation from the rider that it is ok for me to pass.
I then swing very, very wide around; I’ve got an unusual motion, since I’m a handcyclist, and some animals dislike it.
I also try to keep talking and not pedal as I pass; I know from experience that horses do not like unexpected mechanical noises, and my voice should be just enough to drown out the clicking from the freehub.
On narrow trails where they are approaching, I pull to the side, complete stop, hands off cranks and over centre to make my intention clear.
I’ve had a few riders tell me that I’m ok to carry on when approaching but I usually thank them and demur; I explain that it’s safest for everybody if I just wait for a moment, as they might not like the handcycle motion.
Horses are big, and they can panic with surprising ease. Controlling a panicking horse is, for many riders, nigh impossible, and they can becoming very unpredictable.
It takes a few seconds to go through the above – at worst, on a narrow trail, it might take a minute or two. Have some patience, and look out for other vulnerable road users.
IF this seems a pain in the arse, or you feel like the horse is holding you up – please make yourself known so I can slap you silly next time you complain about a close pass.
Crippledbiker wrote:
Thanks.
I’ve never been too sure about whether to use a bell or not around horses and there’s been some posts on this
trainwreckthread recommending to use a bell. Sounds like it’s best to just use your voice as all horses will be used to people speaking.“The incident happened two
“The incident happened two months after a man taking part in the Windsor Triathlon, riding in the cycling leg of the event, undertook a horse rider at speed, making contact with her as he passed”
I like this, thanks.
So there’s an incident approximately every 6 months.
Can you do this for NMotD please, “the incident happened 3 seconds after John from Basildon was close passed, 4 seconds after Don from Wales, 5 seconds after Mansfield banned cycling…”
Ad infinitum!
alansmurphy wrote:
Not sure how you’re doing your maths, or what point you think you’re making, but by all means continue.
I think the Road.cc forums
I think the Road.cc forums need a naughty step.
Double standards on a cycling
Double standards on a cycling Website. Oh the humanity!
As penance, I promise to post skeptical missives about cyclists that derail into discussing shit on such sites as Pistonheads and the horsey one with this pic.
davel wrote:
There’s a reality TV show in there.
The Great British Shit Off?
Double standards is a bit of
Double standards is a bit of a push anyway. The ones who’ve mainly gone ‘hmmmm’ over this are the usual cynical twats, myself included. Some have other issues with horses, like their lack of predictability.
My issue with this story is its flimsiness. My main issue with horses (horsists, really) is the shit – I know, I know: I haven’t really mentioned it. But I’d only be exhibiting double standards there if my bike grew a massive arse and started dumping regularly on the street.
oh and the calling out to
oh and the calling out to horse riders, I don’t agree, just why? Why increase the chances of a reaction, horses have sensitive hearing, however they are poor at locating. Adding in the mix of higher pitched, louder and frequent noises simply is not what you want to do to a horse, it’s a flight animal no need to complicate matters by making unecessary noises that can confuse/spook.
A bell/horn/shouting/calling out is the worst thing you can do, there’s no need to cough, talk at x level, nothing.
Slow down, give yourself time to make a full assessment of the situation instead of guessing/making a too quick judgement. Is it safe for them to continue on their line, will they have to deviate, do you have a clear line to ride wide right to the other side of the road (why wouldn’t you when you expect a motor to do the same) if it’s not a good situation to pass, stop/slow to theor pace and stay a distance behind and wait until it is clear to proceed.
It doesn’t have to be any more complicated than that, itt’s basic hazard perception, have passed horses probably over a thousand times over the years I’ve never once called out in advance, rarely exchange pleasantries when alongside and never ever had an issue, either for the horses, equestrians or myself.
I’ll stick to a tried and very long tested method of what I know is safe for everyone.
http://www.bhs.org.uk/our
http://www.bhs.org.uk/our-charity/press-centre/news/regional/east-midlands/2016/code-of-conduct-for-horse-riders-and-cyclists
From the horse’s mouth as it were.
The people on the horses do apparently appreciate a call out when being approached from behind.
Maybe it’s like the courtesy beep debate?
Mungecrundle wrote:
I base my way of dealing with these things on how horses react to sound and movement not the riders and speaking to my partner who has ridden horses for nearly 40 years. Making noises for the benefit of the rider (surely they are making regular over the shoulder checks in any case) ignores that actually it’s the horse that is the primary hazard that can cause harm.
Walk past some horses next to a fence in a field, do you start talking/making noises on approach to it, no, why because you’re more likely to startle it, this is a simple fact.
Horses that are safe to use on the highway should not and in my long experience have never reacted, badly to not saying anything when coming from behind or toward. A horse that reacts badly to being passed slowly and wide (with you not saying anything) should not be hacked on the highway, it’s too dangerous to the horse rider and others. As I’ve said, my partner took her own horse off the road because of his inability to stay calm when something like a crisp packet/plastic bag would be blown across his path or rustled when stuck in a bush.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
I base my way of dealing with these things on how horses react to sound and movement not the riders and speaking to my partner who has ridden horses for nearly 40 years. Making noises for the benefit of the rider (surely they are making regular over the shoulder checks in any case) ignores that actually it’s the horse that is the primary hazard that can cause harm.
Walk past some horses next to a fence in a field, do you start talking/making noises on approach to it, no, why because you’re more likely to startle it, this is a simple fact.
Horses that are safe to use on the highway should not and in my long experience have never reacted, badly to not saying anything when coming from behind or toward. A horse that reacts badly to being passed slowly and wide (with you not saying anything) should not be hacked on the highway, it’s too dangerous to the horse rider and others. As I’ve said, my partner took her own horse off the road because of his inability to stay calm when something like a crisp packet/plastic bag would be blown across his path or rustled when stuck in a bush.— Mungecrundle
I think we’re giving horses far too little credit. How do they cope out in the field with all those random noises around them? Perhaps this explains the proliferation of horseshit.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
I base my way of dealing with these things on how horses react to sound and movement not the riders and speaking to my partner who has ridden horses for nearly 40 years. Making noises for the benefit of the rider (surely they are making regular over the shoulder checks in any case) ignores that actually it’s the horse that is the primary hazard that can cause harm.
Walk past some horses next to a fence in a field, do you start talking/making noises on approach to it, no, why because you’re more likely to startle it, this is a simple fact.
Horses that are safe to use on the highway should not and in my long experience have never reacted, badly to not saying anything when coming from behind or toward. A horse that reacts badly to being passed slowly and wide (with you not saying anything) should not be hacked on the highway, it’s too dangerous to the horse rider and others. As I’ve said, my partner took her own horse off the road because of his inability to stay calm when something like a crisp packet/plastic bag would be blown across his path or rustled when stuck in a bush.— Mungecrundle
I reckon you should write the Horse Society and point out their erroneous advice. After all what could they possibly know about horses and the best way for cyclists to interact with them, that is not trumped by your vast experience / opinion based on a partner who once owned a horse (did you ever ride it on the road?) and having passed a few yourself whilst cycling around.
Or maybe you could accept some advice from people who are in a better position to give it? Just an idea…
And that is me done for this thread*. Feel free to take a free hit.
*Except for checking on any squirel based additional comment.
Road.cc definitely needs a
Road.cc definitely needs a naughty step.
Or a dark room where people can go to calm down a bit.
Wow, thats a lot of comments.
Wow, thats a lot of comments.
personally I sit on the side of sceptism here. and here is why… undertaking a horse is a stupidly dangerous thing to do. You would have to be mentally derranged to think that the undertake is the best option.
And for me that is why spectism should be shown. Yes some cyclists do some really stupid shit, but this is beyond stupid. In a racing scenario, I can almost see how it could happen (windsor tri)… in the zone, thinking you have right of way blah blah blah. Its still stupid, but I can see why it might happen.
However, just riding along in the late evening… I just don’t see it.
So for me, either;
– we are talking about an absolute idiot of a rider of exceptional stupidity
– as mentioned, there was a pavement, and the cyclist was on the pavement, which was the reason for the ‘undertake’. Still stupid riding, but you can maybe understand it more
– the cyclist was traveling at speed, came up on the horse too fast to take evasive action and went down the inside. You could argue the late evening timeframes may have played a factor in this
– The horse rider may have adjusted their story – for instance, in reality the cyclist overtook, not undertook – to remove any questioning of their, or their horses conduct… who’s going to question blame when the cyclist undertook?
My point here is that we have one side of a story here, with no witnesses to support it, so we should be wary of grabbing the pitch forks just yet! Best thing is to emphasise what is best practice and try and spread a message of shared responsibility on the roads.
On that note…
I’d argue that speaking out when approaching a horse is exactly the thing to do. Horse fear bikes as they don’t understand them. Like car drivers, they have little training on what to do around bikes, so are fearful and confused. By speaking, not shouting, you will reassure the horse that you are indeed human. Its a good starting point.
Secondly. when approaching horses from behind, monitor the horses ears and head. Their hearing is far better than ours, so they’ll often be aware of you from a way out. They’ll drop one of their ears back to get a better listen of whats coming. Importantly, which ear they drop will likely be the eye they’ll subsequently use to look behind them. This is important as if its the near eye (left), it is far more likely that the horse will turn their back end out towards you as you pass. If they are looking at you with their left eye, its best to sit back and wait until you are cofident the horse and rider are in control, and pass slowly.
But… lets share the roads hey? I can’t stand all this crap about who should and shouldn’t be on the roads. There are laws in place that dictate this, which should be respected.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
Doesn’t seem that hard to believe, to me. True, I harbor the illusion that everyone behaves more politely in the countryside (e.g. when I’ve been out there I’ve had other cyclists who I don’t even know, say ‘good afternoon’ to me,…and they didn’t even follow it up by asking for money or offering to sell me drugs!). So to that extent I’m disappointed.
But people on bikes are just people, not members of a disciplined organisation with rules and doctrine, and poeple do stupid things. It’s how they roll.
Edit – gosh, that linked horse-and-hound publication doesn’t half have a lot of reports of horrible horsey-related accidents. They don’t seem to do a ‘close pass of the day’ series though.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Winwick has its fair share of slack-jaws and inbreds, but dispel any notion of rural idyll. Newton Rd is the A49 north of Warrington.
Ok, so apparently now if you
Ok, so apparently now if you say you don’t believe there was an undertaking cyclist it doesn’t mean that you don’t believe someone who says there was.
Erm.
vonhelmet wrote:
Jesus!!! Scepticism –
noun
a sceptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.
“these claims were treated with scepticism”
synonyms: doubt, doubtfulness, dubiousness, a pinch of salt, lack of conviction.
Also see my response to hawkinspeter where I state that it may well have happened. Do you live in the same universe as Mungecrundle where you cannot interpret others comments?
Erm.
Okay, I’m officially
Okay, I’m officially declaring this thread a complete wreck and the only thing left to do is spam it with irreverent pics.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’m sorry to say, but if squirrels shit, I think they’re barred from the thread.
don simon wrote:
I came up with an extremely eloquent riposte to your comment, but there is not enough space to include it here.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I fear that eloquence would most likely be lost on me.
.
.
_
_
How about the post a page ago
How about the post a page ago where someone said the rider was lying to the police because of concerns about insurance? That was a good one.
vonhelmet wrote:
JESUS!!!!! Read the post again!!!!! Who said she was lying to the police!!! I am not even going to explain. Good luck with your interpretation of that post.
Pushing50 wrote:
Who said she was lying to the police? Maybe the person who suggested that the cyclist didn’t exist and that the horse rider made it up to avoid liability on her horse hitting the car or whatever.
I mean, how can you think that wouldn’t constitute lying in that strange little fantasy? It’s literally exactly what was being suggested.
vonhelmet wrote:
FYI here is the original paragraph written by myself. Please note the very first sentence and especially the words that are bracketed.
Maybe (and this is purely a personal theory – no evidence so cannot be seen as my belief or the TRUTH) she caused a lot of damage to the parked car with her horse, knew the owner of the parked car, is liable for causing the damage running to the costs of thousands and is not insured for third party liability. She remembers a recent story of those pesky cyclists undertaking a horse, so to relieve her and her horse of full responsibilty she says that the horse was spooked by an undertaking cyclist.
I would suggest that before you start recalling other posters comments, you get them in the correct context. I have nothing more to say to you as you obviously cannot get a grip with the English language.
Pushing50 wrote:
So are we just engaging in wild conjecture without any relevance to the discussion? That’s good to know.
[quote=vonhelmet]
So are we just engaging in wild conjecture without any relevance to the discussion? That’s good to know.
[/quote
Yes.
conjecture
kənˈdʒɛktʃə/
noun
1.
an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
verb
1.
form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
synonyms: guess, speculate, surmise, infer, fancy, imagine, believe, think, suspect, presume, assume, hypothesize, take as a hypothesis, theorize, form/formulate a theory,
Without the reporter of Horse and Hound giving any evidence of this thing actually happening (only the word of a woman named Karen) it is ALL conjecture. There is incomplete information in the report. You have come to your conclusion and others have been more sceptical and come to varying other conclusions. However the discussion took a turn for the worse when a poster queried the fact that there were no facts and was derided for it.
If you want the last word then go for it. I am sure that this thread is long dead and to be honest I cannot be bothered to explain any more if you are unable to contemplate reasoning.
I’m so glad I was on hols
I’m so glad I was on hols when this train wreck started.
For the record, I don’t think ‘Karen’ is telling the whole truth.
I don’t see what there is to
I don’t see what there is left to pursue here. Some posters take accounts at face value, and good for them. I’d hate for the world to be full of cynical arses like me.
Apropos of nothing, I am currently sitting on a Thai beach with ‘Karen’, and we now have a list of posters to sell our next bridge to.
Cheers!
The thing is – what does it
The thing is – what does it matter whether she is telling the truth or not?
If there is a cyclist and they are found, then they can argue the point and their guilt or innocence can be determined the same way as any other incident. If they aren’t found, then nothing happens.
Getting fussed about it and suggesting it’s all faked, is implicitly buying into that stupid collective responsibility idea. As if, if it _were_ someone on a bike, that would somehow reflect on everyone else who uses a bike.
Even if this was a fake story (which seems unlikely to me) one day some scrote with a bike will do it for real, and there’s nothing any other cyclist can do to stop it. The ony thing one can do is be clear about how idiotic the collective responsibility idea is.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
People expressed skepticism and were then villified. That’s why it matters. If they weren’t villified it wouldn’t matter for shit.
I don’t think it ties into collective responsibility. People aren’t saying there wasn’t a cyclist in case there being a cyclist makes us all look bad. There might be some sort of pushback in proportion to perceived danger posed. But mostly I think it’s about whether Karen’s account is taken at face value or not.
Incidentally, when I saw you appear, I thought the whataboutery was going to be called out, as is your wont. I know I’m guilty – but nobody’s pulled me up for it yet – of wanting to talk about the amount of shit that horses dump on roads rather than whether a lady’s punctured lung was partially caused by a cyclist dick move.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I agree with you on most things and guess what? I agree with you now. You see I do not think it matters whether she is telling the truth or not and I do not think that it matters if Karen is real or not.
I do not think that it matters if there was a cyclist or not.
I do not buy into the collective responsibility idea. I am responsible for my actions and do not excuse people who are idiots on their bikes (I would not excuse myself if I was an idiot on my bike).
Like you I do not think that this is a fake story (although I am sceptical at the same time following the timing and the way that this has been reported).
I DO think that it matters when people are derided and ridiculed without justification and I also think that it matters that a story of this type should have no room for supposition but complete inference.
Hopefuly I have convinced myself that I have no more to say on the subject
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Except it’s not, is it? Having a problem with one single story cannot imply anything more than having a problem with one story.
don simon wrote:
-nm-
…
…
Recumbents scare horses
Recumbents scare horses terribly! Never had a problem with horses while riding on a safety bicycle of any kind.