Woman suffers punctured lung and broken ribs as horse she was riding spooked by cyclist who undertook them without warning

hawkinspeter wrote:

davel wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

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.

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. 

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.

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:

hawkinspeter wrote:

davel wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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:

Pushing50 wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

davel wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Pushing50 wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

davel wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

 

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

Now that's a theory I can get behind!

Voodoo Child wrote:

As usual his bike had no bell and he didn’t let the riders know he was coming.

I’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:

Voodoo Child wrote:

As usual his bike had no bell and he didn’t let the riders know he was coming.

I’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

And if the hourse is spooked because it hears a sudden noise behind them?

Voodoo Child wrote:

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. 

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:

Voodoo Child wrote:

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. 

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?!

Both riders under 14.. Both wearing hi biz and head cameras. Footage passed to the police. No action taken. 

Pitbull Steelers wrote:

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"

 

 

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.

ktache wrote:

It's another one of those weird double posts where there is a proper time gap between them.

8 minutes.

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!!!!

Richard D wrote:

I’m hoping that you don’t eat beef.

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. 

vonhelmet wrote:

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.

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.

Bmblbzzz wrote:

Here it is:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-44512967

Are you trying to tell me that last Tuesday was on or before June 17th?

EDIT: Sad fuck seen and ignored.

don simon wrote:

Bmblbzzz wrote:

Here it is:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-44512967

Are you trying to tell me that last Tuesday was on or before June 17th?

Well it just goes to show there are more than a few dicks on forum's, sorry bikes 

don simon wrote:

Bmblbzzz wrote:

Here it is:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-44512967

Are you trying to tell me that last Tuesday was on or before June 17th?

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:

don simon wrote:

Bmblbzzz wrote:

Here it is:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-44512967

Are you trying to tell me that last Tuesday was on or before June 17th?

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. 

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:

Here it is:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-44512967

That is not the incident being reported.