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

Pushing50 wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Pushing50 wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

So are we just engaging in wild conjecture without any relevance to the discussion? That’s good to know.

 

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.

 

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

http://www.bhs.org.uk/our-charity/press-centre/news/regional/east-midlan... 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?

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.

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.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

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.

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:

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.

Except it's not, is it? Having a problem with one single story cannot imply anything more than having a problem with one story.

-nm-

alansmurphy wrote:

"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!   

 

Not sure how you’re doing your maths, or what point you think you’re making, but by all means continue.

Crippledbiker wrote:

... 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....

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 trainwreck thread recommending to use a bell. Sounds like it's best to just use your voice as all horses will be used to people speaking.

Glenn1888 wrote:

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.

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.

Tony Farrelly wrote:

@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.
 

Chapeau, a lot of these comments are only just worthy of being on the Daily Mail website...

Tony Farrelly wrote:

@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.
 

Maybe it's time we tried Don Simon light?

Tony Farrelly wrote:

@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 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.

Expatpat 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.

Mungecrundle wrote:

don simon 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.

For any horsists dropping by to see what the cycling community think about this story, please excuse our resident moron.

If you support that, then knock yourself out, I live by my principles.

KINGHORN wrote:

Do Audi and BMW make bicycles? God help us!

Got to love a bit of gratuitous sterotyping - good to see you could fit it in between jumping all those red lights...

vonhelmet wrote:

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.

I question your questioning of Don Simon's questioning of other people's lack of questioning.

I went full Inception.

vonhelmet wrote:

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.

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:

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.

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:

...just don't call them a moron...

...Google Maps will show you that Newton rd Winwick does indeed exist...

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:

don simon wrote:

...just don't call them a moron...

...Google Maps will show you that Newton rd Winwick does indeed exist...

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.

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:

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. 

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.