Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

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

Woman urges cyclists to learn how to share space safely with people on horseback after spending four days in hospital

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.

> How to pass horse riders safely on your bike

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

167 comments

Avatar
atgni replied to vonhelmet | 5 years ago
4 likes
vonhelmet wrote:
oldstrath wrote:

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?

That’s because dog poo harbours all manner of pathogens, because dogs eat raw meat. Horses eat vegetation, so their poo is much “cleaner”. 

So can my vegan friends happily poo in the street with their cleaner poo  3

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to atgni | 5 years ago
4 likes
atgni wrote:
vonhelmet wrote:
oldstrath wrote:

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?

That’s because dog poo harbours all manner of pathogens, because dogs eat raw meat. Horses eat vegetation, so their poo is much “cleaner”. 

So can my vegan friends happily poo in the street with their cleaner poo  3

Only if they tell everyone about it.

Avatar
Canyon48 | 5 years ago
11 likes

I'd be potentially spooked if a cyclist undertook me, particularly if they passed close and quickly.

I'm not a horse though.

Avatar
KINGHORN replied to Canyon48 | 5 years ago
0 likes
Canyon48 wrote:

I'd be potentially spooked if a cyclist undertook me, particularly if they passed close and quickly.

I'm not a horse though.

Yes! I hate it when the cunting Cambridge students undertake me, while I'm being patient behind vehicles!

Avatar
KINGHORN replied to Canyon48 | 5 years ago
0 likes
Canyon48 wrote:

I'd be potentially spooked if a cyclist undertook me, particularly if they passed close and quickly.

I'm not a horse though.

Yes! I hate it when the cunting Cambridge students undertake me, while I'm being patient behind vehicles!

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
1 like

Should've used a bell.

Avatar
vonhelmet | 5 years ago
13 likes

What kind of utter fucking cretin undertakes a horse, and without warning at that?

Edited for temper.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to vonhelmet | 5 years ago
2 likes
vonhelmet wrote:

What kind of utter fucking cretin undertakes a horse, and without warning at that?

Edited for temper.

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.

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 5 years ago
4 likes
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
vonhelmet wrote:

What kind of utter fucking cretin undertakes a horse, and without warning at that?

Edited for temper.

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.

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.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to Mungecrundle | 5 years ago
1 like
Mungecrundle wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
vonhelmet wrote:

What kind of utter fucking cretin undertakes a horse, and without warning at that?

Edited for temper.

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.

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.

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.

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 5 years ago
2 likes
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
vonhelmet wrote:

What kind of utter fucking cretin undertakes a horse, and without warning at that?

Edited for temper.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Avatar
ChrisB200SX replied to Mungecrundle | 5 years ago
1 like
Mungecrundle wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
vonhelmet wrote:

What kind of utter fucking cretin undertakes a horse, and without warning at that?

Edited for temper.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You 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?

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to ChrisB200SX | 5 years ago
0 likes
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
vonhelmet wrote:

What kind of utter fucking cretin undertakes a horse, and without warning at that?

Edited for temper.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You 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?

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?

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to Mungecrundle | 5 years ago
2 likes
Mungecrundle wrote:
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
vonhelmet wrote:

What kind of utter fucking cretin undertakes a horse, and without warning at that?

Edited for temper.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You 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?

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?

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.

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
1 like
don simon wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
vonhelmet wrote:

What kind of utter fucking cretin undertakes a horse, and without warning at that?

Edited for temper.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You 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?

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?

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.

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?

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to Mungecrundle | 5 years ago
2 likes
Mungecrundle wrote:
don simon wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
vonhelmet wrote:

What kind of utter fucking cretin undertakes a horse, and without warning at that?

Edited for temper.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You 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?

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?

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.

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?

What's demanding about that?

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
1 like
don simon wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
don simon wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
vonhelmet wrote:

What kind of utter fucking cretin undertakes a horse, and without warning at that?

Edited for temper.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You 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?

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?

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.

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?

What's demanding about that?

Is English your first language?

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to Mungecrundle | 5 years ago
1 like
Mungecrundle wrote:
don simon wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
don simon wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
vonhelmet wrote:

What kind of utter fucking cretin undertakes a horse, and without warning at that?

Edited for temper.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You 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?

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?

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.

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?

What's demanding about that?

Is English your first language?

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.

Avatar
ChrisB200SX replied to Mungecrundle | 5 years ago
1 like
Mungecrundle wrote:
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
vonhelmet wrote:

What kind of utter fucking cretin undertakes a horse, and without warning at that?

Edited for temper.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You 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?

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?

It'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?

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to ChrisB200SX | 5 years ago
0 likes
ChrisB200SX wrote:

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?

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.

Avatar
ChrisB200SX replied to vonhelmet | 5 years ago
1 like
vonhelmet wrote:
ChrisB200SX wrote:

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?

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.

As 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.

Avatar
davel replied to ChrisB200SX | 5 years ago
0 likes
ChrisB200SX wrote:

Question everything, otherwise you won't know what you know and what you really don't.

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. 

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to davel | 5 years ago
0 likes
davel wrote:
ChrisB200SX wrote:

Question everything, otherwise you won't know what you know and what you really don't.

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. 

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.

Avatar
davel replied to vonhelmet | 5 years ago
0 likes
vonhelmet wrote:
davel wrote:
ChrisB200SX wrote:

Question everything, otherwise you won't know what you know and what you really don't.

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. 

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.

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.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to vonhelmet | 5 years ago
7 likes
vonhelmet wrote:

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.

 

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?

Avatar
Pushing50 replied to vonhelmet | 5 years ago
0 likes
vonhelmet wrote:
davel wrote:
ChrisB200SX wrote:

Question everything, otherwise you won't know what you know and what you really don't.

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. 

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.

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.

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to Pushing50 | 5 years ago
0 likes
Pushing50 wrote:
vonhelmet wrote:
davel wrote:
ChrisB200SX wrote:

Question everything, otherwise you won't know what you know and what you really don't.

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. 

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.

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.

It's the abuse of the language that I find highly offensive.

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to Pushing50 | 5 years ago
0 likes
Pushing50 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.

"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?

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to Mungecrundle | 5 years ago
0 likes
Mungecrundle wrote:
Pushing50 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.

"I don't think that I believe there was an undertaking cyclist." Page 1, comment 4.

You really do struggle with english, don't you?

Avatar
Pushing50 replied to Mungecrundle | 5 years ago
1 like
Mungecrundle wrote:
Pushing50 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.

"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?

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. 

Pages

Latest Comments