Video: Horse and rider struck by undertaking cyclist participating in triathlon

Joeinpoole wrote:

Interesting thoughts JRW. I'm not a horse rider but I was somewhat suprised that a helmet-cam was being used to record a clickety-clop amble down the road.

Frankly though, even if the situation was deliberately set-up, the cyclists most certainly behaved like idiots. Unbelieveably stupid.

Same reason presumably that an increasing number of cyclists have a helmet cam to record a hopefully mundane commute.

Do people really think a rider would deliberately take a beloved and valuable horse, endangering themselves and the horse, into the midst of a triathlon just to make a point?

PRSboy wrote:

Joeinpoole wrote:

Interesting thoughts JRW. I'm not a horse rider but I was somewhat suprised that a helmet-cam was being used to record a clickety-clop amble down the road.

Frankly though, even if the situation was deliberately set-up, the cyclists most certainly behaved like idiots. Unbelieveably stupid.

Same reason presumably that an increasing number of cyclists have a helmet cam to record a hopefully mundane commute.

Do people really think a rider would deliberately take a beloved and valuable horse, endangering themselves and the horse, into the midst of a triathlon just to make a point?

In short yes. 

As mentioned, I have a lieftimes insight into the equestrian world would suggest this is exactly the sort of thing they would do. 

I'd even go so far as say the video provides some suggestions that this may have been the case. First of all, there are at least two opportunities to get off the road on the video if  it was a case thtat the horse rider had been caught out. 

The horserider was deliberately exercising her right to be on the road. Which is absolutely her right. The same right that says as a cyclist I could ride the Splatford Split down here. Chances of me doing so without incident are low, but its still my legal right to do so.

Secondly, if you didn't want to be there, which was I felt was being inferred... she hadn't been made aware, had ridden to her other farm in the morning and was riding back at 9.00am and was confronted by bikes... then she could have trotted on to get the job done as quickly as possible. its what I always did for the short stretch of busy road I used to ride my horse on back in the day. get it done quick, and if the horse spooks it tend to be a bolt, rather than a turn, rear or buck. 

However, as stated, it really doesn't matter what her motives were for being there, its the actions of the triathletes that made this bad. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

Joeinpoole wrote:

Interesting thoughts JRW. I'm not a horse rider but I was somewhat suprised that a helmet-cam was being used to record a clickety-clop amble down the road.

Frankly though, even if the situation was deliberately set-up, the cyclists most certainly behaved like idiots. Unbelieveably stupid.

Same reason presumably that an increasing number of cyclists have a helmet cam to record a hopefully mundane commute.

Do people really think a rider would deliberately take a beloved and valuable horse, endangering themselves and the horse, into the midst of a triathlon just to make a point?

In short yes. 

As mentioned, I have a lieftimes insight into the equestrian world would suggest this is exactly the sort of thing they would do. 

I'd even go so far as say the video provides some suggestions that this may have been the case. First of all, there are at least two opportunities to get off the road on the video if  it was a case thtat the horse rider had been caught out. 

The horserider was deliberately exercising her right to be on the road. Which is absolutely her right. The same right that says as a cyclist I could ride the Splatford Split down here. Chances of me doing so without incident are low, but its still my legal right to do so.

Secondly, if you didn't want to be there, which was I felt was being inferred... she hadn't been made aware, had ridden to her other farm in the morning and was riding back at 9.00am and was confronted by bikes... then she could have trotted on to get the job done as quickly as possible. its what I always did for the short stretch of busy road I used to ride my horse on back in the day. get it done quick, and if the horse spooks it tend to be a bolt, rather than a turn, rear or buck. 

However, as stated, it really doesn't matter what her motives were for being there, its the actions of the triathletes that made this bad. 

Despite your last para, you've spent the rest of the post effectively victim blaming. To be honest, I'm probably replying more to earlier comments which were more extreme than yours. 

Personally, some of the earlier cyclists in the clip seemed like they were too close, especially given relative speeds, vulnerability of a horse rider and the fact that the other lane was empty. However, horse and rider seemed to be fine with those passes. The final group is just beyond idiotic.

I find it bizarre that that on a cycling website of all places, some people are playing whataboutism and not simply calling it out as shit riding and dangerous use of the public road.

gw42 wrote:

Despite your last para, you've spent the rest of the post effectively victim blaming. To be honest, I'm probably replying more to earlier comments which were more extreme than yours. 

Personally, some of the earlier cyclists in the clip seemed like they were too close, especially given relative speeds, vulnerability of a horse rider and the fact that the other lane was empty. However, horse and rider seemed to be fine with those passes. The final group is just beyond idiotic.

I find it bizarre that that on a cycling website of all places, some people are playing whataboutism and not simply calling it out as shit riding and dangerous use of the public road.

Its an interesting paradigm hey? 

I am aware of the victim blaming and the hypocrisy of such, however I also see in this scenario reasons to believe that it was an absolute set up.

Why I feel that relevant is the media attention generated and now the police attention focused on cycling and events organised on the public highway. 

In road racing, things tend to be run with a very tight ship; races would be neautralised if a horse should get on the course etc. however I feel my current liberty is about to be taken away due to the stupidity of some idiots being successfully bated by an individual with an agenda. 

It's very frustrating. 

As already commented elsewhere, I am interested to see how far the police are willing to take this compared to similar recorded incidents by cyclists. 

Joeinpoole wrote:

Interesting thoughts JRW. I'm not a horse rider but I was somewhat suprised that a helmet-cam was being used to record a clickety-clop amble down the road.

Frankly though, even if the situation was deliberately set-up, the cyclists most certainly behaved like idiots. Unbelieveably stupid.

Many riders around here running cams, and have hi-viz on themselves and horse. Some even run rear lights. Quite a few have those fun "Polite" vests with the blue and white checkers (local stables did a bulk buy). Having spoken to a few they have the same issues cyclists do with close passes and drivers acting like dicks. We even shared the observation that drivers will slow down more and give more space for a riderless horse than they do for a ridden one, or a cyclist. Generally they don't have much of an issue with road cyclists around here, its the off-roaders appearing suddenly out of nowhere in the depths of the forest that are particularly dangerous. Horses are prey animals and even the best trained will get spooked.

I fear this one could have an Alliston effect, cycling is the only sport allowing racing on open public roads and preventing it is exactly the sort of populist vote-winner this govt loves.

Fatbloke wrote:

This makes me ashamed to call myself a cyclist.

Why, it doesn't me, far worse actions by motorists and pedestrians that ended in adeath or serious injury, would you take that shame every-time when that happens within those groups, if not why not?

tomdenley111 wrote:

Is this the bike from the still?

Nope. The seat tube is a different colour, no top tube bag and missing the tri-bars...

tomdenley111 wrote:

Is this the bike from the still?

Clearly it is not. The one has disc one does not and the one in the still does not have the large black section on the seat tube.

37monkey wrote:

C'mon the lot of you - get off your high horse. That rider didn't plan that move, we see none of the build up to it you're all sat in kangaroo court presiding a judgement over something you weren't involved in. Dangerous? Yes. Avoidable? Who knows. Consequences? Realistically not much. That all said, the horse is bombproof, a different horse and it would be an entirely different story.

I'm hoping this is a comedy post.

37monkey wrote:

C'mon the lot of you - get off your high horse. That rider didn't plan that move, we see none of the build up to it you're all sat in kangaroo court presiding a judgement over something you weren't involved in. Dangerous? Yes. Avoidable? Who knows. Consequences? Realistically not much. That all said, the horse is bombproof, a different horse and it would be an entirely different story.

All normal people with an ounce of common sense and decency wouldn't be within 10 ft and more if you decide to carry any speed passed the animal.   

37monkey wrote:

C'mon the lot of you - get off your high horse. That rider didn't plan that move, we see none of the build up to it you're all sat in kangaroo court presiding a judgement over something you weren't involved in. Dangerous? Yes. Avoidable? Who knows. Consequences? Realistically not much. That all said, the horse is bombproof, a different horse and it would be an entirely different story.

This. 

Undertaking a large quadruped at speed on a bike seems to me to be a stupid thing to do. difficult to imagine the thought process that went into doing so, maybe the cyclists swerved to avoid a cyclist in front who was slowing (because of the horse) and were unsighted and had nowhere else to go. The fact that there was sufficient room down the inside to pass (whether or not safely) suggests that the horse was more centrally positioned than it shoudl have been given the road was full of people on bikes see below.

Riding a horse down a road filled with triathletes is also a stupid idea. I don't care if you are not prohibited from doign so.  I have no idea of the total number of people who participated in the Windsor tri but if you go to Human Race's website there are 31 pages with the names of entrants.  Even if you were illiterate and lived in a cave without wifi and had somehow failed to get the warning about the event, that's an unmistakable number of people on bikes, certainly enough cyclists going past with sufficient frequency to make anyone think "maybe I should go a different way today". Unless I am mistaken, the equestrian wasn't carrying urgent medical supplies to save the life of a dying child. If I was cynical, I'd suggest this is the equine equivalent of trolling, guaranteed to get critical mainstream media coverage. (Which it has, because every English person loves a f*&king horse. It never ceases to amaze me that the same motorists will tiptoe around a horse, all the time tugging his forelock only to cut up a group of cyclists seconds later. Truly bizarre. Some kind of historical throwback to the days when the aristocracy came on horses.) Ride your horse somewhere else for the day.  I get the same crap at the start of most cross races or mountain bike races - "this is a public park, people might be walking their dogs". Really? Really? If you can't take them on a different walkies today, then f@c{ you and your dogs. It's one day, for f*c{'s sake.

There's a good little route through the local common which makes for a good workout on a cross bike. But I don't turn up there at 9.00am on a Saturday morning because that's when they do park run (every week) and (notwitstanding the replies below) I'm not a dick on a bike with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement. 

The decision to undertake the horse was pretty stupid. The decision to ride the horse on the same route as the triathlon was pretty stupid. Neither bit of stupidity justifies the other.

surly_by_name wrote:

The decision to undertake the horse was pretty stupid. The decision to ride the horse on the same route as the triathlon was pretty stupid. Neither bit of stupidity justifies the other.

Nothing indicates that the horse rider decided to just pull out in front of them, and the horse rider has claimed that they didn't in any case know that they were on the same route as the triathlon.  It looks like the cyclists were riding a bit faster than the equestrian, so I'd imagine they caught up with the horse and rider (and then undertook and close passed at speed like complete @rses).

................Riding a horse down a road filled with triathletes is also a stupid idea. I don't care if you are not prohibited from doign so.............. 

Using that argument is the same as motorised users saying "riding a bike down a road filled with cars going fast is a stupid idea.  I don't care if you're not prohibited from doing so...." 

That horse and rider had every right to ride down that road and be given due care as a vulnerable road users.

danhopgood wrote:

 

................Riding a horse down a road filled with triathletes is also a stupid idea. I don't care if you are not prohibited from doign so.............. 

 

Using that argument is the same as motorised users saying "riding a bike down a road filled with cars going fast is a stupid idea.  I don't care if you're not prohibited from doing so...." 

That horse and rider had every right to ride down that road and be given due care as a vulnerable road users.

I agree with you, especially your second paragraph, but would you not agree that there are limits maybe? 

For instance, I can ride the A30 here, but I don't because it is dangerous. Its not the danger that makes me stay off the road though, not directly, its the fact that the ever present danger is shit to be around. 

Is this not the same here? She has every right to be there, but common sense would suggest she avoided it that morning. 

The fact that the woman feels the need to offer up a back story as to why she was there suggests that she can see her decision making is arguably questionable here. 

FatBoyW wrote:

I’m very sorry for the horse but the rider is performing provocative behaviour knowing she will get this type of action. Not condoning the dangeous riding by any party including the horse rider. No way she'd be able to not know the race was happening. 

You've never ridden a horse if you're seriously suggesting that the rider took her horse into a dangerous situation deliberately to get provocative video footage?   Please explain what the rider did that was dangerous? 

FatBoyW wrote:

Unless it has changed over the years this is a BIG event, every farm and stables will have been written to. I mean we do that for our itsy bitsy road races and the Windsor tri is way bigger. Its been run for more than twenty years how did she not know, by ignoring all the signs deliberately.

I’m very sorry for the horse but the rider is performing provocative behaviour knowing she will get this type of action. Not condoning the dangeous riding by any party including the horse rider. No way she'd be able to not know the race was happening. Back when i competed in it there was one section that was closed road with cycling out and back on it, the rest was full of idiots in metal boxes

I believe your viewpoint is not without merit and worth exploration.

I would like to know, from the organisers, what efforts they did make to inform local land owners etc. of the event. How realistic would it be for the rider to really not know?

This is surely an area the organisers would be keen to address. As it stands, without evidence that contradicts the rider statement, it has to be taken at face value. 

However, why would the horserider enter / continue on that road as soon as any bikes appeared? I have ridden horses enough, and cycled around horses enough to know that the one thing that'll always spook a horse is a cyclist. as an adide, this is often for the same reason motorists are so inept around cyclists - during their respective training, they are not exposed to cyclists or cycling so simply don't know what they are or what to do. 

My gut feeling, from my personal experience is that the horserider was indeed there on purpose, either to make a point or to create a situation. Above there is a comment questioning why anyone could believe a horserider would put themselves in these situations deliberately. I believe they would, from 40+ years living in and around horsey folk.

I would also suggest that maybe the ramifications of the impact have been egged up. She talks of being injured from the impact, however in the video the cyclist does not appear to be knocked off balance at all. To me it doesn't quite add up and I can't help feeling this has been exagerrated for effect. 

To summarise, I believe that this person may not be quite as whiter than white as portrayed, that there is a possibility that she knowingly put herself in a situation where a situation could realistically take place. 

Which takes me to my final and key point. She may have potentially set these triathletes up here, but, and its a huge but, these triathletes more than fell for the trap... they jumped in gamely with both feet. They gave her exactly what she was potentially looking for and lots more.

You can question / blame the victim if you want (and to a level I do want to as I don't like to be treated like a mug), but the reality is that the problem is with triathletes. 

I don't think I've ever witnessed an act of greater and more willing stupidity by a cyclist on the road. Touch wood they are identified and made an example of.