Number of horses/riders killed by cyclists

[User]

 

[sheddy]

I guess there have been fatalities, if the horse gets spooked and throws the rider

 

[dellzeqq]

my guess is......none

http://www.bhs.org.uk/Press_Centre/BHS_News/EMAGIN_needs_your_help.aspx this is a project that they are keen to share with the CTC. Why do you think that is?

 

[very-near]

Anyone got the figure?

Can you not do your own spade work for a change ?

 

[bonj2]

None. (well, none by accident anyway. B))

 

[very-near]

No, because it's not an issue that in my sights, because I've never heard of a death of a horse or rider that was caused by an MTBer.

You claim that MTBs on bridleways put horses and riders at such a level of risk that it's comparable with the 32000 killed on the roads in the last 10 years. So it's your spade work.

If there is really such a risk, substantiate it and I'll happily join any campaign to address it.

I think you need to do the spade work on this if you are going to have a hope on this one. What you have posted above Is a non sequitur if ever I saw one. What I did say is that the law (countryside code) states that cyclists must give way to Horseriders and pedestrians on bridleways as they are nervous creatures and have to be given due consideration. The law also states as much in the highway code but without the 'give way' bit. Common sense tells you that they have a legal right to be on the roads, but must be given due consideration. You argue for mitigation and it is in your book justifiable as it suits your purpose, but when others do the same and you have no personal interest, you rubbish the concept B)

In addition to this, to attribute all the 32000 deaths on the roads in the last 10 years to accidents being caused by breaking the speed limits or even that all have happened in urban areas where a 20mph limit would be seen to be benificial is disingenuous of you.

 

[Cab]

very-near, you've made a claim and you're asking others to disprove it. Life isn't like that.

 

[very-near]

very-near, you've made a claim and you're asking others to disprove it. Life isn't like that.

What I have done is quoted the law in the countryside code and also offered a justification for its existence as a 1st persons perspective.

 

[Cab]

What I have done is quoted the law in the countryside code and also offered a justification for its existence as a 1st persons perspective.

No, what you have done is tried to obfuscate a point you could not substantiate with another that, it transpires, you cannot substantiate.

Whats this all about? Really?

 

[very-near]

No, what you have done is tried to obfuscate a point you could not substantiate with another that, it transpires, you cannot substantiate.

Whats this all about? Really?

So you think you shouldn't have to give way to horseriders on the bridleways when cycling ?

 

[ufkacbln]

Can you not do your own spade work for a change ?

You mean bury the horse and ride to hide the evidence?

 

[Cab]

So you think you shouldn't have to give way to horseriders on the bridleways when cycling ?

...and now having been called on being unable to substantiate your claims, you're responding with the tiniest glimmer of a straw man argument.

 

[very-near]

...and now having been called on being unable to substantiate your claims, you're responding with the tiniest glimmer of a straw man argument.

I'll take it you can't do straight answers. There is little point in continuing this thread if you pursue this dance. You demand a 20 mph limit to protect the vulnerable, but don't want to see the vulnerable protected from inconsiderate users. Did you go to the same college as MrP

 

[Cab]

I'll take it you can't do straight answers. There is little point in continuing this thread if you pursue this dance. You demand a 20 mph limit to protect the vulnerable, but don't want to see the vulnerable prorected from inconsiderate users. Did you go to the same college as MrP

And the strawman is complete. Its not much of a strawman, as strawmen go, in that it isn't even one you could easily knock the stuffing out of.

Do you have evidence to support your assertion that there is a serious (by which I mean quantifiably bad) risk to horses from cyclists? That there are sufficient harmed such that you can rationally talk about this in the same breath as 30,000+ human deaths? Yes or no?

 

[very-near]

And the strawman is complete. Its not much of a strawman, as strawmen go, in that it isn't even one you could easily knock the stuffing out of.

Do you have evidence to support your assertion that there is a serious (by which I mean quantifiably bad) risk to horses from cyclists? That there are sufficient harmed such that you can rationally talk about this in the same breath as 30,000+ human deaths? Yes or no?

How many of those deaths were pedestrian or cyclists and caused by speeding in urban areas ? You can't answer it because you don't know the answer. The Straw man is that you need to get 10 years of statistics accumulated from statistics which are decreaseing year on year to put some meat on the bones of your argument This isn't news, it is just playing with history to justify futire plans which will not make any real difference to the KSI rates of the groups most at risk on the roads in the UK - car users and motorcyclists (and you bloody well know it )