# Number of horses/riders killed by cyclists



## User (18 Dec 2009)




----------



## sheddy (18 Dec 2009)

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


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Dec 2009)

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 (18 Dec 2009)

> Anyone got the figure?



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


----------



## bonj2 (18 Dec 2009)

None. (well, none _by accident_ anyway. B))


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

> 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 (18 Dec 2009)

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


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> 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 (18 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> 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 (18 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> 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 (18 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


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



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


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> 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 (18 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> ...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 (18 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> 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 (18 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> 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 )


----------



## Cab (18 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> 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 )



You need to look up 'straw man'. It doesn't mean what you think it means, and if you must use an argumentative fallacy then at least do it right.

And as for the proof that reducing speed limits to 20mph saves lives, it has been cited for you, it has been quoted for you, and now you're again wibbling on with irrelevancies. Why? I mean, I don't get it. Its not a complicated study, its not a difficult phenomenon, and clearly you're not an imbecile. So whats your agenda?


----------



## very-near (18 Dec 2009)

Cab said:


> You need to look up 'straw man'. It doesn't mean what you think it means, and if you must use an argumentative fallacy then at least do it right.
> 
> And as for the proof that reducing speed limits to 20mph saves lives, it has been cited for you, it has been quoted for you, and now you're again wibbling on with irrelevancies. Why? I mean, I don't get it. Its not a complicated study, its not a difficult phenomenon, and clearly you're not an imbecile. So whats your agenda?



My agenda is that you cannot entirely remove risk when heavy machinery (like cars) is concerned.

I trained as a Turner when I went into engineering (and a lathe is undoubtedly the most dangerous machine in a factory). Even when moving very slowly, there is a substantial risk of serious injury off these machines, so why not just ban them from the workplace ? - because you cannot manufacture the vast majority of components to any degree of accuracy without them so they are a necessary evil - even with HSE, risk averse, and compensated culture, and likewise this applies to cars as they are heavy machinery under human control.

Consider this. If you let all the tyres down on all the cars, buses, lorries and cycles, and then nailed down the shoes of all the pedestrians wandering around. You could cut the figures of not just the KSI's, but all the accidents entirely. It could be asserted that this is an entirely acceptable thing to do as there is no such thing as acceptable risk where the safety of the nation is concerned so why can't we just do this instead of what you propose as it would give cast iron guaranteed results ? - is it not a totally reasonable thing to demand

You might consider this a bit straw man, but it demonstrates the notion of balance in an argument

Anyway, I've just had a look at this report and there are huge gaps in it regarding whether the risk to road users in general is increased disproportionately in the areas surrounding them due to frustration of drivers putting their foot down when they attempt to make up time. You can see better my opinion of them on the other thread as this one is diversional and set up by MrP purely to have a pop. He still is unable to come up with any stats so for him to try and compare like for like as he has done is simply a load of tripe.


----------



## very-near (19 Dec 2009)

> Linf, mate, you're mixing up your threads. This one isn't about 20mph limits on roads. This one is asking for the evidence that MTBers kill horsey people on bridleways at a similar level to the number of people killed on the roads.
> 
> You made the claim, surely you have some evidence...



I never made that claim and I'd like to see you quote me. 

What I did say (for the 4th time) was that cyclists have to give way to horseriders and pedestrians on cyclepaths by law because they can spook the horses. 

I linked that fact to the example I gave of an inconsiderate cyclist who spooked my kids horse on the road with his puffing and blowing to show that there is justification in expecting horses to be given the same consideration wherever they are in a public place by all users.

You are asking me to provide stats to compare the KSIs over a 10 year period with all modes of transport (mostly cars and motorcycles) to risk on bridleways or roads to horseriders. The fact that inconsiderate behaviour around them substantially increases both risk to them and their handlers seems to be irrelevant to you. 

You seem to be struggling with this concept even though you claim to be a champion of road safety.


----------



## just jim (19 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> I linked that fact to the example I gave of an inconsiderate cyclist who spooked my kids horse on the road with his puffing and blowing



I think it's called breathing. Did he say sorry - for breathing?


----------



## very-near (19 Dec 2009)

just jim said:


> I think it's called breathing. Did he say sorry - for breathing?



Not to the horse or my daughter he didn't. He didn't fuss me, but he scared the Bejaysus out of the animal. 
She galloped a good 50 yards before my daughter managed to steer her into a gateway. A couple of minutes prior to this, and big 5 axle HGV came past but slowed right down as to not alarm her which shows that there are very aware and responsible road users out there who know how to act around these animals when they present themselves on the roads


----------



## Norm (19 Dec 2009)

> Quite understandably, you have been asked by several people how you can compare* a problem that kills thousands of people each year *with one that at first investigation appears never ever to have killed anyone.


Disingenuous at best, more likely a blatant attempt at emotional blackmail.


----------



## Norm (19 Dec 2009)

Because the issue under discussion was increasing the number of 20mph limits, which will not save thousands of lives.


----------



## marinyork (19 Dec 2009)

Norm said:


> Because the issue under discussion was increasing the number of 20mph limits, which will not save thousands of lives.



If it was implemented over a long period, I don't know say 50 years, it would certainly be possible to save thousands of lives.


----------



## Norm (19 Dec 2009)

That looks to me like cheap trolling. MrP's post was that the subject under discussion (20mph limits) would solve a problem which kills thousands of people a year.


----------



## marinyork (19 Dec 2009)

Norm said:


> That looks to me like cheap trolling. MrP's post was that the subject under discussion (20mph limits) would solve a problem which kills thousands of people a year.



I disagree. The speculation about what could be done about fatalities on the roads is not cheap trolling by User. How to get below the 3000 fatalities a year is a deeply serious subject, the question is whether you think it worth it for the speculated ideas to be implemented.


----------



## very-near (19 Dec 2009)

> Your memory is poor. That's not what happened.
> 
> You asked CAB where these life-saving measures should be implemented. He replied. You then suggested that as he was advocating these life-saving measures, then you wuold chip in and say that you want MTBs banned from bridleways because horses can get spooked by them. Here are your exact words-
> 
> ...



You didn't see the irony in that post given I said I was with them whilst riding my own MTB, and if I really was serious would have been cutting my nose off to spite my face as it would deny me the opportunity to accompany them on my bike , no perhaps you wouldn't (wood for the trees spring to mind  ) Go back to sleep


----------



## Norm (19 Dec 2009)

marinyork said:


> I disagree. The speculation about what could be done about fatalities on the roads is not cheap trolling by User.




I'm sure that most everyone else, including MrP, would have the nous to realise who it was I thought was guilty of cheap trolling.


----------



## very-near (19 Dec 2009)

marinyork said:


> I disagree. The speculation about what could be done about fatalities on the roads is not cheap trolling by User. How to get below the 3000 fatalities a year is a deeply serious subject, the question is whether you think it worth it for the speculated ideas to be implemented.



We already have. It currently resides at the 2500ish mark. Given that 21% of these are motorcylists (500 ish) and 49% are car occupants (1200 ish), that leaves 800 other lives lost through other modes (buses, HGVs, Cyclists, peds, horseriders etc etc. Which users are you trying to protect as already pointed out, many of these deaths occur on rural roads. Are you looking to implement a 20mph limit on rural roads as well ?

The question hanging over this debate which no one has answered is 'if you increase the journey times by 50%, what effect will this have on the alertness levels and consequential stats when it affects their ability to function with a greater degree of safety whilst in charge of a piece of heavy machinery ?


----------



## marinyork (19 Dec 2009)

very-near said:


> We already have. It currently resides at the 2500ish mark. Given that 21% of these are motorcylists (500 ish) and 49% are car occupants (1200 ish), that leaves 800 other lives lost through other modes (buses, HGVs, Cyclists, peds, horseriders etc etc. Which users are you trying to protect as already pointed out, many of these deaths occur on rural roads. Are you looking to implement a 20mph limit on rural roads as well ?
> 
> The question hanging over this debate which no one has answered is 'if you increase the journey times by 50%, what effect will this have on the alertness levels and consequential stats when it affects their ability to function with a greater degree of safety whilst in charge of a piece of heavy machinery ?



People are certainly aware of the many deaths on more rural roads, it is one reason why people frequently talk about more 50 speed limits on this board. One then gets rather hysterical responses back. Some rural roads may be up for 20 limits. I wouldn't have thought a great deal will be though. That said people and peds even live in more rural locations and there can be a great reluctance to do any measures to sort out safety problems. 

Journey times don't necessarily go up by 50% (or even much at all). Lower speed limits can have substantially greater traffic carrying capacity and flow can be better. As a cyclist and motorcyclist I'd expect you to realise more than most that the maximum speed attained doesn't always have a great deal to do with the journey time.

If one took the concentration issue, if there was a downside this would probably be offset by an average lower severity where accidents did happen.


----------

