Police probing triathlon cyclist's undertake of horse rider

froze wrote:

I'm confused, was this a triathlon race or not?  I'm assuming it was a sanctioned race from what I've read, so my question is, and I hate to sound obvious here, but what the heck was a horse doing on a race event course?  

It remained an open and public road. Regular rules of the road apllied throughout - to all users. 

I'm confused why people can't understand this.

simonmb wrote:

froze wrote:

I'm confused, was this a triathlon race or not?  I'm assuming it was a sanctioned race from what I've read, so my question is, and I hate to sound obvious here, but what the heck was a horse doing on a race event course?  

It remained an open and public road. Regular rules of the road apllied throughout - to all users. 

I'm confused why people can't understand this.

I'm confused as to why the roads weren't closed for this sort of event, given it's scale and the nature of the local roads/traffic. But that's in the past.

I'm more baffled why people keep saying these cyclists/triathletes were drafting... It's irrelevant and you can't see enough to conclude that they were drafting anyway. Unless they are suggesting the horse was being drafted. Either way, WTF has unproven drafting got to do with anything here?

J90 wrote:

Now everybody will tar actual cyclists with the same brush. These are Triathletes. Idiots.

Triathletes are cyclists. Anyone on a bicycle is a cyclist. You, and those who state anything other than this, are cycling-snobs.

The deplorable incident that happened here is just as likely to have occured had the cyclists been in the front group of a sportive.

simonmb wrote:

J90 wrote:

Now everybody will tar actual cyclists with the same brush. These are Triathletes. Idiots.

The deplorable incident that happened here is just as likely to have occured had the cyclists been in the front group of a sportive.

 

Whoah there tiger, that is very dangerous talk. 

if that is indeeds cyclings view / the reality, what does that mean for the future of public events such as sportives, races etc? 

This is an extreme example of what can happen. The fact it doesn't normally happen is why this example has achieved such publicity.  

There are a couple of questions to be asked here in my opinion, which sit with the organiser;

 - was signage / event publicity in the local community sufficient. The horse riders account suggests not, why was this the case? 

 - If on open roads, why were riders drafting, which I believe is not allowed in amateur triathlons? How was the non-drafting rule being so easily flouted? 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

simonmb wrote:

J90 wrote:

Now everybody will tar actual cyclists with the same brush. These are Triathletes. Idiots.

The deplorable incident that happened here is just as likely to have occured had the cyclists been in the front group of a sportive.

 

Whoah there tiger, that is very dangerous talk. 

if that is indeeds cyclings view / the reality, what does that mean for the future of public events such as sportives, races etc? 

This is an extreme example of what can happen. The fact it doesn't normally happen is why this example has achieved such publicity.  

There are a couple of questions to be asked here in my opinion, which sit with the organiser;

 - was signage / event publicity in the local community sufficient. The horse riders account suggests not, why was this the case? 

 - If on open roads, why were riders drafting, which I believe is not allowed in amateur triathlons? How was the non-drafting rule being so easily flouted? 

According to Human Race (interestingly enough, owned by TdF behemoth ASO), there was adequate signage erected days before the incident, which was increased at the time of the event. We have their word against the word of the horse rider, so who knows the truth, but they are a huge organisation and I would have expected them to have done this. They organise the Fred Whitton around these parts, and they put up warnings weeks in advance. Of course if you're going around with your head up your arse, you won't notice them (I'm not suggesting the rider was, by the way).

Drafting in a triathlon is allowed, but only for the time it takes to gain on your frontmarker and get past them. This is from a local events competitor notes:

"This race is a non-drafting race for all categories, meaning competitors are not allowed to take
shelter behind or beside another competitor or motor vehicle during the cycling segment of the
race. The draft zone is a rectangle measuring ten metres long by three metres wide, which surrounds every cycle on the cycle course.
The front edge of the front wheel defines the centre and top edge of the rectangle. A competitor
may enter the draft zone of another competitor but must be seen to be progressing through that zone. A maximum of 20 seconds is allowed to progress though the draft zone of another competitor. If an overtaking manoeuvre is not completed within 20 seconds, the overtaking cyclist must drop back. Time penalties and DQs will be issued by the referee for infringements."
 

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Are the cyclists dicks yes, but she has to shoulder some of the responsibility for going out on a section of road ignoring the warning signs that were up everywhere (according to the organisers) that made it no different to a cyclist going on the hard shoulder of a motorway.

Just to comment on this particular nugget of crap.

From someone who claims to have been involved in collisions on at least 3 seperate occassions on public roads when you were no doubt aware of the presence of larger, faster motorised traffic. Do you really feel that you have some accountability for your injuries simply for being where you were, perfectly legally?

As to not being aware of the race? Many is the time I have gone out for a ride and come across gaggles of cyclists involved in some sportive or organised event that I had no clue was running that day at that particular time warning signs or not.

Mungecrundle wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Are the cyclists dicks yes, but she has to shoulder some of the responsibility for going out on a section of road ignoring the warning signs that were up everywhere (according to the organisers) that made it no different to a cyclist going on the hard shoulder of a motorway.

 

Just to comment on this particular nugget of crap.

From someone who claims to have been involved in collisions on at least 3 seperate occassions on public roads when you were no doubt aware of the presence of larger, faster motorised traffic. Do you really feel that you have some accountability for your injuries simply for being where you were, perfectly legally?

As to not being aware of the race? Many is the time I have gone out for a ride and come across gaggles of cyclists involved in some sportive or organised event that I had no clue was running that day at that particular time warning signs or not.

Nugget of crap sums you up sonshine.

Bother to actually read were I said the rules are being applied differently, you cannot on one hand say you can't/shouldn't go here because of an increased risk and/or speed/density of traffic that includes stuff that might potentially harm you or indeed others and then when an incident occurs you are blamed by everyone including authorities, only to then ignore that 'rule' or advice when it occurs to someone else/different road user. Just because you have a right to be there doesn't mean that that is a sensible thing to do given how our society behaves as a whole. call it whataboutery all you like but that is the world we live in and you cannot have different sets of rules for similar groups and then pass even if partially blame on to one but not the other.

This is crux of what I said, should the horse rider be allowed to ride there and feel safe to do so, absolutely, my partner rides a horse and has done since she was a child. I don't race but like to ride fast when appropriate and would have been completely on the opposite side of the road if I were going to go at any speed. That we already have motorvehicles overtaking us at 50/60/70mph on similar stretches of road often with not much difference in gap (aside from the guy who struck the horse) is utterly ignored by joe public, this occurs every single day, week in week out thousands of times over, often resulting in serious injury or death or to the point were people simply give up doing what they love through fear.

My partner wouldn't wilfully ignore signs to say a cycle race was going to take place and take her horse out at the times that she would know the event was on, because being responsible she knows that even a very steady horse that acts impeccably 99.99% of the time can at any instant behave irrationally, even with something very innocuous, if that means several hundred people on bikes plus cars are going to be on that same stretch of road she would either go out earlier or later or take it for a hack off road or do some jumps/trots etc on the training field next to the farm.

You should learn to read and understand what's being said Mr. McCrapnugget.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Are the cyclists dicks yes, but she has to shoulder some of the responsibility for going out on a section of road ignoring the warning signs that were up everywhere (according to the organisers) that made it no different to a cyclist going on the hard shoulder of a motorway.

 

Just to comment on this particular nugget of crap.

From someone who claims to have been involved in collisions on at least 3 seperate occassions on public roads when you were no doubt aware of the presence of larger, faster motorised traffic. Do you really feel that you have some accountability for your injuries simply for being where you were, perfectly legally?

As to not being aware of the race? Many is the time I have gone out for a ride and come across gaggles of cyclists involved in some sportive or organised event that I had no clue was running that day at that particular time warning signs or not.

Nugget of crap sums you up sonshine.

Bother to actually read were I said the rules are being applied differently, you cannot on one hand say you can't/shouldn't go here because of an increased risk and/or speed/density of traffic that includes stuff that might potentially harm you or indeed others and then when an incident occurs you are blamed by everyone including authorities, only to then ignore that 'rule' or advice when it occurs to someone else/different road user. Just because you have a right to be there doesn't mean that that is a sensible thing to do given how our society behaves as a whole. call it whataboutery all you like but that is the world we live in and you cannot have different sets of rules for similar groups and then pass even if partially blame on to one but not the other.

This is crux of what I said, should the horse rider be allowed to ride there and feel safe to do so, absolutely, my partner rides a horse and has done since she was a child. I don't race but like to ride fast when appropriate and would have been completely on the opposite side of the road if I were going to go at any speed. That we already have motorvehicles overtaking us at 50/60/70mph on similar stretches of road often with not much difference in gap (aside from the guy who struck the horse) is utterly ignored by joe public, this occurs every single day, week in week out thousands of times over, often resulting in serious injury or death or to the point were people simply give up doing what they love through fear.

My partner wouldn't wilfully ignore signs to say a cycle race was going to take place and take her horse out at the times that she would know the event was on, because being responsible she knows that even a very steady horse that acts impeccably 99.99% of the time can at any instant behave irrationally, even with something very innocuous, if that means several hundred people on bikes plus cars are going to be on that same stretch of road she would either go out earlier or later or take it for a hack off road or do some jumps/trots etc on the training field next to the farm.

You should learn to read and understand what's being said Mr. McCrapnugget.

I did read what you wrote very carefully. I get that you have a crusade against the inappropriately lenient treatment of motorists who kill and injure others through negligence and wanton disregard for the safety of others. You are not wrong about that.

What I have called you out for is doing exactly what you accuse motorist sympathetic juries and judges of doing in apportioning blame to the victim for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time and then speculating that they must have had some bizarre ulterior motive. Simply because the offenders in this particular example are cyclists.

Just call this as it is, wrong is wrong and don't attempt to conflate a horse rider being buzzed by morons on bicycles with unrelated incidents or hypothetical excursions onto a motorway hardshoulder.

Housecathst wrote:

163 and 167 are irrelevant, this is filtering in slow moving traffic not overtaking. 

Entirely relevant, this is overtaking. Also 66-68.

Housecathst wrote:

214 perhaps, but it’s subjective as no passing distances or speed are given, as ever the Highway Code is shit 

It is not enumerated but I would suggest that at least one of those maneuvers obviously failed the 'plenty of room' criterium and a number of them were not riding 'slowly'. I thought you acknowledged that with your comment on their riding.

fukawitribe wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

163 and 167 are irrelevant, this is filtering in slow moving traffic not overtaking. 

Entirely relevant, this is overtaking. Also 66-68.

Housecathst wrote:

214 perhaps, but it’s subjective as no passing distances or speed are given, as ever the Highway Code is shit 

It is not enumerated but I would suggest that at least one of those maneuvers obviously failed the 'plenty of room' criterium and a number of them were not riding 'slowly'. I thought you acknowledged that with your comment on their riding.

Why don’t you think this is filtering ? I’m only really talking about the cyclist passing on the left. But in general none of the passes by any of the cyclists is any different than I would expect from a motorist over taking a cyclist.

Also define ‘slowly’ in terms of the HW code ? 

Housecathst wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

163 and 167 are irrelevant, this is filtering in slow moving traffic not overtaking. 

Entirely relevant, this is overtaking. Also 66-68.

Housecathst wrote:

214 perhaps, but it’s subjective as no passing distances or speed are given, as ever the Highway Code is shit 

It is not enumerated but I would suggest that at least one of those maneuvers obviously failed the 'plenty of room' criterium and a number of them were not riding 'slowly'. I thought you acknowledged that with your comment on their riding.

Why don’t you think this is filtering ? I’m only really talking about the cyclist passing on the left. But in general none of the passes by any of the cyclists is any different than I would expect from a motorist over taking a cyclist.

Also define ‘slowly’ in terms of the HW code ? 

Either filtering (which is not a recommended maneuver in the HWC, just a situation that may occur) or overtaking have the onus on care - which is clearly breeched. If you wish to call it 'filtering' then go ahead, it's over-taking to me (or under-taking if people wish). The duty of care is also applicable to some of those passing on the outside of the horse, in particular that last group, and especially when passing an animal - as explicitly laid out in the HWC. 

As for the definition of 'slowly' - as I said, it's not defined - that is why I used the phrase "I suggest" and only for a number of riders, certainly not all. Feel free to disagree, entirely your prerogative obviously. Think i'm done anyway, can't see you changing your mind on the meaning of 'care' or what is or is not overtaking, just find it depressing that you can suggest that the actions of the rider on the left are in anyway consistent with the wording or apparent intent of the code. Whatever, lifes too short mate.

MalOSB wrote:

A lot of Whataboutism going on in this post.

Yes, the police should do more about close passes and the government more about supporting Cyclists and fixing the dreadful way many motorists believe that cyclists do not have a right to be on the road. 

However, the way many of the cyclists pass this horse rider is unacceptable. We all know that when you see a horse rider you slow down and give plenty of space.

 

If you're determined to use clever-sounding interspaz lingo like "whataboutism" (the correct term is "whataboutery" BTW) perhaps you should understand what such terms mean. 

I don't see anyone defending the poor riding of those triathletes.  However, pointing out the glaring double standards of both the public and the police when cyclists suffer similar (and far worse) poor treatment from motorists is a perfectly valid point to make. 

Housecathst wrote:

Playing devils advocate the cyclist passing on the left are just filtering aren’t they ? As per the HW code.

Nope.

fukawitribe wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

Playing devils advocate the cyclist passing on the left are just filtering aren’t they ? As per the HW code.

Nope.

really ? Why ? Perhaps the speed aspect, but that’s subjective and the HW code does sent a speed limit. 

Disclamer, I wouldn’t ride like this in a million years, and the rider are dicks.