Woman riding popular mountain bike trail left bruised after attack by man wielding stick

visionset wrote:

 more often than not it is the SUV driver.  That, as has been said here, is the most inappropriate tool. 

Here's a job for someone bored and furloughed: run through every single NMOTD video and schedule up the offending vehicles to fact check this sort of statement. I have two SUVs on my fleet and quite how you'd otherwise put a 3 door RAV4 and an XC90 in the same category is beyond me. The nearest I've come to being killed by a motorist was a twat in a 350Z, second prize goes to a hot-hatch hero. Scariest was a commercial vehicle breakdown truck, second in this category was a single decker bus. I think if you start typing the phrase "sweeping generalisation" you should just stop typing (unless you're quoting, natch).

Panslanepaul wrote:

​ I think if you start typing the phrase "sweeping generalisation" you should just stop typing (unless you're quoting, natch).

Fair enough, though it is very much experience based, and based on that experience really i should have typed Range Rover. I accept a twat can be behind the wheel, reigns or bars of anything.

visionset wrote:

Fair enough, though it is very much experience based, and based on that experience really i should have typed Range Rover. I accept a twat can be behind the wheel, reigns or bars of anything.

No problem, not going to pick an argument with you over Range Rover drivers 

visionset wrote:

I am constantly amazed by the comments of vulnarable cyclists that can not accept that tolerance and care is required. How can you possibly level the same ignorance at other vulnerable road users?  Look at pedestrians / scooters / horse riders etc and consider they hav every right to be there and are just ordinary people trying to enagage in a healthy for of transport or leisure.  Focus ones attention at the those not doing that. And although it is a sweeping generalisation, more often than not it is the SUV driver.  That, as has been said here, is the most inappropriate tool. 

I've read that three times, the last time slowly and carefully, and I still don't understand what you're talking about.  I'm pretty sure my comprehension is reasonable, so do you think you could explain it again a bit clearer please?

TL:DR - don't be dicks to other road users, whether on the road or the internet.

Compact Corned Beef wrote:

TL:DR - don't be dicks to other road users, whether on the road or the internet.

Thanks; much clearer, and shorter too.  Now, tell me what was the point of saying that in the context of a totally innocent woman cyclist being assaulted by an irate dog owner?

visionset's comment was in response to someone else commenting that horses shouldn't be on the road. I think he's quite right  to call that out, especially so as we've probably all been told to get off the road at some point.

Nowt specifically to do with the article. That bloke's actions are indefensible.

Compact Corned Beef wrote:

visionset's comment was in response to someone else commenting that horses shouldn't be on the road. I think he's quite right  to call that out, especially so as we've probably all been told to get off the road at some point.

Nowt specifically to do with the article. That bloke's actions are indefensible.

Thanks.  So he's replying to someone without actually clicking "reply" and totally out of context.  Can't help thinking that if it takes half a dozen posts for other people to explain your post, maybe it might have been done a bit better.

Well it does seem like most other people managed to understand what they were talking about just fine. It was started 'I am constantly amazed by the comments...', which ought to have made it fairly clear.

And it was commenting on comments generally, rather than any specific comment, so replying to an individual one wouldn't necessarily have been appropriate.

I think he is saying that it is a bit rich of cyclists to treat other vulnerable road users (pedestrians, horse riders, mobility scooterers, etc) in the same deplorable way that motorists treat cyclists. Which is to say, questioning their right to the road, moaning about how they get in the way, forcing us to slow down to accommodate their vagaries and meanderings, buzzing past them in alarming fashion, or just failing to recognise their particular needs and their legitimacy.

Do unto others, etc. Quite right too.

Sriracha wrote:

I think he is saying that it is a bit rich of cyclists to treat other vulnerable road users (pedestrians, horse riders, mobility scooterers, etc) in the same deplorable way that motorists treat cyclists. Which is to say, questioning their right to the road, moaning about how they get in the way, forcing us to slow down to accommodate their vagaries and meanderings, buzzing past them in alarming fashion, or just failing to recognise their particular needs and their legitimacy. Do unto others, etc. Quite right too.

Thanks.  Now, tell me what was the point of saying that in the context of a totally innocent woman cyclist being assaulted by an irate dog owner?

eburtthebike wrote:

Thanks.  Now, tell me what was the point of saying that in the context of a totally innocent woman cyclist being assaulted by an irate dog owner?

I think it was more in the context of commenters suggesting that all horse riders are rude, selfish, and an inconvenience, and that they shouldn't be on the roads.

Sriracha wrote:

I think he is saying that it is a bit rich of cyclists to treat other vulnerable road users (pedestrians, horse riders, mobility scooterers, etc) in the same deplorable way that motorists treat cyclists. Which is to say, questioning their right to the road, moaning about how they get in the way, forcing us to slow down to accommodate their vagaries and meanderings, buzzing past them in alarming fashion, or just failing to recognise their particular needs and their legitimacy. Do unto others, etc. Quite right too.

Yes, I see that, but does it have anything whatsoever to do with the article he's commenting on?  Unless he's somehow blaming the woman for riding too fast, too close to the dog owner?  I'm baffled.

eburtthebike wrote:

Yes, I see that, but does it have anything whatsoever to do with the article he's commenting on?  Unless he's somehow blaming the woman for riding too fast, too close to the dog owner?  I'm baffled.

No I am not commenting on this article, I am commenting on alot of this article's (and a ton of others) commentary. As is quite clear in the 1st sentence.

Sriracha wrote:

I think he is saying that it is a bit rich of cyclists to treat other vulnerable road users (pedestrians, horse riders, mobility scooterers, etc) in the same deplorable way that motorists treat cyclists. Which is to say, questioning their right to the road, moaning about how they get in the way, forcing us to slow down to accommodate their vagaries and meanderings, buzzing past them in alarming fashion, or just failing to recognise their particular needs and their legitimacy. Do unto others, etc. Quite right too.

Yep, spot on, thanks

This Mantle of the Righteous is taken, on the roads, by the Saintly Horse Riders. It is impossible to do right for some of them- they will shout at you for coming up quietly on the outside, them will shout at you for disturbing the horse by bell ringing or speaking. As far as such people are concerned, any cyclist is a slavering monster aiming to flay the horse alive- the worst I experienced was a series of cries of rage for passing a horse with a trailer with a flag on the back. 

Horses absolutely don't belong on modern roads - they're prey animals and liable to panic at more or less anything.  It must cause them a lot of anxiety and I don't know why the rider would inflict that on them. 

However, about a year ago, I passed a horse rider (I was riding in the opposite gutter to be considerate) and somehow ended up in conversation.  She said that what they want cyclists to do is shout "BIKE! BIKE!" when about 50m back and just slow down a bit.  I've been doing it since and I've never had anything other than a friendly wave on my way past. 

I still don't think they belong on the road, and I hate slowing down and going onto the other side of the road, but I expect the same courtesy from car drivers so it seems kinda fair in the round.

Horses absolutely don't belong on modern roads - they're prey animals and liable to panic at more or less anything.  It must cause them a lot of anxiety and I don't know why the rider would inflict that on them. 

Agreed, but the problem is the same as that for off-road cyclists - none of the bridleways link up and often you have to do yards if not a mile on the road to get to the next off-road bit.  The ones we see are probably just trying to make their way to the next tarmac-free area.  Must be stressful riding a horse on a road these days.

panda wrote:

Horses absolutely don't belong on modern roads -

Crap.  This is the same argument used by petrolheads against cyclists.  Horses (and riders) have as much right to use the public highway as anyone and were doing so long before motor vehicles, or even bikes, came along.  All road users need to learn to accommodate each other and Share the Road.

I think it's possible to share the roads and act considerately in practice, whilst also suggesting that something ought to change. Just because something's happened for a long time doesn't automatically mean it is right.

I can see Panda's point to some extent. I generally don't have a problem with horses but they are ridiculous as a form of transport - expensive to keep, slow, poop everywhere etc. It's a nightmare trying to find somewhere to park one in town.

They do also have a tendancy to behave erratically - I once distressed a horse greatly by walking past whilst wearing sunglasses and a large rucksack. It thought I looked like some kind of monster.

That said, I think SUVs are far more unfit for modern roads.

OnYerBike wrote:

ridiculous as a form of transport - expensive to keep, slow*, poop everywhere etc. It's a nightmare trying to find somewhere to park one in town.

They do also have a tendancy to behave erratically

Sounds like you're describing cars.

[* in most major towns and cities.]

You took those words out of context - my point was more that if I had a brain injury which meant I was likely to be startled by sudden noise / light / movement and the consequence of that was that I could suddenly swerve and  injure the person sharing a tandem with me then I wouldn't ride on the open roads because it would be stressful.  Think of it this way - would you consider letting a horse make its own way down a road from one paddock to another on a route it's familiar with?  Why not?

They absolutely have the right to be on there - I assume it's only done out of necessity - and it's the infrastructure which needs to be improved to reduce that stress.  If a section of road is going to be used regularly by horses then there should be a bridleway next to it or at the very least signage.

Better?

modern roads? wtf are they? If you can't share the road with ALL modes of transport then please stay off them.

Horses have every right to be on the roads.

Once you remove them the next step is the cyclist who wobbles round potholes. Clearly they have no place on modern high speed roads...

It's not rocket science is it ? Slow down and announce yourself. I've had plenty of chats with nice horse riders.

Weird, only ever had respectful encounters with horse riders out on the roads and byeways of N Hertfordshire, and come across at least 1 every countryside cycle ride.

Once had a group of horse riders charge through a group of runners from behind on a bridlepath, but that, so far, has been a one off.

Same Glasgow area. I slow down, make my presence known and all goes well.

Not that I pass a lot of horses mind.