Cyclist guilty of lack of consideration for hitting a horse

[TrevA]

2 of the culprits have been identified - one of these came forward voluntarily. One given an indefinite ban from the organisers events, and the other given a 12 month ban.

[Tangled Metal]

Taken with the boggarts? Love that phrase.......

It's a term my old Dad used when he was alive.He'd working in the pit with ponies when he was a young man.

Quite. I forgot I knew that phrase from mining. Funny that. It not considering memory / age relationship (I forget what I've forgotten but I'm sure it was interesting). Boggarts is used in the lakes with its long mining history. Parts of it still use Boggarts.

[Postboxer]

Stumbled across this whilst searching for something completely unrelated but it rang a bell.

https://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk ... icted.html

A cyclist who rode into a horse during the Royal Windsor Triathlon has been convicted of riding without reasonable consideration.

The footage, which went viral after being released on Facebook by the hose rider, showed a cyclist attempting to overtake the horse, before colliding into its side on June 17.

Iain Plumb, of Chaucer Road, Crowthorne, was found guilty following a trial at Wycombe Magistrates' Court on Monday (Jan 21).

The 32-year-old was voluntarily interviewed on October 10 and charged with the offence on October 20.

The court ordered Plumb to pay costs of £926.

Edited to increase the quote from the article to include the details of the conviction, apparently, 'riding without reasonable consideration'.

[MikeF]

...... 'riding without reasonable consideration'.

Is that actually, ie legally, an offence?
Driving without reasonable consideration is for motor vehicles. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3 and would be useful for close overtakes.

Answering my own question.
It appears it is if the 1960 Act still applies http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/8-9/16/part/I/crossheading/offences-connected-with-riding-of-pedal-cycles/enacted?view=plain
And also http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/29#commentary-c1397220

[thirdcrank]

...... 'riding without reasonable consideration'.

Is that actually, ie legally, an offence?
Driving without reasonable consideration is for motor vehicles. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3 and would be useful for close overtakes.

Answering my own question.
It appears it is if the 1960 Act still applies http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/8-9/16/part/I/crossheading/offences-connected-with-riding-of-pedal-cycles/enacted?view=plain

It's s 29 RTA 1988:-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/29

[thelawnet]

This article is a bit clearer than the dreadful effort above.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-b ... e-47009149

The sentence was a fine of £216, plus £50 compensation, £30 victim support fund contribution, and £630 court costs

[Marcus Aurelius]

Why was the horse rider not dragged in to answer the question “why the hell were you riding a horse on a road you knew full well was being used for a cycling event”

[Bonefishblues]

Not sure if serious?

[The utility cyclist]

Stumbled across this whilst searching for something completely unrelated but it rang a bell.

https://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk ... icted.html

A cyclist who rode into a horse during the Royal Windsor Triathlon has been convicted of riding without reasonable consideration.

The footage, which went viral after being released on Facebook by the hose rider, showed a cyclist attempting to overtake the horse, before colliding into its side on June 17.

Iain Plumb, of Chaucer Road, Crowthorne, was found guilty following a trial at Wycombe Magistrates' Court on Monday (Jan 21).

The 32-year-old was voluntarily interviewed on October 10 and charged with the offence on October 20.

The court ordered Plumb to pay costs of £926.

Edited to increase the quote from the article to include the details of the conviction, apparently, 'riding without reasonable consideration'.

Compare that to most cases of motorists harming cyclists, using threatening behaviour etc and this seems massively over the top .
here's one example
2013 Emma Way. a trainee accountant from Norfolk was convicted of failing to stop, failing to report an accident. She was cleared of driving without due care and attention, fined £337 and ordered to pay £300 costs. She actually struck and knocked over a cyclist and drove away from the scene. She then went onto social media to say ...

There's literally no balance in the way people on bikes are being treated by the justice system in comparison to motorists, not even close, the Alliston case is a prime example of a massive stitch up and using him as a scapegoat/way for the MET to throw down thr gauntlet towards people on bikes to say 'we don't give a stuff about cyclists and we will be fully prepared to cobble together any old BS 'evidence' to slap you down!

[alexnharvey]

Why was the horse rider not dragged in to answer the question “why the hell were you riding a horse on a road you knew full well was being used for a cycling event”

She denies having such knowledge and reports there being no signs.

Either inadequate signage by the organisers, unfortunate on her part to have missed the or she's being disingenuous. On the other hand even if there are signs she still has every right to be there and to expect due care by people racing on open roads.

[Bonefishblues]

Why was the horse rider not dragged in to answer the question “why the hell were you riding a horse on a road you knew full well was being used for a cycling event”

She denies having such knowledge and reports there being no signs.

Either inadequate signage by the organisers, unfortunate on her part to have missed the or she's being disingenuous. On the other hand even if there are signs she still has every right to be there and to expect due care by people racing on open roads.

She was riding what was clearly a very steady and calm horse, even after the incident. Why should she not be there, and why would she have to issue a denial?

[thirdcrank]

I'd start from the point that the cyclist's riding was bad. In the first incarnation of this thread I suggested it amounted to inconsiderate cycling and that's the offence of which he's been convicted. Taken in isolation, fair enough.

But it should not be taken in isolation. I'm not going to bother digging out the link yet again but let's remember the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Charade when the then national police lead on traffic policing Suzette Davenport spouted a load of crêpes about helmet cam footage not being good evidence. Since then, we've had more examples of riders being routinely fobbed off than we have had of drivers being prosecuted.

We've had Operation Close Pass which seems to have been a genuine attempt by what is now the remnants of the traffic department in the West Mids and what looks like odds and ends of tokenism elsewhere.

Mentioning the All-Party Cycling Charade reminds me that one of its joint chairs, Julian Huppert, is now a CyclingUk trustee. Perhaps it's time to do a bit more than crowd-funding little-used mats, Mr Huppert.
===========================================================================================
PS If anybody wants an example of how a driver caught on camera may be dealt with, look no further:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehqBtcjOIc8

Original discussion about that here

viewtopic.php?p=655411#p655411

[pwa]

Why was the horse rider not dragged in to answer the question “why the hell were you riding a horse on a road you knew full well was being used for a cycling event”

She denies having such knowledge and reports there being no signs.

Either inadequate signage by the organisers, unfortunate on her part to have missed the or she's being disingenuous. On the other hand even if there are signs she still has every right to be there and to expect due care by people racing on open roads.

She was riding what was clearly a very steady and calm horse, even after the incident. Why should she not be there, and why would she have to issue a denial?

Yes. If people choose to have an event on a public road they should do it in a way that does not endanger other legitimate road users going about their own business. We can't have it both ways. Either we believe vulnerable road users have a right to be on public roads when and where they like, or we don't.

[Flinders]

She denies having such knowledge and reports there being no signs.

Either inadequate signage by the organisers, unfortunate on her part to have missed the or she's being disingenuous. On the other hand even if there are signs she still has every right to be there and to expect due care by people racing on open roads.

She was riding what was clearly a very steady and calm horse, even after the incident. Why should she not be there, and why would she have to issue a denial?

Yes. If people choose to have an event on a public road they should do it in a way that does not endanger other legitimate road users going about their own business. We can't have it both ways. Either we believe vulnerable road users have a right to be on public roads when and where they like, or we don't.

Yep. If it is really not safe for other users to even be on the road when there is such an event, then it must be closed or the event should not take place. I'm sure we don't want to go there- a place where no events like this can take place except on closed roads. Suggesting that other people, who may need to to use a road to get to where they are going, and who have a perfect right to be there as the road isn't closed, ought not to even be there- that's well out of order.

IF there was signage out well in advance and at the time, and IF I had a horse that was wary of bikes and might find large numbers of them stressful, I might well choose avoid the road if possible, but as has been stated, the horse had a perfect right to be there regardless so long as it was under control, and the specific horse in question seems to have had no problem with the bikes ridden decently. Though it might in future, thanks to this event.

[reohn2]

Why was the horse rider not dragged in to answer the question “why the hell were you riding a horse on a road you knew full well was being used for a cycling event”

Because she has every right to be using that road at anytime she wishes.
Don't blame the victim!