Anyone from Bath?

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:59:29 +0100 someone who may be Keith
Willoughby <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1) Roads are wider than cyclepaths, almost without exception.

Then slow down more and take more care.

What if the horse attacks ther cyclist even when they are
stationary?

Quoted message said:

Sure, I could spook a horse, but then I could get hit by a car on
a road, and I don't think either remote possibility is a reason for
further segregation.

You misrepresent the issue. It is not a matter of further
segregation, it is a matter of whether integration is worthwhile
when one balances the risks and rewards for everyone.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3) In addition roads tend to have harder surfaces, less likely to be
broken up by hooves.

Which doesn't have any relevance to the point I was responding to.

It has a great deal of relevance to the question of horses on cycle
paths.

Quoted message said:

If
the surface was designed with cycles and not horses in mind, then sure,
maybe horses shouldn't be allowed on.

An alternative is to provide a horse path alongside. However, this
may lead to cyclists not slowing down when passing horses and thus
there being more danger.

Quoted message said:

"Cycle paths" are a community resource, just like roads are.

Of course and it is good if ways can be found to accommodate horse
riders on them in reasonable safety. However, a cycle path which has
a preserved railway alongside in places (no idea if that bit is in
the council area concerned) may well be unsuitable without
modifications.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen said:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:59:29 +0100 someone who may be Keith
Willoughby <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1) Roads are wider than cyclepaths, almost without exception.

Then slow down more and take more care.

What if the horse attacks ther cyclist even when they are
stationary?

What if a car drives deliberately at a cyclist?

We can do what-ifs all day. What is likely? We trust drivers of 2 tons
of metal not to do dangerous things, even if they do. We trust horse
riders not to ride temperamental horses near vulnerable humans, even if
they do.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sure, I could spook a horse, but then I could get hit by a car on
a road, and I don't think either remote possibility is a reason for
further segregation.

You misrepresent the issue.

No, I don't believe I do. I'm representing *my* issue.

Quoted message said:

It is not a matter of further segregation, it is a matter of whether
integration is worthwhile when one balances the risks and rewards for
everyone.

Actually, it's about whether horses should be allowed near cyclists who
are travelling at speed, which is the point at which I jumped in.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3) In addition roads tend to have harder surfaces, less likely to be
broken up by hooves.

Which doesn't have any relevance to the point I was responding to.

It has a great deal of relevance to the question of horses on cycle
paths.

But of zero relevance to my point.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the surface was designed with cycles and not horses in mind, then
sure, maybe horses shouldn't be allowed on.

An alternative is to provide a horse path alongside. However, this
may lead to cyclists not slowing down when passing horses and thus
there being more danger.

Then the cyclist is an idiot, just like many car drivers are idiots. The
question is how much do we regulate based on the idiots, and how much
based on the majority.

There's a horse path concurrent with a cycle/MU path that I ride on
frequently. As I said, I slow right down and talk to the rider as I
pass, even on the downhill where I'm normally hitting 20 mph. I rejoice
that someone else gets to enjoy their minority mode of transport, even
as I put myself in a small but tangible amount of danger as I pass.

I don't deny that that same horse would have no place on that path just
three miles away, where it narrows down considerably, but that has no
bearing on the general case.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Cycle paths" are a community resource, just like roads are.

Of course and it is good if ways can be found to accommodate horse
riders on them in reasonable safety.

"Of course and it is good if ways can be found to accommodate cyclists
on roads in reasonable safety", which is where I came in. Some people
like to put the balance of safety at a point which would deny cyclists
the road. I had assumed that cyclists would be a little more liberal
than "mixing horses and cyclists at speed is a bad idea".

Quoted message said:

However, a cycle path which has a preserved railway alongside in
places (no idea if that bit is in the council area concerned) may well
be unsuitable without modifications.

Whether one individual case would or would not be safe has little
bearing on the general statement made by Simon that I commented on.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
Thy Damnation Slumbereth Not

David Hansen said:

An alternative is to provide a horse path alongside. However, this
may lead to cyclists not slowing down when passing horses and thus
there being more danger.

There's a path like that in Yate. Whenever I've ridden along it, the
paved section intended for cyclists has been covered in horseshit :-(

Quoted message said:

Of course and it is good if ways can be found to accommodate horse
riders on them in reasonable safety. However, a cycle path which has
a preserved railway alongside in places (no idea if that bit is in
the council area concerned) may well be unsuitable without
modifications.

Looking at the OS map, the border between BANES and South
Gloucestershire appears to be roughly where the railway ends (i.e. the
railway is entirely in South Gloucestershire, so a decision by BANES to
allow horses would not result in equestrians having the right to ride
alongside the railway. However, once equestrians are on the path I can
see no way of preventing them from riding the 2km stretch between the
end of the railway and Bitton Station, short of installing barriers
<*SPIT*>.

Widening that 2km stretch would require widening of the embankment that
it runs along. Widening the BANES part of the path may be more
feasible, but would still require a lot of vegetation to be cleared on
either side of the path, as well as the tarmac being extended on at
least one side if we are to have a surface of the same quality that we
already have and to be able to pass horses safely. It would also
scupper the Avon Valley Railway's plans to extend the railway further
towards Bath (hey, Rich, maybe we could get the Avon Valley Railway
onside, if Banes could only be persuaded that the path needs widening if
equestrians are to use it).

--
Danny Colyer (my reply address is valid but checked infrequently)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Keith Willoughby said:

David Hansen said:

What if the horse attacks ther cyclist even when they are
stationary?

What if a car drives deliberately at a cyclist?

That's vanishingly rare. It's not vanishingly rare for a horse to be
spooked by a bicycle. It's quite common for a horse to be spooked by
a stationary recumbent.

Quoted message said:

We trust horse
riders not to ride temperamental horses near vulnerable humans,

You might. Having witnessed it reasonably frequently, I don't.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"Keith Willoughby" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David Hansen <[email hidden]> writes:

I rejoice that someone else gets to enjoy their minority mode of transport,
even

Quoted message said:

as I put myself in a small but tangible amount of danger as I pass.

What mode of transport would that be? Horse-riding, as far as I can see, is
solely for pleasure, and definitely not a mode of transport.

Quoted message said:

"Of course and it is good if ways can be found to accommodate cyclists
on roads in reasonable safety", which is where I came in. Some people
like to put the balance of safety at a point which would deny cyclists
the road. I had assumed that cyclists would be a little more liberal
than "mixing horses and cyclists at speed is a bad idea".

I like to think I am liberal, but I'm sure if the council had bothered to
consult the existing users of the path an amicable compromise would have
been arrived at. With breathtaking arrogance they didn't and should be made
to do so.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, a cycle path which has a preserved railway alongside in
places (no idea if that bit is in the council area concerned) may well
be unsuitable without modifications.

It is very unsuitable, for a number of reasons which the council refuse to
acknowledge.

Quoted message said:

D.M. Procida said:

Horse [censored] isn't disgusting, it's just a bit of grass.

What a load of cr*p.

Quite why horse riders get away with leaving their horsesh*it around
while dog owners have to clear up after their animals or be fined I
don't know.

Oh yes I do; Daddy's a judge.

John B

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bridleways are a completely seperate issue. Would you be happy to have
to give way to horses on a cycle path, as you are legally obliged to do
on a bridlepath?

There is also the fact that horses spook easily and are very dangerous
when spooked. Mixing horses with even moderately fast moving cycle
traffic is /not/ a good idea.

In which case horse riders may be well advised to have cyclists banned from
bridleways - ruination.

John

JohnB said:

D.M. Procida said:

Horse [censored] isn't disgusting, it's just a bit of grass.

What a load of cr*p.

Quite why horse riders get away with leaving their horsesh*it around
while dog owners have to clear up after their animals or be fined I
don't know.

Dog [censored] is absolutely foul. Horse [censored] is nice enough to put on your
vegetable garden. If it were around in huge quantities it would be a
problem, as it was 100 years ago, but right now any sensible person who
sees some horse [censored] will grab it for their compost if its convenient.

Dog [censored] on the other hand goes where people walk and children play, on
the pavements and in parks, and unlike horse [censored] it's all too easy not
to notice it until it's too late.

Daniele
--
For sale: Apple PowerBook G4 17", 1.67GHz, 1.5GB RAM, 80GB HDD, DVD
writer, Airport Extreme, Bluetooth, backlit keyboard. Almost brand
new - has been used exactly once, on 8th September 2005, for a one-
day project. Absolutely perfect condition. £1500 + VAT or offers.

Rich said:

What mode of transport would that be? Horse-riding, as far as I can see, is
solely for pleasure, and definitely not a mode of transport.

So what? Let them ride their bloody horses. At least they're getting
some exercise, just like the people who ride bikes for pleasure. Or do
people who ride bikes for pleasure deserve to be treated with less
respect or consideration just because it's for pleasure?

Daniele
--
For sale: Apple PowerBook G4 17", 1.67GHz, 1.5GB RAM, 80GB HDD, DVD
writer, Airport Extreme, Bluetooth, backlit keyboard. Almost brand
new - has been used exactly once, on 8th September 2005, for a one-
day project. Absolutely perfect condition. £1500 + VAT or offers.

Rich said:

"Keith Willoughby" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David Hansen <[email hidden]> writes:

I rejoice that someone else gets to enjoy their minority mode of transport,
even

Quoted message said:

as I put myself in a small but tangible amount of danger as I pass.

What mode of transport would that be? Horse-riding, as far as I can see, is
solely for pleasure, and definitely not a mode of transport.

If someone takes the car to the seaside, is that transport or pleasure?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Of course and it is good if ways can be found to accommodate cyclists
on roads in reasonable safety", which is where I came in. Some people
like to put the balance of safety at a point which would deny cyclists
the road. I had assumed that cyclists would be a little more liberal
than "mixing horses and cyclists at speed is a bad idea".

I like to think I am liberal, but I'm sure if the council had bothered to
consult the existing users of the path an amicable compromise would have
been arrived at. With breathtaking arrogance they didn't and should be made
to do so.

"the path" doesn't make any sense. I'm making a general point, not a
specific one.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"New songs and true songs and songs to bring you"

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:54:13 +0100 someone who may be Keith
Willoughby <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

There's a horse path concurrent with a cycle/MU path that I ride on
frequently. [snip]

I don't deny that that same horse would have no place on that path just
three miles away, where it narrows down considerably,

Thank's for agreeing with my viewpoint.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen said:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:54:13 +0100 someone who may be Keith
Willoughby <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

There's a horse path concurrent with a cycle/MU path that I ride on
frequently. [snip]

I don't deny that that same horse would have no place on that path just
three miles away, where it narrows down considerably,

Thank's for agreeing with my viewpoint.

At that point in the path, a horse literally wouldn't fit in. It's about
three feet wide and has a 90 degree turn in it.

Now, about my viewpoint. Do you believe mixing horses and cyclists is
generally a bad idea? Do you think cycles should be banned from all
bridleways? Do you think horses should be banned from single-lane roads?

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
01 811 8055

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:59:42 +0100 someone who may be Keith
Willoughby <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Now, about my viewpoint. Do you believe mixing horses and cyclists is
generally a bad idea?

Where have I said so in this thread?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen said:

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:59:42 +0100 someone who may be Keith
Willoughby <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Now, about my viewpoint. Do you believe mixing horses and cyclists is
generally a bad idea?

Where have I said so in this thread?

"No" would have sufficed.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
Smoke yourself thin

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 22:56:54 +0100 someone who may be Keith
Willoughby <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now, about my viewpoint. Do you believe mixing horses and cyclists is
generally a bad idea?

Where have I said so in this thread?

"No" would have sufficed.

Yes and no.

My question has advantages.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.