Equestrian paralyzed, horse spooked by mt. bike racer on WST

Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 8:14 AM
Subject: [ACE] Rider paralized, horse spooked by mt. bike racer on WST

ACE members,

There was a serious Trail Alert up on Park Watch this past week to alert
other trail users that a one-time permit was given to allow a 100-mile
mt. bike race on the Western States (Tevis) Trail.

This trail is considered one of the most treacherous in the nation with
no access for safety personnel. Because of that reason, mt. bikes aren't
allowed on most of it, let alone those who are racing at high speeds.
Last year the permit was requested and ultimately wasn't given. But,
this year, despite the outcry from the trail-using community, a
different (larger) promoter was given a permit.

And, the very worst happened.

Crystal Costa didn't realize there were racing mt. bikes on the trail
and was riding her Tevis-trained horse with two others. She was close to
Francisco's when the mt. bike racers come by. One of the mt. bikers was
going too fast, crashed his bike and scared her horse. In his fright,
her horse stepped on one of his boots and it twisted, frightening him
further. Crystal was thrown into brush and rock and landed on her back.

She was helicoptered out. She had to wait three hours for a helicopter
because all of them were fighting the Robbers fire. The cyclist who
caused her accident stayed with her the whole time.

She has a badly broken back and is facing paralysis. She will be in the
hospital for a minimum of a month.

This accident shouldn't have happened. The WST is clearly not safe for
an extreme sport mt. biking event to share with other trail users. The
land managers who allowed this race were closing their eyes to the real
dangers - and Crystal paid the ultimate price.

On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:06:58 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:

This accident shouldn't have happened. The WST is clearly not safe for
an extreme sport mt. biking event to share with other trail users. The
land managers who allowed this race were closing their eyes to the real
dangers - and Crystal paid the ultimate price.

How on earth is that conclusion justified ? This is a tragedy and everyone, of course, hopes that the rider in question makes a full recovery.

However, how on earth is this the fault of either the land managers or the mountain bikers ? The trail was clearly marked out for the race and had also been used two weeks previously for an extreme run. There is also a similar endurance race on the same trail for horses.

There was no impact between the horse and the bike, according to the report, the horse merely got spooked, trod on its own boots and then threw its rider.

If the horse was going to spook at a mountain bike rider it would likely have also done so at the arrival of large numbers of runners or other horses too. The issue is the horse's reaction to other trail users.

The only sensible conclusion is that no-one should take a horse onto a trail shared with other users until such time as it is sufficiently acclimated. Otherwise, it poses a risk to its own rider and other trail users.

On Thursday, July 19, 2012 4:53:40 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:06:58 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:

> This accident shouldn't have happened. The WST is clearly not safe for
> an extreme sport mt. biking event to share with other trail users. The
> land managers who allowed this race were closing their eyes to the real
> dangers - and Crystal paid the ultimate price.

How on earth is that conclusion justified ? This is a tragedy and everyone, of course, hopes that the rider in question makes a full recovery.

However, how on earth is this the fault of either the land managers or the mountain bikers ? The trail was clearly marked out for the race and had also been used two weeks previously for an extreme run. There is also a similar endurance race on the same trail for horses.

There was no impact between the horse and the bike, according to the report, the horse merely got spooked, trod on its own boots and then threw its rider.

If the horse was going to spook at a mountain bike rider it would likely have also done so at the arrival of large numbers of runners or other horses too. The issue is the horse's reaction to other trail users.

The only sensible conclusion is that no-one should take a horse onto a trail shared with other users until such time as it is sufficiently acclimated. Otherwise, it poses a risk to its own rider and other trail users.

BS. If mountain biking weren't allowed, this wouldn't have happened. It's the fault of the land manager for permitting it, and of the mountain bikers for endangering other trail users (AS USUAL). DUH!

On Friday, July 20, 2012 12:54:47 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:

BS. If mountain biking weren't allowed, this wouldn't have happened. It's the fault of the land manager for permitting it, and of the mountain bikers for endangering other trail users (AS USUAL). DUH!

That's an assertion without facts. How do you know that the running race would not have caused the same, or a similar, incident. What about a wild animal spooking a horse ???

One could, although I personally wouldn't, make the case that horses are inherently too dangerous to permit on multi-use trails ... in the UK, horses are not permitted on footpaths, only bridleways.

On 7/19/2012 5:54 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thursday, July 19, 2012 4:53:40 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:06:58 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:

> This accident shouldn't have happened. The WST is clearly not safe for
> an extreme sport mt. biking event to share with other trail users. The
> land managers who allowed this race were closing their eyes to the real
> dangers - and Crystal paid the ultimate price.

How on earth is that conclusion justified ? This is a tragedy and everyone, of course, hopes that the rider in question makes a full recovery.

However, how on earth is this the fault of either the land managers or the mountain bikers ? The trail was clearly marked out for the race and had also been used two weeks previously for an extreme run. There is also a similar endurance race on the same trail for horses.

There was no impact between the horse and the bike, according to the report, the horse merely got spooked, trod on its own boots and then threw its rider.

If the horse was going to spook at a mountain bike rider it would likely have also done so at the arrival of large numbers of runners or other horses too. The issue is the horse's reaction to other trail users.

The only sensible conclusion is that no-one should take a horse onto a trail shared with other users until such time as it is sufficiently acclimated. Otherwise, it poses a risk to its own rider and other trail users.

BS. If mountain biking weren't allowed, this wouldn't have happened. It's the fault of the land manager for permitting it, and of the mountain bikers for endangering other trail users (AS USUAL). DUH!


If horses were not allowed, this wouldn't have happened. It's the fault
of the land manager for permitting it, and of the equestrian for
endangering herself and other trail users.

On Friday, July 20, 2012 10:46:06 AM UTC-7, Trevor wrote:
On 7/19/2012 5:54 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Thursday, July 19, 2012 4:53:40 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 5:06:58 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>> > This accident shouldn't have happened. The WST is clearly not safe for
>> > an extreme sport mt. biking event to share with other trail users. The
>> > land managers who allowed this race were closing their eyes to the real
>> > dangers - and Crystal paid the ultimate price.
>>
>> How on earth is that conclusion justified ? This is a tragedy and everyone, of course, hopes that the rider in question makes a full recovery.
>>
>> However, how on earth is this the fault of either the land managers or the mountain bikers ? The trail was clearly marked out for the race and had also been used two weeks previously for an extreme run. There is also a similar endurance race on the same trail for horses.
>>
>> There was no impact between the horse and the bike, according to the report, the horse merely got spooked, trod on its own boots and then threw its rider.
>>
>> If the horse was going to spook at a mountain bike rider it would likely have also done so at the arrival of large numbers of runners or other horses too. The issue is the horse's reaction to other trail users.
>>
>> The only sensible conclusion is that no-one should take a horse onto a trail shared with other users until such time as it is sufficiently acclimated. Otherwise, it poses a risk to its own rider and other trail users.
>
> BS. If mountain biking weren't allowed, this wouldn't have happened. It's the fault of the land manager for permitting it, and of the mountain bikers for endangering other trail users (AS USUAL). DUH!
>

If horses were not allowed, this wouldn't have happened. It's the fault
of the land manager for permitting it, and of the equestrian for
endangering herself and other trail users.

She was fine until the mountain biker came along. QED

On 7/20/2012 11:55 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:

> BS. If mountain biking weren't allowed, this wouldn't have happened. It's the fault of the land manager for permitting it, and of the mountain bikers for endangering other trail users (AS USUAL). DUH!
>

If horses were not allowed, this wouldn't have happened. It's the fault
of the land manager for permitting it, and of the equestrian for
endangering herself and other trail users.

She was fine until the mountain biker came along. QED


The mountain biker was fine until the horse came along. And then the
mountain biker was still fine. The horse appears to have been the
problem, particularly since the trail had been marked for a mountain
bike race. The horse simply should not have been there.

Incidentally, at a mountain bike park I ride at that is owned by the
city in which it is located, there are certain trails that are marked
for mountain bikers only (and only downhill). I think there is great
wisdom in that. (Runners and horses can freely use the other trails in
the park.)

On Monday, July 23, 2012 1:36:36 PM UTC-7, Trevor wrote:
On 7/20/2012 11:55 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:

>> > BS. If mountain biking weren't allowed, this wouldn't have happened. It's the fault of the land manager for permitting it, and of the mountain bikers for endangering other trail users (AS USUAL). DUH!
>> >
>>
>> If horses were not allowed, this wouldn't have happened. It's the fault
>> of the land manager for permitting it, and of the equestrian for
>> endangering herself and other trail users.
>
> She was fine until the mountain biker came along. QED
>

The mountain biker was fine until the horse came along. And then the
mountain biker was still fine. The horse appears to have been the
problem, particularly since the trail had been marked for a mountain
bike race. The horse simply should not have been there.

Incidentally, at a mountain bike park I ride at that is owned by the
city in which it is located, there are certain trails that are marked
for mountain bikers only (and only downhill). I think there is great
wisdom in that. (Runners and horses can freely use the other trails in
the park.)

Horses have a right to go wherever they want to! BICYCLES are machines, and have no rights whatsoever. DUH!

On 7/23/2012 10:20 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:


Horses have a right to go wherever they want to! BICYCLES are machines, and have no rights whatsoever. DUH!


You're at least good for a laugh.

On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 8:13:30 AM UTC-7, Trevor wrote:
On 7/23/2012 10:20 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:

>
> Horses have a right to go wherever they want to! BICYCLES are machines, and have no rights whatsoever. DUH!
>

You're at least good for a laugh.

What does that mean? Over your head?