Dogs & Cycle paths arrgggghhh

[Cab]

OTOH I think it's up to us to go slow and be careful around dogs and pedestrians. If you want to go faster, use the road, not the stupid 'kin cycle path. Cycle paths are a blight on the land, and besides which, it's perfectly legal and fine for pedestrians and dogs to use them.

I sort of agree; while we should take extra care around pedestrians, especially those with dogs, there are times when the attitude of pedestrians towards cyclists is hugely unhelpful. I'd generally prefer to use the road, but there are some off-road cycle paths that provide useful shortcuts for me.

 

[Nipper]

Yeah yeah you live in your, 'it's all so complicated' world and we can have another 40 years of car domination. The reason we have not had investment in cycle infrastructure is governments following the old lie that (cheap) vehicular cycling is the answer. The truth is quite simple, more cycle paths = more cyclists = safer cycling. This is true for every country around the world. Read David Hembrow's blog it's all there. Without the subjective safety offered by real infrastructure, there will not be anything like the increase in cycling numbers we need to save our society from the tyranny of the car.


I know your afraid of losing your right to ride the road if we have more cycle paths... It hasn't happened in Holland or Denmark and they have 50% modal share for cycling and a lot of cycle paths. You know the future is not lycra clad sports cyclists, but normal everyday people in normal clothes. Read CPH Cycle Chic for all the details. So come on, get real, stop quoting the old lies and lets make a REAL difference to cyclist numbers, lets give people the subjective safety of cycle paths/ traffic calming and join the civilized world of European cycling culture.

 

[John the Monkey]

The truth is quite simple, more cycle paths = more cyclists = safer cycling. This is true for every country around the world. Read David Hembrow's blog it's all there. Without the subjective safety offered by real infrastructure, there will not be anything like the increase in cycling numbers we need to save our society from the tyranny of the car.

?

You need enforcement of traffic law and attitude change as well. Not just painting on the green paint. did you look for John Franklin's work? Can you rebut what he (and the papers he references) say about cyclepath safety here and in the Netherlands?

At the risk of going all Mr Paul, what is the angle you need to look through to pass the side road safely on a cycle path in the example I gave above? How is that better than being on the road in the same situation?

You know the future is not lycra clad sports cyclists, but normal everyday people in normal clothes. Read CPH Cycle Chic for all the details.

I like Mikael's blog, but his is only a realistic solution once traffic is calmed sufficiently for people to be able to potter along without breaking a sweat (without being intimidated by motor traffic). Our future will be lycra clad for a while yet, at least for those of us actually commuting on roads in Britain, year round, for journeys longer than 3 or 4 miles.

So come on, get real, stop quoting the old lies and lets make a REAL difference to cyclist numbers, lets give people the subjective safety of cycle paths/ traffic calming and join the civilized world of European cycling culture.

A gift to the anti camp - they can point to how much sloshing all that green paint around is going to cost, shrug regretfully, and continue with tokenism.

We aren't the Netherlands - our solution will, in all probability, be different to theirs, at least until enough of us are on the road to effect real change.

 

[Origamist]

Yeah yeah you live in your, 'it's all so complicated' world and we can have another 40 years of car domination. The reason we have not had investment in cycle infrastructure is governments following the old lie that (cheap) vehicular cycling is the answer. The truth is quite simple, more cycle paths = more cyclists = safer cycling. This is true for every country around the world.

Nipper, vehicular cycling is not the reason we have not had investment in cycling infrastructure; I'm afraid it's more prosaic than that - there is simply not the political will/vision to cater or invest in what is a minority mode of transport.

The countries you have cited have done a great deal more than simply create cycle paths. I have ridden in the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark etc and have used both on and off road cycle provision. Here is a detailed list of some of the holistic measures undertaken:

Extensive systems of separate cycling facilities
• Well-maintained, fully integrated paths, lanes and special bicycle streets in cities and surrounding
regions
• Fully coordinated system of colour-coded directional signs for bicyclists
• Off-street short-cuts, such as mid-block connections and passages through dead-ends for cars
Intersection modifications and priority traffic signals
• Advance green lights for cyclists at most intersections
• Advanced cyclist waiting positions (ahead of cars) fed by special bike lanes facilitate safer and
quicker crossings and turns
• Cyclist short-cuts to make right-hand turns before intersections and exemption from red traffic
signals at T-intersections, thus increasing cyclist speed and safety
• Bike paths turn into brightly coloured bike lanes when crossing intersections
• Traffic signals are synchronized at cyclist speeds assuring consecutive green lights for cyclists
(green wave)
• Bollards with flashing lights along bike routes signal cyclists the right speed to reach the next
intersection at a green light
Traffic calming
• Traffic calming of all residential neighbourhoods via speed limit (30 km/hr) and physical
infrastructure deterrents for cars
• Bicycle streets, narrow roads where bikes have absolute priority over cars
• ‘Home Zones’ with 7 km/hr speed limit, where cars must yield to pedestrians and cyclists using
the road
Bike parking
• Large supply of good bike parking throughout the city
• Improved lighting and security of bike parking facilities often featuring guards, video-surveillance
and priority parking for women
Coordination with public transport
• Extensive bike parking at all metro, suburban and regional train stations
• ‘Call a Bike’ programmes: bikes can be rented by cell phone at transit stops, paid for by the minute
and left at any busy intersection in the city
• Bike rentals at most train stations
• Deluxe bike parking garages at some train stations, with video-surveillance, special lighting,
music, repair services and bike rentals
Traffic education and training
• Comprehensive cycling training courses for virtually all school children with test by traffic
police
• Special cycling training test tracks for children
• Stringent training of motorists to respect pedestrians and cyclists and avoid hitting them
Traffic laws
• Special legal protection for children and elderly cyclists
• Motorists assumed by law to be responsible for almost all crashes with cyclists
• Strict enforcement of cyclist rights by police and courts

Source: Pucher & Buehler

Read David Hembrow's blog it's all there. Without the subjective safety offered by real infrastructure, there will not be anything like the increase in cycling numbers we need to save our society from the tyranny of the car.

I do read Hembrow's "View from the Cyclepath" and have linked to it on a number of occasions as it's well argued and thought provoking. FYI, Hembrow left the UK for the Netherlands because he could not get his views heard or accpeted over here and wanted a better cycling/living environment for his family. I can empathise with him.

I know your afraid of losing your right to ride the road if we have more cycle paths... It hasn't happened in Holland or Denmark and they have 50% modal share for cycling and a lot of cycle paths. You know the future is not lycra clad sports cyclists, but normal everyday people in normal clothes. Read CPH Cycle Chic for all the details. So come on, get real, stop quoting the old lies and lets make a REAL difference to cyclist numbers, lets give people the subjective safety of cycle paths/ traffic calming and join the civilized world of European cycling culture.

The Danes and the Dutch do not have a 50% modal share nationally. However, where I agree with you is that the future of cycling cannot be simply the preserve of the young, the sporty, or predominantly male, if cycling numbers are to grow signficantly.

 

[jonny jeez]

I don’t really have much K9 interaction on my commute but I understand the frustration.

Dog's do like to chase moving objects… like wheels……. and often attack when intimidated, as they invariably are when confronted by a fast moving tall thing with flashing lights…. (that its owner seems to have taken a dislike to).

I'm a bit of a closet dog lover, which is to say I don’t own one now as Mrs Jeez is allergic, but always had at least one in the house during my yoof and I can still vouch for the fact that they can be frustrating to cyclists.

I had a small "yappitytype" dog (That’s an Izzardism) go for my eldest daughter while she was learning to ride a few years back and I kind of lost my rag with the dog and its owner…I think my daughter was more shocked by me than the dog.

I would take Mikeys stance … keep a keen eye out, slow down and let it all pass.

 

[jeltz]

I think the best approach would be to point out that by dragging the lead across the cycle section she has not only endangered you but caused fear and suffering to her pet. If she doesn't care about you she might care about her dog and keep better control next time.

IMHO, there are with very few exceptions, no bad dogs only bad owners.

<snip> defences including climbing a tree, pepper spray, and a water pistol loaded with an ammonia-water solution, <snip>

FWIW I understand for a former postman that those sprays don't work, and just give you a false sense of security.

 

[J4CKO]

I am loving the image of a canine arrestor hook

 

[Nipper]

John I read this,
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

Some of the information there is presented in a misleading way...it's statistics, it is going to be presented in a way as to justify the authors point of view. The really issue is that none of it matters, even if we all accept that cycle paths are statistically more dangerous, we have to be aware that is not the view of the general population and never will be. It is about getting bums on seats and cycle infrastructure is what puts them there.

As to your junction question, perhaps it is worth noting that in Holland cyclists have right of way at all those type of junctions. I do not use dangerous cycle paths and ones that do not give cyclists right of way, but require a death defying ability to look in all directions at once, are dangerous. But again you are missing the point, just because some paths are crap does not mean they are all crap, and even the crap ones are increasing modal share and over all safety. Ultimately it is always going to be about less cars, more bikes and the Dutch/Danish have the solution.

You clearly want to remain in you lycra clad ivory tower, which would be fine if you weren't also part of the problem. As MCA has said it is about man/woman in car looking at cyclist and saying to him/herself "That could be me, it looks safe and easy." Well as long as they see boys in lycra racing past on strange looking bikes they will remain in their cars safe in the knowledge that cycling is just for a bunch of weirdos and hippies.

We must fight hard for a better future, it is costly, but so important for quality of life and as MCA points out, we will save billions in the long run. Origamist thanks for your great post, it highlights how much has to be done. The lycra boys need to shut up or join the party because the future is NORMAL.

 

[Archie_tect]

People complain about cars when using the road. People complain about pedestrians and dogs being on combined cycle/footpaths. People complain about not being able to go fast. People complain about cars going faster. People complain about wanting more legislation. People complain about rules being unfair.

The common theme is people complain.... we should all learn to relax more and accept the world isn't going to always be the way we want it all the time.

 

[Cab]

It is about getting bums on seats and cycle infrastructure is what puts them there.

Assuming for the moment that the rest of your argument is correct, whats your evidence for this claim?

 

[Cab]

People complain about cars when using the road. People complain about pedestrians and dogs being on combined cycle/footpaths. People complain about not being able to go fast. People complain about cars going faster. People complain about wanting more legislation. People complain about rules being unfair.

The common theme is people complain.... we should all learn to relax more and accept the world isn't going to always be the way we want it all the time.

While perhaps a lot of the time thats entirely true, its a bit rum for someone to effectively make a cycling facility un-useable by letting a dog run more or less free, don't you think? And perhaps here a little complaining is not unreasonable?

 

[jonesy]

Indeed, with the exception of the "cycle paths are for bicycles". All the cycle paths near me are shared, nearly all are unsegregated.

Although suggesting that people use the road to walk their dogs shows a certain unwillingness to even contemplate the POV of another resident of this glorious planet.

I can't think of any cycle path, anywhere, that are not shared with pedestrians, other than the ones you see taking you round slip roads on dual carrigeways. Unless the OP saw a No Dogs sign somewhere, the dog walker had every bit as much right to use the path as he did. I don't doubt she could have been more considerate and kept her dog under better control, but now we've had two threads in quick succession today in which a cyclist has clearly been going too fast on a a shared path and not anticipating hazards that are commonplace.

 

[Archie_tect]

While perhaps a lot of the time thats entirely true, its a bit rum for someone to effectively make a cycling facility un-useable by letting a dog run more or less free, don't you think? And perhaps here a little complaining is not unreasonable?

True Cab, but a lot's to do with the way people interact together and a calmer response should, in the main, get a reasonable reaction so that people will be more amenable next time. Treating someone harshly is more likely to encourage them to react badly to the next person they meet... you will always get the odd idiot who is malicious regardless and the best way to cope with them is to retain your own dignity and move on.

 

[Cab]

These long reel dog leads are rather thin, most often. A dog on the wrong side to the owner is effectively connected to the owner by a bit of black string, which at night is nigh on invisible. Archie, I think if what you're saying is that a cyclist taken off by someone stretching string across a bike path should stay calm, perhaps you're takign being polite a little further than is reasonable or achievable.

The best way to deal with someone being malicious or stupid is not always silent dignity.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

These long reel dog leads are rather thin, most often. A dog on the wrong side to the owner is effectively connected to the owner by a bit of black string, which at night is nigh on invisible.

Surely the cyclist should simply be riding so he can stop within the distance he can see to be clear?