Dogs & Cycle paths arrgggghhh

[Cab]

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

As far as is reasonably possible everyone is expected to do so. Its hard to stretch that principle to the point where its your own fault if you hit a thin black string stretched across your path at night, though.

 

[Crackle]

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

You can't see them though. Just out running tonight and I could see the owner holding one, I could see the dog but I couldn't see the cord and I knew it was there. My dog didn't see it either but luckily he went under it and I went around it.

 

[Archie_tect]

I won't know 'til it happens cab but I've had to do many emergency stops without losing it.

If you can see someone standing at the side of the path for no particular reason or see a dog running loose in the verge then it's sensible to assume you may need to stop.

I suppose it comes down to how safe it is to cycle when you can't see along a path without street lights when you know there may be dogs and other obstructions. I once scared the living daylights out of a group of boozy teenagers [and me] on a cycle/footpath near my house in the dark as they couldn't hear me coming and even with good lights on my bike and a headlight they just stayed on the path... I didn't hang around to argue with them.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

As far as is reasonably possible everyone is expected to do so. Its hard to stretch that principle to the point where its your own fault if you hit a thin black string stretched across your path at night, though.

Or indeed a cyclist without lights. Anyway, OT, sorry; I'm referring to another thread. As you were.

 

[Cab]

Or indeed a cyclist without lights. Anyway, OT, sorry; I'm referring to another thread. As you were.

If a cyclist is all dressed in mat black and extended as a thin cord strung across a sparsely lit cycle path with a moving dog and a moving person acting as distractions then I'm right there with you

 

[Cab]

I won't know 'til it happens cab but I've had to do many emergency stops without losing it.

If you can see someone standing at the side of the path for no particular reason or see a dog running loose in the verge then it's sensible to assume you may need to stop.

I agree, and I should hope that the OP of this thread has learned that too now You live and learn, and I can quite imagine why someone would be in a bit of a mood about that, and it seems not unreasonable to me to get in to one.

 

[Archie_tect]

I agree, and I should hope that the OP of this thread has learned that too now You live and learn, and I can quite imagine why someone would be in a bit of a mood about that, and it seems not unreasonable to me to get in to one.

True.

 

[Arch]

9/10 dogs I meet on cycle paths around town are not on a lead. Why don't these people use the road to walk their dogs; cycle paths are for bicycles and need to be kept clear to allow smooth transit. I am not cycling JUST for fun, able to stop and be happy to be held up by the lovely cute pooch, I am using my bike as a means of transport.

Well, you could use the road too, you know?

 

[Rhythm Thief]

If a cyclist is all dressed in mat black and extended as a thin cord strung across a sparsely lit cycle path with a moving dog and a moving person acting as distractions then I'm right there with you

With respect (and without wanting to drag this thread too far off topic; perhaps we should decamp to the "... without lights" thread), there are always distractions on the road, which is part of the reason I'd argue that it's not reasonable to expect a motorist to know that there's an unlit cyclist within the distance he can otherwise see to be clear.

 

[Origamist]

The daily miscellany of challenges shared use paths pose has led me to consider them akin to obstacle courses. A bit of skill, caution, courtesy and prescience are prerequisites if you want to use them safely!

 

[Archie_tect]

The daily miscellany of challenges shared use paths pose has led me to consider them akin to obstacle courses. A bit of skill, caution and courtesy are prerequisites if you want to use them safely.

+1... extend that to everywhere!

 

[John the Monkey]

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.

I'm restraining myself from resorting to ad hominem back atcha here.

How would you do a 30 mile round trip, in all weathers (other than ice) on roads with de facto 50 limits, (30 posted, traffic at 40, 40 posted, traffic at 50) then? In a country where if you're not dressed up like a radioactive pound shop, and you DO get hit, the other party's insurance will cry contributory negligence, and the Police will tell you it's half your fault?

On a Pashley, in a suit?

Ho ho.

And I'm the one in an ivory tower. How I laughed.

 

[Cab]

With respect (and without wanting to drag this thread too far off topic; perhaps we should decamp to the "... without lights" thread), there are always distractions on the road, which is part of the reason I'd argue that it's not reasonable to expect a motorist to know that there's an unlit cyclist within the distance he can otherwise see to be clear.

The phrase is something like reducing the argument to absurdity; something black, as thin as a string, stretched across a dark cycle path between two moving objects is not analogous to a cyclist/fallen tree/pedestrian, lit or not.

 

[snorri]

The thread topic is dogs on cycle paths and the failure of the dog owner to restrain the animal. Comparison with The Netherlands does little to help the debate.
Dog owners in The Netherlands take a much greater pride in training their animals than their UK counterparts so cycle/dog problems seldom arise.
It is very likely the Dutch dog owner will also be a cyclist, so as well as caring for his dog will be acting with consideration for any cyclists.
There are few joint user paths in The Netherlands, any pedestrians on a cycle path, with or without dog, are very quickly and loudly informed of the error of their ways.

 

[Bay Runner]

Oh, good, yet another "Anyone not me should be shot" thread.


Opening the dialogue with "it's a bloody cycle path" or whatever might have been a good way to elicit an defensive response from someone whose dog you narrowly avoided strangling. There might have been better ways to have started that encounter than getting emotional yourself.

Oh, and as I'm in a pedantic mood, it's "brakes". Breaks are what they should avoid.

The pedestrian path runs alongside the cycle path (both are clearly marked) after I rang my bell and slowed down she moved cross the cycle path to the pedestrian path leaving the two dogs with her partner on the far right of the cycle path. That indicated to me that they had seen me and taken appropriate action.

It was only when I was on top of them did it become apparent that the dog was on the lead on the right hand side of the cycle path and she was was on the pedestrian foot path on the left hand side, on the other end of the lead.

To be honest with you was not interested in the dog's welfare, I was more interested in staying on the bike and avoiding injury.

I have been cycling this route for 13 plus years and the vast majority of dog walkers restrain the pets when I have indicated my presence.

Yes I may have elicited a defensive response but I was very angered by her actions, which she found hard to defend.


ps With regards to breaks I should have been on a break as it was 0230 whilst writing this post