Dogs & Cycle paths arrgggghhh

[Bay Runner]

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.
.

With hindsight I agree
But oh the red mist at the time !

 

[Bay Runner]

I am loving the image of a canine arrestor hook

LOL

 

[Crankarm]

Tonight in the darkness riding around the edge of the scummy estate on a newly appointed double width cycle path about 4m wide, was a middle aged large woman dressed in dark clothing, the other side was her dog also in a dark coat. Joining the two across the full width of the cycle path was an invisible extending lead ready to unseat me. Well it probably wouldn't have unseated me, more me dragging her and the dog along the path behind me . Anyway none of this occurred fortunately as the woman heard me and jumped pretty damn sharpish across the path to re-unite herself with her dog uttering a meek apology. So I wasn't garotted.

 

[Bay Runner]

Tonight in the darkness riding around the edge of the scummy estate on a newly appointed double width cycle path about 4m wide, was a middle aged large woman dressed in dark clothing, the other side was her dog also in a dark coat. Joining the two across the full width of the cycle path was an invisible extending lead ready to unseat me. Well it probably wouldn't have unseated me, more me dragging her and the dog along the path behind me . Anyway none of this occurred fortunately as the woman heard me and jumped pretty damn sharpish across the path to re-unite herself with her dog uttering a meek apology. So I wasn't garotted.

At least she had a grasp on the situation

 

[Nipper]

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.

Oh no I am really sorry to hear that you have been forced to live an unreasonable distance from your workplace. When you are able to move closer you can join the normal world and stop with all the lycra nonsense.

 

[BentMikey]

Holland is good in spite of the cycle paths, not because of them, despite your misleading points about JF's writings. And let's be clear, it's you who is misleading, not John Franklin.

 

[John the Monkey]

Holland is good in spite of the cycle paths, not because of them, despite your misleading points about JF's writings. And let's be clear, it's you who is misleading, not John Franklin.

Can't argue with a true believer Mikey.

This is my problem with the whole "Copenhagenize" stuff.

It doesn't take into account existing patterns of work and habitation, and basically says a large "f*** you" to people who are already out there riding bikes to work, on errands, etc etc, because they don't approve of how those people are doing it. Simultaneously they tell everyone "Just move house" "Just build cycle lanes" "Just travel at 10 mph in a suit while the traffic around you does 50". Those, it seems to be suggested, need less of a mental leap than the thought that you *might* need special gear to ride (I'd say you don't, to anyone travelling around 5 miles or less, and remember the average commute in the UK is 4.7 miles). Here I am, member of the Bike User Group at work, participant in some of the guided rides we do here for new commuters, regular poster in the beginners section of this very website, and yet *I'm* the problem because of the length of my commute and what I choose to wear while doing it.

Nipper, you might want to think about whether slagging off other utility cyclists based on what they wear is a productive method of advocacy.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

Oh no I am really sorry to hear that you have been forced to live an unreasonable distance from your workplace. When you are able to move closer you can join the normal world and stop with all the lycra nonsense.

Yay - we have a new troll spouting cr*p to laugh at.

So "normal" is having to move house to get to within a couple of miles of ones workplace just so you can use a bike without wearing lycra... thus showing everyone how much fun and "normal" it is... and then they too must move house to be within the aforementioned "normal" distance and will use a bike too?

Yeah, and then you can wake up and have your Corn Flakes, eh?

 

[jonny jeez]

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.

+1

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!

Ditto

 

[Nipper]

Yay - we have a new troll spouting cr*p to laugh at.

So "normal" is having to move house to get to within a couple of miles of ones workplace just so you can use a bike without wearing lycra... thus showing everyone how much fun and "normal" it is... and then they too must move house to be within the aforementioned "normal" distance and will use a bike too?

Yeah, and then you can wake up and have your Corn Flakes, eh?

Yes normal is living near to where you work. It is strange that you don't get that. All I want to see less cars and more bikes, do you?

 

[hackbike 666]

Yes normal is living near to where you work. It is strange that you don't get that. All I want to see less cars and more bikes, do you?

Don't agree.If that was true I wouldn't have a job where I get up at 4 in the morning so I can get people to work*.

*=Im not complaining.Prefer 4am starts to 9am starts.

 

[Nipper]

This is my problem with the whole "Copenhagenize" stuff.

It doesn't take into account existing patterns of work and habitation, and basically says a large "f*** you" to people who are already out there riding bikes to work, on errands, etc etc, because they don't approve of how those people are doing it. Simultaneously they tell everyone "Just move house" "Just build cycle lanes" "Just travel at 10 mph in a suit while the traffic around you does 50". Those, it seems to be suggested, need less of a mental leap than the thought that you *might* need special gear to ride (I'd say you don't, to anyone travelling around 5 miles or less, and remember the average commute in the UK is 4.7 miles). Here I am, member of the Bike User Group at work, participant in some of the guided rides we do here for new commuters, regular poster in the beginners section of this very website, and yet *I'm* the problem because of the length of my commute and what I choose to wear while doing it.

Nipper, you might want to think about whether slagging off other utility cyclists based on what they wear is a productive method of advocacy.

So you don't like the idea of 'Copenhagenize'. Is that because you quite like the 'lycra clad road warrior' image? At 2% modal share it makes you different, part of a small elite group. When the revolution comes you will not be so special then, everyone will ride bikes and you will only be strange because you do it in fetish gear.

We could carry on with the same ineffectual advocacy of the last 30 years or we could look to the countries who got it right and have high levels of cycling.

The key is do you want to see more bikes and less cars?

 

[Rhythm Thief]

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.

No, but the principle's the same (reductio ad absurdum, or something). Consider this ... last night, I was driving along the unlit B road with two pedestrians on a pavement to my left. I noticed one of them was weaving about and walking in the road, so I watched him and pulled out, then watched him in my mirror as my trailer went past. Only after I'd gone past him did I notice the unlit cyclist a bit further on. My point is that yes, in an ideal world you'd be able to concentrate exclusively on the 200 yards of road in front of you; in practice, there are plenty of other things to concentrate on which conspire to hinder you doing so. If the cyclist last night had been lit, I'd have seen him from much further back and would have been able to factor in his presence much earlier.
Anyway, it doesn't strike me as too absurd to suggest that if it's too dark to see a dog lead, it's too dark to cycle at much more than walking pace if there are dogs and people about.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

So you don't like the idea of 'Copenhagenize'. Is that because you quite like the 'lycra clad road warrior' image? At 2% modal share it makes you different, part of a small elite group. When the revolution comes you will not be so special then, everyone will ride bikes and you will only be strange because you do it in fetish gear.

We could carry on with the same ineffectual advocacy of the last 30 years or we could look to the countries who got it right and have high levels of cycling.

The key is do you want to see more bikes and less cars?

This is an odd post. Perhaps I've missed some back history here, but lycra makes sense when cycling longer distances.

 

[Origamist]

I'm all for inclusivity: lycra, tweed, denim, polyester, latex - whatever.