Cycling UK Forum

Pebble wrote:Dogs off lead sympathiser here - it's their walk and they want to run about and have the freedom to stop and sniff and chase and socialise with their own kind. If cyclists want to ride fast then they can get on the road where they belong

Thank you for replying. Would you mind commenting on a few points.

1. If you do own a dog yourself, or if you owned one, would you worry that it might get injured by a cyclist if the dog runs in front of the bike?

2. Would you be concerned that if your dog caused an accident resulting in injury you could well be prosecuted, and heavily fined?

3. Do you believe that if an owner answered 'no' to both those questions then that amounts to negligence on the part of the dog owner regards both the cyclist, and the dog itself, both of whom could be hurt. or even killed.

greyingbeard wrote:yeah, get off your high horse. Share the path, brake if something happens. Would you be so po faced if a child got in your way ?

Its a shared path, not your personal zoom-along track. That means people are entitled to walk on it, dawdle, stop suddenly and look at the view, run their dogs, etc. They even plug themselves in to their phones to be utterly unaware of whats going on around them. These are the hazards of the real world, learn to cope with them.

I am, as I already said, a very careful cyclist. I never 'zoom-along' as you put it. I ride carefully and never go too fast on a shared path. I am constantly on the look-out for hazards. I ring my bell constantly when there are others around. Why do owners of dogs that are off-lead not do the same thing? Would you call that inconsiderate on their part? You mention entitlement, who defined that dogs have the entitlement to run free? I know they want to and need to, but they should not be allowed to do it in on a busy path which has multi use. In the first two incidents I mentioned there was a very large open off-path space to one side. Plenty of room for dogs to run free.

I am not on a 'high-horse' I'm trying to be polite and reasonable.

greyingbeard wrote:Its a SHARED path - so SHARE it

Sorry, but that doesn't make much sense. Did you read my OP? In item 1 when the dogs ran suddenly across my path, what was I supposed to do and why might you think I was in the wrong for not 'sharing'. Should I have walked my bike for the entire 29 miles just in case some dogs ran out? Could you provide more details of what you meant. Thanks.

bikes4two wrote:I'm a dog owner and a cyclist - when I'm walking my dog I have one paricular point of view and when I'm cycling, an opposite one - hmmm.

Dogs and bikes don't always mix amicably- a tricky one for sure!

When you are in dog-mode, do you have your dog off-lead on a shared path? If so, what is your reasoning? If it's on-lead what is your reasoning? I'm just trying to understand why some dog-owners think it is OK to go off-lead. Are they not worried about their dog getting injured? I would be, if I owned a dog. I'd also be worried about falling foul of the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act and causing an accident.

?

foxyrider wrote:There are local bylaws covering some paths in this area, with signs advising that dogs should be on leads. Problem will always be policing it. Even the most well behaved dog can be a hazard and owners calling dogs to heel from across a path is one of my biggest gripes.

Of course, some dogs are bike savvy but it's still inconsiderate to have loose dogs on a shared path/space.

Yes, sorry, I should have said - there are no by-laws relating to dog-leads on this path.

I am not a boy-racer. I'm a 68 year old medium speed, considerate cyclist. I ALWAYS sound my bell when approaching people/dogs/other cyclists. I always slow down, but only stop completely when I have no choice. I like animals very much.

Yesterday I was cycling on our local off-road coastal purpose built shared cycle/pedestrian path. In the space of 15 minutes the following happened.

1. Cycling at about 10mph when suddenly four off-lead dogs shot out from the right crossing the path to a grassy area to the left of the path. Hardly had any warning due to bushes. Slammed on the brakes and nearly hit one of them. The female owner shouted at the dogs (too late) but she said nothing to me.

2. Two minutes later doing about 7mph coming up to a tight RH turn with loose sand on ground. An off-lead dog which had been sitting next to a standing owner suddenly shot across my path. Slammed on the brakes, skidded a bit, but didn't come off.

3. Ten minutes later on a narrower part of the path came across two 'staffy' type dogs, off-lead. One was sitting in the middle of the path, the other was just wandering around. The owner was literally about 75m up the path walking away. I tried shouting to her but she didn't hear me. Managed to squeeze past the dogs and caught up with the owner. Stopped. Pointed out to her in a polite calm manner that what she was doing might be dangerous and inconsiderate. Her reply? "Oh, f*** off you stupid t***, you people *f****** annoy me". Carried on cycling.

Simple question. Should dogs on shared paths be kept on a lead. On a ride two days previous to this, on the same path I counted, over 10 miles, a ratio of 2:1 dogs on lead versus off-lead.

Just for reference https://www.bluecross.org.uk/pet-advice/laws-all-dog-owners-need-know
relevant section reads...

Out of control in a public place
Dogs must not be allowed to be ‘dangerously out of control’, which means injuring someone or making someone fear they may be injured. This applies to any breed or type of dog.

Owners (or the person in charge of the dog at the time) who allow their pets to hurt a person face punishments of up to three years in prison for injury, or 14 years for death, an unlimited fine, disqualification from owning pets, and having their dog destroyed. It is also an offence to allow a dog to injure a registered assistance dog.

In cases where no injury is caused, owners can still go to prison for six months, be fined up to £5,000, be banned from owning pets and have their dog destroyed.

We highly recommend taking your dog to positive reinforcement training classes and making sure they are well behaved members of society.

Read our advice on how to approach a dog in a public place.

Law: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, section 3

The word 'normal' is one of those pathetic excuse words that Rees-Mogg might object to, and quite right too. It is used by people who are too lazy, or stupid to write a sentence that explains accurately what they mean to convey. Other examples are:

Very (Rees-Mogg hates that one)
Average
Somewhat
Sorry
Dunno
Yeah
Hey
Right

poetd wrote:Yes you do sound Paranoid.
None of this is new.
[youtube]ZwMVMbmQBug[/youtube]
Sound familiar? That was 1976.

One big thing that has changed is Journalism. As in there's very very little of it left now.
All about click generation now, and fear-porn generates more clicks than any other kind of news item.
So we don't have news now, we have fear-porn clickbait.

Crime stats go up and down, but the general trend for violent crime is downward. The Daily Mail doesn't want you informed, it wants you scared and clicking.

Thank you for posting that. I missed that movie completely back in 1976... I must have been busy dodging the drug-crazed psychopathic swivel-eyed loons who were out to kill me back then. But I am going to watch it tonight on Amazon.

And very good points you make about the media feeding paranoia.

This is going to sound a tad paranoid. The UK is changing. Rapidly. Behavior is getting worse. Most people seem to have a growing sense of injustice and resentment. Austerity didn't help, and Brexit has taken things down to another low level. Social media is another main culprit. My general advice is to avoid everything as much as possible, especially involving people of a certain type (you know what I mean). Travel by car unless it is safe to cycle, especially for women. I've read quite a few of the other comments here. Some of them seem to be written by ex teachers and youth workers from the 1970s taking a very sympathetic view to youth. I don't trust anyone.

robing wrote:I think dog owners are getting worse like the rest of society. Sense of entitlement their dog can do no wrong. Their the same with their kids.

Completely agree. You have very succinctly got to the problem. OP.

I don't think it's a good idea to go out without a phone. It doesn't have to be a smartphone - I have an old Nokia clamshell (remember those?) and I just shove it in my bag. If you are female you might run into trouble if you are alone and you might need to call someone. For both sexes you might need to call someone if you have a major breakdown or some other problem. A phone is a tool, it should never be seen as a threat that can take away our liberty and sense of freedom.

mjr wrote:Is there something in the British character that makes us selfish now?

Brexit.

AMMoffat wrote:I might play devil's advocate and suggest that, since the OP has admitted to seeing the 4 dogs offlead and knowing that dogs can be unpredictable, he should not have been in the least bit surprised when one ran across his path and should have anticipated it.

The above in no way condones the stupidity of the owner for putting her dogs in that situation but we have to deal with the world as we find it, not as we wish it to be.

Nice try, but I'm afraid you are wrong. I am, as I pointed out a very cautious person, in fact I'm quite obsessive about it. This was the first time in 53 years of cycling that I have ever run into anything living. In 50 years car driving I have had one accident, a serious one, which was caused by, guess what? A dog ran out off-lead from a car at the side of the road. Nearly killed me. Which brings in your second point about dealing with the world as I find it. Had that car crash killed me (which it very nearly did) I wouldn't be able to deal with anything as I wouldn't be here now!

In the incident yesterday I could possibly have braked harder a bit sooner, but there were two problems with that

1. My wife was directly behind me and she has a steel pin in her arm and has to be very careful not to come off her bike.
2. The surface was ribbed concrete with some loose sand (next to beach) and grit. I had started to turn. Had I come off I could have had a nasty injury.

I do feel very sorry for the dog. In much the same way that I feel very sorry for the obese kids I see having junk food shoved into their mouths by irresponsible parents. Still, I suppose those parents are 'dealing with the world as they find it' as well.

Cugel wrote:Not if we're human! We humans much prefer imaginary places and people, who are all perfek and would be real if only the 6.999999 billion other humans would...
Cugel

I'm not being pedantic, but that figure is incorrect. It's actually 7,717,806,387 or 7.7 billion. But that is the real problem in a way - there are just too many people in the world, and of course they are not evenly distributed. The contention over resources due to changing population numbers can cause real instability. It was one of the factors in Brexit. It's also a major factor in climate change. And it's also a factor on my cycle path which used to have reasonably light traffic most of the time, but is now often overcrowded. Don't look at this link if you have a nervous disposition! https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/