Dogs

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Mike Sales
Posts: 4125
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Dogs

Postby Mike Sales » 12 Jan 2020, 12:54pm

If you look at photographs of our streets from the days before they were taken over by motors you will see that they were used freely by all, people walking, doing business, children playing, cycling etc.etc. Everybody rubbed along together in a convivial way in a public space.
I suppose that the transformation wrought by fast, dangerous road use has transformed expectations, cyclists very much included.
Shouldn't we just make allowances for others and just take things easy? We should not expect to be able to share the worst aspects of drivers' behaviour, and demand people get out of our way.

jgurney
Posts: 554
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:34am

Re: Dogs

Postby jgurney » 12 Jan 2020, 1:10pm

Carlton green wrote: Personally I find that human attitudes are, more than anything else, the cause of all trouble.


Precisely. In this case, the "attitude" that cyclists are somehow inferior to motorists, leading the same people who treat other users with consideration on shared-use roads to treat cyclists with contempt on so-called 'shared-use paths'.

Courtesy and manners are valuable ... - each and every member of society should seek to treat others with both understanding and respect


Exactly, and the presence or absence of motor traffic should make no difference to that. Restraining your dog from inconveniencing motorists but then allowing it to inconvenience cyclists is not courtesy. Blatantly expressing by such conduct the view that 'motorists are entitled to unobstructed journeys but you cyclists are not' is not good manners, it is insulting.

Shared use of paths is but one small example of peoples’ inability to live well with each other


Quite! There are simple and long-standing rules developed to minimise conflicts between various groups of road users. However many users of so-called 'shared paths' seem determined to ignore them. For example there seem to be a number of people who willingly heed Highway Code rule 2 where motor traffic is or might be present but seem determined to do the opposite everywhere where motor traffic is restricted or excluded. That makes no sense at all, since the rule developed back in horse-drawn traffic days long before any motor traffic even existed.

jgurney
Posts: 554
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:34am

Re: Dogs

Postby jgurney » 12 Jan 2020, 1:27pm

Mike Sales wrote:If you look at photographs of our streets from the days before they were taken over by motors you will see that they were used freely by all, people walking, doing business, children playing, cycling etc.etc. Everybody rubbed along together in a convivial way in a public space.


They did indeed. For example, if a horse-drawn cart came along, a large group of pedestrians would usually move to their right to allow it to pass. Such groups did not usually remain sprawled over the whole road, or allow their dogs to yap around the horses feet.

Shouldn't we just make allowances for others and just take things easy?

If by 'we' you mean everybody (including motorists), yes. If you mean cyclists should be expected to creep deferentially along weaving in and out of pedestrians while the motorists get fast clear roads, no.

We should not expect to be able to share the worst aspects of drivers' behaviour, and demand people get out of our way.

Do you really mean that you think motorists are entitled to clear roads but cyclists are not?
If we want to promote safe sustainable transport we should be promoting the opposite - clear convenient cycling routes and restrictions upon motoring.

Mike Sales
Posts: 4125
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Dogs

Postby Mike Sales » 12 Jan 2020, 1:36pm

jgurney wrote:
Mike Sales wrote:If you look at photographs of our streets from the days before they were taken over by motors you will see that they were used freely by all, people walking, doing business, children playing, cycling etc.etc. Everybody rubbed along together in a convivial way in a public space.


They did indeed. For example, if a horse-drawn cart came along, a large group of pedestrians would usually move to their right to allow it to pass. Such groups did not usually remain sprawled over the whole road, or allow their dogs to yap around the horses feet.

Shouldn't we just make allowances for others and just take things easy?

If by 'we' you mean everybody (including motorists), yes. If you mean cyclists should be expected to creep deferentially along weaving in and out of pedestrians while the motorists get fast clear roads, no.

We should not expect to be able to share the worst aspects of drivers' behaviour, and demand people get out of our way.

Do you really mean that you think motorists are entitled to clear roads but cyclists are not?
If we want to promote safe sustainable transport we should be promoting the opposite - clear convenient cycling routes and restrictions upon motoring.


I intended to argue that human beings used to manage these things in a civilised way, with nobody unduly privileged. Of course they would clear the road for a cart. Even then, the entitled thugs on horses, known as knights, no doubt expected the peasants to get out of the way pronto, just as drivers do today.
I don't think that anything I said could be interpreted as saying that motorists' sense of entitlement is acceptable. Quite the contrary, I dislike their boorishness intensely. This boorishness is, of course, enforced by weight and speed.
What I am objecting to is the extension of such behaviour into areas where we are spared drivers' idiocies.
We should aspire to better behaviour than motons. We should not expect deference, just because drivers do.

jgurney
Posts: 554
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:34am

Re: Dogs

Postby jgurney » 12 Jan 2020, 1:43pm

Carlton green wrote:
jgurney wrote: The fact is that the same rules of the road apply to all public highways, regardless of the presence or absence of motor vehicles. The misguided belief that the rights and responsibilities of pedestrians and cyclists in relation to each other is somehow altered by the presence or absence of motor vehicles.....


if there’s some form of legal guidance on the issue then let it be known and educate us all.


The Highways Act 1835 makes references to roads. It clearly pre-dates motor traffic. AFAIK no subsequent legislation has redefined the term 'road'. Hence the presence or absence of motor vehicles is clearly not a defining characteristic of roads. Roads existed long before cars.

AFAIK no legislation covering the rights and responsibilities of pedestrians and cyclists in relation to each other contains anything making those different in cases when motor traffic is or is not present. If you are aware of any legal guidance to the contrary then please let it be known.

Carlton green
Posts: 430
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: Dogs

Postby Carlton green » 12 Jan 2020, 3:04pm

jgurney wrote:
Carlton green wrote:
jgurney wrote: The fact is that the same rules of the road apply to all public highways, regardless of the presence or absence of motor vehicles. The misguided belief that the rights and responsibilities of pedestrians and cyclists in relation to each other is somehow altered by the presence or absence of motor vehicles.....


if there’s some form of legal guidance on the issue then let it be known and educate us all.


The Highways Act 1835 makes references to roads. It clearly pre-dates motor traffic. AFAIK no subsequent legislation has redefined the term 'road'. Hence the presence or absence of motor vehicles is clearly not a defining characteristic of roads. Roads existed long before cars.

AFAIK no legislation covering the rights and responsibilities of pedestrians and cyclists in relation to each other contains anything making those different in cases when motor traffic is or is not present. If you are aware of any legal guidance to the contrary then please let it be known.


That’s a very interesting and, new to me, view of things. I’d love to here more of the legal position on this and the long term evolution of paths, tracks, bridleways and roads. What is defined as what and what is legally expected on all of the different ‘ways’. Then there’s the split between private and other land and what’s defined as (legally) OK on each. Of course laws often have some link to reinforcing (best) custom and practice so might move behind social trends. Interesting stuff, well I find it so.

All other things aside at the end of the day we all make pragmatic choices: how can I make progress today and how can I do so in a way that won’t hinder me doing so on another day. These days I try (but not always successfully) to recognise the flow or grain of things and to work with it, that makes life so much easier.

pwa
Posts: 11148
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Dogs

Postby pwa » 12 Jan 2020, 5:43pm

jgurney wrote:
pwa wrote: that shared use paths are seen as .... places where you can relax and not worry about rules.


Clearly some people think so. However they are wrong, and are expressing a fundamentally anti-cycling ideology in acting on their beliefs. The fact is that the same rules of the road apply to all public highways, regardless of the presence or absence of motor vehicles. The misguided belief that the rights and responsibilities of pedestrians and cyclists in relation to each other is somehow altered by the presence or absence of motor vehicles is based in the belief that somehow only motor vehicles count as real vehicles and that bicycles are a kind of toy, which in turn creates the equally misguided belief that somehow only those roads shared by all forms of user count as real roads and are somehow fundamentally different from those roads where motor traffic is excluded. (A very similar misconception apparently leads some people to believe that pedestrians should not walk on any road which does not include a footway).

I have no objection in principle to the creation of a new category of 'leisure path' or some similar name, intended solely for leisure use and where cyclists are required to ride slowly and mingle with others in an anarchistic way. To emphasise their leisure role these should not link destinations to each other but might, for example, meander in loops around parks. However those should be distinct from practical transport routes which link places to each other. Low speed leisure paths should not be promoted, mapped, signposted, etc as being viable means of getting around from place to place.

It really comes down to whether you consider that all practical journeys should be made in a car and that cycling is a leisure activity, or that cycling should be a viable means of transport.

The charity I used to work for made miles of shared Community Routes with the ethos that they are for everyone, so long as they don't bring a motor vehicle. This includes families with small children, the kids maybe with scooters or whatever, and in built up areas the kids use the tracks as safe streets on which to play. Which is great. And you and I just have to pick our way through. That is the sort of shared use path I am familiar with, and if you know of another sort where people have to be disciplined and, therefore, kids can't use them for play, that is something I am not familiar with.

jgurney
Posts: 554
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:34am

Re: Dogs

Postby jgurney » 12 Jan 2020, 6:00pm

Mike Sales wrote: I intended to argue that human beings used to manage these things in a civilised way, with nobody unduly privileged. Of course they would clear the road for a cart.


Quite, they accepted that this was a road, part of the transport system, and the cart belonged there as well.


I don't think that anything I said could be interpreted as saying that motorists' sense of entitlement is acceptable. Quite the contrary, I dislike their boorishness intensely.


I think we wholly agree there. It seems to me that claiming that cycling is a leisure activity and not to be taken seriously as a means of transport, and acting accordingly, is one of the ways motorists (esp. when on foot) express the said boorishness and sense of entitlement. Asserting that anywhere cars do not go is a leisure facility not a road (a transport facility) is based in asserting that bicycles are not transport (their next step, of course, is to claim priority for their cars on the grounds that those are vital transport but bikes are just toys).

What I am objecting to is the extension of such behaviour into areas where we are spared drivers' idiocies.

I do not advocate dangerous cycling. If a pedestrian is doing something silly and dangerous in front of me of course I have to avoid colliding with them (just as a driver must). What I am opposing is the car-centric idea that anywhere cars do not go is a playground not a transport facility. A road where motor traffic is excluded is still a road (as were roads before the car was invented, q.v. your example) and it is reasonable to expect all users to show consideration for each other just as we should on all roads.

We should not expect deference, just because drivers do.

Holding that someone who would, for example, restrain their dog from causing a car or a bus to slow down or change course should also restrain the dog from having the same affect upon a cyclist is seeking equality, not deference.

Mike Sales
Posts: 4125
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Dogs

Postby Mike Sales » 12 Jan 2020, 6:12pm

I am suggesting that road users should behave in a human, civilised way. unlike the way drivers do now, and that roads should be like shared use facilities, where users make good allowance for each others' different behaviour: you are suggesting that shared facility users should behave like road users, taking care not to cause faster users to slow down.
You want equality for cyclists with the deference drivers get. I want equality for all, pedestrians, children, dogs even.

jgurney
Posts: 554
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:34am

Re: Dogs

Postby jgurney » 12 Jan 2020, 6:35pm

pwa wrote: The charity I used to work for made miles of shared Community Routes with the ethos that they are for everyone, so long as they don't bring a motor vehicle.

Only semi-seriously, were they accessible to horse-drawn vehicles?

This includes families with small children, the kids maybe with scooters or whatever, and in built up areas the kids use the tracks as safe streets on which to play. Which is great.
Yes, it is, as a leisure facility. I take it the charity owned the land and granted permissive access (as opposed to these being public roads with TRO's prohibiting motor vehicles).

While I don't generally choose to cycle on such leisure paths myself, I think they can be very valuable in their proper function, provided they do not lead to things like motorists claiming that cyclists should be expected to use them instead of the shared public roads, or local authorities claiming they don't need to build a proper cycle route or remedy dangerous road conditions because there is one of these leisure paths going in vaguely the same direction.

And you and I just have to pick our way through.
Yes, of course we do, if we choose to use them at all. We should not be put in a position of having to choose between such a leisure route and using a supposedly general-purpose road which is in fact either designed in a way which endangers cyclists or where dangerous driving is tolerated (especially if it is being tolerated on the grounds that cyclists ought not be there but should be picking their way along the 'Community Route').

if you know of another sort where people have to be disciplined ...

If by "be disciplined" you mean heed the usual rules of the road, those usual rules apply to all users of all public highways, whether motorists are among those users or not. Most of the basic ones pre-date the car.

pwa
Posts: 11148
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Dogs

Postby pwa » 12 Jan 2020, 7:28pm

jgurney wrote:
pwa wrote: The charity I used to work for made miles of shared Community Routes with the ethos that they are for everyone, so long as they don't bring a motor vehicle.

Only semi-seriously, were they accessible to horse-drawn vehicles?

This includes families with small children, the kids maybe with scooters or whatever, and in built up areas the kids use the tracks as safe streets on which to play. Which is great.
Yes, it is, as a leisure facility. I take it the charity owned the land and granted permissive access (as opposed to these being public roads with TRO's prohibiting motor vehicles).

While I don't generally choose to cycle on such leisure paths myself, I think they can be very valuable in their proper function, provided they do not lead to things like motorists claiming that cyclists should be expected to use them instead of the shared public roads, or local authorities claiming they don't need to build a proper cycle route or remedy dangerous road conditions because there is one of these leisure paths going in vaguely the same direction.

And you and I just have to pick our way through.
Yes, of course we do, if we choose to use them at all. We should not be put in a position of having to choose between such a leisure route and using a supposedly general-purpose road which is in fact either designed in a way which endangers cyclists or where dangerous driving is tolerated (especially if it is being tolerated on the grounds that cyclists ought not be there but should be picking their way along the 'Community Route').

if you know of another sort where people have to be disciplined ...

If by "be disciplined" you mean heed the usual rules of the road, those usual rules apply to all users of all public highways, whether motorists are among those users or not. Most of the basic ones pre-date the car.


With regard to horse traffic, it was seriously considered but with reluctance it wasn't encouraged because even a good width shared use path tends to feel narrow when you put a horse on it, and the people making the decisions were unsure about safety.

Those Community Routes are mostly on land owned by Railtrack but leased on a very long peppercorn rent, and the leases have now been handed over to the county borough council. As such they remain permissive routes.

From my own non-scientific observations I guess most of the use is for leisure, whether it be cycling, walking, or using a mobility scooter, but I have seen people who commute on them. It does happen.

One of the pleasures of using those Community Routes is the sociability of them. This is Wales and folk greet you. You don't whiz past as if you hadn't seen them. You say hello, talk about their dog or the tree that has fallen further down the track, or whatever. The people on these tracks are not in metal boxes so they behave like human beings meeting other human beings.

User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 9423
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Dogs

Postby 661-Pete » 12 Jan 2020, 9:25pm

Well - once, many years ago, I was on a shared use path and a couple were approaching me with a dog on a lead. So I did what I thought was the polite thing to do: I stopped to allow them to walk past safely. As the dog passed me....

....it bit me. :evil:

I was not best pleased.

There's no accounting for some behaviour.... :)
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).

jgurney
Posts: 554
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:34am

Re: Dogs

Postby jgurney » 12 Jan 2020, 10:53pm

Mike Sales wrote:I am suggesting that road users should behave in a human, civilised way. unlike the way drivers do now, and that roads should be like shared use facilities, where users make good allowance for each others' different behaviour: you are suggesting that shared facility users should behave like road users, taking care not to cause faster users to slow down.


Most roads are shared among many user groups, some 'shared paths' are actually roads.

I do think that road users should not unreasonably impede others, whether that involves slower users causing faster users to slow down or faster ones giving slower ones cause for alarm and for avoiding actions. Cyclists using a narrow road should not spread across it so as to impede pedestrians or other cyclists going the other way. Pedestrians on a road without a footway should walk on the right. A cyclist descending a steep hill should control their speed so that they do not endanger or alarm pedestrians walking up the hill or cause them to stop and step aside. I think all that comes under "users make good allowance for each others' different behaviour".

You want equality for cyclists with the deference drivers get. I want equality for all, pedestrians, children, dogs even.


If that equality for all was actually achieved then cyclists would be getting the same deference motorists got.

Ellieb
Posts: 785
Joined: 26 Jul 2008, 7:06pm

Re: Dogs

Postby Ellieb » 12 Jan 2020, 11:51pm

Actually the idea that nobody had to get out of the way of a faster moving vehicle before cars were around is somewhat disproved by the existence of the post horn.

Ellieb
Posts: 785
Joined: 26 Jul 2008, 7:06pm

Re: Dogs

Postby Ellieb » 12 Jan 2020, 11:57pm

Image
Can’t see too many pedestrians (or dogs) Mixing it up with the traffic in that photo!

Our local paths have signs up saying ‘Show consideration for other path users’ which seems sensible to me. Just show a bit of understanding that there are other people using the path. Consideration is a two way thing, one class of road/path user doesn’t have more entitlement than others just because they are moving slower/faster.