Dogs

[ambodach]

Hamish I have had a problem with children or rather their minders. On the shared use path near Appin the local playgroup had come outside on a nice day. They all had bikes which were strewn over the path blocking it completely. The supervising adults could see me coming but could not be bothered interrupting their conversation and clearing a space to pass. I did not get verbal abuse but glared at when I stopped and asked politely if I could pass. An example to the children?

[pete75]

Years back I was riding along and saw a woman with a dog on the right-hand side of the road, and a man on the left hand side.

As I got closer, the woman deliberately sent the dog across the road to the man, right in front of me.

I dropped the anchors, performing a 'stoppie'.

At this point I should probably mention that I was doing 60mph on my motorbike.

I went through my entire repertoire of swear words at the pair of them.

Should you have been riding at 60 mph where there were pedestrians on the road.

[Carlton green]

Now, I like dogs. I don't want one but I like them. But...

I commute about 20 miles each day by bike. Much of it is on shared use cycle paths. There is a bit of argy bargy between slow cyclists and fast cyclists and cyclists and walkers, but on the whole things seem to work fine. But dogs... Nearly every time there is a near miss, or harsh words, or angry stares its with a dog walker. They look impatient while they hold their dogs in an arm lock as you pass, extended leads get tangled between mudguard and wheel, deaf lunatic hounds run across your path, armies of small yappers run unpredictably towards you and veer of at last minute and today a bloke with three dogs on leads blocked the whole path while the owner spoke on the phone and then another guy threw a stick in front of me which was seized upon by a dog that I had to swerve to avoid.

I am happy to agree that pedestrians have right of way but should we see the dog/human as a unit and make special allowance for them?

The bottom line is that whilst most folk try to behave with some consideration for others the remainder don’t and you have to find ways to cope with them. Of the folk that try to behave with consideration for others a pretty large percentage fail in one way or another to manage to do so to a practical level, they mean well but are incompetent.

As for shared use (path) ways they are just that, shared. Unfortunately some folk (including pedestrians) just don’t get what shared means. As a past dog owner (he got old and died) I get that they sometimes do daft things and aren’t always easy to manage, I get that owners are protective of their dog too. However, as a cyclist I also understand what a hazard dogs can be and have to accept that (in shared use areas) anything other than walking pace is a bonus rather than a right.

[John Holiday]

As some of the earlier posters noted,the key is "shared use". These routes are for everyone & certainly not for cyclists expecting to proceed at an uninterrupted 20mph.
I have a loud 'Dutch ding/dong'bell on my bikes& rarely have any problems passing either walkers or dog owners. A ding at 30m is usually enough, except when people are wearing ear phones, & then I just slow right down,although I am probably not travelling quickly anyway.
Am usually on these routes for a leisurely ride & not aiming to be anywhere in a hurry.
Part of the enjoyment is communication with other users.

[[XAP]Bob]

Now, I like dogs. I don't want one but I like them. But...

I commute about 20 miles each day by bike. Much of it is on shared use cycle paths. There is a bit of argy bargy between slow cyclists and fast cyclists and cyclists and walkers, but on the whole things seem to work fine. But dogs...

...are the legitimate path users you have trouble sharing with.

The common factor here isn't dogs, it's you. I don't have an issue with them - I know they are unpredictable, so I make allowances for that. On a 20 mile commute I'd not be taking shared use paths that were frequented by them, unless they were also significantly shorter than the alternative.

[hamish]

Sorry about my first reply. Not a nice reply so please accept my apology. It was a bit intemperate and obviously not addressing your question. Sorry!

No need to apologise... I guess I was kind of thinking out loud really and my post was a little random, but thank you. It's appreciated.

...are the legitimate path users you have trouble sharing with.

The common factor here isn't dogs, it's you. I don't have an issue with them - I know they are unpredictable, so I make allowances for that. On a 20 mile commute I'd not be taking shared use paths that were frequented by them, unless they were also significantly shorter than the alternative.

Please don't interpret my comments as if I ride at full speed regardless of the conditions and who is using the path. The numbers of users varies widely. Some days in summer I take the road for part of the ride. I meet the same dog walkers day after day and we say hi. Difficult dog encounters are the exception... And as outlined above, if they happen it isn't me straying from the "code".

I could use other routes but it would transform my commute from pleasant to awful. I have probably ridden in excess of 50,000 miles on this route. My musings sprang from thoughts, after a series of unusually difficult dog encounters, that cycling as a form of commuter transport is far from optimised. You aren't welcome, safe or comfortable on the road and shared use paths are sometimes very inefficient unless you ride irresponsibly. On my commute the stand out bottle neck on the path is usually the dog and human combination rather than kids, walkers, runners, etc and my thoughts wandered to thinking or wondering about the impact of dogs on the whole transport mix and whether I was bonkers to consider this as an issue or the dog/human combination as a unit or category of user.

Incidentally, I'm not alone in wondering about this as it is a common topic of conversation amongst fellow commuters. I think the professional dog walkers may be discussing cyclists on their trade forum too. I might add that whilst the dogs cause some frustration at times, impatient fast cyclists probably cause more annoyance on the route, particularly when commuting more slowly with colleagues.

I will probably shut up now. But thanks for the perspectives.

[MikeF]

Dogs don't think of cyclists.

Not always. I regularly ride a section of shared use path and don't usually have problems that others are having. Some dog owners call their dogs to their side with the offer of a "treat" when I'm approaching. One day a dog spotted me well before the owner and ran to her side with in expectation of a "treat". Made me smile to myself!

All shared paths are different and the attitude of cyclists and other users are different so it's impossible to generalise. I can't say I never have a problem, but I wouldn't generalise on one incident.

[peetee]

While I dont pretend that this is a trait seen only in dog owners there is undoubtedly a section of the community that like a good winge. I draw your attention to Riverside Park in Southampton which has acres of flat grassed areas, intertwined paths and a single shared use cycleway. Observe if you will the general demeanor of the majority of dog walkers who avail their footwear upon the cycleway and nerry and never wander upon the earth thereabouts. Their countenance is of poor humour and their dogs are much wayward. Conflict is most certain and certain too are protestations of careless abandon upon two wheels. Not for them is the joy of canine companionship amongst the bountiful pastures. Nay, not when they can make life difficult for "Another bl##dy careless cyclist".

[jgurney]

,the key is "shared use". .

Almost every road in the country is for shared use. Pedestrians with dogs seem to manage to keep them in order on those shared with motor vehicles.

These routes are for everyone & certainly not for ....

Err......

[pwa]

,the key is "shared use". .

Almost every road in the country is for shared use. Pedestrians with dogs seem to manage to keep them in order on those shared with motor vehicles.

These routes are for everyone & certainly not for ....

Err......

We have to recognise (and I expect you think this too) that shared use paths are seen as safe places by pedestrians and people with children, places where you can relax and not worry about rules. They are places where children can get their first taste of freedom on a bike, going on ahead on their own. People are not going to be disciplined on shared use paths, sticking reliably to a line. They will zig zag and not notice your approach from behind. That is just the way it is. Of course we want them to pick a side and stick to it when they finally realise we want to pass, but we may have to slow right down until we get to that point.

[Mike Sales]

We have to recognise (and I expect you think this too) that shared use paths are seen as safe places by pedestrians and people with children, places where you can relax and not worry about rules. They are places where children can get their first taste of freedom on a bike, going on ahead on their own. People are not going to be disciplined on shared use paths, sticking reliably to a line. They will zig zag and not notice your approach from behind. That is just the way it is. Of course we want them to pick a side and stick to it when they finally realise we want to pass, but we may have to slow right down until we get to that point.

It is precisely the presence of threatening motor vehicles on the roads that disciplines the free behaviour of people and dogs.
So this problem is insoluble: we can be free from the danger of motors, but only at the price of allowing freedom for other vulnerable road users.
Or must we have strictly cyclist only facilities?

[Morzedec]

I once found this in France, and it keeps errant dogs away quite successfully.

Happy days,

[Cugel]

We have to recognise (and I expect you think this too) that shared use paths are seen as safe places by pedestrians and people with children, places where you can relax and not worry about rules. They are places where children can get their first taste of freedom on a bike, going on ahead on their own. People are not going to be disciplined on shared use paths, sticking reliably to a line. They will zig zag and not notice your approach from behind. That is just the way it is. Of course we want them to pick a side and stick to it when they finally realise we want to pass, but we may have to slow right down until we get to that point.

It is precisely the presence of threatening motor vehicles on the roads that disciplines the free behaviour of people and dogs.
So this problem is insoluble: we can be free from the danger of motors, but only at the price of allowing freedom for other vulnerable road users.
Or must we have strictly cyclist only facilities?

I have consulted the collies, who are wise in this and all other matters.

They point out that the problem is obviously the humans - too many of them; mostly untrained; not fit to be let out in the wild (or even into civilisation). The answer, they believe, is to take them to Switzerland to have them "put-down" for their own good and the good of all the creatures that remain - those not yet made extinct by various human crimes.

Of course, a few collie-slaves may be spared but they will need to be severely monitored and disciplined when they inevitably try to wreak havoc and harm. A good nipping i' the ankles will do it.

The collies mention that this will solve not just the matter of hoolicyclists on paths but also global warming and several other pressing issues. What's not to like!?

Cugel (licensed collie slave so not going to Switzerland).

[jgurney]

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.

[Carlton green]

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.

I found myself sympathetic to pwa’s (complete version) post, to me it highlighted what I already knew but had somehow set aside. The contrasting view is not one that really resonates with me however if there’s some form of legal guidance on the issue then let it be known and educate us all.

Personally I find that human attitudes are, more than anything else, the cause of all trouble. Courtesy and manners are valuable but forgotten things - each and every member of society should seek to treat others with both understanding and respect - too often are they replaced with some form of a me first attitude that ultimately leads to various forms of unhappiness. Shared use of paths is but one small example of peoples’ inability to live well with each other: perhaps children and adults need less focus on academic education and more education on living well with others.

I’m sympathetic to Cugel’s perspective too. One of the biggest issues in the World is too many people, it seems to me that people either just don’t know how to or that they refuse to live in harmony with each other and with all aspects of this wonderful planet. My own dog passed away but perhaps I need another, for the joy that they give and to be exempted from a one way trip to Switzerland.