Cycling UK Forum

TrekMad wrote:Whilst out leisure cycling at the weekend on our local cycle path, came across a dog off its leash about 50 yards up the track with its owner dawdling behind going through the bramble bushes. The dog came straight at me so I slowed down and just as I stopped it made a lunge to nip me .

The owner saunters along and I explained, calmly what happened. He went ballistic. Effing and Jeffing, with the parting salvo: You #$**** ( cyclists) you want the roads, you want the pavements and now you want the #$****! paths!!!!

I just rode off but on reflection later, i could see how an uninformed pedestrian could come to this conclusion, that cyclists were everywhere and they wanted the best of all worlds.

Is he right, are we asking for too much?

No of course he's not right. All his rhetoric said it all about himself and nothing about either you or about us cyclists. He wasn't an uninformed pedestrian, he was a foul mouthed, aggressive bad man. One of the problems in our society is that people of his nature and character are allowed to drive.

I ride Greenways, cyclepaths, towpaths and some bridleways, almost on a daily basis, and most of the people I meet are nice, cheery people. Some are grumpy and some are motorcyclists/quad-bikers etc who all know they shouldn't be there.............and some of which are just idiot kids who've never been taught any better. Gipsy types racing horse/buggies are another matter.

Now Ronnie Pickering's got a dog? Oh ****.

rabmania wrote:Now Ronnie Pickering's got a dog? Oh ****.

I remember hearing about him as a kid (living on the estate he comes from), he used to be a boxer IIRC, now just a sad pathetic old man whose made himself look a complete berk and the whole world taking the mickey.
Will cyclists now refer to a motorist going off into one as doing a 'Ronnie Pickering'

I think the gulf in the reality of modern cycling and what the public assume it (and us) to be, mainly annoying nuisance making people, whose sole purpose is to slow down traffic, clog up the pavements and make once quiet paths unsafe for their pedigree dogs is huge.

Education, at a national and probably television level is long overdue IMO. Obviously that's outwith the budget and remit of the CTC but the only way to conquer this wall of aggressive behavior towards cyclists is to educate it out of the mind of Joe Public.

Its education that will make the roads safer and strategic ideas like ASL and presumed liability for drivers

TrekMad wrote:I think the gulf in the reality of modern cycling and what the public assume it (and us) to be, mainly annoying nuisance making people, whose sole purpose is to slow down traffic, clog up the pavements and make once quiet paths unsafe for their pedigree dogs is huge.

Education, at a national and probably television level is long overdue IMO. Obviously that's outwith the budget and remit of the CTC but the only way to conquer this wall of aggressive behavior towards cyclists is to educate it out of the mind of Joe Public.

Its education that will make the roads safer and strategic ideas like ASL and presumed liability for drivers

As I'm sure we all agree, there is no excuse for aggressive behaviour on the streets, towards cyclists or anyone. I think "the public" (which includes me) are rightly annoyed at pavement cyclists, not so much because of concern about their dogs, but because of concern for their own safety and that of the elderly and other vulnerable pedestrians. Pavement cycling is an antisocial activity that risks tarnishing all of us on bikes, even those who, like myself, stopped doing that when we grew up.

But when cycling where I am supposed to be able to I find almost no negative reaction from pedestrians. I use a ping bell on the lanes, and all I get when people turn round to look is a smile. Mostly, people seem friendly. There will always be the odd fruitcake out there, angry with the world, but I doubt that they reserve their comments for cyclists.

pwa wrote:
I think "the public" (which includes me) are rightly annoyed at pavement cyclists, not so much because of concern about their dogs, but because of concern for their own safety and that of the elderly and other vulnerable pedestrians. Pavement cycling is an antisocial activity................

You're right in essence, but in reality it's not so simple. Never forget the occasions and locations when, due to the existence and behaviour of motorists, the only way for us to be sure of staying alive is to come off the road and onto the pavement for a few yards..........that's when the pavement is not blocked by parked cars - parked there by motorists. It's our responsibility, if on the pavement, to be considerate and responsible, and not to behave like motorists.

The villains of the piece (and destroyers of the peace) are motorists.

pwa wrote:Perhaps because I hardly ever use shared use tracks I have no problems with pedestrians I meet. Yes, I sometimes have to slow down to pass a dog walker whose dog is a bit wayward, but we exchange a few pleasantries and carry on. If I did meet an aggressive nutter I would firstly make sure I could outpace him / her should the need arise, then suggest medication might be the answer to what ails them. Reasoned argument is pointless in that situation.

and

pjclinch wrote:It's not a Them and Us problem between cyclists and <insert other transport-using group of choice here>, it's a problem between reasonable people (be they on bikes, foot, in cars, whatever) and abject tossers.

The majority if the pedestrian public, dog-walkers included, are IME entirely reasonable and easy to co-exist with, so in those cases a non-issue. But the abject tosser element will be a problem because, well, because they're abject tossers. That is entirely independent of their transport modality, and you get some of them on bikes too.

Pete.

+1
Cyclists have to work with other users of other facilities recognising and accepting that we will all disrupt each other.

When I see some recent comments of this forum demanding "our rights" then such attitudes will just get people's backs-up and cooperation dies. I have found some of the recent tone from some on this forum particularly disappointing in that I can see how it would get other road/path/open space users to become uncooperative with "those stroppy cyclists, in their lycra, wizzing past without thinking about others ..." and to an extent they will be right.

That people get so upset because they are delayed by a few seconds and instead of being pleasant and having a chat with the pedestrian/dog owner/horse rider the get stroppy, have an argument, annoy the other party, get delayed for far far longer, give cyclists in general a bad reputation ...

Ian

It isnt any delay that people are complaining about, it is being threatened, chased, knocked off, climbed on, picnic trampled on, children's' faces licked and sometimes we are bitten by dogs.

Then there are the presents you find on the soles of your shoes or tyre treads.

I have to admit that generally I don't have any issues with pedestrians. Most of my encounters with the foot travelling public are on the NCN routes, but some isn't and I'll get to that at the end. As others, I approach (if they're going the same way as me) from behind and usually offer a polite "excuse me, coming though on your <insert convenient side here>" and mostly they're obliging and move to the appropriate side and allow me to pass, exchanging a few words of greeting as we do so. However, I agree that a lot of people walking their dogs seem to be oblivious to anything, including the little parcels their precious is leaving behind that they think they don't have to clean up because they're not on a public road. Then there's the times I've encountered someone walking their dog and they're on one side of the path and the dog is on the other with the lead stretching right the way across and they make no effort to move in either direction and just look at me like I shouldn't be there. Then you have the zig-zaggers who don't seem to know which side of the path to be on and seem to engage you in a merry little dance, moving to the same side of the path you're on each time you alter course to go around them. If this is a towpath the final positioning seems to always put me on the side nearest the canal, which is unsettling to say the least.

As for on the road, my experiences there with pedestrians is one of a hate/hate relationship. I seem to encounter the people who are crossing the road avoiding the cars but then just amble straight across in front of me, then look surprised to see me there and sort of go "oh, a bike, what's that doing on the bit of road I'm crossing?" But then they seem to stop, start, stop, then think "sod it" and cross right in front of me anyway. I had to brake quite hard for one of these yesterday, which wouldn't have been so bad except the car that was following behind me just a little too close almost wasn't as quick.

Tonyf33 wrote:

rabmania wrote:Now Ronnie Pickering's got a dog? Oh ****.

I remember hearing about him as a kid (living on the estate he comes from), he used to be a boxer IIRC, now just a sad pathetic old man whose made himself look a complete berk and the whole world taking the mickey.
Will cyclists now refer to a motorist going off into one as doing a 'Ronnie Pickering'

He’s so famous now he’s got a plaque
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hu ... ng-2665156

I too teach to Cycling Uk standards (occasionally these days) and a bell is required on a bike In the shop but not once it's on the road. I'd be interested to hear who that lady works for, I'd suggest they don't get value for money if she gets paid for her services.

I still have the scars from a pedestrian stepping in front of me at a Pelican , clearly my right of way which several witnesses attested to, despite the fact I am always keeping an eye open for such idiocy and I wasn't going particularly quick at the time
(I sometimes ride a trike and if you aren't careful it's very easy to gather stray pedestrians in the back wheels. )

Cycling rights come second to the right to be treated with respect when your actions are displaying respect for others. The OP was physically assaulted by an aggressive dog and verbally assaulted by its owner who acted like a cornered rat when challenged. All too common behaviour for those who won't admit they are wrong.
Being a thug is a lifestyle for a few people and a state of mind for a lot more.

peetee wrote:Cycling rights come second to the right to be treated with respect when your actions are displaying respect for others. The OP was physically assaulted by an aggressive dog and verbally assaulted by its owner who acted like a cornered rat when challenged. All too common behaviour for those who won't admit they are wrong.
Being a thug is a lifestyle for a few people and a state of mind for a lot more.

Yes indeed!

One must learn not to be drawn in by the example of the thug into being thuggish oneself. The thug can easily set the agenda and tone for the conversation. Personally I learnt long, long ago not to do thug-emulation but instead to take the mick or otherwise refuse to do thug-dancing in favour of mocking their whole approach.

As to the dawgs - one must learn to dominate them with the attitude. No need to growl, bark or show the teeth. Dawgs know when you are determined to be their boss (unless they're a German Shepherd).

In my encounters as cyclist but also dog-walker, I've found the cyclists are generally more aggressive, uncompromising and pompous about their rights than are the dog owners.

So my main conclusion is that the sharing of paths between cyclists and pedestrians is a bad idea, as most cyclists in that situation are very inconsiderate, speed, don't give warning of their presence and are often arrogant. It's as though they're taking their cue from the behaviour of Toadish motorists towards themselves as some sort of "reason" for doing the same within the imagined hierarchy of worth with car drivers at the top and pedestrians (especially those with dogs) at the bottom.

Another conclusion, easily bolstered from other contexts, is that we humans are horrid little beasts.

Cugel

The OP is an extreme situation, for which the solutions are segregated lanes. Wonder if anyone of those arrogant people have ever tried to walk in a cycle lane in Germany? I did, not thinking about in that right moment, and I still remember the comments I got >>> lesson learned!
I think that we are actually living in a situation where things are kept in a relaxed manner, to mask off what takes very little to get out of control: where common sense fails, it needs a strong action.
Unfortunately, it seems that is very difficult for people to understand that road safety if up to every single road user, no matter what the category is.

TrekMad wrote:Whilst out leisure cycling at the weekend on our local cycle path, came across a dog off its leash about 50 yards up the track with its owner dawdling behind going through the bramble bushes. The dog came straight at me so I slowed down and just as I stopped it made a lunge to nip me .

The owner saunters along and I explained, calmly what happened. He went ballistic. Effing and Jeffing, with the parting salvo: You #$**** ( cyclists) you want the roads, you want the pavements and now you want the #$****! paths!!!!

I just rode off but on reflection later, i could see how an uninformed pedestrian could come to this conclusion, that cyclists were everywhere and they wanted the best of all worlds.

Is he right, are we asking for too much?

No, we're not asking too much - some people get like that when they know they're in the wrong. He's probably a motorist...............!

His behaviour showed his nature and his character - you only spend a minute or two with him - he has to spend 24hrs every day, 365/6 days a year - with himself. Can't be pleasant.