1 in 4 guide dogs in London have been struck by a cyclist, says charity

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Beaufort wrote:

Any cyclist who strikes a blind pedestrian and/their dog should have the book thrown at them. Regardless of the stats in this survey, only an absolute tool would try to make excuses for that.

No one is making excuses.... people are rightly reacting badly to a horribly cynical piece of PR, once again utilising the easy target of cyclists to drive coverage.

I'm going to start making some wild public accusations of my own... then retract them at a later date once I've got the publicity I want... to hell with the damage it does to the groups I've slated in the process.

I for one am happy to tell this society to go fcuk themselves, you won't be seeing any future support from me.

It's very disappointing, they appear to have quite a big press office, with several contact numbers for media and even out of office hours contacts, I can't see how the original "story" could have possibly have been an accident.

I notice that their statistic of 90% of blind people feel unsafe due to people parking cars on the pavement wasn't screamed from the roof tops?

This to me was a deliberate grab at headlines at the expense of what they saw as an outgroup that was an easy target. It's pretty disgusting really.

daddyELVIS wrote:

320 London residents have guide dogs - an absolute drop in the ocean - I wonder how many London cyclists have ever even cycled past a guide dog, let alone hit one!

This is story is total b@ll@cks!!

I have, I used to pass a blind chap regularly who walked his dog along a split segregated cycle track near my home. I think the actual reason why he used it, is because it was a relatively safe place for him to let his dog do its doggie business (and for obvious reasons, blind people have special exemption from the laws on bagging and binning said business).

Well naturally, the dog had a poor understanding of the signs indicating which part of the path it should be guiding its owner along, so how to handle such a situation. Answer, slow down, call out "passing on your right mate", and let the freewheel do a bit of clicking so they know where you are.

I spoke to the chap a few times, and he was fine with that, and he knew there was a cycletrack there. If you're in a busier part of town you may want to dismount whether it's required or not. Really, the could have summed it up with one rule, just be considerate.

CasperCCC wrote:

Disappointing response on here. The survey might not be brilliantly designed, but it doesn't change the fact that a non-trivial number of people using guide dogs have been hit by a cyclist. That's shit. There are some selfish cyclists out there. There are too many cyclists who ride on the pavement.

True, there are a lot more cyclists who aren't selfish, but this "shoot the messenger" approach to the survey just feels like denial. It's still 14 people who said they'd been involved in a collision.

If drivers responded to a similar survey with a similar "yes but no..." approach ("it's only 14 cyclists who have been hit by cars, and it's a small sample size..."), people on here would rightly be up in arms.

Call out shit drivers. But call out shit cyclists too. Colliding with a guide dog user is definitively shit cycling.

Well said, Sir.

Leodis wrote:

RLJ nobber cyclists attacking the blind, is this the Daily Mail?

Are we reading the same comments thread? I can't see anyone attacking "the blind". In fact I think everyone is in agreement that a cyclist hitting *anyone* is A Bad Thing.

People are, quite rightly, attacking the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association for publishing an inflammatory and wholly inaccurate press release which sought to demonise an actually largely innocent group.

crazy-legs wrote:

Leodis wrote:

RLJ nobber cyclists attacking the blind, is this the Daily Mail?

Are we reading the same comments thread? I can't see anyone attacking "the blind". In fact I think everyone is in agreement that a cyclist hitting *anyone* is A Bad Thing.

People are, quite rightly, attacking the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association for publishing an inflammatory and wholly inaccurate press release which sought to demonise an actually largely innocent group.

Sorry just spent 5 minutes reading the Daily Mail and it must have had some kinda weird UKIP voting mental change to me.

brooksby wrote:

In all fairness, any cyclist riding on the pavement (whether shared-use or not) who strikes a (blind or not-blind) pedestrian and/or their dog should probably have bricks thrown at them.

Fixed that for you...

climber wrote:

Is this meant to be funny? I think it's a great idea, and probably takes a lot of courage for the handlers and dogs to take part and invite cyclists along.

The dogs aren't taking part...there is a sponsored bike ride along the length of the Taff Trail raising money for Guide Dogs Cymru...and as a daily user of the Trail I know that there are sections where dog walkers go out of their way to be obstructive and aggressive towards cyclists making their commute and use of this path difficult to the point where some cyclists now use the roads to avoid these areas.

And me, a dog walking, Taff Trail using bike riding joker....

And it still isn't fit for purpose

drfabulous0 wrote:

If one in four guide dogs gets hit by a bikes then maybe they should get better guide dogs. It's not as if they can't hear them coming a lot sooner than a human.

I believe you are thinking in terms of a quiet path. In that situation the dog will be able to hear a cyclist approaching and even the blind person would hear a cyclist before a sighted person would, as hearing is their primary sense to detect what is going on in the world around them.

Though have a quick look at the video that goes with the Guide Dog association “Cycleyes Campaign”. It literally shows what a blind person waiting at a crossing on a busy city road sees (of course unlike you and I, it is nothing) and what their primary sense (hearing) detects. Then it repeats the scene and shows at the crossing there are dozens of cyclists that can’t be heard above all the background noise from traffic etc. Of course the dog can see the cyclists and knows they are there, but the dog relies on the cyclists stopping at the crossing when in theory it is safe to walk across.

http://www.guidedogs.org.uk/cycleyes

brooksby wrote:

"Guide Dogs says that cyclists should ... call out or use a bell to alert pedestrians waiting to cross the road to their presence."

I'm a little confused here. How am I to know whether someone is blind/visually-impaired?

Should I ring my bell for every person who is standing by the roadside, just in case they cannot see me and just in case they were going to cross the road? Many (presumably) not visually-impaired pedestrians will often just step out without looking or listening.

In that case, should motorists also be driving around hooting their horn all the time too (oh wait, they do).

Is that a serious question ? But I’ll give an answer.

I thought it was universal knowledge that blind / visually impaired carry a white stick. Perhaps they might not have a white stick if they are been guided by a dog. In which case it is obvious that it is a Guide Dog, as instead of a lead the person will be holding what can be best described as a handle that is attached to a harness on the dog. Not always, but usually Guide Dogs also have some sort of hi-viz jacket or have a hi-viz band on the harness.

Anyway no matter what the statistics are, I think it is awful that there are any people on bikes that are frightening blind people even to the point the blind person is fearful going out.

One statistic I do find quite sad, is that in London there are 41,000 registered blind or partially sighted, but there are only 320 Guide Dogs. Perhaps the Guide Dog association have done a PR disaster by trying to use “sensationalism” to draw attention to their “Cycleyes Campaign” in a way that has got some cyclists backs up. I hope it doesn’t discourage cyclists taking part in sponsored rides ect to help them fund more Guide Dogs. All the campaign is asking for, is for cyclists to be considerate and appreciate the difficulties blind and partially sighted people have.

On a positive note of blind people and cycling, where I am there is a group that regularly takes blind people out cycling on tandems

Pete B wrote:

brooksby wrote:

...

Is that a serious question ? But I’ll give an answer.

I thought it was universal knowledge that blind / visually impaired carry a white stick. Perhaps they might not have a white stick if they are been guided by a dog. In which case it is obvious that it is a Guide Dog, as instead of a lead the person will be holding what can be best described as a handle that is attached to a harness on the dog. Not always, but usually Guide Dogs also have some sort of hi-viz jacket or have a hi-viz band on the harness.

It actually was a serious question.

I know all about white sticks, and guide dogs. But someone can be visually impaired, and basically not able to see properly, and not have a stick or a guide dog. A bloke I know from college is like that (I know that sounds like a cliche, but it is true).

I will try and look out for someone with a white stick or a guide dog on a harness by the side of the road (when also trying to look out for evil white van drivers), but I cannot know for certain whether someone intends to cross. It worries me that am I more likely to freak someone out, if they cannot see - properly, or at all - and suddenly a bell starts ringing close by?

One statistic I do find quite sad, is that in London there are 41,000 registered blind or partially sighted, but there are only 320 Guide Dogs. /quote]

I am sure that they could use a few more. However, not all blind people or even partially sighted people want a guide dog. The subset of blind people that can usefully use and want a Guide dog is quite small. Most partially sighted or registered blind people are so because they are old. Then there are people suffering from other disabilities related to blindness. (some older diabetics for example are prone to suffer diabetic retinopathy).

Some people are not mobile on foot. Some people are not suited to looking after a dog or live in accommodation that is not suitable for a dog.

A dog is most useful to an otherwise fully fit responsible adult living in appropriate acommodation for keeping a dog and who want one. I bet there's more than a few hundred or so in London but your assumption that every blind person has use of, could keep or even wants a Guide dog is misplaced.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

levermonkey wrote:

Please look closely at the sign in the picture used to illustrate this story. It's a double negative. It says "You must only proceed past this point if you are riding a bicycle and/or have a dog with you, but the dog must not be a guide-dog."

Huh? Surely it says 'no bikes or dogs past this point, except guide dogs'. The only question is whether the exception applies to the bike ban or just the dog ban, i.e. are guidedogs on bikes allowed?

No. A sign saying "No dogs or cycles past this point" would be a circular sign with a red border and black pictograms of a cycle and a dog on a white field. The red diagonal cancels this and affirms the opposite. Have a look in your highway code, in particular those signs which ban motor vehicles or cycles.

levermonkey wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

levermonkey wrote:

Please look closely at the sign in the picture used to illustrate this story. It's a double negative. It says "You must only proceed past this point if you are riding a bicycle and/or have a dog with you, but the dog must not be a guide-dog."

Huh? Surely it says 'no bikes or dogs past this point, except guide dogs'. The only question is whether the exception applies to the bike ban or just the dog ban, i.e. are guidedogs on bikes allowed?

No. A sign saying "No dogs or cycles past this point" would be a circular sign with a red border and black pictograms of a cycle and a dog on a white field. The red diagonal cancels this and affirms the opposite. Have a look in your highway code, in particular those signs which ban motor vehicles or cycles.

Surely it says; No Cycling or Dogging unless it's with a Guide

In that case, should motorists also be driving around hooting their horn all the time too (oh wait, they do).[/quote]

Ha - have you been to India? Now THEY know how to hoot (or "horn" in local grammar")

Hmmm ... when I click on the video it says "This video is private". I guess they're editing it

By "video" I mean the CyclesEyes campaign one...