Police appeal after cyclist attacks dog walker for not using lead

Fifth Gear wrote:

All that we actually know is that the woman did not keep her dog on a lead and under control. She claims she was assaulted and thrown down steps but we know she was not seriously hurt and she was not sufficiently frightened to avoid returning to take a photograph. I don't see any evidence of a serious assault here. I have plenty of evidence of far more serious assaults by motorists on camera but the police have never prosecuted any of them. In the absence of any credible evidence I see no possibility of a successful prosecution of the man. The woman however would appear to have endangered the cyclist but of course that is of no consequence to anyone.

Seriously?

I trust that you will be so understanding of the next motorist who purportedly assaults a cyclist over some trivial perceived misdemeanour. Or are you just a complete and utter ...... well I can't finish that because I don't want to get banned from the site.

Fifth Gear wrote:

All that we actually know is that the woman did not keep her dog on a lead and under control. 

There is nothing in the article which says the god was not under control.

rjfrussell wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

All that we actually know is that the woman did not keep her dog on a lead and under control. 

 

There is nothing in the article which says the god was not under control.

Out of control gods are the worst.

LarryDavidJr wrote:

Out of control gods are the worst.

In my experience, it really depends on the god. An out of control Bacchus is actually pretty fun. Chronus or Shiva, not so much. 

Loki is always out of control.

Carton wrote:

LarryDavidJr wrote:

Out of control gods are the worst.

In my experience, it really depends on the god. An out of control Bacchus is actually pretty fun. Chronus or Shiva, not so much. 

Loki is always out of control.

I'll tell you what - try and get on a night out with Eris.  She's maaad!

Grigor wrote:

'Cyclist, who had worked "damned hard" to build up some precious speed, justifiably angry about having to use brakes.'

Although the specific background in this case appear to be different, when reading stories like these I find myself asking how fast cyclists expect to be able to go on shared bike paths.

Many of us are probably a little guilty of being too protective of our 'hard-won speed' and allow it to cloud our judgement and perception.

^ This. If it's a shared use path it's to be shared. It's rather appalling that some "cyclists" aren't getting that. We all want drivers to recognise that they have to share the roads with the rest of us, so why can't some of us recognise that pedestrians have the exact same rights? On shared use paths it's us who have the responsibility not to hit slower or stationary, and often less visible, more vulnerable users. Lead or no lead, if there's a dog slow the fuck down! Same goes for children or any other animals. Even if it's just one adult it's not nice to scare the crap out of them by zipping past - don't expect that they will have heard you announcing yourself.

userfriendly wrote:

If it's a shared use path it's to be shared. 

 

Which also means dogs under close control. 

More to the story than meets the eye me thinks, why return and take a photo??? Surely the cyclist would have gone???? 

userfriendly wrote:

^ This. If it's a shared use path it's to be shared. It's rather appalling that some "cyclists" aren't getting that.

We have no idea how fast the cyclist was going. Any chance you can stop with the projections, generalisations and assumptions? There's no question that this man (according to the uninjured woman) assaulted her, but why you feel that it's either appropriate or useful to use that as a springboard to launch your unspported attack on other cyclists beats me.

pakennedy wrote:

Now those damned invisible extending leads are a menace. Dog on one side of the path in the bushed and the owner on the other.

I nearly got taken out by one of those on Sunday, on the road!

Feking "dog walker" walking along the pavement and his dog was walking on the other side of the road. Only saw the lead at the last moment and the "dog walking lunatic" (just getting in the spirit  ) jumped in to the road and across in front of me to stop me garotting myself.

Obviously I stopped and gave him a slap... (he apologised and I stopped at my house).

Wesselwookie wrote:

Assaulted thrown down some stairs but still returns to take a picture?

Good on her too. Hopefully this twat gets caught and gets his cummupance. It would appear that a bike is all he has between his legs.

don simon wrote:

Wesselwookie wrote:

Assaulted thrown down some stairs but still returns to take a picture?

Good on her too. Hopefully this twat gets caught and gets his cummupance. It would appear that a bike is all he has between his legs.

I think there's a lot of information missing here this story just doesn’t add up. 

Edgeley wrote:

If this had been a person on foot who assaulted someone, would the police be looking for a pedestrian.  I note the victim is described as "a woman" not a "dogwalking pedestrian".

Why is someone's mode of transport only relevant when it is a bicycle?

 

No excuse of course for assaulting anyone.

Although I agree in principal with what you're suggesting, you're not using a good example.
 

The headline clearly calls the man a "cylist" and the woman a "dog walker". He is then described as "a man riding a bicycle" and she is described as a "woman". The fact that he was riding a bicycle and the fact that she was walking a dog are both relevant in this article. Neither have been described inappropriately. There's really no conspiracies to see here.

The thing that I do find odd is that she went back to take a photo and looks like she got pretty close up to him. That was brave given that he's supposedly a nutcase...