A couple in Plymouth have expressed their frustration at cyclists in the city’s Saltram Park after their dog was clipped by a cyclist. Meanwhile the Plymouth Herald reports that another dog was recently killed by a cyclist in the park.
Birgitta and Nigel White are local dog owners and have been walking their dog in the National Trust park to the east of the city for around 10 years. Recently, though, they’ve become “fed up” with cyclists in the area, stating that they ride “too fast” and that it would be sad for them to be forced to stop using the park because of them.
“There is a growing number of cyclists that ride as fast as they can without bells on their bikes,” 68-year old Birgitta said. “[They] come flat out around corners; we have been shouted and sworn at, one even threatened to hit my husband.
“It’s not pleasant; you feel awful and intimidated.”
Birgitta suggests that the park introduces a designated cycle path or a separate area for people to walk dogs to improve relations in the park.
A spokesperson from the National Trust told the Herald that they “urge people to take care, reduce speed, and be courteous when on pathways that are used both by pedestrians and cyclists.”
The spokesperson also highlighted the upgrades currently underway in Saltram park that will “upgrade the paths and signage which we hope will enhance people’s experience of Saltram as well as help manage traffic in the future.”
Shared use paths, like the country’s roads, are divisive issues. Vulnerable road users and pedestrians on shared use paths will naturally feel that more should be done in regards to infrastructure to protect their safety.
>Read more: Sustrans stress shared use paths are for all
Sustainable transport charity Sustrans suggests that everyone who uses shared use paths be considerate of the other users of the road. Their guidelines state that “pedestrians have a priority over all other users on shared pathways,” and that “cyclists are asked to ride at a speed and in a manner that is appropriate to the conditions of the path.”
The benefits to considerate cycling on shared use paths are not restricted to pedestrians and dogs. While, of course, pedestrians and dogs being killed and injured is the primary focus of the Whites in Plymouth, cyclists aren’t safe from the dangers of shared use paths.
In 2012 a year a 59-year old cyclist was thrown from his bike after being tangled up in a retractable dog lead when an out-of-control dog jumped in front of him on a shared use path.
Anthony Steele suffered a fractured skull and eventually won a £65,000 payout from the incident.
>Read more: £65k for cyclist injured in crash caused by retractable dog lead
64 thoughts on “Plymouth walkers “fed up” with dog-injuring cyclists”
The cyclists sound like they
The cyclists sound like they are behaving the way drivers sometimes do towards cyclists on our shared Public Highway.
I’m sure certain comments on this thread will back this up.
There have been repeated
There have been repeated incidents in the past, leaving several people seriously injured “They are behaving recklessly. They are speeding and they threaten us, when you try to talk to them” a victim states. “We urge people to take care and reduce speed” an official commented.
Sounds familiar?
I have not seen the incidents
I have not seen the incidents in question, so I will not comment on them.
On a more general note however – if there is a designated ‘shared use path’ – then cyclists need to be aware that there will be walkers, families and dogs etc about – but the pedestrains will also need to expect cyclists. It is about co-operation, and young children and dogs will need to be kept under good supervision.
Plenty of space for dogs at Saltram away from the cycle path.
It is a park very busy with
It is a park very busy with families, dog walkers, kids on learning to ride, etc. Most cyclists do take care as do most dog walkers, some don’t.
I wouldn’t go fast through there, as you expect a dog or child to run out in front of you.
My sister was brought down by a dog on a lead there a few years back, she wasnt a fast rider and she’s not been on bike since.
If you look at The Herald, they’ve got their dog halfway across a split path! What gets me are the comments from the readers.
Dog walkers – doing their bit
Dog walkers – doing their bit to ruin paths and play areas since time began.
I’ve been talking my lad to school on the back of my MTB recently down a shared path. The place is now an utter shitfest and I spend most of the journey doing some sort of dog shit slalom.
I was chased the full length
I was chased the full length of a cycle path by an angry dog that was not on a lead the other morning. Thing looked like it wanted to kill me. I was pretty fed up about that too.
I was once bitten by a dog.
I was once bitten by a dog.
Ramuz wrote:
Was the dog alright afterwards?
Well after having been bitten
Well after having been bitten by a dog while cycling, I discovered that once you get bitten by a dog you have to take a pile of medicine. But I feel lucky as a surgeon that I know says that around every week, they treat dog attack victims.
Sorry but I cannot support any sympathy for animal-lovers. I can understand hardcore vegans, even admire them for their dedication to their beliefs. But I believe it is highly misleading for someone to be called an animal lover when he has devored hundreds of chickens, pigs and sheeps in his/her lifetime. It just brings to me the orwellian “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.
cyclisto wrote:
I love animals. All animals are equal, but some animals are tastier than others.
cyclisto wrote:
For me its more about treating animals with respect while alive even if your going to kill them (in a non-halal way). After all any pet owner should expect that their animals may need to be put down.
I can’t imagine there has
I can’t imagine there has only been one instance of a cyclist being injured by a retractable dog lead. I regularly ride on shared paths and I find the only problem I ever have with dogs is with those on retractable leads. Dogs off the lead normally ignore cyclists, having far more interesting things to do. Dogs on the lead are actually under close control. Dogs on retractable leads are unable to do their own thing but aren’t under close control whilst still being attached to a virtually invisible line stretched across the path at the most dangerous height. In my opinion, the retractable dog lead is the clearest indication of an unthinking dog owner. Having said all that, I find the vast majority of dog owners and for that matter, walkers, runners and other path users are friendly and considerate.
I wonder if the dog reportedly killed was on a retractable lead. I would think the possibility of a dog’s neck being broken by having its lead hit by a bike is very strong.
Grizzerly wrote:
Yes. It is. It was 3 years ago that I killed a Jack Russell Terrier. At night on a black extending lead with the owner on the left of the shared use path and the terrier in the bushes to the right. Absolutely no way I could have seen the dog or the lead. The first I knew about it was the whirr of the string and the brief yip. I was only doing about 10mph as well because I was passing the person so I’d backed off. There was no perceptible resistance on the bike and the dog was dead of a broken neck. The police were called and told me after a brief discussion that I wasn’t in any trouble as the owner clearly hadn’t been in proper control of the dog and they agreed that keeping it on an invisible string on one of the busiest cycle routes in Leicester was asking for problems.
I’ve also managed to stop in the nick of time recently in an almost identical situation except that this time the dog caused some branches to move around a bit so I started braking harder and then stopped when it showed itself.
I wonder how many dog owners
I wonder how many dog owners are fully in control of their dog?
Generally on a shared use path the dog should be on a lead, and at close control by your side. As a dog owner I hate meeting people with an Akita or Staffy on a thin extending lead. I walk my calm quiet collie past and their fighting breeed dog is at the end of it’s leash, snarling and snapping while the owner is struggling to hold it back whilst barely standing upright.
I have only had one particularly bad dog experience whilst cycling. Little terrier thing ran at me at the last minute, snarling while on an extending lead, I ran its front leg over but didn’t stop. Owner was shouted blue murder at me. Haven’t seen the dog or owner since. Hopefully they are walking their dog more carefully somewhere else!
WillRod wrote:
I would hope that as a dog owner you’d understand that a dog snarling and snapping can also mean that the dog in question is scared and wants the other dog to stay away. Not all dogs of particular breeds are fighting dogs.
brooksby wrote:
I too was surprised by Willrod’s comments. My wife ran a dog rescue home for many years and maintains that Staffie’s when properly looked after are one of the most friendly breeds there is, as further evidenced by Battersea’s “they’re softer than you think” campaign. On the other hand, having lived all my life in farming country, I’ve met some bloody scary collie’s. (Just try googling “Collie attacks baby” and see how many hits you get). Dog behaviour has much do do with upbringing, be it the brutalisation of some to make them “street dogs”, or the mollycoddling of lapdog’s to the point where they take on an aggressive leader of the pack role. But then as Willrod said himself on another post “uninformed people repeat the same facts without proving them to be true”
Griff500 wrote:
I can’t help but see the ‘there are no bad dogs, just bad owners’ argument as being on a par with ‘guns don’t kill people, people do’. It particularly puzzles me when sometimes the same people who reject the second argument will then use the first.
A dog is a potential weapon, just as much as is a gun, and some people use them as such. In fact they are worse than guns in a way, because they can attack of their own volition, even against the intent of the person with them.
I’ve actually never had problems with dogs when cycling, but I have frequently had aggro from them as a pedestrian. So many owners just let them run wild in parks or have them on a stupid stretchy lead.
I’ve been explicitly threatened by someone with their dog as part of a mugging (granted, the guy had the delusion that his mutt was a ‘pit bull’, when it was just a scrawny mongrel). More than once I’ve had ‘stay still or he’ll ‘ave you’ shouted at me by some berk who can’t control his hound.
Personally I’d ban any dog over a certain muscle-mass from cities, unless on a proper lead. I don’t care about the temperament or whether its breed or training that counts, I just care whether its big enough to do a person serious damage or small enough that it could be kicked across the park if it came to it (I don’t really have any problem with smaller dogs, its entirely a question of size and strength that seems to me to be the issue).
I can’t tell when a huge mutt baring its teeth runs up wildly barking and tries to leap at me, whether its ‘well trained’ or not. It’s a weapon, I don’t think people should be allowed to have weapons in public places. You can go to jail just for carrying a knife, why is it OK to wield a dog? People even explicitly say they have a dog for ‘self protection’, yet if you say you carry a knife for that reason it’s a criminal offense.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I too was surprised by Willrod’s comments. My wife ran a dog rescue home for many years and maintains that Staffie’s when properly looked after are one of the most friendly breeds there is, as further evidenced by Battersea’s “they’re softer than you think” campaign. On the other hand, having lived all my life in farming country, I’ve met some bloody scary collie’s. (Just try googling “Collie attacks baby” and see how many hits you get). Dog behaviour has much do do with upbringing, be it the brutalisation of some to make them “street dogs”, or the mollycoddling of lapdog’s to the point where they take on an aggressive leader of the pack role. But then as Willrod said himself on another post “uninformed people repeat the same facts without proving them to be true”
— brooksby I can’t help but see the ‘there are no bad dogs, just bad owners’ argument as being on a par with ‘guns don’t kill people, people do’. It particularly puzzles me when sometimes the same people who reject the second argument will then use the first. A dog is a potential weapon, just as much as is a gun, and some people use them as such. In fact they are worse than guns in a way, because they can attack of their own volition, even against the intent of the person with them. I’ve actually never had problems with dogs when cycling, but I have frequently had aggro from them as a pedestrian. So many owners just let them run wild in parks or have them on a stupid stretchy lead. I’ve been explicitly threatened by someone with their dog as part of a mugging (granted, the guy had the delusion that his mutt was a ‘pit bull’, when it was just a scrawny mongrel). More than once I’ve had ‘stay still or he’ll ‘ave you’ shouted at me by some berk who can’t control his hound. Personally I’d ban any dog over a certain muscle-mass from cities, unless on a proper lead. I don’t care about the temperament or whether its breed or training that counts, I just care whether its big enough to do a person serious damage or small enough that it could be kicked across the park if it came to it (I don’t really have any problem with smaller dogs, its entirely a question of size and strength that seems to me to be the issue). I can’t tell when a huge mutt baring its teeth runs up wildly barking and tries to leap at me, whether its ‘well trained’ or not. It’s a weapon, I don’t think people should be allowed to have weapons in public places. You can go to jail just for carrying a knife, why is it OK to wield a dog? People even explicitly say they have a dog for ‘self protection’, yet if you say you carry a knife for that reason it’s a criminal offense.— WillRod
I never said there are no bad dogs, what I said was you can’t dismiss an entire breed as bad, any more than you can say an entire breed is docile. Read my post before you mouth off, didn’t i refer to some viciosu collies I have met? I have to look no further than my mother in law’s Maltese lapdog to find a dog which can’t be trusted, the only saving grace being that it has no teeth. But as you have said yourself, dogs can only do damage when irresponsible owners allow them to be in a situation where they can hurt somebody. Your knife argument however is crass. The only reason to carry a knife or a gun is to do harm. That is not why I have a dog.
Griff500 wrote:
I don’t care what someone’s claimed reason is for having a dangerous weapon in a public place, I just don’t accept they should be allowed to have it. Even more so when its a weapon that has a mind of its own and which they can’t necessarily control.
Loads of Yanks will argue they don’t carry a gun ‘to do harm’. I’m still glad we don’t allow it here.
As for ‘breeds’, I didn’t mention ‘breeds’. I’m agnostic as to whether focussing on ‘breeds’ is the right way, I don’t know enough about the minutia of mutts to know.
The only sub-types of dog I think about are ‘dogs that could do me serious damage if they wished’ and ‘dogs I could deal with if they attacked’. Which is mostly just about size and muscle-mass, really.
Don’t care about any other characteristics.
I’ve certainly nothing against sad-eyed plaintive little dogs that quietly follow you around hoping you’ll feed them. Or even annoying but unthreatening little yappy dogs. But if its big enough to pose a threat I don’t see why it should be allowed in cities.
Griff500 wrote:
http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-myths.php#myth1
Worth considering the reason that bull-dogs (and thence bull terriers crosses and “pit bull”) were bred and what characteristics they were bred for. Also worth looking at stats for incidents of attacks and to whom they’ve often been focused – that site, although from a bit victim orginisation, has some useful information and links, might be a start for looking. I’ve known a few owners and met more than a few pit-bull type dogs, and they’ve mostly been gentle (at least the ones whose owners I knew) but they are far from “softer than you think” unless you have a particularly rabid imagination.
fukawitribe wrote:
I presume you don’t live in the UK, as all “pit bull types” were banned here under the dangerous dogs act in 1991 so we no longer have them here. All bull terriers can trace their lineage back to the days of bull baiting, banned in 1835, and they were bred for strength, admittedly a problem if the dog does become aggressive, as any dog can. (My retriever however was in theory bred to retrieve, but can in fact retrieve SFA.) As for stats on dog attacks, there are no reliable stats on this. back to the English Staffie, every authoritative account of the breed states that they are unsuitable for use as guard doge due to their natural affection towards humans, and their need to seek human companionship. But as I said in my post, you can’t trust an entire breed to be safe, any more than you can dismiss an entire breed as bad.
Griff500 wrote:
I do live in the UK, although the comment was in general about the general lineage. That said
“The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a medium-sized, short-coated breed of dog.[2] It is of English lineage, and is one of several breeds generally considered to be within the pit bull type.” (Wikipedia – other sources are similar)
The terrier part was brought in for ratting, rather than bull baiting where brute strength was important. As for stats, there are some – in particular in the US – and whilst there is always debate there are certain trends which are difficult to put down to mis-counting, double counting, media persecution etc. I’m not picking on Staffies as such, as I said it more a question of the general lineage and why it presents issues that need to be taken seriously (bite strength, jaw fixation, shaking, impressive resistance to pain)
Agreed – but the end result of about 1000 years of breeding shouldn’t be dismissed because some branches of the tree are ‘lovely doggies’ either.
WillRod wrote:
I hit a dog on a shared use path the other week. Or more accurately I slowed down and left the path and cycled on the grass a few yards to one side as I could see a dalmation, off the lead in the middle fo the path, playing with a ball. The dog then threw the ball to itself and chased the ball directly in front of me. I braked heavily but still hit the dog (which appeared okay).
My regular commute is a shared use path and I usually pass around 30 dog walkers each journey. Some dog owners are very careful with their dogs, others let them off on massive extendable leads to roam in all direction making it very difficult to get past. The other week I slowed to pass a middle aged ‘lady’ with a dog on one of those leads. I moved to the extreme edge of the path and passed at about 10 miles an hour (down from 20 before I encountered the lady in question). As I passed she started shouting abuse at me saying that I should have rung my f*cking bell.
There are a lot of people taking their kids to school using this path in the mornings too. Strangely the parents are much more likely to blame their kids for getting in people’s way than the dog owners!
It’s amazing that it’s always
It’s amazing that it’s always the “other party” at fault and never a cyclist. Some of the antics I’ve seen by cyclists is beyond belief so don’t be so quick to diss other parties experiences.
Stumps wrote:
It’s more amazing that you’ve drawn such a simplistic, binary conclusion from a diverse set of comments.
davel wrote:
Actually it’s not, I’ve been coming on this site for years and apart from the odd one nearly every single poster is saying it’s the other parties fault, whether it’s dog owners, cars, buses even pedestrians and oh dont forget the Police.
It amazes me people still ride a bike when everyone is against them……
Stumps wrote:
I haven’t counted how many pro/anti dogs and dog-walkers posts there’ve been, but my point is that there is some sympathy – even in the first 3 comments, there is some dog/dog walker sympathy. Besides, it’s a cycling site, you expect a certain flavour. I’d imagine it would be a different flavour over at dogwalkers.co.uk.
My surprise is more around your consistent surprise at that flavour; you seem to expect something different here. Cops must get training on bias and prejudice……?
Plus I think you’re misconstruing the undercurrents; day-to-day experience of some cyclists is that on the road, might is right. We get squashed quite a lot out there and injured and scared by close passes regularly. That’s the source of most of the frustration. This is compounded a bit by the perception of protection given to the more vulnerable users on shared use paths.
I ride on a shared use path
I ride on a shared use path often. You need to be considerate, prepared to slow down, and reasonably tolerant when other people don’t follow the rules exactly. 99% of interactions are absolutely fine, and people are cheerful and friendly (probably because it’s Harrogate 😉 ).
There are a few who hate you because you’re there on a bike. I’ve come across a couple of ‘gerrabell-ers’ this summer – people who tell me to ‘gerra bell’. I have a bell, and I use it to make people aware of my presence, but on these occasions, although these people knew I was there, they hadn’t realised I had rung my bell.
In those cases, I don’t think it’s really about the bell – they would rather have the path to themselves, and not share it with people on bikes. Their system is that if you ride a bike, you’re evil, in the same way that (as everyone knows) if you play the piano, it means you get jealous easily, and if you collect stamps, you have a bad memory.
As none of us were there, it’s difficult to know if Birgitta & Nigel White’s complaints are well-founded, or if they just don’t like sharing the path. It could be a bit of both.
I agree wholeheartedly with
I agree wholeheartedly with the dog walkers here. The council should spend £2m on white paint and separate the path, because dogs can read the signs right… What’s that, fuckwit humans stroll 5 abrest in bike lanes, surely not!
You’re right, of course. I’m
You’re right, of course. I’m sure there are just as many selfish arsehole/willful ignorant cyclists as any other walk of life, and I have no reason to doubt the complainants in this story. I often think there is a perceptible change of attitude in some cyclists from road to path going from vulnerable to somewhat dominant, in conjunction with thinking and planning ahead going from car speed to pedestrian speed – but that’s being kind.
I was just mouthing off generally otherwise. Turning to winter doing a lot more off-road cycling my main annoyance goes from cars trying to kill me to dog owners not controlling their dogs. Without trying to sound too worthy I try as much as possible to be considerate to others (only on the bike) and that requires some effort on a shared path and mindfulness of how shared exactly the path is. In my subjective experience the percentage of knobhead dog owners is much higher than knobhead drivers, knobhead pedestrians and knobhead … horse riders? I even had a lad riding a scooter on a path the other month be very polite by shouting “THANK YOU!!!” when I let him past. It’s just when someone doesn’t show the aforementioned effort that irks and that happens to be dog owners for me. Anyway.. yeah it may be to do with living in Salford in particular. My road was closed today by the Police as someone fired a shotgun at a house in a driveby.
Around here, in Manchester,
Around here, in Manchester, as soon as you’re off the highway where legally dogs have to be on a lead owners let their dogs free. I don’t subscribe to the idea as a human I should have to give way to any dog, despite being forced to do so every 100m on an off-road ride to avoid injury to myself or the dog. There is a difference between going slow, and having to stop to pass 80% of dogs just so the owners don’t have to pick up their shit. Dog owners seem to be mega surprised that on a shared path that there might be anyone on a bike, either that or deliberately block the route…
A few weeks ago I almost smacked a fella after an argument as he wouldn’t put his dog on a lead. I was on a social ride with my Mother, retired people and first time riders when women aged 65+ had to ride inches from the edge of a canal because a dog was off its lead and the owner doing a crossword, while fucking walking! Used all my powers of control to not shove the guy in the canal as he was pointing to a sign and repeatedly shouting “CYCLISTS GIVE WAY! CYCLISTS GIVE WAY!” How the fuck do you give way to a dog in front of you going the same way? I can’t work it out. If these people loved their pet so much why do they so obviously risk its health so?
My Dad genuinely only rides in steel toe cap boots for this very reason…
Sorry – edited
longassballs wrote:
Well said. To reference the title, I’m bloody fed up with cyclist-injuring dogs. I’ve been bitten 3 times (all in the UK) and had to defend myself by dismounting and using the bike as a shield on numerous occasions (not all in the UK). But I don’t go whining and whinging to “teacher” (just here
). I’m not anti-dog – I do a lot of bridleway cycling and can attest that a properly trained dog will cause no problems – they see a rider (horse or cycle), stop, and look at their owners, who will normally reinforce the behaviour with a “good boy/girl.” When you explain that in an encounter with a badly trained dog (almost always) outside bridleways , the owner usually reacts just as you say.
I get rather tired when the
I get rather tired when the owner of a pooch shouts “don’t worry, he’s just being friendly” as jumps up at either myself or my children when either off the lead or on one of the extending leads. Generally, I’m not exactly sympathetic to said dog when it happens & have had the odd encounter with the owner. There do so seem to be a particular group of owners who confuse a 4 legged animal, a source of food in certain countries with a human being. My view is perhaps a little jaundiced, but then I was attacked by a pair of alsations as a child…now when was the last time a cyclis did that to a dog..
rnick wrote:
Yes, I found it difficult to feel much sysmpathy for dogs and dog owners. My youngest son was bitten on the face, around the eye socket, by a terrier when he was about 3. He was lucky not to lose his eye and still has slight scarring, as a dog bite doesn’t really heal very well, depsite a trip to A & E and some strong antibiotics. We’ve since had a few family bike rides where small dogs have chased us on our bikes, and understandably my son got very upset by that, fortunately he now seems to be getting over this five years alter!
A mate of mine has also been attcaked and bitten by a dog while on a bike ride.
rnick wrote:
Yes, I found it difficult to feel much sysmpathy for dogs and dog owners. My youngest son was bitten on the face, around the eye socket, by a terrier when he was about 3. He was lucky not to lose his eye and still has slight scarring, as a dog bite doesn’t really heal very well, depsite a trip to A & E and some strong antibiotics. We’ve since had a few family bike rides where small dogs have chased us on our bikes, and understandably my son got very upset by that, fortunately he now seems to be getting over this five years alter!
A mate of mine has also been attcaked and bitten by a dog while on a bike ride.
*******
Sorry about the 2nd posting – not sure what happened there!
Its the little plastic bags
Its the little plastic bags full of shit which really irk me. Why on earth do dog owners think that leaving it in lying around, on hedgerows, in wire fences… essentially anywhere other than a bin is acceptable?
muppetteer wrote:
Never understood that myself: if you have a poo bag with you, and you pick up the poo, then why would you not carry it to a bin? It’s sealed in a bag, so it doesn’t matter how long you have to carry it for. What do those people think is going to happen if they just leave it by the path or hang it from a hedge?
It’s not like anywhere has regular street cleaning any more.
(Disclaimer: I own a dog. I have *never* left out a poo or a filled poo bag. I don’t own an extendable lead.)
I particularly like when the
I particularly like when the dog is minding its own business in the bushes on the opposite side of the path from them, and they call it to heel on my approach. Why encourage the dog to rush across my path?
Generally, I’m pretty happy to ride slow on the shared paths, after all if I was in a hurry I would use the road.
I think it’s pretty clear the relationship between cyclists and pedestrians on shared use paths is pretty similar to the relationship between cyclists and drivers on the roads.
retractable leeds should be banned though the only purpose they serve is to give people who can’t control their dogs the illusion that they are in control of their dog.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Walkers do this too. They see you coming and half will move to one side, half move to the other. Then one person in each group decides (at the exact same moment) that, as half the group is on the opposite side, they should probably join them so they step into the path to move over, bump into each other, start milling round aimlessly and then, as you grind to a halt in front of them, they’ll giggle a bit and do that “oh what were we thinking, haha!” thing.
I commute on the canal towpath a fair bit and it’s guaranteed that the dog owner will stand to one side and call their pet over which them wanders straight into the path. Stand the same side as your pet!!
crazy-legs wrote:
Ru- Ru- Runaround! (for the over forties among you
)
“There is a growing number of
“There is a growing number of cyclists that ride as fast as they can without bells on their bikes,”
What I draw from this is that I’ve been doing it wrong. My speed is limited by my lack of bell!
Seriously though, the problem here is clearly on both sides. Retractable leads are rubbish and there are plenty of badly trained dogs out there but on the flip side if you’re a cyclist on a shared use path with dogs anywhere near you and you’re doing more than 10mph you are doing it wrong.
Both sides have their fair share of idiots and unfortunately with a clear identifier ‘the and us’ will set in immediately anything happens and both sides will defend whoever they identify with ignoring the facts. Not helped by social media making it much easier to whip up lynch mobs.
I think the world should be
I think the world should be more concerned about dogs attacking humans that cyclists killing dogs, which in all seriousness, must have once in a blue moon. Meanwhile….
Official figures for England show 7,227 admissions for dog attacks in past year, compared with 4,110 a decade ago, with under-10s most likely to be admitted.
Double standards quite simply
Double standards quite simply. Pedestrians given right of way as vulnerable to cyclists (quite rightly) but cyclists not given the same protection from the motoring public. Makes no sense at all.
Nowhere in this report does
Nowhere in this report does it state whether the dog(s) in question were on a lead or not, whether the park owners have a policy in place as to whether dogs SHOULD be on leads or allowed to run free.
Now that the weather is starting to cool down a bit I go through Windsor Great Park, in the park there are areas where dogs have to be on leads and areas where they can roam free.
Still the biggest bug-bear is the morons walking one side of the road whilst dog is on the end of an extendable lead on the other!
If I had a dog I’d teach it
If I had a dog I’d teach it to ride a bike.
theloststarfighter wrote:
I saw a bloke riding a recumbent/hand-powered trike thing on the Bristol-Bath cycleway a few months back. He had a small dog sat on his legs and the dog looked to be loving it.
Oh Pat!
to put cyclists with
to put cyclists with pedestrains on the same path is dangerous and this concept to share the paths should not have happened. children on bikes should be allowed on the paths not adults.
The whole thing is part of a
The whole thing is part of a wider cultural pretext – that cyclists are a nuisance.
If I wrote to the paper saying that I was riding my bike and some pedestrians walked out in front of me causing me to swerve and fall off. Would they print a headline saying that ‘Plymouth cyclists call for pedestrians to watch where they’re going’.
Try it and see.
Anti-cyclist stories are page fillers. Part of an accepted group to knock on. So if anyone’s wondering where the sympathy is for the couple and their allegedly clipped dog, well you need to see the bigger picture. It’s not about cyclists acting dangerously, or being dangerous. They’re a statistically, comparatively harmless group.
unconstituted wrote:
Cyclists are an “out group” in the vernacular. It really is time that anti-cyclist rhetoric and actions were acknowledged as hate crimes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups
My wife was recently bitten
My wife was recently bitten by a dog whilst out running. the owner said it was my wife’s fault and the dog bit her because she was running!!
Beatnik69 wrote:
A few years ago I was walking my usual route home (lived a lot closer to work, then). I was carrying an empty lucozade bottle in my hand, until I could pass a litter bin.
As I walked past a building site where a new sports centre was being built, one of their guards was walking the perimeter with a german shepherd type dog. Before I even knew what had happened, the dog bit my forearm, causing me to drop the bottle.
The dog “handler” explained that the dog thought I was carrying a weapon; since I wasn’t even on their site, just walking past, I was so stunned I just gaped at him and suggested he needed to keep that dog away from the public.
I went home in a state of shock, went to A&E for tetanus jabs etc, then (later) phoned the police who informed me that there was nothing they could do as it was private land (even though I explained that at the time I wasn’t on private land, I was on the public footpath).
So I phoned the office for the security company whose signs were all over the site perimeter the next day, and they informed me that their contract at that site had finished, so nothing to do with them, and no, they didn’t know who was running security there any more, sorry ’bout that…
I guess my point is that that was a supposedly well-trained “professional” dog, rather than a family pet, and yet it still misbehaved. I accept that the only dog which is properly under control is one on a short lead, but very few dog owners realise that, and are convinced that little Scooby would *never* misbehave… Middle aged or elderly ladies with their Bichon-wotsit on an extending lead, are the worst for this, in my opinion.
I suspect there’s a bit of
I suspect there’s a bit of “man bites dog” in this story. Dogs biting/snagging/etc cyclists wouldn’t be news would it?
If it’s a shared use path
If it’s a shared use path then retractible leads should be banned. The arrogance of lazy-arsed dog owners who think they are cool letting their dog head in all directions is beyond me. They *know* they are a menace, to joggers, pedestrians and cycliss alike. Leads and dogs can head in any direction and tangle legs/wheels.
A friend is a kennel owner and a top UK dog trainer (his dogs were in a recent Batman movie). He HATES retractable leads, and says people who use them are (knowingly or otherwise) grossly irresponsable. He has seen many lead mechanisms fail and the dogs go running off, into traffic, across parks etc.
Basically, retractable lead = lazy, irresponsable, antisocial.
Not to say that all cyclists
Not to say that all cyclists are as angelic as myself, but I have far more experiences of an out of control dog causing me a problem (several whilst running and cycling offroad), than an out of control me causing a dog a problem (none at all in fact).
Usually when asking someone to keep their dog under control, they sort of make an apology or excuse that it would never bite me as they drag the savage snarling brute away. Unfortunately I don’t know that and I have the bite marks from other encounters to dispute their assertion. I only recall one instance where the dog owner was adamant that it was my fault – for running on a footpath, because apparently that is illegal.
Don’t even get me started on the abandoned piles of dog shit!
My most curious one was where
My most curious one was where a guy in the park was stood just off the side of the shared use path with his dog at heel but off the lead. As I approached I looked the owner in the eye to make sure he’d seen me (there was a small fence behind him surrounding a playground so he only had one way to go really), and whilst still making eye contact he decided to lob his dog’s ball across the other side of the path, resulting in me taking evasive action to avoid the poor wee mutt. Probably a proper brain fart from the dog owner, but I did wonder whether he was trying to be malicious.
They might have been banned,
They might have been banned, but they’re still very much here.
Bit late to the party, but
Bit late to the party, but there have been lots of sensible comments on this. Shared use paths are obviously places where cyclists need to be give consideration to other users, and go more slowly where necessary. I can believe that there are cyclists who don’t show much consideration, because cyclists are people, and plenty of people are selfish idiots.
However, I do think it is telling that one of the photos shows the complaining couple letting their dog walk on the other side of the dividing line, presumably in the cycle lane. My experiences as a runner and cyclist echo those of other posters, in that dog walkers are more likely to be thoughtlessly inconsiderate than cyclists, and a dog + lead + owner invariably takes up more room than a cyclist, so they do pose a hazard to other users of the path, especially cyclists who are moving faster and can’t stop or change direction as easily as pedestrians. At least the couple in the article aren’t using extendible leads, which are the work of Satan and must be destroyed.
My harsh but pretty reliable rule is to be extra-careful with those who aren’t necessarily always in total control of their movements or reactions – young children, the infirm, and dogs. Especially with the latter, I generally assume that they’re going to leap into my path at the last moment. Still have the odd hairy moment though, usually because a dog on an extendible lead finds the prospect of getting in the way of a moving mass of metal to be too hard to resist.
As a dog walking cyclist…
As a dog walking cyclist…
– don’t hate all dog walkers for dog shit. This is as bad as blaming all cyclists for RLJing. Most are responsible and pick it up. There are some selfish fuckwits who don’t.
– Poo bags are remarkably easy to lose. Do you really think we’d go to all that bother to pick it up, then dump the bag on purpose? I don’t know why anyone would dump a filled bag – they would’ve not bothered to fill it in the first place. Some walkers (myself included) leave a bag to pick up later if there’s no bin en route. But some are lost by mistake. Think of it as an empty wrapper falling out of your pocket.
– Speeding past dogs or giving the owners close passes is as bad as drivers acting like twats around cyclists. If you’re using a shared use path, and it’s a haunt for dog walkers, expect loose dogs.
– I don’t usually use retractable leads but I am atm as one of my dogs has forgotten how to heel and I’m trying to train him to return to me. It’s taking some time, and a lot of treats. 🙁 He’s fine in the garden, but gets excited elsewhere. I don’t like it, and I can understand misgivings about them.
– I was concerned about the dogs and children, so I’ve always tried to make sure the dogs are comfortable around them. Unfortunately, this has translated into the Shih Tzu deciding that he loves kids so much, he’ll go and say hello to them all the time. Even when they’re on bikes. Another thing I’m trying to train out, even though he gets away with it most of the time as he’s so damn cute (which doesn’t help as so many stop to pet him anyway – it’s self-perpetuating).
– Not every dog will be well trained, as not every cyclist will be immediately confident the first time they ride on the road. It takes practice and training to improve, so there will be Works In Progress. (And even in London, finding a dog trainer is harder than finding cycling proficiency lessons.)
I’ve heard of ‘losing your
I’ve heard of ‘losing your shit’ but struggle to believe that losing a full poo bag is easy to do, unless you’re trying to lose it.
Neither does that explain the poo trees – unless the bags are just hung on branches and absent-mindedly but perfectly innocently left there, too?
The first problem we have here is selfish arses and entitlement:
20mph+ strava segments on paths that children use to go to school;
dogs being walked all over the path and left to jump up at other users (‘it’s OK – he’s just being friendly’ – I’ll be the judge of that, and he’s being a big-toothed, muddy-pawed prick);
horses leaving piles of crap right at the gates/passing points – how are huge mounds of shit from any animal in a public place an acceptable by-product of any hobby?
The next problem (for us) is that, as mentioned above, cyclists are an out group. A complaint about cyclists’ anti-social behaviour makes ‘news’.
Both issues can be tackled, but we haven’t got the government to do it.
davel wrote:
If it’s a small poo, it weighs almost nothing, and you can easily forget you’re carrying it. My Cavachon and Shih Tzu very rarely do big poos, but I’ll try to pick up every little bit. This may mean multiple bags.
I walk along a section of the Thames path and there aren’t any bins on the path itself, just at access points. I’d rather leave a bag out of the way, to the side of a path to pick up on my return than drop it or leave it behind by mistake after a rest. Or leave a poo in the middle of the path for everyone to walk through.
When you’re juggling two dog leads, a bag of treats, gloves, a crutch and/or a bike, I’ve discovered losing one of several small, light bags is quite easy. Mine do 1-3 poos on most decent walks. They’re too light to swing.
I lost one the other day as I’d hooked it over the handle of my crutch while walking through the trees. I bent over to untangle one of the leads, rewarded the other dog for being good, and stood. Then I hit the path and had a chat with an acquaintance (who walks dogs herself and admitted to losing one the other day). On walking away, I discovered the bag was gone. I went back, but couldn’t find it.
Have no idea what the poo trees are about, though suggesting to the local council to place a bin near there may help.
I thought the poo tree fetish
I thought the poo tree fetish was a Scottish thing. Along with leaving bags full of poo-filled nappies outside your flat door.
Because walking to bins a minute away is just too stressful up here.
I’ve been brought up with and
I’ve been brought up with and owned dogs all my life and just like humans you do get the nasty ones there’s no denying that.
Yet throughout my life I have never heard of such crap as dropping a shite filled bag by accident and to not notice it’s no longer swinging around your hand. As for leaving it lying to come back for is shocking and I cannot agree with such behaviour.
Dogs vs Bikes – a flashpoint
Dogs vs Bikes – a flashpoint for invitable internet war.
All we need is a BREXIT angle to make it perfect.
I use the national cycle
I use the national cycle route 28.
It is used for cycling, running, walking, dog walking, by families with small children on cycles and now many let’s call them unfit people trying to improve their health but not that confident in a bike. The last thing they want is to have a loose jumpy dog coming at them.
Some cycles go too fast It has to be said (most those commuting by bike) though its my observation most cyclists are sensible.
The route is relatively new and the old walking only path is adjacent to the new but most dog owners don’t want to use it.
You see I just don’t get it:- The dog is always on a lead near a road because the dog might get injured. But when the dog is off a lead on shared paths both the dog and cyclist can be injured!
I’ve seen a large dog run excitedly towards a little tot on his bike and scare him to death, a nice introduction to cycling!
Half the problem is signage, no prominent signs to showing dogs on leads and cycles checking speed. It just would be a great shame to put people off cycling especially those on bikes trying to improve their health who otherwise would never be on the road and families with children.