Shared-use paths are back in the spotlight again after an incident near Bangor in North Wales left a dog needing a leg amputated following a collision involving a cyclist.
The Daily Post reports Buddy the 11-year-old springer spaniel lost a leg after being struck by a cyclist in Gwynedd, suffering a badly crushed ankle while being walked off-lead on the Ogwen Trail, which is part of the National Cycle Network’s Route 82, and described as a “spectacular traffic-free” route by Sustrans.
Bob Hutchinson’s dog was hit by a cyclist who “zoomed past” as he walked three other dogs with two friends.
“We had no idea he was coming. When he hit Buddy, the dog yelped loudly,” the 74-year-old recalled.
“The cyclist dismounted and there was an altercation – he claimed he’d rung his bell, but none of us heard it.”
Despite being able to limp home, two days later the much-loved pet was in visible pain and unable to put weight on the damaged leg.
An x-ray showed a lower leg fracture and gave Bob the uncomfortable decision of deciding between having Buddy put down, operated on, or the leg removed.
“I was worried about long-term problems and I didn’t want him to suffer, so I went for amputation. When the limb was removed, the vet said the ankle joint was so badly shattered, an operation wouldn’t have succeeded anyway,” the local resident said.
Questioning the “arrogant” attitude of some cyclists, Mr Hutchinson claimed using the path, which was tarmacked 20 years ago, has “become a frightening experience”.
“A majority of cyclists are courteous but some are incredibly arrogant,” he said. “From Glasinfryn to Bangor Dock it’s all downhill all the way and on some sections, cyclists can reach speeds of 30-40mph.
“Some of them use it as a race track. It’s crazy and it’s frightening. If they’re going at the speed, you’ve no time to react and often you won’t even hear them coming. It’s beautiful around here, with woods at the side of the path, but if children run out when a cyclist is coming, there could be a really serious accident.
“When these cyclists zoom pass you, before you know it they have gone. Unless they’re local, there’s no way you’ll ever find out who they are.”
Mr Hutchinson has complained to Gwynedd Council before about the path which is shared by pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, and his story had an all-too-familiar polarising effect with the local news website’s readers.
Some took the opportunity to point the finger at reckless riding by some using the path to cycle, with one woman telling the Daily Post she is too scared to use the path after her three-year-old child was nearly “killed” by a cyclist.
A dog walker also reported being knocked over by a cyclist while using the shared-use path.
“No warning – the wind behind the cyclists – and bang……right into me as I went to pull my dog out of the way. The cyclist hit my left side and landed on top of me. Tyre marks remained on my leg for three-and-a-half weeks. Bruised and battered and aching for months,” they said.
“I hate walking anywhere near cycle routes now and feel quite scared when I have to.”
However, others labelled out-of-control dogs off leads as the main danger to path users.
Mr Hutchinson insists his dog was under control at the time of the collision, even if he was not using a lead.
Wendy Challis-Jones told the online news outlet: “On a cycle path dogs should be on a lead!”
Another reader added: “There are lots of safe places where you can let your dog off the lead, a footpath where there are other pedestrians and cyclists is not one of them. This gentleman epitomises everything that’s wrong with a lot of these irresponsible dog walkers. Its heartbreaking that the poor dog has had to pay the price for his folly.”
Last month, a district council in Devon made headlines after enforcing a new public space protection order requiring dog walkers to use leads shorter than a metre near cycle paths and highways.
The safety of cyclists was cited for the rule, which does not apply for parks and beaches, but could see owners who walk their dogs on leads longer than a metre fined £100, or face prosecution, with maximum fines reaching £1,000.
So how can shared-use paths be made safer for everyone? Let us know your thoughts in the comments…
152 thoughts on ““Arrogant” cyclists blamed as dog needs leg amputated after shared-use path collision — how can safety be improved for everyone?”
If you’re on a shared use
If you’re on a shared use path your dog should be on a short lead.
We know that this dog was not.
Cyclists should ride carefully around pedestrians and other path users.
We have no evidence that this cyclist was not doing so.
Unless there’s evidence that the cyclist was in some way negligent it seems that the fault lies entirely with the dog owner.
Rich_cb wrote:
As a cyclist and a dog owner I always slow down when there are dogs / small children etc on paths – for the simple reason that their behaviour is unpredictable. So in this case even if the dog was off the lead (which it shouldn’t have been) the cyclist should still have slowed down to anticipate the risk.
My sympathy goes to the dog.
We have no evidence the
We have no evidence the cyclist did not slow down.
Sometimes a dog is unavoidable.
Unless we have proof that the cyclist was at fault the blame has to lie squarely with the dog owner.
The only way to avoid a dog
The only way to avoid a dog issue is to be at walking pace ie it is no longer a cycle path, it’s just a footpath.
The other thing to add courtesy of a scottish doctor who posted on here a couple of years ago is about injuries. They said they had to do stats on knee injuries for their new clinic and the most common cause was dog injuries from either tripping over the lead or the dog jumping up and causing the person to stumble.
The idea that the risk with dogs about can be eliminated is not correct.
edit April 20
“I work as an orthopaedic and trauma surgeon
a few years ago we introduced a subspecialist acute knee injury clinic in parallel with the local fracture clinic. As with all new services, this was audited after it had become established. The unexpected finding was that the single greatest source of acute knee injury was dog walking (54%) with common mechanisms being tripping over tree roots, slipping on uneven ground or being knocked over by their or another person’s dog”
Walking pace doesn’t work.
Walking pace doesn’t work. You still have to beware of the “He’s just being friendly.”
At the very start of lock down, I was out walking, and very nervous as many of us were. Some old biddy thought I was very rude for asking her to recall her dog and keep it under control, it was just being friendly.
I’ve had 3 dogs, and have always been accutely embarrassed by any failure to control my dog where it inconvenienced other people (and with guide dog puppies, you are encouraged to take them into places with other people). I think the most embarrassing one was guide dog puppy licking the ear of the gentleman sitting in the row in front at a cinema. He took it quite well – it was only during the adverts and she settled down after that.
All told, dog walkers usually take any request to control their dogs as a personal insult. I have also been amazed how many people say things like “He’s only one so we haven’t started training him yet.”
Sure, which is why I
Sure, which is why I mentioned the issues identified with the knee clinic – the risk can’t be avoided simply by third parties taking care.
IanMSpencer wrote:
Probably thought he’d pulled until he tuned round. Maybe not too upset as the licker was still really cute.
wycombewheeler wrote:
“Oh my god, will you look at her!”
“That’s a poodle.”
“Well, yeah, but look at her”
(abridged)
Rich_cb wrote:
I think in all probability we do. The fact that he was unable to stop despite passing a known hazard (which would include the dog, or the man who might have fallen over his shoelaces) shows he riding too fast for the conditions and not leaving sufficient space.
Plenty of scenarios on the
Plenty of scenarios on the road where as a driver, cyclist, it is not possible to stop despite the road being clear.
As to presumed liability in respect of drivers and cyclists the parallel is cyclists and pedestrians. Dogs feature as being needed to be kept under control as per rule 56.
PRSboy wrote:
As I’ve said repeatedly there is only the word of the dog walker about the cyclist going too fast. Anything else is pure speculation
I presume that if you are cycling on a main road, approaching a junction with a car wanting to pull out. If you moderate your spped on approach to the junction, and at the last second the car driver pulls out of the junction in front of you and you crash into their car. I guess that shows you were riding too fast for the conditions and not leaving sufficient space despite passing a known hazard.
Rich_cb wrote:
We have the fact that the cyclist did collide with the dog, and broke the dog’s ankle. It is frustrating as a cyclist, but nonetheless the responsible thing to do is accept that a dog may act unpredictably and slow right down to walking speed and be prepared to stop if necessary. None of us actually witnessed this incident so we can’t say for sure what happened, but it seems to me more likely than not that the cyclist failed to slow down sufficiently and therefore is at least at some fault.
The responsible thing to do
The responsible thing to do is for the dog owner to take precautions against the dog acting unpredictably. What seems to you more likely than not is irrelevant, because as you correctly point out, we didn’t witness it.
OnYerBike wrote:
We have the fact that the cyclist did collide with the dog, and broke the dog’s ankle. It is frustrating as a cyclist, but nonetheless the responsible thing to do is accept that a dog may act unpredictably and slow right down to walking speed and be prepared to stop if necessary. None of us actually witnessed this incident so we can’t say for sure what happened, but it seems to me more likely than not that the cyclist failed to slow down sufficiently and therefore is at least at some fault.— Rich_cb
We have the fact that there was a collision involving a dog and a cycle/ist. But it remains a question as to whether the dog collided with the cycle/ist or vice versa.
On balance, I’m with rich_cb on this. Cyclists have a duty of care to pedestrians, but the pedestrian has a duty of care to control their dog. They also have a duty to be aware of their surroundings and not to cause an unnecessary obstruction (not that that absolves the cyclist’s duty, which is greater). More than that requires facts of the case that are not clear here.
There seem to be some resort to unestablished equivalence in the story telling, between the case at point and general (anecdotal) reports of careless speeds from some people on cycles.
OnYerBike wrote:
None of us can say for sure either that the dog did not run in front of the cyclist giving them no time to react, and no matter the speed of collision putting 50% of the weight of an adult human through a very small contact point of a bike tyre could easily break the bones in a dogs ankle.
Do you have anything other than speculation that the cyclist failed to slow down sufficiently?
TriTaxMan wrote:
We have the owner’s account of events, although I appreciate that is hardly likely to be unbiased.
Moreover, it is equally speculative to assert that the cyclist did slow down sufficiently, was prepared to stop, and the dog ran out at just the wrong time such that a collision could not be avoided. I maintain that such a sequence of events, whilst possible, is less likely than the alternative.
I don’t think it does anyone any favours to pretend that all cyclists are perfect in every way, all the time, and I don’t think we should be rushing to absolve the cyclist entirely and put all the blame on the dog owner.
OnYerBike wrote:
Lets see what I said earlier (i’ve added emphasis)
Too many variables to make a call on who was at fault.— TriTaxMan
I have never attempted to blame the dog owner, I have just posed questions or offered alternative possible theories which could have resulted in a collision.
Reading down the comments most people are intent on blaming the cyclist based as you have….. on speculation because they think their perspective is more likely.
OnYerBike wrote:
We have the fact that the cyclist did collide with the dog, and broke the dog’s ankle. It is frustrating as a cyclist, but nonetheless the responsible thing to do is accept that a dog may act unpredictably and slow right down to walking speed and be prepared to stop if necessary. None of us actually witnessed this incident so we can’t say for sure what happened, but it seems to me more likely than not that the cyclist failed to slow down sufficiently and therefore is at least at some fault.— Rich_cb
I’m inclined to agree with this, unless the dog was 100m away from the owner and suddenly lept out of the bushes, the rider was aware there was a walker and dogs and should have slowed down.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Do you know they never slowed down?
I had an incredibly close near miss with a dog last year, and it was just pure luck that I never hit the dog, and I was doing about 5mph at the time (I was able to review the helmet cam footage after the incident). A springer spaniel came bounding out of the undergrowth, which was about 2m from the edge of the path, at such speed that I had no time to react, even though I had slowed down to a speed just above a brisk walk….. and in that instance I avoided the dog but I was the one that got a mouthful of abuse from the dog walker….. because I was going too fast apparently.
And are you seriously saying that if you ride on a shared use path and you pass someone with a dog…. that you keep going slow for the next 100m, on the possibility that they may have another dog that isn’t with them?
Rich_cb wrote:
Where do you stand on the issue of presumed liability in respect of drivers and cyclists?
Fundamentally opposed.
Fundamentally opposed.
It sounds like cyclists
It sounds like cyclists should slow down / be more considerate but that dog walkers need to keep their pets on a short lead and ensure they are not wandering across the path – less than 1m is typically recommended.
Everyone should be considerate towards others.
If I’ve read the article
If I’ve read the article correctly, Mr Hutchinsin is claiming that it was his view before this incident that cyclists use the path as a race track reaching 40 mph, but still thought it was a good idea to have four dogs off a lead on it.
That poor dog lost it’s leg because you can own dogs despite being a fucking moron.
That was my reading as well
That was my reading as well
“too sacred to use the path”?
“too sacred to use the path”? 😉
brooksby wrote:
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men…
brooksby wrote:
And people accuse cyclists of having a holier-than-thou attitude…
Matthew inna King James Bible
I take issue with the “strait” part ([EDIT actually of course this is archaic “limited capacity” so that’s fine…] see previous discussions about gates in the “barrier” sense) but in the UK he’s certainly spot on regarding lack of width and navigational difficulties.
A source just this minute
A source just this minute told us she changed her mind and is scared rather than sacred now. That’s why we waited six hours to change it. 🙂
Poor dog. Personally I wouldn
Poor dog. Personally I wouldn’t let my dog off the lead on a road or SUP.
Unfortunately, dog owners and pedestrians very often take absolutely no notice of what’s going on around them. If I’m using a SUP as a pedestrian I’m walking to one side of the path. If I’m with my family and we are spreading across the path, I will glance behind often and be aware of others just like I keep an eye on what’s happening behind when cycling or driving. I seem to be in the minority.
I’m not sure what I hate more
I’m not sure what I hate more, shared use paths as cycling “infrastructure”, or arrogant dog owners who refuse to take any responsibility
(clearly you are not in the latter category, but you are probably a minority)
Highway code rule 56 “Dogs.
Highway code rule 56 “Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders.”
Shared use paths are a bit
Shared use paths are a bit rubbish. What a revelation!
Leaving it unsurfaced would
Leaving it unsurfaced would have helped and it’d be better for it. Too much tarmac sanitation.
As a cyclist, dog owner and
As a cyclist, dog owner and motorist, I’m fed up of inconsiderate drivers, cyclists and dog owners who drive, ride or walk without any regard for others. It’s about time we cyclists recognise that we are the juggernauts of shared use paths and ride as we would like to see motorists drive on the roads, with care. My bikes all came with brakes and I often use them when in the vicinity of pedestrians, horse riders and dog walkers. It’s a fact that the elderly sometimes don’t hear the high register of bells but not to call out or stop when a SUP user is seemingly unaware is an invitation for trouble. I hate bullies whether or not they are behind a wheel, on a bike or clad in anoraks claiming that others “shouldn’t be here”.
It’s one world, one life, learn to share with care or stay at home.
Well put…
Well put…
This exactly – I’m a very
This exactly – I’m a very keen cyclist and a dog owner too. Shared use paths are not suitable for fast cycling. I’ve told off my sons for riding quickly on shared use paths. It’s not acceptable. Dogs and children are unpredictable. Even responsible adults can often find their dogs or children heading off in an unexpected direction.
Responsible adults should
Responsible adults should have their dogs on a short lead therefore negating your point.
There’s only so far in an unexpected direction a dog on a short lead can possibly go.
I agree re the fast cycling though.
DonnyJohnny wrote:
I don’t know who’s at fault in this case, but if you’re running into paddleboarders on your bike, one of you is definitely doing something wrong.
mdavidford wrote:
True, amid all the Highway Code furore people are clearly forgetting the Waterways code or even the Colregs.
Oh, no! you’ve only started
Oh, no! you’ve only started the life jacket debate!
GMBasix wrote:
Damnit – I’d checked he was wearing a hat too…
I’m in the same category as
I’m in the same category as the little onion being a cyclist and a dog owner. I have no issues with dogs being off the lead on shared use paths provided they are under close control, by which I mean close to the owner and well trained enough to respond to basic commands.
I regularly walk my dog in a local country park which has a very nice shared use path and very rarely is she on the lead, but to caveat this she walks to heel at the edge of the path and whenever I see or hear a cyclist she is made to sit and wait until the cyclist is past. If the path is very busy with cyclists then she is on the lead. And I am frequently checking for cyclists including ones approaching from behind.
However, not all dog owners show the same courtesy I have had issues with dogs not on leads coming racing out from undergrowth at the side of the path with the owner nowhere to be seen, or dogs on the extendable leads running all over the place blocking the entire path with their lead.
While I feel sorry that the dog has had to have its leg amputated there is something off with the mans story. It smacks of a he said they said scenario…. but with only the dog walkers perspective. He says they never heard the cyclist ringing their bell….. did they not hear it or did they choose to ignore it or did the cyclist not ring their bell?
Too many variables to make a call on who was at fault.
Indeed, it could also be they
Indeed, it could also be they weren’t listening out – same as drivers dont always look for cyclists.
You sir are a rarity. Every
You sir are a rarity. Every dog owner I’ve encountered on shared use paths that are either using a long/extending lead or have their animal off lead seem to be incapable of keeping them under control. The ones that use a short lead are few and far between. This is the reason why I make a point not to use this particular piece of infra. On my commute I have no choice but to use a stretch for about half a mile due to the layout of the road and have on occasion had to stop. Get off my bike and walk for a number of yards ensuring that my bike is between me and the dog before remounting. Simply because the owners seem to be incapable of controlling their dogs. They then bleat at me that they’re harmless. The only dog owner I know who was able to keep his dog to heel without lead was a dog handler in the police. He had a beautiful German Shepherd who was as placid as anything until my mate gave a command.
With the huge uptake in dog ownership during the lockdowns I’ve noticed it has gone hand in hand with poorly disciplined dogs. Bring back Barbara Wooodhouse I say
Some cyclists are knobheads.
Some cyclists are knobheads.
Some dog owners are knobheads.
The poor dog is the victim here.
don simon fbpe wrote:
Was the dog wearing hi vis and a helmet, though?
(No subject)
Wonder how many maimed dogs
Wonder how many maimed dogs and children are in the wake of the Rapha wearing phruckwit with a Strava KoM on that stretch of SUP. I am as pro cyclist as many of you… but many tits on carbon who spend more on Rapha per month than I spend on clothes per year are utterly irresponsible and lacking in all common sense.
They are, in my opinion, not ‘cyclists’, they are guys who used to play golf or drive Golf GTIs, but now buy 5k+ bikes and then treat everywhere as their racetrack.
joe9090 wrote:
bore off you ignorant bigot
Outed much? Sorry if you are
Outed much? Sorry if you are offended, but I am thinking you might fall in the category I outlined?
joe9090 wrote:
Would you like a burger to go with all those chips?
Maybe I was a little bit
Maybe I was a little bit Keyboard Conan on that one. I dunno. I see alot of mindless dudes on racer bikes and maybe that was a vent too far…
If I as a cyclist badly
If I as a cyclist badly injured a dog, or a child, I’d feel like shit. Placing the blame would not assuage my feelings.
Therefore, on a shared use path, where there are dogs, and children, running about, I ride cautiously. So far it has worked. I would not be one militating for dogs and children to be kept under “close control” just so that I could be freed of the imperative to ride cautiously around them.
This.
This.
TBH I’d be riding cautiously
TBH I’d be riding cautiously even if the dog was on a short lead.
But, on a path shared with cyclists, I would still expect the parent/owner to keep their child/dog under close control…
(Letting the dog – or child – wander loose while you chat on the phone doesn’t count as ‘close control, BTW)
Sriracha wrote:
Most cyclists, myself included, feel the same way…. but what happens when your luck runs out.
Could be the case that you read about the incident in the press weeks or months later where the “victim” is accusing you of cycling recklessly despite the fact that you did nothing wrong…..
This dog thing came up on uk
This dog thing came up on uk dash cams.
Fortunately for the driver, the one behind had video otherwise it would have all been the driver’s fault for the owner failing to control their dog.
hirsute wrote:
I also saw that video yesterday…. my thoughts were that the drivers reactions were a bit poor though…. about a second from the dog being fully onto the active lane before the driver braked.
Mind you poor driver reactions are commonplace in dashcam videos… most of the reactions are…. horn, shout……wait….. brake.
Although as others pointed
Although as others pointed out in the comments of that one, closer to the dog might have meant it was more hidden by the bonnet.
This.
This.
Dogs should be on leads on a
Dogs should be on leads on a shared path like that for their own protection and that of others, no question. However, looking on Strava I find there is a segment for that section of path, “Glasinfryn to port penrhym”, in which the KOM is 44km/h, the top eight are all 40 km/h+ and the top 280 are all 30 km/h+, so clearly a considerable number of cyclists are indeed being utter tools and “Using it as a race track”.
But of course you can’t tell
But of course you can’t tell from Strava data how many others were using the path at the time. I would guess, from a 44 km/h average speed, none.
It definitely depends on the
It definitely depends on the path. We have some Strava segments near me on a shared path with KOMs over 40 km/h. I’m pretty far down the rankings at 32-ish km/h, which is just the speed I happened to be riding that day, not me targeting the segment.
On a nice Saturday afternoon, the path may be full of runners, walkers including small children, slow cyclists, and dogs. On a 5 °C overcast weekday morning, it’s completely empty. There are no entrances to the path within the segments, excellent sightlines, and the only living thing you’re likely to hit is a suicidal rabbit or squirrel.
One would hope so…but even
One would hope so…but even if it appeared empty, it’s a two-metre wide path lined with woods from which kids or dogs could appear. In my opinion, 40 km/h should be for roads only.
Completely agree; shared
Completely agree; shared paths should only be ridden at a pace suitable for mixing with pedestrians; no more than 20 kph and less than 10 kph when passing pedestrians.
I know this path well, it
I know this path well, it follows an old narrow gauge railway trackbed that served the huge slate quarries at Bethesda (now NCR 82 Lôn Las Ogwen). The photos in the original Daily Post article show the viaduct for the Holyhead line, placing it just south of Bangor and close to a large housing estate of ~4,000 people. This section from the harbour at Porth Penrhyn is smooth and pretty flat so is very popular with people walking. Anyone riding here should 100% expect to meet people (and dogs) at any time of day and ride accordingly.
Riding those segments at 250-300w and speeds of 30 or 40 km/h, that’s absolutely mental and f*&cking reckless in the extreme. If there was a young tearaway on a scrambler doing it we’d want the police down there ASAP. If someone wants to ride fast they can use the quiet road from/to Glasinfryn to the west of the path, which is loads more fun and far safer at speed.
While there is obvious logic in asking dog owners to keep their animals under control on shared paths I feel it is unfair on the dog for them to be on a lead everywhere, particularly in rural locations like this. Much as I dislike long leads, I detest seeing dogs, especially energetic ones like spaniels, restrained all the time. It’s just not natural or fair on them.
Anyone can cycle this NCN perfectly safely providing they are considerate and are prepared to slow and even unclip and stop (perish the thought!) if it is appropriate. If you don’t like doing that then you can f&*k off and take your selfish attitude somewhere else.
Thanks for the local
Thanks for the local knowledge.
Exactly this, I’m furious if I see a car drive down my 32 km/h street at 40 km/h, empty or not, why on earth would I countenance a cyclist doing it on a 2m wide path?
Simon E wrote:
I say this as an owner of a particularly exuberant 18 month old Labrador, there is a time and a place to let a dog run free, and a shared use path is not one of them. If the dog is of an energetic breed why not take them to some nice wide open parks/fields away from traffic and cyclists for them to expend their energy. If they are well behaved enough off the lead to walk to heel then that’s fine walking them off the lead on a shared use path but if not they should be on a lead.
I guess I could take my dog onto an NCN route and have her run free and play with her toys and expect every cyclist to slow down and stop for my dog becuase she is an energetic dog and she should be allowed to run free wherever I choose. Or should I f&*k off and take that selfish attitude somewhere else?
TriTaxMan wrote:
— TriTaxManIt is the cyclist’s responsibility to avoid the collision regardless of the supposed behaviour of the dog and its owner.
The whole route is a shared facility but walkers are there to relax and many won’t expect something that moves considerably faster than other walkers and is almost silent. Regardless of what the Highway Code says, if you cycle along there and you assume people will move out of your way or anticipate your approach and immediately bring their dog under control then you are going to get a nasty surprise.
It’s the same if a child suddenly changed direction during a family stroll (as they do), the approaching cyclist must anticipate it and be prepared to stop. Or are the speed calming measures and 20 mph zones by all schools etc are a waste of time and parents should be responsible for their kids (even if unaccompanied) while SUV tanks can whizz past at 30mph or more? Where does the hierarchy of road users fit?
Since an 8mph pootle, freewheeling and unclipping at intervals isn’t usually what I want from a ride I will leave Bangor on the A5 and join the path via Lôn Cefn Ty (south of the industrial estate), omitting the busiest part. Returning from Ogwen or Llanberis I ride through Tregarth and Glasinfryn on the road and follow the unclassified road on the western side of the valley. There are many other great routes for cyclists wanting to ‘get a wriggle on’ in this area. It’s just on the edge of Snowdonia NP, after all. This path isn’t one of them.
Simon E wrote:
This simply isn’t true.
See the recent case where the cyclist sued for £50k (IIRC) and won after a collision with a dog on a shared use path that led to a serious injury.
Dog owners have a responsibility to other path users. The dog must be completely under control, if it is not and someone is injured as a consequence then they are liable.
In this particular case we have no objective evidence that the cyclist was doing anything wrong. We have an admission from the dog owner that he was not complying with the highway code.
At best it is shared liability but I wouldn’t like to take my chances in court as the dog owner.
Rich_cb wrote:
Whatever.
If you kill or injure a dog or child on a shared path you may be legally ‘in the right’ if it goes to court. However, the victim will still be dead or injured when that need not have happened in the first place.
It’s easy to quote the rules and what everyone should do but in the end I’d rather make the effort to avoid such an outcome.
Simon E wrote:
Just out of question did you watch the video on the news site?
The victim stated that the cyclist left the tarmac path and went onto the grass to go round the victim and his friends and other dogs. Given what looks like a pretty sharp edge to the shared use path…. do you not think it is likely that the cyclist slowed down?
The only thing that we know for certain is that the cyclist collided with the dog, nothing more or less. But given the available limited facts you have come to the opinion that the cyclist was going too fast and that was the reason for the collision and anyone who disagrees with your opinion is brushed off…
With a reply like “whatever” to someone’s point is it any wonder cyclists get branded as arrogant?
Whatever speed you’re cycling
Whatever speed you’re cycling at it can be impossible to miss a dog.
Consider a greyhound running out of bushes at full tilt.
What’s your reaction time?
The only way to ensure you don’t hit a dog is to give up cycling all together.
The dog owner has a responsibility towards their dog and towards cyclists. If they are negligent, as this dog owner was, then they must accept the consequences of their own negligence.
The dog owner is fortunate the cyclist wasn’t injured or he’d have two expensive bills to pay and two injuries on his conscience.
Rich_cb wrote:
I wonder if something else is at the root of your concern?
Can I suggest fitting wolves
Can I suggest fitting wolves as a deterrent?
Rich_cb wrote:
Or any kind of dog running out of the bushes at full tilt for that matter. There is a signficant chance that you couldn’t react in time.
Unfortunately Simon cannot be convinced that a cyclist who is involved in a collision with a more vulnerable road user may have done everything that they (Simon) would have done to manage their behaviour. And despite managing their behaviour they were still involved in a collision.
Rich_cb wrote:
Bullshit.
It’s disheartening to discover that you couldn’t come up with something better than this level of whataboutery.
Meanwhile if you and some of the others wish to go round educating dog owners and enforcing the rules then good luck with that. You’re going to need it! It would be great if owners kept their mutts under control but sadly that isn’t going to happen. I also have no intention of chasing segment times on Ogwen or any of the shared paths I use.
Simon E wrote:
Simon…. you really need to take an objective look at things.
You are showing complete bias because some people use shared use paths to chase strava segments therefore due to the fact that the cyclist hit a dog that they must have been going too fast. The irony in the fact that your entire argument is based on whaboutery is not missed by people when you call others out for whataboutery.
You have never answered the question. What PROOF do you have that the cyclist in question was going too fast?
I mean its not like people who know they are in the wrong will make stuff up to try and hide their failings…. the whole “the cyclist zoomed past me” could easily be a deflection by the dog walker because they knew their dog wasn’t under control. It doesn’t have the same inflammatory effect saying “a cyclist out for a leisurely ride along a shared use path hit my out of control dog meaning I needed to have it’s leg amputated” does it?
But before you accuse me of whataboutery…. which I know you will. I have never said the cyclist is innocent, nor have I said they are guilty of doing anything…. I am simpy keeping an open mind….. you know the whole innocent until proven guilty view point….. something that seems to escape you.
Rich’s point is valid. There are times despite doing everything right a cyclist can still be involved in an accident…. but you brush it off as Bullshit.
All of your comments are implying that because you haven’t been involved in an accident you are a superior cylist to all others who hold a contrary view to you…. and dare I say it that comes across as pretty arrogant.
TriTaxMan wrote:
Where did I write or even suggest that?
I didn’t raise the issue of strava segments but I’m appalled that some people think it’s OK to chase segment times averaging 30-40 km/h down that path. I can imagine that doing so could end very badly.
Incorrect. I proposed that the whole concept of expecting/asking dog owners to ‘behave correctly’ on a shared path is flawed and unworkable; that a cyclist using such a facility needs to do whatever is required to avoid a collision.
I don’t believe I ever discussed the behaviour of the cyclist involved in the incident, only the way I think cyclists need to behave on a path like the one in the article. Are you confusing my comments with other posts? I know nothing about the cyclist’s behaviour. What I do know about is the location of the incident and the typical behaviour of the people who use it. I’ve both cycled and walked along there plenty of times. I know it well.
I have never said the cyclist is innocent, nor have I said they are guilty of doing anything…. I am simpy keeping an open mind….. you know the whole innocent until proven guilty view point….. something that seems to escape you.
— TriTaxManWhere did I say the cyclist was guilty?
He wrote “The only way to ensure you don’t hit a dog is to give up cycling all together.” That sounds like bullshit to me and I don’t care if you disagree.
I’d suggest that your statement and his are two different things. I can be involved in a collision (or ‘accident’ if you prefer) with or without blame. If I hit a dog while cycling on a shared path the odds are that I – or any cyclist – could have avoided the collision. I have never claimed to have any special abilities.
Incorrect, as mentioned above, but feel free to continue with those misconceptions.
I don’t know if you’ve confused my comments with someone else’s or whether you’ve misread them or I’ve written them in a manner that is easy to misinterpret. I will reiterate my essential point which is that, regardless of the possible behaviour of dogs or other people, a cyclist on paths like that should be prepared to stop to avoid hitting them.
Simon E wrote:
This is true: A cyclist should take steps to avoid a collision.
The preceding statement is, respectfully, guff.
In the introductory section under “Knowing and applying the rules, the Highway Code says:
It applies to all roads (which includes paths) and all users.
Your statement disregards the inconsiderateness of one set of road users and passes it all to another. Even taking into account the hierarchy of road users, this is not the intention. Somebody who fails to control their dog is being careless, and evidence of it is likely to limit the extent to which a passing cyclist may be held responsible.
Whatever you say, a pedestrian with a dog has a responsibility to control that dog, and a responsibility to be careful and considerate to other road (path) users.
Sorry if it’s a bit tricky to lift theselves from their group converations, but they still have responsibilities in public.
Now, either you disagree with this, in which case, the Highway Code (which has recently been put before Parliament) says you’re wrong; or I’ve misunderstood your message, in which case you’ve not expressed it clearly: have another go.
GMBasix wrote:
I don’t think it does.
I simply cannot prevent people being inconsiderate, whether they are drivers, cyclists, walkers or dog owners. I try to put myself in the position of cycling on that path or another similar situation – the only thing I can do is control my own actions, anticipating possible hazards and acting accordingly.
A loose dog ahead of me on or near the path is a hazard. Even if I call out to warn the owner, doing so is unlikely to eliminate the risk of me hitting the dog.
It would be truly wonderful if everyone took their responsibility seriously on roads and paths, we would surely have almost zero collisions and far fewer deaths and injuries. But that is pie in the sky.
I have tried once more to make my point. But I can’t force anyone to grasp what I think is a straightforward idea instead of reading into it what they want to think.
Simon E wrote:
Evidently. Your argument is not without its points, but it is not balanced. Of course we can only control our own actions. That is why we cannot always avoid a collision. But don’t blame it on the cyclist if he’s taken all reasonable action to avoid an uncontrolled dog (or, for that matter, a pedestrian who jumps in front of him without being remotely aware of other users on the path).
I cannot ever recall hitting a dog, but I can recall having taken lots of avoidance to miss them. All because the owners cannot comprehend the need to have their precious dog on a short lead in accordance with the Highway Code.
So here it is:
We should anticipate the idiocy of others and do our best to avoid it.
If we are taking a dog out, we have a repsonsibility to control it which, in most cases, means a short lead.
If we don’t control our dog and it darts out in front of another passing road user, that’s our fault.
If the other road user was a cyclist who was racing past, such that they gave themself no chance to react, they might share some of that responsibility, but it doesn’t absolve us of our responsibility over our dog. That is not substantiated in the reported case of the injured dog.
Simon E wrote:
I don’t think it does.
I simply cannot prevent people being inconsiderate, whether they are drivers, cyclists, walkers or dog owners. I try to put myself in the position of cycling on that path or another similar situation – the only thing I can do is control my own actions, anticipating possible hazards and acting accordingly.
A loose dog ahead of me on or near the path is a hazard. Even if I call out to warn the owner, doing so is unlikely to eliminate the risk of me hitting the dog.
It would be truly wonderful if everyone took their responsibility seriously on roads and paths, we would surely have almost zero collisions and far fewer deaths and injuries. But that is pie in the sky.
I have tried once more to make my point. But I can’t force anyone to grasp what I think is a straightforward idea instead of reading into it what they want to think.— GMBasix
You can’t just let your opinions run free and expect people to look out for them, you know… It’s a shared use cycle forum!
My own take is, to paraphrase Don Simon – “all people can be asshats. A dog has been hurt”. Aside from that our “shared use” paths are actually a barrier to cycling in some ways. They allow councils to say “problem solved” when what’s needed is to slow down and reduce vehicles and also take back road space from them. These paths are often worse than they could be. Firstly “shared” (so in-built conflict) and secondly often they’ve only space for a couple of pedestrians side-by-side.
I don’t think cyclists should have a right to “speed” on these paths any more than people have a right to let their animals go uncontrolled. But for cycle paths “making decent progress on a bike” must be designed in. In the UK the view is definitely “how do we slow the cyclists down?” as if they were cars. Cyclists simply don’t pose the same dangers so it’s not appropriate and the obstacles discourage cycling. So this just shows that the UK “shared use” is not fit for purpose. (I’m in Edinburgh where there is a “mini-network” of off-road paths. By UK standards it’s excellent and it mostly works well. But even here we could use more width and clear demarcation with a pedestrian area and a cycle one.)
Should we legislate further for this sort of thing? I don’t think so at present. I don’t want “presumed liability” for animals where someone has built in conflict. Getting this decent infra may seem “pie in the sky” at the moment in the UK but we should aim high.
Finally me taking care around dogs is not equivalent to the responsibility for drivers to not injure me. I’ve been called names but I’m not a dog…
Simon E wrote:
I propose that the concept of expecting/asking cyclists ‘behave correctly on a shared path is flawed and unworkable, that a dog owner using such a facility needs to do whatever is required to avoid a collission.
Do you see how ridiculous that position is now? – you are insisting that group A must amend their behaviour because group B can’t be expected to follow the rules.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Exactly this. You could put it into another context.
I propose that the concept of expecting/asking cyclists ‘behave correctly’ on a road is flawed and unworkable, that a motorist using such a facility needs to do whatever is required to avoid a collision.
Even presumed liability doesn’t go that far…… presumed liability means that the user with the potential to cause the most danger is presumed to be at fault unless they can prove otherwise. It doesn’t absolve the more vulnerable party from any responsibility from their actions.
Simon, your posts in these
Simon, your posts in these comments have virtually all made reference to cyclists riding at inappropriate speeds on shared use paths, in reference to a news article about a dog that was injured on a shared use path….. it’s not exactly a huge leap to conclude that you are trying to associate the two.
Add to this your quote “What I do know about is the location of the incident and the typical behaviour of the people who use it.”… which can be easily interpreted as typical cyclist behaviour on that path is riding too fast…. implying that (from my perspecive at least) you think the cyclist was going too fast and didn’t do enough to avoid the collision.
Why do you think it is flawed and unworkable for one set of adults (dog walkers) to be expected to behave correctly in a shared space….. but perfectly workable that another set of adults (cyclists) are required to behave correctly when they use the same shared space and also be responsible for avoiding conflict with those who don’t behave correctly? Surely all users of a shared space should be held to the same standards…. and anyone who doesn’t behave correctly should be held to account. Not drop them in homologous groups to make generalisations about.
As a dog owner…. it’s easy to keep my dog under control in shared use spaces and I definitely don’t think that just because I have an energetic dog I should be exempt from keeping her under control.
TriTaxMan wrote:
As I have already stated but you appear to have ignored, as far as I know it is not related to the collision in the report. I do believe that it’s possible to make two separate points about safety on a particular route in one discussion.
It looks like you’ve chosen to misread that comment too. For clarification: I can’t recall seeing any cyclists riding fast on there. What I do recall – and what I meant by “typical behaviour” – is that I always see dog walkers and families using the width of the path and not watching out for cyclists. The dogs might be on leads, they might not. Some kids might be throwing sticks into the Cegin from the footbridge, which is <1m wide. That’s what I expect to encounter when riding along there.
Misreading me again, it seems. I’d like everyone to behave correctly but I wouldn’t rely on any of them doing so. As I replied to GMBasix – “I simply cannot prevent people being inconsiderate, whether they are drivers, cyclists, walkers or dog owners”.
Once you start making too many assumptions about how other people (or their dogs) will act in a situation where there is potential for conflict then you’re more likely to come unstuck. In my experience that applies to drivers waiting in a side road as much as dogs on a shared path, groups of kids outside school gates and drunk people in town centres on a Saturday night.
Who is exempting dog owners? Not me.
If only all dog owners were as responsible as you! Until they are and we have reached some form of Utopia then I’ll continue to anticipate the need for me to slow down, cover my brakes and probably unclip rather than risk the alternative.
Street view photo near the north end of the route here.
Some older photos on a page by CTC North Wales here.
Simon…. look at how many
Simon…. look at how many other people are reading your comments in exactly the same way that I am….. me, jh2727, vthejk, wycombewheeler, GMBasix, Rich_cb…. I could see the point if I was the only one but I’m not. Your points are ambiguous at best.
How does….
equal
Its not misreading it….. your comments don’t say what you think they do.
Whatever. I’m sure you are
Whatever. I’m sure you are right.
Explain to me how you’d avoid
Explain to me how you’d avoid a greyhound running at full tilt (40mph+) from the side of a narrow path?
You can’t. My point stands.
I agree that many dog owners do not comply with the rules and will not even when reminded of them. In that regard they’re much like many drivers.
Happy to put other people at risk because they’re too selfish and/or stupid to follow some simple instructions.
Why you feel the need to defend them is beyond me. Do you regularly walk your dog off the lead on a shared path?
Simon E wrote:
So what you seem to be suggesting is that in a shared use space that the users of the space that pose the most risk have the responsibility to avoid a collision regardless of the supposed behaviour of the more vulnerable user.
I mean it sure reads that way to me.
So the next time I’m out cycling on the road i don’t need to care what I do on the road because its the motorists responsibility to avoid a collision with me regardless of what I should be doing on the road.
Last time I checked sharing is about all groups taking responsibility for their their own safety and actions as opposed to thinking the other group will do it for them.
TriTaxMan wrote:
You can say what you like about what all dog owners should do but it’s irrelevant. I can’t control the actions of arsehole dog walkers, arsey cyclists or anyone else. All I can do is manage my own behaviour.
The important thing for me there is to do my best to avoid hitting the dog.
If I drive through the town centre on a Saturday night and some pisshead blindly crosses the road in front of me I don’t need to care about how drunk he is, why he stepped out or anything else, I just need to be able to stop in time.
It really is that simple.
Simon E wrote:
So its really that simple?
What happens when you do your best and its not good enough. You have a collision and there was nothing more you could habe done about it?
I assume you would be happy for random people on social media/forums to criticise you for not doing enough when they are only in possession of the purported victims side of the story?
Or is it not as simple as you make out?
Dogs move rapidly, faster
Dogs move rapidly, faster than you can react even if you go slowly. Certainly way faster than a drunk.
Hence keeping a dog on a lead in certain places.
It really isn’t that simple.
It really isn’t that simple. You could be completely in control of your senses, fully aware of your surroundings, finger covering the brakes, hand poised over levers, and something could just happen.
Like when I was driving down Holyhead Road in Coventry, 10 March 2020 (yes, that March 2020), 28mph down a flowing and clear single carriageway, one car behind and in front travelling at speed. I knew that there was a BMW 1-series waiting at the T-junction between Southbank Road and Holyhead to my right, and had myself poised in case they moved. It didn’t stop them crashing into my right front bumper, at significant speed, as they moved out onto the road almost completely without warning as if to merge on.
While there is nothing to absolve either the cyclist or dog walker fully of blame in this scenario, I think it is safe to say that, if you are not controlling your dog and following HC guidance to have it on a short lead in a shared-use space, you’re not doing enough on your part to reduce the likelihhood of an incident.
Indeed.
Indeed.
https://youtu.be/djEco90skP4?t=69
In that clip a child runs out from between two parked cars….. absolutely zero indication that there was a child there and in the time it took the child to run out from between the cars and clear the front of the camera car the driver didn’t even have time to react.
“Simon E” wrote:
Many unleashed spaniels can achieve 40 km/h without too much difficulty. Many might not expect cyclists on a shared use path, but by his own testimony, this man did.
My dog gets very excitable around cyclists and he weighs in excess of 30 kilos. If I am on a shared path – or even a pavement, he’s on the shortest leash so that he is at my knee and I am constantly checking to see who else is around.
I don’t have any time for dog owners who have no clue who is around them – nor any clue where their dog is on it’s invisible extended lined.
jh2727 wrote:
Yep. Not only that an exciteable dog running at speed is also a danger to other pedestrians. My own dog has knocked me arse over tit when she was running about at full tilt, and she is only a 25kg Labrador, yet she managed to completely take my legs from under me.
Had she done that with a child or elderly person there could have been serious injuries. But we only get her running about like that when she has an open space to play and there aren’t any other people in the immediate vicinity.
jh2727 wrote:
I initially read that as ‘many unleashed squirrels’. I think I may have been spending too much time among the comments here…
20 mph apparently (is that an
20 mph apparently (is that an african or european…)
hirsute wrote:
We also need to know whether that squirrel is laden or unladen (apparently that is very important).
brooksby wrote:
mdavidford wrote:
Aah, this is more like it!
Aah, this is more like it! That’s what the people are calling for.
Simon E wrote:
Fully agree with this statement in relation to any way where cyclists share it with others.
I’m also fully in agreement with Rule 56:
The location in question is described as a shared path. The general interpretation is that ‘under control’ equates pretty much to ‘on a lead’. I’ve seen police and dog experts saying that, for example, when it comes to wildlife, dogs just cannot be relied upon to be under verbal control. (I’m aware of sheep dogs.)
Of course. But the equivalent is true of pedestrians – they can be aware of their surroundings, not just assume that priority means oblivious; and they can control their dog and even put it on a lead (perish the thought). If they don’t like doing that then they can f&*k off and take their selfish attitude somewhere else.
GMBasix wrote:
Yep selfish people exist everywhere. How many of us have been on shared use paths cycling towards a group of pedestrians who are taking up the entire shared use path who refuse to move?
I’ve even been stopped and yelled at for cycling on shared use paths….. the gentleman in question, who was walking towards me (it was dark and I had a 400 lumens front light on) stood in the middle of the shared use path with his arms out to block the entire path so I stopped and asked what I could help him with.
He then spent the next 5 minutes shouting and swearing at me because “you shouldn’t be cycling on the f@#king pavement”. Telling me I had to get off and walk my bike. When I tried to go round him he moved repeatedly to block my progress. Eventually he managed to stop shouting long enough for me to speak where he was informed that it was a shared use path and I was entitled to cycle there.
It wasn’t until I pointed my light at one of the bicycle symbols painted on the path that he grudgingly accepted that it was a shared use path. But apparently I had to stop every time I came across a pedestrian on the shared use path.
I’ve just enjoyed reading an
I’ve just enjoyed reading an LBC item, laced with euphemisms about a ‘victim’ dealing with a suspect who had become aggessive after being challenged to pick up his dog’s poo.
Delicious.
Now, I’m not recommending the use of force. Except where it is reasonable and proportionate. And/or provides a nice little write-up for Sophie Barnett.
There are people who are
There are people who are ignorant or arrogant but dealing with those idiots is part of life; there are also anti-social thugs that like to assault cyclists, however, such people are not representative of the vast majority of people that are civilised and reasonable to deal with.
grOg wrote:
I will repeat what I have said multiple times there is not enough information to form a judgement on any of the causes of the crash. It could be both, it could be the cyclist or it could be the dog walker we simply don’t know.
I find it interesting the number of people who in the past would have been appalled when motorists make swingeing generalisations about cyclists…i.e. cyclists always jump red lights…. are now jumping on the band wagon of accusing the cyclist of being at fault in the collision becuase of the actions of some cyclists who use the path as a strava segment…… that really smacks of hypocrisy.
I have repeatedly asked in this thread what evidence there is that the cyclist was riding the path like it was a race track…. or what evidence there is that the cyclist didn’t slow down. The only ‘evidence’ that they are able to provide is the fact that the cyclist hit the dog….. which doesn’t prove anything
“While there is obvious logic
“While there is obvious logic in asking dog owners to keep their animals under control on shared paths I feel it is unfair on the dog for them to be on a lead everywhere, particularly in rural locations like this. Much as I dislike long leads, I detest seeing dogs, especially energetic ones like spaniels, restrained all the time. It’s just not natural or fair on them.”
Yes, but remember, most councils have byelaws which state that in public places dogs must be on a lead. Failure to adhere can result in a fine. Also, if a dog is running around 100 yards from the owner, how can the owner see if it is having a shit to be able to pick it up?
Forget cyclists, not everyone
Forget cyclists, not everyone likes dogs nor do they like dogs sniffing round them or jumping up at them, so dogs should be on a short lead on these paths.
Is the photo the Very Shared
Is the photo the Very Shared-Use Path from the story? If so, it seems a bit narrow…
brooksby wrote:
Yes it is from the article.
He (Bob Huchison) does however have a very interesting take “It’s a general theme from all cyclists that when you get in an argument with them that this is a cycle track”… that’s a direct quote from the video on the article.
I read that as he has form for getting into arguments with cyclists…. which could either be that cyclists have in the past indicated that it’s a cycle path/shared use path and that he should have his dog under control….. or there are a signficant number of bad cyclists that he has had arguments with.
I’m making no comment either way….. but it certainly is an interesting choice of words
1st, poor dog, that’s the
1st, poor dog, that’s the victim here. Both humans were probably thinking they were in the right.
Shared path, 2m wide, dog is on a short lead but still 1m long. Owners arm is 0.5m long at a guess and he is walking 0.5m from the edge of the path. So how much space even a well controlled dog leaves is almost nothing. Even if the cyclist rang his bell, no guarantee it has been heard and he should’ve been slowing to a crawl until he was sure the pedestrian had heard him and made space. How many people walk with earbuds in?
I’ve rang my bell and the person ahead checked his phone rather than look around, I’d to speak loudly to make him aware I was approaching him. A cheery thank you and we both carried on our way.
Treat others how you’d like to be treated by them, slow down, give as much space as possible and if you make a mistake, apologise and be humble. Not that difficult is it.
There was no lead
There was no lead
“A majority of cyclists are
“A majority of cyclists are courteous but some are incredibly arrogant,” he said.
The same goes for dog owners. Especially the ones with the 100ft long invisible leads, or, worse, the ones with the dogs off the leads out of control.
Such a shame about the poor dog though. it’s not the dogs fault.
I have a Lion Bellworks brass bell. It is bloody loud, and carries on for over 20 seconds when I ring it. The amount of times I am ignored is unbelievable, mainly because people walk with earbuds in, or are too engrossed in their phones and have absolutely no idea what is going on around them. Earbuds on a public path should be banned.
Dog walkers where I cycle are a menace, and it is the owners who create the menace, not the dogs.
There are good and bad cyclists, dog walkers, runners, pedestrians. We should all share with care, and be aware.
‘Earbuds on a public path
‘Earbuds on a public path should be banned’.. so deaf people aren’t allowed to use shared paths either? same effect.
Whilst it’s possible that the
Whilst it’s possible that the cyclist in question was a complete prick doing 40 towards a group of two walkers and four off-leash dogs, it would strike me that it would be a fairly suicidal prick given a bike hitting a dog at 40mph gives no guarantee about who is going to come off worse.
At the risk of over -analysing the article, I’m going to suggest that the four dogs were some way in front of Mr Hutchinson given the description that the silent cyclist ‘zoomed past’ yet clearly he was not zooming so fast that he was unable to stop for the otherwise undescribed altercation.
Four off-leash dogs can not be under control. Having four dogs off-leash shows no desire to have the dogs under control, what comes across from this is the deep-rooted view that everyone else should get out of the way of the dogs.
This guy should not own dogs.
I really do feel like an arse
I really do feel like an arse when I’m rude to people whose dogs run across my front wheel on a shared path, but it’s so frustrating and so unnecessary that it just doesn’t feel worth the effort to be polite about it.
It often happens on part of my commute where there are acres of grassland either side, but people see fit to let their dogs run loose on the one bit where small children and cyclists happen to be. The best is the ones who allow their dogs to run, out of sight, through a narrow and dark foot tunnel, with no thought for who might be coming through. The one person I asked politely in there to please put her dog on a lead shouted at me that it’s a ‘fucking shared path’ in front of her small children. Yes, correct, so put your dog on a fucking lead.
Obviously I slow down and use caution, let them know I’m coming etc but it’s very hard to predict whether a dog is about to suddenly run across the path, so the simple answer is to use a lead, you know, that thing you’re carrying in your hand for when you walk next to a road.
What a selfish twat!
What a selfish twat!
If im out on the road on one
If im out on the road on one of my bikes, i hope that every artic, bus, car or motor bike would rather go into a hedge then wipe me out. I ride that way when around peds, dogs and horses
This story is the usual ‘he
This story is the usual ‘he said, she said’.. it seems fault is shared, as dogs should be properly leashed on a shared path but cyclists should pass pedestrians and animals at a slow speed, which allows time to react to unpredictable movements.
grOg wrote:
So by the walkers own admission in the video, the cyclist left the shared use path and passed the dog walkers on the grass beside the path and the dog was not on the lead.
It is possible that the cyclist was going too fast, that they didn’t give enough space going past the dog walkers and that despite not being on the lead the dog was under close control.
It is also possible that the cyclist spotted the dog walkers and the other dogs who were blocking the entire path, rang their bell, slowed down and when the walkers ignored their presence decided to leave the path giving the people and other dogs plenty of space. Having passed the walkers and the other dogs and then the spaniel darted out from the trees/undergrowth in front of the cyclist where they had no time to react at all and this caused the collision.
There is just no way to tell who is at fault.
When I was a young nipper in
When I was a young nipper in secondary school, I was walking home from school and two old dears were progressing slowly ahead, one with a dog on a lead. I easily caught up with them and there was space on the side next to the houses so I aimed to pass them that side. Just as I went passed, her dog suddenly lurched in front of me to sniff the wall. I did a kind of skip-hop step to avoid contact and hitting the dog or myself tripping over. The noise of the manouvre also caused her dog to jump back in shock. Straight away I was being accused of kicking her dog. I was mortified as I wouldn’t do anything to deliberately hurt and animal yet she kept on accusing me. In the end I stated if I had kicked her dog, she would definitely have known it and stormed off.
My point being that an owner not bothered about paying attention to their dog will assume it is the humans fault, especially if they were not looking. I’m actually surprised they waited two days to go the vets as well, especially if it squealed like he mentioned.
I’m not absolving the cyclist either. But as other have mentioned, they went on the grass to give a wide berth, and stopped straight away once they knew they had done this. Just a shame that the dog got so injured as it was the only truly innocent party here.
96 comments in, has anyone
96 comments in, has anyone actually answered the question
mdavidford wrote:
No, because like any safety debate there isn’t really an answer which isn’t draconian.
To make it safer for everyone, my thoughts are, it should be legislated that
I think that covers most of the main dangers on shared use paths, along with sufficiently severe punishments for failure to comply. I might have missed a few so feel free to add some…..
Dogs should have licences*
Dogs should have licences* and display number plates. A polite bark is an acceptable substitute for a bell. Aggressive barking is not acceptable and is subject to a £10,000 fine.
People should have licences and display number plates when on the public highway.
*37.5p when last issued, IIRC.
IanMSpencer wrote:
I’d be in favour of this, and between us my partner and I have as bad a case of N+1 when it comes to dogs as we do for bikes. Here we are in Honor Elliot’s Dogs By Bike Twitter series
You should have to pass a test that demonstrates basic competence in owning, caring for and controlling a dog, and some understanding of canine behaviour.
mdavidford wrote:
Immediate action, for the UK would be making ones in towns / cities at least twice as wide – or as wide as possible, most UK ones are barely the minimum for bikes never mind bikes and pedestrians. Then very clearly marking a separate cycling and pedestrian area. Initially this will of course be ignored by most people but will get them used to the next change which is:
Taking space back from motor traffic / parking so we don’t need shared use paths? These are always conflicted because often there are very few / no traffic-free options for journeys by foot or bike, for pleasant walking, for taking your dog out, where you’re not worried about the kids running in front of a bus.
So making them not shared use paths? Except where they’re not really a path at all (similar idea means bikes and cars can “share” too). Or where there are fewer cyclists than cities and even fewer pedestrians.
mdavidford wrote:
LTN 1/20 Cycle infrastructure design describes how to do this – see section 8.2 Managing user conflict
Tom_77 wrote:
Agree but councils just say “you lost me at ‘guidance’ ” or if they get further “sorry – ‘planning for cycling’ – we’re not” or “we’d love to but budget / staff shortages / consulting”.
If they actually followed this intelligently it’d be a rather good start. None of it sounds like 95%+ of shared-use paths:
4.2.14 Comfortable conditions for cycling require routes with good quality, well-maintained smooth surfaces, adequate width for the volume of users,
minimal stopping and starting, avoiding steep gradients,
excessive or uneven crossfall and adverse camber. […]
4.2.15 Adequate width is important for comfort. Cycling is a sociable activity and many people will want to cycle side by side, and to overtake another cyclist safely. It is important that cyclists can choose their own speed […]— LTN 1/20
4.2.15 on its own is enough to bring about a media apocalypse in the UK!
But there’s more! There’s references to cycle speeds typically being 10 – 15mph with 25 – 40mph in some circumstances. And consideration given to minimum sizes and turning radii of all kinds of cycles.
Shared-use paths are annoying, inconvenient and often unpleasant for both foot and cycle users, but the actual danger level on them is really small.
Cambridge is riddled with shared-use, the legacy of previous councils feeling they should do something for all those bike riders, but not wanting to do anything that’d inconvenience drivers in any way or encourage even more people to ride bike. I live 8km from the centre of town. I could ride most of that on shared-use paths.
Loads of footways were converted to shared-use by the addition of those magical blue signs that turn a section of roadway where cycling presents such a danger to pedestrians that it’s illegal into a section of roadway where it’s absolutely fine. Amazing!
But in fact it is largely fine. The number of reports of actual collisions on shared-use paths here is microscopic.
Of course when a serious collision happens it makes the news, which is why we’re discussing it here: news is reporting of rare events.
John Stevenson wrote:
Shared-use paths are annoying, inconvenient and often unpleasant for both foot and cycle users, but the actual danger level on them is really small.
My point was really less about ‘what do we need to do?’, and more about the fact that pretty much everybody had entirely ignored that question and leapt straight into ‘WHO SHOULD WE BLAME??’ mode.
John Stevenson wrote:
Up there in terms of magic effect, as when passing a cyclist with a gap of about 300mm is dangerous, but put a white line on the ground between them and it becomes OK
Before I get into my comment
Before I get into my comment – for context, I am a dog walker and a cyclist. I have no side in this fight.
So:
1. How many times have we lambasted drivers for going too fast because they weren’t able to stop quickly enough to avoid crashing into a bike etc? Countless and ultimately that rule applies to us. On a shared use path, we are the high speed potentially dangerous users.
2. Neither cyclists nor dog walkers have any privileged right to use the a shared use path to the detriment of other path users than any other user.
3. The suggestion that dog-walkers have to keep their dog on a lead on and around shared use paths at all times is untenable. There are vast miles of bridle paths across the UK that allow bikes, pedestrians and horses. Most of the time there is no conflict on these – the idea that dog walkers can’t use these because you might want to cycle through there is laughable.
4. Similarly, you need to be mindful of your dog and if its a commonly used cycle route, or a busy time of day (e.g. a shared use path frequently used for commuting) you need to use your common sense, particularly if you know your dog is prone to bombing round or they are part of a more excitable group at the time. You need to be more vigilant for bikes to ensure you can call your dog back safely. If your dog isn’t well trained enough to respond in properly in those situations then you have to take that into consideration when deciding if the situation merits your dog being on a lead, even if just temporarily.
5. Personally, I think this boils down to some simple rules (which really shouldn’t need repeating):
a. if you want to cycle on a shared use path/ bridleway, you have to be responsible and be prepared to stop immediately, if there’s something unexpected round the corner, whether a trap, downed tree, family or dog, it is your responsibility to be in control of your speed. Ultimately, I think you have to expect that people won’t here you and you may have to pass at quasi walking speeds – if you are trying to “train” or “go hard” then you need to consider whether your route is appropriate for that and to be frank, I don’t think a shared use path is.
b. if you are a dog walker on a path that you know is frequented by cyclists, then you have to be particularly aware of that. You need to be vigilant and responsible so that you notice when there is a bike coming and can appropriately instruct your dog, whether getting them to stay or calling them back as the situation calls for.
Ultimately shared use paths are often a crap compromise to avoid giving up road space or to allow for casual/ scenic cycling and they aren’t a space to allow you as a pedestrian to sprawl across the path with no regard for anyone else. They are by definition a shared space and that means that EVERYONE on them has to pull their head from their ass and be considerate of other people – something people seem to increasingly struggle with these days!
Point 3 – forget about
Point 3 – forget about cyclists, not all walkers like dogs or like dogs jumping up at them, so keep your dog on a lead out of consideration for others and of course https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public
I’d second that. My daughter
I’d second that. My daughter was bitten by an off the lead dog in a public place when she was young. She is understandably very wary of dogs, the owner saying ‘he’s just being friendly’ when they rush up to you doesn’t really cut it.
I also have a feeling a minority of owners use the dog being off the lead as a convenient way to not notice when their pet takes a dump. I have on occasion alerted a dog owner to the fresh ‘n steaming pile left by their pet, to be met with feigned surprise.
That said, you have to ride slowly around people on a shared path and be prepared to stop.
My wife is nervous around
My wife is nervous around dogs and I tried to train her (ahem!). Explained about trying not to react, looking away, keeping hands down, turning away, and all the things I had picked up from guide dog puppy training.
I encouraged her to ignore the dog and not raise her hands but keep them quietly by her sides. She did this when approached by a dog, got bitten on the hand for her troubles followed by a “He doesn’t bite” from the owner – who wasn’t interested in seeing the bite mark (broken skin, but nothing worse) as they scuttled off quickly.
No chance of a dog for Mr S with Mrs S MkII now.
Using personal experience as
Using personal experience as a gauge…
– number of dogs I’ve hit whilst riding = 0
– number of dogs that have bitten me whilst cycling = 2
– number of untethered dogs that have chased my whilst cycling = a fair amount – lost count.
But, yeah, cyclists need to take greater responsibility
It’s not untenable to expect
It’s not untenable to expect dog owners to keep dogs on a short lead on shared paths.
It’s the highway code.
If we want everybody to be safe then everybody must obey the rules.
Technically it’s “under close
Technically it’s “under close control” which allows for well trained dogs… and dubious arguments in court
The exact wording is:
The exact wording is:
56
Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders.
Seems pretty unambiguous to me.
I think the underlying law is
I think the underlying law is different, so although the HWC is saying use a lead, the law that underwrites it says different. But yes, I happily stand corrected 🙂
This all sounds foreign to me
This all sounds foreign to me, as an Aussie the law here in my state is quite clear. Under the companion animals act, pet owners must do as follows:
13 Responsibilities while dog in public place (1) A dog that is in a public place must be under the effective control of some competent person by means of an adequate chain, cord or leash that is attached to the dog and that is being held by (or secured to) the person.
there’s other provisions as well, the maximum number of dogs a person can have leashed and be considered in effective control is 4. The act also requires all councils provide public off leash areas, which are usually fenced areas. This keeps a good balance between allowing for off leash areas to exercise and socialise dogs, while maintaining public safety and the safety of pets where movement of people happens. It also establishes clear liability when the act isn’t followed.
For some additional context
For some additional context here is a study showing that dog bites requiring admission to hospital have more than doubled in the last twenty years.
A quarter of those admissions are children.
Out of control dogs are clearly a growing problem.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81527-7
What’s the position on goats?
What’s the position on goats? Personally I’m all for them – outside of environmentally sensitive places – but I’d worry about panniers getting browsed.
I’ve certainly seen ponies on such places – although I can’t swear that those weren’t classified as bridlepaths too. Seems our paths are just as confused as our roads.
I thought it was the goats
I thought it was the goats that were supposed to be positioned on you.
Gyoga! I did not know about
Gyoga! I did not know about that.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Many years ago, the bottom hem of one of my wife’s favourite dresses was eaten by a goat as she stood there feeding a different goat (we’d visited a petting zoo type place). Much hilarity ensued.
Yeah, they often work in
Yeah, they often work in pairs. Grafters.
chrisonatrike wrote: