- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Bangor dog needs leg amputating after shared-use path collision (screenshot Daily Post video)“Give cycling dedicated space”: Readers react after dog walker blames “arrogant” cyclists for shared-use path collision
Cyclists have called for a “mindset shift” when riding on shared-use paths, after a dog’s leg was amputated following a collision involving a bike rider near Bangor in North Wales.
Yesterday we reported that Buddy, an 11-year-old springer spaniel, lost a leg after he was struck by a cyclist in Gwynedd. The dog suffered a badly crushed ankle in the incident, which occurred while being walked off-lead on the Ogwen Trail, part of the National Cycle Network's Route 82.
Bob Hutchinson said a cyclist “zoomed past” before hitting his dog, and questioned the “arrogant” attitude of some cyclists, who he says have made walking on the path “a frightening experience”.
> "Arrogant" cyclists blamed as dog needs leg amputated after shared-use path collision
The unfortunate incident has prompted some serious debate in the comments and on social media, as the cycling community attempts to answer the question: how can shared-use paths be made safer for everyone?
Readers were particularly divided over who was responsible for the incident on the Ogwen Trail.
“Dogs should be on leads on a shared path like that for their own protection and that of others, no question,” said Rendel Harris.
“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 plus, and the top 280 are all 30 km/h plus, so clearly a considerable number of cyclists are indeed being utter tools and ‘using it as a racetrack’.”
On the other hand, Rich_cb said: “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.”
Last month, a district council in Devon introduced a controversial new public space protection order which requires dog walkers to use leads shorter than a metre near cycle paths and highways, with the safety of cyclists cited as one of the reasons behind the rule.
However, Simon E argued that “it 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.”
Replying to Simon’s comment, TriTaxMan said: “So what you seem to be suggesting is that in a shared-use space that the users of the space who pose the most risk have the responsibility to avoid a collision regardless of the supposed behaviour of the more vulnerable user…
“So the next time I'm out cycling on the road I don't need to care what I do on the road because it’s the motorist’s 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 own safety and actions as opposed to thinking the other group will do it for them.”
> Cyclists' safety highlighted as dog walkers face fines for using long leads near cycle paths
Carior, a cyclist and dog walker, argued that no one has “any privileged right to use a shared path to the detriment of other path users”, and called on cyclists to remember that, on a shared-use path, “we are the high speed potentially dangerous users”.
They then advocated the following “simple rules” for cyclists and dog walkers to adhere to on shared paths:
“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 around the corner, whether a trap, a downed tree, a family or a dog.
“It is your responsibility to be in control of your speed. Ultimately, I think you have to expect that people won't hear 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.
They continued: “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.”
Many readers said that cyclists should treat pedestrians on shared-use paths in the same way that they hope to be treated by motorists on the road.
“If I’m out on the road on one of my bikes, I hope that every artic, bus, car or motorbike would rather go into a hedge then wipe me out. I ride that way when around pedestrians, dogs and horses,” says Jimwill.
Sriracha commented: “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.”
On Twitter, Patrick wrote: “The very simple reality is that if cyclists refuse to acknowledge other path users by failing to slow down, they are demonstrating the same obtuse and arrogant behaviour of car drivers they moan about with whom they share the roads. Consider others.”
Mike Harrison went further and said that: “Cyclists need a mindset shift when on shared-use paths. We're used to being the vulnerable users on roads and having to fight for our space. On paths however, we need to be ultra-cautious around walkers/dogs. Doesn't matter if they're in the ‘wrong’, we need to not harm them.”
> "Everybody has to take greater care": Cyclists react to ban on long dog leads near cycle paths
Others focused on the design of active travel infrastructure in the UK, with Matt Smith claiming that “shared-used paths create too much conflict”.
He continued: “Give cycling dedicated space segregated from walking.
“In the meantime, respect the guidelines for shared use paths. Put your dog on a short lead. Cycle slowly around people and dogs, use a bell and always be prepared to stop.”
Chrisonatrike also called for a complete overhaul of both shared paths and active travel infrastructure in general: “Immediate action for the UK would be making [shared paths] 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 mark separate cycling and pedestrian areas.
“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.
“[Shared-use paths] 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.”
Seventyone was a touch blunter in their appraisal: “Shared-use paths are a bit rubbish. What a revelation!”
And last word goes to don simon for this pithy summary of the situation: “Some cyclists are knobheads. Some dog owners are knobheads. The poor dog is the victim here.”
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- FionaJJ 4 sec ago
Exactly. I won't lie, I did quite enjoy pointing out that the reason olive oil had got so much more expensive was because of the droughts in the...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 13 min ago
It can be viewed in all its glory here, happy shopping!
- anotherflat 2 hours 8 min ago
That sign is pretty clear!...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 26 min ago
What about all the computer misuse? Stop with the downloading already!
- brooksby 3 hours 49 min ago
"Professional Triangle tire Punctured tire Nail for Spike Anti-Theft car Safety Emergency car" Sorry, but WHAT??
- HollisJ 5 hours 43 min ago
Have you seen the size of Micras these days? Now, it it were a Micra from the 80s...
- thax1 6 hours 52 min ago
Not quite long enough for him to have a think about what he'd like to say on stage when collecting the award apparently. Which you have to love him...
- LeisureRider 6 hours 55 min ago
As an amply-figured female leisure cyclist, the comfort of a slightly downward angled saddle has long been known for avoidance of mincing one's...
- stonojnr 7 hours 32 min ago
Certainly membership trippled in numbers between 2012 to 2019.i think it's been in decline since so theydon't tend to shout about the numbers...
Add new comment
37 comments
Country lanes without pavements are also shared spaces between cyclists, motorists and pedestrians. Would these same people allow their dogs off lead on the country lane as they do for the shared paths? Nope, because they know a driver would very likely kill their pet. Also, cyclists belting it along a shared path without any consideration for pedestrians are just as moronic as the motorists who belt it along narrow country lanes without any consideration for cyclists or pedestrians.
I refuse to use bike paths around here, shared or otherwise. Too many dogs, many on extending leads, folks wired for sound or on their phone (or both), kids not watching where they are going and then there are the ones that are full of debris, mud or broken glass. So, I just get shorted at by motorists for not using the bike path despite the fact there is no obligation for me to use them. Oh, and btw if they were good like they are in Belgium then yes I would be happy to stick to the paths (not that you have any choose there!)
This is the most ridiculous, petty discussion. Respect each other. That's all that's required - 3 words.
So when will the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) join the dots and regulate the main stream media to not allow hate speech and prejudice against people who choose to travel on two wheels?
It's clear that while ignorance and stupidity go unchallenged that people are killed or seriously injured which is not acceptable. We've all heard the anti-cyclist Bingo.
Government aspiration for active travel means nothing without effective change in drivers attitudes and 20mph signs aren't going to achieve that.
Building infrastructure is not going to be affordable nationally, whatever works in London.
Changing behaviour is the only viable approach so that it is safe to share the road.
That men are over-represented in cycling is a feminist issue because women will not accept the risks now. So the road must be safe for everyone.
Presumed liability would be resisted by many but has been effective to make changes happen, which clarification of the Highway Code has not.
If we don't work for change it will not happen...
Phew, that's that sorted then. No chance that some people's definiton of "respect" might differ from that of others...
I'm old enough to remember when we did. I wonder what changed.
I don't know how old you are, I'm old enough to remember the 1970s when racism was endemic, domestic violence was treated as a suitable subject for comedy and it was commonplace for homosexuals to get beaten up in the streets. Three times as many cyclists killed each year compared to now as well. Careful with those rose-tinted specs.
I bet you didn't have to lock the fromt door when you went out.
Oh yes, burglaries were unknown before 1990, just never happened.
So, we're in agreement then. My job is done.
Why the hell have Strava got segments on Shared paths like this?!
Because a segment can be put anywhere by anyone. I could go on now, create a segment in a road behind the Kremlin and call it Right Up Putin's Jacksie . It is up to others to request it to be removed /hidden.
Would you mind doing that right now please? Asking for 44 million friends.
Because segments are added by users, not Strava themselves, and however on top of things they are you cannot expect Strava to know every single inappropriate stretch of road/path in the world and block the making of segments on them.
That is why they need to be reported by other users in order to be removed.
The whole story was reported in what I feel is a way to generate heated debate.
Imagine a story reported in the news "A 10 year old child was hit by cyclist as they were crossing the road, resulting in the child suffering life changing injuries" accompanied by the pictures of the child in hospital. You could guarantee that the in any discussion board it would deteriorate into full on anti-cycling bingo. Despite only being told from the pedestrians side and a complete lack of facts people would jump in assuming that the cyclist was in the wrong.
But the actual facts (of the imaginary story) were "the child ran across the road from behind a parked van directly in front the cyclist. Despite the fact that the cyclist was only travelling at 15mph immediately before the incident and that they were cycling 2m from the row of parked vehicles that they were passing. They were unable to avoid the collision due to the fact that they had less than half a second to react".
One story reported in two different ways can get a seriously different reactions..... And you can always guarantee news outlets will always report on click-baity storys
Pedestrians and dog owners cause danger to cyclists in a way that bikes do not cause danger to cars
Exactly.
There was a recent case where a cyclist was left with a permanent brain injury following a collision with an out of control dog.
I am unaware of any car drivers being injured in a collision with a cyclist.
I am sitting here with a broken collar bone and four broken ribs after a collision with a greyhound 5 days ago.
I was on a designated shared gravel path at 7:30 am when I saw a man about 30 metres ahead walking in the same direction as I was travelling with his back to me. My focus was only on him as I prepared to slow down and pass. Without any warning, a greyhound bolted from the hedgerow to my left at the speed that few dogs can.
I'm upset that the dog was clearly hurt as it had no time to change its course of momentum either. I'm also upset that the owner just left the scene after chasing after his and another dog that was allegedly under his stewardship.
I'm grateful that another dog walker with his dog on a short lead passed me hobbling along. I'm grateful that he done a 180 turn two minutes later and chased after me to offer me a lift home in his van. I'm grateful to his cute dog for sharing his back of Van Palace with my knackered bike at short notice. I'm grateful for my cycling clothing for standing up to the collision with Mother Earth, my flesh would have been embedded with her otherwise. I'm grateful my injuries weren't worse. I'm grateful I'm not a drummer or a tiler that my family relied upon my income for. I'm grateful for the 12 NHS staff that didn't let me leave hospital last Thursday until they made sure my ribs hadn't punctured my lungs.
I'm angry with the owner. He didn't care where either of his dogs were. I'm angry that he just had his head in his phone and wasn't aware I was coming, I was fully aware of him and was ready to treat him accordingly on the path.
Been waiting all winter to extend the rides. Going to have to wait a damned sight longer now.
I sincerely hope the other innocent four-legged party isn't too badly hurt.
Are Road CC going to write an article with reactions to the article on reactions to the article on the share use path collision?
Let's take it to the forum...
Lets see if there's an article written about reactions to the article on reactions to the article in this weeks newsletter, I bet there is.. if we're lucky, it might get some more reaction.. and might then see an article written about reactions to the article on reactions to the article from the newsletters article in a round up of the years best articles!
I think article is excellent, I can't be arsed wading through all the comments on the original article and Ryan appears to have picked on some of the more intelligent reactions and comments.
I'm honoured!
It's turtles all the way down
I never gave bikes on shared use paths a second thought as a problem.
Then I walked my 4 month old daughter in a pram down a local towpath and found after a few polite yet enthusiastic riders passed us at speed I found myself unable to relax.
I've decided a towpath is not a place i'll be taking the pushchair anymore.
Just got back from a short holiday in Brecon Beacons. Mrs Hawkinspeter and I walked the towpath from Pencelli to Talybont-on-Usk and back again a couple of times and also from Pencelli to Brecon (it was lovely weather too). We encountered a mere handful of cyclists and whenever we heard a cycle bell, we stepped off the path (it's really narrow most of the way) to let them go past (they all responded with a thank you). We encountered quite a few dog-owners and some were on leads (their dogs that is) and some weren't, but the ones not on a lead were controlled and held for when we walked past (presumably to stop an enthusiastic dog with muddy paws jumping up at us). We did stop to pet one tiny terrier on a lead that turned out to be a bit bitey, but in a playful, non-hurting fashion, but then we're both fans of dogs so are keen to stop and say hello.
It's just a case of being sensible. If you're cycling on a shared path, then you're going to have to slow down and be very careful around dogs and children. If you're walking a dog, then you need to be responsible for whatever it may suddenly decide to do.
Disgraceful, the Brecon Beacons are far too nice for a short holiday.
.
'Slow down'?
.
But I'm a cyclist. How DARE YOU?!
.
.
Is this a shit attempt at trolling?
Pages