Dog walker pleads for understanding on canal towpaths after receiving death threat from ‘racing’ cyclist

I don't like people who make deranged threats over trivia, I don't like cyclists who race at speed on shared-use paths, I don't like shared-use paths, I don't like dog-walkers who don't control their dogs or create tripwires with stupid stretchy dog-leads, I don't like Sustrans, I don't like inappropriate Strava segments, I don't like Surrey (too many Spectator writers), I don't like canals (waste of space that could be used for cycle paths!), I don't like Basingstoke (never been there, but the name displeases me).

Apart from that I'm fine with everything in this story.

So has the out of control dog that provoked this incident been destroyed?

Just worked out what has been bothering me about the picture.

Speed = distance / time.
Pace = time / distance.

Therefore - Drop Your Pace = Go Faster.

Hey ho!

It's a case of good people in bad systems. Surely, it isn't beyond us to design out furious cycling, so that children/pedestrians/dogs aren't injured or (rarely) killed by cyclists?
If we ever get comprehensive, segregated cycle lanes, there has to be some considerable 'people-in-change' management. There is a substantial cycling community consisting of assertive/aggressive men brave enough to take on intimidating road traffic and who survive by dominating the space, taking the lane, camera surveillance of others, banging on the car roofs of miscreants etc, etc. A Danish or Netherlands model is more about pootling along, normal clothing, children in tow, everybody safe. I fear that the boy racers and mamils will find all this infuriating and will need to be rapidly house-trained and reined-in.

Discuss

there is a shared path at the top of Greenwich Park that I use most days, and the dog walkers often delegate all responsibility for their pets safety to me. They let them run loose and make no effort to control them when I am approaching. Of course cyclists should be taking appropriate care anyway, but it needs to be a two way thing. On the flip side also regularly see idiots on their road bikes whizzing around pedestrians and their dogs as if they're on some kind of obstacle course, all parties just need to apply common sense.......

I don't like people who make deranged threats over trivia, I don't like cyclists who race at speed on shared-use paths, I don't like shared-use paths, I don't like dog-walkers who don't control their dogs or create tripwires with stupid stretchy dog-leads, I don't like Sustrans, I don't like inappropriate Strava segments, I don't like Surrey (too many Spectator writers), I don't like canals (waste of space that could be used for cycle paths!), I don't like Basingstoke (never been there, but the name displeases me).

Apart from that I'm fine with everything in this story.

Personally, I don't care who is at fault here... To verbally threaten someone with murder and their family; is totally unacceptable... This incident shows how a minority of people within today's society, have a total lack of humanity and tolerance for other people. It also shows how such behaviour has filtered down into the very fabric of our local communities.... So so sad!!

As I understand these rules:

Speed, unless empty and you can see for a substantial distance, needs to be below 10mph. If planning on 15-20, use the road.

Dogs loose, no problem, no worse than deer, sheep, foxes etc. that frequent many if these paths.

Kids, walking or wobbling in bikes, perfectly entitled to do so, stay clear.

Walkers with dogs on stretchy leads effectively blocking a 20 metre stretch ? - feel free to mow down.

Sanctimonious over 50s in large groups that ignore reasonable requests to pass and do not acknowledge you- feel free to verbally abuse.

Horses, too big and unpredictable, piss off.

Ponies, if a reasonable scale, we'll ridden, no problem.

Please note I have dogs, ponies, bikes etc. but am not over 50 and don't own Rohan trousers.

I follow the following rules on shared paths.

Slow down to walking pace when passing access points(kids or dogs and most adults have a tendancy not to look when they are entering main paths), bridges and when meeting other canal users. Do not expect oncoming walkers to let you pass. Most will, a minority will feel a superior sense of entitlement and will resent your presence.
Be polite and friendly with the majority of other users.
When you have clear visibility go as quick as you can.

Note ducks are not a problem they just bounce of your wheels.

In 3 years of using 3 miles of a gorgeous canal path as part of my commute, I had one near miss with another oncoming cyclist under a bridge, one exchange of words when sense of entitlements were crossed with an oncoming walker and one dog nearly taking me out, appearing out of the bushes nearly 800 meters in front of its owner. And yes one unfortunate encounter with a duck that bounced off my front wheel. Otherwise it is a favourite part of my commute.

l

The dog was quoted as saying "What a pair of twats, can't you just share nicely?"

Some riders don't take sufficient care on shared use paths. I was riding along the old railway lines with my sons today and we were having a nice time. At one point, some Strava nutter blasted past us, making my son swerve to get out of his way. My boys are very experienced riders and my younger one (who had to swerve) has raced extensively so he was on the ball. But a child of a similar age with average cycling ability wouldn't have been able to make that manoeuvre.

There were plenty of other cyclists and a few roadies going quickly too, but without riding so aggressively they were putting others at risk. I did wonder what the bloke who made my boy swerve was trying to prove. And if he did want to ride so hard, why didn't he go out at 6am when there wouldn't have been anyone around rather than around 9am when the dog walkers were already out in force?

The dog walkers we saw were all fairly responsible too, There was one bloke yesterday with a big fierce looking mutt, but when he saw us coming he reeled it in and then nodded as we went past.

Lots of over-analysis ; All we know is what the pedestrian says happened and if he did receive such a threat then the individual on the bicycle needs to take a long hard look in the mirror.

It is difficult to generalise, and many non cyclists refer to any drop handle bar bike as a racer, equally it is difficult to accurately assess speed.

What IS going to happen is that while ever transport authorities use Government cash meant to increase cycling to improve the canal tow path network there is an increasing potential for conflict which highways engineers refuse to consider.

If the money is to be well spent it may be that the route is used by commuters or transport and if the money has been taken from improving cycle facilities on road, then they need to be designed for? Often there is very little room on a canal towpath for good shared use paths (see Sustrans design guidance)

Another issue is that after consultation Canal & rivers trust, along with highway authorities change the design spec and either put gravel down or add in passage & access barriers, which prohibit many users especially disabled or impaired.

The point about dogs is well made and prevalent on all shared routes, loose dogs or those on a long lead are a liability.

Perhaps we should ask DfT to audit schemes to ensure they deliver what was promised and if not take their money back?

I dont think Strava has anything to do with this, if Strava banned all segments on shared paths,the kind of person thats fussed about setting a fast time on a canal path isnt just going to turn around and say well Im NOT cycling down there now, or Ill cycle it really slowly instead thatll show them, are they

IME of all the encounters on shared paths Ive had, anyone who is moving on a bike and/or wearing lycra is considered by a pedestrian as "fast/racing". I was accused of speeding by a pedestrian once, when Id actually come to a complete stop to let them past, I did point out their grasp of physics was lacking and was told to f*** off for my trouble.

and dog walkers who let their dogs off lead on these paths are the bane of my of commute, to the point Id rather mix it with cars& tipper trucks on the roads instead of having to avoid another dog leaping out of a bush.

shared paths seem a great idea,but cyclists are the only ones who do the sharing, everyone else treats it as their own private path

I don’t believe the cyclist threated to kill the pedestrian’s family. Swear at him yes, but threaten to murder – nonsense. Another embellished story from the Castelli cyclist/large lady cyclist school of tales.

I've come across Strava segments on canal towpaths. I know they are there and my times are not 'racing' times. But there are people who will always be tempted. They can be flagged but that won't delete them. People can just override the hazardous flag to view the leaderboard, and they still show on Strava apps like VeloViewer as KOMs. The temptation won't be removed as the segments can't be deleted permanently and you can't stop people making new ones
If you could permanently block certain locations people would also abuse that function. Strava is right; it isn't down to them to police; it is a social network. As such the Adam Hills rule applies; DON'T BE A DICK.

the big problem here is STRAVA segments, they have been asked to do some thing about it but say they cannot. they leave it up to cyclists to block these dangerous areas but that does not work I suggested they had people over here that could block canal tow paths but got no reply. on chesterfield canal 0ver a 6 mile section you have 5 blind bends long sections that are only 2 people wide a main road to cross with bad line of sight, and a café area with no cycling.

I spent a week cycling around the Netherlands recently and I doubt this situation would arise there. Hence it is 100% a problem with lack of infrastructure : we need roads for cars, separate roads for bicycles, paths for walkers, and bridleways for horse riding. There may be rare instances that the above share the same road, and priority (from least to most vulnerable) should be clearly established. Oh, and dogs should be on leads except when they will not cause a problem to others (e.g. In designated parks).

It's sad that the UK is a country of compromise all the time, we never do anything properly for fear of losing votes and/or spending the proper amount of money. Half measure off road bike paths, half measure on road bike paths, etc. Then this sort of conflict happens. Perhaps the only thing to do on these multi-use trails is to form a user group made up of all users who can develop a code of conduct that is displayed all along the route. As we don't really have any local authorities/state anymore we can only rely on some kind of volunteer wardening system to try and invoke some kind of community responsibility.

This story is all too common. I have sounded off too because of loose dogs and aggressive owners, with me classed as the 'racing cyclist'.
I use a shared path to commute everyday to work, I can't amble along whistling. Expect cyclists to be moving rapidly and make allowance.
What is the compromise? I reckon that the dog should be allowed on the path, but only if undercontrol. Which means walking to heel or on a short lead. Both parties should allow adequate space. If my path is intentionally blocked, then 'all hell breaks loose', same as it would on a public road if someone intentionally stopped the traffic.
The authorities are f....g useless. They refuse to attempt to manage the conflict at all eg no lines marking bike/walkers. There is available legislation (dog control orders) but the council's/dog wardens are afraid to invoke it.
I have been assaulted, with video evidence needed to clear me!
This war is developing all around the UK, with no solution being developed. Is it only a matter of time until one party or another really does take matters into their own hands and GBH happens?

Quote:

which brings us back to the point about there really being two levels of cycling infrastructure in this country - the roads for "fast and/or confident" cyclists or evangelical vehicularists and then shared-use paths and towpaths &c for occasional use by not-so-confident or slower cyclists

Or we could adopt the much more sensible Dutch idea that people on bikes don't mix particularly well with pedestrians or vehicles, and build paths for bikes.

So this guy has two dogs, one of which runs out without warning or restraint from behind a bush across the canal path in front of an approaching cyclist, who locked up his brakes by skidding to a halt to avoid the dog. I would suggest it is the dog owner that is at fault NOT the cyclist. I think the cyclist was probably entitled to swear at the guy who should have kept his dogs under control.

The guy then makes and publishes a totally uncorroborated allegation that the cyclist - a "racing cyclist", then went onto make death threats against him. I would take this with a very large pinch of salt.

I bet a £1 that the death threats were never made, pure fantasy on the dog owner's part who was pissed off that he did not actually have control of his dog(s) and because of this it was almost run over by an unsuspecting cyclist who could have been badly injured by the dog owner's negligence. One must also be cautious that the dog owner is alleging death threats were made against him by the cyclist to present the cyclist as some sort of violent maniac and give another very negative image of cyclists.

IME it is dog walkers on paths, any sort of paths, that are the menace. Either the dog is on the end of one of those dangerous extendable leads and the owner on the other dissecting the width of the path, ready to trip anyone who doesn't see it or the dog is laying a massive steaming dump in the middle of the path for all to tread in or ride through and the owner is making no attempt whatsoever to clear it up or the wretched hound chases after you trying to chew your leg.

My sympathy is with the cyclist as we only have one side of a story here and it seems short on what is really likely to have happened. IME it is generally dog owners who are at fault. I have sworn at a few but with good reason as they have put my and other people's safety at risk.

Most dog owners only take their hounds as far as the first dump then turn around and head for home. Bring back dog licenses and registration. All dogs should have to display a registration plate and the owners have insurance. Perhaps dogs should have to wear helmets.

Personally I think the idea that shared paths are to blame for this is incorrect.

ALL spaces are shared. Take the most segregated of roads, a motorway. There's still conflict between drivers; people going "too slowly", tailgating etc.

Separate bike lanes would be nice in places but, unless they were 10m wide there would still be the potential for conflict because "cyclists" are not one group. Some want to go fast, others want to ride with children, some wobble. You'd still have conflicts on bike only paths.

Face it folks, some parts of the UK are pretty densely populated and on those bits we just have to share the space. It's not the shared space, it's the attitudes that have to change.

Having just read this article and, specifically, the comments there seems to be a split between the expectation that on shared paths other users expect cyclists and those where cyclists have to expect any other type of user to be on the path and to give way.

Personally, I'm in the latter camp - the only times I use shared paths these days are with the kids or when I want leisurely and scenic route.

something doesn't quite fit, i have been threatened by a dog walker before, basically i was riding on a footpath, dog went for my leg i shouted something to the effect keep your f***ing dog under control or i will smash its brains in.

I guess you can tell where that conversation went from that point...

Dog walkers need to be a bit more aware to be honest...and I'm one.

We have lots of challenges locally on a stretch of the Taff trail...with dog walkers being king and cyclists riding fairly quickly...: I've been threatened by dog walkers when cycling, ambling but never by a cyclist when dog walking...that's because I'm a brilliant dog walker and a crap cyclist I guess.