Police appeal after cyclist attacks dog walker for not using lead

stumps wrote:

So if someone gets knocked off their bike and hurt they are a cyclist but if they are on a bike and hurt someone else they are not a cyclist just someone on a bike ???

The mind boggles at the short sightedness of some posters on this forum.

I think it's similar to when a copper gets hurt in the line of duty and then "he's one of us" etc and then when they're caught beating someone down the cells they're "unrepresentative of our high professional standards".

Does that help?

Ush wrote:

stumps wrote:

So if someone gets knocked off their bike and hurt they are a cyclist but if they are on a bike and hurt someone else they are not a cyclist just someone on a bike ???

The mind boggles at the short sightedness of some posters on this forum.

I think it's similar to when a copper gets hurt in the line of duty and then "he's one of us" etc and then when they're caught beating someone down the cells they're "unrepresentative of our high professional standards". Does that help?

Lol, how to make yourself look like a right plum. You've basically admitted that i'm right by trying to match it up with something from the early 80's / 90's and i'm sure the lady involved in this will be pleased to read of the number of people supporting the male.

Just so you dont drop yourself in it again all custody suites and cells are camera'd up now (the govt made it so) but like i've said previously dont let your prejudices get in the way of fact.

Cumisky wrote:

I ride there often and always push over the bridge as you have to dismount to get on and off it safely, and it really isn't wide enough to be classed as shared usage even if it is legal to ride, it just happens to connect two sides of a cycle path and is no big deal to push across, one risk catching ones bars if anyone is approaching in the opposite direction.
This is an just another example of road posting anything that mentions a bike just for sensationalism, and really has nothing to do with cycling as such.

As for her returning, there is a very popular pub on one end, I imagine she may have had some support from there.

  

That's quite an old picture, that end now has a nice ramp and the steps have been replaced. The 50% gradient cobbled slope down to the Jackson's Boat pub on the Sale side is fun especially on a road bike in the wet/dark .  

(edit)

Here's a more up to date view :

CygnusX1 wrote:

Cumisky wrote:

I ride there often and always push over the bridge as you have to dismount to get on and off it safely, and it really isn't wide enough to be classed as shared usage even if it is legal to ride, it just happens to connect two sides of a cycle path and is no big deal to push across, one risk catching ones bars if anyone is approaching in the opposite direction.
This is an just another example of road posting anything that mentions a bike just for sensationalism, and really has nothing to do with cycling as such.

As for her returning, there is a very popular pub on one end, I imagine she may have had some support from there.

  

That's quite an old picture, that end now has a nice ramp and the steps have been replaced. The 50% gradient cobbled slope down to the Jackson's Boat pub on the Sale side is fun especially on a road bike in the wet/dark .  

(edit)

Here's a more up to date view :

Ha, I think those cobbles are why I started pushing over, I tend to arrive on the boat side and am always in the wrong gear as I hit the bloody things, resulting in an embarrassing get off and push situation.
And I honestly hadn't noticed the ramp on the other side, again, probably because I push down the steps before remounting.

That does illustrate the fact that if you do choose to ride across, it will be slowly though, no time to pick up any speed.

First of all, if the guy did was he's accused of he's a jackass who should serve time. And if the victim doubled back to take a picture good then on her. Enough crime goes unreported. I support people with the courage to take an extra step for the public good.

However, it does sound a little off, so I'm going to go have to withold judgement on this one. Cylist's bias, for sure, but what can I do about it? You can only judge things given your experience, and no matter how much I try to see the other side I can't be convinced beyond serious doubt based on the account presented here that the man in the picture is a borderline psychopath. It may have well happened but I'd rather hear what he has to say before taking a side.

Going a little off-topic:

userfriendly wrote:

hawkinspeter, maybe we're simply approaching this from two different mindsets regarding safety. When I see a lone pedestrian or two ambling about ahead of me on a shared path, I always think "there may be canines in the bushes" - and expecting the hypothetical canine to do the exact opposite of what I'd want it to do, already I have at that point in time two very good reasons to start bleeding speed, and the closer I get the more I slow down.

And if there does happen to be a canine when I get closer, I will have at that point lost enough speed already that I can very quickly - and safely - slow further down to walking speed at a fraction of a second's notice, and come to a complete stop almost as quickly.

I can't disagree with you more on this. I definitely slow down for kids and cannines every time. But even if you're slow down to basically a standstill and you've got Lewis Hamilton's reflexes if someone steps suddenly into your lane you're going to crash.  This has happened to me, with absolutely no repercussions but a shriek and a long instance of evil eye from the part of the unaware pedestrian (a young woman). I honestly believe even if I had been walking the bike (on a contra-flow cycle lane on the road which was a step lower than the pavement) the accident would have happened. She fell on top of me (hit my elbow). If I was going any slower it would have likely been worse, as I wouldn't have managed to regain control of the bike. I truly hope it doesn't actually happen to you, but I find it ridiculous that you would think that incidents like these are always avoidable. No amount of preparedness would be enough for the "faster collider" avoid some collisions. And even under presumed liability, I'm confident the operator of the faster vehicle would not and should not be assigned blame in those instances.

I said the same thing when it was a young cyclist hit by a car. If you fall out into the road to close for a driver going under the speed limit to stop, I'm very sorry but it's not his fault. It is no strawman to state that that ever country in the world would have to completely reengineer their entire transportation system otherwise.

Also,  I don't mind slowing down for kids in the least, but it does grate that I when I have to stop to try a cool down a barking dog because its owner is too lazy or irresposible to keep it under control. But that is obviously irrelelavant to the incident at hand, which is an alleged asssault.

I didn't say it's "always avoidable", but what I will say that incidents are heck of a lot less likely to happen if you don't Froome past peds just because you think it's "impractical" to slow down a little, like the good fellow up there that I was replying to.

Pretty sure you can always cite a freak incident where the road/path user going faster couldn't do anything to mitigate the consequences - can't count how many time I've heard the "crazy person launching themselves under your wheels right in front of you" anecdote being carted out to 'prove' that going slower when approaching more vulnerable road/path users is so darn impractical. And mostly by lazy motorists. You two are not in great company there.

userfriendly wrote:

I didn't say it's "always avoidable"

You were being categorical and pretty safely implying it: "and can avoid a collision"; "it's my responsibility to avoid a crash".

userfriendly wrote:

 if you don't Froome past peds just because you think it's "impractical" to slow down a little, like the good fellow up there that I was replying to.

Nobody here (or anywhere I've seen) is advocating this. There lot's of times I find myself muttering at reckless cyclists. Last time it was a guy "riding" his unleashed german sheppard at around 25kph and salmoning his MTB onto the pavement (not to pick on dog owners -I love dogs- that's just a distrubingly fresh memory from a couple of days ago). I'm sure Froome himself slows down and actually looks up once in a while if he finds himself on a shared path. All we're saying is that it's not the cyclists sole responsibility if the road user suddenly comes into his path. By the same token, I know you're not actually saying if the pedestrian gets hit by lighting it's still solely the cyclists fault, though you were coming real close.

userfriendly wrote:

Pretty sure you can always cite a freak incident where the road/path user going faster couldn't do anything to mitigate the consequences - can't count how many time I've heard the "crazy person launching themselves under your wheels right in front of you" anecdote being carted out to 'prove' that going slower when approaching more vulnerable road/path users is so darn impractical.

It's carted out so often because it happens so often. Pedestrians are completely careless sometimes, and I include myself. In Houston a few months ago (external) there was a spate of light rail accidents where people forgot to look for the train. I'm going to go with not the train's fault, no matter what the kinetic energy disparity looks like.

userfriendly wrote:

And mostly by lazy motorists. You two are not in great company there.

Cyclists can be in the wrong, like this guy probably was. Lazy motorists can be right. In fact, if a sadistic, racist, sociopathic serial killer tells you that 1+1=2, IMHO he's not wrong either. YMMV.

LarryDavidJr wrote:

If you were that 'badly shaken' and been thrown around and pushed down some steps, why would you go back and get that close (as that photo is)?  Possible, but sounds a bit odd.

The photo may be cropped. So she may not have been as close as it seems here.

userfriendly wrote:

LarryDavidJr wrote:

If you were that 'badly shaken' and been thrown around and pushed down some steps, why would you go back and get that close (as that photo is)?  Possible, but sounds a bit odd.

The photo may be cropped. So she may not have been as close as it seems here.

Apaprently it now seems the photo was taken before the 'shoving and pulling'.  So theres that ....

It's sounding more possible that this actually happened.  There are some people with poor impulse control out there....

userfriendly wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

dog walkers have to keep their animals under control. Here's a relevant link https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/overview which states: "Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it injures someone or makes someone worried that it might injure them". It sounds like that cyclist was worried that the dog might injure him, so I would propose that the dog was dangerously out of control.

Err ... that proposition sounds a bit like a wild-arse guess to me. Very, very few dogs are "dangerously out of control". Not being on a lead is certainly not a criterium for that.

You say it yourself, "we should be considerate on shared paths and be careful around dogs, children and pedestrians" (emphasis added). If you see a pedestrian ahead, slow down - whether you see a dog or not. If there is a dog, you've slowed down already and can avoid a collision with your allegedly "barking mad out of control vicious animal". It really is that simple.

FFS ...

The definition of "dangerously out of control" depends on the reaction of the person. As a cyclist if a dog is darting around wildly then I may reasonably be worried that the dog will run into my bike and cause me to fall off - the definition would classify that as "dangerously out of control" (a jury might rule otherwise however).

When I ride on shared paths (which is as little as possible), I do slow down if I think that the pedestrian is unpredictable (e.g. a gang of yoofs) but most of the time I'm able to safely go past them without slowing down. I don't believe it is practical to slow down enough to prevent any possible collision when passing every single pedestrian although I can understand your reasoning (and it's one of the reasons I don't like shared paths as bikes don't have priority even on the "bike" side).

By the way, I agree that whether a dog is on or off leash is not relevant - it's to do with whether the owner is in control of the dog that's important. I'd rather deal with a well trained dog walking off leash than a poorly trained dog on a long leash.

hawkinspeter wrote:

most of the time I'm able to safely go past them without slowing down. I don't believe it is practical to slow down enough to prevent any possible collision when passing every single pedestrian

You do realise how much that sounds like something some drivers would say regarding passing cyclists, right? Oh, you do? Good.

hawkinspeter wrote:

although I can understand your reasoning (and it's one of the reasons I don't like shared paths as bikes don't have priority even on the "bike" side).

I'd prefer not to have cars on the roads, but they're there, so I have to adapt my riding. Same goes for shared use paths, except a slightly different kind of adaption required there - the exact kind of adaption I expect drivers to make for me.

hawkinspeter wrote:

By the way, I agree that whether a dog is on or off leash is not relevant - it's to do with whether the owner is in control of the dog that's important. I'd rather deal with a well trained dog walking off leash than a poorly trained dog on a long leash.

Exactly. But in both cases it's my responsibility to avoid a crash, simply because I'm the path user with more kinetic energy. Yes, the dog walker may be an utter numpty accompanied an annoyingly exciteable animal. Still doesn't absolve me if I don't slow down enough to be able to avoid getting canine parts between my spokes.

@userfriendly (too many levels of quoting going on)

Cyclists overtaking pedestrians on a shared path is a bit different to cars overtaking bikes on a road. A shared path usually has different lanes, so it's understandable that you should be able to safely overtake a pedestrian at speed as long as the pedestrian is predictable. Similarly on a multi-lane road cars can quite easily overtake bikes by using the "faster" lane without having to slow down - I do not consider it practical to dictate that ALL overtaking cars must slow down even when there is plenty of room.

The big problem with uncontrolled dogs is that there's no "safe" speed to overtake as a dog can suddenly choose to run into your pedals even at walking pace with very little that you can do about it. In an ideal world, every cyclist would dismount and walk safely past every pedestrian and dog, but I don't believe that's a reasonable definition of shared use.

I disagree about it being solely your responsibility for avoiding a crash with an uncontrolled dog. On a legal basis, the owner of the dog is committing an offence by not being in control of their dog in public whereas the cyclist is not in breach of any law.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Cyclists overtaking pedestrians on a shared path is a bit different to cars overtaking bikes on a road. A shared path usually has different lanes, so it's understandable that you should be able to safely overtake a pedestrian at speed as long as the pedestrian is predictable. Similarly on a multi-lane road cars can quite easily overtake bikes by using the "faster" lane without having to slow down - I do not consider it practical to dictate that ALL overtaking cars must slow down even when there is plenty of room.

"A shared path usually has different lanes"? No. Maybe where you are. Here, I know of exactly one shared use path where that is the case, all others have no such demarkation lines. And when there are actual lanes, they're rarely wide enough to deserve the name. Overtaking a pedestrian at speed is not safe in either case unless you can give them two metres of room or more. They might not be paying attention and wander off into your "lane" (if there even is one) or do something else you don't expect. And that's just them, not even taking animals or children into account.

Again, we demand that drivers are extra careful around more vulnerable road users - I really don't see why we shouldn't be just as careful around shared path users more vulnerable than us.

hawkinspeter wrote:

The big problem with uncontrolled dogs is that there's no "safe" speed to overtake as a dog can suddenly choose to run into your pedals even at walking pace with very little that you can do about it. In an ideal world, every cyclist would dismount and walk safely past every pedestrian and dog, but I don't believe that's a reasonable definition of shared use.

No need to exaggerate the matter into an "ideal world" strawman . If you are at walking speed or close to it, a dog running into your pedals will maybe give it a bump in the forehead, but neither will the animal be actually hurt nor will you come off your bike. Come on. You're grasping here.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I disagree about it being solely your responsibility for avoiding a crash with an uncontrolled dog. On a legal basis, the owner of the dog is committing an offence by not being in control of their dog in public whereas the cyclist is not in breach of any law.

From a legal perspective, no driver has to give us the amount of space the Highway Code suggests they give us either. Still doesn't make close passes right. From a common sense perspective it is the responsibility of the driver not to put the cyclist at risk - that is why we are lobbying to extend strict liability to include these situations. And it's the same between cyclist and pedestrian, with or without dogs.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Cyclists overtaking pedestrians on a shared path is a bit different to cars overtaking bikes on a road. A shared path usually has different lanes, so it's understandable that you should be able to safely overtake a pedestrian at speed as long as the pedestrian is predictable. Similarly on a multi-lane road cars can quite easily overtake bikes by using the "faster" lane without having to slow down - I do not consider it practical to dictate that ALL overtaking cars must slow down even when there is plenty of room.

The big problem with uncontrolled dogs is that there's no "safe" speed to overtake as a dog can suddenly choose to run into your pedals even at walking pace with very little that you can do about it. In an ideal world, every cyclist would dismount and walk safely past every pedestrian and dog, but I don't believe that's a reasonable definition of shared use.

I disagree about it being solely your responsibility for avoiding a crash with an uncontrolled dog. On a legal basis, the owner of the dog is committing an offence by not being in control of their dog in public whereas the cyclist is not in breach of any law.

When have pedestrians ever been predictable? People just aren't - we move laterally to avoid puddles, pot-holes and other stuff, or because we're day-dreaming, and it doesn't matter whether we're on foot or on a bike.  

The number of lanes is irrelevent - you need to give the more vulnerable person (in this case the person on foot) as much space as possible (I'd aim for 1.5m, as that's what I'd like others to give me when overtaking).

Whatever happened/didn't happen, his reaction is terrible.

sickboyblue wrote:

I don't think we're getting the whole story here. Did the dog attack the cyclist? Did it do something to make him fall or crash? If so did she refuse to apologise or accept responsibility?

So that's okay for him to grab her by the hair and throw her?

Get a grip

userfriendly wrote:

Endangered him how? By forcing him to slow down and watch out for the dog in the path? Can you guys hear yourselves?

If you can see an uncontrolled dog on a shared path, then yes, you can slow down and allow for it. If you don't see the dog (e.g. it's sniffing behind a bush) and it suddenly runs out (which dogs are liable to do if they see something exciting) then it can cause an incident.

Yes, we should be considerate on shared paths and be careful around dogs, children and pedestrians. However, dog walkers have to keep their animals under control. Here's a relevant link https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/overview which states: "Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it injures someone or makes someone worried that it might injure them". It sounds like that cyclist was worried that the dog might injure him, so I would propose that the dog was dangerously out of control.

However, using violence to resolve a dispute is not a hallmark of a civilised society and certainly not behaviour fitting a cyclist.