Plymouth walkers "fed up" with dog-injuring cyclists

rnick wrote:

My view is perhaps a little jaundiced, but then I was attacked by a pair of alsations as a child...now when was the last time a cyclis did that to a dog..

Yes, I found it difficult to feel much sysmpathy for dogs and dog owners. My youngest son was bitten on the face, around the eye socket, by a terrier when he was about 3. He was lucky not to lose his eye and still has slight scarring, as a dog bite doesn't really heal very well, depsite a trip to A & E and some strong antibiotics. We've since had a few family bike rides where small dogs have chased us on our bikes, and understandably my son got very upset by that, fortunately he now seems to be getting over this five years alter!

A mate of mine has also been attcaked and bitten by a dog while on a bike ride.

rnick wrote:

My view is perhaps a little jaundiced, but then I was attacked by a pair of alsations as a child...now when was the last time a cyclis did that to a dog..

Yes, I found it difficult to feel much sysmpathy for dogs and dog owners. My youngest son was bitten on the face, around the eye socket, by a terrier when he was about 3. He was lucky not to lose his eye and still has slight scarring, as a dog bite doesn't really heal very well, depsite a trip to A & E and some strong antibiotics. We've since had a few family bike rides where small dogs have chased us on our bikes, and understandably my son got very upset by that, fortunately he now seems to be getting over this five years alter!

A mate of mine has also been attcaked and bitten by a dog while on a bike ride.

*******

Sorry about the 2nd posting - not sure what happened there!

Stumps wrote:

It's amazing that it's always the "other party" at fault and never a cyclist.

It's more amazing that you've drawn such a simplistic, binary conclusion from a diverse set of comments.

davel wrote:

Stumps wrote:

It's amazing that it's always the "other party" at fault and never a cyclist.

It's more amazing that you've drawn such a simplistic, binary conclusion from a diverse set of comments.

Actually it's not, I've been coming on this site for years and apart from the odd one nearly every single poster is saying it's the other parties fault, whether it's dog owners, cars, buses even pedestrians and oh dont forget the Police.
It amazes me people still ride a bike when everyone is against them......

Stumps wrote:

davel wrote:

Stumps wrote:

It's amazing that it's always the "other party" at fault and never a cyclist.

It's more amazing that you've drawn such a simplistic, binary conclusion from a diverse set of comments.

Actually it's not, I've been coming on this site for years and apart from the odd one nearly every single poster is saying it's the other parties fault, whether it's dog owners, cars, buses even pedestrians and oh dont forget the Police. It amazes me people still ride a bike when everyone is against them......

I haven't counted how many pro/anti dogs and dog-walkers posts there've been, but my point is that there is some sympathy - even in the first 3 comments, there is some dog/dog walker sympathy. Besides, it's a cycling site, you expect a certain flavour. I'd imagine it would be a different flavour over at dogwalkers.co.uk.

My surprise is more around your consistent surprise at that flavour; you seem to expect something different here. Cops must get training on bias and prejudice......?

Plus I think you're misconstruing the undercurrents; day-to-day experience of some cyclists is that on the road, might is right. We get squashed quite a lot out there and injured and scared by close passes regularly. That's the source of most of the frustration. This is compounded a bit by the perception of protection given to the more vulnerable users on shared use paths.

WillRod wrote:

As a dog owner I hate meeting people with an Akita or Staffy on a thin extending lead. I walk my calm quiet collie past and their fighting breeed dog is at the end of it's leash, snarling and snapping while the owner is struggling to hold it back whilst barely standing upright.

I would hope that as a dog owner you'd understand that a dog snarling and snapping can also mean that the dog in question is scared and wants the other dog to stay away. Not all dogs of particular breeds are fighting dogs. 

brooksby wrote:

WillRod wrote:

As a dog owner I hate meeting people with an Akita or Staffy on a thin extending lead. I walk my calm quiet collie past and their fighting breeed dog is at the end of it's leash, snarling and snapping while the owner is struggling to hold it back whilst barely standing upright.

I would hope that as a dog owner you'd understand that a dog snarling and snapping can also mean that the dog in question is scared and wants the other dog to stay away. Not all dogs of particular breeds are fighting dogs. 

I too was surprised by Willrod's comments. My wife ran a dog rescue home for many years and maintains that Staffie's when properly looked after are one of the most friendly breeds there is, as further evidenced by Battersea's "they're softer than you think" campaign. On the other hand, having lived all my life in farming country, I've met some bloody scary collie's. (Just try googling "Collie attacks baby" and see how many hits you get). Dog behaviour has much do do with upbringing, be it the brutalisation of some to make them "street dogs", or the mollycoddling of lapdog's to the point where they take on an  aggressive leader of the pack role. But then as Willrod said himself on another post "uninformed people repeat the same facts without proving them to be true"

Griff500 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

WillRod wrote:

As a dog owner I hate meeting people with an Akita or Staffy on a thin extending lead. I walk my calm quiet collie past and their fighting breeed dog is at the end of it's leash, snarling and snapping while the owner is struggling to hold it back whilst barely standing upright.

I would hope that as a dog owner you'd understand that a dog snarling and snapping can also mean that the dog in question is scared and wants the other dog to stay away. Not all dogs of particular breeds are fighting dogs. 

I too was surprised by Willrod's comments. My wife ran a dog rescue home for many years and maintains that Staffie's when properly looked after are one of the most friendly breeds there is, as further evidenced by Battersea's "they're softer than you think" campaign. On the other hand, having lived all my life in farming country, I've met some bloody scary collie's. (Just try googling "Collie attacks baby" and see how many hits you get). Dog behaviour has much do do with upbringing, be it the brutalisation of some to make them "street dogs", or the mollycoddling of lapdog's to the point where they take on an  aggressive leader of the pack role. But then as Willrod said himself on another post "uninformed people repeat the same facts without proving them to be true"

I can't help but see the 'there are no bad dogs, just bad owners' argument as being on a par with 'guns don't kill people, people do'. It particularly puzzles me when sometimes the same people who reject the second argument will then use the first.

A dog is a potential weapon, just as much as is a gun, and some people use them as such. In fact they are worse than guns in a way, because they can attack of their own volition, even against the intent of the person with them.

I've actually never had problems with dogs when cycling, but I have frequently had aggro from them as a pedestrian. So many owners just let them run wild in parks or have them on a stupid stretchy lead.

I've been explicitly threatened by someone with their dog as part of a mugging (granted, the guy had the delusion that his mutt was a 'pit bull', when it was just a scrawny mongrel). More than once I've had 'stay still or he'll 'ave you' shouted at me by some berk who can't control his hound.

Personally I'd ban any dog over a certain muscle-mass from cities, unless on a proper lead. I don't care about the temperament or whether its breed or training that counts, I just care whether its big enough to do a person serious damage or small enough that it could be kicked across the park if it came to it (I don't really have any problem with smaller dogs, its entirely a question of size and strength that seems to me to be the issue).

I can't tell when a huge mutt baring its teeth runs up wildly barking and tries to leap at me, whether its 'well trained' or not. It's a weapon, I don't think people should be allowed to have weapons in public places. You can go to jail just for carrying a knife, why is it OK to wield a dog? People even explicitly say they have a dog for 'self protection', yet if you say you carry a knife for that reason it's a criminal offense.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

WillRod wrote:

As a dog owner I hate meeting people with an Akita or Staffy on a thin extending lead. I walk my calm quiet collie past and their fighting breeed dog is at the end of it's leash, snarling and snapping while the owner is struggling to hold it back whilst barely standing upright.

I would hope that as a dog owner you'd understand that a dog snarling and snapping can also mean that the dog in question is scared and wants the other dog to stay away. Not all dogs of particular breeds are fighting dogs. 

I too was surprised by Willrod's comments. My wife ran a dog rescue home for many years and maintains that Staffie's when properly looked after are one of the most friendly breeds there is, as further evidenced by Battersea's "they're softer than you think" campaign. On the other hand, having lived all my life in farming country, I've met some bloody scary collie's. (Just try googling "Collie attacks baby" and see how many hits you get). Dog behaviour has much do do with upbringing, be it the brutalisation of some to make them "street dogs", or the mollycoddling of lapdog's to the point where they take on an  aggressive leader of the pack role. But then as Willrod said himself on another post "uninformed people repeat the same facts without proving them to be true"

I can't help but see the 'there are no bad dogs, just bad owners' argument as being on a par with 'guns don't kill people, people do'. It particularly puzzles me when sometimes the same people who reject the second argument will then use the first. A dog is a potential weapon, just as much as is a gun, and some people use them as such. In fact they are worse than guns in a way, because they can attack of their own volition, even against the intent of the person with them. I've actually never had problems with dogs when cycling, but I have frequently had aggro from them as a pedestrian. So many owners just let them run wild in parks or have them on a stupid stretchy lead. I've been explicitly threatened by someone with their dog as part of a mugging (granted, the guy had the delusion that his mutt was a 'pit bull', when it was just a scrawny mongrel). More than once I've had 'stay still or he'll 'ave you' shouted at me by some berk who can't control his hound. Personally I'd ban any dog over a certain muscle-mass from cities, unless on a proper lead. I don't care about the temperament or whether its breed or training that counts, I just care whether its big enough to do a person serious damage or small enough that it could be kicked across the park if it came to it (I don't really have any problem with smaller dogs, its entirely a question of size and strength that seems to me to be the issue). I can't tell when a huge mutt baring its teeth runs up wildly barking and tries to leap at me, whether its 'well trained' or not. It's a weapon, I don't think people should be allowed to have weapons in public places. You can go to jail just for carrying a knife, why is it OK to wield a dog? People even explicitly say they have a dog for 'self protection', yet if you say you carry a knife for that reason it's a criminal offense.

I never said there are no bad dogs, what I said was you can't dismiss an entire breed as bad, any more than you can say an entire breed is docile. Read my post before you mouth off, didn't i refer to some viciosu collies I have met? I have to look no further than my mother in law's  Maltese lapdog to find a dog which can't be trusted, the only saving grace being that it has no teeth. But as you have said yourself, dogs can only do damage when irresponsible owners allow them to be in a situation where they can hurt somebody. Your knife argument however is crass. The only reason to carry a knife or a gun is to do harm. That is not why I have a dog.

Griff500 wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

WillRod wrote:

As a dog owner I hate meeting people with an Akita or Staffy on a thin extending lead. I walk my calm quiet collie past and their fighting breeed dog is at the end of it's leash, snarling and snapping while the owner is struggling to hold it back whilst barely standing upright.

I would hope that as a dog owner you'd understand that a dog snarling and snapping can also mean that the dog in question is scared and wants the other dog to stay away. Not all dogs of particular breeds are fighting dogs. 

I too was surprised by Willrod's comments. My wife ran a dog rescue home for many years and maintains that Staffie's when properly looked after are one of the most friendly breeds there is, as further evidenced by Battersea's "they're softer than you think" campaign. On the other hand, having lived all my life in farming country, I've met some bloody scary collie's. (Just try googling "Collie attacks baby" and see how many hits you get). Dog behaviour has much do do with upbringing, be it the brutalisation of some to make them "street dogs", or the mollycoddling of lapdog's to the point where they take on an  aggressive leader of the pack role. But then as Willrod said himself on another post "uninformed people repeat the same facts without proving them to be true"

I can't help but see the 'there are no bad dogs, just bad owners' argument as being on a par with 'guns don't kill people, people do'. It particularly puzzles me when sometimes the same people who reject the second argument will then use the first. A dog is a potential weapon, just as much as is a gun, and some people use them as such. In fact they are worse than guns in a way, because they can attack of their own volition, even against the intent of the person with them. I've actually never had problems with dogs when cycling, but I have frequently had aggro from them as a pedestrian. So many owners just let them run wild in parks or have them on a stupid stretchy lead. I've been explicitly threatened by someone with their dog as part of a mugging (granted, the guy had the delusion that his mutt was a 'pit bull', when it was just a scrawny mongrel). More than once I've had 'stay still or he'll 'ave you' shouted at me by some berk who can't control his hound. Personally I'd ban any dog over a certain muscle-mass from cities, unless on a proper lead. I don't care about the temperament or whether its breed or training that counts, I just care whether its big enough to do a person serious damage or small enough that it could be kicked across the park if it came to it (I don't really have any problem with smaller dogs, its entirely a question of size and strength that seems to me to be the issue). I can't tell when a huge mutt baring its teeth runs up wildly barking and tries to leap at me, whether its 'well trained' or not. It's a weapon, I don't think people should be allowed to have weapons in public places. You can go to jail just for carrying a knife, why is it OK to wield a dog? People even explicitly say they have a dog for 'self protection', yet if you say you carry a knife for that reason it's a criminal offense.

 

I never said there are no bad dogs, what I said was you can't dismiss an entire breed as bad, any more than you can say an entire breed is docile. Read my post before you mouth off, didn't i refer to some viciosu collies I have met? I have to look no further than my mother in law's  Maltese lapdog to find a dog which can't be trusted, the only saving grace being that it has no teeth. But as you have said yourself, dogs can only do damage when irresponsible owners allow them to be in a situation where they can hurt somebody. Your knife argument however is crass. The only reason to carry a knife or a gun is to do harm. That is not why I have a dog.

I don't care what someone's claimed reason is for having a dangerous weapon in a public place, I just don't accept they should be allowed to have it. Even more so when its a weapon that has a mind of its own and which they can't necessarily control.
Loads of Yanks will argue they don't carry a gun 'to do harm'. I'm still glad we don't allow it here.

As for 'breeds', I didn't mention 'breeds'. I'm agnostic as to whether focussing on 'breeds' is the right way, I don't know enough about the minutia of mutts to know.

The only sub-types of dog I think about are 'dogs that could do me serious damage if they wished' and 'dogs I could deal with if they attacked'. Which is mostly just about size and muscle-mass, really.

Don't care about any other characteristics.

I've certainly nothing against sad-eyed plaintive little dogs that quietly follow you around hoping you'll feed them. Or even annoying but unthreatening little yappy dogs. But if its big enough to pose a threat I don't see why it should be allowed in cities.

Griff500 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

WillRod wrote:

As a dog owner I hate meeting people with an Akita or Staffy on a thin extending lead. I walk my calm quiet collie past and their fighting breeed dog is at the end of it's leash, snarling and snapping while the owner is struggling to hold it back whilst barely standing upright.

I would hope that as a dog owner you'd understand that a dog snarling and snapping can also mean that the dog in question is scared and wants the other dog to stay away. Not all dogs of particular breeds are fighting dogs. 

I too was surprised by Willrod's comments. My wife ran a dog rescue home for many years and maintains that Staffie's when properly looked after are one of the most friendly breeds there is, as further evidenced by Battersea's "they're softer than you think" campaign. On the other hand, having lived all my life in farming country, I've met some bloody scary collie's. (Just try googling "Collie attacks baby" and see how many hits you get). Dog behaviour has much do do with upbringing, be it the brutalisation of some to make them "street dogs", or the mollycoddling of lapdog's to the point where they take on an  aggressive leader of the pack role. But then as Willrod said himself on another post "uninformed people repeat the same facts without proving them to be true"

http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-myths.php#myth1

Worth considering the reason that bull-dogs (and thence bull terriers crosses and "pit bull") were bred and what characteristics they were bred for. Also worth looking at stats for incidents of attacks and to whom they've often been focused - that site, although from a bit victim orginisation, has some useful information and links, might be a start for looking. I've known a few owners and met more than a few pit-bull type dogs, and they've mostly been gentle (at least the ones whose owners I knew) but they are far from "softer than you think" unless you have a particularly rabid imagination.

fukawitribe wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

WillRod wrote:

As a dog owner I hate meeting people with an Akita or Staffy on a thin extending lead. I walk my calm quiet collie past and their fighting breeed dog is at the end of it's leash, snarling and snapping while the owner is struggling to hold it back whilst barely standing upright.

I would hope that as a dog owner you'd understand that a dog snarling and snapping can also mean that the dog in question is scared and wants the other dog to stay away. Not all dogs of particular breeds are fighting dogs. 

I too was surprised by Willrod's comments. My wife ran a dog rescue home for many years and maintains that Staffie's when properly looked after are one of the most friendly breeds there is, as further evidenced by Battersea's "they're softer than you think" campaign. On the other hand, having lived all my life in farming country, I've met some bloody scary collie's. (Just try googling "Collie attacks baby" and see how many hits you get). Dog behaviour has much do do with upbringing, be it the brutalisation of some to make them "street dogs", or the mollycoddling of lapdog's to the point where they take on an  aggressive leader of the pack role. But then as Willrod said himself on another post "uninformed people repeat the same facts without proving them to be true"

 

http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-myths.php#myth1

 

Worth considering the reason that bull-dogs (and thence bull terriers crosses and "pit bull") were bred and what characteristics they were bred for. Also worth looking at stats for incidents of attacks and to whom they've often been focused - that site, although from a bit victim orginisation, has some useful information and links, might be a start for looking. I've known a few owners and met more than a few pit-bull type dogs, and they've mostly been gentle (at least the ones whose owners I knew) but they are far from "softer than you think" unless you have a particularly rabid imagination.

 

I presume you don't live in the UK, as all "pit bull types" were banned here under the dangerous dogs act in 1991 so we no longer have them here. All bull terriers can trace their lineage back to the days of bull baiting, banned in 1835, and they were bred for strength, admittedly a problem if the dog does become aggressive, as any dog can. (My retriever however was in theory bred to retrieve, but can in fact retrieve SFA.)  As for stats on dog attacks, there are no reliable stats on this. back to the English Staffie, every authoritative account of the breed states that they are unsuitable for use as guard doge due to their natural affection towards humans, and their need to seek human companionship.  But as I said in my post, you can't trust an entire breed to be safe, any more than you can dismiss an entire breed as bad. 

Griff500 wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

WillRod wrote:

As a dog owner I hate meeting people with an Akita or Staffy on a thin extending lead. I walk my calm quiet collie past and their fighting breeed dog is at the end of it's leash, snarling and snapping while the owner is struggling to hold it back whilst barely standing upright.

I would hope that as a dog owner you'd understand that a dog snarling and snapping can also mean that the dog in question is scared and wants the other dog to stay away. Not all dogs of particular breeds are fighting dogs. 

I too was surprised by Willrod's comments. My wife ran a dog rescue home for many years and maintains that Staffie's when properly looked after are one of the most friendly breeds there is, as further evidenced by Battersea's "they're softer than you think" campaign. On the other hand, having lived all my life in farming country, I've met some bloody scary collie's. (Just try googling "Collie attacks baby" and see how many hits you get). Dog behaviour has much do do with upbringing, be it the brutalisation of some to make them "street dogs", or the mollycoddling of lapdog's to the point where they take on an  aggressive leader of the pack role. But then as Willrod said himself on another post "uninformed people repeat the same facts without proving them to be true"

 

http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-myths.php#myth1

 

Worth considering the reason that bull-dogs (and thence bull terriers crosses and "pit bull") were bred and what characteristics they were bred for. Also worth looking at stats for incidents of attacks and to whom they've often been focused - that site, although from a bit victim orginisation, has some useful information and links, might be a start for looking. I've known a few owners and met more than a few pit-bull type dogs, and they've mostly been gentle (at least the ones whose owners I knew) but they are far from "softer than you think" unless you have a particularly rabid imagination.

 

I presume you don't live in the UK, as all "pit bull types" were banned here under the dangerous dogs act in 1991 so we no longer have them here.

I do live in the UK, although the comment was in general about the general lineage. That said 

"The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a medium-sized, short-coated breed of dog.[2] It is of English lineage, and is one of several breeds generally considered to be within the pit bull type." (Wikipedia - other sources are similar)

Griff500 wrote:

All bull terriers can trace their lineage back to the days of bull baiting, banned in 1835, and they were bred for strength, admittedly a problem if the dog does become aggressive, as any dog can. (My retriever however was in theory bred to retrieve, but can in fact retrieve SFA.)  As for stats on dog attacks, there are no reliable stats on this. back to the English Staffie, every authoritative account of the breed states that they are unsuitable for use as guard doge due to their natural affection towards humans, and their need to seek human companionship.

The terrier part was brought in for ratting, rather than bull baiting where brute strength was important. As for stats, there are some - in particular in the US - and whilst there is always debate there are certain trends which are difficult to put down to mis-counting, double counting, media persecution etc. I'm not picking on Staffies as such, as I said it more a question of the general lineage and why it presents issues that need to be taken seriously (bite strength, jaw fixation, shaking, impressive resistance to pain)

Griff500 wrote:

But as I said in my post, you can't trust an entire breed to be safe, any more than you can dismiss an entire breed as bad. 

Agreed - but the end result of about 1000 years of breeding shouldn't be dismissed because some branches of the tree are 'lovely doggies' either.

WillRod wrote:

I wonder how many dog owners are fully in control of their dog?

I hit a dog on a shared use path the other week. Or more accurately I slowed down and left the path and cycled on the grass a few yards to one side as I could see a dalmation, off the lead in the middle fo the path, playing with a ball. The dog then threw the ball to itself and chased the ball directly in front of me. I braked heavily but still hit the dog (which appeared okay).

My regular commute is a shared use path and I usually pass around 30 dog walkers each journey. Some dog owners are very careful with their dogs, others let them off on massive extendable leads to roam in all direction making it very difficult to get past. The other week I slowed to pass a middle aged ‘lady’ with a dog on one of those leads. I moved to the extreme edge of the path and passed at about 10 miles an hour (down from 20 before I encountered the lady in question). As I passed she started shouting abuse at me saying that I should have rung my f*cking bell.

There are a lot of people taking their kids to school using this path in the mornings too. Strangely the parents are much more likely to blame their kids for getting in people’s way than the dog owners!

longassballs wrote:

Dog owners seem to be mega surprised that on a shared path that there might be anyone on a bike, either that or deliberately block the route...

Well said. To reference the title, I'm bloody fed up with cyclist-injuring dogs. I've been bitten 3 times (all in the UK) and had to defend myself by dismounting and using the bike as a shield on numerous occasions (not all in the UK). But I don't go whining and whinging to "teacher" (just here ). I'm not anti-dog - I do a lot of bridleway cycling and can attest that a properly trained dog will cause no problems - they see a rider (horse or cycle), stop, and look at their owners, who will normally reinforce the behaviour with a "good boy/girl." When you explain that in an encounter with a badly trained dog (almost always) outside bridleways , the owner usually reacts just as you say. 

Grizzerly wrote:

I wonder if the dog reportedly killed was on a retractable lead.  I would think the possibility of a dog's neck being broken by having its lead hit by a bike is very strong. 

Yes. It is. It was 3 years ago that I killed a Jack Russell Terrier. At night on a black extending lead with the owner on the left of the shared use path and the terrier in the bushes to the right. Absolutely no way I could have seen the dog or the lead. The first I knew about it was the whirr of the string and the brief yip. I was only doing about 10mph as well because I was passing the person so I'd backed off. There was no perceptible resistance on the bike and the dog was dead of a broken neck. The police were called and told me after a brief discussion that I wasn't in any trouble as the owner clearly hadn't been in proper control of the dog and they agreed that keeping it on an invisible string on one of the busiest cycle routes in Leicester was asking for problems.

I've also managed to stop in the nick of time recently in an almost identical situation except that this time the dog caused some branches to move around a bit so I started braking harder and then stopped when it showed itself.

cyclisto wrote:

But I believe it is highly misleading for someone to be called an animal lover when he has devored hundreds of chickens, pigs and sheeps in his/her lifetime. It just brings to me the orwellian "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

I love animals. All animals are equal, but some animals are tastier than others.

cyclisto wrote:

Well after having been bitten by a dog while cycling, I discovered that once you get bitten by a dog you have to take a pile of medicine. But I feel lucky as a surgeon that I know says that around every week, they treat dog attack victims.

Sorry but I cannot support any sympathy for animal-lovers. I can understand hardcore vegans, even admire them for their dedication to their beliefs. But I believe it is highly misleading for someone to be called an animal lover when he has devored hundreds of chickens, pigs and sheeps in his/her lifetime. It just brings to me the orwellian "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

For me its more about treating animals with respect while alive even if your going to kill them (in a non-halal way). After all any pet owner should expect that their animals may need to be put down.

Ramuz wrote:

I was once bitten by a dog.

Was the dog alright afterwards?