"Arrogant" cyclists blamed as dog needs leg amputated after shared-use path collision — how can safety be improved for everyone?

Simon E wrote:

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.

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:

Highway Code wrote:

 Cutting the number of deaths and injuries that occur on our roads every day is a responsibility we all share. The Highway Code can help us discharge that responsibility.

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:

Your statement disregards the inconsiderateness of one set of road users and passes it all to another.

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:

I don't think it does.

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:

GMBasix wrote:

Your statement disregards the inconsiderateness of one set of road users and passes it all to another.

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.

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:

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 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:

Simon E wrote:

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 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.

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 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.

Simon E wrote:

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.

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:

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.

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.

TriTaxMan wrote:

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.

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.

Simon E wrote:

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?

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.

TriTaxMan wrote:

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.

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 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....

Simon E wrote:

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.

equal

Simon E wrote:

Misreading me again, it seems. I'd like everyone to behave correctly but I wouldn't rely on any of them doing so. 

Its not misreading it..... your comments don't say what you think they do.

Whatever. I'm sure you are right.

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:

It is the cyclist's responsibility to avoid the collision regardless of the supposed behaviour of the dog and its owner.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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 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. 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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

Many unleashed spaniels can achieve 40 km/h without too much difficulty.

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 african or european...)

hirsute wrote:

20 mph apparently (is that an african or european...)

We also need to know whether that squirrel is laden or unladen (apparently that is very important).

brooksby wrote:

hirsute wrote:

20 mph apparently (is that an african or european...)

We also need to know whether that squirrel is laden or unladen (apparently that is very important).

mdavidford wrote:

I initially read that as 'many unleashed squirrels'. I think I may have been spending too much time among the comments here...

Aah, this is more like it!  That's what the people are calling for.

Simon E wrote:

Anyone riding here should 100% expect to meet people (and dogs) at any time of day and ride accordingly.

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:

Highway Code wrote:

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.

• [*] For the avoidance of doubt, this is about dogs, not addressed to dogs

Simon E wrote:

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.

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.)

Simon E wrote:

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.

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:

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.

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 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.

Sophie Barnett at LBC wrote:

Police said the victim came out of the incident unharmed, but "understandably bored of dodging and repeatedly disarming his attacker" he used reasonable force to restrain the suspect.

and she wrote:

The victim - who had an extensive military background and a "rather impressive skill set" - restrained the attacker on the floor, pinning him down in the mess he had allegedly refused to clear up.

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 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:

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.

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