Jeremy Vine films impatient driver who gets stopped at next set of lights; Disc brake debate continues as Movistar pro says they're more dangerous; BBC accused of "cyclist-bashing" story; Cav's second debut; Dutch flooding + more on the live blog

Gary wrote:

people beeped at me like he was my dog!

Reminds me of "that's not my dog":
https://youtu.be/Ue0fZfwHfzo

Kronsteen wrote:

Just as well Richard Ballantine (RIP) wasn't among the group of cyclists with the dog. The story would have taken a much darker turn...

Showing your age there - as am I knowing what you're talking about! I used to have a copy of the original with his robust advice on dealing with dog attacks, before the publishers made him change it.

Something about holding one's full-frame pump horizontally out in front?

Sriracha wrote:

Something about holding one's full-frame pump horizontally out in front?

That and much, much more, it's rather graphic! He did make clear though that he loved dogs and was simply talking about what to do if in severe danger from a dog attack.

In fairness, his advice was good:  if the owner won't control their dog, then I will, and by force if necessary.
Why is it that some pedestrians in groups, and some pedestrians with dogs (and some pedestrians in groups with dogs) think they exist in a bubble on public shared paths and bridleways?  It's one thing that we should give way to them -- fair enough, it's the cascaded responsibility that we expect of drivers -- it's another for them to splay across the path and let dogs run back and forth without any thought that other people might be coming along.  There _will_ be people approaching from behind you, don't act all surprised when it happens, and look around you as you walk.
I'll happily move around you if you give me a chance, but your dog is your responsibility, not mine.

GMBasix wrote:

In fairness, his advice was good: if the owner won't control their dog, then I will, and by force if necessary.

I don't own a dog, but as a cyclist I look out for hazards and don't expect others to be perfect (especially dogs), because that's a standard I could not live up to. I've never been attacked by a dog, but plenty are inquisitive and a bit stupid, and want to "say hello". I've never yet felt endangered nor managed to run one over, and me, dog and owner have continued our happy lives after every encounter.

Ballantine's advice, whilst rather entertaining, has never proved necessary.

In a shared use area, cyclists are expected to ride with caution. I'm a cyclist and dog owner. Yep, some dog owners are irresponsible and those long leads are dangerous. But then some cyclists are foolish and ride at speed through those shared use facilities. With dogs and kids about who are not predictable, that's taking a big risk. It works both ways.

It does work BOTH ways,but my experience of shared spaces like that, it is only ever the cyclist doing the sharing work. The pedestrian with dog nearly always places themselves as a priority user above all others considerations and use. I've never met someone with a dog on a shared path who didnt look as if I was being utterly selfish and totally in the wrong for daring to ride a bike on a cycle path,which meant they had to do something more than stare at their phone whilst they ambled around with their dog who knows where.

Never, Awavey? Maybe you only notice the the ones who get in your way, since you must, and don't recall all the others whose dogs either were never in contention or else were called to heel. Obviously if you go barrelling on in the expectation that dogs and owners will clear the way for you then you might get looks of disapproval. There is a negotiation to be had, which generally involves the cyclist slowing down in anticipation.

That I have to even state for the record that no I dont ride like a complete idiot on shared paths, is almost as frustrating as riding on them.

if I were walking a dog on a shared path id keep it on its short lead, under control and I'd be fully aware of other path users.

That's all I'm asking for,that's sharing to me, it doesnt feel alot & maybe I have met some dog owners who get that, but they feel pretty rare ime

And yes Fwiw I have been bitten by a dog whilst cycling on a shared path,so maybe my tolerance for letting dogs have free reign on them is limited

Awavey wrote:

That I have to even state for the record that no I dont ride like a complete idiot on shared paths, is almost as frustrating as riding on them.

Frustrating indeed. In evidence, however, is your own statement that all the dog owners you have ever met whilst cycling on a shared path have come to the conclusion that you were being "utterly selfish and totally in the wrong for daring to ride a bike on a cycle path..."
It seems doubtful that owning a dog should make so many diverse individuals come to the same erroneous conclusion, so I am merely suggesting that it is not the fact of riding a bike on the shared path so much as the manner in which you do it that piques them.

Or, maybe it was an exaggeration?

Awavey wrote:

I've never met someone with a dog on a shared path who didnt look as if I was being utterly selfish and totally in the wrong for daring to ride a bike on a cycle path,which meant they had to do something more than stare at their phone whilst they ambled around with their dog who knows where.

Whilst I've met plenty who are as you describe - I've also met plenty who'll move their dog out of the way and hold their dog as I pass... when given the chance.

Sure the completely ignorant dog walkers a worse than the completely pedestrians - becuase they looking at their phone whilst the dog(s) is wandering off leash (or worse, on an extendable tripwire). However the non-ignorant dog walkers tend to be very good and there is a higher proportion of non-ignorant dog walkers than is non-ignorant pedestrians. My conclusion is that cyclists must constitute a greater proportion of dog owners than general pedestrians.

That's not my experience at all, whether cycling or walking my dog. Some people are selfish, some aren't. The same sort of people who are selfish road hoggers when driving also tend to be the same people who are selfish when walking their dog(s) or cycling.

My dog's often on the lead (not an extendable one) because he chases squirrels and is reactive to some other dog breeds. When I'm walking him, he'll usually be close beside me and I do indeed look out for cyclists, runners, parents with kids in buggies or people in electric buggies.

But I've had plenty of experiences when I've had to yank him out of the way because of an inconsiderate cyclist at speed (or jogger) not taking heed of the fact that a crowded shared use facility with kids, other runners, families, dogs and so on means they have to slow down or go round. 

Sriracha wrote:

Quote:

"Scooby was hit by one of eight cyclists [not by a bicycle]..." "...he nearly got hit by a bus [not by the bus driver]"

OK BBC, why is it personal in the case of cyclists, yet impersonal when the situation is far more potentially deadly?

They hate cyclists slightly more than bicycles, and definitely more than bus drivers?

Clearly cyclists value their bicycle too much to use it against a dog, so the cyclist must have done it themself. BBC manual of discriminatory logic, p246 😉

Sriracha wrote:

Quote:

"Scooby was hit by one of eight cyclists [not by a bicycle]..." "...he nearly got hit by a bus [not by the bus driver]"

OK BBC, why is it personal in the case of cyclists, yet impersonal when the situation is far more potentially deadly?

To be fair it is a quote so it isn't the BBC saying this, they are just reporting what they were told.  Also if you read further down the page, you'll see there is talk of the dog having been kicked, perhaps, allegedly.

jh2727 wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

Quote:

"Scooby was hit by one of eight cyclists [not by a bicycle]..." "...he nearly got hit by a bus [not by the bus driver]"

OK BBC, why is it personal in the case of cyclists, yet impersonal when the situation is far more potentially deadly?

To be fair it is a quote so it isn't the BBC saying this, they are just reporting what they were told.  Also if you read further down the page, you'll see there is talk of the dog having been kicked, perhaps, allegedly.

The BBC are saying it. They have picked a "story" which is completely anecdotal, and are in effect reporting it as fact. Any reporting agency has a duty to fact check before publication. Much as it was funny on HIGNFY, tagging "allegedly" on to an untrue sentence does not make it okay to say it.

BBC have got form on this. This is the agency that for decades gave unqualified climate deniers an unchallenged platform next to legitimate scientists "for balance".

Captain Badger wrote:

The BBC are saying it. They have picked a "story" which is completely anecdotal, and are in effect reporting it as fact.

That's how 'news' is done these days, I'm afraid - grab whatever the twitter algorithm has thrown up, throw some quote marks round it, and publish your story. Old-fashioned notions like 'investigation' and 'fact-checking' require time and money, which no-one has any more.

It's not like the august publication on whose pages we're discussing it is any different...

mdavidford wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

The BBC are saying it. They have picked a "story" which is completely anecdotal, and are in effect reporting it as fact.

That's how 'news' is done these days, I'm afraid - grab whatever the twitter algorithm has thrown up, throw some quote marks round it, and publish your story. Old-fashioned notions like 'investigation' and 'fact-checking' require time and money, which no-one has any more.

....

I fear you are correct, but I can dream of higher standards.....

Captain Badger wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

The BBC are saying it. They have picked a "story" which is completely anecdotal, and are in effect reporting it as fact.

That's how 'news' is done these days, I'm afraid - grab whatever the twitter algorithm has thrown up, throw some quote marks round it, and publish your story. Old-fashioned notions like 'investigation' and 'fact-checking' require time and money, which no-one has any more.

....

I fear you are correct, but I can dream of higher standards.....

You should have a read of this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Flat-Earth-News-Award-winning-Distortion/dp/0099512688

hawkinspeter wrote:

...

You should have a read of this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Flat-Earth-News-Award-winning-Distortion/dp/0099512688

Don't, please. I'll get triggered and start to throw things.  I'm still trying to wade through Blowback, it's so depressing I can only take a few pages at  time. Same with Debt:1st 5000 years. 

brooksby wrote:

Why does Matteo Jorgenson's bruise end at the edge of (presumably) his shorts?  Tan lines - yes; mud - yes; but bruises?

Probably dirt/dust, rather than bruising - it was Paris Roubaix (espoirs) after all, hardly the cleanest of roads.