“Coward” cyclist allegedly grabbed and punched female walker after dog crossed his path at nature reserve

In my experience your assumptions about relative tolerance in Cornwall and Regents part may have to be reversed. 

Cyclists and pedestrians coexist pretty happily in Regent's Park as well generally, it's only the Royal Parks and certain "journalists" like Nepo Coren and his ilk who create an image that does not accord with reality of a permanent war between the two.

The path is "Shared". That means both parties have to show consideration of each other. Cyclists should be respectful of pedestrians, and vice-versa. That doesn't mean we should basically cow-tow to their errant animals that should be under control.

SecretSam wrote:

That doesn't mean we should basically cow-tow to their errant animals that should be under control.

Don't tow cows (or dogs) while riding your bike. And keep your cow on a short leash when walking it on a shared path.

No wonder so many people are "mooving on" to their eternal pastures every year because of bovines. It's unbridled mad(cow)ness!

Next thing we'll be seeing people posting vids of themselves travelling with their pet in cow-go bikes! Although that demands calves of steel - or maybe cowbon fibre (hay) for weight reduction?

Do you have a shred of evidence to support these wild assumptions?

If he punched her, there will surely be evidence in the form of bruises on her body parts.

How many video posts do we see online where someone cycling has been bullied by a driver, and the comments are "but what did the cyclist do before?"

Yours is the same nonsense.

dubwise wrote:

Cannot condone the alleged incident,

You should have stopped there.

There is no 'however' that excuses that kind of violent behaviour.

Who is excusing the alleged violent behaviour?

I pointed out the highway code rule that far too many dog walkers ignore and demand that others rake responsibility for their dogs.

It's not only you. The problem with the sort of rural shared paths as pictured is that dog owners bring their dogs there precisely to be able to let them off the lead and run freely. From my own experience of riding on the TP trail and other rural shared paths roughly 50% of dog walkers keep their dogs on a lead. 

I am with you Dubwise, certainly cannot condone the alleged behavior.

There is a few quotes from the victim here which could be reworded as "I was letting my dogs run around uncontrollably, One ran in fornt of him and the rider was forced to brake to a sudden stop in order to avoid a collision. I am only willing to control my dogs (as I am required to do at ALL times) if and when I am asked politly to do so."

On this basis I think we have very much only heard half of the story.

mitchibob wrote:

Herein lies difference between cyclist and just people that happen to ride bikes.  ...

You should bring that one up at the cyclists' AGM - we should be sueing these types for false advertising or trademark violation or "personating a cyclist" or something, surely?

Of course - the issue is that the opprobrium is applied to others on bikes. Which is less the case with dog walkers maybe - " wasn't really a dog walker but simply someone with a dog" 🤔?

But its a fair point, I know alot of people who always moan about "lycra clad cyclists" riding on pavements near them, which conjures up images of serious hobbyist/club cyclists behaving like idiots around people, when the reality is the nearest thing to lycra these people on bikes theyre encountering is wearing is in their briefs and theyre just your common garden regular aholes who happen to be riding bikes.

So people who ride bikes; for work, to work, to shop or simply for pleasure, are not proper cyclists?  Only "serious hobbyist/club" pedlars <sic> qualify?

Well anyone who rides like a tool around pedestrians, is just that a tool, whatever clothing style they wear.

But would you label people who ride for work, to shop or simply for pleasure, lycra clad, just because they ride a bike ?

No you probably wouldn't, because its the pejorative term some people dump all people who ride bikes in, and you're smart enough to realise, there are tools who ride bikes, just as there are tools in all walks of life.

As you say, there are tools in all walks of life.  I guess I take the journaistic rhetoric with a bigger touch of salt than some; but even I have noted a few references to wankpanzers, dog walkers and the like on these pages.

I think the attitude drives the words, rather than the other way round.  Although you might argue that the words reinforce the attitude, it still the attitude that is at fault.

This is the whole "if we change the image do we change the reality" conundrum, or "to what extent are stereotypes true and to what extent are they reinforced by confirmatory evidence and how easily can they be changed by evidence to the contrary".

It is true that cyclists in the UK aren't a reflection of the general population.  There are some systematic differences *, and there are some specific groups of cyclists (very likely the minority) whose behaviour does legitimately cause concern.

Naturally most cyclists don't want to be grouped with the baddies so we see exactly the same othering by cyclists themselves - "we're (good) cyclists" but they are not "cyclists" but "yobs on bikes", or "pushy, entitled city bankers on bikes etc.".  But this does sometimes get a bit "no true Scotsman...".

But ... cyclists are already an "out group".  Out groups tend to attract exaggerated stereotypes, and stories.  "A cyclist nearly killed my pal!" is a) opinion and b) may spread far beyond the actual incident.  And because humans we then "tar them all with the same brush". We are "motivated reasoners" and we actively seek confirmatory evidence for beliefs, while downplaying contradictory evidence.  And there's less of that anyway, because few cyclists.

So the ideas of distancing ourselves from "those bad cyclists" has limited mileage (also the other one "let's all be better cyclists and get respect").  Or at least those with the power to change opinion are the majority (or if you like "whoever is driving mainstream culture") - not people cycling.

Ultimately things won't change until a sufficiently large fraction of people cycle themselves.  Then you'll see "normal people" calling out "yobs on bikes"...

* Because few people cycle (if they can drive), because road conditions / other reasons - including cyclists are an out-group due to prevailing stereotypes ... and round we go ...

If only   A large fraction of the people drive and all I see is general deterioriation of standards, no calling out.

I'm not sure if the media, social and other, is driving and/or facìlitating the change or merely a reflection, of an underlying change in values.  A lack of social responsibility, if you will.  More people,  more pushing?  More rights fewer responsibilities.

Follow the money, I reckon...

People will always do the easy thing.  e.g. in transport driving when perhaps they don't really have to, or not driving as consciously / carefully as they should, or "bending" the rules.

Plus there will always be some people dealing out abuse to other people.  Most others will either go along with it because we're pro-social (possibly holding our noses) - or just keep our heads down to avoid abuse ourselves.  And those who wish to gain some power will always see opportunity...

Just seems like a general lack of consideration; less regard for (what were) social norms - everything from rubbish to rubbish driving.

Would agree that there's definately a lot of heads down; to phones, to music or just to avoid what's going on.  Much less social interaction.

Even if your speculation were correct, so what? 'Mouthing off' at someone might be unpleasant, but it's no sort of justification for them physically assaulting you.

If indeed he did assult her. From her language I just dont believe her account of events.