Dogs

[Domestique]

Surprised there hasn't been more incidents like this. The local park I cycle through frequently is a danger zone.
Pleased this lady is making a good recovery but sounded very nasty.
 
http://www.norwichadvertiser24.co.uk/news/dog_plea_after_cyclist_left_in_coma_1_1233596?

As an aside, seems there are very few parks where dogs are banned.

[Honest John]

Not only do I not understand the urge to keep large carnivores that would eat you given half a chance as pets, but neither do I understand why people are allowed to let these inherently dangerous animals run around in public spaces, attacking passers-by and spreading disease.

Every dog is a good source of protein, irresponsibly wasted. Eat the buggers.

[pcolbeck]

I kinda of think it's the cyclists fault if they hi a person or an animal in a park. A park isn't the road and one should expect children and dogs to be whizzing around and proceed accordingly,

[Feline]

As a cyclist and also a dog owner I can see both sides to this.

Dogs need exercise unrestricted by leads, and for many the paths and parks near where they live are the only traffic-free places they can do this. Don't forget that the very paths that have now been labelled 'cycle routes' have often been used by walkers for generations. Cycle paths are generally 'shared use', and that means you have to expect to encounter walkers, children and dogs on them. Personally I slow down to a speed where I will injure neither myself nor the dog if it suddenly runs in front of me, much as I also do when I can see small children ahead of me. If I am wanting to avoid this I just use the roads instead. I use a Sustrans path daily to cycle with my dogs, and they are off lead. Because I ride with them they know not to walk in front of bikes.

As a general rule an off-lead dog is a safer prospect than a dog on an extending lead. That woman's crash is unfortunate and sad, although probably very rare. The only true solution would be to segregate pedestrians and cyclists completely. Roads did a pretty good job of this didn't they?

[Honest John]

I kinda of think it's the cyclists fault if they hi a person or an animal in a park. A park isn't the road and one should expect children and dogs to be whizzing around and proceed accordingly,

Except the lady in question wasn't in a park. She was riding on a cycle path beside a road.

[Feline]

I kinda of think it's the cyclists fault if they hi a person or an animal in a park. A park isn't the road and one should expect children and dogs to be whizzing around and proceed accordingly,

Except the lady in question wasn't in a park. She was riding on a cycle path beside a road.

The thing is, she wasn't. She was riding on a shared use path.

[Honest John]

I kinda of think it's the cyclists fault if they hi a person or an animal in a park. A park isn't the road and one should expect children and dogs to be whizzing around and proceed accordingly,

Except the lady in question wasn't in a park. She was riding on a cycle path beside a road.

The thing is, she wasn't. She was riding on a shared use path.

On my map Bowthorpe Hall Road is a public highway. And dogs should be kept under strict control on short leads on public paths of any description, or anywhere near a road. They are inherently dangerous animals whose natural behaviour is to chase fast-moving objects, and hence unsuitable residents of towns unless kept under very close control.

[Feline]

I kinda of think it's the cyclists fault if they hi a person or an animal in a park. A park isn't the road and one should expect children and dogs to be whizzing around and proceed accordingly,

Except the lady in question wasn't in a park. She was riding on a cycle path beside a road.

The thing is, she wasn't. She was riding on a shared use path.

On my map Bowthorpe Hall Road is a public highway. And dogs should be kept under strict control on short leads on public paths of any description, or anywhere near a road. They are inherently dangerous animals whose natural behaviour is to chase fast-moving objects, and hence unsuitable residents of towns unless kept under very close control.

Bowthorpe Hall Road itself is a public highway until the Eastern end where it ceases to be a road and becomes a path. I am assuming that it is on this traffic-free section that her crash occurred, because the article states the path was in a traffic free area. It runs between the back garden fences of the houses and a large area of open grass. It is exactly the kind of shared use path where one would expect to find people, dogs and children walking and playing.

I dislike motorists' mistaken belief that they pay for and 'own' the roads and therefore cyclists should not be there. I feel pretty much the same way about cyclists mistaken belief that they are using a 'cycle path' and not a shared use path, and therefore no one should get in their way. Perhaps if the woman hadn't wrongly thought she was using a dedicated cycle path then her crash would not have happened.

[hellymedic]

IMO a highway is a highway whether or not motorised vehicles are allowed and dogs ought to be under control.

[Feline]

IMO a highway is a highway whether or not motorised vehicles are allowed and dogs ought to be under control.

According to the map it isn't a highway.

Definitions of under control vary depending on location. My dogs are under my control in a large field in that I can recall them if required and they will not bite anyone. On a road I require the additional control of a physical leash because they have a poor perception of where the boundaries of the pavements are.
The police can only prosecute someone who's dog is out of control if it shows aggression or strays into the highway. That is because anything else is considered not to be out of control. It is not illegal to walk along the footpath of a busy road with your dog beside you unleashed if your dog is under your control.

[Kim]

Thanks for that clarification of the circumstances of the incident.  The report itself isn't clear.

I'd agree that it was the cyclist's fault.  While I'm generally unenthusiastic about dogs, they're an occupational hazard of shared-use paths, in much the same way that children are.  I'm not convinced that leads make a huge difference, as those stealth retracting ones^[1] are if anything more hazardous to cyclists than an unrestrained dog.  Though obviously when walking a dog on a footway beside a road/cycle path it would seem reasonable to use a lead to restrain the dog to the footway.  Training only goes so far, too - experience suggests that a dog will quickly forget its bike-sense in order to come bounding up to investigate a sufficiently weird looking one.

In the absence of bike-specific (ie. not shared-use) paths then we should cycle in a manner appropriate for unexpected dog encounters.  That there aren't more incidents like this suggests that most people do.



_{[1] Not being a dog person, I assume that they work in a manner similar to a steel tape measure - ie. you can lock them at a length, but can't retract them forcefully in order to rapidly restrain the dog?}

[Feline]

_{[1] Not being a dog person, I assume that they work in a manner similar to a steel tape measure - ie. you can lock them at a length, but can't retract them forcefully in order to rapidly restrain the dog?}

That's correct. You can lock it at whatever length it currently is then do a manual haul-in of the line, but that won't work in an urgent situation. They are pretty dangerous on paths even to runners! The best thing the dog owner can do if their dog is on the other side and someone is coming is to drop the handle.

[Feline]

IMO a highway is a highway whether or not motorised vehicles are allowed and dogs ought to be under control.

Just to clarify, this path is marked as a dashed-line on the OS map, and starts at the end of Bowthorpe Hall Road but is not actually part of it.

[Gandalf]

I too have dogs, but then if I take them to the park I don't, when there are acres to choose from, stick to the path like shit to a blanket so that cyclists are terrorised.

I have had a few incidents with dogs and I always slow down to walking pace.  It works with some of them and they lose interest. 

When I was attacked by three of them a few weeks ago I had no choice but to sprint away as fast as I was able . The 'owner' clearly had no control of them whatsoever.  I still have the teeth marks on my handlebar ends.

[hellymedic]

IMO a highway is a highway whether or not motorised vehicles are allowed and dogs ought to be under control.

Just to clarify, this path is marked as a dashed-line on the OS map, and starts at the end of Bowthorpe Hall Road but is not actually part of it.

A dashed line means a bridleway and is a highway, I would have thought.

[Feline]

Gandalf, I'm certainly not defending the owners of aggressive cyclist-chasing dogs letting them run free here.

I'm just concerned that when two minority groups of society get thrown together in rather an incompatible situation like what has happened with shared use paths we are not achieving much by turning on each other.

[tonycollinet]

They are inherently dangerous animals

They really are not. Some dogs are dangerous (just as are some drivers, and some cyclists). Most are not remotely dangerous if people around them are aware they may move unpredictably.

When cycling through the park (on a shared use path) I simply assume any dog will leap under my front wheel, and cycle appropriately.

[Feline]

IMO a highway is a highway whether or not motorised vehicles are allowed and dogs ought to be under control.

Just to clarify, this path is marked as a dashed-line on the OS map, and starts at the end of Bowthorpe Hall Road but is not actually part of it.

A dashed line means a bridleway and is a highway, I would have thought.

It depends on the length and thickness of the dashes! Both are a 'path' according to OS and are public rights of way. This does not make them 'highways' though.

[Kim]

They are inherently dangerous animals

They really are not.

I'd say they were, on account of having a reasonable amount of strength and sharp ends, combined with territorial, pack and self-defence behaviour.  Piss off a dog and there are liable to be Consequences.  This should, for the most part, be easily avoidable through application of training on the part of the owner and common sense on the part of the general public (including being able to slam the anchors on if the dog should leap under your front wheel, and suppressing your running away instinct when a dog scares you).

I'd say much the same about cats, cars and indeed bicycles.

[hellymedic]

IMO a highway is a highway whether or not motorised vehicles are allowed and dogs ought to be under control.

Just to clarify, this path is marked as a dashed-line on the OS map, and starts at the end of Bowthorpe Hall Road but is not actually part of it.

A dashed line means a bridleway and is a highway, I would have thought.

It depends on the length and thickness of the dashes! Both are a 'path' according to OS and are public rights of way. This does not make them 'highways' though.

I disagree.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069869

[AndyK]

Surprised there hasn't been more incidents like this. The local park I cycle through frequently is a danger zone.
Pleased this lady is making a good recovery but sounded very nasty.
 
http://www.norwichadvertiser24.co.uk/news/dog_plea_after_cyclist_left_in_coma_1_1233596?

As an aside, seems there are very few parks where dogs are banned.

Is that the park near me? It used to be a lot better, before SBC sold off all the open ground for development. Now we're left with a scrubby little piece of land with barely anywhere for a dog to run and everyone trying to use the paths.

I don't so much mind dogs running loose, I can slow down until I've passed them, it's the mindless feckwits who have those poxy extendable leads that piss me off. Walk with your bloody animal you lazy bastards, instead of extending a tripwire across the path.

[Feline]

IMO a highway is a highway whether or not motorised vehicles are allowed and dogs ought to be under control.

Just to clarify, this path is marked as a dashed-line on the OS map, and starts at the end of Bowthorpe Hall Road but is not actually part of it.

A dashed line means a bridleway and is a highway, I would have thought.

It depends on the length and thickness of the dashes! Both are a 'path' according to OS and are public rights of way. This does not make them 'highways' though.

I disagree.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069869

OS symbols: http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/docs/legends/50k-raster-legend.pdf

[Regulator]

IMO a highway is a highway whether or not motorised vehicles are allowed and dogs ought to be under control.

Just to clarify, this path is marked as a dashed-line on the OS map, and starts at the end of Bowthorpe Hall Road but is not actually part of it.

A dashed line means a bridleway and is a highway, I would have thought.

It depends on the length and thickness of the dashes! Both are a 'path' according to OS and are public rights of way. This does not make them 'highways' though.

I disagree.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069869

Footpaths, bridelways and cycletracks are all 'highways'. Section 329 of the Highways Act 1980 actually gives some very clear definitions of the different types of highway.

[Feline]

Legally speaking there is absolutely no evidence this dog was not under control. There is no accusation that the dog was trying to bite or chase her. 'Under control' has no definite legal definition and certainly does not imply on a leash. The dog and it's owner had every legal right to be there. At the end of the day she cycled into the dog and crashed. Had she injured the dog then the owner would have had a reasonable case to expect her insurance company to pay for it's Veterinary bills. If she had hit and injured a toddler walking haphazardly along the same path then she could expect to face charges.

[AndyK]

Legally speaking there is absolutely no evidence this dog was not under control. There is no accusation that the dog was trying to bite or chase her. 'Under control' has no definite legal definition and certainly does not imply on a leash. The dog and it's owner had every legal right to be there. At the end of the day she cycled into the dog and crashed. Had she injured the dog then the owner would have had a reasonable case to expect her insurance company to pay for it's Veterinary bills. If she had hit and injured a toddler walking haphazardly along the same path then she could expect to face charges.

I completely disagree. The dog owner has a responsibility to ensure their pet does not injure or cause injury to others. Allowing it to run loose where there are people on wheeled vehicles is irresponsible.

Had that happened to me I would have been straight to the police with the video evidence and calling a solicitor.

The rules in the countryside are thus: 'When using the new access rights over open country and common land, you must keep your dog on a short lead between 1 March and 31 July – and all year round near farm animals – and you may not be able to take your dog at all on some areas or at some times. Please follow any official signs'

I would imagine the same applies for shared paths etc.