Not proud of myself. Went totally postal.

Stuey01

hmbadger wrote:

Stuey01 wrote:

654321 wrote:

But if some idiot riding a bike without due care and atention ran into her while she was venting steam I'd have probably gone mental!

Dogs < people.

Control your dogs in public.

I don't think it's as simple as that.Where it is reasonable for dogs to be off lead then cyclists need to be aware and behave reasonably (not ride too fast for instance). Its a shared facility.

It is as simple as that. As you say it is a shared area. If a dog cannot behave reasonably when off the lead (not running in front of cyclist for instance) then it should not be off the lead.

t0pc4t

I agree, I'm a cyclist and a dog owner and I don't take my dog to the park as there are cyclists there and he could get in the way.

Nor do I take him to the woods near the lookout as it's a popular MTB spot (where I ride) and so bikes are whizzing around quickly.

I do take him to the quieter part of the forest and let him off the lead there.

wizzlebanger

As a dog owner and a cyclist I can see this from both sides of the argument. If I'm in the woods / country and my dog is off the lead she never wanders to far from me. However, it is unavoidable that sometimes no matter how much you keep a look out something can come round the corner quickly. I've been in a position many times were a biker has come flying over a rise or round a corner without a single hint of concern for anyone else who might be using the path.

If I see a cyclist, walker, horse or whatever I always keep my dog close to me. I'm not saying that the op was in the right or wrong to go postal but would it warrant the same reaction if someone else's child ran in front of him? It's still something with a mind of it's own out of control.....

We need to be careful to not tar everyone with the same brush.

Just edited this to add that as the OP was in a cycle lane and riding with due care and attention then he was in the right. The dog owner should have had them under control / on leads. The fact that the dog owners just walked away tells me that they didn't care either way. My post was just trying to balance the argument that seems to say all dogs should be banned from everywhere whenever something happens that involves one.

salsarider79

SecretSam wrote:

I don't understand children...I personally think they're smelly and stupid. But that's my opinion.

Corrected

BTW I do understand going nuts at someone like that, as long as you remember that some parks are no cycling area's....and some people are not so nice as to walk away.
I did the same to another dog owner when their tiny rat like dog (Not on leash) bit my dog (8 1/2 stone Alsation/Lab cross, on leash, but trying desperatly to make a run for it never-the-less. Wimp). Once the other persons dog had stopped bitting mine, She said it was my fault as I hadn't got my dog under control and she was going to have to take her dog to the vets for a check over which I should pay for. I tried counting to ten, but got as far as three before I let rip, calling her sexualilty, intelligence and parenthood into question and explanning in detail, several solutions as to what she could do with herself. I loved my dog and still do (She died in 2001 ) and seeing her being attacked and possibly hurt...well I don't blame you for having a go...

Banned member Porgy

Stuey01 wrote:

654321 wrote:

But if some idiot riding a bike without due care and atention ran into her while she was venting steam I'd have probably gone mental!

Dogs < people.

Control your dogs in public.

If you don;t like dogs don't go where peple walk their dogs. Dogs need to be walked.

Banned member Porgy

t0pc4t wrote:

I agree, I'm a cyclist and a dog owner and I don't take my dog to the park as there are cyclists there and he could get in the way.

Nor do I take him to the woods near the lookout as it's a popular MTB spot (where I ride) and so bikes are whizzing around quickly.

I do take him to the quieter part of the forest and let him off the lead there.

There are no forests in central London though - just parks.

Banned member Porgy

Stuey01 wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

Stuey01 wrote:

654321 wrote:

But if some idiot riding a bike without due care and atention ran into her while she was venting steam I'd have probably gone mental!

Dogs < people.

Control your dogs in public.

I don't think it's as simple as that.Where it is reasonable for dogs to be off lead then cyclists need to be aware and behave reasonably (not ride too fast for instance). Its a shared facility.

It is as simple as that. As you say it is a shared area. If a dog cannot behave reasonably when off the lead (not running in front of cyclist for instance) then it should
not be off the lead.

Its a dog! It is reasonable for a dog to run!! Blimey!

t0pc4t

not really sure what your point is. I take my dog somewhere where he's in minimal danger and can be about his business without interferance.

I don't live in London so I can't really comment on what it's like there.

In regard to the OP I'd probably have got angry as well for the same reasons, potential harm to child, owners not caring that their dog could have got hurt.

Banned member Porgy

t0pc4t wrote:

not really sure what your point is. I take my dog somewhere where he's in minimal danger and can be about his business without interferance.

My point is I walked my dog in the only place I was allowed to - the park. Even if there was a cycle path through the park I could not teach this fact to my dog who was not a respecter of human law. There is only a few places to walk dog - many places to cycle. Cyclists should be wary of dogs and avoid cycling where dogs are walked where possible. I speak as a cyclist and practice as I preach.

this is not a matter of dogs vs humans either - its a matter of humans who own dogs vs humans who ride bikes.

Corporate Camper

Sometimes accidents just happen.

My dog was hit by a kid on a bike, the dog was off the lead but we were in a field away from any cycle paths etc.

The kid rounded a corner into the field at spead, almost hit me and then ran my dog over and took a pretty big tumble.

Not much you can do about that really, first instinct was to check on the kid... both kid and dog pretty much OK.

I really don't want my dog to come into contact with cyclists, she cost more than my bike!

t0pc4t

654321 wrote:

t0pc4t wrote:

not really sure what your point is. I take my dog somewhere where he's in minimal danger and can be about his business without interferance.

My point is I walked my dog in the only place I was allowed to - the park. Even if there was a cycle path through the park I could not teach this fact to my dog who was not a respecter of human law. There is only a few places to walk dog - many places to cycle. Cyclists should be wary of dogs and avoid cycling where dogs are walked where possible. I speak as a cyclist and practice as I preach.

this is not a matter of dogs vs humans either - its a matter of humans who own dogs vs humans who ride bikes.

ok, fair enough, I don't recall disagreeing with you.

I have an alternative to taking my dog to parks, which he prefers as there's more to interest him and I prefer as there aren't any cyclists, I'm lucky. You don't and if there are multiple types of user, like pedestrians, dog walkers, mimes, peeping toms etc, cyclists should be considerate.

I use cycle paths for part of my commute and so watching out for dog walkers and riding with courtesy is a subject on which I'm fully sold. Ok?

hmbadger

Stuey01 wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

Stuey01 wrote:

654321 wrote:

But if some idiot riding a bike without due care and atention ran into her while she was venting steam I'd have probably gone mental!

Dogs < people.

Control your dogs in public.

I don't think it's as simple as that.Where it is reasonable for dogs to be off lead then cyclists need to be aware and behave reasonably (not ride too fast for instance). Its a shared facility.

It is as simple as that. As you say it is a shared area. If a dog cannot behave reasonably when off the lead (not running in front of cyclist for instance) then it should not be off the lead.

Whilst 654321 overstates the case, the point of a dog being off the lead is so that it can run about. I'd argue that this inevitably means a loss of some control over the dog. What you are effectively saying is that dogs should never be off the lead anywhere where people are cycling. I don't think that that is resaonable.

jetsstar1

I think in this case Highway code 56 applies if it was a shared path as the OP states.

See here:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_069853

hmbadger

jetsstar1 wrote:

I think in this case Highway code 56 applies if it was a shared path as the OP states.

See here:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_069853

Is that meant to apply to a path through a park such as we have here? Would obviously apply to a shared path beside a road!

Stuey01

Banned member Porgy wrote:

Stuey01 wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

Stuey01 wrote:

654321 wrote:

But if some idiot riding a bike without due care and atention ran into her while she was venting steam I'd have probably gone mental!

Dogs < people.

Control your dogs in public.

I don't think it's as simple as that.Where it is reasonable for dogs to be off lead then cyclists need to be aware and behave reasonably (not ride too fast for instance). Its a shared facility.

It is as simple as that. As you say it is a shared area. If a dog cannot behave reasonably when off the lead (not running in front of cyclist for instance) then it should
not be off the lead.

Its a dog! It is reasonable for a dog to run!! Blimey!

It is reasonable for a cyclist to cycle on a cyclepath.

If you live somewhere where you are unable to exercise your dog without causing inconvenience and/or possible harm to others then perhaps you shouldn't have a dog whilst living there.

wizzlebanger

If you live somewhere where you are unable to exercise your dog without causing inconvenience and/or possible harm to others then perhaps you shouldn't have a dog whilst living there.

Absolute rubbish.

You may as well say that unless a cyclist can ride without causing inconvenience and/or possible harm to others then perhaps you shouldn't own a bike whilst living there.

Or how about...

If you live somewhere where you are unable to go jogging without causing inconvenience and/or possible harm to others then perhaps you shouldn't go jogging whilst living there.

Stuey01

hmbadger wrote:

Stuey01 wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

Stuey01 wrote:

654321 wrote:

But if some idiot riding a bike without due care and atention ran into her while she was venting steam I'd have probably gone mental!

Dogs < people.

Control your dogs in public.

I don't think it's as simple as that.Where it is reasonable for dogs to be off lead then cyclists need to be aware and behave reasonably (not ride too fast for instance). Its a shared facility.

It is as simple as that. As you say it is a shared area. If a dog cannot behave reasonably when off the lead (not running in front of cyclist for instance) then it should not be off the lead.

Whilst 654321 overstates the case, the point of a dog being off the lead is so that it can run about. I'd argue that this inevitably means a loss of some control over the dog. What you are effectively saying is that dogs should never be off the lead anywhere where people are cycling. I don't think that that is resaonable.

That's not what I am saying at all. A dog should be under control when in public, whether on or off the lead.
It is reasonable for a cyclist to expect to be able to take their daughter out for a bike ride on a cycle or shared use park through a park without being up ended by an out of control dog.
I am not arguing that all dogs should be on leads all the time, but think the the suggestion that the OP is somehow at fault and should have taken more care is plain wrong. If he was hooning along at 20mph then some blame may be apportioned, but he clearly was not. The ranting and raving on the other hand was a bit OTT.

hmbadger

Of course it is reasonable. No one is saying it isn't. But the cyclist should accept that where the path is in a shared facility such as a park or towpath, that they may be 'inconvenienced' by dogs (or pedestrians for that matter).

Stuey01

wizzlebanger wrote:

If you live somewhere where you are unable to exercise your dog without causing inconvenience and/or possible harm to others then perhaps you shouldn't have a dog whilst living there.

Absolute rubbish.

You may as well say that unless a cyclist can ride without causing inconvenience and/or possible harm to others then perhaps you shouldn't own a bike whilst living there.

Or how about...

If you live somewhere where you are unable to go jogging without causing inconvenience and/or possible harm to others then perhaps you shouldn't go jogging whilst living there.

Agreed. Right on both counts.

Sirius631

The lead on a dog should not be the first line of control but an additional safety measure. The first line of control is training. When you remove the lead the training remains in place. The owners of the alsatians should have been able to pull their dogs up with one shouted command.

There are a lot of people like my neighbour. His untrained mutt has a predeliction for jumping the fence and escaping through my garden. He then blames me for not having a gate. The root cause of the problem is that his dog is untrained, anything else wouldn't be an issue if it was.

hmbadger

Sirius631 wrote:

The lead on a dog should not be the first line of control but an additional safety measure. The first line of control is training. When you remove the lead the training remains in place. The owners of the alsatians should have been able to pull their dogs up with one shouted command.

There are a lot of people like my neighbour. His untrained mutt has a predeliction for jumping the fence and escaping through my garden. He then blames me for not having a gate. The root cause of the problem is that his dog is untrained, anything else wouldn't be an issue if it was.

In theory you're right. But very few dogs are that well trained, and even then I don;t trust those that are all that much. Basically if there are dogs off the lead then you need to watch out. However much people bang on about how owners ought to be in control whether on the lead or not then if a dog is running about then the possibility exists that it will do something unexpected.

Presumably in this case there wasn't even time to shout a command (if there was then the cyclists woud have been able to stop without there being an incident).

acidstrato

Stuey01 wrote:

654321 wrote:

But if some idiot riding a bike without due care and atention ran into her while she was venting steam I'd have probably gone mental!

Dogs < people.

Control your dogs in public.

^This

i like dogs, but if one ever puts me or my child (if i had one) in danger, they are gonna get hurt. its negligent of a dog owner to allow a dog to be running around on a cycle path if theres space for them away from the path...theres no difference between that and letting them run around on a road. and unfortunatly, cwmbran is a typical place full of negligent people. I'm not stereotyping dogs/dog owners in all...just some of cwmbran

gtvlusso

SimonAH wrote:

Riding along with the mini AH through the central spine park that runs through Cwmbran this afternoon and WHAM ploughed into a couple of off the leash alsations. Both of us over the bars. No real damage (although I think I may have cracked something in my left hand)

I'm a dog owner. I've got two hounds that I love more than cheese.

TOTALLY blew my stack at the Chav owners. Completeley disproportionate. My wife tells me that I threatened to kill their dogs and eat them - after pulling their craniums from their carcases and defecating down the resulting hole..

I'm never like that, EVER, but went into complete monkey zone because my daughter was hurt. Chavs did the fastest 100m nonchalant walk in the history of getting the flack out of there and peeled rubber.

Just spent an hour in the garden re-assessing the person that I am - geniunely I believe that I could have committed murder - over a badly controlled dog!!! Arrgh, am I turning into a monster?Mr Hyde, Mr Hyde, come in, your number is up,

Key phrase there:- "Daughter was hurt" - I'd have lost if to if someones sheer inability to control their pet caused injury to either of my daughters.

After all - I put allot of time into Wilma, the infamous Border Collie, to make sure that she was well trained and controlled. If I see bikes about, usully on the singletrack in Leigh Woods, I have complete control over her over any audible distance. I can get her to turn left/right, stop dead, drop to thr floor, creep along the floor and return to me - she is in my complete control - however, she is a Border Collie and very bright. But, if you work hard with any dog, you can have a very good level of control.....people are just too lazy to put the effort in.

Gussio

Cwmbran has been know to bring out the worst in people