WIRRAL cyclist and all please read

RAFcyclist

Hey, I have been a cyclist for over 20 years and have always been respectful of other pedestrians/cyclists especially on shared paths, using a bell and slowing down, its just common sense/courtesy and ofcourse safe. I have noticed however that there is an increasing amount of cyclist who just fail to do any of these. The last straw for me was cyclist on the shared path at LIttle Neston today ran over my young dog at great speed hitting her with the front AND back wheel before eventually coming to a stop a considerable distance away. How fast?? You idiot.

Although he was apologetic, he had made no attempt to slow or alert anyone of his approach despite being able to see from a great distance that there was people and dogs on the path. The dogs were in one spot together and not darting around.

Why is this happening? As a cyclist myself I just don't understand it?

I urge anyone reading this to please use a bell etc and slow down some, we don't own these paths and people like the idiot above give us all a bad name and risk compromising our use of these paths.

Thank you for your time

Cam

Matthewfalle

Was the bike ok?

sloppyschleckonds

What breed of dog was it?

ben@31

Was the dog on a lead and under control?

Or is its always someone else's fault but yours?

Brakeless

If a speeding car had hit your dog would you be posting on a driving forum?

taon24

Was the cyclist OK?
I'm sure cyclists can SMIDSY pedestrians and dogs, act recklessly and cause injuries, but equally others on the path need to take responsibility to minimise some of those risks, which they accept by being on shared use paths.

RAFcyclist

responses like this just prove my point of the recklessness out there by too many irresponsible cyclists.

to answer, the dogs were next to their owners, not bounding around randomly but lying down, under control enough by any means, plus they are not required to be on a lead, but if u can see pedestrians ahead, the path is fairly narrow, if you are a decent cyclist/human being then u slow down etc, guess you guys aint decent. and yes if a speeding car hit my dog I would be posting on a driving forum.

If my thread reaches one cyclist and makes them think then fine, hopefully more, the other idiots like some of the above and the ones I see when I am out cycling/walking obviously have issues and are too far gone.

thegreatdivide

Was the dog wearing a helmet?

Matthewfalle

ben@31 wrote:

Was the dog on a lead and under control?

Or is its always someone else's fault but yours?

He's RAF - I'm surprised he was outside of his 5 star hotel at all.

Indignant of Brize Norton signing off, wilco, wilco, bandits at five o'clock, they're coming out of the sun, where's my wingman, dammit they've got Tarquin...........................

Stanley the 2nd

I avoid shared paths like the plague as they are just accidents waiting to happen. When I used to use them a few years ago I found summertime was particularly bad for the real idiots who had no sense of how to ride a bike. Fair weather riders I guess who maybe ride very rarely. Almost had a few head on collision with these idiots as they didn't seem to understand the concept of keeping to the left on a track. Hope your dog is okay.

Brakeless

No one is condoning the guy who hit your dog but it's one cyclist. Posting to all cyclists as though it concerns everyone of us is pointless.

I see plenty of dogshit on pavements, should I moan at all dog owners? Of course not. Dog attacks have killed far more people than cyclists, should I moan at all dog owners? again of course not.

You've encountered one incident with a cyclist and you feel the need to rant at all Wirral cyclists. Get a bit of perspective.

ben@31

When I've cycled past dog owners on tracks or canal paths. Most dog owners grab the dog by its collar as I pass. Problem solved, everyones a winner.

I doubt he cycled into your dog on purpose.

taon24

If, as stated, the cyclist just cycled into the stationary dog that is entirely unacceptable. But the cynical side of me says the cyclist would see it differently. He didn't slow, which means he felt he could safely pass. He either hadn't spotted your dog, which makes it unfortunate or careless accident, or the dog did something unexpected, or he deliberately ran over the dog.

slowmart

Looks like it was a crudder. Twots the lot of "em.


Nothing to see now so move along

Matthewfalle

RAFcyclist wrote:

Hey, I have been a cyclist for over 20 years and have always been respectful of other pedestrians/cyclists especially on shared paths, using a bell and slowing down, its just common sense/courtesy and ofcourse safe. I have noticed however that there is an increasing amount of cyclist who just fail to do any of these. The last straw for me was cyclist on the shared path at LIttle Neston today ran over my young dog at great speed hitting her with the front AND back wheel before eventually coming to a stop a considerable distance away. How fast?? You idiot.

Although he was apologetic, he had made no attempt to slow or alert anyone of his approach despite being able to see from a great distance that there was people and dogs on the path. The dogs were in one spot together and not darting around.

Why is this happening? As a cyclist myself I just don't understand it?

I urge anyone reading this to please use a bell etc and slow down some, we don't own these paths and people like the idiot above give us all a bad name and risk compromising our use of these paths.

Thank you for your time

Cam

Were you training for The Fabled 5 Miles of Death at the time?

pinno

I had a dog chase me down the road after shooting out of a lane for the second time in 3 weeks at the same place tonight. I stopped, much to the surprise of the Labrador (crossed with any mutt). I turned the bike around and shouted obscenities at it as I chased the f*cker back to where it came. The owner did shout at it and give it a rollicking but had it got a hold of me, who knows what.

Some dog owners...

First.Aspect

OP, is the dog okay?

The responses to this post are a disgrace. It just confirms my belief that the road forum filters out purile pre-pubescent wannabes.

For your information IF you use shared use paths on a bike, there will be at the very most a 12mph notional speed limit. They are not for training. They are for transport. It IS your responbnsibility to give way to essentially everything else. You don't need a bell, but if you don't have one, you have brakes and a voice. You make the decision to be slowed down by all other users of the shared path when you make the decision to use it in the first place. Its the trade off for not having to shoulder check for cars.

If the OP posts this on thre grown ups forum (commuting chat) he will receive a more measured response.

jgsi

First Aspect wrote:

OP, is the dog okay?

The responses to this post are a disgrace. It just confirms my belief that the road forum filters out purile pre-pubescent wannabes.

For your information IF you use shared use paths on a bike, there will be at the very most a 12mph notional speed limit. They are not for training. They are for transport. It IS your responbnsibility to give way to essentially everything else. You don't need a bell, but if you don't have one, you have brakes and a voice. You make the decision to be slowed down by all other users of the shared path when you make the decision to use it in the first place. Its the trade off for not having to shoulder check for cars.

If the OP posts this on thre grown ups forum (commuting chat) he will receive a more measured response.

I agree with you .. however 'notional' that doesnt stop hiviz commuting twats from Bentley haring down a shared path at 25mph + on their hybrids does it..? takes all sorts in life....
but yes some on this forum are particularly nasty in their outlook.

thegreatdivide

I think you'll find the OP's post is one of a current batch of 'creative trolling/wind ups' that have cropped up on the forum. Hence the responses from folk that have 'got it'.

First.Aspect

thegreatdivide wrote:

I think you'll find the OP's post is one of a current batch of 'creative trolling/wind ups' that have cropped up on the forum. Hence the responses from folk that have 'got it'.

How do you know? If he is a troll, how are the cr@ppy responses going to help anyone? The only thing eminating from your cool kids' club will be that cyclists are ignorant. Great - I'll bear that in mind when I'm commuting this morning among a load of people just looking for someone to hate.

Brakeless

Crappy posts deserve crappy responses.

byke68

on shared paths with dog & owner up ahead, slow down. It's that simple!
Yes there are dog owners who let their mutts run loose and twice recently I've had to leave rubber on the path due to stupid dogs running across my path but most dog owners will grab their mutt if they know a cyclist is approaching ( shout a warning if approaching from behind) and some will tut because they had to get their mutt. So, slowing down is the best thing to do.

Matthewfalle

First Aspect wrote:

OP, is the dog okay?

The responses to this post are a disgrace. It just confirms my belief that the road forum filters out purile pre-pubescent wannabes.

For your information IF you use shared use paths on a bike, there will be at the very most a 12mph notional speed limit. They are not for training. They are for transport. It IS your responbnsibility to give way to essentially everything else. You don't need a bell, but if you don't have one, you have brakes and a voice. You make the decision to be slowed down by all other users of the shared path when you make the decision to use it in the first place. Its the trade off for not having to shoulder check for cars.

If the OP posts this on thre grown ups forum (commuting chat) he will receive a more measured response.

I think we need to bring this into perspective really.

The responses here weren't that much of a disgrace - we have done far worse. For instance, no one has asked him for piccies of his wife's norks, which is almost a given in today's pre pubescent wannabe society that seems to be made up of people just interested in chlamydia and iPhones.

As an aside though, how can shared bicycle paths be for transport? They are stationary - ie they do not move and therefore they cannot transport you anywhere.

Bicycles, motorbikes, cars, buses, aeroplanes, trains, scooters, cabs, cabin cruisers, cable cars, cabooses, campers, canoes, cars, funicular railways, bathyscaphes, Conestoga wagons, maglevs, spaceships, Zambonis and zeppelins are all forms of transport, but a shared bicycle path isn't.

I suppose you could also class your feet as a form or transport but then you're getting into a whole a & p versus transportation argument which may well be one for commuter chat or commuter general.

RAFcyclist

First Aspect wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

I think you'll find the OP's post is one of a current batch of 'creative trolling/wind ups' that have cropped up on the forum. Hence the responses from folk that have 'got it'.

How do you know? If he is a troll, how are the cr@ppy responses going to help anyone? The only thing eminating from your cool kids' club will be that cyclists are ignorant. Great - I'll bear that in mind when I'm commuting this morning among a load of people just looking for someone to hate.

finally some intelligent responses from proper cyclists, jgsi also, dog seems ok considering thanks still has cuts and bruises.

I expected some of the other stupid responses/completely missing the point etc as I reckon about a third of the cyclists who use the path are riding dangerously to others, I asked why this was happening?, maybe one of the reasons is a simple lack of intelligence. Still no excuse though, to try and get point across to the strugglers, what if it had been a child, or indeed your child or pet that was injured or worse, would you still react the same way? I doubt it

Its sooo easy to avoid this for a cyclist, why take the risk to your bike if you don't care about anything else?

oh and not even sure what trolling is? but this is genuine.

chris_bass

why is all the responsibility all on the cyclist? you were on a shared path too, you should have known that bikes would be also using it and going past and chose not to have your dog on a lead. You say they weren't darting around but i very much doubt that the cyclist hot your dog on purpose and would guess the dog moved in the way of the cyclist at some point.

maybe he was going too fast, maybe you should have been paying more attention, maybe he should have been, maybe your dog should have been on a lead, off the path if you had stopped for a chat.

either way it was an accident, your dog is ok, you are ok, the cyclist is ok so move on and put it down to experience.

ps - can we have some piccies of your wife's norks?

Matthewfalle

Thank you - I try to be a responsible proper cyclist.

Anyhow - why is pet at the bottom of the list behind a child or your child? What if your pet (such as The Hound) actually means more to you than TDV's children? I know that I'd be pretty annoyed if I had to carry The Hound around the route of his daily walk if he was run over and had a broken, for example, head, but if it happened to one of TDV's kids then I could simply duct tape them to a skateboard and tow them round.

As an aside, do you see how I managed to merge two threads into one there?

DavidJB

Every time I ride without a bell I feel like a bad arse muddafudger with no respect for society...fudge the system homeboys.

mamba80

Matthewfalle wrote:

Thank you - I try to be a responsible proper cyclist.

Anyhow - why is pet at the bottom of the list behind a child or your child? What if your pet (such as The Hound) actually means more to you than TDV's children? I know that I'd be pretty annoyed if I had to carry The Hound around the route of his daily walk if he was run over and had a broken, for example, head, but if it happened to one of TDV's kids then I could simply duct tape them to a skateboard and tow them round.

As an aside, do you see how I managed to merge two threads into one there?

i doubt that.

the guy had his dog ran over by a cyclist who didnt slow down or make his presence known and made a plea to other cyclists to be more aware of other people on paths, exactly the same as cyclists using the road would like car drivers to be courteous towards them.
what he got, was a xxxxhead response, similar to that of many car drivers would give a cyclist.

Matthewfalle

mamba80 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Thank you - I try to be a responsible proper cyclist.

Anyhow - why is pet at the bottom of the list behind a child or your child? What if your pet (such as The Hound) actually means more to you than TDV's children? I know that I'd be pretty annoyed if I had to carry The Hound around the route of his daily walk if he was run over and had a broken, for example, head, but if it happened to one of TDV's kids then I could simply duct tape them to a skateboard and tow them round.

As an aside, do you see how I managed to merge two threads into one there?

i doubt that.

the guy had his dog ran over by a cyclist who didnt slow down or make his presence known and made a plea to other cyclists to be more aware of other people on paths, exactly the same as cyclists using the road would like car drivers to be courteous towards them.
what he got, was a xxxxhead response, similar to that of many car drivers would give a cyclist.

No, not really. Now don't be cross.

taon24

More accurately RAFcyclist claims his dog was ridden over by a cyclist going too fast and not alerting people.
How the accident came to occur has not been made clear. Therefore I don't feel a degree of scepticism that there may be more to the story is unreasonable.
A car driving along a road at 20mph and blaring it's horn would be regarded as a nuisance. It has slowed down and made it's presence known. However cars are expected on roads, just as bikes are expected on shared use paths. Awareness of the surroundings is expected of everyone using facilities, not just those most vulnerable, even if those going faster or in bigger vehicles have to take more responsibility.
The first concern should always be the health of the people involved. Animals come second, however well loved, or if they were not to blame. The actions of animals (and young children) is always the responsibility of those supervising them.
I'm sorry a dog got injured though.

bendertherobot

I'm confused. The cyclist could see a great distance. The dogs were stationary. Did he fail to see them or just deliberately run one over?

Or did the dog move at the last moment?