# Dogs & Cycle paths arrgggghhh



## Bay Runner (2 Nov 2009)

Dogs & Cycle paths arrgggghhh

On my commute in tonight I had a set to with a female dog walker. 

*It was dark, on a cycle path which is clearly marked for bikes and peds. I am well lit, Cateye EL530 plus a flashing front LED and wearing a yellow Altura Night Vision Waterproof Jacket. *


I was on the left hand side of the cycle path with the ped path to my left. I spot two peds on the right hand side of the cycle path with 2 dogs; I ring my bell one ped stays were he is on the right hand side of the cycle path with the two dogs and the other walks across the cycle path to the ped path. 

It wasn’t till I got closer that I realised that she was holding the lead (thin black thing) for one of the dogs , I put the brakes on, the lead got caught around the bike and dragged the whimpering dog up the left hand side of my bike. 

I told her this is a cycle path not a bl**dy dog path cant you see the bl**dy bike signs on the path! 
She replied shut the f***k up where is you f**king common decency!

With that, I untangled the lead and told her that thought her language very rich for a lady, to which she replied f**k off. 

This part of the cycle path benefits of the adjacent street lighting and I managed to stay on the bike on this occasion. 

In thirteen years cycling this route I have only come off the bike four times, once on ice, the other occasions were dog related. Black dogs off leads running in front of me because the owner has called them after sighting me approaching in the dark!!!

They are not all bad, some dog owners fit their dogs with flashing LED collars and others who take charge of their pets when they see a cyclist approaching. 

But I could not believe this woman tonight!!!!


----------



## Nipper (2 Nov 2009)

Dogs on cycle paths is a major problem. The majority of dog owners around Taunton seem to think it is OK to act selfishly and allow their dogs to wander off the lead on the path. They then complain to the local paper that cyclists are endangering their dogs. It is madness, we have little enough to call our own but cycle paths need to be dog free. There is also a significant minority who allow their dogs to mess the path and don't clean up.


----------



## Cab (2 Nov 2009)

Errm, other than the sexist tone to your comments, I'm right there with you. Too many dog owners seem oblivious to the risk their pooches pose to others.


----------



## wafflycat (2 Nov 2009)

Whoever invented extending dog leads should be put into a pit with wolves and face the consequences.. well, that is a slight exaggeration, but I loathe those things - an excuse for a dog-walker to effectively relinquish control of the dog and let it wander where it will. People just don't *think* about what the effect of a dog lead extended across a cycle path or road is. 

Last summer I had an incident where I was cycling along a quiet road. There was a woman walking her spaniel in front of me and she was on the LH of the road, as I was. So I did the usual "cyclist behind you!" a couple of times but she didn't acknowledge. So I moved across to the opposite side of the road (it was clear of traffic) before I got to her & the dog. The dog then spotted me and did something I've not experienced before with a spaniel - it went berserk. It went into attack mode. Full on teeth-baring, growling, snapping and it ran straight at me. The leash was almost extended the entire width of the road before the dozy dog-walker woke up and snapped the lead into the shut position. The spaniel was pulling so much, the dog-walker was almost pulled over. And I had a snapping, snarling, growling dog at my ankles. 

Not a pleasant experience.


----------



## HobbesChoice (2 Nov 2009)

Cab said:


> Errm, other than the sexist tone to your comments, I'm right there with you. Too many dog owners seem oblivious to the risk their pooches pose to others.



Sexist tone?


----------



## Norm (2 Nov 2009)

Oh, good, yet another "Anyone not me should be shot" thread. 

Far from relinquishing control, a properly used extendible lead means that the responsible dog owner can retain control whilst allowing an athletic dog more freedom than they can get from a fixed lead. Dog owners who are dicks, much like any other *individual *who is a dick, will be dicks whatever. For the irresponsible ones, the alternative to an extending lead would be no lead.

On my ride yesterday, I came up behind a couple walking collies. I slowed to match their pace from quite a way back, then saw that one had a camera around her neck. I ended up stopping for about 5 minutes (a good excuse in all that mud!) chatting about dogs, photography and what a glorious day it turned out to be after the dire forecasts for the weekend. It was a chance to find similarities rather than differences and it quite made the ride.

Opening the dialogue with "it's a bloody cycle path" or whatever might have been a good way to elicit an defensive response from someone whose dog you narrowly avoided strangling. There might have been better ways to have started that encounter than getting emotional yourself.

Oh, and as I'm in a pedantic mood, it's "brakes". Breaks are what they should avoid.


----------



## Mr Pig (2 Nov 2009)

wafflycat said:


> Whoever invented extending dog leads should be put into a pit with wolves.



They are dangerous. It also seems to me that the dog owners who use them are usually the dumb as a post people who should not use them. I like dogs but the laws on their ownership should be far tighter. Basically, if you own any animal you should be in full control of it at all times when in a public place or it gets taken off you. 

I more or less gave up on the cycle track for this reason. Between neds and dog walkers it's just not worth it.


----------



## Crackle (2 Nov 2009)

Unbelievable the idiocy of some people, glad you and the dog are both OK.


----------



## Crankarm (2 Nov 2009)

If it isn't the dog or it's owner it's the fecking mess they leave behind. Yuck! Now all the vegetation is dying back as winter approaches there are lots of plastic bags of dogsh1t to be seen in verges and hedges along paths and around parks which have been dumped by ignorant selfish dog owners.


----------



## zizou (2 Nov 2009)

Dogs or rather their owners drive me crazy when im cycling. Apart from the problems on cycle tracks with things like dopey owners with extendable leads or the mess left behind by inconsiderate filthy scumbags i dont know how many times i've been mountain biking along a bit of single track when a dog off a lead has started to chase me and on some occasions try to bite me, with the owner out of sight and not in control of their dog. Can get pretty scary at times, then the owner will come along and instead of apologising will try to make light of the situation saying their dog just makes a lot of noise they are just having fun, wont hurt a fly etc.


----------



## Nipper (2 Nov 2009)

Norm said:


> Far from relinquishing control, a properly used extendible lead means that the responsible dog owner can retain control whilst allowing an athletic dog more freedom than they can get from a fixed lead. Dog owners who are dicks, much like any other *individual *who is a dick, will be dicks whatever. For the irresponsible ones, the alternative to an extending lead would be no lead.
> 
> On my ride yesterday, I came up behind a couple walking collies. I slowed to match their pace from quite a way back, then saw that one had a camera around her neck. I ended up stopping for about 5 minutes (a good excuse in all that mud!) chatting about dogs, photography and what a glorious day it turned out to be after the dire forecasts for the weekend. It was a chance to find similarities rather than differences and it quite made the ride.



9/10 dogs I meet on cycle paths around town are not on a lead. Why don't these people use the road to walk their dogs; cycle paths are for bicycles and need to be kept clear to allow smooth transit. I am not cycling JUST for fun, able to stop and be happy to be held up by the lovely cute pooch, I am using my bike as a means of transport.


----------



## Archie_tect (2 Nov 2009)

Bay Runner, 
Sounds like the woman had no intention of controlling her dog and I've come across many dog owners like her who haven't a clue what they are doing... no control and no appreciation of the havoc they cause.

However, you were never going to get any sympathy from someone by launching into a tirade of angry abuse so you got a similar response back - try to control your temper and you'll help her and others like her to respond correctly when seeing a cyclist approaching. All you've done in her case is reinforce her prejudice to annoy the next person she meets.


----------



## Nipper (2 Nov 2009)

zizou said:


> Dogs or rather their owners drive me crazy when im cycling. Apart from the problems on cycle tracks with things like dopey owners with extendable leads or the mess left behind by inconsiderate filthy scumbags i dont know how many times i've been mountain biking along a bit of single track when a dog off a lead has started to chase me and on some occasions try to bite me, with the owner out of sight and not in control of their dog. Can get pretty scary at times, then the owner will come along and instead of apologising will try to make light of the situation saying their dog just makes a lot of noise they are just having fun, wont hurt a fly etc.



"If you have got a [bicycle] pump or stick, hold it at both ends and offer it to the dog horizontally. Often the dog will bite the stick/pump and hang on. Immediately lift the dog up and offer a very solid kick to the genitals. Follow up by breaking the dog's ribs and crushing it's head with a rock." Courtesy of Richard Ballantine who devotes several pages of his classic _Richard's Bicycle Book_ to this problem (pp.170-173). He suggests numerous _defences_ including climbing a tree, pepper spray, and a water pistol loaded with an ammonia-water solution, but if defence fails you need to attack by ramming your bicycle pump or your fist down its throat, or, if it's a small variety, "picking it up by the hind legs and dashing its brains out"

From wikipedia


----------



## Watt-O (2 Nov 2009)

Catford, South London. A young chavette had the good sense to put a couple of knog type lights on her trophy pooch the other night!


----------



## Norm (2 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> 9/10 dogs I meet on cycle paths around town are not on a lead. Why don't these people use the road to walk their dogs; cycle paths are for bicycles and need to be kept clear to allow smooth transit. I am not cycling JUST for fun, able to stop and be happy to be held up by the lovely cute pooch, I am using my bike as a means of transport.


Indeed, with the exception of the "cycle paths are for bicycles". All the cycle paths near me are shared, nearly all are unsegregated.

Although suggesting that people use the road to walk their dogs shows a certain unwillingness to even contemplate the POV of another resident of this glorious planet.


----------



## rh100 (2 Nov 2009)

At least it was on a lead in the first place, got chased by a massive hound a while back.

They have a right to the path same as you though - but they do need to be under control.


----------



## Nipper (2 Nov 2009)

Many paths near me are shared...I do not like them! If we are to increase cycling and decrease car use it has to be safe and easy to ride. Sharing paths with pedestrians does not allow for safe, smooth transit. If the dog walkers went on roads they could hold up cars which would encourage drivers to get on their bikes. 

It is time to demand better facilities, cars have them, and they are just wreaking our society.


----------



## Cab (2 Nov 2009)

HobbesChoice said:


> Sexist tone?



Her language being very harsh _for a lady_.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Nov 2009)

OTOH I think it's up to us to go slow and be careful around dogs and pedestrians. If you want to go faster, use the road, not the stupid 'kin cycle path. Cycle paths are a blight on the land, and besides which, it's perfectly legal and fine for pedestrians and dogs to use them.


----------



## hackbike 666 (2 Nov 2009)

Personal choice isn't it.I like cycle paths.

Agree that if I was cycling and sharing with dogs and peds down the canal or wherever there are cycle paths I would try and be polite as I don't think I would get anywhere being rude to people however wrong/right they are.

I never look on cycle paths as my god given right to cycle how I feel like or that I own them.



BentMikey said:


> OTOH I think it's up to us to go slow and be careful around dogs and pedestrians.(and good manners) If you want to go faster, use the road, not the cycle path.Cycle paths Motorways are a blight on the land.



I've edited your post slightly.


----------



## Crackle (2 Nov 2009)

On a slightly lighter note, all dog owners should aspire to this level of control


----------



## hackbike 666 (2 Nov 2009)

Oh no doubt...it's not nice to have some mad dog attacking or chasing which has happened to me a few times.


----------



## John the Monkey (2 Nov 2009)

BentMikey said:


> OTOH I think it's up to us to go slow and be careful around dogs and pedestrians.


Feh.

What kind of cyclist are you? You should be getting all arsey the minute anyone not on a bike (and/or slower than you) dares set a foot or a wheel on them. Motorists have been doing this to us for years, why shouldn't we get in a bit of impatience and arrogance on the pedestrian, eh? EH?

Bloody cyclists pedestrians dogs.


----------



## J4CKO (2 Nov 2009)

We have a little black scruffy dog, to be honest its cyclists and joggers that are the problem !

I say cyclists, but I mean those arse dragging scrotes on brakeless BMX's, smoking a fag riding on the pavement, one of which nearly rode over the dog the other day trying to get past and the female jogger that came from behind and stood on the dog, the dog let out a huge yelp and limped for a couple of days, she didnt say a thing, no apology, the dog was walking close to me and was fairly visible (street lights), I could understand if she apologised but the bitch just kept running. Same week some clown with a Dalmation and A Wiemeraner managed to let his Weimeraner attack ours, he got arsey when I shouted to get it under control, our little fart wast getting savaged and he didn tlike the way I spoke to him, he didnt realise that at that point I was picking the kids up from a Scout camp and was armed with a Penknife and his dog nearly got its jugular split, having lost one dog to another attackign it, it isnt hapenning again.

I did put an LED on his lead but the little sod bit it off so I need to attach it better, my point being is that if he is on a short lead I shouldnt have cyclists and joggers treading on him.

Agree on the long leads, personally I find most dog owners very accomodating and I understand the need on paths to let them off to explore, maybe not cycle paths but bridal ways etc, I just wait until I know what it is doing and proceed slowly, I dont want to hurt me or someones pet.


----------



## just jim (2 Nov 2009)

I still haven't got a "snappy" reply for 

"Oh he's harmless..he won't bite..." 

response I invariably get. One suggestion of running up to the owner snarling and growling then saying

"It's alright I don't bite I'm completely harmless"

is the best one yet. Will have to field test it.


----------



## Nipper (2 Nov 2009)

BentMikey said:


> OTOH I think it's up to us to go slow and be careful around dogs and pedestrians. If you want to go faster, use the road, not the stupid 'kin cycle path. Cycle paths are a blight on the land, and besides which, it's perfectly legal and fine for pedestrians and dogs to use them.



So why have they got such high rates of cycling in Holland and Denmark?
CYCLE PATHS
Vehicular cycling has given us 2% modal share and rampant car culture, do you want to be part of the problem or the solution?


----------



## fay144 (2 Nov 2009)

I've recently decided to stop using a shared off-road cycle path near me for just this reason. 

I'd rather brave the alternative - a dual carrigeway with roundabouts every 100m - than listen to prissy old women telling me to slow down when I'm doing 7mph. Cyclists treat it like a road, and dog walkers treat it like a field, when in reality it's neither, and one day there is going to be a serious accident there, IMO.


----------



## hackbike 666 (2 Nov 2009)

Hang on fay when you get to my age you tend to turn into a grumpy old fart.


----------



## John the Monkey (2 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> So why have they got such high rates of cycling in Holland and Denmark?
> CYCLE PATHS


Read John Franklin's work on the subject - there are cycle paths and cycle paths. The ones implemented here are pretty crap[1]. And if you read the literature, even the ones in Holland (as I recall) have a higher accident rate than the roads for cycle users.

Bear in mind that the Netherlands (and France, and Belgium) also have strict liability and a VASTLY different attitude to cyclists.


> Vehicular cycling has given us 2% modal share and rampant car culture, do you want to be part of the problem or the solution?


There are other factors at work in those countries. If you pin your hopes on frightened dashes between strips of green paint as the future of cycling, you're going to be pretty disappointed.

[1] As one example, think about crossing a side road on a path adjacent to a carriageway (side road on your left, cycle path separated from the road also on the left). How wide an angle do you need to observe to pass the side road safely if you are on the cycle path? And how wide if you are on the road?


----------



## Origamist (2 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> Vehicular cycling has given us 2% modal share and rampant car culture, do you want to be part of the problem or the solution?



Nipper, that's a false a dichotomy. Vehicular cycling is a traffic coping strategy, not a tool designed to increase cycling numbers. What has given the UK a paltry 2 to 3% cycling share is 40 odd years of car dependency and autocentric town planning etc.


----------



## Cab (2 Nov 2009)

BentMikey said:


> OTOH I think it's up to us to go slow and be careful around dogs and pedestrians. If you want to go faster, use the road, not the stupid 'kin cycle path. Cycle paths are a blight on the land, and besides which, it's perfectly legal and fine for pedestrians and dogs to use them.



I sort of agree; while we should take extra care around pedestrians, especially those with dogs, there are times when the attitude of pedestrians towards cyclists is hugely unhelpful. I'd generally prefer to use the road, but there are some off-road cycle paths that provide useful shortcuts for me.


----------



## Nipper (2 Nov 2009)

Yeah yeah you live in your, 'it's all so complicated' world and we can have another 40 years of car domination. The reason we have not had investment in cycle infrastructure is governments following the old lie that (cheap) vehicular cycling is the answer. The truth is quite simple, more cycle paths = more cyclists = safer cycling. This is true for every country around the world. Read David Hembrow's blog it's all there. Without the subjective safety offered by real infrastructure, there will not be anything like the increase in cycling numbers we need to save our society from the tyranny of the car.


I know your afraid of losing your right to ride the road if we have more cycle paths... It hasn't happened in Holland or Denmark and they have 50% modal share for cycling and a lot of cycle paths. You know the future is not lycra clad sports cyclists, but normal everyday people in normal clothes. Read CPH Cycle Chic for all the details. So come on, get real, stop quoting the old lies and lets make a REAL difference to cyclist numbers, lets give people the subjective safety of cycle paths/ traffic calming and join the civilized world of European cycling culture.


----------



## John the Monkey (2 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> The truth is quite simple, more cycle paths = more cyclists = safer cycling. This is true for every country around the world. Read David Hembrow's blog it's all there. Without the subjective safety offered by real infrastructure, there will not be anything like the increase in cycling numbers we need to save our society from the tyranny of the car.


?

You need enforcement of traffic law and attitude change as well. Not just painting on the green paint. did you look for John Franklin's work? Can you rebut what he (and the papers he references) say about cyclepath safety here and in the Netherlands?

At the risk of going all Mr Paul, what is the angle you need to look through to pass the side road safely on a cycle path in the example I gave above? How is that better than being on the road in the same situation?



> You know the future is not lycra clad sports cyclists, but normal everyday people in normal clothes. Read CPH Cycle Chic for all the details.


I like Mikael's blog, but his is only a realistic solution once traffic is calmed sufficiently for people to be able to potter along without breaking a sweat (without being intimidated by motor traffic). Our future will be lycra clad for a while yet, at least for those of us actually commuting on roads in Britain, year round, for journeys longer than 3 or 4 miles.


> So come on, get real, stop quoting the old lies and lets make a REAL difference to cyclist numbers, lets give people the subjective safety of cycle paths/ traffic calming and join the civilized world of European cycling culture.


A gift to the anti camp - they can point to how much sloshing all that green paint around is going to cost, shrug regretfully, and continue with tokenism.

We aren't the Netherlands - our solution will, in all probability, be different to theirs, at least until enough of us are on the road to effect real change.


----------



## Origamist (2 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> Yeah yeah you live in your, 'it's all so complicated' world and we can have another 40 years of car domination. The reason we have not had investment in cycle infrastructure is governments following the old lie that (cheap) vehicular cycling is the answer. The truth is quite simple, more cycle paths = more cyclists = safer cycling. This is true for every country around the world.



Nipper, vehicular cycling is not the reason we have not had investment in cycling infrastructure; I'm afraid it's more prosaic than that - there is simply not the political will/vision to cater or invest in what is a minority mode of transport.

The countries you have cited have done a great deal more than simply create cycle paths. I have ridden in the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark etc and have used both on and off road cycle provision. Here is a detailed list of some of the holistic measures undertaken:

*Extensive systems of separate cycling facilities*
• Well-maintained, fully integrated paths, lanes and special bicycle streets in cities and surrounding
regions
• Fully coordinated system of colour-coded directional signs for bicyclists
• Off-street short-cuts, such as mid-block connections and passages through dead-ends for cars
*Intersection modifications and priority traffic signals*
• Advance green lights for cyclists at most intersections
• Advanced cyclist waiting positions (ahead of cars) fed by special bike lanes facilitate safer and
quicker crossings and turns
• Cyclist short-cuts to make right-hand turns before intersections and exemption from red traffic
signals at T-intersections, thus increasing cyclist speed and safety
• Bike paths turn into brightly coloured bike lanes when crossing intersections
• Traffic signals are synchronized at cyclist speeds assuring consecutive green lights for cyclists
(green wave)
• Bollards with flashing lights along bike routes signal cyclists the right speed to reach the next
intersection at a green light
*Traffic calming*
• Traffic calming of all residential neighbourhoods via speed limit (30 km/hr) and physical
infrastructure deterrents for cars
• Bicycle streets, narrow roads where bikes have absolute priority over cars
• ‘Home Zones’ with 7 km/hr speed limit, where cars must yield to pedestrians and cyclists using
the road
*Bike parking*
• Large supply of good bike parking throughout the city
• Improved lighting and security of bike parking facilities often featuring guards, video-surveillance
and priority parking for women
*Coordination with public transport*
• Extensive bike parking at all metro, suburban and regional train stations
• ‘Call a Bike’ programmes: bikes can be rented by cell phone at transit stops, paid for by the minute
and left at any busy intersection in the city
• Bike rentals at most train stations
• Deluxe bike parking garages at some train stations, with video-surveillance, special lighting,
music, repair services and bike rentals
*Traffic education and training*
• Comprehensive cycling training courses for virtually all school children with test by traffic
police
• Special cycling training test tracks for children
• Stringent training of motorists to respect pedestrians and cyclists and avoid hitting them
*Traffic laws*
• Special legal protection for children and elderly cyclists
• Motorists assumed by law to be responsible for almost all crashes with cyclists
• Strict enforcement of cyclist rights by police and courts

Source: Pucher & Buehler





Nipper said:


> Read David Hembrow's blog it's all there. Without the subjective safety offered by real infrastructure, there will not be anything like the increase in cycling numbers we need to save our society from the tyranny of the car.


I do read Hembrow's "View from the Cyclepath" and have linked to it on a number of occasions as it's well argued and thought provoking. FYI, Hembrow left the UK for the Netherlands because he could not get his views heard or accpeted over here and wanted a better cycling/living environment for his family. I can empathise with him.



Nipper said:


> I know your afraid of losing your right to ride the road if we have more cycle paths... It hasn't happened in Holland or Denmark and they have 50% modal share for cycling and a lot of cycle paths. You know the future is not lycra clad sports cyclists, but normal everyday people in normal clothes. Read CPH Cycle Chic for all the details. So come on, get real, stop quoting the old lies and lets make a REAL difference to cyclist numbers, lets give people the subjective safety of cycle paths/ traffic calming and join the civilized world of European cycling culture.



The Danes and the Dutch do not have a 50% modal share nationally. However, where I agree with you is that the future of cycling cannot be simply the preserve of the young, the sporty, or predominantly male, if cycling numbers are to grow signficantly.


----------



## jonny jeez (2 Nov 2009)

I don’t really have much K9 interaction on my commute but I understand the frustration.

Dog's do like to chase moving objects… like wheels……. and often attack when intimidated, as they invariably are when confronted by a fast moving tall thing with flashing lights…. (that its owner seems to have taken a dislike to).

I'm a bit of a closet dog lover, which is to say I don’t own one now as Mrs Jeez is allergic, but always had at least one in the house during my yoof and I can still vouch for the fact that they can be frustrating to cyclists.

I had a small "yappitytype" dog (That’s an Izzardism) go for my eldest daughter while she was learning to ride a few years back and I kind of lost my rag with the dog and its owner…I think my daughter was more shocked by me than the dog.

I would take Mikeys stance … keep a keen eye out, slow down and let it all pass.


----------



## jeltz (2 Nov 2009)

I think the best approach would be to point out that by dragging the lead across the cycle section she has not only endangered you but caused fear and suffering to her pet. If she doesn't care about you she might care about her dog and keep better control next time.

IMHO, there are with very few exceptions, no bad dogs only bad owners. 



Nipper said:


> _<snip> defences_ including climbing a tree, pepper spray, and a water pistol loaded with an ammonia-water solution, <snip>



FWIW I understand for a former postman that those sprays don't work, and just give you a false sense of security.


----------



## J4CKO (2 Nov 2009)

I am loving the image of a canine arrestor hook


----------



## Nipper (2 Nov 2009)

John I read this,
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

Some of the information there is presented in a misleading way...it's statistics, it is going to be presented in a way as to justify the authors point of view. The really issue is that none of it matters, even if we all accept that cycle paths are statistically more dangerous, we have to be aware that is not the view of the general population and never will be. It is about getting bums on seats and cycle infrastructure is what puts them there. 

As to your junction question, perhaps it is worth noting that in Holland cyclists have right of way at all those type of junctions. I do not use dangerous cycle paths and ones that do not give cyclists right of way, but require a death defying ability to look in all directions at once, are dangerous. But again you are missing the point, just because some paths are crap does not mean they are all crap, and even the crap ones are increasing modal share and over all safety. Ultimately it is always going to be about less cars, more bikes and the Dutch/Danish have the solution.

You clearly want to remain in you lycra clad ivory tower, which would be fine if you weren't also part of the problem. As MCA has said it is about man/woman in car looking at cyclist and saying to him/herself "That could be me, it looks safe and easy." Well as long as they see boys in lycra racing past on strange looking bikes they will remain in their cars safe in the knowledge that cycling is just for a bunch of weirdos and hippies.

We must fight hard for a better future, it is costly, but so important for quality of life and as MCA points out, we will save billions in the long run. Origamist thanks for your great post, it highlights how much has to be done. The lycra boys need to shut up or join the party because the future is NORMAL.


----------



## Archie_tect (2 Nov 2009)

People complain about cars when using the road. People complain about pedestrians and dogs being on combined cycle/footpaths. People complain about not being able to go fast. People complain about cars going faster. People complain about wanting more legislation. People complain about rules being unfair.

The common theme is people complain.... we should all learn to relax more and accept the world isn't going to always be the way we want it all the time.


----------



## Cab (2 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> It is about getting bums on seats and cycle infrastructure is what puts them there.



Assuming for the moment that the rest of your argument is correct, whats your evidence for this claim?


----------



## Cab (2 Nov 2009)

Archie_tect said:


> People complain about cars when using the road. People complain about pedestrians and dogs being on combined cycle/footpaths. People complain about not being able to go fast. People complain about cars going faster. People complain about wanting more legislation. People complain about rules being unfair.
> 
> The common theme is people complain.... we should all learn to relax more and accept the world isn't going to always be the way we want it all the time.



While perhaps a lot of the time thats entirely true, its a bit rum for someone to effectively make a cycling facility un-useable by letting a dog run more or less free, don't you think? And perhaps here a little complaining is not unreasonable?


----------



## jonesy (2 Nov 2009)

Norm said:


> Indeed, with the exception of the "cycle paths are for bicycles". All the cycle paths near me are shared, nearly all are unsegregated.
> 
> Although suggesting that people use the road to walk their dogs shows a certain unwillingness to even contemplate the POV of another resident of this glorious planet.



I can't think of any cycle path, anywhere, that are not shared with pedestrians, other than the ones you see taking you round slip roads on dual carrigeways. Unless the OP saw a No Dogs sign somewhere, the dog walker had every bit as much right to use the path as he did. I don't doubt she could have been more considerate and kept her dog under better control, but now we've had two threads in quick succession today in which a cyclist has clearly been going too fast on a a shared path and not anticipating hazards that are commonplace.


----------



## Archie_tect (2 Nov 2009)

Cab said:


> While perhaps a lot of the time thats entirely true, its a bit rum for someone to effectively make a cycling facility un-useable by letting a dog run more or less free, don't you think? And perhaps here a little complaining is not unreasonable?



True Cab, but a lot's to do with the way people interact together and a calmer response should, in the main, get a reasonable reaction so that people will be more amenable next time. Treating someone harshly is more likely to encourage them to react badly to the next person they meet... you will always get the odd idiot who is malicious regardless and the best way to cope with them is to retain your own dignity and move on.


----------



## Cab (2 Nov 2009)

These long reel dog leads are rather thin, most often. A dog on the wrong side to the owner is effectively connected to the owner by a bit of black string, which at night is nigh on invisible. Archie, I think if what you're saying is that a cyclist taken off by someone stretching string across a bike path should stay calm, perhaps you're takign being polite a little further than is reasonable or achievable.

The best way to deal with someone being malicious or stupid is not always silent dignity.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Nov 2009)

Cab said:


> These long reel dog leads are rather thin, most often. A dog on the wrong side to the owner is effectively connected to the owner by a bit of black string, which at night is nigh on invisible.



Surely the cyclist should simply be riding so he can stop within the distance he can see to be clear?


----------



## Cab (2 Nov 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Surely the cyclist should simply be riding so he can stop within the distance he can see to be clear?



As far as is reasonably possible everyone is expected to do so. Its hard to stretch that principle to the point where its your own fault if you hit a thin black string stretched across your path at night, though.


----------



## Crackle (2 Nov 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Surely the cyclist should simply be riding so he can stop within the distance he can see to be clear?




You can't see them though. Just out running tonight and I could see the owner holding one, I could see the dog but I couldn't see the cord and I knew it was there. My dog didn't see it either but luckily he went under it and I went around it.


----------



## Archie_tect (2 Nov 2009)

I won't know 'til it happens cab but I've had to do many emergency stops without losing it.

If you can see someone standing at the side of the path for no particular reason or see a dog running loose in the verge then it's sensible to assume you may need to stop.

I suppose it comes down to how safe it is to cycle when you can't see along a path without street lights when you know there may be dogs and other obstructions. I once scared the living daylights out of a group of boozy teenagers [and me] on a cycle/footpath near my house in the dark as they couldn't hear me coming and even with good lights on my bike and a headlight they just stayed on the path... I didn't hang around to argue with them.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Nov 2009)

Cab said:


> As far as is reasonably possible everyone is expected to do so. *Its hard to stretch that principle to the point where its your own fault if you hit a thin black string stretched across your path at night, though*.



Or indeed a cyclist without lights. Anyway, OT, sorry; I'm referring to another thread. As you were.


----------



## Cab (2 Nov 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Or indeed a cyclist without lights. Anyway, OT, sorry; I'm referring to another thread. As you were.



If a cyclist is all dressed in mat black and extended as a thin cord strung across a sparsely lit cycle path with a moving dog and a moving person acting as distractions then I'm right there with you


----------



## Cab (2 Nov 2009)

Archie_tect said:


> I won't know 'til it happens cab but I've had to do many emergency stops without losing it.
> 
> If you can see someone standing at the side of the path for no particular reason or see a dog running loose in the verge then it's sensible to assume you may need to stop.



I agree, and I should hope that the OP of this thread has learned that too now  You live and learn, and I can quite imagine why someone would be in a bit of a mood about that, and it seems not unreasonable to me to get in to one.


----------



## Archie_tect (2 Nov 2009)

Cab said:


> I agree, and I should hope that the OP of this thread has learned that too now  You live and learn, and I can quite imagine why someone would be in a bit of a mood about that, and it seems not unreasonable to me to get in to one.



True.


----------



## Arch (2 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> 9/10 dogs I meet on cycle paths around town are not on a lead. Why don't these people use the road to walk their dogs; cycle paths are for bicycles and need to be kept clear to allow smooth transit. I am not cycling JUST for fun, able to stop and be happy to be held up by the lovely cute pooch, I am using my bike as a means of transport.



Well, you could use the road too, you know?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Nov 2009)

Cab said:


> If a cyclist is all dressed in mat black and extended as a thin cord strung across a sparsely lit cycle path with a moving dog and a moving person acting as distractions then I'm right there with you



With respect (and without wanting to drag this thread too far off topic; perhaps we should decamp to the "... without lights" thread), there are always distractions on the road, which is part of the reason I'd argue that it's not reasonable to expect a motorist to know that there's an unlit cyclist within the distance he can otherwise see to be clear.


----------



## Origamist (2 Nov 2009)

The daily miscellany of challenges shared use paths pose has led me to consider them akin to obstacle courses. A bit of skill, caution, courtesy and prescience are prerequisites if you want to use them safely!


----------



## Archie_tect (2 Nov 2009)

Origamist said:


> The daily miscellany of challenges shared use paths pose has led me to consider them akin to obstacle courses. A bit of skill, caution and courtesy are prerequisites if you want to use them safely.



+1... extend that to everywhere!


----------



## John the Monkey (2 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> You clearly want to remain in you lycra clad ivory tower, which would be fine if you weren't also part of the problem. As MCA has said it is about man/woman in car looking at cyclist and saying to him/herself "That could be me, it looks safe and easy." Well as long as they see boys in lycra racing past on strange looking bikes they will remain in their cars safe in the knowledge that cycling is just for a bunch of weirdos and hippies.
> 
> We must fight hard for a better future, it is costly, but so important for quality of life and as MCA points out, we will save billions in the long run. Origamist thanks for your great post, it highlights how much has to be done. The lycra boys need to shut up or join the party because the future is NORMAL.


I'm restraining myself from resorting to ad hominem back atcha here.

How would you do a 30 mile round trip, in all weathers (other than ice) on roads with de facto 50 limits, (30 posted, traffic at 40, 40 posted, traffic at 50) then? In a country where if you're not dressed up like a radioactive pound shop, and you DO get hit, the other party's insurance will cry contributory negligence, and the Police will tell you it's half your fault?

On a Pashley, in a suit? 

Ho ho.

And *I'm* the one in an ivory tower. How I laughed.


----------



## Cab (2 Nov 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> With respect (and without wanting to drag this thread too far off topic; perhaps we should decamp to the "... without lights" thread), there are always distractions on the road, which is part of the reason I'd argue that it's not reasonable to expect a motorist to know that there's an unlit cyclist within the distance he can otherwise see to be clear.



The phrase is something like reducing the argument to absurdity; something black, as thin as a string, stretched across a dark cycle path between two moving objects is not analogous to a cyclist/fallen tree/pedestrian, lit or not.


----------



## snorri (2 Nov 2009)

The thread topic is dogs on cycle paths and the failure of the dog owner to restrain the animal. Comparison with The Netherlands does little to help the debate.
Dog owners in The Netherlands take a much greater pride in training their animals than their UK counterparts so cycle/dog problems seldom arise.
It is very likely the Dutch dog owner will also be a cyclist, so as well as caring for his dog will be acting with consideration for any cyclists. 
There are few joint user paths in The Netherlands, any pedestrians on a cycle path, with or without dog, are very quickly and loudly informed of the error of their ways.


----------



## Bay Runner (2 Nov 2009)

Norm said:


> Oh, good, yet another "Anyone not me should be shot" thread.
> 
> 
> Opening the dialogue with "it's a bloody cycle path" or whatever might have been a good way to elicit an defensive response from someone whose dog you narrowly avoided strangling. There might have been better ways to have started that encounter than getting emotional yourself.
> ...




The pedestrian path runs alongside the cycle path (both are clearly marked) after I rang my bell and slowed down she moved cross the cycle path to the pedestrian path leaving the two dogs with her partner on the far right of the cycle path. That indicated to me that they had seen me and taken appropriate action. 

It was only when I was on top of them did it become apparent that the dog was on the lead on the right hand side of the cycle path and she was was on the pedestrian foot path on the left hand side, on the other end of the lead.

To be honest with you was not interested in the dog's welfare, I was more interested in staying on the bike and avoiding injury. 

I have been cycling this route for 13 plus years and the vast majority of dog walkers restrain the pets when I have indicated my presence. 

Yes I may have elicited a defensive response but I was very angered by her actions, which she found hard to defend. 


_ps With regards to breaks I should have been on a break as it was 0230 whilst writing this post _


----------



## Bay Runner (3 Nov 2009)

jeltz said:


> I think the best approach would be to point out that by dragging the lead across the cycle section she has not only endangered you but caused fear and suffering to her pet. If she doesn't care about you she might care about her dog and keep better control next time.
> .



With hindsight I agree 
But oh the red mist at the time !


----------



## Bay Runner (3 Nov 2009)

J4CKO said:


> I am loving the image of a canine arrestor hook




LOL


----------



## Crankarm (3 Nov 2009)

Tonight in the darkness riding around the edge of the scummy estate on a newly appointed double width cycle path about 4m wide, was a middle aged large woman dressed in dark clothing, the other side was her dog also in a dark coat. Joining the two across the full width of the cycle path was an invisible extending lead ready to unseat me. Well it probably wouldn't have unseated me, more me dragging her and the dog along the path behind me . Anyway none of this occurred fortunately as the woman heard me and jumped pretty damn sharpish across the path to re-unite herself with her dog uttering a meek apology. So I wasn't garotted.


----------



## Bay Runner (3 Nov 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Tonight in the darkness riding around the edge of the scummy estate on a newly appointed double width cycle path about 4m wide, was a middle aged large woman dressed in dark clothing, the other side was her dog also in a dark coat. Joining the two across the full width of the cycle path was an invisible extending lead ready to unseat me. Well it probably wouldn't have unseated me, more me dragging her and the dog along the path behind me . Anyway none of this occurred fortunately as the woman heard me and jumped pretty damn sharpish across the path to re-unite herself with her dog uttering a meek apology. So I wasn't garotted.



At least she had a grasp on the situation


----------



## Nipper (3 Nov 2009)

John the Monkey said:


> I'm restraining myself from resorting to ad hominem back atcha here.
> 
> How would you do a 30 mile round trip, in all weathers (other than ice) on roads with de facto 50 limits, (30 posted, traffic at 40, 40 posted, traffic at 50) then? In a country where if you're not dressed up like a radioactive pound shop, and you DO get hit, the other party's insurance will cry contributory negligence, and the Police will tell you it's half your fault?
> 
> ...



Oh no I am really sorry to hear that you have been forced to live an unreasonable distance from your workplace. When you are able to move closer you can join the normal world and stop with all the lycra nonsense.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Nov 2009)

Holland is good in spite of the cycle paths, not because of them, despite your misleading points about JF's writings. And let's be clear, it's you who is misleading, not John Franklin.


----------



## John the Monkey (3 Nov 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Holland is good in spite of the cycle paths, not because of them, despite your misleading points about JF's writings. And let's be clear, it's you who is misleading, not John Franklin.


Can't argue with a true believer Mikey.

This is my problem with the whole "Copenhagenize" stuff.

It doesn't take into account existing patterns of work and habitation, and basically says a large "f*** you" to people who are already out there riding bikes to work, on errands, etc etc, because they don't approve of how those people are doing it. Simultaneously they tell everyone "Just move house" "Just build cycle lanes" "Just travel at 10 mph in a suit while the traffic around you does 50". Those, it seems to be suggested, need less of a mental leap than the thought that you *might* need special gear to ride (I'd say you don't, to anyone travelling around 5 miles or less, and remember the average commute in the UK is 4.7 miles). Here I am, member of the Bike User Group at work, participant in some of the guided rides we do here for new commuters, regular poster in the beginners section of this very website, and yet *I'm* the problem because of the length of my commute and what I choose to wear while doing it. 

Nipper, you might want to think about whether slagging off other utility cyclists based on what they wear is a productive method of advocacy.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (3 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> Oh no I am really sorry to hear that you have been forced to live an unreasonable distance from your workplace. When you are able to move closer you can join the normal world and stop with all the lycra nonsense.


Yay - we have a new troll spouting cr*p to laugh at. 

So "normal" is having to move house to get to within a couple of miles of ones workplace just so you can use a bike without wearing lycra... thus showing everyone how much fun and "normal" it is... and then they too must move house to be within the aforementioned "normal" distance and will use a bike too?

Yeah, and then you can wake up and have your Corn Flakes, eh?


----------



## jonny jeez (3 Nov 2009)

Archie_tect said:


> True Cab, but a lot's to do with the way people interact together and a calmer response should, in the main, get a reasonable reaction so that people will be more amenable next time. Treating someone harshly is more likely to encourage them to react badly to the next person they meet... you will always get the odd idiot who is malicious regardless and the best way to cope with them is to retain your own dignity and move on.




+1




Origamist said:


> The daily miscellany of challenges shared use paths pose has led me to consider them akin to obstacle courses. A bit of skill, caution, courtesy and prescience are prerequisites if you want to use them safely!



Ditto


----------



## Nipper (3 Nov 2009)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Yay - we have a new troll spouting cr*p to laugh at.
> 
> So "normal" is having to move house to get to within a couple of miles of ones workplace just so you can use a bike without wearing lycra... thus showing everyone how much fun and "normal" it is... and then they too must move house to be within the aforementioned "normal" distance and will use a bike too?
> 
> Yeah, and then you can wake up and have your Corn Flakes, eh?



Yes normal is living near to where you work. It is strange that you don't get that. All I want to see less cars and more bikes, do you?


----------



## hackbike 666 (3 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> Yes normal is living near to where you work. It is strange that you don't get that. All I want to see less cars and more bikes, do you?



Don't agree.If that was true I wouldn't have a job where I get up at 4 in the morning so I can get people to work*.

*=Im not complaining.Prefer 4am starts to 9am starts.


----------



## Nipper (3 Nov 2009)

John the Monkey said:


> This is my problem with the whole "Copenhagenize" stuff.
> 
> It doesn't take into account existing patterns of work and habitation, and basically says a large "f*** you" to people who are already out there riding bikes to work, on errands, etc etc, because they don't approve of how those people are doing it. Simultaneously they tell everyone "Just move house" "Just build cycle lanes" "Just travel at 10 mph in a suit while the traffic around you does 50". Those, it seems to be suggested, need less of a mental leap than the thought that you *might* need special gear to ride (I'd say you don't, to anyone travelling around 5 miles or less, and remember the average commute in the UK is 4.7 miles). Here I am, member of the Bike User Group at work, participant in some of the guided rides we do here for new commuters, regular poster in the beginners section of this very website, and yet *I'm* the problem because of the length of my commute and what I choose to wear while doing it.
> 
> Nipper, you might want to think about whether slagging off other utility cyclists based on what they wear is a productive method of advocacy.



So you don't like the idea of 'Copenhagenize'. Is that because you quite like the 'lycra clad road warrior' image? At 2% modal share it makes you different, part of a small elite group. When the revolution comes you will not be so special then, everyone will ride bikes and you will only be strange because you do it in fetish gear.

We could carry on with the same ineffectual advocacy of the last 30 years or we could look to the countries who got it right and have high levels of cycling.

The key is do you want to see more bikes and less cars?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Nov 2009)

Cab said:


> The phrase is something like reducing the argument to absurdity; something black, as thin as a string, stretched across a dark cycle path between two moving objects is not analogous to a cyclist/fallen tree/pedestrian, lit or not.



No, but the principle's the same (_reductio ad absurdum_, or something). Consider this ... last night, I was driving along the unlit B road with two pedestrians on a pavement to my left. I noticed one of them was weaving about and walking in the road, so I watched him and pulled out, then watched him in my mirror as my trailer went past. Only after I'd gone past him did I notice the unlit cyclist a bit further on. My point is that yes, in an ideal world you'd be able to concentrate exclusively on the 200 yards of road in front of you; in practice, there are plenty of other things to concentrate on which conspire to hinder you doing so. If the cyclist last night had been lit, I'd have seen him from much further back and would have been able to factor in his presence much earlier.
Anyway, it doesn't strike me as too absurd to suggest that if it's too dark to see a dog lead, it's too dark to cycle at much more than walking pace if there are dogs and people about.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> So you don't like the idea of 'Copenhagenize'. Is that because you quite like the 'lycra clad road warrior' image? At 2% modal share it makes you different, part of a small elite group. When the revolution comes you will not be so special then, everyone will ride bikes and you will only be strange because you do it in fetish gear.
> 
> We could carry on with the same ineffectual advocacy of the last 30 years or we could look to the countries who got it right and have high levels of cycling.
> 
> The key is do you want to see more bikes and less cars?



This is an odd post. Perhaps I've missed some back history here, but lycra makes sense when cycling longer distances.


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2009)

I'm all for inclusivity: lycra, tweed, denim, polyester, latex - whatever.


----------



## hackbike 666 (3 Nov 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> My point is that yes, in an ideal world you'd be able to concentrate exclusively on the 200 yards of road in front of you; in practice, there are plenty of other things to concentrate on which conspire to hinder you doing so.



That's true though.I find in Central London im forever concentrating on the fact that a ped may be crossing between traffic which is very common and also the fact of what that cab/bus/cyclist/car/lorry is going to do next.


----------



## Cab (3 Nov 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> No, but the principle's the same (_reductio ad absurdum_, or something). Consider this ... last night, I was driving along the unlit B road with two pedestrians on a pavement to my left. I noticed one of them was weaving about and walking in the road, so I watched him and pulled out, then watched him in my mirror as my trailer went past. Only after I'd gone past him did I notice the unlit cyclist a bit further on. My point is that yes, in an ideal world you'd be able to concentrate exclusively on the 200 yards of road in front of you; in practice, there are plenty of other things to concentrate on which conspire to hinder you doing so. If the cyclist last night had been lit, I'd have seen him from much further back and would have been able to factor in his presence much earlier.
> Anyway, it doesn't strike me as too absurd to suggest that if it's too dark to see a dog lead, it's too dark to cycle at much more than walking pace if there are dogs and people about.



That someone was unlit at night on a bike but visible to you because you were going at an appropriate speed is a good demonstration that responsible motoring trumps well lit cyclists 

There is a point, however, when if an obstacle can only be determined by deduction (a string between a dog and a person) you're getting to a position where its rather bad luck to miss it, and its getting fair to put more of the blame on the other guy. Here I doubt any cyclist would make this mistake twice, but its harsh to come down on the cyclist too much for doing it once.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Nov 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Surely the cyclist should simply be riding so he can stop within the distance he can see to be clear?



Let's just be slightly more fair than you are being, RT, and remember what I posted on this topic. I think my attitude is both fair and consistent, no?



BentMikey said:


> OTOH I think it's up to us to go slow and be careful around dogs and pedestrians. If you want to go faster, use the road, not the stupid 'kin cycle path. Cycle paths are a blight on the land, and besides which, it's perfectly legal and fine for pedestrians and dogs to use them.



Given the prevalence of dog walkers, dogs, and extendable leads, their presence isn't exactly hard to predict and then avoid. Besides which, it's a general rule of good riding and driving not to pass between parent/child and owner/dog as very often the latter will run back to the former when surprised.

p.s. my posts are more general in nature, and not aimed at the OP, so please don't take it personally. I have some sympathy with the frustration!


----------



## paddy01 (3 Nov 2009)

Origamist said:


> I'm all for inclusivity: lycra, tweed, denim, polyester, latex - whatever.



Excellent, my new outer garb for cycling shall be the latex gimp suit, with matching snooker ball and conveniently placed flaps.


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2009)

paddy01 said:


> Excellent, my new outer garb for cycling shall be the latex gimp suit, with matching snooker ball and conveniently placed flaps.



I'll guarantee that people will notice you. I advised BM that he should cycle with a sex doll strapped to his back/tailbox, but sadly, he refused...


----------



## John the Monkey (3 Nov 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Perhaps I've missed some back history here, but lycra makes sense when cycling longer distances.


The problem is that it treacherously denormalises cycling, thus undoing the sterling work done by cycling advocates on their blogs.


----------



## theclaud (3 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> . All I want to see less cars and more bikes, do you?



_Fewer_ cars, Nipper. Fewer.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Nov 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Let's just be slightly more fair than you are being, RT, and remember what I posted on this topic. I think my attitude is both fair and consistent, no?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I quite agree. It wasn't aimed at you; it was a tongue in cheek reference to Cab's position on the matter.


----------



## Nipper (3 Nov 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> This is an odd post. Perhaps I've missed some back history here, but lycra makes sense when cycling longer distances.



Lycra is not the only cloth useful for long distances but my point is based on an article by MCC from Copenhegenize.
_
There is a more effective way to move steadily towards
a culture that can be enjoyed by everyone. It’s something
I call, somewhat revolutionarily, ‘riding your bike’. A
normal bike. Wearing normal clothes. Just like the way
that hundreds of thousands of people in Europe – from
Ferrara, Italy in the south to Trondheim, Norway in the
north – do. Will it work? Indeed it will.
Enter Joe Everyman. An unlikely superhero if ever
there was one.
Joe is an average citizen in a car-based society,
driving to work each day. Like the vast majority of
the population, he is not an environmental activist and he never, ever will be. The only thing that is likely to
force him out of his car is the increasing price of fuel.
What does Joe think when he sees a hardcore cyclist
on a specialist bike or a fixie speed past his car? He
might well think, “Hmm, I could ride my bike to work
too...” It’s unlikely, however, he’ll see himself reflected
in the image of the cyclist. What he’ll probably see is
a member of an often militant sub-culture, wearing
different clothes to anything he would wear and riding
a bike so far removed from any that Joe has ever owned.
Joe will believe that riding his bike would mean
infiltrating an elitist subculture, investing a lot of
money in specialist gear, streamlined clothes and a
fancy bike. Worst of all, Joe would find himself making
a statement by riding. Joe Everyman doesn’t wish to
make a statement. He just wants to live his life, not
climb onto a soapbox. If Joe’s route home is blocked by
a bike protest/demonstration/celebration, he’ll just
get pissed off and we’ll lose him.
Now let’s imagine Joe Everyman in traffic seeing
another chap ride past in a shirt and tie and a briefcase
on the back rack. He’s not out to break land-speed
records and the only gear on him is trouser clips and,
if you like, a helmet. Just taking it easy and practising
risk management instead of risk taking. Oh, and
the man’s bike resembles the one in Joe’s garage.
Moments later, a girl passes by on a cool sit-up-andbeg
bike with a wicker basket, wearing a skirt and
stylish shoes and listening to her iPod. Joe Everyman
might think, “I could do that. It’s only 15 kilometres. That
guy looks like me. And that girl makes it look easy...”_ 

Mikael Coleville Anderson, from an article in issue 1 of the ride
Read more on copenhagenize.com


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> Lycra is not the only cloth useful for long distances but my point is based on an article by MCC from Copenhegenize.
> _ ... article ...
> _
> 
> ...



Fair enough, but it's hardly a reason to have a go at those who choose to wear lycra to commute. I do myself.


----------



## Arch (3 Nov 2009)

I wear some lycra on my commute, I can't help it, it's woven into my bra and pants...


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Nov 2009)

<goes off for cold shower>


----------



## Norm (3 Nov 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> <goes off for cold shower>


If it helps dampen your ardour (or 'arder), RT, my underwear also contains lycra.


----------



## Crankarm (3 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> Lycra is not the only cloth useful for long distances but my point is based on an article by MCC from Copenhegenize.
> 
> _There is a more effective way to move steadily towards_
> _a culture that can be enjoyed by everyone. It’s something_
> ...




RoFL...........Nipper has revealed himself to be......... a PETROLHEAD.

And buying a car and wearing a suit and tie and brogues isn't a statement ?

Perhaps the reason why Lyrca is worn so widely by cyclists is because it happens to be the best fabric to wear for cycling. It's light, wicks away sweat, and dries quickly in comparison to other materials such as cotton. If you wash it it can be dry in 5-10 minutes or less on a warm day. Cotton takes a lot longer to dry. Is it just the bright colours of Lycra that racing road cyclists tend to wear that causes you a problem or the material itself? You can get subdued colours such as black and grey to match the colour scheme of a suit. Cycling in a suit and tie and smart shoes would really knacker them and to be honest would be rather uncomfortable and unpleasant after a short distance IMHO. Ok one could cycle in smart casual light linens but Lycra is very functional. Lycra and other man made materials happen to be used a lot in hiking and climbing clothing as well as in field and track clothing. I suppose next you'll be arguing that 10,000m runners should be wearing suits or smart shirts and trousers or skirts as the case may be .


----------



## Nipper (3 Nov 2009)

Crankarm said:


> RoFL...........Nipper has revealed himself to be......... a PETROLHEAD.
> 
> And buying a car and wearing a suit and tie and brogues isn't a statement ?


Not sure how you get there from my post FYI I don't own a car never have, I don't know how they work.

So if lycra is so good why don't all the millions of European cyclists wear it? I tend to wear what ever clothes I happen to be wearing, always a kangol504, sometimes with a suit, sometimes tweed (which is arguably the best material for cycling), but mostly in jeans and jumpers . I am showing those non cyclists that it is not a weird subculture but normal to ride a bicycle.

Initially I read a few threads here and thought this seems like an interesting forum. Further reading in the last few days has lead me to think that an awful lot of people here are lycra clad road warriors (or even worse weekend racers). Are there any posters here who are normal cyclists on upright bikes wearing normal clothes? Are there any people living car free?


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> So if lycra is so good why don't all the millions of European cyclists wear it? I tend to wear what ever clothes I happen to be wearing, always a kangol504, sometimes with a suit, sometimes tweed (which is arguably the best material for cycling), but mostly in jeans and jumpers . I am showing those non cyclists that it is not a weird subculture but normal to ride a bicycle.



In the UK, one of the cornerstones of early to mid 20th century transport was the utility cyclist. Now, the notion of cycling a few miles to the shops is alien to most people. The disappearance of the utililty cyclist heralded the end of cycling in everyday apparel for many people. 

We could go down the sub-culture, out-group, signifier/signified route with regard to clothing - but that's a diversion - it's fundamentally about the act of cycling, garb is a side-show; albeit often a garish one. 



Nipper said:


> Initially I read a few threads here and thought this seems like an interesting forum. Further reading in the last few days has lead me to think that an awful lot of people here are lycra clad road warriors (or even worse weekend racers). Are there any posters here who are normal cyclists on upright bikes wearing normal clothes? Are there any people living car free?



Don't give up just yet. Commuting is one of the more rough-and-tumble parts of the forum and the dialogue can get strained and adversarial from time to time.

FYI, I sometimes wear normal clothes, sometimes lycra and I live car free.


----------



## John the Monkey (3 Nov 2009)

Origamist said:


> In the UK, one of the cornerstones of early to mid 20th century transport was the utility cyclist. Now, the notion of cycling a few miles to the shops is alien to most people. The disappearance of the utililty cyclist heralded the end of cycling in everyday apparel for many people.
> 
> We could go down the sub-culture, out-group, signifier/signified route with regard to clothing - but that's a diversion - it's fundamentally about the act of cycling, garb is a side-show; albeit often a garish one.


Back then "racing" gear was expensive and difficult to care for, also rather uncomfortable. People wore it to race, but even the pros of the day didn't wear it for training, (there are, as I recall, pictures of Fausto Coppi training in "regular clothes" (albeit in knee length breeches rather than trousers, even then a degree of bike specificity was considered necessary)).

Today's technical fabrics are cheap, easy to wash, and fundamentally VERY good at keeping you comfy on the bike. Is it worth throwing them on to nip to the shops? 'Course not. Is it worth it over ten or more miles? I'd say so, although I wouldn't have a problem with those disagreeing, so long as they didn't paint themselves as the pinnacle of bike advocacy because of a sartorial choice. (FFS).


----------



## Origamist (3 Nov 2009)

Great grandpa Origamist cycled everywhere in his farming gear and often carried a lamb with him!


----------



## hackbike 666 (3 Nov 2009)

*Are there any people living car free?

*Here also I don't wear lycra but I think it's comfortable and can look sexy on the right person.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> Not sure how you get there from my post FYI I don't own a car never have, I don't know how they work.
> 
> So if lycra is so good why don't all the millions of European cyclists wear it? I tend to wear what ever clothes I happen to be wearing, always a kangol504, sometimes with a suit, sometimes tweed (which is arguably the best material for cycling), but mostly in jeans and jumpers . I am showing those non cyclists that it is not a weird subculture but normal to ride a bicycle.
> 
> Initially I read a few threads here and thought this seems like an interesting forum. Further reading in the last few days has lead me to think that an awful lot of people here are lycra clad road warriors (or even worse weekend racers). Are there any posters here who are normal cyclists on upright bikes wearing normal clothes? Are there any people living car free?



Well, I'm genuinely pleased for you. You need to get over the idea that what works for you isn't necessarily right for everyone else though; personally, I'd find commuting 12 miles each way in my work geara pain, and I find it a lot easier in lycra and SPD shoes. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit with your idea of what a cyclist should be, but there we are.
I was car free for a year or so, but a) I play in a band most weekends and found it difficult to transport guitars and amplifiers around without a car, and  I love cars and driving.


----------



## dondare (3 Nov 2009)

I sometimes use a cycle-path, and this path actually has a footpath running parallel to it just a few yards away. The footpath has several doggy-poo bins along it's length. 

So guess which of these two paths the doggers, joggers, and baby-buggyers all use.

There's one guy sits on a bench and lets his big, boundy dog run all over the place. It chases me every time, sometimes with a stick in it's mouth. 

That's what it's like, and the fact is that if I don't like it then I can always use the road instead. Dogs and their owners and their 50 yards of invisible extending lead are cycle-path hazards; probably not even the worst ones.


----------



## Cubist (3 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> Not sure how you get there from my post FYI I don't own a car never have, I don't know how they work.
> 
> So if lycra is so good why don't all the millions of European cyclists wear it? I tend to wear what ever clothes I happen to be wearing, always a kangol504, sometimes with a suit, sometimes tweed (which is arguably the best material for cycling), but mostly in jeans and jumpers . I am showing those non cyclists that it is not a weird subculture but normal to ride a bicycle.
> 
> Initially I read a few threads here and thought this seems like an interesting forum. Further reading in the last few days has lead me to think that an awful lot of people here are lycra clad road warriors (or even worse weekend racers). Are there any posters here who are normal cyclists on upright bikes wearing normal clothes? Are there any people living car free?



I'm sorry Nipper, but you have shown yourself to be completely single-issued and exclusionary. You assume many things and then appeal to all of to consider your, and only your standpoint as "normal". 

To answer some of your questions; I cycle for many reasons. I also drive a car, so no, I am not part of some mass movement to rid the world of cars.
I ride several bikes for fun, relaxation, leisure and fitness. I use my commute as a workout at the beginning and end of each day. I wear lycra cos it's practical . I own lots of tweed, but wouldn't consider cycling in it. 

If you vision of Utopia is a country where we all cycle on sit up and begs, wearing suits and trouser clips, pedalling genteely along a nationwide infrastructure of cycle superhighways, then I suggest you will be frustrated in your cause.

Oh and by the way, I use a retractable dog lead as well.


----------



## dondare (3 Nov 2009)

Ah, the lycra debate. It'll be helmets next....

"Distrust any enterprise that requires new clothes" as Henry David Thoreau famously said. And of course, people do. 
I wear my ordinary clothes for the ride home simply because I got fed up with changing at the end of the day. But I also don't want to look like I'm performing some untrustworthy activity when I riding, so I usually don't bother with the helmet either. 

When it rains, though, I put on a Hi-viz Gore-tex jacket that screams out *"CYCLIST!!"*
It's only sensible...


----------



## Crankarm (3 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> Not sure how you get there from my post FYI I don't own a car never have, I don't know how they work.
> 
> So if lycra is so good why don't all the millions of European cyclists wear it? I tend to wear what ever clothes I happen to be wearing, always a kangol504, sometimes with a suit, sometimes tweed (which is arguably the best material for cycling), but mostly in jeans and jumpers . I am showing those non cyclists that it is not a weird subculture but normal to ride a bicycle.
> 
> Initially I read a few threads here and thought this seems like an interesting forum. Further reading in the last few days has lead me to think that an awful lot of people here are lycra clad road warriors (or even worse weekend racers). Are there any posters here who are normal cyclists on upright bikes wearing normal clothes? Are there any people living car free?



You do what's right for you Nipper. If you are comfortable cycling in plus fours tweed jacket and deer stalking hat you wear them. Don't mind what others say. Each to their own and all that.

Btw who are the millions of Europeans who cycle in 'normal' clothes? Are they in the UK as we are all European now? You seem to have very definite opinions as to peoples' behaviour. A few sweeping generalisations perhaps? They can creep in any where at any time.

Don't take this the wrong way but you're not winding everyone up are you?

Safe cycling.


----------



## dondare (3 Nov 2009)

Crankarm said:


> You do what's right for you Nipper. If you are comfortable in plus fours tweed jacket and deer stalking hat you wear them. Don't mind what others say. Each to their own and all that.
> 
> Btw who are the millions of Europeans who cycle in 'normal' clothes? Are they in the UK as we are all European now?
> 
> ...



I'm wondering if some of you aren't winding Nipper up.


----------



## Crankarm (3 Nov 2009)

dondare said:


> I'm wondering if some of you aren't winding Nipper up.



Too much wondering means you have too much spare time .


----------



## Bay Runner (18 Nov 2009)

dondare said:


> I sometimes use a cycle-path, and this path actually has a footpath running parallel to it just a few yards away. The footpath has several doggy-poo bins along it's length.
> 
> So guess which of these two paths the *doggers*, joggers, and baby-buggyers all use.
> 
> .




Now that's another issue entirely


----------



## Arch (18 Nov 2009)

Nipper said:


> Are there any posters here who are normal cyclists on upright bikes wearing normal clothes? Are there any people living car free?



Yes. 4 days a week I commute on a hack made up of an MTB frame and hub brakes/gears, in quick drying walking trousers, tee-shirt, sweatshirt and steel toecap shoes. The other, on the same bike, I wear jeans, tee-shirt and sweatshirt and trainers. Riding about town, visiting friends etc, I'll be in jeans.

Weekend day rides or touring on my Galaxy or Giant FCR, I wear lycra. I do have a yellow jacket.

And I haven't had a car for... 12 years. Have only ever had one car and I didn't really _need_ that, I just wanted one - and that was before I got into cycling anyway.

I do have a recumbent, so I also have a non-upright bike, does that matter?


----------



## rondo (17 Oct 2012)

Bay Runner said:


> Dogs & Cycle paths arrgggghhh
> 
> On my commute in tonight I had a set to with a female dog walker.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (17 Oct 2012)

You've resurrected a 3 year old thread and haven't left any message. Having difficulty with your first post?


----------



## rondo (17 Oct 2012)

Dogs on cycle Paths,

I live in Clackmannanshire and a new cycle path has been built between Menstrie and Cambus, Being impressed with how well built the path was I decided to treat myself to a £999 hybrid bike to use it,
However!! The cycle path is totally spoiled by lazy irresponsible dog owners who allow their dogs to wander all over the path off their leads, After having several near misses with roaming dogs I finally met my match,

One Idiot saw me coming from at least a hundred yards and I rang my bell and I made eye contact with him, his collie then chased after me trying to grab the side of my bike then ran infront of me, I then rode straight over the top of the dog going over the handlebars hitting my face off the ground causing severe bruising and painfully damaging my knee leaving me with a limp for over a week,

The owner simply shrugged his shoulders and said "the path is for everyone" more concerned about his dog being ok, this cost me £50 to replace my gloves and shorts and has caused sever hundred pounds worth of damage to my bike,

Lets stand up to these irresponsible idiots now!!

Bylaw 56 of the transport act says dogs must be kept on a short lead,
https://www.gov.uk/rules-about-animals-47-to-58/other-animals-56-to-58

And the dogs act 1987(scotland) section 49 says it is an offence to cause an accident by a dog,

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/254430/0114020.pdf

Lets stand up to the lazy irresponsible idiots who allow dogs to wander out of control and cause cyclists accidents on our precious few cycle paths, especially when they are surrounded by hills and fields,

Take your dog and piles of poo bags somwhere else!!!


----------



## Lee_M (17 Oct 2012)

sorry for your off, but dogs dont understand you making eye contact with the owner or ringing your bell, so assume he's going to ignore your warning

Its your bike and your life - don't expect others to feel the same way about them - look after number one


----------



## davefb (17 Oct 2012)

yikes, think I'd report it... not sure if council or police first though?


----------



## Downward (17 Oct 2012)

These leads are really hard to see. I'll stick to the roads in the dark.


----------



## User6179 (17 Oct 2012)

rondo said:


> Dogs on cycle Paths,
> 
> I live in Clackmannanshire and a new cycle path has been built between Menstrie and Cambus, Being impressed with how well built the path was I decided to treat myself to a £999 hybrid bike to use it,
> However!! The cycle path is totally spoiled by lazy irresponsible dog owners who allow their dogs to wander all over the path off their leads, After having several near misses with roaming dogs I finally met my match,
> ...


 
Sounds like the guy was being an idiot but as far as i know there is no law about keeping your dog on a short lead on a shared path although this would be the sensible thing to do , to be honest with you you should have stopped and waited as even though your in the right to continue you still have a duty of care to the dog even though the owner appears not to care about the dog getting hurt.

100% your in the right but I would say if you end up in the same scenario just stop as you and the dog will be the only losers .


----------



## gambatte (17 Oct 2012)

It says 'guide' at the top of the page and I reckon thats just it. My dogs hardly ever on the lead. We do 20 mile runs, of which maybe 1/2 a miles on the lead. When there are rules it tends to say 'close control'. I can get Kenny under close control without a lead - infact its easier to do it with him that way.


----------

