Bath-Bristol path "not the place for reckless speed cycling" says Sustrans after 9-year-old breaks collar bone in collision

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

The point of an alternative route for cyclists is to provide a safer environment for those who would prefer to cycle separated from motorised vehicles. My expectations are realistic. I do not expect existing buildings to be demolished or pavements narrowed on Britain's already narrow streets to create extra space for segregated cycle lanes. Too expensive. Too impractical in most places.

BONG! Cyclist-hating troll confirmed! You got the first two of http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses... in just one paragraph - well done!

Quote:

What would you say to a person complaining about the Oxford Street pavements, branding them as failures, because he keeps having to stop for clueless tourists, people walking four abreast, pushchairs ...etc and cannot get from A to B as quickly as he would like?

I'd tell him to join the campaign to pedestrianise Oxford Street instead of gifting it to bus companies as a giant open-air bus station - I think Westminster Living Streets were leading that one.

Quote:

I know what I would say: "Get a life you arrogant *******! The world does not revolve around you and your needs, nor should it!".

I'm not surprised. So, to GRIC, if you need to get to work or somewhere in reasonable time and you want to do that without a car, you're an arrogant line of asterisks.

Or maybe you're just an ordinary human being.

arfa wrote:

the battle for cycling is nothing to do with those of us who already do, it is the 60% who want to, but are too afraid to do so. That is what sustrans are doing and that is where he battle will be won

Which means providing routes that achieve a job that is currently done by cars, unless you consider more leisure cyclists a good thing, and are happy that Monday to Friday they continue to drive to work.

Sorry but I have little interest in increasing the numbers of leisure cyclists, we need people to see cycling to the shops, to work as normal. The two ways to achieve this, make driving as hard as possible and make cycling as easy as possible.

This means good tracks, that go where people want to go.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

The primary purpose of a cycling path (shared or otherwise) is to provide a safer option for those who would prefer not to cycle on the roads. They are not built to save you time on your commute or allow you to average 20mph or whatever. That isn't the criteria for measuring their success.

Except that the DfT guidance says that they should be designed for 20mph, so it should be one of the criteria for measuring their success.

There's also quite an open question on whether they're safer than the road. They're certainly nicer, but there's lots of dangers on them which aren't present on the road (like erratic users - what would the reaction be if little Theo had done that ill-considered overtake on the A4 and been wiped out by a truck?) and the data is rather mixed (Franklin on Redways http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html (has obvious holes though), that paper from Salzburg about bicycle sidepaths http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sidepath/adfc173.htm and so on)... so if safety is one of your criteria for measuring their success, they might be failing there too!

If cycle paths were designed well and kept up with demand like roads do (I'm often reminded of http://lcc.org.uk/articles/what-would-british-roads-look-like-if-we-trea... ), this problem wouldn't be so bad.

Sustrans and the local councils should stop trying to shift the blame off of themselves and onto people who actually try to use the crap they build!

3cylinder wrote:

So we want drivers to use caution and respect cycles on the roads shared by bikes and cars, but aren't prepared to use caution and respect pedestrians on paths shared by cycles and walkers? That's what it sounds like reading some of these comments.

Anyone who thinks cycles should have some kind of right of way on these paths is squarely in the same mould as Clarkson.

Yes, pedestrians need to do their bit too, but as the faster users cyclists are ultimately responsible for controlling their speed around other slower users, especially children & dogs who can be expected to behave erratically. Speed up if it's clear, slow down if it isn't - is that so terribly difficult? If that doesn't fit what you want to do, don't use the path.

This all seems a bit of a side-issue to me. On leisure routes shared with children and dogs and pedestrians, sure, cyclists shouldn't assume right-of-way, and should be considerate. The cyclist in this incident may-or-may-not have been reckless (we don't really know the exact details but it sounds as if he should have been going more slowly and carefully).

The main point though is that those routes are not enough, and if Sustrans is only about such routes then its addressing a different issue to the one I consider important.

Which isn't a reason to condemn Sustrans, any more than I'd condemn an animal welfare charity for not solving famines in Africa. Just means its an organisation of little relevance to me.

Luminosity wrote:

Interesting takes on this. I think what Sustrans is doing is great - BUT - it needs more thought going into design. The Italian San Remo bike path accommodates pedestrians as well as two-way cycle traffic. It's a pleasure to ride and the surface is excellent: Have a look: http://goo.gl/h2mVyc

I'm all for separation of peds and cycles - having been almost knocked off my bike by:

• Pedestrians that spread all over the path in a group and cannot hear bike bells
• Pedestrians that have earphones in and cannot hear cyclists but insist on walking in the middle of the path regardless
• Dog owners that let their dogs wander all over the path because little rover won't harm anyone
• And finally, the appalling state of some of the bike paths (Tarka Trail near Torrington and Bideford for example). Great for mountain bikes - not great for road bikes.

Every shared use path that I have been on is a PITA.

Given that most people do not cycle and do drive everywhere you can be sure that the "pedestrians" wandering around are probably motorists.... motorists out of their protective box, motorists used to being accorded a vast amount of public space.

Good luck trying to get those aggressive, untrained, unaware f******* to use common sense in a shared space. All their practical training militates against it.

For myself, I avoid such paths, the incident rates on them are higher than on the normal network for transport.

Sustrans should not be allowed to claim that these are cycle routes of any sort.

arfa wrote:

Sorry Mrmo, the correct answer was given above by velovoice and is available here:

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/change-your-travel/get-cycling/cycling-code-c...

To distill it for you:
"Be courteous and patient with pedestrians and other path users who are moving more slowly than you – shared paths are for sharing, not speeding;
Cycle at a sensible speed and do not use the paths for recording times with challenge apps or for fitness training;
Slow down when space is limited or if you cannot see clearly ahead;
Be particularly careful at junctions, bends, entrances onto the path, or any other ‘blind spots’ where people (including children) could appear in front of you without warning;
Keep to your side of any dividing line;
Carry a bell and use it, or an audible greeting, to avoid surprising people or horses;
However, don’t assume people can see or hear you – remember that many people are hard of hearing or visually impaired;"

So in conclusion, if you can't abide by the code, go and time trial elsewhere.

How can a charity enforce a code of conduct on the population? This is public land and the paths paid for by taxpayers not Sustrans.

arfa wrote:

Sorry Mrmo, the correct answer was given above by velovoice and is available here:

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/change-your-travel/get-cycling/cycling-code-c...

To distill it for you:
"Be courteous and patient with pedestrians and other path users who are moving more slowly than you – shared paths are for sharing, not speeding;
Cycle at a sensible speed and do not use the paths for recording times with challenge apps or for fitness training;
Slow down when space is limited or if you cannot see clearly ahead;
Be particularly careful at junctions, bends, entrances onto the path, or any other ‘blind spots’ where people (including children) could appear in front of you without warning;
Keep to your side of any dividing line;
Carry a bell and use it, or an audible greeting, to avoid surprising people or horses;
However, don’t assume people can see or hear you – remember that many people are hard of hearing or visually impaired;"

So in conclusion, if you can't abide by the code, go and time trial elsewhere.

You realise that was written pretty much specifically because sustrans dont like commuters using this as a quick alternative to the road, if they could they would put speed bumps/chicanes etc on it. Nice and safe for mixed use, useless for commuters.

arfa wrote:

Sorry Mrmo, the correct answer was given above by velovoice and is available here:

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/change-your-travel/get-cycling/cycling-code-c...

And the speed limit is 70 on the motorways...

You can have all the guidelines you like but they are a waste of time and achieve nothing, the only way to control speed is by barriers, use of surfaces , etc.

mrmo wrote:

arfa wrote:

Sorry Mrmo, the correct answer was given above by velovoice and is available here:

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/change-your-travel/get-cycling/cycling-code-c...

And the speed limit is 70 on the motorways...

You can have all the guidelines you like but they are a waste of time and achieve nothing, the only way to control speed is by barriers, use of surfaces , etc.

I am not sure I follow how you're happy to quote guidelines for control of dogs but ignore those for cyclists. It is more than a little inconsistent.

arfa wrote:

I am not sure I follow how you're happy to quote guidelines for control of dogs but ignore those for cyclists. It is more than a little inconsistent.

Because dogs are law and it gets ignored, guidelines aren't even law so you can't ignore them!

My point is very simple, everyone agrees that common sense says slow down, i hope everyone also accepts that common sense doesn't work!

So asking people to do things is wasting your time.

If you design a cycle path that swaps cycle/car conflict for cycle/pedestrian conflict has been designed by an idiot.

All this talk of asking cyclist to slow down is pointless,those that will will, and those that won't won't.

The path designers would be better served by asking themselves some serious questions from the off.

First who is this path for
second how do we ensure the user group is best served
third how do we ensure no conflict.

I am of the opinion that a bad cycle path is worse than useless.

mrmo wrote:

If you design a cycle path that swaps cycle/car conflict for cycle/pedestrian conflict has been designed by an idiot.

All this talk of asking cyclist to slow down is pointless,those that will will, and those that won't won't.

No! Put the blame squarely where it belongs. The design of a path does not and cannot create conflict. Conflict is created by self-entitled idiots who believe that their needs and wants are somehow more important than anyone else's. That sort of twattery cannot be designed out of any system.

Quote:

The path designers would be better served by asking themselves some serious questions from the off.

First who is this path for

Non motorised transport.

Quote:

second how do we ensure the user group is best served

Build a path and ban motorised vehicles from it.

Quote:

third how do we ensure no conflict.

You cannot. There will always be arseholes capable of starting a fight in an empty lift. But if people cannot be trusted to use the path responsibly, put in extensive speed calming measures. That would be a shame as that money would be better used to improve facilities elsewhere in the country.

Cheers, pastaman.

arfa wrote:

So would you care to offer your guidance mrmo ?

If you believe he can not be trusted in traffic then go to the park, go somewhere like the forest of dean and use the family trail, or the trails at Sherwood pines.

Or use a tandem, etc. so you can control him safely.

arfa wrote:

So tell me Leodis, how do I look after my autistic child correctly on a traffic free cycle path ?

If there are commuting cyclists on the path it is NOT TRAFFIC FREE!!!!!

Cycles are traffic.

Shades wrote:

if you aren't prepared to accept going slower, get out on the roads.

I don't agree those should be the only options. Particularly given:

Shades wrote:

The alternative road options just aren't safe enough at that time of day

Why is it that the cyclist has to accept the danger posed to them by sharing with cars, yet the pedestrian doesn't have to accept the danger posed to them by sharing with bikes? In both cases the cyclist is apparently there on sufferance.

Why do we not hear that the road (with cyclists) isn't the place for reckless speed from motorists?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Why is it that the cyclist has to accept the danger posed to them by sharing with cars, yet the pedestrian doesn't have to accept the danger posed to them by sharing with bikes? In both cases the cyclist is apparently there on sufferance.

Why do we not hear that the road (with cyclists) isn't the place for reckless speed from motorists?

Apples and pears. Bicycles and motorised transport are in one camp, pedestrians in the other.

Pedestrians are moving naturally at speeds that make it easy to avoid accidents with other pedestrians. Walking is the default mode of transport for human beings. It barely has any impact on the environment and has no need for legislation.

On the other hand, if we choose to transport ourselves around on any kind of unnatural contraption, motorised or otherwise, it is for us to accommodate the needs and rights of the natural movers, not the other way around.

Cyclists and drivers choose to share the same environment so we owe it to each other to obey the rules, behave courteously, indicate what we are planning to do before we do it etc. I do not believe for one moment that cyclists are a special type of road user that requires extra attention and nannying from drivers. We should be treated with the same care and attention that all road users deserve and of course, reciprocate.

Quote:

It is not in any way 'perfectly reasonable'! Dogs are unpredictable and it is downright irresponsible to have a dog off the lead on a narrow path with cyclists. Why should I have to slow to walking pace and put all of my attention on some mutt that is darting in & out of the bushes just to get past safely? Isn't it safer (for cyclists and the dogs) for them to be on a lead?

If you want your dog to have a run around, go to a bloody park.

You should slow to a walking pace out of respect for the pedestrian not the dog. Someone above mentioned rolling along at 20 mph as reasonable on a shared path. In the presence of pedestrians, with or without dogs? That is just insane! Mobility scooters have a top speed of 8 mph, that is more like the speed you should be doing anywhere near pedestrians.

As for dogs, a well trained dog will not be running around like a lunatic on a shared path but dogs need exercise and joining their owners for a well behaved long walk away from traffic with some freedom to explore the sights and smells is perfectly appropriate. If you are cycling at under 1o mph because you have spotted pedestrians, a well behaved dog ought to give you no trouble.

It is a shared path not a cycle superhighway or Strava stage. Pedestrians are top dogs (pardon the pun) and we should be accommodating their needs, not the other way around.

Leodis, you are a weapons grade muppet and not worth the time of day required to reply to your ill mannered rants.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Why is it that the cyclist has to accept the danger posed to them by sharing with cars, yet the pedestrian doesn't have to accept the danger posed to them by sharing with bikes? In both cases the cyclist is apparently there on sufferance.

Why do we not hear that the road (with cyclists) isn't the place for reckless speed from motorists?

Apples and pears. Bicycles and motorised transport are in one camp, pedestrians in the other.

Pedestrians are moving naturally at speeds that make it easy to avoid accidents with other pedestrians. Walking is the default mode of transport for human beings. It barely has any impact on the environment and has no need for legislation.

On the other hand, if we choose to transport ourselves around on any kind of unnatural contraption, motorised or otherwise, it is for us to accommodate the needs and rights of the natural movers, not the other way around.

Cyclists and drivers choose to share the same environment so we owe it to each other to obey the rules, behave courteously, indicate what we are planning to do before we do it etc. I do not believe for one moment that cyclists are a special type of road user that requires extra attention and nannying from drivers. We should be treated with the same care and attention that all road users deserve and of course, reciprocate.

Quote:

It is not in any way 'perfectly reasonable'! Dogs are unpredictable and it is downright irresponsible to have a dog off the lead on a narrow path with cyclists. Why should I have to slow to walking pace and put all of my attention on some mutt that is darting in & out of the bushes just to get past safely? Isn't it safer (for cyclists and the dogs) for them to be on a lead?

If you want your dog to have a run around, go to a bloody park.

You should slow to a walking pace out of respect for the pedestrian not the dog. Someone above mentioned rolling along at 20 mph as reasonable on a shared path. In the presence of pedestrians, with or without dogs? That is just insane! Mobility scooters have a top speed of 8 mph, that is more like the speed you should be doing anywhere near pedestrians.

As for dogs, a well trained dog will not be running around like a lunatic on a shared path but dogs need exercise and joining their owners for a well behaved long walk away from traffic with some freedom to explore the sights and smells is perfectly appropriate. If you are cycling at under 1o mph because you have spotted pedestrians, a well behaved dog ought to give you no trouble.

It is a shared path not a cycle superhighway or Strava stage. Pedestrians are top dogs (pardon the pun) and we should be accommodating their needs, not the other way around.

Leodis, you are a weapons grade muppet and not worth the time of day required to reply to your ill mannered rants.

O god the stereotypical cyclist. You really think you are the bike police don't you, so far up yourself. By the sounds of it you have never cycled through rush hour traffic in a major city, no doubt the only time you go on the roads is when you join the CTC local ride!!

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

Pedestrians are moving naturally at speeds that make it easy to avoid accidents with other pedestrians. Walking is the default mode of transport for human beings. It barely has any impact on the environment and has no need for legislation.

So why have pedestrians and cyclists sharing the same space?

Quote:

You should slow to a walking pace out of respect for the pedestrian not the dog. Someone above mentioned rolling along at 20 mph as reasonable on a shared path. In the presence of pedestrians, with or without dogs? That is just insane!

You have misunderstood me, I am saying that on most cyclepaths it is perfectly possible to do 20mph without much effort, which is very different to you should do it.

Quote:

As for dogs, a well trained dog will not be running around like a lunatic on a shared path but dogs need exercise and joining their owners for a well behaved long walk away from traffic with some freedom to explore the sights and smells is perfectly appropriate. If you are cycling at under 1o mph because you have spotted pedestrians, a well behaved dog ought to give you no trouble.
.

I think you will find the law is quite clear on under control and leads, if It is not on a lead it is not under control. Law is also clear on dogs and public spaces,

https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public

your idea of a dog being friendly could seen by some as a dog attack. I don't like dogs, I do not like dogs jumping up at me, I accept it MIGHT be being friendly, but it might be trying to attack me. To be honest I don't really want to find out either way.

You might say a dog should be left to run off the lead, I think you'll find the law is a little less forgiving.

On your other point about under 10mph, so shared use cycle paths are parks in your opinion and are not routes for commuters?

mrmo wrote:

So why have pedestrians and cyclists sharing the same space?

Because it ought to be possible as long as we respect the needs of pedestrians and don't cycle like twats around them. If you really think it is not possible for pedestrians and cyclists to share the same space. .. we have a problem. It will be much more difficult to get substantial funding from the majority of taxpayers to fund initiatives that only benefit the minority who cycle to work.

Mobility scooters and pedestrians share the same pavement without too much difficulty. Why should it be any more difficult if cyclists are prepared and willing to slow down to walking pace around pedestrians and be ready to stop if something unexpected happens?

In the story above, a cyclists hit a child at speed and broke the young lad's collar bone. If he came around a corner, he was going too fast. If the path was straight, he had ample time to see two pedestrians and four cyclists including two small children coming his way and chose not to slow down. This is highly irresponsible selfish cycling and the parents deserve a medal for being so forgiving.

Re: 20 mph, sorry for misunderstanding and misquoting you.

We will agree to differ on dogs. A well trained dog comes to heel when it is called, which in my case it would be if I saw cyclists or pedestrians coming the other way and certainly would not be allowed to jump up at anyone.

Quote:

On your other point about under 10mph, so shared use cycle paths are parks in your opinion and are not routes for commuters?

I think of them as pavements away from traffic. Some people will use them for leisure walks and cycling, others will use them for commuting but all ought to be able to coexist with a little common sense. Nobody ought to be using them to set personal bests. Cycle quickly where the space and scarcity of other path users allow it but accept that pedestrians have higher priority and when in doubt slow down. The Sustrans advice as cited by arfa above, gets it absolutely right IMO.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

mrmo wrote:

So why have pedestrians and cyclists sharing the same space?

Because it ought to be possible as long as we respect the needs of pedestrians and don't cycle like twats around them. If you really think it is not possible for pedestrians and cyclists to share the same space. .. we have a problem. It will be much more difficult to get substantial funding from the majority of taxpayers to fund initiatives that only benefit the minority who cycle to work.

Mobility scooters and pedestrians share the same pavement without too much difficulty. Why should it be any more difficult if cyclists are prepared and willing to slow down to walking pace around pedestrians and be ready to stop if something unexpected happens?

In the story above, a cyclists hit a child at speed and broke the young lad's collar bone. If he came around a corner, he was going too fast. If the path was straight, he had ample time to see two pedestrians and four cyclists including two small children coming his way and chose not to slow down. This is highly irresponsible selfish cycling and the parents deserve a medal for being so forgiving.

Re: 20 mph, sorry for misunderstanding and misquoting you.

We will agree to differ on dogs. A well trained dog comes to heel when it is called, which in my case it would be if I saw cyclists or pedestrians coming the other way and certainly would not be allowed to jump up at anyone.

Quote:

On your other point about under 10mph, so shared use cycle paths are parks in your opinion and are not routes for commuters?

I think of them as pavements away from traffic. Some people will use them for leisure walks and cycling, others will use them for commuting but all ought to be able to coexist with a little common sense. Nobody ought to be using them to set personal bests. Cycle quickly where the space and scarcity of other path users allow it but accept that pedestrians have higher priority and when in doubt slow down. The Sustrans advice as cited by arfa above, gets it absolutely right IMO.

So cycling (or driving even) on the pavement is illegal for what reason? I agree that it *should* be possible for people to travel in fairly close proximity and respect the needs of others. However, it clearly isn't. People die on the roads every day because of this fact. The mantra of "well if everyone obeys the rules then everything will be fine" simply leads to poorly-designed infrastructure that isn't fit for purpose. This applies to roads, cycle lanes, shared paths, everything. It's more than possible to design these things with benefits to all users - the Dutch continue to do so whereas this country continues to fail people from the outset.

teaboy wrote:

The mantra of "well if everyone obeys the rules then everything will be fine" simply leads to poorly-designed infrastructure that isn't fit for purpose.

Exactly!

mrmo wrote:

So cycling (or driving even) on the pavement is illegal for what reason?

Because where infrastructure makes it possible to separate vulnerable pedestrians from people using potentially dangerous contraptions to move around, it seems to me to be sensible to enforce that division by law. Why should cars, motorcycles and bicycles be on the pavement risking the lives of pedestrians when there is a perfectly good road for them to use? Mobility scooters are fine IMO because their speed is restricted to a level compatible with the needs of pedestrians but you would surely expect them to be cautious around pedestrians and give way when in doubt?

Of course on roads where the infrastructure does not exist, for example narrow country lanes without pavements and shared cycle paths, the onus is on the contraption users to not infringe on the rights of pedestrians to move around freely as God or Evolution (take your pick) designed us to do. So we slow down, we don't speed around bends, rev hard unnecessarily etc.

It would be lovely to have cyclists only paths where we can tear along at 25 mp/h without interruption from traffic or pedestrians on our daily commute but it ain't going to happen. If it is not pedestrians or joggers in the way, it is going to be slower cyclists. Think of it this way, cars are allowed to do 30 mph on their commute but will probably average under 10mph in London. I don't see why cyclists should be any different. If we can only average say 15 mph because we slow down on shared paths and are respectful to other users when we come across them then so be it.

Quote:

I agree that it *should* be possible for people to travel in fairly close proximity and respect the needs of others. However, it clearly isn't. People die on the roads every day because of this fact. The mantra of "well if everyone obeys the rules then everything will be fine" simply leads to poorly-designed infrastructure that isn't fit for purpose. This applies to roads, cycle lanes, shared paths, everything. It's more than possible to design these things with benefits to all users - the Dutch continue to do so whereas this country continues to fail people from the outset.

But we live in a country where people increasingly seem to begrudge paying taxes for anything that they do not perceive to be of direct benefit to themselves, be that benefit claimants, foreign aid, the Olympic games etc etc.

You are right when you say that the Dutch continue to do so and the keyword is continue. They are continually improving what they already have. We are miles behind and it is pie in the sky to think that we can reach Dutch standards just like that in a culture that is still largely hostile to cyclists using their bikes for anything other than gentle leisure. Slow progress is the best we can realistically hope for.

So in the meantime, while lobbying for better, we have to make the best of what we have got and that does not involve cycling like a twat and breaking kids' collar bones and then, like that muppet Leodis, blaming the child for having the audacity to inconvenience the cyclist's training ride.

mrmo wrote:

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

Pedestrians are moving naturally at speeds that make it easy to avoid accidents with other pedestrians. Walking is the default mode of transport for human beings. It barely has any impact on the environment and has no need for legislation.

So why have pedestrians and cyclists sharing the same space?

Quote:

You should slow to a walking pace out of respect for the pedestrian not the dog. Someone above mentioned rolling along at 20 mph as reasonable on a shared path. In the presence of pedestrians, with or without dogs? That is just insane!

You have misunderstood me, I am saying that on most cyclepaths it is perfectly possible to do 20mph without much effort, which is very different to you should do it.

Quote:

As for dogs, a well trained dog will not be running around like a lunatic on a shared path but dogs need exercise and joining their owners for a well behaved long walk away from traffic with some freedom to explore the sights and smells is perfectly appropriate. If you are cycling at under 1o mph because you have spotted pedestrians, a well behaved dog ought to give you no trouble.
.

I think you will find the law is quite clear on under control and leads, if It is not on a lead it is not under control. Law is also clear on dogs and public spaces,

https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public

your idea of a dog being friendly could seen by some as a dog attack. I don't like dogs, I do not like dogs jumping up at me, I accept it MIGHT be being friendly, but it might be trying to attack me. To be honest I don't really want to find out either way.

You might say a dog should be left to run off the lead, I think you'll find the law is a little less forgiving.

On your other point about under 10mph, so shared use cycle paths are parks in your opinion and are not routes for commuters?

while I do ride on shared paths and meet dogs/kids and yes some times their behavior can be erratic etc,

I know you think it says a dog must be on a lead, but it says nothing of the case.

It's this.

"Out of control

Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:

injures someone
makes someone worried that it might injure them

A court could also decide that your dog is dangerously out of control if:

it injures someone’s animal
the owner of the animal thinks they could be injured if they tried to stop your dog attacking their animal"

A dog being off the lead or even coming up to you is not out of control.

I don't have a problem with dogs, I like dogs and tend to audibly greet them, surprised dogs can be erratic.

folks who leave dogs on extending leads all over the path have a special part in my heart though....

rogermerriman wrote:

I know you think it says a dog must be on a lead, but it says nothing of the case.

It's this.

"Out of control

Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:
....
makes someone worried that it might injure them
....
A dog being off the lead or even coming up to you is not out of control.

I don't have a problem with dogs, I like dogs and tend to audibly greet them, surprised dogs can be erratic.
.

Think about it, if someone feels that the dog MIGHT injure them, you may not have a problem with dogs, plenty do though.

mrmo wrote:

rogermerriman wrote:

I know you think it says a dog must be on a lead, but it says nothing of the case.

It's this.

"Out of control

Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:
....
makes someone worried that it might injure them
....
A dog being off the lead or even coming up to you is not out of control.

I don't have a problem with dogs, I like dogs and tend to audibly greet them, surprised dogs can be erratic.
.

Think about it, if someone feels that the dog MIGHT injure them, you may not have a problem with dogs, plenty do though.

Even so a dog off the lead behaving normally isn't going to be Dangerously out of control, even if it's out of control, it has to be Dangerously so and that's a big hurdle, to prove, being barked at because it was surprised or what ever isn't going to cut it. Courts do use common sense, believe it or not

On a shared path if you can't cope with dogs being about it's the wrong choice for you.

To be fair Sustrans I'm not sure they could get cycle motorways, and to be honest it's not their target.

rogermerriman wrote:

On a shared path if you can't cope with dogs being about it's the wrong choice for you.

Massively disagree, it's not a park (particularly in the portion of the path that is within Bristol and within Bath), it is a route for people to get from A to B.

A dog doesn't have to be aggressive to be dangerous, it just has to move into the path of a cyclist at the wrong moment.