Speeding Cyclist injures Dog on towpath

[Sabcat]

Sabcat I am sure that I am not alone in seeing speeding cyclists on the towpath? I have had to jump out the way several times when out for a walk. As a young(ish) man just shy of 40 I have no problem however say people of my parents age in their 70's, or younger children would have less ease...let alone a dog...Even if a dog is on its lead they still have some freedom of movement and could still cross in the way. Do you propose that we should wait for an even more serious incident to occur with a young Child or older adult (we know there have been a few already) before we do anything or would it make more sense that everyone treated everyone with respect and travelled at a safe speed?

 

Again. You're making the assumption that this thread is in fact about a speeding cyclist when it could just as easily be a thread about an irresponsible dog owner.

 

Does that mean I'm saying reckless cyclists aren't a problem? No, of course not but they're not the sole evil facing the users of the canal tow path or indeed even a significant one. Dog shit is more of an annoyance in my experience than speeding bikes. In other areas it may be different but it's not going to get sorted out by this automatic assumption that cyclists are evil or that something must be done before a child/pensioner/saint is killed.

 

This will probably happen in the next 5 years, but certainly in the next 10 unless boaters get organised and united.

 

............Dave

 

We certainly need to do that but cyclists aren't our enemy.

[Guest]

Cyclists on the towpath should behave towards other towpath users in the same way as they expect the drivers of other vehicles to behave towards them on the roads.

 

They cant have it one way on the roads and another when riding on the towpath.

[Dharl]

At no stage have I stated that Cyclists are Evil, I cycle myself along the towpaths from time to time and am mindful that I am sharing the space with others. Also very mindful that often on one side is relatively deep water!

 

Not all Dog owners are responsible in picking up their mess, (in some cases worse by picking it up then leaving the full bag, but that is a different rant!), in the same way that not all cyclists are speeding along. However my point in raising this is that there seems to be recent INCREASE in the number of incidents.

[Machpoint005]

Does anyone really believe this account is accurate?

 

"My Jack Russell was hit by a speeding cyclist this morning (before anyone jumps down my throat, my more 'wayward' dog was on a lead and the little JR, though off lead, was simply crossing the towpath from our boat to the safety of the grass opposite, she is a very well behaved dog). I looked before we stepped out so the cyclist must have been travelling at 30/40mph because he came out of nowhere"

 

They looked before they stepped out? The dog presumably waiting for them before it stepped out in which case why wasn't the owner or the other dog hit by this Olympic level cyclist? He came out of nowhere, so presumably not only was the cyclist managing impressive speeds he was doing it around a corner.

 

A link to the FB thread would be fun but it seems to me a more accurate account would be something like "I sent my dog out of the boat to go and shit in the hedge and I heard a terrible commotion and when I get outside I found my dog had been run over by a cyclist"

 

Greenie for Sabcat. There is nothing like enough information to determine who was at fault. If one of the dogs was on a lead, why wasn't the other? If the dog decided to cross the towpath at the wrong moment it would make little difference what speed the cyclist was doing. 30 to 40 mph is clearly utter nonsense.

That same dear little doggie could have been snapping and snuffling around the legs of a small child, causing all sorts of distress.

Cyclists on the towpath should behave towards other towpath users in the same way as they expect the drivers of other vehicles to behave towards them on the roads.

 

They cant have it one way on the roads and another when riding on the towpath.

 

Dog owners using the towpath should similarly fulfil their responsibilities to other towpath users. Many do, some don't, and those who don't are a problem.

Alternative thread title: "Out-of-control dog causes injury to cyclist on towpath".

[dmr]

Sadly after recent thread on here about an injured Kitten and also an injured pedestrian on the towpath by SPEEDING Cyclists, reported yesterday on Narrow Boat Users group on Facebook of a dog been injured. Also this time the Cyclist has received injuries and as per a later post the cyclist is now threatening to take legal action against the dog owner!

 

As a user of the tow path, as a Cyclist, pedestrian, dog walker and boater, this effects and concerns me greatly. Why do SOME cyclist (and in my personal experience on the Basingstoke and K&A seemingly the majority) treat the towpath as THEIR right of way rather than expecting that there will be dogs, walkers, CHILDREN, elderly, etc also using the Towpath! What can be done by CRT so that they are safe places for all to use?

 

This is probably true. I keep hearing "a small minority spoiling it for the majority" but my own observations, at least in some locations, would support Dharl, it is the Majority, or at least a very substantial minority, of cyclist that behave in a reckless and antisocial way

 

..........Dave

[Guest]

.Dog owners using the towpath should similarly fulfil their responsibilities to other towpath users. Many do, some don't, and those who don't are a problem.

 

Indeed, however I wasn't saying they should not.

 

The object the cyclist hit however could just as easily have been wildlife such as a rabbit, the fact it was a dog in this instance is somewhat irrelevant.

[PaulG]

 

Greenie for Sabcat. There is nothing like enough information to determine who was at fault. If one of the dogs was on a lead, why wasn't the other? If the dog decided to cross the towpath at the wrong moment it would make little difference what speed the cyclist was doing. 30 to 40 mph is clearly utter nonsense.

That same dear little doggie could have been snapping and snuffling around the legs of a small child, causing all sorts of distress.

 

Dog owners using the towpath should similarly fulfil their responsibilities to other towpath users. Many do, some don't, and those who don't are a problem.

If the injuries to the cyclist are accurately reported, then he was clearly going too fast, especially in the vicinity of moored boats.

Common sense tells you that there are likely to be hazards around boats - dogs, cats, children, mooring ropes, hosepipes, etc.

[Machpoint005]

 

Indeed, however I wasn't saying they should not.

 

The object the cyclist hit however could just as easily have been wildlife such as a rabbit, the fact it was a dog in this instance is somewhat irrelevant.

 

That depends on details we don't have -- if the dog should have been restrained by its owner, it is very relevant. The cyclist should of course, have been aware that a rabbit or whatever might ambush him, which would have been part of the risk assessment he conducted before setting out in the first place.

If the injuries to the cyclist are accurately reported, then he was clearly going too fast, especially in the vicinity of moored boats.

Common sense tells you that there are likely to be hazards around boats - dogs, cats, children, mooring ropes, hosepipes, etc.

 

That's the big "if", Paul. We know that half of what we read is inaccurate, but not which half.

[magnetman]

My fear is that when the big accident (or accidents) does happen and the stupidity of the current situation becomes "public" then because cycling groups are much more organised and militant than boaters the obvious solutions will be fill in part of the canal to widen the cycleway (as the towpath will be called) and also to demolish and rebuild many of the inconvenient historic bridge 'oles.

 

This will probably happen in the next 5 years, but certainly in the next 10 unless boaters get organised and united.

 

............Dave

Sadly this could actually happen which is what I suggested in my joke eBay listing for the Regents Canal recently .

 

Cyclists are organised. They also have "right" on their side so it is far more likely that they would end up with more priority rather than less. I don't hate cyclists at all but there is a safety problem on towpaths due to a type of cyclist. Fact.

[PaulG]

That's the big "if", Paul. We know that half of what we read is inaccurate, but not which half.

True....

[ralphclaydon]

Why don't CRT supply us with these proposed signs?

We could mount them on poles and stand them in our cones!

That way they have no excuse they did could not see the signs!!

[Guest]

 

That depends on details we don't have -- if the dog should have been restrained by its owner, it is very relevant. The cyclist should of course, have been aware that a rabbit or whatever might ambush him, which would have been part of the risk assessment he conducted before setting out in the first place.

 

No its not relevant. Who would you suggest restrains the errant rabbit or duck or swan that may suddenly appear in front of you if you are out riding?

 

Yes it was a dog in this instance but as I keep saying it could have been something else.

[Jess--]

I used to absolutely hammer along the towpath but in all my years I never managed to hit anything, mainly because I was watching where I was going and slowing down if there was anything ahead.

 

The only accident I ever had was when approaching the wooden footbridge (from bottom lock) at braunston and I had a brake cable snap (I stayed dry but the bike took a swim in the marina entrance just to the left of the bridge)

[sirweste]

As others have said the 30/40mph is nonesense. The other side of the story needs to be told.

 

I actually hit a dog in the neck on my bike last night, wasn't very exciting, hopefully the dog won't turn at right angles infront of a person/bike again.

[KarlosMacronius]

 

Again. You're making the assumption that this thread is in fact about a speeding cyclist when it could just as easily be a thread about an irresponsible dog owner.

 

 

From the OP:

"..what looks like a possible broken jaw and wrist, huge bruising and cuts to his face amongst other smaller injuries..."

 

IF (that's a big if btw) the account is accurate it take s a lot of force to do this sort of damage to yourself (the broken bits not the cuts and bruises).

 

If you maintain that a cyclist wasn't speeding, but doing around 5mph (I would consider this not speeding as its the speed limit in parks and similar environments where you may also find cyclists, dogs and walkers) I would like to hear how you think they could have sustained the aforementioned injuries.

 

Of course you might quite simply not believe the OP which is fine but then why would you wade in with any other comment other than "Bullsh*t"

 

 

 

[Dharl]

As others have said the 30/40mph is nonesense. The other side of the story needs to be told.

 

I actually hit a dog in the neck on my bike last night, wasn't very exciting, hopefully the dog won't turn at right angles infront of a person/bike again.

 

am sure the dog thought it was exciting though.

[NilesMI]

As others have said the 30/40mph is nonesense.

 

Quite. So what kind of speed does constitute "speeding" as far as cyclists on towpaths are concerned?

 

Two cyclists passed me as I was moored a mile or so north of Shrewley recently. I was out on the boat doing some painting. They wee keeping together, but while one was riding his bike the other was running alongside his. I acknowledged them as they cycled/ran past. Next thing I hear is a huge 'sploosh' and look down the towpath about 200m to see one cyclist plus his bike in the canal. I ran down to see if they needed help/first aid and took the boathook in case anything needed fishing out of the water. They explained they were fine and although one was now soaked through were running late because one of the bikes had punctured (hence runner). It was the riding cyclist who'd taken a swim. He said he had just hit a ridge in the towpath and lost control.

 

Was he speeding? He was going too fast to keep control when he hit a bump in the towpath, but he was actually cycling no faster than his partner could run along the towpath whike pushing his own, punctured, bike alongside.

 

It's not enough to say that some, many or even most cyclists are speeding. You also have to say what kind of speed that is and what would be a safe speed, depending on the circumstances.

 

Any story which suggests a pedal cyles was being ridden at 30/40mph along a level towpath is, frankly, bollox.

Edited July 15, 2015 by NilesMI

[Ricco1]

 

Quite. So what kind of speed does constitute "speeding" as far as cyclists on towpaths are concerned?

 

Two cyclists passed me as I was moored a mile or so north of Shrewley recently. I was out on the boat doing some painting. They wee keeping together, but while one was riding his bike the other was running alongside his. I acknowledged them as they cycled/ran past. Next thing I hear is a huge 'sploosh' and look down the towpath about 200m to see one cyclist plus his bike in the canal. I ran down to see if they needed help/first aid and took the boathook in case anything needed fishing out of the water. They explained they were fine and although one was now soaked through were running late because one of the bikes had punctured (hence runner). It was the riding cyclist who'd taken a swim. He said he had just hit a ridge in the towpath and lost control.

 

Was he speeding? He was going too fast to keep control when he hit a bump in the towpath, but he was actually cycling no faster than his partner could run along the towpath whike pushing his own, punctured, bike alongside.

 

It's not enough to say that some, many or even most cyclists are speeding. You also have to say what kind of speed that is and what would be a safe speed, depending on the circumstances.

 

Any story which suggests a pedal cyles was being ridden at 30/40mph along a level towpath is, frankly, bollox.

 

30/40 kph is possible, and probably dangerous, but 30/40 mph is not possible. I agree, a speed limit needs to be established and publicised with signage. I propose 10 mph

[Sabcat]

I think a speed limit is a pointless and ultimately counter productive idea. 10mph on a sparsely occupied tow path is safe indeed but then 15 or 20 would be as well. 10mph on a busy tow path would be reckless.

[nicknorman]

Plus, you can't set a limit if you have no way of knowing whether you are compliant or not. Most bikes don't have speedometers.

[Dharl]

I agree with Sabcat,

 

Actually putting an arbitry speed limit could do worse then highlighting that you should cycle at appropriate speed for the conditions, bearing in mind need to slow down for pedestrians, moored boats, bridge holes etc. I think that clearer signs need to be put where people join the towpath.

 

Regards the speed in question, I agree that 30/40 mph is probably optimistic to say the least, however the Lady who's dog was under observation at the vets due to its injuries sustained in the accident was likely to be still a bit shaken and tbh estimating the speed of anything is hard enough at best of times.

[Raybo]

I believe the DoT code of conduct for cyclists regarding cycle paths states "if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road"

[Ricco1]

I think a speed limit is a pointless and ultimately counter productive idea. 10mph on a sparsely occupied tow path is safe indeed but then 15 or 20 would be as well. 10mph on a busy tow path would be reckless.

 

You could say the same about blanket 30 mph speed limits in built up areas that apply at 4.00 a.m., when I'm setting off fishing , with the same limit during the school run 5 hours later.

[NilesMI]

I agree re; a specific speed limit, that it would be counter productive to impose such a thing.

 

Cyling at a safe speed means cyclists adapting to circumstances. I see lots of cyclists pushing 20-30kph, but in circumstances where it's reasonably safe. Wide, tarmac surface, no obstructions, good view ahead. I occasionally see cyclists trying the same thing where it is not safe. Coming up to bridge holes, or where the towpath is rough or narrow, or without a clear view to see walkers, fishermen, mooring lines or other obstructions ahead.

[MartinC]

 

That's a good idea!

 

In fact LOTS of traffic cones populating the towpath are easy to negotiate on foot but would slow the speeding bikes down briilliantly!

 

There is the element of a reasonable idea in this. How about lots of those very long fishing rods?

 

An example of another context where obstruction worked. A small village in Oxfordshire became a rat run when the by-passing main road was shut for six months for sewer work. Fed up with accidents caused by speeding vehicle on a road not built for speed, the residents arranged their parked vehicles on the road leaving a zig-zag for a mile and a half length. It worked!

 

As mentioned elsewhere the DfT guidance is that if cyclist want to go fast, even on cycle tracks, they need to use roads instead.