Cyclist Awarded Compensation

[John Holden]

The quote says he was shouting at people, if he had time to shout at people then I would suggest he had time to stop if he had chosen to do so. If that is not the case then we of course have no idea what happened.

 

It said that the people had moved out of his way but a dog on a long lead ran into his path.

[Sir Nibble]

The problem with cycles is that they are so dreadfully vulnerable on the roads and need special consideration whereas off road where they make pedestrians more vulnerable it's "screw you I'm bigger than you"

[davidc]

 

It said that the people had moved out of his way but a dog on a long lead ran into his path.

there must of been liability on be halve of the dog walker or else the insurance company would not have payed out such a large amount of money.

[john6767]

It said that the people had moved out of his way but a dog on a long lead ran into his path.

I was not there so I am only going on tbe quote, he shouted at the people and spead past, does not sound like responsible behaviour to me. Why not stop and dismount to pass safely.

[John Holden]

I was not there so I am only going on tbe quote, he shouted at the people and spead past, does not sound like responsible behaviour to me. Why not stop and dismount to pass safely.

 

Read it properly, he shouted at the people to let him past which they did. The fact that they had acknowledged his warning but then failed to secure their dog appears to me to put the onus entirely on them and not the cyclist.

[john6767]

Read it properly, he shouted at the people to let him past which they did. The fact that they had acknowledged his warning but then failed to secure their dog appears to me to put the onus entirely on them and not the cyclist.

If you think that bahavior is acceptable, then your prerogative, the cyclist chose that course of action, no one else.

[Jerra]

Isn't cycling on a "footway" still illegal?

[John Holden]

If you think that bahavior is acceptable, then your prerogative, the cyclist chose that course of action, no one else.

 

What behaviour? Riding his bicycle where he is allowed to and warning other users of his presence?

[Sir Nibble]

We are so used to seeing cyclists behaving selfishly and being reckless of others safety that it seems the default position is that the cyclist is probably at fault. Here we are talking about a shared path and a cyclist is as entitled to use it without being crashed by a dog as a pedestrian has to use it without being mown down by a bike. The cyclist (and indeed everyone) has the right to use the path without an uncontrolled dog running in front of him. A friend of mine was brought off a motorcycle in the same way.

[Jerra]

Where did you pick up that it was/is a shared route? All the reports I have read merely refer to it as a path.

[Alan de Enfield]

Isn't cycling on a "footway" still illegal?

 

Yes.

It was illegal to ride a bicycle on the Prom at Heysham, however in 2007 it was decided to amend the bye-laws and allow cycling and the 'prom' became part of cycle route 69 which encompasses the canal, and hence the "upgrades" to the towpath to allow racing to be undertaken.

 

Lancaster Canal

April 2009

New link between Prom and Canal completed - see Morecambe promenade section

Completed December 2007

In December 2007 towpath surfacing was extended south to Deep Cutting bridge at Ashton Road. Signage and lining on Ashton Road provides a link to south Lancaster and the university route via Ashford Road.

For more information go to our Lancaster University page

Completed November 2006

In 2003/4 the towpath to the north of Lancaster (Hammerton Hall Lane to Carnforth) was improved. In January 2006 work started to extend these improvements through to Aldcliffe Basin at Lancaster. This project is funded by the Lancaster & Morecambe EDZ, Cycling Demonstration Town and Lancashire County Council.

• Phase One created a link from Caton Road/Langdale Road via Tunnel Field to the eastern side of the Canal using Dolphinlea Bridge. Resurfacing works took place along the canal from the bridge through to Moor Lane (on the western side).
• Phase Two improvements were from Caton Road to Hammerton Hall Lane and between Moor Lane and Aldcliffe Basin. The work was then extended southwards (past the Haverbreaks estate until the point where the canal and Aldcliffe Road diverge). New access points have been created on/at Aldcliffe Road (opposite Regent Street and from Bridge 98), Nelson Street Car Park, Green Street, Langdale Road, Ambleside Road and Halton Road.
• Phase Three comprises a new path running along the eastern side of the canal from Dolphinlea Bridge to Ambleside Road. This will provide a direct link from the Ridge Estate to Caton Road.
  • Links from the towpath through Haverbreaks and the RLI are currently undergoing negotiation with relevant stakeholders.
  • Please note the towpath over the aqueduct will be resurfaced as part of planned restoration works to the structure (by the Canal & River Trust) hopefully in 2009/10

[Sir Nibble]

Can't remember. There was a broken link here so I googled it myself. Telegraph I think. Do you think he would have got the settlement if he had been riding illegally on a path?

[John Holden]

Where did you pick up that it was/is a shared route? All the reports I have read merely refer to it as a path.

 

Never heard of a cycle path?

[Alan de Enfield]

Where did you pick up that it was/is a shared route? All the reports I have read merely refer to it as a path.

 

May - July 2007

Work to link the Greenway with the Promenade is now complete. This scheme consists of shared use footways at either end of Central Drive (Hilmore Road and part of Marine Drive) plus an advisory cycle lane on Central Drive.

Work on creating a new access for cyclists from Morecambe Promenade - at the Heysham end - has just been completed. This route goes via Knowlys Road giving accesss into Heysham village.

Please note that cyclists should not continue along the promenade path beyond this point, as this is a footpath and Bailey Lane is narrow, one way, with poor visibility.

[John Holden]

Well who knew that the promenade at Heysham was a canal tow-path!

[Guest]

A dog owner speaks -

 

As I understand it the lady wasn't the dogs owner (can't recall where I have read this now) and wasn't used to walking a dog nor was she familiar with using an extending lead (which seems to be at the root of the problem here)

 

If your dog suddenly decides to dart off and chase something you have to be very quick at locking the lead off other wise they can get quite a distance away from you in a very short space of time. You then have a very nice trip wire extended out in front of you, ideal for catching out an unwary runner or cyclist. When Simon was younger and used to do this I actually ditched one lead (can't recall the make now) because it wouldn't always lock off quickly, in France we once had one from a supermarket when we lost our own that just completely failed and didn't lock off at all one time. Our current German made one does, and it locks immediately if ever we needed to.

 

Plus once you have the lead locked off you have then to slide a catch or press another button over (depending on the design) to lock it off completely, if you don't do this as soon as you release pressure on the latch the lead is free again and the dog if so inclined can bound off unrestrained until the lead is fully extended or you realise what is happening and lock it off again.

 

I suspect the lady in question has not been familiar with how to operate the thing and that is what has contributed to the incident, yes he may have being going too fast on his bike but the fact remains that if the dog was on a shorter lead this incident likely wouldn't have happened. I can't imagine that the sum was agreed by the insurers if there hadn't been at least some fault on the part of the lady. You can of course easily fracture your skull falling off a stationary bike let alone a moving one.

[Jerra]

 

Never heard of a cycle path?

Of course but they are generally referred to as cycle paths (at least in my experience) and often but not invariably are marked into two parts pedestrians and cyclists. I would have expected this as a minimum somewhere as populated as Heysham hence my question.

[Alan de Enfield]

Well who knew that the promenade at Heysham was a canal tow-path!

 

Has anyone said it is ?

 

I posted the original detail as a 'warning' of a potential precedent should a boater cause a similar problem.

[Jerra]

A dog owner speaks -

I know a number of dog owners who won't use retractable leads because of the risk of injury to the neck when they either reach the end of the lead at a gallop or the lead is locked.

 

Not being a dog owner I can't comment on the vlidity or otherwise I merely make an observation.

[John Holden]

Of course but they are generally referred to as cycle paths (at least in my experience) and often but not invariably are marked into two parts pedestrians and cyclists. I would have expected this as a minimum somewhere as populated as Heysham hence my question.

 

I don't see the connection between tow-paths (originally for use by horses and men bow hauling) and a seaside promenade. One is public property, the other not public property with totally dissimilar uses.

[Guest]

I know a number of dog owners who won't use retractable leads because of the risk of injury to the neck when they either reach the end of the lead at a gallop or the lead is locked.

 

Not being a dog owner I can't comment on the vlidity or otherwise I merely make an observation.

 

It is a valid concern and one of the reasons why we don't use a collar but rather a harness which spreads the load around Simon's chest and front quarters. The collar is solely for his ID tag which he is legally required to have.

 

 

Its also better suited to his seat belt clip when he is restrained in the car on the back seat.

 

If using a collar you can also get a 'spring' which absorbs the jolt at the end but I fancied this was just something to break on a lead. The other end of that dog tie he's fastened to in that picture has one though.

Edited November 29, 2015 by MJG

[Laurie Booth]

This article lead to a most amusing thread on the narrowboat user group of Facebook.......a couple of cyclists got most upset when I said they should end up in the cut or under the wheels of a truck due to their inconsiderate behaviour......having had my partner hit by a speeding bike on the Stoke flight I'm afraid I felt totally justified in what I said.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

This is how to deal with bad cyclists

 

 

[cuthound]

Had the situation been reversed, and the cyclist injured someone, would he have had insurance?

 

Given the potential for cyclists to injure people and property, I feel that they should carry compulsory 3rd party insurance.

Edited November 30, 2015 by cuthound

[Locksprite]

The problem with cycles is that they are so dreadfully vulnerable on the roads and need special consideration whereas off road where they make pedestrians more vulnerable it's "screw you I'm bigger than you"

In most European countries the presumption of blame is on the least vulnerable road user, Britain is the exception. Shared facilities of any kind only work on a sail before steam basis.

As a side issue extending leads are an accident waiting to happen, and when I last asked a pet insurer, were the single biggest cause of pet fatalities.

[Guest]

In most European countries the presumption of blame is on the least vulnerable road user, Britain is the exception. Shared facilities of any kind only work on a sail before steam basis.

As a side issue extending leads are an accident waiting to happen, and when I last asked a pet insurer, were the single biggest cause of pet fatalities.

Can you expand on your last point please.

 

Had the situation been reversed, and the cyclist injured someone, would he have had insurance?

Given the potential for cyclists to injure people and property, I feel that they should carry compulsory 3rd party insurance.

Insured or not you would still be entitled to pursue a cyclist for damages if they injured you. If they did have insurance then that would be better for them however if they didn't they could be forced to dispose of assets to pay for any damages you were awarded. The same goes for a pet owner, which is one of the reasons we have taken out (often much maligned) pet insurance.

 

Depending on your policy a pet owner or a cyclist MAY find their household insurance covers them for such a claim for damages.

Edited November 30, 2015 by MJG