<?xml version="1.0"?><!-- generator="bbPress" -->

<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>

<channel>
<title>CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum &#187; Tag: NEPN dog attack - Recent Topics</title>
<link>http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/</link>
<description>CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum &#187; Tag: NEPN dog attack - Recent Topics</description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 05:11:46 +0000</pubDate>

<item>
<title>riffian on "Aggressive Dog"</title>
<link>http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11169#post-125327</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:22:25 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>riffian</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="false">125327@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/</guid>
<description>&#60;p&#62;Got chased by an aggressive dog this morning as I cycled through St Mark's Park towards NEPN.&#60;br /&#62;
Fortunately it never made contact with my ankles as it was a relatively slow terrier and I saw it coming and was able to accelerate.&#60;br /&#62;
Had it got any closer I was contemplating (a)swinging a leg at it, (b) unhooking the frame-fit pump and swinging this at the beast.&#60;br /&#62;
Both these options are more likely to cause me to fall off then having any effective deterence but it seemed more exciting than slowing, stopping and placing the bike between myself and the dog - which I believe is the 'recommended' cause of action.&#60;br /&#62;
Would my more exciting options be considered 'proportionate' and therefore morally and/or legally defensible?
&#60;/p&#62;</description>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
