http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: "Sharing paths with walkers: a Code of Conduct for cyclists" en Tue, 19 May 2026 01:29:08 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261&page=2#post-123046 Sun, 25 Aug 2013 20:44:56 +0000 chdot 123046@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I'll abide by the code of conduct when the dog walkers do"</p> <p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chdot/9584263819/"><img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5481/9584263819_d4c37d9c3a.jpg"></a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261&page=2#post-97037 Tue, 15 Jan 2013 22:13:32 +0000 Kenny 97037@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>As previously mentioned, I have no problem with people who have dogs off the lead. What I do have a problem with is dog owners with dogs on a very long, thin black lead, walking along in the dark on one side of the path with their dog on the other side. *That's* dangerous, far more so than a dog walking along off the lead, IMHO. Twice I've been very close to a dangerous off, and one of those times it was only my gut instinct that told me there was a lead across the path, where I could see no lead. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261&page=2#post-97008 Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:52:46 +0000 Dave 97008@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>additionally communicating verbally with a good positive manner usually resolves most dog situations</em></p> <p>I have actually once been on the path with someone who ROARED "sit!!!!" at a dog he was approaching (I thought I might fall off and the owner might fall over, the dog ignored him completely) but as a general rule I'm not convinced that the old voicebox is as effective as it would be with a person (or a person with a controlled dog).</p> <p>It's easy to say "excuse me" or "watch your back" when the problem is a person (this is my preferred action, rather than furiously pinging them out of the way with a bell). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261&page=2#post-96986 Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:30:45 +0000 559 96986@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Dave, suspect that the reason that this forum is "harsh" on cyclists is because it is a forum cyclists are on, therefore a re the audience, we rant about other road users but mostly they are unaware of those rants.</p> <p>As the faster of the two(three) participants; Cyclist, Dog owner and Dog we have a care of responsibility to look for and slow down if necessary. additionally communicating verbally with a good positive manner usually resolves most dog situations. There will be occasions when incidens will occur, but approaching in the manner above usually works. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261&page=2#post-96876 Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:38:05 +0000 Dave 96876@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>*Not my opinion, but seems to be the consensus of this forum. ;)</em></p> <p>Funnily enough, for my part I often think the forum is strangely harsh on cyclists and tolerant of dangerous behaviour by others (given the type of forum it is).</p> <p>Cyclists are sometimes expected have the power to anticipate every sudden move by pedestrians and their dogs while woe betide a cyclist who creates even the most tenuous excuse for their own victimhood.</p> <p>I suspect it would be interesting to see how attitudes correlate with individual users' identification with the old in/out group theory... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261&page=2#post-96850 Mon, 14 Jan 2013 16:10:35 +0000 amir 96850@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I suspect the consensus is closer to:</p> <p>bad car drivers=bad<br /> bad cyclists=bad<br /> bad dog owners=bad<br /> (bad pedestrians=bad) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261&page=2#post-96849 Mon, 14 Jan 2013 16:10:12 +0000 cb 96849@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Someone told be yesterday that 25% of UK households own a dog.</p> <p>Or was it a cat. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261&page=2#post-96844 Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:38:34 +0000 chdot 96844@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"*Not my opinion, but seems to be the consensus of this forum. ;)"</p> <p>Not sure there is any particular consensus. </p> <p>I suspect there are more non-owners than owners - no idea what percentage of general population own dogs or % that are 'regular' cyclists. </p> <p>Inevitably people on here complain about bad dog owners just as they do about bad drivers. Presumably the latter are a minority(?) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261&page=2#post-96826 Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:57:19 +0000 SRD 96826@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>One of my students kindly shared a comic strip with my FB page today.</p> <p><a href="http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2013/01/13" rel="nofollow">http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2013/01/13</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261&page=2#post-96820 Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:46:19 +0000 Baldcyclist 96820@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>We seem to go round in circles in these debates, to summarise.</p> <p>Cars = Bad - need to go really slowly AT ALL times.<br /> Bikes = Good - can go at whatever speed the user deems acceptable, wherever.<br /> Dog walkers = Scum - no place on Earth suitable for them.</p> <p>*Not my opinion, but seems to be the consensus of <em>this</em> forum. ;) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261&page=2#post-96813 Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:29:50 +0000 slowcoach 96813@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>not from the HC, but from <a href="https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/overview" rel="nofollow">https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/overview</a> :<br /> "It’s against the law to let a dog be dangerously out of control: in a public place ..."<br /> "Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:<br /> injures someone<br /> makes someone worried* that it might injure them"<br /> *if "there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person"<br /> I think most dog owners have a different interpretation of out of control than I do, and the courts might not agree that my apprehension is reasonable </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261&page=2#post-96765 Sun, 13 Jan 2013 23:31:21 +0000 Dave 96765@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>A quick google dug up <a href="http://www.myfirststep.co.uk/site/library/pi/cycleist_wins_compensation_form_dog_owner.html">park cyclist brought off by dog awarded £14k</a>, although of course it would be very much on a case-by-case basis.</p> <p>I'm relatively ambivalent on the dog front. Inevitably if you allow people to own dogs some of them will wind up biting people (or cause them injury through crashes).</p> <p>My sister has two young kids (1 and 3) and some trouble with uncontrolled dogs which has made the elder quite fearful (knocked down, though never bitten). It would be nice if people kept them on a lead, especially when they know they're walking on a road or path shared by others, but it's not all that high up my agenda TBH. </p> <p>Might change if I wanted to ride or walk on the paths with children of my own and they were at risk?</p> <p>I don't really find the Edinburgh paths to be particularly conflict-ridden, although I might have a blinkered perspective. Partly I suspect they are well enough used by cyclists that they are becoming truly shared (i.e. it's not necessary to slow down, use five different sorts of bell and get a man with a red flag to proceed you before passing every pedestrian).</p> <p>I hate the use of the meaningless word "speeding" in the so-called code of conduct. We've recently seen even relatively slow-moving cyclists (on an actual road) accused of "speeding" and all manner of carnage.</p> <p>Arguably you could be going too fast if you hit someone at walking speed (or on the other hand, you might be quite reasonably doing 29.9mph - perhaps not on a path though). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261&page=2#post-96764 Sun, 13 Jan 2013 23:24:33 +0000 Kenny 96764@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@amir - cheers re: highway code, I really should re-read that! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261&page=2#post-96763 Sun, 13 Jan 2013 23:22:59 +0000 chdot 96763@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"More generally what is needed is mutual respect and good manners."</p> <p>Not least because the Highway Code is not the same as "the law". </p> <p>So it's not illegal not to have a dog on a short lead. </p> <p>Likewise it's not a legal requirement to follow all the 'shoulds' in the HC - but if there's an incident, both parties are likely to look to the HC to support their 'case'. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261&page=2#post-96762 Sun, 13 Jan 2013 23:13:50 +0000 amir 96762@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Highway code<br /> "42. Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists."</p> <p>More generally what is needed is mutual respect and good manners. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261&page=2#post-96761 Sun, 13 Jan 2013 23:09:32 +0000 stiltskin 96761@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>^^^<br /> A couple of years ago I read a thread (or a news report, I can't remember which) from Fife (Glenrothes I think) where a cyclist on a cyclepath had hit a dog. The cyclist was injured, the dog died. </p> <p>The dog's owner was prosecuted for failing to keep the dog under proper control. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261&page=2#post-96760 Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:54:31 +0000 Kenny 96760@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>The reason why dog owners only rarely control their dogs on shared use paths (let alone put them on a short lead) is because many clearly think that cyclists should not be there (even if technically allowed), therefore why should they consider how they might inconvenience cyclists?</em></p> <p>Various comments in this thread (and/or maybe others of late) are suggesting that dog owners are not supposed to let their dogs off their leads on shared use paths, or if they are off the lead, then the inference seems to be that the dogs much be kept "under control" to the extent that they are beside their owner, walking to heel, 100% of the time.</p> <p>As a dog owner myself, I'm confused by these sentiments. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the points being made, but this is the way I'm reading them. And to be perfectly honest, I'm confused, because I wasn't aware of any kind of law or rule that said I can't let my dogs off the lead on a shared use path and let them run around.</p> <p>If a cyclist is sharing the use of the path, that's fine, but who is to say that the cyclist has priority over the dog and/or its owner? I come across dogs regularly on my daily commute on the cycle path from Ocean Terminal up to the Red Bridge, and many times I've had to brake suddenly because a wayward dog has decided that they want to play with my front wheel. That's life - it's a shared path, I don't have more rights than the dog and the owner. I simply avoid the dog, and continue on my way.</p> <p>But then, I could be missing out on something. Maybe there's some rules in the Highway Code or something similar that makes it clear that this shouldn't be allowed? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261#post-96759 Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:29:05 +0000 chdot 96759@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I certainly can't make any promises, but I appreciate your time and sentiment - and I'll pass this along."</p> <p>Well worth writing/sending. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261#post-96758 Sun, 13 Jan 2013 21:06:43 +0000 neddie 96758@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I sent this to Strava customer support:</p> <p>"""<br /> <em>On the 'This is what we stand for' web page, section 1, 'We Know The Rules' (<a href="http://app.strava.com/stand-with-us)" rel="nofollow">http://app.strava.com/stand-with-us)</a>, you state: "Cycling, running and swimming are inherently dangerous".</p> <p>In fact, cycling, running and swimming are inherently safe. What is inherently dangerous is inactivity and a sedentary lifestyle. For example, you are 20 times more likely to die early from obesity, stroke, diabetes, or heart-attack caused by a sedentary lifestyle, than you are in a cycling accident (source BMA).</p> <p>Furthermore, cycling on its own very rarely kills anyone. What kills cyclists is incompetent drivers of motor vehicles - motor vehicles are inherently dangerous, cycles are not. However, cycling does carry some risk (note the word 'risk' is different to 'dangerous'). This risk is created mainly by motor vehicles. The risk of being killed or seriously injured while cycling is not significantly different to the risk of being killed or seriously injured while driving. You are just as unlikely to die while cycling as you are to die while driving.</p> <p>Day-to-day decisions result in different risks being taken. For example, you would not agonise over whether to drive on a single-carriageway road or a motorway (freeway), even though the risks are different.</p> <p>I would suggest you update the text on the web page accordingly. I would suggest something along the lines of:</p> <p>"Laws and rules are created for our protection. Cycling, running and swimming are inherently safe. However, by following the law, and common sense, when it comes to traffic, weather, or conditions, it reduces our odds of getting hurt or hurting others. It's as simple as that"</em><br /> """</p> <p>and got this response:</p> <p>"""<br /> <em>Mat Gordon, Jan 13 11:08 am (PST):<br /> Hello-</p> <p>Thanks for your thoughts. I certainly can't make any promises, but I appreciate your time and sentiment - and I'll pass this along.</p> <p>Thanks very much!</p> <p>Mat<br /> strava.com/athletes/mat_gordon<br /> Strava Support Team</em><br /> """ </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261#post-96746 Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:56:08 +0000 gembo 96746@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Tom</p> <p>It isn't ever going to happen in this country (as I said, not even everyone on this forum wants strict liability). So it doesn't really matter that you are happy with it between cars and bikes but not bikes and peds? That is hardly a vote winner. I think there is a hierarchy of damage that can be done by a car, a bike and a pedestrian. In that order. I also feel if we were going to anticipate a law that would change driver's behaviours to cyclists then I would hope it would also help with cyclists' attitudes to pedestrians. There are a tiny number of bike-ped collisions reported so that is good, but their is some aggro out there. I would have hoped cyclists and pedestrians could get along better. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261#post-96745 Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:51:47 +0000 crowriver 96745@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@SRD, the point was couched in rather emotive terms ie. "You shouldn't treat people badly". I don't recall advocating that! </p> <p>@WC, a pity you are disappearing but I know what you mean. Thinking of taking a breather myself. </p> <p>I don't buy the "persecution perception" line, nor do I think most cyclists' behaviour is poor. The consequences of dog walkers being presented with a code of conduct are likely to be less than spectacular I suspect, much as the effect on those cyclists who do charge around recklessly will be minimal. The <em>de facto</em> rules will continue to prevail, just as they do on the roads, despite the existence of the Highway Code.</p> <p>It's simple majority/minority, ingroup/outgroup behaviour. Written rules do very little, if anything to change the unwritten ones. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261#post-96742 Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:24:48 +0000 Cyclingmollie 96742@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I've been here before with <a href="http://www.modemoperandi.co.uk/wordpress/?p=165">misunderstood shared use paths</a> and <a href="http://www.modemoperandi.co.uk/wordpress/?p=139">pedestrian behaviour</a>.</p> <p>I suppose behind what I say is <em>I'm not as dangerous to pedestrians as cars are to me</em>. It's easy to fall into the trap of talking about and on behalf of <em>all</em> cyclists at which point you have to defend the indefensible. My point is that strict liability isn't needed for cyclists because there is neither the harm nor the need to find blame for that harm. But if it came in for motorists and cyclists I'd be happy. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261#post-96741 Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:18:59 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 96741@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I'm afraid the "cyclists aren't as dangerous to pedestrians as cars are to cyclists" is rather blinkered, as is the persecution perception therefore we have no need to change the (poor) way we act until others do the same.</p> <p>About time to take one of my regular breaks from here I think. Does me good to have a break from teh interwebs arguments every now and then, and this feels like the right place. See you all in a couple of months! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261#post-96739 Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:01:59 +0000 SRD 96739@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Crowriver, everythng you say above is correct, but that still doesnt negate bdellar's points. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261#post-96735 Sun, 13 Jan 2013 16:51:59 +0000 crowriver 96735@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>To those making parallels between motorists' attitudes to cyclists, and cyclists' attitudes to pedestrians: they are <em>not</em> the same thing.</p> <p>Firstly, there's the territorial issue. On roads, motorists perceive (justifiably or not) that the roads are 'theirs' and cyclists should not be 'in the way' or even on the road at all. On paths, regardless of shared use markings/signs, pedestrians perceive (justifiably or not) the paths are 'theirs' and cyclists should not be bothering them. So cyclists are the unwelcome 'outsiders' in both territories, regarded as a nuisance, etc. I suggest it does not make much difference whether you obey the <em>actual</em> rules as a cyclist, you will always have broken the <em>de facto</em> rules by being there in the first place. Even when there is clear demarcation (ie. road/path markings) the majority users feel free to ignore these and impinge on cyclists' 'territory' at will.</p> <p>Then there's the question of the 'danger' or threat posed by cyclists to pedestrians, which I'd say has to be pretty low, simply because in any collision the cyclist will come at least as badly if not worse. </p> <p>The dog thing is related to the territory point above. The reason why dog owners only rarely control their dogs on shared use paths (let alone put them on a short lead) is because many clearly think that cyclists should not be there (even if technically allowed), therefore why should they consider how they might inconvenience cyclists? The owners often give the impression (though only a minority vocalise it) of only putting up with cyclists under suffereance, or even active antagonism. I'm sure those sentiments are reciprocated by many cyclists. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261#post-96697 Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:48:11 +0000 Cyclingmollie 96697@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"The purpose of the European directive is to put the primary burden of care where it belongs - with the primary cause of danger. It doesn't excuse anyone being stupid, but applies to cases where there's no immediate blame that'll stand up in court and assigns a presumption of responsibility.</p> <p>In other words, it says that when you wield a deadly weapon, it's up to you to take care with it, not up to everyone else to get out of your way. But it still is up to everyone else not to jump out into your way." Nick Kew</p> <p>I once had the misfortune to hit a child who ran out in front of me when I was on my bike. We both landed in the road but got up unharmed. This shows, I think, the difference between cars and bikes: there's not the same amount of danger and not the same need to allocate blame. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261#post-96694 Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:26:20 +0000 bdellar 96694@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><blockquote> <em>I'll abide by the code of conduct when the dog walkers do. Fair? The minute all dogs are on a lead/under close control, then we'll see that it's not just cyclists who are expected to follow the rules</em>.<br /> </blockquote><br /> That's the argument a lot of drivers use. "I'll respect cyclists when they stop jumping red lights". You shouldn't treat people badly based on the actions of a minority, or lump people together in a group and judge them based on the actions of a few members. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261#post-96693 Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:25:16 +0000 PS 96693@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>[OT]</p> <p><em>Some are regular users, but I suspect others have moved to the next 'app fad'. </em></p> <p>I've not used Strava for 4 months. <strike>Largely</strike> Entirely because I've not been on the bike for 4 months. </p> <p>However, it will prove very useful in a slightly more extreme version of Tom's comparing this year's times to last year's. Strava's got a record of me at my very fastest up Arthur's Seat, so I'll have a true gauge of where I am in my return from injury. </p> <p>I guess if Strava didn't exist I could try to decipher that info from my Garmin records, but those segment times make it a hell of a lot easier.<br /> [/OT] </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261#post-96692 Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:20:28 +0000 559 96692@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Good to see a code of conduct for shared paths </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9261#post-96685 Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:17:16 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 96685@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@crowriver</p> <p>And what do you say if a dog walker, provided with a code of conduct, says, "<em>I'll abide by the code of conduct when the cyclists do</em>" ?</p> <p>Someone has to be big enough to take the first step. Or pedal. </p>