CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Commuting

today's rubbish dog-handling

(217 posts)

  1. wingpig
    Member

    I merely glowered at a small rat-like dog this morning as it ambled pathetically into my path, tennis ball barely held in its mouth, on my way up Leamington Walk. The presumed owner (tallish beardyman in a suit with a strong local* accent) then said something rude BEFORE I'd even had a chance to start muttering about leads and so on. Unfortunately this was a couple of minutes after my camera had beeped to tell me it was full after I forgot to empty it last night.

    *Scottish. Even after eighteen years living here I'd need more than a few gruff words to even be able to start to guess roughly which coast someone was from.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  2. Lezzles
    Member

    Do dogs need to be on the lead on Leamington Walk?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  3. ARobComp
    Member

    On ARthurs seat laps on tuesday I saw a roadchap who had just taken me on the hill (don't worry I beasted him afterwards) almost get knocked off by a dog coming flying out of the long grass and onto the road and then I almost got done the next lap by a similar dog. Both cases, not an decernable owner in sight.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  4. Dave
    Member

    Don't they need to be kept under control everywhere that an accident might result? (Or rather, if a dog is let loose and causes an accident, isn't the owner liable?)

    Posted 11 years ago #
  5. wingpig
    Member

    If dogs have to exist they should always be physically restrained unless there's zero chance of them suddenly running off and biting someone on the face, which is only assuredly the case if a dog is dead.

    Holyrood Park appears to be a special case as it's owned by a dog-wielder; I asked a police outside the Parliament what the deal was a few years ago when a couple of dogs were running about without leads and he reckoned they didn't need to be restrained in the park, as long as they were "under control", which presumably meant "not yet drawing blood".

    Posted 11 years ago #
  6. Lezzles
    Member

    and he reckoned they didn't need to be restrained in the park, as long as they were "under control",

    ok so maybe that should be the distinction. A dog doesn't need to be on a lead to be on control.

    I walk my dog regularly on the canal. She has been trained to sit by my side when a bike is coming. Our challenge is the bikes that don't give us fair warning. The bikes that come up fast from behind, don't ting their bell and go at high speed. Its a shared space so if I'm expected to adjust my (and my dogs) behaviour to accomodate others use of the footpath shouldn't cyclists?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  7. minus six
    Member

    Highway Code -- Rules about Animals

    56
    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 or horse riders.

    http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069853

    Posted 11 years ago #
  8. minus six
    Member

    @Lezzles

    I walk my dog regularly on the canal. She has been trained to sit by my side when a bike is coming.

    Do you have confidence that your dog would remain disciplined if suddenly distracted by, for example, a rat darting out from undergrowth?

    The dog's instinct could not be controlled. A short leash is mandatory.

    Agreed on the selfish high speed path cyclists, though.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  9. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Just like how cyclists and pedestrians have differing views about how fast "you're going too fast" is, I find dog walkers and non-dog owners/walkers have vastly different opinions about what "under control" means. To me it means on a short leash, not rooting about 15/20/50m ahead of the owner with only verbal commands to try and make the thing do what its owner wishes.

    There's also some people who think huskies make appropriate city dogs.

    I've a sneaky suspicion a small minority of less public-spirited dog owners let the dog roam ahead so it can godo its doggy business out of sight and out of mind, meaning no little bag of poo to collect and hang on a tree / leave on a bench / dump in a cycle counter box...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  10. Lezzles
    Member

    I'm sorry Im going to have to continue to disagree with this thread.

    No I wouldn't trust my trained dog not to engage in erratic behaviour now and again. Similarly I wouldn't trust most toddlers, wild animals, joggers, cyclists, motorists not to engage in erratic behaviour now and again. My point is it is useful to anticipate behaviour like this and moderate your cycling accordingly.

    I generally assume when I cycle near schools that the chances of me getting doored by errant children is high. I therefore cycle further out on the road and reduce my speed.

    With the advent of mountain bikes in the city I'd have to keep my dog on the lead on just about every public space.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  11. wingpig
    Member

    "My point is it is useful to anticipate behaviour like this and moderate your cycling accordingly."

    I not only glower but also slow down, shift down, keep my hands on my brake levers, unclip a foot or so and optionally ting/verbally request unmolested passage. A few years back a dog still managed to get under my front wheel going through Bingham when I had slowed almost to a stop to wait for it to decide what it was doing. At that sort of speed (when my stopping distance would have been a few millimetres) the only way it could have got under my front wheel was by running directly at it, but that is nevertheless what it did.

    I'm excruciatingly conscious of the behaviour of other people I'm with when wandering about on pavements and shared-use paths and regularly request mothers, fathers, sisters and wives to walk in single file and/or pay attention to other path-using beings, often to the point of severely annoying them. If the bairn (who is not yet of an age where he reliably responds to instructions) is not in a backpack or buggy I'm watching the path for anything approaching ready to hoick him out of the way at least as much as I'm watching him to make sure he's not about to bimble into a pile of biologically-hazardous dog emissions.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  12. Essentially, summed up...

    There are some idiot dog owners who let their dogs run about unhindered;
    There are some good dog owners who keep their dogs under control;
    There are some idiot cyclists who ride stupidly around dogs;
    There are some good cyclists who ride sensibly around dogs.

    I think that about covers it.

    One thing I would say, as a former dog owner whose dog walked everywhere off the lead (Border Collies, best dogs in the world), I would make a point of grabbing his collar in case of potential conflict, or if too far away would shout on him to stop and lie down so the person approaching knew he was under control (remember, while you may know the dog is under control, others may not, and apart from anything else there are people out there who are scared of dogs and one person's bounding, joyful, tailwag is another's bitey nightmare).

    The only other thing I'd say is in relation to this:

    "No I wouldn't trust my trained dog not to engage in erratic behaviour now and again. Similarly I wouldn't trust most toddlers, wild animals, joggers, cyclists, motorists not to engage in erratic behaviour now and again. My point is it is useful to anticipate behaviour like this and moderate your cycling accordingly"

    Absolutely. Cyclists definitely should moderate their cycling accordingly, and equally, in a shared space should not dog owners moderate their dog walking accordingly? Two way street.

    I have no problem with dogs generally (perhaps being a former owner helps in this regard) - there's a lady walks her lovely mongrel and Rottweiler on the the Innocent every morning, and when I go that way I make sure it's clear I've stopped pedalling and am covering the brakes/have slowed down, she has one of the dogs on a lead already, and calls the other to her. Seems to work. The world keeps turning.

    "... which is only assuredly the case if a dog is dead"

    Hints at a slightly prejudiced view of canines...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  13. Lezzles
    Member

    @Winpig

    Great! We're in agreement.

    And on the behaviour of errant mutts. My mother is a dog trainer. She has been teaching dog obedience for about 20 years now. She believes she isn't training the dogs - she's training the owners. In her words 'you get the dog you deserve'. So lazy stupid people get lazy stupid dogs.

    My dog is perfect! :-)

    Posted 11 years ago #
  14. Roibeard
    Member

    Being used to working dogs, I'm amused by pets...

    The first command we taught our dogs was "DOWN!" - to which the dog dropped to the ground, and could then be commanded to do something more complex. The idea being that even if they were in a wee world of their own, once they were stopped, they were listening...

    Pet owners, though, seem to just have taught the dog their name (usually embarrassing) and expect tone to do everything. tiddles, Tiddles, TIDDLES! Which seems to mean "down", "come here", "dinner time" or whatever based on the context... Needless to say, Tiddles knows they are being addressed, but chooses to interpret that in whichever way their doggy mind prefers!

    I'd guess most working dogs are more under control off the leash than many pets in the city (particularly with the extendable leads!).

    Now, if only I could get my kids to stop and drop as quickly, I'd have them under control in a trice too...

    ;-)

    Robert

    Posted 11 years ago #
  15. earthowned
    Member

    A few months ago I saw a large dog run out into the road straight into the side of a car in Holyrood park:

    [+] Embed the video | Video DownloadGet the Video Plugins

    I think the car came off worse with a dent in the side.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  16. wingpig
    Member

    '... which is only assuredly the case if a dog is dead'

    "Hints at a slightly prejudiced view of canines..."

    Cats, too.

    I once ameliorated the wording on a blip when someone misinterpreted the way I'd written something as meaning something akin to "I wish there was a sort of Dutch Elm Disease thing but for dogs" rather than "I would much prefer it if wolves had never had the sense (but not the teeth) domesticated out of them in the first place".

    Posted 11 years ago #
  17. Min
    Member

    Try running. The number of dog owners that seem to think it is fine to allow their mutt to jump and snap at me while I am running is staggering. It is so bad I am actually thinking of carrying a stick so I can beat the buggers off me.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  18. Stick also useful for key cutters?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  19. Min
    Member

    Eh?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  20. Spotted thread the other day... I'll crawl back under my rock...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  21. Min
    Member

    Ah right. I was trying to figure out how one could cut a key with a stick..

    Posted 11 years ago #
  22. Roibeard
    Member

    cue wisecrack about Min needing to beat them off with a big stick...

    <Ducks>

    <edit - aim at Anth first, it was the big boy what done it...>

    Robert

    Posted 11 years ago #
  23. Min
    Member

    I'll hit you both with a stick so no-one is left out, okay? ;-)

    Posted 11 years ago #
  24. Kirst
    Member

    Regardless of how well controlled dogs are or not, and how considerate or not cyclists are, it is a canal by-law that dogs must be on short leads on canal paths.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  25. Lezzles
    Member

    Is this true? I'm searching for reference to dogs being on leads in the bye-laws and I'm struggling to find any.
    http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/foi/legal/BW_General_Canal_Bye-laws.pdf

    There are no signs on the canal requiring dog owners to keep dogs on leads. This suggests to me it is either unenforcable, or they do not choose to enforce it.

    Also if you look at Scottish Canals, the charity that has replaced the quango British Waterways, there is nothing on their website to suggest we should be keeping dogs on leads. In fact they even have photos of dogs on the canal not on leads.
    http://www.scottishcanals.co.uk/our-canals/union-canal/walking

    Posted 11 years ago #
  26. Dave
    Member

    As an erstwhile dog walker (but not owner) I have to admit I struggle to understand why people would want to risk their dog running amok on a narrow path (especially one next to water) rather than having them on a lead anyway. What are they going to say if a child ends up in the canal, that the kid should have known to take care and the dog was only "being friendly"?

    My niece doesn't like to walk down her own street because of neighbourly dogs that *are* on a lead, so I'm not sure whether she'd be able to enjoy a walk along the canal at all...

    Another demonstration of how we fall into group identity lines. Interesting isn't it?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  27. duncans
    Member

    Puts me in mind of an incident one October a few years back. Owner calls dog to her side. I pass, moderate speed. Dog decides at this point to come and be friendly and steps into my path. I grab brakes, front wheel skips out on wet leaves, I face plant. Dog owner makes a sharp exit, leaves me to pick myself up.

    Lessons? A dog is not 'under control' unless physically restrained.

    Grab the dog.

    I really don't care whether you think the dog is well trained or 'just being friendly'. Grab the dog.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  28. Dave
    Member

    I've had good success with the trailer - both in the sense that people take the effort to control the dog and also the dog not being so keen to get under my wheels. I don't know why - do they think it's a car perhaps?

    A fringe benefit is that if it goes under the wheels it won't cause me an upset, although I'd still be furious with the owner - it's not as if the dog knows any better after all, and that's the sad thing.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  29. minus six
    Member

    I purchased one of these ultrasonic dog deterrants a few years back.

    Still embarrassed by my rash purchase, never used it or even taken it outdoors, what was I thinking?

    Dogs are great, its the owners that are often the problem.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  30. wingpig
    Member

    Dog owners/sympathisers:

    Pretend you are one of three different people walking in the approximate vicinity of your medium-sized (15-25kg) dog along the Lochend/Restalrig section of the Lochend/Restalrig/Seafield path this afternoon. Your dog is not attached to a lead. Approaching from the opposite direction are a walking man and a three-year-old on a balance bike, keeping to their left. Your dog either emerges from the undergrowth at high speed towards them or changes the side of the path along which it's trotting in order to head directly towards them. Every time the three-year-old almost falls off his balance bike in terror and climbs up to its parent's shoulder, wailing things with the general tenor of "help me daddy the doggy's going to bite me" in a clear enough voice for you, the dog owner, to have no doubt that the child is scared of what you claim as your dog. You do nothing except simper or burble some garbage about it not biting people or it being scared of the inanimate balance bike. How do you somehow convince yourself, never mind the rest of the world, that you are not an obnoxious oafbag?

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin