Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Knocked off bike
141 views
Skip to first unread message
Syd Rumpo
May 16, 2013, 8:10:01 AM5/16/13
to
No, I don't mean my bike is knocked off. I have the receipts.
Anyway, yesterday evening I was proceeding in an easterly direction
along by the Thames at http://goo.gl/maps/FTCrz which as ani fule kno is
a few yards east of a canoe club outside Reading. I was on an asphalt
cycle path through a grassy meadow.
A large dog which was gambolling with another nearby suddenly darted
under my front wheel causing me to fall off, and I sustained minor cuts
and bruises. My bike now has a front wheel with a right-angle bend in
it and the rim is split. It's a cheap but serviceable B'twin bike.
The dog's owner gave me her details.
Her partner then proceeded to blame me saying that it wasn't a cycle
path. It is: that's what the blue sign with the little white bicycle
means. He claimed there was a 4mph limit. It's national cycle route
number 4 and that's what the '4' on the sign means. He said the sign
says slow down. It says 'Slow down canoes crossing' for the benefit of
those going the opposite way towards the boathouse. He claimed I was
going 'too fast'. I would guess 10mph or so, enjoying the air. He
couldn't give me a lift the 2 miles home in his land rover as he was
going the wrong way. All the time holding a small child rather like a
human shield. He was an argumentative idiot.
SWMBO obliged by picking me up.
This incident was in no way whatsoever my fault. Not even slightly.
The dog owners were with another couple plus one infant in two cars
whose numbers I have. If the partner had been reasonable and admitted
responsibility I'd probably not take it any further and trust them to
pay for a new wheel which I'd fit. However, given his attitude, and the
lack of other witnesses, I'm a bit concerned they might collude and
concoct some or other story, so I called 101 (useless bunch) who advised
me to report it to the rozzers at the local nick tomorrow.
I've done this, (at 999 Letsby Avenue - Beano circa 1960) and have a
number from them. So now I write to the dog owner and claim for 1
wheel, my time fetching and fitting the wheel (I work for myself) and
SWMBO's time for picking me up. Still under a ton.
Is that reasonable?
Cheers
--
Syd
Anyway, yesterday evening I was proceeding in an easterly direction
along by the Thames at http://goo.gl/maps/FTCrz which as ani fule kno is
a few yards east of a canoe club outside Reading. I was on an asphalt
cycle path through a grassy meadow.
A large dog which was gambolling with another nearby suddenly darted
under my front wheel causing me to fall off, and I sustained minor cuts
and bruises. My bike now has a front wheel with a right-angle bend in
it and the rim is split. It's a cheap but serviceable B'twin bike.
The dog's owner gave me her details.
Her partner then proceeded to blame me saying that it wasn't a cycle
path. It is: that's what the blue sign with the little white bicycle
means. He claimed there was a 4mph limit. It's national cycle route
number 4 and that's what the '4' on the sign means. He said the sign
says slow down. It says 'Slow down canoes crossing' for the benefit of
those going the opposite way towards the boathouse. He claimed I was
going 'too fast'. I would guess 10mph or so, enjoying the air. He
couldn't give me a lift the 2 miles home in his land rover as he was
going the wrong way. All the time holding a small child rather like a
human shield. He was an argumentative idiot.
SWMBO obliged by picking me up.
This incident was in no way whatsoever my fault. Not even slightly.
The dog owners were with another couple plus one infant in two cars
whose numbers I have. If the partner had been reasonable and admitted
responsibility I'd probably not take it any further and trust them to
pay for a new wheel which I'd fit. However, given his attitude, and the
lack of other witnesses, I'm a bit concerned they might collude and
concoct some or other story, so I called 101 (useless bunch) who advised
me to report it to the rozzers at the local nick tomorrow.
I've done this, (at 999 Letsby Avenue - Beano circa 1960) and have a
number from them. So now I write to the dog owner and claim for 1
wheel, my time fetching and fitting the wheel (I work for myself) and
SWMBO's time for picking me up. Still under a ton.
Is that reasonable?
Cheers
--
Syd
Sara
May 16, 2013, 11:50:02 AM5/16/13
to
In article <kn2hva$td6$1...@dont-email.me>,
Oh dear :(
I'll start by saying I'm a cyclist too and the people you came across
seem to have reacted as complete twunts.
However... it was the dog that ran in front of you not the people.
As with most shared spaces, I think you have to take account of other
users and if you had seen that there was a dog playing with another
nearby, it's down to you (as a human with a brain) to take extra care to
avoid it. If it had been a child would you have dealt with the situation
differently?
The majority of my commute to work is through a park on a shared path.
And yes, it can be a pain in the bum when you get held up by other users
either on foot, walking dogs, or riding even slower than I am in a
wobbly, side to sdie manner, who are not in the same rush as you. That's
the price you pay for using a nice ride in a nice area.
You make way for other users, just because bikes are allowed somewhere
it doesn't give them priority.
I may of course have completely misresd your post and the dog may have
appeared out of nowhere, in which case please accept my apologies.
--
Sara
cats cats cats cats cats
I'll start by saying I'm a cyclist too and the people you came across
seem to have reacted as complete twunts.
However... it was the dog that ran in front of you not the people.
As with most shared spaces, I think you have to take account of other
users and if you had seen that there was a dog playing with another
nearby, it's down to you (as a human with a brain) to take extra care to
avoid it. If it had been a child would you have dealt with the situation
differently?
The majority of my commute to work is through a park on a shared path.
And yes, it can be a pain in the bum when you get held up by other users
either on foot, walking dogs, or riding even slower than I am in a
wobbly, side to sdie manner, who are not in the same rush as you. That's
the price you pay for using a nice ride in a nice area.
You make way for other users, just because bikes are allowed somewhere
it doesn't give them priority.
I may of course have completely misresd your post and the dog may have
appeared out of nowhere, in which case please accept my apologies.
--
Sara
cats cats cats cats cats
Judith
May 16, 2013, 12:10:01 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:10:01 +0100, Syd Rumpo <use...@nononono.co.uk> wrote:
>No, I don't mean my bike is knocked off. I have the receipts.
>
>Anyway, yesterday evening I was proceeding in an easterly direction
>along by the Thames at http://goo.gl/maps/FTCrz which as ani fule kno is
>a few yards east of a canoe club outside Reading. I was on an asphalt
>cycle path through a grassy meadow.
>
>A large dog which was gambolling with another nearby suddenly darted
>under my front wheel causing me to fall off, and I sustained minor cuts
>and bruises.
Could you be deemed have been travelling too fast?
>No, I don't mean my bike is knocked off. I have the receipts.
>
>Anyway, yesterday evening I was proceeding in an easterly direction
>along by the Thames at http://goo.gl/maps/FTCrz which as ani fule kno is
>a few yards east of a canoe club outside Reading. I was on an asphalt
>cycle path through a grassy meadow.
>
>A large dog which was gambolling with another nearby suddenly darted
>under my front wheel causing me to fall off, and I sustained minor cuts
>and bruises.
What if it had been a child who suddenly "darted" across in front of you?
Why not just claim off your cycle insurance?
Peter Crosland
May 16, 2013, 12:45:02 PM5/16/13
to
You cannot claim for your time or that of your wife. A claim for
professional fitting would be acceptable providing you could produce a
receipt.
--
Peter Crosland
Toom Tabard
May 16, 2013, 1:05:02 PM5/16/13
to
On Thursday, 16 May 2013 13:10:01 UTC+1, Syd Rumpo wrote:
>
> I've done this, (at 999 Letsby Avenue - Beano circa 1960) and have a
>
> number from them. So now I write to the dog owner and claim for 1
>
> wheel, my time fetching and fitting the wheel (I work for myself) and
>
> SWMBO's time for picking me up. Still under a ton.
>
>
>
> Is that reasonable?
>
Sorry if this info appears twice - firt posting seemed to hang up.
>
> I've done this, (at 999 Letsby Avenue - Beano circa 1960) and have a
>
> number from them. So now I write to the dog owner and claim for 1
>
> wheel, my time fetching and fitting the wheel (I work for myself) and
>
> SWMBO's time for picking me up. Still under a ton.
>
>
>
> Is that reasonable?
>
In most parts of the UK, and certainly in Scotland it is an offence for a
dog to be dangerously out of control in public.
https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/overview
Note specifically - "Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:
injures someone"
You could ensure the incident is recorded by the police specifically
on this basis.
Dog owners my be covered by insurance, either specific dog insurance,
or under the personal liabilty section of household insurance which commonly
covers domestic animals (but excludes dangerous dogs as defined by the
legislation.
Toom
Syd Rumpo
May 16, 2013, 1:20:02 PM5/16/13
to
On 16/05/2013 17:45, Peter Crosland wrote:
> On 16/05/2013 13:10, Syd Rumpo wrote:
<snipped>
> On 16/05/2013 13:10, Syd Rumpo wrote:
>> So now I write to the dog owner and claim for 1
>> wheel, my time fetching and fitting the wheel (I work for myself) and
>> SWMBO's time for picking me up. Still under a ton.
>>
>> Is that reasonable?
>
> Regardless of the other issues you can only claim for the actual damage.
> You cannot claim for your time or that of your wife. A claim for
> professional fitting would be acceptable providing you could produce a
> receipt.
position you would have been in. I work for myself, time is money, and
I want to claim a very reasonable 1 hour for fetching and fitting, as
well as the £25 for the wheel and £20 for dragging SWMBO away from her
evening out and recovering me and the bike. Recovery by other means
would have cost more.
The thing that galls is that they had a Land Rover and could have taken
me home. I'd like to think that I'd have the decency to do that, to
accept my responsibilities and not to put forward clearly ludicrous
arguments.
I was cycling slowly - I don't do speed. I was aware of the dogs but
was unable to avoid the sudden dart towards me. (Why would a dog do
that?) I don't think I should have been pushing the bike. I do not
blame the dog, I do not blame the owner (other than for having an
ignorant and cowardly husband), but I do believe that it is their
responsibility.
I think they get off lightly. A cheap bike, not needed for commuting,
no bad injuries, cheap recovery.
Cheers
--
Syd
David L. Martel
May 16, 2013, 1:20:02 PM5/16/13
to
Syd,
If you file a suit it will be up to you to prove your case. You'll need
to show that it was a bike lane and that you were using it reasonably.
You'll need to show that dogs should not be on the bike lane.
This may be difficult. Your bike lane looks like a footpath. If it is
used as a footpath then you should be watching out for the antics of dogs
and children.
You'll need to demonstrate the current value of your bike. You'll need to
get a few repair estimates. Hopefully the repair will not exceed the value
of the bike.Do not waste time with trying to justify making your own repair
at your usual wage.
Once you have some estimates get in touch dog's owner and see what she
wishes to do. Do not waste your time discussing this matter with her
boyfriend. Try to avoid going to court.
Good luck,
Dave M.
If you file a suit it will be up to you to prove your case. You'll need
to show that it was a bike lane and that you were using it reasonably.
You'll need to show that dogs should not be on the bike lane.
This may be difficult. Your bike lane looks like a footpath. If it is
used as a footpath then you should be watching out for the antics of dogs
and children.
You'll need to demonstrate the current value of your bike. You'll need to
get a few repair estimates. Hopefully the repair will not exceed the value
of the bike.Do not waste time with trying to justify making your own repair
at your usual wage.
Once you have some estimates get in touch dog's owner and see what she
wishes to do. Do not waste your time discussing this matter with her
boyfriend. Try to avoid going to court.
Good luck,
Dave M.
Stuart Bronstein
May 16, 2013, 2:40:02 PM5/16/13
to
Syd Rumpo <use...@nononono.co.uk> wrote:
> Peter Crosland wrote:
amount but for your personal injuries, that might work better. When
I was in a similar situation years ago, I received a permenant scar
under my chin. For that I received a settlement equal to about �3500
in today's money.
> I was cycling slowly - I don't do speed. I was aware of the
> dogs but was unable to avoid the sudden dart towards me. (Why
> would a dog do that?)
Dogs chase things that are moving. That's just the way it is. One
person I know carries a water pistol filled with amonia when he is
cycling, just to discourage dogs. I don't know how well it works.
> I don't think I should have been pushing
> the bike. I do not blame the dog, I do not blame the owner
> (other than for having an ignorant and cowardly husband), but I
> do believe that it is their responsibility.
You should blame the owner for not keeping control of his dog. By
his behaviour it seems to me he felt responsible, and over-reacted in
the other way because he didn't want to admit fault.
Good luck.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
> Peter Crosland wrote:
>> Syd Rumpo wrote:
>
>>> So now I write to the dog owner and claim for 1
>>> wheel, my time fetching and fitting the wheel (I work for
>>> myself) and SWMBO's time for picking me up. Still under a
>>> ton.
>>>
>>> Is that reasonable?
>
>>> So now I write to the dog owner and claim for 1
>>> wheel, my time fetching and fitting the wheel (I work for
>>> myself) and SWMBO's time for picking me up. Still under a
>>> ton.
>>>
>>> Is that reasonable?
> .
>> You cannot claim for your time or that of your wife. A claim
>> for professional fitting would be acceptable providing you
>> could produce a receipt.
>
> I understood that the purpose of compensation was to put you
> back to the position you would have been in. I work for myself,
> time is money, and I want to claim a very reasonable 1 hour for
> fetching and fitting, as well as the �25 for the wheel and �20
> for dragging SWMBO away from her evening out and recovering me
> and the bike. Recovery by other means would have cost more.
Unfortunately that isn't recoverable. But if you claim the same
>> You cannot claim for your time or that of your wife. A claim
>> for professional fitting would be acceptable providing you
>> could produce a receipt.
>
> I understood that the purpose of compensation was to put you
> back to the position you would have been in. I work for myself,
> time is money, and I want to claim a very reasonable 1 hour for
> fetching and fitting, as well as the �25 for the wheel and �20
> for dragging SWMBO away from her evening out and recovering me
> and the bike. Recovery by other means would have cost more.
amount but for your personal injuries, that might work better. When
I was in a similar situation years ago, I received a permenant scar
under my chin. For that I received a settlement equal to about �3500
in today's money.
> I was cycling slowly - I don't do speed. I was aware of the
> dogs but was unable to avoid the sudden dart towards me. (Why
> would a dog do that?)
person I know carries a water pistol filled with amonia when he is
cycling, just to discourage dogs. I don't know how well it works.
> I don't think I should have been pushing
> the bike. I do not blame the dog, I do not blame the owner
> (other than for having an ignorant and cowardly husband), but I
> do believe that it is their responsibility.
his behaviour it seems to me he felt responsible, and over-reacted in
the other way because he didn't want to admit fault.
Good luck.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Stuart Bronstein
May 16, 2013, 2:45:02 PM5/16/13
to
I have one question - assuming the owner has insurance, will they not
take the claims seriously unless Syd files a claim in court? That's
been my experience here in the USA.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Chris R
May 16, 2013, 2:55:01 PM5/16/13
to
>
>
> "Syd Rumpo" wrote in message news:kn342b$8ku$1...@dont-email.me...
Unless you can convince a court that the owner was in some way negligent,
you do not have a case.
--
Chris R
========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======
Mark Goodge
May 16, 2013, 3:25:02 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:20:02 +0100, Syd Rumpo put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>On 16/05/2013 17:45, Peter Crosland wrote:
>> On 16/05/2013 13:10, Syd Rumpo wrote:
>
><snipped>
>
>>> So now I write to the dog owner and claim for 1
>>> wheel, my time fetching and fitting the wheel (I work for myself) and
>>> SWMBO's time for picking me up. Still under a ton.
>>>
>>> Is that reasonable?
>>
>> Regardless of the other issues you can only claim for the actual damage.
>> You cannot claim for your time or that of your wife. A claim for
>> professional fitting would be acceptable providing you could produce a
>> receipt.
>
>I understood that the purpose of compensation was to put you back to the
>position you would have been in. I work for myself, time is money, and
>I want to claim a very reasonable 1 hour for fetching and fitting, as
>well as the £25 for the wheel and £20 for dragging SWMBO away from her
>evening out and recovering me and the bike. Recovery by other means
>would have cost more.
It doesn't work like that. You can't claim for your time at a rate based on
what you would charge for doing what you normally do. You can only charge
for your time, if indeed you can charge for it at all, based on doing what
you actually did, at the rate that someone else would actually have paid
you had you been doing it for them on a commercial basis. So the question
is, how much would someone else have paid you to fetch a wheel for them,
and how much would your wife normally charge you to come and collect you if
you need a lift? Whatever that is, that's the most you can charge for your
and her time.
There's a possible separate claim for lost earnings, if you had had to
fetch the wheel instead of doing your normal work and the work you didn't
do was not possible to reschedule (ie, it was irretrivably lost, along with
the potential income from it). But I'm presuming that that's not the case
in this instance.
>The thing that galls is that they had a Land Rover and could have taken
>me home. I'd like to think that I'd have the decency to do that, to
>accept my responsibilities and not to put forward clearly ludicrous
>arguments.
>
>I was cycling slowly - I don't do speed. I was aware of the dogs but
>was unable to avoid the sudden dart towards me. (Why would a dog do
>that?) I don't think I should have been pushing the bike. I do not
>blame the dog, I do not blame the owner (other than for having an
>ignorant and cowardly husband), but I do believe that it is their
>responsibility.
If you don't think the owner is to blame, then you cannot possibly have any
claim against them.
FWIW, had you not said that, I would have agreed that you do have a
reasonable claim for the direct cost of the wheel, if not the ancillary
costs. But having now stated in public that you don't consider the owner to
be responsible, then I think you have irretrievably damaged any case you
may have had against her.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
typed:
>On 16/05/2013 17:45, Peter Crosland wrote:
>> On 16/05/2013 13:10, Syd Rumpo wrote:
>
><snipped>
>
>>> So now I write to the dog owner and claim for 1
>>> wheel, my time fetching and fitting the wheel (I work for myself) and
>>> SWMBO's time for picking me up. Still under a ton.
>>>
>>> Is that reasonable?
>>
>> Regardless of the other issues you can only claim for the actual damage.
>> You cannot claim for your time or that of your wife. A claim for
>> professional fitting would be acceptable providing you could produce a
>> receipt.
>
>I understood that the purpose of compensation was to put you back to the
>position you would have been in. I work for myself, time is money, and
>I want to claim a very reasonable 1 hour for fetching and fitting, as
>well as the £25 for the wheel and £20 for dragging SWMBO away from her
>evening out and recovering me and the bike. Recovery by other means
>would have cost more.
what you would charge for doing what you normally do. You can only charge
for your time, if indeed you can charge for it at all, based on doing what
you actually did, at the rate that someone else would actually have paid
you had you been doing it for them on a commercial basis. So the question
is, how much would someone else have paid you to fetch a wheel for them,
and how much would your wife normally charge you to come and collect you if
you need a lift? Whatever that is, that's the most you can charge for your
and her time.
There's a possible separate claim for lost earnings, if you had had to
fetch the wheel instead of doing your normal work and the work you didn't
do was not possible to reschedule (ie, it was irretrivably lost, along with
the potential income from it). But I'm presuming that that's not the case
in this instance.
>The thing that galls is that they had a Land Rover and could have taken
>me home. I'd like to think that I'd have the decency to do that, to
>accept my responsibilities and not to put forward clearly ludicrous
>arguments.
>
>I was cycling slowly - I don't do speed. I was aware of the dogs but
>was unable to avoid the sudden dart towards me. (Why would a dog do
>that?) I don't think I should have been pushing the bike. I do not
>blame the dog, I do not blame the owner (other than for having an
>ignorant and cowardly husband), but I do believe that it is their
>responsibility.
claim against them.
FWIW, had you not said that, I would have agreed that you do have a
reasonable claim for the direct cost of the wheel, if not the ancillary
costs. But having now stated in public that you don't consider the owner to
be responsible, then I think you have irretrievably damaged any case you
may have had against her.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Judith
May 16, 2013, 3:00:03 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:05:02 +0100, Toom Tabard <toomtab...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Thursday, 16 May 2013 13:10:01 UTC+1, Syd Rumpo wrote:
>
>>
>> I've done this, (at 999 Letsby Avenue - Beano circa 1960) and have a
>>
>> number from them. So now I write to the dog owner and claim for 1
>>
>> wheel, my time fetching and fitting the wheel (I work for myself) and
>>
>> SWMBO's time for picking me up. Still under a ton.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is that reasonable?
>>
>
>Sorry if this info appears twice - firt posting seemed to hang up.
>In most parts of the UK, and certainly in Scotland it is an offence for a
>dog to be dangerously out of control in public.
>
>https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/overview
>
>Note specifically - "Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:
>injures someone"
Does that cover this sort of case as well as the dog biting someone, which I
guess it is really aimed at?
You could argue that the dog did not actually injure Syd: he fell off his bike
and injured himself.
wrote:
>On Thursday, 16 May 2013 13:10:01 UTC+1, Syd Rumpo wrote:
>
>>
>> I've done this, (at 999 Letsby Avenue - Beano circa 1960) and have a
>>
>> number from them. So now I write to the dog owner and claim for 1
>>
>> wheel, my time fetching and fitting the wheel (I work for myself) and
>>
>> SWMBO's time for picking me up. Still under a ton.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is that reasonable?
>>
>
>Sorry if this info appears twice - firt posting seemed to hang up.
>In most parts of the UK, and certainly in Scotland it is an offence for a
>dog to be dangerously out of control in public.
>
>https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/overview
>
>Note specifically - "Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:
>injures someone"
guess it is really aimed at?
You could argue that the dog did not actually injure Syd: he fell off his bike
and injured himself.
Janet
May 16, 2013, 3:20:02 PM5/16/13
to
In article <19363935-9178-43ff...@googlegroups.com>,
toomtab...@gmail.com says...
etc. In this incident the OP was hurt when he fell off his bike.
Janet
toomtab...@gmail.com says...
>
> On Thursday, 16 May 2013 13:10:01 UTC+1, Syd Rumpo wrote:
>
> >
> > I've done this, (at 999 Letsby Avenue - Beano circa 1960) and have a
> >
> > number from them. So now I write to the dog owner and claim for 1
> >
> > wheel, my time fetching and fitting the wheel (I work for myself) and
> >
> > SWMBO's time for picking me up. Still under a ton.
> >
> >
> >
> > Is that reasonable?
> >
>
> Sorry if this info appears twice - firt posting seemed to hang up.
> In most parts of the UK, and certainly in Scotland it is an offence for a
> dog to be dangerously out of control in public.
>
> https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/overview
>
> Note specifically - "Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:
> injures someone"
That surely means injuring someonedirectly, by biting scratching
> On Thursday, 16 May 2013 13:10:01 UTC+1, Syd Rumpo wrote:
>
> >
> > I've done this, (at 999 Letsby Avenue - Beano circa 1960) and have a
> >
> > number from them. So now I write to the dog owner and claim for 1
> >
> > wheel, my time fetching and fitting the wheel (I work for myself) and
> >
> > SWMBO's time for picking me up. Still under a ton.
> >
> >
> >
> > Is that reasonable?
> >
>
> Sorry if this info appears twice - firt posting seemed to hang up.
> In most parts of the UK, and certainly in Scotland it is an offence for a
> dog to be dangerously out of control in public.
>
> https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/overview
>
> Note specifically - "Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:
> injures someone"
etc. In this incident the OP was hurt when he fell off his bike.
Janet
Toom Tabard
May 16, 2013, 3:40:01 PM5/16/13
to
On Thursday, 16 May 2013 19:40:02 UTC+1, Stuart Bronstein wrote:
> Syd Rumpo <use...@nononono.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Peter Crosland wrote:
> >> Syd Rumpo wrote:
> >
> >>> So now I write to the dog owner and claim for 1
> >>> wheel, my time fetching and fitting the wheel (I work for
> >>> myself) and SWMBO's time for picking me up. Still under a
> >>> ton.
> >>>
> >>> Is that reasonable?
> > .
> >> You cannot claim for your time or that of your wife. A claim
> >> for professional fitting would be acceptable providing you
> >> could produce a receipt.
> >
> > I understood that the purpose of compensation was to put you
> > back to the position you would have been in. I work for myself,
> > time is money, and I want to claim a very reasonable 1 hour for
> > fetching and fitting, as well as the �25 for the wheel and �20
> > for dragging SWMBO away from her evening out and recovering me
> > and the bike. Recovery by other means would have cost more.
>
> Unfortunately that isn't recoverable. But if you claim the same
> amount but for your personal injuries, that might work better. When
> I was in a similar situation years ago, I received a permenant scar
> under my chin. For that I received a settlement equal to about �3500
> in today's money.
>
Re the statements 'you cannot claim for' and 'that isn't recoverable',
> Syd Rumpo <use...@nononono.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Peter Crosland wrote:
> >> Syd Rumpo wrote:
> >
> >>> So now I write to the dog owner and claim for 1
> >>> wheel, my time fetching and fitting the wheel (I work for
> >>> myself) and SWMBO's time for picking me up. Still under a
> >>> ton.
> >>>
> >>> Is that reasonable?
> > .
> >> You cannot claim for your time or that of your wife. A claim
> >> for professional fitting would be acceptable providing you
> >> could produce a receipt.
> >
> > I understood that the purpose of compensation was to put you
> > back to the position you would have been in. I work for myself,
> > time is money, and I want to claim a very reasonable 1 hour for
> > fetching and fitting, as well as the �25 for the wheel and �20
> > for dragging SWMBO away from her evening out and recovering me
> > and the bike. Recovery by other means would have cost more.
>
> Unfortunately that isn't recoverable. But if you claim the same
> amount but for your personal injuries, that might work better. When
> I was in a similar situation years ago, I received a permenant scar
> under my chin. For that I received a settlement equal to about �3500
> in today's money.
>
is there anything that precludes him quantifying these costs and asking the
other party to consider paying them as reasonable losses.
Regarding entitlement, as opposed to asking, if getting the bits and fitting
them himself is cheaper, why can't he quantify the time for this as well as the
parts and claim for both?
Since recovery of the bike was necessary and he needed recovered when he lost
the use of it, why can't a reasonable amount be claimed in lieu of
professional recovery and taxi costs.
I ask this not as a challenge to what is said - I don't know
about aspects which may be specific to English law, and am interested.
When I bashed a neighbour's car (totally my fault) I was more than happy
for him to quantify all his time, parts and labour expenses for what he
did himself to get parts and fix it. It was to my benefit. What aspect he was
legally entitled to claim didn't enter into it.
Toom
Toom Tabard
May 16, 2013, 4:10:02 PM5/16/13
to
On Thursday, 16 May 2013 19:55:01 UTC+1, Chris R wrote:
>
> The question is not whether you are innocent, but whether they are to blame.
> Unless you can convince a court that the owner was in some way negligent,
> you do not have a case.
>
My understanding is that, if it was a public area, then the dog was out of
>
> The question is not whether you are innocent, but whether they are to blame.
> Unless you can convince a court that the owner was in some way negligent,
> you do not have a case.
>
control in a public area, and, since it caused injury, dangerously so in
terms of the legislation (Dangerous Dogs Act, 1991).
It does not have to be a dangerous dog attacking someone - it is an
offence even if a dog knocks someone over enthusiastically greeting them
and causes them injury.
Both the dog owner and the person in charge (if different and adult)
are automatically responsible.
Unless the basic circumstances are in dispute, would it not be more likely
in a civil action that the owner would have to prove they are not at liable?
It is similar to some instances of res ipsa loquitur. e.g it is a statutory
offence to drive a car on or over a pedestrian pavement, and under civil law
res ipsa loquitur applies if a car injures a pedestrian on the pavement.
The car driver would have to prove he is not liable.
Toom
Zapp Brannigan
May 16, 2013, 3:50:01 PM5/16/13
to
"Syd Rumpo" <use...@nononono.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kn2hva$td6$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> Anyway, yesterday evening I was proceeding in an easterly direction along
> by the Thames at http://goo.gl/maps/FTCrz which as ani fule kno is a few
> yards east of a canoe club outside Reading. I was on an asphalt cycle
> path through a grassy meadow.
>
> A large dog which was gambolling with another nearby suddenly darted under
> my front wheel causing me to fall off, and I sustained minor cuts and
> bruises.
If the dog had never done anything like this before, and she was supervising
> Anyway, yesterday evening I was proceeding in an easterly direction along
> by the Thames at http://goo.gl/maps/FTCrz which as ani fule kno is a few
> yards east of a canoe club outside Reading. I was on an asphalt cycle
> path through a grassy meadow.
>
> A large dog which was gambolling with another nearby suddenly darted under
> my front wheel causing me to fall off, and I sustained minor cuts and
> bruises.
it with proper diligence in a place suitable for dogs to run around, then a
court may find that the owner was not negligent. If she was not negligent,
then she is not liable.
AFAIK, IANAL etc.
Toom Tabard
May 16, 2013, 4:25:02 PM5/16/13
to
On Thursday, 16 May 2013 20:00:03 UTC+1, Judith wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:05:02 +0100, Toom Tabard <toomtab...@gmail.com>
>
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:05:02 +0100, Toom Tabard <toomtab...@gmail.com>
>
> >Sorry if this info appears twice - firt posting seemed to hang up.
> >In most parts of the UK, and certainly in Scotland it is an offence for a
> >dog to be dangerously out of control in public.
> >
> >https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/overview
> >
> >Note specifically - "Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:
> >injures someone"
>
> Does that cover this sort of case as well as the dog biting someone, which I
> guess it is really aimed at?
>
I believe so. It does not have to be a dangerous dog attacking someone. It can
> >In most parts of the UK, and certainly in Scotland it is an offence for a
> >dog to be dangerously out of control in public.
> >
> >https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/overview
> >
> >Note specifically - "Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:
> >injures someone"
>
> Does that cover this sort of case as well as the dog biting someone, which I
> guess it is really aimed at?
>
be a dog running up and knocking someone over to their injury.
Yes it should deal with an unpredictable dog biting someone. But recently
I was out running over apparently deserted parkland at 6 a.m and suddenly,
without my seeing it approach, a large dog jumped on my back and floored me.
I was not immediately aware whether it was dangerous and hostile. I was only
slightly hurt, but the fear and apprehension of injury, and shock also qualify
it as 'dangerous dog out of control'. The owner was nearby and was interviewed
by me. It seems to me reasonable, having experienced it that it should be
regarded as a serious offence.
>
> You could argue that the dog did not actually injure Syd: he fell off his bike
> and injured himself.
I doubt that is sustainable if the action of the dog and the failure to control
> You could argue that the dog did not actually injure Syd: he fell off his bike
> and injured himself.
it is the sole and proximate cause of the injury.
Toom
Toom Tabard
May 16, 2013, 4:30:02 PM5/16/13
to
On Thursday, 16 May 2013 20:20:02 UTC+1, Janet wrote:
>
> That surely means injuring someonedirectly, by biting scratching
> etc. In this incident the OP was hurt when he fell off his bike.
>
No, it's if injury is caused to any person by the dog whilst it is out of
>
> That surely means injuring someonedirectly, by biting scratching
> etc. In this incident the OP was hurt when he fell off his bike.
>
control. It doesn't even have to be actual injury. Causing fear and
apprehension of injury suffices.
Stuart Bronstein
May 16, 2013, 5:15:02 PM5/16/13
to
Toom Tabard <toomtab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stuart Bronstein wrote:
>> Syd Rumpo <use...@nononono.co.uk> wrote:
>> > I understood that the purpose of compensation was to put you
>> > back to the position you would have been in. I work for
>> > myself, time is money, and I want to claim a very reasonable
>> > 1 hour for fetching and fitting, as well as the £25 for the
>> > wheel and £20 for dragging SWMBO away from her evening out
>> > and recovering me and the bike. Recovery by other means
>> > would have cost more.
>>
>> Unfortunately that isn't recoverable. But if you claim the
>> same amount but for your personal injuries, that might work
>> better. When I was in a similar situation years ago, I
>> received a permenant scar under my chin. For that I received
>> a settlement equal to about £3500 in today's money.
>
> Re the statements 'you cannot claim for' and 'that isn't
> recoverable', is there anything that precludes him quantifying
> these costs and asking the other party to consider paying them
> as reasonable losses.
Thanks. My language was a sloppy shorthand. What I meant to say was
> Stuart Bronstein wrote:
>> Syd Rumpo <use...@nononono.co.uk> wrote:
>> > I understood that the purpose of compensation was to put you
>> > back to the position you would have been in. I work for
>> > myself, time is money, and I want to claim a very reasonable
>> > 1 hour for fetching and fitting, as well as the £25 for the
>> > wheel and £20 for dragging SWMBO away from her evening out
>> > and recovering me and the bike. Recovery by other means
>> > would have cost more.
>>
>> Unfortunately that isn't recoverable. But if you claim the
>> same amount but for your personal injuries, that might work
>> better. When I was in a similar situation years ago, I
>> received a permenant scar under my chin. For that I received
>> a settlement equal to about £3500 in today's money.
>
> Re the statements 'you cannot claim for' and 'that isn't
> recoverable', is there anything that precludes him quantifying
> these costs and asking the other party to consider paying them
> as reasonable losses.
that a court would not award him those costs as damages. There is
nothing wrong with his asking for them. On the other hand if he
does, and later asks for the same or a similar amount for personal
injuries, and if that gets admitted into evidence at court, it may
cast a doubt on his claim for personal injuries.
> Regarding entitlement, as opposed to asking, if getting the bits
> and fitting them himself is cheaper, why can't he quantify the
> time for this as well as the parts and claim for both?
contract damages, they will not be available as a part of any
involuntary judgment in court.
In addition to that, proof of the value of the service will likely be
taken more skeptically.
My thought is for Syd to get estimates from professionals. He can
claim that amount (or less), and then do the work himself. There's
nothing wrong with that.
> When I bashed a neighbour's car (totally my fault) I was more
> than happy for him to quantify all his time, parts and labour
> expenses for what he did himself to get parts and fix it. It was
> to my benefit. What aspect he was legally entitled to claim
> didn't enter into it.
not always what happens in court, unfortunately.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Percy Picacity
May 16, 2013, 6:00:02 PM5/16/13
to
--
Percy Picacity
Syd Rumpo
May 16, 2013, 5:15:17 PM5/16/13
to
On 16/05/2013 20:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:20:02 +0100, Syd Rumpo put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
<snip>
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:20:02 +0100, Syd Rumpo put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>> I was cycling slowly - I don't do speed. I was aware of the dogs but
>> was unable to avoid the sudden dart towards me. (Why would a dog do
>> that?) I don't think I should have been pushing the bike. I do not
>> blame the dog, I do not blame the owner (other than for having an
>> ignorant and cowardly husband), but I do believe that it is their
>> responsibility.
>
> If you don't think the owner is to blame, then you cannot possibly have any
> claim against them.
>
> FWIW, had you not said that, I would have agreed that you do have a
> reasonable claim for the direct cost of the wheel, if not the ancillary
> costs. But having now stated in public that you don't consider the owner to
> be responsible, then I think you have irretrievably damaged any case you
> may have had against her.
>
> Mark
do not 'blame' her, it was an accident, but I'm using that word in a
non-legal sense as I am not a lawyer.
Cheers
--
Syd
Syd Rumpo
May 16, 2013, 5:20:02 PM5/16/13
to
for the actions of their pet, whether they were negligent or supremely
diligent? It's not a wild animal.
Cheers
--
Syd
Stuart Bronstein
May 16, 2013, 7:45:02 PM5/16/13
to
Syd Rumpo <use...@nononono.co.uk> wrote
negligent in some way that directly led to your damages. If she was
required by law to keep the dog under control and she didn't then she
was at fault and (assuming you can prove it) you have a reasonable
case. But if she had no legal duty to control the dog, then you may
have no case at all.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
> Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, had you not said that, I would have agreed that you do
>> have a reasonable claim for the direct cost of the wheel, if
>> not the ancillary costs. But having now stated in public that
>> you don't consider the owner to be responsible, then I think
>> you have irretrievably damaged any case you may have had
>> against her.
>
>>
>> FWIW, had you not said that, I would have agreed that you do
>> have a reasonable claim for the direct cost of the wheel, if
>> not the ancillary costs. But having now stated in public that
>> you don't consider the owner to be responsible, then I think
>> you have irretrievably damaged any case you may have had
>> against her.
>
> No, I clearly said above that I consider the owner to be
> responsible. I do not 'blame' her, it was an accident, but I'm
> using that word in a non-legal sense as I am not a lawyer.
The bottom line is that for the owner to be liable, she must be
> responsible. I do not 'blame' her, it was an accident, but I'm
> using that word in a non-legal sense as I am not a lawyer.
negligent in some way that directly led to your damages. If she was
required by law to keep the dog under control and she didn't then she
was at fault and (assuming you can prove it) you have a reasonable
case. But if she had no legal duty to control the dog, then you may
have no case at all.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Robin Bignall
May 16, 2013, 6:00:10 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 20:50:01 +0100, "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com>
wrote:
It is my understanding, as a dog owner, that dogs *must* be kept on a
lead when they are in a public place, unless they are in a place
designated for letting them off their leads. I know of no such place in
my area. In my opinion the dog was off lead and therefore out of
control, and the responsibility for the accident is the dog's owner. The
OP might have to sue to get any action from the owner, but the dog
should be insured if its owner cares for it at all, and such insurance
covers third-party claims.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England
wrote:
lead when they are in a public place, unless they are in a place
designated for letting them off their leads. I know of no such place in
my area. In my opinion the dog was off lead and therefore out of
control, and the responsibility for the accident is the dog's owner. The
OP might have to sue to get any action from the owner, but the dog
should be insured if its owner cares for it at all, and such insurance
covers third-party claims.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England
Percy Picacity
May 16, 2013, 6:10:02 PM5/16/13
to
its owner I would suggest it was negligent to walk it off a leash near
a cycle path. It seems only a minority of dogs will reliably obey
their owner in this situation - if this dog has previously always has
done so this may be a defence. It is certainly negligent to let it
run around and not make it walk to heel near such a path. Did the
park perchance have notices requiring dogs to be kept under control, or
even on a lead? That should help the OP's case considerably.
--
Percy Picacity
Message has been deleted
The Todal
May 17, 2013, 4:15:01 AM5/17/13
to
that insurers must take reasonable steps to try to resolve the dispute
before court proceedings are issued. That doesn't mean settling the
claim necessarily but it does mean disclosing any relevant documents
(there probably wouldn't be in this case) and explaining why liability
is denied, if it is denied.
Here, the claim should be made against the keepers of the dog (those who
had charge of it, probably the same people as the owners) and they might
be entitled to an indemnity under their contents insurance policy. If
they don't have contents insurance they would have to pay any award of
damages out of their own resources. It would be a claim on the small
claims track, nobody would want to pay solicitors because their fees
would not be recoverable, and the likelihood is that Syd would get a
settlement offer before any court hearing.
Ian Smith
May 17, 2013, 2:10:02 AM5/17/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 20:50:01 +0100, Zapp Brannigan <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
>
>
cyclists should be kept on a short lead. Is failing to comply with
the requirements of the Highway Code not demonstrating negligence?
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
The Todal
May 17, 2013, 4:30:02 AM5/17/13
to
On 16/5/13 13:10, Syd Rumpo wrote:
> No, I don't mean my bike is knocked off. I have the receipts.
>
> No, I don't mean my bike is knocked off. I have the receipts.
>
> Anyway, yesterday evening I was proceeding in an easterly direction
> along by the Thames at http://goo.gl/maps/FTCrz which as ani fule kno is
> a few yards east of a canoe club outside Reading. I was on an asphalt
> cycle path through a grassy meadow.
>
> A large dog which was gambolling with another nearby suddenly darted
> under my front wheel causing me to fall off, and I sustained minor cuts
> along by the Thames at http://goo.gl/maps/FTCrz which as ani fule kno is
> a few yards east of a canoe club outside Reading. I was on an asphalt
> cycle path through a grassy meadow.
>
> A large dog which was gambolling with another nearby suddenly darted
> under my front wheel causing me to fall off, and I sustained minor cuts
> and bruises. My bike now has a front wheel with a right-angle bend in
> it and the rim is split. It's a cheap but serviceable B'twin bike.
>
> The dog's owner gave me her details.
>
> Her partner then proceeded to blame me saying that it wasn't a cycle
> path. It is: that's what the blue sign with the little white bicycle
> means. He claimed there was a 4mph limit. It's national cycle route
> number 4 and that's what the '4' on the sign means. He said the sign
> says slow down. It says 'Slow down canoes crossing' for the benefit of
> those going the opposite way towards the boathouse. He claimed I was
> going 'too fast'. I would guess 10mph or so, enjoying the air. He
> couldn't give me a lift the 2 miles home in his land rover as he was
> going the wrong way. All the time holding a small child rather like a
> human shield. He was an argumentative idiot.
>
> SWMBO obliged by picking me up.
>
> This incident was in no way whatsoever my fault. Not even slightly.
>
> The dog owners were with another couple plus one infant in two cars
> whose numbers I have. If the partner had been reasonable and admitted
> responsibility I'd probably not take it any further and trust them to
> pay for a new wheel which I'd fit. However, given his attitude, and the
> lack of other witnesses, I'm a bit concerned they might collude and
> concoct some or other story, so I called 101 (useless bunch) who advised
> me to report it to the rozzers at the local nick tomorrow.
>
> it and the rim is split. It's a cheap but serviceable B'twin bike.
>
> The dog's owner gave me her details.
>
> Her partner then proceeded to blame me saying that it wasn't a cycle
> path. It is: that's what the blue sign with the little white bicycle
> means. He claimed there was a 4mph limit. It's national cycle route
> number 4 and that's what the '4' on the sign means. He said the sign
> says slow down. It says 'Slow down canoes crossing' for the benefit of
> those going the opposite way towards the boathouse. He claimed I was
> going 'too fast'. I would guess 10mph or so, enjoying the air. He
> couldn't give me a lift the 2 miles home in his land rover as he was
> going the wrong way. All the time holding a small child rather like a
> human shield. He was an argumentative idiot.
>
> SWMBO obliged by picking me up.
>
> This incident was in no way whatsoever my fault. Not even slightly.
>
> The dog owners were with another couple plus one infant in two cars
> whose numbers I have. If the partner had been reasonable and admitted
> responsibility I'd probably not take it any further and trust them to
> pay for a new wheel which I'd fit. However, given his attitude, and the
> lack of other witnesses, I'm a bit concerned they might collude and
> concoct some or other story, so I called 101 (useless bunch) who advised
> me to report it to the rozzers at the local nick tomorrow.
>
> I've done this, (at 999 Letsby Avenue - Beano circa 1960) and have a
> number from them. So now I write to the dog owner and claim for 1
> wheel, my time fetching and fitting the wheel (I work for myself) and
> SWMBO's time for picking me up. Still under a ton.
>
> Is that reasonable?
>
> Cheers
> number from them. So now I write to the dog owner and claim for 1
> wheel, my time fetching and fitting the wheel (I work for myself) and
> SWMBO's time for picking me up. Still under a ton.
>
> Is that reasonable?
>
I disagree with much of the advice that you have been given.
I think there is a reasonable chance that a court would find the keeper
of the dog liable. You have an *arguable* case that the keeper was
negligent in failing to keep the dog under control. Although it could go
either way, you really have nothing to lose by writing to the owners to
make a claim, suggesting that they pass your letter to their household
contents insurers who might cover a claim of this sort, and if necessary
suing in the County Court using Money Claim Online, whereupon the case
would almost certainly be allocated to the Small Claims track. In that
event neither side can claim legal costs other than court fees and a
small amount towards witness expenses. The prospect of an approaching
court case is likely to result in a settlement offer.
As to the amount you can claim, the best option would be to get a repair
estimate from a bike shop and claim that figure. You are under no
obligation to use the compensation award to pay a repair man. You can
keep the money and repair the bike yourself. If you have already
repaired the bike I think a court would award you something for your
time in addition to the materials.
A previous decision of a county court judge is not something you can
actually cite as a precedent, but is a pointer to the way a case is
likely to go, admittedly without knowing all the facts... and note that
in the case mentioned below, liability was admitted so we don't know
what arguments *could* have been put forward by the defendant. On a
pragmatic basis, though, nobody is likely to spend time and money
devising legal arguments if the sum at stake is only a couple of
thousand quid. Note in passing that, controversially, the judge didn't
think that failure to wear a cycle helmet could amount to contributory
negligence.
Swinton v Annabel's (Berkeley Square) Ltd
The claimant (C) brought an action against the defendant dog walking
company (D) for damages for personal injury sustained when a dog being
walked by D's representative ran into the path of C knocking him off his
bicycle. C had been cycling along the outer carriage drive of Battersea
Park in London when the collision happened. D admitted liability, but
alleged contributory negligence for C's failure to wear a cycle helmet.
D claimed that C should have worn a helmet as advised by the Highway
Code and that his reason for not doing so, namely that he would have
felt silly, was not a good one, Froom v Butcher [1976] Q.B. 286, [1975]
C.L.Y. 2295 (»»digest) cited. C argued that contributory negligence was
inappropriate on the facts. Alternatively, that any reduction should be
small as it was less blameworthy not to wear a cycle helmet as compared
to a seat belt given that it was not a legal requirement.
Held, granting judgment for the C, that there was no contributory
negligence on C's part in not wearing a cycle helmet. Whilst it was
recommended by the Highway Code, it was not a legal requirement. The
public campaign for the wearing of cycle helmets had not reached a level
comparable to that for the wearing of seat belts at the time that Froom
was decided, Froom distinguished. There was no plan to make cycle
helmets compulsory. C was an experienced cyclist who for several years
had been cycling in the confined and sanitised environment of Battersea
Park, away from the traffic. To wear a cycle helmet would have been over
cautious, although it might have been different had the accident taken
place on the road. Alternatively, as contributory negligence would only
affect that part of the general damages relating to the head injury,
agreed to be only a few hundred pounds at most, any deduction for
contributory negligence of 10 or 15 per cent would have reduced the
damages by only GBP 20 or GBP 30. As that was a de minimis reduction,
the court would have refused to make it in any event.
Court: (CC (Lambeth)) County Court (Lambeth)
Judge: Judge Cox
Judgment date: July 8, 2004
Message has been deleted
Mark
May 17, 2013, 4:15:01 AM5/17/13
to
As a cyclist myself I dislike cycle paths through areas where people
exercise their dogs. Dogs are not always predictable and many do have
a tendency to chase and even occasionally attack cyclists. I've had
several near misses where dogs have suddenly run out from behind a
bush almost under my front wheel.
It's my view that both the cyclist and the dog owner should be aware
of these issues. The cyclist should be extra careful and the dog
owner should somehow make sure that the dogs do not run across the
cycle path.
RobertL
May 17, 2013, 4:50:08 AM5/17/13
to
On Thursday, May 16, 2013 1:10:01 PM UTC+1, Syd Rumpo wrote:
> Anyway, yesterday evening I was proceeding in an easterly direction
> along by the Thames at http://goo.gl/maps/FTCrz which as ani fule kno is
> a few yards east of a canoe club outside Reading. I was on an asphalt
> cycle path through a grassy meadow.
>
> A large dog which was gambolling with another nearby suddenly darted
> under my front wheel causing me to fall off, and I sustained minor cuts
> and bruises.
In Cambridge I cycle to work and I often find there are dogs roaming free while their owners walk along a shared-use path with grassland beside it. We have many such paths. I have to say that I do routinely slow down when dogs are about to avoid exactly the type of accident you describe. Dogs are not predictable and I feel I should always be able to stop in time if they suddenly run across my path.
> Anyway, yesterday evening I was proceeding in an easterly direction
> along by the Thames at http://goo.gl/maps/FTCrz which as ani fule kno is
> a few yards east of a canoe club outside Reading. I was on an asphalt
> cycle path through a grassy meadow.
>
> A large dog which was gambolling with another nearby suddenly darted
> under my front wheel causing me to fall off, and I sustained minor cuts
> and bruises.
Robert
Percy Picacity
May 17, 2013, 4:55:01 AM5/17/13
to
would be at best indicative, but not applicable directly.
--
Percy Picacity
Roland Perry
May 17, 2013, 5:30:02 AM5/17/13
to
In message <iclap8hbd9a532f32...@4ax.com>, at 23:00:10 on
Thu, 16 May 2013, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
park behind my house is used by numerous owners to exercise their pets,
most often off-leash.
Interestingly, the park has a shared-use track running through the
centre, but a clearly marked "No cycling" footpath along one edge.
Guess which one sees the majority of cyclists! (Several hundred per day
and without exception riding their bikes).
--
Roland Perry
Thu, 16 May 2013, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>It is my understanding, as a dog owner, that dogs *must* be kept on a
>lead when they are in a public place, unless they are in a place
>designated for letting them off their leads.
How does one become aware of such a designation (genuine question). The
>lead when they are in a public place, unless they are in a place
>designated for letting them off their leads.
park behind my house is used by numerous owners to exercise their pets,
most often off-leash.
Interestingly, the park has a shared-use track running through the
centre, but a clearly marked "No cycling" footpath along one edge.
Guess which one sees the majority of cyclists! (Several hundred per day
and without exception riding their bikes).
--
Roland Perry
Andy Champ
May 17, 2013, 5:20:02 AM5/17/13
to
On 16/05/2013 13:10, Syd Rumpo wrote:
>
> Her partner then proceeded to blame me saying that it wasn't a cycle path.
Does anyone know if this counts as a road under the terms of the RTA? As
>
> Her partner then proceeded to blame me saying that it wasn't a cycle path.
I understand it it's an offence to have a dog on a road not on a lead
(with a few exemptions).
Andy
Ian Smith
May 17, 2013, 5:25:02 AM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:55:01 +0100, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> On 2013-05-17 06:10:02 +0000, Ian Smith said:
>
> > On Thu, 16 May 2013 20:50:01 +0100, Zapp Brannigan <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> If the dog had never done anything like this before, and she was
> >> supervising it with proper diligence in a place suitable for dogs
> >> to run around, then a court may find that the owner was not
> >> negligent. If she was not negligent, then she is not liable.
> >
> > The Highway Code explicitly states that dogs on a path shared with
> > cyclists should be kept on a short lead. Is failing to comply
> > with the requirements of the Highway Code not demonstrating
> > negligence?
>
> On 2013-05-17 06:10:02 +0000, Ian Smith said:
>
> > On Thu, 16 May 2013 20:50:01 +0100, Zapp Brannigan <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> If the dog had never done anything like this before, and she was
> >> supervising it with proper diligence in a place suitable for dogs
> >> to run around, then a court may find that the owner was not
> >> negligent. If she was not negligent, then she is not liable.
> >
> > The Highway Code explicitly states that dogs on a path shared with
> > cyclists should be kept on a short lead. Is failing to comply
> > with the requirements of the Highway Code not demonstrating
> > negligence?
>
> It is unlikely that the path in question is a highway, so the Code
> would be at best indicative, but not applicable directly.
What is the definition of highway? The code clearly does not
> would be at best indicative, but not applicable directly.
exclusively apply to roads used by motor vehicles - it has
instructions for riding on cycle tracks which are away from roads.
The code does not define what public rights of way it does or does not
apply to (so far as I can find). So why do you think it applies only
to a sub-set of them, and what sub-set do you think it applies to?
Nick Odell
May 17, 2013, 6:00:02 AM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 10:30:02 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
I can tell you how it works here in Kirklees but since it is very new
(November last year) and was the result of the council obtaining these
powers for itself that suggests to me that many areas don't have
anything like it at all.
http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/community/animals/dogControlOrders.shtml
Essentially, dogs must be kept on a lead on Kirklees maintained
streets and all faeces must be bagged immediately and either taken
away or deposited in a council litter bin. There are some locations
where dogs are banned altogether and these are supposed to be clearly
marked. There are penalties for non compliance.
Nick
wrote:
(November last year) and was the result of the council obtaining these
powers for itself that suggests to me that many areas don't have
anything like it at all.
http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/community/animals/dogControlOrders.shtml
Essentially, dogs must be kept on a lead on Kirklees maintained
streets and all faeces must be bagged immediately and either taken
away or deposited in a council litter bin. There are some locations
where dogs are banned altogether and these are supposed to be clearly
marked. There are penalties for non compliance.
Nick
Syd Rumpo
May 17, 2013, 6:05:02 AM5/17/13
to
traffic offence, which was the opposite of what 101 said. It was a
designated national cycle route, in fact, and the incident took place
maybe 5 metres from the sign declaring this.
Cheers
--
Syd
Toom Tabard
May 17, 2013, 6:40:02 AM5/17/13
to
On Friday, 17 May 2013 09:50:08 UTC+1, RobertL wrote:
>
> In Cambridge I cycle to work and I often find there are dogs roaming free
> while their owners walk along a shared-use path with grassland beside it. We
> have many such paths. I have to say that I do routinely slow down when dogs
> are about to avoid exactly the type of accident you describe. Dogs are not
> predictable and I feel I should always be able to stop in time if they
> suddenly run across my path.
>
In similar circumstances and with similar caution, I've even come across a dog
>
> In Cambridge I cycle to work and I often find there are dogs roaming free
> while their owners walk along a shared-use path with grassland beside it. We
> have many such paths. I have to say that I do routinely slow down when dogs
> are about to avoid exactly the type of accident you describe. Dogs are not
> predictable and I feel I should always be able to stop in time if they
> suddenly run across my path.
>
on a lead but not under control. Cycling down a one track tarmac road along a
Scottish loch I noticed a couple of walkers stop to look at the loch and saw
their dog disappear into the bushes at the other side of the road. Slowed down
in case it dashed back. I then noticed it was on a lead - one of those
very thin but strong extending leads, extended right across the road between
them and the dog. I was able to stop and, er...., draw their attention to it.
Toom
Ian Smith
May 17, 2013, 8:35:02 AM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:05:02 +0100, Syd Rumpo <use...@nononono.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I don't know, but the police said it wouldn't be classed as a road
> traffic offence, which was the opposite of what 101 said. It was a
> designated national cycle route, in fact, and the incident took place
> maybe 5 metres from the sign declaring this.
The police wouldn't classify it as a road traffic offence when a white
>
> I don't know, but the police said it wouldn't be classed as a road
> traffic offence, which was the opposite of what 101 said. It was a
> designated national cycle route, in fact, and the incident took place
> maybe 5 metres from the sign declaring this.
van pulled up alongside me, the driver screamed abuse, gestured wildly
then swerved sideways knocking me off. That was on an A-road, so
their refusal to so classify it doesn't prove a great deal about the
status of the route.
Zapp Brannigan
May 17, 2013, 11:00:02 AM5/17/13
to
"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:avm74k...@mid.individual.net...
> It would be a claim on the small claims track, nobody would want to pay
> solicitors because their fees would not be recoverable, and the likelihood
> is that Syd would get a settlement offer before any court hearing.
I agree. If Syd makes a clearly stated and reasonable claim for a few
> solicitors because their fees would not be recoverable, and the likelihood
> is that Syd would get a settlement offer before any court hearing.
hundred quid in demonstrable damages, they're not likely to think it's worth
defending.
Ken
May 17, 2013, 11:45:01 AM5/17/13
to
In article <kn4v3j$lst$1...@dont-email.me>, Syd Rumpo
<use...@nononono.co.uk> writes
The riverside path is a public footpath and must be a highway for the
purposes of highways legislation. This does not imply any opinion on
roads or roads legislation.
--
Ken
<use...@nononono.co.uk> writes
purposes of highways legislation. This does not imply any opinion on
roads or roads legislation.
--
Ken
Janet
May 17, 2013, 11:35:02 AM5/17/13
to
In article <l+yQttjy...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk says...
> How does one become aware of such a designation (genuine question).
Local council bylaws. Try the council website for details.
The
> park behind my house is used by numerous owners to exercise their pets,
> most often off-leash.
Many parks/public spaces/ footpaths, and even some beaches, display
notices posting any dog-owner rules for that location.
Janet
>
> In message <iclap8hbd9a532f32...@4ax.com>, at 23:00:10 on
> Thu, 16 May 2013, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
> >It is my understanding, as a dog owner, that dogs *must* be kept on a
> >lead when they are in a public place, unless they are in a place
> >designated for letting them off their leads.
Not true here (Scotland)
> In message <iclap8hbd9a532f32...@4ax.com>, at 23:00:10 on
> Thu, 16 May 2013, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
> >It is my understanding, as a dog owner, that dogs *must* be kept on a
> >lead when they are in a public place, unless they are in a place
> >designated for letting them off their leads.
> How does one become aware of such a designation (genuine question).
The
> park behind my house is used by numerous owners to exercise their pets,
> most often off-leash.
notices posting any dog-owner rules for that location.
Janet
Roland Perry
May 17, 2013, 1:05:02 PM5/17/13
to
In message <MPG.2c005d891...@news.individual.net>, at 16:35:02
on Fri, 17 May 2013, Janet <h...@nowhere.co.uk> remarked:
signage.
> The
>> park behind my house is used by numerous owners to exercise their pets,
>> most often off-leash.
>
> Many parks/public spaces/ footpaths, and even some beaches, display
>notices posting any dog-owner rules for that location.
I've seen "No dog" beaches (quite recently actually). They also say "No
climbing on the groins", which really spoils the fun.
My park has poop-bins, and might even have some signs asking people to
use them, but that's completely disjoint from dogs running around and
bashing into pedestrians and cyclists.
--
Roland Perry
on Fri, 17 May 2013, Janet <h...@nowhere.co.uk> remarked:
>> >It is my understanding, as a dog owner, that dogs *must* be kept on a
>> >lead when they are in a public place, unless they are in a place
>> >designated for letting them off their leads.
>
> Not true here (Scotland)
>
>> How does one become aware of such a designation (genuine question).
>
> Local council bylaws. Try the council website for details.
It's not practical to have bylaws that aren't also expressed in local
>> >lead when they are in a public place, unless they are in a place
>> >designated for letting them off their leads.
>
> Not true here (Scotland)
>
>> How does one become aware of such a designation (genuine question).
>
> Local council bylaws. Try the council website for details.
signage.
> The
>> park behind my house is used by numerous owners to exercise their pets,
>> most often off-leash.
>
> Many parks/public spaces/ footpaths, and even some beaches, display
>notices posting any dog-owner rules for that location.
climbing on the groins", which really spoils the fun.
My park has poop-bins, and might even have some signs asking people to
use them, but that's completely disjoint from dogs running around and
bashing into pedestrians and cyclists.
--
Roland Perry
Adam Funk
May 17, 2013, 2:05:09 PM5/17/13
to
On 2013-05-17, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <MPG.2c005d891...@news.individual.net>, at 16:35:02
> on Fri, 17 May 2013, Janet <h...@nowhere.co.uk> remarked:
> In message <MPG.2c005d891...@news.individual.net>, at 16:35:02
> on Fri, 17 May 2013, Janet <h...@nowhere.co.uk> remarked:
>> Many parks/public spaces/ footpaths, and even some beaches, display
>>notices posting any dog-owner rules for that location.
>
> I've seen "No dog" beaches (quite recently actually). They also say "No
> climbing on the groins", which really spoils the fun.
But you can stare at them, right?
>>notices posting any dog-owner rules for that location.
>
> I've seen "No dog" beaches (quite recently actually). They also say "No
> climbing on the groins", which really spoils the fun.
Iain Archer
May 17, 2013, 1:05:09 PM5/17/13
to
Janet <h...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote on Fri, 17 May 2013 at 16:35:02:
>In article <l+yQttjy...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk says...
>>
>> In message <iclap8hbd9a532f32...@4ax.com>, at 23:00:10 on
>> Thu, 16 May 2013, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>> >It is my understanding, as a dog owner, that dogs *must* be kept on a
>> >lead when they are in a public place, unless they are in a place
>> >designated for letting them off their leads.
>
> Not true here (Scotland)
>
>> How does one become aware of such a designation (genuine question).
>
> Local council bylaws. Try the council website for details.
The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 also gives local
>In article <l+yQttjy...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk says...
>>
>> In message <iclap8hbd9a532f32...@4ax.com>, at 23:00:10 on
>> Thu, 16 May 2013, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>> >It is my understanding, as a dog owner, that dogs *must* be kept on a
>> >lead when they are in a public place, unless they are in a place
>> >designated for letting them off their leads.
>
> Not true here (Scotland)
>
>> How does one become aware of such a designation (genuine question).
>
> Local council bylaws. Try the council website for details.
authorities in England & Wales power to issue Dog Control Orders,
containing regulations operative in specified areas. If a relevant one
exists, it would I assume make it more difficult to deny negligence.
--
Iain Archer
Janet
May 17, 2013, 2:05:08 PM5/17/13
to
In article <WKGcg8Wi...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk says...
> My park has poop-bins, and might even have some signs asking people to
> use them, but that's completely disjoint from dogs running around and
> bashing into pedestrians and cyclists.
My pet hate is road cyclists accompanied by a running dog on a lead
:-(
Janet.
> My park has poop-bins, and might even have some signs asking people to
> use them, but that's completely disjoint from dogs running around and
> bashing into pedestrians and cyclists.
:-(
Janet.
Adam Funk
May 17, 2013, 3:35:02 PM5/17/13
to
Neil Williams
May 17, 2013, 7:10:02 PM5/17/13
to
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> Well, at least it's probably a dog that's used to being around bikes.
True. Dogs are almost never a problem to cyclists in Milton Keynes because
> Well, at least it's probably a dog that's used to being around bikes.
they are so familiar with them.
Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.
Andy Champ
May 17, 2013, 6:00:03 PM5/17/13
to
On 17/05/2013 18:05, Roland Perry wrote:
> They also say "No climbing on the groins", which really spoils the fun.
Someone doesn't know his groins from his groynes. Most likely an
> They also say "No climbing on the groins", which really spoils the fun.
American, they use that spelling.
I notice that T'bird doesn't know it either.
Andy
Judith
May 17, 2013, 6:05:02 PM5/17/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 23:00:10 +0100, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
<snip>
>It is my understanding, as a dog owner, that dogs *must* be kept on a
>lead when they are in a public place
Could you say were this "rule" is stated please?
(Is that a "must" - as in the Highway Code?)
wrote:
<snip>
>It is my understanding, as a dog owner, that dogs *must* be kept on a
>lead when they are in a public place
(Is that a "must" - as in the Highway Code?)
Judith
May 17, 2013, 6:15:01 PM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 07:10:02 +0100, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>The Highway Code explicitly states that dogs on a path shared with
>cyclists should be kept on a short lead. Is failing to comply with
>the requirements of the Highway Code not demonstrating negligence?
>
>regards, Ian SMith
It certainly is - but you cannot pick and chose which parts of the HC you wish
to obey
As a cyclist , have you any views on the fact that the HC clearly states that
cycle helmets should be worn; and "It is recommended that a bell be fitted"
Are cyclists who do not follow that "advice" negligent?
<snip>
>The Highway Code explicitly states that dogs on a path shared with
>cyclists should be kept on a short lead. Is failing to comply with
>the requirements of the Highway Code not demonstrating negligence?
>
>regards, Ian SMith
to obey
As a cyclist , have you any views on the fact that the HC clearly states that
cycle helmets should be worn; and "It is recommended that a bell be fitted"
Are cyclists who do not follow that "advice" negligent?
Norman Wells
May 18, 2013, 4:30:02 AM5/18/13
to
Neil Williams wrote:
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, at least it's probably a dog that's used to being around bikes.
>
> True. Dogs are almost never a problem to cyclists in Milton Keynes
> because they are so familiar with them.
In what way are they 'familiar' with them? Or shouldn't I ask?
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, at least it's probably a dog that's used to being around bikes.
>
> True. Dogs are almost never a problem to cyclists in Milton Keynes
> because they are so familiar with them.
Percy Picacity
May 18, 2013, 5:20:02 AM5/18/13
to
On 2013-05-17 22:15:01 +0000, Judith said:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 07:10:02 +0100, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>> The Highway Code explicitly states that dogs on a path shared with
>> cyclists should be kept on a short lead. Is failing to comply with
>> the requirements of the Highway Code not demonstrating negligence?
>>
>> regards, Ian SMith
>
> It certainly is - but you cannot pick and chose which parts of the HC you wish
> to obey
Purely as a legal point: why on earth not, especially as regards the
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 07:10:02 +0100, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>> The Highway Code explicitly states that dogs on a path shared with
>> cyclists should be kept on a short lead. Is failing to comply with
>> the requirements of the Highway Code not demonstrating negligence?
>>
>> regards, Ian SMith
>
> It certainly is - but you cannot pick and chose which parts of the HC you wish
> to obey
'should' statements?
--
Percy Picacity
Brian
May 18, 2013, 8:40:01 AM5/18/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 20:50:01 +0100, "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com>
wrote:
>
wrote:
>
>"Syd Rumpo" <use...@nononono.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:kn2hva$td6$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> Anyway, yesterday evening I was proceeding in an easterly direction along
>> by the Thames at http://goo.gl/maps/FTCrz which as ani fule kno is a few
>> yards east of a canoe club outside Reading. I was on an asphalt cycle
>> path through a grassy meadow.
>>
>> A large dog which was gambolling with another nearby suddenly darted under
>> my front wheel causing me to fall off, and I sustained minor cuts and
>> bruises.
>
>news:kn2hva$td6$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> Anyway, yesterday evening I was proceeding in an easterly direction along
>> by the Thames at http://goo.gl/maps/FTCrz which as ani fule kno is a few
>> yards east of a canoe club outside Reading. I was on an asphalt cycle
>> path through a grassy meadow.
>>
>> A large dog which was gambolling with another nearby suddenly darted under
>> my front wheel causing me to fall off, and I sustained minor cuts and
>> bruises.
>
>If the dog had never done anything like this before, and she was supervising
>it with proper diligence in a place suitable for dogs to run around, then a
>court may find that the owner was not negligent. If she was not negligent,
>then she is not liable.
>
>AFAIK, IANAL etc.
>it with proper diligence in a place suitable for dogs to run around, then a
>court may find that the owner was not negligent. If she was not negligent,
>then she is not liable.
>
"Is your dog trained, Mrs Dogowner?"
"Why yes, of course."
"Does he always come to heel when called?"
"Yes."
"Did you call him to heel when you saw him running towards my client's
bicycle?"
or alternatively:
"Is your dog trained, Mrs Dogowner?"
"Why yes, of course."
"Does he always come to heel when called?"
"Usually - sometimes he gets distracted."
"If he's not to be trusted, why was he off the leash?"
etc etc etc
Brian
Remove 2001. to reply by email.
Zapp Brannigan
May 18, 2013, 10:25:01 AM5/18/13
to
"Brian" <Br...@2001.bjforster.force9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:06tep85tli085drvj...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 20:50:01 +0100, "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com>
>>If the dog had never done anything like this before, and she was
>>supervising
>>it with proper diligence in a place suitable for dogs to run around, then
>>a
>>court may find that the owner was not negligent. If she was not
>>negligent,
>>then she is not liable.
>
>>supervising
>>it with proper diligence in a place suitable for dogs to run around, then
>>a
>>court may find that the owner was not negligent. If she was not
>>negligent,
>>then she is not liable.
>
> "Is your dog trained, Mrs Dogowner?"
> "Why yes, of course."
> "Does he always come to heel when called?"
> "Yes."
> "Did you call him to heel when you saw him running towards my client's
> bicycle?"
>
> or alternatively:
> "Is your dog trained, Mrs Dogowner?"
> "Why yes, of course."
> "Does he always come to heel when called?"
> "Usually - sometimes he gets distracted."
> "If he's not to be trusted, why was he off the leash?"
Sure, we can play all day with imaginary Rumpolesque dialogue.
> "Why yes, of course."
> "Does he always come to heel when called?"
> "Yes."
> "Did you call him to heel when you saw him running towards my client's
> bicycle?"
>
> or alternatively:
> "Is your dog trained, Mrs Dogowner?"
> "Why yes, of course."
> "Does he always come to heel when called?"
> "Usually - sometimes he gets distracted."
> "If he's not to be trusted, why was he off the leash?"
Are you a responsible and competent cyclist, Mr Pedaller?
Did you see the unleashed dogs running around ahead of you?
Did you recognise the potential hazard which this presented?
Did you reduce your speed to anticipate that hazard?
Do you now agree that you did not reduce your speed sufficiently?
Judith
May 18, 2013, 10:30:02 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:20:02 +0100, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:
OK - you are correct. Of course you *can* pick and chose regarding the
"should" statements: however your non-conformance may be held against you in a
subsequent court case.
I do not agree that you may pick and chose which of the MUSTs you obey.
wrote:
"should" statements: however your non-conformance may be held against you in a
subsequent court case.
I do not agree that you may pick and chose which of the MUSTs you obey.
Stuart Bronstein
May 18, 2013, 12:40:02 PM5/18/13
to
"Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
> Did you see the unleashed dogs running around ahead of you?
Actually he was running straight at me - chasing me. I feared for
> Did you see the unleashed dogs running around ahead of you?
my safety.
> Did you recognise the potential hazard which this presented?
> Did you reduce your speed to anticipate that hazard?
> Do you now agree that you did not reduce your speed sufficiently?
more force and I would have been more badly injured.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Zapp Brannigan
May 18, 2013, 3:05:02 PM5/18/13
to
"Stuart Bronstein" <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA1C461C2C6FEAs...@130.133.4.11...
> "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
>
>> Did you see the unleashed dogs running around ahead of you?
>
> Actually he was running straight at me - chasing me. I feared for
> my safety.
Let me remind you what you said in your statement of claim, Mr Pedaller -
>
>> Did you see the unleashed dogs running around ahead of you?
>
> Actually he was running straight at me - chasing me. I feared for
> my safety.
"A large dog which was gambolling with another nearby suddenly darted under
my front wheel causing me to fall off".
So you made this claim on the basis of a playful dog, which suddenly and
accidentally collided with your bicycle. But today you are saying it was
actually a fierce dog, which you observed from some distance to be running
to attack you?
Would you like a moment to compose your thoughts, Mr Pedaller?
Adam Funk
May 18, 2013, 4:20:02 PM5/18/13
to
On 2013-05-17, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <iclap8hbd9a532f32...@4ax.com>, at 23:00:10 on
> Thu, 16 May 2013, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
> Thu, 16 May 2013, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>>It is my understanding, as a dog owner, that dogs *must* be kept on a
>>lead when they are in a public place, unless they are in a place
>>designated for letting them off their leads.
>
> How does one become aware of such a designation (genuine question). The
>>designated for letting them off their leads.
>
> park behind my house is used by numerous owners to exercise their pets,
> most often off-leash.
>
> most often off-leash.
>
> Interestingly, the park has a shared-use track running through the
> centre, but a clearly marked "No cycling" footpath along one edge.
>
> Guess which one sees the majority of cyclists! (Several hundred per day
> and without exception riding their bikes).
I suspect the council put the shared-use path in the wrong place; is
> centre, but a clearly marked "No cycling" footpath along one edge.
>
> Guess which one sees the majority of cyclists! (Several hundred per day
> and without exception riding their bikes).
the path along the edge more convenient?
(I'm absolutely not condoning pavement cycling, but poor design
contributes to the problem. It's also possible that the "no cycling"
signs aren't legal, since the path doesn't sound like a pavement as
such.)
Stuart Bronstein
May 18, 2013, 12:25:02 PM5/18/13
to
Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
be contributorily negligent, yes. But if their injuries have nothing
to do with not wearing a helmet, it is most likely irrelevant unless
there is a law to the contrary.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
> Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>The Highway Code explicitly states that dogs on a path shared
>>with cyclists should be kept on a short lead. Is failing to
>>comply with the requirements of the Highway Code not
>>demonstrating negligence?
>
>
>>The Highway Code explicitly states that dogs on a path shared
>>with cyclists should be kept on a short lead. Is failing to
>>comply with the requirements of the Highway Code not
>>demonstrating negligence?
>
> It certainly is - but you cannot pick and chose which parts of
> the HC you wish to obey
>
> As a cyclist , have you any views on the fact that the HC
> clearly states that cycle helmets should be worn; and "It is
> recommended that a bell be fitted"
>
> Are cyclists who do not follow that "advice" negligent?
If the failure to follow that rule results in their damage, they may
> the HC you wish to obey
>
> As a cyclist , have you any views on the fact that the HC
> clearly states that cycle helmets should be worn; and "It is
> recommended that a bell be fitted"
>
> Are cyclists who do not follow that "advice" negligent?
be contributorily negligent, yes. But if their injuries have nothing
to do with not wearing a helmet, it is most likely irrelevant unless
there is a law to the contrary.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Adam Funk
May 18, 2013, 5:20:02 PM5/18/13
to
On 2013-05-18, Stuart Bronstein wrote:
> Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> It certainly is - but you cannot pick and chose which parts of
>> the HC you wish to obey
>>
>> As a cyclist , have you any views on the fact that the HC
>> clearly states that cycle helmets should be worn; and "It is
>> recommended that a bell be fitted"
>>
>> Are cyclists who do not follow that "advice" negligent?
>
> If the failure to follow that rule results in their damage, they may
> be contributorily negligent, yes. But if their injuries have nothing
> to do with not wearing a helmet, it is most likely irrelevant unless
> there is a law to the contrary.
For some reason no-one ever complains about "scofflaw pedestrians"
failing to obey HC rules 3 & 5.
> Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> It certainly is - but you cannot pick and chose which parts of
>> the HC you wish to obey
>>
>> As a cyclist , have you any views on the fact that the HC
>> clearly states that cycle helmets should be worn; and "It is
>> recommended that a bell be fitted"
>>
>> Are cyclists who do not follow that "advice" negligent?
>
> If the failure to follow that rule results in their damage, they may
> be contributorily negligent, yes. But if their injuries have nothing
> to do with not wearing a helmet, it is most likely irrelevant unless
> there is a law to the contrary.
failing to obey HC rules 3 & 5.
Nick Odell
May 18, 2013, 6:30:02 PM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 20:05:02 +0100, "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com>
wrote:
>
Oh, John Mortimer. Would that thou wert with us at this hour.
Nick
wrote:
>
Nick
Zapp Brannigan
May 18, 2013, 7:15:02 PM5/18/13
to
"Nick Odell" <ni...@themusicworkshop.plus.com> wrote in message
news:8svfp8hnei73qv11o...@4ax.com...
professionals is that they can do this stuff on the hoof, adapting and
probing a live witness to win the testimony their client needs.
Kim Bolton
May 19, 2013, 4:15:02 AM5/19/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:10:01 +0100, Syd Rumpo wrote:
> A large dog which was gambolling with another nearby suddenly darted
> A large dog which was gambolling with another nearby suddenly darted
> under my front wheel causing me to fall off, and I sustained minor cuts
> and bruises.
So, just to clarify this, there were dogs 'gambolling' in your full view, and to judge by your account, fairly close to
> and bruises.
the path you were cycling on - had they been further away you would have had time to react by braking and/or
swerving.
It would appear that you were either travelling too fast for the conditions, or you weren't paying sufficient
attention to the dogs.
When the situation has calmed down, the dog owners just might come after you for vets bills.
--
Kim Bolton
Roland Perry
May 19, 2013, 4:30:02 AM5/19/13
to
In message <kt3l6ax...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 21:20:02 on Sat, 18
May 2013, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
only is there signage, but the surface has a clear line along the centre
and (slightly more circumstantially) the "inland" end of the path ends
at a Toucan crossing (the sort with cycle lights as well as pedestrian).
The path runs in effect down one side of the park from the town end to a
river. The second path (upon which cycling is not permitted) runs at
right angles to the first along the riverside; it's actually a quayside,
with several sections having an unprotected drop into the river.
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/50787753
You can see the permitted path on the far side of the bandstand (and
along the backs of the houses). The not-permitted path is the one in the
foreground, and if you look [in the big version of the picture]
alongside and beyond the two moored plastic boats you can see how it
both narrows and also runs along the very edge of the river.
There are two ways to wiggle between the 'upper' and 'lower' sections of
the riverside path, one is visible in the picture and the other is very
similar at approximate the far end of the second moored plastic boat.
Both "wiggles" are narrow, and quite treacherous in bad weather!
>(I'm absolutely not condoning pavement cycling, but poor design
>contributes to the problem. It's also possible that the "no cycling"
>signs aren't legal, since the path doesn't sound like a pavement as
>such.)
I think permission is required from the landowner (the local council) to
cycle along paths like this, and the signage indicates that permission
has been withheld.
I know some cyclists will be miffed that the path through the park is in
effect a "dead end" for cyclists, but it allows cyclists access to the
quayside through the park, rather than banning cycling in the park
altogether.
If the cyclists require a through route, then there's one expressly
provided, a National Cycle Route no less, just one block away (beyond
the houses), which avoids using this section of quayside.
--
Roland Perry
May 2013, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>> Interestingly, the park has a shared-use track running through the
>> centre, but a clearly marked "No cycling" footpath along one edge.
>>
>> Guess which one sees the majority of cyclists! (Several hundred per day
>> and without exception riding their bikes).
>
>I suspect the council put the shared-use path in the wrong place; is
>the path along the edge more convenient?
The shared use path (named Merchants Way) is clearly deliberate. Not
>> centre, but a clearly marked "No cycling" footpath along one edge.
>>
>> Guess which one sees the majority of cyclists! (Several hundred per day
>> and without exception riding their bikes).
>
>I suspect the council put the shared-use path in the wrong place; is
>the path along the edge more convenient?
only is there signage, but the surface has a clear line along the centre
and (slightly more circumstantially) the "inland" end of the path ends
at a Toucan crossing (the sort with cycle lights as well as pedestrian).
The path runs in effect down one side of the park from the town end to a
river. The second path (upon which cycling is not permitted) runs at
right angles to the first along the riverside; it's actually a quayside,
with several sections having an unprotected drop into the river.
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/50787753
You can see the permitted path on the far side of the bandstand (and
along the backs of the houses). The not-permitted path is the one in the
foreground, and if you look [in the big version of the picture]
alongside and beyond the two moored plastic boats you can see how it
both narrows and also runs along the very edge of the river.
There are two ways to wiggle between the 'upper' and 'lower' sections of
the riverside path, one is visible in the picture and the other is very
similar at approximate the far end of the second moored plastic boat.
Both "wiggles" are narrow, and quite treacherous in bad weather!
>(I'm absolutely not condoning pavement cycling, but poor design
>contributes to the problem. It's also possible that the "no cycling"
>signs aren't legal, since the path doesn't sound like a pavement as
>such.)
cycle along paths like this, and the signage indicates that permission
has been withheld.
I know some cyclists will be miffed that the path through the park is in
effect a "dead end" for cyclists, but it allows cyclists access to the
quayside through the park, rather than banning cycling in the park
altogether.
If the cyclists require a through route, then there's one expressly
provided, a National Cycle Route no less, just one block away (beyond
the houses), which avoids using this section of quayside.
--
Roland Perry
Syd Rumpo
May 19, 2013, 6:45:02 AM5/19/13
to
while texting or something. Collusion is a slight concern, as there
were two couples involved and they appeared to be friends.
There's always a small risk cycling - or walking or driving - past
anything, and things will sometimes happen which are beyond your control
no matter how much you slow down, or even get off and walk.
Nonetheless, if you choose to have a dog, then you must, IMO, be
responsible for its actions.
I think the dog owner in this case would act responsibly, but I'm not
sure about her miserable excuse for a husband. We shall see.
Cheers
--
Syd
Adam Funk
May 21, 2013, 3:50:01 PM5/21/13
to
1;2802;0cOn 2013-05-19, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <kt3l6ax...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 21:20:02 on Sat, 18
> May 2013, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>>> Interestingly, the park has a shared-use track running through the
>>> centre, but a clearly marked "No cycling" footpath along one edge.
>>>
>>> Guess which one sees the majority of cyclists! (Several hundred per day
>>> and without exception riding their bikes).
>>
>>I suspect the council put the shared-use path in the wrong place; is
>>the path along the edge more convenient?
>
> The shared use path (named Merchants Way) is clearly deliberate. Not
> only is there signage, but the surface has a clear line along the centre
By "in the wrong place", I meant not that the builders misread the
> In message <kt3l6ax...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 21:20:02 on Sat, 18
> May 2013, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>>> Interestingly, the park has a shared-use track running through the
>>> centre, but a clearly marked "No cycling" footpath along one edge.
>>>
>>> Guess which one sees the majority of cyclists! (Several hundred per day
>>> and without exception riding their bikes).
>>
>>I suspect the council put the shared-use path in the wrong place; is
>>the path along the edge more convenient?
>
> The shared use path (named Merchants Way) is clearly deliberate. Not
> only is there signage, but the surface has a clear line along the centre
blueprints but that the council made a bad decision, possibly by
failing to consult local cyclists or cycling groups. The rest of
your post makes it seem quite reasonable, but if cyclists are using
the other path, there must be a reason.
Adam Funk
May 21, 2013, 4:35:02 PM5/21/13
to
just be a bit of convenience) should trump the interests of
pedestrians --- but it should take precedence over a council's
laziness or cheapness.
Roland Perry
May 22, 2013, 3:25:01 AM5/22/13
to
In message <ftus6ax...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 20:50:01 on Tue, 21
cut. But it's too narrow (and in places with an unfenced drop to the
water) that it's unsuitable[1] for cycling on. Although many cyclists do
in fact use it.
The only change that's possible (if people require greater consistency
in permission to make the penny drop) is removing the permission to
cycle on the shared-use path through the park, but that's handy for the
few cyclists who do want to access the park by bike, and those
non-existent law-abiding cyclists who could use it as part of a through
route if they dismounted for the quite short section along the
riverside.
I did see a lady walking her bike along the riverside path past the Inn
yesterday, and wondered if I should shake her hand!
This morning there's the usual flow of furiously peddling cyclists along
the riverside, trying not to miss their train, perhaps.
[1] On topic: The path along the riverside sees quite a lot of unleashed
dogs, as well as pedestrians, small children and tourists; and the
entrance to a pub opens directly onto it, at a point where it's only a
few feet wide. Would you cycle through this lot?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cutter-inn-ely-with-iv.jpg
--
Roland Perry
May 2013, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>>>> Interestingly, the park has a shared-use track running through the
>>>> centre, but a clearly marked "No cycling" footpath along one edge.
>>>>
>>>> Guess which one sees the majority of cyclists! (Several hundred per day
>>>> and without exception riding their bikes).
>>>
>>>I suspect the council put the shared-use path in the wrong place; is
>>>the path along the edge more convenient?
>>
>> The shared use path (named Merchants Way) is clearly deliberate. Not
>> only is there signage, but the surface has a clear line along the centre
>
>By "in the wrong place", I meant not that the builders misread the
>blueprints but that the council made a bad decision, possibly by
>failing to consult local cyclists or cycling groups. The rest of
>your post makes it seem quite reasonable, but if cyclists are using
>the other path, there must be a reason.
The "other" path, running along the riverside, is a very useful short
>>>> Interestingly, the park has a shared-use track running through the
>>>> centre, but a clearly marked "No cycling" footpath along one edge.
>>>>
>>>> Guess which one sees the majority of cyclists! (Several hundred per day
>>>> and without exception riding their bikes).
>>>
>>>I suspect the council put the shared-use path in the wrong place; is
>>>the path along the edge more convenient?
>>
>> The shared use path (named Merchants Way) is clearly deliberate. Not
>> only is there signage, but the surface has a clear line along the centre
>
>By "in the wrong place", I meant not that the builders misread the
>blueprints but that the council made a bad decision, possibly by
>failing to consult local cyclists or cycling groups. The rest of
>your post makes it seem quite reasonable, but if cyclists are using
>the other path, there must be a reason.
cut. But it's too narrow (and in places with an unfenced drop to the
water) that it's unsuitable[1] for cycling on. Although many cyclists do
in fact use it.
The only change that's possible (if people require greater consistency
in permission to make the penny drop) is removing the permission to
cycle on the shared-use path through the park, but that's handy for the
few cyclists who do want to access the park by bike, and those
non-existent law-abiding cyclists who could use it as part of a through
route if they dismounted for the quite short section along the
riverside.
I did see a lady walking her bike along the riverside path past the Inn
yesterday, and wondered if I should shake her hand!
This morning there's the usual flow of furiously peddling cyclists along
the riverside, trying not to miss their train, perhaps.
[1] On topic: The path along the riverside sees quite a lot of unleashed
dogs, as well as pedestrians, small children and tourists; and the
entrance to a pub opens directly onto it, at a point where it's only a
few feet wide. Would you cycle through this lot?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cutter-inn-ely-with-iv.jpg
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 22, 2013, 3:50:02 AM5/22/13
to
In message <dc1t6a...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 21:35:02 on Tue, 21
cyclists in this location? While the section of the riverside path
adjacent to the park is quite wide, either side there are centuries-old
buildings only a few feet from the water.
--
Roland Perry
>>if cyclists are using the other path, there must be a reason.
>
>Just to be clear, I don't mean that that last "reason" (which might
>just be a bit of convenience) should trump the interests of
>pedestrians --- but it should take precedence over a council's
>laziness or cheapness.
What would a less lazy/cheap council be able to do to facilitate
>
>Just to be clear, I don't mean that that last "reason" (which might
>just be a bit of convenience) should trump the interests of
>pedestrians --- but it should take precedence over a council's
>laziness or cheapness.
cyclists in this location? While the section of the riverside path
adjacent to the park is quite wide, either side there are centuries-old
buildings only a few feet from the water.
--
Roland Perry
Adam Funk
May 22, 2013, 6:20:02 AM5/22/13
to
On 2013-05-22, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <dc1t6a...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 21:35:02 on Tue, 21
> May 2013, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>
>>>if cyclists are using the other path, there must be a reason.
>>
>>Just to be clear, I don't mean that that last "reason" (which might
>>just be a bit of convenience) should trump the interests of
>>pedestrians --- but it should take precedence over a council's
>>laziness or cheapness.
I just meant that as a general principle.
> In message <dc1t6a...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 21:35:02 on Tue, 21
> May 2013, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>
>>>if cyclists are using the other path, there must be a reason.
>>
>>Just to be clear, I don't mean that that last "reason" (which might
>>just be a bit of convenience) should trump the interests of
>>pedestrians --- but it should take precedence over a council's
>>laziness or cheapness.
> What would a less lazy/cheap council be able to do to facilitate
> cyclists in this location? While the section of the riverside path
> adjacent to the park is quite wide, either side there are centuries-old
> buildings only a few feet from the water.
you posted.
Adam Funk
May 22, 2013, 6:20:09 AM5/22/13
to
On 2013-05-22, Roland Perry wrote:
> [1] On topic: The path along the riverside sees quite a lot of unleashed
> dogs, as well as pedestrians, small children and tourists; and the
> entrance to a pub opens directly onto it, at a point where it's only a
> few feet wide. Would you cycle through this lot?
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cutter-inn-ely-with-iv.jpg
I wouldn't.
> dogs, as well as pedestrians, small children and tourists; and the
> entrance to a pub opens directly onto it, at a point where it's only a
> few feet wide. Would you cycle through this lot?
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cutter-inn-ely-with-iv.jpg
Sara
May 22, 2013, 6:40:02 AM5/22/13
to
In article <ushu6ax...@news.ducksburg.com>,
If it were allowed, I would. It looks rather like the cycle-path that
passes The Boaters Inn on the river in Kingston upon Thames.
--
Sara
cats cats cats cats cats
passes The Boaters Inn on the river in Kingston upon Thames.
--
Sara
cats cats cats cats cats
Roland Perry
May 22, 2013, 8:20:01 AM5/22/13
to
In message <saramerriman-BE0F...@news.eternal-
september.org>, at 11:40:02 on Wed, 22 May 2013, Sara <saramerriman@blue
yonder.co.uk> remarked:
>> >Would you cycle through this lot?
>> >
>> > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cutter-inn-ely-with-iv.jpg
>>
>> I wouldn't.
>
>If it were allowed, I would.
But it's specifically not a cycle path.
>It looks rather like the cycle-path that
>passes The Boaters Inn on the river in Kingston upon Thames.
Except that the latter is more than twice as wide, and one side isn't a
direct drop into the river.
<http://www.kingston.gov.uk/05_a_warm_glow_the_boaters_inn_canbury_garde
rns.jpg>
--
Roland Perry
september.org>, at 11:40:02 on Wed, 22 May 2013, Sara <saramerriman@blue
yonder.co.uk> remarked:
>> >Would you cycle through this lot?
>> >
>> > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cutter-inn-ely-with-iv.jpg
>>
>> I wouldn't.
>
>If it were allowed, I would.
>It looks rather like the cycle-path that
>passes The Boaters Inn on the river in Kingston upon Thames.
direct drop into the river.
<http://www.kingston.gov.uk/05_a_warm_glow_the_boaters_inn_canbury_garde
rns.jpg>
--
Roland Perry
Clive George
May 22, 2013, 8:50:02 AM5/22/13
to
going very slowly and carefully, and possibly even walking the bit with
the railings, but it might be worth remembering that me pushing a bike
is a lot wider and more disruptive than me riding it.
If you've ever tried following the bumps on the Cam you'll get an idea
of quite how much crowd you can cope with on a narrow path next to a river.
It's also worth noting that people's behaviour would change. If cycling
were allowed at that Ely waterfront, and people rode there, people would
leave some space and think nothing of it. The people by the Cam in my
example above are used to cyclists being on that path, so it works.
Roland Perry
May 22, 2013, 9:50:01 AM5/22/13
to
In message <JIidnUHHsZEkIwHM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
13:50:02 on Wed, 22 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
bike being pushed can change direction, and stop, very easily. Whereas a
rider can't.
>It's also worth noting that people's behaviour would change. If cycling
>were allowed at that Ely waterfront, and people rode there, people
>would leave some space and think nothing of it.
It's simply too narrow. I don't believe the path along the Cam is as
narrow. And the one in Ely has quite a slope at the "far" end (looking
at my latest picture of the Inn), and is treacherous in the Winter even
on foot, let alone if being approached by cyclists.
--
Roland Perry
13:50:02 on Wed, 22 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
remarked:
>>>>> Would you cycle through this lot?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cutter-inn-ely-with-iv.jpg
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't.
>>>
>>> If it were allowed, I would.
>>
>> But it's specifically not a cycle path.
>>
>>> It looks rather like the cycle-path that
>>> passes The Boaters Inn on the river in Kingston upon Thames.
>>
>> Except that the latter is more than twice as wide, and one side isn't a
>> direct drop into the river.
>>
>> <http://www.kingston.gov.uk/05_a_warm_glow_the_boaters_inn_canbury_garde
>> rns.jpg>
>
>I'd ride the one in Ely. If it was as busy as in that photo, I'd be
>going very slowly and carefully, and possibly even walking the bit with
>the railings, but it might be worth remembering that me pushing a bike
>is a lot wider and more disruptive than me riding it.
I've never accepted that point of view. The main reason being that a
>>>>> Would you cycle through this lot?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cutter-inn-ely-with-iv.jpg
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't.
>>>
>>> If it were allowed, I would.
>>
>> But it's specifically not a cycle path.
>>
>>> It looks rather like the cycle-path that
>>> passes The Boaters Inn on the river in Kingston upon Thames.
>>
>> Except that the latter is more than twice as wide, and one side isn't a
>> direct drop into the river.
>>
>> <http://www.kingston.gov.uk/05_a_warm_glow_the_boaters_inn_canbury_garde
>> rns.jpg>
>
>I'd ride the one in Ely. If it was as busy as in that photo, I'd be
>going very slowly and carefully, and possibly even walking the bit with
>the railings, but it might be worth remembering that me pushing a bike
>is a lot wider and more disruptive than me riding it.
bike being pushed can change direction, and stop, very easily. Whereas a
rider can't.
>It's also worth noting that people's behaviour would change. If cycling
>were allowed at that Ely waterfront, and people rode there, people
>would leave some space and think nothing of it.
narrow. And the one in Ely has quite a slope at the "far" end (looking
at my latest picture of the Inn), and is treacherous in the Winter even
on foot, let alone if being approached by cyclists.
--
Roland Perry
Sara
May 22, 2013, 9:50:09 AM5/22/13
to
In article <MCray$CcdLn...@perry.co.uk>,
and one side isn't a
> direct drop into the river.
Yes it is. I rode along it today.
>
> <http://www.kingston.gov.uk/05_a_warm_glow_the_boaters_inn_canbury_garde
> rns.jpg>
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <saramerriman-BE0F...@news.eternal-
> september.org>, at 11:40:02 on Wed, 22 May 2013, Sara <saramerriman@blue
> yonder.co.uk> remarked:
>
> >> >Would you cycle through this lot?
> >> >
> >> > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cutter-inn-ely-with-iv.jpg
> >>
> >> I wouldn't.
> >
> >If it were allowed, I would.
>
> But it's specifically not a cycle path.
Which is why I said "if it were allowed..."
> In message <saramerriman-BE0F...@news.eternal-
> september.org>, at 11:40:02 on Wed, 22 May 2013, Sara <saramerriman@blue
> yonder.co.uk> remarked:
>
> >> >Would you cycle through this lot?
> >> >
> >> > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cutter-inn-ely-with-iv.jpg
> >>
> >> I wouldn't.
> >
> >If it were allowed, I would.
>
> But it's specifically not a cycle path.
>
> >It looks rather like the cycle-path that
> >passes The Boaters Inn on the river in Kingston upon Thames.
>
> Except that the latter is more than twice as wide,
Only in parts
> >It looks rather like the cycle-path that
> >passes The Boaters Inn on the river in Kingston upon Thames.
>
> Except that the latter is more than twice as wide,
and one side isn't a
> direct drop into the river.
>
> <http://www.kingston.gov.uk/05_a_warm_glow_the_boaters_inn_canbury_garde
> rns.jpg>
Roland Perry
May 22, 2013, 10:00:02 AM5/22/13
to
In message
<saramerriman-E648...@news.eternal-september.org>, at
14:50:09 on Wed, 22 May 2013, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk>
remarked:
quayside and less than four feet width?
--
Roland Perry
<saramerriman-E648...@news.eternal-september.org>, at
14:50:09 on Wed, 22 May 2013, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk>
remarked:
>> >It looks rather like the cycle-path that
>> >passes The Boaters Inn on the river in Kingston upon Thames.
>>
>> Except that the latter is more than twice as wide,
>
>Only in parts
>
>and one side isn't a
>> direct drop into the river.
>
>Yes it is. I rode along it today.
>>
>> <http://www.kingston.gov.uk/05_a_warm_glow_the_boaters_inn_canbury_garde
>> rns.jpg>
Neither is borne out by the photos. Can you find one that shows a
>> >passes The Boaters Inn on the river in Kingston upon Thames.
>>
>> Except that the latter is more than twice as wide,
>
>Only in parts
>
>and one side isn't a
>> direct drop into the river.
>
>Yes it is. I rode along it today.
>>
>> <http://www.kingston.gov.uk/05_a_warm_glow_the_boaters_inn_canbury_garde
>> rns.jpg>
quayside and less than four feet width?
--
Roland Perry
Sara
May 22, 2013, 10:15:01 AM5/22/13
to
In article <IHvLz2IM...@perry.co.uk>,
No - sadly. I looked before posting and couldn't see a link to one.
Clive George
May 22, 2013, 12:10:02 PM5/22/13
to
On 22/05/2013 14:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>> I'd ride the one in Ely. If it was as busy as in that photo, I'd be
>> going very slowly and carefully, and possibly even walking the bit
>> with the railings, but it might be worth remembering that me pushing a
>> bike is a lot wider and more disruptive than me riding it.
>
> I've never accepted that point of view. The main reason being that a
> bike being pushed can change direction, and stop, very easily. Whereas a
> rider can't.
A rider can stop very easily at a low pace. Changing direction is about
>> I'd ride the one in Ely. If it was as busy as in that photo, I'd be
>> going very slowly and carefully, and possibly even walking the bit
>> with the railings, but it might be worth remembering that me pushing a
>> bike is a lot wider and more disruptive than me riding it.
>
> I've never accepted that point of view. The main reason being that a
> bike being pushed can change direction, and stop, very easily. Whereas a
> rider can't.
as hard for both.
I suspect people are confusing a bike ridden slowly and carefully with
one ridden otherwise.
>> It's also worth noting that people's behaviour would change. If
>> cycling were allowed at that Ely waterfront, and people rode there,
>> people would leave some space and think nothing of it.
>
> It's simply too narrow. I don't believe the path along the Cam is as
> narrow.
anyway. IIRC some of the rocky surface is narrower than a loaded bike,
ie it overhangs.
> And the one in Ely has quite a slope at the "far" end (looking
> at my latest picture of the Inn), and is treacherous in the Winter even
> on foot, let alone if being approached by cyclists.
Roland Perry
May 22, 2013, 1:20:02 PM5/22/13
to
In message <09-dncMjZtMqcAHM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
17:10:02 on Wed, 22 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
remarked:
excessive "front wheel wobble", especially when encumbered by things
like shopping bags on the handlebars, or when (as I saw on this very
path) carrying a small dog. Yes, carrying.
alone are prepared to stop if something gets in their way (even at slow
speed). If they could, then it wouldn't be so much of an issue.
>>> It's also worth noting that people's behaviour would change. If
>>> cycling were allowed at that Ely waterfront, and people rode there,
>>> people would leave some space and think nothing of it.
>>
>> It's simply too narrow. I don't believe the path along the Cam is as
>> narrow.
>
>It's narrower than the one in the picture - the bit you ride along
>anyway. IIRC some of the rocky surface is narrower than a loaded bike,
>ie it overhangs.
Where is this path? I'm thinking somewhere like Midsummer Common,
although that has an "escape route" over the grass, I think.
Where is it narrow for 50ft with a brick wall one side and a quayside
the other; and lots of pedestrians much of the time.
--
Roland Perry
17:10:02 on Wed, 22 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
remarked:
>>> I'd ride the one in Ely. If it was as busy as in that photo, I'd be
>>> going very slowly and carefully, and possibly even walking the bit
>>> with the railings, but it might be worth remembering that me pushing a
>>> bike is a lot wider and more disruptive than me riding it.
>>
>> I've never accepted that point of view. The main reason being that a
>> bike being pushed can change direction, and stop, very easily. Whereas a
>> rider can't.
>
>A rider can stop very easily at a low pace. Changing direction is about
>as hard for both.
I disagree. Cyclists who are travelling very slowly suffer from
>>> going very slowly and carefully, and possibly even walking the bit
>>> with the railings, but it might be worth remembering that me pushing a
>>> bike is a lot wider and more disruptive than me riding it.
>>
>> I've never accepted that point of view. The main reason being that a
>> bike being pushed can change direction, and stop, very easily. Whereas a
>> rider can't.
>
>A rider can stop very easily at a low pace. Changing direction is about
>as hard for both.
excessive "front wheel wobble", especially when encumbered by things
like shopping bags on the handlebars, or when (as I saw on this very
path) carrying a small dog. Yes, carrying.
>
>I suspect people are confusing a bike ridden slowly and carefully with
>one ridden otherwise.
Very few cyclists seem able to cycle both slowly and carefully, let
>I suspect people are confusing a bike ridden slowly and carefully with
>one ridden otherwise.
alone are prepared to stop if something gets in their way (even at slow
speed). If they could, then it wouldn't be so much of an issue.
>>> It's also worth noting that people's behaviour would change. If
>>> cycling were allowed at that Ely waterfront, and people rode there,
>>> people would leave some space and think nothing of it.
>>
>> It's simply too narrow. I don't believe the path along the Cam is as
>> narrow.
>
>It's narrower than the one in the picture - the bit you ride along
>anyway. IIRC some of the rocky surface is narrower than a loaded bike,
>ie it overhangs.
although that has an "escape route" over the grass, I think.
Where is it narrow for 50ft with a brick wall one side and a quayside
the other; and lots of pedestrians much of the time.
--
Roland Perry
Mark
May 22, 2013, 1:40:01 PM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:20:02 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
>In message <09-dncMjZtMqcAHM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
>17:10:02 on Wed, 22 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
>remarked:
>>>> I'd ride the one in Ely. If it was as busy as in that photo, I'd be
>>>> going very slowly and carefully, and possibly even walking the bit
>>>> with the railings, but it might be worth remembering that me pushing a
>>>> bike is a lot wider and more disruptive than me riding it.
>>>
>>> I've never accepted that point of view. The main reason being that a
>>> bike being pushed can change direction, and stop, very easily. Whereas a
>>> rider can't.
>>
>>A rider can stop very easily at a low pace. Changing direction is about
>>as hard for both.
>
>I disagree. Cyclists who are travelling very slowly suffer from
>excessive "front wheel wobble",
*Some* cyclists may suffer from excessive wobble at low speeds but not
all. A lot depends on the ability of the particular person as it does
with any activity that involves a level of skill.
Any bicycle with functioning brakes can stop quickly at low speeds.
Personally I find it easier to change direction when cycling than
pushing and have, on more than one occasion, fallen over on top of my
bike when pushing it, while trying to acomplish the said maneouvre.
>especially when encumbered by things
>like shopping bags on the handlebars, or when (as I saw on this very
>path) carrying a small dog. Yes, carrying.
That's just plain stupid.
>>I suspect people are confusing a bike ridden slowly and carefully with
>>one ridden otherwise.
>
>Very few cyclists seem able to cycle both slowly and carefully, let
>alone are prepared to stop if something gets in their way (even at slow
>speed). If they could, then it wouldn't be so much of an issue.
There's a big difference between people who are not able to cycle
safely and those who just choose not to. There's far too many people
who have little respect for other's safety, no matter what form of
transport they choose to use.
wrote:
>In message <09-dncMjZtMqcAHM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
>17:10:02 on Wed, 22 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
>remarked:
>>>> I'd ride the one in Ely. If it was as busy as in that photo, I'd be
>>>> going very slowly and carefully, and possibly even walking the bit
>>>> with the railings, but it might be worth remembering that me pushing a
>>>> bike is a lot wider and more disruptive than me riding it.
>>>
>>> I've never accepted that point of view. The main reason being that a
>>> bike being pushed can change direction, and stop, very easily. Whereas a
>>> rider can't.
>>
>>A rider can stop very easily at a low pace. Changing direction is about
>>as hard for both.
>
>I disagree. Cyclists who are travelling very slowly suffer from
>excessive "front wheel wobble",
all. A lot depends on the ability of the particular person as it does
with any activity that involves a level of skill.
Any bicycle with functioning brakes can stop quickly at low speeds.
Personally I find it easier to change direction when cycling than
pushing and have, on more than one occasion, fallen over on top of my
bike when pushing it, while trying to acomplish the said maneouvre.
>especially when encumbered by things
>like shopping bags on the handlebars, or when (as I saw on this very
>path) carrying a small dog. Yes, carrying.
>>I suspect people are confusing a bike ridden slowly and carefully with
>>one ridden otherwise.
>
>Very few cyclists seem able to cycle both slowly and carefully, let
>alone are prepared to stop if something gets in their way (even at slow
>speed). If they could, then it wouldn't be so much of an issue.
safely and those who just choose not to. There's far too many people
who have little respect for other's safety, no matter what form of
transport they choose to use.
Adam Funk
May 22, 2013, 5:20:09 PM5/22/13
to
On 2013-05-22, Clive George wrote:
> On 22/05/2013 14:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>> I'd ride the one in Ely. If it was as busy as in that photo, I'd be
>>> going very slowly and carefully, and possibly even walking the bit
>>> with the railings, but it might be worth remembering that me pushing a
>>> bike is a lot wider and more disruptive than me riding it.
>>
>> I've never accepted that point of view. The main reason being that a
>> bike being pushed can change direction, and stop, very easily. Whereas a
>> rider can't.
>
> A rider can stop very easily at a low pace. Changing direction is about
> as hard for both.
I agree but...
> On 22/05/2013 14:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>> I'd ride the one in Ely. If it was as busy as in that photo, I'd be
>>> going very slowly and carefully, and possibly even walking the bit
>>> with the railings, but it might be worth remembering that me pushing a
>>> bike is a lot wider and more disruptive than me riding it.
>>
>> I've never accepted that point of view. The main reason being that a
>> bike being pushed can change direction, and stop, very easily. Whereas a
>> rider can't.
>
> A rider can stop very easily at a low pace. Changing direction is about
> as hard for both.
> I suspect people are confusing a bike ridden slowly and carefully with
> one ridden otherwise.
upright & stable at a normal person's walking speed, but I don't hang
goods or animals on my handlebars. (OTOH, I'm a faster than average
walker, & I find it quite irritating to be stuck behind a
pavement-clot of slow pedestrians when I'm walking.)
Roger Merriman
May 22, 2013, 5:15:01 PM5/22/13
to
Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:20:02 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >In message <09-dncMjZtMqcAHM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> >17:10:02 on Wed, 22 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
> >remarked:
> >>>> I'd ride the one in Ely. If it was as busy as in that photo, I'd be
> >>>> going very slowly and carefully, and possibly even walking the bit
> >>>> with the railings, but it might be worth remembering that me pushing a
> >>>> bike is a lot wider and more disruptive than me riding it.
> >>>
> >>> I've never accepted that point of view. The main reason being that a
> >>> bike being pushed can change direction, and stop, very easily. Whereas a
> >>> rider can't.
> >>
> >>A rider can stop very easily at a low pace. Changing direction is about
> >>as hard for both.
> >
> >I disagree. Cyclists who are travelling very slowly suffer from
> >excessive "front wheel wobble",
>
> *Some* cyclists may suffer from excessive wobble at low speeds but not
> all. A lot depends on the ability of the particular person as it does
> with any activity that involves a level of skill.
some bikes are easier as well, I have a MTB and a road bike, the MTB has
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:20:02 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >In message <09-dncMjZtMqcAHM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> >17:10:02 on Wed, 22 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
> >remarked:
> >>>> I'd ride the one in Ely. If it was as busy as in that photo, I'd be
> >>>> going very slowly and carefully, and possibly even walking the bit
> >>>> with the railings, but it might be worth remembering that me pushing a
> >>>> bike is a lot wider and more disruptive than me riding it.
> >>>
> >>> I've never accepted that point of view. The main reason being that a
> >>> bike being pushed can change direction, and stop, very easily. Whereas a
> >>> rider can't.
> >>
> >>A rider can stop very easily at a low pace. Changing direction is about
> >>as hard for both.
> >
> >I disagree. Cyclists who are travelling very slowly suffer from
> >excessive "front wheel wobble",
>
> *Some* cyclists may suffer from excessive wobble at low speeds but not
> all. A lot depends on the ability of the particular person as it does
> with any activity that involves a level of skill.
even for it's type over sized tyres, and thus trackstanding or riding at
0mph is really very easy, even on the roadie it's hardly a problem I
ride though shared areas most days, having to roll along at low speeds
or stop etc is common, I've yet to hit someone etc. though few years ago
a woman walked into me, much to her friends ammusent, I'd seen some
women walking along the path, wasn't room to pass so i stopped and one
just didn't see the large man on a bike on a clear day...
>
> Any bicycle with functioning brakes can stop quickly at low speeds.
>
> Personally I find it easier to change direction when cycling than
> pushing and have, on more than one occasion, fallen over on top of my
> bike when pushing it, while trying to acomplish the said maneouvre.
>
> >especially when encumbered by things
> >like shopping bags on the handlebars, or when (as I saw on this very
> >path) carrying a small dog. Yes, carrying.
>
> That's just plain stupid.
>
> >>I suspect people are confusing a bike ridden slowly and carefully with
> >>one ridden otherwise.
> >
> >Very few cyclists seem able to cycle both slowly and carefully, let
> >alone are prepared to stop if something gets in their way (even at slow
> >speed). If they could, then it wouldn't be so much of an issue.
>
> There's a big difference between people who are not able to cycle
> safely and those who just choose not to. There's far too many people
> who have little respect for other's safety, no matter what form of
> transport they choose to use.
indeed what people can do, and chose to do.
> Any bicycle with functioning brakes can stop quickly at low speeds.
>
> Personally I find it easier to change direction when cycling than
> pushing and have, on more than one occasion, fallen over on top of my
> bike when pushing it, while trying to acomplish the said maneouvre.
>
> >especially when encumbered by things
> >like shopping bags on the handlebars, or when (as I saw on this very
> >path) carrying a small dog. Yes, carrying.
>
> That's just plain stupid.
>
> >>I suspect people are confusing a bike ridden slowly and carefully with
> >>one ridden otherwise.
> >
> >Very few cyclists seem able to cycle both slowly and carefully, let
> >alone are prepared to stop if something gets in their way (even at slow
> >speed). If they could, then it wouldn't be so much of an issue.
>
> There's a big difference between people who are not able to cycle
> safely and those who just choose not to. There's far too many people
> who have little respect for other's safety, no matter what form of
> transport they choose to use.
Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Clive George
May 22, 2013, 7:30:03 PM5/22/13
to
On 22/05/2013 18:20, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <09-dncMjZtMqcAHM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 17:10:02 on Wed, 22 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
> remarked:
>>>> I'd ride the one in Ely. If it was as busy as in that photo, I'd be
>>>> going very slowly and carefully, and possibly even walking the bit
>>>> with the railings, but it might be worth remembering that me pushing a
>>>> bike is a lot wider and more disruptive than me riding it.
>>>
>>> I've never accepted that point of view. The main reason being that a
>>> bike being pushed can change direction, and stop, very easily. Whereas a
>>> rider can't.
>>
>> A rider can stop very easily at a low pace. Changing direction is
>> about as hard for both.
>
> I disagree. Cyclists who are travelling very slowly suffer from
> excessive "front wheel wobble", especially when encumbered by things
> like shopping bags on the handlebars, or when (as I saw on this very
> path) carrying a small dog. Yes, carrying.
I didn't say all cyclists can :-) I can maintain 2.5mph on a laden
> In message <09-dncMjZtMqcAHM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 17:10:02 on Wed, 22 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
> remarked:
>>>> I'd ride the one in Ely. If it was as busy as in that photo, I'd be
>>>> going very slowly and carefully, and possibly even walking the bit
>>>> with the railings, but it might be worth remembering that me pushing a
>>>> bike is a lot wider and more disruptive than me riding it.
>>>
>>> I've never accepted that point of view. The main reason being that a
>>> bike being pushed can change direction, and stop, very easily. Whereas a
>>> rider can't.
>>
>> A rider can stop very easily at a low pace. Changing direction is
>> about as hard for both.
>
> I disagree. Cyclists who are travelling very slowly suffer from
> excessive "front wheel wobble", especially when encumbered by things
> like shopping bags on the handlebars, or when (as I saw on this very
> path) carrying a small dog. Yes, carrying.
tandem up a steep hill - I've got practice.
>>>> It's also worth noting that people's behaviour would change. If
>>>> cycling were allowed at that Ely waterfront, and people rode there,
>>>> people would leave some space and think nothing of it.
>>>
>>> It's simply too narrow. I don't believe the path along the Cam is as
>>> narrow.
>>
>> It's narrower than the one in the picture - the bit you ride along
>> anyway. IIRC some of the rocky surface is narrower than a loaded bike,
>> ie it overhangs.
>
> Where is this path? I'm thinking somewhere like Midsummer Common,
> although that has an "escape route" over the grass, I think.
>
> Where is it narrow for 50ft with a brick wall one side and a quayside
> the other; and lots of pedestrians much of the time.
university, and there are other variants too. Starting point near the
lock near the A14, finish somewhere towards Chesterton. They attract a
reasonable number of spectators, and the path when I rode it wasn't
metalled - stone and grass. To add to the fun, after a bump the boats
pull in so you get oars to avoid and people pulling the foliage apart to
decorate the boat to avoid. No, there's no brick wall, there's trees and
people, and I imagine more than once a year some keen coach gets it
wrong and ends up in the river due to concentrating too much on the
rowing and not enough where they're riding.
But it's still possible to ride that path in those conditions with care
faster than a brisk walking pace. Plenty of people do manage it.
Roland Perry
May 23, 2013, 6:15:15 AM5/23/13
to
In message <OYGdnYveWrSHzgDM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
00:30:03 on Thu, 23 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
remarked:
the boathouse opposite the Cutter Inn, as are Kings Ely's boats.
>But it's still possible to ride that path in those conditions with care
>faster than a brisk walking pace. Plenty of people do manage it.
It's a completely different situation where there's a race and
spectators, compared to a city centre path with pedestrians going about
their normal business. You might as well compare it with cycling through
the Lion Yard shopping centre.
--
Roland Perry
00:30:03 on Thu, 23 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
remarked:
>Do you know the bumps? The boat races which happen twice a year for the
>university, and there are other variants too. Starting point near the
>lock near the A14, finish somewhere towards Chesterton. They attract a
>reasonable number of spectators, and the path when I rode it wasn't
>metalled - stone and grass.
To continue the rowing theme, the Cambridge Boat Race teams are based at
>university, and there are other variants too. Starting point near the
>lock near the A14, finish somewhere towards Chesterton. They attract a
>reasonable number of spectators, and the path when I rode it wasn't
>metalled - stone and grass.
the boathouse opposite the Cutter Inn, as are Kings Ely's boats.
>But it's still possible to ride that path in those conditions with care
>faster than a brisk walking pace. Plenty of people do manage it.
spectators, compared to a city centre path with pedestrians going about
their normal business. You might as well compare it with cycling through
the Lion Yard shopping centre.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 23, 2013, 6:15:15 AM5/23/13
to
In message <o20qp89ml64tb4ukl...@4ax.com>, at 18:40:01 on
Wed, 22 May 2013, Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.net> remarked:
(be they cyclists, motorists or electricians), no the most competent
half.
>Any bicycle with functioning brakes can stop quickly at low speeds.
Only if the cyclist can reach the brakes. And at which point they fall
off into the crowd (or outside the Cutter Inn, maybe into the river).
>>especially when encumbered by things
>>like shopping bags on the handlebars, or when (as I saw on this very
>>path) carrying a small dog. Yes, carrying.
>
>That's just plain stupid.
Rules are there for (the guidance of) stupid people. The problem is,
some people are so stupid they'll ignore the rules.
>>>I suspect people are confusing a bike ridden slowly and carefully with
>>>one ridden otherwise.
>>
>>Very few cyclists seem able to cycle both slowly and carefully, let
>>alone are prepared to stop if something gets in their way (even at slow
>>speed). If they could, then it wouldn't be so much of an issue.
>
>There's a big difference between people who are not able to cycle
>safely and those who just choose not to. There's far too many people
>who have little respect for other's safety, no matter what form of
>transport they choose to use.
And the consequence of that is, for the sake of everyone's safety,
blanket bans on certain activities at easily identified 'black spots'.
--
Roland Perry
Wed, 22 May 2013, Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.net> remarked:
>>Cyclists who are travelling very slowly suffer from
>>excessive "front wheel wobble",
>
>*Some* cyclists may suffer from excessive wobble at low speeds but not
>all. A lot depends on the ability of the particular person as it does
>with any activity that involves a level of skill.
And rules have to be made for the least competent half of the population
>>excessive "front wheel wobble",
>
>*Some* cyclists may suffer from excessive wobble at low speeds but not
>all. A lot depends on the ability of the particular person as it does
>with any activity that involves a level of skill.
(be they cyclists, motorists or electricians), no the most competent
half.
>Any bicycle with functioning brakes can stop quickly at low speeds.
off into the crowd (or outside the Cutter Inn, maybe into the river).
>>especially when encumbered by things
>>like shopping bags on the handlebars, or when (as I saw on this very
>>path) carrying a small dog. Yes, carrying.
>
>That's just plain stupid.
some people are so stupid they'll ignore the rules.
>>>I suspect people are confusing a bike ridden slowly and carefully with
>>>one ridden otherwise.
>>
>>Very few cyclists seem able to cycle both slowly and carefully, let
>>alone are prepared to stop if something gets in their way (even at slow
>>speed). If they could, then it wouldn't be so much of an issue.
>
>There's a big difference between people who are not able to cycle
>safely and those who just choose not to. There's far too many people
>who have little respect for other's safety, no matter what form of
>transport they choose to use.
blanket bans on certain activities at easily identified 'black spots'.
--
Roland Perry
Clive George
May 23, 2013, 9:10:02 AM5/23/13
to
On 23/05/2013 11:15, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <OYGdnYveWrSHzgDM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 00:30:03 on Thu, 23 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
> remarked:
>> Do you know the bumps? The boat races which happen twice a year for
>> the university, and there are other variants too. Starting point near
>> the lock near the A14, finish somewhere towards Chesterton. They
>> attract a reasonable number of spectators, and the path when I rode it
>> wasn't metalled - stone and grass.
>
> To continue the rowing theme, the Cambridge Boat Race teams are based at
> the boathouse opposite the Cutter Inn, as are Kings Ely's boats.
They probably want a longer stretch of river not full of novice rowers :-)
> In message <OYGdnYveWrSHzgDM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 00:30:03 on Thu, 23 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
> remarked:
>> Do you know the bumps? The boat races which happen twice a year for
>> the university, and there are other variants too. Starting point near
>> the lock near the A14, finish somewhere towards Chesterton. They
>> attract a reasonable number of spectators, and the path when I rode it
>> wasn't metalled - stone and grass.
>
> To continue the rowing theme, the Cambridge Boat Race teams are based at
> the boathouse opposite the Cutter Inn, as are Kings Ely's boats.
>> But it's still possible to ride that path in those conditions with
>> care faster than a brisk walking pace. Plenty of people do manage it.
>
> It's a completely different situation where there's a race and
> spectators, compared to a city centre path with pedestrians going about
> their normal business. You might as well compare it with cycling through
> the Lion Yard shopping centre.
Lion Yard, and people did so, everybody would be used to it - people
would alter their behaviour a bit to cope. Ditto your Cutter Inn example.
Roland Perry
May 23, 2013, 10:40:02 AM5/23/13
to
In message <-4udnQwu_ff_iQPM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
14:10:02 on Thu, 23 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
remarked:
don't clash with the school, most of whose rowing seems to be in the
afternoon.
>>> But it's still possible to ride that path in those conditions with
>>> care faster than a brisk walking pace. Plenty of people do manage it.
>>
>> It's a completely different situation where there's a race and
>> spectators, compared to a city centre path with pedestrians going about
>> their normal business. You might as well compare it with cycling through
>> the Lion Yard shopping centre.
>
>And we return to a point I made earlier - if cycling was allowed
>through Lion Yard, and people did so, everybody would be used to it -
>people would alter their behaviour a bit to cope. Ditto your Cutter Inn
>example.
There comes a point when you can't expect pedestrians to be the ones who
sacrifice their behaviour to cope with anti-social cyclists (or even
cars). How about cycling through John Lewis, or allowing cars down Petty
Cury once again? People would soon learn to get out of the way,
apparently.
--
Roland Perry
14:10:02 on Thu, 23 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
remarked:
>> To continue the rowing theme, the Cambridge Boat Race teams are based at
>> the boathouse opposite the Cutter Inn, as are Kings Ely's boats.
>
>They probably want a longer stretch of river not full of novice rowers :-)
The boat race teams train early in the morning (from first light). They
>> the boathouse opposite the Cutter Inn, as are Kings Ely's boats.
>
>They probably want a longer stretch of river not full of novice rowers :-)
don't clash with the school, most of whose rowing seems to be in the
afternoon.
>>> But it's still possible to ride that path in those conditions with
>>> care faster than a brisk walking pace. Plenty of people do manage it.
>>
>> It's a completely different situation where there's a race and
>> spectators, compared to a city centre path with pedestrians going about
>> their normal business. You might as well compare it with cycling through
>> the Lion Yard shopping centre.
>
>And we return to a point I made earlier - if cycling was allowed
>through Lion Yard, and people did so, everybody would be used to it -
>people would alter their behaviour a bit to cope. Ditto your Cutter Inn
>example.
sacrifice their behaviour to cope with anti-social cyclists (or even
cars). How about cycling through John Lewis, or allowing cars down Petty
Cury once again? People would soon learn to get out of the way,
apparently.
--
Roland Perry
Clive George
May 23, 2013, 2:05:02 PM5/23/13
to
On 23/05/2013 15:40, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <-4udnQwu_ff_iQPM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 14:10:02 on Thu, 23 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
> remarked:
>>> To continue the rowing theme, the Cambridge Boat Race teams are based at
>>> the boathouse opposite the Cutter Inn, as are Kings Ely's boats.
>>
>> They probably want a longer stretch of river not full of novice rowers
>> :-)
>
> The boat race teams train early in the morning (from first light). They
> don't clash with the school, most of whose rowing seems to be in the
> afternoon.
Have you seen the Cam near Cambridge in novice season? Or even outside
> In message <-4udnQwu_ff_iQPM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 14:10:02 on Thu, 23 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
> remarked:
>>> To continue the rowing theme, the Cambridge Boat Race teams are based at
>>> the boathouse opposite the Cutter Inn, as are Kings Ely's boats.
>>
>> They probably want a longer stretch of river not full of novice rowers
>> :-)
>
> The boat race teams train early in the morning (from first light). They
> don't clash with the school, most of whose rowing seems to be in the
> afternoon.
it? There's a lot more than a school's worth of boats on there beetling
up and down. There's a lot of colleges, and each of them run several
boats. Add on the town clubs, and you get a fairly busy river.
>>>> But it's still possible to ride that path in those conditions with
>>>> care faster than a brisk walking pace. Plenty of people do manage it.
>>>
>>> It's a completely different situation where there's a race and
>>> spectators, compared to a city centre path with pedestrians going about
>>> their normal business. You might as well compare it with cycling through
>>> the Lion Yard shopping centre.
>>
>> And we return to a point I made earlier - if cycling was allowed
>> through Lion Yard, and people did so, everybody would be used to it -
>> people would alter their behaviour a bit to cope. Ditto your Cutter
>> Inn example.
>
> There comes a point when you can't expect pedestrians to be the ones who
> sacrifice their behaviour to cope with anti-social cyclists (or even
> cars). How about cycling through John Lewis, or allowing cars down Petty
> Cury once again? People would soon learn to get out of the way, apparently.
if you allowed that, people would learn to cope, and probably wouldn't
even notice that they were doing so.
I've been mostly arguing about the general case, pointing out flaws in
yours based on experience. You've not really made enough of a case that
the bit you point out can never be ridden - that's not necessarily
because you're wrong, it might just be that you've not presented enough
information. If I were trying to make a decision on whether cycling
should be allowed or not I'd definitely want a site visit (is the Cutter
a Greene King pub?), and that's not going to happen. It's not really
worth pursuing that hard here :-)
Roland Perry
May 23, 2013, 5:10:02 PM5/23/13
to
In message <-YmdnYHfPqdQxQPM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
19:05:02 on Thu, 23 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
for practice because it's wide and straight).
>You've not really made enough of a case that the bit you point out can
>never be ridden
There are times when it can be ridden, but I've yet to see a "No
Cycling" restriction with specified hours of the day (or days of the
week).
> - that's not necessarily because you're wrong, it might just be that
>you've not presented enough information.
The photos show how narrow it is, and how crowded it can get.
>If I were trying to make a decision on whether cycling should be
>allowed or not I'd definitely want a site visit
I might take some videos over the weekend.
--
Roland Perry
19:05:02 on Thu, 23 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
remarked:
>>>> To continue the rowing theme, the Cambridge Boat Race teams are based at
>>>> the boathouse opposite the Cutter Inn, as are Kings Ely's boats.
>>>
>>> They probably want a longer stretch of river not full of novice rowers
>>> :-)
>>
>> The boat race teams train early in the morning (from first light). They
>> don't clash with the school, most of whose rowing seems to be in the
>> afternoon.
>
>Have you seen the Cam near Cambridge in novice season? Or even outside
>it? There's a lot more than a school's worth of boats on there beetling
>up and down. There's a lot of colleges, and each of them run several
>boats. Add on the town clubs, and you get a fairly busy river.
Perhaps so, but I was talking about the river past Ely (which they use
>>>> To continue the rowing theme, the Cambridge Boat Race teams are based at
>>>> the boathouse opposite the Cutter Inn, as are Kings Ely's boats.
>>>
>>> They probably want a longer stretch of river not full of novice rowers
>>> :-)
>>
>> The boat race teams train early in the morning (from first light). They
>> don't clash with the school, most of whose rowing seems to be in the
>> afternoon.
>
>Have you seen the Cam near Cambridge in novice season? Or even outside
>it? There's a lot more than a school's worth of boats on there beetling
>up and down. There's a lot of colleges, and each of them run several
>boats. Add on the town clubs, and you get a fairly busy river.
for practice because it's wide and straight).
>You've not really made enough of a case that the bit you point out can
>never be ridden
Cycling" restriction with specified hours of the day (or days of the
week).
> - that's not necessarily because you're wrong, it might just be that
>you've not presented enough information.
>If I were trying to make a decision on whether cycling should be
>allowed or not I'd definitely want a site visit
--
Roland Perry
Clive George
May 23, 2013, 6:00:02 PM5/23/13
to
On 23/05/2013 22:10, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <-YmdnYHfPqdQxQPM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 19:05:02 on Thu, 23 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
> remarked:
>>>>> To continue the rowing theme, the Cambridge Boat Race teams are
>>>>> based at
>>>>> the boathouse opposite the Cutter Inn, as are Kings Ely's boats.
>>>>
>>>> They probably want a longer stretch of river not full of novice rowers
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> The boat race teams train early in the morning (from first light). They
>>> don't clash with the school, most of whose rowing seems to be in the
>>> afternoon.
>>
>> Have you seen the Cam near Cambridge in novice season? Or even outside
>> it? There's a lot more than a school's worth of boats on there
>> beetling up and down. There's a lot of colleges, and each of them run
>> several boats. Add on the town clubs, and you get a fairly busy river.
>
> Perhaps so, but I was talking about the river past Ely (which they use
> for practice because it's wide and straight).
We appear to be agreeing - I was supporting my comment that they
> In message <-YmdnYHfPqdQxQPM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 19:05:02 on Thu, 23 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
> remarked:
>>>>> To continue the rowing theme, the Cambridge Boat Race teams are
>>>>> based at
>>>>> the boathouse opposite the Cutter Inn, as are Kings Ely's boats.
>>>>
>>>> They probably want a longer stretch of river not full of novice rowers
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> The boat race teams train early in the morning (from first light). They
>>> don't clash with the school, most of whose rowing seems to be in the
>>> afternoon.
>>
>> Have you seen the Cam near Cambridge in novice season? Or even outside
>> it? There's a lot more than a school's worth of boats on there
>> beetling up and down. There's a lot of colleges, and each of them run
>> several boats. Add on the town clubs, and you get a fairly busy river.
>
> Perhaps so, but I was talking about the river past Ely (which they use
> for practice because it's wide and straight).
probably want a longer stretch of river not full of novice rowers, ie
their local one isn't great.
> I might take some videos over the weekend.
Roland Perry
May 23, 2013, 6:20:01 PM5/23/13
to
In message <rqednWabB-BMDQPM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
23:00:02 on Thu, 23 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
remarked:
Ely). I see the confusion.
>> I might take some videos over the weekend.
>
>Is it really worth it? :-)
Yes, it's not far from where I live and I've already had too many narrow
escapes (as a pedestrian) along there.
--
Roland Perry
23:00:02 on Thu, 23 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
remarked:
>We appear to be agreeing - I was supporting my comment that they
>probably want a longer stretch of river not full of novice rowers, ie
>their local one isn't great.
You mean local to Cambridge, not local to their boathouse (which is in
>probably want a longer stretch of river not full of novice rowers, ie
>their local one isn't great.
Ely). I see the confusion.
>> I might take some videos over the weekend.
>
>Is it really worth it? :-)
escapes (as a pedestrian) along there.
--
Roland Perry
Clive George
May 23, 2013, 8:50:02 PM5/23/13
to
On 23/05/2013 23:20, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <rqednWabB-BMDQPM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 23:00:02 on Thu, 23 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
> remarked:
>> We appear to be agreeing - I was supporting my comment that they
>> probably want a longer stretch of river not full of novice rowers, ie
>> their local one isn't great.
>
> You mean local to Cambridge, not local to their boathouse (which is in
> Ely). I see the confusion.
:-)
> In message <rqednWabB-BMDQPM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 23:00:02 on Thu, 23 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
> remarked:
>> We appear to be agreeing - I was supporting my comment that they
>> probably want a longer stretch of river not full of novice rowers, ie
>> their local one isn't great.
>
> You mean local to Cambridge, not local to their boathouse (which is in
> Ely). I see the confusion.
http://www.cubc.org.uk/rowing/facilities.html
Interestingly they describe the Ely one as their "training boathouse"
rather than their main one. Though it does appear to be where the boats
live these days. I'm pretty sure they were in Cambridge 20 years ago -
though that may of course just have been a subset of them. When was the
Ely one built? (I see they're looking to build another to a certain
amount of local consternation)
>>> I might take some videos over the weekend.
>>
>> Is it really worth it? :-)
>
> Yes, it's not far from where I live and I've already had too many narrow
> escapes (as a pedestrian) along there.
giving you the narrow escapes. Would getting a story in your local paper
be more likely to achieve something?
Roland Perry
May 24, 2013, 8:45:02 AM5/24/13
to
In message <cf6dnSfl1elwJQPM...@brightview.co.uk>, at
01:50:02 on Fri, 24 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
Very recently, and against stiff opposition, they've obtained planning
permission to build a new boathouse for *everything* a couple of miles
downstream from Ely.
>I'm pretty sure they were in Cambridge 20 years ago - though that may
>of course just have been a subset of them. When was the Ely one built?
Not sure, but it looks like it could be 20yrs old.
>>>> I might take some videos over the weekend.
>>>
>>> Is it really worth it? :-)
>>
>> Yes, it's not far from where I live and I've already had too many narrow
>> escapes (as a pedestrian) along there.
>
>But the people you're talking to here aren't going to be the people
>giving you the narrow escapes.
Different constituencies.
I'm keen to show the cyclists here that "if some cyclists can safely use
the path some of the time" [eg at 6am on a winter Monday] it doesn't
mean "all cyclists should be free to use it all of the time" [eg at 3pm
on a Summer Sunday].
>Would getting a story in your local paper be more likely to achieve
>something?
Apparently the local council has recently taken over responsibility for
the riverside, from whatever the River Authority was called that week.
They are sabre-rattling about boaters over-staying the unannounced
alleged temporary nature of the moorings along there, so I can hope they
might take a more robust attitude about enforcing the long standing
announced no-cycling.
--
Roland Perry
01:50:02 on Fri, 24 May 2013, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
remarked:
>>> We appear to be agreeing - I was supporting my comment that they
>>> probably want a longer stretch of river not full of novice rowers, ie
>>> their local one isn't great.
>>
>> You mean local to Cambridge, not local to their boathouse (which is in
>> Ely). I see the confusion.
>
>:-)
>
>http://www.cubc.org.uk/rowing/facilities.html
>
>Interestingly they describe the Ely one as their "training boathouse"
>rather than their main one. Though it does appear to be where the boats
>live these days.
They do the rowing at Ely and everything else in Cambridge (gym etc).
>>> We appear to be agreeing - I was supporting my comment that they
>>> probably want a longer stretch of river not full of novice rowers, ie
>>> their local one isn't great.
>>
>> You mean local to Cambridge, not local to their boathouse (which is in
>> Ely). I see the confusion.
>
>:-)
>
>http://www.cubc.org.uk/rowing/facilities.html
>
>Interestingly they describe the Ely one as their "training boathouse"
>rather than their main one. Though it does appear to be where the boats
>live these days.
Very recently, and against stiff opposition, they've obtained planning
permission to build a new boathouse for *everything* a couple of miles
downstream from Ely.
>I'm pretty sure they were in Cambridge 20 years ago - though that may
>of course just have been a subset of them. When was the Ely one built?
>>>> I might take some videos over the weekend.
>>>
>>> Is it really worth it? :-)
>>
>> Yes, it's not far from where I live and I've already had too many narrow
>> escapes (as a pedestrian) along there.
>
>But the people you're talking to here aren't going to be the people
>giving you the narrow escapes.
I'm keen to show the cyclists here that "if some cyclists can safely use
the path some of the time" [eg at 6am on a winter Monday] it doesn't
mean "all cyclists should be free to use it all of the time" [eg at 3pm
on a Summer Sunday].
>Would getting a story in your local paper be more likely to achieve
>something?
the riverside, from whatever the River Authority was called that week.
They are sabre-rattling about boaters over-staying the unannounced
alleged temporary nature of the moorings along there, so I can hope they
might take a more robust attitude about enforcing the long standing
announced no-cycling.
--
Roland Perry
Ian Smith
May 24, 2013, 11:50:02 AM5/24/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 01:50:02 +0100, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> http://www.cubc.org.uk/rowing/facilities.html
>
> Interestingly they describe the Ely one as their "training
> boathouse" rather than their main one. Though it does appear to be
> where the boats live these days. I'm pretty sure they were in
> Cambridge 20 years ago - though that may of course just have been a
> subset of them.
They trained at Ely when I was there 88-91 (which is now more than 20
>
> http://www.cubc.org.uk/rowing/facilities.html
>
> Interestingly they describe the Ely one as their "training
> boathouse" rather than their main one. Though it does appear to be
> where the boats live these days. I'm pretty sure they were in
> Cambridge 20 years ago - though that may of course just have been a
> subset of them.
years ago). I contemplated joining, but decided I'd had enough of
taking rowing seriously at school, so joined the college ladies boat
club instead.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
0 new messages