- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Bangor dog needs leg amputating after shared-use path collision (screenshot Daily Post video)"Arrogant" cyclists blamed as dog needs leg amputated after shared-use path collision — how can safety be improved for everyone?
Shared-use paths are back in the spotlight again after an incident near Bangor in North Wales left a dog needing a leg amputated following a collision involving a cyclist.
The Daily Post reports Buddy the 11-year-old springer spaniel lost a leg after being struck by a cyclist in Gwynedd, suffering a badly crushed ankle while being walked off-lead on the Ogwen Trail, which is part of the National Cycle Network's Route 82, and described as a "spectacular traffic-free" route by Sustrans.
Bob Hutchinson's dog was hit by a cyclist who "zoomed past" as he walked three other dogs with two friends.
"We had no idea he was coming. When he hit Buddy, the dog yelped loudly," the 74-year-old recalled.
"The cyclist dismounted and there was an altercation – he claimed he’d rung his bell, but none of us heard it."
Despite being able to limp home, two days later the much-loved pet was in visible pain and unable to put weight on the damaged leg.
An x-ray showed a lower leg fracture and gave Bob the uncomfortable decision of deciding between having Buddy put down, operated on, or the leg removed.
"I was worried about long-term problems and I didn’t want him to suffer, so I went for amputation. When the limb was removed, the vet said the ankle joint was so badly shattered, an operation wouldn’t have succeeded anyway," the local resident said.
Questioning the "arrogant" attitude of some cyclists, Mr Hutchinson claimed using the path, which was tarmacked 20 years ago, has "become a frightening experience".
"A majority of cyclists are courteous but some are incredibly arrogant," he said. "From Glasinfryn to Bangor Dock it’s all downhill all the way and on some sections, cyclists can reach speeds of 30-40mph.
"Some of them use it as a race track. It’s crazy and it’s frightening. If they’re going at the speed, you’ve no time to react and often you won’t even hear them coming. It’s beautiful around here, with woods at the side of the path, but if children run out when a cyclist is coming, there could be a really serious accident.
"When these cyclists zoom pass you, before you know it they have gone. Unless they’re local, there’s no way you’ll ever find out who they are."
Mr Hutchinson has complained to Gwynedd Council before about the path which is shared by pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, and his story had an all-too-familiar polarising effect with the local news website's readers.
Some took the opportunity to point the finger at reckless riding by some using the path to cycle, with one woman telling the Daily Post she is too scared to use the path after her three-year-old child was nearly "killed" by a cyclist.
A dog walker also reported being knocked over by a cyclist while using the shared-use path.
"No warning – the wind behind the cyclists – and bang......right into me as I went to pull my dog out of the way. The cyclist hit my left side and landed on top of me. Tyre marks remained on my leg for three-and-a-half weeks. Bruised and battered and aching for months," they said.
"I hate walking anywhere near cycle routes now and feel quite scared when I have to."
However, others labelled out-of-control dogs off leads as the main danger to path users.
Mr Hutchinson insists his dog was under control at the time of the collision, even if he was not using a lead.
Wendy Challis-Jones told the online news outlet: "On a cycle path dogs should be on a lead!"
Another reader added: "There are lots of safe places where you can let your dog off the lead, a footpath where there are other pedestrians and cyclists is not one of them. This gentleman epitomises everything that's wrong with a lot of these irresponsible dog walkers. Its heartbreaking that the poor dog has had to pay the price for his folly."
Last month, a district council in Devon made headlines after enforcing a new public space protection order requiring dog walkers to use leads shorter than a metre near cycle paths and highways.
The safety of cyclists was cited for the rule, which does not apply for parks and beaches, but could see owners who walk their dogs on leads longer than a metre fined £100, or face prosecution, with maximum fines reaching £1,000.
So how can shared-use paths be made safer for everyone? Let us know your thoughts in the comments...
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- hand0j1n 6 sec ago
Hopefully the new device is a big success, but wahoo do have a lot work to do in terms of convincing that their quality control has improved. ...
- chrisonabike 28 min 24 sec ago
Agree that the moaning comes from a place of priveledge and ultimately "if only there weren't so many other people driving"....
- Simon E 35 min 21 sec ago
Have added some clarification....
- Simon E 44 min 39 sec ago
I was tempted to try Galibier gloves but opted for Endura Freezing Point from LBS last year. Not cheap (£60, I think). I'd prefer a shorter cuff...
- Simon E 1 hour 22 min ago
I can't wait that long! Here's a series that any good vlogger / 'grammer would surely recognise....
- Simon E 1 hour 31 min ago
At 2.30pm on Saturday a small hatchback car "came to rest on its side in a precarious position" near the hamlet of Ratlinghope on the west side of...
- IanMK 2 hours 8 min ago
I do wonder if Highway Planners and Councils understand all the implications of putting in traffic calming measures. They certainly take no...
- Oldfatgit 2 hours 27 min ago
How long before some waste of DNA complains about them on the footpath ... or for Grimsby [and the other shit-tips] to ban them ...
- mattw 3 hours 16 min ago
I've only just spotted this....
- Another_MAMIL 3 hours 40 min ago
I also liked Polartec NeoShell and was disappointed it was discontinued. Polartec RPM looks similar, but it's unclear how NeoShell and RPM compare....
Add new comment
152 comments
What's the position on goats? Personally I'm all for them - outside of environmentally sensitive places - but I'd worry about panniers getting browsed.
I've certainly seen ponies on such places - although I can't swear that those weren't classified as bridlepaths too. Seems our paths are just as confused as our roads.
I thought it was the goats that were supposed to be positioned on you.
Gyoga! I did not know about that.
Many years ago, the bottom hem of one of my wife's favourite dresses was eaten by a goat as she stood there feeding a different goat (we'd visited a petting zoo type place). Much hilarity ensued.
Yeah, they often work in pairs. Grafters.
For some additional context here is a study showing that dog bites requiring admission to hospital have more than doubled in the last twenty years.
A quarter of those admissions are children.
Out of control dogs are clearly a growing problem.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81527-7
This all sounds foreign to me, as an Aussie the law here in my state is quite clear. Under the companion animals act, pet owners must do as follows:
13 Responsibilities while dog in public place (1) A dog that is in a public place must be under the effective control of some competent person by means of an adequate chain, cord or leash that is attached to the dog and that is being held by (or secured to) the person.
there's other provisions as well, the maximum number of dogs a person can have leashed and be considered in effective control is 4. The act also requires all councils provide public off leash areas, which are usually fenced areas. This keeps a good balance between allowing for off leash areas to exercise and socialise dogs, while maintaining public safety and the safety of pets where movement of people happens. It also establishes clear liability when the act isn't followed.
Before I get into my comment - for context, I am a dog walker and a cyclist. I have no side in this fight.
So:
1. How many times have we lambasted drivers for going too fast because they weren't able to stop quickly enough to avoid crashing into a bike etc? Countless and ultimately that rule applies to us. On a shared use path, we are the high speed potentially dangerous users.
2. Neither cyclists nor dog walkers have any privileged right to use the a shared use path to the detriment of other path users than any other user.
3. The suggestion that dog-walkers have to keep their dog on a lead on and around shared use paths at all times is untenable. There are vast miles of bridle paths across the UK that allow bikes, pedestrians and horses. Most of the time there is no conflict on these - the idea that dog walkers can't use these because you might want to cycle through there is laughable.
4. Similarly, you need to be mindful of your dog and if its a commonly used cycle route, or a busy time of day (e.g. a shared use path frequently used for commuting) you need to use your common sense, particularly if you know your dog is prone to bombing round or they are part of a more excitable group at the time. You need to be more vigilant for bikes to ensure you can call your dog back safely. If your dog isn't well trained enough to respond in properly in those situations then you have to take that into consideration when deciding if the situation merits your dog being on a lead, even if just temporarily.
5. Personally, I think this boils down to some simple rules (which really shouldn't need repeating):
a. if you want to cycle on a shared use path/ bridleway, you have to be responsible and be prepared to stop immediately, if there's something unexpected round the corner, whether a trap, downed tree, family or dog, it is your responsibility to be in control of your speed. Ultimately, I think you have to expect that people won't here you and you may have to pass at quasi walking speeds - if you are trying to "train" or "go hard" then you need to consider whether your route is appropriate for that and to be frank, I don't think a shared use path is.
b. if you are a dog walker on a path that you know is frequented by cyclists, then you have to be particularly aware of that. You need to be vigilant and responsible so that you notice when there is a bike coming and can appropriately instruct your dog, whether getting them to stay or calling them back as the situation calls for.
Ultimately shared use paths are often a crap compromise to avoid giving up road space or to allow for casual/ scenic cycling and they aren't a space to allow you as a pedestrian to sprawl across the path with no regard for anyone else. They are by definition a shared space and that means that EVERYONE on them has to pull their head from their ass and be considerate of other people - something people seem to increasingly struggle with these days!
Point 3 - forget about cyclists, not all walkers like dogs or like dogs jumping up at them, so keep your dog on a lead out of consideration for others and of course https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public
I'd second that. My daughter was bitten by an off the lead dog in a public place when she was young. She is understandably very wary of dogs, the owner saying 'he's just being friendly' when they rush up to you doesn't really cut it.
I also have a feeling a minority of owners use the dog being off the lead as a convenient way to not notice when their pet takes a dump. I have on occasion alerted a dog owner to the fresh 'n steaming pile left by their pet, to be met with feigned surprise.
That said, you have to ride slowly around people on a shared path and be prepared to stop.
My wife is nervous around dogs and I tried to train her (ahem!). Explained about trying not to react, looking away, keeping hands down, turning away, and all the things I had picked up from guide dog puppy training.
I encouraged her to ignore the dog and not raise her hands but keep them quietly by her sides. She did this when approached by a dog, got bitten on the hand for her troubles followed by a "He doesn't bite" from the owner - who wasn't interested in seeing the bite mark (broken skin, but nothing worse) as they scuttled off quickly.
No chance of a dog for Mr S with Mrs S MkII now.
Using personal experience as a gauge...
- number of dogs I've hit whilst riding = 0
- number of dogs that have bitten me whilst cycling = 2
- number of untethered dogs that have chased my whilst cycling = a fair amount - lost count.
But, yeah, cyclists need to take greater responsibility
It's not untenable to expect dog owners to keep dogs on a short lead on shared paths.
It's the highway code.
If we want everybody to be safe then everybody must obey the rules.
Technically it's "under close control" which allows for well trained dogs... and dubious arguments in court
The exact wording is:
56
Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders.
Seems pretty unambiguous to me.
I think the underlying law is different, so although the HWC is saying use a lead, the law that underwrites it says different. But yes, I happily stand corrected
96 comments in, has anyone actually answered the question
No, because like any safety debate there isn't really an answer which isn't draconian.
To make it safer for everyone, my thoughts are, it should be legislated that
I think that covers most of the main dangers on shared use paths, along with sufficiently severe punishments for failure to comply. I might have missed a few so feel free to add some.....
Dogs should have licences* and display number plates. A polite bark is an acceptable substitute for a bell. Aggressive barking is not acceptable and is subject to a £10,000 fine.
People should have licences and display number plates when on the public highway.
*37.5p when last issued, IIRC.
I'd be in favour of this, and between us my partner and I have as bad a case of N+1 when it comes to dogs as we do for bikes. Here we are in Honor Elliot's Dogs By Bike Twitter series
You should have to pass a test that demonstrates basic competence in owning, caring for and controlling a dog, and some understanding of canine behaviour.
Immediate action, for the UK would be making ones in towns / cities at least twice as wide - or as wide as possible, most UK ones are barely the minimum for bikes never mind bikes and pedestrians. Then very clearly marking a separate cycling and pedestrian area. Initially this will of course be ignored by most people but will get them used to the next change which is:
Taking space back from motor traffic / parking so we don't need shared use paths? These are always conflicted because often there are very few / no traffic-free options for journeys by foot or bike, for pleasant walking, for taking your dog out, where you're not worried about the kids running in front of a bus.
So making them not shared use paths? Except where they're not really a path at all (similar idea means bikes and cars can "share" too). Or where there are fewer cyclists than cities and even fewer pedestrians.
LTN 1/20 Cycle infrastructure design describes how to do this - see section 8.2 Managing user conflict
Agree but councils just say "you lost me at 'guidance' " or if they get further "sorry - 'planning for cycling' - we're not" or "we'd love to but budget / staff shortages / consulting".
If they actually followed this intelligently it'd be a rather good start. None of it sounds like 95%+ of shared-use paths:
4.2.15 on its own is enough to bring about a media apocalypse in the UK!
But there's more! There's references to cycle speeds typically being 10 - 15mph with 25 - 40mph in some circumstances. And consideration given to minimum sizes and turning radii of all kinds of cycles.
Shared-use paths are annoying, inconvenient and often unpleasant for both foot and cycle users, but the actual danger level on them is really small.
Cambridge is riddled with shared-use, the legacy of previous councils feeling they should do something for all those bike riders, but not wanting to do anything that'd inconvenience drivers in any way or encourage even more people to ride bike. I live 8km from the centre of town. I could ride most of that on shared-use paths.
Loads of footways were converted to shared-use by the addition of those magical blue signs that turn a section of roadway where cycling presents such a danger to pedestrians that it's illegal into a section of roadway where it's absolutely fine. Amazing!
But in fact it is largely fine. The number of reports of actual collisions on shared-use paths here is microscopic.
Of course when a serious collision happens it makes the news, which is why we're discussing it here: news is reporting of rare events.
My point was really less about 'what do we need to do?', and more about the fact that pretty much everybody had entirely ignored that question and leapt straight into 'WHO SHOULD WE BLAME??' mode.
Up there in terms of magic effect, as when passing a cyclist with a gap of about 300mm is dangerous, but put a white line on the ground between them and it becomes OK
This story is the usual 'he said, she said'.. it seems fault is shared, as dogs should be properly leashed on a shared path but cyclists should pass pedestrians and animals at a slow speed, which allows time to react to unpredictable movements.
So by the walkers own admission in the video, the cyclist left the shared use path and passed the dog walkers on the grass beside the path and the dog was not on the lead.
It is possible that the cyclist was going too fast, that they didn't give enough space going past the dog walkers and that despite not being on the lead the dog was under close control.
It is also possible that the cyclist spotted the dog walkers and the other dogs who were blocking the entire path, rang their bell, slowed down and when the walkers ignored their presence decided to leave the path giving the people and other dogs plenty of space. Having passed the walkers and the other dogs and then the spaniel darted out from the trees/undergrowth in front of the cyclist where they had no time to react at all and this caused the collision.
There is just no way to tell who is at fault.
When I was a young nipper in secondary school, I was walking home from school and two old dears were progressing slowly ahead, one with a dog on a lead. I easily caught up with them and there was space on the side next to the houses so I aimed to pass them that side. Just as I went passed, her dog suddenly lurched in front of me to sniff the wall. I did a kind of skip-hop step to avoid contact and hitting the dog or myself tripping over. The noise of the manouvre also caused her dog to jump back in shock. Straight away I was being accused of kicking her dog. I was mortified as I wouldn't do anything to deliberately hurt and animal yet she kept on accusing me. In the end I stated if I had kicked her dog, she would definitely have known it and stormed off.
My point being that an owner not bothered about paying attention to their dog will assume it is the humans fault, especially if they were not looking. I'm actually surprised they waited two days to go the vets as well, especially if it squealed like he mentioned.
I'm not absolving the cyclist either. But as other have mentioned, they went on the grass to give a wide berth, and stopped straight away once they knew they had done this. Just a shame that the dog got so injured as it was the only truly innocent party here.
Pages