Coffeeeking – trail centres may be purpose built cycle tracks but they sure as hell ain't race tracks and shouldn't be treated as such, chill out & take it easy.

Or bikes on a road?

Sorry, definitely last post 😉

tee hee 😉

…both skills and vehicle.

My dogs are far greater skilled than me, they have 4 legs, and have clocked close to 40mph going downhill before….

Seriously, I think this thread has concluded that people disagree on dogs at trail centres.

Although I diagree with mi©k, I love his retortes 🙂

Regardless of how stpuid dog owners can be if they choose the path of Violence Against the Person offences, they will only end up fined and on community service

Mind you most dog owners are dafter than thier dogs!

I am cleverer than my dog because I dont sleep in the shed.

Coffeeeking – trail centres may be purpose built cycle tracks but they sure as hell ain't race tracks and shouldn't be treated as such, chill out & take it easy.

I'm markedly chilled Dicky, my point is that they ARE there for riding fast and hard, not for dawdling about (reds/blacks) so if you're not willign to go AT them, dont go ON them. My point is that I'm not selfish or a cock, I'm the one that generally gets out of other peoples way so as not to spoil their day. I would hope others would feel the same sense of responsibility.

ahhhhhhhhh this old chestnut again! i have 2 border collies, they come with me on most of my local rides/runs and i have also (as maverick boy pointed out earlier) taken one of them to cwmcarn with no probs what so ever. he is always infront and can hear you coming and will move to the side of the trail. i think common sense has a lot to do with dogs at trail centres, but the small minority without this ruin it for everyone! oh and the stupid remarks about if the dog causes me to crash i'll punch/run over/kill etc the owner….GROW UP

rickon i dont agree with most of what i say but it makes me chuckle . getting threatened to have my teeth knocked out over the net lol i was sweating like a para on a spelling test til i realised he couldnt reach me thru cyberspace 😉

mick that was just to make your ludicrous comment about your front wheel look like what it was. You were trying to make a joke about injuring someone's dog by deliberately running into it. Apparently you think that is quite normal, but can't see how the retort makes it look stupid.

Well, I'm off out for a nice crisp ride around Castell Coch with me dogs 🙂

Nothing better and having your dog race you down some secret singletrack….

glen ive hit a tree before avoiding a dog (on a bloody extending lead) and if it came to me coming off worse like going into rocks or something or hitting a dog id hit the dog

just like i would in a car

Oh, and I can only assume that people have very fast dogs if they even remotely keep up with you on the downs, I've never seen a dog run sustained at 25+mph over rough terrain? I agree with mick on the choosing injury or dog, to some extent, but I would make sure I had no other choice first – I like animals, not dogs particularly but I wouldn't want to hurt one un-necessarily and it's not it's fault its silly owner took it to a bike park for its exercise instead of paying it the specific attention it needs <dons flame suit>.

So why didn't you just slow down to near walking pace when you came upon the dog on a lead?

it appeared from the undergrowth all i could do was swerve its owner was further in the woods with and extending lead out all the way

If you care about your dogs, you wouldnt want to put them at risk.

i think that sums it up

glen – not defending Micks comment but dogs and their leads are not always visible, nor are they predictable. I have a friend who has a broken collarbone because a dog on an extendy lead ran out into a main road inches in front of him, he had no chance to stop. Unless you expect all cars and bikes to slow to walking pace near pedestrians in case they step out? You're not living in "keeping up appearances" are you?

Fair enough – can't imagine that happening again, sounds like a freak incident. So what you were threatening about breaking your wheel on a dog was indeed pretty silly in other words. Which is what I was trying to show.

all that said my mate has a massive mastiff id rather hit a tree than that it would cause less damage 😉

i hate my dogs which is why i take them out with me so hopefully they will get hurt! 😈 ****

coffeeking – don't be dumb. An extending lead has a button on it to restrict its extension, for example if you're next to a road.

Off road if you come across someone on foot, with or without dog, slow down.

glen if i had to choose between a tree and a dog the dog would lose out everytime (apart from if it were bigger than the tree)

coffeeking – don't be dumb. An extending lead has a button on it to restrict its extension, for example if you're next to a road.

How am I being dumb? I'm aware of the operation of the lead. I'm also aware that many dog owners dont use it (and that cyclists with dogs are even less likely to use it). What's your point?

Off road if you come across someone on foot, with or without dog, slow down.

If I see them in time, on a cycle path, I will, but I'll be mildly peeved that they are in the way on a cycle route. If I come round the corner on a fast cycle track and find them wandering blindly I'll naturally try to avoid hitting them as I don't want to injur them or me, but I don't think it should be the cyclists responsibility on a cycle path to avoid non-cycling users. Another (I'm sure you'll say spurious etc) example – you don't stray into the english channel in a little happy sailing dinghy and expect the ships to move, they're in the shippign channel, if you want to sail your little pleasure boat take it OUT of the area designated for shipping. Its just common sense.

that said yes it was a freak accident which scarred me for life (literally lol) so in most cases they could probably be avoided i just dont see that they should be on a purpose built cycle curcuit.

anyway enough of this dog talk im going to put some bread at the bottom of the garden so i can throw stones at greedy birds 😉

btw that really is a joke

I find myself agreeing with coffeeking here. I don't think it should be the motorist's responsibility on a road to avoid non-motorised users! Common sense you see 🙂

glen – I think you missed the joke in micks post. Thats what I took it as not a threat to damage a dog.

Coffeeking – you are so out of order it simply that you must be a leyland car!

on a *bike* trail bikes have right of way and are the expected user

wrong. No one has right of way in the countryside except walkers. Go look at the law. even in england trail centres are not closed off to the public.

It's a trail there for a high speed, technically demanding sport that has some risks. One of those risks is being hit if you crash. If you don't like it, stick to bridleways or green routes.

Wrong. Tril centres are for riding bikes as you think fit, not as some wannabe downhiller thinks fit. If you cannot stop safely in the space you can see you are going too fast – and if you injured someone because you were riding too fast then you would be liable for the injuries caused. Duty of care and reasonable precautions.

my point is that they ARE there for riding fast and hard, not for dawdling about (reds/blacks) so if you're not willign to go AT them, dont go ON them. My point is that I'm not selfish or a cock,

Really? You should be able to stop within what you can see at all times.

Please don't come to Scotland. Behaving as you seem to want to do is clearly against the provisions of the law. All you will do is put peoples backs up.

dogs and cycling dont mix sorry, and i may be opening a can of worms but i thought dogs was only allowed off a lead in a public place more than 2 metres from a owner if they instantly obeyed owners commands, i may be wrong

if i started cycling around a designated dog walking area or park i am sure dog owners would go nuts..

dogs and cycling dont mix sorry, and i may be opening a can of worms but i thought dogs was only allowed off a lead in a public place more than 2 metres from a owner if they instantly obeyed owners commands, i may be wrong

if i started cycling around a designated dog walking area or park i am sure dog owners would go nuts.

and you ONLY ride where your supposed to?

Flatback – more or less. The dog must be under control at all times. Nowhere have I found a clear definition for this but to repond instantly to command and to be within sight of the owner seems reasonable.

The two dogs I have ridden with both were well trained and under control at all times. A call of "down" and they dropped on the spot, a call of "stop" and they did – instantly. A call of "heel" and the came immediately to heel

a dog that is well trained and used to running with a bike is no issue at all. simply none.

edit: How many of you that are against the dogs at trail centre have actually ridden with a well trained dog? I hate dogs and would like to see them banned. but while they are allowed then a well trained dog is no problem to theres. Thats almost the definition of a well trained dog

My 2p's worth.

Paddi is fanatical about bikes so why shouldn't he come along? I wouldn't take him at busy times such as weekends though as I wouldn't want some mincer falling off when he overtakes them 😉

He's ready!

Prep the bike

Even watches mtb DVD's when he gets back!

and if you don't like it

why does anyone care?
i dont have a dog and i dont see me getting one but why is passing someone with a dog or being passed a problem?
if you see a dog at a trail centre they are allways with some one and thats how it stays.you dont have to put up with it chewing on your arse all day.
just a case of folks looking for something to be angry about.

cancel all that ive met sheldons dog and like it , he has nice balls

Personally I think it's a bit inconsiderate to take them to trail centres. I like dogs well enough, but they're unpredictable however well trained they are, and when people come across your dog they have no idea how well trained it is. In practice this oftem means slowing right down till you're well clear of them.

Now, I understand I'm not king of the trails and other people can do what they like on them, but it just seems to me the onus is on dog owners to keep their dogs out of other people's way rather than on everybody else to avoid them. The best way of doing that at a trail centre is to leave them at home.

I just think it's a bit selfish TBH, although my goodwill towards dog owners has been eroded a lot lately by the attitude of some I come across on cycle paths and canal paths, and the amount of dog eggs around at the moment.

wrong. No one has right of way in the countryside except walkers. Go look at the law. even in england trail centres are not closed off to the public.

I covered that earlier, if we break it down to legal arguments, sure all have equal access, but it would be considered rather irresponsible of a walker/dog walker to go down a technical hard-grade cycle path specifically designed for bikes and marked as such.

Wrong. Tril centres are for riding bikes as you think fit, not as some wannabe downhiller thinks fit. If you cannot stop safely in the space you can see you are going too fast – and if you injured someone because you were riding too fast then you would be liable for the injuries caused. Duty of care and reasonable precautions.

I bike fast and don't want to stop for every other person and his dog toddling along, what makes my request more unreasonable than the dog owners? Considering the trail is for BIKES. It's COMMON SENSE not to walk on a bike trail, in the case of a person straying on then it's an ACCIDENT and it's not like people will simply not even try to avoid it. I'm not going too fast, too fast suggests a set of constraints that you're making up. The constraints you are making up are that everyone should be allowed to use any trail despite it being designed specifically for one purpose. That is a stupid constraint and I don't see any justification for it. If we are going to the legal side, I don't go to a mechanical workshop and start swinging a large scarf about near the machine tools because it isnt sensible and falls within the whole duty of care etc.

Really? You should be able to stop within what you can see at all times.

No, it's not a road and you're not Goan, it's a trail centre designed for riding a bike quickly overy tricky stuff. You want to reduce risks, you go on the green routes.

Please don't come to Scotland. Behaving as you seem to want to do is clearly against the provisions of the law. All you will do is put peoples backs up.

Too late, I live here, and as far as I'm concerned while yes I *may* be outside the law I'm not sure the walker is in any better situation when choosing to walk on bike-specific paths, or take responsibility for his dog being in the way on bike-specific paths. They ARE bike specific and marked as such. If they were not then fair enough.

If you want to have trail centres as just another place to poddle along in a dream or walk your dog, then fine, but don't expect me to agree. The law is an ass at times, this is one of those times. A few years ago a woman was killed when she crossed into the path of a land yacht in a race on a public beach. The race was marked and marshalled but the woman strayed in anyway. The beach and sports were shut down for 12 months while an inquiry was held, but then re-opened because it was deemed to be the womans fault for straying into an area marked for use by the yachters, even though the whole beach is public access same as scottish land. English law there but I'd hope the same common sense approach would be applied anywhere.

I find it slightly annoying that *some* dog owners seem to think their mutts have no effect on anyone else and should be allowed anywhere because they like going. They seem to assume they have complete control and their dogs are sensible. Hate to break it to you but you don't and they're rarely sensible when surprised. They don't belong on bike trails. I'd love to see them out in the hills, on a bridleway, in the woods. But don't take them to a bike centre, if you want to do that go elsewhere. Do I go and sunbathe on the Glentress trails? No, because it's not sensible even if I want to and have every right to be there doing that. Same applies to walkign a dog.

😆 😈 😈

Coffeking – you are not using your access reasonably. Its as simple as that. You arguments about the law are wrong simple as and you illustration about the sand yachts is not comparable unless you have marshals every time you go out on the trails.

If you hit anyone at a trail centre because you were going too fast to stop then you would be liable – trail centre or not, walker acting as a muppet or not.

the law is fairly clear – some test cases are needed but even on glentress black a pedestrian has right of way. There is a provision in the LRA for "land set aside for a specific purpose" but until this has been tested in court trail centres are not included in this.

Coffeking – you are not using your access reasonably. Its as simple as that. You arguments about the law are wrong simple as and you illustration about the sand yachts is not comparable unless you have marshals every time you go out on the trails.

I AM using it reasonably. It's reasonable to assume that on an area marked for a fast sport that I'm using it for a fast sport.
The land-yacht argument holds, the fact that there are marshalls simply tipped the argument in favour of the woman, not the yachters – her family argued there were not enough marshalls and that therefore the course was there dangerously. The judge disagreed because the course was clearly marked at its entry points.

If you hit anyone at a trail centre because you were going too fast to stop then you would be liable – trail centre or not, walker acting as a muppet or not.

Maybe so, but that doesnt mean it's not unfair to expect all the cyclists to slow for muppets who choose to act dangerously by getting in the way.

the law is fairly clear – some test cases are needed but even on glentress black a pedestrian has right of way. There is a provision in the LRA for "land set aside for a specific purpose" but until this has been tested in court trail centres are not included in this.

The law is far from clear, however I agree with you that it may be the case that pedestrian legally has right of way on that land, but my argument is that it IS set aside for another purpose and it IS signed as such, so it is equally irresponsible of the walker to get in the way on such a trail. Not to mention the common-sense side of it. Law aside, dogs and walkers on bike trails are not to be encouraged in general IMO. They're one of very few places that you might expect to be able to ride at full tilt, they are very limited in terms of percentage of available trails for multi-use so it's a bit daft using it as a multi-use and not very nice to the people wanting to use it for what it's set out for. I'm not being unreasonable, those walking/dog-walking (nearly said dogging!) on them are.

coffeeking – you need to have another look at the law and teh trail centres simple are not

an area marked for a fast sport that I'm using it for a fast sport.

Maybe so, but that doesnt mean it's not unfair to expect all the cyclists to slow for muppets who choose to act dangerously by getting in the way.

so car drivers don't need to make any allowance for cyclists on the road?

100% behind coffeking here

Trail centre Red/ black graded trails are there to be ridden hard and fast

Non cyclists have no business on them

Anyone taking their dog on them is a 'tard

Well why not enquire with someone who actually has jurisdiction and credibility – like someone who works at a trail centre? I think I know what they'll say.