[Closed] Dogs at Trail Centres?

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?

[img] [/img]

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.

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 [b]selfish or a cock[/b],

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 [b]well trained[/b] 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 😉

[img] [/img]
He's ready!

[img] [/img]
Prep the bike

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
Even watches mtb DVD's when he gets back!

and if you don't like it
[img] [/img]

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.

I agree with TJ. When I drive I like to drive hard and anyone who can't pedal at 60mph can feel the wrath of the Berlingo (yes, it can do 60mph) 😈

I have to say I'm not a fan of dogs at trail centres, I can see the possibility of accidents to both riders and dogs. Having said that, I've come across it a few times, never actually seen an accident.

As long as the owners take full responsibility for the actions and consequences of taking their dogs on the trails then I don't have a problem.

Any dog owner that says 'oh my dog would never do that' is a ****ing idiot.

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

I personally don't make any more allowances for cyclists than I do for drivers, we don't need it if we all follow the same rules and if we're all careful we get along well together (read as green/blue routes). However I'd be a bit miffed if a road marked specifically for powered vehicles (motorways) had idiot cyclists all over it (read as red and black routes). I really can't understand how this concept is difficult to grasp. I'm not suggesting riding like an idiot, I'm not suggesting being blatently disrespectful of people, I'm suggesting that cyclists should have right of way on a cycle-specific park red/black route, not people, or dogs.

I'm not arguing that I'm right under the law now, I'm arguing that the law is wrong and I'd happily challenge it in court if the need arose. Out of interest, a quick re-read of the "code" says:

Sports pitches
You cannot exercise access rights on any sports pitch, playing field or other areas set out for a recreational purpose (such as for archery or other target sports) while it is in use and take account of grounds maintenance operations.

One could reasonably assume that a set of cycle trails set aside for cycling and being used for cycling (i.e. if the centre is not shut) is specifically an area set aside for recreational purpose and as such doesn't fall under the outdoor access rights.

Coffeeking.

I'm suggesting that cyclists should have right of way on a cycle-specific park red/black route, not people, or dogs.

Maybe they should - but they don't in law as it stands

I'm not suggesting riding like an idiot,

One could reasonably assume that a set of cycle trails set aside for cycling and being used for cycling (i.e. if the centre is not shut) is specifically an area set aside for recreational purpose and as such doesn't fall under the outdoor access rights.

You cannot assume that. it needs a test case. Without a test case to state that, the trails have exactly the same legal status as all other trails - open for all with pedestrians having priority.

this is quite clear from other cases - nature trails that bikes used to be banned on are now open to all. You cannot have your cake and eat it.

But you refuse to ride within the limits of what you can see

how can you see what's on the bottom of large drop off????

Do you suggest we stop riding them and take chicken runs instead or get off and push?

And before you come back with the "injured rider on the landing response", don't bother.

Maybe they should - but they don't in law as it stands

I've not disagreed with this statement.

But you refuse to ride within the limits of what you can see and say that if anyone gets in your way and you injure than thats tough.

That's your view. I'd suggest anyone walking on the trail was an idiot and I'm riding it as it was intended.

You cannot assume that. it needs a test case. Without a test case to state that, the trails have exactly the same legal status as all other trails - open for all with pedestrians having priority.

Legally, yes you're right (as I've said, and I'm getting bored of saying!) but common sense says otherwise. Unless walkers/dog walkers purposefully go out of their way to force their legal right to walk down a marked MTB trail in order to prove that they have priority I don't see this being a huge issue. I can't see why anyone would do that when there's plenty of other places to do such activities, but some people are very odd at times. It doesnt stop me pointing out that taking dogs on a fast MTB trail is stupid, as is pootling along on a red/black route with kids, as is walking on one.

this is quite clear from other cases - nature trails that bikes used to be banned on are now open to all. You cannot have your cake and eat it.

I'm not particularly one for having cake and eating it in this case. I don't see the issue at all here, on bike specific areas bikes should have priority to prevent other users spoiling the bikers fun. If someone marks some trails as walker-specific I'll not ride down them to prevent me spoiling the walkers fun. On any other trails, unmarked in any way, I'll happily accept equal use of the land and ensure I tread carefully around people.

I've never argued that I was right in the eyes of the law, you seemed to assume I was. I was arguing that a) the walker is possibly in the wrong depending on how you read the clauses and b) the law is not following common sense. I cannot determine how a judge would see such a case, but I'd made damn sure this point of mine was heard as I just can't see any problems caused by it and I can't see how such a common-sense approach is not in the interest of both parties.

Anyway, I have a birthday meal to go to - enjoy your evening all!

Ok - you win. You have the right to ride trail centres with no consideration for others at all. You can ride over anyone - biker walker or any dog who gets in your way and bask in the fact you think you are morally right despite being legally wrong.

<still answering another post so I'll reply again>

Ok - you win. You have the right to ride trail centres with no consideration for others at all. You can ride over anyone - biker walker or any dog who gets in your way and bask in the fact you think you are morally right despite being legally wrong.

I see, so walkers (who you admit have priority at the moment) on normal walking trails have the right to walk all over me if I get in their way? No, but they DO have priority currently and bikers/horse riders should move out of the way/be careful of them, not vice versa.

Please don't try to extend things to stupid extremes to try to justify your argument, it just looks like you're unable to argue your side which we both know you can. Switching priorities depending on land use is hardly complex or difficult to achieve, especially when it's signed already and is in the best interest of both parties. In fact I can see only one slight complexity at the moment and thats if someone walks into a trail mid-trail rather than at a junction, which could be considered to be a point at which you need to assess what sort of trail it is and make sure you're careful if you dont know what priority you have. Sure we could all go with the easy option of no-one has priority but then we could all sit at home on the sofa in case something bad happens too, but it's hardly advisable.

I just got fed up of you ignoring the point. You accept the provisions of the law but think them against common sense and against what you want to do so you will ignore them

You also ignore the whole ethos of the LRA which is all about reasonable behaviour and consensus and sharing.

Yes a walker on GT red is stupid - and I have seen them do it and advised them that there are more sensible routes but they still get there. The original point was about dogs any you don't want them on the trails because they might spoil your chance to race around with no consideration for others. So might children or slower folk - you seem to want them off the trail as well.

Have a think - your position makes no logical sense.

I just got fed up of you ignoring the point. You accept the provisions of the law but think them against common sense and against what you want to do so you will ignore them

I never said I would ignore them, I just said that is what should be the case.

You also ignore the whole ethos of the LRA which is all about reasonable behaviour and consensus and sharing.

No I don't, I simply pointed out that a bike trail centre is a location with a specific recreational purpose and, as such, does (or at least should) hold true to the LRA which says such areas are not "open access" when in use.

Yes a walker on GT red is stupid - and I have seen them do it and advised them that there are more sensible routes but they still get there. The original point was about dogs any you don't want them on the trails because they might spoil your chance to race around with no consideration for others. So might children or slower folk - you seem to want them off the trail as well.

I dont think a fast-paced singletrack is a place for people to have dogs that are ultimately out of control. I also think that taking children or very slow people on a course where they cannot keep up with the general speed of the average red/black skill-level rider is dangerous and stupid. If you want open-access, don't mark the trails as bike trails and don't make trails that are designed to be ridden at speed around bends. Do you know how many trails feature blind bends with 45 degree berms in them that you NEED to hit at full tilt just to make use of the berm? If they're not meant to be used fast, don't design them that way.

Those positions make perfect sense. I'm not sure how you can argue those points other than under the test of "is it legally the case now", which is what you've been trying to do from the start. I've never argued your current legal point of view, from the start, I am fairly sure you're right about it, but I don't think it should be the case.

Any dog owner that says 'oh my dog would never do that' is a **** idiot.

that's pretty much all of them

I also think that taking children or very slow people on a course where they cannot keep up with the general speed of the average red/black skill-level rider is dangerous and stupid.

Its this attitude that gets to me. I am slower than the average round the red especially on the tandem on some sections. I'm not allowed on there anymore? My pals 11 yr old kid was even slower than me ( just 🙂 ) - but loved it. Not allowed either?

I think riding without accepting that their may be slower and less skilful folk about and that there are unforeseen hazards possible foolish and dangerous.

I guess we are actually not as far apart in view as this thread appears. Its about where you draw the line of reasonable. Both got somewhat sidetracked into minutae

To go back to the OP - a well trained dog that is no hazard is reasonable in my view. A badly trained dog that might be a hazard is not.

Depends on how they are trained.. I have a pair of sheep dogs originally trained to run with motorbikes they are as stupid as any other dog when out on a walky ride, sniffing and not always noticing if you get too close however as a basic courtesy they respond to being shouted at very well. 'Get Lost' causes them to get out of the way of anyone approaching them, '**** off' and they will run away off and away from any track to a point they cant be seen or far enough a way a stick or stone wont reach them. I would think that sufficient , I have ridden where riders are accompanied by kids on bikes with no spatial awareness, liable to stray in about any direction without warning whilst the parent rides ahead willing them to keep up without watching them that have been far more dangerous than many dogs I have seen

To go back to the OP - a well trained dog that is no hazard is reasonable in my view. A badly trained dog that might be a hazard is not

who makes the assessment? how are they qualified to make it?

does a

a well trained dog

despite TJ's expert views above I feel that any trail centre on land that is not "open access" or on a PROW that encourages dog walkers on or off bikes and does not adequately warn all riders to the potential hazard is leaving themselves open to action when an accident occurs. Especially as the centre will have better insurance and will be easier to chase for damages.