Dulwich Park - (dog) walkers and cyclists

[edcam]

Indeed. Kids aside, it would be much more pleasant actually of cycling wasn't allowed in Dulwich Park.

[rendelharris]

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Indeed. Kids aside, it would be much more pleasant

> actually of cycling wasn't allowed in Dulwich

> Park.

Well there's not much point in discussing unselfish sharing with you then.

May I use this thread to thank the 99% of dogwalkers, children walkers et al in Dulwich Park who are absolutely lovely, polite and don't assume they have a Godgiven right to lord it over other legitimate park users. You're good people.

[rendelharris]

Curmudgeon Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it behoves cyclists in public parks to

> cycle at a sedate pace and be constantly aware of

> small children, dogs and pedestrians and adjust

> accordingly

>

> So yes, your OP was, in my view as a cyclist,

> mother and dog walker, unreasonable

We do, and we are. And apparently it's entirely unreasonable to ask others to extend the same level of courtesy to us, hey ho. I had a silly idea that society works best when we all look out for each other. Very naive of me, I now see.

[Curmudgeon]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Curmudgeon Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > I think it behoves cyclists in public parks to

> > cycle at a sedate pace and be constantly aware

> of

> > small children, dogs and pedestrians and adjust

> > accordingly

> >

> > So yes, your OP was, in my view as a cyclist,

> > mother and dog walker, unreasonable

>

> We do, and we are. And apparently it's entirely

> unreasonable to ask others to extend the same

> level of courtesy to us, hey ho. I had a silly

> idea that society works best when we all look out

> for each other. Very naive of me, I now see.

Yes it does work best when we all look out for each other, the point you are missing is that as a cyclist you are a functioning adult with reasoning skills and full control of your actions ..unlike a toddler, small child or dog who has seen a squirrel

I think most here have seen the odd racers who seem to think they have right of way in the park over and above those that have less impulse control ..and perhaps they are colouring you with that brush

[rendelharris]

Curmudgeon Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think most here have seen the odd racers who

> seem to think they have right of way in the park

> over and above those that have less impulse

> control ..and perhaps they are colouring you with

> that brush

I believe you're right - even though in my original post I did try to stress that I wasn't trying to offend anyone and in fact said: "There are a few cyclists, I know, who treat the road like a velodrome, charging round it at 25mph. They're jerks, and we are definitely not of their ilk!"

Yes of course children and dogs can't be controlled at all times and yes it's absolutely the job of the cyclist to watch out for their unpredictable behaviour - but isn't it also the job of a parent or dog owner to do the same? Even if they couldn't care less about cyclists' safety, surely they should be watching out for that of the child or pet? As I said above, most do a fabulous job of doing so and are highly considerate and polite, there's a tiny minority (most engrossed in their mobiles) who don't and aren't.

[edcam]

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Indeed. Kids aside, it would be much more pleasant

> actually of cycling wasn't allowed in Dulwich

> Park.

You have hundreds, possibly thousands of miles of cycling possibilities in London. Unless you're a kid, who needs a safe learning space, knock yourself out!

[rendelharris]

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You have hundreds, possibly thousands of miles of

> cycling possibilities in London. Unless you're a

> kid, who needs a safe learning space, knock

> yourself out!

I do, and in a perverse way I rather enjoy riding in traffic at high speed. As per my original post, Mrs.H has just got back into cycling after a thirty year hiatus and doesn't like cycling on the roads, so the broad carriageway in our local park, where cycling is permitted and indeed encouraged, is the ideal place for her to potter. You apparently think cycling should be banned in Dulwich Park, well you're entitled to your opinion. But until it is, which I hope will never be the case, how is it unreasonable just to suggest that cyclists should look out for dogwalkers and children and that dogwalkers and parents should extend the same courtesy to cyclists? It's a shame that you seem to regard a polite request for common courtesy as some sort of attack on the "rights" of others.

[keane]

Maybe parents with children and people with dogs should walk backwards around the carriageway so as to see rendelharris coming & get out of the way, or maybe that won't be necessary as everyone not on a bike will be on the pavement leaving the carriageway clear!

[rendelharris]

keane Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe parents with children and people with dogs

> should walk backwards around the carriageway so as

> to see rendelharris coming & get out of the way,

> or maybe that won't be necessary as everyone not

> on a bike will be on the pavement leaving the

> carriageway clear!

Ha. Ha. Ha. How utterly hilarious. Of course that couldn't happen as you've made it quite clear that nobody in the park should take any responsibility for their children, their dogs or indeed their own behaviour, all responsibility and all blame is attached solely to cyclists, about whom you appear to be somewhat fixated.

[mako]

No-one wants to use the pavement so maybe this could be put to better use e.g a cycle lane

[mako]

You have thousands of miles of walking possibilities in London, that is hardly the point.

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> edcam Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Indeed. Kids aside, it would be much more

> pleasant

> > actually of cycling wasn't allowed in Dulwich

> > Park.

>

>

> You have hundreds, possibly thousands of miles of

> cycling possibilities in London. Unless you're a

> kid, who needs a safe learning space, knock

> yourself out!

[civilservant]

rendelharris, a pity that your polite request has spawned war, but as a timid cyclist myself, I wouldn't choose a park to practice my moves, and I especially wouldn't expect special attention from grown-ups in a park, let alone children and dogs

the park-user hierarchy is the exact inverse of the hierarchy of road users - parks are the only public apace where children and dogs can hope to have priority of use, and be able to run around freely and safely off lead, so long as they are not actively being a nuisance. surely you can't disagree with that?

I agree with the other posters - just as pedestrians and dogs and children have to look out and defer to cyclists on the road, it's up to you (or your wife) as a cyclist to do the looking out in the park, not the other way round!

[rendelharris]

civilservant Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris, a pity that your polite request has

> spawned war, but as a timid cyclist myself, I

> wouldn't choose a park to practice my moves, and I

> especially wouldn't expect special attention from

> grown-ups in a park, let alone children and dogs

>

> the park-user hierarchy is the exact inverse of

> the hierarchy of road users - parks are the only

> public apace where children and dogs can hope to

> have priority of use, and be able to run around

> freely and safely off lead, so long as they are

> not actively being a nuisance. surely you can't

> disagree with that?

>

> I agree with the other posters - just as

> pedestrians and dogs and children have to look out

> and defer to cyclists on the road, it's up to you

> (or your wife) as a cyclist to do the looking out

> in the park, not the other way round!

Thank you for a rare reasoned response! I've tried to convey the fact that I entirely agree, the onus is very much on the cyclist; all I was asking was that we could meet, well, not even halfway, but a little bit of the way. Case in point today (in Burgess Park rather than Dulwich, but in much the same situation): a young 'un was riding her bike with stabilisers, wobbling across towards my line down the left of the road. I slowed and prepared to stop, mum called out "Just come back left darling out of that man's way." She did, I passed, gave mum a polite thank you and we all went on our way perfectly happy. That's what happens nearly all the time, just the occasional parent one comes across who doesn't pay the slightest attention to what their charge is up to, which can be aggravating and is irresponsible I think, because, without wanting to be holier than thou, not all adult cyclists are as careful and sedate as we are, so for the child's own safety a little more monitoring would seem sensible.

When you say: "I agree with the other posters - just as pedestrians and dogs and children have to look out and defer to cyclists on the road, it's up to you (or your wife) as a cyclist to do the looking out in the park" - absolutely spot on, but when I'm on the road I don't think I don't have to watch for pedestrians as they have to defer to me, I watch out for them. I've just basically been saying can't we all look out for each other, everywhere, for all our benefits, though certain people (those who I suspect would be happy to see cycles banned from the road as well) have chosen to interpret this as some sort of declaration of aggression and a demand to be allowed to do as we please. It wasn't!

[rendelharris]

mako Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No-one wants to use the pavement so maybe this

> could be put to better use e.g a cycle lane

Now there's a thought!

[civilservant]

thanks, that's what I thought you were asking for, but it seems to have blown up into Kennedy v Khrushchev!

good luck to your wife - I can sympathise from being in a similar situation. I do hope she's soon confident enough to venture onto the street!

[rendelharris]

civilservant Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> thanks, that's what I thought you were asking for,

> but it seems to have blown up into Kennedy v

> Khrushchev!

> good luck to your wife - I can sympathise from

> being in a similar situation. I do hope she's

> soon confident enough to venture onto the street!

Cheers, appreciate it - we got separated at RideLondon at the weekend and she got back to ED from Blackfriars OK, so she'll doubtless soon be outstripping me as she does at everything else! Have you thought of cycle training for confidence? She's doing it this Saturday and next at Burgess Park BMX track - all free, great initiative: http://www.cycleconfident.com/

[civilservant]

I did and have (in Dulwich Park as it happens!!!) just need to get on my bike again!

[rendelharris]

civilservant Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I did and have (in Dulwich Park as it happens!!!)

> just need to get on my bike again!

Good luck - the new segregated cycle paths have added a massively pleasurable new dimension to cycling in London, can't recommend them too highly.

[Toffee]

So why not stick to cycling on the segregated cycle paths that you "can't recommend too highly" and leave the rest of us alone to enjoy the park? You seem to want it all, but there again, you obviously have a strong sense of entitlement.

[rendelharris]

Toffee Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So why not stick to cycling on the segregated

> cycle paths that you "can't recommend too highly"

> and leave the rest of us alone to enjoy the park?

> You seem to want it all, but there again, you

> obviously have a strong sense of entitlement.

As others have noted, you really are quite unpleasantly aggressive, aren't you? Cyclists are permitted and indeed encouraged in Dulwich Park, and nobody has to justify riding there, particularly to those who aren't really interested in discussion but for obscure reasons of their own seem to get a kick out of being rude to strangers whilst hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.

[Toffee]

Aggressive?

[mako]

Sorry toffee but agree with rendal there. you accuse rendal of wanting it all despite numerous posts where they suggest sharing and co-operation but then indicate you want the track all to yourself. the cycle paths are very good routes for going places but not the same as the park for beginners. I am surprised that particularly in summer more people dont walk on the grass (esp with their dogs) and leave the tarmac for those who are in more need of it-i.e cyclists, disabled drivers, scooters, trikes, rollerblades, buggys, pushchairs, and those less able to walk on less flat surfaces. not that others shouldnt use it but surprised they wouldnt actually prefer the grass.

[Rosetta]

Are cyclist allowed to go on the dirt path that runs round the park on the dog area starting by Court Lane, behind the gardens?

[rendelharris]

Rosetta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Are cyclist allowed to go on the dirt path that

> runs round the park on the dog area starting by

> Court Lane, behind the gardens?

I don't see why not - it's a bridlepath for horses really, isn't it, but they seem to come into the park very rarely these days. But it would only be suitable for mountainbikes and even then it would be a bit like riding through treacle, and not easy to keep control on either - imagine trying to ride across a beach! Or do you mean the outer outer path that runs through the bushes? If that one I'd never ride on it, that would certainly lead to a danger of collision with dogs and their walkers which would then be entirely the cyclist's fault.

Contrary to the impression certain people have tried to give, I don't want all the park for cyclists, in fact I think they should stay out of nearly all parts of the park, just a clear 150cms down one side of the carriageway would be nice, leaving the other 6 metres free (yes I'm that sad, I measured it on Google Maps).

I love Mako's idea about turning the pavement into a cycle path, as apparently pedestrians would rather use the carriageway. I can't see Southwark funding that though, with a broad car-free carriageway to the side of it. Perhaps just a couple of signs - Cyclists stay within 150 cms of right kerb, maybe? Though as stated previously, 99% of park users are polite and mutually respectful already...

[Rosetta]

I meant the one through the bushes, at the back of the court lane house gardens and further round. I have seen quite a few mountain bikes there and it always surprises me.