In article , Robin Johnson wrote:
nully wrote:
With a couple of notable exceptions (and thank God for them,
otherwise I'd believe this place to be nothing but a nut-hatch) some
cyclists seem to be looking for ways to excuse this ******* just riding
away.

I wasn't, but you gave a pretty good one when you suggested that you'd
have been violent towards him.

Yes, but there's no reason to think that the dog owner in the original
story was violent or threatening. We've seen other anti-cyclist stories
turn out to be inaccurate later, but as presented the cyclist does appear
to have behaved badly even if the dog was wandering about not under proper
control. (And there's no particular reason to think it was, except that
it happens a great deal on shared use paths. Nor is there any reason to
think the cyclist would treat a child the same way, nor any mention of
actual injury to the dog.)