You criticise people in the inner suburbs who let their dogs sit in the yard all day (I agree wholeheartedly), but then you criticise them for walking their dogs anywhere near you, and you criticise everyone else for living in the outer suburbs at all (Narre Warren etc). There really aren’t very many scenarios in which the common joe meets with your approval, are there?

“selfish dog owners and the political pressure they apply”

Yeah, I hear the dog walking lobby are real big on Spring St.

As for apologia (and I’ll think you’ll find the Labour Party and even the Greens are apologists where capitalism is concerned), I find it exasperating that anyone willing to follow the path of logic through a discourse is labeled an apologist whenever that course veers from views held by those around them. Rather than bandying bite-size portions of Latin, perhaps you might want to ask yourself whether there really IS a hole in your argument.

Respectfully, I don’t think you’re arrogant – I just think you’re irrational. I’ll let it go, but honestly, a little ‘live and let live’ wouldn’t kill you. You’re not Dennis Miller – the florid prose and the scattershot trivia just make you seem kind of, well… over-zealous.

If you want your selfish behaviour to stand up to scrutiny – make sure it injures the fewest people the least amount. Walk your dog on the leash except in designated zones allocated for that purpose, not amongst others vulnerable to your actions. Drive your car carefully around cyclists, and share what that particular surface is for – everyone permitted to be there. Advocate for facilities that cater to your needs without impinging on others’ safety and security and right to free movement. I don’t deliberately ride my bike across open space in front of dog walkers – they should oblige by staying the heck away from me and what any sentient adult should recognise as my projected path.

Don’t know where you got all that hyperbolic bilge about “unravelling the threads of western civilization”, from some Liberal Party apologia, maybe?. TV: the only damage it does is to the worldviews of the the people who are addicted to it, who then go on to vote for idiots coz that’s what it told them to do – my beef is with selfish dog owners and the political pressure they apply who presume ownership of space just because they can – the length of their leash or the distance of receptivity of their mutt to a call. The dogs themsleves are relatively blameless.

“The majority of urban dogs”

Which reads as ‘I guess your excuse flies, sort of, but everyone else who disagrees with me is an idiot’. As I’ve said, dogs live a long time, and peoples lives change. They move, or neighbourhoods are redeveloped, or any number of things. Along with dogs, we also don’t strictly need TVs – they waste natural resources, people have been known to do without, and they’re not even alive – so let’s do away with those too. You don’t need this blog, so wham, gone! The moment you try and pick at one thread in the materialist fabric of a capitalist nation, the whole thing comes apart.

My beef, Mark, is that I don’t see why you’re wasting time blaming dogs for a lack of infrastructure, especially when (if you’ve been cycling for any period of time) you’ve no doubt been on the receiving end of the exact same victim-blaming nonsense.

People like dogs. They also like pointlessly powerful cars, trashy magazines, and voting in idiots who promise lower taxes and deliver by never spending more than absolutely have to (hence the current state of the PBN). And you plan to make the cycling world a better place by… eliminating dogs from the inner suburbs? C’mon.

If we count dissuading would-be thieves, then yes, at least once that I (with the aid of neighbours and police) can prove. This, to throw my own bit of trivia into the ring, is what has lead to the virtual genetic extinction of the dingo – shortly after colonisation indigenous tribes grew to favour the barking dogs of the Europeans because they did, in fact, alert the tribe to attack by neighbours.

Not that security is reason I have dogs – my partner and I inherited them when her mother died. Dogs can live twenty years, and life and landscape can change significantly in that time.

Since repeating ourselves seems to be the name of the game, once again;

“Mostly poorly trained enough so they act like spoiled children whenever they are out, and allowed to do what the hell they want?
Sounds like a great combination – spoilt, erratic, … – and proud of it – [cyclists] destroying the utility of some of the only space allowed for point-to-point [driving] that does not involve jousting with trucks.”

As dogs are, in fact, in full control of their bowels, I have chosen to omit ‘incontinent’. When they do choose to relieve themselves, the council has thoughtfully provided (they do that now and then) little biodegradable bags. Which is actually irrelevant – that you don’t see the point of dogs is neither here nor there.

My point is simple. The moment we leave our houses – whether by car, bike, or pogo stick – we all have a duty of care to those around us. To imply that our duty of care is non-binding when concerned with things we don’t personally like is a bit silly. By that logic I should be able to careen into anyone wearing ultra-skinny jeans, or baseball caps 10cm above their ears, or those ridiculous Crocs sandal things.

The worst bit is the notion that dog walkers should take into consideration a bicycle network (“on the PBN, no less”) of which neither they nor most cyclists have ever heard; a ‘network’ cobbled from odds and ends to foster the illusion of a network.
Your original point if I’m not mistaken – poorly designed, non-specific infrastructure. I’d consider re-reading the Santayana quote. I’ve pointed out the one thing you’ve said that I believe to be inconsistent, and now you’re turning your argument on its head in order to support your totally meaningless dislike of dogs.

Just chill and slow down, that’s it.

What about – causing the most noisome substance in the everyday urban environment – dog shit? The majority psychotic and malajusted from being cooped up for most of the hours a day? Mostly poorly trained enough so they act like spoiled children whenever they are out, and allowed to do what the hell they want?

Sounds like a great combination – spoilt, erratic, incontinent – and proud of it – animals destroying the utility of some of the only space allowed for point-to-point cycling that does not involve jousting with trucks. And that’s just their owners.

It’s all very ha-ha funny to compare dogs to speed humps, but I seem to remember seeing some stickers on bull-bars earlier today making a similar quip about pedestrians. Simply put – if you are going fast enough to put anyone or anything at risk, you are either going too fast, or not paying attention.

Drivers have a right to drive, cyclists have a right to cycle, and tootlers have the right to tootle. So groan inwardly, certainly, but such is life. You know? We can’t very well chastise motorists for trying to wish the bicycle out of existence, and then seek to abolish both dogs and walks along the creek for the same reason. The world would be a miserable place without any of these things.

NB: I’m with you on the dedicated bike paths, but until we get them I have to say that the dog issue really gets my back up – and not in defense of fellow cyclists. We know there’s a good chance dogs might be on the path, and we know how best to avoid them. The dog, meanwhile, is a dog. A leash may provide some measure of control, but a remote control it ain’t. The onus is on us to moderate our speed – in much the same way the onus is on the motorist to moderate theirs on the asphalt. It slows us down, and it’s annoying, but they are ’shared’ paths after all. Nothing is more infuriating than a selfish cyclist barreling down a shared path at 30k+, locking up the brakes and hurling abuse at you because your dog picked that exact moment to cross the path and sniff a patch of grass. I doubt that’s you (your point after all, is that shared paths are annoying _because_ of this responsibility), but the common thread is the notion of an ‘erratic dog’ that neatly transfers blame for any incident (actual or narrowly avoided) from the person best equipped to deal with it, to the dumb animal. It’s faulty logic and it achieves/prevents little – like cursing a tram track for being slippery.