Corbally to UL Riverpath and Dogs

It's a local facility for residents who have been walking their dogs there for a long, long, long time before that bike route existed. Some signs being stuck up a year ago aren't going to change that, especially when they almost certainly have no legal basis. You are cycling in their local facility not the other way around, and you need to be aware of that and cycle with care. If you are finding it dangerous you are cycling far too fast for what is a path shared with walkers, not an exclusive cycle lane.

chicorytip wrote: »

The local authority is responsible for enforcement of the law in this instance so any signage forbidding certain activities does indeed have a legal basis.

Nope. There has to be a specific bylaw stating that dogs must be kept on a lead there and there isn't. Any signs stating dogs must be on a lead there have no legal basis whatsoever. Dogs have to be under control, they don't have to be on leads on the riverbank.

chicorytip wrote: »

If the original poster here were to fall from his bicycle and suffer serious injury as a result of colliding with an unleashed dog I presume he would be fully entitled to pursue an action for damages against its owner, through the courts.

You presume wrongly. The OP could try but could equally be sued by the dog owner for injury to the dog and be found liable if it was deemed that he(?) was cycling too fast. It's a shared path not a cycling lane. That path is often chockablock with elderly/impaired walkers, toddlers trotting about, small children zooming about on scooters and balance bikes, people with buggies, joggers, optimistic rollerskaters/bladers (the path isn't really smooth enough for it but some try). I know at least one blind man who walks along there twice daily and regularly see wheelchair users. In places it's quite narrow and has various blindspots. Cyclists are welcome on and encouraged to share the path but it's not safe for any of the users if they don't match their speed to the conditions.

Anyone cycling at a speed where they feel endangered by dogs running about is cycling too fast because there is no 'danger' created by a dog running about that isn't also created by a 2 year old on a balance bike or a pair of four year olds having a race. And in fact the greater danger may well be to the more vulnerable path user, the child or the dog, rather than the cyclist. They are certainly a much greater danger to a blind walker. Just like a driver needs to ignore the 50kph speed limit that most roads in housing estates are set at and drive at a much lower speed on streets where there is a strong possibility of children running out from behind a parked car. A cyclist on a riverbank walkway in a busy city suburb, needs to adjust their speed accordingly.

I'm the first to advocate for cyclists. They are the most vulnerable of road users and should be able to cycle where they need to in the safest manner possible. Tbh, I think cyclists should be allowed to cycle on any footpath if no safe bikelane exists on their route. I'd rather share my footpath with a bike than force a cyclist to share a road with a lorry. But when cyclists are sharing a route way with pedestrians they have to remember that they are the ones who represent the bigger danger to more vulnerable users. And the Shannon riverpath is not a dedicated bikelane.

(There are also occasionally horses tied up along the path who may have crossed the path straining a rope that's a few inches off the ground. Super dangerous for anyone cycling too fast to observe and react in time.)