Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
most of them act like respnsible road users, and they are more green than cars or motorbikes. However the ones who go on pavements should be killed in a firebomb.
Because they have incredible voices
Amazing ears for a good track
Are becoming a really strong role model and voice for feminism for people who wouldn't necessarily be interested in that sort of thing
Are absolutely fucking beautiful
there are so many dicks amongst them now. Maybe it is because people who used to drive their BMWs into work have switched to lycra and a road bike.
wouldn't have been such a dramatic headline.
the minority of nice road abiding ones. You guys should have a word.
should we really be letting such careless animals lead people around?
on west george street, taking a man up a set of stairs into an office. it was the Samirtans, and the man was yelling at it NOOOOOOOO BERRRRT< that's NOT WHERE WE@RE BLOOODY GOING>
I don't think they are very good, I have on average successsfully diverted 45% of guide dogs from their tasks using maize snacks.
Why don't they super intelligent dogs?
pugs are a bit wee for the job :)
(well mine don't. they grunt and snuffle.)
and originally were bred to be so, like cows.
I saw a baby one squatting to take a toley. I think I posted about it on here, naturally.
also explains why there are so many blind folk outside the butchers
but I'll bite. My sister is blind and has had a number of Guide Dogs, they allow her to live a life where she is not as limited as she would be without them. She faces issues everyday with members of the public who want to treat her dog like they would a pet, by attempting to feed or stroking them while their harness is on and are working. When she tells them that she shouldn't be doing so, she more often than not gets abuse.
Her dog is responsible for safely navigating her and her 12 month old son around what is a very hazardous environment for someone without sight or limited sight. During the floods in the Newcastle, my sister's dog managed to get her home from work after 3 hours despite all the usual routes they used being blocked.
If a Guide Dog is injured or has to be retired, it can take months for a new one to be found (that suits the new owner) and then there is a training and familiarisation period meaning people are limited in what they are able to do. On top of that it costs thousands of pounds and massive amounts of volunteer support and hours to train a Guide Dog puppy to get to the point where it can enter Guide Dog Training and the failure rate for the dogs is 1 in 3.
we're talking about London dogs
I don't think anybody was being quite serious or denying the fact that they give peopel the most fantastic help. Just that when they go naughty (which happens) it's ok to laugh a wee bit. I have form for finding this fascinating (I used to be PickledOeuf.)http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4444947
po-faced. It's a sore spot for me as my sister has enough to deal with without people thinking they can distract her dog while it's working and then getting angry when she tries to explain why they shouldn't. She's also been abandoned by cab drivers who when they see that she has a guide dog will drive off leaving her vulnerable.
I've seen the amount of effort and dedication it takes to get a Puppy to the point that it can go into the full training, my Mum has one at the moment (it's going to break her heart when she has to send him on), so if they get injured by a selfish idiot on a bike it's a massive waste.
Dogs are so shit.
near where I work, they're very cute wee pups
if you cycle anywhere near a park they come at you from all angles not giving a fuck
makes out that ALL cyclists have been targeting a quarter of London's guide dogs, perhaps the ones that aren't golden retrievers because there's always the sneaking suspicion that they're not legit, and we all know cyclists are do-gooding pricks
I know charities can be dreadful for bending statistics to suit their arguments but this is appalling...
Obviously any cyclist who clatters into/obstructs a guide dog on duty deserves hard vitriol, but to whip the almost non-existent instances of it into a story is obscene.
if there are only 320 people using guide dogs in london, even on a wee sample of 33 people (their recruitment method sounds a bit shit and leading bu this is over 10% of the relevant population) the fact that 25 of those people reported a 'near miss' is definitely worth investigating more.
Like this is just a bit needlessly defensive "a) it's really stupid to turn such small numbers into percentages even if it does make your wholly useless survey look all sciencey"
if blind and visually impaired people want to feel safer and to campaign against careless cycling then fine... obviously there's a better way of doing that than this campaign but the survey isn't "wholly useless" just cause it's a relatively small sample.
also even for visually impaired people who don't have guide dogs, bad cycling is a pain in the arse. my dad's blind in one eye so his perception of space and distance is really limited. having someone cycling towards him or weaving around pedestrians on the pavement can startle him.
Not sure what more can be done to stop people cycling on the pavement, given this. Appealing to their emotions using blind people as a vehicle probably won't work. If you're the sort of person who cycles on the pavement, and carelessly at that, you're not going to give a shit about the plight of blind/partially-sighted people.
"If you're the sort of person who cycles on the pavement, and carelessly at that, you're not going to give a shit about the plight of blind/partially-sighted people." I'm not sure you can just say that without basis in empirical research...
how do you know that people who cycle on the pavement are aware of how their actions are impacting on disabled people?
Although adults cycling on the pavement for long-stretches, in most cases, shows a notable lack of consideration for other pedestrians. Including partially-sighted people.
Not sure how you'd empirically measure it but, y'know, this isn't the Lancet.
to stop people cycling on the pavement cause it's already against the law. but that assumes that the level of understanding/empathy whatever with disabled pedestrians is already high.
like, making cycling on the pavement more of a socially unacceptable thing to do cause it's shit for disabled people could be more effective than punitive measures of w/e.
it's more that they're self-selecting
as i said, the way it was presented ("do you have strong views about...") was leading. but i can sympathize with them being unable to get around the problem of self-selection since they're already working with a very small group of (i assume) hard to reach people.
There's a wider issue here about charitable campaigning and public trust. Public trust for charities has been on the wane for a few years now and incidents like this will just lead to more people distrusting them/feeling like their goodwill is being exploited. And it will mean, ultimately, fewer vulnerable peoples' voices will be listened to/given media time because charity campaigns will have cried wolf too many times.
Even if the end justifies the means in this instance, sloppy campaigning like this damages the entire sector's ability to speak compellingly long-term.
but my point was that the study itself is not "wholly useless"
Even the really bad ones tell you something about the people who put it together.
Dancing on a pinhead a bit here...
but was itself slightly unfair to the people who conducted the survey
has on their records for London, presumably..
so that seems weirdly low for London with around 20% of the UK's population.
because it's less accessible
To be honest, the whole thing looks like a slightly amateurish branch of a large national charity trying to generate a bit of press coverage, succeeding a bit too well, and then being open to more scrutiny than they ever expected for what was clearly a very limited survey.
because cities tend to be
a) better set up in terms of general accessibility for blind people, and
b) because guide dogs' effectiveness is reduced in busy cities.
Guide dogs are typically targeted at blind people who don't have the support networks to manage on their own.
tbh, i've not read anything about why blind people might not want to live in london
There are just over 40,000 registered blind people in London, out of 360,000 in the UK, which is about 12%, not too far off the 13% of the UK population that live in Greater London.
it's a bit of trickery designed to mislead, just as it's done in the thread title here. That is, the difference between the carefully worded reporting of the survey results ("42% of respondents") versus the "42% of all London guide dog users" that it's being reported as.
None of which would be a problem if self-selection wasn't a big problem here, but that tweet from the londonguidedogs account is damning. Like, awful practice: it's saying that this survey is for you if you have strong views about cyclists in London.
I also suspect that someone at guide dogs or the writer of that article has their numbers wrong, or that 42% that was reported suggests that .86 of a person had been involved in a collision at some point. My guess is that they used a non-binary measure, which seems really odd here.
Also - I just looked back and the BBC have taken any mention of percentages out of their story, and the Guide Dogs society have actually stopped talking in percentages in favour of real numbers too. Which is great.
literally just think they went a bit too harsh on survey by saying it was "wholly useless". they claims they made were not supported but to me, the results (particularly as i said, the part about near misses) show there is something definitely worth investigating further.
in fact it'd be lovely if they could follow up that 14, and those who had the near misses. That seems like the real interesting stuff - where did those incidents happen?
How am I supposed to know where to stand when this inevitably escalates into balls out street warfare?
get footballers to phone up guide dogs and explain why they don't want to play for england
kinda think it's cause she loves animals rather than cause she loves humans
A driver almost hit me head while pulling away from the pavement. She hadn't indicated or checked for oncoming traffic I had to swerve and narrowly avoided hitting a parked car. Her response was to tell me to fucking watch where I was going. Hopefully she's dead now.