Dogs

[Feline]

Legally speaking there is absolutely no evidence this dog was not under control. There is no accusation that the dog was trying to bite or chase her. 'Under control' has no definite legal definition and certainly does not imply on a leash. The dog and it's owner had every legal right to be there. At the end of the day she cycled into the dog and crashed. Had she injured the dog then the owner would have had a reasonable case to expect her insurance company to pay for it's Veterinary bills. If she had hit and injured a toddler walking haphazardly along the same path then she could expect to face charges.

I completely disagree. The dog owner has a responsibility to ensure their pet does not injure or cause injury to others. Allowing it to run loose where there are people on wheeled vehicles is irresponsible.

Had that happened to me I would have been straight to the police with the video evidence and calling a solicitor.

The dog did not injure the cyclist. It just happened to be there. The collision was caused by the cyclist.
The police would have laughed in your face (or as in this case taken no action despite the husband trying to press for it, because no offence had taken place).

[AndyK]

Legally speaking there is absolutely no evidence this dog was not under control. There is no accusation that the dog was trying to bite or chase her. 'Under control' has no definite legal definition and certainly does not imply on a leash. The dog and it's owner had every legal right to be there. At the end of the day she cycled into the dog and crashed. Had she injured the dog then the owner would have had a reasonable case to expect her insurance company to pay for it's Veterinary bills. If she had hit and injured a toddler walking haphazardly along the same path then she could expect to face charges.

I completely disagree. The dog owner has a responsibility to ensure their pet does not injure or cause injury to others. Allowing it to run loose where there are people on wheeled vehicles is irresponsible.

Had that happened to me I would have been straight to the police with the video evidence and calling a solicitor.

The dog did not injure the cyclist. It just happened to be there. The collision was caused by the cyclist.
The police would have laughed in your face (or as in this case taken no action despite the husband trying to press for it, because no offence had taken place).

From the story: 'As she rode her bicycle down Bowthorpe Hall Road cycle path, a dog ran out in front of her.'  Sounds to me like an out of control animal. I would have sued the crap out of the owner.

[Feline]

The rules in the countryside are thus: 'When using the new access rights over open country and common land, you must keep your dog on a short lead between 1 March and 31 July – and all year round near farm animals – and you may not be able to take your dog at all on some areas or at some times. Please follow any official signs'

You can find the actual legal details described here: http://www.naturenet.net/law/dogs.html
You will note that the law does not describe being under control as being on a leash.

[Feline]

Well AndyK you would firstly not have found a solicitor to take your case without covering your own legal fees (because you would have no case), and secondly you would have lost the case. It it makes you feel righteous to believe you are right, then feel free to continue to feel that way. This attitude reminds me strangely of Jeremy Clarkson and his view on cyclists.

[AndyK]

The rules in the countryside are thus: 'When using the new access rights over open country and common land, you must keep your dog on a short lead between 1 March and 31 July – and all year round near farm animals – and you may not be able to take your dog at all on some areas or at some times. Please follow any official signs'

You can find the actual legal details described here: http://www.naturenet.net/law/dogs.html
You will note that the law does not describe being under control as being on a leash.

Quite right, it does say, however: 'You do not have to put your dog on a lead on public paths, as long as it is under close control. But as a general rule, keep your dog on a lead if you cannot rely on its obedience.'


Again, I would have sued the crap out of the owner.

[AndyK]

Well AndyK you would firstly not have found a solicitor to take your case without covering your own legal fees (because you would have no case), and secondly you would have lost the case. It it makes you feel righteous to believe you are right, then feel free to continue to feel that way. This attitude reminds me strangely of Jeremy Clarkson and his view on cyclists.

To be honest the Clarksonesque 'My group can do no wrong' attitude is quite clearly coming from you, not from me. If an animal is not properly controlled and causes injury, then the owner is responsible. I. Would. Sue.

[bobb]

I'm kinda on the fence here as it is not unreasonable to expect there to be dogs around in such places, but to suggest that it was the cyclist at fault is absolutely fucking ridiculous! If you're on a bike, in a car or on foot proceding in a straight line along a path or road and a dog, a child or a yacht suddenly veers straight in front of you, you can hardly be blamed for crashing into them.

[Jasmine]

My biggest issue with dogs is that many seem to have very ignorant owners, ranging from the lazy type with extending leads all the way to people with aggressive dogs.

I took my 4 year old nephew out with me and my brother to a park a few months ago.  There were some dog owners there who probably thought their dogs were 'under control'.  One dog saw my nephew running and decided to chase him.  Nephew runs away from dog as he has had a bad experience with them before (been bitten).  Dog gives chase and then starts jumping up at him.  Owners think this is cute as the dog is 'only playing'.  Nephew is bloody terrified and crying his eyes out as I pull the dog away.  We then spend 20 minutes trying to calm him down.  Dog owners think the dog was under control the whole time as he didn't actually bite anyone. 

[hellymedic]

Poor little boy! I hope he still goes to the park!

[Kim]

Indeed, there is only one reasonable interpretation of an unknown predator a significant proportion of your (or your child's (or your sheep's)) bodyweight giving chase.  A lot of dog owners seem to forget this. 


FWIW, while I've never actually been seriously bitten (just enough to give me a healthy fear of the species), I once had some serious lung problems as a direct consequence of out-running a 'playful' 'friendly' dog that was about the same size that I was.

[Feline]

Well AndyK you would firstly not have found a solicitor to take your case without covering your own legal fees (because you would have no case), and secondly you would have lost the case. It it makes you feel righteous to believe you are right, then feel free to continue to feel that way. This attitude reminds me strangely of Jeremy Clarkson and his view on cyclists.

To be honest the 'My group can do no wrong' attitude is quite clearly coming from you, not from me. If an animal is not properly controlled and causes injury, then the owner is responsible. I. Would. Sue.

I am in both groups, which I made perfectly clear.
I have also explained why I find the anti-dog vibe coming from the woman, her husband and a couple of posters here unhelpful.

The shared use of a path between peds and cyclists is inherently incompatible. We can make the best of a bad job by using common sense, slowing down, ringing bells well in advance, stopping where necessary, and generally being considerate of other users. Dog owners can help by avoiding flexi-leads plus keeping an eye and ear out for people coming so they can hold onto a collar or tell their pet to sit. When cyclists are approaching at speed a dog owner will not have time to do this, and so if you choose to proceed in that manner with a view to just suing them when things go wrong, this will ultimately not end well.

You should bear in mind that whilst cyclists can find dog walkers on shared use paths a nuisance, the dog walkers actually find cyclists a nuisance too. Having to constantly interrupt a nice quiet walk to recall your dog is annoying. Both 'groups' find shared use paths annoying. On balance though it is in our interests to be given the choice to ride on them (so long as this doesn't result in compulsion).

[AndyK]

If the dog is properly controlled and on a lead, then there is no need to 'constantly interrupt a nice quiet walk to recall your dog'. In fact if you are aware there are going to be cyclists passing, why are you letting your animal run loose? The fact that you have to call the animal back to you shows you know it could be a danger and cause a crash and injury.

[Feline]

If the dog is properly controlled and on a lead, then there is no need to 'constantly interrupt a nice quiet walk to recall your dog'. In fact if you are aware there are going to be cyclists passing, why are you letting your animal run loose? The fact that you have to call the animal back to you shows you know it could be a danger and cause a crash and injury.

The words 'nice walk' and 'on a lead' are diametrically opposite. A lead is something you use to walk your dog along the road to get to the nice park or path at the end of it where it's 'real walk' begins. Dogs need to run, stop and sniff freely to exhibit their natural behavioural repertoire. We live in a society where dog ownership is still popular and acceptable. There are clearly some who are intolerant of dog ownership and would like to ban them or prevent them exercising properly as you have described above, just as some are intolerant of cyclists. As with cyclists, the badly behaved and most visible (or not in the case of the unlit cycling ninjas) minority are not representative of the majority of dog owners. There is ground in the middle for a well balanced view here.

A well trained dog with good recall is very much under control. Legally, as well as figuratively.

[AndyK]

I have no problem with dogs being off a lead when they are not on public paths.

[Feline]

I have no problem with dogs being off a lead when they are not on public paths.

I'm off out of here, time for my daily dog ride. I shall be using an off road NCN path and my dogs will not be on their leads

[teethgrinder]

I do a fair bit of cycling through parkland. I can do 30 miles in Milton Keynes, mostly through parks and alongside rivers. I often pass walkers and people with dogs, quite often unleashed. It's a very rare day when a dog gies me any trouble. In fact, all these dog walkers would often be better off just letting their dog be when I pass them. Their dog often seems more aware than they do. It usualy when the owner tries to control the dog that make things worse. The dog often has a good plan, but the oner just confuses it. Sometimes I get dogs run after me and have a laugh at the owner calling their dog. The dog always gives up after a short while.
A black labradour pup ran into my front wheel the other week. I was going slow, because there was a black labradour pup running around. No problem, it just nudged me a bit and I could have put a foot down if I needed. Pup seemed OK too. That's about the biggest dog incident I've had in years. Probably since I "finish lined" an extendable dog lead in the dark over 10 years ago.
You'll always get bad apples, but IME, almost all are easy to get along with if you show a bit of patience and enjoy the ride.

[teethgrinder]

I have no problem with dogs being off a lead when they are not on public paths.

I'm off out of here, time for my daily dog ride. I shall be using an off road NCN path and my dogs will not be on their leads

Nothing like a bit of rrrruff stuff eh?

[Fab Foodie]

I recently posted this on a similar style discussion on CC.  It seems that we are as a society becoming increasingly partisan and less tolerant ....

I'm pretty new to Dog ownership, (though I grew-up in a house-full of them).
I've 40 odd years of cycling behind me.
I've also raised 3 kids.

And here's the thing ... in a perfect world, nobody would get in the way, or intefere, or annoy or inconvenience another soul on the planet with their or their charges behaviour. But life's not perfect, people are not perfect, dogs are not perfect, kids are not perfect a little bit of 'live and let live' goes a long way. none of us set-out to annoy or inconvenience.

I'm sure my kids have annoyed others, I'm certain my cycling has annoyed others (mostly drivers!) and I know even after a few weeks of Dog ownership, we've managed to annoy one or two. He's young and a sighthound, so he'll see something appealing and race-off to greet them, sometimes he comes back when called, sometimes I catch him before he goes, sometimes he encouters someone who's happy to meet him and sometimes somebody who is scared or dislikes dogs or doesn't want a muddy footprint. Most people are tolerant, a few are not. I can understand that, but none of this is out of malice. We're training, learning, trying to enjoy our hobby, sharing the outdoor space, not aiming for conflict.

I've had 1 jogger and 1 cyclist take umbridge. The cyclist came barreling down a cinder path through the park, (it matters not what kind of designated path it is) I had stopped chatting to 2 teenage girls walking the opposite direction with an older Whippet. Dogs were on leads. The cyclist swerved tightly around us at full tilt shouting 'Fcuking dog walkers' and sped off. Totally needless.
So there are wnakers everywhere, some walk dogs, some ride bikes, some have annoying kids. Sometimes we come together unexpectedly and it's beholden on us all to make the best of the different circumstances when that happens. Personally I always slow right down on shared paths especially where there are young kids or dogs running around, it's just common sense. If I want to ride fast, I use roads, that what they're there for.

On the subjecy of dog shit, like any form of littering, it's indefensible and a pox on those who don't clear up after.

[mattc]

My biggest issue with dogs is that many seem to have very ignorant owners, ranging from the lazy type with extending leads all the way to people with aggressive dogs.

Agree with this.

Dogs wandering about on their own - even untrained ones - are rarely a risk to cyclists. They nearly always spot cyclists coming and behave accordingly - often appearing to ignore us, but I think this mostly means they've assessed cyclist as: "no threat, & not worth eating"

Long extendi-leads are the single most common hazard. In shared spaces, short lead or off-lead seem the safer options. If the dog is aggressive, it'll have to be the short lead, unless you're well clear of rights-of-way.

M

[Kim]

I'd say that un-picked-up shit is the single most common dog hazard.  Extendy leads are less common, for the simple reason that even if used irresponsibly they're only an actual hazard when the dog is present.  Shit can lie around for weeks causing unpredictable last-second evasive manoeuvres (by cyclists and pedestrians alike), disease and general unpleasantness.

[rogerzilla]

I almost cried with joy the other week.  I saw a white dog shit up by the church.  It was like Spangles, glam rock, Mk.3 Cortinas and dial-01-for-London all distilled into one glorious shot of nostalgia.

[mattc]

I'd say that un-picked-up shit is the single most common dog hazard.  Extendy leads are less common, for the simple reason that even if used irresponsibly they're only an actual hazard when the dog is present.  Shit can lie around for weeks causing unpredictable last-second evasive manoeuvres (by cyclists and pedestrians alike), disease and general unpleasantness.

- You only have to swerve 2" to avoid the shit. It takes a lot more (and a lot of luck) to avoid the extendi-lead caravan.
- It rarely hurts to hit the shit.

But I respect your alternate viewpoint

[bobb]

It's funny how dogs can be perfectly happy one minute doing whatever they are doing, but if they need a shit, they need a shit NOW!

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/gTH0pXZQ5I4&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/gTH0pXZQ5I4&rel=1</a>

[Kim]

- You only have to swerve 2" to avoid the shit.

You have to swerve a lot further to avoid a side-stepping or jumping pedestrian, unfortunately.

[Feline]

Dogs wandering about on their own - even untrained ones - are rarely a risk to cyclists. They nearly always spot cyclists coming and behave accordingly - often appearing to ignore us, but I think this mostly means they've assessed cyclist as: "no threat, & not worth eating"

Long extendi-leads are the single most common hazard. In shared spaces, short lead or off-lead seem the safer options. If the dog is aggressive, it'll have to be the short lead, unless you're well clear of rights-of-way.

M

That pretty much sums up my 'cyclist' experience of dogs I encounter too.

There is a cunning method for dealing with flexi-lead users that a friend of mine has utilised on the Bristol-Bath railway path causing much hilarity (well, among the cyclists anyway). He carried a pair of scissors in his bar bag, and when a flexi-lead across the path situation emerged he rode through it with a little 'snip' along the way. If you do it right the owner of the offending lead doesn't see the scissors and thinks it has somehow broken as you hit it. The funny bit is that with the leading brand of these leads the cut end will then retract totally back inside the sealed handle rendering the lead useless and ensuring you will never encounter the same one again. There is always enough length of cord left attached to the dog that they can get it safely home though. You need fairly sharp scissors to pull this one off though since the cord or webbing can be quite tough.