Author Topic: Dogs  (Read 32795 times)

simonp

Re: Dogs
« Reply #300 on: 22 March, 2012, 08:01:54 pm »
There are reflectives on the back of my (and, presumably, most) cycling shoes. Considering that they're attached to the cranks via the pedals, I'm going to argue that they count.


(edit: I'd also be curious to know whether "cited as evidence of negligence" is equivalent to "made a difference to the outcome of the case". a lawyer can cite "he's a nobber, just look at 'im" as evidence of negligence but it probably won't go very far.)

I don't know whether it helped sway the undoubtedly unbiased jury but the cyclist was convicted.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Ride adventurously and stop for a brew.
Re: Dogs
« Reply #301 on: 22 March, 2012, 08:34:44 pm »
Yours for E25 plus postage from Germany. http://www.bike-discount.de/shop/a14092/reflector-set-sm-pd61-for-pd-a530.html?lg=en They don't seem to be sold in UK.

I don't think anyone who rides a bike without pedal reflectors should be getting all self-righteous about the highway code really. It is actually law that we use them, how many of us actually do?

So, no excuse!

I reckon that reflectors pointing at the ground and sky, and obscured from behind by the cyclist's body is a good excuse.  (Yes, this means all recumbents, bikes with panniers etc, are technically illegal after dark.)

I do have reflectors on my upright bikes, though (one of which has flat pedals, so doesn't really count), and try to comply with the spirit of the law with reflective tape on the crank arms.
Yes, that's my understanding of the law as well. The same would mean that reflective tape on shoes doesn't technically fulfill the legal requirements either, as it's not BS marked.

I read that this law was introduced in the early 80s with the aim of making bikes distinctive after dark. That was back in the Night Rider and Wonder Light era, and it's arguable that blinky leds do the same job now (and do it better).
Riding a concrete path through the nebulous and chaotic future.

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
Re: Dogs
« Reply #302 on: 22 March, 2012, 08:40:42 pm »
I read that this law was introduced in the early 80s with the aim of making bikes distinctive after dark. That was back in the Night Rider and Wonder Light era, and it's arguable that blinky leds do the same job now (and do it better).

Makes sense.  Given lighting no brighter than a Wilko blinky with flat batteries, pedal reflectors (well, any reflector on the cranks/feet/lower legs) are an effective way of making bicycles obviously bicycles.

While we can rely of sensible cyclists to have sufficient active lighting to make them redundant, they're still somewhat useful for spotting the non-sensible BSOists.  I'd be in favour of making them a requirement at point of sale, but not for use (as front reflectors and bells currently are), which would seem to give the best of both options.  It's only the clipless pedal users that actively remove them.

Re: Dogs
« Reply #303 on: 24 March, 2012, 12:07:49 am »
I don't think anyone who rides a bike without pedal reflectors should be getting all self-righteous about the highway code really. It is actually law that we use them, how many of us actually do?
That's not entirely a like-for-like comparison, quite apart from the legal/advisory aspect.

Most of the stuff that irritates us as cyclists is about protecting ourselves from the consequences of our behaviour. This is truly the realm of the nanny state.

The issue with dog owners is that the consequences of their sins of omission are visited on everyone but the owner. Incompetence is risk-free. There is nothing to stop the thoughtless ones from continuing in their selfish behaviour other than pressure from the rest of us, which rarely comes in legal form.

The neatest contrast is with horse riders. If they screw it, they'll probably come off worse than a passing cyclist. I have no problem with sharing the road with horses, because the riders share the risks with me.

And, in case you hadn't read some of my older posts, I use pedal reflectors. On the usual bike I remove them during the summer months. On that bike they're not a legal requirement, but are IMO a significant benefit on the unlit lanes of my winter "commuting".

Gandalf

  • Each snowflake in an avalanche pleads not guilty
Re: Dogs
« Reply #304 on: 24 March, 2012, 06:34:09 am »
I must admit that with my drivers hat on, I have been glad of the presence of pedal reflectors. Of course this has only been where the BSO riding twunts have had no lights.

Given the £££££ I have spent on lights I resent the fact that strictly speaking,  I'm expected to try and source reflectors for my SPDs.

Julian

  • samoture
Re: Dogs
« Reply #305 on: 24 March, 2012, 12:55:07 pm »
What is not obvious in the video is the poxy thing was running in and out at my legs and in front of me. Completely uncontrolled in a shared environment. I'm trying to get somewhere, I'm riding clipless, and I'm being hampered from doing that by the type of selfish bastard dog owner Feline thinks it's ok to be.

Well, that's a gross misrepresentation of what Feline actually said. 

I'm not a big fan of dogs I don't know, as a rule.  There are too many which are weapons and too many which are badly trained, and they cause humans to walk round with pockets full of warm shit.  Broadly speaking, if all dogs were suddenly extinct in some meteorite attack which only affected dogs, I wouldn't be unduly bothered. 

But I don't see how restricting a dog to a short lead on a shared path would be beneficial to anybody.  Dog owners like Feline (and others of this parish whose dogs I've met) who can recall their dog immediately, and who exercise their dogs properly where properly includes allowing it to behave in an ordinary doggy manner, as opposed  to merely taking it down to the end of the road and emptying it against a lamp-post, are going to have well-behaved dogs regardless. 

The RLJs of the doggy world are going to have antisocial dogs regardless.  And they're the ones who will ignore any such restriction anyway - how is it to be policed exactly? - and so the only restriction you're campaigning for is more arduous requirements for responsible dog owners with an adverse effect on the dog.  And since you're so keen on the shoulds / should nots of the Highway Code (which are not law but guidance) it might be an idea to look at the Animal Welfare Act of 2006 (which IS law) and which gives as one of the five 'animal rights' the entitlement to express natural behaviour.  That includes being off the lead for dogs.  A dog owner who only took their dog for walks on a lead would arguably be breaking the law.

It's right up there with "cyclists should be licensed to stop RLJs" in terms of coherence.

AndyK

Re: Dogs
« Reply #306 on: 24 March, 2012, 01:05:07 pm »
Quote from: The Dangerous Dogs Act

Dogs out of control in a public place
If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place or injures any person while out of control, then its owner is guilty of an aggravated offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act.
A person found guilty of an offence may face imprisonment or a fine, and the courts may disqualify the offender from having custody of a dog for any period.

Julian

  • samoture
Re: Dogs
« Reply #307 on: 24 March, 2012, 01:25:16 pm »
Lol, the key word there is DANGEROUSLY.

The standard for that is similar to that for dangerous driving - it has to be quite serious.

"This dog is a bloody nuisance" doesn't cut it.

AndyK

Re: Dogs
« Reply #308 on: 24 March, 2012, 01:27:50 pm »
Lol, the key word there is DANGEROUSLY.

The standard for that is similar to that for dangerous driving - it has to be quite serious.

"This dog is a bloody nuisance" doesn't cut it.

Whatever.

Quote from: Directgov.uk
What is 'out of control'?
Your dog is dangerously out of control if it:
injures a person, or
behaves in a way that makes a person worried it might injure them - even if it's the dog owner's own home or garden

Julian

  • samoture
Re: Dogs
« Reply #309 on: 24 March, 2012, 01:48:20 pm »
Indeed.  Directgov no doubt says something similarly reassuring about dangerous drivers; in practice, they are simply not charged and the standard as applied through caselaw is pretty high, and the sentences are poxy.  To that extent there's a direct similarity.

Bogdal is a good example: the dog seriously injured someone by biting them in the bum.  Conviction quashed; the place was insufficiently public.

If you're interested in the development of the application of caselaw, Gedminintaite is a good place to start.  In that case a guilty plea was entered (the defendant's Rottweiler had torn someone's scrotum half off) but the court held that the dog should nonetheless be reprieved from the destruction order because "it was not inherently dangerous."  In practice, making someone scared of injury is not held to be dangerous unless the dog actually goes on to cause injury, in which case s.10 of the DDA will be held to apply [Rafiq, 1997, cited in Gedminintaite.]

Cyclists of all people should know that where a law says "dangerous" and how that is charged in practice are two totally different things.

PS If you want to play legal top trumps, I'm here all day, and armed with better resources than Directgov. ;D

Re: Dogs
« Reply #310 on: 24 March, 2012, 02:00:06 pm »
You can claim that you're going to sue a cyclists for hitting a dog, or a dog owner for causing a cyclist to come off, but in most cases the courts aren't likely to take a great deal of notice unless someone was grossly and clearly negligent.

Most dog owners try and control their dogs, although some are a bit gormless about it.  Similarly most cyclists don't speed  along cycle paths and expect to never meet a cyclist, small child, or for that matter fox or squirrel, but some still do things that on reflection aren't that smart.

We all have to use the most appropriate behaviour for the environment we're in.  Occasionally, whatever we do, someone else may be blatantly and occasionally maliciously dangerous, and that's going to happen sometimes, regardless of whether that person is a car driver, dog owner, or even a cyclist.  That's human nature, there are always a few bastards around, and there's little we can do about it.

There are also going to be a few cases, where regardless of what we, or the other parties involved do, an unfortunate set of circumstances are going to occur which cause a collision in which someone (or an animal, assuming you don't consider them to be someone) is going to be injured and/or property damaged.  Short of taking an excessively careful approach to everything we do, there's little that can be done about this either.

Some dog owners don't use leads at all times, because 99% of the time their dogs will behave very well, and respond to commands.  Some cyclists don't use strictly road legal bike lights and reflectors, because they can be difficult to obtain, and often whilst strictly legal, are actually demonstrably inferior to legal devices.  For most of these cases, the authorities aren't going to care.  Occasionally insurers may get involved, and they'll try to wiggle out as much as they can.  That's when it's useful to get a efficient and well prepared lawyer.  Whilst a bike light may not be legal, that doesn't mean that you aren't as, or more visible than a legal light would be.  The parties involved in the dispute will both have to demonstrate that their side of the case is the superior one.  Merely not having legal bike lights (or reflectors) is not going to be sufficient.

Of course, from a legal point of view, not having legal lights or reflectors is an offence, and there's likely to be little question about that from either side, but then again, in most cases the legal authorities aren't likely to care, unless you're being a complete twunk and have no lights or reflectors whatsoever (and in which case, mostly you're the ones who is going to come off worse anyway).

Note: It's pretty difficult to find legal rear lights in the UK these days.  After some discussion in another thread, I think Reelights probably are, but that's the only ones I'm aware of that are easily available at the moment (and which are clearly legal, not just probably because they have another countries standards marking on them).  Even the Reelights only become legal because of some pretty sub-standard legislation.  The rules concerning lights which only flash, are brighter than four candela and flash at between 60 and 240 times a minute aren't exactly what I consider to be a full and complete spec for a bike light.  I'd actually be quite interested to know of any BS approved rear lights, which can be relatively easily purchased currently.
Actually, it is rocket science.
 

AndyK

Re: Dogs
« Reply #311 on: 24 March, 2012, 02:18:12 pm »


If you're interested in the development of the application of caselaw, Gedminintaite is a good place to start.  In that case a guilty plea was entered (the defendant's Rottweiler had torn someone's scrotum half off) but the court held that the dog should nonetheless be reprieved from the destruction order because "it was not inherently dangerous."  In practice, making someone scared of injury is not held to be dangerous unless the dog actually goes on to cause injury, in which case s.10 of the DDA will be held to apply [Rafiq, 1997, cited in Gedminintaite.]


But it was deemed that:  "In our judgment, this dog was dangerously out of control in a public place. That was amply evidenced by the way it behaved and the fact that it was not controlled by its handler."

Julian

  • samoture
Re: Dogs
« Reply #312 on: 24 March, 2012, 02:22:35 pm »
Yes.  I linked Gedminintaite because that references the 94 and 97 caselaw, where they'd realised how appallingly badly the law was drafted.  Rafiq, which is cited in there, explains that - effectively - you won't get a finding of dangerous unless the dog actually bites someone. 

The actual facts of that case are less interesting than the explanation of how the law developed.  I think it was pretty obvious that it was dangerous because a) it had torn someone's scrotum off and b) the defendant entered a guilty plea (accepting responsibility).  But the fear of injury is proven by ACTUAL injury.  A simple subjective fear, where the dog then doesn't do anything, would be unlikely to be enough, despite that being the intention of the primary legislation.

citoyen

  • Occasionally rides a bike
Re: Dogs
« Reply #313 on: 26 March, 2012, 02:32:24 pm »
It's right up there with "cyclists should be licensed to stop RLJs" in terms of coherence.

This is precisely why, despite of my natural antipathy towards dogs, I wouldn't advocate stricter legal controls on them. There's no case for it.

As mentioned upthread, I don't like chuggers either, but most of the time I just ignore them and get on with my own life without giving them a moment's thought. Though I would quite like to see all chuggers kept on a short lead and confined to designate chugging areas.

d.
"The future's all yours, you lousy bicycles."

AndyK

Re: Dogs
« Reply #314 on: 26 March, 2012, 04:18:55 pm »
It's right up there with "cyclists should be licensed to stop RLJs" in terms of coherence.

This is precisely why, despite of my natural antipathy towards dogs, I wouldn't advocate stricter legal controls on them. There's no case for it.

As mentioned upthread, I don't like chuggers either, but most of the time I just ignore them and get on with my own life without giving them a moment's thought. Though I would quite like to see all chuggers kept on a short lead and confined to designate chugging areas.

d.


… and muzzled...

tonycollinet

  • No Longer a western province of Númenor
Re: Dogs
« Reply #315 on: 26 March, 2012, 05:36:02 pm »
.......
PS If you want to play legal top trumps, I'm here all day, and armed with better resources than Directgov. ;D

Nevah [/churchill] argue legalz with teh J