Dangerous Dog

[HF2300]

...he and the bike flew a few yards in the air....He had been going at top speed...

I think Arch and others got there before me, but my reaction on reading the OP was also 'why top speed on a shared use path', particularly approaching two hazards (group of children, junction). It takes some momentum to fly a few yards; perhaps dog and child were equally out of owner's / parent's control? Sounds 50 / 50 at best to me.

 

[Lisa21]

I'd read the OP as saying the owner accepted that the dog should have been on a lead - but reading it again I see that was my reading of 'the owner apologised'. I did think dogs were required to be on a lead in shared spaces, usually anyway, but I must be honest and say that I don't know.

Usually dogs are only required to be on a lead in a childrens play area or where there are other livestock(ie a public footpath running through a field of sheep) However a dog off the lead should be under control although wether this dog in question was or not is debateable-I think the "blame" if any is sought,lies in a young child going full pelt along a path used by others-doesnt sound much control there imo.

 

[Crackle]

BTW, friend of mine who trained as a vet says any dog should be trainable to obey 'come' and 'down!' - the latter being more useful to drop a dog in it's tracks. I dont know many dogs, so can't say if it's true (and anyway, plenty of owners are probably dimmer than their dogs), but it seems that the 'down!' command could be the most useful one you could have...

I practised down with him for a long time but we never mastered it at distance. We did manage sit and stay at a distance but he's a very energetic dog and I was never convinced it was the best method. Instead, he seems to be very good at keeping an eye on me as a cue for his movements, if he gets too far ahead a whistle stops him and he turns to look what I want. At that point I can call him back. That, heel and sit/stay is what we use. Neither of us are perfect and we sometimes make mistakes. I think all dogs are slightly different at what they're good at. Mine is excellent close up but far less predictable away from me, hence the way I control him now.

 

[Bman]

If you cant prevent a dog running into the path of traffic, I would say its not "under control" and therefore should be on a lead where required.

Im not putting blame on either party in this situation. I just feel that you should be in a position to *always* prevent your dog doing something dangerous. If you can't then it should be on a lead/muzzle etc. Whatever is requred to control it. If you feel that a command is sufficient, but fails, then you should be liable.

Any joke involving the Mini-Cheddars is far too predictable, so I wont bother

 

[Crackle]

If you cant prevent a dog running into the path of traffic, I would say its not "under control" and therefore should be on a lead where required.

I'd agree with that but on a shared use path, you being on a bike are not traffic. In fact the onus is on you to give way to pedestrians including those with dogs. Give way doesn't just mean slow down, it means stop if necessary and if you see someone with a dog who is making the effort to bring the dog under control for you then that means waiting until they do. There's no ifs or buts about this, that's our responsibility as cyclists, as defined by law. It's exactly the same with kids or anything else, as cyclists we do not have priority.

Im not putting blame on either party in this situation. I just feel that you should be in a position to *always* prevent your dog doing something dangerous. If you can't then it should be on a lead/muzzle etc. Whatever is requred to control it. If you feel that a command is sufficient, but fails, then you should be liable.

There's a lot of grey area here. There's no always with an animal and any responsible owner needs to excercise their dog off the lead. There's a responsibility to do it in an appropriate place and way but I'd say a shared use path, one not busy is a reasonable place and if someone fails to act reasonably, dog owner or cyclist then whoever it is should be liable, there's no enshrined cyclists rights here.

 

[Plax]

I think Arch and others got there before me, but my reaction on reading the OP was also 'why top speed on a shared use path', particularly approaching two hazards (group of children, junction). It takes some momentum to fly a few yards; perhaps dog and child were equally out of owner's / parent's control? Sounds 50 / 50 at best to me.

I'd say 50/50 on this one too.

 

[Maz]

What flavour Mini Cheddars were they?

Dunno...but maybe he'll ride more Caerphilly next time.

 

[Wigsie]

Dunno...but maybe he'll ride more Caerphilly next time.

 

[Victoria]

Thank you for all your comments.

Ok, the dog wasn't necessarily a 'dangerous dog', but it was clearly out of control and running headlong into 'traffic'. Once he caught up with the dog and saw what had happened, the owner admitted responsibility, and added "I have no idea why he keeps running off like that"! I have to say, given that kind of history, if I was the owner I'd be inclined to keep it on a lead!

Please don't be too harsh on my son (who is 22 btw, and not a young child! ) - he is very new to commuting, and has only been riding his bike to work for 2 weeks, so lacks the experience we all gain over time (and after a few knocks) to take more care.

Having said that, every situation is different, and he assures me that he was riding intelligently (albeit at some speed) and was mindful of others using the path. The dog came out of nowhere, galloping free, and there was nothing he could do. Had he been going slower, it would have made little difference - hitting a large dog is likely to knock you off your bike!

We are obviously concerned about the poor dog, but as contact details weren't exchanged, I doubt we will find out how it is.

Mini cheddars were normal cheese flavour, not Marmite flavour - I didn't know you could get those - they sound yummy!!

 

[Arch]

Please don't be too harsh on my son (who is 22 btw, and not a young child! ) - he is very new to commuting, and has only been riding his bike to work for 2 weeks, so lacks the experience we all gain over time (and after a few knocks) to take more care.

I only just re read the first post, and noticed the riding to work bit, I'd assumed we were talking about a 5 year old....

Well, hopefully he's learned this lesson. Expect the unexpected. I'm afraid on any shared use path, speed has to be kept down, perhaps more than you might think - and even then, admittedly, you can still be caught off guard. Even on the road, you can't assume that driver waiting to turn out, who you just made eye contact with, won't just pull out anyway. Covering the brakes at all times is a good idea....

Does your son drive? Good cyclists often make better drivers, because they've learned to really use all their senses and anticipate other road users.

If he's new to commuting. and wants to get good at it, I (and most people on here) would recommend the book Cyclecraft - a manual of how to cycle on today's roads, a kind of advanced driving manual for cyclists.

 

[HF2300]

...but it was clearly out of control and running headlong into 'traffic'. Once he caught up with the dog and saw what had happened, the owner admitted responsibility, and added "I have no idea why he keeps running off like that"! I have to say, given that kind of history, if I was the owner I'd be inclined to keep it on a lead!

... he is very new to commuting, and has only been riding his bike to work for 2 weeks, so lacks the experience we all gain over time...he assures me that he was riding intelligently (albeit at some speed) and was mindful of others using the path. The dog came out of nowhere, galloping free, and there was nothing he could do. Had he been going slower, it would have made little difference - hitting a large dog is likely to knock you off your bike!

Sorry Victoria, I missed the 'cycling to work' bit as well, and also assumed he was about 5! Have to say, though, and I don't want to seem harsh, but to my mind that makes it worse, not better.

Years ago I had a car crash trying to avoid a loose dog in the road. The dog was also out of control, and shouldn't have been there; but the fact is, had I been driving at a more sensible speed for the conditions I'd have been able to avoid the dog without hitting the scenery.

Same seems to me to apply here. Riding at 'some' or 'top' speed on a shared use path at a junction is not riding intelligently or being mindful of other users. Had he been riding slower, he may well have been able to avoid hitting the dog at all, and even if he hadn't the effects of the accident would have been lessened.

 

[Victoria]

As I've said, we learn from experience . He'll be more careful in future.