Dangerous Dog

[Jim_Noir]

Sadly it's part of owning a dog, let it run nuts in a public park and it's going to get hit. I have had two of mine hit by cyclists (one on the pavement and the other a LRJ as we crossed the road) no damage done, but quick lession for them that a bike can hurt them.

 

[rog 1974]

I agree its the dog owners fault, i alway keep mine on a lead in public places. on our local cycle path dogs on leads can be just as dangerous when its an extendable one and the dogs one side of the path and the owners the other, which has happend on more than one occassion.

 

[amnezia]

I would pursue the dog owner if only to get the bike damage covered and helmet replaced. Why should you pay?

Sorry to get all Victor Meldrew about this, but it is the failure of people to take responsibility for their actions that is the downfall of this country. You shouldn't have to grin and bear it. The dog's behaviour and therefore the dog owners behaviour was unreasonable in the circumstances.

if it was instead a small child who ran out into the bike path, would you expect the child's parent to pay damages?

 

[Watt-O]

What flavour Mini Cheddars were they?

Hope they weren't Marmite, now that would have been a waste.

 

[thomas]

if it was instead a small child who ran out into the bike path, would you expect the child's parent to pay damages?

Yes.

 

[Dayvo]

Victoria!

Glad that your son was OK; hope the dog is, too. And that the owner learns a lesson.

Have you seen this? Can happen to anyone, really, and not always at high speed!


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py2mVpyQcSI

 

[Arch]

Yello - the cycle path is an old railway line reclaimed by Sustrans, and the bit in question is at an intersection with another footpath/cycle path. There's no excuse, the dog should have been on a lead.

Really? I use a local reclaimed railway path quite a bit, and wouldn't expect a dog to be on a lead, especially in the country sections. I wouldn't ride along it at full tilt either, too much likelihood of pedestrians wavering across my path.

As it is, everyone's probably learned a lesson, and I'm loathe to see litigation right, left and centre. Bad luck on the Mini Cheddars though. I'm assuming your son is quite young, so hopefully it can do down to experience without putting him off.

I've had a graze under an apparently ok sleeve before now, I think the friction between clothing and skin, esp from manmade fibres, can be enough to do damage

Can't predict a dog appearing yello? I dunno, I assume everyone I pass on a shared use path has an dog ambling along out of sight which might any minute run out. Just as I'm always keeping an eye out for errant pheasants in the countryside...

 

[ChrisKH]

if it was instead a small child who ran out into the bike path, would you expect the child's parent to pay damages?

I have subsequently stated amnezia that had I had the full facts (it was a shared path I think, not just a cycle path) then my response may have been different.

However, in real terms there is no difference between a dog and a child with regards to responsibility. If I had been on a cycle path on a road and a child had jumped unexpectedly into the road in front of the bike, then what's the difference? Are you saying liability is different if it is a child? I ride extremely carefully when pedestrians are about and take extra care, but you can't legislate for the uncontrolled dog or child (may as well get off the bike and push it otherwise) who can act unreasonably.

If it was my child who did it, I would take responsibility to the extent they were responsible. Having said that, I haven't hit any dogs or children yet and my sons have not yet jumped in front of any bikes so hopefully I'm doing something right.

 

[Crackle]

I was about to say similiar to Arch. I think Sustran routes are mostly shared use paths, sometimes permissible paths so different rules apply again. The requirement is to have your dog under control which doesn't mean on a lead. Now with the best will in the world, even the best behaved dog can sometimes do something unpredictable and as cyclists we have to learn to anticipate certain situations.

Best example is a path I use (2nd time today this path has been in my posts). Out with the dog one day, dog ahead in the bushes, when around a corner moving at speed comes a cyclist, no chance to call the dog back so I left him and hoped he wouldn't move just then, if I'd called to him to stay I knew he would come out the bushes first before obeying. The cyclist saw me and saw me swinging the dog lead. Now to me that would've been my cue to slow, look and cover the brakes. Here's a fella in front with a dog lead but I can't see the dog but he didn't, didn't even pause.

Anyway, I'm firstly glad your son is OK, hopefully the dog will be too and as others have said, lessons all around but to me it's less clear cut about fault, certainly in the example above, if the cyclist had hit my dog I'd 'ave had a word about speed and observation and taken his name and address with a view to sending him a vet bill and if asked I could quite easily demonstrate control of my dog but dogs are dogs and situations are situations.

 

[Halfmanhalfbike]

I would pursue the dog owner if only to get the bike damage covered and helmet replaced. Why should you pay?

Sorry to get all Victor Meldrew about this, but it is the failure of people to take responsibility for their actions that is the downfall of this country. You shouldn't have to grin and bear it. The dog's behaviour and therefore the dog owners behaviour was unreasonable in the circumstances.

Oh FFS. I really hate this "if anything is anyones fault then get some money out of them" attitude.

It was a fecking accident FFS. These things happen in life. No big deal. Get over it and move on.

Oh, by the way. Did he offer to pay for any Vet bills. No, didn't think so.

 

[Arch]

IBest example is a path I use (2nd time today this path has been in my posts). Out with the dog one day, dog ahead in the bushes, when around a corner moving at speed comes a cyclist, no chance to call the dog back so I left him and hoped he wouldn't move just then, if I'd called to him to stay I knew he would come out the bushes first before obeying.

That's the sort of clear thinking we need more of. A while back, I was riding gently along the shared path and a chap saw me coming and helpfully called his dog to heel at the last minute - great, except he was on one side of the path and the dog on the other, and me between. I had to brake (I was already anticipating it) and come to a stop. The chap apologised, a bit sheepish, but it really would have been fine to leave the dog, which was nosing about in the grass. If I'd been coming faster, I wouldn't have been able to stop.

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...

 

[Jim_Noir]

Yeap, down or sit is a must. Some people though shouldn't have dogs...There should be a test before you get a licence to have one... and renewed every year, also have to produce a letter from a vet to say the dog is looked after and the owner can control it also insurance certificate and public liability... I could rant forever on this, but I will spare you

 

[Lisa21]

Oh FFS. I really hate this "if anything is anyones fault then get some money out of them" attitude.

It was a fecking accident FFS. These things happen in life. No big deal. Get over it and move on.

Oh, by the way. Did he offer to pay for any Vet bills. No, didn't think so.

+1
I think the "dangerous dog" heading is wrong for a start-he was NOT dangerous, just showing natural collie behaviour and it was just an unfortunate accident. Luckily your son is ok, sadly the poor dog may have come off a lot worse.
He should not be expected to be on a lead in the place where it happened-however he should have been under control and hopefully the owner has learned from this and hopefully your son has learned also and will not go along "at top speed" on a shared use path. Consideration for others all round in future i feel.

 

[yello]

BTW, friend of mine who trained as a vet says any dog should be trainable to obey 'come' .

A lot depends on the dog. One of ours is bright as they come (does the Guardian cryptic, hard sudoku etc) and she will obey without delay. The other is, well, let's be kind, no mensa candidate. He's a basset cross and bassets are not the brightest of the pack so he's a little slow on the uptake, he needs to be commanded rather than spoken to. Plus he's a bit deaf in his old age. So he makes his way in his own time but it's hardly what you'd call obeying. Speak to her as you have to speak to him and she'll cower because she thinks she's been naughty!

We walk them off the lead (and you're right Crackle, the dangling lead is a giveaway to the presence of a dog) and we've met maybe 3 MTBers on the tracks around here but they've all slowed down to pass us so calling the dogs in hasn't even been an issue.

 

[yello]

He should not be expected to be on a lead in the place where it happened

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.