Bordering on the ridiculous... « Singletrack Forum

Bike Forum

Bordering on the ridiculous...

68 posts & 25 voices | Started 5 months ago by TurnerGuy | Latest reply from jonah tonto

Tags:

Here we go again

Pages: 12 Next »

TurnerGuy - Member

Following on from my incident with the Border Collie and my Hope Hoop a couple of weeks ago, I have now found that my SID Teams are bent and my rebuilt wheel is sitting way to one side so there isn't even a fingers worth of clearance on the side anymore

Plus I have a big lump in my right calf muscle even now the bruising has subsided, and I am suppossed to be skiing in a couple of weeks time and squeezing said calf into my super snug ski boots.

Luckily there is bugger all snow at Verbier at the moment so I might be spending most of my time in the bar.

I got the cheque for £50 from the dog owner that she said she was going to send me, but I wasn't sure about cashing. I think I might now as my costs have escalated - luckily Merlin had a sale at the weekend so I saved some money on my new forks

thought some people might find my plight somewhat amusing as we start the week

If anyone knows how to get rid of lumps from calf muscles I would appreciate some advice

Posted 5 months ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

My opinion at the time was that you should be after her for our costs and that has not changed. She is liable for the damage her dog has caused.

Why should you be out of pocket because she failed to control her dog?

Posted 5 months ago #
surfer - Member

TJ +1

Posted 5 months ago #
bobbyspangles - Member

she should be insured for incidents like this, although it may be worth checking your wheel has been corrcetly dished.

Posted 5 months ago #
Trent Steel - Member

+1 for checking the dish

Posted 5 months ago #
zilog6128 - Member

she should be insured for incidents like this

She should be, but I doubt it. She must've thought her numbers had come up when you agreed to settle for fifty quid rather than persue her for damage to the bike/personal injury!

Sports massage should help your calf muscle.

Posted 5 months ago #
aracer - Member

TJ +2

She should be, but I doubt it.

I'd be surprised if she wasn't, given that a standard household policy covers you for public liability for incidents caused by your pets.

Posted 5 months ago #
bristolbiker - Member

I'd be surprised if she wasn't, given that a standard household policy covers you for public liability for incidents caused by your pets.

Indeed (...I've a feeling we've done something similar before about 3rd party cover and household insurance.....)

Posted 5 months ago #
aracer - Member

I've a feeling we've done something similar before about 3rd party cover and household insurance

Oh - did I miss that one?

Posted 5 months ago #
bristolbiker - Member

No, I think you were very much involved!!

Posted 5 months ago #
sugdenr - Member

I think you have probably been lucky with her sending you £50 off pat. I am not familiar with Horsell (maybe you'll show me around sometime) but a dog bounding out of undergrowth on common land maybe seen (by a Judge) as a reasonably forseeable risk.

Digressing - reminds me of the time I came tearing down Summer Lightning last year through what I think was tall ferns to find 3 muppets fixing a puncture right on the (narrow) trail just after a jump (so nowhere to brake).

Recommends - hot&cold treatment and light comression bandage, plus something herbal for the swelling - arnica isnt it?

Posted 5 months ago #
phil.w - Member

She is liable for the damage her dog has caused.
she should be insured for incidents like this

Why I would agree with this, I expect most insurance companies would tell you to 'jog on' as you're going to find it a little difficult proving it was the dogs fault.

Posted 5 months ago #
TurnerGuy - Member

it may be worth checking your wheel has been corrcetly dished.

done that - completed my ride thinking that the wheel builder must have had one too many to drink that lunchtime.

Interestingly whilst googling I found a number of posts from people with 09/10 SID teams where they had bent them (there was also an issue of them being sold bent).

Some of the riders had been using Ti skewers.

I was using a DT swiss aluminium 9mm thru-axle, whereas previously it had a 9mm steel Superstar 9mm thru-axle and previous to that a normal (thin) Hope QR. (I changed to the 9mm thru-axle mainly because the Hope kept coming loose on the front).

I wonder whether the lighter DT Swiss aluminium axle has anything to do with it, although I doubt it.

I think my weight coming down on the angled fork must have caused the bend.

When I came off my folder in October 2010 and broke my collarbone I was surprised to find that I also bent the forks on that, although they were the strange parrallelogram forks that are on Birdys.

http://www.simpsoncycles.co.uk/product.php/2140/birdy_city_premium

Posted 5 months ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

Phil w - you don't have to - strict liability applies. Dog causes damage, dog owner liable. the dog has to be under control at all times and if it knocks someone off who is riding lawfully and reasonably then the dog owner is liable with no real defense

Posted 5 months ago #
TurnerGuy - Member

I had a further look at the map - there are no 'footpaths' or 'bridleways' actually on the common - I was just short of the one I was trying to get to.

Whereas on Chobham common there are footpaths, bridleways and bridlepaths marked, and there seem to be more bridlepaths appearing to the detriment of the bridleways.

Posted 5 months ago #
pistonbroke - Member

Was the dog's name Benton, in which case I think it's probably in enough trouble.

Posted 5 months ago #
5lab - Member

do you know its bent 'just because' the wheel is to one side? Could it just be the dishing is off? (I presume this has been ruled out)

Posted 5 months ago #
phil.w - Member

strict liability applies

really? where did you get that from? (as a dog owner I would like to read the details of this for myself)

Posted 5 months ago #
TurnerGuy - Member

do you know its bent 'just because' the wheel is to one side? Could it just be the dishing is off? (I presume this has been ruled out)

Had a look at it with my Feedback trueing jig - which isn't the best for dish checking but can be used.

I also put the wheel in some older Reba teams on the 'guest' bike, and it is centrally positioned.

Posted 5 months ago #
sugdenr - Member

TandemJeremy - Member
Phil w - you don't have to - strict liability applies. Dog causes damage, dog owner liable. the dog has to be under control at all times and if it knocks someone off who is riding lawfully and reasonably then the dog owner is liable with no real defense

TJ - I think you maye be misinterpreting this. If the dog had attacked his wheel it would be different, non-dangerous dogs are free to roam common land, getting run over by a bike isnt what was envisaged for the strict liability.

Posted 5 months ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

phil w - animals act its capable of interpretation but its pretty harsh on the dog owner.

sugdenr

You have an obligation to keep the dog under control at all times. Fail to do so and you are liable for the damage caused. If your dog knocks someone off a bike who is cycling responsibly and legally its very hard to see yo having a defence as how could the dog knock someone off if it is under control?

Posted 5 months ago #
5lab - Member

thing is for the wheel to be over to one side, you'd have to twist one leg of the forks to make it shorter than the other leg (!?) this seems unlikely. a twisted fork would more likely result in the wheel not being pointing straight when the fork is?

Posted 5 months ago #
TurnerGuy - Member

thing is for the wheel to be over to one side, you'd have to twist one leg of the forks to make it shorter than the other leg (!?) this seems unlikely. a twisted fork would more likely result in the wheel not being pointing straight when the fork is?

the dropouts can't be aligned anymore, one must be slightly lower than the other to tilt the wheel over. Looking at the stantions they do look a little skewed, but the wheel doesn't seem to obviously pointing to one side.

Posted 5 months ago #
TurnerGuy - Member

It is my calf I am most worried about - its been two weeks for the bruising to go down and I am left with a lump.

I am suppossed to be getting fit for skiing but have been laying off the running.

I think I am going to try the other tack now and try beating up on it combined with running the sh1t out of it and see what happens - no pain, no gain...

Posted 5 months ago #
5lab - Member

you could always try some brute force to bend em back I assume its a one-piece fork, not got a brace on it you can undo and re-tighten?

I've still got a lump on my side from a stack in whistler, 2 years ago. it doesn't hurt, just sits there, being lumpy. If your legs not giving you pain just get on it

Posted 5 months ago #
sugdenr - Member

TJ - I dont believe that you would make that stick in court, its not what the legislation was about. The close control element is about protection of livestock (and people) from attack/fear of attack (worring etc). The dog was running about on common land, and there is no suggestion that is was not under control - and by close control this is not preventing it running free this is keeping it obedient. So, an extreme case, a sheepdog is under close control but can be hundreds of yards away.
My point being not that dog was not at fault, but that the strict liability does not apply here, TG would need to demonstrate negligence.

Posted 5 months ago #
phil.w - Member

You have an obligation to keep the dog under control at all times. Fail to do so and you are liable for the damage caused. If your dog knocks someone off a bike who is cycling responsibly and legally its very hard to see yo having a defence as how could the dog knock someone off if it is under control?

Having just read the act you mention - animals act - I disagree with your interpretation that it is automatically the dogs fault. The only bit that applies to dogs is the following...

.

(2) Where damage is caused by an animal which does not belong to a dangerous species, a keeper of the animal is liable for the damage, except as otherwise provided by this Act, if—

(a) the damage is of a kind which the animal, unless restrained, was likely to cause or which, if caused by the animal, was likely to be severe; and

(b) the likelihood of the damage or of its being severe was due to characteristics of the animal which are not normally found in animals of the same species or are not normally so found except at particular times or in particular circumstances; and

(c) those characteristics were known to that keeper or were at any time known to a person who at that time had charge of the animal as that keeper’s servant or, where that keeper is the head of a household, were known to another keeper of the animal who is a member of that household and under the age of sixteen.

.

The bit that is of particular relevance is...

.

(a) the damage is of a kind which the animal, unless restrained, was likely to cause or which, if caused by the animal, was likely to be severe;

.

and that hangs around the interpretation of 'likely to cause'.

I think in circumstances of walking a dog on open countryside then the likely nature of a dog bike collision is quite small, therefore not likely. - It's something people do every day and these type of incidences are fortunately rare.

Posted 5 months ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

Plenty of precedent for this.
sugdenr - close control and under control are two different things

Burden of proof would be on the dog owner that the dpg was under control and it was not likely that it would knock a cyclist off as

Where damage is caused by an animal which does not belong to a dangerous species, a keeper of the animal is liable for the damage,

Posted 5 months ago #
milkyman - Member

somtimes accidents just happen, if you had hit the dog and caused it a lot of injurys, are you insured to pay for them, or willing to pay for them
I am quite surpprised she even gave you her details TBH,

Posted 5 months ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

No need to milkyman - no obligation at all unless you were reckless or otherwise at fault. Just riding along, dog knocks you off, dog owner liable for all damage including to the dog

Posted 5 months ago #
geordiemick00 - Member

and if it knocks someone off who is riding lawfully

Prove it.
the cost of taking it to court outweighs the rewards.

If I ride in a place where humans can roam I expect their best friend to do the same.

If the OP was wiped out by a sheep would he pursue the farmer?? Doubt it.

Posted 5 months ago #
TurnerGuy - Member

TG would need to demonstrate negligence.

I can easily do that, and often do

Posted 5 months ago #
phil.w - Member

Just riding along, dog knocks you off, dog owner liable for all damage including to the dog

Except to try and back this opinion up you are only quoting part of the relevant act.

If fact, to try and make it show what you want it too you had to quote part of a sentence. You need to include the bit after the word 'if'.

Posted 5 months ago #
milkyman - Member

in the real world your riding along, some one, not a lady, but could be, an dog knocks you of the owner of the dog is a loud shouty person, threating manner etc, then what
do you risk getting your head kicked in for asking for details, or do you put it down to experiance and learn from it

i know what i would do, the law is one thing but not all ways helpful in a real life situation, that all i am trying to point out

Posted 5 months ago #
DezB - Member

Prove it.
the cost of taking it to court outweighs the rewards.

Totally agree.
I'm insured but if someone hit my dog, they'd have to prove it was the dog's/my fault, not theirs.

Posted 5 months ago #