1 m - its not so much the distance as the approach. Coming close to me as they pass - no issue - coming at me - thats the issue. I don't want it in my personal space.
Chat Forum
Dogs biting
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Bump for the glitch
Posted 1 year ago # -
<1m seems reasonable to me, mine might run towards a cyclist/jogger/walker/horse rider, however it would only be to see if they have a dog.
The problems I have to deal with is strangers giving him treats (which makes him home in on strangers, incase they have food), or fluffing his head/ears then standing up quickly which makes him jump, which is scary as he can put his paws on most peoples shoulders. PITA really especially as I warn them and they still do it, as they are 'good with dogs'.
Posted 1 year ago # -
No - its the dogs behaviour that causes the problem here - this is what you fail to see. The family has an absolute right not to be approached by your dog, you only have the right to let your dog run around free so long as it is not causing annoyance or nuisance.
No, you are completly wrong, if my dog is running around minding its own business (not approaching a family) and they start freaking out and screaming because they see a dog, that is THEIR problem and they are startling my dog. Their irrational fear is the problem here. You wouldn't walk up to a horse and start screaming at it would you?
Just like the stupid brainless parents off the kids near me who openly say to their kids, don't pet the dog because it will bite you.
Congratulations you complete retards, you are now instilling in your kids your own irrational fear of dogs.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I'll give a couple of examples of the sort of thing that is a nuisance without the dog being dangerous.
Out for a ride and we stop for a picnic as we often do. Dog comes up ( Labrador) - no owner in sight a starts sniffing around us and our food. It got its muddy paws on the jacket I was sitting on and I had to act quickly to prevent it touching my food.
Now that is not a dangerous dog - not barking nor causing fear - but definitely causing annoyance and nuisance.
Out on the shared use path. Ring the bell - owner sees me and does not call the dog. I assume dog is OK around cycles. Slow to a reasonable pace and attempt to go past. Dog panics and darts about on the path. I have to stop hard to avoid hitting it. The owner knew I was there but didn't get the dog under control so the dog nearly caused me to crash. a less experienced rider might have either crashed or hit the dog - this was a little yappy thing that could have been killed by being run over.
Again - its the dog owners responsibility to contriol the dog - I had given them plenty of warning I was there and they chose not to.
Posted 1 year ago # -
+1 richc,
you can never have 100% trust in what your dog will do, I just do my best to try and anticipate situations and be ready to act quickly if need be. Like my dog I'm not infallable, but between us it is working.
What dog do you have by the way? It sounds rather large!
Posted 1 year ago # -
TJ,
1st example is of a dog trying to steal your food.
2nd example is of a dog acting dangerously almost making you injure yourself.Agree that this is not acceptable.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Just like the stupid brainless parents off the kids near me who openly say to their kids, don't pet the dog because it will bite you.
Congratulations you complete retards, you are now instilling in your kids your own irrational fear of dogs.
Actually hainey, I am quite happy that people do that, as it confuses my dog when he knows he isn't supposed to hassle strangers, but then they come and hassle/pet him. As he doesn't know who he is and isn't allowed to greet.
Also he is a dog, so I don't 100% trust him with small children, as they can (and have) poked him in the eyes, which can lead to him yelping loudly and if he can't get away mouthing (not biting, as there is only enough pressure to feel a gentle squeeze) their hands/arms to make them stop hurting him.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hainey - you need to get real. People with attitudes like your that the dog has the right to run free and do what it wants cause a lot of friction between dog owners and non dog owners. Just 'cos you love your dog does not mean everyone else has to.
You really are a muppet of the highest order - blaming the victims all the time.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hiney - neither is an example of a dog "dangerously out of control" as defined in teh dangerous dogs act.
So now you admit that actually your duty to keep your dog under control means preventing it causing annoyance or nuisance.
Posted 1 year ago # -
This is like groundhog day! We had EXACTLY the same debate last year, with the pretty much the same people involved saying the same things.
TJ has no dog problem that i can make out, but he has a reasonable expectation that dogs should be properly controlled in public places and it is the dog owners responsibility to ensure their dog is not causing a nuisance. The only thing i would say is that TJ is expressing this quite agressively (probably out of frustration) and some of the dog faction just dont seem to get it.
I really dont see what more there is to actually debate here. Dog owners seem to be taking this as some sort of personal criticism that they are not controlling their dog properly, when if they are doing as suggested by the various codes etc quoted, they have nothing to be annoyed about. You cant really factor for people with phobias, but a general consideration of others is appropriate. Its your dog, you should know how they behave, react and interact with other people, so you should control the dog accordingly. If you dont know how your dog will behave or react, then it should be on a lead.
This debate is not about cycling, but having a reasonable consideration for those around you.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TJ,
You're the one with the issues. I suggest you go and see someone about them.
So i go to a local area where dogs are specifically allowed off leash and my dog is running around in a field playing fetch and a family who have an irrational fear of dogs who are, well, about 10metres away from us start screaming at him. Get real, they have the problem, not my dog.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thank you bigyinn. Well put.
Posted 1 year ago # -
richc, i disagree, having my dog on a lead and having him sit whilst children come up to pet him under my supervision is the IDEAL manner in which children can learn to interact with pets.
How else do they learn?
Idiotic parents who tell there kids that all dogs are dangerous and will eventually bite them is completly wrong.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Its your dog, you should know how they behave, react and interact with other people, so you should control the dog accordingly. If you dont know how your dog will behave or react, then it should be on a lead.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that.
Posted 1 year ago # -
So now you admit that actually your duty to keep your dog under control means preventing it causing annoyance or nuisance.
Its your definition of annoyance or nuisance which is the issue TJ.
I fear that if you had things your way all dogs would be on a lead at all times or worse still they would never be allowed to leave their home.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TJ in your last post the dogs owners are clearly irresponsible but I still fail to see how the law was broken. If you feel the law was broken why didnt you call the police? I've read that cut and paste job from defra, I've read the scottish access code thingy and I just dont see where you think its written in law. Again has anyone ever been prosecuted because the dog annoyed them but didnt show any agression? I agree from a socially moral perspective if you ask for the dog to be taken away it should be, no doubt, no questions. I just dont see how you think you'd have any standing to take legal action if my dog didnt cause reasonable grounds for you to feel scared.
Posted 1 year ago # -
As if its over 5 meters, I think everyone is going to agree you need some professional help, under 5 meters and you are in a grey area (as the dog could be trying to get past you to see something interesting and you are in the way) < 1 meter and I feel you have a point.
This might be fine for walking pace but if I'm doing 15mph ish in a cyclelane & a dog starts running straight at me at full speed then the distance at which it is causing a nuisance is much greater as I'm having to assume its going to cause me to serve.
TJ is right here, dog owners are the ones who need to take the action to control thier dogs not everyone else pussy foot around to suit them.
Posted 1 year ago # -
What dog do you have by the way? It sounds rather large!
I have a Chesapeake Bay (which is essentially a heavier set working Lab) crossed with a Spinone, so he has the height of a Spinone and the bulk and intelligence of the Chesapeak, however he is very gentle, if a little bullheaded and hyper.
He's weighs around 40kg, and around 70cm(ish) to his withers (still growing though! as he is only 15 months old), which means that he can put his head onto a standard dining room table, no problem. Which can be embarrassing in Pub's when people give him treats (I ask them not to, but people still do) and then he helps himself to their food, if they aren't careful.
Obligatory dog picture
Out for a ride and we stop for a picnic as we often do. Dog comes up ( Labrador)
I don't know about anyone else, but I see a picnic, I take my dog elsewhere as I have no doubt that he will take the punishment in the face of sausages/cheese/biscuits/apples etc, the crappy dry biscuits/gravy bones in my pockets can't compete.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TJ - your second example bothers me...
Out on the shared use path. Ring the bell - owner sees me and does not call the dog. I assume dog is OK around cycles. Slow to a reasonable pace and attempt to go past. Dog panics and darts about on the path. I have to stop hard to avoid hitting it. The owner knew I was there but didn't get the dog under control so the dog nearly caused me to crash. a less experienced rider might have either crashed or hit the dog - this was a little yappy thing that could have been killed by being run over.
Because it is a very frustrating circumsatnce that I come across every day that I commute by bike. Dogs in a Cardiff park where the main path is also Cardiff's main cycle artery. Most dog owners (and walkers) take the view that the council's signs for cyclists to give way applies carte blanche. It is a daily occurence for walkers to walk 2,3,4 or more abreast along the trail, eyeball you and still not move - becasue cyclists have to give way, right? Add a dog / dogs into the mix, and as you say, it's cover the brakes and expect an emergency stop at any moment.
As a rider I am very unsure about where liability would sit. My view in these sort of shared environments is that the dog should be on a lead to be in control - too much traffic, and it is a designated cycle commute trail. But as a cyclist I am under an obligation to give way (to the person, if not the dog). I had some very aggressive threatening behaviour aimed at me when I have narrowly avoided an off-lead Jack Russell.
The law may make no distinction, but for practical purposes this is a very different environment to, say, foresty. I ride and dog walk in a local FC forest - good DH and XC trails, and the dog can be off the lead. As a rider and a walker I expect to come across dogs that are not on a lead - and I expect both riders and dog owners to anticipate the same.
Posted 1 year ago # -
richc - he's ace!!!!!!!
Posted 1 year ago # -
This is actually becoming quite an amusing thread to keep tabs on - the only worrying aspect is that there are people able to quote DEFRA codes verbatim. I'm sure it's been done before, but this seemed appropriate the the present time...
Posted 1 year ago # -
I've followed this with interest over the past few days, and there's too much to read all over again.
TJ, I'll accept your definition of being under cotrol, but as far as I can see you haven't defined "nuisance or annoyance." You do though give me the impression that it would mean whatever you want it to mean. Having said that, this is what you're up against (and indeed what I/ responsible owners are up against).
I was walking along a shared use path with my GSD, along with another owner and her GSD. Some other people wanted to pass so I made my dog lay down until they were past.
When it was clear, I gave the signal that she could break and do what she wanted , at which point the other owner asked me:
"Do you make her lay down every time someone comes past?"
"Yes" I replied.
"Why do you do that?" she asked.
Now it's not that her dog was in any way a danger, it was just sniffing about, but I don't want to give anyone any excuse to complain about GSD's as they do unfortunately have a bit of a reputation (undeservedly so imo).
It strikes me that on that particular occasion, you wouldn't have been happy with her dog sniffing about - because you don't trust dogs. If it's all dogs that you don't trust, then it would seem that you do have some sort of issue despite what you claim.
Posted 1 year ago # -
richc, i disagree, having my dog on a lead and having him sit whilst children come up to pet him under my supervision is the IDEAL manner in which children can learn to interact with pets.
I guess ultimately, I don't care about how other people bring up their children, my dog is my responsibility and I don't want to confuse him. If people are convinced he is a rabid killer in a fur coat, and give him a wide berth, great, one less person I have to watch when taking him for a walk. Ultimately in my experience if you act weird, the dog thinks you are weird and gives you a wide berth anyway.
I have been asked if its OK for children to pet him, and is he safe? and I always reply, he is very gentle and big, but ultimately a dog so he isn't 100% reliable, and if they still want to pet him, I make him lie down, head on the floor, on a very short lead.
This might be fine for walking pace but if I'm doing 15mph ish in a cyclelane & a dog starts running straight at me at full speed then the distance at which it is causing a nuisance is much greater as I'm having to assume its going to cause me to serve.
Thing is a distance over 5-10 meters, the dog could be going anywhere, a ten meter radius exclusion zone move at 15 miles an hour is a bloody big area you are saying the dog isn't allowed to go into.
Just because a dog is running towards you, doesn't mean that its running at you!
People have to learn to live together, no single group has the overriding *right* to have their every whim granted, and it seems that some cyclists have a victim crisis going on in their head, which means that they think that the world and law should revolve around them.
Also, another thing to think about, if you polled most users of the outdoors asking which one group of people do they consider to the be biggest PITA in the countryside, which group do you think would be highlighted?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Im going over here >>> to talk to the wall
Posted 1 year ago # -
Nice pooch richc, lets lay this thread to rest and have a large dog pics one instead. I will have to sort my charger out before I can post the grey pig though.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hey ho.
finally got the point over I think
A couple of wee issues to try to clear up
AA - the law in that case with the two incidents I mention is civil law not criminal. I could sue but its the sort of thing where you win the case and get 1p in damages as there is no damage!
Taylor - ita all dogs I don't know I distrust. I have no problem with dogs that I have got to know 'cos they belong to friends
As regards the undefined "out of control" ( rather than the defined "dangerously out of control) and annoyance and nuisance the definition would be I believe subject to the usual "reasonableness" test in law - which has various definitions but I like "as understood by the man on the clapham omnibus" - in other words as a normal reasonable person would see it - ultimatly as decided by a jury.
Rikk01 - in the example you quote again it comes down to being in control for both the dog and the cycle and what is reasonable. I doubt it reasonable for a well trained dog to be on a lead but it must be under control. It would also be reasonable for a cyclist to slow and take care.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Judas Priest! Is this thread still running!?!!!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Last touch!
Posted 1 year ago # -
As regards the undefined "out of control" ( rather than the defined "dangerously out of control) and annoyance and nuisance the definition would be I believe subject to the usual "reasonableness" test in law - which has various definitions but I like "as understood by the man on the clapham omnibus" - in other words as a normal reasonable person would see it - ultimatly as decided by a jury.
You want to be able to take owners to court and let a jury decide whether or not a dog is causing annoyance or nuisance?
Posted 1 year ago # -
You already have that right. It would be rather stupid to do so and it might get struck out as frivolous. Thats how these things are defined and decided tho - either by a new case or by referring to previous similar cases that have been tested in the courts.
Posted 1 year ago # -
AA - the law in that case with the two incidents I mention is civil law not criminal. I could sue but its the sort of thing where you win the case and get 1p in damages as there is no damage!
Has anyone ever in the history of the known universe won that 1p?
Hey TJ you looking at my fookin ball!!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Don't know if this thread is still UP. But i enjoyed the conversation and the info(s) here, especially samuri.
Posted 10 months ago # -
next time it could take a chunk out of an innocent child.
Posted 10 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
