...careful now.
I'm guessing the first sentence is somewhere in those first 4 pages
Chat Forum
[closed]
MTB Hazards : Dogs
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Furthermore, I'd be surprised to find out that trespass is actually dependent on the mode of transport.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Furthermore, I'd be surprised to find out that trespass is actually dependent on the mode of transport.
Can you trespass when riding a hovercraft as you're technically not in contact with the ground?Posted 1 year ago # -
From legal dictionary:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/trespass
Tort Law originated in England with the action of trespass. Initially trespass was any wrongful conduct directly causing injury or loss; in modern law trespass is an unauthorized entry upon land. A trespass gives the aggrieved party the right to bring a civil lawsuit and collect damages as compensation for the interference and for any harm suffered. Trespass is an intentional tort and, in some circumstances, can be punished as a crime.
We have already determined that cycling on a footpath is an offence under the section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act. So you have admitted to an offence when cycling on a footpath, hence you are on private land without authorisation, hence you are trespassing (this isn't rocket science)
This bit is also a worth bearing in mind as well:
In a trespass action, the plaintiff does not have to show that the defendant intended to trespass but only that she intended to do whatever caused the trespass. It is no excuse that the trespasser mistakenly believed that she was not doing wrong or that she did not understand the wrong. A child can be a trespasser, as can a person who thought that she was on her own land.
So pushing your bike when you see someone coming doesn't save your ass.
Personally, I think its nuts so don't worry about it, however I know that I am trespassing and am prepared to take the consequences if I get caught
Posted 1 year ago # -
a dog is like any other mtb hazard
you need to consider your speed and body position.i guess its the smaller dogs that get kicked or ridden into, nobody has ever thought about kicking my dog.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TediousJeremy - I think you have mentioned once or twice that the law requires a dog to be under control at all times? Can you be a bit more specific about what 'under control' means then, because I don't see how a dog that is just walking along a path minding it's own business just out for a stroll and then stops to watch when an odd thing (i.e. a bicycle) hurtles towards it is out of control. Or does 'under control' really mean '**** off and hiding behind a tree whenever I come within half a mile of it because I am scared of dogs'?
EDIT - I lost the will halfway down page 4 so didn't read the rest, or page 5, in case it was covered there.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Undercontrol -
yes if it is walking along minding its own business its under control. It does not have to be on a lead but it does have to not bother anyone else. It must obey commands from the owner / person in charge.
All I want is my legitimate right to go about my business without being bothered by your dog.
Posted 1 year ago # -
So what do you mean by bothering you? My dogs trot along happily doing there own thing. They stop and say hello to other dogs, and to people who talk to them. They just ignore other people, and walk right past them, maybe look at them or something, but they don't get out of the way for them especially. Can you cope with that?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Yup - thats fine - so long as if its in my way you call it and it obeys.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Or you can ride around it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
if I can ride around it it ain't in my way! I have right of way anyway
anyway trout - you sorted out this killer yet? or does it have to stay in the pot?
Posted 1 year ago # -
We have already determined that cycling on a footpath is an offence under the section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act. So you have admitted to an offence when cycling on a footpath, hence you are on private land without authorisation, hence you are trespassing (this isn't rocket science)
LoL. This is not clear at all! Easier if you show me any bit of legislation where cycling on the pavement is defined as trespass.
Is the pavement private land?
and you accicentally left this bit out
Generally, trespass actions are permitted only where there is some damage to the surface or some interference with the owner's rights to use her property.
Who is the owner in this case?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think you are trying to shift the goalpost, we were talking about footpaths not pavements.
You can't change the context to suit your arguement.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hey it's a big world with room for all of us, can't we all just get along?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I'm not changing it to suit an argument. I don't have and argument. I'm trying to get some information!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Just try riding over this dog!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGdXcitOUzY&feature=player_detailpage
Posted 1 year ago # -
ok, change my 'pavement' to 'footpath' if you will. the questions still stand
Posted 1 year ago # -
Bagstard: I wasn’t actually referring to you specifically, I was referring to the general tone of some of the comments on the thread, but thanks for the apology albeit unnecessary. Anyway, from now on in please fill your boots I’m not sensitive or anything.
Back to the point. In support of TJ’s point this is the actual wording from Section 10 of the Dangerous Dogs Act
(3)For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person, whether or not it actually does so, but references to a dog injuring a person or there being grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so do not include references to any case in which the dog is being used for a lawful purpose by a constable or a person in the service of the Crown.
The general point being that if a person is in fear due to your mutts behaviour whether or not it actually does anything is immaterial. Or to put it another way TJ's right and its the owners problem not the cyclist/pedestrian etc etc.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Well I will repost then:
We have already determined that cycling on a footpath is an offence under the section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act. So you have admitted to an offence when cycling on a footpath, hence you are on private land without authorisation, hence you are trespassing (this isn't rocket science)
Cycling on a footpath is technically trespass, according to the legal definition. If you don't agree with that, I guess it doesn't matter, because the lawyers/judges do and they have the final say.
Posted 1 year ago # -
BB, you need to include the exceptions, one of which is:
Exceptions from liability under sections 2 to 4.(1)A person is not liable under sections 2 to 4 of this Act for any damage which is due wholly to the fault of the person suffering it.
So you decide to ram a dog, them you hit that exception and you are in the wrong not the owner/animal.
Posted 1 year ago # -
anyway I am going out for a run with my dog, where I will let him chase squirrels, run around like a loony and get randomly assaulted by mountain bikers/walkers and children who will accost him by patting him on the head and generally fussing him, whilst he threatens them with bodily harm unless they give him a biscuit.
Posted 1 year ago # -
So you have admitted to an offence when cycling on a footpath, hence you are on private land without authorisation, hence you are trespassing
No, this is an assumption on your part. It would appear that it is trespass according to you interpretation of the law, but I've not seen it described or defined as such anywhere else. Given that you say that lawyers/judges say that this is the case, I'm only asking you to show me where.
In a similar vein
Generally, trespass actions are permitted only where there is some damage to the surface or some interference with the owner's rights to use her property.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Anyway, Where is TJ? We agreed he'd tag in at 5.00
Posted 1 year ago # -
The general point being that if a person is in fear due to your mutts behaviour whether or not it actually does anything is immaterial. Or to put it another way TJ's right and its the owners problem not the cyclist/pedestrian etc etc.
Agreed, with the caveat that, as per your quote, the apprehension must be reasonable, which might well exclude TJ's hysteria, so he's not necessarily right
Posted 1 year ago # -
hello?
Can't be bothered no more.
Posted 1 year ago # -
tag!
cya
Posted 1 year ago # -
Another interesting point, if you cycle on footpaths (which I do, on occassion) you are committing trespass, then this one kicks in:
A person is not liable under section 2 of this Act for any damage caused by an animal kept on any premises or structure to a person trespassing there,
irresepctive of trespass could you point me to the legal ruling / Act defining a public footpath as a "premises or structure" for this to kick in and where it states that a dog on a pavement is being "kept" there
Posted 1 year ago # -
Taff Trail is funny...for some reason the owners and the dogs frequently decide to walk on opposite sides of the trail.
Usually it goes like this..."ting ting"..dog and owner turn around and see bike. Dog owner calls dog...across the trail in front of the slowing bike. Dog looks at owner calling and looks at bike and thinks.."there's a bike coming...but owner wants me - I'll wait until bike goes past then go and see what owner wants". Owner gets more and more agitated calling the dog...dog gets more and more stressed...wanting to go to owner, but not wanting to cross in front of bike....Me and my bike get slower and slower as I know damn well if I try to ride through it will be a millisecond after the dogs obedience to it's owner instinct eventually overrides it's sense of self preservation and it decides to make a break for it. Occasionally it ends up as a mexican standoff...Irate owner shouting at a dog who refuses to cross in front of a now trackstanding cyclist.
Of course if the owner were to just cross the road to the dogs side when they heard a bike bell there wouldn't be a problem. Dogs are quite intelligent...certainly when compared to Dog owners.
By the way have we done those 30foot long cyclist garrotting dog leads yet?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Dogs are quite intelligent...certainly when compared to Dog owners.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Just run them over they soon learn (best avoid the bigger ones with short legs unless you have a 160mm FS bike)
As for knocking a cyclist off, if you rammed a car because it was in the way, would you expect the car driver to pay for the damage to you and your bike? If you ram a dog, you are going to end up with a very large bill (in the thousands, as vets aren't cheap) and the excuse 'it didn't move' isn't going to hold you in very good stead.
If someone cycled into my dog, because it was in the way it would be *their* fault.
A frightened dog that runs into your path is not out of control, merely startled and confused.
What is all this drek about 'riding into' or 'ramming' dogs? Nobody on a bike is going to deliberately ride at a dog, the rider will almost inevitably be bought off the bike and injure themselves, probably more than the dog. Being rammed by an out of control dog off a lead coming at you at a dead run from the side when you're not expecting it will result in injury. I have run over a dog, riding a section of Sustrans route along the edge of a playing field after sunset. I had lights on, and I couldn't see a soul about, but as I passed a carved stone seat about five feet off the path to my left I caught a white blur out of the corner of my eye and the next second I was nearly thrown over the bars. Somehow, God knows how, I stayed upright and heard a yelp from whatever it was I hit, and a shriek from a female and a bloke shout something. I kept going, but at no time had I seen anybody there, as it was nearly dark, so how, exactly, could I be responsible for 'ramming' a dog that shot out of nowhere with no warning, when the owners were there, and obviously not paying attention to and controlling their dog?
Of course if the owner were to just cross the road to the dogs side when they heard a bike bell there wouldn't be a problem. Dogs are quite intelligent...certainly when compared to Dog owners.
By the way have we done those 30foot long cyclist garrotting dog leads yet?
Don't get me started on these sort of idiots. I always ring my bell coming up behind people, (which once startled a horse and nearly unseated the rider), but the number of people who don't pay attention, tell me I have to get off and push my bike past their damned mutt, or tell me to slow down when I'm barely going fast enough to actually get past them is beyond counting. I actually had one person tell me I was going too fast when they had their back to me and I was trackstanding saying "excuse me, please", after they'd ignored my bell, and their dog was wandering about right in front of my bike. How can a stationary cyclist be going too fast? I'm not going to quote laws or anything, but I know the rights and wrongs of controlling dogs in a public place, and a busy Sustrans Route alongside a canal is no place to have two or three large dogs off their leads roaming around where there are many small children about, as well as peds and cyclists. This is common bloody sense, which all to many dog owners seem to leave in a mug by the side of the bed when they get up in the morning. And as for the excrement...Posted 1 year ago # -
Count - call out to horse riders - for some reason bells almost always spook horses.
Posted 1 year ago # -
horses, dont get my started on horses, "your bikes scaring my horse", "slow down" "just come past it scares my horse you being behind me" "ring a bell" "dont ring a bell it scares my horse" "Your dog is scaring my horse" as she litterally was quivering in a ditch as this bloody great horse jumped about like a looney now if people think dogs are dumb, those bloody things......
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ah - so the boots on the other foot when its not your beloved mutt?
Hypocrisy?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Really, some people should not be allowed outdoors after reading this thread
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
