TJ, see my link to news story above; I appreciate that it isn't directly comparable but who would you say was to blame in those instances?
Bike Forum
Which is better - a Hope Hoop wheel or a Border Collie ?
-
Posted 6 months ago #
-
Who knows? We do not have enough information but under normal circumstances the only way a dog can collide with a bike is for the dog not to be under control
Posted 6 months ago # -
The dog isn't to blame, and no one says it is. It would be pretty daft to pursue a border collie for damages, in any case.
You appear not to understand the distinction between blame and legal liability - which isn't a great position from which to understand the legal intricacies of the rest of this discussion.The original discussion that you have jumped in on without actually being bothered to read what has already been said hinges on whether oe not the dog owner is AUTOMATICALLY liable for any damage that occurs when his dog and a cyclist are involved in a collision. TJ and Elf seem to think that they are
Given that elf and TJ have both been on to point out that's not what they're claiming (I thought I'd better point that out for those who've been silly enough to killfile them) it seems I'm not the one with a problem reading and comprehending the whole thread. Re-reading your contributions, it's far from clear that you think the dog owner is liable at all for a dog jumping out in front of a cyclist.MOST IMPORTANTLY the OP basically shrugs and says not to worry
He hasn't said he isn't going to get the money for a new wheel from the dog owner though...Posted 6 months ago # -
We do not have enough information but under normal circumstances the only way a dog can collide with a bike is for the dog not to be under control
Complete and utter tosh. if a dog is walking to heel and an out of control biker ploughs into it??? You seem to think that a dog cannot be exercised off the lead and be under control. You would be very wrong. I'd love to see the relevant bit of the Animals Act 1971 that you keep quoting but not actually showing. I shall say for the last time, that if the biker has not slowed to a reasonable speed and made the owner and dog aware of their presence then they are at least partly to blame. Have you got any evidence that isn't a vague advert?
Posted 6 months ago # -
Devs - hence the
under normal circumstances
Of course if the bike is crashes into a dog at heel then the biker would be at fault - but if the biker is riding normally and hits a dog the dog owner is at fault.Posted 6 months ago # -
He hasn't said he isn't going to get the money for a new wheel from the dog owner though...
I did say that the owner was going to send me a cheque for £50 (which is around half the rebuild cost), but that
Not sure if I would cash it anyway
as I said I slow right down for any dog I see (unless they are chasing me), I just didn't see this one until it was under my bike.
It was her suggestion of making a donation to the cost of the repair.
I was also toying with the idea of donating it to the dogs trust.
Posted 6 months ago # -
if the biker has not slowed to a reasonable speed and made the owner and dog aware of their presence then they are at least partly to blame.
Substitute dog for car (waiting to turn out of a side road). The cyclist is partly to blame if he's not sounded his horn at the car driver and slowed down enough that he can stop if the car pulls out and he goes over the bonnet?Posted 6 months ago # -
Posted 6 months ago #
-
No need to post self-portraits, devs.
Have you got any evidence that isn't a vague advert?
Are you suggesting that because they're using the case to advertise their business that it's a made up story? Or am I missing the point you're making here - you seem to think that using a case as an advert somehow devalues it?Posted 6 months ago # -
I refer the dishonourable muppet to my comments of some moments ago.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Substitute dog for car (waiting to turn out of a side road). The cyclist is partly to blame if he's not sounded his horn at the car driver and slowed down enough that he can stop if the car pulls out and he goes over the bonnet?
Ah yes, but if the cyclist came out of the side road straight into the path of the car, then the cyclist would have some, if not all of the blame, depending upon how reasonable the car driver's observation and speed was? No?
Posted 6 months ago # -
Ah yes, but if the cyclist came out of the side road straight into the path of the car, then the cyclist would have some, if not all of the blame, depending upon how reasonable the car driver's observation and speed was? No?
Yes of course. If there was a dog running safely along a BW and a cyclist emerged out of the bushes straight into the dog, I'd be inclined to blame the cyclist.Posted 6 months ago # -
Okay, so what if, using the same car vs cyclist analogy, both road users were on the same road, with equal right of way and neither saw each other, resulting in a collision? Shared blame? No?
Posted 6 months ago # -
Okay, so what if, using the same car vs cyclist analogy, both road users were on the same road, with equal right of way and neither saw each other, resulting in a collision? Shared blame? No?
Not possible. Somebody has right of way. We're also getting away from the OP's case (which is pretty much like the car pulling out in front of cyclist, replace car with dog - it wasn't just a random analogy you know). Not only that, but if it did come down to it then given "equal right of way" between a cyclist and a dog, the dog is at fault for not being under control.You're not proving your point by coming up with strawmen.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Of course it's possible, otherwise thee would be no such thing as knock for knock. In fact in motoring, blame is rarely completely put at one party's door, usually a percentage is apportioned, depending on culpability.
Anyway, as to proving my point, I have done so. My point was never that it was the cyclists fault, or even the dogs, or the dog owners. My point was that it very much DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION. I don't know enough about the situation in the OPs case. With the greatest of respect to TurnerGuy, (I mean that sincerely) we've only heard the story from his point of view, so we don't have enough info to judge.
Posted 6 months ago # -
My point was that it very much DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION.
Hmm - we may have both been arguing the same point (but then I knew that a while back
)
Posted 6 months ago # -
Hmm - we may have both been arguing the same point (but then I knew that a while back )
I had my suspicions too... BrilliantOh Hell. You know what that means? It means that by default, you disagree with TJ and Elf, and that they will therefor be summoned from their slumber to engage you with their verbose ramblings and absolute conviction that they are always right.
Hark, I hear the patter of hooves even now...
Posted 6 months ago # -
A dog and a bike (briefly) occupied the same space and time on a track through the woods.
We're not talking about a road here with markings and trafic flow and priorities. We're talking about a trail through the woods.
We're not talking about a dog mauling somones face off, just running through the ferns.
So a dog and a bike (briefly) occupied the same space and time on a track through the woods....
To apportion blame to one party or the other in the circumstances described by the OP is frankly moronic and I'm genuinely suprised by the positions taken by (some) posters on here.
Posted 6 months ago # -
fourbanger - its what the law says tho - the dog owner must keep their dog under control and a dog that knocks someone off their bike is not under control leaving the dog owner liable.
people keep trying to put some equivalence between the dog and the human - they do not have any equivalence - the human has the right to go about their business unhindered by the dog, the dogs owner has a duty to keep it under control which means out of peoples way.
In the OPs case the dog IS liable for the damage as they would be in almost all bike / dog collisions
Posted 6 months ago # -
In the OPs case the dog IS liable for the damage as they would be in almost all bike / dog collisions
The dog is liable? How can the dog be liable? It has no rights. It has no equivalence to a human... Blah blah blah...
What you mean is, the dogs owner is probably liable, although it would depend on the specific facts of the situation, which we are not in possession of.
Give it up TJ. You've made yourself look a pedantic fool in this thread.
Posted 6 months ago # -
v8ninety - Member
Give it up TJ. You've made yourself look a pedantic fool in this thread.Please don't engage it in insults, it'll only start another stream of self indulgent posting again
Posted 6 months ago # -
Ok thats a misstype - I do mean dog owner.
I am merely trying to explain your legal responsibilities to you. You may want to pretend its not the case but you as a dog owner have an absolute responsibility to keep your dog under control and are liable for any damage caused if your dog is not under control.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Oh, that's good of you. (I'm not a dog owner BTW, just someone with a more rounded view on life than yourself, it seems. However, I'm not disputing the legal responsibilities of a dog owner, just that we don't know the facts of the case, no one asked us to judge, and that liability depends on the situation specifics.
And sorry about the pedantic fool bit, that was rude of me.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience! Saying the same thing over and over as a matter of fact does not in fact, make it a fact. FACT!
Posted 6 months ago # -
Never argue with an idiot
I wouldn't dream of disagreeing.Posted 6 months ago # -
Firstly: INRATS
Secondly: I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the protaganists/pugalists on taking utterly pointless internet bickering to an epic new level. And all in your own time, over the weekend too. Well done. Seriously. You should feel proud. And definitely not sit softly weeping instead, rocking back and too, upon realising you're utterly wasting your life.
*stands back and applauds loudly*
Posted 6 months ago # -
Ah, I see, at least the thread ended with a sensible comment.
Well done binners.*applauds binners* (though only mentally otherwise I'd look a bit of a twit)(again)
Posted 6 months ago # -
+1 Binners
Posted 6 months ago # -
I have only read the first page, but let me guess-
OP is reasonable, he was as much in wrong as dog owner.
Elf / TJ or some other twit bang on and on about their opinion / irrelevant legal point.
Net result- folk leaving STW.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Yeah, Binners, point taken. I just can't help biting...
And we don't all work 9-5 mon fri, either...
Posted 6 months ago # -
I recall a recent thread where someone pointed out that just repeating the same exact point again and again and again and again was unlikely to convince anyone of anything.
In a startling moment of self-awareness TJ posted a
smiley and said that was a learning point for him.Did I imagine that happening?
Posted 6 months ago # -
stuey - I tried - I both tried to explain it in different ways and to not keep on posting on this thread.
Its a work in progress.
Other folk did the same on this one as well
Posted 6 months ago # -
TJ and Elf seem to think that they are
TJ&Elf? is that a law firm or a comedy duo?
Posted 6 months ago # -
TJ you've been trying to control yourself since last years flounce, you've been letting yourself slip again recently!
Posted 6 months ago # -
Secondly: I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the protaganists/pugalists on taking utterly pointless internet bickering to an epic new level. And all in your own time, over the weekend too. Well done. Seriously. You should feel proud. And definitely not sit softly weeping instead, rocking back and too, upon realising you're utterly wasting your life.
Although, right, Bin-Bins, you've sat in pubs with Hora, in your own time (and I dare say at great expense), so you're hardly one to preach.
Somewhere in all this nonsense is the important issue of the responsibilities of trail use by those what use them, but never mind. The OP's happy so that's what matters.
Personally I'm done with this thread really. TJ and I are right, and that's that quite frankly. Arguing against us is like banging your head against a brick wall. You're not going to get anywhere and all you'll be left with is a lot of pain.
Posted 6 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
