Forum menu
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 😀
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?
TJ +1
she should be insured for incidents like this, although it may be worth checking your wheel has been corrcetly dished.
+1 for checking the dish
she should be insured for incidents like this
She [i]should[/i] 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.
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.
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.....)
I've a feeling we've done something similar before about 3rd party cover and household insurance
Oh - did I miss that one? 😉
No, I think you were very much involved!! 😉
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?
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.
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
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
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.
Was the dog's name Benton, in which case I think it's probably in enough trouble.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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...
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
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.
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 - [url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/22 ]animals act[/url] - I disagree with your interpretation that it is automatically the dogs fault. The only bit that applies to dogs is the following...
.
[i](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.[/i]
.
The bit that is of particular relevance is...
.
[i](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;[/i]
.
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.
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,
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,
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
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.
TG would need to demonstrate negligence.
I can easily do that, and often do 😀
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 '[i]if[/i]'.
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
[i]Prove it.
the cost of taking it to court outweighs the rewards.[/i]
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.
TurnerGuy - MemberTG would need to demonstrate negligence.
I can easily do that, and often do
Ah ha, so you are a human male then!
TJ - precedent, fair enough but where?
i say take the money, go see a doc about the leg and be more carefull next time
There is loads of legal precedent for this. You may want to deny it / ignore it but its there. Just google you will find cases. You will also find case where a cyclist ahas killed a dog and been pursued for damages and the case fails.
http://www.cycleclaims.co.uk/bicycle-accidents
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/personal-injury-faqs
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
6 or half dozen....
in these circumstances it's down to one party to prove and the other to defend. Look at the PI industry, people making thousands simply by [i]threatening court action[/i] and in the vast majority they never make it to court. So in reality it's not who was [i]truly[/i] at fault but who's got the bigger nads to take it the furthest.
In this instance I think the dog owner has been very civilised in offering some compo.
Their has to be a point at which we all accept or even expect to endure these situations at some point in out riding careers
TOTALLY AGREE
could just put it all down to experience - good that the dog owner actually sent you what she said you would - bet she has no idea was bike stuff costs.
if the dog had bitten/attacked you it would have been different matter of course...
Animals such as family pet dogs can be a nuisance to cyclists. A dog’s natural instinct is to give chase to anything that moves; this includes any passing cyclist and can result in the dog causing the rider to fall. In a case like this it is possible to make a bike accident compensation claim against the owner of the dog.
TJ - they are all enviaging dogs jumping up/attacking, and/or on the public highway, which is a wholly different matter. If this had occurred on a highway I would probably agree 100%.
Its all very well being all bullish and righteous about it, but misinterpretaion, misquoting and misapplication of the law does not make out a case.
The essential differences to the law you are relying on is - its not on the highway or land where there is livestock, it doesnt involve a dangeours dog, it doesnt involve a dog 'attacking'.
And to say the dog was out of control is like saying that every accidental bump you have in your car must mean you are liable for dangerous driving because you were by very nature out of control of the vehicle at the time.
[quote> http://www.myfirststep.co.uk/site/library/pi/cycleist_wins_compensation_form_dog_owner.html
No mention of strict liability in there.
The first one - no one is saying the dog (owner) is not at fault, however TG needs to make out their negligence and lack of his own - it is a negligecne claim.
The second one is about a dog attacking. Completely different.
how do I claim against the fox that caused me to crash the other night?
I'll nail his bushy tail to the wall if I ever see him again!
You think those accident and injury claims companies are doing a good service eh TJ?
They make me bloody sick.
Why shoul the cyclist be out of pocket? he was simply riding along mnding his own business when a dog knocked him off his bike?
Well I do hope you have insurance and I do hope that your dog is kept under control and does not injure or damage anything
I really cannot be bothered with the way dog owners will go to any lengths to get out of their legal liability.
Its clear and simply - you have a duty to keep your dog under control, you are liable for any damage your dog causes because it is not under control. Lots of different bits of law, lots of legal precedent
From the kennel club! that rabidly anti dog organisation
Animals Act 1971
You could be liable for damage caused by your dog under this Act or under some degree of negligence. It is highly advisable to have third party liability insurance to cover this, something that is included in most pet and some household insurance policies.
could just put it all down to experience
I have - not going to claim.
I was thinking about putting an extra 20mm on my forks anyway after Hora caused me to fixate about the steepness of the head-angle on my Turner 😀
Didn't read the original post relating to the incident but I agree with TJ on this one. If the dog was not under control and has caused damage then she is fully liable and should pay for any damages caused. We have pet insurance for our dog which is primarily for repair bills when he decides to run under a barbed wire fence and can't judge the height properly, or when he chews on a stick and it embeds itself in his mouth, however it does cover for us for eventualities like this where, if he wasn't under control and caused a problem, people could claim off our insurance.
if I encounter a dog or dogs and their owners which out pirbright/tunnel hill way is quite often i make an effort to stop/say hello..
stopping particularly if the dogs looks like the type to start chasing you - stop and talking to the dog often stops them chasing you and conversely saves the owner having to shouts / chase after them / blaming you for their dog running..
in the OPs case just sounds like two users enjoying the same bit of space with a bit of unlucky conflict. The same could happen if a Deer ran across your path.
anyhow, main thing is that you are mainly ok and tis as you say a good excuse to buy some new stuff! 😉
Didn't read the original post relating to the incident but I agree with TJ on this one.
What do you agree with, his misinterpretation of the law, misquoting of so called 'precedents' which he doesnt understand
TJ - he wasnt 'minding his own business when he was suddely knocked off his bike.' He was sharing common ground on his mountain bike, with another person with his dog and they ran into each other.
It is clear and simply - you have a duty to keep your dog under control, you are liable for any damage your dog causes because it is not under control. Lots of different bits of law, lots of legal precedent
No it is not, you have a little knowledge of the law, you have mostly misquoted and misinterpreted it to suit your argument and any amount of righteous indignation will not make you right.
Again I repeat - I do not diagree that the dog (owner) may be at fault at least partially, but it is straight negligence and TG would have to make out his case. He has no strict liability to rely upon.
As for dog owners not having control of / failing to maintain control of their dogs - I am certainly with you there. I expect a dog owner to be the undisputed alpha with the dog trained to the gun
TJ, the master of balanced and rational communications, strikes again I see.
It's odd though that TJ hasn't actually managed to link to anything that seems to really support his absolutely definitive statements i.e. that it's a matter of "strict liability". Fervent Googling (IMO) appears to have only found him relatively vague or oblique references to liability in the form of solicitors touting for business. I wouldn't have made the proud boast that there's "loads of precedent" on that basis.
Are there any links to some actual records of court proceedings and/or judegements?
sugdenr
the dog and the human are not equal this is your and most doge owners mistake in this area
he was going about his lawful business when knocked off by a dog. The dog was therefore not under control or this wouldn't have happened thus the dog owner is liable. The dog owner has a legal duty to keep the dog under control they failed in this duty, the dog owner is liable
Simple , clear and straightforward.
Oh lord.
Do you have special glasses or something?
Sod it, life's too short 😛
The dog owner has a legal duty to keep the dog under control they failed in this duty, the dog owner is liable
This basically.
As a dog owner and someone who rarely agrees with TJ!! 😉
I am a dog lover, used to have one, and have worked with them. But I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the lack of training dogs are receiving. Some owners are downright irresponsible by yapping on their phone rather than playing with/watching their dog. Training is ongoing and needs to be reinforced.
I know TJ gets a flaming on this subject but I do find myself agreeing with him.
As much as I would like TJ to be right (i.e. dog not under control = dog owner legally at fault) this doesn't seem to be the case unfortunately! There seems to have been a precedent set at some point whereby if the owner is not expecting the dog to misbehave - due to breed or individual temperament - then the owner will get off scott free!!
[url= http://www.hmsolicitors.co.uk/news/personal_injury_news/runner-loses-15-000-dog-damages ]http://www.hmsolicitors.co.uk/news/personal_injury_news/runner-loses-15-000-dog-damages[/url]
When I read the original thread I just thought "accidents happen".
Seems that nowadays accidents only happen to keep lawyers busy.
It's extremely bad luck. But then again MTBing is a dangerous pastime, and things can get damaged in pursuit of said pastime.
£50 is a nice gesture
Missed the previous post a couple of weeks ago - what happened and what were the calamitous circumstances culminating in the the collision with the collie?
Too add fuel to the fire, the dog is now sueing for wiplash, and extract from his solicitor, TJ's alter-ego TricycleJames;
he was going about his lawful business when knocked over by a cyclist. The bike was therefore not under control or this wouldn't have happened thus the cyclist is liable. The cyclist has a legal duty to keep the bike under control they failed in this duty, the cyclist is liable
sugdenrthe dog and the human are not equal this is your and most doge owners mistake in this area
he was going about his lawful business when knocked off by a dog. The dog was therefore not under control or this wouldn't have happened thus the dog owner is liable. The dog owner has a legal duty to keep the dog under control they failed in this duty, the dog owner is liable
Simple , clear and straightforward.
TJ - Just because you will argue that day turns into night and therefore white is black, doesn't make it true.
I have no problem with your opinion that the dog owner [i]should[/i] be liable, but stop opining about legal duties based on your half-baked understanding of legal theory, predecated on the premises that the dog 'knocked him off his bike' like some ninja terrier.
Absent a statutory basis, a legal duty is the basis of a negligence action, which is, yet again, for TG to make out. TG had a duty of care (to himself) not to ride his bike at a speed where he couldn't react to any unexpected peril. And as the claim is against the OWNER, your concept that man and dog are not equal is completely irrelevant because owner is not claiming for damage against dog.
The dog could have been a small deer, what would you advocate then? Put Bambi up against a wall and shoot him for attacking defenseless MTB rider?
Why dont you add - 'So there, nah nah na nah na!' to your post for good effect.
what were the calamitous circumstances culminating in the the collision with the collie?
[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/which-is-better-a-hope-hoop-wheel-or-a-border-collie ]Which is better - a hope hoop wheel or a border collie[/url]
Seems that nowadays accidents only happen to keep lawyers busy.
Why whatever makes you say that:
Mr Whippey, from Castleford, West Yorkshire, had been ordered to pay Mr Jones [b]£15,000 damages[/b] along with a further [b]£25,000 in lawyers' bills[/b] .
TG had a duty of care (to himself) not to ride his bike at a speed where he couldn't react to any unexpected peril
that makes just about all cycle accidents in London the cyclists fault - particularly that video the other day when the car pulled out on the cyclist and then he got run over my the dappy woman in the focus.
difference is that he could see the car waiting to come out - so could expect it.
I couldn't see the dog, it is feasible that he could have kncoked over someone walking at that point as he darted out from behind the bush from my viewpoint, although it was actually a path.
(no marked bridleways or paths on the common...)
I see from the link above that the "animal act" argument has already been had.
TJ, do you ever think to yourself, "y'know what, i think I've made my point, I've nothing more that's pertinent to say here?"
ed - trying to learn that hence no more posts on this 🙂
ed - trying to learn that hence no more posts on this
LOL
Heard that before.
turner guy , kudos for being level headed in the face of your bike being smashed up, ive a lot of respect for you for that.
also to the woman for sending you 50 quid - most people have no idea of what we spend on bits and a bet she though that would be more then enough.
hope you get better in time for skiing, try regularly rubbing oil into that lump to help the scar tissue break down. bio-oil is the best but expensive, baby oil will do but wont work as quick.