More info on Hector the great Dane here – https://www.sleeblackwell.co.uk/legal-articles/when-good-dogs-go-bad
Interesting read. two things come to mind...
Firstly, (and IANAL) the idea of negligence and reasonable expectation on behalf of the owner/handler of the dog(s); In such a setting as a mixed use path, should a dog run in front of, or hit a cyclist, there would be the likely potential for damage/injury that could 'reasonably be expected', as in the 'Cowley vs Clements' case referenced in the article. I appreciate that as with all case law, the outcome is at the whim of the judge and their reasoning.
Secondly, I can't help but be disappointed that Mr Whippey is a RSPCA Inspector, and not an Ice-Cream man! 😂
Playing devil’s advocate, had you have slowed down further than running speed.
You think 4.8mph is running speed? That's a fast walking pace. UK cyclepaths are designed for approx 12mph; anything below that is utterly reasonable, given that the obstacle wasn't visible.
Anyways, I'd also be thinking about the high cost the owners are facing for their poor judgement in letting dogs off the lead in the first place, if they're being honest. Maybe a hefty bill will help, or increased insurance premiums at the very least.
Yep, walking speed which is perfect to show due care was given. But that is the only evidence in this whole debacle.
What are the sum of the damages? Cant worth the hassle?
After a polite email last night listing the cost of the damaged equipment and providing links to show I’d given the lowest possible price for them, he’s doubled down and is surprised that I’m blaming his dog for the accident. He had already been to the vet (he sent me a photo in the original email) and is going back today for an X ray and will send me the bill.
It is a shit state of affairs.
I would be quickly going to my home insurance or cycling organisation membership and asking advice.
As I said before, part of me is an awkward enough git that I would want to go after them - but risk/benefit suggests they are going to push back hard and try to blame you.
And anyone saying that the 4-5mph is too fast and opens you up to liability needs to think again - it is a fast walking/slow jog speed. What are you meant to do - stop everytime you see a dog / child / other human / bump?
Thanks for the tip for Cycle Law Scotland @kirkg - I've met one of their lawyers through some charity work. I gave CLS a call this morning and they've been very helpful. They'll only take it on if there's personal injury (which there is, but it's tiny) but will recover kit costs at the same time.
Crucially, they confirmed that there's a strict liability to keep a dog under control and a dog off a lead like this in Scotland next to part of the National Cycle Network would break that.
While the injury part is not my main focus, since it's small, this does seem like a sure fire way to get the right result and money back for my kit. I think if I handle it myself I'll just keep digging myself into holes, potentially saying the wrong thing and going round in circles with the guy. It seems a bit OTT and ambulance-chasey but if the guy won't pay because it's the right thing to do, what other options do I have? It's no-win no-fee and presumably less hassle for me (I have found this sort of thing tends to make me depressed).
I could say to him "I've spoken to a solicitor and they told me you have a strict liability to keep your dog under control, so are liable here. You can pay up now or I'll instruct them to proceed". Or I could just instruct them and crack on with it.
I appreciate that as with all case law, the outcome is at the whim of the judge and their reasoning.
Very much this. If you go to court do we think the judge will be more supportive of the cyclists or the dog walker. Maybe you are lucky and get a judge who is keen cyclist and cat lover. Or you get a Labrador owning judge who hates cyclists who get in the way of their SUV when they are trying to make progress.
Ultimately I just can't see the OP 'winning' here or even breaking even despite the encouragement lots of people are giving them. I'm not saying this right, just my humble opinion.
It seems a bit OTT and ambulance-chasey but if the guy won’t pay because it’s the right thing to do, what other options do I have? It’s no-win no-fee and presumably less hassle for me (I have found this sort of thing tends to make me depressed).
I think that there is a) a principle or responsibility here and b) damage to you and your kit. It is what it is - and not ambulance chasing IMO.
I could say to him “I’ve spoken to a solicitor and they told me you have a strict liability to keep your dog under control, so are liable here. You can pay up now or I’ll instruct them to proceed”. Or I could just instruct them and crack on with it.
I would give the dog owner one last chance - make it clear who the company you are speaking to are so they can see their track record and know you are not messing around and that law is on your side.
Honestly; I'm torn on this one (as both a cyclist and a dog owner) - My initial reaction is that it is just an accident (they do happen) - and I'm not a fan of pointing a finger of blame. If this was my dog; I'd have been apologetic and offered to replace the damage items as a goodwill gesture. However; if the dog was genuinely injured seriously enough to need any kind of medical treatment then honestly I'd be wondering just how quickly you were going - especially if it happened out of my sight. There are no winners here; but if your injury isn't really bad enough to warrant a solicitors claim (I don't know if it is) then that feels like you are finding an excuse to punish this guy for not being willing to pony up.
I could say to him “I’ve spoken to a solicitor and they told me you have a strict liability to keep your dog under control, so are liable here. You can pay up now or I’ll instruct them to proceed”. Or I could just instruct them and crack on with it.
This is what I would do. Give them one chance to do the right thing and pay the few hundred for damaged kit. I would probably discuss it with the lawyer first. But if the laywer thinks its a good chance? Why on earth would you not? My guess is they will have insurance as well.
Four pages of trying to apportion blame for a 'thing' that happened whilst out and about where there was really no blame, just an unfortunate set of circumstances.
Personally, I'd be getting on with my life and chalking it up "sometimes shit happens".
I’d be wondering just how quickly you were going – especially if it happened out of my sight
Appreciate your honesty, but the fundamental point is just what you've said; that your dog would be out of sight. How would you be able to keep it under control in that situation, and would that be acceptable in an incident like this? I doubt it, personally.
The simple fact is that dogs must be on leads, as confirmed.
You think 4.8mph is running speed? That’s a fast walking pace.
Yes I do and Wikipedia lean towards agreeing with me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_from_walking_to_running
Of course, it's a moot point as it was still to fast to deal with the unexpected.
I'm leaning more towards just instructing the solicitor to get on with it. It's what my wife has said to do. If I give him one last chance maybe it'll give them the opportunity to instruct their own solicitor.
@dave_h - sometimes out of control dogs cause problems. That's not shit happening, it's completely unavoidable. As for "going too fast to deal with the unexpected" - do you only ever ride your bike at 1mph? Anything could happen at any time.
@dh - I think the fact that it's strict liability in Scotland maybe makes a difference here. Given no-win no-fee solicitors only take things on if they feel they have a pretty certain chance of winning, and they're keen to do so, maybe it's more clear cut than you reckon.
@stevehine - I realise I've not mentioned the state of the dog. It seemed fine, but very scared. From the photos he's sent me, it has lost a thin line of hair on its right flank and nothing more.
The simple fact is that dogs must be on leads, as confirmed.
Not under Scots law. They must be under control. Close control around livestock. One way of doing this is a lead but a well trained dog and a careful owner need not use a lead.
I know the spot this has happened. I bet the owner just let an excited dog out of a car and it ran out onto the WOL walkway which is a main cycle route with signs asking owners to control dogs. Its uphill IIRC as well that stretch so even a racing snake like munrobiker will not be going that fast
A careful owner would not have let that happen - either the dog is called back or it doesn't run off until told to. One on the main path sight lines are good so its no issue generally
as it was still to fast to deal with the unexpected
I watched someone who was stationary on a bike get rear-ended at traffic lights recently. Their fault as well I guess, for not having eyes in the back of their head to see the electric car. Just a light tap, so no damage. But still.
Personally, I’d be getting on with my life and chalking it up “sometimes shit happens”.
Which is fine until munrobiker gets landed with a vet bill for several hundred pounds.
Lawyer up!
I could say to him “I’ve spoken to a solicitor and they told me you have a strict liability to keep your dog under control, so are liable here. You can pay up now or I’ll instruct them to proceed”. Or I could just instruct them and crack on with it.
Have you actually spoken to a solicitor, or just read TJ's posts?
I'd go go straight to your BC/CUK membership if you have it and let them advise/deal with it.
You've done the reasonable thing here and offered them a cheap-ish way to resolve it. If they don't accept that then things only get worse than that for you (either they expect some sort of negotiation, or they're going to bill you for all the dogs bills).
If you don't go to your BC/CUK solicitor and 3rd party insurance (or home insurance) now then you might find there's nothing they can do because you've inadvertently said something silly like "I'm not injured just pay for the gps" thinking you're being the good guy, but in saying that your insurance/no-win-no-fee will no longer cover it as there's no money in it for them.
@tjagain - it was nearer the canal, so not out of a car - their dogs were running loose in the dells. You're right - it was uphill. And I, naturally, don't treat the WoL as a stretch for training in heart rate zone twenty or whatever - it's a shared use path and a nice way out of the city!
TINAS - yeah, I spoke to a proper lawyer this morning.
@squirrelking I have not said anything about rinsing, all I said was that if they had to pay vet bills then there's a lesson to be learned. But, you know what, once again cyclists are being demonised by the public and treated as the lowest of the low. As I said way back, it's worth talking with the local council about this to ascertain if there's been any previous incidents/accidents and really whether it's on their radar in any shape or form. Add the local councillor to the list, local cycling club too. Stats would be very useful as would even an informal chat to path users to see if anything useful could be gleaned.
Not under Scots law. They must be under control.
I was going by this:
Crucially, they confirmed that there’s a strict liability to keep a dog under control and a dog off a lead like this in Scotland next to part of the National Cycle Network would break that.
Combined with the clarity of the Highway Code, I'd be interested to see how that can be interpreted differently.
Tinas - look at munrobikers post above - he has.
hightensiononline - its just that that is how its described in the law . A dog that walks to heel on command and that returns to call reliably is under control. This dog did not meet that standard. It was not under control.
– it was uphill. And I, naturally, don’t treat the WoL as a stretch for training in heart rate zone twenty or whatever
I've got to ask it, you were going uphill, at 4.8mph, the dog hit you sideways, how did you end up over the bars?
This is just personal understanding, and the problem with statements, it can confuse the life out of folks!
Totally agree about that actual dog control, but just wondering why this would not be relevant:
56
Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders.
Is it not a shared path?
I understand people want to let their dogs off their leads, so do that in a suitable area - a field or private garden, for example.
hightensiononline – its just that that is how its described in the law . A dog that walks to heel on command and that returns to call reliably is under control. This dog did not meet that standard. It was not under control.
Only you can’t accurately state that as fact.
From the other perspective, “munrobiker was riding his bike too fast taking the dog walker by surprise and not giving the opportunity to call the dog to heal”.
sometimes out of control dogs cause problems. That’s not shit happening, it’s completely unavoidable.
I didn't see a description of a dog out of control, just a dog running around like dogs do. You described the dog as coming out of the undergrowth, not disobeying the instructions of the owner. Based on your description, my view is that the dog wasn't acting out of control (apportioning blame to the owners), it just appeared unexpectedly and you couldn't respond in time. Of course I wasn't there so the only value in all of this conversation is yours as it's the only first hand evidence.
I re-iterate my question whether you would be making the same statement if it were a four year old child who also are often equally "out of control". Would you be chasing the parents for the damages in that scenario? What if it resulted in the child being in coma in hospital as a result of being "out of control" .... would you still be chasing the costs (that's what insurance is there for, right?)
Sure, be frustrated about it but it really is just shit happening ... unless you subscribe to the "where there's a blame there's a claim" view of the world where it suits the narrative of an "out of control" dog for the blame to sit solely on someone elses shoulders.
That's a strawman and his dog there. Hope it's on a lead.
Yea, in that case I'd just let them deal with it. IME trying to be helpful in these scenarios only makes things worse for you and better for the other party.
Unless you're the woman who drove into me, in which case by trying to milk it for all it was worth she gave two different versions of events to the insurance an her ambulance chasers so that ended up getting it resolved more in my favor.
I didn’t see a description of a dog out of control, just a dog running around like dogs do. You described the dog as coming out of the undergrowth, not disobeying the instructions of the owner
You're misconstruing "out of control" as having to be a deliberate act.
If something isn't under control, then it's out of control.
If I let my dog off the lead then it's because they have good enough recall for the situation at hand. That would vary for say a spaniel with 'some' recall in the middle of the woods or a beach near no-one. To our last lab who could be recalled and walk off-lead even around rabbits, deer, bikes, sheep, horses, kids. Her only weakness' were picnics and other labs.
So my Lab would have been "under control" off-lead on a shared path*. But then by definition if she did decide that today was the day she was going to start retrieving bikes rather than sticks then she would have been out of control and it would have been my fault.
If the dog's not appropriately behaved off-lead for the situation then that's the owners fault.
*although I would have put her on a lead if it was busy because she had a habit of sitting down when recalled with her tail taking up half the path.
> I realise I’ve not mentioned the state of the dog. It seemed fine, but very scared. From the photos he’s sent me, it has lost a thin line of hair on its right flank and nothing more.
I just want to be clear here; I'm not arguing for one second that because the dog is injured that invalidates any claim you might want to make; or that the dog shouldn't have been on a lead. But I do think it changes the perception of the dog owner and how they see the incident. Can you imagine how painful it would be lose a thin line of hair from either friction or heat from a disc rotor ? Dogs aren't humans; but they are intelligent animals with feelings and the human/pet bond is pretty strong. I think the dog owner is coming from a position of "my dog got really hurt/scared by this; I need to pay money to make it better and now the person who crashed into it wants me to pay for some stuff he damaged as well !" rather than "bloody cyclist"
@argee - I'll admit to being surprised myself. It's an old railway line so a gentle uphill, but you can't just hammer up it at warp speed and I'd already slowed down. I then hit the side of the dog - it was a big dog and like riding into a low wall and I just pivoted over the front axle and smacked straight into the ground.
@stevehine - in the email he sent yesterday evening, he said he was going to send me the vet bills. So I think he doesn't feel he should pay for them. I think at the time it seemed fairly clear I was going to be claiming for the computer - I showed them the damage and how it could no longer be fitted to the bike.
Of perhaps more concern is that my wife thinks I seem really addled. I had put this down to being a bit stressed but then last night I was talking about when we lived in Nottinghamshire - which we never have - and she started to panic a bit.
Dobermans are not easy breeds to train to a standard where letting them off lead in this environment is Okay. If they didn’t have eyes on it, it isn’t under control. It is actually rare to see a Doberman off lead at all.
I own spaniels, my oldest one has 100% predictable off lead behaviour. Even so, on a shared use path, he would be by my side or on a lead.
Can’t imagine the stress of allowing a Doberman to bound off into the undergrowth in an area where there are other people.
You’re misconstruing “out of control” as having to be a deliberate act.
I'm merely balancing the view of whether someone is to blame or whether 'shit happens'. I'm debating whether not under absolute control is the same as being "out of control". The question that keeps being ignored is whether everyone's response would be different if it were an "out of control" child or if it's just a convenient excuse to stand behind the OP and help throwing stones because it was a dog and dog owners are all idiots. Apart from.....
If I let my dog off the lead then it’s because they have good enough recall for the situation at hand.
The OP didn't mention any instruction from the owners to the dog .... his statement was that it just came out of the vegitation. Does your dog never disappear into the undergrowth and then re-appear somewhere unexpected? That my reading of the definition "out of control" in this instance.
@munrobiker get yourself checked out at the docs. Either GP or ring 111.
The question that keeps being ignored is whether everyone’s response would be different if it were an “out of control” child
We are ignoring it as it is so daft to not warrant discussing.
If I was the dog owner (or their insurer) and wanted to defend the claim ( being devil's advocate a little here) I'd argue back that
- shared use path. Cyclists must give way to pretty much everything else. Inc animals. You knew that its regularly used by dog walkers, as a regular user yourself. But you didn't give way adequately.
- Well used by kids and dogs etc...you knew that, yet still didnt have sufficient control of your bike in those circumstances - evidently STILL going too quick or not covering the brakes etc. Even after seeing the 1st dog.
Good job you'd not run into a 3 year old child that had run out. Would you be claiming for a gps then ?
- Would you try to blame the farmer if you hit a sheep that darts onto a bridleway next time you're riding in the Yorkshire Dale's? Even after seeing other sheep do it ?
Then I'd stick a counter - claim against you for vets bills etc for carelessly (recklessly even) crashing into my dog. Because I'd have taken my dog to be checked up.
Best thing to do is lick your own wounds, praise yourself for having the good sense to wear a helmet, replace the damaged stuff, locate the GPS in a less exposed place on the bars/stem if possible next time, and get on with life.
Oh, and be more careful next time.
Does your dog never disappear into the undergrowth and then re-appear somewhere unexpected?
Mine doesn't; no. He's also calm around bikes and would give one a 5m berth; but he's also not the dog under question 😀 I don't know the path; but if there were good sightlines I'm not sure I'd necessarily have him on the lead. As I said; if he was clumsy enough to get in someones way and cause a fall; then I'd be looking to be courteous and helpful and make amends. If I then got home; discovered he was in pain; took him to the vets and then discovered someone was claiming a few hundred ££ when I was expecting £50 or so; then I might have a bit of a different opinion. That's all I'm saying (I guess; trying to put myself in the shoes of a non-cycling dog owner)
It's not an easy one, but I don't think a dog off the lead on a shared use path should automatically qualify as "out of control" whether the letter of the law agrees is a different matter. I do think that the owner deserves a bit more empathy; this was an accident it's not like he or the dog went out of their way to do this.
The question that keeps being ignored is whether everyone’s response would be different if it were an “out of control” child
OP responded to this on page 2. Said that if it was a kid it wouldn't be his fault either.
Does your dog never disappear into the undergrowth and then re-appear somewhere unexpected?
No, never. I chose to own a spaniel as once matured they can be completely trusted. I want to own a dog that is pleasant to walk safe in the knowledge it won’t cause other people/livestock any grief.
I would never consider owning a Doberman as I don’t think my living circumstances are appropriate to the breed, and by that I mean large country house with land. Even if they were I wouldn’t want one.
– shared use path. Cyclists must give way to pretty much everything else. Inc animals. You knew that its regularly used by dog walkers, as a regular user yourself. But you didn’t give way adequately.
I just despair with the utter ignorance sometimes, and on a cycling forum no less. I'm off to enjoy a shared use path where nobody has the right of way, so everyone is equally responsible for their actions. I'll keep my speed down and watch out for others, and I'll be expected to give way no doubt, but if a dog owner lets their animal off its lead, then they're breaking the rules. It's really that simple.
I’m off to enjoy a shared use path where nobody has the right of way, so everyone is equally responsible for their actions
Not in The UK then? There is a hierarchy here
The OP didn’t mention any instruction from the owners to the dog …. his statement was that it just came out of the vegitation. Does your dog never disappear into the undergrowth and then re-appear somewhere unexpected? That my reading of the definition “out of control” in this instance.
No, she had a real aversion to thistles and thorns 🤣
But that was my point, letting a dog crash through the undergrowth miles from anywhere with no one around is IMO an appropriate level of control. Letting them do that on/near a shared path/road/park isn't. I happily walk my parents spaniel off-lead because where they live you'd be unlucky to see anyone else on a walk even one long enough to need a half-way picnic so he runs miles even though I'd say his recall is only excellent rather than near-perfect (you won't get him out of a stream/river).
As soon as they causes a problem though, then by definition I would say it was out of control because the owner has failed to control it. Whether that was because the dog was not obeying commands or because the owner wasn't giving it any is immaterial.
Seeing as this threads covered every other straw man and his dog, I'll go for a Straw-car. Would you absolve someone of a car crash because they took their hands off the wheel and thus by your definition were neither responsible for doing things that cars do (appear into groups of baby robins and children's faces at high speed), and that the car wasn't even "out of control" because no one was attempting to control it?
There sure is: https://www.swansea.gov.uk/sharewithcare?lang=en - for example.
Share with care, but not a right of way, and certainly not for animals. On or off leads.
It's about the actual responsibilities of dog owners we're discussing, after all.
@munrobiker I've got no real advice but FWIW I think you're in the right and dogs should be on leads when using shared use paths. However, in this instance, the owners are being knobbers, I'd back away and replace your stuff yourself.
Vets bills will get expensive and it'll be your word against theirs. And we all know how 90% of the population feel about cyclists.
Of perhaps more concern is that my wife thinks I seem really addled. I had put this down to being a bit stressed but then last night I was talking about when we lived in Nottinghamshire – which we never have – and she started to panic a bit.
You need to be checked out, don't ignore it.
@fathomer - I'd like to walk away, but now he's threatening me with vets bills I feel like I need to resist. If he tries to make me pay them, that'd be a real pain.
Are animals in the hierarchy for shared use paths? I'd assume it'd go humans (pedestrians>horse riders>cyclists) at the top, then dogs at the very bottom. To suggest that the dog is more important than any human seems insane.
