[Closed] Got bitten by a dog this morning.....

But speeding on a motorbike, RLJ on a bicycle, the main person you're putting at risk is yourself. Therefore you will be naturally careful, self preservation and all that.

Letting your dog run wild puts you at no risk, only other people (and I suppose the dog). Because you're not putting yourself at risk, you're going to think about it less - understand?

Although slightly similar, they are not the same.

Kenny - I see your point but hypocrite is a bit strong. Can no one who breaks any law be critical of people who also break laws? Because you broke the speed limit once in your car you cannot condemn the multiple burglar?

Takes us into some fairly deep philosophical grounds. I would say the moral difference is my transgressions effect no one but myself, the dog owners transgressions effect other people. also I am perfectly prepared to take responsibility for my actions and would accept any penalty given without complaint.

Dunno sounds about right:

hyp·o·crite
? ?[hip-uh-krit] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

richc - Member

BikePawl, to go back to your examples, if those tree's (not a single specimen the whole species) are 100% predictable 100% of the time, why aren't all those trees identical even when the evnironmental conditions are the same?

That's my point.

antigee - i guess i expect to be able to ride (and run) without having to stop or take unreasonable evasive action - slowing down as you approach walkers with dogs fine

Well that sounds like my dog (as I can get him to move over, or turn left or right with whistles, commands or hand signals) however I would never delude myself that I am in 100% control of him at all times.

Agreed TJ. It comes across harsher than I meant it to, rereading it. Perhaps I should say this is why I think it appears hypocritical.

RealMan. Yes, not exactly the same, and a fair point about the dog owner not being at risk. I was comparing them on the basis that, for all three, if the person misjudged the situation, other people could be harmed, eg you jump a see light when you didn't look properly and hit someone, or you speed down a road but have missed a hazard and hit someone, or you let your dog run about, and against all your expectations it bites someone.

What's your point? I thought the argument was about dogs not behaving, i.e moving around erratically. As far as I know trees don't do that.

Lucky I dont live in Scotchland then isnt it. dont come south of the border TJ it aint safe.

I can understand peoples frustrations with dog owners though many dogs are poorly behaved and many have poorly behaved owners. Funny thing is someone complimented on how well behaved my dog was the other day, she's not really, but I keep an eye on her and keep my eyes peeled for things that'll set her off and try to act before anything happens. Many owners simply let their dog off the lead and then ignore it and look suprised when it does somethin daft.

Regardless of what TJ has said / done.
Can you not accept that your dog should be under control around others and that is is your responsibility to as the dogs owner?
Yes or No?

RealMan. Yes, not exactly the same, and a fair point about the dog owner not being at risk. I was comparing them on the basis that, for all three, if the person misjudged the situation, other people could be harmed, eg you jump a see light when you didn't look properly and hit someone, or you speed down a road but have missed a hazard and hit someone, or you let your dog run about, and against all your expectations it bites someone.

So you're defending the dog owner who let his dog bite someone and then deny it ever happened by saying TJ does something which is vaguely related? I'm not following your logic.

Can you not accept that your dog should be under control around others and that is is your responsibility to as the dogs owner?
Yes or No?

So you're defending the dog owner who let his dog bite someone and then deny it ever happened by saying TJ does something which is vaguely related? I'm not following your logic.

can you read?

No, not defending the dog owner at all. Not explaining my point very well either it appears! I'll try again.

We have lots of laws and rules that are there to stop people coming to harm, whether that's from bicycles, motorbikes or dogs. Sometimes, people choose to ignore these when they believe it's safe to do so. That's either ok, or it's not, but what I suggest can appear hypocritical is to say it's ok for me to ignore the ones I choose to, but it's not ok for others to ignore different ones. On reflection though, I think I'm going down something of a tangent that isn't contributing much to the debate, so I'll leave it there.

Nobody may have any reason to be worried about your dog from your perspective, but my point is how can they differentiate?
This is what some people don't seem to understand. I don't know if your dog is running at me or a rabbit behind me, which in my view means your dog is not under control.

cyclists and dogs

bigyinn then you would need to prove you had reasonable grounds to be in fear of an attack.
TBH if my dog is chasing a rabbit past you and you start shrieking and sobbing I would honestly feel a bit guilty apologise and get on with my life. I wouldnt cosider I had done anything wrong (because my dog isnt responsible I am).

bigyinn then you would need to prove you had reasonable grounds to be in fear of an attack.

A strange dog running at you out of control? Sounds like reasonable grounds.

I expect you would have trouble making that stick in court but good luck with it.
I feel you may spend your time better on working on your phobias though.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? Your dogs actions have upset someone and you are responsible for the dog, yet you consider have done nothing wrong?

Jeez you lot, who cares?

It could be a childs face next time you know! Of course we care. Won't somebody think of the children!

maybe I am contradicting myself but I dont think so. I do my best to have a well trained dog and avoid situations that cause her to go a bit bonkers. Accidents will happen though and my dog running past someone after a rabbit isnt the end of the world and I consider no one to have reasonable grounds to be worried, I very much doubt the law would either but I'm no expert. If she ran past growling and barking then it could be different I suppose.
I live in an area with quite a lot of asians who are terrified by my dog walking on a lead totally ignoring them, if she's in the park chasing a ball within 50m still totally ignoring them they have been known to scream and run away. I'm sure they think they have reasonable grounds to be scared, I dont agree with them so let my dog carry on running about ignoring them (obviously if its the real screamers I call her over and put her on a lead).

Sounds like you're deciding for them what they should and shouldn't be scared of. Which is my point, you dont have the right to decide.
I dont go blasting past a person riding a horse because I dont know how the horse will react. Therefore you should act with similar consideration for people around you.

Must be a troll, no one is that ignorant. I'm out.

I dont go blasting past a person riding a horse because I dont know how the horse will react.

but your a person not a dog dont follow the logic

Sounds like you're deciding for them what they should and shouldn't be scared of

no people are welcome to be scared of whatever they like but I souldnt have to pander to their phobia. The laws about dogs are clear, it must vbe dangerouslyout of control for action to be taken. For a dog to be considered dangerously out of control people have to have reasonable grounds to be worried, the exceptions concern livestock and risk of road traffic accidents.

AA - there are two issues - "dog dangerously out of control" and "dog not under proper control" - no fear is needed for the latter. For example a dog not under proper control where there are livestock the farmer has the right to shoot the dog. No apprehension or fear required.

Edit - further to that - "dangerously out of control" is a criminal offence. "dog not under proper control" is civil.

So if your dog runs up to someone because its not under proper control and scares them, they are startled and fall off the bike,you are liable for for any damage caused. It does not matter if their fear was reasonable or not - your dog was not under control you are liable for the damage.

indeed tj thats why I said there were exceptions concerning trafic and livestock, reading not a strong point?

AA - read the edit above

So if your dog runs up to someone because its not under proper control and scares them, they are startled and fall off the bike,you are liable for for any damage caused. It does not matter if their fear was reasonable or not - your dog was not under control you are liable for the damage.

Obviously if she caused a cyclist or whatever to crash then it would be my fault.

Nor yours? There are two differnt issues - "dangerously out of control" which is a criminal offence and "dog not under proper control" which is civil

The latter has a lower standard - no fear is needed.

The laws about dogs are clear, it must vbe dangerouslyout of control for action to be taken. For a dog to be considered dangerously out of control people have to have reasonable grounds to be worried

is only a part of the story - if the dog is not under proper control you are liable for its actions - there is no fear needed.

Try this scenario AA

I am walking across the park carrying my ming vase. Your dog trips me up. The vase gets smashed. You are liable for the million pounds as you failed to keep your dog under proper control and I have losses of a million pounds as a result.

This is the second case - "dog not under proper control" and you have liability for losses incurred. there is no criminal sanction as there is under the dangerous dogs act. This would be under the animals act 1971 or as a negligent act.

jesus h corbett, i thought i obsessed about some inane crap.

[img] [/img]

AA my point about the horse was to try and illustrate the effect your dog running up to someone could have by role reversal where the rider becomes the dog and the horse becomes the person your dog is bounding up to. How do you how they will react? Clear now? You should perhaps show some consideration for others. That is NOT pandering to someone's phobia.

my 15 month old puppy scares people evan when it's on a lead.

[IMG] [/IMG]

[IMG] [/IMG]

He wouldn't scare me, the big lunk.
I used to be scared of Alsatians though.

Seeing as people can't be bothered to go back to page 2 to see the pics, here's my fave as it is the most relevant

[img] [/img]

In a nutshell, as they say.

and remember, dogs must always wear a helmet
[img] [/img]

Ta Dez. 🙂

DezB - Member
He wouldn't scare me, the big lunk.

good!

gives him the advantage of a surprise attack when he rips your leg off as you ride past... 😀

Ha! He'd be too busy trying to sniff my dogs arse as she runs rings round him (totally under my commands, of course)

pastcaring... my dog would swallow yours in a single gulp.. if it wasn't a vegan.. 😕

[img] [/img]

That's an impressive dog you've got there Yunki!

why thankyou.. when I bought it, the guy in the pub said it wouldn't grow much bigger than a mastiff.. 😳

Here's my girl, thinking of training her to find truffles!

[IMG] [/IMG]

DezB, you have a dogs arse? 😀

yunki, vegan? never heard of that breed, got any pics? 😀 edit your pic didn't show first time i looked.

is that some kind of asian spaniel piha..?