UPDATE: CLASSIFIEDS section refreshed, redesigned, searchable: Go take a look
...where does the liability lie?
I was riding along a shared use path this morning, not going particularly fast, in fact I was freewheeling and having a drink (so right hand off bars). It wasn't busy, but I'd clocked a guy walking, looking at his phone, about 25m ahead.
Suddenly, and I do mean suddenly, I had no idea it was there, a large lurcher-like dog ran out of the bushes to my left straight into my front wheel. As I had my right hand off the bars I had no chance, and went down like a sack of spuds.
The guy in front, dogs owner it turns out, came over as I was on the ground and pretty half heartedly asked 'are you hurt?', I said 'i don't know!' but was doing a mental limb/extremity check to make sure.
I got up and put my bike against a tree, looked around and he was walking off with the dog, absolutely no apology or staying to check if I was ok.
I called after him and said 'you not going to apologise or anything, wait a minute while I check my bike.'
He turned around, came back and very aggressively got in my face and said it was just as much my fault as the dogs and to **** off. I pointed out (I may have sworn a bit 😆) that my gloves and shorts were ripped + my bar tape and that I expected him to give me his name and address so i could bill him as I viewed it as his/his dogs fault. He again told me where to go and just walked off.
Once I'd shaken off the crash I passed him again and told him quite explicitly what I thought of him, and then rode on. No point arguing with tossers.
Luckily the only damage is to the bar tape and the clothing + a grazed knee and hip. If it'd been worse I'd probably have followed him back to his car (or house as we were 500m or so from a village) and photographed his reg or door so as to report it to the police.
Where does liability lie here, was he right (if a rude and obnoxious tosser) that it was 50/50?
Highway code Rule 56 applies? Rules about animals - Other animals (56 to 58) - THE HIGHWAY CODE
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.
Quite clear cut then!
Not that anyone ever actually does that 😆
Kinda academic if you have no idea who he is though...
Not that anyone ever actually does that
Well, no. I suspect as with much of the HC no-one actually knows what's in it, having last read it 30 years ago when passing their test.
Also would suspect that a lot of dog owners would be looking to the cyclist to pay vet's bills (and might get a shock if Leigh Day get involved...)
Kinda academic if you have no idea who he is though...
It was more for future reference, as I didn't know.
He seemed quite likely to punch me, so I wasn't going to stick around!
Well, no. I suspect as with much of the HC no-one actually knows what's in it, having last read it 30 years ago when passing their test.
Whilst true, there's also the question of whether most people would see this applying to them on shared-use paths anyway, as the highway code itself states "The Highway Code is essential reading for all road users...", with the emphasis on 'road' here.
I agree though that many (most) people never look at the HC once passing their test. In jobs where safety is critical, codes of practice (which at the end of the day is what the HC is) are revised regularly, training is provided where necessary, and employees who aren't compliant and following the latest codes of practice risk losing their job. Yet when it comes to road safety, nothing really happens to embed changes to the HC, and any failure to follow the HC only has consequence (in court) when it's too late.
Dog walker is (1) responsible for his out of control dog / your injuries and (2) has failed general rule 1 miserably IMO.
Yes his actions caused the accident. Sonhe is at fault.
All academic though...
Has anyone had by success in getting compensated for torn clothes or damaged bike in an non-motorist incident?
The legal situation is not what you'd hope. A well-known case Whippey v Jones involved a great dane that ran up and knocked a runner over, breaking his ankle. On appeal the dog owner was found not to be negligent, because the dog had no known history of behaving in a way likely to cause injury. It seems like the bar to prove negligence or liability on the owner is very high and most dog strike claims fail.
(I heard about this case from another thread on this forum)
I was riding along a shared use path this morning, not going particularly fast, in fact I was freewheeling and having a drink (so right hand off bars). It wasn't busy, but I'd clocked a guy walking, looking at his phone, about 25m ahead.
I tend to assume that anyone on a shared-use path could have a dog with them and said dog could be pretty much anywhere, so slow right down and keep my fingers on the brakes, dog owners often have a treat bag or a lead hanging from them. From the other side of the window, as someone with a dog, I'd say that substantial numbers of cyclists have little idea of the speed they're doing and minimal regard for others including fellow cyclists, walkers, runners etc.
Personally if it were my dog investigating the shrubbery and a cyclist were approaching, I'd have whistle sat him well in advance - the dog not the cyclist - or recalled him where safe, but then I wouldn't have been looking at my phone when out with a dog.
You say you weren't going 'particularly fast', but ime a lot of cyclists' idea of 'not particularly fast' is a lot faster than they actually think. Don't get me wrong, I figure the dog owner was largely at fault and I'd be mortified if my dog accidentally took out a cyclist. I also suspect a lawyer would be suggesting that not having both hands on the bars on approach to another trail user suggests you weren't fully in control of your bike.
Were you approaching the dog walker from behind or in front?
Do cyclists sometimes ride too fast on shared use paths? Yes.
Should dogs be off the lead on shared use paths? No.
Claiming you can recall your dog (if given plenty of time) is not an excuse for letting it off the lead on shared used paths.
not going particularly fast
Is very vague. It could mean barely above walking pace. It could be a bit slower than a one hour 25 mile time trial pace that you'd normally ride at. As an example 10mph is 3 times the speed of a walker. 10mph feels very slow as a rider but as a pedestrian within less than a arms length, possibly different.
Falling off your bike is painful. Regardless of who is to blame legally or responsible financially, you are going to be the one doing the pain bit.
My take is, a bit like being doored riding alongside a row of parked cars, to ride assuming the worst - so much slower than ideally you'd like on something like a shared use path and wider than strictly necessary passing parked cars. Not to absolve them of responsible behaviour but as a selfish act of self preservation and pain management!
This I appreciate will sound like victim blaming, but in your position I'd be focusing more on what I could have done differently to prevent it rather than changing the behaviour of the planet or knowing my rights if the worst happened next time.
On appeal the dog owner was found not to be negligent, because the dog had no known history of behaving in a way likely to cause injury.
Technically thats correct though isn't it.
Not saying the owner isn't at fault of something but negligence would require both knowing there was an issue and doing nothing to mitigate it.
In this case a shared use path a dog which is not under close control (different from out of control) and a cyclist who is not under full control (25m is way to close to be one handed on a shared use path presence of dog or other wise). I'd probably say its just an unlucky combination and dust myself off, certainly not be looking for someone to pay for some bar tape and gloves.
However if it was my dog i would absolutely be making sure you are properly okay, not wandering off. If i was sworn at i would probably just walk away, not saying thats the order of events in this case.
Do cyclists sometimes ride too fast on shared use paths? Yes.
Should dogs be off the lead on shared use paths? No.
Claiming you can recall your dog (if given plenty of time) is not an excuse for letting it off the lead on shared used paths.
Yawn. Dogs are perfectly (and legally) capable of being off lead and in control.
So? They still shouldn’t be off the lead on shared use paths. Perfectly “under control” but unaware of other path users can still lead to collisions.
I was out on some shared paths this weekend, I would say ~70-80% of dogs are off the lead (this time of year), a majority of owners call Doggo to heel and at least attempt to control them when they spot a bicycle.
However I reckon a good 15-20% just Don't care and will continue playing with their phone or chatting while their mutt bounds about being a dickhead...
My own pet theory (pun intended) is that the worst ones are mostly the "Pandemic Pooches" acquired ~3-4 years ago during peak covid by people who really aren't fit owners and will probably (hopefully) not replace their dog once it dies hopefully having realised what a commitment/responsibility it is, but there's still another 6-12 years of these ****ers cluttering up paths and not really thinking about their own impacts on others...
The legal situation is not what you'd hope. A well-known case Whippey v Jones involved a great dane that ran up and knocked a runner over, breaking his ankle. On appeal the dog owner was found not to be negligent, because the dog had no known history of behaving in a way likely to cause injury. It seems like the bar to prove negligence or liability on the owner is very high and most dog strike claims fail.
This. 👍
The collision and resulting damage/injury have to be reasonably foreseeable by the dog owner. So, if the mutt is generally well behaved and recalls on demand then it's likely not going to be foreseeable that it suddenly did what it did.
Couple of examples, if the dog was the most placid thing ever but suddenly a wasp stung it on its testicles turning it into a rabid beast, would the owner be liable? There's no negligence on behalf of the owner.
Pothole damage to cars - you can recover money from the Local Authority (or highways etc) when it's shown that the authority knew about the hole and hadn't dealt with it. In other words, it had acted negligently. But proof is the key.
There's also the points above that the Highway Code says dogs should (not "Must") be on a lead, and that OP maybe could have taken more care when passing.
And - critically - there's no evidence of it. Footage, witnesses, even the guy's name etc.
Even if you had his name, the losses are going to be small and possibly not worth the legal effort.
If OP hit (and injured?) the mutt, the owner could maybe respond with a claim for vets fees because the Highway Code talks about being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. On a mixed use path, that could change rapidly.
The mutt owner was deffo a twonk though.
Heal well OP.
life long dog owner here, until 2021.
imho dog owners have changed since the pandemic, when there was a big boom in dog ownership.
and people seem to either not know how to control them, or they seem to think they have the right to go wherever they want with the dogs unleashed. they seem to think thay you has a cyclist has to slow down automatically for them, whereas they dont have to recall their dog.
i had a few words with a gent on shared path near me. he was walking 100 yards infront of his dog, on his phone. as i approached his dog it was crouched doing his business. i rode past and caught him up. stopped infront of him, and he asked what was wrong. i told him his dog had shit 100 yard back whilst he was on his phone paying no attention to it. his answer was ' oh its ok, everyone let their dog go on this path'. i asked him if he was serious , he said, yes. i then told him if he did not go back and pick it up that i would follow him to his house, and paste all over FB and the local internet site, that this dirty bastard ha let his dog shit on a bike path, where kids play.
he very angrily walked back to where i showed him, and proceded to pick up the pooh.
my parting words to him were ' dirty horrible people like you should never ever have pets that they are not capable of claning up after. he was pretty speechless.
i may have been out of order.... i think not.
There's also the points above that the Highway Code says dogs should (not "Must") be on a lead, and that OP maybe could have taken more care when passing
Fair enough. Can't find anything other than:
Rule 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
OP, sorry you're banged up, and the interaction sounded particularly nasty, probs not you want to hear, but on shared paths, as a cyclist I kinda take the view that these days you need to be prepared to stop at a moment's notice as you just cannot rely on dog owners to have any sort of control any more. Until I can see otherwise I tend to take the view that every dog is out of control and act accordingly. You can't, obviously account for the chance of the dog just coming out of nowhere and banging into you, but as generally rule: Over use the bell, wear bright cloths, cycle really slowly, and make sure your situational awareness is on another level, because no one else is paying attention any more.
The fact that it's a shared path, or that bicycles have been around for a couple of centuries still, apparently, comes as a surprise to some folks
Yawn. Dogs are perfectly (and legally) capable of being off lead and in control
Yep. But should must be kept on a short lead on a shared use path in England, Scotland or Wales; the OP was on a shared use path.
Apologies if this legality bores you further.
Apologies if this legality bores you further further.
Assuming you can see the dog in the first place, or are able to ascertain that there's a dog walker sans pooch.
The OP couldn't, as the dog was in the bushes and the owner wasn't paying attention.
Yawn. Dogs are perfectly (and legally) capable of being off lead and in control
Yep. But should must be kept on a short lead on a shared use path in England, Scotland or Wales; the OP was on a shared use path.
Apologies if this legality bores you further.
Apologies if this legality bores you further further.
Cool. Where is this "should". Link please?
Yawn. Dogs are perfectly (and legally) capable of being off lead and in control
Yep. But should must be kept on a short lead on a shared use path in England, Scotland or Wales; the OP was on a shared use path.
Apologies if this legality bores you further.
Apologies if this legality bores you further further.
Cool. Where is this "should". Link please?
Cool where is the must please.
So if it doesn't say must or should...
It says "keep it on a short lead"... it's not going to be legally enforced or enforceable. It's not going to be treated as a crime ever. But please, do the one thing that can stop cyclist/dog collisions and keep your dog on a short lead when on shared paths. Expecting your dog to always see cyclists coming is unreasonable. Expecting cyclists to pre-empt what a dog will do if it's not seen them is unreasonable. Doubly so when a loose dog and a rider are both hidden from each other's view 'till the moment they find themselves in the same space.
Do cyclists sometimes ride too fast on shared use paths? Yes.
Should dogs be off the lead on shared use paths? No.
Claiming you can recall your dog (if given plenty of time) is not an excuse for letting it off the lead on shared used paths.
An awful lot of cyclists seem to have forgotten that 'shared use' doesn't mean 'a cycle path where walkers and runners are also allowed on sufferance, provided they get out of your way'.
But please, do the one thing that can stop cyclist/dog collisions and keep your dog on a short lead when on shared paths.
And this is where it goes round and round.
Let's apply this rule of consider others to everyone. And not being prepared to stop 4 seconds* away from passing a pedestrian because you are not in control of your bike is just as inconsiderate.
Personally i prefer to treat a scenario with a bit of common sense whether its on my bike or out with my dog rather than try to create blanket bans for everything just because you decide how other people should behave.
Walkers and runners aren't the problem being talked about. Expecting a dog to have awareness of other shared path users isn't a reasonable expectation to place on a dog. Keep them on a lead.
No what is being talked about is who is at fault in one specific case.
And the answer is both.
The dog wasn't under control and neither was the cyclist.
Maybe. We don't know how fast the OP was riding. We don't know how long they had to react. We do know the dog was off the lead.
IIRC cyclists are expected to stay under 18mph on shared paths, while like driving, your actual speed should be adjusted for the conditions.
Personally i prefer to treat a scenario with a bit of common sense
But aren't apparently prepared to accept the single most common-sense thing available to dog owners to stop said dog interfering with everyone else's quiet enjoyment, and are in fact content to abdicate responsibility for their pet to everyone else. I accept that dog owners want to give their dogs some freedom to roam, I don't think a shared path is the right place for that.
As a fast moving (perhaps the fastest moving) thing on any shared path, I accept that I must be prepared to stop instantaneously, so act accordingly.
If only some dog-owners shared the same sense of responsibility, eh?
Personally i prefer to treat a scenario with a bit of common sense
But aren't apparently prepared to accept the single most common-sense thing available to dog owners to stop said dog interfering with everyone else's quiet enjoyment, and are in fact content to abdicate responsibility for their pet to everyone else. I accept that dog owners want to give their dogs some freedom to roam, I don't think a shared path is the right place for that.
As a fast moving (perhaps the fastest moving) thing on any shared path, I accept that I must be prepared to stop instantaneously, so act accordingly.
If only some dog-owners shared the same sense of responsibility, eh?
Hang on a second.
The question is who is at fault. The answer is both as both party failed to behave considerately leading up to the collision.
I am not saying the dog owner wasn't in the wrong, and i am not saying the cyclist was behaving like a dick, i am saying if you were to try and argue it out they both end up trying to use the same argument about they "should have been doing this, in the highway code".
I am more than happy to the doggo on a lead on a shared use path if its busy or awkward or she might disappear in the undergrowth and pop out. But equally i am happy for her to be off lead on a shared use path if the sightlines are good and its empty and there is nowhere for her to hide. Common sense see?
Similarly on the bike i am happy to use the road if its full of pedestrians, i am happy to ring my bell and be friendly to every one and cycle slowly and am more than prepared to stop and wait for horses to pass. But i am also quite happy to peg it round a chicane you can see through because its fenced and there is literally no possible way for anything to pop out at you. Also common sense.
Yawn. Dogs are perfectly (and legally) capable of being off lead and in control
If your dog isn't on a lead then nobody else knows how much control you have over it. This doesn't just apply to cyclists - slow or fast - it applies to everyone. Pedestrians, horse riders, other dog walkers, people who are afraid of dogs - we aren't all as psychic as some dog walkers think. We don't know whether your dog is a beautifully trained creature or is likely to savage a small child to death. And of course, the majority of the dogs that most of us meet fall into the 'completely untrained and extremely dopey' category. So, do us all a favour and put your dog on a lead and we'll all know where we are.
Also, isn't it curious how few of these fantastically trained dogs you ever see walking along busy roads without leads compared to on shared use paths? Owner's recall seems to fail when there are cars around.
Also, isn't it curious how few of these fantastically trained dogs you ever see walking along busy roads without leads compared to on shared use paths? Owner's recall seems to fail when there are cars around.
I wouldn't know i am to busy seeing all these cyclists who cyle to fast on shared use paths and jump red lights.
Maybe. We don't know how fast the OP was riding. We don't know how long they had to react. We do know the dog was off the lead.
We do though. Its quite clearly stated in the OP. How long does it take you to put a water bottle back in its cage, return to cover the brakes and be prepared to stop and or adjust your course.
Ah, so we're at the "don't take a drink on a shared path" point of "say anything to justify letting dogs loose on a shared paths" part of the discussion are we? Fair enough. The solution is simple. You can even find it in the highway code.
Also, isn't it curious how few of these fantastically trained dogs you ever see walking along busy roads without leads compared to on shared use paths? Owner's recall seems to fail when there are cars around.
I see lots of very well controlled dogs, off lead along the small pavement down my road. it can get pretty busy with golfers and deliveries going past to get to the golf course. I also see a lot of on lead, well behaved dogs, and ones that would just as likely run into the road given the chance. I also see the in between. the owners who are quite happy to have their dog off lead along the very busy canal path, but put the lead on to cross over the road. I'd guess the logic behind that is, dog vs truck or car = dead dog, dog vs runner or bike = not dead dog. I think consideration for other path users is way down the list.
I notice an increasing number of dog status dads about. And by that I mean, thinks that having their dog off lead makes them 'alpha'. Usually a large dog, off lead, generally OK, but also excitable and all over the path, bushes, canal. usually aggressively playful with other dogs. owner oblivious to the vulnerabilty of smaller dogs and abusively defensive if challenged. We have to keep a very close eye on larger offlead dogs now. We've had a few aggressive approaches by them to our small dog and the owners have just been ****s about it.
If you think thats what i am saying then thats fine. But its quite clearly not what i am saying at all.
I know what you're saying... that the rider should take their share of responsibility... which is assuming that they've done something wrong. We have no idea if the rider did anything wrong at all (riding with one hand to drink, signal, wave or whatever isn't irresponsible riding). We don't know if they were riding fast or without due attention.
We do know the dog was off the lead on a shared path. Despite knowing that some people are desperately looking for ways for the rider to share the blame. Why? There was one simple way to avoid this collision. The advice on how to do so is in the highway code. But still... "cyclist must share the blame"... because...?
I would say that it sounds like you weren't in full control of your bike, and seeing as you were in the vicinity of more vulnerable path users (who you ought to give way to) then that would be negligence on your part.
riding with one hand to drink, signal, wave or whatever isn't irresponsible riding
It is 25m from a pedestrian on a shared use path.
Thats 4 or 5 seconds away at 15mph. Less than 10 at 7mph so quite feasible. Thats well within "pedestrian might do something random and it all goes runny.
And once more with feeling. I am not saying that the dog owner isn't in the wrong here (and he's clearly a dick based on his lack of compassion or care)
I am merely saying without any further evidence there are two arguments.
A out of control dog knocked me off my bike!
The cyclist wasn't concentrating and wasn't in control!
There is truth in both those statements. If either of these two things were seperate then the outcome of any blame would be clear cut. But they are not seperate they unfortunately occured simultaneously.
