[Closed] Which is better - a Hope Hoop wheel or a Border Collie ?

v8 ninty - its really simple even if you don't want to accept it. if the dog makes an error of judgement it is not under control. A dog that is under control has no effect on anyone else - as soon as it knock someone off that shows it is not under control

You duty is to keep your dog under control so it does not inconvenience or affect anyone else. If your dog knocks someone off a bike then the dog was not under control - you have strict liability for any damage the dog causes.

Dogs can be perfectly under control of their owner, yet still make errors of judgment themselves

😆

Must be raining today, nobody out riding ffs

It's very foggy here Iain, but that won't stop me going to the pub for Sunday Lunch. 😀

Must be raining today, nobody out riding ffs

it's smartphones, init?

that's why TJ rides a tandem, so he can type without having to stop...

me - I am too scared to go out now in case there are any more dogs around - I have only got a few more sets of wheels and I am trying to protect them.

[actually decorating 🙁 ]

This thread started nicely with the OP telling us about something unusual that had happened to him in an amusing way, and being laid back and sensible about it.

Shame it had to turn into an argument eh?

🙄

It's not an argument, it's a [i]discussion[/i]. 🙂

And an interesting one at that, imo.

Or should we all just post really bland comments with little or no actual onions in them, agree politely with each other and ultimately never really understand anyone else's point of view?

TJ you keep saying 'dog knocks someone off' try 'cyclist and dog collide' or even 'cyclist hits dog' and see how daft your argument seems then.

(dogs can) make errors of judgment themselves

Elf, it's true, and often highly amusing. My folks dog ran full pelt into bright orange temporary fencing the other day because he was to busy watching his mucker. Was very 😆 because he didn't hurt himself. Only a fool or a TJ would have said it was the owners fault though. Although any damage caused in such a situation would obviously be the dog owners responsibility. The difference is that's fence can't be expected to watch out for a dog, but a cyclist can.

V8 - its all the same - the dog owner has a duty to keep the dog under control - this means keeping it out of the way of the cyclist. If the owner does not keep the dog out of the way and causes damage then they are liable as they failed to keep the dog under control

Have a look at the law - you might learn something. animals act 1971

LOLs at the poster. You'd be surprised what a small guy like me can do when I'm angry. People acting dangerously around me makes me angry. Like cyclists that think they own the place and everyone should get out of their way. Blasting down trails has its place and it's great fun but if you can't see it's clear or there are people around then you slow down or you are not being responsible. It's not a hard one to work out is it. I agree with TJ that an owner is responsible for any damage the dog causes. Being run over by a cyclist going tooo fast is not a collision caused by the dog now is it? A dog doesn't need to be within an inch of its master to be under control.
If you are out on shared use land and don't slow down to a crawl to pass people, animals and horse riders then you are not acting responsibly. I'm a walker, a dog walker and a mountain biker so I see it a bit more objectively than some of the rabid terriers on here who are really more deserving of a leash and muzzle than any dog.

how do you take someone elses line & quote it on your reply? 🙂

V8, I'd save your energy. I'd bet that most normal people would agree with you and you're never going I persuade the usual fools that their world view is self-centred and bizarre. A shame there isn't an ignore function...

Why do dog owners seem so reluctant to control their animals and to accept the liability they have for failing to control the animal.

Only a fool would think that the dog can be under control and still knock someone off their bike.

If the dog inconveniences anyone in any way it is not under control. Any damage done by a dog not under control the owner is liable.

dogs and humans are not equal under the law - the dog has no rights at all.

I'd bet that most normal people would agree with you and you're never going I persuade the usual fools that their world view is self-centred and bizarre.

Dear oh dear oh dear...

Ok, here goes:

You own a car. You park it on a hill. You inadvertently leave the handbrake off. The car then rolls down the hill, smashing into a 400-year old stone cottage, causing irreparable damage.

Who is at fault? The car or the owner?

dogs and humans are not equal under the law - the dog has no rights at all.

Other than being protected against mistreatment and cruelty, this is absolutely correct. The dog has no more 'rights' than a car.

Anyway, this issue's bin dealt with more than adequately by myself and TJ; if you really want to know any more, then read up on the Law, consider the issue of Individual Legal Responsibility, and have a good think about it.

Then, accept that regarding the issue of legal responsibilities of dog ownership, TJ and I are right. And move on.

Dogs are nice. I like dogs. I want to see dogs out on the trails, having fun. I also want to see mountain bikers out on the trails having fun. And other people.

I do want to see people having sufficient knowledge of the Laws surrounding their activities, in order to be able to act responsibly.

If we all do that, we can all get along fine.

I'm not a dog owner, nor do I play one on TV. Nor do I wish to have a reasoned debate with two people to whom the words reasonable and debate are utter anathema in their blinkered worlds.

Being run over by a cyclist going tooo fast is not a collision caused by the dog now is it?

in this instance the dog came into me from the side - if I had hit the dog my wheel would have survived as it wouldn't have had the side hit that caused it to fold.

but he didn't mean it - he had a slightly startled/unsettled look on his face. Not too shaken though as I went up to him to give him a petting and he didn't shy away.

If he had meant to take me out it would have been safer to jump up at me, not pile into my front wheel.

Give the OP a medal. Too many grumpy people about happy to wade into those whose attitude and outlook doesn't suit them. Hoaven't you lot ever damaged something and got away with it?

[img] [/img]

lmao smell_it!

I have yet to see a law which states or infers that a mountain biker has the right to plough into a dog without giving the animal or owner warning of his presence. Rabbit on all you like but if you are going too fast to allow an owner to bring their dog under control when alerted to your presence then you are in the wrong. On land set aside for specific activities this wouldn't hold water but this wasn't the case this time.
I lost a dog when he leapt a fence to fetch a ball that bounced too far. Hit a car, took the front valance off and died there in my arms. I paid the owner for the damage to the car. It was my fault. If a car comes on to our park and starts ripping it up and doing donuts,as I've seen before, and hits one of the dogs desperately being called to heel by their owners, who is at fault? I can see why England will never have an access code. Ever thought of going home TJ? You'd fit in better down there.

I can see TelfJ's POV here but in the real world I'd be surprised if their interpretation would stand up in court. When I'm out on my bike I've had the odd near miss with a dog when on a tight & twisty trail, miles away from houses or carparks. I remember once, on a tight corner that was overgrown vegetation restricting visibility nearly having a bike/dog interface (riding at a snails pace at the time). If that near miss with the dog had been a collision it wouldn't be the dog owners fault in my opinion. Commonsense would prevail and I'd put it down to experience.

TandemJeremy - Member

Have a look at the law - you might learn something. animals act 1971

Is there a case of a collision between a mountain biker and hound resulting in a successful conviction in a court of law for the mountain biker against the dog owner?

I applaud the OP's commonsense regarding the way he handled the situation.

TJ - Next time you're out my way I'll see if Roli wants to come out. He takes some interesting lines but he's fast as ****. I reckon he'd even beat GW down the 'kinchie trail. He [i]might [/i]change your outlook on dogs. But maybe not if he tries to chew yer tyres.

http://yodagoat.blogspot.com/2011/11/dugs-life.html
Mike

Yodagoat - I have no issue with well trained dogs and responsible owners. I have ridden with dogs before

Rabbit on all you like but if you are going too fast to allow an owner to bring their dog under control when alerted to your presence then you are in the wrong

Of course. - apart from the dog owner has a responsibility to have the dog under control at all times.

Anyway, this issue's bin dealt with more than adequately by myself and TJ

Yeah, ultimately, that seems like a reasonable conclusion tbh.

Of course the dog is property, so is the cyclists front wheel. The cyclist has a duty to keep that under control too, of course, if a front wheel hits a dog, it's obviously not under control, is it?

TJ; you have email.

Is there a case of a collision between a mountain biker and hound resulting in a successful conviction in a court of law for the mountain biker against the dog owner?

7. A 65 year old man was awarded compensation after a dog ran under the wheel of his bike. He was cycling through a park when a dog that was not on its lead run in front of his bike, throwing him over the handlebars. The cyclist sustained a fractured pelvis and was unable to walk unaided for three months and could not return to work for a further six months. The owner of the dog was liable for the dog’s actions as it should have been on a lead and was sued for bike accident compensation. The man was awarded £14,000 for his injuries..

http://www.cycleclaims.co.uk/information/bicycle-accident-compensation-claims-studies

cool! I'm off to find a dog off it's lead to run over 8)

Thanks for the quote and link.

I notice that the link is from Ambulancechasers4u and is a bit vague but never mind.

The quote you have supplied doesn't give a lot of information (it doesn't say if the case was settled in court) but does say the incident was in a park and that is not a mountainbiker out in the countryside. I would still be interested in a court case that involved a mountainbiker and hound out in the countryside and not someone having a ride through a park. The quote also states that the dog should have been on a lead, is that a law of that actual park? It doesn't state that the dog was out of control at the time of the incident.

I LOL'd at the link. It's a bit pathetic and desperate to be honest.

Why? It clearly shows the point. Plenty more cases out there if you look and more details on that one.

You will not be persuaded tho that as a dog owner you are liable for any and all damage your dog causes if you fail to control it even tho the law is quite clear

So what about this incident, out walking the two hounds (which are particularly large one of them is about 35" at the shoulder) around Rothiemurcas, hear a MTB'r coming down trail so step to the side into long grass with the two hounds which are not on leads, biker comes round the bend sees the hounds gets startled veers of the trail and down he goes, he gets up has a bit of a rant whilst I am holding back the laughter, realises he is being a bit of a nob and starts laughing and apoligises for being a nob, and says ****in ell check the size of them! Could of gone quite different if it was someone else that did not not have a sense of humor.
So should I have been out of sight as to not cause MTB's any distraction 😀
Not really got any relevance to the point of this thread though.

I conceded the point about if the dog causes a accident, you fail to see the point I made about if excess speed causes an accident and rigidly stick to 'it's the dogs fault
How would you define under control? If it takes five seconds to call the dog and put it on a lead, is that not under control, if I see a cyclist and call my dog but he cyclist is going to fast to stop, is that the dogs fault?
You just saying 'typical dog owners reaction' shows how little respect you have for any opinion apart from your own,
EDIT Omg 😯 what am I doing.... Arguing on the Internet, with TJ.....God I want a cig!.. 😥

I think the OP handled this correctly.

devs - Member
...That is the "responsible" way to share the land. If you can't stop in the distance you can see then you are going too fast.

That's my thinking. If I'm riding in the country then I have to expect random animals and should be riding appropriately. Just missed a large deer that sprung out of the undergrowth the other day. Blamed myself because I obviously was riding in tunnel vision mode.

TandemJeremy - Member
...The very fact your dog knocks someone off shows the dog is not under control and you have a legal responsibility to keep the dog under control...

Reasonable attitude for crowded urban parks, but you'd have to be a right miserable type not to enjoy seeing a dog out enjoying itself in the country. Albeit some dogs are as irresponsible and selfish as speeding cyclists and expect others to get out of their way.

I do want to see people having sufficient knowledge of the Laws surrounding their activities, in order to be able to act responsibly.

Surley that would greatly reduse the quantity and quality of the trails available to us all( excluding the Scotts)!

 

Can't be bothered to read all the tripe that came after the OP's nicely worded, jovial description of the event - but if my dog get's hit by a cyclist, unless I've had a chance to tell the dog to get out of the way and she hasn't, there's no way that would be my, or the dog's fault.
That's like saying it's my fault if I'm walking on a bridleway, step out in front of a cyclist that I haven't seen and he hits me.
Utter bollocks.
And I know I'm right, so won't be back to argue about it.

Whilst out on the bike earlier this happened..... bloody dogs

[IMG] [/IMG]

😆
[IMG] [/IMG]
It's not wearing a helmet either.......

That's like saying it's my fault if I'm walking on a bridleway, step out in front of a cyclist that I haven't seen and he hits me.

I notice that the link is from Ambulancechasers4u

Or did you actually think that's what they are because they have a case report which shows that the law contradicts your opinion?

[s]It's[/s] I'm a bit pathetic and desperate to be honest.

And I know I'm right, so won't be back to argue about it.

You own a car. You park it on a hill. You inadvertently leave the handbrake off. The car then rolls down the hill, smashing into a 400-year old stone cottage, causing irreparable damage.
Who is at fault? The car or the owner?

Its not about dog or dog owner though, is it? Its about dog owner vs cyclist, if you must. In that instance, the owner of the car is responsible. How about this scenario then, Elf?

You own a car. You park it by a house. You leave the handbrake on. The slate from the roof of the house is in a state of disrepair and falls onto the car, smashing into a 25 year old lovely landrover causing significant damage.
Who is at fault? The car owner or or the house owner?

See TJ, Elf (to a lesser extent, you seem to be a bit more sensible in this instance) either cyclist or dog owner could be considered to blame, or a sharing of both, DEPENDING on the situation. And you weren't there, I wasn't there, the OP was there, and he's being grown up about it.

You own a car. You park it by a house. You leave the handbrake on. The slate from the roof of the house is in a state of disrepair and falls onto the car, smashing into a 25 year old lovely landrover causing significant damage.
Who is at fault? The car owner or or the house owner?

you weren't there, I wasn't there, the OP was there

Oh dear aracer. I had you down as a bit better than that but into the noisy children classification you go then. The ftfy defence, the last preserve of beaten simpletons.

aracer - Member

I notice that the link is from Ambulancechasers4u

Really? From what I can see they're a perfectly legitimate legal firm working to gain compensation from cyclists who've sustained losses through no fault of their own. Or do you think such companies shouldn't exist, and when cyclists are injured or have their bikes damaged they should just shrug and accept sh*t happens?

Or did you actually think that's what they are because they have a case report which shows that the law contradicts your opinion?

Aracer - That quote is on quite a few "perfectly legitimate legal firms" web sites and some of them state that the quote must not be used for legal advice.

Did that legal firm represent the cyclist in the quote or are they using that quote to drum up a bit of business?

I asked if there was a case of a mountainbiker winning a court case against a dog owner, not a cyclist riding in a park winning a court case against a dog owner. For all we know it the park might have been a dog free park, we just don't know all the facts. As I said in my post, I can see the POV of others and owners controlling their dogs but as the OP, I think he did the right thing, commonsense and all that. IMO.

into the noisy children classification you go then

Subsititute car for cyclist, slate for dog?

Doesn't really improve much on elf's original, but well done for trying.

Did that legal firm represent the cyclist in the quote or are they using that quote to drum up a bit of business?

Calling them "Ambulancechasers4u" is pretty much an ad-hom, suggesting you don't have a good argument against what they're quoting and have to fall back on discrediting the source instead. Using such a term does your argument no favours at all.

Maybe you'd also like to explain why the distinction between a park and the countryside is oh so important, when dogs are required to be under control in either (which de-jure means on a lead unless you can demonstrate that they're under the same control off a lead as on it). Not that your original request mentioned anything about the countryside rather than a park, and I'm really struggling to see the legal distinction between a mountain biker and somebody riding a bike!

Substitute car for dog, and slate for bike?

Actually now I come to think of it, I'm going to have to help you out a bit more here with another analogy. Cyclist riding along the road safely. Another car pulls out of a side road right in front of the cyclist, giving cyclist no time to stop or avoid car. Who's fault?

not some quote off of an claimsdirect type website

The slate isn't to blame, it's an object. The householder is to blame. This isn't about dog vs cyclist, its about dog owner vs cyclists liability. Do try to keep up dear. My point is that it depends on the situation.
'claimsdirect' type is neither insult nor compliment, it's a type.

What about in these situations then? Still dogs fault?
[url= http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23560078-actresses-take-the-lead-as-rogue-cyclists-kill-four-dogs.do ]Dogs killed by cyclists on 'cheeky' trails[/url]

The slate isn't to blame

'claimsdirect' type is neither insult nor compliment, it's a type.

What about in these situations then?

A shame there isn't an ignore function...

Do a forum search for "killfile".

It has stopped working for me unfortunately, but when I had it installed and a few carefully selected users blocked it improved my enjoyment of the forum immensely.

Arrrgh, I shouldn't bite but...

Yes it is. In the same way the dog is. The fact it's not legally liable doesn't change that - though it's really not terribly exciting discussing legal semantics.

I ave no idea what you think, other than 'I can't be arsed to read the discussion, I just want to be rude and agumentative with people.'

I knew I shouldn't have. I don't feel any better for it.

There was an update available cha****ng
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/stw-killfile-plugin/page/2

TJ and Elf seem to think that they are

No we don't. What we're saying is that a dog owner is liable for any damage caused by their dog not being under control. 😉

Which, if you'd bothered to read up on the Law relating to this issue, you'd know...

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,

really? Neither of us said that

However the liability is much greater than you seem to think. There is a strict liability involved.

Its normally the dog owners fault for not controlling his animal. If the dog is in a position to knock a cyclist off who is cycling within the law then the dog owner is at fault as the dog is not under control - because if the dog was under control it would not be in a position to knock the cyclist off. so yes - in all normal circumstances the dog owner is at fault.

animals act 1971 applies

Can I just say this is the second time I've appeared on this thread?

really? Neither of us said that

yes - in all normal circumstances the dog owner is at fault.

No we don't. What we're saying is that a dog owner is liable for any damage caused by their dog not being under control.

yes - in all [b][u]normal[/u][/b] circumstances the dog owner is at fault.

You're welcome. We'll leave you to work it all out for yourself, cos it's more fun to complete a puzzel all on your own than receive outside help, in't it? 😀

Elf and TJ should be put down

Ooh what bravery, to post such a tag, eh? 😆 Obviously you'd say this to our faces, in accordance with forum rules....

TJ and me is win. Stop to be so silly.

i had a mad dog jump onto 1st section of summer lightning today and run the way i was going(luckily) was hilarious, couldnt catch him sooo fast

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?

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

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.

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

MOST IMPORTANTLY the OP basically shrugs and says not to worry

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?

Devs - hence the

under normal circumstances

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.

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.

[img] http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGMSJOwz5thk6GTxSNMQm7krk07w9NJYu8xqsD8Up-2R5L-W4NjCwEi-GlKg [/img]

No need to post self-portraits, devs.

Have you got any evidence that isn't a vague advert?

I refer the dishonourable muppet to my comments of some moments 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?

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?

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?

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?

You're not proving your point by coming up with strawmen.

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.

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 )

Oh 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...

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.

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

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.