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

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