Point of order
Dannyh - what I am talking about is NOT just irresponsible owners - unless you include those who let their "friendly" dogs run and jump at you
I do not want your dog in my personal space. I don't care if it is friendly or not. this is the bit dog lovers do not get. Its exactly the same to me. If you do not control your dog friendly or not I will. control your dog ( and to be clear that does not mean it has to be on a lead) or except that the dog will be controlled by me in ways you do not like but that works.
A fine example - I saw a chap walking half a dozen collies some young. I thought - this could be dodgy as I rung my bell. He simply called "down" and all the dogs dropped on the spot. those dogs did not need a lead.
OFFS - I said to myself I wouldn't comment again. This thread was really supposed to be a set up for jokes on me not rehashing arguments where dog owners simply seem incapable of understanding what we dog non owners want. go read the first page replies folks! Its much more entertaining
Calm down and buy yourself a sheep and a gun!
I do love dogs, plenty on Tinder.
This thread was really supposed to be a set up for jokes on me
Went back and reread your first post
So all of those who say you don’t get bitten if you know how to behave round dogs and its up to us to avoid confrontations with dogs explain this?
I think you got the responses you would have expected from those words, but I'll also admit you can't tell tone and nuance from just words. Sorry for missing your joke. I hope the dog has had its tetanus.
What exactly is the Edinburgh defence?
If you do not control your dog friendly or not I will.
Given the type of mouthbreathers who often cant/dontwant to control their dog this might not be the best option.
Ive said this before people in the UK are as stupidly blind over dogs as people in the US are with guns.
Man assulted whilst innocently cycling and its down to the way he cycles near the dog.
I got bitten on the arm last year running down the canal minding my own business by a massive dog. Its only a puppy was the owners excuse. Say that to the coroner when it kills a kid. My son is terrified of dogs after a "playful' one bigger than him jumped on him and knocked him down when he was younger. My 6 year old sons face is scarred from when a dog ran out from the bushes on a shared trail in front of him and he flew over the handle bars, 18 months later he still hasnt got his confidence back. Good job the trail dog thread got closed before i got chance to post on it.
Couldn't find the numbers for more recent years but 21 people including 14 children were killed by dogs in 2014, so that people could have a pet. The freedom to have a pet is worth 14 kids lives and countless injuries a year, its just wrong.
If somebody started importing a exotic animal and they caused as much death and injury as dogs they'd be banned withing weeks as the injuries and deaths started to rack up. Maybe not, the HSE would leave it and say its the baby lying its cot that got its throat ripped out fault for sleeping the wrong way near a dog.
If i had my way I'd ban them all and put down the entire uk population except working dogs. I don't see the cost in lives and injuries is balanced by benefit to society of pet dogs. I know I'm a minority, as dogs are so engrained in society that society is prepared to accept the death of children to have a pet. You lot will all wring your hands the idiots in the states and their gun laws, whilst defending your right to own an animal that can kill.
Calm down and buy yourself a sheep and a gun!
This is definitely a winning suggestion
Couldn’t find the numbers for more recent years but 21 people including 14 children were killed by dogs in 2014, so that people could have a pet. The freedom to have a pet is worth 14 kids lives and countless injuries a year, its just wrong.
Could you link to where you got those figs from please?
No, like anything - I think that there should probably be a bit more regulation and it should probably be the case that all dogs that deemed as a risk due to size and power should be muzzled.
I don't agree with trail dogs either, mostly because I get angry with owners who put their dogs at risk.
The freedom to have a pet is worth 14 kids lives and countless injuries a year, its just wrong.
That's probably a reason for introducing some kind of licensing for dogs and/or mandatory training centres. However, dogs provide health benefits as well - how many more children who end up obese because instead of being told to go out and walk the dog they sat on their arses playing xbox?
According to the ONS, 4 deaths in total in 2014.
Talk bollocks much?
The death rates aren't much different to how many pedestrians cyclists kill.
Better put you lot down then. 😀
I'd wager that the rate that mountain bikers injure and kill their kids by pointing them down black runs, isn't that far off.
Sorry got the wrong death number but hey only 8000 reported bites requiring medical treatment a year mostly on children so thats ok then.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32912084
Sorry got the wrong death number but hey only 8000 reported bites requiring medical treatment a year mostly on children so thats ok then.
It’s over 4 years.
So 2000 a year is OK then? What's a good threshold number?
0 is a good threshold.
No it's not ok. I wonder how many could have been prevented if those dogs were on leads, and how many others could have been prevented by the victims adopting different behaviour around the dog?
https://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts-figures/
Bicycles kill and injure more children than dogs.
I wonder how many could have been prevented if those dogs were on leads,
All of them
and how many others could have been prevented by the victims adopting different behaviour around the dog?
See above. Dog on lead, no need for public to adapt their behaviour because selfish dog owner can't control their dog. Simple really.
Bicycles kill and injure more children than dogs.
That's a spectacularly dumb use of statistics, even by your standards, Tom
So, we should ban children's bicycles and have schools keep children healthy through the statisically safest method.
😀
how many others could have been prevented by the victims adopting different behaviour around the dog?
The bit about the lead is the important bit.
Since I am assuming your victim blaming excludes those cases where the victim wasn't bit because they decided to use force against the out of control dog?
Last weekend I had some uncontrolled dog yap at me whilst I was riding along. I came very close to kicking it whilst its "owners" plaintively whistled in the distance, I would, hence why I restrained myself, felt guilty hurting it but ultimately the problem is with its handler who I wouldnt have felt so bad about having a full and frank exchange of views with.
@tom Like I said, spectacularly dumb. Think about what likely kills the children on the bikes, then try again.
Also, it would appear that per capita - Muslim terrorists are more dangerous to children as well, than dogs. You're child has a greater riak of getting blown up at an Arina Grande concert than being killed by a dog.
Not rrally Zokes, cars are needed for out current capitalist pig dog system to work. So the beat way to deal with the deaths would be by banning childrens bicycles. Probably cheaper than investment in better oublic transportation as well.
Pity, I thought you were smarter than that, what with you not actually flunking that basic biology exam a couple of years ago and outsmarting your tutor.
Hint - you're actually suggesting children should adapt their behaviour and not cycle near cars, rather than car drivers be more careful, especially near bikes.
Get a re-homed MWD. Obedience through the roof and ignores people. Wish I'd re-homed one sooner.
Hint – you’re actually suggesting children should adapt their behaviour and not cycle near cars, rather than car drivers be more careful, especially near bikes.
Dogs are being banned in our theoretical world because they serve no utilitarian purpose. Bicycles are also being banned because they serve no utilitarian purpose that cannot be fulfilled in a safer more controlled environment by the state. Which would be cheaper than improving cycling infrastructure.
[i]raybanwomble wrote:[/i]
Also, it would appear that per capita – Muslim terrorists are more dangerous to children as well, than dogs. You’re child has a greater riak of getting blown up at an Arina Grande concert than being killed by a dog.
Good point. Before we ban dogs we should ban Muslim terrorists.
Once we've banned the Muslim terrorists is it OK to ban the dogs?
Depends, do all dogs bite? Anyone up for odds on this conversation either going racist or speciesist?
Get a re-homed MWD. Obedience through the roof and ignores people. Wish I’d re-homed one sooner.
It's okay, they only bite peoples cocks off on command.
Actually Tom, rather than banning dogs, we should ban leads. It's almost certain that leads were nearby (but not being used) when the dog attacks occurred, so we should just ban them. Thus, following your highly flawed logic, dog attacks will stop.
Only they won't will they, just as people wont stop being killed by careless drivers if we ban bicycles. Grow up.
That's funny. Banning the lead is analogous to banning bicycle helmets and neither are contributory root causes towards the deaths of children. Where as both the bicycle and dog are contributory root causes, just as the dog owner is and the car driver.
It's just banning the bicycle is easier than making all drivers never ever make mistakes and would be the most expedient CAPA, in our dead kid scenario.
It would at least result in fewer injuries in London.
https://fullfact.org/news/it-more-dangerous-be-pedestrian-cyclist/
Another question, dogs it would appear are effective treatments for depression and suicide prevention. The literature however is pretty shit for dog vs cat comparisons, before you ****ing cat lovers says we should all get cats.
Soooo, for all those saying dogs have very little utilitarian use outside of working dogs....
https://www.asthealth.org/medications-leading-cause-accidental-poisoning-deaths-children
Maybe more waggy dogs would equal less kids ODing on your happy pills.
That’s funny. Banning the lead is analogous to banning bicycle helmets and neither are contributory root causes towards the deaths of children. Where as both the bicycle and dog are contributory root causes, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">just as the dog owner is and the car driver</span>.
There, you've finally got it - ban dog owners.
A kid can ride a bike and not be hurt by a car. A kid can't be run over by a car and not be hurt. The car is hardly contributory, it is the cause (well, the driver). Likewise, if you must, so is the dog. There may be other contributory causes, but the root cause of dog attacks is dogs (or their owners)
I have to say your new pseudonym is a distinct regression, Tom
Leads would have prevented all those injuries? Even the ones in the home?
I got nipped as a kid when I went up to my grandparents dog that was in its basket with a bone. I invaded its space and in its mind threatened to take away something valuable to it. It behaved in a wholly predictable and I'd say reasonable way, for a dog. My parents and Grandparents taught me appropriate behaviour, and it never happened again.
Victim blaming? Leads fix everything? Bullshit. Learning appropriate behaviour is entirely reasonable.
Learning appropriate behaviour is entirely reasonable.
So put your ****ing dog on a ****ing lead - this is appropriate behaviour when there are other people about unless you 100% have it at your instant control.
By the time a dog has got to a point that it’s going to kill, being on a lead only offers a modicum of control and it would be very easy for a dog to slip it’s leash. You need a straight jacket really!
”I came very close to kicking it whilst its “owners” plaintively whistled in the distance,”
Actually, if a dog has already broken its recall shouting angrily/lots of distressed energy from the owner isn’t an effective option as they’ll not be very attractive to return to. In a Broken recall scenario they should be on long line recall training before this happens.
Anyway, just taking the dog out for a poo on the neighbours garden, maybe a public footpath.
edited quite a bit, what was in my head was badly reflected by the words that came out of it.
So put your * dog on a * lead – this is appropriate behaviour when there are other people about unless you 100% have it at your instant control.
Stop ****** swearing at me - because nowhere in the 100-odd other posts on this subject, or in any other thread on it, have it disagreed with that. Go back and look and then come back and apologise.
IF YOUR DOG IS NOT 100% UNDER CONTROL IT SHOULD BE ON A LEAD. FULL STOP. IN FACT I'D EVEN BE HAPPY TO LEAD MY DOG EVEN THOUGH IT IS UNDER CONTROL IF IT MAKES PEOPLE FEEL HAPPIER, AND I HAVE WHEN I'VE WALKED WITH FRIENDS WHOSE DAUGHTER DOESN'T LIKE DOGS.
BUT - not everyone does the same and hence why is it so hard to accept that in that imperfect world it is sensible to also know what to do if a dog comes up to you, so you don't make a perfectly controllable situation into a dangerous one.
Clue: it's not run away, try to hit or kick it, or beat it senseless with a minipump. IMHO.
IF YOUR DOG IS NOT 100% UNDER CONTROL IT SHOULD BE ON A LEAD.
Is any sentient organism ever under 100 control?
if you want to go pedant mode, 100% with no decimal places would allow for 99.5% control to be considered 100%
Is it possible for a sentient being to be under control 199/200 times. Absolutely.
So yes, it is possible for a sentient being to be 100% under control. Next question 😉
Sorry Jon, I shouldn't have asterisked at you.
I take your point on knowing how to behave around dogs (or any other animal for that matter - especially fields of excitable cows). However, in the case of dogs, the mitigation in case a member of the public in a public area doesn't know how to behave around dogs is for the dog to be on a lead of a suitable variety that it can't slip it. If the dog's on a lead, and the other member of public stays further than that lead's length, then there is no way for an incident to occur.
I appreciate that you're a responsible dog owner, but sadly many are not, with results that are being discussed here.
Is it possible for a sentient being to be under control 199/200 times. Absolutely.
So yes, it is possible for a sentient being to be 100% under control. Next question
Er...dont think much of your maths.
But anyway in the real world I reckon my dog is better behaved than 90% of dogs I see when walking her and she wouldnt reach the 199/200 threshold you talk of. Not wanting an argument about me controlling my dog better, I am happy that she doesnt approach strange people or strange dogs. I just think some on here expect something that is never going to happen. Maybe like I want all car drivers to pay attention, I dont excuse the behaviour or think its right but I have to accept reality.
The teacher part of me also doesnt accept that sentient beings, like kids, can be controlled 199/200!!!
The teacher part of me also doesnt accept that sentient beings, like kids, can be controlled 199/200!!!
The parent part of me agrees re: kids! 😆 I suppose would could ban them too, but who's going to pay our pensions?
A price worth paying if IMHO
Horrid little rats! You aren’t even allowed to crate train them, absurd! Speaking of the absurd, with no young people, the murder rate would plummet rapidly.
with no young people, the murder rate would plummet rapidly.
Teenage pregnancies would also decrease substantially. I think we're on to a winner...
