[Closed] Bitten by dog

I’m not so sure.  Once you are so blinded by anger, I’m not sure some people are aware of much at all.

Pretty much right cougar.  Its the belief of the person who perceives the threat that counts.

Angeldust - your dog was both creating a public nuisance with its barking and scaring people.  Thats enough to put you on the wrong side of the law on two counts.  Yes the penalties are likely to be low to non existant for a minor breach but you could be prosectuted for both

I really do suggest you read up on the kennel club advice.  You might learn how to be a responsible dog owner

No, I’ve confiscated his slingshot.

He wasn’t barking.  Just walking along.  You are so blinded by rage you are making stuff up!  Try reading the posts a bit more slowly.  My point was that some people could be scared by a dog by its mere presence.  This was lost on you.

~Correct sbob.  I do understand the law on this.  there is no need for the fear to be "reasonable"  Just that the fear is real to the person perceiving it.  Same as if you are threatened with a weapon

Angeldust - I am not angry - I am laughing at you because you proved my point about entitled dog owners.

I’m not so sure.  Once you are so blinded by anger, I’m not sure some people are aware of much at all.

It's your fault.

If you knew how to behave around people like TJ, you wouldn't get attacked......

If you say so.  I challenge you to go back and read the post, and deny you misunderstood it.    That’s not really your style though is it?  Woof!

Can we wind this up on page 4 please to keep in line with my original prediction. We’re already very close to peak **** so it should be possible.

 My point was that some people could be scared by a dog by its mere presence.

They could.  And if I'm understanding this correctly: if someone was massively phobic, incorrectly believed that they were in danger and 'defended' themselves, the law would side with them rather than the dog owner.  Which sucks for the dog / dog owner, but people are more important than animals.

(Of course, is someone tried to claim that they were so scared of a dog that was on a lead and barking 40 yards away that they picked up a stick, marched over and stoved its head in, they'd probably struggle to get a jury to believe that.)

So is a chihuahua a weapon?  How much damage do you think it could do?  Or are you saying it only matters if ‘you believe’ it is dangerous, not what common sense and physics tells us?

Depends how hard you could throw it I suppose.

Or are you saying it only matters if ‘you believe’ it is dangerous, not what common sense and physics tells us?

Ooh look, he gets it.

Everyday a school day and all that. 🙂

Correct cougar from my reading of the law.

I don’t think that would work in any real world circumstances Cougar.  Otherwise you could just go up to a stranger innocently walking a dog just below a CCTV camera (so there was evidence that the person wasn’t acting in self defence, other than ‘being scared’), stab and kill it, and then claim it was because you were scared of the dog.  How do you think that would go in court?  In real life, not stw pedant world.

Dog thread.

TeeJ’s gone binary again.

More seriously,

Last I checked, chihuahuas weren't a toothless breed.  Sure, they're not going to rip your arm off, but they could still take a chunk out of you.

My anecdotal experience of dogs is that if we rule out the ones owned by mouth-breathers that are raised specifically to be as nasty a piece of work as their owners, then the smaller the dog the most inherently aggressive they're likely to be.

I've been bitten a couple of times I think; once by a Jack Russell and once by some indeterminate mongrel that wasn't much bigger than that.  Didn't do vast amounts of damage but still meant me spending half a day at the NHS's pleasure getting tetanus boosters.

AA - there is no requirement for the persons fear to be "reasonable"

angeldust - sorry - I thought your dog had barked and scared someone.  So only one breach of the law not two

So is a chihuahua a weapon? How much damage do you think it could do? Or are you saying it only matters if ‘you believe’ it is dangerous, not what common sense and physics tells us?

I have seen people terrified by our rat our rat dog which is all of 4.5lbs. Just because you're not worried by something does not mean other people are not.. phobias are not rational so common sense and physics mean nothing.

Mind you it is law here were I currently am to have the dog on the lead and the police recommendation if a dog bounds up to you and you feel threatened is to boot it or shoot it...

back to the op. Best thing is to report the incident so there is a record in case it happens again.

Angeldust - you really do need to read up on the law on this. Please do so.

I don’t think that would work in most circumstances Cougar.

I edited to add a second paragraph whilst you were replying, did you see it?

Either way, what we're talking about here is a hypothetical fringe case.  Anyone that scared of dogs that they'd spontaneously attack one that was minding its own business would've sought counselling or some such previously or they'd never leave the house.  They'd have a history of problems and treatment that a jury would take into account.

Someone doesn't just wake up one day in their mid 30s and suddenly decide out of the blue that their life is in danger from the first dog they see that day, and thus would have difficulty in pleading that they genuinely believed they were under threat.

Can you think about that before you post in anger in future.  Might make you less annoying 😄.

Strangely, the police don’t seem to be all that concerned by the millions of people responsibly walking their dogs every day, who might also be coincidently scaring people who are scared by the mere presence of dogs.  Are you aware of the concept of an argument being so pedantic it losses all real world credibility.  Because that is what is happening.

ooh, look at red bull!

TJ, as you know I don’t have high expectations of you, but just think about this for a minute. Your argument has been reduced to stating that the law says that dog walkers are breaking the law if they are walking along (on the lead, not barking, not being aggressive) if they happen to scare someone 50 yards away, who is scared of dogs.  Just walking their dog on a lead - Something that millions of responsible owners do every day.  Just think about that for a minute.  Do you really think that argument has any real world credibility?  Even with low expectations, I can only think you are either blinded by rage (binary thinking, as someone put it) or trolling.  Which is it?

or just have a look at the red bull drivers crashing into each other, to cheer yourself up.

Angeldust - please read up on the law and try to stick within it.  Try to actually see others viewpoints instead of daft attempts to ridicule and put folk down.

Please stop being an entitled dog owner and become a responsible one.  I have furnished you with many links to law and guidance on it.

You simply seem unable to understand any other point of view.

Or are you merely trolling with your entitled attitude?

Oh - and again.  I am not angry - I am laughing at you digging a hole and proving my point - and every post makes this plainer

Strangely, the police don’t seem to be all that concerned by the millions of people responsibly walking their dogs every day,

2015 figures - NHS hospital admission statistics show there were 7,227 hospital admissions for dog bites in 2015 which is a 6% increase year-on-year and a 76% increase over the last 10 years.

And given that much of our urban free space is covered in dogshit, I don't think that many owners have a clue what responsible means.

Binary 😀.  Your denials are about as convincing/likely as death by chihuahua 😜.

what point of view is it that I don’t understand?  I’m quite happy to state that your interpretation of the law isn’t making a great deal of sense.  The one about how walking your dog under control near someone who is scared of dogs is breaking the law?  Are you going to address that?

Back in a bit, just taking Hector out for his walk.  If you don’t hear anything, the filth might have nabbed me and I might need someone to bail me out.

Angeldust - its your understanding of the law that is lacking.  I have tried to help you on multiple threads with multiple links to the law and the advice / guidence

The point of view y9ou seem unable to understand it that of people like bunnyhop and me.  We do not want your dog to bother us at all in anyway.  The law is 100% on our side.  Thats barking, jumping up, running towards us or bothering us in any way.

Please note I have also defended responsible dog owners who understand this.  For example being under control does not equal being on a lead.  It can be out of control on a lead and under control on NOT on a lead.

Would you like some more links to the law?  It might help you understand how to be a responsible dog owner.

For example  from the dangerous dogs act

"

It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that an order under section 2 of the M1 Dogs Act 1871 (order on complaint that dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control)—

(a)may be made whether or not the dog is shown to have injured any person"

Or perhaps that well known haunt of dog haters the kennel club

"REMEMBER - not everybody loves dogs. Only a minority of the population are dog owners - respect the views of others."

This hits the nail on the head:

Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:

injures someone
makes someone worried that it might injure them

https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public

Just walking past with your dog would be really stretching it.

Nothing is more dangerously out of control than teej on a dog thread.

Indeed Drac.  However its still within the legal definition ( just)   Perhaps badly worded law.

Come off it DD - I haven't bitten anyone - yet.  😉 and surely no one is scared of me?

Tj, on a dog thread.....

I'd be terrierfied.....

Indeed Drac.  However its still within the legal definition ( just)   Perhaps badly worded law.

Hasnt stopped a desperate pedant from using it to try and win a pointless interweb argument though, has it 😜.

Right, I’m back from terrorising the local community with my vicious Bedlington.  Strangely, I wasn’t arrested.

So TJ, could you clarify which part of the law you don’t think I understand?  Maybe with some evidence to back up not only that I don’t understand it, but also that I contravene it? As far as I can tell, you have equated the fact that I accept that some people are irresponsible dog owners (because, you know, this is the real world, not some unlikely idealism) to mean I am also an irresponsible dog owner.  And basically that is just a bit, well, dumb really.  You are in such a blind fury about this, it hinders all rational thought, and you are just desarate to be ‘right’.  You seem to think that anyone that doesn’t fully agree with you must also be part of the problem.  As someone else above said: binary.  It’s just not that simple, but you seem unable to grasp that.  A quite monumental lack of self awareness is also not helping. Yes, I know you think you are ‘very self aware’ 🤣.

You are pretty good at ignoring bits that don’t suit your argument, so at a risk of repeating myself I’ll reiterate my opinion: people really should control their dogs so that that they cannot injure or annoy other people.  My dog is well trained, under control at all times, and on lead in any areas where we might meet other people\animals unexpectedly.  However I accept that not everyone is this responsible, and no matter how much I dislike that, it’s not going to change.  Thus I adapt my behaviour to account for this, which includes knowing how to deal with out of control dogs.  Shouldnt have to, but that’s the real world.  Seems a better option that bitter idealism.  Lots of things make me angry, but why get into a furious rage about it when you can just get on with your life.

if someone was massively phobic, incorrectly believed that they were in danger and ‘defended’ themselves, the law would side with them rather than the dog owner.

If we are drawing parallels with self defence law*, a persons belief that they were going to be attacked may not need to be reasonable, but their subsequent actions need to be reasonable and proportionate. So in Angeldust’s example, there would be no defence for a phobic dog fearer for deployment of some sort of preemptive strike. And any complaint about a dog that is under control and minding its own business is not going to get far.

*I don’t know if this is actually reasonable, but Cougar started it and it feels about right.

They could.  And if I’m understanding this correctly: if someone was massively phobic, incorrectly believed that they were in danger and ‘defended’ themselves, the law would side with them rather than the dog owner.

I expect you are right but my point earlier was that being massively scared of dogs and seeing one nearby wouldnt lead to it being put down by the courts.

Correct sbob. I do understand the law on this. there is no need for the fear to be “reasonable” Just that the fear is real to the person perceiving it. Same as if you are threatened with a weapon

I'm not so sure:

Dangerous Dogs ACT 1991

Provision 10 (3)

For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person (or assistance dog), whether or not it actually does so...

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/65/section/10

Hmmm - interesting - I do remember seeing ( perhaps a different paragraph or guidence) that said different

I stand corrected.

Reasonable actually has a fairly specific meaning in law - " as understood by the man on the clapham omnibus"

 I haven’t bitten anyone – yet....☺ and surely no one is scared of me?

But we do have wade through piles of your crap and several people would like to see your balls removed......

😉

LOLz

Angeldust - this one for starter5s shows your lack of understanding of the law

[quote="tjagain"]which legally means scaring someone

[quote="angledust"]Don’t be ridiculous.  That is an idiotic, pedantic, misrepresentation of the law in all but the most extreme situations.

Actually its what the law says.  See the quotes above.

I'd like to apologise to the cyclists, particularly the handful of regular STW posters who pass by our house for the small, white, furry bundle of dog that goes mental every.single.time. Feel free to stop and crown in with your foot or pump!

I am both a dog owner and a dog hater.

It’s the cats that are the real danger,

It’s the cats that are the real danger,

Especially if you're a bird.

I meant of the avian variety of course.

I expect you are right but my point earlier was that being massively scared of dogs and seeing one nearby wouldnt lead to it being put down by the courts.

I think perhaps we're slightly at angry dolphins and we're both right.

I was talking about the law from the point of view of the 'victim,' you're talking about it from the point of view of the dog.  In a situation where a screaming cynophobe* overreacted, there wouldn't be punitive action taken against the phobe or the dog / owner.  Probably / as I understand it / I am not a lawyer / etc etc.

(* I had to Google that, what a great word.)

Not a human female. Probably can't refer to them as "birds" anymore without being a misogynist. Not that I ever would, that's an English thing.

I guess a big enough cat would be a serious problem for a bird though.

In a situation where a screaming cynophobe

Nice!!

Actually its what the law says.  See the quotes above.

I'm not debating the text, just your ridiculous interpretation of it to try and back up your argument.  Really very silly, even for you.  About as credible as using a titanium spoon for a structural bike repair.

angeldust – sorry – I thought your dog had barked and scared someone.  So only one breach of the law not two

I'll remind you that your argument currently hinges on the fact that you believe walking a dog on a lead, under control, not barking, not being aggressive, 50 yards from someone, is illegal if that person is scared by your dog, because you have interpreted the text in that way.  That is what you think I don't understand about the law?Address that directly if you dare, without changing the facts.

I'm all for some sort of neutering law if we could extend it to also stop certain people spreading their genes.  The world would be a better place :-).

Atychiphobe

I had to Google that. What a great word

Stop making things up, thats not what i said

stop digging that hole.  You are wrong about the  law as the quotes from you and the law show.

Ever looked in a mirror?  what you claim about me is what you are doing and you know what - I am still laughing at you for proving my point early on on the thread and since

I really have got under your skin haven't I that you continue to make personal attacks on me even before I contributed to this thread.

Atychiphobe

Once it's clear to the world that you have already failed in life, does the fear go?

Stop making things up, thats not what i said

It was a direct quote from your post.  By all means clarify it.  I've asked you to do so several times.

Teej, if you were a dog, what breed do you think you'd be?

Bulldog / shih tzu cross no doubt.

you line them up.....

Nah, I could see TJ as a lurcher, if it wasn't for the fact that lurchers are usually fast....

🙂

Possibly a bit of Saluki in there?

I believe they are stubborn and difficult to train

Nice fluffy coat, very loyal, falls asleep on the sofa for hours......etc

We've had a couple of Short Haired German Saluters, and I believe one poster used to send people pictures of his  sausage dog.

Bit of a miniature schnauzer by all accounts

I am scared of lots of things, especially dogs. I'm even wary of chihuahuas etc (as, as Cougar says - who wants to spend 6hrs in A & E whilst the dog  owner swannies off without a care).

With regard to dogs on leads. I was once barked at by an Alsation dog whilst going through customs in France. It was about 15m away, barking crazily, huge teeth everywhere, pulling at its handler. I was shitting myself - I wasn't the only one, as several people near me looked decidedly uncomfortable.

I've only just got 'angry dolphins'.

It's been a long day.

Also, what's with giving Tj a hard time? Beginning to go too far.

gauss1777

Member
Also, what’s with giving Tj a hard time? Beginning to go too far.

Its a diversionary tactic from Angeldust who made a tit out of himself with his first post back on page 1

You’ll be glad of that advice when the dogs come for you

Its a diversionary tactic from Angeldust who made a tit out of himself with his first post

You mean this bit?

Of course, if the dog was genuinely mad, there was probably no avoiding it.

Clearly there is a way to avoid it, but the way depends on the owner, not the person being bitten.  Frankly, TJ has a strong opinion, but it's far from ridiculous.

DISCLAIMER : I was brought up with dogs, know "how to behave with them", have educated several young and not so young dogs to be "good citizens", understand the difference between under control and on a lead but I still can't fathom why dog owners think it's reasonable for their "friendly" dogs to rush up to me / run along side me when we're both out having a blast round the forest.  Really.  Just stop it - if you can't train a dog, tie it up or keep it at home.

Also, what’s with giving Tj a hard time? Beginning to go too far.

I'm not being horrible to him. We've been taking the piss out of each other for years. 🙂

And I was agreeing with him a page ago!

Look, no one wants another 40 page snarkathon. I'm posting this random stream of utter bollocks for all of our sakes. Think of it as a diversionary tactic.

I think I emphasised a few of his best points tbh, especially his hair.

Maybe a bit of ex racing greyhound? Tendency to  turn left etc.....

Clearly there is a way to avoid it, but the way depends on the owner, not the person being bitten.

and if the owner isn’t there....like in the OPs case?

and if the owner isn’t there….like in the OPs case?

How on earth is that not the owner's fault???

Just stop it – if you can’t train a dog, tie it up or keep it at home.

Lol Yes, of course it’s the owners fault the dog is there (assuming it has an owner) but that doesn’t help the person trying to avoid being bitten in that instant does it!  Just to clarify 🤪 I haven’t been advocating free roaming of dangerous dogs in the countryside.  I’m fairly confident even TJ couldn’t misinterpret my posts that far.  Then again......

Can I respectfully suggest reading the thread.  This blind rage isn’t conducive to constructive debate.  Entertaining though. 😀

Can I respectfully suggest reading the thread.

Of course you can.  Can I respectfully suggest that just because I disagree, please don't assume I haven't?

If that’s the case, why do you think I’m supporting the dog being unsupervised?

what exactly are you disagreeing with?

If that’s the case, why do you think I’m supporting the dog being unsupervised?

Because you said

Of course, if the dog was genuinely mad, there was probably no avoiding it.

Suggesting that barmy dogs are just a thing.   You've said a bunch of stuff since, but don't seem to have suggested that "genuinely mad" dogs are the owner's problem.

I will, however, agree that you haven't defined what you think is "genuinely mad" vs. just a "friendly" dog running up to someone in a bit of a mad way.  And even less how a cyclist is supposed to identify one or the other.

But I already know you're not going to change your mind, so I guess it doesn't really matter.  Just irks me a bit that you did indeed suggest by the quote above that random "mad" dogs on the trail are a thing that cyclists need to deal with.

but that doesn’t help the person trying to avoid being bitten in that instant does it!

I think we're beyond that now.

I have no dog in the fight, so to speak. I don't own a dog, but usually get presented with one or two during the week whilst their owners enjoy their meagre ration of freedom.

Love taking a little Shit-zu down the park on a crisp spring morning. Keeps you in touch with nature.

Just irks me a bit that you did indeed suggest by the quote above that random “mad” dogs on the trail are a thing that cyclists need to deal with.

I don’t think, in fairness to Angeldust, that he thinks that loose mad dogs are a good thing, I think he’s trying to talk about a theoretical situation where there already is a random mad dog, and is offering pragmatic ways of dealing with this. I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that dogs aren’t the owners responsibility, it’s just recognised that in the real world, some owners are dicks, and it’s a good idea to have tactics in place.

These threads are always bizarre; it always comes down to ‘this is how you deal with this’ vs ‘I shouldn’t have to deal with this!’. Neither are wrong, nor mutually exclusive, yet neither seem to be able to reconcile their position with the others.

Especially TJ. 😉

These threads are always bizarre; it always comes down to ‘this is how you deal with this’ vs ‘I shouldn’t have to deal with this!’

Yes - I agree.  However, I think that if you change "dogs biting" to "drunk driving"  no-one would suggest that the right approach is to allow drunks to drive and for the others to learn how to spot them...

no-one would suggest that the right approach is to allow drunks to drive and for the others to learn how to spot them…

Oh good lord. NO ONE is suggesting that mad dogs should be allowed to roam. But to take your analogy and run with it;

Drunk drivers should NOT be allowed on the roads. However, the DO exist and if you come across one, do you a) modify your behaviour if possible by putting as much space between them and you, or b) walk/drive/ride exactly the same way as normal, chuntering “bloody drunk drivers, shouldn’t be allowed on the roads” as you get smeared along the armco by the pisshead.

Sometimes it’s pragmatic to modify your behaviour, even if you shouldn’t have to.