Forum menu
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.
I’ve been dogged by a bittern.
[img] 
[/img]
Oh, well done sir! A small, but perfect work of genius.
My dog is well trained, under control at all times
This is colossal arrogance. It's an animal with its own mind, you are never fully in control of it.
Ooh look, he gets it.
Statement retracted.
Also, what’s with giving Tj a hard time? Beginning to go too far.
This piss takings funny as is the denials from some and their lack of comprehension ( for different reasons.
. Ta Kilo for getting it
It’s the cats that are the real danger,
It is the humans that are the real danger. Animals are great and would just get on with it.
It is the humans that are the real danger. Animals are great and would just get on with it.
This is true. Cats are still dicks though. I love a dog bite thread. It’s pretty much the same as a religion thread.
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.
This
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.
And this
This is colossal arrogance. It’s an animal with its own mind, you are never fully in control of it.
lol I think you might be scraping around a bit now. So the situation above, which to be fair has taken a slightly weird turn (check above if you like, I can only assume you have missed it), is me and my dog, which takes out some of the 'mad dog' unknowns: Small/medium sized trained dog, on a lead, under control, 50 yards from someone, calmly walking along. Not barking. This scared someone. From 50 yards away. TJ is telling us that this is illegal. What do you think it's going to do, spontaneously combust, damaging a 60 yard radius? This is going a bit Monty Python.
So, I guess you could argue that there is a really small chance that I might drop down dead during this walk, and thus let go of the lead (unlikely, but could happen). Then simultaneously, my dog, despite 12 years of never showing any aggression, might spontaneously go feral and attack someone (again, pretty unlikely, but you never know). If you think this is a risk, then the only option is to ban all dogs completely. I'm guessing some people would quite like that....but it isn't going to happen is it. We should probably ban all cars too, because sometime people drive those irresponsibly, or even drunk.....
Having read the whole thread (very entertaining) I'm not really going to contribute much (not a dog owner) but...
Don’t be ridiculous. That is an idiotic, pedantic, misrepresentation of the law in all but the most extreme situations.
Yes, its pedantic and maybe a bit 'woolly' however it is NOT a misrepresentation of the Law. That is the wording of the legal Act. The sanction for being in breach of this would be in proportion for the breach, but that doesn't change the fact that TJ is correct in his application (not interpretation) of the Law. While a dog on a lead at a distance might be difficult to prove 'reasonable apprehension' but if somebody could say "that dog barking is making me anxious and I believe I could be injured/attacked" then that is a breach of the act, and therefore unlawful.
To give it a good comparison (sorry Cougar, don't think self defense on its own is completely comparable) think of it as Bullying and Harassment (most workplaces would have a policy on this). The INTENTION of the person 'bullying' does not matter, if the 'victim' feels bullied, they ARE bullied.
If a person feels apprehension that a dog may harm them, then the owner (or guardian at the time) of that dog is in breach of the Law. not once has TJ said that a dog in this situation would be put down/any sanction levied, other than maybe a quiet word, on the owner.
If we want to get technical, that's a fair comment, but pedantic as you say. Idiotic, pedantic, but technically not a misrepresentation (IANAL, but I'm willing to accept your advice on the jargon). I agree it is the interpretation that is ridiculous. You also need to consider it within the specific scenario TJ says is illegal:
Small/medium sized trained dog, on a lead, under control, 50 yards from someone, calmly walking along. Not barking. This scared someone. From 50 yards away. TJ is telling us that this is illegal.
I'm not sure what is to gained from considering this from anything other than a real world perspective, other than to satisfy TJ blind bitter fury?
Angeldust, you have repeated alleged that TJ is driven by 'blind bitter fury' and 'anger', but there doesn't appear to be any evidence for that allegation (and yes, I've read the whole thread). I really think it would be helpful if you stopped doing it.
not once has TJ said that a dog in this situation would be put down/any sanction levied
Pretty sure he did on page one but cant be bothered to look
Edit ok p2 said this
a dog dangerously out of control ( which legally means scaring someone) can be put down
Have tried to not get involved because I've stated my case many times before on other threads. However, one comment I'll make wrt
While a dog on a lead at a distance might be difficult to prove ‘reasonable apprehension’ but if somebody could say “that dog barking is making me anxious and I believe I could be injured/attacked” then that is a breach of the act, and therefore unlawful.
Reasonable apprehension. If someone has a (genuine) phobia of dogs I can see that they could be scared by a dog's presence whether on a lead or not, behind a fence or not etc. but surely the definition of a phobia is an irrational fear of something - which kind of precludes it being a reasonable apprehension.
Not saying it wouldn't still be an alarming experience - I have a good friend with a different phobia and while she knows it is 'ridiculous' it doesn't stop it happening - and of course I'm always on the side that responsible dog owners should have proper control at all times and be sensitive to others including phobics. But to claim someone's breaking the law because of an irrational fear is stretching it, surely?
Reasonable apprehension. If someone has a (genuine) phobia of dogs I can see that they could be scared by a dog’s presence whether on a lead or not, behind a fence or not etc. but surely the definition of a phobia is an irrational fear of something – which kind of precludes it being a reasonable apprehension.
Exactly.
While I agree this seems a bit 'too over the top' in this scenario, as TJ says, this could be a breach of the Act. It is WHOLLY dependent on the person who is scared. Whether this would be understood and excepted, say for example by a jury of peers or a police officer, is a different question.
Also, 'real world perspective' as in what the Law ACTUALLY says then?
You do seem to have gone slightly off-piste from the OP though.
confronted with a rather angry collie… I stop and try to skirt round said dog, but he then goes for me and bites my leg…
This is a breach of the Act.
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!
Everything post far has hinged on the fact that dog owners should be responsible, if the owner was not present that is irresponsible. This should be fixed.
I’m guessing you are not too familiar with dogs judging by your description of trying to avoid it, and how much it shook you up (inc passing out).
Firstly, this is patronising, and quite frankly insensitive. Does that mean if you get bitten by (pick another animal not a dog...) a shark you wouldn't be shook up?
Dogs are usually friendly if you know how to approach them (yes, I know you shouldn’t have to know, but this is real life)
This is not completely accurate, Dogs are like people and can 'just' take an instant dislike to a person/anybody at this particular time. however for the OP he didn't approach the dog, it approached him.
Of course, if the dog was genuinely mad, there was probably no avoiding it.
Then this dog should not be off the lead or out of control of its owner.
edit: removed formatting
Edit ok p2 said this
a dog dangerously out of control ( which legally means scaring someone) can be put down
Not would, could. Also that would be the maximum sanction, for at a guess, attacking and seriously injuring.
Speeding can result in an instant driving ban. That's not a sanction used for every speeding violation.
But to claim someone’s breaking the law because of an irrational fear is stretching it, surely?
To be honest, I agree. BUT the wording of the Act does not preclude this. That being said, if a person has a phobia to that magnitude and becomes scared of the barking I would imagine they would leave the area or at the very least move away. While technically the owner has breached the Act, if nothing else happens I would imagine that everyone would carry on with their day.
edit: removed formatting
if a person has a phobia to that magnitude and becomes scared of the barking I would imagine they would leave the area or at the very least move away.
I agree, and as a responsible dog owner of course I'd try to remove the 'threat' even if it's irrational, I don't want to discomfort or even inconvenience.
What if they are say picking their child up from school, and there's another incredibly well behaved dog on a lead with another parent also waiting for a child. Neither can move away, they need to wait for their young kids. Is the dog owner breaking the law by remaining at the school gate even if they're asked to move away?
Angeldust, you have repeated alleged that TJ is driven by ‘blind bitter fury’ and ‘anger’, but there doesn’t appear to be any evidence for that allegation (and yes, I’ve read the whole thread). I really think it would be helpful if you stopped doing it.
Okay, since you asked :-)....If TJ is as intelligent and self aware as he says he is, I'm just trying to figure out why he is reading things into posts that aren't there (evidence above), then unable to accept/address that when confronted about it? (also, evidence above). Options: 1) Trolling; 2) he is getting so worked up about the subject he can't think straight. The legality thing is just bizarre too. It just seems a bit desperate....the sort of thing you might do in an irrational blind fury to try and win an argument. Childishly repeating 'I'm not angry, I'm laughing at you, I'm not angry' while refusing to address anything....just makes me think he is really angry! The lady doth protest too much. Also, from experience, he does this whenever he gets worked up. He obviously loves it too, because he keeps coming back, even after one of the most humiliating and well known 'lifetime' bans in STW history. As daft as I think he might be, it's keeping things interesting.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
What if they are say picking their child up from school, and there’s another incredibly well behaved dog on a lead with another parent also waiting for a child. Neither can move away, they need to wait for their young kids. Is the dog owner breaking the law by remaining at the school gate even if they’re asked to move away?
Good question Jon, I've no idea! I would say that according the wording of the Act then yes they are. However if the dog is sat next to their owner, not barking and not moving away then they would not be in breach (all guesstimated but on the wording of the Act they'd be fine I think). Of course that would raise the question of are they being responsible by taking the dog with them in the first place? Up to you what you think about that!
...into posts that aren’t there (evidence above)
Sorry dust, pot and kettle I'm afraid. You've been shown evidence of what the Law says. To be clear I'm not taking sides with either of you as I haven't decided what I think of the argument yet as its complex in my opinion, but while I agree TJ is getting worked up (IMO), that doesn't mean the evidence presented is false.
edit: onewheel beat my last point!
Not would, could. Also that would be the maximum sanction, for at a guess, attacking and seriously injuring.
Exactly I very much doubt a dog has been destroyed for anything short of a bite but TJ will quote that "its backed up by case law" ad nuseum despite never showing a case where a dogs been destroyed for anything short of a bite. He'll then blather on about a dog can be destroyed for not being controlled on a cycle path etc its pretty tedious tbh.
Speeding can result in an instant driving ban. That’s not a sanction used for every speeding violation.
Its not a very good analogy as speeding can be life threatening. Its unlikely a dog running up to TJ and licking his had is going to kill.
More like a drunk shouting abuse at me is scary and he could be arrested but the punishment would be worse if he hit me.. not sure of a better analogy!!