There are people who are afraid of dogs who might find it useful to have some sort of familiarisation training. On assessment it might be deemed that some of these people have a phobia or other illness.
I don't think it's right to say that people who are afraid of out-of-control dogs are part of the problem any more than it's right to say that people who are afraid of burglars somehow contribute to burglary. Children who are afraid of "playful" dogs are not part of the problem either. It's irresponsible dog owners.
Dog owners should have the awareness that not everyone likes to be in close proximity to their animals and keep them under control. That means walking to heel or on a lead. It's not acceptable to believe that people should tolerate someone's dog running round their feet, trying to sniff their testicles, licking their hands, putting their paws on their chest (just playing) or biting them.
TandemJeremy, you and I know very well that the law is not as black and white as that. There are plenty of room for interpretation and if you tried to take someone to court over a dog coming near or running around you then the police would tell you to stop being so ridiculous. You would have to prove that the dog was of considerable threat/danger and out of control which is quite difficult. If a dog running around in a non threatening manner having FUN and you say I feel threatened or rambling on about out of control dog and the law the chances are people will think your just a grumpy old sod (are you :wink:).
If you have a real dislike for dogs or a phobia then your judgement is going to be heavily bias and clouded to any given dog related situation. I think you stereotype people and are very biased in your opinion with matters regarding dogs.
By your own admission you say have only been bitten twice in the last ten years and granted twice is to much. But you would think that its a daily/weekly occurrence. I think you need to look at your attitude towards dogs and be realistic about the chances that dog is likely to come near at some point the future. Its how you deal with it that makes the difference.
Cars are meant to pass cyclists and give the same room as they would another car, do they? No. If I tried to take someone to court over them endangering my life by driving to close there is a very high chance that I wouldn't even get near a court never mind a prosecution.
Relax and don't let it bother you so much, you'l have a much happier time if you do!
BikePawl - why dont you like dogs? Bad experience from your childhood? (Serious question)
I'm allergic to them, Hora.
Ah, thats a good reason.
And having one bite you as a child would be a less good reason, or I just don't like the lack of control some show any the less.
rkk01It seems to me fairly clear that under control is on a lead OR at heel - or coming to heel/ stopping on command. A well trained dog does this
I don't want them on a lead at all times - but I do want that when I ring my bell the owner calls the dog and the dog responds to the call. I don't want the dog running up to me - friendly or not. I don't want it "playing" and chasing the bike - I want it to leave me alone as I leave it alone.
Agreed. I got distracted, but I was going to add that as long as your expectation for the dog owners exercise for control is matched by your own exercise of control of your vehicle, then everyone will be happy...
And I agree a lot of dog owners are irresponsible and don't control their animals. But, at the end of the day, they are animals, and startled by a bike, the bike could be a major factor in the owners ability to control the dog - as per the references to horses further up the thread.
Unfortunately, for as many dog owners we meet who don't exercise control, we meet as many mtbers who would prefer to continue down a trail rather than give way, slow down or accomodate other users. (and I know that you said you slow down etc.)
This thread appears to be approaching a sense of proportion.
Someone mention the Nazis.
Ooops. I just did.
Thank you rikk I am well in control of my bike - and I am a polite rider as those who ride with me will testify. I use a bell to warn dog owners of my approach.
sherry - you are the one taking this to extremes - there is a clear legal responsibility to keep the dog under control and as I describe is seen to be a reasonable definition of under control as in the many references I gave earlier and in various codes of conduct. Its actually more lax than the definition in the Scottish access code.
I passed a couple of dozen dogs today without incident - ringing my bell in plenty of time and the dogs owners took the necessary steps - from letting the wise old collie just meander along on its own confident it wouldn't bother me to restraining the dog. I thanked every one of the owners - as I always do.
I have had to make emergency stops to avoid hitting dogs on numerous occasions - and I have never run one over as I was riding with control.
I do try not to be a hypocrite on this.
TandemJeremy, to be fair that does sound pretty responsible & reasonable to me. If everyone was a little more polite and considerate to each other then day to day life would be a lot less stressful.
You should hear us when we go out - often with bikepawl. ting ting on the bell ( if I'm in front - bikepawl calls "ding a ling - I'm too tight to buy a bell") "just letting you know we are here" "may we squeeze past please" "thankyou" "lovely day" repeat half a billion times on each ride - I get sick of saying it! Its all good PR tho.
I don't want them on a lead at all times - but I do want that when I ring my bell the owner calls the dog and the dog responds to the call. I don't want the dog running up to me - friendly or not. I don't want it "playing" and chasing the bike - I want it to leave me alone as I leave it alone.
All good and perfectly fair but you still fail to understand that the law doesnt support you in this. Can you give any example of anyone anywhere who has been prosecuted when their dog failed to sit on command or return to the owner straight away, that doesnt involve livestock or roads.
It seems to me fairly clear that under control is on a lead OR at heel - or coming to heel/ stopping on command. A well trained dog does this
You do realise that it must be about 1 in 1000 dogs that would do this everytime dont you? My dogs amongst the best trained of the pets I see on a regular basis and she will not sit or come back if a cat, rabbit, squirrell or deer is spotted.
TJ out of interest how many peds wiyhout dogs fail to respond to your bell?
Is this thread actually real, or is there a script somewhere generating the same arguments each time the subject comes up?
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the big chainring and the studs on mountain bike shoes designed to be used on aggressive dogs.
Attacked last year by a young Alsatian no way was i hanging around to get details, both owners were struggling to control it - I was stationary when it bit me.
Hard to say - some for sure but not many
A lot of this is on a fairly wide shared use path - if the ped is on the edge of the path then there is plenty of room to get by - its about 10 - 12 ft wide so most but not all of the ipoded up joggers go on the edge so it doesn't really matter if they hear me. Its fairly rare I get balked completely
I tend to ting it once from a distance away - its one of those little single ting bells - and ring it more and more the nearer I get until tehy notice - or if they are on the edge I just zoom by.
I did sneak up behind someone with an Ipod on a narrow section - he hadn't heard the bell and I had no room to get past - as I got right behind him I shouted "HELLO!" he went about 10 ft high 🙂
In the good old days when I was a cyclist, I used to amuse myself be ringing bells at peds and wtach them quizzicaly look at each other, then I rang it again and they would usually look up at the sky, finally when closer behind and riding at walking pace I'd give a blast of hope mini howl and they would jump into the hedges.
AA - missed a couple of your posts above - if your dog will not come back when called it is not under control and thus should be on a lead.
This is a clear definition of your legal responsibilities - you simply are not allowed to have a dog off a lead unless it is properly trained - and clearly yours are not. I have one pal with dogs - his do this.
Sherry says his dogs do
I see lots of dogs out and about and many are trained properly - they don't chase things and return when called. I saw a chap the other day with 3 dogs - as I came past he called "down" and all three dropped on the spot.
From DEFRA
Something as simple as your dog chasing, barking at or jumping up at a person or child could lead to a complaint, so ensure that your dog is under control at all times
druidh - Membera_a - From the Scottish Outdoor Access Code (produced to assist comprehension of the PRSA 2003)...
the Code defines ‘under close control’ to mean that your dog responds to your commands and is kept close at heel
From DEFRASomething as simple as your dog chasing, barking at or jumping up at a person or child could lead to a complaint, so ensure that your dog is under control at all times
That a completely different kettle of fishes. and codes are called codes for a reason. So I'll say again show my one example of an owner of a dog having charges bought against him for a dog not walking to heel, coming immediately when called or sitting on command because some other person was demanding it.
paragraph 3.55 about keeping dogs under control
keeping your dog under close control or on a short lead will help to avoid causing them concern.
is about as close as it gets to your version/hope of what is law.
I see lots of dogs out and about and many are trained properly - they don't chase things and return when called. I saw a chap the other day with 3 dogs - as I came past he called "down" and all three dropped on the spot.
Mine would "wait" under those circumstances easy enough, unless she shied away from the bike if you were going a bit quick, doesnt meen she'd not chase a bunny though and doesnt mean the chaps dogs you saw wouldnt either
There is also the worry about Racoons. Have people thought about them? Nasty critters.
those black and white things are badgers hora - 'ard as f00k 😳
Aa - Both statements are official guidance on what the law means - so whilst not the law itself it is the accepted and official interpretation of the law. Whilst you wouldn't be prosecuted for a breach wiothout a complaint, if someone made a complaint or raised a civil action you would have very little defence if you were not in accordance with the codes / advice. Same as the highway code.
No matter how you wish it your legal responsibilities are clear and you seem not to want to accept them.
Friend called me last week. He stumbled out of a club in SWest London and was attacked by a pack of rabid Wombles whilst crossing a park.
He promised me he wasnt drunk. High but definitely not drunk.
tj look at the link, find the mentions of dogs, read what it says about when a dog should be under close control then report back on your findings
Ski - in answer to your query, well ask my dog. I would say any speed that catches her unaware and startles. ie just like any other user of public areas, when you approach a dog you should make it aware of your presence
This Code has been approved by Ministers and the Scottish
Parliament. The detailed guidance in the Code should help to
ensure that few problems arise. However, if there is a
problem, the Code is expected to be a reference point for
determining whether a person has acted responsibly. For
example, where a dispute cannot be resolved and is referred
to the Sheriff for determination, the Sheriff will consider
whether the guidance in the Code has been disregarded by
any of the parties. In this sense, the Code may be said to have
evidential status.
Access rights extend to people with dogs, provided that the
dog(s) are “under proper control
A short lead is taken to be two metres and “under close control” means that the dog is able to respond to your commands and is kept close at heel.
TJ rather than cutting and pasting unrelated sections, go back and find out where a dog has to be under close control. You can just keep wriggling or you can admit your wrong I dont mind which.
oops
oops 2
Or you can admit you are wrong as you clearly are. I take your point - the code mentions "proper control" which is undefined and "close control" which is and is directly referred to for some places. Close control means the dog must be at heel.
However it still does not alter that many places define a dog under control as on a lead, at heel or coming to command - as in the earlier references I gave. If your dog is running around and does not come to command then it is not in control. Your dog is not allowed to scare or annoy anyone nor be a nuisence
Wriggle all you like - you know you are in the wrong. Open your mind and your eyes, train your dogs properly and be a responsible dog owner. Thats all I ask.
Dog should be under close control around livestock, should not shit on the carrots, not run onto football pitches or run around roads. It doesnt say it has to be under close control in all public spaces. Close control is how you define the dog should behave in all public spaces. So you are clearly wrong. The dog is allowed to scare you if you are scared of dogs and you have no reasonable grounds to be scared by what the dog is doing, so if its not running at you directly or jumping up or similar the fact that you dont like dogs doesnt make it illegal.
What does proper control mean? I dont think it means I have to call my dog from her lawful wandering just because your scared of her or dont want to give way to her on your bike.
Dog should be under close control around livestock, should not shit on the carrots, not run onto football pitches or run around roads. It doesnt say it has to be under close control in all public spaces. Close control is how you define the dog should behave in all public spaces. So you are clearly wrong. The dog is allowed to scare you if you are scared of dogs and you have no reasonable grounds to be scared by what the dog is doing, so if its not running at you directly or jumping up or similar the fact that you dont like dogs doesnt make it illegal.What does proper control mean? I dont think it means I have to call my dog from her lawful wandering just because your scared of her or dont want to give way to her on your bike.
Way, way too many total idiots like you around with dogs. At best irritating, at worst downright dangerous.
Hows it dangerous if its not being dangerous?
I'm with AA on this. If you are scared of dogs then that is your issue to deal with. People have all kinds of phobias and have to deal with it.
If the dog is acting dangerously and barking and growling at you then that is the owners issues and the dogs needs controlling.
Badgers have a strict union code though. They are only allowed to attack at night.
FunkyDunc - MemberSki - in answer to your query, well ask my dog
Next time I see you dog I will do FD 😉
btw, I have nothing agianst dogs or dog owners, most I pass are polite, keep there dogs under control and I always thank them when I pass if they do.
For me its the irresponsible owners that need the training, if all dog owners and cyclists for that matter, took responsibility for there actions, there would be no issues.
As for badgers, dont mess, hard as nails!
A Badger on a recent nightride
[img] 
[/img]
As I said earlier, I am not worried about my dog running up to cyclists, as I mainly walk him on footpaths, so I shouldn't see any bikes 😉
As for 'I am scared of dogs, so if one approaches me its out of control' argument, so if someone is scared of cars, does that mean that everyone driving past that person is driving without due care and attention? and should get 3-5 points?
If you are that scared of dogs, you really need to get some mental healthcare assistance as it ain't right.
What does proper control mean? I dont think it means I have to call my dog from her lawful wandering just because your scared of her or dont want to give way to her on your bike.
I have not said either of these things. It just suits your argument to make out I am behaving irrationally.
Clearly it is not lawful for the dog to wander freely without control, clearly I have the right not to be annoyed by your dog coming up to me friendly or not. Its not that I am scared of dogs - [b]its I do not like nor trust them and I don't want your dog coming up to me[/b] and clearly in law that is my right. Your dog must not cause annoyance or be a nuisance. You keep using the definition of "dangerously out of control" as the only thing you need to do - that is not so. As well as this legal responsibility you also have a responsibility not to let your dog be an annoyance of nuisance.
As I have explained several times on this thread I give dog owners plenty of warning of my presence to allow them to get the dog under control
Dog owners on this thread keep on saying that I should learn how to deal with dogs. Thats simply not the way it works. I don't have to - you should have your dog under proper control and it should not cause annoyance or nuisance to anyone. This is not a criminal but a civil matter
From DEFRA
Something as simple as your dog chasing, barking at or jumping up at a person or child could lead to a complaint, so ensure that your dog is under control at all times
All I ask is that you behave within the law, keep your dog under control and stop it being a nuisance to others. Teh dog does not have the right to come up to me - conversely I have the right to go about my lawful business without being bothered by your dog in any way.
annoyance of nuisance.
How would you define that?
TJ, other people who have phobias get them under control with help, i am sure you can do the same. I have known Agrophobics and Arachnophobics who have both got their fears under control with the help of relaxation techniques. There are some good websites out there which offer advice.
In general, I'm in agreement with TJ, that dogs should be kept under control (disagree with the kicking the puppy though). But TJ, you do seem to expect everyone else to conform to your own definitions of "control, nuisance and annoyance."
Hainey - I don't know why you persist in this. It simply is neither the case nor relevant. I have the right not to be bothered by your dog - keep it under control and It won't bother me and you remain withing the law.
YOu want to label me as irrational so as to be able to dismiss my legitimate wish not to be bothered by your dog.
Taylor - that is the best definitions I can find as defined by case law and such people as DEFRA