[Closed] MTB Hazards : Dogs

What if someone cycled into you because you were in the way, whose fault would it be?

If someone cycled into your dog because it got in the way, whose fault would it be?

also it happened

Briscoe v Shattock [1998] EWHC Admin 929

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1998/929.html

Berm Bandit, sorry for the insult, but this is an emotive subject and has been done to death. Many times I have posted that my dog is well behaved, well trained, friendly and is used to bikes, cars, children, most things in fact, but.. my point was I don't think it is sensible to fly up behind a person or an animal and give them a fright.

Children are unpredictable and may step unaware into your path if you are travelling too fast, the same can be said for dogs. A frightened dog that runs into your path is not out of control, merely startled and confused. I work on the presumption they probably will do something silly and ride defensively.

Anyway I'm off to walk my dog. Common sense? Pretty rare these days.

and now for the quote:

Exceptions from liability under sections 2 to 4.(1)A person is not liable under sections 2 to 4 of this Act for any damage which is due wholly to the fault of the person suffering it.

So looking at the 1971 Animals act, if you cycle into a dog, and it bites you more than likely hit this exception.

I can't find any reference to if a dog scares you it can be put down, its almost like TJ hasn't read his reference, or he (shock horror) made it up....

Another interesting point, if you cycle on footpaths (which I do, on occassion) you are committing trespass, then this one kicks in:

A person is not liable under section 2 of this Act for any damage caused by an animal kept on any premises or structure to a person trespassing there,

*Run next to my wheeled chariot canine. Now sit in the snow. Now say SHOSHIJIZ *

[img] [/img]

if you cycle on footpaths (which I do, on occassion) you are committing trespass,

Oooh that's a good one! Show me?

Scruff , you are very lucky. My Dalmatian went out in the snow and I lost him for ever.
I took a pick of the yard immediately after, hoping to see his tracks.
[img] [/img]

What if someone cycled into you because you were in the way, whose fault would it be?

If someone cycled into your dog because it got in the way, whose fault would it be?

Trick question? If someone drove into you, whose fault would it be?

What you are describing sounds like careless cycling ( http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069870)

Oooh that's a good one! Show me?

You need to look at Section 72 Highways Act 1835

You need to look at Section 72 Highways Act 1835

That's good! They managed to make it before the bicycle was invented!!

C'mon just show me where it says trespass and that it applies to bicycles, save me a lot of trouble

That's good! They managed to make it before the bicycle was invented!!

The Bicycle was invented in 1816 ....

Bicycles are, in law, carriages (as a consequence of the Taylor v Goodwin judgment in 1879) and should be on the road not pavement.

Therefore this is the key bit of the legislation that screws you/us.

Cycling on a footway an offence is section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act, this provides that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he "shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers or shall wilfully lead or drive any carriage of any description upon any such footpath or causeway."

Don't fall into the TJ trap, of if you don't like something make up an excuse/law to shirk your responsbilities and shift the blame onto someone else.

Horses were invented in 1816?? Dandy-horses maybe. Still don't believe the trespass bit though. and proper bicycles weren't invented until about 1870

Don't fall into the TJ trap, of if you don't like something make up an excuse/law to shirk your responsbilities and shift the blame onto someone else.

Oh, I know I'm not supposed to ride on the pavement. It's just that I didn't think it was trespass

You are on land you aren't supposed to be on (on a bicycle at least), what else did you think it would be?

It doesn't matter what else i thought it was. I still haven't seen that it is trespass. Especially if there is no damage or danger caused.

Actually thinking about it, probably careless cycling, if such a thing exists.

...careful now.

I'm guessing the first sentence is somewhere in those first 4 pages

Furthermore, I'd be surprised to find out that trespass is actually dependent on the mode of transport.

Furthermore, I'd be surprised to find out that trespass is actually dependent on the mode of transport.

From legal dictionary:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/trespass

Tort Law originated in England with the action of trespass. Initially trespass was any wrongful conduct directly causing injury or loss; in [b]modern law trespass is an unauthorized entry upon land[/b]. A trespass gives the aggrieved party the right to bring a civil lawsuit and collect damages as compensation for the interference and for any harm suffered. Trespass is an intentional tort and, in some circumstances, can be punished as a crime.

We have already determined that cycling on a footpath is an offence under the section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act. So you have admitted to an offence when cycling on a footpath, hence you are on private land without authorisation, hence you are trespassing (this isn't rocket science)

This bit is also a worth bearing in mind as well:

In a trespass action, the plaintiff does not have to show that the defendant intended to trespass but only that she intended to do whatever caused the trespass. It is no excuse that the trespasser mistakenly believed that she was not doing wrong or that she did not understand the wrong. A child can be a trespasser, as can a person who thought that she was on her own land.

So pushing your bike when you see someone coming doesn't save your ass.

Personally, I think its nuts so don't worry about it, however I know that I am trespassing and am prepared to take the consequences if I get caught

a dog is like any other mtb hazard
you need to consider your speed and body position.

i guess its the smaller dogs that get kicked or ridden into, nobody has ever thought about kicking my dog.

TediousJeremy - I think you have mentioned once or twice that the law requires a dog to be under control at all times? Can you be a bit more specific about what 'under control' means then, because I don't see how a dog that is just walking along a path minding it's own business just out for a stroll and then stops to watch when an odd thing (i.e. a bicycle) hurtles towards it is out of control. Or does 'under control' really mean '****ing off and hiding behind a tree whenever I come within half a mile of it because I am scared of dogs'?

EDIT - I lost the will halfway down page 4 so didn't read the rest, or page 5, in case it was covered there.

Undercontrol -

yes if it is walking along minding its own business its under control. It does not have to be on a lead but it does have to not bother anyone else. It must obey commands from the owner / person in charge.

All I want is my legitimate right to go about my business without being bothered by your dog.

So what do you mean by bothering you? My dogs trot along happily doing there own thing. They stop and say hello to other dogs, and to people who talk to them. They just ignore other people, and walk right past them, maybe look at them or something, but they don't get out of the way for them especially. Can you cope with that?

Yup - thats fine - so long as if its in my way you call it and it obeys.

Or you can ride around it.

if I can ride around it it ain't in my way! I have right of way anyway

anyway trout - you sorted out this killer yet? or does it have to stay in the pot?

[img] [/img]

We have already determined that cycling on a footpath is an offence under the section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act. So you have admitted to an offence when cycling on a footpath, hence you are on private land without authorisation, hence you are trespassing (this isn't rocket science)

LoL. This is not clear at all! Easier if you show me any bit of legislation where cycling on the pavement is defined as trespass.

Is the pavement private land?

and you accicentally left this bit out

Generally, trespass actions are permitted only where there is some damage to the surface or some interference with the owner's rights to use her property.

Who is the owner in this case?

I think you are trying to shift the goalpost, we were talking about footpaths not pavements.

You can't change the context to suit your arguement.

Hey it's a big world with room for all of us, can't we all just get along?

I'm not changing it to suit an argument. I don't have and argument. I'm trying to get some information!

Just try riding over this dog!

ok, change my 'pavement' to 'footpath' if you will. the questions still stand

Bagstard: I wasn’t actually referring to you specifically, I was referring to the general tone of some of the comments on the thread, but thanks for the apology albeit unnecessary. Anyway, from now on in please fill your boots I’m not sensitive or anything.

Back to the point. In support of TJ’s point this is the actual wording from Section 10 of the Dangerous Dogs Act

(3)For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control [b]on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person, whether or not it actually does so[/b], but references to a dog injuring a person or there being grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so do not include references to any case in which the dog is being used for a lawful purpose by a constable or a person in the service of the Crown.

The general point being that if a person is in fear due to your mutts behaviour whether or not it actually does anything is immaterial. Or to put it another way TJ's right and its the owners problem not the cyclist/pedestrian etc etc.

Well I will repost then:

We have already determined that cycling on a footpath is an offence under the section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act. So you have admitted to an offence when cycling on a footpath, hence you are on private land without authorisation, hence you are trespassing (this isn't rocket science)

Cycling on a footpath is technically trespass, according to the legal definition. If you don't agree with that, I guess it doesn't matter, because the lawyers/judges do and they have the final say.

BB, you need to include the exceptions, one of which is:

Exceptions from liability under sections 2 to 4.(1)A person is not liable under sections 2 to 4 of this Act for any damage which is due wholly to the fault of the person suffering it.

So you decide to ram a dog, them you hit that exception and you are in the wrong not the owner/animal.

anyway I am going out for a run with my dog, where I will let him chase squirrels, run around like a loony and get randomly assaulted by mountain bikers/walkers and children who will accost him by patting him on the head and generally fussing him, whilst he threatens them with bodily harm unless they give him a biscuit.

So you have admitted to an offence when cycling on a footpath, hence you are on private land without authorisation, hence you are trespassing

No, this is an assumption on your part. It would appear that it is trespass according to you interpretation of the law, but I've not seen it described or defined as such anywhere else. Given that you say that lawyers/judges say that this is the case, I'm only asking you to show me where.

In a similar vein

Generally, trespass actions are permitted only where there is some damage to the surface or some interference with the owner's rights to use her property.

Anyway, Where is TJ? We agreed he'd tag in at 5.00

The general point being that if a person is in fear due to your mutts behaviour whether or not it actually does anything is immaterial. Or to put it another way TJ's right and its the owners problem not the cyclist/pedestrian etc etc.

Agreed, with the caveat that, as per your quote, the apprehension must be [b]reasonable[/b], which might well exclude TJ's hysteria, so he's not necessarily right 🙂

hello?

Can't be bothered no more.
[img] [/img]

tag!

cya

Another interesting point, if you cycle on footpaths (which I do, on occassion) you are committing trespass, then this one kicks in:

A person is not liable under section 2 of this Act for any damage caused by an animal kept on any premises or structure to a person trespassing there,

irresepctive of trespass could you point me to the legal ruling / Act defining a public footpath as a "premises or structure" for this to kick in and where it states that a dog on a pavement is being "kept" there

Taff Trail is funny...for some reason the owners and the dogs frequently decide to walk on opposite sides of the trail.

Usually it goes like this..."ting ting"..dog and owner turn around and see bike. Dog owner calls dog...across the trail in front of the slowing bike. Dog looks at owner calling and looks at bike and thinks.."there's a bike coming...but owner wants me - I'll wait until bike goes past then go and see what owner wants". Owner gets more and more agitated calling the dog...dog gets more and more stressed...wanting to go to owner, but not wanting to cross in front of bike....Me and my bike get slower and slower as I know damn well if I try to ride through it will be a millisecond after the dogs obedience to it's owner instinct eventually overrides it's sense of self preservation and it decides to make a break for it. Occasionally it ends up as a mexican standoff...Irate owner shouting at a dog who refuses to cross in front of a now trackstanding cyclist.

Of course if the owner were to just cross the road to the dogs side when they heard a bike bell there wouldn't be a problem. Dogs are quite intelligent...certainly when compared to Dog owners.

By the way have we done those 30foot long cyclist garrotting dog leads yet?

Dogs are quite intelligent...certainly when compared to Dog owners.

🙂

Just run them over they soon learn (best avoid the bigger ones with short legs unless you have a 160mm FS bike)

As for knocking a cyclist off, if you rammed a car because it was in the way, would you expect the car driver to pay for the damage to you and your bike? If you ram a dog, you are going to end up with a very large bill (in the thousands, as vets aren't cheap) and the excuse 'it didn't move' isn't going to hold you in very good stead.

If someone cycled into my dog, because it was in the way it would be *their* fault.

A frightened dog that runs into your path is not out of control, merely startled and confused.

What is all this drek about 'riding into' or 'ramming' dogs? Nobody on a bike is going to deliberately ride at a dog, the rider will almost inevitably be bought off the bike and injure themselves, probably more than the dog. Being rammed by an out of control dog off a lead coming at you at a dead run from the side when you're not expecting it [i]will[/i] result in injury. I have run over a dog, riding a section of Sustrans route along the edge of a playing field after sunset. I had lights on, and I couldn't see a soul about, but as I passed a carved stone seat about five feet off the path to my left I caught a white blur out of the corner of my eye and the next second I was nearly thrown over the bars. Somehow, God knows how, I stayed upright and heard a yelp from whatever it was I hit, and a shriek from a female and a bloke shout something. I kept going, but at no time had I seen anybody there, as it was nearly dark, so how, exactly, could I be responsible for 'ramming' a dog that shot out of nowhere with no warning, when the owners were there, and obviously not paying attention to and controlling their dog?

Of course if the owner were to just cross the road to the dogs side when they heard a bike bell there wouldn't be a problem. Dogs are quite intelligent...certainly when compared to Dog owners.
By the way have we done those 30foot long cyclist garrotting dog leads yet?

Count - call out to horse riders - for some reason bells almost always spook horses.

horses, dont get my started on horses, "your bikes scaring my horse", "slow down" "just come past it scares my horse you being behind me" "ring a bell" "dont ring a bell it scares my horse" "Your dog is scaring my horse" as she litterally was quivering in a ditch as this bloody great horse jumped about like a looney now if people think dogs are dumb, those bloody things......

Ah - so the boots on the other foot when its not your beloved mutt?

Hypocrisy?

Really, some people should not be allowed outdoors after reading this thread

Hypocrisy?

6 pages to essentially say 'Do unto others as you would have done to you'

Show bit of courtesy, slow down when around dogs as most of them are as bright as TJ and may ram you because they want to go about life unbothered by others or are on the hot scent of a squirrel and can't hold 2 thoughts in their tiny brain.

If your dog is wandering around ask it to sit/stay as will provide a stationary traget for TJ et al.

Live and let live.

All that is wrong with society today is knowledge of our rights and forgetfullness of our responsibilities.

(copyright sleep deprivation and nice bottle of Shiraz)

It's pointless trying to discuss these issues with some dog owners as it is their beloved pet. They are usually the sort who would rather donate to an animal charity than a children's one. You really can't reason with that logic.

It's pointless trying to discuss these issues with some dog owners as it is their beloved pet. They are usually the sort who would rather donate to an animal charity than a children's one. You really can't reason with that logic.

The calm, well trained ones mostly ignore me cycling but feel no obligation to make way - I suspect they get this behavior from observing the same behavior of their owners. I just pass them slowly.

Young dogs sometimes freak out, so I usually get off the bike, put it down then walk away so it can examine the bike. The sooner they get used to bikes, the better for everyone.

Little yappy, bity, insane dogs - there's no saving them. I'm always tempted to kick them into next week (but I don't).

Usually it goes like this..."ting ting"..dog and owner turn around and see bike. Dog owner calls dog...across the trail in front of the slowing bike. Dog looks at owner calling and looks at bike and thinks.."there's a bike coming...but owner wants me - I'll wait until bike goes past then go and see what owner wants". Owner gets more and more agitated calling the dog...dog gets more and more stressed...wanting to go to owner, but not wanting to cross in front of bike....Me and my bike get slower and slower as I know damn well if I try to ride through it will be a millisecond after the dogs obedience to it's owner instinct eventually overrides it's sense of self preservation and it decides to make a break for it. Occasionally it ends up as a mexican standoff...Irate owner shouting at a dog who refuses to cross in front of a now trackstanding cyclist.

Of course if the owner were to just cross the road to the dogs side when they heard a bike bell there wouldn't be a problem. Dogs are quite intelligent...certainly when compared to Dog owners.

absolutely spot on 😀

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrgghh!

Please make it stop!

Apparantly it has a life of its own now!

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

36 seconds in dear me!!

If he can ride round the dog I see no reason why TJ cant!!

That race is mental, get that wrong and it would be a world of pain!!

If he can ride round the dog I see no reason why TJ cant!!

I think all this is down to me. When I'm out on the bike and get approached by dogs I usually stop and say hello, give them a bit of a pat, chat to the owner then carry on. So when they're running at all of yous they just think 'It's that friendly bloke on the bike! More attention!' rather than 'KILL'.

Sorry.