[Closed] MTB Hazards : Dogs

So if a dog is dangerous (to people or animals) and is kept under proper control, that's OK then ?

Of course it is. There's no contradiction in that statement. Knives and guns are dangerous (to people or animals, but fine if they are kept under control.

billyboy, clearly your situation was bang out of order. I would come down like a ton of bricks on my dog if it showed any kind of aggression, towards a person or another dog. Can't say I have ever been attacked personally, but other dogs have tried to attack mine.

Does this not cover it or is it too reasonable for STW?

stavromuller - Member
I always slow down for People, horses and dogs, it's only common sense and courtesy. You've got to realise that a dog out in the open is probably enjoying it'self as much as you are and is in it's own little world. Even the best trained dog will take time to react to others or it's owner, you're suposed to be the superior being so use that enormous brain and just slow down.

If a dog bites/attackes then report it.

Dogs are like young children, unpredictable.

Oh so that makes it alright then?

So what if the person legitimately cycling along the path minding their own business is a small child, and isn’t aware of your theory of dog control, (which requires people to approach it in specific ways that unbeknown to them won’t spook it), and because of their failing it then rips their face off. Presumably thats the childs fault then is it?

Get a grip, as a dog owner its your responsibility to keep the thing under control. If you don’t both the outcome and the subsequent consequences are down to you. End of!

Hah, that told you, didn't it.
Let's see you wriggle out of that one, dog owners.

If you actually read my post Bum Bandit it says my dog may be confused and not know which way to go. She is about as likely to rip off a childs face as a potato! Would you race up behind a horse at mach 3?

Nice insults from the dog lovers.

I am sorry you are unable to understand the concepts and are too selfish to accept that your dog must be under control. Its all too typical of dog owners I am afraid.

Its really all very clear you know. dog under control at all times in a public place, under close control when livestock is present. Teh quotes above are interpretations of the law from organisations I would expect to get it right.

You are also liablke for any thing your dog does - that's the sanction, Hence your responsibility to keep it under control.

so if it frightens a child it can be put down, if it knocks a cyclist off their bike you are liable for any damage,

if it frightens a child it can be put down

This isnt true, the child must have "reasonable grounds" to be frightened. My dog scared a child shitless the other day as the child jumped out of a car onto the pavement as I walked past, with her on the lead, the dog totally ignored her.
Just because you think a law eists in the form you say doesnt make it true no matter how many times you say it.

If you actually read my post Bum Bandit

....and if you read mine, you would find that I was responding to the bit where you said dogs are unpredictable. Not totally sure, but I am guessing that the majority of people whose dogs attack people don't expect them to, so the fact you don't think something might happen may not be a defence when it actually does......

...... that includes getting banned for abusive or agressive posts

AA - and no matter how much you protest it is very clear.

You are liable for anything your dog does. Injure someone by attacking them or by accidentally knocking them over - you are liable for any damage to person or property

The dog can be put down for scaring people. It does not need rto be reasonable indeed the advice is clear that it does not.

The only way you have of not being negligent ie of discharging your duty of care to everyone is to keep your dog under control at all times.

Very simple clear and straightforward.

I fail to understand why you think it acceptable to have a dog that is not in control

Can i just get some clarification here. Does everyone think that owners are responsible for the actions of their dogs?

I like hotdogs.

TJ do you get bored of being wrong? or are you used to it now?

No animal is under control at all times, its an animal. Animals do not function in absolutes, shit even machines aren't 100% predictable.

You seem to be under the delusion that everything is black and white, and attempt to hide your ignorance by selectively quoting random pages from the internet.

so if it frightens a child it can be put down, if it knocks a cyclist off their bike you are liable for any damage,

and finally, a dog cannot be put down for frightening a child you idiot, some children are frightened of dogs when they see one, even if its on a lead.

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.

TJ your level of ignorance and stupidity astounds me.

The dog can be put down for scaring people. It does not need rto be reasonable indeed the advice is clear that it does not.

I am stunned ......

Just because you want this to be the law, doesn't mean that it is.

Could you clarify a few things for me TJ, are you a laywer? have you had any legal training? have you ever been to court? do you generally make stuff up? are you under medication at present? do you feel you should be? and do children point and laugh at you when you walk past?

Ahhhh, I try not to get dragged into these discussions but....

The dog can be put down for scaring people

TJ whilst (as a dog owner myself) I agree with you on the close control thing, what were you smoking when you wrote that?

The dog can be put down for scaring people

Well, it can be. 'Can be' it is a possibility, it doesn't mean that it will be.

some children are frightened of dogs when they see one

I imagine in this case it wouldn't be.

I'm not sure why there is any argument on this point

Ok - there does need to be some degree of reasonableness that the person or child is scared of a dog - I did not mean merely startled by one. However clearly they do not have to be in mortal fear.

I really cannot be bothered with this any more. The selfishness and refusal to understand their duties exhibited by dog owners never fails to astonish me

Kennel club advice

It is a criminal offence (for the owner and/or the person in charge of the dog) to allow a dog to be ‘dangerously out of control’ in a public place, a place where it is not permitted to be, and some other areas. A ‘dangerously out of control’ dog can be defined as a dog that has injured someone or a dog that a person has grounds for reasonable apprehension that it may do so. [b]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.[/b] If your dog injures a person, it may be seized by the police and your penalty may include a prison sentence and/or a ban on keeping dogs. There is also an automatic presumption that your dog will be destroyed (unless you can persuade the court that it is not a danger to the public, in which case it may be subject to a control order). You may also have to pay a fine, compensation and costs.

"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, whether or not it actually does so."

In the case of Briscoe -v- Shattock QBD 12 October 1998 it was held that a dog could be considered "dangerous" and "not kept under proper control" within the meaning of Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, even if the only danger shown was to other dogs, and not to humans. Being dangerous reflected the dog's disposition not his acts.

This applies to any dog, of any breed. The quote from the Act above means that [b]any dog which is a bit lively might commit an offence if not kept under control [/b]- this could be your dog too! For example, we understand a farmer was [b]prosecuted and fined[/b] under this section of the Act when his aggressive dogs [b]intimidated walkers on a public footpath, even though the dogs were on private land and behind a fence [/b](sorry, no reference to this case).

http://www.naturenet.net/law/dogs.html

Animals Act 1971:

Under this Act you could be held liable to pay compensation in a civil action brought, for any damage caused by your dog.

Liability rests with the keeper – the person in possession/in control of a dog at the time it caused damage which could be different from the actual owner. If the person who has control of the animal is under 16 years of age, the head of the household in which that person lives will be accountable.

http://www.endangereddogs.com/DogLaw_AnimalsAct1971.htm

So you have quoted a GUIDE, which has reference to a hearsay prosecution. Nothing to do with the law per se.

I am not sure what you think that proves, other than you can use google.

Reading you next link, even though you blantantly haven't as I am page 11 and already found 3 or 4 contradictions to your drivel.

hearsay? surely that case is a matter of record?

RichC are you then claiming the opposite, that the owner is not responsible for the actions of their dog?

No reference to it, that I can find.

edit: to the farmer prosecution

What really? You can't find any reference to Briscoe vs Shattock?

So richc - you don't believe you are responsible for the actions of your dog and you don't believe you have to keep in under control

I suggest the animals act 1971 as your first bit of reading to start your education.

I personally believe a person is responsible for his or her own actions, and that of people or animals under his care, and I have little time for people like TJ who lack the courage actually say, I made a mistake and I will live/deal with the consequences of what I have done by design or accident.

For example:

If I am looking after my nephew and he threw a stone and broke a window it would be *my* responsibility.

If i was not paying attention when parking, and scraped a car next to me would be *my* fault.

If my dog jumped up and hurt someone, due to over excitement/being a dog, it would be *my* fault.

However if someone drove into me, it would be *their* fault.

If someone cycled into my nephew because he wasn't nimble enough to dodge them it would be *their* fault.

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

TJ seems to think that the world is black and white, if a dog is involved in anyway for any reason, that they they are out of control.

The world doesn't work like that, and just because he doesn't want to take personal responsibility for his actions means that the law and society will treat him with contempt he deserves.

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.