I hadn’t noticed that you were ignoring me. 🙄
As there is no clear definition it is impossible to implement your express requirement that a dog must be under control. I have experienced people who were nervous or apprehensive of my dog either when she was on the lead or indeed when she was in a fenced garden and no threat to anyone. But if the fear factor of the victim is enough to send them writing to the Daily Mail or frothing at the mouth here, then there is a problem.
EDIT:

So – my understanding is that in a public place the dog does not have to be on a lead but must respond to command. They must not scare inconvenience or any anyone who has a reasonable fear of dogs – now that IMO would include people who don’t like dogs or are generally scared of them but not someone who has real phobia.

And this is your problem Tandem, in your opinion it would, BUT IT DOESN’T include people who don’t like dogs. Too frequently you take the letter of the law then change it into what you would like to see or how you think it should be, then wade into a discussion changing it into an argument. If you don’t like dogs, tough, but the law doesn’t pander to individual likes or dislikes.

Don – I think that is clear enough . There is no clear statute but the various bits of guidance seem pretty clear – on a lead, in your garden its under control. If it comes to command or lies down to command its under control.

Don – I think that is clear enough .

But not in the eyes of the victim, Tandem. And the law clearly differentiates between people who are genuinely worried and the rest. The crux of the law is at what level can a dog be considered to be out of control and at what level of nervousness can a victim call on the law for protection?
I also put a slow edit above. 😀

I hoped that there would be some point in carefully writing all that out – clearly there was not. Filter back on.

So you can’t answer then? Head in the sand Tandem?

There’s some great pics on page 2 of this thread I just noticed.

Im not going back there again, its too far away now!

You might also like to take a look at the scottish access code – considered by many to be best practice in managing access to the countryside.

code, considered by many to be best practice?so not a law then/Cant be bothered to argue with an idiot but codes are not laws the laws aout dogs concern livestock and dangerously out of control dogs, this is different from out of control. People have to have “reasonable” grounds to be in fear of attack

having said that as a dog owner myself I see the majority of dog owners near where I live as appalling, unsocial tossers. The things they do and let their dogs do are mind blowing

I hoped that there would be some point in carefully writing all that out – clearly there was not. Filter back on.

If all dog owners start keeping their dogs under control, will you stop RLJ’ing???

Don’t bother wheeling out your “it’s safer for me to RLJ argument”. From one of your earlier posts

Problem is richc – on this one I am right and have at length given you the data to show this. You have legal responsibilities.

As have you, to stop at red lights. You’re so keen for dog owners to follow rules, yet you choose to flaunt rules that apply to you in another area of life.

So please, don’t position yourself as some kind of people’s champion, campaigning for everyone to follow the rules when your incapable of adhering to the rules when you’re cycling on the road.

Anywho, I’m off down the park with the dog…

I hope you are going to keep it on the lead at all times, with a shotgun pointed to its head ‘just in case’ someone might get worried about it looking at them funny.

But that’s TJ boardinbob – the epitome of hypocrisy.

And here come the dog owners – insulting and attacking me as they are unable to find any coherent counter argument. Because I occasionally ease thru a red light you don’t have to keep your dog under control? 🙄

You really are laughable. Not one shred of evidence or argument that my position is wrong. I have backed mine up with all sorts of things even quotes from the kennel club – that notoriously anti dog outfit.

Its really very simple – keep your dog under control at all times. if you are unable to do this without putting it on a lead then put it on a lead. Thats your obligation

from the kennel club

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

TBH I still agree with TJs arguement, but he’s undermined his credibility a little with the RLJ’ing. Although the relevance to this argument is surely irrelevant.

I’ve just joined this thread, and I’m not reading all of it – could someone explain how RLJ is of any relevance to anything here?

Thank you RM!

TJ – I don’t think you’re wrong. You are a hypocrite though.

Thats a tad harsh

“code, considered by many to be best practice?so not a law then/Cant be bothered to argue with an idiot but codes are not laws”

The Land Reform (Scotland) Act is the law governing public access in Scotland. The access allowed is responsible access. The code defines responsible access.

So the code does describe legal access to land. Whether the code is a law or not doesn’t matter.

Here, read for yourself.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/section/10

Sorry. Here’s my reasoning.
You will jump a red light when you judge it to be safe even though it is an offence. I think you have also in the past stated that you have broken the speed limit on your motorbike when you judge it to be safe, even though that is an offence. These things are ok in your book. But a dog owner who allows his dog to run up to people, because he judges that to be safe, even though he shouldn’t, is not. I anticipate that you will pay that the dog will frighten and alarm you even if it is in fact safe. Well so might you when you break the rules on your bike or motorbike, even if it turns out no one is put in danger.

I had some idiots dog run after me,i called to the woman who seemed to be in charge of it but she was too thick to see what could happen.
Dog tried to run in front of me as i cycled along,almost like it was helping me slipstream along 😆 [keeping pace about 6″ in front of my wheel] ,However if the damn thing had slowed down i would have run straight up his back and probably killed the bugger instantly and of course been thrown off to my injury.
Aberdeenshire terrier,so hardly a big dog,no way it would survive an impact.

But speeding on a motorbike, RLJ on a bicycle, the main person you’re putting at risk is yourself. Therefore you will be naturally careful, self preservation and all that.

Letting your dog run wild puts you at no risk, only other people (and I suppose the dog). Because you’re not putting yourself at risk, you’re going to think about it less – understand?

Although slightly similar, they are not the same.

Kenny – I see your point but hypocrite is a bit strong. Can no one who breaks any law be critical of people who also break laws? Because you broke the speed limit once in your car you cannot condemn the multiple burglar?

Takes us into some fairly deep philosophical grounds. I would say the moral difference is my transgressions effect no one but myself, the dog owners transgressions effect other people. also I am perfectly prepared to take responsibility for my actions and would accept any penalty given without complaint.

Dunno sounds about right:

hyp·o·crite
? ?[hip-uh-krit] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

richc – Member

BikePawl, to go back to your examples, if those tree’s (not a single specimen the whole species) are 100% predictable 100% of the time, why aren’t all those trees identical even when the evnironmental conditions are the same?

Because of variation within the species, if you could grow clones under completely identical conditions they would be the same, however this is not the case in the real world.

That’s my point.

antigee – i guess i expect to be able to ride (and run) without having to stop or take unreasonable evasive action – slowing down as you approach walkers with dogs fine

Well that sounds like my dog (as I can get him to move over, or turn left or right with whistles, commands or hand signals) however I would never delude myself that I am in 100% control of him at all times.

Agreed TJ. It comes across harsher than I meant it to, rereading it. Perhaps I should say this is why I think it appears hypocritical.

RealMan. Yes, not exactly the same, and a fair point about the dog owner not being at risk. I was comparing them on the basis that, for all three, if the person misjudged the situation, other people could be harmed, eg you jump a see light when you didn’t look properly and hit someone, or you speed down a road but have missed a hazard and hit someone, or you let your dog run about, and against all your expectations it bites someone.

What’s your point? I thought the argument was about dogs not behaving, i.e moving around erratically. As far as I know trees don’t do that.

Lucky I dont live in Scotchland then isnt it. dont come south of the border TJ it aint safe.

I can understand peoples frustrations with dog owners though many dogs are poorly behaved and many have poorly behaved owners. Funny thing is someone complimented on how well behaved my dog was the other day, she’s not really, but I keep an eye on her and keep my eyes peeled for things that’ll set her off and try to act before anything happens. Many owners simply let their dog off the lead and then ignore it and look suprised when it does somethin daft.

Regardless of what TJ has said / done.
Can you not accept that your dog should be under control around others and that is is your responsibility to as the dogs owner?
Yes or No?

RealMan. Yes, not exactly the same, and a fair point about the dog owner not being at risk. I was comparing them on the basis that, for all three, if the person misjudged the situation, other people could be harmed, eg you jump a see light when you didn’t look properly and hit someone, or you speed down a road but have missed a hazard and hit someone, or you let your dog run about, and against all your expectations it bites someone.

So you’re defending the dog owner who let his dog bite someone and then deny it ever happened by saying TJ does something which is vaguely related? I’m not following your logic.

Can you not accept that your dog should be under control around others and that is is your responsibility to as the dogs owner?
Yes or No?

responsibilty yes of course always, if there are consequences I shouldhave to deal with them and I have insurance to help with that. Not sure she needs to be under control around people at all times though. for example if she see’s a rabbit, fox, deer etc she will chase it, no matter what I do,so she could be out of control and run past a person so she is out of control around people. However no one would have any reason to be worried by her actions. Obviously if she caused a cyclist or whatever to crash then it would be my fault.

So you’re defending the dog owner who let his dog bite someone and then deny it ever happened by saying TJ does something which is vaguely related? I’m not following your logic.

can you read?

No, not defending the dog owner at all. Not explaining my point very well either it appears! I’ll try again.

We have lots of laws and rules that are there to stop people coming to harm, whether that’s from bicycles, motorbikes or dogs. Sometimes, people choose to ignore these when they believe it’s safe to do so. That’s either ok, or it’s not, but what I suggest can appear hypocritical is to say it’s ok for me to ignore the ones I choose to, but it’s not ok for others to ignore different ones. On reflection though, I think I’m going down something of a tangent that isn’t contributing much to the debate, so I’ll leave it there.

Nobody may have any reason to be worried about your dog from your perspective, but my point is how can they differentiate?
This is what some people don’t seem to understand. I don’t know if your dog is running at me or a rabbit behind me, which in my view means your dog is not under control.

cyclists and dogs
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fe79ZuDKfk[/video]

bigyinn then you would need to prove you had reasonable grounds to be in fear of an attack.
TBH if my dog is chasing a rabbit past you and you start shrieking and sobbing I would honestly feel a bit guilty apologise and get on with my life. I wouldnt cosider I had done anything wrong (because my dog isnt responsible I am).

bigyinn then you would need to prove you had reasonable grounds to be in fear of an attack.

A strange dog running at you out of control? Sounds like reasonable grounds.

I expect you would have trouble making that stick in court but good luck with it.
I feel you may spend your time better on working on your phobias though.

Aren’t you contradicting yourself? Your dogs actions have upset someone and you are responsible for the dog, yet you consider have done nothing wrong?

Jeez you lot, who cares?