MTB Hazards : Dogs

AA – its all out there. Its case law not stature as such although there is some statue. I showed you it all last time we had this and I can’t be bothered finding it again. Its very clear and simple.

Glen – Of course I pas the doge owners reasonably. However yu were asking for people to slow to walking pace – totally unreasonable. I can pass 20+ dogs and owners in under 2 miles on one multiuse path and I have no need to slow to walking pace to pass pedestrians as there is plenty of within two miles on one multiuser path.

Glen – Of course I pas the doge owners reasonably.

Surely this is only relevant in Venice and Genoa

And people have been prosecuted afaik for not keeping their dogs under control, when it escalates into a mauling

Thats a dog “dangerously out of control” which is the only law I can find despite TJ protestations I cannot find anything on legislation.gov.uk. He has seen some leaflets though so it must be true

AA – as above – its case law and common law in the main not statute although there is statue.

for example

You do not have to put your dog on a lead on public paths, as long as it is under close control. But as a general rule, keep your dog on a lead if you cannot rely on its obedience.

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/248

This applies to any dog, of any breed. The quote from the Act above means that any dog which is a bit lively might commit an offence if not kept under control – this could be your dog too!

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

animals act 1971

You could be liable for damage caused by your dog under this Act or under some degree of negligence

Dogs act 1871

It is a civil offence if a dog is dangerous (to people or animals) and not kept under proper control (generally regarded as not on a lead nor muzzled). This law can apply wherever the incident happened. The dog can be subject to a control or a destruction order and you may have to pay costs.

What a load of dogswallop.

The kennel club and naturenet do not make laws

You could be liable for damage caused by your dog under this Act or under some degree of negligence

useless quote without a context.

It is a civil offence if a dog is dangerous (to people or animals) and not kept under proper control

it says and not or

Couldn’t agree with you more TJ, but at the end of the day they’re just dumb animals (and so are their dogs).

Just a quick question TJ, are you a lawyer? Or have you ever spoken to a lawyer? About anything other than do you want fries with that.

As from your sweeping generalisations, I suspect you are a pub lawyer (re: an idiot.) As I don’t know a single one(and I know quite a few) who would ever consider anything in case law (found using google, rather than legalnet) to be as clear cut as you seem to think it is, and because of that the legal profession hasn’t been replaced by google/wikipedia.

Just because you repeat something over and over again, doesn’t make it true. Most people learn that by the time they are 5 however you seem to be a little bit slow.

Its an interesting concept. I was recently barred from my local after a similar discussion regarding dogs where the Landlord suggested that he set his dogs on cyclists deliberately. I merely pointed out that under the terms of the Dangerous Dogs Act he could be giving his dog a death sentence by doing that. ….. glass taken, door shown…… apparently an emotive subject both ways round then.

Give TJ a minute and he will be able to find some case law outling how its illegal for you to be barred.

TJ – Its the LAW!*

*According to wikipedia

Surely it is just common sense? Dogs are like young children, unpredictable. Slow down for dogs in the same way you should for children.

While I walk my beautiful blue bandogge (neapolitan x american bulldog)she spends most of her walks off lead. If I am aware of a cyclist or walker I call her to heel, but if a cyclist flies up behind us giving no warning she may be caught out mid bimble and not know which way to go. Be nice, have patience and if you want to hammer it don’t ride on pedestrian filled trails.

the trick is to hide meat and other dog treats in your riding buddies camelback and give his frame a liberal rub with a cat. the dogs will chase your friend whilst you’re able to continue riding safely.

Funnily enough, when I’m out riding my bike I don’t enjoy being chased by dogs trying to bite my heels. I don’t enjoy being growled at or snapped at. I don’t enjoy having my clothing ripped by their teeth. It is especialy gawling when the dog owner does bollock all to stop their dog doing it.

I had one dog making repeated determined attacks on me once with the bloody owner stood about ten yards away. I’m telling the owner I’m not enjoying this experience and to please do something and there’s no response until I **** the dog on the nose with my front wheel on its fith or sixth attack, whereupon said owner tries to punch me. Fortunately there was no connect and the dog had lost its enthusiasm for my blood, so I managed to leg it away down the hill thus preventing the whole farce from ending up in a court house.

I really deeply resent dog owners who allow their dogs to behave like this to me or anyother cyclist. I think they are ignorant, rude and a public nuisance.

It is a civil offence if a dog is dangerous (to people or animals) and not kept under proper control

So if a dog is dangerous (to people or animals) and is kept under proper control, that’s OK then ?
Cool, I’m going to get me a well controlled dangerous dog. And a swan, just to be sure.

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. 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. 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 any dog which is a bit lively might commit an offence if not kept under control – this could be your dog too! For example, we understand a farmer was prosecuted and fined under this section of the Act when his aggressive dogs intimidated walkers on a public footpath, even though the dogs were on private land and behind a fence (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.