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 *

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.

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.

Can you trespass when riding a hovercraft as you’re technically not in contact with the ground?

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 modern law trespass is an unauthorized entry upon land. 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 ‘**** 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?

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 on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person, whether or not it actually does so, 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 reasonable, which might well exclude TJ’s hysteria, so he’s not necessarily right 🙂