You own a car. You park it on a hill. You inadvertently leave the handbrake off. The car then rolls down the hill, smashing into a 400-year old stone cottage, causing irreparable damage.
Who is at fault? The car or the owner?

Its not about dog or dog owner though, is it? Its about dog owner vs cyclist, if you must. In that instance, the owner of the car is responsible. How about this scenario then, Elf?

You own a car. You park it by a house. You leave the handbrake on. The slate from the roof of the house is in a state of disrepair and falls onto the car, smashing into a 25 year old lovely landrover causing significant damage.
Who is at fault? The car owner or or the house owner?

See TJ, Elf (to a lesser extent, you seem to be a bit more sensible in this instance) either cyclist or dog owner could be considered to blame, or a sharing of both, DEPENDING on the situation. And you weren’t there, I wasn’t there, the OP was there, and he’s being grown up about it.

You own a car. You park it by a house. You leave the handbrake on. The slate from the roof of the house is in a state of disrepair and falls onto the car, smashing into a 25 year old lovely landrover causing significant damage.
Who is at fault? The car owner or or the house owner?

Subsititute car for cyclist, slate for dog? Doesn’t really improve much on elf’s original, but well done for trying.

you weren’t there, I wasn’t there, the OP was there

OP has given a pretty good description of the situation, which makes it quite clear the dog caused the accident by running out in front of him.

Oh dear aracer. I had you down as a bit better than that but into the noisy children classification you go then. The ftfy defence, the last preserve of beaten simpletons.

aracer – Member

I notice that the link is from Ambulancechasers4u

Really? From what I can see they’re a perfectly legitimate legal firm working to gain compensation from cyclists who’ve sustained losses through no fault of their own. Or do you think such companies shouldn’t exist, and when cyclists are injured or have their bikes damaged they should just shrug and accept sh*t happens?

Or did you actually think that’s what they are because they have a case report which shows that the law contradicts your opinion?

Aracer – That quote is on quite a few “perfectly legitimate legal firms” web sites and some of them state that the quote must not be used for legal advice.

Did that legal firm represent the cyclist in the quote or are they using that quote to drum up a bit of business?

I asked if there was a case of a mountainbiker winning a court case against a dog owner, not a cyclist riding in a park winning a court case against a dog owner. For all we know it the park might have been a dog free park, we just don’t know all the facts. As I said in my post, I can see the POV of others and owners controlling their dogs but as the OP, I think he did the right thing, commonsense and all that. IMO.

into the noisy children classification you go then

Ooh – am I really that privileged? I think you’ll find the ad-hom is normally the last preserve of the beaten.

Subsititute car for cyclist, slate for dog?

Or… Substitute car for dog, and slate for bike? Which is my exact point, really, responsibility depends entirely on the specific situation, not some quote off of an claimsdirect type website, or despite what he may think, the ‘truth according to TJ’.

Doesn’t really improve much on elf’s original, but well done for trying.

Yeah, cheers, your approval means the world to me.

Did that legal firm represent the cyclist in the quote or are they using that quote to drum up a bit of business?

<shrug> does it matter? They’re giving examples of things cyclists can legitimately claim compensation for – I don’t see how that makes them ambulance chasers. Or are you suggesting that their website should just have a single page with an e-mail address and a telephone number and they shouldn’t do anything to advertise what they do?

Calling them “Ambulancechasers4u” is pretty much an ad-hom, suggesting you don’t have a good argument against what they’re quoting and have to fall back on discrediting the source instead. Using such a term does your argument no favours at all.

Maybe you’d also like to explain why the distinction between a park and the countryside is oh so important, when dogs are required to be under control in either (which de-jure means on a lead unless you can demonstrate that they’re under the same control off a lead as on it). Not that your original request mentioned anything about the countryside rather than a park, and I’m really struggling to see the legal distinction between a mountain biker and somebody riding a bike!

Substitute car for dog, and slate for bike?

Except that’s not such a good analogy, given the slate caused the accident in your example and the dog caused the accident in the OP’s.

Actually now I come to think of it, I’m going to have to help you out a bit more here with another analogy. Cyclist riding along the road safely. Another car pulls out of a side road right in front of the cyclist, giving cyclist no time to stop or avoid car. Who’s fault?

not some quote off of an claimsdirect type website

Ah – you’re at it too. Maybe you’d like to actually check out the website in question, and try working out why it’s different to claimsdirect (I’m assuming “claimsdirect type” isn’t a compliment).

The slate isn’t to blame, it’s an object. The householder is to blame. This isn’t about dog vs cyclist, its about dog owner vs cyclists liability. Do try to keep up dear. My point is that it depends on the situation.
‘claimsdirect’ type is neither insult nor compliment, it’s a type.

What about in these situations then? Still dogs fault?
Dogs killed by cyclists on ‘cheeky’ trails

The slate isn’t to blame

Yes it is. In the same way the dog is. The fact it’s not legally liable doesn’t change that – though it’s really not terribly exciting discussing legal semantics.

‘claimsdirect’ type is neither insult nor compliment, it’s a type.

Really? So you didn’t imply anything at all about the website by using that term then, and your sentence would have read just as well if you’d left it off? Why bother using it then? What point were you making?

What about in these situations then?

The ones which are completely different to the OPs you mean? Where the dogs got run down whilst on leads? I’ll let you use your imagination.

A shame there isn’t an ignore function…

Do a forum search for “killfile”.

It has stopped working for me unfortunately, but when I had it installed and a few carefully selected users blocked it improved my enjoyment of the forum immensely.

Arrrgh, I shouldn’t bite but…

Yes it is. In the same way the dog is. The fact it’s not legally liable doesn’t change that – though it’s really not terribly exciting discussing legal semantics.

The dog isn’t to blame, and no one says it is. It would be pretty daft to pursue a border collie for damages, in any case. The original discussion that you have jumped in on without actually being bothered to read what has already been said hinges on whether oe not the dog owner is AUTOMATICALLY liable for any damage that occurs when his dog and a cyclist are involved in a collision. TJ and Elf seem to think that they are, I think that it very much depends on the situation, and MOST IMPORTANTLY the OP basically shrugs and says not to worry, alls well that ends well, which has been somewhat applauded by the more sensible (IMO) posters.

I ave no idea what you think, other than ‘I can’t be arsed to read the discussion, I just want to be rude and agumentative with people.’

I knew I shouldn’t have. I don’t feel any better for it.

There was an update available chapaking
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/stw-killfile-plugin/page/2

TJ and Elf seem to think that they are

No we don’t. What we’re saying is that a dog owner is liable for any damage caused by their dog not being under control. 😉

Which, if you’d bothered to read up on the Law relating to this issue, you’d know…

whether oe not the dog owner is AUTOMATICALLY liable for any damage that occurs when his dog and a cyclist are involved in a collision. TJ and Elf seem to think that they are,

really? Neither of us said that

However the liability is much greater than you seem to think. There is a strict liability involved.

Its normally the dog owners fault for not controlling his animal. If the dog is in a position to knock a cyclist off who is cycling within the law then the dog owner is at fault as the dog is not under control – because if the dog was under control it would not be in a position to knock the cyclist off. so yes – in all normal circumstances the dog owner is at fault.

animals act 1971 applies

Can I just say this is the second time I’ve appeared on this thread?

really? Neither of us said that

yes – in all normal circumstances the dog owner is at fault.

No we don’t. What we’re saying is that a dog owner is liable for any damage caused by their dog not being under control.

Priceless. Thanks for the ummm, clarification?

yes – in all normal circumstances the dog owner is at fault.

You’re welcome. We’ll leave you to work it all out for yourself, cos it’s more fun to complete a puzzel all on your own than receive outside help, in’t it? 😀

Elf and TJ should be put down

Ooh what bravery, to post such a tag, eh? 😆 Obviously you’d say this to our faces, in accordance with forum rules….

TJ and me is win. Stop to be so silly.

i had a mad dog jump onto 1st section of summer lightning today and run the way i was going(luckily) was hilarious, couldnt catch him sooo fast

TJ, see my link to news story above; I appreciate that it isn’t directly comparable but who would you say was to blame in those instances?

Who knows? We do not have enough information but under normal circumstances the only way a dog can collide with a bike is for the dog not to be under control

The dog isn’t to blame, and no one says it is. It would be pretty daft to pursue a border collie for damages, in any case.

You appear not to understand the distinction between blame and legal liability – which isn’t a great position from which to understand the legal intricacies of the rest of this discussion.

The original discussion that you have jumped in on without actually being bothered to read what has already been said hinges on whether oe not the dog owner is AUTOMATICALLY liable for any damage that occurs when his dog and a cyclist are involved in a collision. TJ and Elf seem to think that they are

Given that elf and TJ have both been on to point out that’s not what they’re claiming (I thought I’d better point that out for those who’ve been silly enough to killfile them) it seems I’m not the one with a problem reading and comprehending the whole thread. Re-reading your contributions, it’s far from clear that you think the dog owner is liable at all for a dog jumping out in front of a cyclist.

MOST IMPORTANTLY the OP basically shrugs and says not to worry

He hasn’t said he isn’t going to get the money for a new wheel from the dog owner though…

We do not have enough information but under normal circumstances the only way a dog can collide with a bike is for the dog not to be under control

Complete and utter tosh. if a dog is walking to heel and an out of control biker ploughs into it??? You seem to think that a dog cannot be exercised off the lead and be under control. You would be very wrong. I’d love to see the relevant bit of the Animals Act 1971 that you keep quoting but not actually showing. I shall say for the last time, that if the biker has not slowed to a reasonable speed and made the owner and dog aware of their presence then they are at least partly to blame. Have you got any evidence that isn’t a vague advert?

Devs – hence the

under normal circumstances

Of course if the bike is crashes into a dog at heel then the biker would be at fault – but if the biker is riding normally and hits a dog the dog owner is at fault.

He hasn’t said he isn’t going to get the money for a new wheel from the dog owner though…

I did say that the owner was going to send me a cheque for £50 (which is around half the rebuild cost), but that

Not sure if I would cash it anyway

as I said I slow right down for any dog I see (unless they are chasing me), I just didn’t see this one until it was under my bike.

It was her suggestion of making a donation to the cost of the repair.

I was also toying with the idea of donating it to the dogs trust.

if the biker has not slowed to a reasonable speed and made the owner and dog aware of their presence then they are at least partly to blame.

Substitute dog for car (waiting to turn out of a side road). The cyclist is partly to blame if he’s not sounded his horn at the car driver and slowed down enough that he can stop if the car pulls out and he goes over the bonnet?

No need to post self-portraits, devs.

Have you got any evidence that isn’t a vague advert?

Are you suggesting that because they’re using the case to advertise their business that it’s a made up story? Or am I missing the point you’re making here – you seem to think that using a case as an advert somehow devalues it?

I refer the dishonourable muppet to my comments of some moments ago.

Substitute dog for car (waiting to turn out of a side road). The cyclist is partly to blame if he’s not sounded his horn at the car driver and slowed down enough that he can stop if the car pulls out and he goes over the bonnet?

Ah yes, but if the cyclist came out of the side road straight into the path of the car, then the cyclist would have some, if not all of the blame, depending upon how reasonable the car driver’s observation and speed was? No?

Ah yes, but if the cyclist came out of the side road straight into the path of the car, then the cyclist would have some, if not all of the blame, depending upon how reasonable the car driver’s observation and speed was? No?

Yes of course. If there was a dog running safely along a BW and a cyclist emerged out of the bushes straight into the dog, I’d be inclined to blame the cyclist.

Okay, so what if, using the same car vs cyclist analogy, both road users were on the same road, with equal right of way and neither saw each other, resulting in a collision? Shared blame? No?

Okay, so what if, using the same car vs cyclist analogy, both road users were on the same road, with equal right of way and neither saw each other, resulting in a collision? Shared blame? No?

Not possible. Somebody has right of way. We’re also getting away from the OP’s case (which is pretty much like the car pulling out in front of cyclist, replace car with dog – it wasn’t just a random analogy you know). Not only that, but if it did come down to it then given “equal right of way” between a cyclist and a dog, the dog is at fault for not being under control.

You’re not proving your point by coming up with strawmen.

Of course it’s possible, otherwise thee would be no such thing as knock for knock. In fact in motoring, blame is rarely completely put at one party’s door, usually a percentage is apportioned, depending on culpability.

Anyway, as to proving my point, I have done so. My point was never that it was the cyclists fault, or even the dogs, or the dog owners. My point was that it very much DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION. I don’t know enough about the situation in the OPs case. With the greatest of respect to TurnerGuy, (I mean that sincerely) we’ve only heard the story from his point of view, so we don’t have enough info to judge.

My point was that it very much DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION.

Hmm – we may have both been arguing the same point (but then I knew that a while back 😉 )

Hmm – we may have both been arguing the same point (but then I knew that a while back )

I had my suspicions too… Brilliant

Oh Hell. You know what that means? It means that by default, you disagree with TJ and Elf, and that they will therefor be summoned from their slumber to engage you with their verbose ramblings and absolute conviction that they are always right.

Hark, I hear the patter of hooves even now…

A dog and a bike (briefly) occupied the same space and time on a track through the woods.

We’re not talking about a road here with markings and trafic flow and priorities. We’re talking about a trail through the woods.

We’re not talking about a dog mauling somones face off, just running through the ferns.

So a dog and a bike (briefly) occupied the same space and time on a track through the woods….

To apportion blame to one party or the other in the circumstances described by the OP is frankly moronic and I’m genuinely suprised by the positions taken by (some) posters on here.

fourbanger – its what the law says tho – the dog owner must keep their dog under control and a dog that knocks someone off their bike is not under control leaving the dog owner liable.

people keep trying to put some equivalence between the dog and the human – they do not have any equivalence – the human has the right to go about their business unhindered by the dog, the dogs owner has a duty to keep it under control which means out of peoples way.

In the OPs case the dog IS liable for the damage as they would be in almost all bike / dog collisions

In the OPs case the dog IS liable for the damage as they would be in almost all bike / dog collisions

The dog is liable? How can the dog be liable? It has no rights. It has no equivalence to a human… Blah blah blah…

What you mean is, the dogs owner is probably liable, although it would depend on the specific facts of the situation, which we are not in possession of.

Give it up TJ. You’ve made yourself look a pedantic fool in this thread.