Cute doggies

[Martin Dann]

I know I should ride in the road, but I really don't like rush hour
traffic on roads like this.

Cycling along the A4174 shared use path to work today [1], and see two
ladies in there 40's-ish, headed in the opposite direction to me.
They are on my right, so I stay on the left.
As I am about to pass them three doggies appear from nowhere, and block
my route, with nowhere to swerve to, I have to brake hard.
One of the ladies shouts sorry [3]
I reply to put the feck*ng doggies on leads, which they did not
seem to like.

What should I say to doggy owners who have no control over there pets?,
considering I don't want to waste more than a few moments, otherwise I
will be late. If I stopped I could show scaring from a previous encounter.

If I hit a doggy, am I liable?
If I hit an owner swerveing to avoid doggy, am I liable?
Has anyone prosecuted a doggy owner for not having it on a lead/under control?



[1] Yes I know all about stan's [2] work.
[2] with a silent a.
[3] as though it happened regularly, and she didn't mean it.

--
Typed by monkey #27662472869676 on typewriter #7552416572242
When emailing me, please include the word Banana in the subject line.

 

[Jim Ley]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:40:26 +0100, Martin Dann
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I know I should ride in the road, but I really don't like rush hour
>traffic on roads like this.
>
>Cycling along the A4174 shared use path to work today [1], and see two
>ladies in there 40's-ish, headed in the opposite direction to me.
>They are on my right, so I stay on the left.
>As I am about to pass them three doggies appear from nowhere, and block
>my route, with nowhere to swerve to, I have to brake hard.

Is the area around the A4174 shared use path a designated road for the
purposes of the act, if not then the chance of such animals appearing
on the path is something you just have to factor in to what's a safe
speed to travel at.

Jim.

 

[Danny Colyer]

I wrote (after only one large brandy, but on an empty stomach):
> I was always told that if a car hits a dog then the dog owner (who is
> under an obligation to control his animal) is liable for any damage that
> results. I would expect the same to apply if a car hits a dog.

Erm, I meant, of course, I would expect the same to apply if a cyclist
hits a dog.

--
Danny Colyer (my reply address is valid but checked infrequently)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Martin Dann]

In message <[email protected]>
[email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:40:26 +0100, Martin Dann
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I know I should ride in the road, but I really don't like rush hour
> >traffic on roads like this.
> >
> >Cycling along the A4174 shared use path to work today [1], and see two
> >ladies in there 40's-ish, headed in the opposite direction to me.
> >They are on my right, so I stay on the left.
> >As I am about to pass them three doggies appear from nowhere, and block
> >my route, with nowhere to swerve to, I have to brake hard.
>
> Is the area around the A4174 shared use path a designated road for the
> purposes of the act, if not then the chance of such animals appearing
> on the path is something you just have to factor in to what's a safe
> speed to travel at.

I cycle at a safe speed that should a dog be running towards me along
the path, I am able to stop. However these three doggies ran out from
the vegetation at the side.

I don't know whether it is legally designated, but it does have all the
markings and signs, including one on the road saying
"Cyclists Advised to use path" [1]


[1] or words to that effect.

Martin.

--
According to the human genome project, humans are 50-60% bananas.
When emailing me, please include the word Banana in the subject line.

 

[Jim Ley]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:23:37 +0100, Martin Dann
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In message <[email protected]>
>> Is the area around the A4174 shared use path a designated road for the
>> purposes of the act, if not then the chance of such animals appearing
>> on the path is something you just have to factor in to what's a safe
>> speed to travel at.
>
>I cycle at a safe speed that should a dog be running towards me along
>the path, I am able to stop. However these three doggies ran out from
>the vegetation at the side.

Vegetation at the side of the road is the sort of thing you should
take into account when choosing on the speed to travel at, especially
on mixed case roads.

>I don't know whether it is legally designated, but it does have all the
>markings and signs, including one on the road saying
>"Cyclists Advised to use path" [1]

Dogs only have to be on a lead if the local council has required it by
designating the road as such, if they haven't then the dog owners have
no requirement to have their dogs on the lead, and as it's a footpath,
I certainly don't think it's unreasonable for the dogs to be so
constrained - if it was a child in the vegetation beside the path who
stepped out why would the situation be different?

Jim.

 

[Martin Dann]

In message <[email protected]>
[email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:

> if it was a child in the vegetation beside the path who
> stepped out why would the situation be different?

If a child stepped out I would go out of my way not to hit it. I had not
thought of about that idea as parents are normally far more thinking
about their kiddies, than dog owners of doggies.

I will consider my options for tommorows commute.

Martin.

--
Typed by monkey #27662472869676 on typewriter #7552416572242
When emailing me, please include the word Banana in the subject line.

 

[Martin Dann]

In message <[email protected]>
"wafflycat" <waffles*$*A**T*v21net$*££*D*O*T*co*D£$£*O*T*uk> wrote:

> Different with a cat, which is seen as a
> 'free spirit' sort of thing that cannot be controlled, so liability on
> owner.

Cats invariable get out of the way, or at night sometimes make themselves
as small and immobile as possible. I understand the first, but have never
been able to work out the second.

I have never been close to hitting a cat.

Martin.

--
Typed by monkey #27662472869676 on typewriter #7552416572242
When emailing me, please include the word Banana in the subject line.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <de9a27b24d%[email protected]>, Martin Dann
('[email protected]') wrote:

> In message <[email protected]>
> [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:40:26 +0100, Martin Dann
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >I know I should ride in the road, but I really don't like rush hour
>> >traffic on roads like this.
>> >
>> >Cycling along the A4174 shared use path to work today [1], and see
>> >two ladies in there 40's-ish, headed in the opposite direction to me.
>> >They are on my right, so I stay on the left.
>> >As I am about to pass them three doggies appear from nowhere, and
>> >block my route, with nowhere to swerve to, I have to brake hard.
>>
>> Is the area around the A4174 shared use path a designated road for the
>> purposes of the act, if not then the chance of such animals appearing
>> on the path is something you just have to factor in to what's a safe
>> speed to travel at.
>
> I cycle at a safe speed that should a dog be running towards me along
> the path, I am able to stop. However these three doggies ran out from
> the vegetation at the side.
>
> I don't know whether it is legally designated, but it does have all the
> markings and signs, including one on the road saying
> "Cyclists Advised to use path" [1]

I am not a lawyer, but in both England and Scotland it's a dog owner's
responsibility to keep the animal under control at all times, not just
on roads. I'd be extremely surprised if the designation or
non-designation of the path made the slightest difference.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If Python is executable pseudocode,
;; then Perl is executable line noise
-- seen on Slashdot.

 

[Jim Ley]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:01:48 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>in message <de9a27b24d%[email protected]>, Martin Dann
>('[email protected]') wrote:
>> I don't know whether it is legally designated, but it does have all the
>> markings and signs, including one on the road saying
>> "Cyclists Advised to use path" [1]
>
>I am not a lawyer, but in both England and Scotland it's a dog owner's
>responsibility to keep the animal under control at all times, not just
>on roads.

There's a requirement that the dog is not "Dangerously out of control
in a public place" (Dangerous Dogs Act 1991) however that's a very
different situation to having to have the dog under explicit control,
ie on a lead.

> I'd be extremely surprised if the designation or
>non-designation of the path made the slightest difference.

The only requirement for a dog to be on a lead is under the 1988 Road
Traffic Act if the council has designated the roads as such, there's
no other requirement that they be on a lead.

From the situation described I do not see that the dogs were out of
control, let alone dangerously out of control.

Jim.

 

[Jim Ley]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:36:04 +0100, "wafflycat"
<waffles*$*A**T*v21net$*££*D*O*T*co*D£$£*O*T*uk> wrote:

>Wouldn't have thought so - as regards cars, under law of England & Wales, a
>dog as seen as an animal which can be controlled and it's the responsibility
>of the owner to control it. Hence if you hit a dog & your car is damaged,
>you can sue owner of dog for costs.

There's no such blanket right - just like there's not a blanket right
to sue the parent if a child runs out into the road and damages your
car. It all depends on the situation.

Jim.

 

[wafflycat]

"Jim Ley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:36:04 +0100, "wafflycat"
> <waffles*$*A**T*v21net$*££*D*O*T*co*D£$£*O*T*uk> wrote:
>
>>Wouldn't have thought so - as regards cars, under law of England & Wales,
>>a
>>dog as seen as an animal which can be controlled and it's the
>>responsibility
>>of the owner to control it. Hence if you hit a dog & your car is damaged,
>>you can sue owner of dog for costs.
>
> There's no such blanket right - just like there's not a blanket right
> to sue the parent if a child runs out into the road and damages your
> car. It all depends on the situation.
>
> Jim.

Dogs and children are not the same under the law...

Cheers, helen s

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Jim Ley
('[email protected]') wrote:

> From the situation described I do not see that the dogs were out of
> control, let alone dangerously out of control.

If they were running into the path of legitimate moving traffic, ISTM
that they were dangerously out of control. End of story. If Farmer Brown
lets his prize cow wander out onto the road and a car hits her, it's
Farmer Brown who has to pay damages to the motorist, not vice versa. I
would assume the dog is just the same.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Due to financial constraints, the light at the end of the tunnel
has been switched off.

 

[LSMike]

Martin Dann wrote:

> If I hit an owner swerveing to avoid doggy, am I liable?

I wouldn't swerve (much) personally. I'd rather hit a 40 pound dog
than a 200 pound dog owner if there's no choice about it.

In fact I have actually hit a dog recently, or rather it hit us.
Greyhound at speed across the road from the right, hit my left pedal,
and crashed into my mates rear wheel, buckling it. I was sure glad to
be on a 'bent.

I think you may need to slow down more around people walking on the
path, since dogs and children can easily appear unexpectedly, and they
are more likely to be found nearby.

 

[Colin Blackburn]

Martin Dann wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> "wafflycat" <waffles*$*A**T*v21net$*££*D*O*T*co*D£$£*O*T*uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Different with a cat, which is seen as a
>>'free spirit' sort of thing that cannot be controlled, so liability on
>>owner.
>
>
> Cats invariable get out of the way, or at night sometimes make themselves
> as small and immobile as possible. I understand the first, but have never
> been able to work out the second.

Rabbits do the same. Once they are in a situation of not being able to
run for it they lie flat to the ground with their ears tight down. I
would guess it's an instinctive reation to a potential predator that is
following their movement, by that stage it's their only chance of
avoiding being caught/run over.

Colin

 

[Jim Ley]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:43:00 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>in message <[email protected]>, Jim Ley
>('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> From the situation described I do not see that the dogs were out of
>> control, let alone dangerously out of control.
>
>If they were running into the path of legitimate moving traffic,

they were using a path they had legitimate right to be on, just like
the cyclist.

Jim.

 

[Peter B]

"LSMike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Martin Dann wrote:
>
> > If I hit an owner swerveing to avoid doggy, am I liable?
>
> I wouldn't swerve (much) personally. I'd rather hit a 40 pound dog
> than a 200 pound dog owner if there's no choice about it.
>
> In fact I have actually hit a dog recently, or rather it hit us.
> Greyhound at speed across the road from the right, hit my left pedal,
> and crashed into my mates rear wheel, buckling it. I was sure glad to
> be on a 'bent.
>
> I think you may need to slow down more around people walking on the
> path, since dogs and children can easily appear unexpectedly, and they
> are more likely to be found nearby.

As an ex dog owner I'd like to add my tuppence worth:
If the path was close to a road (as opposed to quiet country lane, which
wouldn't have or need a path) I'd keep the dog on a lead as much for its own
safety as anything.
If the path was like those ex-railway lines in Derbyshire I'd let the dog
off the lead unless I thought there were exceptional circumstances. IMO
these are leisure paths to be enjoyed by all, and in fact fast moving
cyclists could potentially be the most anti-social.
If the path was mixed use but not alongside a road I'd use my discretion, if
I felt the dog could be a nuisance to others it would go on a lead.


--
Pete
http://uk.geocities.com/[email protected]/P

 

[wafflycat]

"Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> As an ex dog owner I'd like to add my tuppence worth:
> If the path was close to a road (as opposed to quiet country lane, which
> wouldn't have or need a path) I'd keep the dog on a lead as much for its
> own
> safety as anything.
> If the path was like those ex-railway lines in Derbyshire I'd let the dog
> off the lead unless I thought there were exceptional circumstances. IMO
> these are leisure paths to be enjoyed by all, and in fact fast moving
> cyclists could potentially be the most anti-social.
> If the path was mixed use but not alongside a road I'd use my discretion,
> if
> I felt the dog could be a nuisance to others it would go on a lead.

Speaking of dogs. Yesterday on my cycle ride over to Sandringham, I was
using the back roads, as much quieter. I turned a corner and there it was,
in the middle of the road, no owner to be seen - large brown dog, possibly
some mastiff in it.. Ooh-err! So I did the 'tell it I'm a nice human and not
a bit of prey' routine. So I slowed down, and went into the full "Hello dog!
What a nice dog you are!" routine. This seemed to be useful, as when I first
came round the corner the expression on dog's face was not friendly. As I
spoke in full babyish "What a nice doggie-woggie you are!" tones, it perked
its ears up and cocked its head to one side and gave a slight wag of the
tail. As I passed it, it bounded by me (rather than at me), at which point I
gave a loud and firm "Down!" and it worked! Once I got a bit further on I
speeded up pronto. I didn't want to speed up too soon in case this chenged
its train of canine thought to one of 'chase it', with the 'it' being me. I
reckon if I'd have shown fear or panic on meeting the dog, I might have had
problems. Shortly after this I cycled by a woman taking two German Shepherds
for a walk (both on a short leash) so I told her about the loose dog I'd
encountered. She seemed to appreciate this and said that she'd change her
walk route so that it didn't meet up with her two dogs. On the journey back
from Sandringham, the loose dog was nowhere to be seen.

Cheers, helen s

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Peter B
('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> "LSMike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Martin Dann wrote:
>>
>> > If I hit an owner swerveing to avoid doggy, am I liable?
>>
>> I wouldn't swerve (much) personally. I'd rather hit a 40 pound dog
>> than a 200 pound dog owner if there's no choice about it.
>>
>> In fact I have actually hit a dog recently, or rather it hit us.
>> Greyhound at speed across the road from the right, hit my left pedal,
>> and crashed into my mates rear wheel, buckling it. I was sure glad to
>> be on a 'bent.
>>
>> I think you may need to slow down more around people walking on the
>> path, since dogs and children can easily appear unexpectedly, and they
>> are more likely to be found nearby.
>
> As an ex dog owner I'd like to add my tuppence worth:
> If the path was close to a road (as opposed to quiet country lane,
> which wouldn't have or need a path) I'd keep the dog on a lead as much
> for its own safety as anything.
> If the path was like those ex-railway lines in Derbyshire I'd let the
> dog off the lead unless I thought there were exceptional circumstances.
> IMO these are leisure paths to be enjoyed by all, and in fact fast
> moving cyclists could potentially be the most anti-social.

The fact that they're cyclepaths and that it's illegal to have a dog off
the leash on them would, of course, make no difference to you - or any
other dog owner.


--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; not so much a refugee from reality, more a bogus
;; asylum seeker

 

[Jim Ley]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:02:35 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The fact that they're cyclepaths and that it's illegal to have a dog off
>the leash on them would, of course, make no difference to you - or any
>other dog owner.

But it is not illegal to have a dog off a leash on a cycle path unless
the council has so made it by designating the road under the 1988 Road
Traffic act. How are you so sure that's happened here, the local
council's website does not appear to say?

Jim.

 

[Peter B]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
regarding this post I made:

> > As an ex dog owner I'd like to add my tuppence worth:
> > If the path was close to a road (as opposed to quiet country lane,
> > which wouldn't have or need a path) I'd keep the dog on a lead as much
> > for its own safety as anything.
> > If the path was like those ex-railway lines in Derbyshire I'd let the
> > dog off the lead unless I thought there were exceptional circumstances.
> > IMO these are leisure paths to be enjoyed by all, and in fact fast
> > moving cyclists could potentially be the most anti-social.
>
> The fact that they're cyclepaths and that it's illegal to have a dog off
> the leash on them would, of course, make no difference to you - or any
> other dog owner.

I've missed the subliminal message in my post that says I used to walk my
dog on cyclepaths, please point it out.
I'm sure you'll find this easy as you seem to have a unique insight into the
working of all dog owners minds.
--
Pete
http://uk.geocities.com/[email protected]/P