Then the question would be, "Were the child and dog okay?" (in your instance you remained upright, and continued cycling, therefore were clearly fine, whereas you changed the scenario in the second case to the child falling off).
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
Dog strike!
(52 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
In the same scenario I'd be amazed if a child didn't come off - it was a good jolt. To me, it's very much to the dog owner's good fortune that I have the awareness and reactions (and perhaps, ahem, the mass) that a child would not.
To me, this would suggest that the dog owner ought to keep their dog under close control where children are to be found - or even where they aren't (I don't accept this can be done vocally, although doubtless the law disagrees).
Posted 12 years ago # -
I think one's reaction to all these incidents very much depends on the specific circumstances.
If I had delivered a glancing blow at a relatively low speed to a solid dog that scampered off with nary of "woof" then I'd keep on riding, probably with a rueful shake of the head.
If I'd had a high speed coming together on my road bike with a handbag dog,
slicing the poor runthund in twoand it felt like I'd caused some damage, I'd probably stop if only to offer support or argue my innocence.When you smack into something on a bike you'll have a good idea of the forces involved and whether you'll have caused much damage. I'd hope we'd all act accordingly, but inevitably our response will be conditioned by personal experience. (In fact, I suspect we'd overestimate the damage done. Dogs, like kids, are surprisingly robust.)
Posted 12 years ago # -
I'm never going to stop for an insect, though. Scum. Except dragonflies. And bumble bees. And butterflies and moths...
Posted 12 years ago # -
I have stopped for a bumble bee, but only because it caught me a solid blow betwixt the eyes and I was slightly dazed.
As others have said, we can all contrive scenarios where sympathy obviously falls on various sides. What about the poor little old lady whose last companion on this earth is the now severely stunned hound that pulled free of her hand when it caught sight of a squirrel?
All we can say is that in the case you describe, a number of us would have stopped. I'd have probably felt somewhat at fault and apologised.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Dave, have never said dogs should be allowed to run wild (though to counter the 'dog isn't under control vocally' point, the border collie I grew up with would stop instantly and lie down with one word and remain there frozen until told otherwise).
Dogs should be under control where they could injure anyone, be they tiny toddling children, or full-grown adult cyclists.
Cyclists in turn should be courteous. Try not to hit dogs in the first instance by slowing down, and where that's rendered impossible by a poor owner (not the dog) then, and perhaps I'm simply too polite, common courtesy has me stopping to make sure the dog is alright (regardless of whether I'm a trained vet or not).
Actually, using your child analogy (and I realise that for most people a dog is not equivalent of a child and therefore not worthy of compassion); if parent had been on the path with their toddler that wandered straight across your path and you had 'run over' the toddler, but saw it getting back up in a 'glance' over your shoulder - clearly the parents are muppets, but would you stop to make sure the child was okay, or keep cycling?
PS, I'd agree with you. But in Dave's tale the dog was 'run over' and 'tumbled to the side'.
Posted 12 years ago # -
@lezzles
Your Kennel Club link was a bit vague.
This seems failry unambiguous to me:
Highway Code Rule 56
Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists
https://www.gov.uk/rules-about-animals-47-to-58/other-animals-56-to-58
No mention of it being ok not to bother, if you think you have sufficient control via verbal command.
Which is understandable, because it would be nonsense.
Posted 12 years ago # -
o_0 - it's good guidance, but it's not law (not a MUST with the relevant legislation marked afterwards - so a bit like the cycling guidance to 'use cycle paths where practicable', or 'wear a helmet', or 'wear bright clothing', or pedestrian guidance to 'wait for a green man to cross').
Posted 12 years ago # -
"No mention of it being ok not to bother, if you think you have sufficient control via verbal command.
Which is understandable, because it would be nonsense."
Perfectly possible to control a dog effectively via verbal command. I'd recommend One Man and his Dog for the creme de la creme of examples - but as mentioned above, I grew up with a dog that didn't disobey a single word. Of course cycling round such dogs you don't know that that's the case, but there's a lady walks a couple of dogs on the Innocent quite regularly, one on the lead, one off - reasonably safe to assume she understands therefore that one dog needs that extra bit of control that the other doesn't.
Posted 12 years ago # -
By contrast, the requirement to have amber pedal reflectors is one of the 'musts'...
Posted 12 years ago # -
amber pedal reflectors is one of the 'musts'...
Dang, Longstaff and road bike need new pedals then.
Longstaff would be easy enough, road bike has Look clipless. I'm not planning to use it until the brakes work. It has 1990 Campag CdA Deltas.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Odd question, but I seem to remember reading that the NEPN IS classed as a public highway, albeit one that motorised vehicles are banned from? (Something to do with maintenance arrangements or ownership of the surface).
To add credence to this, I have twice seen police at the five ways during various cycling events telling dog owners off for not having a lead attached. Last time I listened in to someone arguing that cyclist should slow down and that dog owners should not be punished the police told them that the 'law' said they had to be on a lead on this path?
I was thinking about this the other day actually, and decided that if I hit a dog whilst cycling home on the NEPN I would stop to exchange details with the owner, simply so that I could pursue them later for any repairs. (Would probably have to say something along the lines of 'in case there are any costs' - letting them think I am talking about the vet rather than MY bike in order to get the details!)
Posted 12 years ago # -
Perfectly possible to control a dog effectively via verbal command.
I don't doubt that it is possible.
My point was that it would be nonsense if the highway code said it was ok for the dog owner to make that call, on a path legally shared with cyclists.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Interesting one. I'm glad Dave was ok after the collision. I've once been knocked off on the NEN path thanks to a human running ahead of his black dog- off lead of course(winter darkness resulting in the dog not becoming visible in the beam of my dynamo-powered headlight until too late - icy conditions too- the owner didn't stop to ask how I was far less apologise!)As I use the shared paths daily I'm well aware of the problems regularly encountered with loose dogs and owners who couldn't give a ****.I've had numerous altercations with that minority of irresponsible dog-owners who don't understand that the path is shared and not just a dog-toilet. The worst are those who ignore audible warnings and then claim I'm going too fast if the dog inevitably gets in the way and I have to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting it.(I do slow down when there's a loose dog or obvious dog-walker about)
Posted 12 years ago # -
I think if you hit a dog or a farm animal (whether you are bicycle or car), you are required to stop, right?
Cats of course don't count :(
Posted 12 years ago # -
I still think that people cycle too fast on shared use paths (I'm not saying you were going too fast, would like to see vid to judge, and you do seem to have had a number of canine run ins...), but an important factor in some collisions is the speed differential between different users.
I believe that cyclists should cycle at no more than 15mph on shared use paths, any faster then in my opinion you belong on the infrastructure designed for fast moving.vehicles. I constantly see cyclists flying past me on the NEPN with little or no thought for other path users.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Actually, using your child analogy (and I realise that for most people a dog is not equivalent of a child and therefore not worthy of compassion); if parent had been on the path with their toddler that wandered straight across your path and you had 'run over' the toddler, but saw it getting back up in a 'glance' over your shoulder - clearly the parents are muppets, but would you stop to make sure the child was okay, or keep cycling?
Although I like to think I am not without compassion for dogs (cats, sheep, or rabbits), I think it's a safe bet that my response would be different if a person stepped out in front of me than any of the above - whether I was motoring along a country lane or riding through town / NEPN.
This topic has made me wonder whether I am perhaps over callous though. If I hit any of the aforementioned animals in the car, I honestly think it's unlikely I'd stop (especially not if it got up, but even if it didn't), stick the hazards on and walk back to do... something.
I did once run over and presumably killed a bunny while cycling at night. I left that too (assumed dead, motionless). The night before PBP, an omen?
This is sort of by-the-by, but it is interesting.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Some cyclists do go too fast on shared paths but some dogists(my name for irresponsible dog_owners)are also a bit stupid with regard to dog control.I have had to say to more than one dogist that
mutual consideration is the name of the game.Posted 12 years ago # -
Watched a dog (black lab) use the pedestrian crossing (on green man) outside Morrison's supermarket Gilmerton Road yesterday! Unfortunately missed seeing the bit where it pressed the button, but it did trot up the inside of the pavement after crossing. No owner anywhere, and I think it was heading up to the bookies to place a stub on some nag at Chepstow!
Posted 12 years ago # -
Sounds like a black lab I know called bramble. Bramble's owner likes to balance a bone shaped biscuit on the dog's nose then shout eat and bramble flicks it up then catches it and scoffs it. She also gets bramble to 'speak' by gently cuffing it one on the jaw and saying speak, bramble then says ruff. It is a sheer genius dog.
I did once connect with a child due to her running right in front of me when her parents were sorting out their methadone. I had braked as hard as Imcould but the wheel did bump her, she didn't fall over I was very apologetic, dad went mental, he took my name and address (he was going nuts and I thought this would placate him, also didn't give him my real name or address) only finally legged it when a passerby suggested she would phone the polis on him. You don't want to go hitting children with yr bikes. I think the same scenario could have ensued if it was the guy's dog rather than his child. You don't want tomgomhitting people's beloved pets
Posted 12 years ago # -
@Dave, interesting point you've raised: Whether we stop seems to depend a bit on whether the animal is someone's pet!
minimoth is the only person I know who's killed a vertebrate by hitting it with their bike: She cycled straight over the top of a pigeon. Killed it immediately. She did stop, but wasn't sure what to do with the corpse... A cyclist coming up behind discussed the situation and he kicked it under a bush by the path. minimoth arrived at work covered in feathers :)
Not sure what this story adds to the discussion...
Posted 12 years ago # -
TBH If id seen the dog get up and the owner was nearby I would have kept going too, unless I was really in the mood for an argument. Its all very well saying you'd stop out of compassion but it wouldn't actually do anything (especially if you believe its the owners fault).
I might well have said 'Sorry' tho.
Posted 12 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
