Crashed into an out of control dog - what next?

If they have pet insurance then they should have 3rd party liability cover. It's absolutely NOT in their interests to go down that route so if you feel you're due something I'd speak to them first and give them the opportunity to make things right.

By the sound of it they are reasonable folk since they left details so hopefully you get a decent outcome.

Presume you mean the WOL walkway?

It's a busy shared use path used by kids, horses and dog walkers. It's pretty reasonable to expect dogs & children to be running about in/out of the path and the undergrowth gave a run about.

I'd be inclined to say it's just one of these things tbh.

I think at the very least you could ask that pay to replace your helmet and GPS. If you have cover; I would speak with your insurance company for legal advice about the injuries.

Difficult one. I'd be tempted to ask the owner to stump up for a new helmet and GPS, but I wouldn't be sure they'll pay up. If they don't, I'd not pursue further unless there are independent witnesses.

<span style="color: #ffffff; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; background-color: #595959;">It’s pretty reasonable to expect dogs & children to be running about in/out of the path and the undergrowth gave a run about.</span>

No it isn't. It's reasonable to expect dogs to be under control where there might be cyclists and kids around on a shared use path. It's not a park. It's the main cycling commuter route from Balerno and Currie to the city. It's not like I was going fast. And even so, if a dog runs out from vegetation where you can't see it a tiny distance in front of you, what are you supposed to do? Imagine if it were the same situation on a road with a dog. I definitely won't be letting it go as "one of those things".

My mate broke his arm after hitting an out of control dog and claimed off their insurance

you are absolutely entitled to be compensated for the damage caused

was the dog ok?

What scruff9252 said except, the owners sound ok so I would approach them and show them the photos you have.
They may replace things or at least meet you halfway or something.

Still, 6-8 pages and a suggestion of punching a dog in the face for revenge.

It’s pretty reasonable to expect dogs & children to be running about in/out of the path and the undergrowth

No it isn’t. It’s reasonable to expect dogs to be under control

Both of these things are true. There are a lot of things in life that it is reasonable to expect, but sadly, it just isn't reality.

Terrible for you to get injured and damage your things. I'd talk to the owners definitely.

GPS and helmet to be replaced. Folk need to control their bloody precious mutts, especially where other 'users' are concerned.  Very nearly got side swiped last week by two dogs chasing each other (one had a ball) - I wasn't going fast (slowed to walking pace), and one dog wasn't looking where it was going. Owners, not to be seen. This was in a massive park, with loads of grassland - dogs off the lead by the large shared use path - throw the bloody ball away from paths.

 It’s pretty reasonable to expect dogs & children to be running about in/out of the path and the undergrowth

While I sort of agree to an extent, it's also not unreasonable to expect that owners of dogs at least take some responsibility when that 'live and let live'  attitude ends in an accident that was caused directly by their decision to not really control their dogs well enough.  I mean most of the time, it's cool, everyone just gets on with it, but this is what insurance is for, and it's for the owners to step up.

I live within a few 100m of the WoL and so know it very well.

It's the problem in a nutshell of the concept of shared use paths; You see it as a main cycling corridor, others see it as the principle place to walk and exercise their dogs, others see it where they ride their horse and leave massive piles of dung behind and others see it as as a place to go for a walk...

I’d contact them about the damage to your property, as for personal injury that’s up to yourself. I’d happily mention the injuries but not sure I would go much further for minor damage.

Next time it could a be child’s face. Kick the dog and the owner. Dog shut be put down. Helmets can cause rotational injuries. You were just making progress.

That should cover it.

Yeah there are sections of the TPT between Carrington Moss and Lymm that are like that. It's shared by everyone and you have to keep your wits about you. That's fair enough, On a bike your normally the fastest moving thing and you bear most responsibility for avoiding everyone else, but it has it's limits and  when dogs come at you from the undergrowth, or they dive the wrong way under your front wheel there's often nothing you can do.

In those situations it's fair to say to dog owners "You decided to let the dog off the lead, you take responsibility for it afterwards"

I own a dog and understand my responsibilities to the rest of the public. If my dog had been involved in this incident I'd stump up the replacement costs for the op without question. Hope it gets resolved appropriately OP

From the description in the OP I'd say ask for cash to cover a new helmet and GPS (at realistic prices if they are well used). Be happy if they offer go halves. Be a bit disappointed but probably not push it if they don't want to pay.

I'm with Del on this. I'd be claiming third party on my pet insurance for your GPS and helmet, and possibly reasonable physio as needed (although it sounds like a minor off). It's what you have insurance for. Were it reversed and I'd caused damage or injury, I'd be leaning on my British Cycling third party insurance.

Hmm, I wouldn't claim, personally. Unless it's a "bikes only" or a "no dogs" area, or even "dogs must be kept on a lead" it's just an accident. They happen (though personally, if I see walkers, or dog walkers I'll slow to a stop rather than hit anything)(not saying the OP should've done, I wasn't there so I don't know. Just know I've never hit a dog).
A dog wandering about in a dog walking area isn't "out of control" any more than a cyclist who doesn't stop is.
But hey ho, others disagree, so carry on.

If the injuries stay as they are, I'm not concerned about them or claiming for them. I was concerned about the knee because it felt so similar to an injury that took me out of riding properly for three months and needed two physio sessions but it's already calming down after a hot shower.

If they are a bit funny about it, I'd be happy to talk to my insurers to pursue it with their pet insurer. I don't have their address, only name, phone number and email - is that enough or will I need their address too?

The WoL is so many things - commuting corridor (on bike and on foot), place for recreation, a nice place to be. But in all those situations I'd put the dog at the bottom of the pecking order - people at the top (including those on horses), wildlife in the middle (a squirrel will run away from you, a dog will see you as a friend and come toward you), dogs at the bottom. I don't see it as primarily a cycling route but it's not a safe place for dogs to run about, there's too much going on.

Were the owners in your line of sight? Could they see you? Did they know you approaching? Did you ring a bell?

If they had reasonable advance awareness of your approach, did they take steps to control their dogs? If they did, and the dogs didn't respond, then the dogs were out of control. If they didn't attempt to get them under control, then they are negligent.

I ride 16 miles on a multiuser path each day, and incidents like this sadly are a case of when, not if.

Loose dogs and headphone wearers are the worst, along with people caught up having a chat so they don't hear multiple bell rings.

Whatever you decide OP, good luck. I hope you heal quickly with no long term effects. It looks like the helmet did its job!

As a cyclist with insurance and dog owner with insurance I think you are well within your rights to pursue any claim for your lid and GPS. That’s what insurance is for.
Shared use paths are a really bad place to exercise a dog when open parkland is much safer for off lead running about. Fine if you’re going from A to B with doggy on a lead.

@TroutWrestler - the shared use track runs in a cutting, with a singletrack footpath on the left, hidden behind the bank and that's where the owners were. The paths join at the end of the cutting. I couldn't see the owners at all so didn't ring my bell (I do have one). In fact, I couldn't see them until I'd been on the floor a little while - I was initially a bit stumped at who the owners could be, they were a long way away.

In that case the "owners", or "supervisors" of the dogs are negligent, especially as it is reasonably foreseeable that a cyclist could be using the main path.

Ironically they may have chosen to go on the single-track to avoid cyclists, but once the dogs were out of sight, they were out of mind.

Fortunately the owners stopped and I have their name, phone number and email. They seemed pretty reasonable all things considered.

beware people who seem reasonable can suddenly be less so when presented with a bill!  Did they own both dogs?

I definitely won’t be letting it go as “one of those things”.

my initial gut feel was that you were barking up the wrong tree (sorry for the pun!) and that I’d probably “let it go” but on the other hand, I <span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">live next to a very similar path - the dog walkers are so bad I no longer cycle on it at certain times.  Perhaps there needs to be a clear message to all the people that bought dogs in lockdown and seem to have no idea how to train them that there is a risk/cost associated with it.

I wouldn’t be surprised though if both insurerers get in a squabble and you are accused of riding too fast for the conditions, and a counterclaim for a vet bill and you end up going 50/50</span>

Personal liability section of their home insurance may cover them.

Presume the same "dogs must be under control in a public place" rules apply in Scotland.

Just know I’ve never hit a dog

I've come very very close a few times. Like, tyres touching. The problem with shared use paths is that most pedestrians don't consider bikes at all so they wander around, let their dogs run, kids play on them, they stand around, take up the whole path etc. Of course, as cyclists we also need to moderate our behaviour (Bristol-Bath users I'm looking at you here) but they need to meet us half way.

Of course, as cyclists we also need to moderate our behaviour (Bristol-Bath users I’m looking at you here) but they need to meet us half way.

That's kind of the point on a shared path! Sound very much like the Chester to Connah's Quay one I use. Happy to share and accommodate other users, inc. friendly dogs, (even when they don't have great recall or the sense to just stand still) but the owners who don't GAS or have earbuds on with no perception of what's happening around them boil my piss.

I am playing devil advocate here....

If you present the owners with a bill for your bits, what would your reaction be if they present you with a Vets bill to cover the injuries the dog may have sustained? Due to a potential 'out of control' cyclist.

But hey, dont get me wrong, i feel your pain of dogs on the loose, doing their own thing and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. On my commute to work i always reduce speed and am very aware.

I do hope your injuries heal and you get a satisfactory outcome from this all tho.

As others were saying I would suggest asking the owners to replace helmet and GPS.

The speed you slowed down to is jogging pace and so when combined with the 'avoiding dog no.1' manoeuvre I think you have dispensed your duty of care on a shared path.
The dog owners have not in allowing dogs to run around off the lead and between bushes etc where it would be reasonable to expect cyclists, children, runners and similar to use the space.

Shared use path - in my option it sounds like you were both in the wrong. You couldn't stop in time for an unexpected hazard, and the dogs should be on a short lead. I would put it in the life's too short box and move on.

My dog is frequently off lead but I will always call her to heel if I see a bike approaching or a cyclists lets me know they are there (bell, shout etc).

As the heaviest/fastest moving thing on a shared use path I think cyclists have a greater responsibility in the same way a 40t lorry has a greater responsibility than a bike on a road.

If a child had run out the bushes and you had hit them you would be doing same claiming the parents had failed to exercise reasonable control over their child?

As others have said I would expect the owners to pay. If they can’t control their dog put it on a lead unless in open space.

As others say, drop them a line, see if they are willing to offer something towards the damaged goods, unfortunately you're now post accident without much proof i'm guessing, so it'll be down to their character if they offer anything now. People can seem reasonable until they get hit with 300 quid demands.

Personally, if a dogs off the leash, or even on an extended one i just stop and put a foot down until they're out the way, had too many 'he's usually good....' moments in the past, or the classic one i got last year about how the dog just doesn't seem to like cyclists, whilst she's got him off the lead on a cycle path 😂

I hit it side on at 4.8mph according to Strava, went straight over the bars and hit the deck tangled up in my bike.

I bet the dog was doing more than that so I'd be asking for a contribution to the helmet / gps and if the dog is injured as it seems to be the cause of the incident, the owners own the vet bill.

wow thats a surprising amount of damage / injury from a slow falling off.   personally I'd just chalk it up to bad luck and move on.  but thats just me.

In those situations it’s fair to say to dog owners “You decided to let the dog off the lead, you take responsibility for it afterwards”

+1

Whenever I've been walking our dog(s) on shared use paths they're either on the lead (not a retractable one), or the ones with perfect recall are under close control (either at heel or sniffing about). Dashing in/out of vegetation putting themselves or others at risk they're definitely not.

Some dog owners just don't seem to GAS. Previously we briefly looked after a dog with some pretty serious behavioral issues, he was fine as long as strangers stayed out of his personal space. Someone's black lab comes bounding out of the undergrowth and over to him, so I tell him to sit and distract him with chicken strips whilst shouting for the owner to recall their dog. "It's fine, he's friendly", until the inevitable happens and the untrained Labrador and it's owner gets a valuable lesson in why not let their dog with crap recall approach other dogs.

On the other side of the fence I've ploughed into a spaniel that was running loose at Swinley. Felt sorry for the dog, and as a former spaniel owner I happily let it run riot in the woods, but a trail center (even, or especially, one that attracts a large contingent of other forest users) isn't the place for that.

What constitutes "out of control"? Just wondering... because it sounds like the mutt just ran into the path as dogs (and kids and adults and cats etc) could well tend to do if they weren't aware of an approaching (near) silent bike. "Out of control" is what I'd class that dog that mauled the 11 year old at the weekend and then bit 2 blokes who tried to get it off her. This just sounds like an accident.

Dog owners with their animals off their leads on shared use paths are sociopaths, or cyclepaths. It's one of those, I'm sure.

This just sounds like an accident.

exactly why you have insurance?

What constitutes “out of control”? Just wondering… because it sounds like the mutt just ran into the path

Sure, but 'not under control' isn't the same as 'out of control' Like you, for me an out of control dog is one that's attacking people randomly in the park, but walking along a shared path with a dog off the lead that will just shoot out of the undergrowth isn't really 'under control' either.

generally I don't mind if dogs are off the lead as I approach them, most will just stand there, some of the really well behaved ones will be under control from owners and do what they're told (and I always thank the owners) some I'll stop and  give a wee chuckle under their chins, it's the "Don't be a Dick" school of social behaviour. But if people do behave like dicks (either on their bikes or walking their dogs) then they should be prepared for the consequences of that.

I don’t take my dog to areas where I know there will be lots of people on bikes, walking or small children. If it’s unavoidable, she stays on a lead.

Hopefully they will be ok with paying for one or both of the items.

Glad you OK ish. This is going to happen soon (if it hasn't already) in the park where I walk my dog most mornings.  Hopefully it'll be a cyclist / dog collision and not a cyclist / child collision.

Looks like a lot of damage for a 4mp off too, which is basically a topple.

Luckily it wasn’t a kid running out of a bush.

The annoying thing about shared use paths.

Next time it could a be child’s face. Kick the dog and the owner. Dog shut be put down.

That's a bit extreme, the dog didn't attack anyone.

A dog wandering about in a dog walking area isn’t “out of control”

It's also not "under control" - and what is a "dog walking area"? Is that an official designation?

You couldn’t stop in time for an unexpected hazard

@db - how slowly do you expect me to go? The dog was not on the path or even visible because it was in the undergrowth, then BAM, a second later it was, just where I happened to be going at just under 5mph. Expecting to be able to stop for every single potential hazard would be like only ever driving at 2mph because a car in a side street might drive out without stopping. Or even, driving at 3mph because a dog might run out of the woods next to the road. Which would be pointless, because the dog owner is responsible under UK law (finally found some references for this)-

[url= https://www.vets-now.com/pet-care-advice/my-dog-has-been-hit-by-car/#:~:text=In%20the%20UK%2C%20dog%20owners,repairs%20to%20the%20vehicle%20involved. ]n the UK, dog owners are held responsible if their pet is run over by a car. The law specifically states that any person who allows a dog to run onto a road off the lead is guilty of an offence. The owner is also responsible for any veterinary costs and, potentially, for the cost of repairs to the vehicle involved.[/url]

Fortunately, I wasn't asking about who's to blame, but how to go about dealing with it.

I've sent them an email stating what is damaged, without saying how much it's worth yet in the hope that they respond and I can at least get the ball rolling. I'm worried that what people have said above will be the case - when they see £175 for a GPS and £85 for a helmet, even at the cheapest rates I can find online, things may change.- I've also asked for their address - that seems like the right thing to do for insurance.

It does seem like a lot of damage, but it was a hard stop - 5mph to zero in an instant, and a somersault straight onto the floor, and I landed really tangled up with the bike. There was no skimming along the surface, just a splat straight onto tarmac.

I think you are right on this one @munrobiker - and asking for their formal information as well as supplying a quote is the balanced and appropriate action.

The information about cars vs dogs - seems that there needs to be an update in law to cover other modes of transport vs dogs not in control...? MSP/MP letter time?

As far as I’m aware, it’s not compulsory to have insurance for bicycles or dogs?

It's not, but all the folks who're comparing dogs and kids - I've 3rd party insurance for when I'm on my bike and if I knocked over a kid and they were injured enough that parents asked for for my details, then I'm glad I have it. Likewise, if a dog knocked me off and I found that both my GPS and helmet was bust I'd be asking the same of the dog's owners.

The social contract in operation?

and what is a “dog walking area”? Is that an official designation?

An area where people are walking dogs. Genius! 🤣

I don’t take my dog to areas where I know there will be lots of people on bikes, walking or small children.

Same here, when I had a dog. But, I mean, come on - ****ing millions of people DO and we all know that.

Why are you looking to claim something after hitting a dog?  🤣

The dog owner is liable for the damage caused in law.  This is very clear.

IIRC in Scotland a dog must be "under control" when in a public place.  Case law defines this but again IIRC it basically means owners in eyesight of the dog and the dog comes when called.  This is different to dangerously out of control under the Dangerous dogs act.

I wold let them know they will be replacing the helmet and GPS - injuries I probably wouldn't claim for but I might leave it a day or two to see how serious they are.

Worth mentioning to the local council? Asking if there's been any other bike/dog issues and whether they've given consideration to specific, even larger, signage in order to avoid accidents along with a reminder to the public to put their dog on a lead when using a shared path.

As far as I’m aware, it’s not compulsory to have insurance for bicycles or dogs?

Correct - but not having insurance doesn't mean you aren't liable it means you have, knowingly or not, decided to take that liability on yourself.

Asking if there’s been any other bike/dog issues and whether they’ve given consideration to specific, even larger, signage in order to avoid accidents along with a reminder to the public to put their dog on a lead when using a shared path.

there are "share the path" signs everywhere along the route aimed at cyclists and dog walkers

People can seem reasonable until they get hit with 300 quid demands.

My experience is that there are people out there who pay their way when the dog steps out of line. £450 vets bill covered by an owner when there dog attacked mine and we had an emergency vet visit on Boxing Day evening. (Every dog is allowed one error with another in my world before we go full death penalty)

OP Just ask and we'll get the pitchforks out when you are refused and not before.

Worth mentioning to the local council? Asking if there’s been any other bike/dog issues and whether they’ve given consideration to specific, even larger, signage in order to avoid accidents

Signage won't avoid accidents - the people who don't keep dogs under control don't read signs, or don't believe it applies to them - which in reality as the council has no enforcement staff it won't.   If the recipient of the letter is a cyclist hating dog lover you may even find new signs telling cyclist to slow down or dismount!

along with a reminder to the public to put their dog on a lead when using a shared path.

I'm not sure a lead solves the problem.  Half the issues I've had with dogs on shared paths have been dogs on leads with an idiot on the other end who goes to the opposite side of the path leaving the lead stretched across the path!

IIRC in Scotland a dog must be “under control” when in a public place.  Case law defines this but again IIRC it basically means owners in eyesight of the dog and the dog comes when called.  This is different to dangerously out of control under the Dangerous dogs act.

If I don't hear back from them, is this an option? Go to the police, let them know what happened? Or, at the least, threaten the owner with it (since the Scottish police is busy and under-resourced without dealing with this sort of stuff).

Thanks tj.

Worth mentioning to the local council? Asking if there’s been any other bike/dog issues and whether they’ve given consideration to specific, even larger, signage in order to avoid accidents

Be careful what you wish for

https://kennedyslaw.com/en/thought-leadership/case-review/reining-in-mirvahedy-v-henley-strict-liability-under-the-animals-act-1971/

Bit of light reading that the dog owner's insurers may consider.  Strict liability, sort of......

EDIT,

<p style="box-sizing: border-box; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; margin: 0px 0px 0.5rem; line-height: 1.5rem; color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';">ound some references for this)-</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; margin: 0px 0px 0.5rem; line-height: 1.5rem; color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';">n the UK, dog owners are held responsible if their pet is run over by a car. The law specifically states that any person who allows a dog to run onto a road off the lead is guilty of an offence. The owner is also responsible for any veterinary costs and, potentially, for the cost of repairs to the vehicle involved.</p>

<p style="box-sizing: border-box; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; margin: 0px 0px 0.5rem; line-height: 1.5rem; color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';">Fortunately, I wasn’t asking about who’s to blame, but how to go about dealing with it.</p>
This isn't being considered under the Road Traffic Act though is it, it wasn't a "highway"

Of course the rebuttal to dogs on leads and signage is the well publicised hierarchy of road users in the highway code if you want to go down that path.

I’m with Del on this. I’d be claiming third party on my pet insurance for your GPS and helmet, and possibly reasonable physio as needed (although it sounds like a minor off).

I bet you've never had a claim on pet insurance?

We did this year, £30odd a month up to £60odd on renewal.

You don't claim unless you really have to.

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; background-color: #eeeeee;">wow thats a surprising amount of damage / injury from a slow falling off.   personally I’d just chalk it up to bad luck and move on.  but thats just me.</span>

I'd be going with this. But purely because I couldn't be arsed dealing with the potential hassle of trying to claim of someone. Bit ultimately it's up to the OP to decide what to do.

munrobiker - it would be small claims court.  Its not a criminal matter.  Its civil liability.  No point going to the police

well publicised hierarchy of road users

Not sure if that is what is being alluded to here but crikey I hate how people have started to assert that dogs have 'human' rights.

If a child had run out the bushes and you had hit them you would be doing same claiming the parents had failed to exercise reasonable control over their child?

The Dangerous Dogs Act makes it an offence to have a dog out of control in a public place - assuming this applies north of the border, the dog owner has committed an offence, and would be liable in a civil court for damages.

I reckon by asking for replacement kit you are opening yourself up for a counter claim for the vet bill.  If the owners were as far away as you say they would have no idea what speed you were doing.  irrespective of whether you can 'prove it' or not

Cant you just get a replacement screen for the gps?  I presume its not completely buggered.

btw I get pretty angry when I have 'trail' dogs popping out of the undergrowth at swinley and the FOD as sooner or later I'm going to kill one and get seriously hurt - but thats on a proper designated track and the owners should know better.  On a shared use path its probably quite a common thing for dogs to be loose, at least it is where I am, hence I stick to the roads where I can

Let us know what the owners say.  Lets hope they are good for their word

The Dangerous Dogs Act makes it an offence to have a dog out of control in a public place

No it doesn’t.

It makes it an offence to have a  dog dangerously out of control, that’s not the same as out of control.

The dog is to “.., be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person[F2 or assistance dog ], whether or not it actually does so, but references to a dog injuring a person[F3 or assistance dog ] or there being grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so…”.

There’s nothing in the OP to suggest any criminal offence - and I’m with him in getting the owner to pay for the damage.

I don't see how the counterclaim would work - I have a speed log for the ride, which is linked to a map which shows where I hit the dog. I wasn't negligent. The dog wasn't under control in a public place. I was, in essence, going along, minding my own business when a dog appeared in front of me. Similar laws state that if you hit a dog with a vehicle, the dog owner is liable.

GPS is fully dead unfortunately - it won't even turn on now, though it was on at the time of the accident and had full battery. The tabs on the mount have been ripped off too.

@tjagain - my hope would be that, if they don't initially respond and I can't get an address out of them, telling them "if you don't come back to me, I'll report you to the police for breaching the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act" might get them in gear. I'm not familiar with it - you reckon that law is civil only?

Chalk it up to "shiv happens", or maybe a repair on the Garmin (£85 squid - they come back as new) then leave it.  i'd probably view it as wha if it was a dear/fox/badger/dinosaur and think about the number of times ive ridden into trees and the damage ive done .

Limits of my knowledge munrobiker

 On a shared use path its probably quite a common thing for dogs to be loose

Yep it is on the one I use frequently, and most of time it's fine. It doesn't though, abdicate dog owners from their responsibility. If you're happy to decide to let the dog off the lead, then you're still responsible for how the dog behaves afterwards, it's no one else's. I take my responsibility as the fastest moving vehicle seriously, I pay attention to what's going on around me and I give way in most situations, but if the dog decides at the last minute to dive under my front wheel or dash out from the undergrowth...I'm not going to put myself in harms way to avoid it, and the dog will probs. get hurt. The responsibility for that is wholly the owners.

Out of interest I wonder what folk's responses would be if it had been a kid on the bike and the injury was life threatening?

And this is why there are solicitors and loss adjusters.

UK-FLATLANDER

Full Member

Out of interest I wonder what folk’s responses would be if it had been a kid on the bike and the injury was life threatening?

I think if a kid darts out in front of you from the bushes with no time to react, the outcome is still the same - the cyclist is not at fault.

The nuance in that example is that you hit the second kid after the ‘warning’ of the first.

it’s probably one to chalk up to experience, for all parties.

eta: wait for them to find out a helmet isn’t a tenner and a computer not fifteen quid!

Got an email back which says they found a scar (it looks like the brake rotor or tyre has taken off a small amount of fur) and ends thus-

"But anyway if you want to settle, please give me a quote with the cost breakdown and I will provide the quote from the vet which will include potential X-ray and further treatments as she recovers."

Seems they want to go knock for knock. Any tips?

Seems they want to go knock for knock. Any tips?

Utterly predictable. I'd just walk away - not worth the stress obvs YMMV

Oh, and they say this-

"Judging from how you fell, and the wound on my dog, I anticipated your speed in a public park was quite fast."

which basically confirms they were so far away they couldn't even see it.

which basically confirms they were so far away they couldn’t even see it.

Neither did anyone else?
Your word against the dogs I suppose.

be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person

When I see dogs running around out of control near a cyclepath. I have a reasonable apprehension that someone may be injured.

Your word against the dogs I suppose.

with evidence from a busted Garmin 🧐