You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
.
I suspect it won’t help but see Highway Code rule 56.
Maybe contact local council, mention rule 56 and get a statement re the path concerned, as apparently there can be local bye laws.
“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.”
****ing ****s
I'd just give up if they're not willing to go through their pet insurance for the xrays etc, vet bills get expensive fast. Not worth it for a broken Garmin and a scraped knee.
New helmet + GPS. No insurance contact. Price it up and give them what it'd cost you (with links) and say either they put it direct to your bank account or you can bob round and pick up the cash if it's local. Faster payments take a couple of hours.
Would do that asap, and if they're not forthcoming then tell them you'll be going to popo/insurance and they can sort it out from there in a more expensive fasion.
If they stump up, that's the end of it.
– I have a speed log for the ride, which is linked to a map which shows where I hit the dog.
Instantaneous speeds on a GPS are pretty unreliable at the best of times let alone in tree covered areas like the WoL path where the speed typically under-reads. Maybe you might get away with it in a small claims court but the reality is the speed log proves very little.
I really think you’d struggle to demonstrate the dog owners were at fault in this one once they counter-claim that you weren’t riding carefully enough.
According the the above definition the first dog was behaving dangerously too (although didn't cause an accident in itself), and forced the OP into the ambush of the 2nd dog. A canine conspiracy...
If they are decent people they will be mortified and see you right.
Realise that it doesn't help you but if they have to fork out for vet bills/see an increase in insurance premium then it's their own stupid fault. Importantly they should learn from it unless they can afford not to.
Is the traditional behavior in these situations not shitting down their chimney? Do they prove they have actually taken the dog to the vet or are they just threatening it?
Disappointing response from the owners. I'd be inclined to pop back and suggest that if their only gauge of how fast you were going was forensic they might find they're on a shoogly peg. Suggest to them if they want to go that route you exchange insurance details but it would be sensible for them to check their position regarding their dog being under control in a public place. They weren't even in a position to recall their dog never mind see what happened. I'd call their bluff.
I let my dog off the lead on shared paths and despite headphones I'm very mindful of other users as I expect them to be of us, but equally I'd take it on the chin as I stated previously if it all went wrong.
Bon chance op
https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/28361/water-of-leith-management-plan-2020-to-203 0"> http://Water of Leith Management Plan 2020-2030 - Edinburgh Council https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/28361/water-of-leith-management-plan-2020-to-2030 .
I would contact the organisations mentioned in R18 of this document too, and advise them of the incident.
Bombers and frozen sausages it is then.
I was going to suggest accidents happen and just move on until I read their response.
Their dog caused the accident, yet they think you'll be contributing to their vet bill? I don't think so!
The reality of it is we're into he said / she said, there is no real evidence, we have a cyclist knocked off their bike, but could they have reasonably avoided it, we don't know, there is no video, there is no witnesses by the sounds of it, as others say, GPS is pointless, you're going small claims, anything short of witnesses or signed declarations are all smoke and mirrors, the whole 4.8mph is weird as well, why were you going so slow on the path, oh you were aware of dogs in the vicinity but didn't stop or be more wary, how did you go over the bars at such a slow speed, surely to do that much damage you were going faster.........
All the above is just questions anyone would ask in small claims or the likes, not my opinion, hell i've been on the other side of a claim and having the only witness testify to our claim wasn't enough to win, the more i see this type of stuff the more i actually think i'll have to buy a camera for the car and/or bike!
Ask for a copy of the receipt from the vet.
Then ask for their address so you can pop round and pay. But don’t, just send them poop in the post.
I wonder if they have an equivalent thread on ‘dinlow dog owners’ forum?!
“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.”
Well, that was a ballsy response. Over to you Munrobiker! 🤨
Its a crap situation for sure , I've had fairly similiar a couple of times . I hit a teenager at about 25 mph who had just came off a bus with ear phones in , then a network rail van hit me as he couldn't see me for low winter sun. On both occasions I was shook up but didn't pursue it as I had only minor scratches on the bike and my body.
Regarding dogs and X rays I was quoted £900 for an xray on my pug so they wont want to go down that route. If you want to still go after them I'd maybe try a tactful letter saying to meet you half way on the helmet and Gps . Im in east lothian but I know where this happened and Its very similiar to both the bonnyrigg to penicuil old railway line and closer to me the pencaitland old railway where I wouldn't have my dogs on a lead but are busy with bikes. A dog can bolt after anything at the drop of a hat and you have been unlucky . Substitute the dog for a fox or deer and there is no claim but the same result. Anyhoo good luck and I hope you both come to an amical resolution.
wow thats a surprising amount of damage / injury from a slow falling off.
Nah, I’m trying to remember the term , sack of shite or something like that when you go OTB slowly and your whole body weight just drops vertically to the floor , does a lot of damage, and nasty if it’s your face hitting the floor first.
Involve the Police for the dog being out of control in a public place resulting in your injuries....
It's a subject thats been in the news the last few days, they may want to be seen to take action
Realise that it doesn’t help you but if they have to fork out for vet bills/see an increase in insurance premium then it’s their own stupid fault. Importantly they should learn from it unless they can afford not to.
That's a rather dickish response.
Sadly not isolated it would seem.
If the dogs been injured and has in fact needed treatment then regardless of your version without proof it's your word against theirs. If you fancy trying it on the phrase 'play stupid games, win stupid prizes' comes to mind, that treatment could end up being orders of magnitude more than your GPS.
Try and look at this with some objectivity, from your story their dog caused you to fall but from their perspective your speed caused their dog to be injured. How do you fancy your chances in a balance of probabilities case?
And FFS stop with the dangerous dogs nonsense, that doesn't apply here since the dog didn't in any way attack you or give you reason to think it would. The dog was roaming, end of. It's already been explained
I was always in British Cycling for the legal support/ insurance as this type of thing can turn into an expensive nightmare.
Any of the legal eagles in the house tonight to give us a legal perspective ?
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.
You were waving chicken strips around and wonder why a lab waddled over to you!!
As I understand it, if you do decide to pursue this through the small claims court, the other party are not permitted to counter sue you. IANAL, but there are some on here, who may be able to provide clarification
If the garmin was buggered, how does the OP know how fast he was going?
<span style="caret-color: #ffffff; 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'; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; background-color: #444444;">I was riding along a shared used path on the way to the Pentlands today. It’s an old railway line with a new tarmac surface in a tunnel of trees. A dobermann type dog ran out from another path on my left so I slowed, moved over to the right and then another dashed out from the vegetation on my left. 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.</span>
The other parties legal counsel would take you apart if this was your statement to the court. Frankly I’d chalk this one to stuff happens as the other party will not be paying out without a fight and your position isn’t as strong as you think it is.
“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?
He's been on dogwalkertrackworld getting moronic adivce from billytwodogs and all his ****ty online fwends.
The other parties legal counsel would take you apart if this was your statement to the court
Good job it’s an informal post on a bike forum then.
Because I'm just wired this way, I would go for a response to call a bluff to thier bluff.
Go on then, send me the vets bill and your address then please so we can settle this...
sadly I did call it as the likely response from the dog owner. sorry.
I doubt they will have taken the dog to the vet . yet. you can bet they will if you call their bluff, just out of principle to cost you.
He’s been on dogwalkertrackworld getting moronic adivce from billytwodogs and all his ****ty online fwends.
Yep, spoke to someone, now going to protect themselves, it's inevitable, as stated earlier, there's no real evidence by the sounds of it, small claims or magistrates don't tend to work like TV courtrooms, evidence has to be indisputable for it to go that way, otherwise it's he said / she said.
I believe it's a streamlined process now in small claims for this level of claim, so even more onerous if no real evidence is there and it's just counter claims being reviewed.
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?
I would go at it like a bull at a gate just to piss them off. But I think you should just let it go, only stress and frustration to gained. For the sake of what £300?
Off lead dog on shared use path. No way would you be legally accountable if you hit it. IANAL
As others have said it is your word vs his. I would leave it.
There are always 2 versions (not saying yours are wrong) and he is probably saying to his mates “ I was out walking the dogs today and this cyclist came pelting down the path, no bell or warning. The dogs got spooked as he appeared so fast from no where. He was going so fast he nearly hit one dog but as he swerved out of control he hit the other dog and has injured it. I might need to take it to the vets. Do you think I should contact him and see what he says, do you think I should be compensated for his actions as it was clearly his fault…... You will never guess what, the cyclist has just been on to me and he is looking for me to replace his helmet and a garmin. I never even saw any garmin and he never mentioned it before taking off. Sound fishy to me!”
That’s a rather dickish response.
@squirrelking owner immediately accused the OP of riding too fast rather than admit that they were not in charge of their dog. That's a dickish move especially as OP had his speed recorded on a Garmin which showed that it wasn't fast. This could have been settled amicably, oops sorry I took my eye off my dog and I hope you're not hurt but instead leaves a bad taste.
I was driving my car safely and legally at 30mph past a primary school at 3:20 when a child suddenly appeared from between 2 parked cars - who could possibly have foreseen such a thing - nothing I could possibly do to avoid hitting it.
Anyway my car got a dent in the bumper and the bits of blood and skull have marred the paint
How do I proceed? Grieving parents aren't responding to my WhatsApp messages
Contrary to how some owners behave, dogs are not children. Laws that apply to dogs do not apply to children and vice versa. Strawman argument is dismissed.
A previous incident and commentary…
https://road.cc/content/news/give-cycling-dedicated-space-reaction-291115
owner immediately accused the OP of riding too fast rather than admit that they were not in charge of their dog.
Well given he moved to the opposite side of the path from where the dog emerged and still didn't have time to stop I think they may have a point. Look at it from their perspective. I'm not saying they're right but your response of just rinsing them is pretty OTT.
As others have said it is your word vs his. I would leave it.
There are always 2 versions (not saying yours are wrong) and he is probably saying to his mates “ I was out walking the dogs today and this cyclist came pelting down the path, no bell or warning. The dogs got spooked as he appeared so fast from no where. He was going so fast he nearly hit one dog but as he swerved out of control he hit the other dog and has injured it. I might need to take it to the vets. Do you think I should contact him and see what he says, do you think I should be compensated for his actions as it was clearly his fault…… You will never guess what, the cyclist has just been on to me and he is looking for me to replace his helmet and a garmin. I never even saw any garmin and he never mentioned it before taking off. Sound fishy to me!”
Reality is in Scotland i believe this type of small claims is online these days, and just a coin toss for the outcome with no real evidence, hence why i just see it as being a lesson in life, we've all been there, i've had a couple like this over the years in cars and a bike.
If you are to make a claim, do it online, get their details, as you'll need more than a name and email i believe, they'll counter of course, then let fate decide, nothing on here will help, going via text or email is pointless, you'll just antagonise each other more, if i was on either side i'd just block the numbers/email and ignore, you either take the hit, or raise it via small claims now i'd say, it's amazing how people can change when their perspective changes from 'a bike cost 100 quid these days' to 'you've damaged my 5k bike'.
Cyclelaw Scotland aren’t based too far from you. Be worthwhile sending them an email.
Contrary to how some owners behave, dogs are not children.
That's true, kids are annoying little shits.
The dog owner is liable for the damage caused end of. they cyclist is not liable for the damage to the dog unless the owners can show negligence which is almost impossible.
there is no need to prove anything with the claim against the dog owner - the facts are clear. the dog was not under control and caused a bike rider to crash
dog owner is liable for the damage caused end of
How is this conclusion reached? Lots of case law where this is not so.
Most well known is perhaps Jones v Whippey from 2009. A great Dane jumped up at a runner in a park pushing him over and causing injury. Runner claimed against owner and won. Owner went to Court of appeal who said the owner not liable. (And the runner was left with a £25k legal bill)
The statements we have read here clearly indicate some differences but I don't think saying the dog owner is liable in such a clear cut way is correct.
More info on Hector the great Dane here - https://www.sleeblackwell.co.uk/legal-articles/when-good-dogs-go-bad
The dog owner is liable for the damage caused end of. they cyclist is not liable for the damage to the dog unless the owners can show negligence which is almost impossible.
there is no need to prove anything with the claim against the dog owner – the facts are clear. the dog was not under control and caused a bike rider to crash
You mean apart from the burden of proof, it's all hearsay you've based your conclusion on, as someone said in the previous page, if you read the dog owners story over on dogwalkersworld.com, you'll get many doing the counter conclusion, this isn't going in front of judge rinder on TV, it's going through an online claim system that'll be reading two counter claims, without witness statements, video evidence, etc, all it's going to say is Claim 1 - out of control dog, Claim 2 - Cyclist going too fast with others using the path.
@db thanks, that's an interesting read. Not as straightforward as I (or most folks would) thought.
Claim 1 – out of control dog, Claim 2 – Cyclist going too fast with others using the path.
The latter is speculative; the former is definitive. No lead = no control in this setting.
Presumably, the GPS data would wipe the excessive speed argument out anyway.
.
Yeah, I tracked the ride on my phone (the GPS computer I use these days so I have some data in front of me, but it's such a faff to connect to Strava I use both). If the GPS comes to life I'll see if I can get the data off that, then I'd have two points of reference to show that I'd slowed right down.
After a polite email last night listing the cost of the damaged equipment and providing links to show I'd given the lowest possible price for them, he's doubled down and is surprised that I'm blaming his dog for the accident. He had already been to the vet (he sent me a photo in the original email) and is going back today for an X ray and will send me the bill.
I find as I get older, and after a car insurance claim where I was the innocent party but still ended up in court for hire car fees and several grand down on the deal, I just don't have the fight for this sort of thing anymore. Even if morons can't keep their dogs on leads and it's me who loses out because of it.
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.
Playing devil's advocate, had you have slowed down further than running speed then the accident could possibly have been avoided and/or the impact lower so it could be argued you were already going too fast on a shared path to respond to what could happen, particularly given you were aware of people/dogs in the area.
Next time it could a be child’s face.
Would this conversation be different if it had been a child running out in front of you? You've got insurance for the parents to claim on, right?
I find as I get older, and after a car insurance claim where I was the innocent party but still ended up in court for hire car fees and several grand down on the deal, I just don’t have the fight for this sort of thing anymore. Even if morons can’t keep their dogs on leads and it’s me who loses out because of it.
That's the way i see it these days, hence the comments, had similar with a car accident a while back, new driver (3 weeks post test) came through a red, straight into our car turning, witness on our side, she defended herself in court, made a mess of it and the prosecutor helped her, magistrate put it down as 50/50, because they weren't sure her light was red, as us and witness didn't see from that angle! She tried claiming on our insurance as well, thankfully thrown out, so at least she was off the road for a while!
Had another one where someone in a car park reversed into me whilst we were in a queue of traffic, they were instantly defensive and so on, all i could see was paying the excess, my insurance going up, and nothing but hassle, i just walked away and lived with the dents, it's sad that this is how most folk think now, you have an accident but you're apportioned blame no matter what, and have costs to contend with as well.
I just don’t have the fight for this sort of thing anymore
Are you insured? Either through BC or on your home policy? If so, it's probably time to get them involved.
On the High Peak Trail I ran over a child and her bike once when she veered into my path and fell off. With my epic bike skills I managed to stay on my bike and stopped to see if she was all right.
The parents then apologised to me and gave the girl a clout for being dozzy! Not her best day. 🙂
After a polite email last night listing the cost of the damaged equipment and providing links to show I’d given the lowest possible price for them, he’s doubled down and is surprised that I’m blaming his dog for the accident. He had already been to the vet (he sent me a photo in the original email) and is going back today for an X ray and will send me the bill.
That's shit. I'd stop communicating now as this could get messy.
If you have legal expenses on your home insurance I'd give them a call for some advice. If he starts claiming vets fees you could soon be into thousands.
How is this conclusion reached? Lots of case law where this is not so.
Most well known is perhaps Jones v [s]Whippey[/s] Whippet from 2009
Ftfy
More info on Hector the great Dane here – https://www.sleeblackwell.co.uk/legal-articles/when-good-dogs-go-bad/a >
Interesting read. two things come to mind...
Firstly, (and IANAL) the idea of negligence and reasonable expectation on behalf of the owner/handler of the dog(s); In such a setting as a mixed use path, should a dog run in front of, or hit a cyclist, there would be the likely potential for damage/injury that could 'reasonably be expected', as in the 'Cowley vs Clements' case referenced in the article. I appreciate that as with all case law, the outcome is at the whim of the judge and their reasoning.
Secondly, I can't help but be disappointed that Mr Whippey is a RSPCA Inspector, and not an Ice-Cream man! 😂
Playing devil’s advocate, had you have slowed down further than running speed.
You think 4.8mph is running speed? That's a fast walking pace. UK cyclepaths are designed for approx 12mph; anything below that is utterly reasonable, given that the obstacle wasn't visible.
Anyways, I'd also be thinking about the high cost the owners are facing for their poor judgement in letting dogs off the lead in the first place, if they're being honest. Maybe a hefty bill will help, or increased insurance premiums at the very least.
Yep, walking speed which is perfect to show due care was given. But that is the only evidence in this whole debacle.
What are the sum of the damages? Cant worth the hassle?
After a polite email last night listing the cost of the damaged equipment and providing links to show I’d given the lowest possible price for them, he’s doubled down and is surprised that I’m blaming his dog for the accident. He had already been to the vet (he sent me a photo in the original email) and is going back today for an X ray and will send me the bill.
It is a shit state of affairs.
I would be quickly going to my home insurance or cycling organisation membership and asking advice.
As I said before, part of me is an awkward enough git that I would want to go after them - but risk/benefit suggests they are going to push back hard and try to blame you.
And anyone saying that the 4-5mph is too fast and opens you up to liability needs to think again - it is a fast walking/slow jog speed. What are you meant to do - stop everytime you see a dog / child / other human / bump?
Thanks for the tip for Cycle Law Scotland @kirkg - I've met one of their lawyers through some charity work. I gave CLS a call this morning and they've been very helpful. They'll only take it on if there's personal injury (which there is, but it's tiny) but will recover kit costs at the same time.
Crucially, they confirmed that there's a strict liability to keep a dog under control and a dog off a lead like this in Scotland next to part of the National Cycle Network would break that.
While the injury part is not my main focus, since it's small, this does seem like a sure fire way to get the right result and money back for my kit. I think if I handle it myself I'll just keep digging myself into holes, potentially saying the wrong thing and going round in circles with the guy. It seems a bit OTT and ambulance-chasey but if the guy won't pay because it's the right thing to do, what other options do I have? It's no-win no-fee and presumably less hassle for me (I have found this sort of thing tends to make me depressed).
I could say to him "I've spoken to a solicitor and they told me you have a strict liability to keep your dog under control, so are liable here. You can pay up now or I'll instruct them to proceed". Or I could just instruct them and crack on with it.
I appreciate that as with all case law, the outcome is at the whim of the judge and their reasoning.
Very much this. If you go to court do we think the judge will be more supportive of the cyclists or the dog walker. Maybe you are lucky and get a judge who is keen cyclist and cat lover. Or you get a Labrador owning judge who hates cyclists who get in the way of their SUV when they are trying to make progress.
Ultimately I just can't see the OP 'winning' here or even breaking even despite the encouragement lots of people are giving them. I'm not saying this right, just my humble opinion.
It seems a bit OTT and ambulance-chasey but if the guy won’t pay because it’s the right thing to do, what other options do I have? It’s no-win no-fee and presumably less hassle for me (I have found this sort of thing tends to make me depressed).
I think that there is a) a principle or responsibility here and b) damage to you and your kit. It is what it is - and not ambulance chasing IMO.
I could say to him “I’ve spoken to a solicitor and they told me you have a strict liability to keep your dog under control, so are liable here. You can pay up now or I’ll instruct them to proceed”. Or I could just instruct them and crack on with it.
I would give the dog owner one last chance - make it clear who the company you are speaking to are so they can see their track record and know you are not messing around and that law is on your side.
Honestly; I'm torn on this one (as both a cyclist and a dog owner) - My initial reaction is that it is just an accident (they do happen) - and I'm not a fan of pointing a finger of blame. If this was my dog; I'd have been apologetic and offered to replace the damage items as a goodwill gesture. However; if the dog was genuinely injured seriously enough to need any kind of medical treatment then honestly I'd be wondering just how quickly you were going - especially if it happened out of my sight. There are no winners here; but if your injury isn't really bad enough to warrant a solicitors claim (I don't know if it is) then that feels like you are finding an excuse to punish this guy for not being willing to pony up.
I could say to him “I’ve spoken to a solicitor and they told me you have a strict liability to keep your dog under control, so are liable here. You can pay up now or I’ll instruct them to proceed”. Or I could just instruct them and crack on with it.
This is what I would do. Give them one chance to do the right thing and pay the few hundred for damaged kit. I would probably discuss it with the lawyer first. But if the laywer thinks its a good chance? Why on earth would you not? My guess is they will have insurance as well.
Four pages of trying to apportion blame for a 'thing' that happened whilst out and about where there was really no blame, just an unfortunate set of circumstances.
Personally, I'd be getting on with my life and chalking it up "sometimes shit happens".
I’d be wondering just how quickly you were going – especially if it happened out of my sight
Appreciate your honesty, but the fundamental point is just what you've said; that your dog would be out of sight. How would you be able to keep it under control in that situation, and would that be acceptable in an incident like this? I doubt it, personally.
The simple fact is that dogs must be on leads, as confirmed.
You think 4.8mph is running speed? That’s a fast walking pace.
Yes I do and Wikipedia lean towards agreeing with me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_from_walking_to_running
Of course, it's a moot point as it was still to fast to deal with the unexpected.
I'm leaning more towards just instructing the solicitor to get on with it. It's what my wife has said to do. If I give him one last chance maybe it'll give them the opportunity to instruct their own solicitor.
@dave_h - sometimes out of control dogs cause problems. That's not shit happening, it's completely unavoidable. As for "going too fast to deal with the unexpected" - do you only ever ride your bike at 1mph? Anything could happen at any time.
@dh - I think the fact that it's strict liability in Scotland maybe makes a difference here. Given no-win no-fee solicitors only take things on if they feel they have a pretty certain chance of winning, and they're keen to do so, maybe it's more clear cut than you reckon.
@stevehine - I realise I've not mentioned the state of the dog. It seemed fine, but very scared. From the photos he's sent me, it has lost a thin line of hair on its right flank and nothing more.
The simple fact is that dogs must be on leads, as confirmed.
Not under Scots law. They must be under control. Close control around livestock. One way of doing this is a lead but a well trained dog and a careful owner need not use a lead.
I know the spot this has happened. I bet the owner just let an excited dog out of a car and it ran out onto the WOL walkway which is a main cycle route with signs asking owners to control dogs. Its uphill IIRC as well that stretch so even a racing snake like munrobiker will not be going that fast
A careful owner would not have let that happen - either the dog is called back or it doesn't run off until told to. One on the main path sight lines are good so its no issue generally
as it was still to fast to deal with the unexpected
I watched someone who was stationary on a bike get rear-ended at traffic lights recently. Their fault as well I guess, for not having eyes in the back of their head to see the electric car. Just a light tap, so no damage. But still.
Personally, I’d be getting on with my life and chalking it up “sometimes shit happens”.
Which is fine until munrobiker gets landed with a vet bill for several hundred pounds.
Lawyer up!
I could say to him “I’ve spoken to a solicitor and they told me you have a strict liability to keep your dog under control, so are liable here. You can pay up now or I’ll instruct them to proceed”. Or I could just instruct them and crack on with it.
Have you actually spoken to a solicitor, or just read TJ's posts?
I'd go go straight to your BC/CUK membership if you have it and let them advise/deal with it.
You've done the reasonable thing here and offered them a cheap-ish way to resolve it. If they don't accept that then things only get worse than that for you (either they expect some sort of negotiation, or they're going to bill you for all the dogs bills).
If you don't go to your BC/CUK solicitor and 3rd party insurance (or home insurance) now then you might find there's nothing they can do because you've inadvertently said something silly like "I'm not injured just pay for the gps" thinking you're being the good guy, but in saying that your insurance/no-win-no-fee will no longer cover it as there's no money in it for them.
@tjagain - it was nearer the canal, so not out of a car - their dogs were running loose in the dells. You're right - it was uphill. And I, naturally, don't treat the WoL as a stretch for training in heart rate zone twenty or whatever - it's a shared use path and a nice way out of the city!
TINAS - yeah, I spoke to a proper lawyer this morning.
@squirrelking I have not said anything about rinsing, all I said was that if they had to pay vet bills then there's a lesson to be learned. But, you know what, once again cyclists are being demonised by the public and treated as the lowest of the low. As I said way back, it's worth talking with the local council about this to ascertain if there's been any previous incidents/accidents and really whether it's on their radar in any shape or form. Add the local councillor to the list, local cycling club too. Stats would be very useful as would even an informal chat to path users to see if anything useful could be gleaned.
Not under Scots law. They must be under control.
I was going by this:
Crucially, they confirmed that there’s a strict liability to keep a dog under control and a dog off a lead like this in Scotland next to part of the National Cycle Network would break that.
Combined with the clarity of the Highway Code, I'd be interested to see how that can be interpreted differently.
Tinas - look at munrobikers post above - he has.
hightensiononline - its just that that is how its described in the law . A dog that walks to heel on command and that returns to call reliably is under control. This dog did not meet that standard. It was not under control.
– it was uphill. And I, naturally, don’t treat the WoL as a stretch for training in heart rate zone twenty or whatever
I've got to ask it, you were going uphill, at 4.8mph, the dog hit you sideways, how did you end up over the bars?
This is just personal understanding, and the problem with statements, it can confuse the life out of folks!
Totally agree about that actual dog control, but just wondering why this would not be relevant:
56
Dogs. 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 or horse riders.
Is it not a shared path?
I understand people want to let their dogs off their leads, so do that in a suitable area - a field or private garden, for example.
hightensiononline – its just that that is how its described in the law . A dog that walks to heel on command and that returns to call reliably is under control. This dog did not meet that standard. It was not under control.
Only you can’t accurately state that as fact.
From the other perspective, “munrobiker was riding his bike too fast taking the dog walker by surprise and not giving the opportunity to call the dog to heal”.