You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
If dog owners can’t control their dogs they should have them on a lead. Simples.
I’ve been nipped twice. Once by a collie type dog on a farm, a few rides later it tried again and got a chance pedal in the mush, hasn’t happened since.
Other time was some silly bint’s dog in local woods. It clamped onto my shoe enough to hurt my foot a bit. Silly cow comes along with a facial expression suggesting she probably wasn’t going to be troubling Mensa any time soon.
”Um, he doesn’t really like bikes”.
”Should be on a lead then”.
”Um”.
Of a far more regular annoyance are the buggers who don’t clear up their dog’s shit. Most let their dogs off the lead so they can have a dump and the owner can claim they didn’t see it. Laziness and disdain for others.
Had a nice ‘interaction’ with a pillock a few years back. He was letting his dogs run all over in a local wood and thought he might have a go at me as I “wasn’t supposed to be riding there”.
When I sympathetically pointed out that, as he had his arm in a sling, it must be a real nightmare to clean up after the dogs he went a bit quiet.
I bet it had never done it before
At least next time the police will be able to check their records to see if it is a repeat offender.............
I’m puzzled by the victim blamers’ attitudes.
If you have daughters, picture them dressed up and walking home after a few drinks late at night. Drunk bloke comes up and gropes her from behind. Drunk bloke’s mate acts shocked and says he’s never done it before. Should she be happy to just shrug it off?
So that’s TJ’s immediate point addressed, now for the “running up and jumping” analogy. Daughter in same situation gets lots of “unsolicited complements” on her attractiveness yelled at her. Obviously these are only meant as complements, so no issue, right?
I wouldn't expect my daughters reaction to every person that tried to chat her up to be to kick them in the face either
Strange analogy and don't think people are saying just shrug it off but think how to react/not over react to every potentially friendly dog. Following your analogy should the daughter kick every man in the nuts who comes up in a night club to day hello?
If you have daughters, picture them dressed up and walking home after a few drinks late at night. Drunk bloke comes up and gropes her from behind. Drunk bloke’s mate acts shocked and says he’s never done it before. Should she be happy to just shrug it off?
No, totally unacceptable. Just like a dog running up to someone and attacking them is. Report to the authorities and get action taken.
But it's not victim blaming to say that while you shouldn't NEED to have a strategy to mitigate, the world's imperfect and therefore it is sensible to have one.
Are you against the Ask for Angela campaign, for example? Because we shouldn't need it?
now for the “running up and jumping” analogy. Daughter in same situation gets lots of “unsolicited complements” on her attractiveness yelled at her. Obviously these are only meant as complements, so no issue, right?
No, wrong. Because I assume the people giving the unsolicited comments are adults and therefore have the mental faculties to know right from wrong. Dogs have the mental capability of toddlers, and need to be controlled properly by their humans.... so let me counter your analogy with a different one.
If you were in a situation with your 3 year old where you saw someone with, let's say, an artificial leg, or a facial disfigurement. Your toddler might well point it out, say something? The person is clearly annoyed or embarrassed by it. How do you react? Probably to apologise and to explain to your kid why it's not appropriate. The kid will grow older and hopefully learn. A dog may not and may always want to run up to people; in that case absolutely the dog should be controlled on a lead, etc. (I'm not suggesting we gag toddlers in public by the way, we accept they say stuff out loud sometimes that we probably rather they wouldn't - I still shrivel at the thought of one of mine...)
There will always be some dog owners who respond with 'he's only a dog / being friendly / it's what they do', just as there are people who would respond to the above with 'she's only three, she doesn't know any better, get over yourself' Quite possibly the same people in both cases. Arses will always be arses.
I don’t think the night out analogy is doing this thread any favours, mainly because it is not an apt analogy.......
Friendly dogs aren’t a problem, although they can be a bit of a menace if they leap up at you and catch you off balance. But realistically I’ve never had a problem. If a dog looks ‘spirited’ I tend to stop and fuss it a bit.
What we are talking about here is irresponsible owners who just shrug their shoulders when their dog bites and/or pretend to be Mr Magoo when their dog crimps off a massive King Richard about ten yards away. A fair few of these sight-impaired owners seem to have pretty good eyesight when commenting about other people being in the woods or on the path etc. Funny that.
I'm a bit fed up with dog owners attitude to the public.
As someone who has been bitten a few times and chased many times while skiing, cycling, walking and horse riding.
A few weeks ago a dog came running up while I was cycling, starting barking aggressively. I politely asked its owner to call it back, she was quite put out. By this time I'm off the bike and have it between myself and the dog. She says it's because I'm scared and it knows. I try as politely as possible to tell her that I am indeed scared, because having been bitten many times in the past.
TJ - my sister also had a lurcher chase her and bite her while cycling.
Also I'm fed up with owners inability to train their dogs, ignore signs (mostly on NT land) where they are asked by polite notice to keep their dogs on a lead. Also allowing their animal to jump up with muddy paws, which is what happened to my mother last week. Mum didn't get an apology and she isn't able to jump away from the approaching dog as shes in her late 70's and not as nimble as myself.
Of course there are many great dog owners, who have trained their dogs and appreciate that there are non dog type people out and about, but lately they seem to be in the minority.
Dogs seem to be treated like children, spoilt, overweight and can't do anything wrong imo.
I wouldn’t expect my daughters reaction to every person that tried to chat her up to be to kick them in the face either
What if their method of chat-up was pawing and slobbering. But hey, they’re just being friendly, eh?
I don’t think the night out analogy is doing this thread any favours, mainly because it is not an apt analogy…….
It is. You can mitigate the dog’s potentially unwanted attention by putting it on a lead. Do that, problem goes away. Bit more difficult with toddlers, but they usually learn how to act around others eventually... and if they don’t, they’re usually easy to spot in adult life - they’re the ones semi-apologetically saying “he’s just being friendly” when their dog that should have been on a lead is harassing yet another person.
What if their method of chat-up was pawing and slobbering.
You’ve been out in an English market town on a Friday or Saturday evening, I take it?
Point of order
Dannyh - what I am talking about is NOT just irresponsible owners - unless you include those who let their "friendly" dogs run and jump at you
I do not want your dog in my personal space. I don't care if it is friendly or not. this is the bit dog lovers do not get. Its exactly the same to me. If you do not control your dog friendly or not I will. control your dog ( and to be clear that does not mean it has to be on a lead) or except that the dog will be controlled by me in ways you do not like but that works.
A fine example - I saw a chap walking half a dozen collies some young. I thought - this could be dodgy as I rung my bell. He simply called "down" and all the dogs dropped on the spot. those dogs did not need a lead.
OFFS - I said to myself I wouldn't comment again. This thread was really supposed to be a set up for jokes on me not rehashing arguments where dog owners simply seem incapable of understanding what we dog non owners want. go read the first page replies folks! Its much more entertaining
Calm down and buy yourself a sheep and a gun!
I do love dogs, plenty on Tinder.
This thread was really supposed to be a set up for jokes on me
Went back and reread your first post
So all of those who say you don’t get bitten if you know how to behave round dogs and its up to us to avoid confrontations with dogs explain this?
I think you got the responses you would have expected from those words, but I'll also admit you can't tell tone and nuance from just words. Sorry for missing your joke. I hope the dog has had its tetanus.
What exactly is the Edinburgh defence?
If you do not control your dog friendly or not I will.
Given the type of mouthbreathers who often cant/dontwant to control their dog this might not be the best option.
Ive said this before people in the UK are as stupidly blind over dogs as people in the US are with guns.
Man assulted whilst innocently cycling and its down to the way he cycles near the dog.
I got bitten on the arm last year running down the canal minding my own business by a massive dog. Its only a puppy was the owners excuse. Say that to the coroner when it kills a kid. My son is terrified of dogs after a "playful' one bigger than him jumped on him and knocked him down when he was younger. My 6 year old sons face is scarred from when a dog ran out from the bushes on a shared trail in front of him and he flew over the handle bars, 18 months later he still hasnt got his confidence back. Good job the trail dog thread got closed before i got chance to post on it.
Couldn't find the numbers for more recent years but 21 people including 14 children were killed by dogs in 2014, so that people could have a pet. The freedom to have a pet is worth 14 kids lives and countless injuries a year, its just wrong.
If somebody started importing a exotic animal and they caused as much death and injury as dogs they'd be banned withing weeks as the injuries and deaths started to rack up. Maybe not, the HSE would leave it and say its the baby lying its cot that got its throat ripped out fault for sleeping the wrong way near a dog.
If i had my way I'd ban them all and put down the entire uk population except working dogs. I don't see the cost in lives and injuries is balanced by benefit to society of pet dogs. I know I'm a minority, as dogs are so engrained in society that society is prepared to accept the death of children to have a pet. You lot will all wring your hands the idiots in the states and their gun laws, whilst defending your right to own an animal that can kill.
Calm down and buy yourself a sheep and a gun!
This is definitely a winning suggestion
Couldn’t find the numbers for more recent years but 21 people including 14 children were killed by dogs in 2014, so that people could have a pet. The freedom to have a pet is worth 14 kids lives and countless injuries a year, its just wrong.
Could you link to where you got those figs from please?
No, like anything - I think that there should probably be a bit more regulation and it should probably be the case that all dogs that deemed as a risk due to size and power should be muzzled.
I don't agree with trail dogs either, mostly because I get angry with owners who put their dogs at risk.
The freedom to have a pet is worth 14 kids lives and countless injuries a year, its just wrong.
That's probably a reason for introducing some kind of licensing for dogs and/or mandatory training centres. However, dogs provide health benefits as well - how many more children who end up obese because instead of being told to go out and walk the dog they sat on their arses playing xbox?
According to the ONS, 4 deaths in total in 2014.
Talk bollocks much?
The death rates aren't much different to how many pedestrians cyclists kill.
Better put you lot down then. 😀
I'd wager that the rate that mountain bikers injure and kill their kids by pointing them down black runs, isn't that far off.
Sorry got the wrong death number but hey only 8000 reported bites requiring medical treatment a year mostly on children so thats ok then.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32912084
Sorry got the wrong death number but hey only 8000 reported bites requiring medical treatment a year mostly on children so thats ok then.
It’s over 4 years.
So 2000 a year is OK then? What's a good threshold number?
0 is a good threshold.
No it's not ok. I wonder how many could have been prevented if those dogs were on leads, and how many others could have been prevented by the victims adopting different behaviour around the dog?
https://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts-figures/
Bicycles kill and injure more children than dogs.
I wonder how many could have been prevented if those dogs were on leads,
All of them
and how many others could have been prevented by the victims adopting different behaviour around the dog?
See above. Dog on lead, no need for public to adapt their behaviour because selfish dog owner can't control their dog. Simple really.
Bicycles kill and injure more children than dogs.
That's a spectacularly dumb use of statistics, even by your standards, Tom
So, we should ban children's bicycles and have schools keep children healthy through the statisically safest method.
😀
how many others could have been prevented by the victims adopting different behaviour around the dog?
The bit about the lead is the important bit.
Since I am assuming your victim blaming excludes those cases where the victim wasn't bit because they decided to use force against the out of control dog?
Last weekend I had some uncontrolled dog yap at me whilst I was riding along. I came very close to kicking it whilst its "owners" plaintively whistled in the distance, I would, hence why I restrained myself, felt guilty hurting it but ultimately the problem is with its handler who I wouldnt have felt so bad about having a full and frank exchange of views with.
@tom Like I said, spectacularly dumb. Think about what likely kills the children on the bikes, then try again.
Also, it would appear that per capita - Muslim terrorists are more dangerous to children as well, than dogs. You're child has a greater riak of getting blown up at an Arina Grande concert than being killed by a dog.
Not rrally Zokes, cars are needed for out current capitalist pig dog system to work. So the beat way to deal with the deaths would be by banning childrens bicycles. Probably cheaper than investment in better oublic transportation as well.
Pity, I thought you were smarter than that, what with you not actually flunking that basic biology exam a couple of years ago and outsmarting your tutor.
Hint - you're actually suggesting children should adapt their behaviour and not cycle near cars, rather than car drivers be more careful, especially near bikes.
Get a re-homed MWD. Obedience through the roof and ignores people. Wish I'd re-homed one sooner.
Hint – you’re actually suggesting children should adapt their behaviour and not cycle near cars, rather than car drivers be more careful, especially near bikes.
Dogs are being banned in our theoretical world because they serve no utilitarian purpose. Bicycles are also being banned because they serve no utilitarian purpose that cannot be fulfilled in a safer more controlled environment by the state. Which would be cheaper than improving cycling infrastructure.
[i]raybanwomble wrote:[/i]
Also, it would appear that per capita – Muslim terrorists are more dangerous to children as well, than dogs. You’re child has a greater riak of getting blown up at an Arina Grande concert than being killed by a dog.
Good point. Before we ban dogs we should ban Muslim terrorists.
Once we've banned the Muslim terrorists is it OK to ban the dogs?
Depends, do all dogs bite? Anyone up for odds on this conversation either going racist or speciesist?
Get a re-homed MWD. Obedience through the roof and ignores people. Wish I’d re-homed one sooner.
It's okay, they only bite peoples cocks off on command.
Actually Tom, rather than banning dogs, we should ban leads. It's almost certain that leads were nearby (but not being used) when the dog attacks occurred, so we should just ban them. Thus, following your highly flawed logic, dog attacks will stop.
Only they won't will they, just as people wont stop being killed by careless drivers if we ban bicycles. Grow up.
That's funny. Banning the lead is analogous to banning bicycle helmets and neither are contributory root causes towards the deaths of children. Where as both the bicycle and dog are contributory root causes, just as the dog owner is and the car driver.
It's just banning the bicycle is easier than making all drivers never ever make mistakes and would be the most expedient CAPA, in our dead kid scenario.
It would at least result in fewer injuries in London.
https://fullfact.org/news/it-more-dangerous-be-pedestrian-cyclist/
Another question, dogs it would appear are effective treatments for depression and suicide prevention. The literature however is pretty shit for dog vs cat comparisons, before you ****ing cat lovers says we should all get cats.
Soooo, for all those saying dogs have very little utilitarian use outside of working dogs....
https://www.asthealth.org/medications-leading-cause-accidental-poisoning-deaths-children
Maybe more waggy dogs would equal less kids ODing on your happy pills.
That’s funny. Banning the lead is analogous to banning bicycle helmets and neither are contributory root causes towards the deaths of children. Where as both the bicycle and dog are contributory root causes, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">just as the dog owner is and the car driver</span>.
There, you've finally got it - ban dog owners.
A kid can ride a bike and not be hurt by a car. A kid can't be run over by a car and not be hurt. The car is hardly contributory, it is the cause (well, the driver). Likewise, if you must, so is the dog. There may be other contributory causes, but the root cause of dog attacks is dogs (or their owners)
I have to say your new pseudonym is a distinct regression, Tom
Leads would have prevented all those injuries? Even the ones in the home?
I got nipped as a kid when I went up to my grandparents dog that was in its basket with a bone. I invaded its space and in its mind threatened to take away something valuable to it. It behaved in a wholly predictable and I'd say reasonable way, for a dog. My parents and Grandparents taught me appropriate behaviour, and it never happened again.
Victim blaming? Leads fix everything? Bullshit. Learning appropriate behaviour is entirely reasonable.
Learning appropriate behaviour is entirely reasonable.
So put your ****ing dog on a ****ing lead - this is appropriate behaviour when there are other people about unless you 100% have it at your instant control.
By the time a dog has got to a point that it’s going to kill, being on a lead only offers a modicum of control and it would be very easy for a dog to slip it’s leash. You need a straight jacket really!
”I came very close to kicking it whilst its “owners” plaintively whistled in the distance,”
Actually, if a dog has already broken its recall shouting angrily/lots of distressed energy from the owner isn’t an effective option as they’ll not be very attractive to return to. In a Broken recall scenario they should be on long line recall training before this happens.
Anyway, just taking the dog out for a poo on the neighbours garden, maybe a public footpath.
edited quite a bit, what was in my head was badly reflected by the words that came out of it.
So put your * dog on a * lead – this is appropriate behaviour when there are other people about unless you 100% have it at your instant control.
Stop ****** swearing at me - because nowhere in the 100-odd other posts on this subject, or in any other thread on it, have it disagreed with that. Go back and look and then come back and apologise.
IF YOUR DOG IS NOT 100% UNDER CONTROL IT SHOULD BE ON A LEAD. FULL STOP. IN FACT I'D EVEN BE HAPPY TO LEAD MY DOG EVEN THOUGH IT IS UNDER CONTROL IF IT MAKES PEOPLE FEEL HAPPIER, AND I HAVE WHEN I'VE WALKED WITH FRIENDS WHOSE DAUGHTER DOESN'T LIKE DOGS.
BUT - not everyone does the same and hence why is it so hard to accept that in that imperfect world it is sensible to also know what to do if a dog comes up to you, so you don't make a perfectly controllable situation into a dangerous one.
Clue: it's not run away, try to hit or kick it, or beat it senseless with a minipump. IMHO.
IF YOUR DOG IS NOT 100% UNDER CONTROL IT SHOULD BE ON A LEAD.
Is any sentient organism ever under 100 control?
if you want to go pedant mode, 100% with no decimal places would allow for 99.5% control to be considered 100%
Is it possible for a sentient being to be under control 199/200 times. Absolutely.
So yes, it is possible for a sentient being to be 100% under control. Next question 😉
Sorry Jon, I shouldn't have asterisked at you.
I take your point on knowing how to behave around dogs (or any other animal for that matter - especially fields of excitable cows). However, in the case of dogs, the mitigation in case a member of the public in a public area doesn't know how to behave around dogs is for the dog to be on a lead of a suitable variety that it can't slip it. If the dog's on a lead, and the other member of public stays further than that lead's length, then there is no way for an incident to occur.
I appreciate that you're a responsible dog owner, but sadly many are not, with results that are being discussed here.
Is it possible for a sentient being to be under control 199/200 times. Absolutely.
So yes, it is possible for a sentient being to be 100% under control. Next question
Er...dont think much of your maths.
But anyway in the real world I reckon my dog is better behaved than 90% of dogs I see when walking her and she wouldnt reach the 199/200 threshold you talk of. Not wanting an argument about me controlling my dog better, I am happy that she doesnt approach strange people or strange dogs. I just think some on here expect something that is never going to happen. Maybe like I want all car drivers to pay attention, I dont excuse the behaviour or think its right but I have to accept reality.
The teacher part of me also doesnt accept that sentient beings, like kids, can be controlled 199/200!!!
The teacher part of me also doesnt accept that sentient beings, like kids, can be controlled 199/200!!!
The parent part of me agrees re: kids! 😆 I suppose would could ban them too, but who's going to pay our pensions?
A price worth paying if IMHO
Horrid little rats! You aren’t even allowed to crate train them, absurd! Speaking of the absurd, with no young people, the murder rate would plummet rapidly.
with no young people, the murder rate would plummet rapidly.
Teenage pregnancies would also decrease substantially. I think we're on to a winner...
Double victory that!
I actually am quite keen on the licensing idea, that and making it easier for authorities to fine owners and if needed take dogs away from people.
I don’t believe you’re going to change attitudes any other way, and even with licensing I don’t think you’ll change attitudes just make it harder to own a dog. The root cause has nothing to do with dogs but a wider societal problem with people being too lazy, selfish, entitled or ignorant to take on what should be their responsibility.
Not that there’s anyone to enforce good dog ownership, so it’s a bit of a moot point.
Er…dont think much of your maths.
Go on, why not? (and your punctuation's rubbish while we're at it 😉 )
199/200 = 99.5%, no? Which if we're not using decimals rounds to 100% (you didn't use decimals, if you'd said 100.000% I'd have lost the pedant-off at that point)
Anyway, I agree - impossible to control a dog 100.0000% of the time, but putting it on a lead where necessary, or keeping it on a lead when in public places if it habitually runs up to people whether that is with malice or just inquisitiveness in mind, is a good start. (I'd even say if it is on a lead given some of the old ladies I see with GSD and other strong breeds I'd still wonder if it's really under control, but again let's not let perfect be the enemy of good)
@zokes - no worries, I'm trying to recognise that some owners let the rest of us down whether it is with behaviour or shitbags or whatever, and I really would rather they didn't. But while the situation persists, sensible to have a means to try to deal with it rather than simply say 'This shouldn't happen / wouldn't happen if it was on a lead'.
And again, I'll reflect that even if you act / react exactly as 'the experts' (oh god, another can opens) say, sometimes it can still go wrong, and then the dog and owner should be dealt with absolutely appropriately. Just the same as i can ride on the road perfectly defensively, to try to mitigate the risks of bad driving as much as I can, but there'll always be the smidsy who knocks you off despite all that.
Just the same as i can ride on the road perfectly defensively, to try to mitigate the risks of bad driving as much as I can, but there’ll always be the smidsy who knocks you off despite all that.
Hence Tom's wish to ban bikes 😉
Oh, and I reckon if you'd shot for 99.4% you'd have been on safer ground re: A_A
Is it possible for a sentient being to be under control 199/200 times. Absolutely.
So yes, it is possible for a sentient being to be 100% under control
And then
199/200 = 99.5%, no? Which if we’re not using decimals rounds to 100%
Which ever way you fudge it 199/200 does not equal 100%
putting it on a lead where necessary, or keeping it on a lead when in public places if it habitually runs up to people whether that is with malice or just inquisitiveness in mind, is a good start.
I agree and would also had that if you have a dog that chases other dogs in an aggressive manner then it should be on a lead too. But many many people are idiots and many many people who are idiots have dogs too, these people are either too stupid to realise what they are doing is wrong or are too stupid to take actions to prevent it. Going back to the op, if my dog had a thing for chasing bikes I would walk it on a bike path ffs..its not hard.
Yeh, it does.
Q. What is 199/200 as a percentage? Give your answer to the nearest whole number.
Q. What is 199/200 as a percentage?
I bet you put 110% effort into this didnt you!!
Yep. And 220 times out of 200 I've been proven right 😉
Yesterday I had a positive 'dog experience'.
Out walking (in the Torrs, New Mills, High Peak - many mtbers will know it well) I came across a German shepherd on its own. There was nowhere for me to get away from it as a river on one side and cliffs on the other. Then I spotted 2 elderly chaps behind a wall. I shouted but they couldn't hear me because they had hats, scarfs and hoods up. So I ended up walking a little closer and shouting as loud as I could. One chap called the dog over. It was so well trained, sitting straight away behind the man. He held onto the collar. He asked me was I scared of dogs and after answering he gave a proper apology.
It was great coming across an understanding dog owner with a very well trained dog. Oh how I wish there were more owners like that.