[Closed] Dogs biting

So what speed do you consider is not "flying" speed?

I would love to know just in case

The same as for any other circumstance that you might meet - a speed at which you can stop under control. Anything else and you are not in control of the bike...

.... and for all the legalistic macho posturing on this thread about dogs being under control, I am sure that there are a lot of riders who are not in control of their bikes when they are riding on public trails - and therefore have an obligation to be able to give way. 👿

I stand corrected - "Animal cruelty and property issues aside...". Thanks rkk01

My point is that a chastising kick would not be an unreasonable response to being bitten.

And that [u]a dogs's behaviour is the responsibility of the owner[/u].

had an experience with our beardie. was getting him out of car and on lead when 2 dogs came bounding round the corner and ended up attacking him. After dragging them off him, and putting him back in car, the owner came round corner and demanded to know why I was manhandling her dogs. After a quick briefing , she started to blame us because we had our dog on a lead ???? and apparently this would of been a reason for her dog to attack. After pointing out to her this was stupid and that her dogs needed to be kept under better control, she told us that her dogs were perfectly under control. With that one of them ran off straight in to the path of a car ...luckily the driver managed to brake hard and it just glanced off it. She then tried to blame us for that too. Stupid c**t (yes I did call her that)
Some people are just so unbelievably ignorant

Somehow, this has reminded me of the old Guardian 'Points of view' TV advert...
[url=

clicky[/url]

See Singletrack in an issue or two for a feature on trail dogs...

I don't have a dog, but I like them and always approach them without fear for a pat. So far I've never been savaged...

anagallis_arvensis - Member

TJ the law states "reasonable" grounds for being in fear of harm from the dog. My dog could run circles around you annoying you but it wouldnt be dangerously out of control, just stupid.

Wrong

That is under the dangerous dogs act for a dog "dangerously out of control". As pointed out to you several times by me and others, other bits of law, case law and guidance from the kennel club and so on all make it clear that for a dog to be under control it must be on a lead or at heel or coming immediately to heel when called.

Two different things

"dog dangerously out of control" in which case the dog can be put down and "dog not in control" which is a lower level offence. The dog must not cause a nuisance or annoyance.

Sorry - you simply are wrong and your darling mutts should be under control - on a lead, at heel or immediately coming to heel ( or dropping on the spot) when called - or well trained so they ignore other people / bicycles.

So its simple - train your dogs prperly so they are not a nuisence or put them on a lead

TJ, are you making up your own laws here?

And we haven't even covered the subject of dogs shitting everywhere yet.

Nope hainey Have a read thru mine and druidhs posts on this thread. Everything is explained in simple words for the hard of thinking

I've read the posts but there isn't actually any laws quoted really is there? Just your interpretation?

TJ, are you making up your own laws here?

Actually, TJ's posts have been very enlightening - I interpret them thus...

...should TJ* be riding down a footpath across my land, it would be entirely appropriate for my large and defensive farm dog to be large and defensive towards him 😉

* aware that this would require a southwards border transgression....

Thats because its all derived from case law and codes of conduct. SLike the highway code - much of it is advisory but if you are not driving in accordance with the advise and come unstuck then you have damaged your defense.

You may not want to believe it but you have a clear legal obligation to keep your dog under control and that is usually defined as I state above.

Some legal stuff
[url= http://www.doglaw.co.uk/legal.php ]here[/url]

and some more [url= http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/Environment/AnimalWelfare/ResponsiblePetOwnership/ResponsibleDogOwnership/DogsLaw.htm ]here[/url]

Your legal responsibilities as a dog owner are:

•do not allow your dog to stray
•ensure your dog wears a collar with an identity tag bearing your name and address while in a public place
•keep your dog on a lead on all roads
•ensure your dog does not cause a nuisance to your neighbours by barking
•keep your dog under control at all times
•pick up your dog's faeces and dispose of it in the bin
•be aware of local byelaws within the parks - do not walk your dog in the "no dog areas" of the park.

that enough for you hainey

So its not law? And you are just cherry picking various bits of data from various websites. Ok, as long as we are straight.

Don't get me wrong, i completly agree that if a dog is being aggressive towards someone and does not come when called then that is clearly wrong, however there are a lot of people out there who have a sh*t fit when a dog comes within 10metres of them and are part of the problem. You sound like you are one of those people and maybe some councilling would help your phobia?

Bikepawl,

Not disagreeing with any of that, even if it is not UK law. I think that is just specific to Lambeth under the DCO agreements.

hainey - Member
So its not law? And you are just cherry picking various bits of data from various websites. Ok, as long as we are straight.

this looks to be like a law
Dogs Act 1871
The Dogs Act 1871 allows anyone to make a complaint to a magistrate's court that a dog is dangerous, or to report the matter to the police. If the court is satisfied that a dog is dangerous and not under proper control, it can order the dog to be controlled or destroyed. It is an offence for any dog not to be kept under control, not kept on a lead or muzzled. This applies where the incident happened, including on private land, and it protects trades people such as postal workers, who are regularly at risk from dogs.

The act is not commonly known, so if you want to make a complaint using the legislation it may help to mention the act to police officers.

Looks like there is a lot more but it is covered by local councils

Your right in one respect I'm not happy around dogs something to do with the lack of training from some owners so the dog appears to be an irrational creature, that and the arrogance of some owners when a polite request is made of them to keep their dogs under control. Oh and I'm allergic to them, it brings me out in anaphalatic shock.

Your right in one respect I'm not happy around dogs something to do with the lack of training from some owners so the dog appears to be an irrational creature, that and the arrogance of some owners when a polite request is made of them to keep their dogs under control. Oh and I'm allergic to them, it brings me out in anaphalatic shock.

Ok, so for you, its a big issue because of your own personal issues.

There is a clear distinction between a dangerous dog and a friendly dog and to go around assuming that all dogs are dangerous is just wrong and part of the problem.

You may not want to believe it but you have a clear legal obligation to keep your dog under control

I don't believe that anyone disputes the legal obligation for dog owners to keep their animals under control - the debate seems to be around what consitutes being "under control".

The undisputable state of "under control" is on a lead, and this is often what judges will consider. However, whilst that might be entirely appropriate in an urban park, circumstances on farmland, woodland, moor or mountain would be different, in practice, if not under the law.

It seems to me that some of the posters on here have a very strong liking for a self serving definition of what consitutes "under control".

I once went out with a girl who loved biting. She also wanted to be punched. Wierd girl. It didn't last as I didnt like the thought of entering a boxing ring at carnal-moment time 🙄

rkk01

It seems to me fairly clear that under control is on a lead OR at heel - or coming to heel/ stopping on command. A well trained dog does this

I don't want them on a lead at all times - but I do want that when I ring my bell the owner calls the dog and the dog responds to the call. I don't want the dog running up to me - friendly or not. I don't want it "playing" and chasing the bike - I want it to leave me alone as I leave it alone.

Yes it is a big issue, dogs coming running up to me sending dog hair down my throat, I like to keep breathing. So they should keep their dog away from me when I politely request them to. The usual reply is he's just being friendly, I don't care whether he's being friendly or trying to sell me a timeshare, I don't want them near me.

There are people who are afraid of dogs who might find it useful to have some sort of familiarisation training. On assessment it might be deemed that some of these people have a phobia or other illness.

I don't think it's right to say that people who are afraid of out-of-control dogs are part of the problem any more than it's right to say that people who are afraid of burglars somehow contribute to burglary. Children who are afraid of "playful" dogs are not part of the problem either. It's irresponsible dog owners.

Dog owners should have the awareness that not everyone likes to be in close proximity to their animals and keep them under control. That means walking to heel or on a lead. It's not acceptable to believe that people should tolerate someone's dog running round their feet, trying to sniff their testicles, licking their hands, putting their paws on their chest (just playing) or biting them.

TandemJeremy, you and I know very well that the law is not as black and white as that. There are plenty of room for interpretation and if you tried to take someone to court over a dog coming near or running around you then the police would tell you to stop being so ridiculous. You would have to prove that the dog was of considerable threat/danger and out of control which is quite difficult. If a dog running around in a non threatening manner having FUN and you say I feel threatened or rambling on about out of control dog and the law the chances are people will think your just a grumpy old sod (are you :wink:).

If you have a real dislike for dogs or a phobia then your judgement is going to be heavily bias and clouded to any given dog related situation. I think you stereotype people and are very biased in your opinion with matters regarding dogs.

By your own admission you say have only been bitten twice in the last ten years and granted twice is to much. But you would think that its a daily/weekly occurrence. I think you need to look at your attitude towards dogs and be realistic about the chances that dog is likely to come near at some point the future. Its how you deal with it that makes the difference.

Cars are meant to pass cyclists and give the same room as they would another car, do they? No. If I tried to take someone to court over them endangering my life by driving to close there is a very high chance that I wouldn't even get near a court never mind a prosecution.

Relax and don't let it bother you so much, you'l have a much happier time if you do!

BikePawl - why dont you like dogs? Bad experience from your childhood? (Serious question)

I'm allergic to them, Hora.

Ah, thats a good reason.

And having one bite you as a child would be a less good reason, or I just don't like the lack of control some show any the less.

rkk01

It seems to me fairly clear that under control is on a lead OR at heel - or coming to heel/ stopping on command. A well trained dog does this

I don't want them on a lead at all times - but I do want that when I ring my bell the owner calls the dog and the dog responds to the call. I don't want the dog running up to me - friendly or not. I don't want it "playing" and chasing the bike - I want it to leave me alone as I leave it alone.

Agreed. I got distracted, but I was going to add that as long as your expectation for the dog owners exercise for control is matched by your own exercise of control of your vehicle, then everyone will be happy...

And I agree a lot of dog owners are irresponsible and don't control their animals. But, at the end of the day, they are animals, and startled by a bike, the bike could be a major factor in the owners ability to control the dog - as per the references to horses further up the thread.

Unfortunately, for as many dog owners we meet who don't exercise control, we meet as many mtbers who would prefer to continue down a trail rather than give way, slow down or accomodate other users. (and I know that you said you slow down etc.)

This thread appears to be approaching a sense of proportion.

Someone mention the Nazis.

Ooops. I just did.

Thank you rikk I am well in control of my bike - and I am a polite rider as those who ride with me will testify. I use a bell to warn dog owners of my approach.

sherry - you are the one taking this to extremes - there is a clear legal responsibility to keep the dog under control and as I describe is seen to be a reasonable definition of under control as in the many references I gave earlier and in various codes of conduct. Its actually more lax than the definition in the Scottish access code.

I passed a couple of dozen dogs today without incident - ringing my bell in plenty of time and the dogs owners took the necessary steps - from letting the wise old collie just meander along on its own confident it wouldn't bother me to restraining the dog. I thanked every one of the owners - as I always do.

I have had to make emergency stops to avoid hitting dogs on numerous occasions - and I have never run one over as I was riding with control.

I do try not to be a hypocrite on this.

TandemJeremy, to be fair that does sound pretty responsible & reasonable to me. If everyone was a little more polite and considerate to each other then day to day life would be a lot less stressful.

You should hear us when we go out - often with bikepawl. ting ting on the bell ( if I'm in front - bikepawl calls "ding a ling - I'm too tight to buy a bell") "just letting you know we are here" "may we squeeze past please" "thankyou" "lovely day" repeat half a billion times on each ride - I get sick of saying it! Its all good PR tho.

I don't want them on a lead at all times - but I do want that when I ring my bell the owner calls the dog and the dog responds to the call. I don't want the dog running up to me - friendly or not. I don't want it "playing" and chasing the bike - I want it to leave me alone as I leave it alone.

All good and perfectly fair but you still fail to understand that the law doesnt support you in this. Can you give any example of anyone anywhere who has been prosecuted when their dog failed to sit on command or return to the owner straight away, that doesnt involve livestock or roads.

It seems to me fairly clear that under control is on a lead OR at heel - or coming to heel/ stopping on command. A well trained dog does this

You do realise that it must be about 1 in 1000 dogs that would do this everytime dont you? My dogs amongst the best trained of the pets I see on a regular basis and she will not sit or come back if a cat, rabbit, squirrell or deer is spotted.

 

TJ out of interest how many peds wiyhout dogs fail to respond to your bell?

Is this thread actually real, or is there a script somewhere generating the same arguments each time the subject comes up?

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the big chainring and the studs on mountain bike shoes designed to be used on aggressive dogs.

Attacked last year by a young Alsatian no way was i hanging around to get details, both owners were struggling to control it - I was stationary when it bit me.

Hard to say - some for sure but not many

A lot of this is on a fairly wide shared use path - if the ped is on the edge of the path then there is plenty of room to get by - its about 10 - 12 ft wide so most but not all of the ipoded up joggers go on the edge so it doesn't really matter if they hear me. Its fairly rare I get balked completely

I tend to ting it once from a distance away - its one of those little single ting bells - and ring it more and more the nearer I get until tehy notice - or if they are on the edge I just zoom by.

I did sneak up behind someone with an Ipod on a narrow section - he hadn't heard the bell and I had no room to get past - as I got right behind him I shouted "HELLO!" he went about 10 ft high 🙂

In the good old days when I was a cyclist, I used to amuse myself be ringing bells at peds and wtach them quizzicaly look at each other, then I rang it again and they would usually look up at the sky, finally when closer behind and riding at walking pace I'd give a blast of hope mini howl and they would jump into the hedges.

AA - missed a couple of your posts above - if your dog will not come back when called it is not under control and thus should be on a lead.

This is a clear definition of your legal responsibilities - you simply are not allowed to have a dog off a lead unless it is properly trained - and clearly yours are not. I have one pal with dogs - his do this.

Sherry says his dogs do

I see lots of dogs out and about and many are trained properly - they don't chase things and return when called. I saw a chap the other day with 3 dogs - as I came past he called "down" and all three dropped on the spot.

From DEFRA

Something as simple as your dog chasing, barking at or jumping up at a person or child could lead to a complaint, so ensure that your dog is under control at all times

druidh - Member

a_a - From the Scottish Outdoor Access Code (produced to assist comprehension of the PRSA 2003)...

the Code defines ‘under close control’ to mean that your dog responds to your commands and is kept close at heel

From DEFRA

Something as simple as your dog chasing, barking at or jumping up at a person or child could lead to a complaint, so ensure that your dog is under control at all times

That a completely different kettle of fishes. and codes are called codes for a reason. So I'll say again show my one example of an owner of a dog having charges bought against him for a dog not walking to heel, coming immediately when called or sitting on command because some other person was demanding it.

paragraph 3.55 about keeping dogs under control

keeping your dog under close control or on a short lead will help to avoid causing them concern.

is about as close as it gets to your version/hope of what is law.

I see lots of dogs out and about and many are trained properly - they don't chase things and return when called. I saw a chap the other day with 3 dogs - as I came past he called "down" and all three dropped on the spot.

Mine would "wait" under those circumstances easy enough, unless she shied away from the bike if you were going a bit quick, doesnt meen she'd not chase a bunny though and doesnt mean the chaps dogs you saw wouldnt either

There is also the worry about Racoons. Have people thought about them? Nasty critters.

those black and white things are badgers hora - 'ard as f00k 😳

Aa - Both statements are official guidance on what the law means - so whilst not the law itself it is the accepted and official interpretation of the law. Whilst you wouldn't be prosecuted for a breach wiothout a complaint, if someone made a complaint or raised a civil action you would have very little defence if you were not in accordance with the codes / advice. Same as the highway code.

No matter how you wish it your legal responsibilities are clear and you seem not to want to accept them.

Friend called me last week. He stumbled out of a club in SWest London and was attacked by a pack of rabid Wombles whilst crossing a park.

He promised me he wasnt drunk. High but definitely not drunk.

tj look at the link, find the mentions of dogs, read what it says about when a dog should be under close control then report back on your findings

Ski - in answer to your query, well ask my dog. I would say any speed that catches her unaware and startles. ie just like any other user of public areas, when you approach a dog you should make it aware of your presence

This Code has been approved by Ministers and the Scottish
Parliament. The detailed guidance in the Code should help to
ensure that few problems arise. However, if there is a
problem, the Code is expected to be a reference point for
determining whether a person has acted responsibly. For
example, where a dispute cannot be resolved and is referred
to the Sheriff for determination, the Sheriff will consider
whether the guidance in the Code has been disregarded by
any of the parties. In this sense, the Code may be said to have
evidential status.

Access rights extend to people with dogs, provided that the
dog(s) are “under proper control

A short lead is taken to be two metres and “under close control” means that the dog is able to respond to your commands and is kept close at heel.

TJ rather than cutting and pasting unrelated sections, go back and find out where a dog has to be under close control. You can just keep wriggling or you can admit your wrong I dont mind which.

oops

oops 2

Or you can admit you are wrong as you clearly are. I take your point - the code mentions "proper control" which is undefined and "close control" which is and is directly referred to for some places. Close control means the dog must be at heel.

However it still does not alter that many places define a dog under control as on a lead, at heel or coming to command - as in the earlier references I gave. If your dog is running around and does not come to command then it is not in control. Your dog is not allowed to scare or annoy anyone nor be a nuisence

Wriggle all you like - you know you are in the wrong. Open your mind and your eyes, train your dogs properly and be a responsible dog owner. Thats all I ask.

Dog should be under close control around livestock, should not shit on the carrots, not run onto football pitches or run around roads. It doesnt say it has to be under close control in all public spaces. Close control is how you define the dog should behave in all public spaces. So you are clearly wrong. The dog is allowed to scare you if you are scared of dogs and you have no reasonable grounds to be scared by what the dog is doing, so if its not running at you directly or jumping up or similar the fact that you dont like dogs doesnt make it illegal.

What does proper control mean? I dont think it means I have to call my dog from her lawful wandering just because your scared of her or dont want to give way to her on your bike.

Dog should be under close control around livestock, should not shit on the carrots, not run onto football pitches or run around roads. It doesnt say it has to be under close control in all public spaces. Close control is how you define the dog should behave in all public spaces. So you are clearly wrong. The dog is allowed to scare you if you are scared of dogs and you have no reasonable grounds to be scared by what the dog is doing, so if its not running at you directly or jumping up or similar the fact that you dont like dogs doesnt make it illegal.

What does proper control mean? I dont think it means I have to call my dog from her lawful wandering just because your scared of her or dont want to give way to her on your bike.

Way, way too many total idiots like you around with dogs. At best irritating, at worst downright dangerous.

Hows it dangerous if its not being dangerous?

I'm with AA on this. If you are scared of dogs then that is your issue to deal with. People have all kinds of phobias and have to deal with it.

If the dog is acting dangerously and barking and growling at you then that is the owners issues and the dogs needs controlling.

Badgers have a strict union code though. They are only allowed to attack at night.

FunkyDunc - Member

Ski - in answer to your query, well ask my dog

Next time I see you dog I will do FD 😉

btw, I have nothing agianst dogs or dog owners, most I pass are polite, keep there dogs under control and I always thank them when I pass if they do.

For me its the irresponsible owners that need the training, if all dog owners and cyclists for that matter, took responsibility for there actions, there would be no issues.

As for badgers, dont mess, hard as nails!

A Badger on a recent nightride

[img] [/img]

As I said earlier, I am not worried about my dog running up to cyclists, as I mainly walk him on footpaths, so I shouldn't see any bikes 😉

As for 'I am scared of dogs, so if one approaches me its out of control' argument, so if someone is scared of cars, does that mean that everyone driving past that person is driving without due care and attention? and should get 3-5 points?

If you are that scared of dogs, you really need to get some mental healthcare assistance as it ain't right.

What does proper control mean? I dont think it means I have to call my dog from her lawful wandering just because your scared of her or dont want to give way to her on your bike.

I have not said either of these things. It just suits your argument to make out I am behaving irrationally.

Clearly it is not lawful for the dog to wander freely without control, clearly I have the right not to be annoyed by your dog coming up to me friendly or not. Its not that I am scared of dogs - [b]its I do not like nor trust them and I don't want your dog coming up to me[/b] and clearly in law that is my right. Your dog must not cause annoyance or be a nuisance. You keep using the definition of "dangerously out of control" as the only thing you need to do - that is not so. As well as this legal responsibility you also have a responsibility not to let your dog be an annoyance of nuisance.

As I have explained several times on this thread I give dog owners plenty of warning of my presence to allow them to get the dog under control

Dog owners on this thread keep on saying that I should learn how to deal with dogs. Thats simply not the way it works. I don't have to - you should have your dog under proper control and it should not cause annoyance or nuisance to anyone. This is not a criminal but a civil matter

From DEFRA

Something as simple as your dog chasing, barking at or jumping up at a person or child could lead to a complaint, so ensure that your dog is under control at all times

All I ask is that you behave within the law, keep your dog under control and stop it being a nuisance to others. Teh dog does not have the right to come up to me - conversely I have the right to go about my lawful business without being bothered by your dog in any way.

annoyance of nuisance.

How would you define that?

TJ, other people who have phobias get them under control with help, i am sure you can do the same. I have known Agrophobics and Arachnophobics who have both got their fears under control with the help of relaxation techniques. There are some good websites out there which offer advice.

In general, I'm in agreement with TJ, that dogs should be kept under control (disagree with the kicking the puppy though). But TJ, you do seem to expect everyone else to conform to your own definitions of "control, nuisance and annoyance."

Hainey - I don't know why you persist in this. It simply is neither the case nor relevant. I have the right not to be bothered by your dog - keep it under control and It won't bother me and you remain withing the law.

YOu want to label me as irrational so as to be able to dismiss my legitimate wish not to be bothered by your dog.

Taylor - that is the best definitions I can find as defined by case law and such people as DEFRA

TJ, i think the problem stems deeper for you though. It sounds like you freak out as soon as you see a dog off leash even if that dog is not acting aggressively, barking, jumping up etc. This is your problem to deal with in the shared countryside and your phobia is the problem not the dog.

As already stated, if the dog is being agressive, being dangerous or jumping up at you then this is not acceptable and is the responsibility of the owner to keep that dog away from you.

There are a lot of people in the world who suffer with irrational fears such as the fear of cats - Ailurophobia. This doesn't mean though that they can insist on all cats been kept in doors or off the streets because they may encounter one.

I think everyone understands that you have issues, no one is critising the issue, but you need to learn that your irrational fear of dogs is not the dogs fault.

I liked the rule that (in Texas) that if you felt threatened by a dog whilst out in public you could report it and request it be put down.

It made dog owners very polite - unlike here where on numerous occasions a boot aimed at a nippy dog has then led to stand up arguments with the dog owner.

Hainey - stop inventing things about me. Its not a phobic fear.

I do not have an irrational fear of dogs. I have a dislike of dogs and I don't want them coming up to me. I don't have "issues" about this. I understand what phobias are.

I have an absolute right not to be bothered by your dog - and that includes the dog approaching me even in a friendly manner.

You are continuously inventing things and claiming I have said them in order to rubbish my arguments and to justify your stance to yourself.

You are mixing up too things - you must keep your dog under control as laid down in the dangerous dogs act and that is as you define. this is criminal law.

You also have a civic duty to keep your dog under control and this is civil law - under that your dog must not cause annoyance or nuisance to anyone.

TJ,

I'm not critising you, I'm trying to help you out here as you obviously have a problem with dogs, i have a dislike of next door neighbours kids but i don't go around kicking them when they approach me in their little police uniforms trying to arrest me. We live on a small island and share a lot of our public places and unfortunately if you are not able to admit to yourself that you have a problem then your issues will continue.

Have a think about it.

Hainey - don't patronise me.

I do not kick dogs when they approach me - another thing you have invented about me. I only kick then after they have bitten. Twice in my life IIRC

I do not have a problem here at all. I am not phobic or fearful or have problems here. I just don't want your dog to appracoach me as is my legal right.

Ok, you don't have a problem. Carry on as normal! 🙄

Hainey, I take it you are trolling? Like TJ I don't dislike dogs, in fact I like a well trained one with a non-numpty owner who has taken some time to discipline it. I just don't like strange dogs jumping on me/terrorising my young children/scratching my car etc, etc, even if it is having 'fun'.

This from the NFU website:

If your dog misbehaves you may be liable for a fine, and in some cases your dog may be destroyed, says Christen Mulingani from Roythorne and Co, an NFU Legal Panel firm.

Dogs play an integral part in country life, whether as family pets or members of a working team. We are familiar with the financial and moral responsibilities that dog ownership entails, but what are the legal obligations?

Damage or injury caused by a dog is indirect. As such, liability is based on the law of negligence, that is, the failure to prevent damage that was reasonably foreseeable. In terms of injury to humans, dogs (other than specific breeds named in the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991) are categorised as a non-dangerous species. This means the starting point in law is that any injury they cause is unexpected and not foreseeable. Therefore, for an owner to be negligent, he must be aware that either the dog has specific behavioural characteristics or that particular circumstances exist that make it likely to behave aggressively.

The principles of negligence allow, however, that where a person has contributed to his own injury, by provoking the dog for example, then the negligence of the owner is reduced. Liability is also reduced where the victim, in full knowledge of the circumstances, voluntarily accepts the risk of injury. This does not extend to employees, where the risk of injury is incidental to their employment. A groom bitten by the yard's dog is not taken as having voluntarily assumed the risk.

These principles are well illustrated by considering a dog owner's obligations towards a stranger. If the dog is not characteristically aggressive and not kept specifically for protection of property or persons, then the owner is unlikely to be held liable for any injury caused to a stranger on the grounds that such damage could not reasonably have been foreseen.

Contrast this with injury caused by a guard dog, in which case the owner should be aware of the dog's heightened level of aggression towards any stranger. As the potential for injury can be foreseen, this owner is expected to take reasonable steps to ensure that he has sufficient control over his dog so its ability to cause damage is limited. He may be found liable for any injury caused, unless the person can reasonably expect a guard dog to be present on the land and the level of injury inflicted by the dog is proportionate to the circumstances. The owner should certainly warn people of the dog's presence, but this in itself will not release him from liability if the level of aggression is excessive. The Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 allows dogs that appear to be dangerous and not kept under proper control to be destroyed, and this extends to dogs on private property.

Appropriate control is the key to responsible dog ownership. In the countryside, it is reasonable to expect owners to be aware of the presence of livestock and of the heightened risk posed by their dog when not on their own land. There is specific legislation centred around the worrying of cattle and sheep. This is where a dog is at large (ie, not on a lead or under close control) in a field or enclosure and is running among livestock so as to alarm them. Actual pursuit need not be proved.

The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act of 1953 provides that the owner or person in charge of a dog that worries livestock is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000. The court may also order the dog to be destroyed and the owner disqualified from having a dog for a specified period. Owners should also be aware that where their dog trespasses onto another's land and poses a threat to his livestock, that person will have justification to kill, shoot or injure the dog. Interestingly, whereas one cannot shoot a dog for an attack on a human once that attack has ceased, it is a defence to shoot a dog that has been worrying livestock, has not left the vicinity, is not under the control of any person and where there is no practicable means of ascertaining to whom it belongs.

So what are our obligations as dog owners?
We should be aware of our dog's characteristics and any specific circumstances that could incite its natural aggression. If we have, or should have, reason to believe that our dog is a danger to others, we have the responsibility to prevent, as far as possible, such danger from occurring.

Your dog should always be kept under appropriate control. You are expected to have regard for the type of damage your dog might inflict and its seriousness. A collar with your details inscribed is required in public places, and will prevent your dog being treated as a stray and seized, should it be caught trespassing.

Essentially, all the law requires is that we undertake to be responsible dog owners, and exercise awareness, foresight and common sense.

I've never kicked a dog either, although I have punched one in the face several times after it chased someone elses sheep into the Atlantic 😥

I don't think anyone can dispute that a dog jumping up, chasing, barking, growling, nipping, biting is unacceptable. The grey area is how close to you is deemed too close.

More often than not people I pass want to stroke my dog, this makes it difficult for her to know what she is meant to be doing, even though she goes to training most weeks. Do I say hello to these people or not?

I make a point of evaluating anybody coming towards us, any young children will have her brought to heel. Excited children and I will keep hold of her until they pass. Smiling cooing faces and I leave her be.
Dogs body language is so easy to read and I suppose I spend lot's of our walking time watching it. If she focuses on a jogger for example I whistle, she looks at me and fogets the jogger and gets back to sniffing.

As has been mentioned before it is deeply embarrassing if your dog misbehaves.

Bedmaker, not trolling no.

As i and a lot of dog owners have mentioned, aggressive, dangerous dogs who are out of control and jumping up at people are not acceptable and the owners of such dogs should be told so. I think everyone agrees on that.

But a lot of the problems also stem from peoples fear of dogs, for example there is a local National Trust area near to me where dogs are allowed off leash, its a great place for them, hills, rivers, mud etc. Some times at these places you get families who like TJ obviously don't like dogs, hate them in fact. There actions of screaming everytime they see a dog is inappropriate and is a cause of the problem.

Bagstard - thank you - you understand and you sound like a responsible owner with a well trained dog.

Some times at these places you get families who like TJ obviously don't like dogs, hate them in fact. There actions of screaming everytime they see a dog is inappropriate and is a cause of the problem.

No - its the dogs behaviour that causes the problem here - this is what you fail to see. The family has an absolute right not to be approached by your dog, you only have the right to let your dog run around free so long as it is not causing annoyance or nuisance.

Get your dogs properly trained and be a responsible dog owner

As i and a lot of dog owners have mentioned, [s]aggressive, dangerous[/s] dogs who are out of control and jumping up at people are not acceptable and the owners of such dogs should be told so. I think everyone agrees on that.

Hainey - corrected your post for you.

I have a dislike of dogs and I don't want them coming up to me.

TJ can you quantify this, how do you define coming up to you, heading towards you in general? and how close do you consider it unacceptable for a dog to be to you, 1 meter?, 10 meters?, 100 meters?

As if its over 5 meters, I think everyone is going to agree you need some professional help, under 5 meters and you are in a grey area (as the dog could be trying to get past you to see something interesting and you are in the way) < 1 meter and I feel you have a point.

Also from this statement

Get your dogs properly trained and be a responsible dog owner

I take it you have never owned a dog? they are not machines and hence are not 100% reliable or in control, as they are a living, breathing, thinking being with there own drives and urges. You can influence them, yes, but totally control them, no. and if you think you can you are a muppet. For example ask any responsible dog owner if they would leave their dog alone with a young child, regardless of how well trained it is.