Dog Attack! - Apparently not.

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
reohn2
Posts: 45159
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Dog Attack! - Apparently not.

Post by reohn2 »

nirakaro wrote:I had an altercation with a dog in Italy a couple of months ago – dog runs in front of bike, bike hits dog, I hit ground, dog sinks teeth into my arm. Quick trip to pronto soccorso (A&E), five stitches and a week on antibiotics.
What I learned from the incident was that no amount of vinegar, pepper spray, sticks, guns or whatever would have been any use, because the whole event, from when I first saw the dog, to when I stood up and roared at it and it ran off, was over in at most five seconds – there was no time at all to do anything to discourage it.

There are bound to be incidents such as yours but more often than not the problem begins with a dog chasing the cyclist,the cyclist needs to discourage the dog from chasing,vinegar works if a bidon is prepared,we found the worst country for it and so needed a bidon full of the 50/50 mix on the tandem at all times was Portugal where there'd be packs of upto 7 or 8 dogs roaming about on the outskerts of small villages.
The last incident I had recently I stopped the bike,got off it with the bike between me and the dog and bared my teeth and growled at it(stage one),it ran back to it's owner.
Stage two would've been belting it one with the bike if it proved aggressive.
If I have a dog running along side me and the situation is favourable,it gets the boot.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
pwa
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Dog Attack! - Apparently not.

Post by pwa »

I was out walking this morning and got yelled at by an irate young male cyclist. He was effing about the black spaniel that was walking loose beside me on the lane. But the dog wasn't mine, it was straying from its base in a nearby stable yard and had nothing to do with me. I put the cyclist right, rather robustly. :lol:
reohn2
Posts: 45159
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Dog Attack! - Apparently not.

Post by reohn2 »

pwa wrote:I was out walking this morning and got yelled at by an irate young male cyclist. He was effing about the black spaniel that was walking loose beside me on the lane. But the dog wasn't mine, it was straying from its base in a nearby stable yard and had nothing to do with me. I put the cyclist right, rather robustly. :lol:

Therein lies a problem,anyone can claim a dog isn't theirs as in the UK there's no accountability:-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SnXtuktNdlM
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 13780
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Dog Attack! - Apparently not.

Post by NATURAL ANKLING »

Hi,
On the other hand when a dog hits you or trips you, that's me, the real owner disappears................silently.......
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy - Some day Soon I hope
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.
fastpedaller
Posts: 3435
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Dog Attack! - Apparently not.

Post by fastpedaller »

Update.... After the last sprinting session on 25th Aug I reported (by email as requested) and heard nothing for over a week, only getting a response when I asked for an update. The original officer is on leave, another case has been raised stating the dog chased me on the date (4th Sept) I sent the request for update (so incorrect). An officer came to see me, but was reluctant to do anything that might 'tread on another officer's toes' as the station have no record of the latest chase (did control even send it?) so I'll have to wait until original officer returns. Not looking easy to resolve :(
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Dog Attack! - Apparently not.

Post by thirdcrank »

I've tried above to describe some of the difficulties of dealing with dangerous dogs and their owners. Here's a recent incident in Leeds:-

PC and two men attacked by dogs in Leeds garden

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-45691951
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Dog Attack! - Apparently not.

Post by pete75 »

thirdcrank wrote:I've tried above to describe some of the difficulties of dealing with dangerous dogs and their owners. Here's a recent incident in Leeds:-

PC and two men attacked by dogs in Leeds garden

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-45691951


Here's a recent case in Middlesbrough. The lady attacked subsequently died and the inquest jury decided she died from natural causes “contributed to by the consequences of the dog bites while the dog was out of control”. The owners and the person in charge of the animal weren't even charged. No prizes for guessing why.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 49336.html
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Cyril Haearn
Posts: 15215
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Dog Attack! - Apparently not.

Post by Cyril Haearn »

A police dog, -99
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
9494arnold
Posts: 1208
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 3:13pm

Re: Dog Attack! - Apparently not.

Post by 9494arnold »

Now don't all rush out and buy Trikes after you read this

Few years ago I was en route to watch some road racing, there were several groups gently pedalling along the fairly quiet lane which had a row of modest bungalows with slightly raised front gardens .

There was a Jack Russell robustly sprinting across the lawn and attacking ever Cyclist that went past, going for the ankles.
He seemed to be having great fun. Anyhow our little group approached and I was kerbside on my Trike. I had slowed a little, sure enough this projectile launched himself at my ankle. In his haste he hadn't realised it was a trike, so having gone head first and then spread eagle in the back wheel he withdrew at speed and didn't bother anyone else. One bloke in the group behind us nearly fell off his bike laughing mind you. :lol:

I agree out of control dogs are an utter menace .
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Dog Attack! - Apparently not.

Post by pete75 »

Cyril Haearn wrote:A police dog, -99


Yes. When the out of control dog is owned by people who are usually exempt from law enforcement they can get away with it. The law is meant to apply to the police force as well as the general populous. That's the theory but the practice is somewhat different. It's what happens even when you have a not overly corrupt police force like ours.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 5430
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: Dog Attack! - Apparently not.

Post by Cugel »

pete75 wrote:
Cyril Haearn wrote:A police dog, -99


Yes. When the out of control dog is owned by people who are usually exempt from law enforcement they can get away with it. The law is meant to apply to the police force as well as the general populous. That's the theory but the practice is somewhat different. It's what happens even when you have a not overly corrupt police force like ours.


They close ranks and do not grass-up the other members of their gang - a strange and paradoxical reflection of the loyalty mode they denigrate in their foes. The reason given for this loyalty is that its necessary to keep the force cohesive and unafraid to apply themselves vigorously when the necessity (or even the unfettered impulse) arises.

Cugel recalling several savages by a toothy polis in my youth.
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Dog Attack! - Apparently not.

Post by thirdcrank »

This has certainly been a horrible case. I know nothing about it other than what's been in the media.

It's reported that the investigation was completed by the Independent Office For Police Conduct (IOPC) of which I have no experience. The evidence heard at the inquest was collected by them and there doesn't seem to have been any suggestion at the inquest of a cover-up. Obviously, a successful cover-up is by definition unknown, but there seem to be no allegations that aspects have been covered up.. One of the worst aspects here IMO, is that the police force which originally owned the dog and apparently knew what it was like sold it to another and that information has been discovered during the investigation. As I've mentioned above, one of the most difficult aspects of any dangerous dog investigation is the identification of the dog and its owner: that's not been a problem here.

The IOPC has instituted discipline proceedings which have been completed and also passed a prosecution file to the CPS who have decided against proceedings although the grounds for that decision don't seem to be reported. AIUI, the police involved have had no other role than as suspects.
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Dog Attack! - Apparently not.

Post by pete75 »

thirdcrank wrote:This has certainly been a horrible case. I know nothing about it other than what's been in the media.

It's reported that the investigation was completed by the Independent Office For Police Conduct (IOPC) of which I have no experience. The evidence heard at the inquest was collected by them and there doesn't seem to have been any suggestion at the inquest of a cover-up. Obviously, a successful cover-up is by definition unknown, but there seem to be no allegations that aspects have been covered up.. One of the worst aspects here IMO, is that the police force which originally owned the dog and apparently knew what it was like sold it to another and that information has been discovered during the investigation. As I've mentioned above, one of the most difficult aspects of any dangerous dog investigation is the identification of the dog and its owner: that's not been a problem here.

The IOPC has instituted discipline proceedings which have been completed and also passed a prosecution file to the CPS who have decided against proceedings although the grounds for that decision don't seem to be reported. AIUI, the police involved have had no other role than as suspects.


The point is that if the dog had belonged to a member of the public the person in control of it would have been arrested straight away and charged with having a dog dangerously out of control.
If this doesn't indicate a dog dangerously out of control then what on earth does? "Dano’s handler, PC Mark Baines, managed to get the dog to release Ms Collins from its jaw but it escaped and returned to bite her leg as she lay bleeding on the floor."
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Dog Attack! - Apparently not.

Post by thirdcrank »

pete75 wrote: ... The point is that if the dog had belonged to a member of the public the person in control of it would have been arrested straight away and charged with having a dog dangerously out of control. ...


I'm not sure that they would but in a case like this it might be counter-productive in that the custody clock would be running but the IOPC investigator might be a while in arriving. Also, an arrest is not a pre-requisite for a prosecution. I'm not sure what the current arrangements are for the CPS authorising charges, but the tests they apply - evidential and public interest - are supposed to apply in all cases.
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Dog Attack! - Apparently not.

Post by pete75 »

thirdcrank wrote:
pete75 wrote: ... The point is that if the dog had belonged to a member of the public the person in control of it would have been arrested straight away and charged with having a dog dangerously out of control. ...


I'm not sure that they would but in a case like this it might be counter-productive in that the custody clock would be running but the IOPC investigator might be a while in arriving. Also, an arrest is not a pre-requisite for a prosecution. I'm not sure what the current arrangements are for the CPS authorising charges, but the tests they apply - evidential and public interest - are supposed to apply in all cases.


Cannot a police officer initiate charges without the CPS authorising first? Another officer witnessed to whole incident and he could have cautioned and charged the dog handler.

What is supposed to happen and what actually happens are two different things.

Apparently this type of incident is not uncommon though usually not fatal. Wonder how many prosecutions there are.

https://www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index. ... ple-in-uk/
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Post Reply