Alsatian dog attack

[pete75]

That is not so, i explained the dog constantly threatened me by barking aggressively by my side [on a public highway] for around 200 meters.
I rode in fear of getting bitten at any time during the attack, and explained the dog made my ride awkward with wobbling and swerving on a 60mph national limit road with the danger of passing traffic.

What part of 'aggressive guard dog illegally loose on public highway threatening passerby cyclist' don't you understand?

I don't think it worth making all the fuss you have over such a minor incident which may or may not have been illegal. No harm was done so why turn it into such a big deal.

No big fuss here, just reported it as it happened.
It was illegal. [Fact]
Some harm was done because i suffered symptoms of shock after the guard dog attacked me.
I'm not making a big deal, i appropriately informed the police and left it to them to sort out.
The police agreed it was illegal, and thanked me for taking the time to write a statement.

Why are you so obtusely making big a fuss about it being trivial and not illegal?

It's up to a court to decide if an illegal act has been commited not the police.

I'm saying it's trivial because it is in my opinion. It's something that's happened to me on more than a few occasions over the past forty odd years of cycling in mainly rural areas. Can't say I've been overly bothered about it and see no reason to involve the police. YVMV

[Postboxer]

How many accounts on here are of people being passed to closely by cars, then of drivers saying things along the lines of 'I didn't hit you did I, no harm done'.
Then how many reports are there of cyclists being killed or seriously injured by cars that were passing too close? I'd rather the police be proactive in protecting the public rather than just reacting after a serious incident.

[slowster]

It's up to a court to decide if an illegal act has been commited not the police.

That is a fatuous remark. In that the dog was clearly out of control and the OP was threatened as a result, one or more of the relevant pieces of legislation governing the ownership and control of dogs was clearly breached. i.e. a criminal/illegal act. A verdict in a court would only be necessary if the police decided that the circumstances merited submission to the CPS for a prosecution, with the end aim of a conviction and some form of sanction/punishment, e.g. a fine etc. Of course the police do make a decision about whether an illegal act has been committed, since it's the first stage in the judicial process.

I'm saying it's trivial because it is in my opinion. It's something that's happened to me on more than a few occasions over the past forty odd years of cycling in mainly rural areas. Can't say I've been overly bothered about it and see no reason to involve the police. YVMV

The fact that the police sent an officer to speak to the dog owner indicates that they did not consider it trivial. The attitude that dogs which are out of control and threaten pedestrians and cyclists is 'trivial', is one that seems to be common amongst dog owners who are too lazy or too stupid to train and control their dogs.

[Bonefishblues]

Stuff...YVMV

Pretty much everyone else takes a different view, it seems. You're wrong on this one.

[Psamathe]

Stuff...YVMV

Pretty much everyone else takes a different view, it seems. You're wrong on this one.

Or, most of those with differing views are not bothering to post to the thread knowing what would happen (as evidenced by what has happened).

Ian

[Bonefishblues]

Stuff...YVMV

Pretty much everyone else takes a different view, it seems. You're wrong on this one.

Or, most of those with differing views are not bothering to post to the thread knowing what would happen (as evidenced by what has happened).

Ian

Possibly, but one can only judge by those who take the time and trouble to contribute, can't one? I've not noticed much reticence on here v-a-v expressing differing views - have you?

[pete75]

Stuff...YVMV

Pretty much everyone else takes a different view, it seems. You're wrong on this one.

As I say YVMV. I certainly wouldn't consider involving the police in something like this and I don't think many out of "everyone else" would either.

[Psamathe]

Pretty much everyone else takes a different view, it seems. You're wrong on this one.

Or, most of those with differing views are not bothering to post to the thread knowing what would happen (as evidenced by what has happened).

Ian

Possibly, but one can only judge by those who take the time and trouble to contribute, can't one? I've not noticed much reticence on here v-a-v expressing differing views - have you?

I must have misinterpreted your "Pretty much everyone else takes a different view, it seems."

And not just a question of "taking the time and trouble to contribute" as these threads appear periodically and are just as predictable as helmet threads so maybe whose of differing views have given up bothering.

I would have contributed more but I'd just have been repeating information that others have provided and had been ignored by the "string-em-up" contributors.

Ian

[Cyril Haearn]

Seems an unpleasant incident to me, enough reason for the dog-keeper to be given a stern talking to, to put the fear of God into him
Deliquium just reported a puncture after 43 000 miles, maybe Debs will one day be able to report many years without being scared stiff by a German Shepherd Dog (closely related to the Wolf)

[Bonefishblues]

Or, most of those with differing views are not bothering to post to the thread knowing what would happen (as evidenced by what has happened).

Ian

Possibly, but one can only judge by those who take the time and trouble to contribute, can't one? I've not noticed much reticence on here v-a-v expressing differing views - have you?

I must have misinterpreted your "Pretty much everyone else takes a different view, it seems."

And not just a question of "taking the time and trouble to contribute" as these threads appear periodically and are just as predictable as helmet threads so maybe whose of differing views have given up bothering.

I would have contributed more but I'd just have been repeating information that others have provided and had been ignored by the "string-em-up" contributors

Ian

Hyperbolic, much?

I've re-read the thread and I think that it has been an interesting and informative debate in response to an incident which frightened the OP.

[andrew_s]

The time a dog (farmyard collie) chomped down on my foot* as I rode past, I went back a week or so later with some diluted tabasco in my water bottle to educate it with.
However, it didn't come out, so perhaps having its head shaken up and down at 75 rpm was sufficient.

* I was on fixed, and it bit on the plastic ratchet mounting plate on the shoe, so no damage to the foot.

[Cyril Haearn]

One person one dog may now be so bad but some people take several dogs out

I cycle very slowly and often have friendly encounters with dog people but Sunday I slowed down to pass 2p2d

"Go, you make the dog nervous!" called the dog-keeper, urging me to cycle faster

No no no!

[pwa]

The time a dog (farmyard collie) chomped down on my foot* as I rode past, I went back a week or so later with some diluted tabasco in my water bottle to educate it with.
However, it didn't come out, so perhaps having its head shaken up and down at 75 rpm was sufficient.

* I was on fixed, and it bit on the plastic ratchet mounting plate on the shoe, so no damage to the foot.

You could package that Tabasco in some sort of water pistol to fit on a bike attachment and market it with a name such as Dog Blinder.