Advice on accident involving a dog

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Advice on accident involving a dog

Postby Bicycler » 9 Sep 2014, 12:04pm

Bit of a freak incident though really. I'd much rather that they clamped down on even 1% of acts of speeding, aggressive driving and unsafe overtaking than every dog owner who momentarily leaves a gate open.

Flinders
Posts: 3022
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Advice on accident involving a dog

Postby Flinders » 9 Sep 2014, 3:30pm

But the dog owner should pay for any damage. If you keep a dog, you have to accept that part of the deal is you're responsible for its actions. The cyclist certainly ought not to have to pay for the damage.

Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Advice on accident involving a dog

Postby Bicycler » 9 Sep 2014, 4:12pm

Flinders wrote:But the dog owner should pay for any damage. If you keep a dog, you have to accept that part of the deal is you're responsible for its actions. The cyclist certainly ought not to have to pay for the damage.

Yes. I don't think anyone is arguing the civil liability but I don't think a criminal prosecution is necessary.

User avatar
NUKe
Posts: 4007
Joined: 23 Apr 2007, 11:07pm
Location: Suffolk

Re: Advice on accident involving a dog

Postby NUKe » 9 Sep 2014, 4:19pm

No one asked So I will "how is the Dog?
NUKe
_____________________________________

thirdcrank
Posts: 30808
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Advice on accident involving a dog

Postby thirdcrank » 9 Sep 2014, 4:27pm

NUKe wrote:No one asked So I will "how is the Dog?


Feeling hounded. :oops:

LondonBikeCommuter
Posts: 238
Joined: 21 Apr 2013, 4:10pm
Location: Swindon

Re: Advice on accident involving a dog

Postby LondonBikeCommuter » 9 Sep 2014, 5:00pm

pompeyreece wrote:There were no witnesses, the owner came out and admitted she'd accidentally must've left the gate open (she had popped next door to feed the next door neighbour's cat) which is how the dog escaped.


Its worth pointing out that what people say after an accident and what they say X time later when they've been handed a compensation claim or spoken to an insurance company are totally different.

How would you counter a "no I didn't I said bloody postie/meter reader etc"

karlt
Posts: 2244
Joined: 15 Jul 2011, 2:07pm

Re: Advice on accident involving a dog

Postby karlt » 9 Sep 2014, 5:03pm

LondonBikeCommuter wrote:
pompeyreece wrote:There were no witnesses, the owner came out and admitted she'd accidentally must've left the gate open (she had popped next door to feed the next door neighbour's cat) which is how the dog escaped.


Its worth pointing out that what people say after an accident and what they say X time later when they've been handed a compensation claim or spoken to an insurance company are totally different.

How would you counter a "no I didn't I said bloody postie/meter reader etc"


Balance of probabilities is used in civil cases. The judge will ask "which is more likely?" - Cyclist is lying about the dog owner saying she'd left the gate open, or dog owner is lying about the postman (many of them hate being called posties; my father was one who did)/meter reader.

LondonBikeCommuter
Posts: 238
Joined: 21 Apr 2013, 4:10pm
Location: Swindon

Re: Advice on accident involving a dog

Postby LondonBikeCommuter » 9 Sep 2014, 5:08pm

karlt wrote:
LondonBikeCommuter wrote:
pompeyreece wrote:There were no witnesses, the owner came out and admitted she'd accidentally must've left the gate open (she had popped next door to feed the next door neighbour's cat) which is how the dog escaped.


Its worth pointing out that what people say after an accident and what they say X time later when they've been handed a compensation claim or spoken to an insurance company are totally different.

How would you counter a "no I didn't I said bloody postie/meter reader etc"


Balance of probabilities is used in civil cases. The judge will ask "which is more likely?" - Cyclist is lying about the dog owner saying she'd left the gate open, or dog owner is lying about the postman (many of them hate being called posties; my father was one who did)/meter reader.

Agreed, what I was saying was that don't rely on people's story staying the same as it often doesn't when blame and money are at stake.

BTW my postperson is a woman ;)

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Advice on accident involving a dog

Postby TonyR » 9 Sep 2014, 5:49pm

What you need to refer to is not the Dangerous Dogs Act but the Road Traffic Act 1988 s27

It starts:
(1)A person who causes or permits a dog to be on a designated road without the dog being held on a lead is guilty of an offence.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14162
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: Advice on accident involving a dog

Postby gaz » 9 Sep 2014, 6:58pm

But it then goes on
(2) In this section “designated road” means a length of road specified by an order in that behalf of the local authority in whose area the length of road is situated.

With the next parts explaining how a road becomes a "designated road", s27 only applies to "designated roads" not all roads.
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

PH
Posts: 9952
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Advice on accident involving a dog

Postby PH » 9 Sep 2014, 9:02pm

A guy in CTC Derby got knocked of by a farm dog while out on a club run a few years ago. Claimed his out of pocket expenses, including a new frame, with the CTCs insurers.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Advice on accident involving a dog

Postby TonyR » 9 Sep 2014, 9:39pm

gaz wrote:But it then goes on
(2) In this section “designated road” means a length of road specified by an order in that behalf of the local authority in whose area the length of road is situated.

With the next parts explaining how a road becomes a "designated road", s27 only applies to "designated roads" not all roads.


Yes but designated roads can be all roads. See for example Newham which designates "all Highways footpaths and verges and alleyways across the borough of Newham and areas listed below"

karlt
Posts: 2244
Joined: 15 Jul 2011, 2:07pm

Re: Advice on accident involving a dog

Postby karlt » 10 Sep 2014, 10:05am

TonyR wrote:What you need to refer to is not the Dangerous Dogs Act but the Road Traffic Act 1988 s27

It starts:
(1)A person who causes or permits a dog to be on a designated road without the dog being held on a lead is guilty of an offence.

But of little relevance to a civil claim. The above is the police/CPS' concern if they want to prosecute.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 18059
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Advice on accident involving a dog

Postby [XAP]Bob » 10 Sep 2014, 10:09am

karlt wrote:
TonyR wrote:What you need to refer to is not the Dangerous Dogs Act but the Road Traffic Act 1988 s27

It starts:
(1)A person who causes or permits a dog to be on a designated road without the dog being held on a lead is guilty of an offence.

But of little relevance to a civil claim. The above is the police/CPS' concern if they want to prosecute.

Relevance is that the you could reasonably expect dogs to not be roaming loose. Not a defence you could apply against a cat for instance...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 18743
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Advice on accident involving a dog

Postby Vorpal » 10 Sep 2014, 10:32am

karlt wrote:
TonyR wrote:What you need to refer to is not the Dangerous Dogs Act but the Road Traffic Act 1988 s27

It starts:
(1)A person who causes or permits a dog to be on a designated road without the dog being held on a lead is guilty of an offence.

But of little relevance to a civil claim. The above is the police/CPS' concern if they want to prosecute.

It may have little relevance, but it does have some. Even if the dog owner is not prosecuted, there is an implied responsibility in the criminal law.

That said, it doesn't help the OP much to discuss the finer points of criminal law, if all he wants is compensation.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom