Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Knocked off bike.
38 views
Skip to first unread message
Syd Rumpo
May 16, 2013, 4:06:07 AM5/16/13
to
No, I don't mean my bike is knocked off. I have the receipts.
Anyway, earlier this evening I was proceeding in an easterly direction
along by the Thames at 51.460000 -0.942524 http://goo.gl/maps/FTCrz
which as ani fule kno is a few yards east of a canoe club outside
Reading. I was on an Asphalt cycle path.
A large dog which was gambolling with another nearby suddenly darted
under my front wheel causing me to fall off, and I sustained minor cuts
and bruises. My bike now has a front wheel with a right-angle bend in
it and the rim is split. It's a cheap but serviceable B'twin bike.
The dog's owner gave me her details.
Her partner then proceeded to blame me saying that it wasn't a cycle
path. It is. He claimed there was a 4mph limit. It's route number 4
on the sign: that's what the '4' means. He said the sign says slow
down. It does, for those going the opposite way as there may be canoes
to and fro the boathouse. He claimed I was going 'too fast'. I would
guess 10mph or so, enjoying the air. He couldn't give me a lift the 2
miles home in his land rover as he was going the wrong way. All the
time holding a small child rather like a human shield.
SWMBO obliged by picking me up.
This incident was in no way whatsoever my fault. Not even slightly.
There were two couples plus one infant in two cars whose numbers I have.
If the partner had been reasonable I'd probably not take it any
further and trust them to pay for a new wheel which I'd fit. However,
given his attitude, and the lack of other witnesses, I'm a bit concerned
they might collude and concoct some or other story, so I called 101
(useless bunch) who advised me to report it to the rozzers at the local
nick tomorrow.
What does the panel think?
Cheers
--
Syd
Anyway, earlier this evening I was proceeding in an easterly direction
along by the Thames at 51.460000 -0.942524 http://goo.gl/maps/FTCrz
which as ani fule kno is a few yards east of a canoe club outside
Reading. I was on an Asphalt cycle path.
A large dog which was gambolling with another nearby suddenly darted
under my front wheel causing me to fall off, and I sustained minor cuts
and bruises. My bike now has a front wheel with a right-angle bend in
it and the rim is split. It's a cheap but serviceable B'twin bike.
The dog's owner gave me her details.
Her partner then proceeded to blame me saying that it wasn't a cycle
path. It is. He claimed there was a 4mph limit. It's route number 4
on the sign: that's what the '4' means. He said the sign says slow
down. It does, for those going the opposite way as there may be canoes
to and fro the boathouse. He claimed I was going 'too fast'. I would
guess 10mph or so, enjoying the air. He couldn't give me a lift the 2
miles home in his land rover as he was going the wrong way. All the
time holding a small child rather like a human shield.
SWMBO obliged by picking me up.
This incident was in no way whatsoever my fault. Not even slightly.
There were two couples plus one infant in two cars whose numbers I have.
If the partner had been reasonable I'd probably not take it any
further and trust them to pay for a new wheel which I'd fit. However,
given his attitude, and the lack of other witnesses, I'm a bit concerned
they might collude and concoct some or other story, so I called 101
(useless bunch) who advised me to report it to the rozzers at the local
nick tomorrow.
What does the panel think?
Cheers
--
Syd
Scion
May 16, 2013, 8:08:28 AM5/16/13
to
Syd Rumpo put finger to keyboard:
My thoughts, which are prolly worth what you paid for 'em:
1) Plod won't care.
2) You should possibly have been able to avoid the incident.
3) The owner's partner is a dick.
4) Get your bike fixed and contact the owner. You might be surprised.
1) Plod won't care.
2) You should possibly have been able to avoid the incident.
3) The owner's partner is a dick.
4) Get your bike fixed and contact the owner. You might be surprised.
geomannie
May 16, 2013, 8:08:49 AM5/16/13
to
On 16/05/2013 09:06, Syd Rumpo wrote:
>
> What does the panel think?
>
Tricky one. You may just have to take it on the chin. One thing that
>
> What does the panel think?
>
does spring to mind is, should the dog have been on a lead? On shared
use paths in the parks near where I live, all dogs must be on a lead.
None ever are so in the event that a cyclist were to be knocked off by
an uncontrolled dog, the cyclist would have a clear claim.
Perhaps you could check for signs at the start of the path?
Cheers and good luck
geomannie
Danny Colyer
May 16, 2013, 10:13:52 AM5/16/13
to
On 16/05/2013 13:08, geomannie wrote:
> Tricky one. You may just have to take it on the chin. One thing that
> does spring to mind is, should the dog have been on a lead? On shared
> use paths in the parks near where I live, all dogs must be on a lead.
> None ever are so in the event that a cyclist were to be knocked off by
> an uncontrolled dog, the cyclist would have a clear claim.
HC rule 56:
> Tricky one. You may just have to take it on the chin. One thing that
> does spring to mind is, should the dog have been on a lead? On shared
> use paths in the parks near where I live, all dogs must be on a lead.
> None ever are so in the event that a cyclist were to be knocked off by
> an uncontrolled dog, the cyclist would have a clear claim.
Dogs ... Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or
path shared with cyclists ...
I would expect the dog's owners to pay for the damage (just as would be
expected if their dog had run in front of a car). If they refused then
I think I would pursue it (after taking advice from the CTC's legal
department).
--
Danny Colyer
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down. This should be every boy's
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson
Scion
May 16, 2013, 3:03:39 PM5/16/13
to
Danny Colyer put finger to keyboard:
> On 16/05/2013 13:08, geomannie wrote:
>> Tricky one. You may just have to take it on the chin. One thing that
>> does spring to mind is, should the dog have been on a lead? On shared
>> use paths in the parks near where I live, all dogs must be on a lead.
>> None ever are so in the event that a cyclist were to be knocked off by
>> an uncontrolled dog, the cyclist would have a clear claim.
>
> HC rule 56:
> Dogs ... Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or
> path shared with cyclists ...
>
> I would expect the dog's owners to pay for the damage (just as would be
> expected if their dog had run in front of a car). If they refused then
> I think I would pursue it (after taking advice from the CTC's legal
> department).
A friend of mine had a dilemma when a dog ran into the road and she
couldn't stop in time to avoid it. Her car was damaged, and she didn't
have a lot of money to fix it, but the dog died and she would have felt
bad asking the owners for repair money.
> On 16/05/2013 13:08, geomannie wrote:
>> Tricky one. You may just have to take it on the chin. One thing that
>> does spring to mind is, should the dog have been on a lead? On shared
>> use paths in the parks near where I live, all dogs must be on a lead.
>> None ever are so in the event that a cyclist were to be knocked off by
>> an uncontrolled dog, the cyclist would have a clear claim.
>
> HC rule 56:
> Dogs ... Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or
> path shared with cyclists ...
>
> I would expect the dog's owners to pay for the damage (just as would be
> expected if their dog had run in front of a car). If they refused then
> I think I would pursue it (after taking advice from the CTC's legal
> department).
couldn't stop in time to avoid it. Her car was damaged, and she didn't
have a lot of money to fix it, but the dog died and she would have felt
bad asking the owners for repair money.
thirty-six
May 17, 2013, 5:06:59 AM5/17/13
to
On May 16, 9:06�am, Syd Rumpo <use...@nononono.co.uk> wrote:
> No, I don't mean my bike is knocked off. �I have the receipts.
>
> Anyway, earlier this evening I was proceeding in an easterly direction
> along by the Thames at 51.460000 -0.942524http://goo.gl/maps/FTCrz
> No, I don't mean my bike is knocked off. �I have the receipts.
>
> Anyway, earlier this evening I was proceeding in an easterly direction
place.
Second thoughts, I like dogs, get him...
mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk
May 17, 2013, 9:41:49 AM5/17/13
to
In message <rLudnXA1DNBwUAnM...@brightview.co.uk>
a public place and has caused damage. Pet owners need to take
responsibility for their animals and if necessary they should ensure
they have insurance to cover third party claims such as yours. If you
are a member of CTC I would certainly consider getting their advice. If
the dog owner doesn't pay the damage consider bringing a claim in the
small claims court. You don't need to have the police bring a
prosecution in order for you to claim for your damages although if they
do it may support your claim.
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/
Danny Colyer <news...@colyer.plus.com> wrote:
> On 16/05/2013 13:08, geomannie wrote:
> > Tricky one. You may just have to take it on the chin. One thing that
> > does spring to mind is, should the dog have been on a lead? On shared
> > use paths in the parks near where I live, all dogs must be on a lead.
> > None ever are so in the event that a cyclist were to be knocked off by
> > an uncontrolled dog, the cyclist would have a clear claim.
>
> HC rule 56:
> Dogs ... Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or
> path shared with cyclists ...
>
> I would expect the dog's owners to pay for the damage (just as would be
> expected if their dog had run in front of a car). If they refused then
> I think I would pursue it (after taking advice from the CTC's legal
> department).
>
Definitely the dog owners fault. It was clearly not under control in
> On 16/05/2013 13:08, geomannie wrote:
> > Tricky one. You may just have to take it on the chin. One thing that
> > does spring to mind is, should the dog have been on a lead? On shared
> > use paths in the parks near where I live, all dogs must be on a lead.
> > None ever are so in the event that a cyclist were to be knocked off by
> > an uncontrolled dog, the cyclist would have a clear claim.
>
> HC rule 56:
> Dogs ... Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or
> path shared with cyclists ...
>
> I would expect the dog's owners to pay for the damage (just as would be
> expected if their dog had run in front of a car). If they refused then
> I think I would pursue it (after taking advice from the CTC's legal
> department).
>
a public place and has caused damage. Pet owners need to take
responsibility for their animals and if necessary they should ensure
they have insurance to cover third party claims such as yours. If you
are a member of CTC I would certainly consider getting their advice. If
the dog owner doesn't pay the damage consider bringing a claim in the
small claims court. You don't need to have the police bring a
prosecution in order for you to claim for your damages although if they
do it may support your claim.
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/
Ian Jackson
May 17, 2013, 12:50:02 PM5/17/13
to
In article <a099424d53....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>,
useless (actually, they're often cyclophobic) and I wouldn't involve
them in a case like this one.
To the OP: get the bike fixed and then write a (as nice as you can
make it) letter to the dog's owner saying something like "your dog was
out of control and as a result of it running out in front of me I
crashed and my bike was damaged; thanks for exchanging details at the
time. I've now had the bike repaired - see receipt photocopies
attached - and I'd be grateful if you'd reimburse me.".
If you don't get a reply, or you don't like the reply you do get, you
can send another letter saying "(blah blah) I'm afraid I must insist.
If you don't pay up within 21 days I will sue you without further
notice which will involve additional legal costs which I will of
course expect to recover from you".
I'd be happy to help with drafting of letters.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
<mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Definitely the dog owners fault. It was clearly not under control in
>a public place and has caused damage. Pet owners need to take
>responsibility for their animals and if necessary they should ensure
>they have insurance to cover third party claims such as yours. If you
>are a member of CTC I would certainly consider getting their advice. If
>the dog owner doesn't pay the damage consider bringing a claim in the
>small claims court. You don't need to have the police bring a
>prosecution in order for you to claim for your damages although if they
>do it may support your claim.
This is all good advice. Personally I find Cambridgeshire plod
>Definitely the dog owners fault. It was clearly not under control in
>a public place and has caused damage. Pet owners need to take
>responsibility for their animals and if necessary they should ensure
>they have insurance to cover third party claims such as yours. If you
>are a member of CTC I would certainly consider getting their advice. If
>the dog owner doesn't pay the damage consider bringing a claim in the
>small claims court. You don't need to have the police bring a
>prosecution in order for you to claim for your damages although if they
>do it may support your claim.
useless (actually, they're often cyclophobic) and I wouldn't involve
them in a case like this one.
To the OP: get the bike fixed and then write a (as nice as you can
make it) letter to the dog's owner saying something like "your dog was
out of control and as a result of it running out in front of me I
crashed and my bike was damaged; thanks for exchanging details at the
time. I've now had the bike repaired - see receipt photocopies
attached - and I'd be grateful if you'd reimburse me.".
If you don't get a reply, or you don't like the reply you do get, you
can send another letter saying "(blah blah) I'm afraid I must insist.
If you don't pay up within 21 days I will sue you without further
notice which will involve additional legal costs which I will of
course expect to recover from you".
I'd be happy to help with drafting of letters.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Message has been deleted
Geoff Pearson
May 18, 2013, 2:54:36 PM5/18/13
to
"Syd Rumpo" <use...@nononono.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kn0t1b$q8d$1...@dont-email.me...
cycle through - my Councillor told me that was explicitly why the work was
done. One morning I was cycling through to go to work and saw a phalanx of
idle women, push chairs, toddlers and loose dogs (animals) filling the path
so I went onto the grass - wide berth - whereupon a bag of fluff, apparently
a dog, ran between my wheels and the back wheel went over it. I had almost
reached 2 mph through the heavy grass. It shrieked, the gaggle turned
slowly to give it attention. I was ignored completely and after 5 minutes I
left. That evening I returned home to find that a women had turned up at my
house with a PDSA bill showing that �177 worth of tests had been done on an
animal, of which she had paid �20. My partner told the woman it was her
fault having a loose dog in a park and she left. Nothing more was heard -
the vet work showed there was no injury to the dog. I don't think dogs
should be allowed in parks (or anywhere) - they are always having a go at me
when I'm out running and dog owners have no idea what to do. Dogs are just
disgusting toys created to fill emotional gaps in people's lives: goldfish
are safer. Rant over.
Scion
May 22, 2013, 6:47:13 AM5/22/13
to
Phil W Lee put finger to keyboard:
> Scion <a...@nospam.invalid> considered Thu, 16 May 2013 20:03:39 +0100
> She shouldn't have felt bad.
Perhaps not, ...
> Every household insurance policy I've ever seen has included liability
> for dogs - it's a trade-off against the reduced risk of burglary, so
> gets thrown if "for free".
... but "Sorry your dog's dead, but if I could take your details so you
can pay me for the damage to my car, don't worry your house insurance will
cover it" would have been difficult for her to phrase tactfully at the
time.
I would argue that the damage was partly her fault anyway, she drove a 2CV
that was flimsier than an MP's excuse and probably only hadn't been
damaged at any time previously because it took about a month to accelerate
to faster than walking pace.
> Scion <a...@nospam.invalid> considered Thu, 16 May 2013 20:03:39 +0100
Perhaps not, ...
> Every household insurance policy I've ever seen has included liability
> for dogs - it's a trade-off against the reduced risk of burglary, so
> gets thrown if "for free".
... but "Sorry your dog's dead, but if I could take your details so you
can pay me for the damage to my car, don't worry your house insurance will
cover it" would have been difficult for her to phrase tactfully at the
time.
I would argue that the damage was partly her fault anyway, she drove a 2CV
that was flimsier than an MP's excuse and probably only hadn't been
damaged at any time previously because it took about a month to accelerate
to faster than walking pace.
0 new messages