Money Moral Dilemma: Should I claim compensation from the woman whose dog knocked me off my bicycle?

Arfcollins

ollythecollie said:

Cyclists are so often at the front of the queue with their hands out when they think they can get a few quid, yet are also quickest to run off and dodge liability from the problems they cause.

You must have seen some data that I missed. Please share.

On the more general point of your defining people as cyclists (presumably also as motorists or pedestrians etc) I'm not sure where to place myself on your spectrum. I cycle regularly, but on a weekly basis I often walk more than I ride. I sometimes won't use the car for a week but then travel a couple of hundred miles in one day. So I'm not really sure whether I'm a money grabbing cyclist, a potential jay-walker or a latent road-rager. Which of these do you think I am?

One further question. As I don't pay VED (AKA pollution tax) for my bike should I request a credit from DVLA for the miles that I've cycled? After all, as someone has already mentioned here, my only emissions were farts and strong language at certain entitled and careless drivers.

BikingBud

surreysaver said:

If you're approaching pedestrians or animals, cyclists should slow down and ride appropriately, as you would expect a motorist to do. Don't keep going hell for leather.
Perhaps if you've been that badly injured, you may not have been riding appropriate to the conditions, even if the dog owner wasn't in proper control of the dog.  You need to be able to anticipate more 

Long leads are not just a hazard to cyclists, if the furry projectile decides to go anywhere or do anything the "owner" can do next to nothing to control the dog.

I have been called many things, frequently not polite, when I have politely asked that the dog is kept away from me when on a bike or when walking. I do not want your, filthy, slobbering, over excited beast anywhere near me, usually prompts a rapid degeneration into that mix of sexual acts and travelling and doubting my parentage.

The owner might think the dog is only being friendly but in the same way I don't expect friendly people to come into my space and start sniffing my crotch, something that would likely be considered a sexual offence, I do not want someone else's surrogate child doing similar.

And actually being on the road should provide adequate separation, that's why pedestrians use the pavement and cyclists, cars, lorries etc use the road.

If the dog is truly loved and loss of said animal would cause lifelong anguish and despair control it better, get it on a short lead and be prepared to take ownership when you have demonstrably lost control.

PixelPound

FlorayG said:

I don't see where there is a moral question in this - the woman was clearly liable

A lot of these MMD are skewed as if thought up by the interns down the pub.

surreysaver

BikingBud said:

surreysaver said:

If you're approaching pedestrians or animals, cyclists should slow down and ride appropriately, as you would expect a motorist to do. Don't keep going hell for leather.
Perhaps if you've been that badly injured, you may not have been riding appropriate to the conditions, even if the dog owner wasn't in proper control of the dog.  You need to be able to anticipate more 

Long leads are not just a hazard to cyclists, if the furry projectile decides to go anywhere or do anything the "owner" can do next to nothing to control the dog.

I have been called many things, frequently not polite, when I have politely asked that the dog is kept away from me when on a bike or when walking. I do not want your, filthy, slobbering, over excited beast anywhere near me, usually prompts a rapid degeneration into that mix of sexual acts and travelling and doubting my parentage.

The owner might think the dog is only being friendly but in the same way I don't expect friendly people to come into my space and start sniffing my crotch, something that would likely be considered a sexual offence, I do not want someone else's surrogate child doing similar.

And actually being on the road should provide adequate separation, that's why pedestrians use the pavement and cyclists, cars, lorries etc use the road.

If the dog is truly loved and loss of said animal would cause lifelong anguish and despair control it better, get it on a short lead and be prepared to take ownership when you have demonstrably lost control.

Not disagreeing with the fact the dog owner isn't in control of their dog, since January 2022 we have had the hierarchy of road users, where legally, cyclists are responsible for an incident between them and a pedestrian. The cyclist must have been travelling faster than an appropriate speed to have sustained such injuries, and I seriously doubt they will get very far if they sued.
Yes, the dog owner may be at fault, but the cyclist failed to mitigate by not slowing down.
I would like to know how fast the cyclist was going?

astroL

MSE_Kelvin said:

This week's MoneySaver who wants advice asks...

I was in a bike accident where a lady with a dog on an extendable lead didn't have it under control and it ran into the road, hitting my wheel. I went over the handlebars, fracturing a clavicle. I've had an operation to put a plate in and will be off work for six to eight weeks. There was £150 of damage to my bike, my £30 helmet needs replacing and my clothes were cut off by the paramedics. I've endured a lot of pain and suffered post-surgical depression, but I'm unsure whether to make a claim against the lady for compensation as it was an accident and her dog was also injured. Is it right to ask for something after what I've gone through?

Unfortunately the MSE team can't answer Money Moral Dilemma questions as contributions are emailed in or suggested in person. They are intended to be a point of debate and discussed at face value. Remember that behind each dilemma there is a real person so, as the forum rules say, please keep it kind and keep it clean.

If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.
Got a Money Moral Dilemma of your own? Suggest an MMD.
View past Money Moral Dilemmas.

Yes, obviously.  All those injuries because of a dog owner's carelessness.  She needs to understand that there are consequences to her negligence.  I was once nearly forced off my bike by an errant dog - and the owner merely laughed....

Lawrence

Wyndham

surreysaver said:

BikingBud said:

surreysaver said:

If you're approaching pedestrians or animals, cyclists should slow down and ride appropriately, as you would expect a motorist to do. Don't keep going hell for leather.
Perhaps if you've been that badly injured, you may not have been riding appropriate to the conditions, even if the dog owner wasn't in proper control of the dog.  You need to be able to anticipate more 

Long leads are not just a hazard to cyclists, if the furry projectile decides to go anywhere or do anything the "owner" can do next to nothing to control the dog.

I have been called many things, frequently not polite, when I have politely asked that the dog is kept away from me when on a bike or when walking. I do not want your, filthy, slobbering, over excited beast anywhere near me, usually prompts a rapid degeneration into that mix of sexual acts and travelling and doubting my parentage.

The owner might think the dog is only being friendly but in the same way I don't expect friendly people to come into my space and start sniffing my crotch, something that would likely be considered a sexual offence, I do not want someone else's surrogate child doing similar.

And actually being on the road should provide adequate separation, that's why pedestrians use the pavement and cyclists, cars, lorries etc use the road.

If the dog is truly loved and loss of said animal would cause lifelong anguish and despair control it better, get it on a short lead and be prepared to take ownership when you have demonstrably lost control.

Not disagreeing with the fact the dog owner isn't in control of their dog, since January 2022 we have had the hierarchy of road users, where legally, cyclists are responsible for an incident between them and a pedestrian. The cyclist must have been travelling faster than an appropriate speed to have sustained such injuries, and I seriously doubt they will get very far if they sued.
Yes, the dog owner may be at fault, but the cyclist failed to mitigate by not slowing down.
I would like to know how fast the cyclist was going?

Speed should be appropraite to a range of factors, including the road and the conditions.

But, if a cyclist needs to slow down each time there is a dog on the pavement, that may - or may not - then jump into the road, then drivers should also be slowing down when they see a similar situation. I don't think that happens!

We don't know, in this case what the actual conditions were, only that the cyclist was on the road, the dog on the pavement, then the dog jumped into the road. The owner was at fault because the dog was not under a level of control suitable to the conditions.

BikingBud

@surreysaver Please define appropriate speed.

But as you brought it up:

Rule H1 - Cyclists, horse riders and drivers of horse drawn vehicles likewise have a responsibility to reduce danger to pedestrians.

Not quite responsible for an incident but responsibility to reduce danger to pedestrians!

Couple that with the pedestrian's responsibility to have due regard for their own safety, 

None of this detracts from the responsibility of ALL road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, to have regard for their own and other road users’ safety.

Which can be as simple as staying on the pavement and not ambling into the road with headphones on and without looking, thereby severely diminishing their faculties but having an expectation of divine intervention or at least abrogation of any responsibility.

And nothing about hurtling furballs!

So back to the reality, the dog walker has to have due regard for their own and other road users' safety - long lead next to a road, failed. 

It was absolutely obvious that the hurtling fur ball can travel the radius of the lead, the dog owner knows that. The cyclist doesn't because they cannot see the dog nor the free rein it has been allowed.

A reasonable expectation for all road users, and I say this as a cyclist, biker and driver, is that we need to trust other roads users to stay in lane, stay on their own side of the road, slow down when approaching us from behind and to keep pets under control and off the road. 

Or we all start walking around at 3 mph, cycling at 5 mph and driving at 20mph, see that went down well in Wales.

vaquinnell

Responsible dog owners will have public liability insurance for exactly this type of incident so you can/should claim for legitimate expenses.  Pet medical insurance can be expensive but owners can get separate public liability insurance without medical insurance so there’s no excuse for not having cover.  

TheRedHerring

I am sorry that you have had to endure this shocking and painful experience through no fault of your own, unfortunately yours is not the only case. I would question whether this is a criminal matter of assault due to the dog owner's irresponsibility and negligence?  Were the police involved?  Not only was your property damaged but you were physically hurt and, having had surgery with a plate implant, this could affect you over the longer term with pain or the inability to ride a bicycle.  The financial cost relates not only to your property but also time off work.  As it seems you either have the dog owner's details or know the person I suggest that if you are a member of a cycling club they may have legal support for their members and also check if you have legal insurance. Please contact either straight away and failing that speak with Citizen's Advice Bureau.
I hope this is of help and wish you well for the future

Heo2

Yes, absolutely. The incident sounds terrible and you should claim it was her responsibility to control her dog. Too often dog owners get away with acts of irresponsibility and dogs are an ever growing menace these days.