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

kimwp

Wyndham said:

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.

Advanced driving courses will tell you to watch for dogs (among other things), and drive appropriately, slowing if necessary eg the dog does not seem under control. (Defensive driving). It doesn't absolve a careless dog owner of blame, but it does reduce the chance of an accident.

LaneyAJ

This is a horrible situation to be in. I am a dog owner and try to keep up with the law regarding my responsibilities as well as applying common sense.

Anyone walking a dog, whether it be the owner or a third party, is legally responsible for keeping the dog under control. I doubt any court of law would agree that using an extendable lead is keeping a dog under control. It is not a question of if it failed or not, the minute dogs are more than a couple of feet away from you it is much harder to pull them in, in the event that they are distracted.

If the dog was distracted by a cat or a squirrel or anything else that does not absolve the dog owner/walker from liability.

I think you are fully entitled to claim for your losses and in the first instance I would contact the owner directly because it may well be that she will see the sense of settling privately rather than going to court.

If that approach fails I would look into going to the Small Claims Court. The Citizen's Advice Bureau may also be able to advise.

You may have some cover for legal advice included in your home contents insurance and if you do I would take advantage of it.

As others have said, the owner may have cover with dog insurance or her contents insurance may cover her for third party liability. Either way, whether she has cover or not is not your problem.

surreysaver

kimwp said:

Wyndham said:

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.

Advanced driving courses will tell you to watch for dogs (among other things), and drive appropriately, slowing if necessary eg the dog does not seem under control. (Defensive driving). It doesn't absolve a careless dog owner of blame, but it does reduce the chance of an accident.

Indeed, and it's all very well saying it's their fault, but that doesn't help when you're lying in hospital having surgery. Cyclists, being more vulnerable than someone in a car, you would think, would be riding more defensively than most

Budapestfan

I see no moral dilemma here.  You should sue!

WYSPECIAL

Yes make a claim.
She should have her dog under proper control.

Thepodlady

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.

Anyone walking a dog should at all times be in full charge of the animal. Extendable leads do not allow this. It may well have been an accident but it was an avoidable one. She is liable for any costs / damages/losses incurred by her negligence. You should make a claim against her. Would a small claims court help? It might be cheaper than employing a solicitor. 

I hope your healing is going well and that you are not losing any earnings if not able to work. 

mimgable

Humans can be liable walking into a cyclist, eg crossing a road and not looking, as they have a responsibility in terms of their behaviour. It is regarded as contributory negligence. It applies still even though Highway Code etc recently changed. A case went to court over the degree of contributory negligence of pedestrian walking in front of a cyclist.

mimgable

I would suggest it’s reasonable to request at least the cost of bike repairs. I’m assuming you get sick pay from your work place, so no loss of income+only out of pocket on the repair front. She may well just pay it if asked. I was knocked off+he actually offered to pay the repair cost.

Traveller2_2

SStitanic said:

If you were cycling on the road yes. If you were cycling on the pavement no. 

The OP clearly states "dog on an extendable lead didn't have it under control and it ran into the road". Moreover, it doesn't matter that if the cyclist was on the pavement if the dog caused them harm. The owner is wholly responsible for their pet not harming other people. 

Traveller2_2

marcia_ said:

 Yes she was to blame but who says she has liability cover for her dog. In all likelihood she hasn't and any claim will be fruitless and bankrupt you both 

No need for such an extreme statement. The OP could make a claim via the small claims court, for example. There are also solicitors that may take it on no-win, no-fee.