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

Traveller2_2

[Deleted User] said:

Mr_Sworld said:

ripongrammargirl said:

However, this is also a major reason why cyclists should be made to buy road tax and insurance. They use the roads (and have special lanes just for them) but still abuse the laws/ rules of the road (running red lights, ploughing into pedestrians on crossings  etc which have clips all over the internet). If this cyclist had had insurance then it would have paid out for the bike and possibly personal injury and possessions. 

All road users should be taxed and insured with registration plates so they can be fined etc for breaking the law. 

And there is always one. Let's break this down.

1. Cyclists should be made to buy road tax and insurance.

At the moment Electric Cars don't pay this so why should a bike? They will next year though but a biclyle really dosn't damage the tarmac.
 
And how do you check for insurance? Have a plate on the front and back of the bike? Do parents now have to pay bike insurance for little Jimmy or Jenny for their first ever bike with training wheels?

2. They use the roads (and have special lanes just for them).

We do use the roads as generally we have little other choice. So when we have 'lanes' to keep us away from 1 or 2 tonne metal boxes you still want to moan that we aren't using the road? Bit of a oxymoron.

3. But still abuse the laws/ rules of the road (running red lights, ploughing into pedestrians on crossings  etc which have clips all over the internet).

About 400 pedestrians are killed each year by collisions on average, 2.5 are killed by cyclists.Put it another way: more than 99% of pedestrian collision deaths in this country involve a motorised vehicle. Sorry to put a downer on those FaceBook, TikTok or Twater ('X') clips the algorithm shows you or what the Daily Heil or Torygraph says.

Sorry Luv, but your statement doesn't hold water.

As someone who was been knocked down by a cyclist who jumped a red light at a crossing there should be a id plate on bicycles so that they can be held to account in the same way drivers are - in my case the cyclist was a off duty police officer.  But this is a moral question for another day.

You could argue the same if you'd been knocked over by a jogger. Do you want them to have an ID plate? I was  assaulted in the street once - should all pedestrians have an ID plate? 

Traveller2_2

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 

Do you slow down when driving past every dog or child on the footway then? How slow do you go? or do you assume they will behave reasonably and that its generally safe to proceed? 

Traveller2_2

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?

You can fracture a clavicle falling off a bike at walking speed if you land the wrong way. It's one of the most common injuries cyclists sustain. How slow should a cyclist go when passing any dog on the pavement would you say? Can they not assume that a dog would be under close control, as the law dictates?

Traveller2_2

surreysaver said:

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

You don't know that they weren't. Possibly they closed down considerably and left a lead-length space, but the dog ran out on an extending lead and put itself under their wheel. 

silverwhistle

surreysaver said:

. Cyclists, being more vulnerable than someone in a car, you would think, would be riding more defensively than most

You seem very keen to minimise the responsibility of the dog owner and increase the responsibility of cyclists, such as the victim in this case.

I try and cycle and drive defensively, and only this morning changed my road position as I cycled into my village past a dog walker with two dogs, but I always have to be aware that motorists in their two tons of a lot faster moving metal may not be as aware and do not anticipate like I try to. Where does that leave me?

35har1old

Nasqueron said:

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 

This is a bit of hyperbole, not a chance they will be bankrupt, many people have public liability via house or pet insurance etc

House public liability would not cover you away from home

35har1old

FlorayG said:

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

Where you a witness because he is likely to need one for a solicitor to suggest that he should pursue a claim

35har1old

rollingmoon said:

FlorayG said:

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

Yep, whoever makes these up is clearly slipping... dog owner 100% liable, other party appoints one of those no-win-no-fee ambulance chasers.

So not quite 100% then

35har1old

Mark_d said:

There is no reason you should be out-of-pocket due to something like this.  You should absolutely get solicitors to make a claim for this.  It is likely that the dog's liability cover will pay all your costs...but given that the lady was negligent using her extendable lead, it seems fair that she faces the consequence of her negligence.

If she is proved negligent perhaps that would provide the insurance company with a get out clause 

yorkshiremadchen

I got bitten by a dog which ran out of a field whilst I was running past, on a public road, and needed stitches in my leg. I consulted a solicitor who said dogs must be kept under control and if harm is caused  a claim can be made against the responsible person.  Seems pretty clear cut to me.