# Cyclist sues dog owner



## Nicki85 (Oct 6, 2010)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ured-skull-bike-got-entangled-pet-s-lead.html

Sorry its a DM link but may be of interest to some of you.

I would like to comment but finding it difficult as the article is very limited. Certainly draws your attention to how careful dog owners need to be in public spaces, regardless of whether your dog is on or off lead.


----------



## Fluffster (Aug 26, 2013)

Unfortunate incident. I can't help but feel that you're best to slow down when passing groups of people (he may have done this, I don't know, but it sounds like he was going pretty fast to sustain such serious injuries), as it could have been a child or something. It's good he rang his bell, but I wonder if he just ploughed on at full speed regardless. Not sure a promenade is suitable for high speed training, really. Dog owner should have been more on ball, though - I notice it was a retractable lead, which so many people fail to control correctly.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Obviously I sympathize with the injuries sustained, but what I don't sympathize with is the likes of cyclists or joggers assuming they have right of way on shared footpaths and that everyone should move out of the way for them. He must have been travelling both close to them and at speed. What is presumably a beach promenade isn't the time for moving at speed on a bike, and even if there is a bike path cyclists should still be very aware of hazards.


----------



## Jazmine (Feb 1, 2009)

Our local greenway is a "multi user path", encouraged for use by walkers, dogs, horse riders and cyclists alike. Unfortunately, it has been unofficially taken over as some kind of time-trial route by the cyclists, and they have no tolerance for other users. I always call my dogs to the side and put them in a sit when I see cyclists approach, however, they continue to hurtle past at full speed. When approaching from behind, if you haven't heard them coming, then tough, the best you will get is a quick toot on their bell as they fly past you. For this reason, I avoid the greenway during commuter hours, and during periods where I know I am more likely to see cyclists. 

I will add they appear to be equally rude to the horse riders and walkers, so it's not just aimed at dog walkers.


----------



## SusieRainbow (Jan 21, 2013)

labradrk said:


> Obviously I sympathize with the injuries sustained, but what I don't sympathize with is the likes of cyclists or joggers assuming they have right of way on shared footpaths and that everyone should move out of the way for them. He must have been travelling both close to them and at speed. What is presumably a beach promenade isn't the time for moving at speed on a bike, and even if there is a bike path cyclists should still be very aware of hazards.


Dogs aside I often feel intimidated by cyclists moving at speed, the times I've narrowly escaped being mown down by someone from behind. It does sound like an inapproriate place for fast cycling, but sympathies to the poor gentleman concerned and I hope the dog wasn't too badly injured.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Reading the article it was an organised event so possibly there would of been signs up for it??? 
Also the dog was one flexi (and I love using my flexi) perhaps it dashed across the path some distance from its owner hence the cyclist being taken by surprise and unable to stop or move away in time.

There is not enough information to really know what has happened - the dog owner would of been covered by any 3rd party liability insurance, incidents like this show how important it is to have this cover.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

It's a tough one, as it doesn't say how fast he was going, but I agree, it had to have been pretty fast to sustain such injuries. The owner definitely should have had the lock on the lead, but the cyclist also should have more consideration that he was on a public path and all sorts could happen. What if someone had tripped in front of him and he had come off because of that? Would he have sued as well? Obviously both scenarios were both accidents. But I do sympathise, the long term effects are pretty horrible.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

I wonder if he was wearing a helmet? I would be surprised that a fractured skull would be the result of a low speed fall from a bike - surely if not, he was at least 50% responsible for his injury. After all, he might have just as easily fallen by hitting a pothole, or having a toddler step in front of him or whatever. I would love to know more details. I suppose if the dog was insured at least the owner won't be out of pocket.


----------



## Fluffster (Aug 26, 2013)

Fleur said:


> Reading the article it was an organised event so possibly there would of been signs up for it???
> Also the dog was one flexi (and I love using my flexi) perhaps it dashed across the path some distance from its owner hence the cyclist being taken by surprise and unable to stop or move away in time.
> 
> There is not enough information to really know what has happened - the dog owner would of been covered by any 3rd party liability insurance, incidents like this show how important it is to have this cover.


He was training for an event, he wasn't taking part in it yet, so there probably wouldn't have been signs up.

There's been more information added : "It emerged that the dog was being walked through Heysham, Lancashire, by a 'little old woman in her 70s', who was looking after the dog for a friend while she was on holiday.
She has now settled out of court, ahead of a planned hearing at Manchester County Court, and agreed to pay Mr Steele tens of thousands of pounds."

I'm sorry he was injured and had to undergo this, but getting tens of thousands of pounds from an elderly woman? I wonder what would have happened had it gone to court.


----------



## Fluffster (Aug 26, 2013)

Actually the more of his quotes I read, the more I dislike this man.



> 'She's just a little old woman in her 70s. I don't believe she has a dog of her own, and this dog belonged to her friend.
> 
> 'She certainly wasn't au fait with the lead so I think it just ran away with her, which is when I got tangled up in it.
> 
> ...


A) Why does he need £65,000 for his rehabilitation?
B) Raising awareness by taking the life savings of an elderly woman?
C) I bet if it had gone to court, he would have got nowhere near the money. The old woman was probably scared into paying.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Fluffster said:


> He was training for an event, he wasn't taking part in it yet, so there probably wouldn't have been signs up.
> 
> There's been more information added : "It emerged that the dog was being walked through Heysham, Lancashire, by a 'little old woman in her 70s', who was looking after the dog for a friend while she was on holiday.
> She has now settled out of court, ahead of a planned hearing at Manchester County Court, and agreed to pay Mr Steele tens of thousands of pounds."
> ...


Sorry I miss-read the article initially.
I don't see what the age of the woman has to do with it, my mother is in her 70's has all her faculties and goes to the gym daily.
If the woman was not in control of the dog and caused the accident and the man had high costs involved as a result, maybe he couldn't work etc, then why shouldn't he try to recoup the costs.
Although if the owner had 3rd party liability insurance then this friend would not have to pay out but the owners insurance would of dealt with it.

Without details of how wide the path was, how fast he was cycling and actually witnessing the accident it is impossible for any of us to know what is right or wrong in this situation.

But it does make me feel reassured that my £25 a year Dogs Trust membership provides liability insurance for all dogs in my household.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

I live near where this happened and walk my dogs there from time to time (usually when I'm working in Heysham and it's too dark to walk anywhere else by time I finish). There are signs up all the time every few hundred metres saying it's a shared use path and dogs must be on lead, though I often see off-lead dogs on it. I also see cyclists acting with no thought or care for anyone but themselves, same goes for some skateboarders and lads on those new 3-wheeled articles that spin round. It's a shame the cyclist was injured, but the injuries he sustained certainly suggest he was going too fast. 

It was only about 5 years ago that cyclists were allowed on the prom at all, and it was much nicer to walk on before (though some cyclists flouted the rules and used it anyway). They should at least have a speed limit on it, and enforce both that and the dogs-on-leads rule.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Fleur said:


> Sorry I miss-read the article initially.
> I don't see what the age of the woman has to do with it, my mother is in her 70's has all her faculties and goes to the gym daily.
> If the woman was not in control of the dog and caused the accident and the man had high costs involved as a result, maybe he couldn't work etc, then why shouldn't he try to recoup the costs.
> Although if the owner had 3rd party liability insurance then this friend would not have to pay out but the owners insurance would of dealt with it.
> ...


It's about 7 metres wide at the narrowest.


----------



## Fluffster (Aug 26, 2013)

I stand by the fact that getting £65,000 from a 'little old woman' (his words) in her 70s (who may or may not be at the gym every day) is pretty disgusting, given he was clearly (you don't get injuries like that unless you are going fast. If you're going at an appropriate speed to pass people, particularly if he was wearing a helmet, you don't get hurt like that when you come off. You graze your knee.) tanking it along a multi-user pathway, past pedestrians. What if a child had stepped out and he had slammed into them? Would it be ok for him to sue then? What is this obsession with suing nowadays?

It's interesting to read the comments on that article. It's not often I agree with the comments on a DM article, and often their comments can be quite anti-dog, but they are spot on for me this time!


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Any more milk in that cow?

Something unsettling within me says, someone should really keep a close eye on this bloke.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

If the dog was out of control and caused a serious accident with life changing injuries I imagine it could have been far more compensation if it had gone to court. This is why all dogs owners should take out third party liability.
I am incredibly against this blame and sue culture but in that case I really think he is right to have pursued it.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2015)

I'm totally speculating based on the quotes provided by a DM article - so take what I'm about to say with a giant boulder of salt... 
It sounds like the dog was on a flexi and darted across the path of the biker. He could have been giving them a wide berth but because of the give of a flexi, the leash still managed to get tangled up in the bike. I've seen some pretty gnarly injuries caused by misuse of a flexi and been tripped up by them myself with the dog no where near me. Little dogs keep the leash low to the ground and if it's a round cord style flexi instead of the tape type, they're really hard to see, I'd imagine even more so at a beach where the cord and the sand are probably very similar in color. Basically you think you're passing safely, but all it takes is for the dog up ahead to veer towards you and you're flat on your face. 

I have no comment on the amount of money awarded, but I will say, I don't see how the woman's age has anything to do with money.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

oh and another thing - it took 3 years for him to find this poor defenceless old lady. If my dog caused a dreadful accident I think I would have gone to the hospital to visit the bloke.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

ouesi said:


> I'm totally speculating based on the quotes provided by a DM article - so take what I'm about to say with a giant boulder of salt...
> It sounds like the dog was on a flexi and darted across the path of the biker. He could have been giving them a wide berth but because of the give of a flexi, the leash still managed to get tangled up in the bike. I've seen some pretty gnarly injuries caused by misuse of a flexi and been tripped up by them myself with the dog no where near me. Little dogs keep the leash low to the ground and if it's a round cord style flexi instead of the tape type, they're really hard to see, *I'd imagine even more so at a beach where the cord and the sand are probably very similar in color*. Basically you think you're passing safely, but all it takes is for the dog up ahead to veer towards you and you're flat on your face.
> 
> I have no comment on the amount of money awarded, but I will say, I don't see how the woman's age has anything to do with money.


It's not on sand; it's like a normal road surface and well lit. Between the prom and the beach is tons of rocks put there to break up the force of the sea.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2015)

Blitz said:


> oh and another thing - it took 3 years for him to find this poor defenceless old lady. If my dog caused a dreadful accident I think I would have gone to the hospital to visit the bloke.


I know... I think I have a totally different attitude here. 
It wouldn't matter to me if the guy was a jerk going too fast or whatever, just human decency at seeing someone seriously injured would make me forget all that and rush to help. I'm also a trained first responder, so I would do that anyway. 
But then, I'm a chronic apologizer and have an overdeveloped sense of responsibility. But yeah... I would be there doing whatever I can and exchanging information with whoever necessary.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Burrowzig said:


> It's about 7 metres wide at the narrowest.


Thank you
Pretty wide then, room in theory to pass easily if everyone stuck to their sides and the rules.
It does sound like the cyclist may of been going too fast, but sometimes people sustain significant injuries in what appears to be minor accidents.
The only 'fact' as far as I can see in this article is that the dog dashed across the cyclist half of the path on a flexi.
I also hate it when cyclist come whizzing past on shared pathways. But I am also very careful not to allow my dogs to stray out of our half and some of the shared paths are only about 4 metres across by me.


----------



## Fluffster (Aug 26, 2013)

Meh, I just...don't get a good vibe off this guy. And I'm going to be a Judgy McJudgerton because I can  Hope he enjoys his £65,000...I'm sure he'll be spending it on healthcare and rehabilitation


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2015)

Burrowzig said:


> It's not on sand; it's like a normal road surface and well lit. Between the prom and the beach is tons of rocks put there to break up the force of the sea.


The last time I almost got taken out by a flexi I was on asphalt, and the glare of the sun on the asphalt made it impossible to see the damn cord. 
The dog was way over on my left and I mistakingly thought his owner was on the left also as there were people there and the dog was near the people. Turns out the owner was on my right and as I jogged past my dog and I both had to do some fancy footwork to avoid face planting and choking the poor dog in the process. 
Chronic apologizer that I am, I called out a "sorry" to the owner, who replied with "he's fine, he's used to it." Uh.... That's not a good sign IMHO....


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Fleur said:


> Thank you
> Pretty wide then, room in theory to pass easily if everyone stuck to their sides and the rules.
> It does sound like the cyclist may of been going too fast, but sometimes people sustain significant injuries in what appears to be minor accidents.
> *The only 'fact' as far as I can see in this article is that the dog dashed across the cyclist half of the path on a flexi*.
> I also hate it when cyclist come whizzing past on shared pathways. But I am also very careful not to allow my dogs to stray out of our half and some of the shared paths are only about 4 metres across by me.


It's not like that, there aren't designated sides. Anyone can be anywhere doing anything.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Burrowzig said:


> It's not like that, there aren't designated sides. Anyone can be anywhere doing anything.


That's not great, all shared paths in my area have a white line down the middle.
No wonder there was an accident, I've never seen a 'free for all' shared path.
Maybe in this incident the man should be leading a petition to make the paths safer.


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

I had an incident at a big council park where a cyclist came speeding along, he didn't see me and Charlie and I didn't see him until it was too late.

Charlie run at his wheels and got knocked over. I said sorry about 1000 times and he said sorry about 1000 times. If I had seen him coming Charlie would have been on lead in that moment. He was so silent on his bike and we were kind of hidden by bushes. He kept asking if Charlie was okay (which he was) and we both kept saying sorry over and over.

One of those crap times when my concentration lapsed and an accident happened


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

3 years to track down an elderly woman for an accident? £65,000 in rehabilitation costs?
Settled out of court?

Sorry, but reading between the lines, I don't get a good vibe off this bloke either. Regardless of what happened, I can't see someone just saying "oh, yeah - I was walking the dog for my friend, I accept responsibility, here's my life savings in compensation - £65k do you?"

He's "pleased" she settled out of court? I bet he is! I know some have said that he might have been awarded more in court, but there's also the real possibility that he would have got less than half of what she coughed up.

We had a cyclist whoosh round the corner yesterday while I was distracted with picking up after Milly! No bell, no shout, just the whisper of the tyres as I frantically pulled Milly to one side. No apology either, of course!


----------



## JRTBC (Nov 17, 2013)

I have mixed feelings about Cyclists and dogs, I agree everybody is responsible for keeping their dog under control but that applies to the Cyclist also who is responsible for keeping their bike under control. I have come across many "Maniac" Cyclists speeding around in parks having no regard for walkers and children what so ever and I've also come across dog walkers and people who have no regard for Cyclists either. Being both a Cyclist and a dog owner I can understand it from both points of view. I feel sorry for the lady as well as the Cyclists and I hate those retractable leads.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

This demonstrates why 3rd party insurance is so important and of course what both walkers (professional or friends) and owners must consider.


We have no information on the speed of the cyclist and his injuries are not incompatible with a slow speed manoeuvre in my experience with RTAs

Skull fractures can lead to all sorts of issues and require a lengthly rehabilitation period to regain former health including mobility, speech, fine motor movement etc

As someone who has used byways for horse riding, walking and riding a bike I have found that bad manners and rudeness exist in equal measure in cyclists, dog walkers and horse riders

There are a lot of cyclists and walkers who feel intimidated by out of control dogs.

The law does not state that if you fail to wear a helmet you are 50% responsible for your injury.

The reason matters are settled out of court is that it is cheaper to do so for everyone concerned.

The age of the person walking the dog is immaterial, nor is their wealth. The impact to the victim is the same whether you are 26 or 66, rich or poor. As someone who deals with civil suits on a daily basis I can assure you that fear is of course an issue, fear of losing and paying costs etc etc so you can choose to gamble and hope you will win or be prepared to the consequences if you lose.


I do not find anything disgusting about receiving compensation from injuries incurred from the negligence of another person. That is what insurance is for. He will have incurred a loss of earnings, and perhaps all sorts of other things. If the woman is not insured, that is tough, and her choice.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

My friend is in hospital with a fractured skull swelling to the brain,and possible brain damage, awaiting surgery, all from collasping from a stationary standing position last Saturday night..


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Can't believe the lack of sympathy for the man involved, his injuries sound horrific & are still affecting his life.

As well as time off work directly afterwards he will probably continue to have periods off for various hospital visits & rehab appointments, as well as his quality of life being affected by ongoing problems. Not that age has much to do with it but the victim was hardy a young man at 59, so not much younger than the 'elderly' lady involved in this


----------



## CheddarS (Dec 13, 2011)

Personally, I am not sure we can comment on the article, we are only seeing a very small overview. TBH this evening saw bad from both cyclists and dog owners on a multi-use path. There is always responsibility for the accident but there are also mitigating circumstances....


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

What I find worrying is that this has been settled out of court, and that the Lady involved is in her 70's, it just worries me that she may have felt threatened into handing over the money rather than going to court and letting a judge decide the outcome based on witnesses and actual facts about what happened, I just know that my Mum would be terrified if something liked this happened to her and she would panic at the thought of going to court and would most likely pay up to avoid it.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Can't help but wonder whether he actually gave them time to move out of the way and get control. Lost count of hte number of times I've been sworn at by cyclists coming up behind me without me hearing them. Or almost ended up in the canal because of them.

I wouldn't just walk away from someone seriously injured but if my dog is involved in an accident with one of these cyclists round here that go too fast and think they own the path I certainly wouldn't be willing to pay if they were the one at fault. Course we have no details in this case and the guy may well be one of the seemingly extremely rare considerate cyclists but my personal experience with cyclists is far from good.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Fleur said:


> That's not great, all shared paths in my area have a white line down the middle.
> No wonder there was an accident, I've never seen a 'free for all' shared path.
> Maybe in this incident the man should be leading a petition to make the paths safer.


All the paths here are free for all shared. I've never seen one that had designated sides. Unless there's a designated cycle path running alongside it or something. Given how narrow the paths here are I'd not be able to keep the pram to one side never mind the dog! I have to move us right across to the edge of the path to let others pass. Which I'm happy to do given chance.


----------



## Sosha (Jan 11, 2013)

MontyMaude said:


> What I find worrying is that this has been settled out of court, and that the Lady involved is in her 70's, it just worries me that she may have felt threatened into handing over the money rather than going to court and letting a judge decide the outcome based on witnesses and actual facts about what happened, I just know that my Mum would be terrified if something liked this happened to her and she would panic at the thought of going to court and would most likely pay up to avoid it.


This. Can't really comment but shared use paths are no place to be training for a cycle race. If your into cycle racing (or rugby/ showjumping/ whatever), you'd think you might consider your own accident insurance. That said I've seen some gormless woman walking on one side of a dedicated cycle path, with her flexi'd dog on the other. But that's not remotely similar to someone unexpectedly stepping into the path of a bike on a shared path. I've had dogs/ Kids/ People step into my path on a bike but haven't had a problem applying the brakes - or minded particularly. It screams too fast for the conditions. If there is a dedicated lane, then that's different. Don't know and in the absence of any facts, never will. Sometimes accidents are just accidents. Doesn't stop you feeling sorry for the victim.


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

'The experience has left me with permanent hearing loss, dizziness, headaches, balancing issues and pain in my right shoulder.'

He added: 'Lynne tells me that sometimes when I suffer from a dizzy spell I walk like a drunk on a boat.

but he can still ride a bike?
and sorry, but, although we may not know *all* the facts, we can at least glean one fact from the story.
To get those head injuries, as stated, and despite the nice set up pictures in the paper, he darn sure werent wearing a cycle helmet three years ago


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

all the shared paths/cycle tracks around here are similar to this - picture taken randomly from google - even the paths that are away from the road and much wider are divided into a pedestrian side and a cyclist side. Paths with no designation are for pedestrians only.
which is why i struggled to understand how the woman let her dog wonder into they cycle lane of the shared path without realising the risk.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Sarah1983 said:


> Can't help but wonder whether he actually gave them time to move out of the way and get control. Lost count of hte number of times I've been sworn at by cyclists coming up behind me without me hearing them. Or almost ended up in the canal because of them.
> 
> I wouldn't just walk away from someone seriously injured but if my dog is involved in an accident with one of these cyclists round here that go too fast and think they own the path I certainly wouldn't be willing to pay if they were the one at fault. Course we have no details in this case and the guy may well be one of the seemingly extremely rare considerate cyclists but my personal experience with cyclists is far from good.


I agree. Joggers are the same IME. Had one just the other month who rather than give us a wide berth decided to run by us at speed and IMO invade our immediate personal space. We was just getting organised with all our stuff from the car, and the dogs were on a short, but loose lead. He had the cheek to turn around and stare at us for possibly having the dogs in the way of his path? despite the fact the path is huge and he could have easily given us a wider berth. Sorry, but had he stupidly tripped over my dog's leads I wouldn't have been sympathetic and it would have likely resulted in a public slanging match!


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

@Fleur this is what the paths we walk on are like. No designated areas and not a whole lot of space for passing. It's easily doable with a bit of consideration but cyclists will approach from behind at speed and then swear at me because me, dog and pram are in the way and they have to stop and wait for me to move. I keep an eye out behind me as well as in front but still get taken by surprise at times.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

@Sarah1983 the countryside paths ie Forests, Country Park, Canal, cliff tops are like that, unmarked dirt paths, and yes can be problematic if cyclists do not take other users into consideration. Especially in the forests where horse riders share the paths as well, in other areas the bridle tracks are separate.
The article is not clear on what type of path, from the article and others description I had assumed it was a wide paved path near the beach (there are glimpses of a rather uneven paved path in the pictures), which in my area is no cyclists or clearly marked where cycles can go.
My local Promenade - very wide and no cycling at this part - picture pulled from google









I think that I have projected my own personal experiences onto the incident - however I still believe IF (and it's a big if as we don't really know what actually happened) the lady had let the dog run across the path in an uncontrolled manner and the cyclist has lost work etc due to the accident then he was within his rights to request compensation


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

the public footpath from great cornard into sudbury is a completely shared walkway/cycle path
no dividing lines and just the odd roundel to indicate that cyclists are allowed
now some of the path *is* wide and *can* accommodate both, however there is one treacherous bit where pedestrians cannot even walk side by side and a couple of places where tree roots make the pathway uneven and dangerous in the wet
then
add buggies, wheelchairs, mobility scooters, children, cars turning into driveways or side roads, delivery lorries to the silk factory or ernest does, tankers to the petrol stations, hearses coming in and out of the co op, and much much more, in a stretch that is a little over a mile

a dog on a lead is the least of our worries


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Statute of limitations for personal injuries is 3 years so I wonder if that is an advantage to settling out of court. My personal viewpoint is we don't have enough information to judge who was in the wrong. However the legal system isn't one of innocent until proven guilty in cases like this. It's a case of who has the best legal advice. Court cases are won and lost on who the judge thinks is most believable not based on evidence which is likely not to exist. Let's see 3 years planning a story vs a short time panicking trying to remember a incident someone is unlikely to remember. It's easy to say age doesn't come into it but which 70year old would not be fretting about it and suffering mentally when accused with something like this even if they were not responsible. The advantage isn't with the accused and it's hard to prove a negative.

Liability insurance in the modern state of affairs is essential in my opinion and not just for your dog.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Fleur said:


> *But it does make me feel reassured that my £25 a year Dogs Trust membership provides liability insurance for all dogs in my household.*


I didn't know Dogs Trust Membership offered anything like that. Is this just something you get if you donate a certain sum of money annually to Dogs Trust, or is it an insurance scheme they have?


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

lostbear said:


> I didn't know Dogs Trust Membership offered anything like that. Is this just something you get if you donate a certain sum of money annually to Dogs Trust, or is it an insurance scheme they have?


You just need to become a member and it is £25 a year (£12.50 for the over 60's)
https://www.dogstrust.org.uk/get-involved/membership/


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Fleur said:


> You just need to become a member and it is £25 a year (£12.50 for the over 60's)
> https://www.dogstrust.org.uk/get-involved/membership/


For once my advanced years are on my side.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

lostbear said:


> For once my advanced years are on my side.


I have the dogs insured for accident and illness through co-op but I stripped off any 'extras' to keep the premiums low including liability and have that through the dogs trust.
Plus I like the sound of the 24 hour phone line Dogs Trust offer, although I've never had to use it.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Statute of limitations for personal injuries is 3 years so I wonder if that is an advantage to settling out of court. My personal viewpoint is we don't have enough information to judge who was in the wrong. However the legal system isn't one of innocent until proven guilty in cases like this. It's a case of who has the best legal advice. Court cases are won and lost on who the judge thinks is most believable not based on evidence which is likely not to exist. Let's see 3 years planning a story vs a short time panicking trying to remember a incident someone is unlikely to remember. *It's easy to say age doesn't come into it but which 70year old would not be fretting about it and suffering mentally when accused with something like this even if they were not responsible*. The advantage isn't with the accused and it's hard to prove a negative.
> 
> Liability insurance in the modern state of affairs is essential in my opinion and not just for your dog.


What has age got to do with it. When you are in your 60s with a husband a lot of friends in their 70s it is hard to understand why anyone would think a 70 year old would fret any more than a 40 year old and probably a darn sight less than a 20 year old.
Presumably if it took 3 years to find the woman then she did not stop and help the bloke or go and see him afterwards which is unforgivable.
I am not sure how anyone can think it could be the cyclist fault for daring to be where he is allowed and having an out of control dog cause an accident.

Someone backed into my car today. He was probably knocking on 70. I still expect him to pay for the damage!


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> What has age got to do with it. When you are in your 60s with a husband a lot of friends in their 70s it is hard to understand why anyone would think a 70 year old would fret any more than a 40 year old and probably a darn sight less than a 20 year old.
> *Presumably if it took 3 years to find the woman then she did not stop and help the bloke or go and see him afterwards which is unforgivable.*
> I am not sure how anyone can think it could be the cyclist fault for daring to be where he is allowed and having an out of control dog cause an accident.
> 
> Someone backed into my car today. He was probably knocking on 70. I still expect him to pay for the damage!


I hadn't read this bit (I skimmed it). I agree - not checking that someone is okay is awful.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Statute of limitations for personal injuries is 3 years so I wonder if that is an advantage to settling out of court. My personal viewpoint is we don't have enough information to judge who was in the wrong. However the legal system isn't one of innocent until proven guilty in cases like this. It's a case of who has the best legal advice. Court cases are won and lost on who the judge thinks is most believable not based on evidence which is likely not to exist. Let's see 3 years planning a story vs a short time panicking trying to remember a incident someone is unlikely to remember. It's easy to say age doesn't come into it but which 70year old would not be fretting about it and suffering mentally when accused with something like this even if they were not responsible. The advantage isn't with the accused and it's hard to prove a negative.
> 
> Liability insurance in the modern state of affairs is essential in my opinion and not just for your dog.


The burden of proof lies on the defendant not the claimant in civil suits and cases are decided on the balance of probability as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt and to suggest this is not based on supporting evidence is entirely erroneous. If evidence was superfluous cases would then be decided on a person't word and that is not the case.

Mental suffering and fretting is not restricted to a particular age group.


----------



## Sosha (Jan 11, 2013)

Blitz said:


> Presumably if it took 3 years to find the woman then she did not stop and help the bloke or go and see him afterwards which is unforgivable.


Or she waited for the ambulance with any other passers by then everyone went on their way thinking gosh what a nasty accident. Some time down the line there was the "Have you had an accident in the past 3 years? You may be entitled to compensation phone call while the woman was none the wiser. Who Knows? [/quote]



Blitz said:


> I am not sure how anyone can think it could be the cyclist fault for daring to be where he is allowed and having an out of control dog cause an accident.


Because on a shared use path as in people/ mobility scooters / pushchairs/ prams/ kids on scooters/ Dogs/ horses etc - You take care passing people. It's not intended for time trial practice. If it had been a Kid chasing a ball - would you sue the parents? Had a toddler darted across his path would he have collected the kid?

On the Car analogy - if someone pulls out in front of you - you'd expect them to pay the damages. If you do 60 in a 30 around a blind bend and collect someone coming out of a turning - that's dangerous driving.

I've no idea if the guy was going too fast but "training with friends" and the extent of injuries doesn't inspire confidence. Or he could have been pootling along slowly with his eyes shut. Or he could have got his foot stuck in the pedals and had a really unfortunate landing.

I guess I see it as possibly the cyclists fault too, because on that sort of shared path I pass people at a speed where it would be extremely hard to have that sort of accident.

Ofcourse the woman could have been wandering along with the dog lead trailing across the entire path garotte style but that doesn't tie with "I came up behind a group of people & remember a dog darting in front of me."

I suppose they could have waived him past and then taken him out.

If it's a path where cyclists have their own separate area, then that's different. Dogs should be kept out of it.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> The burden of proof lies on the defendant not the claimant in civil suits


So much for innocent until proven guilty, a basic human right. Proving a negative is far harder than proving something.



> cases are decided on the balance of probability as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt and to suggest this is not based on supporting evidence is entirely erroneous.


"Balance of probability" is such a great phrase when looking at potentially ruining lives. Love to know how evidence exists when not immediately gathered. How many people who involved at an accident think of taking photos and gathering evidence just in case, especially if the police are not involved?


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2015)

I'm finding some of the comments about the woman's age pretty ageist TBH. What's this "poor little old lady" thing all about? 

I just spent the day with several extended family and friends many of whom are in their 70 and let me assure you, not a one of them is easily intimidated by anything! As for finances it's just as varied as in any other age group. Some are quite comfortable, some are struggling, most are doing just fine. 

Just because someone is a woman who happens to be in their 70's doesn't mean they're mentally frail, poor, or easily intimidated. 
My 78 year old aunt spends her winters snowshoeing and summers kayaking, she worked her whole life, never married, never had kids, and invested her money very wisely and is doing exceptionally well. Oh and she's not one to be trifled with either. 
I give "old" people far more credit than some on here appear to!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Blitz said:


> What has age got to do with it. When you are in your 60s with a husband a lot of friends in their 70s it is hard to understand why anyone would think a 70 year old would fret any more than a 40 year old and probably a darn sight less than a 20 year old.


In my experience, many of those older are more vulnerable when it comes to finance. Why do conmen target the older generation more than the younger? Obviously there are those who are more capable than others.



> Presumably if it took 3 years to find the woman then she did not stop and help the bloke or go and see him afterwards which is unforgivable.
> I am not sure how anyone can think it could be the cyclist fault for daring to be where he is allowed and having an out of control dog cause an accident.


We do not know the circumstances.

If a dog is "dangerously out of control", it should a police matter.

Isn't there something about if a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence. Now if it wasn't specifically a road, does this mean they shouldn't be without reasonable consideration for other persons? How do you prove a cyclist 3 years ago was cycling without reasonable consideration for other persons when all he has to do is say he rang his bell and wasn't?

No wonder the claims culture is thriving.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Hmm! As far as I am concerned Cyclists belong on the road, not on paths occupied by pedestrians. These shared paths are a darn nightmare with cyclists regular hammering along without the slightest notion that a dog or indeed a person needs some warning that they are coming. Often the demarcation lines wear away or were never there as they are in our town so the path becomes even more dangerous. The whole idea is idiotic, dreamt up by councillors with no common sense.


----------



## Sosha (Jan 11, 2013)

Bridleways are shared paths. I don't mind sharing - the majority of people are careful and considerate. The pavements are shared around here. There are a few bikes that blat along at the speed there'd be doing if they were on the road regardless. It's not how the scheme was intended. If you want to do that then cycle on the road.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Goblin said:


> In my experience, many of those older are more vulnerable when it comes to finance. Why do conmen target the older generation more than the younger? Obviously there are those who are more capable than others.


Exactly this. My elderly next door neighbour despite being in her 90's, totally independent and very much 'with it' still, has been robbed three times. Twice by conmen passing themselves off as repairs men.

My late grandparents were also taken for a ride by a neighbour of theirs who used them for running him around, was always 'borrowing' money that never was returned, and all sorts of other underhanded tactics to try and get what he could from them.

As you said, there tends to be a reason why elderly people are more often targeted by conmen and the like.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Goblin said:


> So much for innocent until proven guilty, a basic human right. Proving a negative is far harder than proving something.
> 
> "Balance of probability" is such a great phrase when looking at potentially ruining lives. Love to know how evidence exists when not immediately gathered. How many people who involved at an accident think of taking photos and gathering evidence just in case, especially if the police are not involved?


You are confusing civil law with criminal law.

Civil law is about negligence.

If you are negligent and do not extend your duty of care to others which leads to a loss then you pay.

Nothing to do with "human rights"

When people ruin lives by their carelessness eg failing to properly control their dogs, then they must bear the consequences.

One can collect evidence in retrospect quite easily and is done all the time by CCTV, photos, interviews, statements etc


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Goblin said:


> In my experience, many of those older are more vulnerable when it comes to finance. Why do conmen target the older generation more than the younger? Obviously there are those who are more capable than others.
> 
> We do not know the circumstances.
> 
> ...


It is thriving because so many lives are ruined by thoughtless, selfish people who only see THEIR rights and not those of their fellow man.

Yes it should be a police matter but the police, as many people who post on this forum attest, are notorious (apparently) for not pursuing such owners.

Hence the recent test case brought by the post office.

I hope more people pursue negligent dog owners.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Has everybody sympathising with Mr Steele read carefully what is written?

1. Sees a crown of people in front of him. (A potential hazard is directly in front of him and he is fully aware of it.)
2. Training for a coast to coast ride. (Implies speed may have been a factor)
2. Rings his bell. (This suggests he thinks that then entitled him to continue without due care. It doesn't. Some may be deaf and would not have heard his bell.)
3. Get tangled in the lead and falls off sustaining serious injuries. (Didn't go slowly enough past the area in question he had ample warning of and got injured.)

If he was riding carefully at walking pace past the crowd which is what he should have done, even if the dog did what it did he would not have been injured.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

cbcdesign said:


> Has everybody sympathising with Mr Steele read carefully what is written?
> 
> 1. Sees a crown of people in front of him. (A potential hazard is directly in front of him and he is fully aware of it.)
> 
> ...


I am afraid that riding at walking pace may well have increased the likelihood of him incurring an injury if you look at equilibrium.

So the answer to the question of has everybody who does not sympathise with the cyclist carefully read what was written would appear to be no.

The answer to all the questions is "we do not know" but we must of course never let the facts, or lack of them, get in the way of our own opinions.


----------



## Sosha (Jan 11, 2013)

I Have. I sympathize with him. Ouch. but first thought on reading the article was Blimey how fast was he going? If he was on the road, or even a proper cycle track, that's not an issue. A shared use foot path passing people who may or may not know he's there? If you don't ride to the conditions, you risk coming off. Or injuring someone.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> You are confusing civil law with criminal law.


I'm not confusing them, I'm pointing out civil law is strongly biased towards claimants which is in my opinion wrong.



> If you are negligent and do not extend your duty of care to others which leads to a loss then you pay.


If you are not negligent then it's only possible that any case against you will go your own way. What disadvantage is there for people to not play the odds?



> One can collect evidence in retrospect quite easily and is done all the time by CCTV, photos, interviews, statements etc


So you can do that after 3 years have passed? Even immediately after, unless you know what you are doing most people would not have a clue unless you hire a really good lawyer for a lot of money. Easier/cheaper to "settle" out of court. Only those who know the system have a real chance or are people given instructions on what evidence is required and how to collect it? CCTV, sure ask for that as a member of the public and you'll get the data protection act thrown in your face. That's why we have a trained police force for criminal matters as they are trained to collect evidence and have the authority to do so. Do you know how to get access to someone's CCTV's data.

....

I do agree with the report's


> Ms Yates, a specialist injury lawyer and partner at Birchall Blackburn Law, is now urging dog owners to be aware of the dangers of retractable leads.


Then again..


> 'Lynne tells me that sometimes when I suffer from a dizzy spell I walk like a drunk on a boat.


Which is hardly cycling with reasonable consideration. No doubt he'll blame someone else is something happens. Wonder if he is allowed to drive a car with that possibility.

Moral of the story, lessons for both cyclists and dog owners should be considered. In modern society, liability insurance is important.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

ouesi said:


> I'm finding some of the comments about the woman's age pretty ageist TBH. What's this "poor little old lady" thing all about?
> 
> I just spent the day with several extended family and friends many of whom are in their 70 and let me assure you, not a one of them is easily intimidated by anything! As for finances it's just as varied as in any other age group. Some are quite comfortable, some are struggling, most are doing just fine.
> 
> ...


How nice for them. I know plenty of senior citizens like that too. I also know plenty who are easily confused and frightened. Many people, myself included, as they age become slower, more cautious and less trusting of their senses. It's scary when that happens. And I'm only 55, but with health issues that complicate matters.



cbcdesign said:


> Has everybody sympathising with Mr Steele read carefully what is written?
> 
> 1. Sees a crown of people in front of him. (A potential hazard is directly in front of him and he is fully aware of it.)
> 2. Training for a coast to coast ride. (Implies speed may have been a factor)
> ...


Exactly this.

My two cents on cyclists. I hike in the woods, and the cyclists on the hiking trails are rude and inconsiderate to both hikers and the environment. I wish they were banned from the trails I hike. They destroy the flora, as well as scare the daylights out of hikers to the point of knocking us off the trail if we don't get out of the way quickly enough. Ar$#*!E$ everyone of them. At least, every one of them I've encountered anyway. Perhaps there are some considerate ones out there somewhere. One can hope.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2015)

I'm not convinced he would have had to be riding fast to sustain those injuries. 
This past summer a dear friend lost her husband when he took a funny step off a curb and hit his head on the sidewalk. He simply stepped out of the car, stepped up the curb, took a funny step, fell, hit his head, and died. $hit like that happens all the time. 
On my own bike I've sailed off it going at major speed coming down a mountain, a little dirt in my teeth, but otherwise fine. Same bike, going slow in traffic, turned right, hit a dip, and flipped the bike ended up pretty beat up. Speed was definitely not a factor. 
I don't think you can say that just because the injuries are bad that speed must have been a factor.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

ouesi said:


> I'm not convinced he would have had to be riding fast to sustain those injuries.
> This past summer a dear friend lost her husband when he took a funny step off a curb and hit his head on the sidewalk. He simply stepped out of the car, stepped up the curb, took a funny step, fell, hit his head, and died. $hit like that happens all the time.
> On my own bike I've sailed off it going at major speed coming down a mountain, a little dirt in my teeth, but otherwise fine. Same bike, going slow in traffic, turned right, hit a dip, and flipped the bike ended up pretty beat up. Speed was definitely not a factor.
> I don't think you can say that just because the injuries are bad that speed must have been a factor.


Did the wife sue the curb or the city? Did you? Of course not. It was an accident.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2015)

lorilu said:


> Did the wife sue the curb or the city? Did you? Of course not. It was an accident.


My point was that speed was not a factor, nothing about who was to blame or if it should have been litigated.

I can't tell from the story if the dog was out of control or if the biker was out of control or if it was just a freak accident. But having been on the receiving end of many near misses with flexi leads, I think people do need to be made aware of their dangers. Whether that warrants a 65K settlement is not my business.


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

Some pilock on a bike nearly took Alfie out last night while on our walk. 

It was a main street I noticed him behind me no lights riding on the pavement. We were getting to a tree so I shorted Alfie's fixed lead and got him in the sit position next to the tree but the cyclist stopped just behind us and started fiddling with his phone so we carried on.

As the cyclist had passed I took it that he gone down one of the side streets so let Alfie have a little more lead.

If it hadn't been wet I'd not have heard the bike and just managed to sharply pull Alfie to me otherwise the a-hole would have gone straight over the lead.

He gave no indication he was there then gave me verbal as he went passed for getting in his way.

I was not very gentlemanly with my reply and I'm glad there weren't any children about. At one point I thought Alfie was about to cover his ears with his paws


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sosha said:


> I Have. I sympathize with him. Ouch. but first thought on reading the article was Blimey how fast was he going? If he was on the road, or even a proper cycle track, that's not an issue. A shared use foot path passing people who may or may not know he's there? If you don't ride to the conditions, you risk coming off. Or injuring someone.


Why is speed a factor in the injury? As I said previously a friend sustained a serious skull fracture, swelling to the brain and possible brain damage, leaving him in an induced coma from collapsing from a stationary standing position?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Goblin said:


> I'm not confusing them, I'm pointing out civil law is strongly biased towards claimants which is in my opinion wrong.
> 
> *It is not biased toward the claimant however in real cases the reason that many claimants are successful is a) the person who owed a duty of care was in breach of statutory legislation and b) that the defendant does not have any evidence to support x, y or z.*
> 
> ...


The comments about walking like a drunk illustrate the issues he has been left with post the accident, not BEFORE, and those issues may not affect the ability to drive, again the doctors and DVLA have criteria for this.

Blame is an interesting concept, the person who caused the injury is to blame it is that simple.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

lorilu said:


> How nice for them. I know plenty of senior citizens like that too. I also know plenty who are easily confused and frightened. Many people, myself included, as they age become slower, more cautious and less trusting of their senses. It's scary when that happens. And I'm only 55, but with health issues that complicate matters.
> 
> Exactly this.
> 
> My two cents on cyclists. I hike in the woods, and the cyclists on the hiking trails are rude and inconsiderate to both hikers and the environment. I wish they were banned from the trails I hike. They destroy the flora, as well as scare the daylights out of hikers to the point of knocking us off the trail if we don't get out of the way quickly enough. Ar$#*!E$ everyone of them. At least, every one of them I've encountered anyway. Perhaps there are some considerate ones out there somewhere. One can hope.


Perhaps you should walk in areas where there are nicer people?

I wonder if they say the same about you? ROFLMAO


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

lorilu said:


> Did the wife sue the curb or the city? Did you? Of course not. It was an accident.


99.99% of all accidents are avoidable and preventable, this is a fact. Accidents are caused by sub standard conditions or sub standard practices. The latter may be the practices of the injured party or A N Other.

Investigation will determine the causes of accidents and what could have been done to prevent them.

Like keeping your dog on a short lead for example.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Cyclists and joggers are under threat all the time by out of control dogs jumping up at them and chasing them. Not to mention car drivers and other road users by dogs running about often off lead. 

Cyclists are no more the devils spawn than dog owners are, there are rude and polite members of both groups.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

He was training, so speed probably was an issue. Not to lesson your friend's injury Meezey, and as I've said on your thread I really hope he recovers, but collapsing is not predictable, and a fall down onto concrete would be serious even from stationery. It's one of those horrible things you have no control over. However, when you are training on a bike it'scommon sense to predict you might well come off, same as horse riders may suffer a fall, it's an inherrant risk of the sport and safety gear is must.
He rang his bell " to ask them to get out of the way". Sorry, but I was taught bike bells, like car horns, were a "watch out", warning, not a " move out my way" demand.
The person who caused the injury was to blame, and if a cyclist cycles up at speed behind a dog, and rings his bell, if the dog moves unpredictability that's the cyclists own fault.
I wish the funding was there to help the old lady appeal the decision.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

If it's a shared path everyone should be aware of who uses it...


----------



## jamat (Jun 3, 2015)

I would say it was 50 / 50 myself the woman had less than full control of the dog and the cyclist was travelling at speed in an area accessible by walkers, dog walkers and cyclists, he should have been more aware of those around him and acted accordingly.

I find bells on bikes cause more problems than not I've had a bike run into the back of me after he ran his bell where I looked back stepped to the left and he went left at the same time.

Just reduce your speed around people and dogs or find somewhere more appropriate for training.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

There are elements of this story that do not make sense. I write as someone who cycles 4 miles each day and owns a dog and lives in one of the most popular cycling cities in the country.

1. How on earth did he sustain so many injuries? My husband came of his bike three years ago and hit a metal bollard and he wasn’t wearing a cycle helmet. He ended up hospital for a week with a fractured skull. After two weeks at home with him, I went back to work as he was recovered enough to be able to care for Molly and take her for lead walks, in a month he was fine to drive. My OH was older than Mr Steele at the time of his accident so what speed was he doing? Was he even wearing a helmet – they are not law but it seems wrong to sue the dog owner if he wasn’t wearing one at the time of the accident. He simply couldn’t have been if he had so many injuries. 

2. If he rang his bell, he saw the dog and he should have stopped. I think he was going too fast to stop and that is cycling with about as much control as the lady had over her dog and the lead.

3. I pass lots of dogs in shared cycle paths. You just know that on a shared routes that you can’t cycle like Chris Boardman and expect to be safe, you cycle appropriate to the conditions. The ‘victim’ says he was 'was training with a group for a Coast to Coast cycling event in August 2012 when the incident took place’, I’d say that a shared path isn’t the best place to do this!

4. I do agree that retractable leads are dangerous in the wrong hands. I can’t use them, my brain can’t engage with them and the lady should have had a lead she can manage. But to sue someone aged 70, I can’t imagine the stress that would have caused. It feels like he was just on a mission for justice and as a power station operations manager, didn’t he have some form of healthcare to help him? 
I hope the lady comes forward and explains her bit as I think this is typical DM reporting and has more holes than his shiny helmet.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

lorilu said:


> Did the wife sue the curb or the city? Did you? Of course not. It was an accident.


Arguably everything is an accident really. If it was on purpose, then its a criminal case - assault, GBH, manslaughter, murder, etc.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> *It is not biased toward the claimant however in real cases the reason that many claimants are successful is a) the person who owed a duty of care was in breach of statutory legislation and b) that the defendant does not have any evidence to support x, y or z.*
> .


No, the very fact that there is an onus of proving innocence means the process is biased toward the claimant. I notice you do not stengthen your nebelous comment on how people are supposed to come up with evidence months or years after an incident to prove a negative. There's a good reason for criminal law to have the presumption of innocence.

Many accidents are avoidable if people would actually take responsibility for their own actions rather than looking for others to blame. That's not to say cases are never negligent and need to be treated as such. However you yourself used the term "balance of probability as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt". So you don't have to been negligent, you only have to possibly been negligent. How is that in any way shape or form justice? Painters and decorators have a responsibility for their own actions at work which includes keeping an eye out for potential dangers. In a private setting this responsibility isn't there so any accident could be claimed to be due to someone else's negligence. That imaginary deceased turtle was in the way and tripped me. Prove it didn't. Possibly cheaper to fork out 65K and settle out of court especially has it stops all the stress.

I wonder if many nurses etc no longer perform first aid in a private environment as they are personally responsible for their actions? I know of several who used to think that way.

Let's not even get into the problems associated with claims specialists for the claimant vs a general lawyer for the denfense and the advantages that gives a claimant. Unless of course you are willing to invest a lot of money in lawyers for defence, money which you are unlikely to get back even if the case goes your way.



smokeybear said:


> and those issues may not affect the ability to drive, again the doctors and DVLA have criteria for this.


As someone who has had an "episode" (not classified as an epileptic fit unless it happens several times) I can assure you that this criteria and process with the DVLA is a complete mess. It's only on an off comment that I even found out I shouldn't be driving for a year and had to contact the DVLA to hand in my license. Not that cyclists are under any authority or restrictions despite being in charge of a potentially dangerous vehicle.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> I'm not convinced he would have had to be riding fast to sustain those injuries.
> This past summer a dear friend lost her husband when *he took a funny step off a curb and hit his head on the sidewalk. H*e simply stepped out of the car, stepped up the curb, took a funny step, fell, hit his head, and died. $hit like that happens all the time.
> On my own bike I've sailed off it going at major speed coming down a mountain, a little dirt in my teeth, but otherwise fine. Same bike, going slow in traffic, turned right, hit a dip, and flipped the bike ended up pretty beat up. Speed was definitely not a factor.
> I don't think you can say that just because the injuries are bad that speed must have been a factor.


Agreed - it does and it's part of life. But as a pedestrian he won't have been wearing any head protection,. As a serious cyclist this guy would have (or should have). It's hard to judge because we only have half the facts, but I think there's a rabbit off here, and I also agree with another poster who has commented about his current safety as a bike rider/car driver. I also wonder if he's still doing these things.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Am not sure I understand how people can state that he must have been riding too fast to sustain injuries of such severity ... people can end up with terrible injuries having had the smallest of accidents & some can survive horrific events (such as car crashes) with mere cuts .... surely there are so many considerations to injuries.

Not in the same league as some people but I have back problems (x2 prolapsed/herniated discs) & for over 2yrs now, some days it wouldn't show yet some days I am unable to do the simplest of tasks. I've had lots of time off work, had physiotherapy, etc & now a spinal injection. It has been a massve problem to me & means I take a variety of medication every day ... all because I lifted one of my dogs in to my car when he injuured his leg.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

*


Catharinem said:



I wish the funding was there to help the old lady appeal the decision

Click to expand...

*


Catharinem said:


> .


So do I. Not necessarily because I think he's at fault (though I think that there are a lot of missing factors in the report) but because it would be useful to get some sort of definitive ruling on how much someone is responsible for such an injury with regard to speed, protective headgear, consideration for other road/path users etc. As someone has pointed out, a bicycle bell does not give the cyclist a right of way - it just warns people that there is someone there.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

lostbear said:


> So do I. Not necessarily because I think he's at fault (though I think that there are a lot of missing factors in the report) but because it would be useful to get some sort of definitive ruling on how much someone is responsible for such an injury with regard to speed, protective headgear, consideration for other road/path users etc. As someone has pointed out, *a bicycle bell does not give the cyclist a right of way* - it just warns people that there is someone there.


That's right. And it's normal practice for racing bikes to have the bell removed anyway - everything to cut down on weight.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

lostbear said:


> So do I. Not necessarily because I think he's at fault (though I think that there are a lot of missing factors in the report) but because it would be useful to get some sort of definitive ruling on how much someone is responsible for such an injury with regard to speed, protective headgear, consideration for other road/path users etc. As someone has pointed out, a bicycle bell does not give the cyclist a right of way - it just warns people that there is someone there.


Not going to happen, it was settled out of court so nothing to appeal.

Can just see the claims lawyer stating.. I'm going to take loads of money away as you can't prove innocence unless you "settle" now or you can continue to court for months and pay that much anyway in lawyers, yet alone what I get at the end.


----------



## Sosha (Jan 11, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Why is speed a factor in the injury? As I said previously a friend sustained a serious skull fracture, swelling to the brain and possible brain damage, leaving him in an induced coma from collapsing from a stationary standing position?


I made the assumption he was wearing a cyclehelmet. It's very unusual to see a roadie without one - & I haven't in recent memory - but as far as the injury goes, it was the combination of injuries - several fractures to his collarbones and ribs and a number of cuts and bruises - rather than the head injury - that provoked the "Blimey how fast?"


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

I've been thinking about this story a lot since this thread was started, so these are just my thoughts.

Many will know that I work with the elderly. Yes, some of them are old, frail, confused or easily intimidated. Others are cunning little whatsits who know how to manipulate, lie and are generally quite crafty beggars. The "games" they can invent to avoid taking medication can be quite staggering. Not all, but some.

This lady in question - there's very little said about her. The "victim" came up behind her and the dog suddenly darted across his path - how do any of us know if the lady has full hearing? She might have been deaf and therefore not heard the bell. He may not have rang the bell in the first place, and after 3 years, there's no way to prove it either way.

Why did it take 3 years to track her down? I agree with Goblin, age aside, how many of us are going to remember an incident such as that 3 years ago? The "victim" has had time to come up with his responses and to hone his story to perfection. The woman in question has been suddenly put on the spot and had no time to recall the incident or what actually happened.

The fact she settled out of court could suggest that she was intimidated by the legal system, or the threat of it - again, not an age thing - I freak if someone's threatens me with court action and I have to be very, very sure that I'm in the right to stand up to them and say "fine - I'll see you in court" - and I'm in my 30s.

On the other hand, I really don't like the sounds of this guy. Some PF'ers have pointed out that the term "little old lady" is ageist - isn't that what the "victim" called her? He seems to act quite magnanimously, but he's just managed to get a woman to hand over £65k, plus sold his story to the press! Anyone else would have been called a conman, preying on the vulnerable - and really, how do any of us know he isn't? How do we know that it was a woman in her 70s that caused the accident, and not a 30y/o body-building bloke who told him straight where to get off?

I'm not saying that if the woman did have the dog dangerous out of control that she wasn't to blame and shouldn't have paid anything at all - if she is responsible, she should have paid something in compensation closer to the time, but £65,000, 3 years later?

I wonder if there's another story about a woman in her 70s being conned out of £65k somewhere and this is conveniently his story.

We don't know and probably never will.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Hahaha, love the way the actual 'facts' of this have been overlooked (the man's injuries) & another story of a poor, little old lady who may have been deaf, was intimidated & eventually conned out of so much money has replaced them ......


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

My dog has "darted" (more like meandered, Spen rarely darts anywhere lol) across the path of cyclists several times. Purely because they haven't given me enough warning to ensure he stays out of the way. Either coming up behind me silently and just trying to whiz past when there isn't really space or by being pretty much right on top of me before making their presence known. And yup, I usually get a ton of abuse for it because god forbid the cyclist has to stop or slow down! Same with runners. If I know they're there I call Spen to the side or put him in a down, heave the pram as far onto the verge as possible and let them pass. I keep an eye out behind me but I don't have eyes in the back of my head and they can come up so quickly I miss them.

There are considerate and polite ones out there, we actually met a group of 5 who looked to be training for something who surprised me by slowing down and giving us time to move then thanking us. And another who dismounted after passing in order to help me past a huge fallen tree branch that was almost completely blocking the path. But sadly they stand out because they're in a tiny minority.

As for injuries, I wasn't haring along at any great pace when I came off my bike and smashed my cheekbone, badly cut my knee and shoulder and sustained a ton of other small cuts and bruises.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

The guy himself is the one who made the woman's age apparent "she's just a little old woman in her 70's" which to me sounds very dismissive and disrespectful. Why would you say it that way? He's just a middle aged man who fell off his bike....wow. You know, it's that kind of tone? A nasty undertone to it.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I wonder if the responses would be the same if the "little old lady" was replaced with "30 year old man" 

Whilst I don't agree with this suing culture we have, at the end of the day the cyclist ended up with severe injuries due to an out of control dog in a public place.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Cleo38 said:


> Hahaha, love the way the actual 'facts' of this have been overlooked (the man's injuries) & another story of a poor, little old lady who may have been deaf, was intimidated & eventually conned out of so much money has replaced them ......


Wasn't there a serial killer in her 70's arrested this year? 70 year old gave birth.

I don't see Dame Judi, Jacqueline Bisset, Jane Fonda,Raquel Welsh, Vivienne Westwood, my mates Mum ( a serious force to be reckoned with) as little old ladies. Doris Payne at 85 ain't a frail sweet little old lady... But hey he only suffered a serious head injury....


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Cleo38 said:


> Am not sure I understand how people can state that he must have been riding too fast to sustain injuries of such severity ... people can end up with terrible injuries having had the smallest of accidents & some can survive horrific events (such as car crashes) with mere cuts .... surely there are so many considerations to injuries.
> 
> Not in the same league as some people but I have back problems (x2 prolapsed/herniated discs) & for over 2yrs now, some days it wouldn't show yet some days I am unable to do the simplest of tasks. I've had lots of time off work, had physiotherapy, etc & now a spinal injection. It has been a massve problem to me & means I take a variety of medication every day ... all because I lifted one of my dogs in to my car when he injuured his leg.


I based it on my husband hitting a metal bollard without a crash helmet on his bike, I wouldn't imagine a skull isn't much thicker than someone else's... I think a lot of outcomes are dependent on the reporters interpretation and the need to successfully sue as well


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

MollySmith said:


> I based it on my husband hitting a metal bollard without a crash helmet on his bike, I wouldn't imagine a skull isn't much thicker than someone else's... I think a lot of outcomes are dependent on the reporters interpretation and the need to successfully sue as well


But they do vary, whether or not that may be the cause of more or less severe injuries would again depend on other factors, including where the injury was & the impact force.

Last year a cricketer was killed by a fast bowled ball (it was again mentioned on the news today), despite wearing a helmet. As the ball hit him at a specific place & at certain speed this was enough to cause such a severe injury that he died.... maybe if it had hit him at another point on his head he would still be alive ... who knows. I just don't think that we can compre severity of injuries with those experienced by others, we are all diffferent, the circumstances involved are all different so everyone is individual


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

Meezey said:


> Wasn't there a serial killer in her 70's arrested this year? 70 year old gave birth.
> 
> I don't see Dame Judi, Jacqueline Bisset, Jane Fonda,Raquel Welsh, Vivienne Westwood, my mates Mum ( a serious force to be reckoned with) as little old ladies. Doris Payne at 85 ain't a frail sweet little old lady... But hey he only suffered a serious head injury....


I'm not saying her age makes her frail or doddery, just that from my experience of that age group that they tend to be not naive but taking things at face value and believing that most people are honest, and that if a lawyer turned and threatened my Mum with legal action over something she was aware of/at the incident of, she would if told that she was to blame most probably believe it and pay up to not to go court. My Mum is by no mean stupid but she hugely gullible and almost fell for the 'your computer has a virus' phone scam, now this is a person who had done numerous computer courses and held down a very responsible job for many years but she rightly or wrongly believes what she is told and was brought up in a generation to respect her elders and authority figures.

Who knows this woman might well be a nasty conniving devious sort that left a man bleeding on the seafront, I just don't like his perceived tone in the article and that if he has been left with such severe issues with dizziness making him appear drunk then surely he's not safe to be on bike.

As with all these cases there are 3 side, his, hers and the truth, and the devil alone knows that


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

MontyMaude said:


> I'm not saying her age makes her frail or doddery, just that from my experience of that age group that they tend to be not naive but taking things at face value and believing that most people are honest, and that if a lawyer turned and threatened my Mum with legal action over something she was aware of/at the incident of, she would if told that she was to blame most probably believe it and pay up to not to go court. My Mum is by no mean stupid but she hugely gullible and almost fell for the 'your computer has a virus' phone scam, now this is a person who had done numerous computer courses and held down a very responsible job for many years but she rightly or wrongly believes what she is told and was brought up in a generation to respect her elders and authority figures.
> 
> Who knows this woman might well be a nasty conniving devious sort that left a man bleeding on the seafront, I just don't like his perceived tone in the article and that if he has been left with such severe issues with dizziness making him appear drunk then surely he's not safe to be on bike.
> 
> As with all these cases there are 3 side, his, hers and the truth, and the devil alone knows that


Very true, my point is, we don't know the whole story, not all 70 years olds are delicate flowers, fractured skulls can happened at any speed even wearing a helmet. Both knew the path was used buy different kinda ie walkers cyclist. I am sure both had legal representation and their was no threats by lawyers to those who were in a vulnerable position.

It's the Fail chances are those aren't even his words, yet everyone has painted a 60 year old man ( no spring chicken) with a serious injury the villain and a 70 year old a frail innocent victim.... Just baffling....


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

MollySmith said:


> I based it on my husband hitting a metal bollard without a crash helmet on his bike, I wouldn't imagine a skull isn't much thicker than someone else's...


Just to lighten the mood, not derail, but I could think of a couple of people with thicker skulls than most! ( in real life I hasten, not PF!)


----------



## Wiz201 (Jun 13, 2012)

Being a recent horse rider and done carriage driving, I think those little helmets they use don't give much protection. My sister went biking whilst we were on an RDA carriage driving holiday and I said to her that your riding hat is safer than one of those little cycle helmets.
I never believe what the newspapers say, I bet most of that 65k would have been made up by them and then insurance would have paid out from the owner who had the dog. I don't know if or why the lady didn't leave her details if he was that seriously injured. I think this three year thing could be related to a 'had an accident in the last 3 years?' type sue.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Catharinem said:


> Just to lighten the mood, not derail, but I could think of a couple of people with thicker skulls than most!* ( in real life I hasten, not PF!)*


But . . . . . . . but . . . . . . .PF _is_ real life . . . .

. . . . isn't it? (_*very small, frightened voice*_)


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Interestingly the coast to coast race seems to be an endurance rather than speed race but hey ho....


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

lostbear said:


> But . . . . . . . but . . . . . . .PF _is_ real life . . . .
> 
> . . . . isn't it? (_*very small, frightened voice*_)


Of course it is! But we only see a little of the person. For instance, I'm sure you look nothing like your "wanted" type poster, and I'm fairly sure Meezey isn't a rottie!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Catharinem said:


> Of course it is! But we only see a little of the person. For instance, I'm sure you look nothing like your "wanted" type poster, and I'm fairly sure Meezey isn't a rottie!


Bahahaha read that as "I'm fairly sure Meezey isn't a rotter" was going to say some may beg to differ  lol


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Catharinem said:


> Just to lighten the mood, not derail, but I could think of a couple of people with thicker skulls than most! ( in real life I hasten, not PF!)


Snigger! Yes I agree


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2015)

Reading some more articles on this incident:
"While cycling on Heysham promenade he noticed a group of people stood on the path so rang his bell to ask them to move aside.
The father-of-three cycled to the left of them to try to get past safely but one of the pedestrian’s dogs’ darted out in front of him – causing his bike to tangle with the retractable lead."

There are also several statements saying the woman did not know how to operate the retractable leash. 
I hold my hand up as one who is not capable of properly operating a retractable leash, and hitting the wrong button when I want the dog to stop end up letting the leash out etc. I can definitely see that happening with someone who is not familiar with either the dog in question or the leash in question.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

I dunno, it just feels like 3 years to hunt someone down must mean he has a lot of bitterness, time and maybe money to find this person and sue them. There must be a lot more to this story that we are reading here.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2015)

And according to this article, her insurance is covering the payout. 
"The law firm which led the case said the payout is being covered by her insurers."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-got-entangled-pet-s-lead.html#ixzz3shFagvrE

That the insurance company agreed to the payout is significant to me. I know here insurance doesn't pay unless they absolutely have to!


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

MollySmith said:


> I dunno, it just feels like 3 years to hunt someone down must mean he has a lot of bitterness, time and maybe money to find this person and sue them. There must be a lot more to this story that we are reading here.


I'd be bitter if I had suffered severe and life changing injuries because someone couldn't work a Flexi lead .


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2015)

MollySmith said:


> I dunno, it just feels like 3 years to hunt someone down must mean he has a lot of bitterness, time and maybe money to find this person and sue them. There must be a lot more to this story that we are reading here.


I am sure there is much more to the story on all sides.

As a dog owner, it is a good reminder that not everyone is dog friendly or accommodating of dogs and it behooves me to pay attention to what my dogs are doing and how their actions may affect others.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Catharinem said:


> Of course it is! But we only see a little of the person. For instance, I'm sure you look nothing like your "wanted" type poster, and I'm fairly sure Meezey isn't a rottie!


Well, you've got one out of two right (*_scampers off to sharpen teeth_*)


ouesi said:


> I am sure there is much more to the story on all sides.
> 
> As a dog owner, it is a good reminder that not everyone is dog friendly or accommodating of dogs and it* behooves* me to pay attention to what my dogs are doing and how their actions may affect others.


I'm NEVER going to argue with someone who says "behooves".


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2015)

lostbear said:


> I'm NEVER going to argue with someone who says "behooves".


Uh oh... is that a britishism I'm not familiar with? I just meant that it's in our best interest as dog owners to realize not everyone likes dogs as much as we do!


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Uh oh... is that a britishism I'm not familiar with? I just meant that it's in our best interest as dog owners to realize not everyone likes dogs as much as we do!


It behoves me to understand you just spelt it wrong. You don't really behoover unless your canine companions are moulting!


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Catharinem said:


> It behoves me to understand you just spelt it wrong. You don't really behoover unless your canine companions are moulting!


And another "Britishism" you may like:

Horses sweat
Gentlemen perspire
But ladies only glow!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> I wonder if the responses would be the same if the "little old lady" was replaced with "30 year old man"


Yes, my issue is that the idea of needing to prove innocence is wrong. The legal system rewards those who know and can therefore play the system rather than those who inadvertently get caught up in it.

As for insurance paying.. bean counters. It's often cheaper to settle out of court than actually clear someone. Of course, depending on the out of court settlement, she could now be open to anyone coming up and saying they have financial losses due to the incident and she may well be seen to have admitted blame. Future court cases would be more likely to go against her due to this. Not necessarily applicable in this case but something people need to be aware of.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Catharinem said:


> And another "Britishism" you may like:
> 
> Horses sweat
> Gentlemen perspire
> But ladies only glow!


I was brought up with ladies GENTLY glow.
I glow like buggery sometimes.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Sosha said:


> I made the assumption he was wearing a cyclehelmet. It's very unusual to see a roadie without one - & I haven't in recent memory - but as far as the injury goes, it was the combination of injuries - several fractures to his collarbones and ribs and a number of cuts and bruises - rather than the head injury - that provoked the "Blimey how fast?"


Low speed cycle accidents often involve bruised or cracked ribs from impact with the handlebars, or 'personal' bruising from impact with the crossbar if the bike has one. You don't often come right off the bike unless you're going fast; slow enough, you get your feet down before the bike goes over.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2015)

Burrowzig said:


> slow enough, you get your feet down before the bike goes over.


Not if the bike flips. 
I've been there, done that. There was a huge pothole hidden in a pile of leaves. I biked through it, the front tire stopped, back kept going and I flipped landing on my chin, it was ugly. I wasn't going fast either, had just been stopped at a red light and it wasn't even all the way across the street, I hadn't picked up any speed yet.

From what I can piece together from other articles, it sounds like the dog was on one side, human holding the flexi on the other, the biker when through, catching the flexi which then tangled up in his front tire and had essentially the same effect. The front tire stops moving while the back tire continues and you end up with some pretty serious injuries. He didn't have to be going fast.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Burrowzig said:


> Low speed cycle accidents often involve bruised or cracked ribs from impact with the handlebars, or 'personal' bruising from impact with the crossbar if the bike has one. You don't often come right off the bike unless you're going fast; slow enough, you get your feet down before the bike goes over.


Assuming he wasn't wearing those pedal clips of course as "performance" cyclists often do to prevent their feet slipping off the pedals which would have made it much more difficult to avoid falling off.

As a driver I am mindful of the fact that when driving a car we should always be prepared for the unexpected including a child or an animal running out into the road. Frankly I think cyclists sharing pavements/sidewalks with pedestrians and dogs should be adopting a similar stance.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Burrowzig said:


> I glow like buggery sometimes.


Hahahaha, I didn't see the word glow in this sentence & it read so differently to me that I choked on my tea!!!! :Finger


----------



## 3dogs2cats (Aug 15, 2012)

Cleo38 said:


> Hahahaha, I didn't see the word glow in this sentence & it read so differently to me that I choked on my tea!!!! :Finger


Oh My! I read `ladies gently blow` and `I like buggery sometimes`
I am drinking a glass of coke so that now all over my PC and I can barely see for laughing

Much apologies Burrowzig and to everybody else trying to have a serious debate, I`ll go back to my book keeping which I should be doing anyway but is by far a whole lot duller than PF


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

3dogs2cats said:


> Oh My! I read `ladies gently blow` and `I like buggery sometimes`
> I am drinking a glass of coke so that now all over my PC and I can barely see for laughing
> 
> Much apologies Burrowzig and to everybody else trying to have a serious debate, I`ll go back to my book keeping which I should be doing anyway but is by far a whole lot duller than PF


We obviously have filthy minds!


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

I guess to me the moral of this story is that accidents happen. The unfortunate reality of life means constantly assessing hazards and trying to react accordingly.

On a shared path there are going to be hazards. Loose dogs, skateboards, kids on scooters. If you are on an object that is most probably moving faster than everyone else, then give adequate space and don't just assume everyone will a.) hear you coming and b.) get out of your way. Because they won't, and no one user of a public takes priority over the other.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Uh oh... is that a britishism I'm not familiar with? I just meant that it's in our best interest as dog owners to realize not everyone likes dogs as much as we do!


Not at all - I was just teasing. It is an archaic term which is rarely used outside of legal documents and Shakespearian theatre, that's all. We usually spell it with one "o", I think.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Burrowzig said:


> I was brought up with ladies GENTLY glow.
> *I glow like buggery sometimes.*


I glow like a pig.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

lostbear said:


> I glow like a pig.


Pigs have very few sweat glands, which is why they wallow in mud. Is this you Lostbear?


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

How about the fact that he was coming up behind a group of people with a dog on a flexi and failed to notice the cord. His mistake. Ridiculous to suggest that the dog was dangerously out of control.
How does he remember the circumstances with such clarity when he came off his bike and was knocked unconscious?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Poundingpaws said:


> How about the fact that he was coming up behind a group of people with a dog on a flexi and failed to notice the cord. His mistake. Ridiculous to suggest that the dog was dangerously out of control.
> *How does he remember the circumstances with such clarity when he came off his bike and was knocked unconscious?*


Because his solicitor told him. They can be very helpful like that. Especially if they stand to gain.

If you know what I mean.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Dogloverlou said:


> The guy himself is the one who made the woman's age apparent "she's just a little old woman in her 70's" which to me sounds very dismissive and disrespectful. Why would you say it that way? He's just a middle aged man who fell off his bike....wow. You know, it's that kind of tone? A nasty undertone to it.


Yes because we know that newspapers report what people say verbatim, they never ADD a nasty undertone to anything to portray an event in a particular way do they? ROFLMAO

Everything you read in black and white in the media is purely factual, it is never biased or provocative.

Let's see

Mrs Bloggs left the house closing the door behind her and walked down the street whilst preoccupied with the impending death of a dear friend.

or

Mrs Bloggs left the house slamming the door behind her and stormed down the street with a face like thunder

If all papers presented "news" in the same factual way well we would not need them would we? Only one would be required................. but we have papers which pander to different political views and intellectual ones...................................


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Goblin said:


> No, the very fact that there is an onus of proving innocence means the process is biased toward the claimant. I notice you do not stengthen your nebelous comment on how people are supposed to come up with evidence months or years after an incident to prove a negative. There's a good reason for criminal law to have the presumption of innocence.
> 
> *There is no need to strengthen any argument, these are facts, anyone can uncover evidence months or years after an incident to prove either a negative or a positive, and frequently do. It is often reported in the papers. *
> 
> ...


I can assure you that the criteria for revoking driving licences is clear although, like most things, not perfect.

The system is not to blame for the errors of the individuals administering it.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Why is speed a factor in the injury? As I said previously a friend sustained a serious skull fracture, swelling to the brain and possible brain damage, leaving him in an induced coma from collapsing from a stationary standing position?


Precisley, we all read of people who have jumped out of airplanes and walked away even when their parachute failed to deploy.

Also there are people who literally trip and fall and die.

Shit happens.

I regularly deal with people who incur injuries without doing anything at speed or high risk.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

lostbear said:


> Agreed - it does and it's part of life. But as a pedestrian he won't have been wearing any head protection,. As a serious cyclist this guy would have (or should have). It's hard to judge because we only have half the facts, but I think there's a rabbit off here, and I also agree with another poster who has commented about his current safety as a bike rider/car driver. I also wonder if he's still doing these things.


Whether or not he is currently doing any of these things has nothing to do with the original incident or claim. Another unecessary conflation.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> I've been thinking about this story a lot since this thread was started, so these are just my thoughts.
> 
> Many will know that I work with the elderly. Yes, some of them are old, frail, confused or easily intimidated. Others are cunning little whatsits who know how to manipulate, lie and are generally quite crafty beggars. The "games" they can invent to avoid taking medication can be quite staggering. Not all, but some.
> 
> ...


I wonder if there is another story about another woman in her 70s causing the equivalent of a crash for cash scam walking dogs in such places?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

MollySmith said:


> I dunno, it just feels like 3 years to hunt someone down must mean he has a lot of bitterness, time and maybe money to find this person and sue them. There must be a lot more to this story that we are reading here.


I think it is shocking, we should never pursue people for reparation, I mean all those fugitives from justice lounging around on the Costa del Sol when they have only stolen from people or companies who are insured anyway should be left alone.

I mean to seek justice for personal trauma and pain, loss of earnings, maybe putting his house if he had a mortgage at risk is completely illogical and demonstrates he is full of bitterness and hatred, he should just accept his life changing injuries and move on with his life!

How dare he think he is owed anything by anyone who failed to control their dog properly, it is outrageous.

I am sure everyone here would just shrug their shoulders and say "hey, never mind, shit happens"


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Catharinem said:


> Pigs have very few sweat glands, which is why they wallow in mud. Is this you Lostbear?


No, but here's one of me at the Sunday School picnic - hot August Day - what else could I do?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Poundingpaws said:


> How does he remember the circumstances with such clarity when he came off his bike and was knocked unconscious?


Considering the man was cycling on a promenade, I would suggest CCTV would come in handy, I would also suggest that there were plenty of witnesses to help the gent recap the events of the day 

The dog *was *dangerously out of control, if the dog was under control then the "accident" would not have happened at all 

What I find interesting here (general comment), is that if the dog on the flexi had attacked another dog, or lunged at, or just came over to cause mayhem then most here would be condemning the "little old lady" for being irresponsible...yet because the dog injured a cyclist...well that's his fault


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> There is no need to strengthen any argument, these are facts, anyone can uncover evidence months or years after an incident to prove either a negative or a positive, and frequently do. It is often reported in the papers.


So tell me, how do I get hold of someone's CCTV coverage from 3 years ago as a general member of the public? That's if they exist in the first place and if records have been kept that long. How much do you remember of the 28th November 3 years ago? What were you doing at 10:00 in the morning precisely? How do you contact random people you passed on the street on that morning?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Goblin said:


> So tell me, how do I get hold of someone's CCTV coverage from 3 years ago as a general member of the public?


You have the right to *request *closed circuit television ( *CCTV* ) *footage* of yourself. The *CCTV* owner must provide this within 40 days, and can charge up to £10. You need to make a *request* in writing to the owner of the *CCTV* system.

Quick google brought that up


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Goblin said:


> So tell me, how do I get hold of someone's CCTV coverage from 3 years ago as a general member of the public? That's if they exist in the first place and if records have been kept that long. How much do you remember of the 28th November 3 years ago? What were you doing at 10:00 in the morning precisely? How do you contact random people you passed on the street on that morning?


What makes you think anyone waited three years to get hold of CCTV coverage? Why would anyone have to wait that long? Where in the newspaper stories does it say he waited for three years to start obtaining evidence?

Yet another huge jump to conclusions...................... I deal with claims on a daily basis and we start collating evidence from Day 1 of the incident or, if unknown, Day 1 of the claim.

As for contacting random people, it is simple, posters, newspaper articles, etc etc


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

cbcdesign said:


> Assuming he wasn't wearing those pedal clips of course as "performance" cyclists often do to prevent their feet slipping off the pedals which would have made it much more difficult to avoid falling off.


You'd have thought he'd have the sense to ride more slowly if his feet couldn't be freed up quickly.


StormyThai said:


> You have the right to *request *closed circuit television ( *CCTV* ) *footage* of yourself. The *CCTV* owner must provide this within 40 days, and can charge up to £10. You need to make a *request* in writing to the owner of the *CCTV* system.
> 
> Quick google brought that up


There aren't any CCTV cameras on the prom; not that section, anyway.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

smokeybear said:


> I think it is shocking, we should never pursue people for reparation, I mean all those fugitives from justice lounging around on the Costa del Sol when they have only stolen from people or companies who are insured anyway should be left alone.
> 
> I mean to seek justice for personal trauma and pain, loss of earnings, maybe putting his house if he had a mortgage at risk is completely illogical and demonstrates he is full of bitterness and hatred, he should just accept his life changing injuries and move on with his life!
> 
> ...


As you should know, many of us here have been the victims of uncontrolled dogs and as you should know, repairing that damage is hard work. I have every empathy with anyone who suffers because of that. However _I_ know from personal experience that bearing grudges and seeking justice is exhausting too. The monetary gain can sometimes outweigh the effort mentally and physically.

As I've said several times, there is likely more to this story than the Wail is explaining and I hope the dog walker is allowed to say her piece. After all it's good to have balanced opinions.


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

StormyThai said:


> Considering the man was cycling on a promenade, I would suggest CCTV would come in handy, I would also suggest that there were plenty of witnesses to help the gent recap the events of the day
> 
> The dog *was *dangerously out of control, if the dog was under control then the "accident" would not have happened at all
> 
> What I find interesting here (general comment), is that if the dog on the flexi had attacked another dog, or lunged at, or just came over to cause mayhem then most here would be condemning the "little old lady" for being irresponsible...yet because the dog injured a cyclist...well that's his fault


Yes I bet there were plenty of witnesses on the claimants behalf....

I'm just envisaging a woman in her seventies walking a small white dog on a flexi with a cyclist ringing his bell and her not pulling the dog in quickly enough and the cyclist going a over t. I just can't see this little dog being dangerously out of control any more than a small child on roller skates. Hazard up ahead, slow down or get off until clear.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Poundingpaws said:


> Yes I bet there were plenty of witnesses on the claimants behalf....
> 
> I'm just envisaging a woman in her seventies walking a small white dog on a flexi with a cyclist ringing his bell and her not pulling the dog in quickly enough and the cyclist going a over t. I just can't see this little dog being dangerously out of control any more than a small child on roller skates. Hazard up ahead, slow down or get off until clear.


It clearly states in the article that the dog ran in front of the cyclist. A dog shouldn't be on a flexi on a shared path, in that situation the dog should be on a short leash.


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

I know what it says in the article.

I walk dogs off lead on a shared path with cyclists and joggers. As a courtesy, if a cyclist comes up behind us, I call the dogs in to let them pass. Most of the cyclists are also aware of other path users and as a courtesy and for their own safety slow down and stop if necessary. You get the odd one that ploughs on regardless expecting everyone to give way. Dangerous....


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

We need to take a note of all the people that think it is the cyclists fault then wait till they come on and complain about a dog they meet out on a walk.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2015)

Poundingpaws said:


> How about the fact that he was coming up behind a group of people with a dog on a flexi and failed to notice the cord. His mistake. Ridiculous to suggest that the dog was dangerously out of control.
> How does he remember the circumstances with such clarity when he came off his bike and was knocked unconscious?


I disagree here.

I shared earlier on this thread, that I was jogging with one of my dogs in a similar situation. Up ahead I saw a dog to my left, some people, and some people to my right, no dog. I mistakingly assumed the dog was with the people on my left. He was however with the people on my right and on a flexi. I passed between both groups not realizing there was a flexi trip line across the path that neither I nor my dog saw. Those cords are not easy to see. Dog and I both had to do some creative foot work to not end up tripped up and the poor dog jerked around.

Sorry but to me that was a dangerous situation not on my part, but on the dog's owner who had the dog that far away in shared space. 
And this is also why leash laws are now specifying the leash length - often 4 to 6 feet. If we as dog owners don't watch it, the next step will be to simply not allow dogs at all.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2015)

Poundingpaws said:


> I just can't see this little dog being dangerously out of control any more than a small child on roller skates.


See and having raised two small children, I *know* a small child on roller skates (or a tricycle) can be dangerously out of control.


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

So if you were on a bike presumably you would steer well clear, slow down and stop if necessary? Or would you sue the parent if the child ran in front of your bike?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Blitz said:


> We need to take a note of all the people that think it is the cyclists fault then wait till they come on and complain about a dog they meet out on a walk.


Yep and all the people who complain their dogs have been attacked by another dog whose owner has scarpered when they are fuming about wanting the vets bills paid................................


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

Furthermore I would not consider a child using roller skates on a shared path to be dangerously out of control. If it was in a supermarket aisle that would be different. On a promenade, kids playing, dogs scampering around is not dangerously out of control. Just a potential hazard. The dog did not jump at the cyclist, or chase his bike or growl, bark, lunge at him he simply was running about and probably not that fast if he was on a flexi being walked by an elderly lady.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2015)

Poundingpaws said:


> So if you were on a bike presumably you would steer well clear, slow down and stop if necessary? Or would you sue the parent if the child ran in front of your bike?


Way to move the goal posts there 
My point was that just because a dog is small doesn't mean they can't be dangerously out of control as many of us experience at dog venues quite frequently.
Just because a child is small doesn't mean they can't be dangerously out of control either.

There is nothing in the report that says the man didn't try to steer well clear, slow down, and/or stop. In fact in one of the reports I read (google his name, plenty of stories come up), it sounded like he was stopped because there was a group of people congregated in the middle of the path. He rang his bell to ask them to move aside, they did, and he passed. As he was passing the dog darted in front of him. I could be misinterpreting, but that's how it read to me. 
Because the dog was on a flexi, even as the biker tried to avoid him, the flexi cord ended up being unavoidable, got tangled up and caused the accident.

Really, has no one else experienced flexi hell like I have? Attached to a small dog those cords move about really fast, they're low to the ground so you don't necessarily see them, and even if you do see them, and try to step over them, the dog is moving around and you end up tangled even when trying not to be.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Poundingpaws said:


> Furthermore I would not consider a child using roller skates on a shared path to be dangerously out of control. If it was in a supermarket aisle that would be different. On a promenade, kids playing, dogs scampering around is not dangerously out of control. Just a potential hazard. The dog did not jump at the cyclist, or chase his bike or growl, bark, lunge at him he simply was running about and probably not that fast if he was on a flexi being walked by an elderly lady.


We know all this how?


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

We know all this from the newspaper article. That is what we are discussing. It stated the dog ran in front of the bike. 

Yes the article may be lacking key information but we are forming our opinions based on the article.

Btw I am not a fan of flexis. But they are not illegal. I have had my legs cut by one because of a dog owner letting his dog chase mine around my legs. But if I tripped over one because I didn't see it, I'd be swearing, not suing.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2015)

Poundingpaws said:


> he simply was running about and probably not that fast if he was on a flexi being walked by an elderly lady.


Two incorrect assumptions here:
One that 70 year olds don't/can't walk with purpose. Which is not true.
Two that just because the person holding the flexi isn't moving fast the dog must not be. I've experienced plenty of dogs moving at quite a clip in the 20, 25 foot arc around their handlers as the flexi allows them to dart back and forth.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Poundingpaws said:


> We know all this from the newspaper article. That is what we are discussing. It stated the dog ran in front of the bike.
> 
> Yes the article may be lacking key information but we are forming our opinions based on the article.
> 
> Btw I am not a fan of flexis. But they are not illegal. I have had my legs cut by one because of a dog owner letting his dog chase mine around my legs. But if I tripped over one because I didn't see it, I'd be swearing, not suing.


So, if, as a result of this trip you incurred injuries which severely impacted on your ability to continue your current employment so that your earning potential was hugely impacted you would not sue?


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

No I would claim off my own accident insurance.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Poundingpaws said:


> No I would claim off my own accident insurance.


Who would then pursue the individual who caused the trip hazard................................................

Amounts to the same thing does it not?

You still want financial recompense for your injury.


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

Yes I'm guessing if they considered somebody to be negligent. The question comes back around to was the lady in charge of the dog negligent?  

IMO, based on the facts given in the article, no.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Poundingpaws said:


> Yes I'm guessing if they considered somebody to be negligent. The question comes back around to was the lady in charge of the dog negligent?
> 
> IMO, based on the facts given in the article, no.


But based on the opinions of those qualified to give an informed opinion eg the insurance firms and legal teams involved, yes...............


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Poundingpaws said:


> Yes I'm guessing if they considered somebody to be negligent. The question comes back around to was the lady in charge of the dog negligent?
> 
> IMO, based on the facts given in the article, no.


But based on the facts her insurance company received they deemed her to be negligent. Had she not have been then the insurance would not have paid out


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

That's why I don't work in that industry and you do Smokeybear


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Poundingpaws said:


> That's why I don't work in that industry and you do Smokeybear


Something wrong with the insurance industry? You do not like it? You find it unfair? In what way?

If so, how come you have accident insurance?

That is a choice not a legal obligation, unlike ELI and motor insurance or building insurance if you have a mortgage?

You are happy to take it out and claim on it, so do tell me what is so bad about it?


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

I took out accident insurance in case I have an accident and cannot work. 

My parents are currently being sued by the son of a guest that stayed at their hotel. He was under the influence of drugs/alcohol was arguing in his parents room (other guests heard and or saw what followed). The guy climbed out of the window onto the balcony, was swinging on flagpoles and the guard rail of the balcony, which then broke. He fell through their canopy and broke his pelvis. 

I get sick of this suing culture where people won't take some responsibility for their own safety and are just out for as much as they can get.

Every single motor insurance claim I have made, I have lost out sorely.

So I think often the outcome of these claims are massively unfair.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

ouesi said:


> Way to move the goal posts there
> My point was that just because a dog is small doesn't mean they can't be dangerously out of control as many of us experience at dog venues quite frequently.
> Just because a child is small doesn't mean they can't be dangerously out of control either.
> 
> ...



I have! Some years ago Chloe my Tibbie and I spent the day in a popular holiday resort. At the time I was recovering from a hip op and could only manage to walk any distance using a stick and with Chloe on a short lead. We'd had a walk around a park then went into the town centre in search of a coffee and somewhere to sit down. As we were walking down the main street I saw ahead of us a long queue of people waiting to be served at a take way, so Chloe and I moved to the edge of the pavement to give us more space when we passed the line of people. We'd walked about half the length of the queue when a Westie on a flexi lead, shot out from the queue, straight across the pavement and went for Chloe! She screeched, and would have retaliated, had I not scooped her up and carried her off, followed by an irate Westie.

It was only afterwards that I realised how dangerous it could have been, if there'd been someone walking closely behind us (which luckily there wasn't) because stretched the width of the pavement the flexi lead became a trip wire, and anyone not seeing it could have easily tripped over it and ended up flat on their face!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Poundingpaws said:


> I took out accident insurance in case I have an accident and cannot work.
> 
> My parents are currently being sued by the son of a guest that stayed at their hotel. He was under the influence of drugs/alcohol was arguing in his parents room (other guests heard and or saw what followed). The guy climbed out of the window onto the balcony, was swinging on flagpoles and the guard rail of the balcony, which then broke. He fell through their canopy and broke his pelvis.
> 
> ...


Yep, very wise.

When you take out insurance you do so in case you need to make a claim for a loss you have incurred.

Exactly the same as when somebody sues someone else.

There is absolutely NO difference!

You appear to have quite a lot of experience in this field and as the story of your parents and your multiple unsuccessful motor insurance claims attest, it has not been good.

Anyone can make a claim, it does not mean they will be successful.

It may be that your parents failed to conduct a suitable and sufficient risk assessment on their premises and, as it was reasonably foreseeable that a hotel guest may become intoxicated and do things which may endanger their health and safety or that of others they are being deemed negligent.

Most hotels nowadays have windows fitted with limiters so that a) people cannot fall out, be pushed out and b) to maximise security.

Thus if your parents had failed to consider the probability and severity of such an event then they would be a) in breach of statutory duty for failing to conduct a suitable and sufficient risk assessment in which case they can be prosecuted in the criminal court and b) guilty of negligence.

Insurance is their for the protection of all not just those who you deem deserving or not!


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Poundingpaws said:


> I took out accident insurance in case I have an accident and cannot work.
> 
> My parents are currently being sued by the son of a guest that stayed at their hotel. He was under the influence of drugs/alcohol was arguing in his parents room (other guests heard and or saw what followed). The guy climbed out of the window onto the balcony, was swinging on flagpoles and the guard rail of the balcony, which then broke. He fell through their canopy and broke his pelvis.
> 
> ...


That sounds dreadful and why I am so against the sueing culture, but I do not think you can compare the two cases at all. I do hope your parents end up in the clear and the idiot does not get a penny.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> What makes you think anyone waited three years to get hold of CCTV coverage? Why would anyone have to wait that long? Where in the newspaper stories does it say he waited for three years to start obtaining evidence?


Maybe as they don't know anything about a potential case until 3 years later  Remember, burden of proof is on the defendent so in this case it's the lady. The claimaint will disregard any information which doesn't match their story or do you think they will, out of the goodness of their hearts volunteer information which disproves their version of events.



> Yet another huge jump to conclusions...................... I deal with claims on a daily basis and we start collating evidence from Day 1 of the incident or, if unknown, Day 1 of the claim


Official capacity, knowing you will need that information. So tell me, what evidence do you have about your general life 3 years ago on 28th November as you collate everything just in case?
You are talking about an official capacity, not a general member of the public and you know you will need that information and will probably know exactly the sort of information you need. You are not describing someone with no previous contact to the legal process who is in shock at a claim coming through their door. Someone who's first thought is to find the yellow pages to find a lawyer and trusts the first lawyer they come across as knowing what they are doing when it often isn't the case. Who is more likely to know how to win a case, a specialist lawyer or a general lawyer? I don't know anyone who has had a lawyer who has said, you are better off going to a specialist rather than letting myself deal with it. Simple question. If a claimaint finds evidence which disproves his claim, does he legally have to produce it?

In general, hindsight with the legal system and how it fails people who do not know it is wonderful. Be thankful you do actually know it.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Maybe as they don't know anything about a potential case until 3 years later  Remember, burden of proof is on the defendent so in this case it's the lady. The claimaint will disregard any information which doesn't match their story or do you think they will, out of the goodness of their hearts volunteer information which disproves their version of events.
> 
> Official capacity, knowing you will need that information. So tell me, what evidence do you have about your general life 3 years ago on 28th November as you collate everything just in case?
> You are talking about an official capacity, not a general member of the public and you know you will need that information and will probably know exactly the sort of information you need. You are not describing someone with no previous contact to the legal process who is in shock at a claim coming through their door. Someone who's first thought is to find the yellow pages to find a lawyer and trusts the first lawyer they come across as knowing what they are doing when it often isn't the case. Who is more likely to know how to win a case, a specialist lawyer or a general lawyer? I don't know anyone who has had a lawyer who has said, you are better off going to a specialist rather than letting myself deal with it. Simple quesiton. If a claimaint finds evidence which disproves his claim, does he legally have to produce it?


All information is disclosable in a claim.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Disclosable but not compulsory. Or are you saying everyone is also trustworthy.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Disclosable but not compulsory.


There are penalties in place if you do not disclose information that you know exists and has been asked for


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

If you get caught and "it has been asked for". So if it disproves the claim but isn't asked for it will be hidden.


I'll ask simple quesitons although you normally ignore them.

Why is criminal justice so set up that they have "innocent until proven guilty"?`If it's not required for civil cases, why is it felt criminal justice needs it?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Goblin said:


> If you get caught and "it has been asked for". So if it disproves the claim but isn't asked for it will be hidden.


It normally comes out one way or another in my experience, remember there are a myriad of ways to obtain evidence......................


----------



## caju (Jan 3, 2015)

I don't really understand this litigation culture to be honest. His health and rehabilitation costs would have been covered by the NHS. The article said he was off work for 7 weeks (a job he has held for 36 years) - I'm sure he was still paid his salary during that time, but even in the highly unlikely event that he wasn't, I'm sure two months of his salary is nowhere close to 65k.

So what is the money for? What makes somebody in a situation like this think "I'm going to go after that person for money"? Apart from greed I suppose.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

caju said:


> So what is the money for? What makes somebody in a situation like this think "I'm going to go after that person for money"? Apart from greed I suppose.


Could be for travel or whatever long term if dizziness prevents driving as one example. However he is still riding his bike so guess not.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

caju said:


> I don't really understand this litigation culture to be honest. His health and rehabilitation costs would have been covered by the NHS. The article said he was off work for 7 weeks (a job he has held for 36 years) - I'm sure he was still paid his salary during that time, but even in the highly unlikely event that he wasn't, I'm sure two months of his salary is nowhere close to 65k.
> 
> So what is the money for? What makes somebody in a situation like this think "I'm going to go after that person for money"? Apart from greed I suppose.


Agree with this, totally.

Saw an article about car insurance recently and the insurers are now going to stop paying out on "whiplash" claims, but offer physiotherapy etc. instead. It will be interesting to see if that has an effect, after all, if the claimant is offered treatment, but no cash presumably there is nothing to be gained unless there really is an injury?


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2015)

Was it the cyclist who sued, or was it his insurance company who sued on his behalf? I can't tell. It sounds like his insurance company sued and he's just getting all the publicity (not that he seems to mind all the publicity).


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> It normally comes out one way or another in my experience, remember there are a myriad of ways to obtain evidence......................


And we come back to.. if you are experienced with the processes involved.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

caju said:


> I don't really understand this litigation culture to be honest. His health and rehabilitation costs would have been covered by the NHS. The article said he was off work for 7 weeks (a job he has held for 36 years) - I'm sure he was still paid his salary during that time, but even in the highly unlikely event that he wasn't, I'm sure two months of his salary is nowhere close to 65k.
> 
> So what is the money for? What makes somebody in a situation like this think "I'm going to go after that person for money"? Apart from greed I suppose.


Evidently you have never incurred life changing injuries which severely impact on your quality of life.

If you believe that every NHS patient receives the absolute best rehabilitation and health care that is available in the UK/World to maximise full recovery you are sadly mistaken. And even if it did, that does not mean that any future earnings from may not have been impacted (eg he could have been going for a promotion where a specific level of fitness was required) and/or his injuries have significantly impacted on the enjoyment of his life eg perhaps he cannot do things he could do before, we do not know but there is a wide remit of possibilities.

So not greed but recompense for loss, that is what compensation is for, the loss of something whether that be life, limb, character, money, job, health etc


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Goblin said:


> And we come back to.. if you are experienced with the processes involved.


No you do not have to be experienced yourself, you HIRE experience eg a lawyer.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Goblin said:


> If you get caught and "it has been asked for". So if it disproves the claim but isn't asked for it will be hidden.
> 
> I'll ask simple quesitons although you normally ignore them.
> 
> Why is criminal justice so set up that they have "innocent until proven guilty"?`If it's not required for civil cases, why is it felt criminal justice needs it?


 Because criminal justice is a totally different system it exists to punish, it is not something that can be insured against.

Civil law is not about punishment it is about compensation for loss whether that be of life, limb, reputation, earnings, money, mental health etc etc


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

*@smokeybear*

We'll have to agree to disagree. I've had family accused of both in criminal and private courts. In both cases they have been let down by the system. In the private instance fortunately a friend of the family knew the system and how to use it. The claimaint lost but that doesn't remove the stress on the family, not just the accused. Without that knowledge the defendant would have lost. That knowledge of the system is rare and not easily available .

The idea of experienced lawyers.. Live in the real world. You have lawyers who are great for one thing and poor at others, or ok generally but not necessarily at the detail needed. Private case, as they had someone with experience, they went through 4 lawyers. How many lawyers would recommend a better lawyer for a situation?

Compension = punishment. You can wrap it up in legalise but that is what it boils down to as it's financially based. I like the idea of physio for whiplash instead though.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Could be for travel or whatever long term if dizziness prevents driving as one example. However he is still riding his bike so guess not.


Not really something that impairs your ability to drive will not necessarily impact on your ability to ride a bike.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> Not really something that impairs your ability to drive will not necessarily impact on your ability to ride a bike.


You are right, acting as though drunk doesn't impact your ability to ride a bike with due consideration for others at all.  Guess you can sue anyone you crash into who doesn't get out of the way fast enough if you ring your bell.

I'll repeat, I do not know who is right and wrong in the report. We do not have enough information. however, the blame culture has swung too far towards the idea of not taking responsibility for your own actions. The civil legal system encourages this.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2015)

Goblin said:


> the blame culture has swung too far towards the idea of not taking responsibility for your own actions.


In this case though, why should the woman walking the dog not share responsibility for her control over the dog (or lack of)?

If my dogs behavior causes injury to someone else surely that is my responsibility isn't it?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Could be for travel or whatever long term if dizziness prevents driving as one example. *However he is still riding his bike* so guess not.


Just not in a very straight line.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

It's marvellous to see that the cyclist is back on his bike and there were no lasting injuries.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

ouesi said:


> In this case though, why should the woman walking the dog not share responsibility for her control over the dog (or lack of)?


We were not there. We have no idea of the situation. Was the person in control of his bike or was "ringing the bell" supposed to assume everyone was out the way? What you'll see on this thread is most likely people basing their opinion on their own experiences with cyclists which is often poor. Who is at fault if a dog is out of control but the cyclist was driving without due care and attention or consideration as they should be doing? What if it had been a child who got in the way? As I have said, there are lessons to be learned by dog owners and cyclists from this story.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2015)

Goblin said:


> We were not there. We have no idea of the situation. Was the person in control of his bike or was "ringing the bell" supposed to assume everyone was out the way? What you'll see on this thread is most likely people basing their opinion on their own experiences with cyclists which is often poor. Who is at fault if a dog is out of control but the cyclist was driving without due care and attention or consideration as they should be doing? What if it had been a child who got in the way? As I have said, there are lessons to be learned by dog owners and cyclists from this story.


My question isn't dependent on being there.
My question was simply should the woman walking the dog not be responsible for the dog she is walking? 
I'm not asking IF she was in control or not, I'm asking if she should be held responsible for being in control of the dog. I think she should, which goes back to your point of taking responsibility for our behavior.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Here's a little something that might be of further interest too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-hit-run-cyclist-outside-Blackpool-home.html


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

MollySmith said:


> It's marvellous to see that the cyclist is back on his bike and there were no lasting injuries.


The article it states that he lost hearing in one ear as well as well as continuing to have dizzy spell & problems with balance. Maybe some days he can ride his bike but maybe some days he can't. Lots of people have disabilities or injuries that mean some days where they aren't quite as fully functioning as others.

A couple of weeks I could barely get out of bed let alone go to work due to problems with my back, yet this week I've been running about with the dogs & look like I'm fine, just the nature of certain conditions, doesn't mean people are pulling a fast one


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2015)

Zaros said:


> Here's a little something that might be of further interest too.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-hit-run-cyclist-outside-Blackpool-home.html


Unless that biker is the same one from this story I don't know how this relates any more than me posting a video of a dog on a flexi attacking a child. 
Unless you're trying to point out that some bikers can be real asshats. I'm afraid that's true for all of humanity regardless of their mode of transportation.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

ouesi said:


> My question isn't dependent on being there.
> My question was simply should the woman walking the dog not be responsible for the dog she is walking


Within reasonable bounds, yes. However just as a cyclist is responsible for their behaviour when it comes to being in control and at a correct speed for the situation and environment.

What if the dog was within 1m of her and flexi set locked with the dog stationary. Should she then be counted as responsible as she didn't get the dog out the way, the cyclist went between them and wham?


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

smokeybear said:


> Yep, very wise.
> 
> When you take out insurance you do so in case you need to make a claim for a loss you have incurred.
> 
> ...


It's not the same paying in to a policy to cover myself should I have an accident, as suing someone. Yes the insurance company may find someone to have been negligent but it is not exactly the same as suing somebody at all.

Yes I guess you could say my parents hadn't covered all eventualities in a risk assessment but people that are intoxicated and think they are superman will find a way. One young man threw himself through a large glass window in their bar as a bet and ended up a bloody mess in hospital. Again drug related. They are responsible for their actions, nobody else and I find it incredible that these people are even entertained my insurance companies.

All greed.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2015)

Goblin said:


> Within reasonable bounds, yes. However just as a cyclist is responsible for their behaviour when it comes to being in control and at a correct speed for the situation and environment.


One does not eliminate the other. Of course both parties are responsible. The biker and the dog walker. My initial post in this side discussion was in response to you saying we need to be personally responsible for our behavior. I agree, on ALL sides. Not just the biker, not just the dog walker, BOTH need to take responsibility for their behavior. 
Given the settlement, (and other accounts I have read - which I have no way of verifying their accuracy), it sounds like the biker was not behaving irresponsibly when he tried to safely pass the woman and the dog.



Goblin said:


> What if the dog was within 1m of her and flexi set locked with the dog stationary. Should she then be counted as responsible as she didn't get the dog out the way, the cyclist went between them and wham?


Can a biker even get between a dog and owner with only 1m of leash separating them? You must be a much better biker than me, because I can't picture myself making it through that small of a gap without hitting either the dog or the walker, which this biker did neither. The leash got tangled up in his tire. That suggest a hell of a lot more slack than one meter.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Sounds like both might have been at fault. The cyclist wasnt very sensible to assume that an elderly person could hear his bell (alot of elderly people have hearing problems) but then again those flexis can be dangerous if the dog suddenly runs out to full lead length (esp if nobody realieses it is a flexi and not a normal lead).


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

ouesi said:


> I don't know how this relates any more than me posting a video of a dog on a flexi attacking a child.


Oh okay.

Well let me try to put it this way then;

As someone who used to do an awful lot of on and off road racing and, have myself, sustained a four inch skull fracture after coming to grief with a dry stone wall at an estimated speed of 50/60kph. The fracture itself severe enough to cause leakage of the CSF, I find some of what Mr Steele has to say about his injuries, long and short term, and how he came by them somewhat of a puzzle. I'm given to thinking that a proportion of what had been discovered at the hospital were, perhaps, old injuries caused elsewhere. It's not unheard of for people to continue with their life completely oblivious to a fracture or break.
However, with regards to the small child in the link, I think you might agree that such a tiny tot's frame is far more susceptible/vulnerable to serious injury at impact speeds such as witnessed in the link's video compared to that of a physically fit full grown man. Yet, as we clearly see, she only sustained a few cuts and bruises.
As for the cyclist, well he seemed to be able bodied enough to cycle off into the day without any visible difficulty whatsoever.

Mr 'Steele', by comparison, appears to have fallen down a cliff.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2015)

Zaros said:


> Oh okay.
> 
> Well let me try to put it this way then;
> 
> ...


Ah, gotcha, so you're doubting the veracity of Mr. Steele's injuries. Yeah... that's been covered. 
People have died stepping off a curb and people have fallen out of airplanes and walked away. $hit happens. 
I've crashed on a horse going at a full gallop. The horse flipped with me on him and we both somehow managed to walk away with minor injuries. That same week my friend dismounted a standing horse and broke her ankle in 3 places. 
Speed is not always relevant to injuries, how spectacular the crash was is not always relevant to injuries.

A few years ago there was a story (I don't know if it's true or not) of a dog who was being walked on a public sidewalk. The dog and owner were passing another couple, the dog barked and lunged at them, startled the woman, she stepped back, away from the dog, tripped, fell, hit her head on a rock and died. Totally awful situation. 
No, no one thinks their dog barking and lunging is going to cause someone to die, but in this case it did, and again drives home the point that we need to be responsible for the behavior of our dogs.

Same thing with flexis (or bikers who ride too fast or carelessly for conditions). No one thinks it's going to happen to them until it does. And when it does no one wants to take responsibility for their part in what happened.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

ouesi said:


> People have died stepping off a curb.


And falling out of a stationary taxi.

Yeah, yeah! I think we're all aware how fragile we can be.

And we're lead to believe that solicitors are as honest as the day is long when half of them can't lay straight in bed if their lives depended on it.

Let me relate another story regarding a compensation claim.

Man at work breaks his wrist and several fingers and then admits to his boss that he made an error of judgement whilst carrying out maintenance work on moving machinery.

The boss values this worker and promises to pay him his full monthly wage during his recuperation period.

Along comes health and safety to carry out their investigations, queue personal injuries lawyer.

Lawyer tells his prospective client that he stands to make thousands from his injuries if he wishes to make a claim. Loss of earnings plus physical injury and psychoclogical effects resulting from the trauma.

Prospective client tells lawyer that his boss assured him he will not lose out financially.¨Lawyer then tells his prospective client, 'Don't be fooled by his apparent generosity. Your boss is just making things simple for himself because he knows he stands to lose far more in court'
Lawyer also influenced his prospective client to....play it up a bit.

Ya can't trust these people because when they want to butter your bread they lay it on thick because they want a big bite too.


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

And sometimes people are looking for someone to blame when it is purely an accident. The lawyers and insurance companies are the ones to benefit in the current blame culture. We must all make sure we have liability insurance just in case. 

Teachers can't put plasters on kids in case they have a reaction to it and the parents sue. If we stumble or trip, instead of looking on it as an accident we are looking to see if there was any way it could have been preventable so that we can sue. 

Fall of your bike, slip on a stair, trip over a dog. All accidents until we find out that somebody that had some possible part in the accident is insured, then it becomes negligence.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> The article it states that he lost hearing in one ear as well as well as continuing to have dizzy spell & problems with balance. Maybe some days he can ride his bike but maybe some days he can't. Lots of people have disabilities or injuries that mean some days where they aren't quite as fully functioning as others.
> 
> A couple of weeks I could barely get out of bed let alone go to work due to problems with my back, yet this week I've been running about with the dogs & look like I'm fine, just the nature of certain conditions, doesn't mean people are pulling a fast one


Precisely, I have a friend who has MS. Some days she looks perfectly "normal" other days she cannot get out of a wheelchair.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Poundingpaws said:


> And sometimes people are looking for someone to blame when it is purely an accident. The lawyers and insurance companies are the ones to benefit in the current blame culture. We must all make sure we have liability insurance just in case.
> 
> Teachers can't put plasters on kids in case they have a reaction to it and the parents sue. If we stumble or trip, instead of looking on it as an accident we are looking to see if there was any way it could have been preventable so that we can sue.
> 
> Fall of your bike, slip on a stair, trip over a dog. All accidents until we find out that somebody that had some possible part in the accident is insured, then it becomes negligence.


The definition of an accident is "an unplanned, undesired event which results in injury to a person or persons".

There is nothing "pure" about it.

99.99% of all accidents are preventable and avoidable.

Unfortunately people rarely say "the reason that I fell down the stairs was because I did not use the hand rail" or "the reason I walked into the tree was because I was not looking where I was going" etc etc

In many cases no claim will be made because conditions were not sub standard and the only sub standard practices involved were those of the injured party, ergo they were solely responsible for their accident and no third party was negligent.

Fortunately most people fail to learn from their mistakes until and unless they become serious enough, I say fortunately because this is what keeps me in a job.

It is totally untrue that teachers cannot put a plaster on a child per se.

A particular school may have that rule in place, normally by some jobsworth who has no real idea about REAL H & S.

It is stuff like this that gives H & S professionals like myself a bad name because many decisions made on the grounds of H & S are made by people who have no skills, knowledge, training or experience in the subject!

I am not sure where you get the idea that an accident becomes negligence?

An accident is the result of negligence either by the victim and/or someone else (see definitions above).

People have a duty of care to look after their own health and safety and many do not, they also have a duty of care to look after the health and safety of others and many do not.

If I walk along the street and a wall falls on me because it has been constructed badly then of course I am going to sue the people responsible for allowing this to occur.

I am not going to say "it was my own fault for walking along the road next to a wall"

People will insist on perpetuating these myths and only succeed in undermining their own credibility.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/jun08.htm


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

I made the mistake of skim reading the article and then going on the conversation about poor old woman and life savings before commenting funding should be in place to appeal.
It seems on re reading that her insurance paid out, so 1) she didn't lose her personal savings and 2), the insurance company themselves would have assessed the probability of winning or losing the case before settling, so on balance an appeal wouldn't achieve a lot.
Still think the cyclist trying it on for that sum of money, and more to the case than meets the eye. Hopefully lessons learnt all round, that dog owners should carry insurance in case they, or anyone handling their dog, causes injury to another. However, cyclists should take note that they also need to be aware of their surroundings and act responsibly. Just ringing a bell is not sufficient. Suppose instead of falling of his bike, the jerk on the lead of the bike getting tangled caused the (in his own words) elderly lady to suffer a fractured wrist, or fall and break her hip, hit her own head ( without a safety helmet). Is this an argument for cyclists having insurance?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Goblin said:


> You are right, acting as though drunk doesn't impact your ability to ride a bike with due consideration for others at all.  Guess you can sue anyone you crash into who doesn't get out of the way fast enough if you ring your bell.
> 
> I'll repeat, I do not know who is right and wrong in the report. We do not have enough information. however, the blame culture has swung too far towards the idea of not taking responsibility for your own actions. The civil legal system encourages this.


totally untrue,

Criminal law REQUIRES you to take care of your own health and safety, so does civil law.

Cognitive bias is a wonderful thing.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Poundingpaws said:


> It's not the same paying in to a policy to cover myself should I have an accident, as suing someone. Yes the insurance company may find someone to have been negligent but it is not exactly the same as suing somebody at all.
> 
> Yes I guess you could say my parents hadn't covered all eventualities in a risk assessment but people that are intoxicated and think they are superman will find a way. One young man threw himself through a large glass window in their bar as a bet and ended up a bloody mess in hospital. Again drug related. They are responsible for their actions, nobody else and I find it incredible that these people are even entertained my insurance companies.
> 
> All greed.


Yes it is, you are merely gaining financial compensation via a third party.

If you expect to gain money in recompense for your loss then the impact of your actions is identical.

Whether you disagree with this does not make it any less a fact.

Risk Assessment does not require anyone to cover all eventualities, it requires risk to be reduced to ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable).

The first measure in the hierarchy of controls is to eliminate the risk eg do not have windows.

That is not reasonably practical.

the second measure is to engineer the possibility of a fall or suicide out by making it impossible to open windows sufficiently to do so.

Simple, cheap and quick to do.

It is what most hotels, offices and other commercial buildings do.......................................

Had this been done the individual concerned would not have been able to incur the injuries which you describe.

But your parents would like to avoid any responsibility or payment.

Your parents had a duty of care to their guests. Fact.

That duty of care was breached and forseeable. Fact

A loss occurred. Fact

Ergo they are negligent (even if only ONE of the above is extant).

So surely your parents are greedy too?


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> the second measure is to engineer the possibility of a fall or suicide out by making it impossible to open windows sufficiently to do so


A bit of topic, but we have a barn conversion, the arrowslit window at knee height to us when indoors in our living room is 2 storeys high from the outside. Building regs mean it has to be non openable more than so many metres above the ground, even though no-one could possibly fall through it, and it!s grass underneath anyway. However, our fire escape in the event of an upstairs fire is a fully openable rooflight, (just 1, the others are limited opening?!) and building regs even insisted we had a set of steps made leading up to it, so we could jump from a higher distance straight onto the patio! Complete madness! This is our arrowslit window, with kestrel resting on the ledge a few weeks ago:


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Building regs and H & S do not always align, although I expect they did this on the grounds of probability...............


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2015)

I'm trying to figure out what is so different here than the many times when members have posted about dogs who are not fully controlled causing members difficulties. 
If the man had been walking a dog instead of riding a bike would there be more sympathy?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Sometimes I am a pedestrian, sometimes I am a dog walker, sometimes I am a cyclist, sometimes I am a driver, and I used to be a regular horse rider. 

I have not found any of the above groups to hold the monopoly on the title "*******", they are, IME, ubiquitous.

Like all societal groups they contain the good, the bad and the ugly, in equal measure!


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> Building regs and H & S do not always align, although I expect they did this on the grounds of probability...............


But can you see the size of window. compared to a kestrel? Heck, even our fattest cat would have difficulty getting his backside through there!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-34945382?SThisFB

Well it seems those who are concerned about the riders safety on a bike need worry no more, he has not ridden it since the event.

It was an insurance claim (ergo the little old lady has not been relieved of her "life savings") and he suffers from "permanent hearing loss, dizziness, headaches, balancing issues and pain in my right shoulder".


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

ouesi said:


> I'm trying to figure out what is so different here than the many times when members have posted about dogs who are not fully controlled causing members difficulties.
> If the man had been walking a dog instead of riding a bike would there be more sympathy?


My thoughts exactly.

How many 'rants' have we seen here when a member has had a bad incident as the result of a dog being out of control?

If this particular lady had been walking this dog down a busy main road and allowed the dog to run out and cause a multiple pile-up with loss of life, what would opinions be then?

My opinion is, if you can't operate a flexi lead properly and safely, you don't use one.

I walk Rosie every week along a narrow tow path, shared by walkers and cyclists. Never has she been allowed to run across the front of a bike.

If this man was injured through the negligence of someone else, he's entitled to compensation for his injuries.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> Criminal law REQUIRES you to take care of your own health and safety, so does civil law.


Doesn't work that way in reality. You can say the system works and it's sensible. Plenty of people have personal experience that the system doesn't work that way. Then again, they aren't the experts you are. It's a wonder that people and civilisation survived without all the H&S regulations we have now. When I was growing up, you go outside of a window and fall, you were stupid, not the window owner for not anticipating some idiot would decide to do so. I know which time I prefer. Yes, negligence happens, yes it needs to be punished. It shouldn't encourage stupidity.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-34945382?SThisFB
> 
> Well it seems those who are concerned about the riders safety on a bike need worry no more, he has not ridden it since the event.


Yes, I believe all the gear and equipment is the same as that from the incident 3 years ago.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Doesn't work that way in reality. You can say the system works and it's sensible. Plenty of people have personal experience that the system doesn't work that way. Then again, they aren't the experts you are. It's a wonder that people and civilisation survived without all the H&S regulations we have now. When I was growing up, you go outside of a window and fall, you were stupid, not the window owner for not anticipating some idiot would decide to do so. I know which time I prefer. Yes, negligence happens, yes it needs to be punished. It shouldn't encourage stupidity.


H & S law was brought in because of the amount of avoidable and preventable deaths which occurred particularly in the construction industry.

The point is people often did NOT survive prior to such legislation

If you prefer to live in the times when people often went to work and did not come back that is your choice.

I am sure that had this happened to any of your nearest and dearest you would not be at all troubled you would just say they were stupid yes?

Are the children who died due to being hanged on blind cords stupid? Were their parents?

How about the number of people who died because homeowners carried out DIY for which they were not qualified on electrical installations?

Or the number of people who died and still do due to faulty gas appliances?

So you would prefer that you and your loved ones live in a time when such regulation did not exist?

If a person is found to have ignored legislation, training and instruction then their claim will often be reduced significantly depending on other factors.

I for one am very glad that H & S law is in place to protect myself and my loved ones.

And in some cases we have to legislate for stupidity just as we have to legislate for deafness in old people for example.............


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Yes, I believe all the gear and equipment is the same as that from the incident 3 years ago.


Gosh, you don't suppose, could it be, that the photograph was posed for effect do you? I am told that happens sometimes, photos are often used to break up large chunks of text.............................


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> Blah...


Yet nobody has said no checks and controls are necessary. Pendulum has now swung too far in the opposite direction. You can legislate until people are placed in rooms of bubblewrap and I'm sure that would break some H&S rule. Doesn't mean we should.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Yet nobody has said no checks and controls are necessary. Pendulum has now swung too far in the opposite direction. You can legislate until people are placed in rooms of bubblewrap and I'm sure that would break some H&S rule. Doesn't mean we should.


Nobody expects people to be in bubble wrap, least of all the HSE.

Another myth that people use to suit their own specious arguments.

I do not know of any H & S rule which has swung too far in the opposite direction, perhaps you could name one which you believe is superfluous?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> I do not know of any H & S rule which has swung too far in the opposite direction, perhaps you could name one which you believe is superfluous?


I don't know the H&S rules and I am happy to admit that. I have no idea what rule states that people can throw themselves out of windows and it's someone else's fault. I know and see the effects of the rules and that's enough. People too scared to take positive actions .. just in case.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2015)

Sweety said:


> My thoughts exactly.
> 
> How many 'rants' have we seen here when a member has had a bad incident as the result of a dog being out of control?
> 
> ...


I'm all for bikers and joggers being careful about how they pass people, AND dog owners need to be responsible and pay attention to who they're sharing space with.

If the woman walking the dog was not familiar with how to operate a flexi lead and that ignorance led to someone else being injured, and in this case, Murphy's law made those injuries extensive, then sorry, but she's responsible.
If the man was being irresponsible about how he passed a group of people, and in the process got himself injured, then he is the one responsible.

It's probably a combination of factors, and we'll probably never know what happened exactly, but I'm just surprised at how many people don't think the woman has any responsibility to keep her dog from darting in front of cyclists.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Who has directly said there is no responsibilty on the part of the dog owner or are you assuming that as the cyclist also seems to be "under attack"?


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2015)

Goblin said:


> Who has directly said there is no responsibilty on the part of the dog owner or are you assuming that as the cyclist also seems to be "under attack"?


There have been a couple posts.
This comment is just one of many examples:


> Ridiculous to suggest that the dog was dangerously out of control.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Cleo38 said:


> The article it states that he lost hearing in one ear as well as well as continuing to have dizzy spell & problems with balance. Maybe some days he can ride his bike but maybe some days he can't. Lots of people have disabilities or injuries that mean some days where they aren't quite as fully functioning as others.
> 
> A couple of weeks I could barely get out of bed let alone go to work due to problems with my back, yet this week I've been running about with the dogs & look like I'm fine, just the nature of certain conditions, doesn't mean people are pulling a fast one


Yes, I know that feeling too, I suffer with a disability every day of my life and cycling is a huge challenge for me, dyspraxia presents similar problems to his (sadly I have nobody to sue.. ). I have awful days and some are sort of better. I do not think for one second that people who struggle pull a 'fast one'

What I do wish that this entire story had a more balanced reporting style. It's all rather assumptive and it is too full of holes. The article states yes, that he has problems with his health but where is the medical view, it's all legal speak.

I'll go back to my first point - the cycle helmet. I know you've already picked me up on this Cleo38 but it doesn't ring true to me. Most of the lycra lot around here seemed to be superglued to them. If you are an amateur cyclist then you'd know to wear one. I have read a number of scientific articles on them, mostly because I do not like the feeling of wearing them (one of many dyspraxic traits is reactions to fabric) and needed to convince myself to wear one (I cycle 4 miles each day) and also in looking for a good one for my OH after his similar accident. The abstract of a 2013 article in Accident, Analysis and Prevention states that _'Bicycle helmets were found to be effective in reducing the severity of head injuries sustained in common accidents. They reduced the risk of an AIS>3 injury, in cases with head impacts, by an average of 40%. In accidents that would cause up to moderate (AIS=2) injuries to a non-helmeted rider, helmets eliminated the risk of injury. Helmets were also found to be effective in preventing fatal head injuries in some instances. The effectiveness of helmets was demonstrated over the entire range of cycle speeds studied, up to and including 14 m s(-1).' _and _'Similarly, helmets were found to offer an increase in protection even when an increase in cycle speed due to risk compensation was taken into consideration.'_ So yes, I could be arsed to linger over this article any longer, I'd be wondering was he wearing one or not? It seems to skip that.

Maybe I need to get my OH to sue our council for the bollards but weirdly he actually has complete amnesia about the event. Fortunately he has recovered better than Mr Steele. He clearly bounces well or rather copes a lot better.

Of course it doesn't take away from the fact that the dog walker wasn't in control of the dog. I took Molly out for a walk this afternoon, after dark and the two paths that we walk along are shared with cyclists. She is on a short lead and her coat and short lead has some florescent stripes. It is a huge shame that the cyclists who passed us didn't give the same consideration to visibility.

And before I'm picked up about an attitude to cyclists, I am the first person to defend good, considerate cycling. My four mile trip and that of hundreds of people who live in Cambridge, if taken in cars would grind our city to a halt. It's eco friendly and healthy. But this story just isn't right. Accidents happen. I have them all the time.

Anyway, leaving the thread as I'm now cross with myself for wasting time on a ruddy Daily Wail article.


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

smokeybear said:


> Yes it is, you are merely gaining financial compensation via a third party.
> 
> If you expect to gain money in recompense for your loss then the impact of your actions is identical.
> 
> ...


If I pay a monthly premium for accident insurance and have an accident then I can claim compensation. How is that the same as suing someone? If I pay a monthly premium to cover vet fees if my dog becomes ill and need to claim that is not suing someone either :-/

How are my parents greedy because a relative of one of their guests takes mind altering drugs and enters a hotel room (which they are not staying at) manages to get out of a window (I don't know if there are limiters or not) and abseil from a flagpole onto a balcony resulting in them falling and injuring themselves? The injured party that should not have even been on the premises tries to sue them? I really do not understand how you work that out.

In thirty years of owning the hotel nobody else has attempted such a crazy act but of course the poor drug induced idiot should have been protected. How very negligent. I guess if he is successful the financial compensation will pay for his drug habit for a few years.

I really cannot work out how a small dog on a flexi lead wandering in front of a cyclist on a path that they are entitled to use is dangerously out of control either though.

This is not my world thankfully. When I am walking my little elderly dog on a path and a cyclist rings their bell whilst slowing down and I gesture my dog to move to the side if she wanders to the wrong side oblivious of a bike it usually results in smiling, sorries and thank yous and don't worry about its. Not life changing injuries and suing for tens of thousands of pounds over who should have been stood where or going at what speed.

People are losing touch with reality I swear.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Poundingpaws said:


> This is not my world thankfully. *People are losing touch with reality I swear.*


And so they are.

_'Opportunity makes a thief' (Francis Bacon 1561 - 1626.)
_
That's exactly what I saw. An opportunist. And from that observation and many personal experiences in the cycling world I doubted some of what Mr 'Steele' had to say for himself.
We can't doubt the physical findings of the hospital - broken/fractured bones - but we can question when and where some of those injuries may have taken place, just as I had done so in a previous post.

This 'compensation culture' is often willfully exploited by those who perceive a circumstance or series of circumstances as an easy approach to gain a quick profit.

Some even have a blatant disregard for morals altogether or the unnecessary and prolonged distress and suffering their financial adventure might cause to others.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...agers-suing-victims-families-emotional-trauma
_
_


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Poundingpaws said:


> If I pay a monthly premium for accident insurance and have an accident then I can claim compensation. How is that the same as suing someone? If I pay a monthly premium to cover vet fees if my dog becomes ill and need to claim that is not suing someone either :-/
> 
> How are my parents greedy because a relative of one of their guests takes mind altering drugs and enters a hotel room (which they are not staying at) manages to get out of a window (I don't know if there are limiters or not) and abseil from a flagpole onto a balcony resulting in them falling and injuring themselves? The injured party that should not have even been on the premises tries to sue them? I really do not understand how you work that out.
> 
> ...


It is the same because you are paying a monthly stipend to insure yourself against loss of one kind or another.

If you are not insured instead of making regular payments you make a lump sum one.

The outcome is the same, you receive money for losing something.

It really is not too difficult to grasp is it?

You are attaching a personal moral judgement on both because you believe that one is somehow "bad" and the other "good".

That is you prerogative, but it does not make it any more true. 

You applied the same moral judgements on the injured party in the case we are discussing and your parents.

Implying one was greedy because he was seeking compensation for the life changing injuries he had incurred in an accident (compensation you would receive if the same happened to you as you are insured) but another was a victim SOLELY due to the acts of another (but I have already demonstrated that had they had put in the correct, reasonably practical controls the injury and thus the claim could have been avoided).

When you take out accident insurance, if the cause or one of the causes of your injury is found to be due to the acts or omissions of A N Other than the insurance company under which you are covered will effectively "sue" the insurance company of A N Other to claim some of the monies.

This is how insurance works!

It is not about "how I work that out" it is "the way things are" it is the law.

Just as the person who injured themselves has responsibility for their own safety so do your parents, neither is SOLELY responsible for this!

I am afraid many of us live with the reality of the failures of both the individual and the group, but you are trying to take the moral high ground when in actual fact you would behave in exactly the same way as the IP in this story, if you were injured you would CLAIM (otherwise why would you take out insurance).

Whilst you may think you are somehow "better" than he, I am afraid you are very much mistaken.

But you are unable to take a detached, clinical view due to your multiple motor claims and the experiences of your parents which has skewed your logic.

Perfectly understandable.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Zaros said:


> And so they are.
> 
> _'Opportunity makes a thief' (Francis Bacon 1561 - 1626.)
> _
> ...


Oh dear, do you really think that the doctors who were treating the injured party cannot differentiate between fresh and old injuries?

Basic medical knowledge...................................

Of course there are people who take advantage of the system, but that does not translate into "all people who make claims are dishonest" any more than just because some drivers operate cars without MOTs, Insurance or Road Tax equates to "all car drivers are dishonest".


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

smokeybear said:


> Oh dear, do you really think that the doctors who were treating the injured party cannot differentiate between fresh and old injuries?
> *
> Basic medical knowledge......*.............................


You would think so, wouldn't you.

However, I'm aware that doctors can fail to notice injuries at the time of examination and then, at a later date, after intensive investigations relating to a much complained about old injury they suddenly discover the root cause of the patients complaint as 'Recent' trauma.

A six year old boy falls from the arm of a chair and is suspected of having a broken collar bone.
At the time of examination and X-ray, the doctor tells the parent 'All is well' It's just badly bruised.'

Much, much later after several repeated visits to the doctor and referrals to the hospital. 'It's just bruising'

Months later during a school medical the nurse notices something's not quite right with said child and tells the parent to take the child to the hospital. This visit resulted in the discovery of a broken collar bone which the doctor claimed was a 'recent' injury.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Zaros said:


> Here's a little something that might be of further interest too.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-hit-run-cyclist-outside-Blackpool-home.html


What on earth has that got to do with anything. On that premise I had better not get the bloke to pay for my smashed headlight that he backed into accidentally because a driver once backed into a child and drove off.



catz4m8z said:


> Sounds like both might have been at fault. The cyclist wasnt very sensible to assume that an elderly person could hear his bell (alot of elderly people have hearing problems) but then again those flexis can be dangerous if the dog suddenly runs out to full lead length (esp if nobody realieses it is a flexi and not a normal lead).


Why on earth would someone assume a 70 year old walking a dog had hearing problems, any more than a 20 year old might. If there was a doddery old 90 year old being supported and helped along it might be different but then again if they also had a dog they would be fairly negligent. If the dog was on the same side as the walker when the cyclist started to pass how on earth can he take any blame for the dog coming across his wheel and causing an accident. I am gobsmacked.



smokeybear said:


> Yes it is, you are merely gaining financial compensation via a third party.
> 
> If you expect to gain money in recompense for your loss then the impact of your actions is identical.
> 
> ...


As usual you are being far too dogmatic. I cannot see how anyone can be held negligent for a person climbing onto a balcony , which presumably is available for people to go on therefore has to have access. Of course if the balcony rail could have broken with a person leaning on it then that would be negligence but how can it be negligent if the person was using it inappropriately and without permission.

I hate this suing culture and equally I hate the idiots that think they will be sued for helping a child in distress. The rules and regulations about it are stupid beyond words. Teachers can no longer cuddle and reassure a distressed 5 year old. They are afraid to treat an injured child. They have to be careful never to touch a child. A lost child will be ignored. The world (or at least the UK) has gone totally mad. At the same time I am aware that a lot of what is done and not done in the guise of H and S is in fact made up rubbish but that does not help the man on the street to know what you might actually be sued for and what is ok as the majority of people seem to think that if you look in the wrong direction you will go to prison. (that is obviously an exaggeration)


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Blitz said:


> What on earth has that got to do with anything.


If you didn't read 'selectively' you'd know without having to ask.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Zaros said:


> If you didn't read 'selectively' you'd know without having to ask.


Eh? There is no relevance whatsoever.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Blitz said:


> Eh? There is no relevance whatsoever.


You mean, you couldn't find any relevance. And now you want to blame me for that?

I'll expect to hear from your solicitor with a claim for distress then.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

MollySmith said:


> Yes, I know that feeling too, I suffer with a disability every day of my life and cycling is a huge challenge for me, dyspraxia presents similar problems to his (sadly I have nobody to sue.. ). I have awful days and some are sort of better. I do not think for one second that people who struggle pull a 'fast one'
> 
> What I do wish that this entire story had a more balanced reporting style. It's all rather assumptive and it is too full of holes. The article states yes, that he has problems with his health but where is the medical view, it's all legal speak.
> 
> ...


I agree, an article from the Mail is hardly a piece of good journalism, & will alwasy have a slant on things ... 

My arguement was not really saying the cyclist was right (as I don;t know all the facts & am sure they weren't printed here) but I was defending his right to compensation & to point out that he did have serious injuries which were still affecting him, which some people seem to have overlooked. It seems the figure mentioned as a payout was deemed 'excessive' but I doubt he would have received that amount after ceertain charges were taken out & even if he did would it really be true compensation for his injuries? Personally I dont think money can cover it but it can help with arrangements & changes you may need to make to your lifestyle.

If someone (apart from me!) had been responsible for my back injury then would £65k make up for it? Definitely not, but it could help with things around my house that I am not able to do anymore, it could help cover me if I did have to go long term sick & rely on statutory sick pay, etc

Accidents do happen but usually through negligence, I work in the construction industry where we simply can't have the attitude that 'accidents just happen' .... people can lose their lives if we had this attitude so we (everyone as it is the responsibility of everyone to ensure H&S is adhered to) work hard to try & achieve 0 accidents in the workplace, especially out on site.


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2015)

Poundingpaws said:


> I really cannot work out how a small dog on a flexi lead wandering in front of a cyclist on a path that they are entitled to use is dangerously out of control either though.


Because when that dog wanders in front of that cyclist, the only place for the cyclist to go to avoid the dog is behind the dog, and thus through the lead, that then got tangled up endangering both the cyclist and the dog.

How do you think injuries like this happen?








That's from a flexi leash on a dog who was not under control. 
Just because a dog is on a leash doesn't mean the dog is under control, and when that leashed dog darts in front of people, they will try to avoid the dog, not realizing there is a leash behind him that needs to be avoided too.


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Because when that dog wanders in front of that cyclist, the only place for the cyclist to go to avoid the dog is behind the dog, and thus through the lead, that then got tangled up endangering both the cyclist and the dog.
> 
> How do you think injuries like this happen?
> 
> ...


That's what brakes are for. As in my earlier comparison, if passing a child on roller skates that child moves in front of your bike you should be going slowly enough to brake safely when passing children or animals. Would you consider a child on roller skates or simply running, skipping on a multi user path dangerously out of control. But I think you said before yes so we disagree.


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2015)

Poundingpaws said:


> That's what brakes are for. As in my earlier comparison, if passing a child on roller skates that child moves in front of your bike you should be going slowly enough to brake safely when passing children or animals. Would you consider a child on roller skates or simply running, skipping on a multi user path dangerously out of control. But I think you said before yes so we disagree.


Brakes aren't going to prevent that sort of injury. 
That person was standing there and the dog ran past her legs attached to a flexi thus causing the injuries. It's an example of how a dog on a flexi can absolutely be a danger if not properly controlled.

Your child comparison still doesn't hold water. For one, children don't usually have a retractable cord attached to them that must also be avoided with their quick movements. 
And yes we do disagree that a child on roller skates or skipping and running can be dangerously out of control. If my child knocked someone over while on roller-skates I would be mortified and apologize profusely, not berate the person for not watching out for my child.

I know we disagree, which is fine, but your attitude frankly worries me. Not everyone loves dogs or even likes them. Dogs are not small humans and their rights to be out in public are not protected in the same way. We as dog owners need to be aware of how our dogs' behavior is perceived and how our attitudes about our dogs' behavior affects our ability to have our dogs in shared spaces. 
If we start saying someone tripping over our flexi line is their fault, someone tripping over our dog who darted out in front of them was their fault, we're going to find ourselves less and less welcome in shared spaces.


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Brakes aren't going to prevent that sort of injury.
> That person was standing there and the dog ran past her legs attached to a flexi thus causing the injuries. It's an example of how a dog on a flexi can absolutely be a danger if not properly controlled.
> 
> Your child comparison still doesn't hold water. For one, children don't usually have a retractable cord attached to them that must also be avoided with their quick movements.
> ...


Well that's my feeling about cyclists. There are the few that let down the others. Cyclists on a shared path should give way. They are a vehicle and have no place on a path unless driving with due care and attention.

Yes you would apologize if your child dashed in front of someone and they tripped. I'm sure you would feel a bit different if they then sued you for £65000.

Both parties in the article played their part in the accident but claiming that sort of money is where it makes me gasp with disbelief. Putting the sole blame on the lady in charge of the dog.

My brother was beaten up and had his cigarettes stolen some years back. A deliberate and violent attack. That same night a man in his fifties was also beaten up by the same youths. That mine died. My brother lost his sight in one eye as a result of the attack. Shortly afterwards he dropped out of university. He was awarded circa £10,000 in compensation. Some perspective. This was not an accident.


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2015)

Poundingpaws said:


> Well that's my feeling about cyclists. There are the few that let down the others. Cyclists on a shared path should give way. They are a vehicle and have no place on a path unless driving with due care and attention.
> 
> Yes you would apologize if your child dashed in front of someone and they tripped. I'm sure you would feel a bit different if they then sued you for £65000.
> 
> ...


I'm very sorry about your brother...

I'm not looking at the money side of things in my posts, that's not for me to decide, I'm not involved in any of the court cases, I have no clue what is going on there. 
I'm simply posting from the POV of a dog owner who wishes other dog owners would be more careful about how they manage and control their dogs. There seems to be a sense of entitlement in the dog owning community that others must adjust to our dogs instead of us adjusting to those we share space with, and I worry that those attitudes will lead to fewer and fewer dog friendly spaces being available.

As it is, in this country we have already lost the right to have our dogs off leash pretty much anywhere but on private land. Most public beaches no longer allow dogs, state parks that still do allow dogs require that they be leashed on a 6 foot or shorter leash. All of this is a direct result of people not controlling their dogs and having the attitude that others need to adjust to them and their dogs instead of being considerate and paying attention to their dog's behavior.


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

ouesi said:


> I'm very sorry about your brother...
> 
> I'm not looking at the money side of things in my posts, that's not for me to decide, I'm not involved in any of the court cases, I have no clue what is going on there.
> I'm simply posting from the POV of a dog owner who wishes other dog owners would be more careful about how they manage and control their dogs. There seems to be a sense of entitlement in the dog owning community that others must adjust to our dogs instead of us adjusting to those we share space with, and I worry that those attitudes will lead to fewer and fewer dog friendly spaces being available.
> ...


Thank you re my brother.

You see I am thinking of the money side of this story. It smacks of no win no fee lawyers advertising "have you had an accident in the last x number of years". And someone rubbing their hands at the idea of having their mortgage paid of, selling their story to the papers for some holiday dosh and claiming that it was to highlight the dangers of flexi leads.

I could no doubt put in a few claims for accidents I've had over the years to supplement my income or get a nice holiday out of.

My mum fell on a ramp in a shop because she was browsing the clothes and didn't see it. She had a few nasty bruises and suffers ill health anyway. I recall a couple of people suggesting she put in a claim along with some remarks that maybe her headaches were related to this fall. She made a complaint to the staff that perhaps clearing stands around the ramp and putting a sign to prevent it happening to someone else. She categorically said she had no intention of suing as she hates this new suing culture and how it could potentially ruin someone's business and livelihood.

Shame what goes around doesn't come around then she wouldn't be having all this stress from the nutcase that flew off her hotel.

I agree that dog owners need to be polite and careful, considerate and would hope that I always am. I walk up to 6 dogs at once and if other dog walkers, joggers, cyclists are nearby I always call the dogs in and leash up when necessary. I rarely get a thank you and make sure I thank the dogs for their obedience in a loud clear voice!


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Zaros said:


> Here's a little something that might be of further interest too.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3090830/Shocking-moment-toddler-knocked-hit-run-cyclist-outside-Blackpool-home.html


This is a very good example of what can happen when pedestrians have to share spaces with cyclists. I am sorry but as far as I am concerned the whole concept of shared spaces introduces dangers that are the direct result of different people traveling at different speeds on the same stretch of path. Cyclists belong on the road, pedestrians belong on the Pavements/sidewalks. When any one part enters the domain of the other they must recognise the dangers they now face and behave accordingly.


----------

