Dogs Laws and What Can Be Done?!

[Mr. Bloom]

Batbike,

If the owner's FEEL responsible and WANT to help, there's no reason to pursue legal action. As mentioned before, there's their insurance. But assuming they don't have any, perhaps you can work out a payment plan with them to compensate you for your out of pocket expenses.

I'm not an attorney, but I've employed plenty of them in business. If you work out a payment plan, I'd encourage you to do it in writing since you'd essentially be deffering any legal action in consideration for their agreement.

I'd reserve legal action for uncooperative folks. It seems they feel responsible and I'd capitalize on that.

Maillotpois, would you agree that an amicable resolution beats legal antagonism?

[Geonz]

Another thought is to at least let the people who make those laws know that they're missing something. Why are there leash laws? Because enough people complained.
Of course, other options are all the tactics for making the act of chasing less pleasant.
But ... I know the local culture and you let your dog run.

[IFjane]

But ... I know the local culture and you let your dog run.

Bat - Geonz hit the nail on the head right there. It is the "we've always done it this way" attitude and the fact that Madison has always been a rural county. The feeling of the old-timers here is that leash laws are for bigger towns.

I have a neighbor across the road from me - they have way too many animals on their property, including about 5 dogs. None of the dogs are dangerous, though one (a Benji-type) actively used to come into my yard & bark at my heels until I went into the house every day. The other dogs used to bark and bark and bark and no one (except for me) ever told them to be quiet - also, ALL the dogs used to come across the road and use MY YARD as their bathroom. After complaining and complaining to the owners, and after being promised that things would change yet nothing did, I called animal control. She came, talked to the owners and told them the dogs were to stay on their property. I then received a phone call from my neighbor - FURIOUS - he said, "I have to keep my dogs penned-up. This is MADISON COUNTY and I have to keep my dogs penned up!" That is the culture we are dealing with...

[Batbike]

Batbike,

If the owner's FEEL responsible and WANT to help, there's no reason to pursue legal action. As mentioned before, there's their insurance. But assuming they don't have any, perhaps you can work out a payment plan with them to compensate you for your out of pocket expenses.

I'm not an attorney, but I've employed plenty of them in business. If you work out a payment plan, I'd encourage you to do it in writing since you'd essentially be deffering any legal action in consideration for their agreement.

I'd reserve legal action for uncooperative folks. It seems they feel responsible and I'd capitalize on that.

Maillotpois, would you agree that an amicable resolution beats legal antagonism?

I agree -- the incident JUST HAPPENED Saturday, so I need to get all the paperwork in order and contact them with the list of expenses before doing ANYTHING else. How they react to the list will give me indication of what steps to take next. If cooperative -- great! If want to help but can't, I will mention the homeowner's insurance; if refusal to do anything, I will contact small claims court in their county and set a date. All this is LOGICAL!

My personal problem is the laws that don't protect cyclists, and the overwhelming feeling of helplessness as cyclists get stuck paying for things that aren't our fault because of the carelessness and ignorance of others hiding behind the poorly written laws! The people with the big dog are NOT bad people, but people who did not think about what a dog can do if runs free and the damage it can cause. Now that the dog has caused damage, they feel bad, but from outward appearances (and comments of police officer) they don't seem to have the financial means to fix the damages and as the current law is written, they maybe able to get away with not paying.

I am JUMPING JUMPING to an outcome -- I need to step-back and get the paperwork complete and see what happens! Done venting.

[bmccasland]

Bikebat - this would be an example of why there's a need for leash laws. BUT I know that in the country, that can be moot. Something about the southern mind set. Has it occured to the owners how they'd feel if the dog was injured by being hit by a car? I know of riders who have pepper spray to use on dogs - if their humans won't control the dog at least the dog might learn that chasing cyclists is a bad thing.

[Jolt]

I don't understand people who let their dogs roam like that. Dogs running around the neighborhood can cause accidents (like what happened in this case), get hit by cars, eat things that may make them sick, potentially scare little kids etc. Plus, there's the previously mentioned issue of them going "potty" in other people's yards--yuck! Owners need to be more responsible, and hopefully the people in this case have learned that lesson and won't let this type of scenario happen again.

[Mr. Bloom]

My personal problem is the laws that don't protect cyclists, and the overwhelming feeling of helplessness as cyclists get stuck paying for things that aren't our fault because of the carelessness and ignorance of others

Done venting.

You're right in your frustration, but keep one thing in mind:

If a kid ran out in front of a car, it would be ruled the driver's fault.

If a dog runs in front of a car, it would be ruled the driver's fault.

If a car hits anything in front of it, it is almost always the driver's fault...on the presumption that a driver should be in control based on the current road conditions and surroundings.

I am not trying to minimize your frustration, but this is an alternative perspective. [B]In your circumstance, I would do exactly as you plan.[/B]

But let me challenge your perspective a bit:

Years ago, in our county, there was an uproar because a driver of a pick-up truck hit a playing child on a rural road and killed him. Alone, that was terrible. The uproar came when the truck driver sued the child's parents for damages to his truck

This is not much different in circumstance , BUT, you would not suffer the same ridicule for suing over your damages. So, in this regard, you're in a better position than a motorist...

[Batbike]

You're right in your frustration, but keep one thing in mind:

If a kid ran out in front of a car, it would be ruled the driver's fault.

If a dog runs in front of a car, it would be ruled the driver's fault.

If a car hits anything in front of it, it is almost always the driver's fault...on the presumption that a driver should be in control based on the current road conditions and surroundings.

I am not trying to minimize your frustration, but this is an alternative perspective. [B]In your circumstance, I would do exactly as you plan.[/B]

But let me challenge your perspective a bit:

Years ago, in our county, there was an uproar because a driver of a pick-up truck hit a playing child on a rural road and killed him. Alone, that was terrible. The uproar came when the truck driver sued the child's parents for damages to his truck

This is not much different in circumstance , BUT, you would not suffer the same ridicule for suing over your damages. So, in this regard, you're in a better position than a motorist...

Challenge all you want to, but a motorized vehchile has a different set of standards than a bike -- I believe it is called a motor and a LARGE body that has protective walls ... if a dog chases a vechile, it has a better chance of getting hurt than if a dog chases a bike because the cyclist is going to get hit; same thing for a child -- car hits child ... injury/death; bike hits child ... injury/death unlikely.

BTW, I had FULL control of my bike; I had NO CONTROL of the dog that ran at top speed, jaw out, teeth clenched, within an INCH of my front wheel ... no one, and I mean no one, could have done absolutely done anything different that what I did, which was hit the uncontrolled dog. The owner, oh he was there, at the house, smoking pot and running as fast as he could when the dog attacked me. Yeah, he was responsible ... just like his dog!

As far as I am concerned, what you propose has NO merit and I don't appreciate the devil's avocate approach ... I am being nice, so please don't push the envelop ANY further than you already have because it is NOT appreciated!!

As for leash laws -- there are pros and cons to everything; we wouldn't need leash laws if people would understand the value of keeping their pets under control so that they cannot hurt others. I will not debate yes or no on leash laws, except to say that if you have a pet and you believe it should run free, make sure it is not a "loaded gun" waiting to pull the trigger on a someone.

[Mr. Bloom]

Challenge all you want to, but a motorized vehchile has a different set of standards than a bike .

You're absolutely right

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

Isn't this a discussion forum? Hmmm...I thought in discussion forums people were allowed to express various viewpoints as long as they are politely worded.

[Starfish]

Isn't this a discussion forum? Hmmm...I thought in discussion forums people were allowed to express various viewpoints as long as they are politely worded.

Here, here. Or, is it hear, hear (?).

[Batbike]

Isn't this a discussion forum? Hmmm...I thought in discussion forums people were allowed to express various viewpoints as long as they are politely worded.

The discussion is in FULL swing and everyone is being polite, civil, and stressing their point of view. Sure, some points are more emotional than others … we’re women aren’t we?!

As a woman, I can appreciate other points of view until I feel someone has crossed the line, adding insult to injury. In this case, I am injured and I feel it is very insulting to imply that an automobile and a bicycle are equal in defining accidental fault. I feel that the person who implied this preposterous perspective was trying to say that we as cyclists are at fault if we hit an attacking out-of-control animal, thus I was at fault for hitting a dog that ran into me and into my direct line of travel. Fact is, a cyclist is vulnerable to the environment in which they ride; automobiles are much more protected. However, if we are to use the automobile example, this is like saying that the deer that leaped across the road and landed on a car’s roof was the fault of the driver. Maybe the fault would be equal in this case (both a victim of an uncontrolled animal), but the injuries, property damages, and legal ramifications would be significantly different.

I am the OP. Obviously; this is a very personal, emotional, and frustrating situation for me. I wrote the OP to ask for advice, support, and a sharing of experiences. Dogs are a universal problem for cyclist! It NEVER occurred to me that a fellow cyclist would find fault in the situation and put blame on a cyclist. It is an opinion, but I will actively discuss the point and stress my distress for their perspective.

[plantluvver]

The people with the big dog are NOT bad people, but people who did not think about what a dog can do if runs free and the damage it can cause. Now that the dog has caused damage, they feel bad, but from outward appearances (and comments of police officer) they don't seem to have the financial means to fix the damages and as the current law is written, they maybe able to get away with not paying.

But your accident is an expense of their owning a dog. Leaving a dog to run free is irresponsible. Luckily (for the dog) it ran in front of you, and not a semi-truck. If these people are responsible adults, they need to be responsible for the consequences of their choice to own a dog.

I am not a lawyer, but while the dog might not be considered dangerous by the first bite law, there might be some sort of vandalism law it comes under. Make sure there is a police report, to prove the incident happened.

Mary

[bmccasland]

Last night after my bike ride, I took Nala (12-yr old Aussie Shepard) for her evening walk. The direction we headed took us by a house where a little grey terrier mutt thing (5 lbs soaking wet) who thinks its territory includes the street and is free ranging. Anyway this little scrap of a dog comes running viciously barking out from under the fence straight at us, then around in front of Nala. We're at a fast paced walk, rat-dog full tilt.... BUT it miscalculated the arch and the path crossed directly in front of Nala, who bonked the dog with her nose. The yelp that insued from rat-dog made me think Nala bit it (no great loss as far as I'm concerned), but no one was injured. Rat-dog managed to scare itself! It continued the run behind us, but no barking. I told Nala she was a good girl as we continued on our way.

[7rider]

Batbike,

If the owner's FEEL responsible and WANT to help, there's no reason to pursue legal action. As mentioned before, there's their insurance. But assuming they don't have any, perhaps you can work out a payment plan with them to compensate you for your out of pocket expenses.

I'm not an attorney, but I've employed plenty of them in business. If you work out a payment plan, I'd encourage you to do it in writing since you'd essentially be deffering any legal action in consideration for their agreement.

I'd reserve legal action for uncooperative folks. It seems they feel responsible and I'd capitalize on that.

Maillotpois, would you agree that an amicable resolution beats legal antagonism?

This makes a lot of sense.
Here's to hoping (working?) for a happy outcome on all sides.