Grrr, dog owners !

[Neil]

Y'know.. even if you think a dog may bite you (or your children, if any are with you), even if it is on a lead, you can report it and the owner may be prosecuted under the Dangerous Dog Act.

In that scenario, there are no material facts, merely opinion and supposition.

Whether it's opinion or not, the fact remains that you could report it and, under the letter of the law, the dog owner has committed the offence.
As you say, though, he chances of it anything actually happening could be minimal.

That's the thing, though - I'm not disputing the letter of the law - merely pointing out that pragmatically, there are many things stuck down in statute that have very little chance of actual real judicial or legal success - I guess they're technicalities that can be used in the reverse of how technicalities are normally used.

Slightly o/t but still in a similar vein.. if someone shouts at you and you feel threatened, the offence is assault and you may be arrested and prosecuted as such.

So this woman (driving her car, using her phone) comes very close to hitting my Brother on his motorbike.
He's a little vexed and tells this woman what he thinks, without swearing but in a raised voice (he is wearing a crash helmet, after all), she reports him and he gets a visit from plod later, at his place of work, suggesting he either apologises to this woman or be arrested for assault.
No witnesses or other evidence, just this womans word.

So they could try and arrest him - and may actually do so, if he didn't.

They may try and caution him, after that. Or try and get the CPS to prosecute. The CPS may say "And the horse you rode in on..." to the police, or may actually go forward in it. And in some cases, perhaps travesties of justice could happen.

But all other things being equal, in front of a magistrate, it's just going to come down to either being dismissed, bound-over, or who appears to be more likely telling the truth and appear more "reasonable" if that's at all possible (clearly there's always going to be variances due to a certain degree of subjectiveness in how these things are judged). But if somebody who was accused, didn't appear to be totally psycho, and had a robust defence (like the kind you see get those famous people off motoring offences that you highly suspect they're damned bang to rights over...) it's rather hard to see how an uncorroborated, single-case of alleged (tantamount to thought-) crime could be prosecuted successfully.

'course, some people shoot themselves in the foot, and sometimes, foibles of legislation like this are used to get people who fail the attitude test(s).

 

[silverclaws]

The trouble is if not this planet, but this country, we are becoming more heavily populated all the time and with current guidelines to get outside and exercise people are everywhere, doing what they are doing in their leisure time, cycling, running, walking, horse riding walking the shit machine whatever and all these people make where to go overcrowded so the idiots we are we ask authority to give us laws to govern us, when the reality is we just need to show a bit of consideration for each other, as every user group has the right to do what they are doing.

Now sure there will always be a minority who stink the path for everyone else, it is a fact that it is always a minority, a minority of cyclists, a minority of mutt walkers etc, but that is just people and perhaps what we get for being heavily populated. But by being heavily populated and areas where we go being in such use, then perhaps yeah humans have a sense of direction and a sense to not get in someone's way through the fear of injury, but what of dogs, for sure when they are off the lead, they are out of control and there a possible danger to all. That being my belief is when in public spaces dogs must be under control at all times as we are too crowded to have an unknown variable wandering about the place.

But as regarding those that adorn our countryside with bags of festering shite, likely is it they are also a minority, but I wonder, as this is a problem country wide. Oh and during the winter on my commute to pick up a lift to where I was working, it involved cycling through a wood and along an estuary, and every morning I was chunking dog filth, so much so, whatever the weather, full gore tex so I didn't stink of dog crap all day. The water proofs got left with the bike in someone's garage.

Now on that commute, sometimes before sun rise I used to meet dogs off leads, roughly five of them, they were not very friendly dogs either, all teeth and barking as to the owners, a bunch of old women a few hundred yards down the path taking their dogs out for their morning dump on a path many cyclists use daily to avoid the main roads on the way into the city. So, it's definitely not a youth thing, because those that should know better, the OAP's have a bad attitude too.

But the problem is, we are over crowded, more people on the planet than there ever was and having dogs running wild is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Neil]

I think you touch on the problem, with empathy.

People (generally) who are not cyclists - for example - will like have precious little empathy for them being "inconvenienced" as many will just see them as maniacs who try and blatt around at inconsiderate speeds.

Some people will view the dog owners as inconsiderate for not having them on leads when on paths that people use to get from A->B - a position I largely agree with - wide open spaces, like fields and beaches that don't tend to be through-ways, then fair enough, but on paths that people use for getting around on, can often impact on others unnecessarily.

I think it's all about empathy, and people being - as I perceive it - more insular over time. Perhaps that came from 80s politics - perhaps there was more than just a natural evolution - perhaps there was almost something of an imperative to that mindset. All the same, though, I think that boat has largely sailed - and there is precious little mutuality and empathy, on the whole, in society, today.

Sure, a bit of hand-wringing at times, but by and large apathy, nimby-ism or worse, for anybody with different interests or perspective.

 

[silverclaws]

Now, I have a bell mounted on my ATB, whenever I am on a track and I notice people up in front the bell gets one ping from distance of about twenty feet behind them and I slow down. A bit closer and I ping again and slow down further and wait. Now normally it is walkers notice and let me go by slowly everything is fine and I have had plenty of cheery comments as I go by and I always say thank you.

Now I have had some disagreeable types that seem insistant on not letting me past and people who taken offence to me warning them of my presence, my usual tactic in this respect is to dismount and walk the bike past them, get back on in front of them, then accelerate away, to put distance between them and me.

Now as to mutts running around in front of my wheels, I have politely asked the owners to get their animal under control because this is a public space and by virtue of being off the lead, the dog is out of control and there a danger to itself and people. A danger to itself, because even a cycle travelling at what speed it does, it has a thinking and stopping distance too, even at slow speeds and that dependent on the operator.

But as to hit and run dog walkers, when I see them trying to ignore their pooch scrunging one out, I tell them, I do hope they are going to bag it and bin it, and I do sort of hang around to make sure, quite funny actually watching adults trying to pick up steaming piles of filth with their fingers, they obviously not having brought a plastic bag with them, which indicates their attitude succinctly.

We can police ourselves, we do not need laws that are well, pretty useless in reality, all we need do is have consideration for others and gently remind each other what we are obliged to do to ensure everyone remains happy, as just to remember dog excrement carries a disease which can cause blindness in children.

But as to chunking dog crap with knobbly tyres, sometimes when that stray bit of filth from the tyres lands on the lip, what is it, is it mud, or is it something else and there try to resist licking it off until you can stop and wipe oneself as the tickling and worry become too much.

 

[IDB1]

by virtue of being off the lead, the dog is out of control.

Not true.
A dog can be out of control on a lead as much as under control off it.

 

[silverclaws]

A dog on a lead can be for the most part reigned in unless it is a pillock with a big powerful dog, they can't handle, whereas a dog off a lead is outside of human physical control that is needed to reign in dogs now and again.

Oh and those long wind out leads that some people like to use, do they have a winch on them to wind the dog back in, or is it human has to follow the dog to get control of it when necessary ?

 

[IDB1]

The flexi self recoils so relies on dog and handler coming closer together.

I'm sorry but your knowledge of controlling dogs is flawed.

Dogs off lead are not necessarily out of control. Perhaps out of physical control (unless the handler has its collar or other suitable part, obviously) but that is not the only way to handle a dog.

 

[silverclaws]

Okay, so perhaps you are saying a dog can be controlled by voice alone, which yes, for the most part a well trained dog and owner can, but what about those unusual conditions, say the dog has just been frightened, or perhaps the dog has picked up a really interesting scent, a bitch in heat for example, or even the dog has taken a dislike to another dog and seeks to attack, will a verbal command by an owner control the dog, or is it a dog without a physical restraint, is a dog out of control ?

 

[highlandsflyer]

Suggest you look here for the likelyhood of actually being prosecuted for something so innocuous...

...if I'm walking down the street and someone dislikes the look of me and deems it necessary to cross the road to avoid me, without me even being aware of it, I could be charged with 'Common Assult' - but what do you think the likelyhood of that would be :?:

It's just as relevant!

Regarding your, or anyone else's dog, the likelihood of prosecution increases massively if there are further complaints.

This is how a lot of laws are implemented; and it is common sense.

He raises a fair point, though, just because there's potential for action, doesn't make it tenable.

I truly doubt that what's tantamount to thought crime has been successfully prosecuted. Is there any legal precedent for one-off allegations, not substantiated or corroborated, being actually heared, never mind successful?

The law as it stands allows for prosecution. That is what makes it 'tenable'.

Your last question requires clarification. If you are talking about legal proceedings in general, a good number of cases involve only one witness on each side, and of course a number result in conviction.

If you expect anyone here to have an expansive knowledge of the trend in prosecutions regarding dangerous dogs, then you will surely be disappointed.

 

[IDB1]

Okay, so perhaps you are saying a dog can be controlled by voice alone, which yes, for the most part a well trained dog and owner can, but what about those unusual conditions, say the dog has just been frightened, or perhaps the dog has picked up a really interesting scent, a bitch in heat for example, or even the dog has taken a dislike to another dog and seeks to attack, will a verbal command by an owner control the dog, or is it a dog without a physical restraint, is a dog out of control ?

Yes. A correctly trained dog can be managed off lead.

You can come up with any scenario you please, the blanket statement an off lead dog is out of control is incorrect.