Cyclist spent 3 years finding owner of dog who caused him to fall off his bike

[Lonestar]

Speaking for myself, No, I don't feel a right, but it is a SHARED path, no group has priority, so why do many dog owners feel they have the right to delay other categories of user on a whim?

I thought pedestrians had priority.Not that a lot of car/lorry drivers seem to know that on my past experiences.

 

[Mark1978]

I prefer to leave a couple of minutes earlier so that if I do have to stop momentarily for other people, I dont' get all up tight about being "delayed"

 

[snorri]

I thought pedestrians had priority.Not that a lot of car/lorry drivers seem to know that on my past experiences.

Probably priority was the wrong word, I meant to say no group has the right to delay others unnecessarily.

 

[Neilsmith]

I prefer to be on the cycle path when the weather is bad or extremely early as its quieter. When it's busy with pedestrians and dog walkers I find there are always groups of walkers who prefer to walk side by side covering the whole 20 ft wide path often they don't hear your bell or just refuse to leave room, and most dog walkers don't have there dogs on leads despite signs telling them they should be.
The majority of walkers are fine and it's great to share the path with them and some have become regular passing acquaintances. It's a shame I can't say the same about the majority of dog walkers

 

[Spinney]

[QUOTE 4027160, member: 9609"]So how does this work when cycling on the road and another vehicle has to slow, I would be bloody infuriated if a car driver beeped at me and expected me to get out of his way - someone had the temerity to do that to me a couple of years back[/QUOTE]
I assumed the situation here was more along the lines of the group of peds blocking the path - if I was part of a group of cyclists blocking a road, I don't think being beeped at would be unexpected.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Heil readers all posting how horrible he is and how he deserves all that pain and suffering. What a hateful bunch they are. Notably the Mail doesn't mention that the woman's liability insurers would actually have been the ones to put their hands in their pockets.

It did
"The law firm which led the case said the payout is being covered by her insurers."

 

[nickyboy]

I'm a bit confused about the insurance angle (although it is not specifically mentioned in the reporting). What insurance does a normal member of the public have that would cover such an eventuality ie. some "negligence" whilst walking along that led to a 3rd party suffering an injury?

 

[PhilDawson8270]

I'm a bit confused about the insurance angle (although it is not specifically mentioned in the reporting). What insurance does a normal member of the public have that would cover such an eventuality ie. some "negligence" whilst walking along that led to a 3rd party suffering an injury?

House insurance maybe? Or the dog owners pet insurance??

 

[nickyboy]

House insurance maybe? Or the dog owners pet insurance??

How would house insurance cover it? Pet insurance is for the vet bills isn't it (I don't have a pet so I don't actually know)

So say for example I ran down the street in a "reckless" manner and ran round a corner into someone and injured them. Would I typically have some insurance to cover this?

 

[nickyboy]

Pet insurance usually includes third party cover.

Thank you. So I'd better not run recklessly down a road, unless chasing my well insured dog perhaps

 

[PhilDawson8270]

How would house insurance cover it? Pet insurance is for the vet bills isn't it (I don't have a pet so I don't actually know)

So say for example I ran down the street in a "reckless" manner and ran round a corner into someone and injured them. Would I typically have some insurance to cover this?

Not sure how house would, a lot of pet insurance also covers 3rd party damage/injury caused by the pet.

 

[Karlt]

Most house contents insurance policies include liability cover for non-motoring activities. This is why most cyclists have third party insurance cover even if they don't realise it.

 

[Karlt]

It did
"The law firm which led the case said the payout is being covered by her insurers."

Well found. Was it the classic Mail "Paragraph 19" which most readers (me included to my shame) don't get to?

 

[Markymark]

"Cyclist spent 3 years finding owner of dog who caused him to fall off his bike"
Cycle chat spends another3feckingyears 3 years debating cyclists and dogs on shared paths.

 

[Saluki]

Heil readers all posting how horrible he is and how he deserves all that pain and suffering. What a hateful bunch they are. Notably the Mail doesn't mention that the woman's liability insurers would actually have been the ones to put their hands in their pockets.

Do little old ladies, walking someone else's dog have liability insurers? Maybe the sum was paid out by the dog owner's pet insurance, even though they were having a friend doing the actual walking. Insurance covers third party liability etc but I am not sure that it covers for someone else walking the dog, unless it's a professional dog walker (they should all have their own insurance).

I loathe the retractable leads. Won't use them, even with client's dogs. If an owner has one, we still use one of our long training leads but only when it is safe and suitable to do so.

Mail readers seem to be a hateful bunch, whatever the story. The Mail report a load of rubbish anyway.