- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Acton Green Common (via GoogleStreetView).PNGJudge says cyclists – and dog owners – “have a sense of absolute entitlement”
A judge has said that cyclists and dog owners both “have a sense of absolute entitlement” as he allowed an appeal in a case brought after a bike rider won £50,000 compensation after a Cocker Spaniel ran into his path, causing him to crash and sustain a brain injury.
Publishing executive David Crane, aged 71, was thrown over the handlebars of his bike when he hit the dog belonging to investment banker Carina Read, 49, on Acton Green Common in West London in March 2016.
> Cyclist left with brain injuries when dog ran into his path wins court case
Ms Read has now been given leave to appeal against the judgment, by Judge Alan Saggerson, reports Mail Online.
The judge said: “We all know that cyclists whether on path, road or common, have a sense of absolute entitlement to do whatever they want to do and we all know that dog owners also have a similar sense of entitlement to do exactly what they want to do irrespective of anybody else.
“It's quite a conundrum.”
Mr Sanderson had sued Ms Crane for negligence, as well as being in breach of the 1971 Animals Act for failure to control her dog.
In October last year, Judge Patrick Andrews refuted Ms Read’s defence that since her dog was not “dangerous,” it was not subject to the provisions of the act, and said that she should have restrained it.
The act provides, among other things, that where an animal that does not belong to a dangerous species causes damage or injury, its keeper may be held liable for injury or damage.
“After considering all the facts and evidence, I find that on the balance of probabilities, in failing to call back Felix, which she clearly had time to do, Ms Reid exposed Mr Crane to risk of injury,” the judge said.
Mr Crane, who was riding to work when the crash happened, had said in evidence: “The first time I was aware of the dog was when it was right in front of me.”
He sustained what his lawyer told the court was a “not insignificant brain injury,” which has affected his concentration, hearing and memory, as well as his senses of taste and smell.
Ms Read’s barrister, Nigel Lewers, had insisted that his client believed the path was clear when she threw the ball for Felix, and that it had bounced off his head.
“At that point, she became aware of Mr Crane cycling at speed with his head down,” although the plaintiff insisted that he was riding at no more than 5mph.
“She tried to warn him, but Felix chased the ball across the path and was struck by the front wheel of the bicycle,” Mr Lewers continued.
“She was doing what she and no doubt many others had done in the same or similar areas of the common – throwing a ball for her dog down an open strip of grass and not in the direction of the path.”
But Judge Andrews said that Ms Read should have restrained her dog, adding, that Mr Crane “had no time to take any evasive action when Felix ran across his path.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- hawkinspeter 28 min 41 sec ago
Egged on by the others, the youngest of the Audis makes the first move.Young and hopeful, it moves in to strike, however youth and inexperience...
- giff77 31 min 18 sec ago
I pay for the roads via all the taxes and duties I have to pay on goods purchased and council tax/rates. And when the councils start to build...
- Rendel Harris 40 min ago
On the other hand presumably those hoops are pretty sturdy so they could prove just the ticket for securing one's machine with a U-lock or chain...
- hawkinspeter 50 min 10 sec ago
Bloody surfers don't even pay their wave tax
- Rendel Harris 3 hours 52 min ago
Wasn't her quote something like "Any man who takes the bus after the age of twenty-five [maybe thirty?] is a failure?...
- andystow 6 hours 42 min ago
Based on my experience with the Hunt wheels, I might do a review on their durability in three or four years.
- Destroyer666 11 hours 9 min ago
"...the beeswax-based covering magically shuns off whatever might be lurking in the corners. Even after multiple rides, when the bars rattled about...
- David9694 12 hours 31 min ago
t-boned
- Rendel Harris 13 hours 52 min ago
I didn't know the blue RA saddle was a holy grail - I had a 1986 RA bought new in 1987 with a blue saddle that lasted me very well until 2002 when...
- Rendel Harris 14 hours 59 min ago
Glad you like it - this week was the first proper commuting week since I got it, 250kms nice and warm but not boiled, indeed - and when the...
Add new comment
98 comments
Anyone want to give this a go?
https://www.gov.uk/complain-judge-magistrate-tribunal-coroner
It seems judges have a sense of entitlement to say whatever garbage comes into their head
Just a quick warning to let road.cc readers know that top self-publicist and rent-a-quote shit-stirrer N*** F****** has been spraying tripe across the internet again, and it's likely to end up tediously polluting these pages.
Splurging on tw*tter, he cried "LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME!!!"
N. F. ... Could Nick Freeman be a sockpuppet of Nigel Farage d'you think? Never seen them together...
I'm bewildered by this case. I can't help feeling that there is exaggeration on allsides.
I'm unconvinced he was doing 5mph. I'm also unconvinced by the ladies somewhat bizzarre defenses.
I'm also confused that if the ball bounces randomly off the dog after it was thrown away from the path how it can be anything other than an accident. Which is a far better defense
I'm also unconvinced by the first judges conclusion and the second judge's random prejudices.
It all seems lawyers at dawn in the hope and defense against compo.
It wasn't an accident though. There is no need to work out the precise trajectory, just that a ball can bounce randomly so throwing it by an adjacent cycle path is not a good idea.
Animals behave erratically, so that can't be put down as an accident hence the HC saying keep dogs on a short lead.
What a dinosaur judge!?
"The judge said: “We all know that cyclists whether on path, road or common, have a sense of absolute entitlement to do whatever they want to do and we all know that dog owners also have a similar sense of entitlement to do exactly what they want to do irrespective of anybody else."
This judge should recuse themself from the case since they've demonstrated bias against both parties. The cornerstone of legal action is that it will be a fair hearing, and this is not possible with this judge.
I'll agree that he has expressed prejudice, appears to be an idiot, and should be put out to pasture; but, as an aside, if he has expressed 'bias against both parties', isn't that a description of balance?
You'd have to measure his bias against the two parties to make sure that it matches - maybe a biasometer?
Whether or not his opinions are balanced, I don't like the idea of judges just jumping to conclusions based on their own prejudices rather than, you know, doing their job to listen to the evidence impartially.
Balance would be to not show bias against either in this case, since the judge is supposed to be impartial and their judgement beyond question. Whoever loses will just appeal now and claim that the judge expressed their hatred towards them before the case even started. It's a waste of time before it even starts.
His words do appear crass. It's the same as saying something along the lines of....
"As everyone knows, High Court judges are old, senile, white blokes from privileged backgrounds who have a huge sense of entitlement drummed into them from an early age by a private education system, family contacts and an old boys network which gives them access to lucrative careers in the legal profession, not to mention priority membership at the golf club."
I'm pretty sure I have a sense of entitlement not to be put at risk by the careless actions of others whatever my mode of transport or activity. Likewise I accept my own responsibilities to avoid harming others. Accidents happen, mistakes are made, most of the time a polite "Sorry" fixes the transgression but occassionally the fates conspire to make what might have been a trivial incident a million other times into something where someone suffers harm or financial loss. The law provides a process to ask for recompense and be entitled to that claim if justified and reasonable.
If you own a bicycle or a dog then you can mitigate your potential losses by means of insurance. If you decide not to make such arrangements then don't expect others to give up their entitlement to redress in the event of mishap.
That was my immediate thought too.
In addition, as a BC member I have public liability cover should I do something stupid that injures others.
As a dog owner I refuse to pay the extoritionate premiums to insurance companies, but I am also aware that my dog (a bassett) has very selective hearing when she picks up a scent so for everyone's safety (including hers) I don't let her off the (short, non-extending) lead, so as long as other road users give me a metre plus of space we will cause you no trouble.
Chapeau! Especially for the short non-extending lead!
Bad luck.
An accident.
Things happen.
Sounds like nanny state bullsh@t to me.
As a cyclust myself I'm sick and tired of being tarred with the tw@t brush because, if we're honest, too many cyclists are exactly that: tw@ts.
I see so many cyclists being obstructive band ridiculous when out riding that it breaks my poor, little, teeny, tiny heart.
Just like seeing all the near-miss posts where a cyclist then gets into all sorts of problems because they ride after the culprit and cause a physical, face to face 'conversation' because they can get it in camera.
The poor, innocent cyclist fella has fallen off his bike and been horribly injured in a freak accident where a poor, innocent dog walker has been walking her dog. An accident. That's all.
This smells too much of world gone wrong and lawyers and money for money's sake to me.
Maybe dog Walker should have been mindful of the cyclists in the area in which she was walking her dog.
Maybe the cyclist should have been more aware of the dog-walking area in which he was cycling.
Have some dignity, have some pride and have some common sense instead of an eye upon financial gains from misfortune.
£50k is hardly financial gain worth a brain injury. It's clear that you already have one, but how much would someone have to pay you to take another which left you with noticeable effects to your concentration, hearing and memory, as well as your senses of taste and smell?
You must have missed that this is a civil case.
The rider ended up with a brain injury and at his age needs compensation for the costs he incurred and the likely higher future costs he will incur as a result of the injury.
That's why people take out insurance for accidents (or in this case negligence).
6 posts in and you're already coming out with this shit?!?
Back in my day fuckwit trolls made an effort. Gentlemen they were, they'd at least post a dozen of normal posts or so then talk troll...sad times...
Yes, even Nige makes a token effort at making one in fifty of his posts about cycling gear. The way this one's come in at 100mph makes one think it's probably a PBU taking up where they left off.
The Nigelov Garageski bot may have spawned. The AI learning files don't always map across, so it can take time for it to build up the sense of being credible or having a 'tone of reason' cloak. Sometimes they launch straight in without building up a background history.
Perhaps you should offer your services to the court as you clearly know exactly what happened and all the circumstances that led up to it?
If you find yourself frequently tarred with the tw@t brush, it might not be cos you're a cyclist. It might just be because you are, in fact, a......well, y'know.....
Not likely you'll spout these views
if you, or your family member, were similarly injured in similar circumstances and, no doubt, end up eating your own words.
Perhaps you may suprise us and
forgo any claim or compensation offered to you🙃
It seems like anyone could be seriously injured cycling "less than 5mph" which is this chaps argument along with "its not my fault I didn't see the dog".
So first up, how many time on this forum have we lambasted drivers using the latter excuse? That everyone seems to assume that not seeing an obstacle is perfectly reasonable as long as you're a cyclist this rather whiffs of a double standard.
Secondly, I struggle to believe that an impact at less than 5mph would be capable of flinging him over the bars (or leaving him unable to stop). Have a little ride a long at less than 5mph and see how easy it is to put you're foot down and stop.
It seems pretty clear that he either a) wasn't looking or b) was going substantially faster than 5mph. (and we shouldn't rule out both). That doesn't mean he wasn't wrong but lets not pretend this chap's s**t smells like roses just because this is a cycling website.
How is it that you know where the dog came from?
The dog could have come from any direction and he may not have been able to hear it coming nor see it until it was too late. You write as though he is travelling along a road with obstructions in the distance he should see.
Plenty of scenarios where you are going at the speed you can see is safe but you cannot accommodate things coming into the road from the side.
maybe you would have avoided this one
https://road.cc/content/news/video-deer-jumps-across-road-and-crashes-cy...
Seems the dog caused him to lose control and he fell off - quite plausible for an older person.
Can't speak for everyone, but I learned that at school
When a mummy dog and a daddy dog love each other very much, they sometimes give each other a special cuddle....
I thought it came from the shop window, it had such a waggly tail.
Who let it out, though?
Woof woof
Pages