malnar wrote:Yep I love the start of that next day's footage. First thing you see is a cyclist....closely followed by those same two dogs. And as I arrive to talk to the owner I overhear him talking to his wife about yesterday's incident. Classic.
When it took off to follow the child on the tanden my heart was in my mouth, & he is just in complete denial.
Dangerous dogs hotline referred it to the council. I don't think they are doing anything on top of what the council will do (the council may engage them down the track). I've got an appointment with the council soon where I will make a statement & hand over the footage.
I have got a photo of the bite & a medical report.
I have been riding that path morning & afternoon nearly everyday for the past 18 months & those are the only two days I've seen them.
Since the tragic case of the little girl being mauled to death, dangerous dog laws have been passed in Vic which require pit bulls & some other breeds to be registered as dangerous dogs. Such dogs are not allowed off lead in public places full stop. I'm not sure if these are pit bulls but they could be. I can't see any rego tags at all on the footage.
Apologies, yes Victorian laws. I'm in Victoria too. My bad saying Australia-wide. Pity that it seems they aren't regulars to the park (and easy to catch). Although maybe that is a good thing as when they are there they cause such problems. Am I right in saying they haven't been there any day after you confronted them?
Hopefully the council will investigate and give you a number that you can call if you ride past and they are there again (so a council officer can come pay them a visit while they're at the park).
As a dog owner and lover, I must object to some of the generalisations of dog owners being bandied about but having seen the footage, I have no objection to that dropkick being described by any and every insult known. Like many of that kind of bloke owning that kind of dog, he no doubt feels that an intimidating, powerful, male dog compensates for other inadequacies.
While he is a tool, he is clearly not an idiot, he has stopped using the area because he knows plod or ranger may be lurking. No doubt the problem has been shifted elsewhere.
While my bitch, (Shepherd/LabX) is well trained and socialised, I never let her off leash except in the front yard. You can never 100% guarantee a dogs behaviour and the thought of her hurting an innocent makes me feel ill.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic. London Boy 29/12/2011
Cripes - those dogs are bad!! Not only got you - went after someone else who you got on camera and then the tandem too! It took a lot of calling for him to get the dog to come back.
I haven't had any large dog chases but I have had a few smaller ones on leads rear up and angrily bark/growl. it's good you got that all on camera.
Trek Madone 4.5, Giant TCR Advanced SL3 ISP Di2 (the green machine)
I was a dumb cyclist today - was riding over the Anzac Bridge, overtaking a pedestrian just past the dog leg, thought I had left plenty of room for the cyclist coming the other way, but when I was looking at my gopro footage tonight, it appears there was less room than I thought. If you were the attractive lady in a white cycling top, then please accept my apologies.
I now have the camera set up below the handlebars which coincidentally shows the front wheel. While I thought I stopped completely at stop lights, the video suggests otherwise.
I was going to buy a fast, stylish bike, but I looked in the mirror & thought "you're not fooling anyone, you know"
find_bruce wrote:I was a dumb cyclist today - was riding over the Anzac Bridge, overtaking a pedestrian just past the dog leg, thought I had left plenty of room for the cyclist coming the other way, but when I was looking at my gopro footage tonight, it appears there was less room than I thought. If you were the attractive lady in a white cycling top, then please accept my apologies.
It's a natural response to veer in the direction you are perv... errr looking
find_bruce wrote:I was a dumb cyclist today - was riding over the Anzac Bridge, overtaking a pedestrian just past the dog leg, thought I had left plenty of room for the cyclist coming the other way, but when I was looking at my gopro footage tonight, it appears there was less room than I thought. If you were the attractive lady in a white cycling top, then please accept my apologies.
KenGS wrote:It's a natural response to veer in the direction you are perv... errr looking
Who me ??? never
Had an amusing encounter on Pyrmont Bridge this morning - cyclist coming towards me, pedestrians on either side of him, so we both stopped & was told to "keep left" Nothing wrong with that & sage advice to be sure, the only minor problem was that he was pointing to my right at the time. Mate if you don't know your left from your right, it's no wonder you might have difficulty negotiating around other vehicles.
I was going to buy a fast, stylish bike, but I looked in the mirror & thought "you're not fooling anyone, you know"
Malnar that is appalling!!! He seemed all sorry and apologetic, but then turned to blame the othe fast ones and then when he "suddenly didn't believe you"...
IF he knows they chase things, then why in god's name doesn't he just put them on the string.
I hope you get him for all its worth. Please keep us all updated on what happens.
Remember when he said to come to his house to get your money, and he kind of said "up there" or whatever it was, you might be able to identify where the up there was if that'll help locating them. Of course he might go to another park now if he thinks there might be a cop or a ranger out there.
Do you have a community newspaper where you are? We do, and if there was you could potentially do a "has anyone had any trouble with brown and white mixed breed dogs on the shared path at xyz?" in that paper You never know if there are 1 or 20 other people out there that have had a chomping too. Would love to know what council do....
The last three pages of this thread are disgusting.
For a group of people (ie. cyclists) who hate being pidgeon-holed with the idiots featured in the previous 147 pages, you're doing exactly the same thing to dog owners. This is hypocrisy at its worst.
Those of you advocating violence towards the dog are worse people than the owner. If you harm the dog, it'll be you that cops the brunt of the law - and you'll deserve it.
SOME dog owners are terrible, just as SOME cyclists are terrible.
The dog isn't to blame here, and it doesn't deserve any of you kicking him.
And it's not even as simple as saying it's all the owners fault, much as you all want to think it is - is that actually a bike path that you're riding on? Why the hell is there a bike path going through an off-leash area? That's the approach that you should be taking - asking the council about this.
Anyone advocating vigilantism towards the dog or owner is worse than the owner.
Agreed - this dog shouldn't be off a leash. Agreed - the guy sounded like a knob. Agreed - the woman there was beyond ridiculous, whinging about speeding cyclists justifying the dog bite.
But there's NO call for anyone to advocate violence against a dog who is following his instincts, because he hasn't been trained otherwise.
There's also NO call to lump me as a dog owner in with these dog owners. I even let my dog off in areas that aren't designated as off-leash - because she's never more than 5 metres from me. She knows to stop walking as soon as I stop walking. She comes when she's called. She's even trained not to walk on the path, but to walk on the grass next to me while I walk on the path.
Just as we want people to criticise the cyclist, and not "cyclists" - you need to criticise this dog owner, not "dog owners". And certainly not the dog.
Percrime wrote:In what alternative universe do you live where the use of reasonable force against that dog would not be self defence?
+1. dog on leash and under control would mean no self defense is required. kicking the owner won't get the dog off you. kicking the dog will. edit: example removed as now you're seeing me as a bully rather than defending someone in my care that requires defending.
Last edited by jasonc on Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
As was the "person" who was saying with pride that they would kick the dog and break it's jaw.
I'm not defending the owner - I will defend the dog. He doesn't know any better, and he doesn't deserve scumbags thinking it's their right to kick him when he's just doing what he knows.
Here's another way to look at it - if you don't want to be accosted by dogs off leashes, don't ride through an off leash dog park.
Mod Edit: Part of this post was removed. The reason is that it commented on a previous post which was subsequently edited. For this reason continuity is affected AND the poster has decided to amend/remove content. This edit is not because of a breach of forum rules - hence this explanation.
fatdudeonabike wrote:And it's not even as simple as saying it's all the owners fault, much as you all want to think it is - is that actually a bike path that you're riding on? Why the hell is there a bike path going through an off-leash area? That's the approach that you should be taking - asking the council about this.
That is actually disturbingly common along some shared paths in Melbourne. But there is a rider to it in the council rules - despite it being an off-lead park, leads are required anywhere within 5m of a shared path.
So this dog-walker is acting in contravention of rules, period.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
Percrime wrote:In what alternative universe do you live where the use of reasonable force against that dog would not be self defence?
Someone was advocating breaking the dogs jaw. Is that reasonable force for a nip? The dog should have been under control, it was following its instinct to chase. It is the owners fault for allowing that behaviour.
Time for a deep breath and a return to normal programming methinks...
I was a dumb cyclist yesterday, early jump through a red on the corner of Spencer and LaTrobe. Sheer stoopid inattention saved by the good fortune of it being on the all red phase.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic. London Boy 29/12/2011
fatdudeonabike wrote:And it's not even as simple as saying it's all the owners fault, much as you all want to think it is - is that actually a bike path that you're riding on? Why the hell is there a bike path going through an off-leash area? That's the approach that you should be taking - asking the council about this.
That is actually disturbingly common along some shared paths in Melbourne. But there is a rider to it in the council rules - despite it being an off-lead park, leads are required anywhere within 5m of a shared path.
So this dog-walker is acting in contravention of rules, period.
In QLD and the NT a dog must still be controlled in an off-leash dog path. So if it doesn't come you can get fined (the rangers in Upper Kedron would give an owner three attempts; thank goodness....) as it's not under control.
Percrime wrote:In what alternative universe do you live where the use of reasonable force against that dog would not be self defence?
Someone was advocating breaking the dogs jaw. Is that reasonable force for a nip? The dog should have been under control, it was following its instinct to chase. It is the owners fault for allowing that behaviour.
Shooting it might be reasonable force for the threat it posed. Hell to me it looks like a pit pull. Who is to say it couldn't have crashed him... and then ripped his throat out.
Mate if you want to cop a pit bull taking its first bite.. and call it a nip.. fine.. its your life and if it ends as dog droppings its no skin off my nose. Your dog takes a bite out of me.. and its going to the vet.. if its lucky. My life matters to me anyway. (and a few others) If your dog accosts me.. it faces the same risk of my defending myself successfully as you would.
fatdudeonabike wrote:Here's another way to look at it - if you don't want to be accosted by dogs off leashes, don't ride through an off leash dog park.
it's far from uncommon. I've stated this before when this topic has come up but the cooks river path in sydney used to be awful for dogs chasing bikes. Councils did good work, build fanced play areas with all sorts of obstacles and tunnels for the dogs. Everyone wins, people are safe from sort of sometimes under control dogs, and dogs get a fun area to play.
If its a pit bull then a couple of puncture marks are not the result of the dog trying to inflict damage. The fact remains the fault lies with the owner and kudos to the poster for recognising this and confronting the owner.
Good to see obvious dog-haters making assumptions too. That dog looks nothing like a pitbull. And if it was an angry pitbull, you wouldn't be here whinging on a forum about it.
You're fear-mongering - there is nothing about this dog that even resembles a pitbull
Mulger bill wrote:I was a dumb cyclist yesterday, early jump through a red on the corner of Spencer and LaTrobe. Sheer stoopid inattention saved by the good fortune of it being on the all red phase.
Anyone in particular you were racing, or just "the clock" ?
I was going to buy a fast, stylish bike, but I looked in the mirror & thought "you're not fooling anyone, you know"
fatdudeonabike wrote:Good to see obvious dog-haters making assumptions too. That dog looks nothing like a pitbull. And if it was an angry pitbull, you wouldn't be here whinging on a forum about it.
You're fear-mongering - there is nothing about this dog that even resembles a pitbull
Some people are watching too much Today Tonight.
You dont get it mate do you? It does not matter that you know tinkerbell was giving some passerby a love kiss... it matters that they were worried. Thats all the law cares about. Self defence has to be based on a reasonable fear. And you know what being scared of a dog that has bitten you. is ALWAYS going to be reasonable.
See my earlier response - if you don't want to ride near dogs, then don't. Sometimes this is unavoidable, but in an unleashed dog park, its safe to assume that there'll be dogs here.
Fear does not defend self defence mate. I like this forum for the most part, but the fear mongering and the ridiculous and blatant misinformation to try and prove a point is ridiculous, and goes a long way to ruining this forum. Try learning the first thing about the law before saying that i can kick the Showtime out of whoever jumps out from behind a bush and scares me.
Anyway, I'm done with this. I hope the cyclist that breaks a dogs jaw gets their ass handed to them by the owner and goes to jail for cruelty to animal cruelty. And I hope the judge laughs at the idiot who uses the "i can do whatever i want to defend myself because it scared me" defence.
About 5 pages ago I got told my post about kids jumping in front of me from 10 metres away was unwarranted because kids are unpredictable. And yet it's a completely different viewpoint where dogs are concerned. Apparently they're entirely predictable are they?
Percrime wrote:
fatdudeonabike wrote:Good to see obvious dog-haters making assumptions too. That dog looks nothing like a pitbull. And if it was an angry pitbull, you wouldn't be here whinging on a forum about it.
You're fear-mongering - there is nothing about this dog that even resembles a pitbull
Some people are watching too much Today Tonight.
You dont get it mate do you? It does not matter that you know tinkerbell was giving some passerby a love kiss... it matters that they were worried. Thats all the law cares about. Self defence has to be based on a reasonable fear. And you know what being scared of a dog that has bitten you. is ALWAYS going to be reasonable.
We aint your teething toys.
Oh, and if the dog hasn't bitten you, you have no recourse. If a dog has bitten you and you're able to keep riding, you have no recourse. If a dog has bitten you and you fall off, it will likely run away - and you have no recourse.
fatdudeonabike wrote:About 5 pages ago I got told my post about kids jumping in front of me from 10 metres away was unwarranted because kids are unpredictable. And yet it's a completely different viewpoint where dogs are concerned. Apparently they're entirely predictable are they?
dog owners obeying the law near shared paths are predictable - they are attached to the owners. kids will still wander. whenever I'm on a path with my daughter I keep her on my left and go single file behind her when necessary.
And as I arrive to talk to the owner I overhear him talking to his wife about yesterday's incident. Classic.
