- 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
- Pub bike 15 min 44 sec ago
Very bad though for those owed a month's pay and needing to find another job.
- Sriracha 28 min 1 sec ago
For those of us without Di2, I understand from other reviews that there is also an included remote control button. But no mention in this...
- quiff 42 min 37 sec ago
"Via USB-C, it can inflate up to two tyres to 100psi "within seconds" apparently."...
- quiff 48 min 37 sec ago
High-functioning, as in only functions when high
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 58 min ago
And of course the one who has been sentenced to 8 1/2 years will only serve five of that max...
- Smoggysteve 5 hours 5 min ago
I said they might change that often. They will have thier own official spare and there will always be another team members bike they can use,...
- Hirsute 6 hours 21 min ago
A court has heard how a drink driver would be unable to cope without a driving licence because she lives in a city "dominated by men" who "are not...
Add new comment
98 comments
Blasphemy? Did I die in the night and wake up in the 17th century in a new body (Quantum Leap goes to the witch trials, that type of thing)?
Don't forget long-bow practice after church on Sunday. See you in the butts.
Guessing you're a Christian...so in a world full of cruelty and starvation and pain and misery and injustice you're going to get upset at someone blaspheming (in a way that most Christians I know frequently do, incidentally)? Jesus H.Christ on a bicycle.
Why the insults? Have I offended you?
How have I insulted you? I'm asking why a Christian would make an issue out of such a minor thing when there are a billion and one more important things to be addressed.
You doubled down on the insult. I can be interested in cycling and world hunger at the same time.
Sorry you feel that way. But well done for focusing on the nub.
Out of interest who gave you ownership of the term, and how does your claim outweigh mine?
Again, it's possible to focus on more than one thing at once. So both the main story, and the insulting language. You are of course free to speak how you want. For example you could go into Brixton and shout racial slurs and claim no one has ownership of such words. Or maybe just accept that some words you might use are insulting to others and it's easy to moderate your language in a public forum
Have any of your comments so far been anything to do with the article, or have they all been you having a go about the Captain's alleged blasphemy? (All he said was that that piece of halibut was good enough for ...)
Which church denomination are you, anyway, and in what country? Its been a very long time since I've seen anyone take offence at what is, in the UK, a common sweary expression.
Catholic. One post to say the term is offensive. The rest are in reply to others asking questions or suggesting I couldn't be offended and interested in cycling both at the same time.
I don't think you can do that without consent...
Except that the only person who said anything even vaguely similar* to that was brooksby, in the post immediately before this one. That just seems to be a strawman you've invented.
[* brooksby didn't actually say that - just asked if you'd posted anything related to the article - but you could read it as implying that.]
Nobody said that. I asked why with so much wrong in the world (and particularly in your own abuse-riddled church) you would bother getting offended by such an unimportant issue.
Racism and blasphemy are not regarded as equivalent either socially or legally, however much you wish they were. We've had nearly two millennia of coercive control of thought and speech by religion, we don't need that resurrected, here or anywhere, thanks.
Racism and blasphemy may not be equivalent, but both race and religion are protected characteristics under the Equality Act. I also think it's an over-reaction to get offended by some saying 'Jesus Christ' in the way you did; however, I'm not sure it's helpful to re-use a term which someone has said they find offensive. At the risk of sounding like our Nigel, it's not very courteous.
In fairness to Rendel, I think I was the original blasphemer (on this thread at least....)
Religion is protected under the act as a practice or characteristic. However religious ideology is not protected. In any case I certainly don't believe that this falls anywhere close to that, as Rua or their community has not been singled out, harmed or discriminated against by my post.
This, as Rua has mentioned themselves, is an objection against blasphemy, otherwise summed up as "You can't say that, it's against my religion".
I don't disagree with that. However, I do think if someone says "I find that term offensive" then to use it again (or for someone else to use it) without a good reason is rather unnecessary, whether or not you agree that the term is offensive.
Interesting points, and certainly a sound code of conduct.
Would it be fair to demand another person modify their everyday behaviour or language to suit you (where it is not objectively offensive*, harmful or otherwise discriminatory) without also providing a demonstration of good reason supporting the demand?
* clearly I accept that offence is subjective by its nature. However the term Jesus Christ is commonly used in literature, (religious or otherwise), everyday speech, in church, out of church, across the media. It is not taboo by any stretch of the imagination.
No, you showed no interest in teh story.
You still have failed to explain how the words Jesus Christ are insulting, to you or anyone for that matter
And that of course is where the matter should end...
oh
Are you seriously conflating pointed use of poisonous, derogatory slurs that were initially coined with the sole aim of dehumanising, invalidating and enabling the enslavement of entire groups of people based on the colour of their skin...
...with the general use of a neutral pair of words that are freely used by most people that have been brought up in a culture imbued with the ideologies surrounding those words?
Really?
No, I'll not "accept". You explain why words that are as much part of my culture as yours are owned by you, and how their neutral use can in any real way hurt or harm you. Or Him for that matter.....
Very well said, Cap'n.
Ah, yes, Exodus 20:7. One of the versions of the ten commandments of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Which does of course refer to the name of 'the Lord'/Yahweh/Jehovah and not Jesus.
However - if you're saying that applies to everyone regardless of their belief, does that mean everyone else's commandments apply to everyone too? No more representation of human figures, cows as representative of the sacred, no hot dog buns on a Friday, that sort of thing?
So those who choose to live by the rules of that superstition can follow that one if they like. If that Lord isn't thy God, one has no duty in that regard.
There are several problems with rules against blasphemy. Countries which have them enshrined in law tend to be repressive dictatorships, dressed up to a greater or lesser extent as theocracies. It is pretty easy to detect the use of Christianity and other religions as a systems of social control. Blasphemy laws are commonly used to enforce this, either by the state or less formally. Murders have been committed in many countries using blasphemy or apostasy as a pretext.
There's also an assumption inherent in blasphemy that the deity you are trying to protect, usually one of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and exclusive ones (there's a choice of these), is so insecure that even a mention of their name wounds deeply.
The reality is that those who take offence at blasphemy are assuming that it is an attack on their belief system, and they are hence on the defensive.
I believe that cycling is a wonderful way to reduce climate change, stay fit, make friends and enjoy my surroundings. You can tell me that it's awful, I'm an idiot lycra-ist and shout "Sir Chris Boardman" as an epithet. I'll think you are wrong and argue against the idea. But I will not think that merely saying those words should be punished, nor that you have uttered a terrible insult, because I am secure enough in my belief to know that you are just wrong.
“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."
Is this something judges are expected to rule on? Whether cyclists or dog owners are overly "entitled"? Is there any legal relevance? Does the judge also have any opinions on old people, women, poor people, gingers, or immigrants that he's also sure "we all know" to be the case? Not fit to be a judge.
How many 71-year-olds bike to work "at speed" with their heads down?
And we all know that judges who hold opinions like this shouldn't be allowed to serve as judges any more.
That is nothing compared to what a judge said to me fairly recently (nothing to do with cycling and, fortunately, not a final ruling). But good luck trying to find anyone to hold a judge to account.
Absolutely spot on. So many bike riders assume that they have the god given right to do what they like. I ride with them. Same with dogs. Sadly it is many times worse in the cities.
Just because you don't like what some one says it doesn't make it wrong.
What the judge believes some/many/most cyclists do and believe should have no bearing on the facts of this case. This case should be about whathappened in this incident.
Did this cyclist feel overly entitled? did this dog walker feel overly entitled?
You have this muddled. It's not a case of not liking something and therefore it's wrong. We don't like it because it is wrong.
No you have this muddled, this is a case about what happened in this event, not a case to decide whether dogs should be kept under control or cyclists should be allowed to ride through the park. What cyclists as a group do is irrelevant.
If the judge had commented that THIS cyclist was entitled expecting to ride through the park without considering unexpected actions fro children or dogs and THIS dog walker was entitled allowing the dog to run free heedless of cyclists using the path nearby. I wouldn't take issue.
But the judge is projecting his opinion of the actions of all cyclists and all dog walkers into this case, which is the very opposite of impartial. Whether he doesn't like cyclists because they are entitled, or whether he feels they are entitled because he doesn't like them is not material to what happened here in this event.
Was the dog under control? Did it cause injury due to not being under control? was there contributary negligence from the cyclist?
It is wrong, though.
Anyone who thinks that riding a bike or owning a dog in itself bestows certain characteristics on people is a prejudiced idiot.
Pages