OT: What happened next

"hugh" wrote ... after Jeff wrote....

The Highway Code (2007 edition) says... "Rule 56. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders."

I really do wonder who writes the Highway Code these days, full of nonsense English that leaves the reader to try to understand what is being said, just like the above rule which could be open to interpretation. e.g. No cyclists or horses about so Ok to let dog off lead! ???

On or around Sat, 5 Jan 2008 12:44:49 -0000, "Rich B" enlightened us thusly:

and me. But I knew a goat and a dog and a cat with fewer than average legs for their respective species.

ITYM "more", as in 6 legs and two backs, you naughty naughty man..

Oops! missed the last bit ... sorry :-)

I agree with you Bob, they try to word the HC so that mere mortals can understand it but they're dealing with legal issues so they have to use certain words and phrases as they have legally defined meanings. Unfortunately, we mere mortals haven't spend years studying law to understand these meanings then mis-interpret what the message in the HC is.

Does that make sense or am I as bad as the HC writers?

But the HC is just a code and not the law, although the courts ( I'm told ) do rely on it somewhat. TonyB

No, but they must be on a lead when on a "designated road" or a "designated area". These areas are designated by local authorities apply for orders under the Act.

Jeff

On or around Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:27:00 -0000, "TonyB" enlightened us thusly:

where the HC says "you must" or "you must not", it's based on law, and I think in the new ones it tells you which law.

yes, the police told us all accidents involving dogs should be reported

-- "For those who are missing Blair - aim more carefully."

To reply direct rot13 me

bURRt the 101 Camper

200TDi Disco with no floor - its being fixed at last! 200 TDi Disco, "the offroader" 1976 S3 Lightweight

No as an engineer I'm no expert on grammar or sentence construction, but I would say that the critical word in that sentence is "short". So keep your dog on a "short" lead when there are cyclists or horses about, but you may have the lead longer when not. I would infer that it must be on a lead at all times.

Cheers

Peter engenier

"TonyB" wrote after

I quote.. " Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements..... ..... .Such Rules are identified by the use of the words "MUST/MUST NOT". In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. "

So in that case, as there was no use of must/must not or legislation mentioned in the rule about dogs, it cannot be a legal requirement, just a suggestion. (Lee...any view on this?)

Makes sense if you read the qualification as referring just to paths. In other words a footpath. Which may be shared with cyclists and horses. Which means any footpath whatsoever round here as cyclists can't read.

As a long-time dog owner, I read the phrase "on a short lead" as being less to do with the length of the lead as with the degree of control. A dog on a short lead is under the full control of its owner at all times - no wandering off, no lungeing after other dogs or lampposts, etc.

Can I berate you for letting down the engineering profession? Don't give ammunition to those who suggest that we are incapable of producing joined up thought and writing.

As with every other profession/occupation there are those whose command of written English leaves much to be desired, but we are are no worse than any other. Stand up for us and don't voluntarily roll over and surrender!

In message , Jeff writes

That's as I understood it. I had overlooked the bit about collars.

Mope, there's no "must" in it. However in the event of an incident if your dog is not on a lead the above rule may be used to determine liability AIUI.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

Ah, but we have footways round here. These can be shared with cyclists - not sure about horses.

The HC is not a legal document but can (and has been) cited in court as the reason for booking motorists, cyclists and even pedestrians. I used to have a document issued by the Hendon police driving school with real life examples of this but I'm damned if I can find it since we moved house.

As Austin says, where the HC used the phrases "MUST" or "MUST NOT" then there is a definite legal issue and you are pointed to the relevant bit of legislation.

On or around Mon, 07 Jan 2008 23:24:23 GMT, SteveG enlightened us thusly:

I think the point about the rest of it (where it says "should" and such) is that if you don't do something that you "should" and as a result end up in a collision, the court will look on it with less favour than they would if you'd complied.