Rebel Wilson has criticised people who walk their dogs without keeping them on the lead after she suffered a leg injury while cycling in London.
The Australian actress – who has featured in films including Pitch Perfect, Bridesmaids and Absolutely Fabulous: The Movie – posted an image of her left leg covered in ice packs to Instagram stories yesterday.
The post was captioned: “F*ck people who don’t have their dogs on the lead and let them run onto the road.”
She subsequently posted other videos of her riding around London prior to the crash, including cycling past Buckingham Palace.
However, she did not disclose where the crash that led to her injury happened, nor the exact circumstances.
Wilson is currently working on an as yet unnamed project in the British capital.
Cycling is part of a fitness regime for the 41-year-old that according to Mail Online saw her hit her weight-loss target of 75 kilograms at the end of last year.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
49 thoughts on ““F*ck people who don’t have their dogs on the lead” – actress Rebel Wilson after London bike crash”
Also. the go around mauling
Also. the go around mauling seals https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56489147
Yes I saw that too.
Yes I saw that too. Disgusting. I also thought the story was very weak on the dog owner. Dogs running free are a blight on pretty much all our public spaces. I realise that some people like them, but other people don’t, and far too many owners have no respect for this.
I love wildlife but I hate
I love wildlife but I hate dogs if that makes sense. Dogs are more part of the human world than nature (look at ridiculous breeds) and a lot seem to be either status symbols or something they lost interest in and can’t be arsed looking after properly. Dog walking on ‘shared’ access paths grinds my gears as most of it seems to be without a lead and with icy stares if you ride near their crappy dog.
Rick_Rude wrote:
bore off milemuncher – away and add more spacers to your bianchi
Too poor for Bianchi. Too
Too poor for Bianchi. Too poor for even a Ultegra spec’d Cannondale these days. Oddly enough I did have to add a spacer to my KTM after my mate lost it doing me a favour by polishing my wheels. You got that bit right. Well done.
I find that dogs are fine.
I find that dogs are fine. It’s the lack of control their owners exert that is the problem. Dogs should be under control on public ways. Unless it’s incredibly well trained, that means on a lead — and not a stupid extending one that means your dog is 3m away from you and free to wonder across the path or into the carriageway at will.
I’m with Richard Ballantine on dog control.
If riding within your limits
If riding within your limits at an appropriate speed most of the time a cyclist will be able to react to an incoming dog. They don’t approach from behind and jump in front. If you’re in an area that dogs are likely to be, just beware as you would passing a primary school at 3pm. I ride off road with my dogs,they love it. Let’s just all coexist nicely. Potholes are far more dangerous.
Nice attempt to deflect blame
Nice attempt to deflect blame from the negligent dog owners on to the victim of said negligence.
I’ve also had dogs run from behind my bike and try to bite the wheels or me.
Anytime your dog is in a public place where it could cause harm it must be under your complete control. In the vast majority of instances this means a short lead.
The vast vast majority of dog owners I have encountered ignore this.
Rich_cb wrote:
Quite, as it explicitly states in HWC 56
Rule 56. Dogs. 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.
Seems to be those strappy
Seems to be those strappy things that seem to be the fashion these days because people can’t be bothered to walk where the dog wants to go, or to control them and stop them where they want to go. And they do it on pavements where if a dog does decide to bolt, they would be in the middle of the road before they would be stopped.
Msiv wrote:
That’s nonsense I’m afraid. When dogs are excited, for example by seeing a squirrel or other prey animal, they will bolt without considering what’s around them, and if that means straight under the wheels of a cyclist that’s what they do. Suggesting that if a cyclist is knocked off by a collision with a dog it will most of the time be because they are riding outwith their limits and/or at excessive speed sounds suspiciously like victim blaming to me.
Rendel Harris wrote:
That’s nonsense I’m afraid. When dogs are excited, for example by seeing a squirrel or other prey animal, they will bolt without considering what’s around them, and if that means straight under the wheels of a cyclist that’s what they do. Suggesting that if a cyclist is knocked off by a collision with a dog it will most of the time be because they are riding outwith their limits and/or at excessive speed sounds suspiciously like victim blaming to me.— Msiv
I’d concur with that and add if you are cycling at a slower speed than a dog can run, there’s every chance that one could approach from behind and become tangled in your wheels.
I take great care when I know there are dogs about or I see an owner carrying a lead with nothing attached – but I’ve had a dog run out into the road in front of me before now, with no warning (still not sure how I managed to not hit it). I give parked cars a wide berth, not just because of the door zone, but also because animals and small children can emerge without warning (or full grown adults, if it is a large van).
The reaction might well be
The reaction might well be ‘lose control and fall off’.
yes and maybe collect £50,000
yes and maybe collect £50,000 even in circumstances which might be considered a grey area.
https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/28/cyclist-who-sued-dog-owner-after-being-knocked-off-bike-wins-payout-13493853/
The one that took me off off
The one that took me off off attacked from behind.
S.3 Dangerous dogs act should
S.3 Dangerous dogs act should apply to dogs out of control. Applies to all breeds.
Hmm, so if my neighbour’s
Hmm, so if my neighbour’s friendly and fluffy little pooch chases after a squirrel it means she’s a dangerous dog? I think if you tried to take her owner to court, the judge would just laugh at you.
Dogs Dangerously Out of
Dogs Dangerously Out of Control
(Section 3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991)
Under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act an owner, or a person in charge of a dog, commits an offence if the dog causes reasonable apprehension to a person that they will be injured, whether or not they actually are injured. Unlike most offences in English law no criminal intent or recklessness is required for liability to arise and a person can therefore be guilty of an offence even if their dog was on a lead and had never behaved in such a way before. Where no injury is caused the case may only be dealt with in the magistrates’ court and the maximum penalty is 6 months imprisonment and/or a fine of £5,000. The court has the power to order the dog be destroyed or kept under control and they may specify the measures for control (eg keeping the dog on a lead in public). The court can also disqualify you from keeping dogs and can also order compensation to be paid to the victim.
If your dog injures a person, or an assistance dog (eg a guide dog), then a more serious “aggravated” offence is committed. The injury does not have to be a bite; a scratch or bruise would suffice. The “aggravated” offence can be dealt with in either the magistrates’ court or the crown court and the maximum penalties are as follows:
OldRidgeback wrote:
If your neighbours fluffy pooch runs after a squirrel, into the road and cyclist ends up under a bus as a result, then yes, it is a dangerous dog – as it is dangerously out of control.
I saw her video on the Daily
I saw her video on the Daily Mail and she is cycling round one of the busiest cities in the world wearing headphones, no doubt noise cancelling…she’s asking to have an accident.
Kermit77 wrote:
Socrati? Is that you?
Kermit77 wrote:
Not a fan of headphones for cycling on the roads myself but a) if she was riding around Buckingham Palace/Green Park/Hyde Park she was probably on the offroad cycle paths, on which headphones can safely be worn, and b) headphones are not “asking” for a dog to run in front of you and doubtful if clear hearing would assist in avoiding it. If my recent experience of Battersea Park is anything to go by, you certainly won’t get a warning shout from the owners as they’re too busy on their phones to watch what the dog’s up to.
Kermit77 wrote:
You mean: “Pleeease, will somebody hit me with their
cardog and injure me!”I suspect not…
Kermit77 wrote:
Would that be the same way that deaf people are asking to have an accident? Of course a dog would never run into someone without headphones would they and personally, I’d just cover my eyes and only use my ears to avoid any dogs running loose.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Quite, or for that matter for car drivers with their windows up, or radio on to be “asking for an accident”…..
Kermit77 wrote:
In addition to the other responses, I’ve always hated the thought of using headphones whilst walking in busy places cos I want to know if anyone’s behind me (of course if someone was close behind me with mal-intent it’s unlikely they’d announce their presence, but hey, who said we’re always rational)
On discussing this with Mrs Badger, and expressing surprise at how many women wear headphones with this in mind, she pointed out to me that sometimes women wear headphones as a prop, so that they don’t have to respond to unwanted attention, or can ignore attempts to engage in conversation with less fear of confrontation.
Not that it always works – some men will actually hook earphones out in (very creepy and intimidating) attempts to engage.
TLDR it’s not inconceivable that headphones are in and not switched on. In any case, I don’t believe that use of headphones is a factor in cycling collisions, and unless you have figures that demonstrate otherwise I’d quit the victim-blaming. At face value this collision was caused by a negligent dog owner who was not in control of their animal
Kermit77 wrote:
You do realise headphones go over the ears, and not over your eyes right? This doesn’t prevent a dog running in front of a cyclist, with little time to react.
Actress?
Bit old school
Actress?
Bit old school
hirsute wrote:
I don’t understand…?
Do you mean you think Cats killed her career?
I think it might be more that
I think it might be more that the media style fashion these days is that men and women (and others) are all “actors”.
Oh, OK – I think I missed
Oh, OK – I think I missed that memo
They still do a best actress
They still do a best actress whilst refering to all as actors.
I’m sure it makes sense somewhere.
I keep my dog on the lead if
I keep my dog on the lead if we’re not in the park. I keep him on the lead if we’re on the path as a rule. But it’s worth remembering that in London parks at least, the paths are shared and cyclists are expected to ride with care and allow pedestrians priority. I do see plenty of riders blasting through busy parks with no thought for the fact that there are dogs and children about.
All that said, I did get taken out by a dog on my motorbike many years ago now. This was on the A3 at Wandsworth, not a little back road. Some idiot let his dog off the lead and it ran across the road in front of me. I hit it and came down hard, crushing all my toes on my right foot and tearing a bunch of ligaments in my right ankle. The dog survived and was rushed away by the irresponsible owner, leaving me in pain in the road and with several hundred pounds worth of damage to my Guzzi.
The fact is that some people are irresponsible idiots. Some of them drive BMWs, some of them have dogs, some of them are cyclists.
OldRidgeback wrote:
All agreed but dog owners (of whom I’d love to be one if I could afford a big garden) need to show a bit of sense too. I ride through Battersea Park every day, there is a perimeter road (once used for motor traffic, now closed) which is the only place cycling is permitted. Dog owners have all the rest of the park to walk in, numerous (concrete) paths and vast swathes of grassland for the dogs to play in, yet I would estimate that 95% of dogwalkers walk round the perimeter road where they know there will be cyclists. It simply makes no sense.
I don’t got to Battersea Park
I don’t got to Battersea Park that often but I’d assume there are signs up saying cycling is permitted but that pedestrians have priority. I cycle across Brockwell Park, Dulwich Park and Burgess Park most often and there can be a lot of people, kids and dogs about. You just have to take care and go slowly.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Sounds like you’re from my neck of the woods, I’m just about equdistant from Brockwell and Burgess. Yes of course one has to be careful and I check my Garmin to make sure I stick to the posted limit in Battersea Park (12 mph). Just questioning why people want to use the only path permitted for cyclists (and sigh and tut and occasionally shout about their presence) when there are nicer paths from which cyclists are banned a few feet away.
There are better rides in
There are better rides in South London. I blasted down Fountain Drive/College Rd in Dulwich on Sunday, which was a hoot as I was bunny hopping the speed bumps on my MTB. If you don’t know it, check it out.
But be careful. A mate lives there and saw a roadie taken out by a bloke in a slow moving 4WD who turned right.
OldRidgeback wrote:
What was a dog doing on your motorbike?
And more importantly, was it wearing a helmet?
“Some idiot let his dog off
“Some idiot let his dog off the lead and it ran across the road in front of me. I hit it and came down hard, crushing all my toes on my right foot and tearing a bunch of ligaments in my right ankle”
Yep, I know you meant it as a joke. But I’ve had pain and discomfort at various times in my ankle for decades now and just because somebody else was irresponsible. Yep, I do go running but the ankle injury flares up every now and then. I don’t find it very amusing, sory.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Sorry dude, you’re right. flippant comment.
No sweat – sense of humour
No sweat – sense of humour failure on my part – the ankle injury bothers me on and off and has done for years. Sometimes the ankle just gives way when I’m going down stairs and as one toe was particularly mangled, I’m expecting arthritis in the joints as I get (even) older.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Ah f#ck man, that sucks, particularly as it didn’t need to happen as you say but for someone’s else’s negligence.
Had similar happen to me when
Had similar happen to me when some drunken fool allowed his gorgeous chocolate staffie to slip her lease at the Hillingondon ciycle circuit, in a park but by-law makes leads mandatory for obvious reasons, as I passed in a race bunch at 30mph. £3K frame snapped, concussion, rotator cuff and chipped elbow. Staffie was covered in cuts, and odds on the idiot didn’t take her to the vet to get checked. He also gave false details.
Shoulder and elbow still give more than occasional pain a decade later.
The fault of the idiot dog
The fault of the idiot dog owner. You and the poor pup suffered for his stupidity. I like dogs. I don’t like irresponsible owners.
So the dog failed its
So the dog failed its audition for Pooch Perfect ? I’m conflicted about this, it’s very wrong for dog owners to not control their pets, but on the other hand she was in Cats, can you really blame the dog?
Philh68 wrote:
Oh come come, Cats was an utter crime against humanity, but still not sure she deserves to be knocked off her bike
Dogs chase cats, you can’t
Dogs chase cats, you can’t fight their natural instinct…
“According to Mailonline”
“According to Mailonline” Well, f**k them too. Hatemongering oxygen thieves.
Not many cyclists carry the
Not many cyclists carry the long old fashion long pumps – they are used for pumping up tyres and hitting out of control savage dogs when they attack cyclists, works very well.