LadyClarice, an attractive nuisance is anything that might attract children into danger or harm. Legally speaking it is taken to be an artificial feature on your property such as, for example, an unfenced pool, a hazardous outbuilding that is accessible by a trespassing child, a large pit, a disused and unfenced quarry, a chained dog. A dog may be compared to an attractive nuisance because children are attracted to it while it is out in public.
They are not doing the dog equivalent of leaving a dangerous rusty car out or having an unfenced swimming pool.
Yes they are.
The dog, no matter how well trained, may bite a child or another adult.
If this is not your concern then it should be.
It should be the concern of all dog owners, but it appears from this thread that the main concern is the feelings of dogs or the irritation of the owners. I am not getting the impression that dog owners here are worried that their dog might bite or injure someone.
Dogs are attractive to children just as unfenced swimming pools and old barns and rusty old cars are. I am repeating myself here, but there is ample evidence of this:
It is visible in warnings about sex predators and their methods of luring children using dogs and puppies as bait.
It is also obvious to the law that allowances need to be made for the nature of children in laws wrt liability of property owners for injuries sustained by children even when they trespass.
LadyClarice:
'How dare you?'
Math:
'Jeez, LadyClarice.
This is a public forum. It is AIBU no less.'
A little more careful reading of posts goes a long way.
And no, it is not a privilege for an individual human to walk about freely outdoors. It is a basic human right. Taking a dog out with you is a privilege because it is something conditional upon the dog being safe (health wise) for other animals and people (not rabid, has all shots up to date), not a threat to humans (not likely to bite or threaten or chase cars or people who are out running) and not a threat to their property (sheep especially). There are restrictions on ownership of certain breeds. Nobody has an untrammeled right to own or take out any dog, anywhere, on or off lead. There are places where dogs are not allowed except for guide dogs. The nature of dogs is taken into account when regulating them.
The place of parents in all this is to do their utmost but as the warnings about predatory strangers and their tricks show, children cannot be counted upon to pay heed to parental warnings.
SaintlyJimjams --
Ok math - if my so happens to run up and stand right behind your car as you start it I'll leave him to it. After all if you run him over I can just explain that he is drawn magnetically to handbrakes and he doesn't understand much language and is really forgetful.
It is specifically dogs that are recognised as attractive to children. Nobody is talking about handbrakes. Nobody thinks they are attractive. We are talking about furry, fascinating dogs, the stars of many children's programmes on TV and who feature as friendly and loveable characters in innumerable children's books. It is the effect specifically of dogs on children that makes your expectations wrt their behaviour and your judgeyness about their parents unreasonable and most likely unwarranted. You can see this in the warnings about predators using dogs to lure them -- and the reality of children forgetting warnings about strangers and dogs alike. You clearly do not understand that if you love your dog is is likely that children are going to find it attractive too. Is there too much putting of yourself in someone else's shoes required here?
If you are happy to let a child stand behind a moving or potentially moving car then presumably he would be in the street or in someone's drive, and therefore not where a child should be standing. In that case, allowing it would be contributory negligence on your part. A driver should check the rearview mirror before setting off but a child might not be tall enough to be seen standing right behind a car.
Drivers must obey the speed limit and drive according to weather and traffic conditions and observe warnings such as a playground or school ahead sign but you can still do a lot of harm to a child (esp if the point of impact is the child's head) even when crawling along if the child runs out into a road where he should not be and a driver doesn't see him in time. Driving a car, like taking a dog out, is not a right but a privilege because cars, like dogs, are potentially dangerous.
A child in a park otoh is where a child has a perfect right to be, yet you are expecting parents to be extra vigilant when you take your dog out to the same park -- you are expecting parents to enable your privilege. It is completely unreasonable for you to take out a dog among children, many of whom do not understand much language and are really forgetful, and expect them to stay away, given the attractiveness to children of many dogs. As a driver, you do not expect others to enable your privilege, and drive without regard for the safety of others.
Babybythesea, nobody is saying 'they can't remember so there is no point in teaching them'.
Parents care about their children and all but the most seriously negligent warn them about danger and about appropriate behaviour, but they still cross their fingers every time they go out, even when they are teens, because they know the children can still do stupid and dangerous things, make a wrong decision in a split second that can lead to disaster.
They do not have the neurological maturity to do otherwise. They can't vote or drive or marry or consent to sex until they reach a certain age. Their immaturity is known and recognised. Drivers and dog owners alike need to be cognisant of this and not expect parents to accomplish the impossible.
What is being said over and over again is that dog owners' expectation that children will remember is crazy. The annoyance can be avoided simply by avoiding children.