animals

Kadeshh

was driving along the other day and a dog ran out in front of the car. luckily (for him) i was able to stop and not squash him.

is there any requirement to stop if you hit an animal?
ovbiously if you hit a cow or something, its going to be all over the road
(and the car) and the gaurds etc would have to be told.

but if you squash a dog or cat is, do you have to do anything about it?

just to be clear i HAVENT killed anything but nearly did and it made me wonder. also leave the morality side of it out please...

Anan1

What a strange question. Have you ever had a dog?

Marcus.Aurelius

If the animal is loose on the road then you have no legal responsibility to stop. It is completely the owner's fault. If your vehicle is damaged, you can seek compensation and damages from him, as it is a direct result of his negligence.

Morally speaking, you could always stop to make sure the dog isn't suffering, if he is, you can call a vet, (or put him out of his misery if he's a mess, often happens with rabbits and smaller animals). And no, I ain't condoning killin animals.

cold_filter

I thought i hear before if you hit a dog you have to stop but if its a cat you can keep going, something about dogs being mans best friend??

Kadeshh

Anan1 wrote:

What a strange question. Have you ever had a dog?

i have a dog and have had 2 others. what has that got to do with anything?

peasant

AFAIK it's actually a lot worse than that.

If you do an emergency maneuvre for a small animal (dog, cat etc) and thereby cause an accident with another car, your insurance company might actually tell you that you should have run over the animal, rather than endanger other road users and assign some of the blame (and cost) for the accident to you :mad:

Kadeshh

my point was not nessicarily about dogs btw.

similar situation with all, inc wilflife. i am assuming by the numbers of animals seen by the side of the road, that very few people stop and do anything.

interesting point about the damage to the car though.

Anan1

Kadeshh wrote:

i have a dog and have had 2 others. what has that got to do with anything?

Surely the moral obligation to stop would render any legal obligation irrelevant?

gyppo

peasant wrote:

AFAIK it's actually a lot worse than that.

If you do an emergency maneuvre for a small animal (dog, cat etc) and thereby cause an accident with another car, your insurance company might actually tell you that you should have run over the animal, rather than endanger other road users and assign some of the blame (and cost) for the accident to you :mad:

Peasant is 100% correct. You do not brake/swerve/take evasive action for an animal if doing so would pose a risk to other road users.

Kadeshh

Anan1 wrote:

Surely the moral obligation to stop would render any legal obligation irrelevant?

legal comes before moral, and anyway i wouldnt be morally bothered by it. it would not have been my fault that said animal chose that moment to run out onto road...

Rowley Birkin QC

Suppose you have to consider if its safe to stop too, can't really slam on the anchors just because a cat/dog ran out in front of you, might cause a more serious incident if the person behind you isnt paying due attention.

Suppose if you want to be nice about it, and if its safe to do so, the nice thing to do is stop and enquire at the nearest house about a missing animal and just pray it's not someone like this



A neighbour had a calf escape onto the road there lately, it was hit by a car and killed, driver was fine but the neighbour was liable for damages to the car of about €1200.

randomer

If I remember correctly, you have to report the incident to the gardai if you hit an animal. However, if you hit a cat you do not have to report it. They are an exception with regard to domestic animals.

Anan1

Kadeshh wrote:

legal comes before moral

Out of interest, who else agrees with this?

Kadeshh wrote:

and anyway i wouldnt be morally bothered by it. it would not have been my fault that said animal chose that moment to run out onto road...

Have you ever seen a child whose dog has just been run down?

unkel

Anan1 wrote:

Out of interest, who else agrees with this?

I sure don't. "Befehl ist Befehl" anyone?

gyppo

Anan1 wrote:

Out of interest, who else agrees with this?Have you ever seen a child whose dog has just been run down?

Its a tough one. I own a dog, which I totally adore, and would be devastated if something happened to her. So much so, I'm paranoid about where she is when she's outside. If she was killed on the road, its myself I would blame, not the person who hit her.

If I was put in the position of whether or not to hit an animal on the road, I would do my utmost to avoid the animal, but if there was an oncoming car/bike/whatever, then the animal would take 2nd place.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

maoleary wrote:

If the animal is loose on the road then you have no legal responsibility to stop. It is completely the owner's fault. If your vehicle is damaged, you can seek compensation and damages from him, as it is a direct result of his negligence.

Morally speaking, you could always stop to make sure the dog isn't suffering, if he is, you can call a vet, (or put him out of his misery if he's a mess, often happens with rabbits and smaller animals). And no, I ain't condoning killin animals.

This is completely wrong regarding the legal responsibilty to stop. The Law clearly states:
If you are involved in an accident in which a person or animal is injured or a vehicle or property is damaged you must do the following:

Stop.
Give your name, address, the registration number of your vehicle, and your insurance details, to anybody who needs the information...
You must remain at the scene with your car for a reasonable time...
You must also show your certificate to anybody who asks for it because you have damaged their vehicle or property....

Anan1

gyppo wrote:

Its a tough one. I own a dog, which I totally adore, and would be devastated if something happened to her. So much so, I'm paranoid about where she is when she's outside. If she was killed on the road, its myself I would blame, not the person who hit her.

If I was put in the position of whether or not to hit an animal on the road, I would do my utmost to avoid the animal, but if there was an oncoming car/bike/whatever, then the animal would take 2nd place.

I think you misunderstand my point. My two quotes refer to different things. I agree with everything you've said above. My point is that having hit the dog, I would at least have the decency to stop, see if it was ok, bring it to a vet, or, if it was dead, inform the family.

gyppo

Anan1 wrote:

I think you misunderstand my point. I agree with everything you've said above. My point is that having hit the dog, I would at least have the decency stop, see if it was ok, bring it to a vet, or, if it was dead, inform the family.

Absolutely agree with you - sorry, I misread your original point.

gucci

im sure you could insure your dog so if he caused damage you'd be covered?? farm animals may be covered by farm insurance. friend of mine hit a doberman in december, owner was walking him on a main road (N5) at night with no leash, poor fella did not know what he hit as it was dark and the dark dog ran infront of him. trashed the front of the car (VW golf) and caused 1400euro worth of damage. the owner had to and did pay his expenses.

i once went on a run of killing birds (stuck in the grill/undercarraige) must have slaughtered 5 or 6 in 10 days, was autumn time, mite have something to do with it?

seamus

Road Traffic Act, 1968 wrote:

106.—(1) Where injury is caused to person or property in a public place and a vehicle is involved in the occurrence of the jury (whether the use of the vehicle was or was not the cause of the injury), the following provisions shall have effect:

( a ) if the vehicle is not stationary after the occurrence, the driver of the vehicle shall stop the vehicle;

( b ) the driver or other person in charge of the vehicle shall keep the vehicle at or near the place of the occurrence for a period which is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of this section;

( c ) the driver of the vehicle or, if he is killed or incapacitated, the person then in charge of the vehicle shall give on demand the appropriate information to a member of the Garda Síochána or, if no such member is present, to one person entitled under this section to demand such information;

( d ) if a member of the Garda Síochána is not present at the occurrence and either—

(i) there is no person entitled under this section to demand the information, or

(ii) the case is one in which, as respects the sole person entitled under this section to demand the appropriate information or each of the persons so entitled, it is reasonably clear that he could not be expected to make a demand because of injury, illness, age or other disability,

the driver of the vehicle or, if he is killed or incapacitated, the person then in charge of the vehicle shall report the occurrence as soon as possible to a member of the Garda Síochána and, if necessary, shall go for that purpose to the nearest convenient Garda Síochána station and also shall give on demand the appropriate information to the member.

It's fair to say that certain animals (cats, dogs, horses, cows) are more than likely somebody's "property". Hence, you are required to stop.

Bradidup

cold_filter wrote:

I thought i hear before if you hit a dog you have to stop but if its a cat you can keep going, something about dogs being mans best friend??

The chances of hitting a dog running out in front of you is going to be nine times greater than hitting a cat doing the same.

fits

Bradidup wrote:

The chances of hitting a dog running out in front of you is going to be nine times greater than hitting a cat doing the same.

Had to read that one twice!

HashSlinging

Ffs!

maidhc

seamus wrote:

It's fair to say that certain animals (cats, dogs, horses, cows) are more than likely somebody's "property". Hence, you are required to stop.

I think the chances of being prosecuted for a hit and run involving a dog are highly unlikely.

Generally when you do hit a dog, no one knows who owns it. Its fascinating really, and has nothing to do with the fact the owner doesn't want to pay for the damage to your car!

It was the case once that if you hit livestock you were liable to the farmer. Thankfully this position is now completely reversed and the farmer will be presumed negligent if farm animals are out on the road.

I must be cold and heartless, but I don't feel particularly sorry for a dog who meets his demise chasing cars, and wouldn't feel any obligation to do anything about it.

Marcus.Aurelius

seamus wrote:

It's fair to say that certain animals (cats, dogs, horses, cows) are more than likely somebody's "property". Hence, you are required to stop.

I think that Act was repealed and RTA 2006 refers. Where damage has been done to your vehicle resulting from the direct negligence of the 2nd party then you will WANT to stop to ascertain the details of that individual for the purpose of obtaining compensation/ damages in respect of the incident.

Where no damage has been done to your car and the animal is dead, I don't think you have any obligation to stop. Where you wantonly drive up the path with the intent of hitting the dog, that's completely different.

_Kaiser_

Another problem is that most people (morality issues aside) WILL try to take avoiding action instinctively, and I'm sure the oncoming traffic/cars behind them is the last thing on ther mind in that split second that they see something coming out in front of them.

I think that's the bigger danger myself.

galah

First of all, if I hit an animal, I would stop (if it is safe to do so) and check if it's ok, and take the necessary steps (vet, contact family, etc).

However - I learnt in driving school (maybe it's different here), that you should never try to avoid hitting an animal by swerving (unless, again, it is absolutely safe to do so), because the damage you could potentially cause to other drivers/yourself is far worse than hitting an animal. (example: if you see a dog standing in your lane on a narrow two-way road with traffic coming in the opposite direction, do NOT try to avoid it, because you could end up dead in the ditch, or hitting oncoming traffic...)

It happened to me once, and my first reaction would have been to swerve, but I had to tell myself to keep going straight - scary experience, I ended up hitting the dog, but it ran away into the undergrowth...

_Kaiser_

Actually, if we really want to get into the morality angle..

If we SHOULD hit an animal as a last resort and in order to avoid the possibilty of causing an accident with oncoming/following traffic, then should we also NOT take evasive action if a child runs out in front of you in the same situation?

Where do you draw the line? Is it OK to put other people at risk to save a child?

The answer is that in both cases neither animal nor child should be running around unsupervised near a road anyway. If the unthinkable happens and they do run out in front of a car then of course you should take evasive action - but ONLY if by doing so you do not put others at risk as well.

prospect

I heard of a guy who failed his driving test because he swerved when a young child ran out in front of him!!!

Could be an urban myth though....

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

maoleary wrote:

I think that Act was repealed and RTA 2006 refers... Where no damage has been done to your car and the animal is dead, I don't think you have any obligation to stop....

The 2006 Act did not repeal the 1994, or previous Acts, but instead amended sections and added others. The official header to the Act was

RTA 2006 wrote:

AN ACT TO AMEND AND EXTEND PART III OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1994 AND TO MAKE PROVISION FOR THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT TO GRANT LICENCES TO ROAD HAULAGE AND ROAD PASSENGER TRANSPORT OPERATORS AND TO PROVIDE FOR CONNECTED MATTERS.

While it affected issues such as random breath tests, the sections refering to responsibilities at the scene of an accident remain unchanged.

saobh_ie

Personally, even if I was on my motorbike instead of in a car, I would put myself into the front of a truck rather than hit a child. However, I doubt I'd be going fast enough that swift application of the brakes would be unable to bring me to a stop before reaching the child.

Anan1 wrote:

Out of interest, who else agrees with this?Have you ever seen a child whose dog has just been run down?

Yes, so I would definitally say don't stop. Get the hell out of there because children whose pet you've just squished can be very upsetting and nobody needs that kind of hassle, you probaly feel bad enough all ready for squishing the dog.

If a pet or small animal (excluding badgers) ran out in front of me, and I'm in the car I'll get gently on the brakes, double check whats behind me to see if I can slam on the brakes. I won't leave my lane without knowing theres nothing coming the other way or about to appear coming the other way and theres nothing overtaking.

On the bike I'll aim at the animals ass and brake, if I'm definitally going to hit him I'll aim at the middle and accelerate hard. Transfers the weight to the rear wheel. Came within inches of doing this in Swords main street a while ago in front of a DFB ambulance coming the other way, the cat mesmirised as it walked across the road.

Large animals (and badgers) I'll brake and if safe move. On the bike I'm probaly all out to avoid it and hope that everyone else goes all out to avoid me. lol

maidhc

Kaiser2000 wrote:

If we SHOULD hit an animal as a last resort and in order to avoid the possibilty of causing an accident with oncoming/following traffic, then should we also NOT take evasive action if a child runs out in front of you in the same situation?

Where do you draw the line? Is it OK to put other people at risk to save a child?

Only if you assume the life of a dog and child are of equal value. Few do.

Kimbot

IF you are sitting your test you will fail instantly if you do not drive straight through the animal on the road, if you brake, swerve or any evasive manouvere you would fail so I assume this is a legal thing aswell!!

maidhc

jonny24ie wrote:

IF you are sitting your test you will fail instantly if you do not drive straight through the animal on the road, if you brake, swerve or any evasive manouvere you would fail so I assume this is a legal thing aswell!!

No you don't! If you can brake safely then that is the obvious thing to do.

_Kaiser_

maidhc wrote:

Only if you assume the life of a dog and child are of equal value. Few do.

But you're not answering my question. Why is it somehow more "ok" to put other PEOPLE'S lives at risk if it's a child and not an animal that runs out?

CJhaughey

Kadeshh wrote:

is there any requirement to stop if you hit an animal?
ovbiously if you hit a cow or something, its going to be all over the road
(and the car) and the gaurds etc would have to be told.

If you are unlucky enough to hit a cow at speed chances are that you will be lucky to walk away undamaged.
Hitting any large animal, Cow, Horse, is usually very dangerous for a car driver as the animal will ride up over the bonnet and slide into the windscreen.
The consequences are unpleasant to say the least.
The bottom picture is an Irish car...
http://www.chatsworthecho.org/vehicle_code.html

maidhc

Kaiser2000 wrote:

But you're not answering my question. Why is it somehow more "ok" to put other PEOPLE'S lives at risk if it's a child and not an animal that runs out?

Because if you swerve to avoid a child you are saving that child from injury or death. If you kill a child and say you ran him/her down because you didn't want to endanger people you will be (rightfully) laughed into jail.

On the other hand if you run down a dog, then its just another dead dog.

CJhaughey

I know someone who ran over a dog in a village, somehow the dog ended up stuck between the tyre and the top of the wheelarch, right inside the wheel arch! He got out but didn't want to do anything as the dog was howling and growling and snapping at him, he went off to get help and when he came back the dog had extricated himself and escaped.
Another friend hit a sheep at 0300 and when he stopped to check what the damage was, found guts and meat all over the road and his car, he was sick on the spot.

Marcus.Aurelius

Bentlee Dead Slipper wrote:

The 2006 Act did not repeal the 1994, or previous Acts, but instead amended sections and added others. The official header to the Act was


While it affected issues such as random breath tests, the sections refering to responsibilities at the scene of an accident remain unchanged.

Thanks for the info

seamus

jonny24ie wrote:

IF you are sitting your test you will fail instantly if you do not drive straight through the animal on the road, if you brake, swerve or any evasive manouvere you would fail so I assume this is a legal thing aswell!!

Nope. An animal will at worst be considered a hazard on the road, so failure to take any evasive action (even if the animal ends up dead) is a Grade 3 error - instant failure.
If an animal runs out on the road, then it's always a split-second judgement call on the best course of action. You can either brake or swerve. Braking is almost always preferable - it reduces risk to other road users, and has a much reduced chance of losing control of your vehicle. If braking isn't going to work, and swerving *may* work (i.e. the animal is running right to left, and by swerving to the right, it gives him more time), then by all means attempt to go around the animal, but not into oncoming traffic. You should never brake *and* swerve. You're likely to end up killing yourself, some other people, and the animal.

_Kaiser_

maidhc wrote:

Because if you swerve to avoid a child you are saving that child from injury or death. If you kill a child and say you ran him/her down because you didn't want to endanger people you will be (rightfully) laughed into jail.

On the other hand if you run down a dog, then its just another dead dog.

I don't think it's that clear cut in reality myself. I mean that insofar as that if you're at the "point of no return" where braking is not an option, and a child/dog appears in your vision, in that split second, you're instinctively going to swerve anyway (potentially into oncoming traffic and perhaps - for you or others - fatally so).

Why does one child outweigh the lives/safety of possibly several other people involved in any accident as a result? Do you feel any better that that child survives but by your actions you killed maybe 3 others? To paraphrase Mr Spock - "do the needs of the many, not outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?"

As I said above, certainly you SHOULD take any and all necessary action to avoid hitting the animal/child in the first place, BUT ONLY IF doing so does not place other people at risk. Who are you (any of us) to make that decision?

matrim

maidhc wrote:

Because if you swerve to avoid a child you are saving that child from injury or death. If you kill a child and say you ran him/her down because you didn't want to endanger people you will be (rightfully) laughed into jail.

If there is oncoming traffic, the only thing to do is slam on the breaks. If you swerve you could kill someone in the other car (possibly more than one person) and would be in worse legal trouble.

If you try to stop without swerving, assuming you weren't beaking the speed limit, and you hit the child, afaik, you have done nothing legally wrong.

AntiVirus

cold_filter wrote:

I thought i hear before if you hit a dog you have to stop but if its a cat you can keep going, something about dogs being mans best friend??

LOL! Someone was pulling your leg!

but if you run over a cat the law states you have to stop.

EDIT:
I've just found out that you're correct if you live in the UK!

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/money/features/insurance_car_accident.html

Point 6 wrote:

If your car hits a dog or farm animal, you are required by law to report the incident to the police. If you hit a cat or wild animal, there is no obligation to report it, but you must ensure that the animal is not injured or suffering.

Kadeshh

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anan1
Out of interest, who else agrees with this?Have you ever seen a child whose dog has just been run down?


no, but i bet it'd be hilariously funny:eek: .

Quote:


If you are unlucky enough to hit a cow at speed chances are that you will be lucky to walk away undamaged.
Hitting any large animal, Cow, Horse, is usually very dangerous for a car driver as the animal will ride up over the bonnet and slide into the windscreen.
The consequences are unpleasant to say the least.
The bottom picture is an Irish car...

have seen a trunk on the old Gorey Arklow road after it hit a cow. was quite a mess alright, but not as bad as the cow was:D .

Rovi

CJhaughey wrote:

If you are unlucky enough to hit a cow at speed chances are that you will be lucky to walk away undamaged.
Hitting any large animal, Cow, Horse, is usually very dangerous for a car driver as the animal will ride up over the bonnet and slide into the windscreen.
The consequences are unpleasant to say the least.
The bottom picture is an Irish car...
http://www.chatsworthecho.org/vehicle_code.html

Here's a local paper article on that very incident, some few years ago-
http://img486.imageshack.us/my.php?image=carhorse6oy.jpg

maidhc

matrim wrote:

If you try to stop without swerving, assuming you weren't beaking the speed limit, and you hit the child, afaik, you have done nothing legally wrong.

If you hit a child you were without question or doubt in the eyes of the law driving too fast for the conditions that prevailed, or else were not paying adequate attention. The speed limit will be irrelevant, and the best you can hope for is to have some contributory negligence levied on the child, which is unlikely to happen.

If there is oncoming traffic and a child runs out on the road, then you just have to call it as best you can. You will be in trouble both ways.

unkel

seamus wrote:

You should never brake *and* swerve

Should be fine in a car with ABS. The beauty of the ABS system is that even under full braking, the car is still steerable

BTW all new cars sold in the EU have ABS these days

Fey!

Rovi wrote:

Here's a local paper article on that very incident, some few years ago-
http://img486.imageshack.us/my.php?image=carhorse6oy.jpg

Were you the barsteward who wrote "4 faults" at the top???


As for telling a child that you've killed their dog, I've had to do it; the dog ran out and got crushed under my back wheels (and no, I wasn't reversing), and the parents insisted that I tell the children, even though it technically wasn't my fault. I've also done over €2,000 worth of damage to my car by hitting a fox rather than swerving into oncoming traffic or braking so that the car behind me could rear end me.

As for the hitting the child argument, instinct will tell you to swerve if a child runs out, regardless of whatever else is around. Personally, if the driver isn't speeding and is paying attention, I feel that it is the parent who should be held liable for ALL damages and injuries for not supervising their child (I've seen kids run out into traffic whilst their mothers were gossiping, and the mothers didn't even notice).

maidhc

Fey! wrote:

Personally, if the driver isn't speeding and is paying attention, I feel that it is the parent who should be held liable for ALL damages and injuries for not supervising their child (I've seen kids run out into traffic whilst their mothers were gossiping, and the mothers didn't even notice).

The view of the courts will be that if a child was hit, it can only be because the driver was either speeding or not paying attention. Of course the reality is often as you say, but that is neither here nor there.

peasant

maidhc wrote:

The view of the courts will be that if a child was hit, it can only be because the driver was either speeding or not paying attention. Of course the reality is often as you say, but that is neither here nor there.

In Germany, years ago, they used to run a safety campaign under the motto "kids have no brakes"

The law there is the same ...if you hit someone, you're at fault, at least to a certain degree because you should always drive in such a manner that no harm comes to anyone else.

During that safety campaign they laid great emphasis on pointing out typical situations where you could injure a child, learn to recognise these situations and slow down: Children by the road, parked cars in built up areas, children playing near the road, near playgrounds ...etc etc


To this day I slam on the brakes if I see a ball rolling/flying near the road because I expect a child to come running after it, because for months they had a rather graphic example of an accident like that on the telly.

saobh_ie

In any car vs pedestrian collision I think most of the blame is automatically put in the drivers direction because as the operator of the big dangerous machine they have an obligation to exercise a duty of care or some such.

The odds of a pedestrian getting out in front of me in a position where braking won't help me are pretty slim. However if one did hope out in front of me and there was an oncoming car, i'm in the car of course, I would have no qualms at aiming myself at the other car.

If theres potential for pedestrains to appear right in front of you, you will be travelling a maximun speed of 50kmh probaly less. The other vechile should be doing the same so given seat belts, air bags and the fact that cars are designed towards protecting you in passing safety tests of offset head on collisions I'd have some faith that I'll come through it alright.

A kid off the front of my car at 50kmh and then onto the ground and perhaps under my wheels or somebody elses... I don't believe thier odds are as good.

Edit:

If your outside of a build up area, on a back road or something doing 80kmh and a kid hops out of an entrance closer than the distance you can stop your car in you'll probaly find swerving to be complelty useless and the kid will make the other side of the road faster than your car will but at the same time still won't be fast enough if you put two wheels up on the ditch. Dump all the speed you can as fast as you can and hit them as softly as possible.

Back ontopic, don't overreact for any thing that can't hurt you inside your car. If you badly hurt it, go back and kill it, if you kill it, stop and make sure your vechiles okay.