Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Rules of the road query

  • 27-10-2014 07:48PM
    #1
    jaytobe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 382 ✭✭


    Just a query that I have heard conflicting opinions on..

    If an animal, let's say dog or cat, crosses a busy road speed limit 80km/hr +, and you have numerous vehicles behind you travelling at speed limit, what is correct course of action.

    Must safe breaking be the guiding rule (assume everyone has a safe distance) or is there ever a case for unavoidance as the lesser of two evils?


«1

Comments

  • #2
    eyescreamcone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭eyescreamcone


    Your own safety must be paramount.
    Sudden braking could result in someone rear ending you causing injury or worse to yourself. Your other option is to hit the animal - this would be the correct option.

    I would imagine though if someone hit you from behind, for whatever reason, then legally they would be at fault.
    Not much good to you though if you've severe whiplash or worse.


  • #3
    visual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,265 ✭✭✭visual


    If you cause a accident breaking for a cat or dog you can be held liable and emergency breaking surrounded with other vehicles will cause a accident.


  • #4
    colm_mcm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,300 ✭✭✭✭colm_mcm


    visual wrote: »
    If you cause a accident breaking for a cat or dog you can be held liable and emergency breaking surrounded with other vehicles will cause a accident.

    Surely it's up to the vehicles following to leave enough room for an emergency stop?


  • #5
    V Eight
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 245 ✭✭V Eight


    If someone hits you from behind its their fault - but they shouldn't hit you from behind if they are keeping the correct distance and being observant.
    I reckon if I was in that situation it would be hard not to brake as it's a natural instinct to try to avoid a collision............


  • #6
    jaytobe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 382 ✭✭jaytobe


    colm_mcm wrote: »
    Surely it's up to the vehicles following to leave enough room for an emergency stop?
    Yes, these are the opinions I am getting.

    Is there anything in the rules specifically on both; personal safety v safe breaking


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,210 ✭✭✭pablo128


    If it's a cat, I personally wouldn't lift. A bigger dog would do a fair bit of damage though, so I would brake, but not swerve unless I was 100% sure I had the room.


  • #8
    CiniO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,039 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    Depends on the size of animal as well.
    Small cat might cause you cracked bumper, but a deer might kill you when you him it at 80km/h.
    A sheep at 80km/h would mean probably a write off of less expensive car.


  • #9
    goz83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,778 ✭✭✭goz83


    colm_mcm wrote: »
    Surely it's up to the vehicles following to leave enough room for an emergency stop?

    True. But it could be argued that the driver in front slammed on the brakes for no other reason than to cause an accident and make a claim. I know they say to expect the unexpected, but even if you are at a safe distance, it is still possible to hit the car in front if the speed is considerable and the braking force is severe. Some cars will stop much sooner than others too, so it is not easy to calculate these things every time a car is in front of you.

    Wasn't there a story making the rounds about a certain minority group, who squashed about a dozen of themselves into a van, went on a national road and waited for a nice merc to sit in behind them before the brakes were slammed hard and a dozen whiplashes later,the claim amount was massive.


  • #10
    colm_mcm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,300 ✭✭✭✭colm_mcm


    goz83 wrote: »
    True. But it could be argued that the driver in front slammed on the brakes for no other reason than to cause an accident and make a claim.

    That'd be a hard enough thing to prove tbh.


  • #11
    biko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,060 ✭✭✭✭biko


    My input, not rules per se.

    Following cars will godwilling keep enough distance that if you brake to a stop they won't hit the back of you. You just have to trust other driver are not always utter fools :D

    Don't swerve into oncoming lane or hard shoulder. If the animal gets hit so be it but you're less likely to endanger human life if you remain on the road. After all human life is the one that counts.

    In countries where there are large deer and moose there are different techniques but for here it's probably a dog or cat, maybe a sheep that'll get in your way.

    Number one rule - drive the conditions. You don't have to worry about sheep in a city and probably not about dogs in the wilds of Donegal. Read your surroundings and know that dogs are likely to run out in front of you close to farms etc. Know that horses and cows can appear almost anywhere in the countryside or even jump fences.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    CiniO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,039 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    biko wrote: »
    In countries where there are large deer and moose there are different techniques but for here it's probably a dog or cat, maybe a sheep that'll get in your way.

    Well driving through Connemara (not entirely rural - just N59 between Galway and Clifden) I've seen myself a big deer right run right in front of me twice on two different occasions. Once he forced me to brake very hard. Had I hit one, I could have been dead by now.

    Sheep is another thing, and on my daily commute to work I meet hundreds of them on the road. But they do have certain behaviour which you can learn, and generally you can fly across them once you can predict what they are going to do. I've been driving here for the last 7 years, so I feel quite good at understanding sheep, so no problem with them :)


  • #13
    goz83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,778 ✭✭✭goz83


    colm_mcm wrote: »
    That'd be a hard enough thing to prove tbh.

    No doubt it's been done many a time though.


  • #14
    visual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,265 ✭✭✭visual


    colm_mcm wrote: »
    Surely it's up to the vehicles following to leave enough room for an emergency stop?

    It use to be 100% fault of following driver but that has been changed and it is proportion blame to take account of other contributing factors.


  • #15
    BlatentCheek
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 329 ✭✭BlatentCheek


    goz83 wrote: »
    True. But it could be argued that the driver in front slammed on the brakes for no other reason than to cause an accident and make a claim.

    Almost impossible to prove.
    goz83 wrote: »
    I know they say to expect the unexpected, but even if you are at a safe distance, it is still possible to hit the car in front if the speed is considerable and the braking force is severe. Some cars will stop much sooner than others too, so it is not easy to calculate these things every time a car is in front of you.

    If you can't stop in time to avoid a vehicle stopping in front of you then you're not at a safe distance. Imagine a van in front hitting a skip or other static obstacle you couldn't see and coming to a near instant halt, you still have to be a safe stopping distance behind him.
    goz83 wrote: »
    Wasn't there a story making the rounds about a certain minority group, who squashed about a dozen of themselves into a van, went on a national road and waited for a nice merc to sit in behind them before the brakes were slammed hard and a dozen whiplashes later,the claim amount was massive.

    Whether that's true or not the merc driver was at fault for failing to keep a safe distance. For every apocryphal scammer there must be dozens of innocent people crippled by tailgaters rear ending them when they had to emergency brake.

    Motorists should never have to weigh up if its safe to brake to avoid hitting an obstacle in front of them, for fear that someone behind them will hit them.

    The duty to keep a safe distance form the car in front is absolute, as it should be, too many people in Ireland fail to grasp this.

    The only circumstances I can imagine where someone behind hitting a car in front is not liable is if the car in front reverses into them or swerves into their lane or a third vehicle in the queue shunts the second one forward into the first one.


  • #16
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,575 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    colm_mcm wrote: »
    Surely it's up to the vehicles following to leave enough room for an emergency stop?

    Not in a lot of countries, in Germany if you brake for a small animal and this causes an accident, you will be at least partially liable.
    It cuts down on people slamming on the ankers if they think the car behind may be too close and they fancy a bit of compo.
    Otherwise I would drive around all day and jump on the brakes with both feet for no reason ad sue everyone who runs into me. This is Ireland after all...


  • #17
    CiniO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,039 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Not in a lot of countries, in Germany if you brake for a small animal and this causes an accident, you will be at least partially liable.
    It cuts down on people slamming on the ankers if they think the car behind may be too close and they fancy a bit of compo.
    Otherwise I would drive around all day and jump on the brakes with both feet for no reason ad sue everyone who runs into me. This is Ireland after all...

    Well without dashcam it would be very hard to prove anything.
    Driver who slammed on the brakes, can always say there was a big cow in front of him, and how can you prove he is lying?


  • #18
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,575 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    CiniO wrote: »
    Well without dashcam it would be very hard to prove anything.
    Driver who slammed on the brakes, can always say there was a big cow in front of him, and how can you prove he is lying?

    That's beside the point, the fact remains, if someone slams on for no good reason, he will be partially liable. Proving something either way is always the tricky thing in any situation.
    There was a case of a driver setting off from a green light with a bus behind them, they smelled money and jammed on after already having set off. Bus hits them, they're delighted, but in the end got no money because they caused the accident.
    Can't find the link at the monent, will see if I can dig it up.


  • #19
    corkgsxr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,388 ✭✭✭corkgsxr


    colm_mcm wrote: »
    Surely it's up to the vehicles following to leave enough room for an emergency stop?

    Wasn't a woman in America put in prison for stopping for ducks?

    If I could avoid I would but other than that straight over.

    You also have a reasonable care to other drivers. Driving along and suddenly jamming on can be constituted as not due care if it's not for a good reason


  • #20
    biko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,060 ✭✭✭✭biko


    The woman with the ducks is whole different thing (two counts of criminal negligence causing death). She caused the deaths of two people on a motorbike by parking in the overtaking lane to save the ducks. The case is still to be decided.

    Imo, human life trumps any animal. If you're driving on a busy road with many cars yo may have to choose to actually drive over an animal. Hopefully the person behind you isn't a tailgating SOB or texting.


  • #21
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,701 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    goz83 wrote: »
    True. But it could be argued that the driver in front slammed on the brakes for no other reason than to cause an accident and make a claim. I know they say to expect the unexpected, but even if you are at a safe distance, it is still possible to hit the car in front if the speed is considerable and the braking force is severe. Some cars will stop much sooner than others too, so it is not easy to calculate these things every time a car is in front of you.

    Wasn't there a story making the rounds about a certain minority group, who squashed about a dozen of themselves into a van, went on a national road and waited for a nice merc to sit in behind them before the brakes were slammed hard and a dozen whiplashes later,the claim amount was massive.
    do mercenarys pay out more?


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,985 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    Why can't folk spell "brakes" properly?


  • #23
    Special Circumstances
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,540 ✭✭✭Special Circumstances


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    Why can't folk spell "brakes" properly?

    Hear, don't loose the head over it like, there doing they're best.


  • #24
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,461 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    The fact that so many here think that braking hard will cause someone to run into the back of you, suggests tailgating is become so common as to be expected. This will be obvious to anyone who drives. But in case you were uncertain about it.
    Fifty-five per cent said that they had been tailgated at least once a month, while 40 per cent said they experience it on a weekly basis.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/tailgating-driving-survey-1449832-May2014/

    As for people doing it on purpose....
    deliberately caused at least 93 car crashes in three years,

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/8318338.stm

    I've had people brake test me simply because they didn't want me merging in lane. They speed up to not let you in, you brake, they shoot past, you move into lane, they stand on the brakes hoping you'll have your eyes on the mirrors as you merge in. On two occasions I've noticed a car in front braking at really odd intervals, I can only assume to cause a crash. The braking is so well timed, it sets your alarm bells ringing because it so odd. Its different to someone on a mobile, or under the influence, its not as erratic as that.

    The best rule is not to hit anything front or back. Keep a bubble in front AND behind. Anyone gets into that space, they are to be avoided.


  • #25
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,575 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    BlatentCheek wrote: »
    Almost impossible to prove.



    If you can't stop in time to avoid a vehicle stopping in front of you then you're not at a safe distance. Imagine a van in front hitting a skip or other static obstacle you couldn't see and coming to a near instant halt, you still have to be a safe stopping distance behind him.



    Whether that's true or not the merc driver was at fault for failing to keep a safe distance. For every apocryphal scammer there must be dozens of innocent people crippled by tailgaters rear ending them when they had to emergency brake.

    Motorists should never have to weigh up if its safe to brake to avoid hitting an obstacle in front of them, for fear that someone behind them will hit them.

    The duty to keep a safe distance form the car in front is absolute, as it should be, too many people in Ireland fail to grasp this.

    The only circumstances I can imagine where someone behind hitting a car in front is not liable is if the car in front reverses into them or swerves into their lane or a third vehicle in the queue shunts the second one forward into the first one.

    Post of the week for most balderdash.


  • #26
    MarkR
    Moderators, Regional Midwest Moderators Posts: 11,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭MarkR


    Hitting an animal itself could cause an accident, so I don't see why so many are giving out about people braking. I wouldn't throw out the anchor, but I would attempt to slow. Force of habit also makes me check my mirror as I do that, to gauge cause / affect.


  • #27
    BlatentCheek
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 329 ✭✭BlatentCheek


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Post of the week for most balderdash.

    What parts of it do you think are balderdash and why?


  • #28
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,461 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Seems to be a denial of tailgating habits on this thread.


  • #29
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,575 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    BlatentCheek wrote: »
    What parts of it do you think are balderdash and why?

    If you where right, the guy causing accidents for braking on a roundabout for no reason would be absolutely in the right and free to carry on. He is not.


  • #30
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,461 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    If you where right, the guy causing accidents for braking on a roundabout for no reason would be absolutely in the right and free to carry on. He is not.

    He is right....
    Almost impossible to prove.

    The scammer was dumb doing the same thing a hundred times in the same place with 100's of eye witnesses and CCTV.

    You'll never have this usually, and usually its is the person behinds fault. I don't understand your reason for trying to normalize a bad driving habit of driving too close.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    RustyNut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,427 ✭✭✭RustyNut


    Be able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear. The reason the yoke in front hits the stop pedal doesn't matter, cat, dog, deer, kid or looking for a claim.


Advertisement