animals

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.

Stark

saobh_ie wrote:

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.

What if it was someone trying to kill themselves? Is it worth putting someone else at risk to avoid hitting them? The question's probably more relevant if you're driving something like a truck.

Stark

bigkev49 wrote:

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.

I'd prefer to slam on the brakes and let whoever's behind me foot the bill if they're not driving with due attention.

peasant

Stark wrote:

I'd prefer to slam on the brakes and let whoever's behind me foot the bill if they're not driving with due attention.

If you slam on the brakes for a cat or a dog, the insurance of the guy that hit you from behind most likely isn't going to pay out, actually they're probably going to comer after you for his bill.

(unless you can produce a frightened child that will testify to the fact that it was just about to run out into the road (after said dog or cat) and only your hard braking saved its life)


PS I have cats and dogs myself and I'd probly throw anchor for one as well

Anan1

peasant wrote:

If you slam on the brakes for a cat or a dog, the insurance of the guy that hit you from behind most likely isn't going to pay out, actually they're probably going to comer after you for his bill.

Not if the cat or dog makes it.:)

BrianD3

peasant wrote:

If you slam on the brakes for a cat or a dog, the insurance of the guy that hit you from behind most likely isn't going to pay out, actually they're probably going to comer after you for his bill.

I don't believe this would be the case. Braking to avoid an animal is a perfectly valid course of action. You are taking evasive action to avoid an obstacle in the road that could damage your car. Obstacle could be a dog, sheep, pothole, rock, debris or whatever. If you brake and the guy behind rear ends you he was simply following too close and not able to stop in the distance he could see to be clear, therefore is at fault. I think it's pretty clear cut.

saobh_ie

Anan1 wrote:

Not if the cat or dog makes it.:)

What dog? I never saw a dog! That asshole just slammed on his brakes for no reason on a perfectly straight road.

Will be there defense. People at fault in road traffic accidents lie through thier teeth to thier insurance company if they think they have any chance at all of getting away with it.

They're still at fault but the insurance company will drag you through the ringer and try to get you to take a proportion of the costs.

maidhc

saobh_ie wrote:

What dog? I never saw a dog! That asshole just slammed on his brakes for no reason on a perfectly straight road.

...as is his prerogative!

I don't think any insc co will bother challenging something as open and shut as a rear ending, dog or no dog.

peasant

maidhc wrote:

...as is his prerogative!

I don't think any insc co will bother challenging something as open and shut as a rear ending, dog or no dog.

I don't know about here, but I have knowledge of several cases to this regard in Germany.

Several ins. companies have challenged cases like that and it is now law that you mustn't slam on the brakes for a small animal.
You're ok to brake from sheep, deer, wild boar upwards

To add to the irony, most insurance companies will cover you for damages caused by collision with an animal with fur ...if you hit a bird, you're plain out of luck. (As was discovered by my parent's neighbour who totalled her car when colliding with an ostrich that had escaped from an ostrich farm. Luckily for her ostriches aren't exactly indegenous in Germany, so the guilty farmer could be readily identified and she could wrangle her money out of his insurance in a private claim)

macshadow

I've heard that if you kill a dog with your car you have 24hrs to report it to
the guards.
It was a guard that told me that about ten years ago.:rolleyes:

seamus

BrianD3 wrote:

I don't believe this would be the case. Braking to avoid an animal is a perfectly valid course of action. You are taking evasive action to avoid an obstacle in the road that could damage your car. Obstacle could be a dog, sheep, pothole, rock, debris or whatever. If you brake and the guy behind rear ends you he was simply following too close and not able to stop in the distance he could see to be clear, therefore is at fault. I think it's pretty clear cut.

Indeed, as I pointed out an animal is a hazard, therefore a perfectly valid excuse for hard braking.