Poll: would you kill a dog or pay $
- Thread starter Matt Oliver
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Your dad doesn't understand law.
Yes, you would be at fault if you were rear ended.
No, you are not legally obligated to run through the dog. The dog being there is incidental. You would be just as much at fault if you stopped for a child and got rear ended.
EDIT: Just saw, you live in MA? Yeah, me too. That confirms it. It isn't law.
Yes, you would be at fault if you were rear ended.
No, you are not legally obligated to run through the dog. The dog being there is incidental. You would be just as much at fault if you stopped for a child and got rear ended.
EDIT: Just saw, you live in MA? Yeah, me too. That confirms it. It isn't law.
you should've hit the dog, that'd learn it, the stupid mutt. seriously though I'm pretty sure the dude that rear ends you is always at fault, at least here it is. Here being Ontario, and not some other lazy stupid province. so let puppy have a gander or a sniff of your automobile. that or start moving forward, they tend to move when that happens.
It's hard to tell but there is a reason for what she was saying, I've seen many an animal try to cross the street while my dad was driving and so far as I can tell not a single one has been hit. Most animals small enough to not damage the car have a good chance of getting out of the way, the bigger ones have to avoid more than just the wheels.Sammisaurus said:
Never said that. I said that you would be just as much at fault for being rear ended if you stopped for a child or a dog.Matt Oliver said:
It's the way the legal system works. What you stopped for is irrelevant to whether or not you're at fault- though anyone that would fine you for causing an accident for stopping for a child is just downright insane.
We're talking fault here, legal fault- not morality.
Where do you live so I know not to go there?Matt Oliver said:
I'm saying I highly doubt your dad was correct. Very, very highly doubt that. Say it was a person in the road, would you think you would legally be obligated to run them over? There are very few cases where it's actually the person that got rear ended's fault. This doesn't seem to be one of those.
That sounds pretty bass ackwards. In Canada, the person who rear-ends someone is always at fault. If you hit someone or something in front of you, you are not driving with due care and attention. If you hit a lamppost or some other stationary object, is it the objects fault?
Assuming that a little thing called mitigating circumstances didn't help your legal situation, yeah, I'd pay money rather than run the dog down.
money is worth < a dog's life
money is worth < a dog's life
I think I understand what's going on here.
Your dad thinks that you're required, by law, to keep going and run the dog, or any other animal that gets in your way, over. He simply has a lesser understanding of the law. If you caused an accident by stopping, then you'd have to pay a fine, possibly go to court, etc. But, if you stop when there isn't anyone behind you, and you don't cause an accident, then there is nothing wrong. There is nothing to be at fault for.
Your dad is just a bit confused.
Your dad thinks that you're required, by law, to keep going and run the dog, or any other animal that gets in your way, over. He simply has a lesser understanding of the law. If you caused an accident by stopping, then you'd have to pay a fine, possibly go to court, etc. But, if you stop when there isn't anyone behind you, and you don't cause an accident, then there is nothing wrong. There is nothing to be at fault for.
Your dad is just a bit confused.
You are not legally required to kill it. That's pure bullshit.
I'm not going to swerve for a squirrel or a rabbit. I'll let off the gas, touch the break if I know no one is behind me, but I'm not slamming on the breaks or anything. You're a living thing too. The primary concern is that your nature may cause you to either swerve into oncoming traffic or cause someone to rear end you. Now, if it's that or hit a moose, that's understandable. But for small animals, it's not worth your life or the increase of insurance.Sammisaurus said:
but what if some1 later on when i did stop come up from behind and rear-end me?ZeroMachine said:
Can you ask your dad if it applies to rhinos?
I'm assuming he's saying you should drive at speed directly into an elephant or hippo standing in the middle of the road too, legally.
Also, as a non driver, it drives me buggy when I'm being driven somewhere and the driver flatly refuses to let more than a car length go between us and the car in front. Cars can't teleport, no-one's going to get between us, and even if they did, for fuck's sake, you've just lost 3 seconds. Take it easy, everyone will be happier.
I'm assuming he's saying you should drive at speed directly into an elephant or hippo standing in the middle of the road too, legally.
Also, as a non driver, it drives me buggy when I'm being driven somewhere and the driver flatly refuses to let more than a car length go between us and the car in front. Cars can't teleport, no-one's going to get between us, and even if they did, for fuck's sake, you've just lost 3 seconds. Take it easy, everyone will be happier.
Then you'd be at fault for the accident. It's really a pretty shitty situation.Matt Oliver said:
You either:
A) keep going and risk killing the dog or
B) stop and risk an accident, with you being at fault.
Best thing to do is to just learn to be alert. If there is a car behind you, try not to stop. A car accident is far more troublesome, and potentially far more damaging and deadly to you and others in the accident, then it's worth. Plus, the dog could still be killed in the chaos of an especially BAD accident.
If there is no car behind you, then hey... there shouldn't be a problem. Plus, there are other mitigating circumstances.
Point is, you didn't break any laws. Took a bit of a risk, yes, but no harm was done whatsoever this time. Just be alert for next time, if it happens again.