Poll: would you kill a dog or pay $

[Bagk Nakh]

That'd be one less dog to get in my trash and shit in my yard.

 

[ZeroMachine]

That'd be one less dog to get in my trash and shit in my yard.

Your avatar fits perfectly with that post in every conceivable way.

 

[Matt Oliver]

I AM FROM THE U.S.A. laws in u.s.a. assuming state that if you get hit from behind your at fault

 

[ender214]

If it doesn't move, then its time to hit the accelerator. It'll be tough cleaning that stuff off your tires though, and if you don't it'll smell...

 

[Cabisco]

I know that in the UK on a driving test if a dog runs into the road your meant to carry on and pretty much mow it down. The reason being you could cause a crash if you stop and put human lifes at risk.

Harsh I know, but a small cruel part of me has to ask, wheres the owner? They should be stopping the dog.

 

[ZeroMachine]

I AM FROM THE U.S.A. laws in u.s.a. assuming state that if you get hit from behind your at fault

Not true- there are tons of mitigating circumstances. Few years back, my dad and I were rear ended (in a long line of rear-endings) and if we were put at fault for it we would have fought it tooth and nail.

It all depends on what happened. If you stopped short for a dog and were rear ended? Yeah. Your fault. If you're at a stop light and rear ended? Totally the other dude's fault. No one in their right mind would blame the rear-end...ee? for that.

 

[Matt Oliver]

I AM FROM THE U.S.A. laws in u.s.a. assuming state that if you get hit from behind your at fault

Not true- there are tons of mitigating circumstances. Few years back, my dad and I were rear ended (in a long line of rear-endings) and if we were put at fault for it we would have fought it tooth and nail.

It all depends on what happened. If you stopped short for a dog and were rear ended? Yeah. Your fault. If you're at a stop light and rear ended? Totally the other dude's fault. No one in their right mind would blame the rear-end...ee? for that.

I was on a fairly busy road no cars behind me at the time tho but cars did come by.

 

[ZeroMachine]

I AM FROM THE U.S.A. laws in u.s.a. assuming state that if you get hit from behind your at fault

Not true- there are tons of mitigating circumstances. Few years back, my dad and I were rear ended (in a long line of rear-endings) and if we were put at fault for it we would have fought it tooth and nail.

It all depends on what happened. If you stopped short for a dog and were rear ended? Yeah. Your fault. If you're at a stop light and rear ended? Totally the other dude's fault. No one in their right mind would blame the rear-end...ee? for that.

I was on a fairly busy road no cars behind me at the time tho but cars did come by.

Well, if you were hit, I'm pretty sure you'd be at fault. Interrupting the flow of traffic or something.

I'm not 100% positive on that, though.

 

[Ice Car]

Legally required to kill it?

I would of been found at fault. i guess. Humanity plays a key role in this decision

Does your father speak for you or something? Seriously, do you not find anything fucking wrong with killing a dog for no reason? No, you are not legally required to kill a dog. You never were. That's just fucking demented.

I may be a little biased as I love dogs... A LOT, but seriously, I'm sure everyone sees how doing this is wrong...

 

[-Samurai-]

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.

but what if some1 later on when i did stop come up from behind and rear-end me?

Then you'd be at fault for the accident. It's really a pretty shitty situation.

I'm not sure about any other state, but in Ohio, the rear end-er is always at fault. It doesn't matter if the driver in front slammed on their brakes to avoid hitting a dog, or slammed on their brakes because they felt like being a dick. The person behind is supposed to leave enough room between the two vehicles to react to situations like that.

OT: I'd hit the damn thing. Ruin my car, or kill a dog? Kill the dog. Worst situation is the dogs owner sues you and loses because its their fault their dog is in the middle of the road, and they pay for any damages done to your car when you hit their dog.

 

[Erana]

I AM FROM THE U.S.A. laws in u.s.a. assuming state that if you get hit from behind your at fault

Not true- there are tons of mitigating circumstances. Few years back, my dad and I were rear ended (in a long line of rear-endings) and if we were put at fault for it we would have fought it tooth and nail.

It all depends on what happened. If you stopped short for a dog and were rear ended? Yeah. Your fault. If you're at a stop light and rear ended? Totally the other dude's fault. No one in their right mind would blame the rear-end...ee? for that.

I was on a fairly busy road no cars behind me at the time tho but cars did come by.

If you had come to a complete stop long before someone was behind you... Well, anyone rear ending someone who isn't moving that didn't suddenly break is a terrible driver.
I think that speaks for itself.

 

[Eggsnham]

So, my fellow escapist I was recently put into a bad situation where i was coming home and I had a dog in the road. I stopped and tried shooing and honking, this dog kept circling my car and I waited a solid 5 mins before realizing that once the dog goes behind my car I must go. When I got home my dad told me I was legally required to kill the dog because I would of been at fault if I got rear-ended. My question is would you of followed the law and killed the dog or would you be willing to risk getting rear-ended?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that you're not legally required to kill a dog if it's circling your car for a while.

Your dad have a vendetta against dogs?

OT: I'd rather pay, I like animals too much.

 

[Nightvalien]

kill it's just an animal, hell if you pay me i would kill it.

 

[park92]

I'm cheap so kill the dog

 

[PinkiePyro]

I would pull over and try to catch the dog ..

and same goes for my whole family I can think of several instanced where we have rescued dogs running about on the street

also you dad is wrong that law doesn't apply to pets or large animals
but yes sadly if a squrrel or other small woodland creature causes you to damage another drivers vehicle then you are at fault

 

[Flutterguy]

So, my fellow escapist I was recently put into a bad situation where i was coming home and I had a dog in the road. I stopped and tried shooing and honking, this dog kept circling my car and I waited a solid 5 mins before realizing that once the dog goes behind my car I must go. When I got home my dad told me I was legally required to kill the dog because I would of been at fault if I got rear-ended. My question is would you of followed the law and killed the dog or would you be willing to risk getting rear-ended?

I would of left, IMO you did the right thing. Leaving the dog by itself was the best option, think of the owners although the dog may be on its way out it is still part of the family.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

I AM FROM THE U.S.A. laws in u.s.a. assuming state that if you get hit from behind your at fault

Very Very NOT true. Rear ended means someone hits you. The rear ender is always at fault. Always. If you are rear ended because you stopped for an animal, pedestrian, funny looking cloud, etcetera, it means the person behind you was following too close.

Here:
http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/doi/Legal_Hearings/211_74.PDF

"(03) Rear End Collision. The operator of a vehicle subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan
shall be presumed to be more than 50% at fault when operating a vehicle which is in collision with
the rear section of another vehicle."

 

[zelda2fanboy]

And Massachusetts is a no fault state past $2000, so if it was a serious accident neither party would be liable as long as you weren't drunk or wildly reckless.

 

[Biosophilogical]

Legally required to kill it?

Is your dad insane?

Seconded. And if he isn't, is your law insane? If the dog isn't mauling you through the windscreen (in which case you have bigger problems) then why would you kill it (apart from to save a small child (or something), and if it is attacking a small child (or something) then I don't think hitting it with your car is a good move, what with there being a small child (or something) occupying the space directly beside the dog).

OT: I wouldn't pay a fine. I'd say no on principle[footnote]Unless it was a jail-able offense, in which case I'd pay the money then make the government wish they didn't have such a stupid f***ing law through the cunning use of flags the media.[/footnote]. Even if it meant I had to go to court to deal with the problem, I wouldn't kill the dog, and I wouldn't pay a fine for not killing a sentient creature.