In Australia, if you break to avoid hitting an animal, and an accident results, you're at fault.
Poll: would you kill a dog or pay $
- Thread starter Matt Oliver
- Start date
Recommended Videos
the person behind you is legally responsible for stopping their car and NOT hitting you, while it is true they recommend you don't try to stop or swerve to avoid a small animal if you are going fast, there is nothing wrong in slowing down or stopping if it is in a controlled situation.
I don't know where you live at, but I know in my area at least, if someone rear ends you, it's their fault without exception. Driving your car up someone else's car's tailpipe may not always be totally prevented, but the logic always exists that "you were either too close, or not paying attention. Your fault".
Though I probably would have gotten out and yelled at the dog to chase it off.
OT, I guess if it was literally a legal requirement to kill a dog or get stuck with a big automobile accident bill, I'd take a guilty conscience. There is a somewhat ruthless part of me that says if a dog isn't smart enough to get out of the way of a car, natural selection is probably elbowing me in the ribs. And I have bills to pay. (In fairness, I would try to nudge it or bump it with my car to get it to move, not just. Stomp on the accelerator.)
Though I probably would have gotten out and yelled at the dog to chase it off.
OT, I guess if it was literally a legal requirement to kill a dog or get stuck with a big automobile accident bill, I'd take a guilty conscience. There is a somewhat ruthless part of me that says if a dog isn't smart enough to get out of the way of a car, natural selection is probably elbowing me in the ribs. And I have bills to pay. (In fairness, I would try to nudge it or bump it with my car to get it to move, not just. Stomp on the accelerator.)
In my experience, at least most of the state traffic laws in the US hold that if a vehicle is hit from behind by another, the driver that did the hitting is assumed at-fault, unless extenuating circumstances exist (first driver stopped/reversed in a way that prevented the second driver from being able to reasonably react safely).
This is why guidelines regarding safe following distance exist. The second driver usually has no idea why the first would have stopped- could there be a child in the road? Something dangerous, like a fallen electric pole or spilled gasoline? Is the first driver supposed to just plow through that too?
Here we go, straight from Massachusetts regulations [http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ocaterminal&L=5&L0=Home&L1=Consumer&L2=Insurance&L3=Automobile+Insurance&L4=Safe+Driver+Insurance+Plan+(SDIP)&sid=Eoca&b=terminalcontent&f=doi_BOA_Boa_sof_on&csid=Eoca]:
"(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."
Stopping in order to not hit an obstacle on the road would be considered safe driving. Stopping in order not to hit a live animal would be considered humane.
This is why guidelines regarding safe following distance exist. The second driver usually has no idea why the first would have stopped- could there be a child in the road? Something dangerous, like a fallen electric pole or spilled gasoline? Is the first driver supposed to just plow through that too?
Here we go, straight from Massachusetts regulations [http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ocaterminal&L=5&L0=Home&L1=Consumer&L2=Insurance&L3=Automobile+Insurance&L4=Safe+Driver+Insurance+Plan+(SDIP)&sid=Eoca&b=terminalcontent&f=doi_BOA_Boa_sof_on&csid=Eoca]:
"(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."
Stopping in order to not hit an obstacle on the road would be considered safe driving. Stopping in order not to hit a live animal would be considered humane.
I know I've been told that with a deer, it's so big you're gonna lose...so the best bet would be to hit the breaks but NOT swerve
as for smaller animals...I feel the not swerving advice applies (animal's life or mine after swerving into a ravine or other...I'd rather not go that way, it's just an animal)
of course in the case of not wanting to get rear-ended...idk about that law being where I live. we have duck and duckling crossing signs in certain areas so I feel someone smacking you from behind wouldn't have gotten much favor in traffic court (on account of being a d-bag
lol)
but I sure hope the situation doesn't happen to me on a (at minimum) 55 mph highway D:< blechh...that would just get messy
as for smaller animals...I feel the not swerving advice applies (animal's life or mine after swerving into a ravine or other...I'd rather not go that way, it's just an animal)
of course in the case of not wanting to get rear-ended...idk about that law being where I live. we have duck and duckling crossing signs in certain areas so I feel someone smacking you from behind wouldn't have gotten much favor in traffic court (on account of being a d-bag
lol)but I sure hope the situation doesn't happen to me on a (at minimum) 55 mph highway D:< blechh...that would just get messy
Your dad is kinda crazy, but not as crazy as he is being made out to be.
I believe that what he is saying is that when driving, "I would hit an animal" is not an excuse. You can't break the law, potentially endangering a HUMAN life, in order to save an ANIMAL.
First off, I'm not sure what sort of basis in reality this is. Something could be on the books, technically, but suspect that in pretty much every circumstance, you can stop for the dog unless doing so risks human lives.
Secondly, he is overlooking how one of the most set in stone rules of traffic law is that if you get hit from behind, it's that guys fault. Slam on the breaks for no reason whatsoever...I donno, I guess technically you could get some sort of reckless driving charge, but the accident will be the guys fault.
Basically, common sense. If its possible to not kill people in the process, you can save the dog, and tailgaters are assholes and the police know it.
I believe that what he is saying is that when driving, "I would hit an animal" is not an excuse. You can't break the law, potentially endangering a HUMAN life, in order to save an ANIMAL.
First off, I'm not sure what sort of basis in reality this is. Something could be on the books, technically, but suspect that in pretty much every circumstance, you can stop for the dog unless doing so risks human lives.
Secondly, he is overlooking how one of the most set in stone rules of traffic law is that if you get hit from behind, it's that guys fault. Slam on the breaks for no reason whatsoever...I donno, I guess technically you could get some sort of reckless driving charge, but the accident will be the guys fault.
Basically, common sense. If its possible to not kill people in the process, you can save the dog, and tailgaters are assholes and the police know it.
You dad is flat-out wrong. In a rear-end collision, the car doing the rear-ending is at fault.
Speaking from the experience of someone who hit a dog coming home from vacation maybe two months ago - yeah, I felt bad about plastering it all over the road. But I'm NOT going to swerve and put my own safety at risk for an animal, much less the safety of my passengers. If the owner wants to let their dog run amok near a major highway at 3 a.m., I refuse to be blamed for that.
Speaking from the experience of someone who hit a dog coming home from vacation maybe two months ago - yeah, I felt bad about plastering it all over the road. But I'm NOT going to swerve and put my own safety at risk for an animal, much less the safety of my passengers. If the owner wants to let their dog run amok near a major highway at 3 a.m., I refuse to be blamed for that.
Legally required?! What world does your father live in? If you had no time to react you'd be exempt from blame (accident) but you stopped and waited. Therefor at that time if you hit the dog it would be a conscious decision. Therefor animal cruelty - for which you can be charged.
The law is actually more like, if you're in heavy traffic and there's an animal in your way you're not allowed to stop because it would cause in accident, however if there's no car behind you you're alot to stop, but that's it if you swerve it's illegal.
Killing the dog would probably cause some damage to the car, and definitely a mess. It's far easier to simply drive around it or wait for it to move. However, I wouldn't swerve out of the way of one if it would likely cause a collision with another car.
EDIT: Also, where the hell in the U.S. is the rear-endee at fault? The only time that would be the case at all is if that driver stopped short for NO reason (i.e. not for an animal) or in a situation that it would definitely cause an accident in (someone else mentioned a steep curve). Even then, the person who HITS the other car is mostly or entirely at fault; regardless of any of any other factors, you're supposed to follow at a safe distance and safely maintain control of your vehicle. Seriously, are there this many people on the Escapist who never learned how to drive properly???
EDIT: Also, where the hell in the U.S. is the rear-endee at fault? The only time that would be the case at all is if that driver stopped short for NO reason (i.e. not for an animal) or in a situation that it would definitely cause an accident in (someone else mentioned a steep curve). Even then, the person who HITS the other car is mostly or entirely at fault; regardless of any of any other factors, you're supposed to follow at a safe distance and safely maintain control of your vehicle. Seriously, are there this many people on the Escapist who never learned how to drive properly???
Your dad is dead wrong. Legally, the person driving the rear vehicle is automatically at fault except in extraordinary circumstances. An extraordinary case would be something like you were parked on the far side of a turn in the road with your lights off where the other driver could not see you in enough time to avoid a collision, even then they would not be completely fault free. As for running down the dog, you are not ever legally required to do something like that except possibly in a case such as being in heavy traffic where any attempt to avoid hitting it would cause a more severe accident.
Far as I know, your not legally required to kill the dog, but if you get in a situation where you either can try to avoid the dog and crash or cause a car accident, or run over the dog, deer, skunk or whatever (short of a human) you kill the animal.
according to Canadian law here at least, you are never, ever responsible if you get rear ended, as long as your lights are on (if your not sure then put the 4way's on) if the guy behind you cant stop he was either going to fast, or following too close.
Ps. its a nice thing to remember when tailgating, no matter how big a jerk the other guy is its your fault
Ps. its a nice thing to remember when tailgating, no matter how big a jerk the other guy is its your fault
You're not legally required to kill the dog. What he probably meant is that if there is an animal on the road and stopping for it meant causing a dangerous crash, you're supposed to run over the animal. A human life cost more, so you act to save the human/s following you.
If there's nothing in the road except you and the animal then you can stop and wait all you like, nobody is gonna prosecute you.
If there's nothing in the road except you and the animal then you can stop and wait all you like, nobody is gonna prosecute you.
oh sup i lived in hyde park till i was 3 then i moved south bout 25 miles to hanover. and nope my dad told me when i got homeomega_peaches said:
