Options
Knocking pets over
Dalekbuster523
Posts: 4,596 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Why can't there be a fine for motorists who knock pets over?
It's not right that they get away with injuring or killing animals that belong to people who care deeply and passionatley about them. To me, it's the same as accidental murder.
It's not right that they get away with injuring or killing animals that belong to people who care deeply and passionatley about them. To me, it's the same as accidental murder.
0
Comments
...just not in the politics forum.
I was paying attention and within the speed limit but there was nothing I could do. I too care about animals and I felt sick.
Also, it would actually be a hazard for motorists to constantly be looking low at the ground for animals as they would be diverting their attention from traffic, which could potentially cause big accidents.
I have a dog and absolutely adore pets, however I also understand that something like this would be too hard to administer properly (in my opinion).
I put it in the politics thread because I'm talking more about how it should legally result in a fine as opposed to pets being run over.
Maybe if a motorist was watching the road properly or not going at ridiculous speeds, these accidents could be avoided?
What gets me is that most can't even be bothered to stop their cars, get out and find who the animal belonged to. People like that make me sick because if I caused harm to someone's family member, I would tell them about it.
If a fine was introduced, it would put pressure on people to avoid these kind of issues in society. People pay good money for these pets and the government should take that into account to introduce consequences for anyone who causes harm to them.
You don't know why the dog was charging about. It might have been a genuine accident; maybe it came out of its collar or someone accidentally forgot to close their gates? Everyone makes mistakes.
And the 'unsupervised/out of control' thing doesn't apply as a realistic argument to all pets. Cats aren't supposed to be supervised and are more independent of their owners, for example.
In practice it isn't necessarily the motorists fault and of course it could be a genuine accident that a dog runs out.
Cats though - I guess they (and their owners) take their chances. Free roaming means free to get killed. I refuse to believe that ALL the squashed cats you see on the road are the result of wild eyed speeding motorists. In fact I wonder how many accidents they actually cause - seeing as it is usually instinct to brake or swerve if something dashes into the road.
How would cameras that trigger only when a vehicle passes them while over the speed limit prove who was at fault if the speed limit was being adhered to?
The point still stands that people pay good money for these pets. Therefore motorists should face the consequences of knocking other's pets down.
They could do a variation of the current speed cameras so they trigger regardless and then the police decide whether it was over the speed limit and look to see if a animal was run over.
Without looking it up, I always thought you had to report an accident with a dog ( or maybe the person who told me that preferred them to cats).
Deliberately knocking down a dog is a crime isn't it ?
Obviously if it's an accident it isn't, but the driver still has to stop and report it to the police.
Different rules for cats though, they are classed as semi-wild and have no protection.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170
In this section “animal” means horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog. Everything else is free roaming. Note you can run over a chicken, llama or cat without incurring the duty to report an accident
That's not right. Cats should have the same rule applied to them. And it shouldn't matter if it is a accident or not; if you knock down a cat or whatever, it should be a automatic fine IMO.
As for consequences - yes of course - if it can be proved that the motorist was at fault.
Otherwise sayonara Tiddles.... ;-)
Because they're living creatures like the rest of us and therefore should be treated as equals.
I'm sorry, but even as someone who has two cats... this is utter manure.
I'm sensing you're a cat owner?
Isn't the safety one can provide for a pet, something a person should consider before getting one?
Isn't the speed of a car going down the hill or obstacles in the way of the road something a motorist should consider before driving?
Are you a motorist?
The cat might dash out from under a car, appear round a bend, whatever.. Even an experienced and careful driver won't always be able to stop in time or have anywhere to swerve to. Plus they could well jeopardise themselves and other road users in the process .
No. But if I was, I wouldn't drive at ridiculous speeds and if I saw a cat running across the road, I'd stop the car suddenly or swerve even if it meant risking my own life to save a animal that could be somebody's pet. I would certainly have the courtesy to stop the car and find out who it belonged to; carry the injured or dead body to the owner, apologise and offer to pay the vet bill (if injured).