Hitting dogs (and other animals) and emergency stops on the roads

[Ianno87]

Note: split from Dog Fell Between Platform and Train.

For motorists, use of an emergency stop that is not necessary to protect human life that causes a consequential accident (e.g. dog runs out, car slams on brakes, car behind hits), the resulting accident is deemed to be the liability of the driver doing the emergency stop, I believe. Strictly [or, rather, legally] speaking, an emergency stop should only be used to protect human life. But most people are warm hearted enough to do their utmost (within reasonable bounds of overall safety, e.g. not swerving wildly) to avoid hitting an animal of course.

 

[Bensonby]

For motorists, use of an emergency stop that is not necessary to protect human life that causes a consequential accident (e.g. dog runs out, car slams on brakes, car behind hits), the resulting accident is deemed to be the liability of the driver doing the emergency stop, I believe. Strictly [or, rather, legally] speaking, an emergency stop should only be used to protect human life. But most people are warm hearted enough to do their utmost (within reasonable bounds of overall safety, e.g. not swerving wildly) to avoid hitting an animal of course.

Whether a similar logic applies to trains I don't know. I guess:
a) There is probably minimal risk (derailment) to a train of hitting a small animal like a dog, but on the other hand...
b) The biggest risk to safety of putting the road back on a driver is possibly passengers on the train being flung over by the emergency stop; no train behind is going to hit beacause of the signalling protection. Sadly, the bigger impact is likely to be the £££ of the resulting delay minutes. Of course, if the dog is not removed, there is also the risk that the owner, or other willing individual, unexpectedly enters the track without suitable protection to try and retrieve the dog. In which case, signals to red most definitely would be necessary.

Surely that can’t be right re motorists? If you do an emergency stop the vehicle behind should have enough stopping distance to be able to react? If he doesn’t that’s entirely his fault. Provided you don’t swerve etc then no one else should be hit in an emergency stop?!

 

[johnr57]

Yes I think that’s right, there are also strange rules about reporting too , cats you have to report being hit but dogs you don’t (might be the other way round though) I recall similar anomalies surrounding farm animals and deer and other wild animals

 

[ComUtoR]

The law
If you hit an animal which is covered by The Road Traffic Act 1988 – namely, dogs, goats, horses, cattle, donkeys, mules, sheep and pigs you are legally required to report it to the police.

But if you hit an animal not mentioned in the Road Traffic Act – a cat or a fox for example – you are not required by law to report it but you might want to inform the police of the incident anyway. Read on for our advice on cats and deer.

https://www.insurethebox.com/guide-what-do-if-you-hit-animal-while-driving
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170

Dogs yes, cats no.

 

[Ianno87]

Surely that can’t be right re motorists? If you do an emergency stop the vehicle behind should have enough stopping distance to be able to react? If he doesn’t that’s entirely his fault. Provided you don’t swerve etc then no one else should be hit in an emergency stop?!

I think the "two second rule" basically accounts for normal ('service') driving behaviour. One should not be emergency braking other than for exceptional circumstances. On a Motorway, say, you wouldn't have a snowball in hell's chance of stopping from 70mph in two seconds' worth of distance if the vehicle in front of you pretty much stopped dead. And you wouldn't have much chance with an emergency stop in front of you (even if you had lightning reactions)

If it were expanded to, say, a 5 second rule, to account for this potential, Motorway capacity would take a very drastic hit indeed (assuming people drove to that rule)

 

[johnr57]

https://www.insurethebox.com/guide-what-do-if-you-hit-animal-while-driving
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170

Dogs yes, cats no.

Many thanks for that - I was close !

 

[Ianno87]

If it were expanded to, say, a 5 second rule, to account for this potential, Motorway capacity would take a very drastic hit indeed (assuming people drove to that rule)

[OT, but incidentally a flaw in the logic for automomous cars. It'll take a brave engineer to sign off a system that can't gurantee a car stopping safely (or reducing speed to minimise risk as far as reasonably practical) ahead of an object stopping dead in front of a vehicle.]

 

[Bensonby]

I think the "two second rule" basically accounts for normal ('service') driving behaviour. One should not be emergency braking other than for exceptional circumstances. On a Motorway, say, you wouldn't have a snowball in hell's chance of stopping from 70mph in two seconds' worth of distance if the vehicle in front of you pretty much stopped dead. And you wouldn't have much chance with an emergency stop in front of you (even if you had lightning reactions)

If it were expanded to, say, a 5 second rule, to account for this potential, Motorway capacity would take a very drastic hit indeed (assuming people drove to that rule)

I don’t want to get too off topic and I am no expert on stopping distances but surely the car in front can never stop dead: it will take distance to stop as well, so the gap you leave is mainly a reactionary one?

 

[Bertiethebobby]

https://www.insurethebox.com/guide-what-do-if-you-hit-animal-while-driving
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170

Dogs yes, cats no.

In my car I hit a dark animal on a very dark night out in the country. I stopped and went back with a torch but couldn't find anything. When I got home I reported it to the Police, wish I hadn't, they gave me the third degree as if I was somehow to blame. I told them repeatedly, it was dark, something ran out, I felt a bump, end of! Next time I'll keep quiet!

 

[AlterEgo]

I don’t want to get too off topic and I am no expert on stopping distances but surely the car in front can never stop dead: it will take distance to stop as well, so the gap you leave is mainly a reactionary one?

A vehicle may stop dead if it collides with something substantial.

 

[furnessvale]

A vehicle may stop dead if it collides with something substantial.

I once attended an RTA where a substantial steel ingot fell off a lorry. Believe me, the following car stopped dead.

 

[furnessvale]

[OT, but incidentally a flaw in the logic for automomous cars. It'll take a brave engineer to sign off a system that can't gurantee a car stopping safely (or reducing speed to minimise risk as far as reasonably practical) ahead of an object stopping dead in front of a vehicle.]

Exactly the point I have been pushing for some time.

Autonomous cars, obeying speed limits and maintaining safe separation, will substantially reduce road capacity.

 

[AlterEgo]

Exactly the point I have been pushing for some time.

Autonomous cars, obeying speed limits and maintaining safe separation, will substantially reduce road capacity.

That’s an interesting point. I wonder sometimes about society’s attitude towards autonomy. We all accept as human drivers that when driving on the motorway we leave separation sufficient to cope with the preceding vehicle making an emergency stop, but not a literal dead stop.

It seems society may wish to place an unrealistic expectation on autonomy to be perfect.

 

[furnessvale]

That’s an interesting point. I wonder sometimes about society’s attitude towards autonomy. We all accept as human drivers that when driving on the motorway we leave separation sufficient to cope with the preceding vehicle making an emergency stop, but not a literal dead stop.

It seems society may wish to place an unrealistic expectation on autonomy to be perfect.

Good luck to the engineers and politicians signing off on that one!

It is one thing turning a blind eye to what happens on the roads today, quite another authorising potentially lethal practices.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Surely that can’t be right re motorists? If you do an emergency stop the vehicle behind should have enough stopping distance to be able to react? If he doesn’t that’s entirely his fault. Provided you don’t swerve etc then no one else should be hit in an emergency stop?!

Indeed. I once ran into the back of a car that suddenly stopped on a quiet country road for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I was following and braked but not that hard as I had no reason to expect him to stop but thought he was just slowing down.

The police weren't involved but when I told my insurance company they told me to not even bother contesting it as it would be deemed to be my fault.

 

[The Ham]

Exactly the point I have been pushing for some time.

Autonomous cars, obeying speed limits and maintaining safe separation, will substantially reduce road capacity.

Yes and no.

Part of the problem with drivers is that they tend to over break when the vehicle in front slows down (there are exceptions to this as had already been indicated by another). As such during heavy traffic if a driver moves to another lane causing vehicles behind to show down these vehicles often slow more than they need to. This can filter back to the point that traffic ends up stopping.

With automated cars they should be able to judge more accurately the speed of the car in front relative to its speed and also shouldn't have vehicles changing lanes.

Poor lane discipline is a major problem on the UK roads, including having a significant impact on capacity especially those who won't move to the "slow lane" on motorways.

Just for clarification there's no such thing as a slow lane. As traffic should drive in the furthest left lane that they can unless they are overtaking something. However as may can probably testify there's many people who don't follow this.

 

[PeterC]

Yes and no.

Part of the problem with drivers is that they tend to over break when the vehicle in front slows down (there are exceptions to this as had already been indicated by another). As such during heavy traffic if a driver moves to another lane causing vehicles behind to show down these vehicles often slow more than they need to. This can filter back to the point that traffic ends up stopping.

With automated cars they should be able to judge more accurately the speed of the car in front relative to its speed and also shouldn't have vehicles changing lanes.

Poor lane discipline is a major problem on the UK roads, including having a significant impact on capacity especially those who won't move to the "slow lane" on motorways.

Just for clarification there's no such thing as a slow lane. As traffic should drive in the furthest left lane that they can unless they are overtaking something. However as may can probably testify there's many people who don't follow this.

Lane 2 hogger are a pain. Driving in the late evening on the fairly quiet section of the M1 south of the M25 I have been sat in lane 1 with cruise control set at 65 to save petrol and been faced with the need to move across 2 lanes to avoid undertaking or to drop another 5 or even 10 mph.

 

[GB]

Lane 2 hogger are a pain. Driving in the late evening on the fairly quiet section of the M1 south of the M25 I have been sat in lane 1 with cruise control set at 65 to save petrol and been faced with the need to move across 2 lanes to avoid undertaking or to drop another 5 or even 10 mph.

I see middle lane hoggers daily on the A13. I often have to ask myself which is more risky, making 4 lane changes to overtake or simply just carry on and undertake. My answer is usually dependant on the volume and speed of the other traffic.

With regards to emergency stops...I have never heard of doing it only to save human lives and I have never heard of the front car being at fault if its not done to save a human life.

 

[bramling]

Note: split from Dog Fell Between Platform and Train.

For motorists, use of an emergency stop that is not necessary to protect human life that causes a consequential accident (e.g. dog runs out, car slams on brakes, car behind hits), the resulting accident is deemed to be the liability of the driver doing the emergency stop, I believe. Strictly [or, rather, legally] speaking, an emergency stop should only be used to protect human life. But most people are warm hearted enough to do their utmost (within reasonable bounds of overall safety, e.g. not swerving wildly) to avoid hitting an animal of course.

At the end of the day one should *always* have sufficient braking distance available in front in case something unexpected happens. Yes people can and will do emergency stops for animals in the road -- hitting something like a large dog or deer, or even a fox, can do quite a bit of damage in itself. Naturally if I've got some idiot behind who I know is unlikely to be able to stop then it might influence things, but that's why if some prat is following too close it tends to lead me to drive slower for that very reason that I'm now having to do the thinking for two people instead of just me.

This is one of the reasons why driving trains is so much more relaxing - you're on a private road with people who are all trained to a high standard, and you don't have to worry too much about what others are doing (although one still gets irritated following stuff occasionally!).

 

[AlterEgo]

I see middle lane hoggers daily on the A13. I often have to ask myself which is more risky, making 4 lane changes to overtake or simply just carry on and undertake. My answer is usually dependant on the volume and speed of the other traffic.

With regards to emergency stops...I have never heard of doing it only to save human lives and I have never heard of the front car being at fault if its not done to save a human life.

I’ve always gone by the mantra that if I am I driving normally in the far left lane and doing 70mph (the speed limit), and I happen to pass a slower car in the middle lane who ought not to be there, then it’s not undertaking.

I’ve always thought undertaking must involve a deliberate move into the left lane solely to overtake a vehicle, and then to move back on front of said vehicle.

 

[bramling]

On a Motorway, say, you wouldn't have a snowball in hell's chance of stopping from 70mph in two seconds' worth of distance if the vehicle in front of you pretty much stopped dead. And you wouldn't have much chance with an emergency stop in front of you (even if you had lightning reactions)

Then effectively you're too close. Unfortunately life's not quite that simple, as it you leave too much of a gap then someone may fill it. The mitigation is to be trying to read what is going on in front of the one in front.

I'm not convinced that larger gaps would necessarily cause a hit on motorway capacity - a lot of congestion is caused around junctions when people are attempting to change lanes. Small gaps make it harder for people to move in and out seamlessly, which eventually causes queues to build up. Likewise people who get right up close behind a slower vehicle and then suddenly get an impulse to pull out overtake without having room to put their foot down, slowing down the overtaking lane in the process.

 

[Domh245]

I see middle lane hoggers daily on the A13. I often have to ask myself which is more risky, making 4 lane changes to overtake or simply just carry on and undertake. My answer is usually dependant on the volume and speed of the other traffic.

There is nothing quite as satisfying as swooping from the left hand lane to the right hand lane and back again in one smooth motion around the middle lane hogger, when it is quiet enough to do that. That said, I'm inclined to agree with Alter Ego's definition of undertaking where it had to be a deliberate move. Going past someone going slower than you in a lane to your right is something that I only usually do when the traffic is such that conventional lane discipline goes out the window and ''stay in your lane" becomes the rule, or if there is enough traffic that swooping around will slow me and/or other cars down.

 

[Bromley boy]

There is nothing quite as satisfying as swooping from the left hand lane to the right hand lane and back again in one smooth motion around the middle lane hogger, when it is quiet enough to do that.

Preferably with a strategic flash of the headlights to make the point... Although the kind of driver who sits in lane two is usually oblivious to whatever is going on around them and unlikely to notice.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It is one thing turning a blind eye to what happens on the roads today, quite another authorising potentially lethal practices.

Even if those new practices are safer than existing practices? That makes no sense at all.
Human drivers are far from perfect (most accidents are caused by human error after all). So why do we seem to be holding self driving cars to some unbelievably high goal or being totally perfect? Surely just being safer than human drivers should be good enough.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Note: split from Dog Fell Between Platform and Train.

For motorists, use of an emergency stop that is not necessary to protect human life that causes a consequential accident (e.g. dog runs out, car slams on brakes, car behind hits), the resulting accident is deemed to be the liability of the driver doing the emergency stop, I believe. Strictly [or, rather, legally] speaking, an emergency stop should only be used to protect human life. But most people are warm hearted enough to do their utmost (within reasonable bounds of overall safety, e.g. not swerving wildly) to avoid hitting an animal of course.

It is quite possible that hitting a dog or cat could cause an accident - they are not small animals. Therefore even ignoring compassion it is best to avoid hitting them where possible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. I once ran into the back of a car that suddenly stopped on a quiet country road for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I was following and braked but not that hard as I had no reason to expect him to stop but thought he was just slowing down.

The police weren't involved but when I told my insurance company they told me to not even bother contesting it as it would be deemed to be my fault.

Quite rightly, too. You are responsible for keeping an adequate distance and adequate observation to prevent you from hitting anything in front of you. If you could not stop if a car in front did an emergency stop, you are too close by definition.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If it were expanded to, say, a 5 second rule, to account for this potential, Motorway capacity would take a very drastic hit indeed (assuming people drove to that rule)

It quite possibly wouldn't, because if you're keeping a proper distance on the motorway you barely need to touch the brakes at all, and it's "brake light cascades" that are the primary cause of the typical congestion you get for no apparent reason.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then effectively you're too close. Unfortunately life's not quite that simple, as it you leave too much of a gap then someone may fill it.

Then, if they do, you simply lift off the accelerator for a couple of seconds and drop back again. Makes barely any difference to your journey time overall.

 

[bramling]

I’ve always gone by the mantra that if I am I driving normally in the far left lane and doing 70mph (the speed limit), and I happen to pass a slower car in the middle lane who ought not to be there, then it’s not undertaking.

Call it what you like or not, however unfortunately you're introducing a risk to yourself if the person you're passing suddenly decides to move to the left. The sort of person who sits in the middle lane is also the sort of person who is probably not paying attention to what's going on around them. It's especially risky if there's nowhere for you to move to should this happen. Not so much of an issue if there's at least a lane between you and the other car of course.

 

[bramling]

Then, if they do, you simply lift off the accelerator for a couple of seconds and drop back again. Makes barely any difference to your journey time overall.

This is what I generally do, although do this on something like the A1(M) going into London on a Saturday morning and it's pretty much guaranteed someone behind will undertake and then fill the gap. Can't win sometimes! Oh for a desert island...