Poll: would you kill a dog or pay $

[RamirezDoEverything]

Your dad is retarded, the driver behind you is at fault for a rear end incident, failure to maintain a safe distance.

 

[Caligulove]

I dont think youre legally required to do anything with the dog, I think your dad is full of shit.

I mean, I think the person rear ending you could make some kind of argument out of how it was all your fault, due to your lack of 'dealing' with the dog. I doubt the law says anything about that and if anything would come to a specific scenario where someone was even behind you and could possibly rear end you in the first place.

So I choose neither, wait and shoo the dog away or for their owner to bring them away and if anyone has a problem with that, then fuck 'em they can wait.

 

[Creator002]

While you're not legally required to hit an animal in a car, in Australia, at least, you can't endanger human life for that of an animal's.
For example, if stopping for the dog would possibly have somebody run into the back of you, you have to run it over.
In this case, I would run it over, but if there's no chance that I'm endangering someone's life, I'd stop for it.

 

[Android2137]

Legally required? That can't be true. I'm sure your dad is exaggerating. Though if it were me, I'd pull over and check the dog for a collar. If it had a tag, I'd call the owner and tell him/her that their freaking stupid dog was insisting on circling my car and they better come and rescue the darn thing and keep a better eye on it or someone really will run the stupid mutt over one day. If there is no tag on the collar or signs of a collar being there but not anymore, I'd take it to the pound. If there is no collar, I'd get back into my car and whatever happens next is not my problem. After all, it could be running out into the middle of roads and circling cars because it's crazy (and quite possibly rabid). If it actually does belong to someone, their fault. They should have gotten their dog a collar.

 

[LawlessSquirrel]

Taking a life and causing a family a lot of heartbreak vs a chance of getting run into. Tough choice.

I'm going to be all edgy and say that causing death and pain is worse than a chance of losing money.

 

[Helmet]

Wahahahaaat? Is your dad as absolutely bonkers as he sounds? From what I remember the person being rear-ended is the one at fault and also what kind of insane legal system would ever REQUIRE you to kill something?

P.S. A country of origin would be nice, I'm basing this off living in Stupidville Ohio USA.

EDIT: To clarify, no. I'm a pretty steadfast pacifist, and I generally only violate that for things that I regularly eat.

This was basically my first thought.

In the United States, the person at fault in a rear end collision is the person in the back, even if it is in reality 100% the fault of the person in front. The police WILL blame the person in the back, saying such things as "You were following too close" or"You were not paying attention."

A buddy of mine was in an accident on the highway on the way to work. The guy in front of him was texting and dropped his phone, reached down to get it, and swerved over about half a lane. He realized what he was doing and, instead of going back to his lane, slammed on his brakes.

If he had not admitted fault to the police, it would have been my buddy's fault for rear ending the dumbass.

OT- Absolutely not. Even if it would be my fault in an accident for stopping to not kill a dog. I like dogs.

 

[joemegson94]

I'm not an American, so I wouldn't kill for money.

Satire.

 

[David Hebda]

Yah, that's not a law in MA or anywhere else as far as I know. Also in MA if the dog had an owner the owner would have been at fault if you hit the dog and it did damage to your car.

 

[TonyVonTonyus]

Probably pay. Money can't ressurect things...yet.

 

[BanicRhys]

This is why I don't drive.

If the dog was in a side street then I would wait for it to get out of the way, but if it was in the middle of a freeway or something and I noticed it too late to slow down and change lane/stop then I would hit it.

 

[Aesir23]

It would depend on how much traffic there is on the road, but I would much rather pay a fine than kill a dog.

 

[Instinct Blues]

u.s.a. massachusetts

You're dad is wrong in good old Massachusetts the person who does the rear ending is always at fault no matter what. You could have slammed on your brakes being an asshole and if someone hit you it would be their fault.

 

[That One Six]

Not so much legally required, I think. It's more along the lines of human life > dog life and if the road was busy, you would be expected to kill the dog rather than stop.

And, based on my own experience, I'd much rather pay than kill the dog. My dog of sixteen years was hit by a car last September, and I was devastated. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

 

[derbt]

I've never driven straight into an animal and never would. Besides, it's the person who runs into you who is seen as at fault, unless they can prove extenuating circumstances. Chances are, the person behind you has time to stop without hitting you. If they don't, they've either seen you and decided ramming you from behind is a good idea, or they've been driving dangerously close to you.

 

[Korolev]

No - you don't have to kill the dog. The law makes exceptions for these things. And even if I did, I wouldn't - I'd pay a fine. There's a trick to getting dogs to move away - just honk the horn loudly and drive slowly, ever so slowly away, whilst picking up speed gradually. Dogs have pretty fast reaction times (well, most of the dogs I've had have had good reaction times), so they'll move out of the way.

But yeah - don't kill the dog unnecessarily. I'm not a vegan, vegetarian or PETA person, but if you don't have to kill something, then don't. I understand what your Dad is saying, and I agree that a Dog's life isn't worth as much as a Human's life, but a Dog can still feel pain and I think that saving the dog's life is more than worth the fine.

 

[Liudeius]

One, I'd rather pay.
Two, your father's wrong.
Three, your father's wron-WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR FAMILY DEMENTED?

 

[Mechanix]

Your dad's statement was retarded. What sane person would drive over a dog under any circumstance?

 

[Wintermoot]

it,s owner should have put it on a lease instead of having it run around on the road let,s say you where going to fast to stop (assuming you were driving under the speed limit) you would have ran him over anyway.(and yes I have a dog I just make sure he doesn't get into situations like htis)

 

[AhumbleKnight]

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 they would be at fault. For somebody to run into you like that they would have to not be paying very much attention. If they are paying that little attention to the road then they are a road incident waiting to happen.