Whilst I hear what you are saying, would the same be said for kids or youths who just stand in the middle of the road gassing because they think it looks cool or are too ignorant to move?

I live in an area where many of the residents think nothing of just stopping in the road to chat to folks they know and then throw you evil looks when you peep the horn to make them move. If I'm allowed to carry on at my regular speed towards them, without having to slow down or stop, than I accept your point!

Otherwise, if you can see cats, dogs, hedgehogs or people in the middle of the road, and you can slow down or stop without causing accident or injury to others, then it should be law that you do so!

__________________
.

Of course it is. There's a huge difference though between slowing down and performing a potentially dangerous action such as an emergency stop or swerving to avoid an animal. Such actions could lead to a driver being charged with dangerous driving. Much as I prefer most animals to most people I do accept that the law comes down on the side of human life every time.

In that case, it should be called dangerous driving, too, if you hit the brakes when a child suddenly runs onto the road.
There is no difference.
They are both living beings who have no notion of traffic.

And if people would drive SENSIBLY, instead of just mindlessly, brainlessly claiming that as long as they don't exceed the speed limit, they do nothing wrong, such situations would occur far less often.

Streets are not owned by drivers, they are a place shared by cars, mopeds, cyclists, and pedestrians of all sorts.

A pedestrian, even if physically or mentally disabled, has a right to be safe in the street, so drivers have to take care and their style of driving should be very defensive, whereas most drivers are feeling anonymous inside their cars, and think they can get away with a lot of agression in their style of driving.

In Holland, if you drive a car and you hit a pedestrian or cyclist, you are guilty, no matter WHAT mistakes the other party made. If they crossed at a red light, came from the wrong side, rode a bike with no lights, if you had right of way and they should have given way to you, it all doesn't matter. The cyclist or pedestrian is the weaker party, so the driver should have gone out of his way to prevent the accident.

If you want to get out of that responsibility, you mist practically prove it was a suicide mission on the part of the pedestrian or cyclist.

__________________
Jiskefet & the mognificent Dutch bunch

My little angels at the rainbow bridge

OP: We're not all saying that you're wrong and should go to hell or whatever, just the way you typed it seems to have not been the best way. Don't take offence, just think a little more next time you want to play the blame game without knowing facts from all parties.

They don't realise that they will be somebodys pets and don't think of the upset that it will cause if they actually killed the animals.

Some people are so thoughtless.

__________________

Binks and Smudge

R.I.P JETTY