Sorry if the title was a little incendiary, but I couldn’t figure out how to summarize my question easily. Anyway, a long time ago one of my friends was driving his car, when a dog ran out in front of him. He hit the brakes and the chick behind him didn’t. She rear ended him pretty bad, so they waited for the cops. When the cops came they put part of the blame on him for hitting the brakes. They claimed that hitting the brakes, or swerving to avoid an animal was creating a dangerous situation, and therefore illegal. Unless it was a person or a car you are not supposed to slow down, becuase it is not an expected stop for the people behind you.
The questions is, is this a real law, or another case of a**hole cops?
My guess is a-hole cop. Although I think technically he is correct, you do create a hazardous situation, in practice it is idiotic to expect someone not to react to a dog in the street by slamming the brakes. I can’t say for sure, but my guess is that the law only refers to dangerous driving and not explicitely to running over animals, so I guess it is open to interpretation. Maybe the cop needs to look up the word ‘accident’ in the dictionary.
In most states, the person that hits you from behind is automatically at fault. It is the driver’s responsibility to stop for a car in front no matter what. This is a good law for several reasons:
-
The driver should have a vehicle that is maintained well enough to stop almost as fast as any vehicle in front of it.
-
The tailing driver should always leave enough distance ahead of it so that it can stop for the car in front of it. If the vehicle is heavier or poorly maintained, then the driver should leave extra distance.
-
There are many circumstances such as a pedestrian (with a stroller) in a crosswalk, road construction, or a policeman directing traffic in which the driver would need to stop suddenly.
I have only heard of the rear-ending driver getting ticketed in these cases. Even if the the officer is an a**hole, I think that the law is on your friend’s side. Any judge would likely overturn it.
I think that if there is traffic behind you then for small animals you are not expected to stop. But if you hit a dog, not only is it immoral, but it can also damage your car, as can a dear or any other large animal. So i don’t think that you should be held responsible in this case, but that’s just MHO, so whatever, i dunno bout the law…
According to my evil Driver’s Ed teacher, the person behind must leave enough room to stop, even if the vehicle ahead stops dead with no warning. You are allowed to stop to avoid a collision if you have to, even if it is not “expected.” When you are properly operating a motor vehicle, you must “expect the unexpected.” And maintain proper tire inflation. And use hand signals. Omigod, I’m having flashbacks…
In other words, I second mavpace’s explanation.
Of course it wasn’t an expected stop, but isn’t that what brake lights are for? And besides, hitting the brakes to avoid an animal, or a tree, or a child, or anything else in the road isn’t actually creating the dangerous situation, just trying to prevent a worse one, isn’t it?
How not to run over pets.
I’ve done it twice so I know how not to do it. Both times I was driving along and I saw an animal rush out under my wheels. Both times I hit the brakes. Both times the animal got crushed.
I don’t know why they would want to rush out the road just when I’m there, but what I think now is they time the rush so that they will miss your car. However, IF you brake, you screw up their timing and they die. So what you should do is NOT brake and the little fella should live.
Unfortunatly, there do seem to be suicidal pets out there. Back when the last Batman movie came out, my dad and I went to the movies to see it. On the way, a dog ran out in front of the car. My dad (who was driving) didn’t see it until it was too late. I saw the dog a little sooner, but I’m not sure that I would have been able to avoid it either. Anywy, the dog got crushed. We stopped and pulled it off of the road, and then went on to enjoy the movie.
Anyway, I was taught that you are always supposed to leave enough room to avoid hitting the car in front of you. This is specifically in case a child or animal or other thing appears in the road and the driver in front of you has to jam the brakes to avoid hitting it. If your vehicle’s brakes are poor, or the weather is bad, or you’re old and have slow response times, or whatever, then you must leave more room in front of you to compensate.
So my conclusion: Asshole Cop.
totally asshole cops. The cop didn’t actually ticket your friend did he?
The laws vary, of course, but it is not your job to watch how close the guy is behind you. period. And it doesn’t matter WHY you stopped so quick. What if it HAD been a child?? Saying you are not supposed to stop for small animals is just a guy being a jerk.
Sorry, Mrs Green, I thought your kid crawling onto the road to get his toy was a German Shepard and I didn’t really want to create an unsafe condition… yeah, right.
Hitting something on the road can also create an unsafe condition. Nowyou HIT the dog, lose control and endup going onto the sidewalk killing the 4 kids playing there.
Ok, I didn’t MEAN to get up on a soapbox and I will get down now.
CandyMan
Once, when I was in high school, I was pulled over by an ahole cop after he tailgated me (mere inches from my bumper!) for almost half an hour. I was PRAYING for an animal to run out in front my car so I could slam on the brakes.
-sorry, not meant to be a hijack about ahole cops-
A bit of a hijack, but I seem to recall reading in a few (fiction, but still hopefully well-researched) books about police being a bit wary of the “a black dog ran out” excuse, that sooo many people had used it as an excuse for causing accidents, even one-car accidents (such as “I swerved to avoid a dog” as opposed to “I was tying my shoe” or something similar). It could be that this officer had that in mind.
Another book, by Patricia Cornwell, had the officers using the dog excuse for their own good, to thwart a tailgater who they (correctly) suspected was a fellow cop tracking them, and would get steamed about the “there was a black dog in the night” excuse. And lastly, I’ve seen it portrayed where cops use braking to avoid a dog to cause the cuffed person in the back seat to jolt forward and smash their face against the window, if they were being obnoxious.
I’m not saying that these obvious instances of fiction are facts in themselves, but you’d think that they have SOME basis in fact. This could be why an officer would be somewhat wary of the OP’s dog excuse.
I know this thread is all about nasty cops and hitting pets… which I hope people will avoid if they can safely.
But sometimes you need not to stop. Last year, my roomate swerved to miss a dog–on a lonely stretch of Wyoming highway. Her mini-van rolled and her best friend asleep in the back almost died. Think very carefully about the kind of car you own, what it would do if you slammed on the brake REALLY (really) hard and if you even touched the wheel. ESPECIALLY at high speeds. Everyone in this accident lucked out. Two walked away and the best friend can still tell the story. (And we’re still best friends)
Sue
I once flipped a car and ended up in the hospital after swerving to avoid a weasel. A frickin’ weasel.
IANAL, but several parts of the cop’s “explanation” sound extremely fishy to me.
-
‘Hitting the brakes to avoid an animal creates a dangerous situation, and is therefore illegal?’ Criminy, what if an elk or a deer had darted out in front of your friend?
-
‘Not an expected stop for the people behind you’ - by this logic, the cop is asserting that it’s your friend’s responsibility to make sure the people behind him don’t plow into his rear end, and not the other way around. I’d challenge that cop in court to prove where the law says it works like that.
Case in point from personal experience: I was on a trip with my father, navigating the oh-so-pleasant freeways of Los Angeles. A few cars ahead of us, some bozo pulled out from the shoulder into the right lane (our lane), and then for unknown reasons, came to a DEAD STOP. Panic braking ensued, and my dad ended up being the tail end of a several car rear-ender. And guess who got saddled with 100% fault by the cops. (Hint: not the bozo)
Here in Illinois many people get citations for “failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident.” That usually means rear-ending someone. The person who was hit does not usually receive a ticket unless that person was doing something else illegal at the time (ie. driving drunk, no seatbelt, or running a red light, etc.).
I don’t have any idea what the cops in your area are thinking, since hitting an animal can be extremely dangerous to the driver of the vehicle. This is especially true with deer, which can fly their stupid asses over your hood and through your windshield, then proceed to kick you in the face for half an hour until help arrives.