Absolute cobblers.
If you leapt in front of a car on a motorway, YOU caused the accident. Not the driver for failing to avoid you.
You swerve to avoid a badger and crash in to an oncoming car. Who do the insurance company determine is at fault?
A human i'd wager would be different though!Whoever swerved, if they were out of lane when the crash happened. Which is why you shouldn't.You swerve to avoid a badger and crash in to an oncoming car. Who do the insurance company determine is at fault?
To be fair to the police surely this is down to stupid members of the public reporting it?Also the same force who once responded to a 'suspicious light' in the night sky, only to discover that it was in fact the moon.
Whoever swerved, if they were out of lane. Which is why you shouldn't.
Just imagine if they'd deliberately mown down a miniature dolphin in a speedboat...
Insurance settlements aren't based on cause. They're not even based on fault and blame per se. It's a crude apportioning of relative negligence between two or more parties.You swerve to avoid a badger and crash in to an oncoming car. Who do the insurance company determine is at fault?
Insurance settlements aren't based on cause. They're not even based on fault and blame per se. It's a crude apportioning of relative negligence between two or more parties.
The driver who swerved. But only because the dog is uninsured. Your clutching at straws here.You swerve to avoid abadgerstray dog and crash in to an oncoming car. Who do the insurance company determine is at fault?
The driver who didn't deviate from their course claims from the driver who did. That person (or their insurer) may then sue the dog owner, if there is one. So at least two possibilities.Who would be at fault in the above scenario?

The driver who swerved. But only because the dog is uninsured. Your clutching at straws here.
The dog would have been the cause of any accident that occurred.
Very obviously and indisputably, to anyone who doesn't wear sex-offender coats.
I can't be doing with dairy farmers anyway. bastardsFarmers dig them out, kill them with spades, and dump the bodies next to roads to make it look like an accident.

The driver who didn't deviate from their course claims from the driver who did. That person (or their insurer) may then sue the dog owner, if there is one. So at least two possibilities.
If a perfectly good tree that you're parked underneath is hit by lightning, catches on fire and then falls on your car, who's at fault? Who pays? What was the cause? Three different things![]()
Very obviously and indisputably, to anyone who doesn't wear sex-offender coats.
Yeah. But noone is at fault and the cause was lightning.Insurers cite act of God for the lightening tree and they pay.
Yeah. But noone is at fault and the cause was lightning.
If this badger of yours runs out in front of you, you hit it in your lane this time, but it breaks your brand new suspension, you veer across the road and crash into the other car anyway, who's at fault? Insurance settlement is the same.
What's that bit in the highway code about driving at a safe speed ?
ie drive at such a speed that you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear.
I live in a rural area, and drive in the dark a lot - but in almost 30 years I've yet to hit a fox / badger / dog / cat / cow / horse / deer - despite seeing them in front of me many times ... I'll admit to one pheasant three years ago that flew across and hit the side (not the front) of the car. And I don't hang about.
"The conditions" being a dog darting in and out of traffic on a fast unlit road.You are at fault for driving too fast for the conditions.

It probably took their car out of service, so not ideal for sitting on one's fat arse in the warm.couldn't be arsed to get out of the motor. nearly end of shift. That peculiar nihilism you get in some coppers akin to people who never grew out of torturing insects and never graduated to mammals because their dad brayed them regular. A heady mix that results in the death of someones mr. tibbles. Makes you glad Poison got its bites in in that hilarious video. Before they shot it to death.
Still you can't get em convicted for murder of a human so the life of a dog is less than peanuts by their logic

Oh no, now they will not have a car. If only there was a fleet of tuned up badboy motors in police livery that they could avail themselves of in the meantime.It probably took their car out of service, so not ideal for sitting on one's fat arse in the warm.
Motorway bridges they're not. Happened to a good friend of mine last year. Woman committed suicide. He's in bits as he hit her![]()

Cold comfort for the parents whose kid has been killed by the driver at fault. Especially if it could've been avoided by decisive action on the part of the OB.You are at fault for driving too fast for the conditions.
Close the road for 5 minutes and let the dog live? Not exactly rush hour was it. Oh they were dog owners, I bet some of their best friends are black too!Really? Then how come several vehicles had already has to swerve to avoid it? WTF were they supposed to do? Let it run where ever the fuck it liked and cause a major accident?? One police office had already been injured trying to catch it. What is also missing is that the police officers concerned are dog owners, so they would have hardly taken the decision likely.
As for as I'm concerned public safety trumps the life of one dog.
And why are we getting quotes from PETA on everything now? They aren't even a UK organisation; they're an American one...and one run by lunatics to boot. I didn't even know they existed until a few years ago
Cold comfort for the parents whose kid has been killed by the driver at fault. Especially if it could've been avoided by decisive action on the part of the OB.