Loved dog killed by hit-and-run driver in Samlesbury (From Lancashire Telegraph)

Road traffic act 1988:- it is an offence to have a dog on a designated road without it being held on a lead.

walking down a lane with no footpath and three dogs off there leads .

gutterpress wrote:
Road traffic act 1988:- it is an offence to have a dog on a designated road without it being held on a lead.

there is also laws regarding speed limits and if you hit a dog you all duty bound to stop and report it.

"The above animals (apart from dog) do not come within the definition of animal within the Road Traffic Act 1988 so you are not required to report it to the police. However, it may be worth contacting the police to inform them of the incident. Also the local authority will need to be contacted to remove the remains of the animal.

A dog (as well as a goat, horse, cattle,***, mule sheep and pig) does come within the remit of the Road Traffic Act and is a reportable accident so you are required by law to report it to the police.

Important: Badgers are specially protected and it is an offence to possess one, dead or alive, (without the proper authority), so if you kill one, leave it at the roadside. If you are concerned, as stated above, you can voluntarily contact the police"

Not sure why this warrants a story in it's current form. Sounds like someone with contacts trying to get publicity. Should be about dog owners not having dogs on a lead and causing accidents. Driver probably didn't realise.

Yes you are duty bound to report it that is assuming that you know you have hit the dog. A small breed and a 4x4 on a country road at night - it is possible that the driver didn't realise that they had ran over the dog. As also said the dog should have been on a lead especially seeing that the lady had 3 dogs and a child to look out for on a road with no footpaths at night. I don't mean to be callous or uncaring but accidents do happen and as a dog owner i understand how upsetting this must be. There is no mention in the article of the driver speeding, an accident that could have been avoided had the dogs been on lead.

Irresponsible dog owner.

Totally irresponsible dog owners. If people loved their dogs they would put them on a lead. As a person who regulary drives down lanes where dogs run off leads with ignorant owners my sympathy lies with the car driver who probably didn't even see or know the dog was there. Were they all wearing high viz/ reflective clothing? AS A DRIVER WE CAN'T SEE YOU OR YOUR DOGS!!!

I should think that most of Samlesbury's residents, who have dogs, walk the surrounding lanes to excercise them, so don't call Mrs Hill irresponsible.
It's totally the drivers fault for speeding on a country lane, her family are to be thankful that her and her daughter weren't killed as well, having to jump into the hedge proves how close and how fast the driver was driving.
I very much doubt the family were reporting this for publicity, grow up, it's because they want to shame the driver, who
1 was speeding
2 driving without due care & attention
3 failing to stop and help, knowing they had hit something.
4 has no conscience

I can only pray for the Hill family, and their daughter who should never have witnessed this terrifying event, I hope she gets over this very soon.

You are required by law to report a dog accident.
Also you are required to drive according to the road conditions. Yes the dog should have been on a lead,but the owners having to jump out of the way of this vehicle.
Those who put the sole blame on the dog owners should take a very close look at their own driving skills.

One more thought...
Bearing in mind the dog was in front of them and the car behind them...
If they had not jumped into the hedge and the driver had driven round them, the dog would most likely still be alive.

Looola wrote:
I should think that most of Samlesbury's residents, who have dogs, walk the surrounding lanes to excercise them, so don't call Mrs Hill irresponsible.
It's totally the drivers fault for speeding on a country lane, her family are to be thankful that her and her daughter weren't killed as well, having to jump into the hedge proves how close and how fast the driver was driving.
I very much doubt the family were reporting this for publicity, grow up, it's because they want to shame the driver, who
1 was speeding
2 driving without due care & attention
3 failing to stop and help, knowing they had hit something.
4 has no conscience

I can only pray for the Hill family, and their daughter who should never have witnessed this terrifying event, I hope she gets over this very soon.

All speculation. Basically all dogs should be on a lead. If other residents with dogs exercise them on the lanes without leads then they are breaking the law as well. The only sure facts here are the dog is dead and it wasn't on a lead. If it had have been it probably would still be alive today.

But they were irresponsible!! Also as it is law to have dogs on a lead on a road their insurance company need not of paid out if the dog had only been injured. Also if the car driver had swerved or such like to avoid the dog and ended up in a tree, the dog owner would be at fault and liable for any damage caused!

lcjfm03 wrote:

Looola wrote:
I should think that most of Samlesbury's residents, who have dogs, walk the surrounding lanes to excercise them, so don't call Mrs Hill irresponsible.
It's totally the drivers fault for speeding on a country lane, her family are to be thankful that her and her daughter weren't killed as well, having to jump into the hedge proves how close and how fast the driver was driving.
I very much doubt the family were reporting this for publicity, grow up, it's because they want to shame the driver, who
1 was speeding
2 driving without due care & attention
3 failing to stop and help, knowing they had hit something.
4 has no conscience

I can only pray for the Hill family, and their daughter who should never have witnessed this terrifying event, I hope she gets over this very soon.

All speculation. Basically all dogs should be on a lead. If other residents with dogs exercise them on the lanes without leads then they are breaking the law as well. The only sure facts here are the dog is dead and it wasn't on a lead. If it had have been it probably would still be alive today.

So, what if Rosie was on a extending lead? The speeding driver still would have killed her. Fact.
Too fast
No care
GULTY

Looola wrote:

lcjfm03 wrote:

Looola wrote:
I should think that most of Samlesbury's residents, who have dogs, walk the surrounding lanes to excercise them, so don't call Mrs Hill irresponsible.
It's totally the drivers fault for speeding on a country lane, her family are to be thankful that her and her daughter weren't killed as well, having to jump into the hedge proves how close and how fast the driver was driving.
I very much doubt the family were reporting this for publicity, grow up, it's because they want to shame the driver, who
1 was speeding
2 driving without due care & attention
3 failing to stop and help, knowing they had hit something.
4 has no conscience

I can only pray for the Hill family, and their daughter who should never have witnessed this terrifying event, I hope she gets over this very soon.

All speculation. Basically all dogs should be on a lead. If other residents with dogs exercise them on the lanes without leads then they are breaking the law as well. The only sure facts here are the dog is dead and it wasn't on a lead. If it had have been it probably would still be alive today.

So, what if Rosie was on a extending lead? The speeding driver still would have killed her. Fact.
Too fast
No care
GULTY

Extending leads are for open spaces not public roads. Also if they had high viz on (which i presume not as it's not been mentioned) the car driver might of seen them earlier.

Stretching the realms of credibility that anyone believes that the driver wasn't wholly responsible for this incident.

Driver probably didn't want to stop because he/she was bevied.

would you walk down that lane with three small kids .letting them run about in the road (like dogs do) no you will hold there hand

Looola wrote:

lcjfm03 wrote:

Looola wrote:
I should think that most of Samlesbury's residents, who have dogs, walk the surrounding lanes to excercise them, so don't call Mrs Hill irresponsible.
It's totally the drivers fault for speeding on a country lane, her family are to be thankful that her and her daughter weren't killed as well, having to jump into the hedge proves how close and how fast the driver was driving.
I very much doubt the family were reporting this for publicity, grow up, it's because they want to shame the driver, who
1 was speeding
2 driving without due care & attention
3 failing to stop and help, knowing they had hit something.
4 has no conscience

I can only pray for the Hill family, and their daughter who should never have witnessed this terrifying event, I hope she gets over this very soon.

All speculation. Basically all dogs should be on a lead. If other residents with dogs exercise them on the lanes without leads then they are breaking the law as well. The only sure facts here are the dog is dead and it wasn't on a lead. If it had have been it probably would still be alive today.

So, what if Rosie was on a extending lead? The speeding driver still would have killed her. Fact.
Too fast
No care
GULTY

You are clearly a very stupid person. Just hope you're not a judge or magistrate. Obviously not an English teacher!

lcjfm03 wrote:

Looola wrote:

lcjfm03 wrote:

Looola wrote:
I should think that most of Samlesbury's residents, who have dogs, walk the surrounding lanes to excercise them, so don't call Mrs Hill irresponsible.
It's totally the drivers fault for speeding on a country lane, her family are to be thankful that her and her daughter weren't killed as well, having to jump into the hedge proves how close and how fast the driver was driving.
I very much doubt the family were reporting this for publicity, grow up, it's because they want to shame the driver, who
1 was speeding
2 driving without due care & attention
3 failing to stop and help, knowing they had hit something.
4 has no conscience

I can only pray for the Hill family, and their daughter who should never have witnessed this terrifying event, I hope she gets over this very soon.

All speculation. Basically all dogs should be on a lead. If other residents with dogs exercise them on the lanes without leads then they are breaking the law as well. The only sure facts here are the dog is dead and it wasn't on a lead. If it had have been it probably would still be alive today.

So, what if Rosie was on a extending lead? The speeding driver still would have killed her. Fact.
Too fast
No care
GULTY

You are clearly a very stupid person. Just hope you're not a judge or magistrate. Obviously not an English teacher!

Sorry, where does it say you need to be an English teacher to post in the comments action?

hunter3062 wrote:
"The above animals (apart from dog) do not come within the definition of animal within the Road Traffic Act 1988 so you are not required to report it to the police. However, it may be worth contacting the police to inform them of the incident. Also the local authority will need to be contacted to remove the remains of the animal.

A dog (as well as a goat, horse, cattle,***, mule sheep and pig) does come within the remit of the Road Traffic Act and is a reportable accident so you are required by law to report it to the police.

Important: Badgers are specially protected and it is an offence to possess one, dead or alive, (without the proper authority), so if you kill one, leave it at the roadside. If you are concerned, as stated above, you can voluntarily contact the police"

Wow you've got a good memory recalling what animals constitute a reportable road traffic accident (or collision as it's called nowadays).

When were you at Bruche ?

I also have sympathy with the Hill family I also take the same route with my dog In the evenings because this is the only road in the village that is well lit!!! Baring in mind myself and my dog are wearing high viz jackets (DOG ON THE LEAD) and on numerous occasions have had to jump in the grass verge as a vehicle has almost knocked us over!!! The speed limit is set national speed limit and should be reduced to a 30 as this is the third incident that I know about in the last six months on this road due to vehicles going to fast or inexperienced drivers with over powered cars. This article isn't just about the dog it makes you realise what could of happened. Would the car have stopped if it had run Mrs Hill or her child over? Or what could of happened if the dog was on its lead and dragged Mrs Hill with it?

George.White.Bread wrote:

hunter3062 wrote:
"The above animals (apart from dog) do not come within the definition of animal within the Road Traffic Act 1988 so you are not required to report it to the police. However, it may be worth contacting the police to inform them of the incident. Also the local authority will need to be contacted to remove the remains of the animal.

A dog (as well as a goat, horse, cattle,***, mule sheep and pig) does come within the remit of the Road Traffic Act and is a reportable accident so you are required by law to report it to the police.

Important: Badgers are specially protected and it is an offence to possess one, dead or alive, (without the proper authority), so if you kill one, leave it at the roadside. If you are concerned, as stated above, you can voluntarily contact the police"

Wow you've got a good memory recalling what animals constitute a reportable road traffic accident (or collision as it's called nowadays).

When were you at Bruche ?

i taught there lol...as a vocational licence holder i try and maintain a high standard of driving and knowledge. and if that knowledge is not enough google works just fine..only trouble is i have no sympathy for the dog owner unrestrained animals cause untold misery on the roads.the only difference between me and the 4x4 driver is i would have stopped and reported the incident if and only if i had known i had hit the annimal.............
....................
........Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 it is a criminal offence to cause or permit a dog to be on a road, which has been designated by a local authority as a road to which the Act relates, without the dog being held on a lead. There are exceptions for dogs proved to be kept for driving or tending sheep or cattle in the course of a trade or business and for dogs proved to have been at the material time in use under proper control for sporting purposes.

The Control of Dogs Order 1992 requires every dog, (apart from a few exceptions which are set out in the order), while in a highway or public place to wear a collar with the name and address of the owner inscribed on the collar or on a plate or badge attached to it. The exceptions relate to packs of hounds, dogs being used for sporting purposes, dogs being used for the capture or destruction of vermin, dogs being used for the driving or tending of cattle or sheep, dogs being used on official duties by a member of the Armed Forces or Customs and Excise or a police force, dogs being used in emergency rescue work and dogs registered with the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association.

It is a criminal offence, under the Animal Health Act 1981, where an owner or person in charge of a dog fails, without lawful authority of excuse (which he must prove) to comply with the requirements relating to collars as set out in the Control of Dogs Order 1992. The Control of Dogs Order 1992 also allows for any such dog to be seized and treated as a stray dog under the Dogs Act 1906 or the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Enforcement of any such offence is carried out by the local authorities.....will be ineresting to see if any prosecutions take place....

Oh I didn't know this was a comment area to out do each other on the knowledge front.

Wether the dog was on a lead or not is NOT the issue here, the issue is that had the driver taken due care and attention... It was a lit road, no need for high visibility vests we assume.

The dog was in front of them, work it out for yourselves, oh you can't then I will help you a little further then...

Dog in front

Car speeding from behind

They jump left into hedge

Dog that was in front now exposed to speeding vehicle

You see now?
So having said dog on lead would have only pulled her towards the said driver.

Commenting on an earlier comment about said driver being bevied, I agree, the driver must have been.

The fact still remains that the speed limit on this road needs to be lowered, not that I think that would do any good, who these days, on our country lanes and roads ad hears to limits? Maybe the odd couple that comment on this story.

I drive a 4 x 4 and think it could be possible to run over a dog, particularly such a small one, without actually knowing.
-
was it speeding? if as stated by someone earlier the limit is 60 they may have been going very fast but not speeding (legally, morally is another thing).
-
I am also a dog owner and have witnessed my pet (cat) run over and killed so feel bitterly sorry for this family. The fact still remains that they know this area, know its history, know the speed limit is high, that there are no pavements, so must take quite a proportion of the blame when setting out at the darkest time of year without hi viz gear at the minimum, but to be foolhardy enough to have the dogs off leash as well has unfortunately backfired on them leaving them with one of lifes' very harsh lessons.
-
Familiarity breeds contempt, how many of us fall into what we know, deep down, to be lax ways just because we have either always done it that way or its easier/quicker etc?

Looola wrote:
Oh I didn't know this was a comment area to out do each other on the knowledge front.

Wether the dog was on a lead or not is NOT the issue here, the issue is that had the driver taken due care and attention... It was a lit road, no need for high visibility vests we assume.

The dog was in front of them, work it out for yourselves, oh you can't then I will help you a little further then...

Dog in front

Car speeding from behind

They jump left into hedge

Dog that was in front now exposed to speeding vehicle

You see now?
So having said dog on lead would have only pulled her towards the said driver.

Commenting on an earlier comment about said driver being bevied, I agree, the driver must have been.

The fact still remains that the speed limit on this road needs to be lowered, not that I think that would do any good, who these days, on our country lanes and roads ad hears to limits? Maybe the odd couple that comment on this story.

Quod erat demonstrandum!

Looola wrote:
Oh I didn't know this was a comment area to out do each other on the knowledge front.

Wether the dog was on a lead or not is NOT the issue here, the issue is that had the driver taken due care and attention... It was a lit road, no need for high visibility vests we assume.

The dog was in front of them, work it out for yourselves, oh you can't then I will help you a little further then...

Dog in front

Car speeding from behind

They jump left into hedge

Dog that was in front now exposed to speeding vehicle

You see now?
So having said dog on lead would have only pulled her towards the said driver.

Commenting on an earlier comment about said driver being bevied, I agree, the driver must have been.

The fact still remains that the speed limit on this road needs to be lowered, not that I think that would do any good, who these days, on our country lanes and roads ad hears to limits? Maybe the odd couple that comment on this story.

is there any evidence the driver was above the dd limit? no. is there any evidence the driver was speeding? no. is there evidence the dogs were not on a lead? yes by owners own admission. the owner of the dog needs to thank her lucky stars that nothing other than the dog was killed. had the vehicle crashed trying to avoid the unleashed animal she could be looking at some serious charges.so looola before spouting more assumptions take a good look at the law its there for a purpose not just for car drivers but for the general public/and dog owners alike. so yes looola the issue is the dogs were not on leads so the law was broken..

hunter3062 wrote:

Looola wrote: Oh I didn't know this was a comment area to out do each other on the knowledge front. Wether the dog was on a lead or not is NOT the issue here, the issue is that had the driver taken due care and attention... It was a lit road, no need for high visibility vests we assume. The dog was in front of them, work it out for yourselves, oh you can't then I will help you a little further then... Dog in front Car speeding from behind They jump left into hedge Dog that was in front now exposed to speeding vehicle You see now? So having said dog on lead would have only pulled her towards the said driver. Commenting on an earlier comment about said driver being bevied, I agree, the driver must have been. The fact still remains that the speed limit on this road needs to be lowered, not that I think that would do any good, who these days, on our country lanes and roads ad hears to limits? Maybe the odd couple that comment on this story.

is there any evidence the driver was above the dd limit? no. is there any evidence the driver was speeding? no. is there evidence the dogs were not on a lead? yes by owners own admission. the owner of the dog needs to thank her lucky stars that nothing other than the dog was killed. had the vehicle crashed trying to avoid the unleashed animal she could be looking at some serious charges.so looola before spouting more assumptions take a good look at the law its there for a purpose not just for car drivers but for the general public/and dog owners alike. so yes looola the issue is the dogs were not on leads so the law was broken..

If the vehicle involved was a bike or motorbike, the dog owner could well be looking at a manslaughter charge and into the eyes of the victims children across a courtroom.
Their public admission of irresponsibility amazes me. Yes, I have sympathy for their dog much the same as I would a sheep, dear or even hedgehog but not a jot of sympathy for the owner.

Some people should just not own dogs! If they can't put the dogs welfare first and provide a safe, rather than convenient walking enviroment.

I can only pray for the Hill family,unreal lol pity he missed the other dogs.